Of?ce of the Superintendent Phone -- 303?365?7800 1570] E. First Ave., Suite 206 Fox 303-3264 280 Aurora, CO 8001 1 Web ourorokl 2.org 0 March 30, 2016 Richard Crandall Commissioner of Education Colorado Department of Education 201 East Colfax Ave., Room 500 Denver, CO 80203 Commissioner Crandall: While we have spoken and met on several occasions I do not recall whether or not I formally welcomed you to Colorado. 80, welcome to the Colorado educational community! I hope you and your family are becoming comfortable in this new setting. The Aurora Public Schools (APS) community looks forward to a strong partnership with you. Thank you for your willingness to engage in a dialogue on the implementation of the Colorado accountability framework. APS has a signi?cant number of schools operating with a turnaround or priority improvement plan. The list of such schools includes Aurora Central, which was scheduled to enter Year Five prior to the legislative ?time out" on the ?Accountability Clock?. As you know, state law does not require APS to take any action at this time. Nevertheless, the APS Board of Education has taken a proactive posture to address the status of schools on the Accountability Clock. Last summer APS came to the State Board of Education (State Board) with a proposal on how to move forward in addressing the challenge of Aurora Central. Due to the fact that the State Board had not de?ned a review process, APS was in the position of needing to propose a path fonrvard. While the State Board did not wholly adopt proposal, the State Board did approve what was referred to as a "Gentleman?s Agreement" about the work APS was about to undertake. Since that time APS has undertaken a broad and exhaustive community process resulting in the proposed transformation of ?ve APS schools, including three schools on the accountability clock (Paris Yr.3, Boston Yr. 4, Aurora Central Yr. 5). To date, the State Board has not promulgated rules or other guidance regarding the disposition of schools seeking to implement an approved pathway under SB163. As APS prepares to appear before the State Board in May, there are several areas where clarity would be welcomed. Accountability Clock - Does the Accountability Clock restart upon implementation of an approved pathway? In other words, once directed by the State Board and implemented by the local board does the approved pathway become a new priority improvement or turnaround plan for purposes of 22-11-210? Does the State Board want to provide an incentive for Districts to take ?early action" ahead of Year Five? 0 Conversely, does the State Board want for there to be a procedural disincentive for early action? Once a pathway has been directed, does the State Board contend that it has speci?c monitoring authority over pathway implementation? 0 Does the State Board believe that its role changes if a district takes early action? Innovation Plans If a District seeks innovation status as an approved pathway, does the State Board contend that this choice changes the statutory criteria for reviewing an innovation plan? 0 Will the State Board have different review criteria for an innovation plan presented prior to Year Five? Is the State Board willing to review and adopt an innovation plan and then schedule a subsequent review for whether or not the plan satis?es In other words, will the issue be bifurcated? Will the State Board consider approving an innovation plan under the statutory criteria but determine it to be insuf?cient under What is the consequence of such action? What are the criteria for a "Turnaround Plan" under Does the State Board or Colorado Department of Education (CDE) have clear benchmark criteria? May Presentation It is our understanding that the State Board may adopt new rules or procedures on these matters in the coming months. Given the State Board vote in June of 2015, to what extent will such changes apply to Prior to, or when, submitting an innovation plan does a school or district need to declare its intention to present the plan in satisfaction of What can or must be presented at an oral review of a pathway proposal? Is the presentation different than the existing process for presenting an innovation plan? Will the State Board issue prior formal notice that it will consider an innovation plan under State Oversight CDE has separate of?ces for Turnaround (District and School Performance) and Innovation (Schools of Choice). Which, if either, of?ce should take the lead in providing guidance in this area? 0 Does the answer change if a District opts for early action? At present the District and School Performance Unit does not have jurisdiction in this matter, will the State Board still consider recommendations from that unit in reviewing innovation plans? Innovation plans, charter engagement and other school design processes can take a year or more; including signi?cant community engagement. What safeguards can be put in place so that stakeholders are not worried about a subsequent determination that the work did not meet the State Board's criteria? Is the State Board willing to pre-approve a planning process with certain benchmarks? - Would the State Board consider approving a pathway with speci?c "triggers"? In other words, the pathway is approved so long as a de?ned list of criteria are in place such as: existing school or district leadership, speci?c external partnerships, or, funding levels, etc.? 0 Does the State Board believe its authority to have said "triggers" shifts, depending upon early action or Year Five action? Thank you again for being open to a dialogue on this matter. APS recognizes that it is involved in creating some level of precedent on these issues. We gladly offer our partnership in this process. Respectfully, D. Rico Munn Superintendent