Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Instruction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board discusses instructional-priority results as members press for clarity on math and on‑track measures
Summary
District leaders presented end-of-year instructional priorities and preliminary student outcome data; board members pressed staff on apparent discrepancies between grade-level proficiency and 'on-track' graduation measures and requested more disaggregated, school-level context.
At the June 15 meeting the U-46 Board of Education received an end-of-year instructional priorities update that combined district-level outcome measures with student voice.
Deputy and assistant superintendents reviewed the Instructional Clarity framework and presented year-over-year data showing modest gains in literacy and mathematics on several local and statewide measures. Brian Tennyson, assistant superintendent of teaching and learning, said the district is seeing literacy movement across grades and modest gains on college-readiness indicators such as preACT/ACT, while acknowledging a significant share of students remain below grade level in math and literacy.
Diamond Shields, a superintendent student adviser from Bartlett High School, presented student recommendations including increased clarity about meeting with counselors, scheduling access to mental-health supports, and student involvement in reviewing supervision schedules and grading practices.
Board members pressed staff for clarity about an apparent disconnect in the report: examples showed a large percentage of students performing below grade level in mathematics in some grades while the 'on-track for graduation' metric remained relatively high. Staff explained the difference: the 'on-track' measure is calculated on course-credit accumulation (passing courses counts toward on‑track status, and a D is counted as passing for credit purposes), whereas proficiency measures (state and local assessments) measure grade-level mastery.
Presenters emphasized the district’s two parallel goals: ensure students can accumulate credits toward graduation while accelerating academic growth to grade-level proficiency. They acknowledged the need to scale intensive interventions and multi-tiered systems of support for students furthest from grade level, and called for better alignment between classroom grades and standardized assessment results. Board members requested further breakdowns by school and subgroup and asked staff to bring comparative data that correlates classroom grades with assessment proficiency.
The board did not take formal action on instructional policy but directed staff to continue reporting on implementation, monitoring the new elementary math rollout, and providing more disaggregated analyses to explain gaps between on-track credit measures and proficiency results.
