What the FOIA Revealed
On November 14, 2025, I submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to Oak Park Elementary School District 97. I asked for records related to the acceleration rubric—specifically, the research supporting its thresholds, documentation of how decisions are made, and data on how consistently the process is applied.
On December 15, 2025, the district responded.
Here’s what the documents show.
Finding 1: No Research Basis Exists
I asked for validation research, longitudinal studies, or any data supporting the rubric’s percentile thresholds.
The district’s response:
“The District has no responsive records other than the Illinois State Board of Education’s publicly available guidance document.”
The 92nd percentile threshold that awards zero points, the 98th percentile threshold that awards full points, the 80% total score cutoff—none of these have documented research supporting them.
Illinois law (105 ILCS 5/14A-32) requires acceleration procedures to be based on “successful research on effective practices.” The district has no records showing compliance with this requirement.
Finding 2: No Documentation of Why Thresholds Were Chosen
I asked for records explaining why specific percentile cutoffs were selected.
The district’s response:
“To the extent your request seeks an explanation of why certain thresholds were chosen or how specific decisions were reached, the District has no other responsive records reflecting the District’s discussions and work on these matters.”
The district cannot explain why 92nd percentile earns zero points while 93rd percentile earns one point. There is no documented rationale.
Finding 3: Students Are Approved Below the 80% Threshold
The responsive documents included a spreadsheet of acceleration decisions from the current school year (SY25). The data shows:
| Rubric Score | Percentage | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| 30/46 | 65% | Approved |
| 31/46 | 67% | Approved - “Spoke with MTSS team and they made this determination” |
| 34/46 | 74% | Approved - “Spoke with MTSS team and they made this determination” |
| 36/46 | 78% | Approved |
| 37/46 | 80% | Approved |
The 80% threshold is not a hard requirement. MTSS teams exercise discretion to approve students well below it.
My daughter scored 29/46 (63%). She was denied. No MTSS discretionary review is noted in her case.
Finding 4: The District Does Not Track Application Statistics
I asked for data on how many families apply for acceleration versus how many are approved.
The district’s response:
“Please be advised that the District does not maintain statistics related to acceleration applications.”
The district cannot analyze equity in its own acceleration process because it doesn’t track the data.
Finding 5: No Written Plans for Rubric Updates
Since September 2025, district officials have stated that rubrics are being updated due to a new assessment platform. I asked for documentation of this process.
The district’s response:
“Although the District anticipates that this work will occur during the current school year, the District has no written documents reflecting that development process or other records responsive to this part of your request.”
There is no timeline. There are no milestones. There are no stakeholder engagement plans. The district’s website still displays the old rubrics referencing MAP and AimsWeb assessments that are no longer in use.
Finding 6: Demographic-Based Criteria
The responsive documents included slides from a January 2025 MTSS meeting. One slide, marked “NEW!!”, shows different percentile thresholds for different groups:
For “Access to Algebra” recommendations:
“Students who are scoring over the 74%ile”
- Black or Brown
- Female
- Free/Reduced Lunch Status
For general “Acceleration” recommendations:
“Students who are scoring above the 95%ile consistently”
The district applies different percentile standards to different demographic groups.
Finding 7: The ISBE Email Exchange
The responsive documents included an email exchange between the Director of Teaching and Learning and ISBE, dated September 3, 2025—the same day my appeal was denied.
The director wrote to ISBE:
“We have a parent that is focused on this language… and believes this to mean that they get to be part of the final decision in whether their child qualifies for acceleration or not.”
ISBE responded:
“The intent of the statute is not to grant parents the final decision-making authority, but rather to ensure they are informed and engaged throughout the process. Their involvement is meant to promote transparency and collaboration.”
I never requested “final decision-making authority.” I requested meaningful participation in the process—which is exactly what ISBE said parents should have.
Finding 8: No Parents Have Attended MTSS Acceleration Meetings
I asked for records of any instance where a parent attended an MTSS meeting for an acceleration decision.
The district’s response:
“After conducting a review of its records, the District determined that it has no records responsive to this part of your request.”
The district’s published policy states that the MTSS team “may be comprised of… a family or legal guardian.” This has apparently never happened for acceleration decisions.
Finding 9: “Unduly Burdensome” Designations
The district declined to produce certain records, claiming searches would be “unduly burdensome”:
- Communications regarding validation methodology
- Communications regarding rubric revisions and percentile cutoffs
- Internal analysis regarding equity concerns
- Additional ISBE communications
The district’s justification:
“Each of these searches, even when limited to individuals that the District anticipates would be most likely to have responsive records, yielded more than 1,000 pages of potentially responsive material.”
If there are over 1,000 pages of communications about equity concerns in the acceleration process, those communications exist. The district chose not to produce them.
The Documents
The full FOIA response consists of:
- Response Letter (8 pages) - The district’s formal response organized by category
- Responsive Documents (25 pages) - Including MTSS meeting slides, acceleration data, and the ISBE email exchange
What Happens Next
The district has offered to meet on January 8, 2026 to “discuss the information you are seeking.”
I have 60 days from the FOIA response (until February 13, 2026) to file a complaint with the Illinois Public Access Counselor regarding the “unduly burdensome” designations.
The statutory violation—acceleration procedures without research basis—can be raised with the Illinois State Board of Education.
This post presents the contents of public records obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request. All quotes are from the district’s December 15, 2025 FOIA response or the responsive documents provided.