Aurora Public Schools

In spring 2007, in the interest of continuing transformation and increasing student achievement, AEA and APS bargaining teams agreed to create a joint Pilot Schools Study Group. This group, made up of the AEA president, APS deputy superintendent, a classified staff member, licensed teachers and principals, learned much about existing Pilot Schools in the U.S.

• Read the Pilot Schools Study Group Response to Charge.
• View the slideshow presentation. (optimized for Internet Explorer)
  (or Download the pdf)
• View a list of the Pilot Schools Study Group Members.

Study Group Response to Charge

INTRODUCTION

Two years ago, Aurora Education Association President Brenna Isaacs and AEA UniServ Director Frank O’Hara introduced an innovative model-- pilot schools-- as a way to increase teacher leadership in Aurora Public Schools.  Based on a model developed in the Boston Public School District and more recently in the Los Angeles Unified School District, AEA started a conversation about the feasibility of Pilot Schools as an effective vehicle for school reform in APS.

In 2006 the APS community, including members of AEA and the Classified Employee Council, parents, students, business leaders and elected officials, provided feedback and support for VISTA 2010 and VISTA 2015, the bold and courageous strategic plan unanimously adopted by the APS Board of Education. Currently, thousands of APS teachers, classified staff members and administrators work hard to implement the transformational goals of VISTA 2010 and VISTA 2015.

AEA leadership understood that the innovative Pilot School structure could, like VISTA 2010 and VISTA 2015, become a positive tool for reform and transformation. In spring 2007, in the interest of continuing transformation and increasing student achievement, AEA and APS bargaining teams agreed to create a joint Pilot Schools Study Group. This group, made up of the AEA president, APS deputy superintendent, a classified staff member, licensed teachers and principals, learned much about existing Pilot Schools in the U.S. Here is a summary of what the group discovered:

1. The purpose of Pilot Schools is to promote educational innovation and increase student success and achievement while offering a choice to teachers and parents.
2. The goal of Pilot Schools is simple: provide schools with autonomy and maximum control over their resources in exchange for increased accountability. The anticipated outcome is increased student achievement. Pilot Schools are given more freedom but, in return, their students are expected to attain higher levels of student achievement that exceed district averages. Pilot Schools are free from some constraints in order to be more innovative, empower teachers and engage the community. Pilot Schools are exempt from most district policies and are exempt from most work rules defined by the negotiated agreement. (Teachers are entitled to the same salary and benefits as other teachers in the district and retain their seniority and transfer rights.) Pilot Schools have collaborative cultures that support staff and administration working together to best meet the needs of students and families of each school.

The Aurora Public Schools and the Aurora Education Association charged the study group to explore the possibility of APS becoming a “Pilot School District,” which would build on VISTA 2010 by providing additional support and encouragement for increasing student achievement. The experience of other school districts, like Boston Public Schools, has proven that the opportunity for schools to be more autonomous and self-directed has led to powerful, successful school reform resulting in increased academic performance and more student engagement in school.

By encouraging ownership of the school by staff and families and by engaging the community, the educational and learning environment of Pilot Schools in APS could be optimized by choices offered to staff and parents.  In addition, Pilot Schools can provide models of educational excellence to foster educational reform throughout Aurora Public Schools.  By offering increased choice and more options within the district, some parents may not feel compelled to seek outside charters or private schools to meet the needs of their students.

The study group charge was to explore and investigate the possible implementation of a Pilot School structure for the Aurora Public Schools on or after August 2008.  The study group was asked to clarify impacts and recommend parameters for possible Pilot School implementation in Aurora Public Schools. In a formal letter of commitment and charge for action, dated June 5, 2007, and signed by the Board of Education president, the Aurora Education Association president and the superintendent of schools, the study group charge was to:

1. Create an exploratory study group for Pilot Schools comprised of the Aurora Education Association president, the deputy superintendent, four classroom teachers (one specialist, one elementary, one middle and one high school), one classified staff (president, CEC), and four administrators (two elementary, one middle and one high school) appointed by the respective entities to begin work in June 2007 and provide a progress report to the Board of Education, the Aurora Education Association Board and the district and association bargaining teams by October 1, 2007.  The study group will be professionally facilitated.
2. Identify impacts and develop recommendations for parameters for the teacher contract (what is flexible and what are givens) related but not limited to autonomy, governance, budget and accountability guidelines for schools, flexibility for instructional approaches designed to meet student needs, process for becoming Pilot Schools and teacher involvement in the design and implementation models.
3. Connect with Center for Collaborative Education as a resource.
4. Begin discussions in the broader community of Aurora and metro area to identify potential outside supports and networks for Pilot Schools.
5. Engage sites to encourage and enroll those interested in becoming Pilot Schools.

The eleven-member study group began meeting in June and over the course of three months developed the following response to charge.

RESPONSE TO CHARGE

Overview
The Pilot Schools Study Group (click here to view the members of the study group) supports these recommendations in full.  Because of the importance of maintaining essential features and honoring the structure of Pilot Schools, the study group urges these recommendations be considered as a whole if a Pilot School model is adopted in the Aurora Public Schools.  Care should be taken not to weaken the intent and purpose of the Pilot School model.

Before adoption of Pilot Schools in APS, the findings and recommendations of the Pilot School Study Group will be presented district-wide and must receive endorsement from the AEA membership and the APS Board of Education.

Pilot Schools would be a part of the larger district but would share common features that would make them unique.  As stated, the purpose of Pilot Schools is to promote educational innovation and increase student success and achievement while offering choice to teachers and parents.  Pilot Schools are granted the flexibility to be free from most district policies, such as calendar configuration, schedule, textbook selection, instructional guidelines and district professional development.  Likewise, Pilot Schools are not subject to the teacher contract except in the basic areas of salary and benefits, district seniority rights, normal rights of transfer and any special provisions added into the contract as specific agreements and guidelines for Pilot Schools. As a result, if implemented in APS, teachers (and other staff) would choose (elect) to work at any Pilot School.  No existing school would be allowed to convert to a Pilot School without support of 66 percent (two-thirds) of the licensed staff.  Classified staff and parents would also be given opportunities to provide support for conversion to a Pilot School.

Specific contract language to support Pilot Schools must be developed through negotiations, ratified by APS and AEA membership and approved by the Board of Education.

A Joint Steering Committee (JSC) would be established to oversee and support Pilot Schools.  The study group recommends the JSC membership include:  the Aurora Education Association president and an AEA designee, the superintendent (or designee), a district-level representative from the Division of Instruction, three teachers selected by AEA, three administrators selected by School Executives of Aurora and one classified representative selected by the Classified Employee Council. The JSC would be able to request liaisons to join on an as-needed basis to provide relevant expertise.

The Joint Steering Committee would be responsible for monitoring the application process, reviewing requests and making recommendations to the Board of Education for final approval for a school to become a Pilot site. The JSC would need to approve an application by a two-thirds majority.

The JSC would ensure support and guidance through the entire process leading to requests and approval.  Once the JSC would approve a school’s application, the JSC would coordinate implementation, monitor budget agreements, provide support and serve as a liaison between Pilot Schools and the district.  The JSC would also be involved in the accountability process to monitor the ongoing success of Pilot Schools.  The JSC would also oversee Pilot Schools to ensure they are preparing students for state mandated tests such as CSAP and ACT as well as participating in a school review process to ensure that yearly benchmarks each school has set for increased student performance are met.  If adopted in APS, by year three, each Pilot School’s state scores would be expected to exceed district averages.

Essential Features of Pilot Schools
Using The Essential Guide to Pilot Schools developed by the Center for Collaborative Education as well as information from the Boston Teachers Union, the Los Angeles Public Schools and the Zone of Choice Belmont Schools, the following is recommended for Pilot Schools in Aurora Public Schools.

The study group supports and recommends that all Pilot Schools, if adopted, implement the following four essential features that would be needed to ensure success, or SAGE:  Small Size, Accountability, Governing Autonomy and Equity.

1. Small Size
   Small size is a key feature of Pilot Schools.  Pilot Schools make the commitment not to exceed 500 students or the program capacity of the school in order to foster a nurturing environment where staff can meet the learning needs of every student.  The schools must have a unifying vision with a clear mission and hold themselves accountable for success.  There should be a personalized learning environment for students.  The goal is to ensure low student-to-classroom teacher ratios that take into account the actual teacher load.  There should be staff collaboration in planning and a collaborative culture that includes staff, families, community and students (when age appropriate).

    

2. Accountability
   Pilot Schools are held to higher levels of accountability in exchange for increased autonomy.  The accountability requires both internal and external reviews.  Pilot Schools are expected to exceed district averages in achievement and show growth toward higher levels of student engagement in areas of attendance, reduction in mobility, fewer discipline concerns, and (for high school) increase in graduation rates as well as an increase in college enrollment or postsecondary career training.

   Each Pilot School will identify yearly benchmarks to review to demonstrate progress. Every three years the school participates in a School Quality Review (SQR) that has common benchmarks for all Pilot Schools.  In a SQR process:

• The school completes a self-study and develops a portfolio with a focus on the following criteria for high-performing schools: vision, student outcomes, leadership and governance, teaching and learning, professional development, family and community engagement.
• An external SQR team, comprised of four to six members, may include a cross-section of community representatives as well as staff from APS, AEA, and staff from other districts.  The team spends three days at the school and develops a written response that outlines areas of success and areas to address with recommendations.
• The school develops a response to the SQR report.
• The SQR report and the school’s response to the report are submitted to the Joint Steering Committee.
• The Joint Steering Committee provides feedback to the SQR report and the school’s response.
• The school develops action plans for improvement based on the SQR report, the school’s response and feedback from the Joint Steering Committee.

  The SQR should be coordinated with state-mandated accountability and replace it.

1. Governing Autonomy
   Schools must have maximum control over key areas if they are to create innovative education programs but, in return, must accept increased accountability.  Expected results include higher levels of student engagement and academic performance that exceeds district averages.  All Pilot Schools are granted autonomy for staffing, budget, curriculum and assessment, professional development, governance and schedule for students and staff.  Each of these autonomous areas is interrelated, is critical to the success of Pilot Schools and must be considered as a whole.  Pilot Schools utilize shared decision making.  Although they must follow state and federal laws, they have the ability to be flexible about how staff is employed and how the daily and yearly calendar and schedule for students and staff are constructed.  The schools would be expected to follow the required minimum number of work days for staff but may organize those days to fit their vision and mission.  If staff works more than the number of days set by the district, they do so as outlined in the Annual Election-to-Work Agreement (View a sample of the agreement).

   Recommendations for specific areas of autonomy are:

1. Governance of Pilot Schools:

• Through shared decision making, schools are given the freedom to best meet the needs of their students within a structure that realizes the agreed upon vision and mission of the school.
• Each school must have a Governing Board.  The Governing Board creates its own governance structure using shared decision making.  It has power over principal selection and evaluation (with final approval by the superintendent).
• Governing Boards must take into account state requirements, including CSAP and ACT, Safe Schools legislation and school accountability requirements.
• The Governing Board must have a minimum of 12 members comprised of the principal, four teachers minimum (50 percent must be AEA members) selected by their peers, at least one classified representative chosen by peers, a minimum of four parents selected by parents and at least two community members selected by the Governing Board.This configuration maintains a balance among staff, parents and the community.  By ensuring AEA membership on the Governing Board, there is a confirmed link between the Association and the Pilot School.  This is important to maintain since Pilot Schools are a result of the collaboration between the Aurora Public Schools and the Aurora Education Association.
• The Governing Board will meet the requirements required by the state for school accountability committees.
• The Governing Board has the authority to make all final decisions for educational and operational policies at the school within the agreed upon school vision.
• The Governing Board must approve the annual budget.
• The Governing Board ensures adherence to agreed upon guidelines for working conditions (within the Annual Election-to-Work Agreement) that include time worked and rights and responsibilities of staff.  The school’s Annual Election-to-Work Agreement must be collaboratively developed and must be supported by two-thirds of licensed staff within the school.
• Using a shared decision making model, the Governing Board makes decisions relating to program, school enrollment, class size, schedule, length of school day and school year, and the amount and type of required professional development for teachers at the school needed to fulfill the vision and mission.
• The Governing Board is responsible for ensuring the school has procedures in place to help students be successful.

1. Staffing

• Any staff, licensed or classified, must choose to work at a Pilot School.  Assignments are on a year-to-year basis.
• Pilot Schools have the freedom to hire and release their staff (including the principal) annually in order to ensure a unified school community that supports the vision and mission of the school.    Teachers must play a significant role in the staffing process although staffing decisions ultimately rest with the principal who retains the final authority.
• The Annual Election-to-Work Agreement, outlining working conditions at the school and approved by two-thirds of licensed staff, identifies time lines for transfers and hiring to allow affected teachers who may not be staying at the school ample opportunity to make an informed decision when deciding where to apply for transfer within the district.  They maintain the same transfer rights as any other teacher in the district.  (View the proposed format for Annual Election-to-Work Agreement)
• Staff at a Pilot School who are not a match to the vision and mission can be required to transfer.  Staff who elect to transfer because they do not want to be part of the Pilot School, or those who are asked to transfer when a position is converted or eliminated to support the school’s vision and mission, retain the same transfer rights as any other staff in the district.
• The Governing Board is responsible for hiring and evaluating the principal. The final authority is with the superintendent.  When the Governing Board recommends a principal for hire, it will submit one name to the superintendent.  Should that name not be accepted, the Governing Board will submit another name until agreement is reached.
• The principal is responsible for evaluating staff using the district approved process for regular or alternative evaluations.  The school could agree to an additional evaluation such as a peer evaluation process as long as it is in addition to the district-approved evaluation and is identified in the Annual Election-to-Work Agreement.  This applies to both licensed and classified staff.
• Pilot School principals can recommend termination of any employee for unsatisfactory evaluation or just cause but they must use the district approved evaluation process to ensure due process.
• Assignment of each staff member at Pilot Schools is on a year-to-year basis (there is no job security at the site, but staff retain seniority and transfer rights within the district).
• The staffing plan is based on student needs and staff must be hired and retained to support the vision and mission of the school.

1. Budget

• Pilot Schools receive the same funding as other comparable schools within the district but also have access to identified discretionary income for district services which the Pilot Schools may or may not decide to access.
• Pilot Schools receive their funding as a lump sum based on the per pupil budget in accordance with equivalent budgets as other district schools with similar enrollment and grade span.  This budget includes salaries and all other specified discretionary funds. The lump sum can be used as dictated by the school’s vision and mission.
• Enrollment projections will be confirmed by December of the prior school year.  Budgets will be calculated based on these enrollment projections.  If projections come in over or under projections, there will be a one-time adjustment based on an agreed upon formula. 
• Pilot Schools will determine how to allocate funds for staffing and scheduling decisions to realize their vision and mission of improved student learning.
• Funds for staff are based upon the district average teacher salary, but the school spends on the actual salary of each teacher.  Benefits are non-discretionary.  Staffing that reflects a balance of experience and diversity is highly encouraged.
• Central office discretionary line items that Pilot Schools can choose to purchase or not purchase are still under consideration. Discretionary line items may include, but are not limited to:

• • • Substitutes
    • Textbooks
    • Athletics
    • Instructional coaches
    • ELA services
    • Career and Technical Education
    • Curriculum and Instruction
    • Professional development
    • Gifted and Talented
    • Library media services
    • Instructional technology and training

• Maintenance and operations and other areas not included will initially be fixed costs, but, in the future, the school could petition the Joint Steering Committee for services they would like added to the discretionary list.
• Pilot Schools are expected to spend within their budget.
• Pilot Schools receive their fair portion of district grants if they agree to adopt the initiative.
• Outside sources of funding from grants, partnerships and foundations should be aggressively pursued to supplement the budget.  Collaboration with Aurora Education Foundation is recommended.

1. Curriculum and Assessment

• Pilot Schools must have freedom to structure their curriculum and assessment practices to meet the learning needs of their students.  Schools have the flexibility to determine the school’s curriculum and assessment practices but they are held accountable for all federal and state mandated tests (e.g. CSAP, CELA and ACT). Pilot Schools are expected to determine how to best prepare students to take these mandated assessments.
• Pilot Schools do not have to follow the district curriculum requirements so that they may choose what content to cover and how to cover it.
• Pilot Schools can create or modify curriculum to fulfill each school’s mission but there must be a core curriculum for all students.
• Teachers have autonomy to work creatively on curriculum design.
• Students must demonstrate competency in a defined set of skills and content knowledge through a series of assessments as developed by the school.
• Schools are encouraged to create more personalized environments, including small class sizes, small teaching loads and small learning communities.
• Pilot Schools may set their own promotion and graduation credit requirements as long as they are equal to or more rigorous than the district’s requirements.
• The measurement emphasis should be on performance-based assessments.
• Pilot Schools must demonstrate sustained growth through years one and two and exceed district averages by year three.
• The school will select professional development to reflect the vision and mission of the school.

1. Schedule

• Pilot Schools must be in control of their time in order to restructure the day to meet the vision and mission of the school.
• In order to support school reform and increase student achievement, Pilot Schools must have the right to implement flexible schedules including different student days than those identified by the district and different calendar constructs for both staff and students.
• If bell times are different than those set by the district, the Pilot School must work with the Transportation Department to see if the changes can be accommodated.  Otherwise, the school would be charged for the associated cost of special bell times.
• Pilot Schools may want to consider longer instructional periods, more core academic time, significant amounts of collaborative planning time for faculty and/or increased time for professional development.
• Pilot Schools should ensure time for staff planning and professional development and organizing the school schedule to maximize learning time for students.  There should be flexibility within the school year for student learning and staff planning.
• Pilot Schools may have longer school days or a longer school year than the district only if agreed to in the school’s Annual Election-to-Work Agreement (View sample of agreement).

1. Equity
   Neighborhood Pilot Schools should reflect similar demographics as the neighborhoods they serve. In district-wide Pilot Schools, efforts should be made to enroll students who are representative of the district as a whole. This includes race/ethnicity, free or reduced lunch eligibility, mainstream special education and English language proficiency.  Pilot Schools must ensure success for all students with a vision and mission that expresses a focus on equity.  Pilot Schools may not screen based on student achievement.

NEGOTIATIONS

The Pilot School study group was also asked to identify any areas that might need to be answered as part of the negotiations between the Aurora Public Schools and the Aurora Education Association.  As a result, the following are presented for consideration.

1. Should there be any changes to the current transfer language to consider teachers in Pilot Schools who may self select/choose to transfer from the Pilot School as well as those whose positions are converted or eliminated to meet the vision and mission of the school?
2. Should there be a discussion and review of the costs for start-ups versus initial costs for converting to a Pilot School?
3. Under what, if any, conditions will teachers receive additional compensation if they work more hours or days than specified in the district contract, and how will that information be outlined in the Annual Election-to-Work Agreement?
4. What should the process be for dispute resolution at a Pilot School?
5. What are the implications for Pilot Schools in a Reduction in Force (RIF) situation?
6. Should the Pilot School contract language be discussed every year for the next three years in addition to compensation and the two articles?

SEQUENCE FOR BECOMING A PILOT SCHOOL

The study group recommends three types of Pilot Schools:

1. Conversion schools: These would be existing APS schools, including existing charter schools, which choose to become Pilot Schools. APS schools would become Pilots through a two-thirds majority vote of licensed staff. All licensed staff members who work more than 50 percent of their week at the school will be eligible to vote. The school should seek support for conversion from both the school’s accountability committee and classified staff. The conversion school may not exceed 500 students. The proposal will be submitted to the Joint Steering Committee for review which issues a recommendation to the Board of Education for approval. There are no extra operating funds provided to conversion schools from the district.
2. New, start-up schools: New schools may form a design team of APS staff and parents to submit a proposal to the Joint Steering Committee. Start-up schools developed through the pilot process would receive the same allocation for furniture, computers, supplies as any new school within the district and the first year would also receive a district start-up budget based on a per pupil formula.
3. Conversion of a separate school within the same facility:If a large school has a significant number of staff who are interested in becoming a Pilot School, they may be able to convert part of an existing facility to a Pilot School. This allows existing schools that do not fit within the small size guidelines of 500 students to create a Pilot School at the site as long as they have the support of two-thirds of licensed staff who work more than 50 percent of their week at the school. This would create another school within the same facility. Each school would have its own faculty and budget with different programmatic focus. There would be two or more distinct schools sharing a facility.

Now that the Board of Education and the Aurora Education Association Board have agreed to proceed and the AEA/APS negotiated agreement is in place, information will be provided throughout the district and community. Then information sessions will be scheduled for interested schools to attend. It is anticipated that most schools applying initially will be existing schools in APS that seek conversion status. The general process will be:

1. A letter of intent will be submitted to confirm interest to pursue Pilot School status. Each interested school will form a core design team that includes the principal and staff as well as interested parents and community members to begin developing a vision and mission focusing on student success.
2. The Joint Steering Committee will receive the letters of intent and will assign a liaison to work with the interested school to provide technical assistance and support to the design team.
3. The Joint Steering Committee will offer training and support for all schools who have submitted a letter of intent to ensure a clear understanding of autonomy, a clear awareness of what must be in place instructionally and the opportunity to draft a proposal to become a Pilot School.
4. Once the proposal is drafted, the design team and its liaison will work with the entire staff and the school accountability committee to move toward the approval process. During this time, the draft proposal would be finalized.
5. To move forward, the proposal must be voted on and will require approval from two-thirds of the licensed staff who work more than 50 percent of their week at the school. Classified staff and the school accountability committee will be asked to submit a recommendation to the design team to present to licensed staff prior to voting by the licensed staff.
6. The final proposal will be submitted to the Joint Steering Committee. The Joint Steering Committee will review the final proposal and will: (a) forward to the Board of Education for approval, (b) return to the design team with feedback and recommendations for re-submitting at another date or (c) deny the proposal. The JSC will have to approve an application by a two-thirds majority.
7. The Board of Education will make the final decision on allowing the school to become a Pilot School.

Note: This process could take from three months to a year depending upon the readiness of the school to envision and consider different instruction, the time needed to develop a vision and mission and the extent of change from the existing program.

POSSIBLE TIME LINE:

• Report given to AEA and APS boards with recommendation to proceed -      September 4, 2007
• APS board reviews report - September 4, 2007
• AEA board reviews report - September 4, 2007
• Present report to AR Council - September 11, 2007
• Share general concept with all schools - September 14 - October 1, 2007
• Potential contract language developed through negotiations - October 3 and 10, 2007
• AEA approves contract language - October 15-19, 2007
• BOE approves Pilot School program - October 23, 2007
• Begin forming Joint Steering Committee - Early October, 2007
• Continue communication to schools/community - October/November 2007
• Hold two info forums for interested schools - November 2007
• Call for Request for Proposals for 2008-09 - November 1, 2007
• Letter of intent due - November 20, 2007
• Design team training - November 26-30, 2007
• Submission of proposals to Joint Steering Committee - January 15, 2008
• Joint steering makes recommendations to BOE - February 13, 2008
• BOE announces selections - February 19, 2008
• First school(s) open - August 2008
  GOAL:  MINIMUM OF THREE SCHOOLS BY 2010

CONCLUSION

The study group would like to stress the importance of taking these recommendations as a whole.  While it is possible to make minor adjustments, it is critical that the essential components of the Pilot School model be maintained.  The experience of other districts has demonstrated the importance of supporting a philosophy and structure that ensures empowerment, accountability and creativity.

Thank you for the opportunity to be part of such a potentially historic project.

• View a printable version of the Response to Charge. 
• View the Annual Election-to-Work Agreement Sample Template. 
• View the Pilot Study Group Members.
• View the APS Pilot Schools Manual
• View the APS Pilot Schools Request for Proposal

[top]

Study Group Members

Amy Achtermann
Elementary Teacher, Jewell

Laurie Foster
Art Teacher, Kenton

Monica Wilbanks
English Teacher, Columbia

Camille Schiraldi
Applied Science Teacher, Pickens Technical College

Debbie Ellis
Principal, Century

Lisa Nieto
Principal, Fletcher

Edward Snyder
Principal, Mrachek

Jane Shirley
Principal, William Smith H.S.

Brenna Isaacs
AEA President

Cheryl Dalton-Cedillo
former CEC President

Tony Van Gytenbeek
Deputy Superintendent

Sue Clark
Facilitator

[top]