history of blueprint aps - boarddocs, a diligent brand...2020/09/15 · 2015-16 7,833 2016 17...

HISTORY OF BLUEPRINT APS

Rico Munn, Superintendent

Christie Imholt, District Policy Director

Josh Hensley, Planning Coordinator

Dave Schoenhals, Blueprint APS Project Manager, POSADate: September 15, 2020

Every Student Shapes a Successful Future 1

Every Student Shapes a Successful Future

Presentation Purpose ▪ Why is this topic on the board agenda?

▪ This presentation is included on the Board agenda to respond the Board’s June request for a review of the Blueprint APS work leading up to Phase 3 and the identification of regional specializations.

▪ What are we asking the board to do with this information?

▪ This presentation is provided to the Board for background information to inform its revisiting the Blueprint APS regional specializations and understanding of imminent decisions the Board will need to make to address the declining enrollment in the western portion of the district and growing enrollment in the eastern portion of the district along the E-470 corridor.

▪ How is this linked to the Strategic Plan, Vision, Mission, Goals & Core Beliefs?

▪ Blueprint APS will support the district in proactively planning to meet the facility and educational needs of the district in a way that supports the ongoing and existing implementation of APS 2020 and future strategic plans

▪ Which Board policy does your presentation address?

▪ FB: Facilities Planning

2


Why Blueprint APS?

1. APS needed a new long-term Master Plan because APS Planning Documents had expired.

2. APS was experiencing a significant shift in enrollment.

3. There was an opportunity to identify the needs, interests and hopes of the APS community and align educational programming and facilities with those.

3


Premise #1: APS does not currently have and needs a new master plan.

• APS’ two guiding planning documents have either expired or were outdated:– APS’ Master Plan Expired: APS Capital Investment Plans for Ten Years Growth, 2008-2017– Outdated Community Developed Plan: E-470 Master Plan

• Current facilities plan based on a set of assumptions that are no longer accurate:▪ Assumption: APS will have a steady increase in the number of school age children

▪ 2017 Reality: APS was seeing a declining enrollment, having peaked with the 2013-14 school year.

▪ 2020 Reality: APS is continuing to see a decline in enrollment at the younger grades which will continue to be further impacted by declining birth rates for students not yet school age.

▪ Assumption: School age children will be concentrated in northwest and southwest Aurora▪ 2017 Reality: Given the development planned for the E470 corridor, the eastern part of the

district may grow to an equal or higher concentration of students. ▪ 2020 Reality: APS continues to see an increase in enrollment along the E470 corridor, while

declining enrollment in NW and SW Aurora▪ Assumption: 85% of students will attend traditional APS schools.

▪ 2017 Reality: 83% of APS students attend traditional APS schools.▪ 2020 Reality: 80% of APS students attend traditional APS schools.

▪ Per APS Policy FB-R: Facilities Planning, the Superintendent shall establish a facilities planning process.

4


Premise #2: APS is experiencing a shift in enrollment

• Overall Decline in Enrollment in APS and more rapidly in Traditional Schools.

• More pronounced enrollment decline western part of district, which leads to underutilized buildings and higher per pupil costs and subsidies to operate smaller schools.

• More rapid enrollment growth in the eastern part of the district along the E470 corridor, leading to overcrowded schools.

5

APS K-12 enrollment includes traditional enrollment and programs (ASCENT, Children's Hospital, Crossroads, Futures, Options, Rebound)

APS K-12 Enrollment by Grade Level(2015-16 to 2020-21 Projected)

Every Student Shapes a Successful Future6

2015-16 to 2019-20 Five Year Change

ES: -2,944 | -16.8%MS: -410 | -5.2%HS: -478 | -4.5%K-12: -3,832 | -10.6%

36,151 35,482 34,037 32,797 32,319 31,451

Original Source: 2019-2020 Planning Update March 3, 2020 BOE Presentation

Region 1 Total K-12

2015-16 7,285

2016-17 7,202

2017-18 6,992

2018-19 6,652

2019-20 6,583

5 Yr Change -702

Region 2 Total K-12

2015-16 1,007

2016-17 1,051

2017-18 1,023

2018-19 979

2019-20 923

5 Yr Change -84

Region 3 Total K-12

2015-16 8,395

2016-17 7,978

2017-18 7,775

2018-19 7,461

2019-20 7,529

5 Yr Change -866

Region 4 Total K-12

2015-16 3,736

2016-17 3,852

2017-18 3,637

2018-19 3,644

2019-20 3,718

5 Yr Change -18

Region 5 Total K-12

2015-16 3,118

2016-17 3,237

2017-18 3,379

2018-19 3,427

2019-20 3,579

5 Yr Change 461

Region 6 Total K-12

2015-16 6,652

2016-17 6,297

2017-18 6,249

2018-19 5,976

2019-20 5,944

5 Yr Change -708

Region 7 Total K-12

2015-16 7,833

2016-17 7,770

2017-18 7,412

2018-19 7,275

2019-20 7,315

5 Yr Change -5187


2019-20 Schools Above90% Standard Capacity

2014-15 Schools Above90% Standard Capacity

8BOE: 2019-2020 Planning Update March 3, 2020

67%

33%

23%

77%


Costs of Enrollment Decline: Funding Low Capacity Schools

10

Source: Blueprint APS: School Building Utilization and Cost, March 5, 2019


Declining Enrollment’s Impact to Asset Utilization

11


● Most of the increased square footage has taken place in areas of construction, development and growth

● However, no reductions of square footage have taken place in areas of significant enrollment declines


Costs of Enrollment Decline: Funding Schools with Low Capacity

12

Low underutilization of a school building can also add costs to a school building and contributes to the cost per pupil related to utilities, asset maintenance:

2018-19 October Count

Elementary Capacity Ranges

● Over 91%: 5 schools● 84%-91%: 3 schools● 77%-83%: 8 schools● 65%-76%: 9 schools● Under 65%: 3 schools

K8 Capacity Ranges● Over 91%: 5 schools● 84%-91%: 1 schools● 77%-83%: 0 schools● 65%-76%: 0 schools● Under 65%: 0 schools

Middle School Capacity Ranges

● Over 91%: 1 schools● 84%-91%: 1 schools● 77%-83%: 0 schools● 65%-76%: 5 schools● Under 65%: 0 schools

High School Capacity Ranges● Over 91%: 3 schools● 84%-91%: 1 schools● 77%-83%: 0 schools● 65%-76%: 1 schools● Under 65%: 1 schools



Costs of Enrollment Decline: Enrollment and Capacity Combined

13

Considering both capacity and enrollment show a more comprehensive picture of the cost of enrollment decline.

Higher Enrollment, Higher Capacity

● 5 elementary● 4 P-8 schools● 2 middle schools

Low Enrollment, Higher Capacity● 1 elementary school● 2 P-8 schools

Higher Enrollment, Low Capacity

● 10 elementary schools● 5 middle Schools

Low Enrollment, Low Capacity● 10 elementary



Cost of Enrollment Decline: Funding Smaller Elementary Schools

14

Sample Per Pupil Costs Within Each Range

⮚A 500 student school costs about $6,200/pupil






Why does a smaller school cost more per pupil?

There are some foundational components that most schools need to operate, regardless of size, so that cost is spread out over fewer students. For example:

⮚Some Staffing Role: Administrative & Support Staff

⮚Energy & Maintenance

⮚Furniture

⮚Transportation

⮚Some Technology

15


Costs of Enrollment Decline: Enrollment and Capacity Combined

16



What is the impact of a cost of $21 million for low size/enrollment and underutilization of school

buildings?

By comparison, this is the equivalent of each of the following:

– ~2 comprehensive High School budgets

– ~4 Middle School budgets

– ~6 Elementary School budgets

17

18


E-470 Development - Building Permits (BP) by Quarter (2006 - 2020)


493 167 132 88 104 76 164 221 222 187 203 225 249 632

19

490


K-8 Enrollment Along the E-470 Corridor

Every Student Shapes a Successful Future20Original Source: New PK-8 at Harmony Boundary

Committee Update, BOE Presentation, December 3, 2019

ProjectedProjectedProjectedProjectedK-8 Standard Capacity


What is the impact of having an schools that exceed their capacity?

• Cost of moving and putting in place mobile units

• Community perception of school when use mobile units

• Larger class sizes

• More crowded

• More difficult scheduling for common spaces, such as cafeterias

21


Premise #3: There is an opportunity to align educational programming and facilities with the needs

and interest of the community.

• Per Board Policy FB, one of the Board’s goals regarding facilities is to plan facilities that “Reflect the value placed on instruction by the school district community.”

• APS offers a variety of specialized offerings in its district run schools, primarily within its neighborhood schools, but they are not equitably accessible to students.

• APS seeing an increase in the percentage of families opting out of APS traditional schools to enroll in APS charters and other districts, suggesting that they were looking for options that APS district-run neighborhood schools were not offering.

22


Draft Blueprint APS Questions (Oct. 2017)

• What does the system of schools that serves students in APS boundaries look like to ensure equitable educational opportunities for all our students?

• What does the system of traditional schools look like to ensure equity of educational opportunities across the entire district in service of APS2020 goals and goals of future strategic plans?

• How should APS meet the demands of growing enrollment in some parts of the district, particularly in areas with new developments?

• How should APS respond to schools that are seeing declining enrollment as a result of a number of factors?

• What types of instructional opportunities should the district offer for students?

• How should APS plan for new facilities or modify existing facilities to support that system?

• What is the relationship between APS and charter schools?

These questions were revisited with the Board November 2017, December 2018, and May 2018.


October 2017 Board Decision to Pursue Blueprint APS

24


Blueprint APS

▪ A process to develop a long-term educational and facilities plan for how APS responds to the changing enrollment and proactively meets the interests and needs of the community, as articulated by the community

▪ Not a new strategic plan; Supports implementation of the district’s current strategic plan APS 2020

25

Blueprint APS Process

26

Original Source: May 15, 2017 BOE Presentation

Leadership of the Board of Education in Blueprint APS

• Phase 1– Cultivating strong engagement from a broad and diverse set of

community stakeholders

– Ensuring this process provides you the information necessary to inform how APS best serves the community moving forward

• Phase 2– Consider possible paths for how APS will best serve the community

moving forward

– Provide direction for how to move forward

• Phase 3– Guide the district in fulfilling Blueprint APS, to the extent it leads to

changes in policy or programs

27

Original Source: May 15, 2017 BOE Presentation


Blueprint APS: Input & Decision-making

28


Preparing for Blueprint APS PHASE I Results

• June-Sept. 2018: Phase I Community engagement through:• Interviews, Board members participated in 1-1 interviews with MGT Consulting • Focus Groups, welcomed and observed by Board• Community Forums, hosted by the Board

• August-Dec. 2018: What IF & What THEN Task Force Meetings• The What IF Task Force was charged with developing the characteristics of each potential

scenario to meet the needs of APS students and the Aurora community.• The What THEN Task Force was charged with developing the implementation responses to

each scenario from the What IF Task Force.

• Board updates on Phase I Progress:• MGT’s APS Background Data Report (August 2018)• MGT’s National Education Trends Report (Sept. 2018)• MGT Update presentation to the Board on Phase I (Sept. 2018)• MGT Overview of Themes from Community Engagement (November 2018)

• October 2018: Board held a workshop on Future of APS, with presentations from APS Planning Department, City of Aurora Planning Department; and Chamber of Commerce

29

Source: MGT Blueprint APS Phase 1 Scenario Presentation to Board, December 18, 2018


Phase I Community Engagement

30



Phase 1 Community Engagement – Major Themes

• The major themes are the common elements of feedback from participants across all four community engagement components.• Participants want greater educational choice, preferably in

neighborhood schools, and not necessarily through more charter schools.

• Participants see Aurora’s diversity as both a strength and a challenge.• Participants want a greater emphasis on meeting the needs of the

whole child, e.g., mental health programs, health clinics, nutrition programs, after hours access to schools.

• Participants want a greater emphasis on college and career preparedness through more Career and Technical Education, Advanced Placement, Concurrent Enrollment, and International Baccalaureate programs and greater coordination with local employers for internships and real-world experience.

• Participants recognize the benefit that comes from strong district engagement with parents and the community.

31



Phase 1 Community Engagement – Big Ideas

• The big ideas are singular concepts that emerged from at least one source of community engagement feedback. These are not major themes and, in some cases, are duplicative of current APS practice. This is not an exhaustive list.

• Eliminate grade level transitions• Competency-based grade levels• Small schools• Small class sizes• School-based decision-making• Change the school funding model• Year-round calendar• Community partnerships• Business Advisory Councils• Promote APS’ positive stories• Provide adult education classes• Make senior year different and relevant to career pathways• Full day prekindergarten

32


Task Forces

33

Task Forces Analyzed, Synthesized, and Evaluated Community Input to develop Potential Scenarios

Combined Task ForceCompose, finalized and analyzed scenarios based on options

Evaluated scenarios


Creating Preliminary Scenario Options

34

Community Engagement

Themes

Educational Choice

Leverage Diversity Whole

Child College and Career

Parental and Community Engagement

National Trends Research on Community

Engagement Themes

Community Engagement

Big Ideas

Eliminate Grade Level

Transitions Competency-Based

Grade Levels Small Schools

School-Based Decision-Making

National Trends Research on Community Engagement

Big Ideas

STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL


Blueprint APS Phase I Final Scenario Options

35



Scenario Composition

• 5 Scenario Principles from community engagement themes

1. Providing educational choice

2. Leveraging international diversity

3. Enhancing ability to meet the needs of the whole child

4. Enhancing college and career preparedness

5. Fostering communities and neighborhoods

36


37

Final Scenarios

37Every Student Shapes a Successful Future

Scenario A B C D E

Title Aurora Scholar Independent and Informed

Community Partner

Whole Child Global Citizen

Principle Status Quo College and Career

Neighborhoods and

Communities

Whole Child International Community

Program

District

School



Blueprint APS Phase 2: January 2019-May 2019

• January 2019: Board decided to collect input from the community on the Task Force

developed scenarios before determining a direction. To collect input:

– APS launched Community Champions to develop a cohort of parents to share

information about survey and open houses

– Promoted via school and district websites; Aurora Chamber of Commerce Eblast,

Superintendent’s Bulletin, APS social media platforms, APS connect, calls to all APS

parents and guardians, flyers and posters to schools and via Peachjar; targeted emails

to partners, task forces, and RISE Colorado

• January –March 2019: Board collected input from 2000+ community members on Scenarios

through:

– 3 open houses (138 attendees) with interpretation

– An online survey in top 10 languages and videos describing each scenario (2,137

respondents)

– 20 different Board presentations out in the community

• March 19 and April 15: Board reviewed and discussed feedback at its meetings

38


Blueprint APS Phase 2: January 2019-May 2019

39

• April 16, 2019: Board engaged in a facilitated discussion of the Board’s priorities and values as it

relates to Blueprint APS. The Board decided to not choose one of the community developed

scenarios but to use the scenario options to develop its own scenario.


APS Board Direction

Dimension Preferred Option Description

Educational Program Selection All three

programs

This adopts all three programmatic options--whole child, college and career preparedness, and international--but at less than a districtwide scale.

Core Choice Philosophy

Intra-districtPortfolio

An intra-district portfolio model in which APS-operated schools provide students with choices desired

School Size/Grade Level Configuration

Varying Building Sizes

and Configurations

Flexible approach to building size and configuration based on the needs of a particular community or region.

Decision Making Authority

Evenly Shared

Decision-making

Decision making authority is evenly shared between the district and the schools.

Grade levels Competency-Based

Grade Levels

Students are assigned grade levels based on a student's competence

Original Source: Blueprint APS Phase II Draft Framework, BOE Presentation, May 28, 2019

Every Student Shapes a Successful FutureEvery Student Shapes a Successful Future

Board-Directed Blueprint APS Scenario

● APS will operate a system of boundary schools, complemented by regions with specializations. ● Boundary schools will provide students with access to a strong education that prepares them for college and career, with

a growing emphasis on implementation of the P-8 model/comprehensive high school model, to support the possibility of exploring a competency based-model.

● Regions will offer students access to high-quality APS-run magnet schools with specializations to ensure a variety of educational programming opportunities, school sizes, and grade configurations to students across APS.

○ Regions with specialization will be established throughout the district to ensure access, feasibility of robustly delivering on those specializations, and leveraging the strengths of the community.

○ The focus of each region will be aligned to the assets, such as industry, community groups, etc., and needs of the region.

○ Magnet schools will be housed in repurposed boundary schools or in new facilities depending on the region.

● Students will still be able to enroll in APS charter schools and also per state law, may enroll in another boundary school outside their catchment area, if space is available.

● To ensure families and students have the supports they need to access these opportunities and the wraparound services to make sure students have a strong foundation for learning, APS will consider:

○ Repurposing parts of or entire school buildings to support enhanced wraparound services○ Expanding its transportation infrastructure to support students in attending magnet schools outside their

boundary● Given the Board direction and the need to investigate these approaches in greater depth than occurred in Phase 1, APS

will continue to explore the following:○ Possibility of shifting to a competency-based model○ Defining what a “Shared-Decision” Making framework might entail

41


Every Student Shapes a Successful FutureEvery Student Shapes a Successful Future42



Scenario: Implementation Requirements

43

Educational

Development/

Design

● Identify Centers of Excellence/Zones/Regional specializations and design

schools, including programming, grade configurations, and school sizes with

input from community partners, and families

● Develop a process for boundary schools to add a specialized focus

● Research and determine extent and scope of competency-based learning

Transportation ● Expand transportation to be able to support the increased number of

students who no longer live within the walk radius of the school due to

larger boundaries

● Continue to invest significantly in transportation and establish a

transportation model, such as a hub model, to be able to ensure that

students can access magnet schools with transportation from across the

district.

Enrollment

System

● Establish a district-managed process for communicating with families about

magnet options and enrolling in magnet schools to support more equitable

access.

Boundaries ● Revise current boundary schools to ensure operational and financial efficiency of

boundary schools, which may mean repurposing of current boundary schools in

areas of declining enrollment, to create spaces for Centers of Excellence


Every Student Shapes a Successful FutureEvery Student Shapes a Successful Future44

Facilities ● Build new boundary schools to accommodate growing enrollment in the eastern part of the district

and to provide new configurations in some western parts of the district

● Renovate existing schools, as necessary, to align with new uses of those buildings, such as for

modified grade configurations or for Centers of Excellence.

Funding ● With the Citizen’s Bond Oversight Committee, re-prioritize 2016 Bond Projects to align with the new

direction of the district to support repurposing of existing buildings for new grade configurations or

magnet schools as part of Centers of Excellence/Regions/Specialty Zones, as well as new boundary

schools in new parts of the district.

● Consider other funding sources, such as COPs, another Bond, or applying to the Colorado

Department of Education’s BEST Grant program for funding to support a new school building or

renovation. APS may also obtain additional revenue from leasing or selling unused assets in areas

with declining enrollment.

● Additionally, funding for programs at new schools and for Centers of Excellence will be available as

a result of creating greater annual efficiencies through the reconfiguration of funds.

Policy ○ Explore whether State Innovation Status would be necessary to implement the Board’s interest in

shared decision-making

○ Explore whether State Innovation Status would be necessary as a key feature of Centers of

Excellence

○ Develop policies and processes for:

■ Repurposing schools

■ Enrollment in magnet schools

■ Becoming a specialized/magnet school


Scenario: Implementation Requirements (cont’d)


Scenario Analysis

Pros

● Provides additional choice options aligned to the specialized areas the Board identified

● Allows for district to provide a variety of specializations that give a range of options to meet the diversity and diverse interests of the community, but do so in a concentrated way to maximize the robustness of those opportunities

● Having magnet school opportunities across grades K-12 allows for possibility of instructional continuity throughout specialization

● Creates opportunities for a variety of size and grade configurations

● Using a P-8 model allows for competency based learning across traditional grades

Cons

● Will need to repurpose schools in order to ensure economic/operational efficiency of boundary schools and ensure space for new opportunities

● Limited seats at magnet schools, so all students may not be able to access magnet opportunities

● Students may need to travel further to a magnet school that aligns to their issue or preference

● Having magnet schools at early grades may not be as appealing to families in younger grades

● Some community assets for regional specializations may be more aligned to secondary students than elementary students

● May be difficult to effectively communicate with families about and shift from current enrollment practices to include district choice options

45Original Source: Blueprint APS Phase II Draft Framework, BOE Presentation, May 28, 2019


Blueprint APS - 10 Year Draft Facility Plan Framework

● Open at least six new P-8 schools in APS by constructing new buildings or by repurposing through remodeling or replacing existing facilities (in both the western and eastern halfs of APS)

○ Construct at least three new P-8 schools in the eastern half of the school district where enrollment is increasing as a result of housing development. The first of the three new P-8 schools should serve the E-470 corridor north of I-70 where no schools currently exist.

○ Assess opportunities to repurpose by replacing or remodeling at least three existing elementary and/ or middle schools in the west half of the district into P-8s.

● Transition from a system of neighborhood schools to a boundary model by developing new boundaries for existing schools

○ Identify schools most appropriate to serve as boundary schools based on building locations, neighborhood demographics, and facility assets.

○ New boundaries will be larger than the current elementary and middle school attendance areas in order to increase operational efficiency.

○ New boundaries will incorporate impact of expanding choice schools. The number of boundary schools will depend on the number of choice schools including district magnet and charter schools.

46

Original Source: Blueprint APS Phase III Implementation Framework, BOE Presentation, June 18, 2019


Blueprint APS - 10 Year Draft Facility Plan Framework (continued)

● Align facilities to meet the needs of expanded district-managed choice programs○ Identify schools most appropriate to consider for repurposing based on building

locations, neighborhood demographics, and facility assets.○ Remodel facilities as needed to address needs of new programs.

● Organize transportation routes to support new school boundaries and choice programs

47



What does Repurposing mean?

A potential repurpose list does NOT mean a closure list.

Repurposing Buildings may include:

– Reconfiguration of grade levels that a school building serves to emphasize APS’ P-8 model,

– Using repurposed buildings for magnet schools, community centers, other choice offerings, or other district uses,

– Consolidation of school buildings, and/or– Closing of school buildings.

48



Phase 3 Implementation Framework: Key Steps

49

Staff:

-Mapping out the district into geographic regions-Timeline of regional implementation-Identify locations and timelines to build new school buildings-Determine best use of bond funds to align with the Blueprint APS vision

Community Stakeholder Input:

-Determine Regional Specialization-Designing each region’s building usage and programming to align with regional specialization-Determine new boundaries of boundary schools

Staff with Board Direction:

-Personnel Strategy and Guidelines -Enrollment Policies and Practices-Meeting Transportation Needs Across the District-Determine school funding structures



Blueprint APS Phase 3: 2019-2020 Charges 1 and 2

Charge 1

Blueprint APS regions will present three unique specialization proposals to the LRFAC. LRFAC will make a recommendation to the BOE around the assignment of one specialization to each region. The recommendation will include a first choice along with one or more alternatives the BOE might consider.

Charge 2

Region 2Determination of a location to build a new P-8 school in response to new developments within the region.

Region 3Determination of boundary schools, a magnet school, P-8 school(s), and any other repurposed buildings or parts of buildings along with their new purpose.

50


Current Specializations and Specializations through APS Blueprint

▪ APS already has many examples of schools with a formal and identified "Specialization”.

▪ While we already have many schools with a "Specialization", what we do not have is a districtwide strategy around it or any way to address equity with access and transportation. The lack of any plan or strategy also means we have no way of speaking to how well specializations are being used to serve students.

▪ Blueprint is a way to bring intentionality and equity to how APS directs its resources to serve families.

51

Source: Blueprint APS Phase 3 Charge 1 Specializations, BOE Presentation, May 26, 2020


Specializations in Boundary and Magnet Schools

52

Regional Specialization Content or instructional delivery that provides students with engaging, relevant, and rigorous educational opportunities that will shape a successful future.

Boundary School

● Specialization drives supplemental opportunities at the school

● Students still take core subjects such as English/Language Arts, Math, Science, and Social Studies, as well as electives/specials such as art, music, and/or physical education

● Potential Examples of role of specialization: guest speakers, field trips, or projects at certain grade-levels

Magnet School

● Specialization drives focus of the entire school.

● Students still take core subjects such as English/Language Arts, Math, science, and social studies, but the school’s focus may be integrated into the curriculum for each content area

● Potential examples: Specific specials or elective classes and extracurricular activities related to the specialization

The outcome remains the same: Every Student Shapes a Successful Future.


Specialization Recommendations Top Choice

Insert Photo

53

1 One Health

2 Business Management & Hospitality

4 STEAM3 Visual Design & Performing Arts

5 Technology, Engineering, & Design

6 Entrepreneurship & Invention 7 Project-

Based Learning (e.g. EL)

Source: Blueprint APS Phase 3 Charge 1 Specializations, BOE Presentation, May 26, 2020


What’s Next?

Charge 1 Specializations

• The Board did not approve a motion to approve the top Blueprint APS regional specializations recommendation and will revisit the recommendation in late August or early September.

• Board members asked additional questions around Blueprint APS to be able to provide more direction.

• Board members requested that district leaders begin a feasibility analysis of a transportation model that would allow students to access college and career choice options throughout the district.

54

http://track.spe.schoolmessenger.com/f/a/cAqw0HdJ2qG8Q4sFSweL5A~~/AAAAAQA~/RgRgy8dNP0R_aHR0cHM6Ly9nby5ib2FyZGRvY3MuY29tL2NvL2F1cm9yYS9Cb2FyZC5uc2YvZmlsZXMvQlBUUldFNkZENDNGLyRmaWxlL1NVUFQtQmx1ZXByaW50JTIwQVBTJTIwQ2hhcmdlMSUyMFNwZWNpYWxpemF0aW9uJTIwUFBULnBkZlcHc2Nob29sbUIKAEbNk-peY2m6dFIaZHdzY2hvZW5oYWxzQGF1cm9yYWsxMi5vcmdYBAAAAAE~


What’s Next?

Charge 2Many factors related to enrollment will determine work and timeframe for the following determinations around school buildings.

Region 2Determination of a location to build a new P-8 school in response to new developments within the region.

Region 3Determination of boundary schools, a magnet school, P-8 school(s), and any other repurposed buildings or parts of buildings along with their new purpose.

Other RegionsDetermination of the next region(s) that will go through the Charge 2 process similar to what is planned for Region 3.

55


Critical Big Questions

• How do we respond to declining enrollment and under-utilization of facilities in the western part of the district?

• How do we respond to the increasing enrollment and future development along the E-470 corridor?

56


Submitted Questions


Thank You!

58


Appendix


Key References

60

Background● 2017-18 Planning Update: Blueprint APS Intro Discussion, October 24, 2017● Blueprint APS Website

Blueprint APS Phase I● Blueprint APS, BOE Presentation, May 15, 2018● Blueprint APS Phase I Update, September 18, 2018● MGT Blueprint APS Phase 1 Scenario Presentation to Board, December 18, 2018● Blueprint APS Phase I Report

Blueprint APS Phase II● Blueprint APS: School Building Utilization and Cost, March 5, 2019● Blueprint APS Phase II Outreach Powerpoint, March 19, 2019● Blueprint APS Phase II Survey Response Data, March 19, 2019● Blueprint APS Phase II Survey Response Open Ended, March 19, 2019● Blueprint APS Phase II Draft Framework, BOE Presentation, May 28, 2019

Blueprint APS Phase III● Blueprint APS Phase III Implementation Framework, BOE Presentation, June 18, 2019● Blueprint APS Phase III Implementation, BOE Presentation, September 17, 2019● 2019-2020 Planning Update March 3, 2020 BOE Presentation● Blueprint APS Phase 3 Charge 1 Specializations, BOE Presentation, May 26, 2020● Blueprint APS Phase 3 Charge 1 Specializations, Rggional Design Team Documents, May 26, 2020 ● Blueprint APS Phase 3 Charge 1 Specializations, LRFAC Reasoning Around Recommendations, May 26, 2020

https://go.boarddocs.com/co/aurora/Board.nsf/files/ASFMSL5CA86F/$file/PlanningUpdate201718_UpdateOnly.pdf

https://aurorak12.org/about-aps/blueprint-aps/

https://go.boarddocs.com/co/aurora/Board.nsf/files/AYVRLE60D4A8/$file/Blueprint%20APS%20BOE%20Presentation%2005%2015%202017.pdf

https://go.boarddocs.com/co/aurora/Board.nsf/files/B4KACS799492/$file/Blueprint%20APS%209.18.2018%20Final.pdf

https://go.boarddocs.com/co/aurora/Board.nsf/files/B7LNJ55D987E/$file/Blueprint%20APS%20Phase%201_Scenario%20Presentation%20to%20Board_121818_FINAL.pdf

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UfwCRdwKdogMqRk24ST4y_SYdtjYnY3n/view

https://go.boarddocs.com/co/aurora/Board.nsf/files/B9UBPU1E6FF6/$file/Blueprint%20APS-School%20Building%20Underutilization%20and%20Costs%20PPT%203.5.19.pdf

https://go.boarddocs.com/co/aurora/Board.nsf/files/BAEVRT71FC51/$file/Blueprint%20Outreach%20PPT-Comm%203.19.2019.pdf

https://go.boarddocs.com/co/aurora/Board.nsf/files/BAR6VF77E7DA/$file/Blueprint%20Survey%20Response%20Comm%203.19.2019-2.pdf

https://go.boarddocs.com/co/aurora/Board.nsf/files/BAQ4887637FF/$file/Blueprint%20Survey%20Response%20Comm%203.19.2019.pdf

https://go.boarddocs.com/co/aurora/Board.nsf/files/BCFK8E509EEA/$file/Blueprint%20APS%20Phase%202%20PPT%205.28.2019.pdf

https://go.boarddocs.com/co/aurora/Board.nsf/files/BD4MEH5994B2/$file/SUPT-Blueprint%20APS%20Phase%203%20PPT%206.18.2019.pdf

https://go.boarddocs.com/co/aurora/Board.nsf/files/BFXSPS73AE97/$file/Blueprint%20APS%20Sept.%2017%20BOE%20PPT.pdf

https://go.boarddocs.com/co/aurora/Board.nsf/files/BM6RD96C9DAE/$file/SUPT%20Blueprint%20Update%20PPT%203.3.2020.pdf

https://go.boarddocs.com/co/aurora/Board.nsf/files/BPTRWE6FD43F/$file/SUPT-Blueprint%20APS%20Charge1%20Specialization%20PPT.pdf

https://go.boarddocs.com/co/aurora/Board.nsf/files/BPTQV26A5F49/$file/SUPT-Blueprint%20RDT%20Documents.pdf

https://go.boarddocs.com/co/aurora/Board.nsf/files/BPTQUQ6A5414/$file/SUPT-Blueprint%20LRFAC%20Reasoning%20Around%20Recommendations.pdf


Blueprint APS Phase I Community Developed Scenarios


SCENARIO A - AURORA SCHOLAR

62

Symbol Description

Principle Status quo

APS continues its current programmatic path, which includes specialized programmatic offerings such as project-based learning, International Baccalaureate, International Leadership, health sciences, etc. available at different schools around the district, although not in all schools.

APS is primarily organized around neighborhood schools with students primarily attending the school located within their assigned geographic attendance area. APS serves as a charter authorizer, by reviewing and deciding on charter applications and ensuring they meet state and federal requirements.

APS has small elementary schools and large high schools with a mix of P-5/6-8/9-12 and P-8/9-12 grade configurations.



SCENARIO A– AURORA SCHOLAR

63

Implementation Requirements

● Need to close and/or consolidate schools in shorter term● Need to build new schools in longer term in areas of growing

enrollment● Need to reassign staff● Need to reconfigure transportation routes● Need to redraw attendance boundaries● Need guidelines for closure/consolidation/repurposing and

protocols for community engagement



SCENARIO A - AURORA SCHOLAR

Pros

• Maintains a familiar district and school structure

• Small neighborhood elementary schools serve as community hubs

• P-8 schools eliminate a grade level transition

• Large high schools provide critical mass of students for programs

64

Cons

● Will need to close schools and redraw attendance boundaries

● Financially difficult to offer same programs in every school

● No charter strategy● May not explicitly

address major community engagement themes



SCENARIO B – INDEPENDENT AND INFORMED

65

Symbol Description

Principle Enhancing college and career preparedness

Builds on current district programming. Makes enhancing and expanding college and career preparedness programming the top priority through greater access, coordination, and partnerships. Exploration in elementary school. Electives in middle school. Real world experience and college credit in high school lead to senior year serving as a transition to student’s next phase of life.

District provides greater educational program choices at APS-operated schools. Greater access to Career and Technical Education programs could be regionally based. District does not necessarily compete directly with charters where charter programs are effective, but district does not actively engage charter schools as a program delivery partner.

District has small elementary schools and large high schools. Housing smaller learning communities within large secondary school buildings provides small learning environments to support students and economies of scale




66


•Identify new programs

•Align curriculum across all grade levels

•Develop policies for flexibility

•Make internships meaningful to employers

•Could repurpose schools to house new programs within choice model

•May need to reassign staff, reconfigure transportation routes, redraw attendance boundaries

•Establish policies for school-within-a-school model




Pros

• Greater opportunities for exploration of multiple career pathways

• District retains control over programs

• Leverages advantages of small learning environments

• Maintains economies of scale from large school buildings

67

Cons● May need to redraw

attendance boundaries● Additional CTE facilities

will be expensive● Lack of transportation

will reduce access to programs

● Could reduce schools’ role

● as community centers



SCENARIO C – COMMUNITY PARTNER

68

Symbol Description

Principle Fostering neighborhoods and communities

Expands current wrap-around services through greater access, coordination, and partnerships to meet needs of whole child. Significant emphasis on addressing mental health. Schools are open for after school use and have space available for community partners to provide services.

Students primarily attend the school within their assigned attendance boundary area or a charter school within their neighborhood.

Building size and grade level configuration are flexible and based the needs of a particular community or region in the district.



SCENARIO C – COMMUNITY PARTNER


• Greater coordination of wrap-around services internally and externally

• Schools designed for community services and after hours use

• Close/consolidate schools and redraw attendance boundaries

• Charter school plan

69



SCENARIO D – WHOLE CHILD

Pros

• Increasing wrap-around services supports greater academic achievement

• Neighborhood schools supports sense of community

• Consistent experience for transient students

• Proactive approach to charter school relationship

70

Cons


● Fewer program choices at each neighborhood school

● Less diverse schools




71

Symbol Description

Principle Enhancing the ability to meet the needs of the whole child

Expands current wrap-around services through greater access, coordination, and partnerships with community organizations. Schools are open after hours and have space available for partners to provide services.

District provides greater educational program choices at APS-operated schools.The emphasis is on greater choice throughout the district, but neighborhoodschools still form foundation of district organizational philosophy.

Flexible school size and configuration to meet the needs of a particular community or region in the district. District should rethink the traditional school structure and perhaps utilize the school-within-a-school model, particularly at the middle and high school level to ensure a greater connection between the school and each student.





• Greater coordination of services, internal and external• Identify new programs community desires• Hire staff to teach, administer, and coordinate new

programs• Could repurpose schools to house new programs• Will need to redraw attendance boundaries, reassign• staff, and reconfigure transportation routes• Need policy for school size and configuration

72




Pros

• Enables greater academic achievement

• Encourages diversity within schools

• Allows flexibility for building size and configuration to meet each community’s unique needs

• Satellite transportation would increase program access

73

Cons

● Will likely need to redraw attendance boundaries

● Could reduce schools’ role as community centers

● Lack of building and program consistency could negatively impact transient students and lead to inequity



SCENARIO E – GLOBAL CITIZEN

74

Symbol Description

Principle Leveraging strengths and building support for an international community

Recognizes the strengths and assets of international students and families. Enhances existing language acquisition programs with greater access, coordination, and community partnerships to leverage the strengths and assets of international students and families that give Aurora its international diversity. Multi-language instruction is available for all students. Expand and leverage current services through greater access, coordination, and partnerships to meet the needs of the whole child.

District organizational philosophy is neighborhood schools. APS remains the charter school authorizer and strategically engages charter schools as a program delivery partner.

Flexible school size and configuration based on the needs of a particular community or region in the district.





• Greater coordination of services, internally and externally• Recruit professional staff with international and multi-

language backgrounds• Train staff to identify and meet unique needs• Will need to close schools, reassign staff, redraw attendance

boundaries, and reconfigure transportation routes

75




Pros

• Enables greater academic achievement

• Schools serve as centers of community

• Schools are accessible

• Flexible building solutions

• Supports both immigrant and native populations

76

Cons


● Challenges in recruiting and retaining staff for language instruction

● Expanding mental and physical health services has budgetary considerations
