LM Sept. 2018

6 / 27

6
Framework...cont’d.
Dr. Lori James-Gross, superintendent of Unity Point CCSD
#140, co-authored this article with Schmidt.
But first, here’s some background on the Quality Framework.
Also, check out this
What is theQualityFramework?
The Framework, along with its associated rubric, was
developed by the Illinois Balanced Accountability Model
committee, who recognized that the most critical purpose
of educational systems is to continuously drive and create
improvement so that ALL learners can succeed.
The Framework provides schools across Illinois with a
common language for school improvement. The components
and associated rubric allow school leaders to focus on best
practices that will have a positive impact on their school
environments.
It includes seven standards, along with purpose-setting
questions and indicators, to determine if schools are meeting
benchmarks. The indicators are:
I Continuous Improvement
II Culture and Climate
III Shared Leadership
IV Governance, Management and Operations
V Educator and Employee Quality
VI Family and Community Engagement
VII Student and Learning Development
Simply put, the Quality Framework is a student-improvement
plan that school districts can use to effectively develop a
systems approach to monitoring, measuring and improving
the changing conditions that impact student performance.
By Julie Schmidt
Superintendent, Kildeer Countryside CCSD #96
and
Dr. Lori James-Gross
Superintendent of Unity Point CCSD #140
During the 2017–18 school year, Kildeer Countryside CCSD
#96 implemented the Quality Framework. Here’s a step-by-
step account look at how Kildeer launched this initiative.
Step1: IdentifyParticipants
We began our process by examining each Standard and
Indicator to determine who needed to be around the table
in order to gather all of the evidence needed to determine
the first steps. We believed it would be very difficult for a
team comprised only of school-based people to deeply
and accurately self-assess particular indicators, let alone
determine current levels of performance. For example,
indicators in Standard IV, Governance, Management and
Operations, frequently refer to work that the superintendent
and board of education do together or collaborate on. An
exemplary level of performance on Indicator C of Standard
IV states that “evidence suggests that the school board and
superintendent frequently work together and communicate
frequently to monitor the implementation of a systematic
continuous improvement process.” Artifacts and evidence
gathered to help determine current reality were items that
building level leaders and participants may, or more likely
may not, be aware of or have access to depending on the
culture and size of the school district. Some examples of
artifacts provided in this particular process included a Board
of Education Benchmarking presentation, a student growth
report, the district goal setting and monitoring process
from the Board to teacher teams and students, and the
annual State of the District Report. District-level input and
participation was critical in order to access, understand and
provide these items. Participants were identified for each
Standard before moving on to the next step.
Step2: CreateaMeetingSchedule
The next step was to prepare a meeting schedule by
Standard, including inviting to each meeting those who were
pertinent to the Standard being examined. For example, the
Assistant Superintendent for Business Services may need
to be present when examining Standard IV (Governance,
Management, and Operations) but not when focusing on
Standard I (Continuous Improvement). Two meetings were
scheduled for each standard and standards were combined
for some meetings if the participants were the same. The two
rounds of meetings were scheduled four weeks apart given
the timeframe of the pilot. One final meeting that included
the entire group was then scheduled in order to finalize and
summarize our work.
Step3: IdentifyEvidence
The Quality Framework was downloaded into Google Docs
and a column was added to the document at the far-right
hand side. This column was titled “Evidence/Data.” (see
Figure 1)
The first meeting focused on two standards that included the
same participants. Participants first examined the “Purpose
Setting Questions” to gain clarity on what the standard was