MO education commissioner Karla Eslinger outlines her top priorities for coming year – Springfield News-Leader

Report on the Strategic Priorities of the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

Executive Summary

This report outlines the strategic priorities for the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE), as presented by Commissioner of Education Karla Eslinger. The Commissioner’s agenda for her second year emphasizes data-driven decision-making, enhanced institutional capacity, and targeted support for educational improvement. These priorities demonstrate a strong alignment with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions), and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

Commissioner’s Eight Strategic Focus Areas

Commissioner Eslinger has identified eight key priorities designed to improve the operational efficiency of DESE and advance the state’s strategic education plan. These priorities are foundational to achieving the vision of making Missouri a national leader in academic performance.

1. Development of a dedicated data analytics team to improve the quality and accessibility of educational data for policy and progress measurement.
2. Enhancement of internal and external communication strategies.
3. Cultivation and development of the department’s leadership team.
4. Strengthening relationships with all educational stakeholders, including families and communities.
5. Provision of increased, structured support for districts with low academic performance.
6. Completion of executive orders issued by the Governor’s office.
7. Responsive adaptation to changes from the U.S. Department of Education.
8. Review of state expectations concerning grade-level equivalency.

Alignment with Sustainable Development Goal 4: Quality Education

The Commissioner’s agenda is fundamentally anchored in the principles of SDG 4, which aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.

• Target 4.1 (Quality Primary and Secondary Education): The overarching goal to become number one in the nation for academic performance and the specific focus on success-ready students directly contribute to this target. The plan to support low-performing districts is a key strategy to ensure equitable quality across the state.
• Target 4.c (Qualified Teachers): The state’s strategic plan, which informs these priorities, includes a focus on educator recruitment and retention, a critical component for delivering quality education.

Addressing SDG 10 and SDG 16: Reduced Inequalities and Strong Institutions

The plan incorporates strategies that directly address inequality in educational outcomes and aim to build more effective and accountable public institutions.

• SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): By shifting from a punitive to a supportive model for struggling districts, DESE aims to reduce disparities in educational achievement. This tactical change provides targeted assistance to schools needing it most, fostering equal opportunity for all students.
• SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions): The primary focus on building a robust data analytics system is a direct investment in creating a more effective, accountable, and transparent institution. High-quality data enables evidence-based policymaking and allows for clear measurement of progress, strengthening DESE’s governance.

Fostering SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

The Commissioner’s plan recognizes that educational success cannot be achieved in isolation and emphasizes multi-stakeholder collaboration.

• SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals): A stated priority is to build stronger relationships with a wide range of stakeholders, including schools, educators, families, and community members. Improving communication to be a “two-way street” that seeks meaningful feedback is essential for building the trust and collaborative partnerships needed to achieve shared educational goals.

Implementation and Monitoring

Commissioner Eslinger will provide regular progress updates on these focus areas to the state Board of Education. The implementation strategy includes new leadership appointments, such as a Chief of Staff and a new communications official, tasked with developing and executing plans to meet these objectives. This structured approach ensures accountability and sustained momentum toward achieving a more efficient, equitable, and high-performing educational system in Missouri.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 4: Quality Education

  This is the central theme of the article. The entire text focuses on the plans of Missouri’s Commissioner of Education to improve the state’s education system. This includes enhancing academic performance, supporting students and educators, and ensuring high-quality programs. The commissioner’s vision “for all students to have high quality programs and for us to be No. 1 in the nation when it comes to academic performance” directly aligns with the core mission of SDG 4.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The article addresses educational disparities by highlighting a key focus area: offering “more support to districts with low academic performance.” The shift from a “punitive” approach to providing “structured support” for struggling districts aims to reduce the inequality in educational outcomes between high-performing and low-performing areas, ensuring students in struggling districts are not left behind.

• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

  The article emphasizes collaboration and data-driven policy, which are key components of SDG 17. The commissioner’s plan includes “building relationships with stakeholders,” “family and community engagement,” and improving two-way communication. Furthermore, the top priority of building a “dedicated team to focus on data analytics” to “measure progress and inform policy decisions” directly relates to strengthening the means of implementation and monitoring progress, a cornerstone of SDG 17.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. SDG 4: Quality Education

   • Target 4.1: By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education. The article connects to this target through its focus on improving “academic performance” across the state, reviewing “grade-level equivalency,” and ensuring “all students to have high quality programs.”
   • Target 4.2: By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys have access to quality early childhood development, care and pre-primary education. This is explicitly mentioned as part of the state’s strategic plan, which includes “early learning.”
   • Target 4.4: By 2030, substantially increase the number of youth and adults who have relevant skills, including technical and vocational skills, for employment, decent jobs and entrepreneurship. The strategic plan directly addresses this by including “workforce development” and creating “success-ready students.”
   • Target 4.c: By 2030, substantially increase the supply of qualified teachers. The article mentions that the strategic plan includes “educator recruitment and retention” as a key component.

2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status. The article’s focus on providing targeted support to “districts struggling with low achievement” so they can “better serve their students and make positive gains” is a direct effort to reduce educational inequality based on geographic location and local district performance.

3. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

   • Target 17.17: Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships. The commissioner’s plan to improve communication, seek “meaningful feedback from a wide range of stakeholders,” and build “relationships with schools, educators, and families” directly supports this target.
   • Target 17.18: By 2020, enhance capacity-building support to developing countries, including for least developed countries and small island developing States, to increase significantly the availability of high-quality, timely and reliable data disaggregated by income, gender, age, race, ethnicity, migratory status, disability, geographic location and other characteristics relevant in national contexts. While Missouri is not a developing country, the principle of this target is central to the article. The commissioner’s top priority is to improve the state’s capacity to “quickly analyze high quality data about public education” to “measure progress and inform policy decisions.”

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. For SDG 4 (Quality Education)

   • Indicator for Target 4.1: The article implies several indicators, including data on “how are kids performing,” state rankings in “academic performance,” and metrics related to “grade-level equivalency.” A specific indicator mentioned is the “Missouri report card” which shows the percentage of districts that “meet expectations.”
   • Indicator for Target 4.c: Progress on “educator recruitment and retention” would be measured by tracking the rates of teacher hiring, turnover, and retention across the state’s school districts.

2. For SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

   • Indicator for Target 10.2: The key indicator is the performance data of “districts struggling with low achievement.” Progress would be measured by tracking whether these districts “make positive gains” over time after receiving structured support from the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE).

3. For SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals)

   • Indicator for Target 17.18: The primary indicator is the operational capacity of the state’s data systems. Progress can be measured by the ability of the new data analytics team to “be much, much better and much more efficient in our data system” and to “answer questions about how are kids performing” in a timely manner.
   • Indicator for Target 17.17: Progress can be measured through the development and implementation of the new communications plan and the establishment of mechanisms for “seeking meaningful feedback from a wide range of stakeholders.”

4. SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Table

Source: news-leader.com