Illinois State Superintendent Tony Sanders answered my questions Tuesday. One sentence in his response deserves a much larger public conversation.
“I have never contended that accountability systems improve instruction or student outcomes.”
That's what he wrote when I asked how the Illinois State Board of Education determines whether its assessment and accountability systems improve children's education rather than simply produce more data.
He didn't stop there. Sanders said the state's recently revamped accountability system should give schools better information to drive improvement. His distinction matters: he did not say accountability has been proved ineffective. He said he has never claimed the system itself improves instruction or outcomes, while expressing confidence that better information can help schools improve.
Fine. Then let's ask the next question: What would count as evidence that the system is working?
Illinois measures and classifies schools. Districts make plans, review results, and respond to accountability requirements. Teachers and administrators spend time collecting, interpreting, and responding to data. If these processes are supposed to help children, we should be able to say which outcomes we expect to improve, what evidence would demonstrate improvement, and how much the system costs in money and professional time.
Sanders also said decisions about curriculum, instructional methods, pacing, local assessments, PLC time, and most professional development are made locally. On one level, that's an important clarification. State law and federal requirements establish certain assessments and accountability obligations; districts and schools make many day-to-day instructional choices.
But those two levels of authority interact. A district can select its curriculum while still being judged under statewide measures. The fact that a choice is formally local does not answer how state performance designations, assessment requirements, and incentives influence it.
That's the distinction I want to investigate across Lake County: who has authority to choose, who sets the measures of success, and what evidence shows a choice helped students?
I also invited Sanders to a recorded interview. He declined. His email concluded: “I will not sit down for an interview nor will I engage further beyond the responses provided above.”
He was not required to accept an interview. He did provide written answers to all five questions and copied State Board Chair Steven Isoye. Those facts belong in the record alongside his decision not to continue the exchange.
I spent 22 years working in public education, including 14 in administration. I am also a parent of three children in public schools. I don't think asking how the accountability system benefits children is an unreasonable question.
This isn't about proving every district or every state policy wrong. It's about identifying the actual decision-maker, the rationale, the cost, the evidence, and the consequences for children. If the state has strong evidence that its redesigned system helps schools improve, I want to see it. If a district can explain why its approach works, I'll report that too.
The Pope Report will continue asking these questions, reviewing public records, and publishing responses accurately.
Follow the investigation for free: https://pope-studios.com
Send documents or tips: https://pope-studios.com/tips
Read It All Falls on the Kid: https://amzn.to/4tbzYKP
