Summary:
Elementary schools in Palos Heights School District 128 comprise three schools serving 594 students from prekindergarten through grade 5: Chippewa Elementary School serves grades 1–3, Indian Hill serves prekindergarten–kindergarten, and Navajo Heights Elementary School serves grades 4–5. In 2025–26, the two schools with test results were above state averages in all-grade ELA and math: Chippewa scored 76% and 77%, while Navajo scored 68% and 48%; state results were 56% and 40%. The most important area-wide signal is that both tested schools lost ground relative to the state in ELA from 2024–25 to 2025–26, despite remaining above state averages overall.
The strongest reported grade-specific results were at Navajo in fourth-grade ELA, where 86% were proficient—31 percentage points above the state—and at Chippewa in third grade, with 76% in ELA and 77% in math, respectively 28 points above the state in each subject. Navajo’s fifth-grade ELA result was the weakest relative to its grade’s state result: 51%, 4 points below the state’s 55%; its fifth-grade math score was 38%, 2 points above the state. Navajo fifth-grade science was essentially level with the state at 48% versus 48%. Since the schools serve different grades, these are grade-to-state comparisons, not like-grade school rankings; no test results are supplied for Indian Hill.
Results changed unevenly: Chippewa’s ELA and math scores fell by 3 and 8 points, while its state leads narrowed by 6 and 9 points. Navajo’s scores rose by 1 point in ELA and 3 in math; its ELA lead narrowed by 2 points, while its math lead widened by 2. Navajo’s fifth-grade science lead also narrowed, from 9 points in 2024–25 to nearly level in 2025–26. SchoolDigger gave Navajo four stars and a rank of 558 of 2,067 in 2023–24, then three stars and a rank of 714 of 1,737 in 2025–26. Student-teacher ratios were 13.0 at Chippewa, 16.4 at Indian Hill, and 13.4 at Navajo. All reported the same low-income measure, free/reduced lunch eligible, for 2021–22: 16%, 8%, and 5%, respectively; these figures provide context, not an explanation of results.
Thank you for your feedback!