Confused about… ISBE’s Accountability System Overhaul?

Confused About | 11/6/2025

Stand for Children

Table of Contents

Almost a decade ago, No Child Left Behind was replaced by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and with that change, Illinois overhauled its school accountability system. Instead of judging schools on how many kids passed a standardized test, we moved to look at many other ingredients of school quality. (Here’s a throwback to our cake video from that era!)

11/10/25 UPDATE: And here’s a stir fry video about our current situation. It’s less polished than the cake, but still fairly satisfying. So if you prefer to learn about school accountability systems via 2-minute recipe videos instead of blogs or PowerPoints, jump right to the video.

Now, Illinois is doing another overhaul – and based on the proposal we saw for the first time last week, there’s plenty of opportunity for improvement. NOW is our chance to weigh in! This is moving fast – your next chance to attend a listening session is TOMORROW.

11/10/25 UPDATE: The last in-person session is 11/14 in O’Fallon. We’ll be there!

11/13/25 UPDATE: Three virtual listening sessions were just announced! Sign up for one here.

You can read ISBE’s plan here, but here’s my summary:

What’s Good?

Criteria-Based Scoring

The current system ranks 10% of schools in the top rating category, which leaves schools complaining about changing goalposts and unsure what they need to achieve to get there (since it depends entirely on how they perform relative to everyone else). Now, ISBE proposes clearer criteria for schools to strive for, rather than competing against each other for the top ranking.

Clear Summative Labels

Schools are currently categorized as Exemplary, Commendable, Comprehensive, and Intensive – with the vast majority fitting into the extremely broad “Commendable” category. The new labels would break up the overabundance of Commendables to give more clarity in the summative label, now Exemplary, Commendable, Approaching, Developing, and Comprehensive.

Some Valuable Indicators Included

Though we have concerns with some omitted indicators, we appreciate the continued focus on academic growth and reducing chronic absenteeism. The system would be based on three “core indicators” for high schools (proficiency, growth, and graduation rate) and two for elementary (proficiency and growth), with three “elevating indicators” (English Learner growth, consistent attendance rate, and climate survey participation). The proposal aims to celebrate successes more than penalize shortfalls, so instead of using the usual “chronic absenteeism” (missing more than 10% of school days) metric, the new system would use the inverse: “consistent attendance” (attending more than 90% of school days).

What’s Concerning?

Goodbye Freshman-on-Track and College and Career Readiness Indicators

The proposal scraps other measures related to high school success in favor of just looking at graduation rates. The current system includes more robust indicators assessing students’ readiness for graduation, post-secondary education, and career. Freshman-on-track is an incredibly powerful metric, with strong research originating from the Consortium for Chicago School Research showing that students who were ‘on-track’ in 9^th grade were four times more likely to graduate. Chicago was the home of this measure, with a strong focus on freshman-on-track rates driving a large part of CPS’s huge rise in graduation rates over the last 25 years. The College and Career Readiness Indicator, which was never fully implemented despite the eight years it has been part of the plan, outlines four paths for students to demonstrate their readiness for college and career, including combinations of things like grades, attendance, employment, earning a credential, and taking early college courses. Even without the College and Career Readiness Indicators in place, Illinois collects plenty of valuable data that could round out this measure, like career pathway completion, seal of biliteracy, and dual credit completion. Taking the focus away from these evidence-based strategies would be a step backwards.

RECOMMENDATION #1: Change the Graduation Rate measure to a more comprehensive composite score that includes growth in graduation rate, freshman-on-track rate, career pathway completers, students earning early college credit, and seal of biliteracy rates.

Indicators Don’t Factor in Growth

The “consistent attendance” (i.e., inverse of chronic absenteeism) metric sorts schools into categories based on whether they hit certain attendance benchmarks. For example, if over 85% of high school students are consistent attendees, the school is ‘Exemplary.’ If 70% – 85% are consistent attendees, the school is ‘Commendable.’ (Keep in mind here that 70% is five points lower than state average.) If fewer than 40% of students are consistent attendees, the school is ‘Comprehensive.’ But if a school grows its consistent attendance rate from 70% to 80%, the system does not recognize that.

RECOMMENDATION #2: Modify the ‘Consistent Attendance’ metric to allow high growth schools to qualify as exemplary and commendable, while also requiring schools to at least reach the state average attendance rate to qualify as ‘Commendable’ through the rate alone.

Climate Survey Score Based Only on Participation

11/10/25 UPDATE: While we wish Illinois were in a position to measure more than participation rates on the climate surveys, we’ve heard feedback that this is not realistic because some schools use a different survey, so the metric wouldn’t be comparable across all schools. There are also well-respected friends who continue to make the case that participation is the way to go so that there is no gaming of the survey results. Therefore, we are not focusing on this third recommendation.

Every school is required to administer a survey of learning conditions each year. During the last round, there was a lot of discussion about how to use this valuable data in the accountability system. They landed on measuring only the participation rate. This proposal has not evolved to consider growth in some of the metrics themselves; the new proposal would still measure participation rates only.

RECOMMENDATION #3: As the new proposal is structured, the climate survey can only elevate a school’s total designation – not penalize it. So this seems like a great opportunity to consider growth in several of the survey result areas (like the student-teacher trust, ambitious instruction, and student safety responses), rather than just participation rate.

The accountability system is one of the most powerful levers in the state to incentivize growth, identify schools that need more support, and direct resources strategically toward improvement. It is important that Illinois get this right. If you can make it to a listening session, please sign up for one here. If you can’t, but you have feedback, we’d love to hear it!

Related Resources

Stand’s 2017 ESSA Cake Video

A Better Recipe

ISBE’s Accountability Redesign Proposal

Accountability-Redesign-Proposal Download

Exploring Chronic Absenteeism in Illinois

High School Success | 10/22/2025

Stand for Children

Table of Contents

[Open][Close]

Chronic Absenteeism Focus Group Findings
- Focus Groups Methodology
- Focus Group Findings
Chronic Absenteeism Context
A Word About the Chronic Absenteeism Accountability Indicator
Focus Group Interview Script
- Warm-Up Questions
- Deeper Questions

Chronic Absenteeism Focus Group Findings

In August and September 2025, Stand for Children held a series of focus groups with parents of chronically absent high schoolers and a few of those high schoolers themselves – a total of 15 participants. With rates of chronic absenteeism stubbornly high following the pandemic era, the purpose of the focus group effort was to garner insights from families about barriers to attendance and potential solutions. While many of these problems are complex and depend on significant community and systems change, we heard several actionable changes that schools could readily undertake to remove barriers and improve attendance.

Focus Groups Methodology

We recruited for focus groups primarily through Stand for Children’s Illinois email list and invited other organizations to share with individuals who would be interested, securing 15 participants across 4 groups. Almost half of the participants were from Chicago, five from the suburbs, and three from downstate. Participants received a $50 gift card for their active participation in a 90-minute focus group. To ensure participants were Illinois-based, gift cards were only distributed to physical Illinois addresses.

There are pros and cons to the focus group approach, which we decided to undertake as a way to probe questions about chronic absenteeism with affected parents, on a relatively quick turnaround time. However, there are limitations to this approach, most notably that this is not a representative sample or a scientifically validated survey. We have included our focus group script at the end of this document.

Our last focus group was held on September 11, so these conversations happened before the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations in the Chicago area ramped up dramatically soon thereafter. Chicago has reported 9,000 fewer students enrolled than last year, and some schools have seen steep declines in daily attendance amid ICE activity across the region. This was not a major theme in our conversations, but it is clearly a significant barrier to attendance at this moment.

Focus Group Findings

Parents mostly, but not entirely, felt supported by educators in their students’ schools to help mitigate their teenagers’ absenteeism. Most described individual educators or school counselors who they trusted. Even parents who eventually sent their high schoolers to alternative options were generally complimentary of the schools their children left. “Nobody’s dropping the ball,” said one parent. “All of those measures are in place, and it’s up to the individual to take advantage of them.”

However, this was not universal. One mom shared stories of her son with autism facing bullying from students and adults at school. Another said their student could not identify one adult in the building with whom they had a positive relationship. One considered school safety a “huge barrier,” with concerns more about violence from school security guards than from other students, while another considered behavior of other students to be a safety concern. Several were threatened with legal action for their children’s spotty attendance, which no one believed was helpful to a situation where they were already frustrated and striving to get their children motivated to go to class. One was reluctant to reach out for help from the school, seeing the responses as punitive and not supportive.

Nearly everyone, even those who generally perceived the school and staff as helpful, had some critiques that could help or ideas for improvement to systems and policies. Many of these were complex, longer-term issues, extremely important and requiring a larger and sustained effort over time from systems outside of public education. These include fixes to these pervasive societal problems:

Poverty
Food insecurity
Childcare affordability
Neighborhood violence
Lack of resources and support for families
Loss of a sense of community
Loss of kindness and humanity

But other suggestions were more readily actionable changes that could be achieved in the short-term and rest within the purview of the school or district. Those recommendations include:

Ensure Every Student Has Positive Adult Relationships in the Building. This is perhaps the most obvious finding: students are more likely to come to school when they know someone in the building cares whether they are there or not. One parent recommended many of the same activities in the Attendance Works protocol: real-time calls home when students are absent, in-home visits, proactive conversations with families, and appointment of a parent advocate or point person with whom families can communicate for attendance issues. He also recommended local meetings with parents for feedback, particularly parents who had succeeded in turning around their children’s attendance problems. But for others, it was less about informing parents – who often knew and struggled daily with students to get them to school – and more about giving students intrinsic motivation to make it to school, including feeling a sense of belonging in their school community and knowing there are caring adults who would miss them if they were absent.

Don’t Over-Penalize Tardiness. One recurring theme, which came up in nearly every group, was that showing up to school late was often punished more harshly than not coming at all. Participants spoke of in-house detentions issued after some number of tardies and corralling students in a “tardy tank” if they were late then making them wait until the next period to go to class. The most egregious examples we heard from two parents were schools that charge monetary fines for tardiness (a practice that is likely already against state law). Granted, tardiness is also not something to strive for; however, in the words of one student participant: “Some school is better than no school.”

Minimize Dress Code-Related Barriers. Several participants mentioned issues related to dress code violations as a source of conflict. Some parents spoke of their children being sent home for not having complete uniforms when they have been unable to get to the laundromat. A shared closet at the school could minimize absences for these sorts of infractions. Allowing hats and scarves can minimize absences when some hairstyles may require many hours of work that sometimes remain unfinished at the start of a school day.

Minimize Cell Phone and Social Media Access. Anxiety, bullying, and peer conflicts were a recurring theme in most groups. This is critically important to address for reasons that stretch beyond absenteeism, and multiple projects are trying to tackle the ongoing challenge of supporting students’ mental health, such as the new mental health screening law, the Childhood Adversity Index, and the Whole Child Task Force. However, one moderately resolvable subtheme was the relationship between social media use and student anxiety. Though much of this occurs outside of school hours, regulating cell phone access – and therefore, social media use – within school buildings is a fast-growing movement that can help minimize this anxiety and encourage students to strengthen in-person social skills with peers.

Provide Flexible, Meaningful Schedules and Alternative Options. Two parent participants had students who struggled mightily with attendance at their home school and found alternative schools to be a better fit. Another spoke about the career pathway program their student began as a major motivation for her to turnaround her poor attendance. Similarly, several participants talked about the importance of extracurricular activities in motivating students to attend. This echoes a larger theme that students want to see the value of their high school education and believe it is a meaningful steppingstone to the future they want for themselves.

Improve Reliability and Affordability of Buses. Another recurring theme was the apprehension some students feel walking along dangerous routes to school and the herculean task some parents face having to drive multiple children to multiple schools in different directions. Buses truly are the lifeblood of a school system, connecting home to school for so many students. Cuts in busing and bus driver shortages may be, in part, to blame for a perception that school transportation is less reliable and accessible than it once was.

Enable Common Sense Medication Management. One participant, a student with chronic pain from an auto-immune condition, shared that one deterrent was trying to deal with pain management during school. Even getting over-the-counter pain relievers in the middle of the day was difficult. Admittedly, we need to do more research to explore the regulatory environment for streamlining systems to support students with chronic health conditions to access medication, but we wanted to include this here as it was a valid suggestion and one that has anecdotally come up in other settings.

Chronic Absenteeism Context

Chronic absenteeism became exacerbated after the pandemic, and Illinois’ rates have remained high, with over a quarter of students chronically absent in 2024. Absenteeism rates were especially low in 2020 (11%) when schools were primarily meeting virtually and attendance was counted differently, and to some extent, that may have carried over into 2021 (21.1%). In the three years since schools returned to in-person learning, the rate jumped to 29.8% and has slowly crept downward to its current 26.3%. This is 50% higher than the pre-pandemic, 2019 rate of 17.5%.

Across grade levels, absenteeism rates vary dramatically. Kindergarten and high school face the most substantial problems, with nearly 30% of kindergarten students and 41% of 12th graders chronically absent. Though the rates vary from place to place, this pattern is the norm: high in kindergarten, decreasing throughout elementary school, increasing in middle grades, and peaking in high school.

Stakeholders broadly agree that absenteeism is a problem, though there are differences of opinion as to how to solve it. Discussions are underway through multiple venues. Vision 2030’s statement on chronic absenteeism recommends the state’s accountability system: “De-emphasize chronic absenteeism as an isolated metric and instead incorporate chronic absenteeism within the context of a set of whole-child student success and readiness indicators.” The conversation about that accountability system revamp is housed with the Illinois Balanced Accountability Measure Committee (IBAM), which held a listening tour about options for modifications to the system throughout the summer. The IBAM committee minutes shared that there was “[h]igh interest in changing the chronic absenteeism weight” reflected at the tour. The committee is expected to release the proposed changes to the system soon, and discussions indicate that “ISBE is exploring an indicator that would be the inverse of chronic absenteeism, which is consistent attendance.”

A new state law creates a Chronic Absenteeism Task Force, charged with reporting by December 15, 2027 on “approaches to help families, educators, principals, superintendents, and the State Board of Education address and mitigate the high rates of chronic absence of students in State-funded early-childhood programs and public-school students in grades kindergarten through 12,” issuing recommendations on a “coherent State strategy for addressing” absenteeism, goals for boosting consistent attendance, policy changes, and evidence-based methods for improving attendance.

Chronic Absenteeism by Year

Source: ISBE Report Card.

Bar Graph. 2024 Absenteeism Rates Grades K-12
K: 29%
1: 23.5%
2: 22%
3: 20%
4: 19%
5: 19%
6: 21%
7: 23.5%
8: 25%
9: 29.5%
10: 33%
11: 36%
12: 41%

Source: ISBE Report Card., recreated chart

Shortly before the pandemic, ISBE facilitated an Attendance Commission for four years, which issued annual reports. It was during this era that chronic absenteeism became a standardized metric on the report card and a requirement for a minimum 5-hour school day was reinstated in law, and a public awareness campaign “Every Child, Every Day” to promote the importance of regular school attendance was launched. In its final report in 2019, the Commission recommended that schools use a multi-tiered system of support to provide tiered interventions to students struggling with attendance and provide real time information to parents about attendance through calls and texts and appoint a point person for their communication.

One area of discussion in the 2019 report was an ISBE proposal to remove chronic absenteeism as a factor in the accountability system following a listening tour where the agency heard criticism of the metric: “While chronic absenteeism is a strong predictor of student success, in that we know that students cannot receive instruction if they are not at school, it nonetheless represents an inequity in the accountability system. The accountability system is meant to provide a single summative designation that is an indication of school quality. Conversely, chronic absenteeism can be understood to measure the behaviors and practices of parents and caregivers which are outside the scope of what the school can control. For instance, commenters noted how many of the factors that drive chronic absenteeism, including illness and family mobility, are entirely outside the control of schools.

Common perception persists that student attendance is primarily their parents’ fault and that schools have little ability to influence whether students make it to class. What we heard in the focus groups deeply challenged that picture. Over and over, parents expressed their own frustration about the difficulty getting their students to school, the ongoing battles every morning, and the perpetual source of conflict this presented in their families.

In August 2024, the Overdeck Foundation awarded funding to five pilot programs and research partners to study attendance interventions, including one studying attendance of 95,000 Chicago middle schoolers with results being analyzed by the Consortium for Chicago School Research. The research is still in process, but initial findings suggest that “post-pandemic absenteeism varies widely between schools with similar pre-pandemic attendance rates. What appear to be key predictors are student-reported measures of climate, such as safety, connectedness, and trust between teachers and parents. These are stronger predictors of attendance than neighborhood poverty or family education levels, suggesting that strong relationships are a critical factor driving students’ engagement in learning.” This also demonstrates that the influence school-level actions can have on supporting students to get to school is significant.

The Overdeck Foundation also recently undertook polling around chronic absence to reveal what resonated most with families in trying to boost attendance. They found that effective communication post-COVID has shifted. Their research suggests the most powerful and compelling shifts in messaging their research suggests are:

Focusing on the whole child, rather than just the importance of academics.
Emphasizing the value of attendance, rather than the harm of absence.
Acknowledging parents’ concerns, along with re-iterating the value of consistent attendance.

In partnership with Attendance Works last year, sixteen states have signed onto the “50% Challenge,” a commitment to cutting their rates of chronic absenteeism over five years. Illinois is not among them. Those states are supported with an Attendance Works toolkit to systematically plan goals and interventions to conquer their attendance issues.

A Word About the Chronic Absenteeism Accountability Indicator

As described above, there has been some back and forth over the last several years about how to handle chronic absenteeism in the State’s accountability system. We were concerned that with the revamped accountability plan, chronic absenteeism might have been a casualty; however, it appears based on discussions at IBAM that the indicator (or at least, its inverse: consistent attendance) will be maintained. The question remains how that will be weighed. One suggestion we offer is that holding schools accountable to a one-size-fits-all chronic absenteeism (or consistent attendance) barometer fails to appropriately consider unique school circumstances or incentivize schools that are far under or over the chosen rate to prioritize attendance improvement. Instead of asking whether each school met an arbitrary consistent attendance rate, schools would be better incentivized to focus on minimizing chronic absenteeism by asking whether the school improved its own consistent attendance rate over the last year by a certain percentage.

Focus Group Interview Script

Thank you for joining us at the chronic absenteeism focus group. Our main reason for coming together today is to hear from you and learn about your experiences with high school, either with yourself or your children, with a goal of better understanding how schools and policies can support students and families to help kids feel more engaged with school and boost attendance rates.

[Introduction of moderator.]

We ask that you maintain your camera on and actively participate in the conversation. We’ll write findings and suggestions for state and local policymakers based on what we learn in this and a couple of other focus groups, but we will not use your real names or any identifying information about you or your school. We ask that others in the room also maintain that confidentiality, as we understand these are sensitive topics.

[For groups with 8+ participants] Let’s start with some introductory questions about who’s participating today. For this, we’ll need to use the “raise hand” feature, so let’s take a minute to find that toward the bottom of your screen.

Warm-Up Questions

Who here is the parent, grandparent, or caretaker of current high school student?
Who is the parent, grandparent, or caretaker of a former high school student?
Who here is currently in high school?
Is anyone here who recently graduated or left high school?
Thinking about your child or yourself… whoever is or was recently enrolled in high school and missed a lot of school days… I just want you to ask a little about why getting to school was difficult…
1. Raise your hand if transportation to or from school was an issue.
2. How about safety concerns, either feeling unsafe on the way to school or at school?
3. How about needing to work or take care of children at home?
4. How about mental health or social emotional issues – feeling depressed or anxious or having a hard time getting out of bed to go?
5. Raise your hand if school was a big source of conflict in your house – with parents pushing their teenager to get to school and getting a lot of resistance.
6. Last of our warm-up questions here… raise your hand if you/your child had a pretty good high school experience that felt meaningful where they had a decent sense of belonging.

=====Above takes 10 minutes. 80 minutes remaining. ======

Deeper Questions

If anyone raised their hand for transportation, call on one person

[Name], you raised your hand that transportation was a barrier. Tell me about that.
1. Did you rely on school bus, city bus, walking, or car?
2. What was unreliable about the transportation?
Did anyone else have trouble with the physical means of getting to school? Tell me more about your experience.
Were anyone’s transportation concerns primarily driven by housing instability – having to move around multiple times during the student’s high school experience and needing to find a new way to get to school or needing to enroll in a new school?
1. How did the school help support the student to get to school? Is there anything they could have done that would have helped?

If anyone had to take care of children or work, call on one person. If not, just to Q2.

[Name], you mentioned childcare and work being barriers. Talk more about that.
1. Was the student a parent or sibling to the children being cared for?
2. Were employers pressuring the student to work these hours, or was the student or their parents asking for the hours because of a financial need?
How about other sorts of physical or logistical reasons for missing school – like not having clean clothes or a school uniform, not having their hair done, not having school supplies?
1. Is there anything the school could have done to better support you getting to school? Sometimes we hear about schools putting in laundry facilities – is that something you would have used? How about a closet of free clothes at the school? Would any of that actually made a difference in getting you there?

Q: That is all the questions I have about physical barriers and challenges to getting to school. We will talk next about safety, health, school environments, and motivation to get out of bed in the morning. But is there anything else that comes to mind about the physical logistics of getting to school that I’ve missed?

If anyone had safety concerns, call on one person.

[Name], you raised your hand about safety. Tell us about that.
1. Was the trip to school unsafe? The neighborhoods and neighborhood violence? The bus that took them to school?
2. Were there interpersonal conflicts at the school with peers that felt threatening?
3. What could the school have done to help make you feel safer about going/sending your child to school?
Did anyone else have concerns about safety at school? Tell me more about that.
1. How did the school staff help to navigate these situations?
2. Were there other things that could have been done to help make things safer?

Q: How about just not wanting to physically wake up with the alarm to get to school, maybe staying up late the night before and just having trouble getting motivated to go.

[Name], tell us about your experience there. (+ another couple people’s experiences)
1. How early was the start time of school? How early would you need to get up to make it on time?
2. What kept you up late? Work, homework, TikTok, video games? Did your family attempt any sort of efforts to confiscate the phones or cut off the internet at a certain time?
3. Did it depend on what was going on at school that day? Were there things that were motivating enough that you/they would make sure to be up for (e.g., finals, a field trip, a football game)? Did the school have any sort of reward system for attendance? Was it motivating?
4. Did you ever get contacted by a truancy officer or state’s attorney? Was that motivating?
For some students, this is just about motivation/sleep/priorities, but for others, it is more complex. Did you feel like there were deeper social-emotional issues at play? Anxiety, depression, difficulty re-adjusting to in-person school after COVID?
1. Were there supports for you/them at school, like social workers, who could help talk through these issues?
2. Did they have teachers they trusted and confided in who helped them feel better at school?
3. Are there are other supports the school could have provided?
4. If you missed school, did someone call home and check in to see how you were doing?
Was physical health a big problem for anyone? (Like, you missed a lot of school because of a chronic physical condition or because you’re being especially conscious of not showing up with a cold since we were all so protective during COVID?)

Q: [Names], you said high school did feel meaningful and like you/they had a sense of belonging. Give some examples of what felt worthwhile about your high school experience…. So, why did you have a hard time getting to school, even though it felt like a place you belonged when you were there? (Or, no one said high school felt meaningful and like you had a sense of belonging.) Who felt the opposite, like high school was a waste of time and not preparing you for your future?

What would a meaningful high school experience look like to you?
What goals do you have for your future? How did high school fit into those goals?
Did you have an adult in the school building who you felt really cared about you and your future?
What sorts of classes were you enrolled in that felt worthwhile? Any classes that you thought were a waste of time?
Were your classes too hard or too easy? Did you have the necessary foundational reading and writing skills to access the material in your classes?
Were vocational courses or work-based learning opportunities offered in your school? Would those have been motivating for you?

Q: Final question (if time permits): What overall thoughts do you have on how schools and communities can help get students to school more consistently?

Are there any policies or rules that could be improved?
How about services that could be in place? Communications from the school?
Anything else you can think of that would have helped you get to school/get your children to school more consistently?

Join Our Focus Groups On Chronic Absenteeism

High School Success | 07/16/2025

Stand for Children

For Illinois students, it’s been a challenge to get back to regular school attendance after the pandemic. About a quarter of student miss more than 10% of school days. In high school, it’s even worse, with about 35% of student being chronically absent. Stand for Children is conducting four focus groups to better understand the barriers to regular school attendance for high school students and their families. We are looking for current or recent Illinois high school students and/or their parents to participate in a focus group.

Why should you participate?

Help shape state and local policy solutions by sharing your story.
We will protect your anonymity; though we will share stories and analyze barriers collectively, we will not reveal any individual’s identity.
Earn a $50 gift card for 90 minutes of active participation over Zoom.

Who is eligible to participate?

Parents of high school students who attended an Illinois high school last year AND missed more than 10% of school days for any reason.
Students age 18+ who attended an Illinois high school last year or the 2023 – 2024 school year AND missed more than 10% of school days for any reason.
- Students age 16 – 17 with a signed parent permission slip are also eligible to participate.
You must have access to Zoom and a functional webcam that is turned on throughout the focus group (phone or tablet is fine)
You must be willing to share your story and answer questions about your experience.

When are the focus groups?

Please sign up for only one group. Up to 12 people are eligible to sign up for each session.

Sunday, August 17, 2025 3:30 – 5:00pm

Wednesday, August 20, 2025 7:00 – 8:30pm

Thursday, August 28, 2025 4:30 – 6:00pm*

*The August 28th session is is restricted to participation of high school students who were referred by their Regional Office of Education or school administrator after engagement with a truancy officer or other school support for truancy.

Thursday, August 21, 2025 1:00 – 2:30pm

Tuesday, September 2, 2025 5:00 – 6:30pm

Please reach out to Jessica Handy ([email protected]) with any questions.

FY24 State CTE Disbursement Analysis

High School Success | 06/13/2025

Stand for Children

May 2025

Executive Summary

In FY 2024, the ISBE disbursed $44 million in state CTE appropriations to 53 Education for Employment (EFE) districts. FY24 is the “base year,” with subsequent years phasing in the new formula. This analysis does not include federal Perkins dollars, which are disbursed through a federal formula based on population and poverty.

Our analysis shows dramatic variance among EFE allocations with little correlation between funding and outcomes in this FY24 “base year” allocation. An analysis by CTE participants and concentrators yielded similar disparities in funding across EFE districts. This strongly supports the transition to the new state CTE funding formula, which is being phased in slowly over time, 25% per year as long as the appropriation increases to ensure that no EFE loses funding over the prior year. The new formula allocated funding based on the funding adequacy of the districts in each region and the number of CTE concentrators, imposing a lens of equity and accountability to a funding structure desperately in need of modernization.

Methodology

To calculate this information, we captured data from ISBE’s Financial Reimbursement Information System (FRIS) of CTE allocations from FY24 by EFE. We sorted each school district into its corresponding EFE and calculated average percentages of adequate funding for each EFE based on its member school districts’ funding ratio average. We also integrated this financial data with Illinois report card data on the numbers of students enrolled, CTE participants, and CTE concentrators. With this integrated data, we were able to run various analyses comparing CTE allocation rates by funding ratio, per student, per CTE student, and per CTE concentrator.

State CTE Funding by Student, CTE Participant, and CTE Concentrator

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the strongest correlation the analysis found is that EFE districts that had more funding per high school student were more likely to have higher rates of CTE participation and concentration. Chicago Public Schools (CPS) has the lowest rate of CTE participation (12%) and the lowest amount of funding per high school student ($34). Whiteside Regional Vocational System receives the highest rate per high school student ($383) and a relatively high rate of students participating in CTE (72%).

However, this was certainly not universal. For example, Franklin County Regional Delivery System and Two Rivers Career Education System each receive a relatively low amount of about $50 per high school student, but have about 75% of students participating in CTE. ESL Regional Vocation System receives 83% more per high school student than the average allocation ($137, compared to the average of $75), but has less than the average participation rate (44%, compared to the average of 50%) and concentration rate (concentration rate (concentration rate (7%, compared to 24%).

One limitation to this analysis is that school districts, not EFEs, report the numbers of students who participate and concentrate in CTE. Thus, if a student receives CTE service through a partnership with the community college or some other program not affiliated with the EFE, it would still look like the EFE is “credited” with that student’s CTE success. However, the CTE funding per pupil correlates more strongly than how well-funded a region’s schools are under EBF, suggesting that dedicated CTE dollars are more likely to drive CTE expansion than non-directed general funding.

There was There was There was little correlation between CTE allocation and how adequately-funded a region is when averaging the Evidence-Based Funding (EBF) adequacy percentages of each school district in the region. The new formula takes EBF funding adequacy into account when allocating new dollars, but in the base year, there was a very slight trend in the opposite direction, with funds skewing toward better-funded areas.

The following table summarizes EFE funds by high school pupil, CTE participants, and CTE concentrators. See the accompanying spreadsheet, “FY24 State EFE Funding Analysis” for the full breakdown of EFE funds along with the funding quintiles and CTE participation and concentration rates.

FY24 State CTE Funding by EFE

EFE Funding Analysis 5.28.25 (TABLE)Download

Stand for Children Advocates for CTE Funding in Budget Testimony

Equitable Funding | 04/22/2025

Stand for Children

On April 22, Stand for Children IL’s Government Affairs Director, Aimee Galvin, gave budget testimony at the Illinois General Assembly. Read an excerpt from her testimony advocating for increased funding for Career & Technical Education (CTE):

Past CTE Funding

Last year, the General Assembly appropriated $58 million for secondary CTE. The $58M reflects a $10M increase last year and two smaller increases in 2020 and 2022. Before these increases, the state CTE appropriate had been stagnant for decades, all while CTE enrollment has been steadily increasing. The state’s much-needed investments have helped maintain high-quality, industry-aligned CTE programing but it does not leave much for the expansion of either programs or CTE students.

Last year, 285k students, or 48% of Illinois’ total high school student population, took at least one CTE course. And it’s worth mentioning here that while the statewide graduation rate is 87.7%, for CTE concentrators, that is students who take at least 2 CTE courses in a sequence, were 10 points more likely to graduate and that boost applied across all student subgroups. So, an investment in CTE not only supports career-connected learning but can even help more students graduate on time. So as more Illinois students explore CTE pathways, something I’m sure we can all agree is positive, it also means that without significant increases in funding everyone’s slice of the pie is getting a little smaller.

If CTE funding had kept up with inflation, the state appropriation would be well over $80M. Illinois has been investing in CTE in other ways however, the Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness Act (PWR Act) established a blueprint for aligned, regionally relevant, industry-informed, CTE that ensures students gradate college and career ready with a clear path to what’s next after graduation. But without additional funding districts have been asked to do more with less and must make hard choices between maintaining existing programing and developing new ones in response to new policy and labor market demands. Increased state investment will help districts maintain current programing while freeing up to develop new programs to engage more students in CTE.

The Educator Career Pathway Grant is an excellent example of what is possible with targeted funds. A total of $7.2M has been awarded 53 implementing high schools and in an analysis of CTE concentrators we found districts that were awarded the Educator Pathway Grant had stronger CTE concentrator rates and led the state in the number of Latina concentrators compared to other pathways. These grants, while relatively small, have helped schools start critically needed educator pathways that have been successful in enrolling students traditionally under-represented in CTE courses.

Education For Employment Systems (EFEs)

On page 1 of your materials, you can see the state CTE appropriation funding flow chart. We put this together in response to some of the questions from the Committee to prior CTE speakers and to provide some background information on how different CTE funds flow throughout the state. On page one, you can see 99% of the state appropriated $58M flows directly to Education For Employment Systems, or EFEs. EFEs are regional consortia of local districts, schools, and Area Career Centers that support and deliver high-quality CTE to students within their systems. To qualify for federal Perkins funding (which we’ll talk about in more depth shortly), recipients must qualify for a minimum grant of $15,000 based on a formula driven by population and poverty. But since some school districts were too small to qualify for the minimum grant, EFEs were created to ensure all schools received some federal funds.

But in an analysis of the state’s EFE districts we found that some EFEs receive nearly $700 per CTE participant in state funds while others are left with $62 per CTE participant. ISBE’s new CTE funding formula seeks to ensure these funds flow more equitably by accounting for student enrollment, districts’ EBF adequacy target, and number of CTE concentrators, among other factors, but this formula is being incrementally rolled out so only a quarter of state CTE funds were distributed through the formula this year. Next year 50% of state funds will flow through the new formula and it is scheduled to be fully implemented by FY28, however this roll out is being threatened by insufficient funds to ensure that no EFE would receive lower investments than previous years.

In addition to the state secondary CTE appropriation, EFEs also receive federally appropriated Perkins funds. In FY24 the state received $50M from the federal Perkins grant to support both secondary and postsecondary CTE programs. On page two of your written materials, you can see how that $50M is split between secondary and postsecondary funds. 85% of the Perkins secondary funds are then distributed to the 56 EFEs across the state.

These federal funds amount to about 50% of all available CTE funds for EFEs and they cannot be used for facility construction or renovation or to purchase facilities. Unlike traditional classrooms, many CTE pathways require access to state-of-the-art equipment and facilities. To defray costs, districts often rely on Area Career Centers or Community Colleges to maintain these facilities, but even with pooled resources, the rate of new technologies and commitment to teaching industry-aligned standards can create significant financial burdens on secondary and postsecondary programs alike.

Our Budget Request

To receive Perkins grants the state must contribute a Maintenance of Effort in state funds. ISBE’s target Maintenance of Effort is $45 million. Given this provision, any increase in state CTE funds should be done incrementally to preserve funding stability across Illinois’ CTE system. However, some funds are exempt from the MOE and growing those investments with one-time infusions would assist districts in meeting the needs and challenges of a 21^st Century CTE system. Capital funds are one such investment, as are competitive grants like the $5M education career pathway grant.

We are requesting a $42M increase to the state’s secondary CTE appropriation, which would bring the state’s total investment in secondary CTE to $100M, but if you want to preserve future flexibility, an idea could be to appropriate funding in seven competitive grants aligned to each of the seven CTE endorsement areas. You can see the list of endorsement areas on page 6 of your packet. This would help districts meet growing student demand and develop new CTE programming responsive to 21^st century labor demands without increasing the state’s Perkins maintenance of effort.

Additionally, the General Assembly should charge ISBE and ICCB to conduct a joint study to determine how the current CTE facilities are meeting the needs of districts looking to scale up pathways, what kind of updates would be necessary to expand access to college and career endorsement pathways, particularly in under-resourced districts, and places for collaboration across the many regional CTE actors such as Regional Offices of Education, Education for Employment districts, high school districts, and community college districts. The recommendations should focus on capital improvements that guarantee access to college and career endorsement pathways in all regions of the state, address logistical challenges like transportation, stress collaboration and shared resources across actors, and prioritize the needs of districts furthest from adequate funding. Such an analysis is a critical first step in a campaign to secure more CTE capital funding which will help grow CTE access while maximizing federal investments.

2025 CTE Report_April 22 Testimony_v2 Download

Access the Full Career Pathways Report Here

Springfield Budget Priorities

High School Success | 05/17/2023

Aimee Galvin Government Affairs Director

The final week of legislative session is a sprint. The General Assembly’s big focus is wrapping up the budget for the new fiscal year. There are plenty of priorities included, but we are focused on a few and wanted to flag them for you.

Of course, we are aiming to continue boosting Evidence-Based Funding yet again. We expect that number to land at $350 million in new funding but continue to urge the legislature to accelerate that investment to close the funding gap more quickly.

We’re also focused on these budget priorities. We hope you’ll join us and ask your legislators to support these issues in the FY24 budget!

$3.15 million to grow Dual Credit opportunities across the state and to expand equitable access to these life – and career! – changing courses. Let’s support their futures!
$3 million to support the Minority Teachers of Illinois scholarship program. This will help address the teacher shortage AND increase the gender and racial diversity in the teacher corps, something that’s especially important for students of color to see representation like that in their classrooms.

We’ve got our work cut out for us, friends. With your help, and the help of folks across the state, I’m confident we can make a positive impact for Illinois youth and families in the new budget.

We’re Halfway There

Legislation | 03/29/2023

Jessica Handy Interim Executive Director

Last week was a whirlwind at the Capitol and we’ve got progress to show for it! The pace was fast and furious all week, with a Friday deadline spurring legislators to debate bills well into the night.

The good news? Three bills in the ‘Literacy and Justice for All’ bill package passed the House or the Senate on Friday!

We couldn’t have done this without you! Advocates continue to send a strong signal to Springfield that these initiatives have deep support across the state. This month, we’ve sent over 1,500 emails to legislators in support of literacy and youth justice. (Did you send yours yet? Click these links and check it off your to-do list!)

A quick update on where things stand with these (and a few other momentous bills we’re supporting!):

Early Literacy: HB2872 and SB2243, bills instructing the State Board of Education to create a statewide literacy plan, and HB3147, the comprehensive Literacy and Justice for All bill to help fix the literacy crisis, passed their first major hurdle! (That is, the House bills passed the House and the Senate bill passed the Senate. Now they will switch places and work their way through the other chamber.)
Youth Justice: SB1463 and HB3120 passed committee and we anticipate a floor vote in the Senate this week. The bills would eliminate juvenile court fees and fines, a step toward economic justice for our state.
Full-Day Kindergarten: HB 2396 requires school districts to offer full-day kindergarten by 2027. It passed the House and moves to the Senate.
Trauma-Responsive Schools: HB 342 responds to the Whole Child Task Force, created by the Legislative Black Caucus’s historic “education pillar” two years ago. Under the bill, which passed the House, the state would develop a Children’s Adversity Index, make licensure recommendations to ensure teachers are prepared to support children with trauma, and add ratios of social workers to the school report card.
Dual-Credit Teacher Shortage: HB 1213 passed the House, creating a scholarship program for teachers to pursue the coursework needed to teach Dual Credit.

We will keep you posted as things continue to move in Springfield. Get ready for more advocacy opportunities to keep up the growing momentum on our legislative priorities!

Thank you for your partnership and support.

What’s Your Story?

High School Success | 10/6/2022

Scott McDonald Marketing & Communications Director

I love the reaction we’ve received to the student videos released last week. Their amazing experiences with Dual Credit courses, and the bright futures they all have ahead of them in college and career, show the vast potential of these game-changing courses.

Those stories are inspiring. I know there are more just like them, or could be, if we work together and broaden access to advanced courses like Dual Credit.

That’s where Stand’s Dual Credit Advocacy Toolkit comes in. We released the toolkit a year ago in the hopes of giving Illinoisans at every level of the education system – parents, students, educators, administrators, community members – the tools they need to grow Dual Credit’s impact in their school. Folks have put it to use and added to their own stories.

I hope you’ll take a few moments to explore the Dual Credit Advocacy Toolkit. It offers a step-by-step guide to bring Dual Credit to your school, grow an existing program, or even help guide educators through the steps of gaining required certification. It really has something for everyone!

Dig into the Toolkit and use it to add to your own Dual Credit story. I can’t wait to hear what you accomplish. As always, if we can help lend a hand, please reach out. We’re always happy to help grow Dual Credit across the state.

Making a Difference

High School Success | 09/22/2022

Aimee Galvin Government Affairs Director

Over the past few years, we’ve really seen the difference that Dual Credit courses are making for students across Illinois. As more high school students take these advanced classes, fewer students needed costly remedial classwork in community college.

Dual Credit’s impact is real. But you don’t need to take my word for it. Take it from real Illinois students who experienced the benefits of Dual Credit courses firsthand.

Payton will save time and money as she transitions directly to the nursing program in college.

Jessa knew the collaboration between her high school and community college created unique opportunities.

Riley’s online courses helped put her on the fast-track to get into the workforce sooner.

Each of these students graduated high school with an associate degree, setting them on a course for future success.

These Illinois students are living examples of what Dual Credit courses can do for individuals and school communities alike. Through our partnership with Vienna High School, Stand had a unique opportunity to hear directly from these students about their experiences in Dual Credit courses. What we heard was inspiring. I encourage you to watch for yourself. We’re seeing more and more that when districts commit to Dual Credit, great things can happen. And as we look to the future to set up more students for success in an ever-changing economic landscape, Dual Credit remains a significant accelerator to that success.

Dual Credit Community Survey

High School Success | 06/21/2022

Aimee Galvin Government Affairs Director

Illinois has made progress when it comes to the positive impacts made by Dual Credit courses. Demand for students continues to rise, and many districts across the state are seeing the benefits of forging strong partnerships with community colleges and local employers.

To help foster those partnerships and get a better understanding of what folks think about Dual Credit courses, we decided to ask them. Together with our partner organizations, we surveyed students, parents, educators, administrators, and professionals in the secondary and postsecondary fields to get their thoughts.

Over 1,000 individuals responded, giving us clear insight into the opinions of folks directly involved with Dual Credit. We learned a lot, and that information will help inform our advocacy for better policies moving forward.

97% of student respondents said they benefitted from participating in Dual Credit
73% of postsecondary respondents believe that colleges benefit from offering Dual Credit
83% of respondents said that Dual Credit courses are high quality and rigorous

One secondary faculty member said that, “[Dual Credit is] a win win! Students are challenged yet the amount of credit hours received are not based on one test like AP courses so if a student works hard and displays throughout the semester they are learning, they are rewarded.”

A parent of a Dual Credit student added, “My son has the opportunity to dive into Engineering before he gets into college. This is invaluable!”

You can see more input like this in our Survey Briefs. They provide data and feedback from the Dual Credit community, as well as suggestions for improving Dual Credit programs in classrooms across Illinois.

We hope you’ll dive into the results and learn how all of us can continue building on the progress we’ve made for improving Dual Credit outcomes.

Get the full details in the survey briefs: