Current through Register Vol. 48, No. 38, September 20, 2024
Section 2-3.51 of the School Code provides that
districts not demonstrating performance progress using an approved
assessment method shall not be eligible for funding in the third or subsequent
years until such progress is established. Each application for funding
under the Reading Improvement Block Grant program shall include a
proposed assessment method or methods for measuringthe reading
growth of students who receive direct instruction as a result of the funding
and the impact of staff development activities on student growth in
reading.
a) Each application
shall list or describe the method or methods the applicant proposes to use to
measure students' reading skills for purposes of this Part, provided that an
applicant shall use no more than one method for each grade level in which
students are served by initiatives supported by funding under this Part.
Such methods may include the English language arts
portion of the assessments required under Section 2-3.64a-5of
the School Code [105 ILCS 5/2-3.64a -5]
(Section 2-3.51 of the School Code).
1) If a
proposed assessment instrument is a standardized or commercially available
criterion-referenced test, the applicant shall assure the State Superintendent
that the instrument meets the generally accepted standards of validity and
reliability set forth in "Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing"
(2014) published by the American Educational Research Association, 1430 K St.,
N.W., Suite 1200, Washington, D.C. 20005. (No later amendments to or editions
of these standards are incorporated.)
2) If a proposed assessment instrument is
locally developed or chosen, the applicant shall:
A) indicate the acceptable standard of
performance by students on that measure (e.g., acceptable grade-level
equivalent, score, or percent correct);
B) describe the means by which the
applicant's staff determined that the proposed measure is aligned with the
Illinois Learning Standards in the area of English language arts; and
C) certify to the State Superintendent that
the instrument measures what it is intended to measure and can be expected to
yield consistent results, including a description of the methods by which the
applicant's staff arrived at the conclusion that this is the case.
3) Results of the proposed methods
must be expressed in quantifiable terms, such as the percentage of students
meeting an established standard.
b) Each application shall assure the State
Superintendent that the applicant will take any measures as may be necessary to
prevent inappropriate disclosure of test questions or other materials that form
part of the proposed assessment methods.
c) The State Superintendent of Education
shall approve the method or methods proposed if the application complies with
subsections (a) and (b).
d) No
later than 60 days after the due date established for applications, the State
Superintendent shall notify each applicant whether its proposed method of
measuring students' reading skills is approved. Failure to apply in a timely
manner may delay an applicant's receipt of this response. In the case of a
disapproval, the applicant shall be notified of the reason for the disapproval
and of any modifications that would bring its proposed method into compliance
with the requirements of this Section.
e) Each applicant shall annually report to
the State Superintendent of Education its reading results for the previous
school year, expressed in terms of students' performance on the assessment
measures approved pursuant to this Section. The due date for the performance
report shall be June 15 for applicants not relying on scores from the State
assessment in English language arts and 30 days after the district's receipt of
State assessment scores for those relying on State assessment scores.
f) "Performance progress" must be
demonstrated with regard to the students who received direct instruction and
those whose reading instructors engaged in professional development as a result
of this grant and, with respect to that group of students, means any of the
following:
1) A higher percentage of students
scored at or above the locally established standard on the approved measures of
reading performance (e.g., achieved grade-level equivalents, criterion
reference points, or local benchmarks) than in the preceding testing
cycle.
2) The average score
achieved by students on the approved measures rose in comparison to the average
for the preceding testing cycle.
3)
A higher percentage of students scored in the top two quartiles on the approved
measures than in the preceding testing cycle, or a lower percentage of students
scored in the bottom quartile.
4)
An applicant with 90% or more of scores at or above the established standard
maintained its performance in comparison to the preceding testing
cycle.
g) The State
Superintendent shall notify any applicant whose results on its approved
measures of reading performance contradict its State assessment scores in
English language arts for the students involved.
1) If a district's report under subsection
(e) does not demonstrate performance progress, the State Superintendent shall
cause the district's relevant State assessment scores to be reviewed. If these
scores demonstrate that performance progress has been made, data from the State
assessment will be accepted in lieu of data from the locally identified
assessment measure as the basis for the district's continued eligibility for
funds under this Part.
2) If a
district's report under subsection (e) does show performance progress but its
relevant State assessment scores do not bear this out, the State Superintendent
shall notify the district to this effect. No later than 30 days after receipt
of this notification, the applicant shall provide to the State Superintendent
an analysis of this discrepancy and the applicant's rationale for concluding
that it has nevertheless made performance progress.
h) An applicant may appeal either disapproval
of its proposed assessment methods or a determination that it has failed to
make performance progress. In the latter case, the applicant may appeal either
on the grounds that it has made performance progress or on the grounds that the
factors that led to the failure were beyond the applicant's control (e.g., the
low number of students served creates a statistical problem with calculating
progress). Prior to a formal appeal, however, the applicant may submit
additional written information. If the information presented demonstrates that
either of these conditions exists, the State Superintendent shall notify the
district that it has made performance progress and no further follow-up is
needed.
1) The superintendent or chief
administrator of an eligible applicant may request a conference at which
representatives of the applicant will have an opportunity to discuss the issues
involved with representatives of the State Board of Education.
2) If a conference is held and the areas of
concern are not resolved, the school board may submit an appeal by adopted
board resolution. The appeal must identify the ways in which the proposed
method meets the requirements of Section 2-3.51 of the School Code and this
Section, the way in which the information submitted demonstrates that
performance progress has been made, or the external factors that led to its
inability to make performance progress, as applicable.
3) Consistent with the State Board's rules
for Contested Cases and Other Formal Hearings (23 Ill. Adm. Code 475), the
applicant will be given an opportunity to present information relevant to the
issues appealed. The State Superintendent of Education will consider the appeal
and make a recommendation to the State Board of Education; the State Board will
issue a final written determination.
4) An applicant's eligibility for funding
shall not be interrupted for failure to make performance progress if the State
Superintendent determines that failure to make progress was beyond the
applicant's control and that the applicant plans to take specific steps in the
immediate future to enable it to resume making performance progress.
