public charter school district # 4067-07 school year …€¦ · as our enrollment increased, we...

PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL DISTRICT # 4067-07

SCHOOL YEAR 2015/16

WORLD’S BEST WORK FORCE & ANNUAL REPORT

2 Aurora Charter School FY16 Annual and World’s Best Workforce Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. School Information ............................................................................................................................................. 3

2. Implementation of Primary and Additional Statutory Purposes .......................................................................... 4

3. Student Enrollment & Demographics ................................................................................................................. 5

4. Student Attendance, Attrition & Mobility ........................................................................................................... 7

5. Educational Approach & Curriculum ................................................................................................................... 9

Key Pedagogical Approach ............................................................................................................................ 9

Remediation Practices ....................................................................................................................................... 9

Special Education Services............................................................................................................................... 10

The English Learner Program........................................................................................................................... 11

6. Innovative Practices & Implementation ............................................................................................................ 13

Successes ........................................................................................................................................................ 13

Key Challenges ................................................................................................................................................ 14

Future Plans ......................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

7. Academic Performance: Goals & Benchmarks .................................................................................................. 16

8. Educational Effectiveness: Assessment & Evaluation ....................................................................................... 29

9. Student & Parent Satisfaction .......................................................................................................................... 31

10. Environmental Education ............................................................................................................................... 31

11. Governance & Management ........................................................................................................................... 39

12. MANAGEMENT .............................................................................................................................................. 41

13. Staffing........................................................................................................................................................... 45

14. Operational Performance ............................................................................................................................... 52

Health and Safety at the School ....................................................................................................................... 52

Transportation ................................................................................................................................................. 52

Facilities .......................................................................................................................................................... 52

Food Service Programs .................................................................................................................................... 52

Parent Engagement ......................................................................................................................................... 53

Hiring Practices................................................................................................................................................ 53

Background check process for staff, board, and volunteers .............................................................................. 53

Reporting and Compliance Practices................................................................................................................ 53

Admission and Enrollment ............................................................................................................................... 54

15. Finances ......................................................................................................................................................... 55

Attachment 1 ....................................................................................................................................................... 56


1. SCHOOL INFORMATION CONTACT INFORMATION Aurora Charter School 2101 East 26th Street Minneapolis, MN 55404 (612) 870-3891 www.auroracharterschool.org

GRADES SERVED PreSchool-8th Grade

YEAR OPENED 2000

MISSION AND VISION

The mission of Aurora Charter School is to operate a center of learning that embraces academic

excellence and celebrates the gift of Latino culture.

Aurora Charter School will be a high-achieving learning environment where the student is nurtured

academically, socially, and physically. Students will be held to learning standards mandated by the

State of Minnesota through a dual language curriculum in English and Spanish and, with the instruction

of highly qualified teachers and other support staff, will strive to close the achievement gap within the

school.

AUTHORIZER INFORMATION

Aurora Charter School has been authorized by the Audubon Center of the North Woods (ACNW) since

2006. ACNW has been a staunch supporter of ACS’s development, holds our school to high and

achievable standards, and remains invested in our continued success. During the 2014/15 school year

we applied for renewal under Audubon and was granted a three year, probationary contract with clear

goals. This will be our first year reporting on the probationary goals.

The authorizing mission of the Audubon Center of the North Woods (ACNW) Charter School Division is

to provide superior oversight, evaluation, feedback and strategic support to its authorized schools

resulting in the increased academic, financial, operational and environmental education performance of

each school.

The authorizing vision of ACNW is to authorize a portfolio of high performing charter schools that instill

a connection and commitment to the environment in their school communities while working towards

a healthy planet where all people live in balance with Earth.

David Greenberg, Director of Charter School Authorizing Audubon Center of the North Woods Charter School Division 43 Main St. S.E., Suite #507 Minneapolis, MN 55414 612-331-4181

www.auduboncharterschools.org

REPORT NOTES

This Annual and World’s Best Workforce report was produced with Andrea Krause from Designs for

Learning. She can be reached at 651/255-8855 or [email protected]

http://www.auduboncharterschools.org/


2. IMPLEMENTATION OF PRIMARY AND ADDITIONAL STATUTORY PURPOSES

The statutory purposes of Minnesota charter schools are; to

improve all pupil learning and all student achievement, increase

learning opportunities for all pupils, and encourage the use of

different and innovative teaching methods.

Aurora Charter School re-evaluated its Language Arts and

Mathematics curriculum before the 15/16 school year. We did

this because our test scores were unsatisfactory. A review of

the curriculum revealed that it did not align with new MN state standards, and did not address the

unique needs of our dual inclusion language program. Implementing the new curriculums was an

essential part of our school improvement plan.

As a primary purpose of its mission, ACS students learn their academic subjects in Spanish as well as

English. This innovative approach provides our Spanish-speaking students with a way of solidifying

their native language before and as they learn English, which helps them succeed in school and in the

American and global workforce. In addition, because English language tests are not an accurate

indicator of our students’ progress at the lower grade levels when students are learning primarily in

Spanish, we use different assessments which can be administered in Spanish in addition to State-

required assessments. During the 2015-2016 school year, we adopted the Fountas & Pinnell Benchmark

Assessment System, which allowed us to assess more about our students’ reading abilities in both

languages multiple times throughout the school year.


3. STUDENT ENROLLMENT & DEMOGRAPHICS

STUDENT ENROLLMENT Aurora’s enrollment cap is 450 students in grades PreK-8. We will keep our enrollment cap at 450 to

preserve our school culture and small class size. We have experienced stable enrollment throughout the

last several years and stable attendance. During the 2016-17 school year, we anticipate reaching our

enrollment cap and implementing waiting lists for all grades.

Number of Students Enrolled 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 (est.)

Pre-Kindergarten 0 20 20

Kindergarten 37 47 39

1st Grade 59 42 46

2nd Grade 48 60 40

3rd Grade 42 47 53

4th Grade 43 47 48

5th Grade 47 47 46

6th Grade 41 48 47

7th Grade 47 43 46

8th Grade 39 45 40

Total 403 426 426

Total ADM (Average Daily

Membership) for year

406 430 430

STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS As our enrollment increased, we saw growth in special education students and EL students. Most of our

students come from Spanish speaking families and identify as Hispanic or Latino.

Demographic Trends 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 (est.)

Total Enrollment 403 425 425

Male 180 201 195

Female 223 239 230

Special Education 28 41 38

English Learners 319 319 313


Free/Reduced Priced Lunch 380 408 380

Black, not of Hispanic Origin 2 5 5

Hispanic/Latino 401 422 425

Asian/Pacific Islander 0 1 0

American Indian/Alaskan Native 0 0 0

White, not of Hispanic Origin 1 5 5


4. STUDENT ATTENDANCE, ATTRITION & MOBILITY

STUDENT ATTENDANCE Aurora has historically enjoyed steady attendance. Families and students are invested in their academic

success and demonstrate this through their attendance. We value their commitment to their students’

education and feel privileged to be service this dedicated community.

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Overall Student

Attendance Rate

96.9% 97.03% 97.26%

STUDENT ATTRITION Percentage of students* who were continuously enrolled between

October 1 of the 2014-15 school year and October 1 of the 2015-16

school year.

92.3%

*Do not include graduating students or those who have completed your school program, i.e., if your school

is K-6, do not include students who have completed 6th grade.

Percentage of students* who continued enrollment in the school from

Spring 2015 to October 1, 2015.

93.4%

*Do not include graduating students or those who have completed your school program, i.e., if your school

is K-6, do not include students who have completed 6th grade.

STUDENT MOBILITY Student mobility represents the movement of students in and out of the school at different times

during the school year. During the 14/15 school year we had a large group of students transfer mid-year,

about double the amount we usually see. This was due to changes in other schools in the community.

During 2015/16 we did not have large amounts of movement, and we expect to see a lower mobility

index as a result.

Summer

Transfers In

Number of

students on

Oct. 1

Mid-year

Transfers In

Mid-year

Transfers

Out

Total Mid-year

Transfers

Mobility

Index* (as a

percent)

2012-13 5 324 11

14 25 7.72%

2013-14 21 333 6

20 26 7.81%

2014-15 56 391 26

15 41 10.49%

* Total mid-year transfers divided by number of students on October 1.


The percentage of students who were enrolled for more than 95% of the year

decreased very slightly again this year. This is attributed to another year of growth in

student numbers. We see a spike in enrollment in the first few weeks of school and

continue to enroll students throughout the year as class size allows.


5. EDUCATIONAL APPROACH &

CURRICULUM

KEY PEDAGOGICAL APPROACH Based on our current demographics, which is

composed of 99% native speakers of Spanish, the

primary pedagogical approach at Aurora Charter

School (ACS) is shifting from a Transitional Bilingual

Education model to a type of dual language program

identified by the National Dual Language Consortium

as Developmental Bilingual. This dual language

program model aims to help students who are native

speakers of Spanish achieve bi-literacy in English and

Spanish by sixth grade.

Aurora utilizes a dual language program developed by the National Dual Language Consortium as

Developmental Bilingual. With 99% native Spanish Speakers, this program assists in cultivating

bilingual language development. This model aims to help students who re native speakers of Spanish

achieve bi-literacy in English and Spanish by sixth grade. Under the Developmental Bilingual Dual

Language model, students in kindergarten through second grade will receive 30-90 minutes a day of

formal instruction of English as a second language and 12% of the day in English for Specialist Classes

(Gym, Art, Etc.) Third through Sixth grade include incorporating 30-45 minutes of Spanish Language

Arts instruction within 45% of time devoted to content instruction in Spanish. Seventh and Eighth

grade include three specialist classes throughout the week, including Physical Education, Music, and

Computer, taught in Spanish and 45 minutes daily of Spanish Language Arts instruction.

REMEDIATION PRACTICES The Empowerment Committee (EC) at Aurora Charter School provides a forum for general education

teachers to bring student concerns related to behavioral or academic student performance. Teachers

may present information defining current concerns they are experiencing in their classrooms with

individual students. The EC will provide suggestions and identify resources available to help the

teachers remedy the concerns. The EC is the venue that provides suggestions for appropriate classroom

interventions that may be used prior to referring a student for special education evaluation. The EC

meets bi-weekly at a regularly scheduled time. Currently, the Team meets every other Thursday at

2:45. A Gmail account has been created especially for this Committee at:

[email protected] to help streamline the process and assist with communication

(i.e., organize and manage email, submit and review documents, and view calendar and scheduled

events, etc.).

Empowerment Committee Procedures:

● The teacher with concern completes the required form on Google Docs. The assigned grade

level designee will review the form for completion and schedule the meeting.

● Teachers concerned about a student’s academic achievement and/or behavior complete a

referral form and email it to the Empowerment Committee. The teacher is also expected to


review the student’s cumulative folder prior to submitting the form to the Empowerment

Aurora Charter School 2014-15 World’s Best Workforce (WBWF) & Annual Report 8 Committee.

The appropriate Team member will review the form and schedule an Empowerment

Committee meeting to discuss the student.

● Empowerment Committee meetings are held on a bi-weekly basis in the intervention room.

Attendees include a special education teacher, administrator, school psychologist, Title One

teachers, ELL teachers, intervention teachers, and the referring teacher.

● At the Empowerment Committee meeting, the teacher shares student concerns, reviews

current progress, and presents data regarding the interventions already attempted (if any). The

Team brainstorms what scientifically research-based interventions are needed, determines the

specific interventions that will be implemented for 4-6 weeks, and identifies the method of data

collection.

● Interventionists and/or support staff carry out the specified interventions for 4-6 weeks,

collecting data on a weekly basis while being provided guidance and support. Depending on the

nature of the intervention, it is possible that the data is collected on a bi-weekly basis, rather

than weekly. The Empowerment Committee will inform the teacher and other staff involved.

● The Team reassembles to discuss the data and the overall effectiveness of the interventions

implemented. If the data demonstrates that the interventions were not successful, another

scientifically research-based intervention is determined by the Team and will be implemented

for an additional 3-4 weeks in the specific area of concern.

● After 6-8 weeks of targeted intervention(s), the Team reviews all intervention data, student

progress, and overall performance to determine whether to continue with the intervention,

modify the intervention, or even add another intervention for 3-4 additional weeks if the

student has shown progress.

● If the student did not make adequate progress (as demonstrated by the data) after receiving a

minimum of two scientifically research-based interventions, the Empowerment Committee

might refer that student to the Child Study Team in order to plan an initial special education

evaluation.

Other possible options are:

● Recommend the classroom teacher continues current interventions for an extended time

and/or implements other suggested interventions.

● Recommend increasing ELL services

● Recommend pursuit of services such as Title I

● Recommend After School Tutoring

● Recommend a 504 evaluation for students with a current diagnosis or condition that meet the

definition of “disabled” under ADA

● Recommend pursuit of special education evaluation.

● No further consideration required.

SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES Aurora Charter School provides a continuum of educational service alternatives. All students with

disabilities are provided special instruction and services, which are appropriate to meet their needs. The

following is representative of Aurora Charter School’s method of providing special education services

for the identified pupils. Appropriate program alternatives to meet the special education needs, goals,


and objectives of a pupil are determined on an individual basis. Choices of specific program alternatives

are based on the pupil’s current levels of performance, special educational needs, goals, and objectives,

and must be written in the IEP.

Program alternatives are comprised of the type of services provided, the setting in which services are

located, and the amount of time and frequency in which special education services occur.

1. Special Education Support and Services:

a. Direct instruction in general education setting

b. Small group instruction in general education

c. Direct 1:1 instruction in resource room

d. Small group instruction in resource room

e. Paraprofessional/Instructional Assistants (IA) support in general education

f. Indirect instruction

2. Related Services available:

a. Speech/Language and Articulation Therapy services

b. Occupational Therapy services

c. Psychological services/Behavior Skills

d. Social Work/School Counseling services

e. Deaf/Hard of Hearing services

f. Audio logical services

g. Blind/Visual Impairment services

h. Developmental Adaptive Physical Education (DAPE) services

THE ENGLISH LEARNER PROGRAM Aurora Charter School provides English Language Services to students who are identified as English

Language Learners. In grades K-2 English as a Second Language (ESL) classes are delivered 5 times a

week for 40 minutes. These classes are designed to ease students into the English language by teaching

them to read and write in English while their primary learning objectives occur in Spanish. Our Dual

Inclusion program allows for English Learners and Spanish Language Learners to share the experience

of learning a new language together. In Kindergarten, students are taught in English 30 minutes a day,

in addition to the 40-minute ESL class. In first grade, it is 60 minutes a day plus 40 minutes of ESL class.

In second grade, students are taught in English 90 minutes a day plus 40 minutes of ESL class.

In grades 3-5 students receive 40 minutes of ESL instruction and are taught their Language Arts class in

English with an ESL teacher assisting. Co teaching is done in a sheltered instruction model to support

the ELL students.

Students with low WIDA ACCESS test scores are pulled out of their general classroom to receive

services in a small group with peers who are at a similar level of English Language Proficiency.

In Middle School, all students have an ESL class in addition to their English Language Arts class. They

receive sheltered instruction in Science, Social Studies, and Language Arts.

Due to Aurora Charter School’s unique approach to education and language acquisition, its staff

members are also very carefully selected to fill its needs. Aurora Charter School instructional staff of 42,

28 licensed teachers and 14 educational assistants. Our teachers in grades Preschool through second


grade are native Spanish speakers and are bilingual in Spanish and English. They have the knowledge

and skills to teach the Spanish curriculum. These skills are fundamental to teaching these grade levels

because the first language of literacy for our students’ Pre-K through second grade is Spanish.

Beginning in the third grade through fifth grade, students split their day between Spanish and English,

increasing English literacy while maintaining their first language. Beginning in the 6th grade through

8th grade, the language of instruction is English along with a Spanish Language Arts class designed for

native speakers of Spanish to maintain their academic Spanish. Currently, roughly seventy (70%) of

Aurora's staff is bilingual. Various grade levels share a teaching assistant. There are nine teaching

assistants, and all are native Spanish speakers or bilingual. Due to the increase in student population of

students with disabilities who have IEPs, the role of specific teaching assistants has slowly shifted from

a classroom assistant to working part day and/or primarily with students with disabilities who require

this service per their IEP, either as a “child-specific” paraprofessional or a classroom special education

paraprofessional. Key support staff is also native Spanish speakers or bilingual. By having Spanish-

speaking and bilingual staff, it assures that language barriers for students and parents are drastically

minimized or eliminated altogether allowing for parents to stay involved in their children's education.

The School Calendar for 2015/16 is Attachment 1 of this report.


6. INNOVATIVE PRACTICES & IMPLEMENTATION Aurora Charter School is comprised primarily of students who are native speakers of Spanish, which

gives it a unique opportunity to teach a dual-language curriculum, the end goal being that students will

graduate from eighth grade both bilingual and bi-literate in Spanish and English. In kindergarten

through second grade, students are taught language arts, math, science, and social studies in Spanish.

In third through fifth grade, half of the subjects are continuously taught in Spanish, while the others are

taught in English. While students are learning English in third and fourth grade, their language arts

classes are co-taught with an ESL teacher to expedite the students’ English acquisition. By middle

school, students are bilingual, and education in English and Spanish continues through both English

and Spanish Language Arts. This dual-language structure is the core of our mission to “operate a center

of learning that embraces academic excellence and celebrates the gift of Latino culture.”

For the last three years, ACS has offered a summer program. The summer program traditionally runs

for four weeks in June and July. This year, lead teachers lead the program. 138 students attended this

summer in Kindergarten-7th grade.

After school programming ran from 2:30-4:30 and functioned as homework support for students.

Teaching assistants staffed the after school programming, and a couple middle school teachers

volunteered to spend additional time supporting students as they progressed through the day’s work.

For our students whose families may not be able to assist with homework, this program has reduced

missing homework significantly. This program provides a quiet workplace where students can focus

and be productive.

Aurora Charter School has operated a preschool program consisting of students ages 3-5 for the last

two years. The program measures proficiency according to Minnesota’s Early Childhood Indicators of

Progress. Specifically, the program is designed to support children’s learning in their first language at

an early stage of intellectual development, which in turn will facilitate accelerated learning in English

and Spanish as students’ progress through school. The school serves primarily Spanish-speaking

families, and students begin learning in their first language in preschool through grade two and then

transition quickly into English in the following grades. Teaching the school’s curriculum in Spanish not

only helps our students succeed academically but also enables parents to be more involved in their

children’s education. The majority of ACS families are immigrants or second generation, and the school

is dedicated to providing quality care, exceptional instruction, and a safe environment for children while

parents are working to support their families.

SUCCESSES ● During the 15/16 school year, we completed an initiative to support academics and

socioemotional responsiveness through higher order thinking skills and a caring and mindfulness

growth mindset. This program was headed by our Student Support Liaison. The Student Support

Liaison assisted in writing behavior management plans using these principals. The program

proved effective in improving behavior management skills for classroom teachers.

● Obtaining a 4-star Parent Aware Rating for our Preschool program is a success and allows more

parents to see that our program is a high quality option for their students. It also has allowed

parents to apply for Pathway II scholarships.

● We continue to see stable enrollment and attendance from our students and value the continued


commitment of our families.

● Investing in additional Professional Development for teachers, on and off site, had a direct

positive impact on staff culture and performance. We will continue to develop and refine our PD

program.

● This year, we implemented the Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment system for the first

time, which provided new forms of assessment for classroom teachers and useable data. This

system provided tests in Spanish, which is helpful when determining actual skill levels for our

English Learner students.

● We saw teacher leadership increase during the school year in the form of more committee

participation from teachers.

● Our Authorizer featured components of our Environmental Education program in their

newsletter twice, which we feel is a good reflection of our program and our Environmental

Education Committee’s commitment to engendering Environmental Education within the

school.

● Parent participation has increased as parents are invested in raising money for the school to

purchase and install a playground for our students. Parents have so far raised four thousand

dollars with the Angels that Help.

● During this school year, we applied for a solar panel array with the Made in MN Lottery.

Unfortunately, our school was not chosen to be a recipient this year, but we will continue to apply

in subsequent years.

● We continue to have an excellent relationship with our landlord.

● Progress continues to be made on creating a school library. School staff have been collecting

books from different resources and bringing them to the school. We hosted a book fair and used

those proceeds to make purchases for the library. Half Price books has been a good partner to

the school, calling the school regularly with available donations.

● Aurora continues to have solid community partnerships with:

● The MN Twins – Eduardo Escobar visited the school during the 15/16 school year.

● We developed a partnership with CLUES, who will be providing mental health services

at the school in the 2016-2017 school year.

● Siempre Padres continue to provide services to our families.

● Many of our students attend sessions with Urban Ventures. Urban Ventures

representatives regularly visit the school to check on the student's’ behavior and academic

progress.

● Several of our students attend Banyan Community after school.

● Raíces provided an after-school program, which several students attended.

● The MN United FC Soccer team donated 170 game tickets to give out to kids with

perfect attendance. Several families took advantage of this opportunity.

● 50 8th grade students and their parents toured Mankato School. During this visit,

parents attended a class on how to plan for college and pay for it.

KEY CHALLENGES ● Teacher retention continues to be a challenge for Aurora. This year we implemented a rigorous

professional development program to address this issue.

● Standardized test scores are challenging for several reasons: students at Aurora learn English later

in life, which makes the test more challenging for them as it is not offered in multiple languages;


two of our upper grades had teachers switch in the middle of the year, which added a challenging

element to the test; students do not take the test very seriously, and getting their buy-in for the

test is difficult; the testing schedule was a challenge, interventionists and support staff focused on

testing which took those services away from kids for several weeks.

● In response to low test scores in SY 2014-2015, we implemented both a new Math and Language

Arts Curriculum, Everyday Math and Benchmark Universe, at the same time this year, which was a

bit overwhelming for teachers. In the future, we will change only one curriculum at a time as

necessary.

FUTURE PLANS ● We will continue to make strides towards improving our use of High Order Thinking Skills and our

students Socio Emotional Wellness.

● Development of our school library and the acquisition of a playground are important

developments.

● Teacher retention and the improvement of our Professional Development program continues to

be an important development for Aurora.


7. ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE: GOALS & BENCHMARKS As articulated in MN Stat. 124D. 10, Subd. 10, “A charter school must design its programs to at least

meet the outcomes adopted by the commissioner for public school students,” which means striving

for the world's best workforce (WBWF) as outlined in MN Stat. 120B.11. As an authorizer, ACNW

must evaluate the school’s performance on meeting outcomes adopted by the commissioner (i.e.,

WBWF). Therefore, these contractual goals and measures have been aligned to WBWF goal areas.

Measures are assigned to WBWF goal area(s) as appropriate and as outlined below:

Ready for Kindergarten [R4K]

All students are ready for kindergarten.

Reading Well by 3rd Grade [RG3]

All students in third grade achieve grade-level literacy.

Achievement Gap Closure [AGC]

All racial and economic achievement gaps between students are closed.

Career and College Ready [CCR]

All students are career- and college-ready before graduating from high school.

Graduate from High School [GRAD]

All students graduate from high school.

All goals are for students enrolled as of October 1 in each of the years assessed for all grades assessed

unless otherwise indicated.

Indicator 1: Mission Related 12%

Goal: Over the period of the contract, Aurora Charter School (ACS) students will demonstrate

proficiency in Spanish and understanding of Latino culture.

Measure 1.1 – 3%: In aggregate, from FY16 to FY17, at least 80.0% of students will

demonstrate a level of proficiency in artistic expression related to celebrating the Latino

culture as measured by successfully completing a public performance at a festival or other

venue with an audience.

● Exceeds Standard: The aggregate percentage of students demonstrating a level of proficiency in

artistic expression is at least 90.0%.

● Meets Standard: The aggregate percentage of students demonstrating a level of proficiency in

artistic expression is at least 80.0%.

● Approaches Standard: The aggregate percentage of students demonstrating a level of

proficiency in artistic expression is at least 70.0%.

● Does Not Meet Standard: The school did not meet the criteria for any of the ratings above.

Aurora does not have data to report on this metric.

Measure 1.2 [RG3] – 3%: In aggregate, from FY16 to FY17, at least 65.0% of students in


grades K-2 will attain grade level proficiency in Spanish as measured by performance on the

annual spring Aprenda assessment.

● Exceeds Standard: The aggregate percentage of K-2 students attaining grade level proficiency in

Spanish is at least 75.0%.

● Meets Standard: The aggregate percentage of K-2 students attaining grade level proficiency in


● Approaches Standard: The aggregate percentage of K-2 students attaining grade level

proficiency in Spanish is at least 55.0%.


Aurora did not administer the Aprenda assessment during FY16.

Measure 1.3 [CCR] – 3%: In aggregate, from FY16 to FY17, at least 55.0% of students in

grades 3-6 will attain grade level proficiency in Spanish as measured by performance on the

annual spring Aprenda assessment.

● Exceeds Standard: The aggregate percentage of 3-6 students attaining grade level proficiency in


● Meets Standard: The aggregate percentage of 3-6 students attaining grade level proficiency in


● Approaches Standard: The aggregate percentage of 3-6 students attaining grade level

proficiency in Spanish is at least 45.0%.



Measure 1.4 [CCR] – 3%: In aggregate, from FY16 to FY17, at least 55.0% of students in

grades 7 and 8 will be functionally bilingual as determined by attaining a proficient level

scale score in Spanish on the annual spring “Intermedio 4” Aprenda assessment AND by

achieving at least a partially proficiency MCA reading score in grades 7 and 8.

● Exceeds Standard: The aggregate percentage of 7-8 students determined to be functionally

bilingual is at least 70%.

● Meets Standard: The aggregate percentage of 7-8 students determined to be functionally


● Approaches Standard: The aggregate percentage of 7-8 students determined to be functionally




Indicator 2: English Language Learners 12%

Goal: Over the period of the contract, English Learners at ACS will demonstrate adequate

progress towards English language proficiency.


Measure 2.1 [AGC] – 12%: In FY15, FY16, and FY17, ACS will meet the State Progress Target

(AMAO 1) on the ACCESS assessment for English Learners each year. Targets are 46.39% for

FY15, 48.62% in FY16, and 50.85% in FY17.

● Exceeds Standard: The school exceeds the State Progress Target by at least 5.00 percentage

points in all three years.

● Meets Standard: The school meets the State Progress Target in all three years.

● Approaches Standard: The school is within 5.00 percentage points of the State Progress Target

in all three years.


FY15: Exceeds Standard, 69.62% of students making progress.

FY16: Approaches Standard, 45.87% of students making progress.

Indicator 3: Reading Growth _ 16%

Goal: Over the period of the contract, ACS students will demonstrate growth in reading as

measured by state assessments and nationally normed assessments.

Measure 3.1 [CCR] – 4%: In aggregate, from FY15-FY17 the growth z-score for all students on

MCA assessments will be equal to or greater than 0.00.

● Exceeds Standard: The school achieves an aggregate growth z-score equal to or greater than

0.50

● Meets Standard: The school achieves an aggregate growth z-score equal to or greater than 0.00.

● Approaches Standard: The school achieves an aggregate growth z-score greater than -0.50.


Does Not Meet Standard: The school’s aggregate growth score for all students is -0.542

Measure 3.2 [CCR] – 4%: In aggregate, from FY15-FY17 the percentage of students that

achieve a positive z-score on MCA assessments will be at least 60.0%.

● Exceeds Standard: The aggregate percentage of students with a positive z-score is at least

70.0%.

● Meets Standard: The aggregate percentage of students with a positive z-score is at least 60.0%.

● Approaches Standard: The aggregate percentage of students with a positive z-score is at least

50.0%.


Does Not Meet Standard: 26.94% of students achieved a positive z-score on the MCA Reading

Assessment.

Measure 3.3 [RG3] – 3%: In aggregate, from FY15 through FY18, at least 60.0% of students in grades 1-3 who take both fall and spring NWEA MAP tests annually will meet their projected

RIT point growth target from fall to spring (except for FY18, from fall to winter).

● Exceeds Standard: The aggregate percentage of students meeting their projected RIT point

growth target is at least 63.0%.


● Meets Standard: The aggregate percentage of students meeting their projected RIT point growth

target is at least 60.0%.

● Approaches Standard: The aggregate percentage of students meeting their projected RIT point



2015/16: Does Not Meet Standard. 29% of Students in Grade 3 met their NWEA RIT Growth

target.

Measure 3.4 [CCR] – 5%: In aggregate, from FY15 through FY18, at least 56.0% of students in

grades 4-8 who take both fall and spring NWEA MAP tests annually will meet their projected









2015/16: Does Not Meet Standard. 39% of students met their NWEA RIT Growth target.

Indicator 4: Math Growth _ _ 16%

Goal: Over the period of the contract, ACS students will demonstrate growth in math as

measured by state assessments and nationally normed assessments.

Measure 4.1 [CCR] – 4%: In aggregate, from FY15-FY17 the growth z-score for all students on

MCA assessments will be equal to or greater than 0.00.

● Exceeds Standard: The school achieves an aggregate growth z-score equal to or greater than

0.50

● Meets Standard: The school achieves an aggregate growth z-score equal to or greater than 0.00.

● Approaches Standard: The school achieves an aggregate growth z-score greater than -0.50.


2015/16: The sum of z-scores for the Math MCA is -171.9781, the average z-score for 15/16

was -0.77.

Measure 4.2 [CCR] – 4%: In aggregate, from FY15-FY17 the percentage of students that

achieve a positive z-score on MCA assessments will be at least 60.0%.

● Exceeds Standard: The aggregate percentage of students with a positive z-score is at least

70.0%.

● Meets Standard: The aggregate percentage of students with a positive z-score is at least 60.0%.

● Approaches Standard: The aggregate percentage of students with a positive z-score is at least

50.0%.


2015/16: 23% of students had a positive z-score on the Math MCA.


Measure 4.3 [CCR] – 8%: In aggregate, from FY15 through FY18, at least 58.0% of students in

grades 1-8 who take both fall and spring NWEA MAP tests annually will meet their projected









2015/16: Does Not Meet Standard. 37% of students who tested in fall and spring met their

growth target.

Indicator 5: Reading Proficiency _ 14%

Goal: Over the period of the contract, ACS students will meet or exceed the standards in

reading as measured by state assessments.

Measure 5.1 [RG3] – 1%: The school’s aggregate proficiency index score for 3rd grade

students from FY15 to FY17 will increase by at least 10.0 points from the baseline

proficiency index score (baseline score – 33.3).

● Exceeds Standard: The aggregate proficiency index score is at least 15.0 points above the

baseline score.

● Meets Standard: The aggregate proficiency index score is at least 10.0 points above the baseline

score.

● Approaches Standard: The aggregate proficiency index score is at least 5.0 points above the

baseline score.


2015/16: Does Not Meet Standard. 3rd Grade students at Aurora had 7 proficiency Index

Points.

Measure 5.2 [CCR] – 2%: From FY15 to FY17, the school’s aggregate proficiency index score

for students enrolled at the school for at least two years will increase by at least 12.0 points

from the baseline proficiency index score (baseline score – 43.2).


baseline score.


score.


baseline score.


2015/16: Does Not Meet Standard. Students who have been enrolled for two years or more at Aurora earned 47 index points on the Reading MCA.


Measure 5.3 [CCR] – 2%: The school’s aggregate proficiency index score from FY15 to FY17

will increase by at least 10.0 points from the baseline proficiency index score (baseline score

– 43.2).


baseline score.


score.


baseline score.


2015/16: Meets Standard. All students at Aurora earned 64.5 index points on the Reading

MCA.

Measure 5.4 [CCR] – 1.5%: In aggregate, from FY15-FY17 the school will achieve a

proficiency index score equal to or greater than that of the state for the same grades (3-8).

● Exceeds Standard: The school achieves an aggregate proficiency index score at least 10.0 points

above the state’s score.

● Meets Standard: The school achieves an aggregate proficiency index score equal to or greater

than the state’s score.

● Approaches Standard: The school achieves an aggregate proficiency index score within 10.0

points of the state’s score.


2015/16: Does Not Meet Standard. Aurora’s Reading Proficiency Score is 13.7%, the state’s

score is 59.9%.


proficiency index score equal to or greater than that of the local district (ISD 1 –

Minneapolis) for the same grades (3-8).


above the district’s score.


than the district’s score.


points of the district’s score.


2015/16: Does Not Meet Standard. Minneapolis Public school district scores as 43.2%

proficient, Aurora scored as 13.7% proficient.

Measure 5.6 [AGC] – 1.5%: In aggregate, from FY15-FY17 the school’s FRP subgroup will

achieve a proficiency index score equal to or greater than that of the state for the same

subgroup and the same grades (3-8).









2015/16: Approached Standard. Free & Reduced Lunch students at Aurora score as 12.5%,

the All students group scores as 13.7% proficient.


achieve a proficiency index score greater than that of the local district (ISD 1 – Minneapolis)

for the same subgroup and the same grades (3-8).



● Meets Standard: The school achieves an aggregate proficiency index score greater than the

district’s score.




2015/16: Does Not Meet Standard. Free & Reduced Lunch students at Aurora score as 12.5%

on the Reading NWEA, Minneapolis Public School students score as 24.5% proficient.

Measure 5.8 [AGC] – 1.5%: In aggregate, from FY15-FY17 the school’s English Learner

subgroup will achieve a proficiency index score equal to or greater than that of the state for

the same subgroup and the same grades (3-8).








2015/16: Does not meet standard. EL students at Aurora score as 5.4% proficient, the state’s

proficiency score is 16.9%.


subgroup will achieve a proficiency index score greater than that of the local district (ISD 1 –

Minneapolis) for the same subgroup and the same grades (3-8).




district’s score.





2015/16: Does not meet standard. EL students at Aurora score as 5.4% proficient, MPS

scores as 11.6% proficient.

Indicator 6: Math Proficiency 14%

Goal: Over the period of the contract, ACS students will demonstrate proficiency in math as

measured by state assessments.

Measure 6.1 [CCR] – 2.5%: From FY15 to FY17, the school’s aggregate proficiency index score




baseline score.


score.

● Approaches Standard: The aggregate proficiency index score is greater than the baseline score.


2015/16: Meets Standard. For students enrolled for two years or more, the baseline

proficiency index score is 77.

Measure 6.2 [CCR] – 2.5%: The school’s aggregate proficiency index score from FY15 to FY17


– 64.3).


baseline score.


score.

● Approaches Standard: The aggregate proficiency index score is greater than the baseline score.


2015/16: Exceeds Standard. The proficiency index score for FY16 is 85.5.


proficiency index score equal to or greater than that of the state for the same grades (3-8).








2015/16: Does Not Meet Standard. Aurora students test as 16.7% proficient, Statewide the

percent proficient is 59.5%.



proficiency index score equal to or greater than that of the local district (ISD 1 –

Minneapolis) for the same grades (3-8).








2015/16: Does Not Meet Standard. Aurora students test as 16.7% proficient, at MPS the




















district’s score.



















Measure 6.8[AGC] – 1.5%: In aggregate, from FY15-FY17 the school’s English Learner






district’s score.






Indicator 7: Science Proficiency _ 8%

Goal: Over the period of the contract, ACS students will demonstrate proficiency in science as


Measure 7.1 [CCR] – 1%: From FY15 to FY17, the school’s aggregate proficiency index score




baseline score.


score.


baseline score.


Does not meet standard. The Proficiency Index Rate for 2-year enrolled students increased from 20 in FY15 to 22.7 in FY16. A gain of 2.7.

Measure 7.2 [CCR] – 1%: The school’s aggregate proficiency index score from FY15 to FY17


– 40.6).


baseline score.



score.


baseline score.


Does not meet standard. The Proficiency Index Rate for students increased from 19.4 in

FY15 to 22.2 in FY16. A gain of 2.8.

Measure 7.3 [CCR] – 1%: In aggregate, from FY15-FY17 the school will achieve a proficiency

index score equal to or greater than that of the state for the same grades (3-8).








Does Not Meet Standard: Aurora Students have a 22.2% proficiency index score for All students. The state holds a 67% proficiency index score for all students. Measure 7.4 [CCR] – 1%: In aggregate, from FY15-FY17 the school will achieve a proficiency

index score equal to or greater than that of the local district (ISD 1 – Minneapolis) for the

same grades (3-8).








Does Not Meet Standard: Aurora Students have a 22.2% proficiency index score for All students. Minneapolis Public Schools has a proficiency index for All students of 45.2%. Measure 7.5 [AGC] – 1%: In aggregate, from FY15-FY17 the school’s FRP subgroup will






state’s score.





Approaches Standard: Statewide the proficiency index score for Free & Reduced Lunch students is

30%. Aurora students of the same demographic have a proficiency index score of 22%.

Measure 7.6 [AGC] – 1%: In aggregate, from FY15-FY17 the school’s FRP subgroup will






district’s score.




Does Not Meet Standard: In ISD 1 the proficiency index score for Free & Reduced Lunch students is 53%. Aurora students of the same demographic have a proficiency index score of 22%. Measure 7.7 [AGC] – 1%: In aggregate, from FY15-FY17 the school’s English Learner










Meets Standard: Aurora Students have a 22.2% proficiency index score for All students, the State’s proficiency index score for EL students is 21%. Measure 7.8[AGC] – 1%: In aggregate, from FY15-FY17 the school’s English Learner






district’s score.





Exceeds Standard: Aurora Students have a 22.2% proficiency index score for All students.

Minneapolis Public Schools EL subgrouping has a proficiency index of 8.4%. While Aurora EL

students score 13.8% higher than MPS.

Indicator 8: Proficiency in Other Curricular Areas 3%

Goal: Over the period of the contract, prekindergarten students at ACS will demonstrate

readiness for kindergarten as measured by the Teaching Strategies Gold assessment.

Measure 8.1 [R4K] – 3%: From FY15 to FY17, the aggregate percentage of prekindergarten

students who demonstrate readiness for kindergarten as measured by the Teaching

Strategies Gold assessment will be at least 85.0%.

● Exceeds Standard: The aggregate percentage is at least 95.0%.

● Meets Standard: The aggregate percentage is at least 85.0%.

● Approaches Standard: The aggregate percentage is at least 75.0%.


Data from this assessment was not collected.

Indicator 9: Post Secondary Readiness

The school does not have a contractual goal in this indicator area as it does not serve high

school students.

Indicator 10: Federal and State Accountability

The school does not have a contractual goal in this indicator area. ACNW will evaluate the

school’s performance in this area based on results from the Multiple Measurement System.

Indicator 11: Attendance _ 5%

Goal: Over the period of the contract, ACS students will attend the school at high rates.

Measure 11.1 – 5%: From FY15-FY17, the average of the school’s annual attendance rates

will be at least 93.0%.

● Exceeds Standard: The average of the school’s annual attendance rates is at least 96.0%.

● Meets Standard: The average of the school’s annual attendance rates is at least 93.0%.

● Approaches Standard: The average of the school’s annual attendance rates is at least 90.0%.


2015/16: Exceeds Standard: Attendance was 96.26%


8. EDUCATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS: ASSESSMENT & EVALUATION Assessing and evaluating each student’s learning and growth: In addition to state standardized

assessments (MCA and WIDA), ACS also uses local assessments to assess and evaluate student growth.

During the 2014-2015 school year, ACS implemented three new, research-based assessments:

1. NWEA Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) assessment for grades 3-8 (Math and reading)

2. The Reading and Writing Project benchmark reading assessment for grades 3-8 (designed by

Columbia University)

3. 3. EasyCBM for grades K-2 (Spanish reading, and math assessments)

The data collected from these assessments are used to determine students’ academic needs, assess

student progress, and measure student growth. Teachers then use this data to inform their instruction

and guide PLCs (Professional Learning Communities). Furthermore, through the addition of local

assessments, ACS is now able to not only make data-driven decisions in regard curriculum and

instruction, but also use data collected to discuss possible implementation or reform of school-wide

systems.

Test scores the previous year were much lower than we had hoped for in Math & Language Arts. This

helped us determine that the curriculum was not addressing students’ needs in these areas or working

well with our Dual Language programming. We elected to change both the Mathematics and Language

Arts curriculums. To support this change, we added an extra week of teacher development training

prior to the start of the school year. Additional Professional Development offered at the start of the

school year focused on classroom management, SIOP training, and Crisis Prevention Intervention

Training.

During 2015/2016, we worked to improve our Environmental Education program. Selected teachers

went to the Environmental Education retreat offered by Audubon Center for the Northwoods and to

other various trainings throughout the school year. They reported back that these trainings were

beneficial, so the Environmental Education (EE) Committee sought out ways to bring similar trainings

to all teachers. In August 2016, EE training will be brought to the school for all teachers through a new

partnership with the Jeffers Foundation.

In addition to state standardized assessments (MCA-II and WIDA ACCESS), ACS also uses local

assessments to assess and evaluate. During the 2015-2016 school year, we used NWEA-MAP, teacher

observations, our Child Find process (the Empowerment Committee), Dreambox Learning Platform,

Fountas & Pinnell reading assessments, and classroom work.

Our population is mostly Hispanic and Latino, and most students are bilingual, having some proficiency

in Spanish and English. We disaggregate data by identified ESL, home language, and new to country

when applicable. We also look at Special Education students. Most of our students have a Free or

Reduced lunch status, so this group is not very useable in terms of disaggregating data.

A review of student test scores on the MCA-II as well as progress throughout the previous year on

NWEA prompted us to research the strengths of our current curriculum and the populations with whom

it was most effective. Once we determined areas where our current curriculum was lacking, we looked


for additional curriculums to support these areas. Instead of reviewing one curriculum this year as we

normally do, we chose to replace our previous Math curriculum with Everyday Math and our Language

Arts curriculum with Benchmark Universe. ACS traditionally evaluates one curriculum a year to see if it

remains effective and applicable to students learning needs. During the summer of 2016, the science

curriculum was evaluated. We looked for a science curriculum which is designed for bilingual students

and has a large environmental education focus. The curriculum chosen to replace our former curriculum

is called Interactive Science.


9. STUDENT & PARENT SATISFACTION Close to 200 parents participated in the parent satisfaction survey during the 2015/16 school year.

Overall, parents state that they bring their students to Aurora due to the unique bilingual approach to

education, as well as a referral from other parents. 90% of participants in the survey state that the

school meets their expectations. Citing that the staff, educational programming, and bilingual

approach are the best aspects of the school.

66% of participants feel the school does not need improvement. The remaining 34% of respondents

feel that the school can improve on bus service, student discipline, and more physical activities

incorporated into school programming.

The Executive Director is a positive force in the school (46%), 33% of respondents are neutral or have no

opinion in response to this question. Commentary on this question suggests the Executive Director

increase his fluency in Spanish, better communication with parents, and work on student discipline.

Results of the parent survey are overall very positive and give direction for areas of improvement which

will be addressed during the next school year.

10. ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION The mission of Aurora Charter School’s authorizer, the Audubon Center of the North Woods, is to

“instill a connection and commitment to the environment in people of all communities through

experiential learning.” The Audubon Center of the North Woods defines environmental education as

the implementation of values and strategies that foster learning and create environmentally literate

citizens who engage in creating healthy outcomes for individuals, communities, and the Earth.

Environmental literacy is the knowledge, skills, attitudes, motivation, and commitment to work

individually and collectively toward sustaining a healthy natural and social environment. As part of our

contract with our authorizer, we are required to provide opportunities to instill a connection and

commitment to the environment through experiential learning.

Indicator Area 1: Curriculum and School Culture

Outcome: In SY 2016-2018, 100% of students in Grades K-8 will demonstrate increased knowledge of

environmental education concepts and environmental stewardship.

Evaluation methods: Quarterly performance assessments such as student portfolios (cross-curricular),

presentations, scientific journaling (over extended time), and authentic application of EE concepts to

take action in the local environment. Initial and final survey of students’ knowledge and attitudes about

the environment will help measure yearly growth.

Activities: During the 2015-2018 school years, students in grades K-8 will be exposed to a curriculum

embedded with environmental themes and topics which across content areas, and aligned with the

Minnesota State Standards. The curriculum presented will not only teach students about the different

aspects of environmental education world-wide, but will also provide students with hands-on, higher-

level thinking activities that will allow them to open their eyes to how they impact the environment and

how they can take action to ensure that the environment around them is protected.


During SY 2016, one of the biggest challenges for ACS while implementing environmental education

(EE) goals was incorporating EE within the existing bilingual curriculum. To combat these challenges,

ACS created an Environmental Education Committee, which includes both teachers and administrators.

The EE Committee worked consistently throughout the school year to develop ACS’s EE program and

incorporate EE into the school’s culture at both the staff and student levels.

One of the EE Committee’s main objectives for this year was to design a practical way to roll out its EE

goals to staff, students, and families. Because change must be manageable, the EE Committee's

intention was to introduce the goals and requirements in small steps so as to not overwhelm teachers,

who already have heavy workloads, in order to maintain a positive school culture. The committee

started small by asking teachers to do one short EE-related activity per week during morning meetings

and to add a Green Corner to their classrooms. The Green Corner would be meant to display EE-related

student work, news, connections to EE lessons, etc. and would need to change each month. In addition,

to make it easier and to create school unity around EE, the EE Committee asked teachers to follow the

theme of “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" when choosing EE activities for morning meeting and for EE class

projects. EE Committee members have continually documented the success of this approach by taking

photographs of student projects, interviewing students, and requiring teachers to include these EE

activities and projects into their weekly lesson plan submissions.

The second step of the EE Committee's EE roll-out plan was to have teachers create full lesson plans

around EE grade-level standards. As a guide, ACS adapted the Minnesota Office of Environmental

Assistance’s ʺEnvironmental Literacy Scope and Sequence (ELSS)." The Committee felt this would be

helpful for teachers during EE professional development and for EE use in the classroom. To make the

document more manageable, the EE Committee broke the ELSS down by cluster (PK-2, 3-5, 6-8). Each

teacher received their cluster’s benchmarks, key systems concepts and supporting concepts, and

related definitions. Upon first introduction, the EE Committee gave the staff time to familiarize

themselves with the document and to begin brainstorming ways to work EE benchmarks and concepts

into their existing curriculum. Once they were familiar, teachers were asked to incorporate EE into one

lesson per week, in addition to their existing EE requirements. Teachers provided proof of their lesson

connections to the ELSS benchmarks in their weekly lesson plan submissions.

At the end of the year, to assess the EE progress in the classrooms, teachers, along with the help of

their students, were asked to create classroom EE portfolios. These portfolios included lesson plans and

student work demonstrating the ELSS benchmarks and how they were utilized and taught in the

classroom. This assessment will be developed and modified for the coming school years.

Moving forward, ACS would like to increase the students’ opportunities to be exposed to natural

environments, which is sometimes difficult given the school’s urban location. To accomplish this,

teachers are first encouraged to do small activities on school grounds. The EE Committee is also

currently in the process of making connections with local environmental education programs and

wildlife reserves to provide experiential learning experiences for students and trainings for teachers.

Before the beginning of the next school year, ACS will provide formal training and EE CEUs to all staff

members in order to start the 2016-2017 school year with a stronger EE focus. The EE Committee will

also continue to meet with the staff periodically to help guide the school's transition into a fully

incorporated Environmental Education program.

Indicator Area 2: Exposure to Natural Environments


Outcome: In SY 2016-2018 100% of students in Grades K-8 will increase their knowledge of the local

and regional environment in order to understand how human activities impact the natural

environment.

Evaluation methods: Environmental Education is centered around experiential learning. The skills and

abilities related to Environmental Education are abstract and difficult to measure with standard

assessments. The methods used to assess students learning are focused on student output. At Aurora

Charter School, Environmental Education Goal Evaluation Methods consist of: Student presentations

(to school board), journals, portfolios, physical projects, experiments, proposal plans, videos,

interviews, etc.

Activities: During the term of the contract school year, all students in grades K-8 will be exposed to the

natural environment at least twice. These experiences will be diverse and well researched prior by

educators. In addition, teachers will write and share with students their goals for the field trip. These

goals should require students to not only learn the about the environments, but also apply their

learning in a way that positively affects the environment around them. This application of knowledge

will help measure the effectiveness of each field trip as well as each student’s level of understanding in

regard to how humans affect the natural environment.

During SY 2016, Aurora Charter School made serious strides toward developing a plan to expose more

students to natural environments. The eventual goal is to have each grade level attend two field trips

per year to natural spaces. In the past, the only regularly scheduled environmental field trips were to

the Audubon Center of the North Woods in Sandstone, Minnesota. This year, several grades were able

to attend field trips to natural spaces, as outlined below.

On June 7, 2016, the third graders of Aurora Charter School went on an excursion to the Woodlake

Nature Center in Richfield, MN. Students were divided into groups and led through three hands-on

activities related to the environment. The activities required that kids carefully observe their

environment in three different manners: with their eyes, with magnifying glasses, and with

microscopes. In the first activity, students were led to the end of a dock. Here, they used small buckets

to scoop water from the lake. They used their eyes to look for living things in the water they gathered.

The second activity brought students into the woods. They were given jars and magnifying glasses.

The kids used the magnifying glasses to look for insects. The last activity involved students looking

through microscopes at feathers, sand, tree bark, and other things from the great outdoors.

This trip to Woodlake Nature Center was impactful for students in various ways. First, students had the

opportunity to engage with nature using tools that they don't often use in school or at home. The

magnifying glass and microscopes helped sharpen their observation skills and encouraged to pay

attention to details, something which translates well into many realms. Additionally, some of our

students at Aurora seldom have the chance to go to lake or explore the forest. The experiences at

Woodlake Nature Center therefore broadened their horizons. Finally, the kids seemed excited at the

vast amount of life and incredible intricacy found in nature. I believe that this field trip increased their

appreciation of the great outdoors.

On May 24, 2016, 5th grade visited Target Field to take the Sustainability Tour. Students took a behind-

the-scenes tour to learn how Target Field is the “greenest” stadium currently used in professional

sports. Many new stadiums are using Target Field’s model when designing new or remodeling other


stadiums for professional sports teams. Students learned how the site Target Field sits on was originally

an industrial area that was deemed unusable at one point. The area was carefully cleaned in order for

the site to be used. Students also learned how the stadium uses recycled rainwater for watering the

playing field as well as plants used for decoration around the stadium, which includes as much native

landscaping material as possible. In addition, the Sustainability Tour focused on the emphasis of how

the site was built with materials used from around or close to Minnesota, the use of clean energy in

lighting, materials to promote healthy air quality, plumbing with water-saving features, reflective

materials to reduce heat absorption, and education to promote the use of the numerous recycling

collection areas throughout the stadium; the recyclable rate of Target Field is 87% versus 16% at the

Metrodome. Target Field has also encouraged the use of organic and recyclable materials for food

consumption. Many of the containers used for holding food and beverages are biodegradable and

excess food is donated to a local charity very close to the stadium. Target Field also emphasizes the

availability of public transportation to reduce traffic and parking on game day. The stadium is also

located near local bike trails.

All this information was experienced as students toured the stadium and accessed some behind-the-

scenes areas, saw some historical memorabilia, and even got to sit in the dugout. They even learned

some baseball statistics along the way. Fifth grade had a great time and learned a great deal more.

On May 31, 2016, Mr. Schwegert Egge from Minneapolis Audubon came to visit Aurora. Mr. Egge

scheduled a presentation for students on the various types of birds found in the local area and some in

the northern areas of Minnesota. Students took notes and sketched out some birds in anticipation of

spotting some of them on a walking field trip scheduled for the following day. On June 1, Mr. Egge

returned with some binoculars for students to borrow as they set off for their expedition. Students

went out in small groups with either Mr. Egge or one of his volunteers and walked to a local park

spotting various birds they were exposed to in Mr. Egge’s presentation from the previous day. When

students returned, they discussed and compared which birds they saw and the number. It was an

enjoyable experience for students with exposure to the ecosystem in the immediate area often

overlooked. In the following days, students shared the different types of birds they saw the previous

day and even looked back in their notes if they could not remember the name.

In addition to these field trips, fourth grade visited the Three Rivers Park District, sixth grade visited the

Northwest Trading Post in Pine City, MN, and seventh grade spent a day at Fort Snelling exploring and

studying the natural environment. In the next school year, teachers will be encouraged to bring their

students on two field trip to natural spaces throughout the year, and the EE Committee and

administration will do what they can to assist them in planning meaningful, authentic EE field trip

experiences.

Indicator Area 3: Promote Environmental Stewardship

Outcome: In SY 2016-2018 100% of students in Grades K-8 will be able to identify an example of harm to their local environment and be able use critical thinking skills to propose and carry out a plan in which to improve that environment. This plan should involve collaboration with not only their teachers and classmates, but also the members of their local community.

Evaluation method: Goal Evaluation Methods: Student portfolios, written action plans, interviews with community members, student self-evaluations, performance assessments, journaling, presentations,


projects, reflections, and surveys. Implemented in SY 2016: Observations of student behavior and reactions to EE topics and events, recycled crafts, events with parents

Activities: During the 2015-2018 school year, student in Grades K-8 will improve their knowledge of environmental literacy through hands-on, higher-level thinking activities that are embedded in instruction across content areas. Furthermore, these activities will not only take place in the classroom, but will also take place in both urban and rural environmental. Also, student learning will be demonstrated through authentic performance assessments that impact the environment in a positive way. As result of this approach, students will develop a deeper understanding of the environment around them and a desire to want to protect it.

There is a learning process leading up to environmental stewardship. This year, the school focused on increasing student awareness of environmental issues and education through the aforementioned environmental lessons and classroom changes, field trips, and an activity-packed Earth Month in April. One event the school hosted during Earth Month was a week-long recycling contest. The students’ response to and participation in this event was overwhelmingly positive and raised student awareness of this crucial environmental issue. In addition, the preschool hosted an event where parents were invited to the school to create recycled crafts with their children, which helped raise awareness of the school’s EE goals with the broader school community. Building students’ environmental awareness this year will help make more natural our increase in environmental education incorporation into daily lessons in SY 2017 and beyond.

Indicator Area 4: Mission or Community Related EE Goals

Outcome: In SY 2016-2018, 100% of students in Grades K-8 will increase their critical thinking skills as it

relates to their local environment, regional environment, and country of origin.

Evaluation method: Goal Evaluation Methods: Cross-curricular projects, student portfolios,

presentations, student newsletter, performance assessments

Our Mission or Community Related EE Goal is one which will be developed in the coming school years,

because progress toward other goals needed to be achieved first in order to engage students critical (or

higher order) thinking skills. Further teacher training and familiarization with the school’s EE goals will

help improve lesson plans in the future and will help teachers more naturally incorporate EE into their

existing and cross-curricular curriculum.

Indicator Area 5: Financial and Operational Commitment

Outcome: In SY 2016-2018, the ACS Board of Directors will ensure that the annual ACS budget will

include financial resources and staffing resources to ensure students can participate in an in-depth

experience in a natural environment. The ACS Board will monitor implementation of environmental

education at least twice a year to ensure that the school is meeting its contractual EE goals.

Evaluation method: Goal Evaluation Methods: Student presentations, staff meeting notes, teacher

professional development, feedback

For FY 2017, the Aurora Charter School Board of Directors has agreed to dedicate $15,000 of the

school’s FY 2017 budget to Environmental Education. During SY 2016, a member of the EE Committee

presented updates to the board on the school’s progress toward implementing its EE goals and

initiatives. During Earth Week in April, board members were and will continue to be invited to the


school to see how EE is being implemented in the classrooms. Finally, although this has not yet been a

practiced evaluation method, the school plans to have students present on EE topics to the school

board in future school years.

Indicator Area 6: Science Proficiency

School goal: Over the period of the contract, ACS students will demonstrate proficiency in science as


Goal Evaluation Methods: Outlined below in Measures

In school year 2014-15 (FY15), ACS pledged that students would reach proficiency in science by the end

of the 2016-17 school year (FY17) with a baseline score of 40.6. Below, standardized test data from the

MCA (Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment in Science) tells how fifth and eighth grade students have

progressed over the past two years. Across all data, scores are trending upward. From FY15-FY16, an

increase in index points was achieved regardless of how long a student had attended ACS, achieving a

growth index rate of 20.9-21.4. When compared to Minneapolis Public Schools (ISD #1), ACS has not

yet reached an index score equal to or greater in value, but ACS has grown in index whereas ISD #1 has

slightly declined. Furthermore, when compared to all student scores in the state, ACS index scores are

not equal to or greater in value, but growth in index rate is comparable, ACS with a 2.7 increase and the

state with 2.1. When looking at subgroup data points, ACS is still making small gains with students who

qualify for the free and reduced lunch program. A 1-1.5 increase in index rate compared to gains of 3 for

ISD # 1 and 4.1 for the state. Finally, the data looks at how English language learners are performing in

science. According to the data, this subgroup struggles the most. From FY15-FY16, index rate scores

dropped 8.2 points. This is in contrast to ISD #1who achieved a 3.1 increase, and the State with an

increase of 3.2.

Overall, what can be gathered from this data is that ACS is gradually making gains towards science proficiency, but before bigger gains can be made, the school will need to work together to devise a plan to that will help language learners grasp science skills and concepts. The first step toward achieving this goal was to reevaluate our science curriculum. A more comprehensive science program called Interactive Science will be implemented in all grades during SY2017. Measure 1 – 1%: From FY15 to FY17, the school’s aggregate proficiency index score for students enrolled at the school for at least two years will increase by at least 12.0 points from the baseline proficiency index score (baseline score – 40.6).

• Exceeds Standard: The aggregate proficiency index score is at least 18.0 points above the baseline score.

• Meets Standard: The aggregate proficiency index score is at least 12.0 points above the baseline score.

• Approaches Standard: The aggregate proficiency index score is at least 6.0 points above the baseline score.

• Does Not Meet Standard: The school did not meet the criteria for any of the ratings above. Does not meet standard. The Proficiency Index Rate for 2-year enrolled students increased from 20 in FY15 to 22.7 in FY16. A gain of 2.7. Measure 2 – 1%: The school’s aggregate proficiency index score from FY15 to FY17 will


increase by at least 10.0 points from the baseline proficiency index score (baseline score – 40.6).

• Exceeds Standard: The aggregate proficiency index score is at least 15.0 points above the baseline score.

• Meets Standard: The aggregate proficiency index score is at least 10.0 points above the baseline score.

• Approaches Standard: The aggregate proficiency index score is at least 5.0 points above the baseline score.

• Does Not Meet Standard: The school did not meet the criteria for any of the ratings above.

Does not meet standard. The Proficiency Index Rate for 2 students increased from 19.4 in FY15 to 22.2 in FY16. A gain of 2.8. Measure 3 – 1%: In aggregate, from FY15-FY17 the school will achieve a proficiency index score equal to or greater than that of the state for the same grades (3-8).

• Exceeds Standard: The school achieves an aggregate proficiency index score at least 10.0 points above the state’s score.

• Meets Standard: The school achieves an aggregate proficiency index score equal to or greater than the state’s score.

• • Approaches Standard: The school achieves an aggregate proficiency index score within 10.0 points of the state’s score.

• Does Not Meet Standard: The school did not meet the criteria for any of the ratings above. Does Not Meet Standard: Aurora Students have a 22.2% proficiency index score for All students. The state holds a 67% proficiency index score for all students. Measure 4 – 1%: In aggregate, from FY15-FY17 the school will achieve a proficiency index score equal to or greater than that of the local district (ISD 1 – Minneapolis) for the same grades (3-8).

• Exceeds Standard: The school achieves an aggregate proficiency index score at least 10.0 points above the district’s score.

• Meets Standard: The school achieves an aggregate proficiency index score equal to or greater than the district’s score.

• Approaches Standard: The school achieves an aggregate proficiency index score within 10.0 • points of the district’s score. • Does Not Meet Standard: The school did not meet the criteria for any of the ratings above.

Does Not Meet Standard: Aurora Students have a 22.2% proficiency index score for All students. Minneapolis Public Schools has a proficiency index for All students of 45.2%. Measure 5 – 1%: In aggregate, from FY15-FY17 the school’s FRP subgroup will achieve a proficiency index score equal to or greater than that of the state for the same subgroup and the same grades (3-8).

• Exceeds Standard: The school achieves an aggregate proficiency index score at least 10.0 points above the state’s score.

• Meets Standard: The school achieves an aggregate proficiency index score greater than the state’s score.

• Approaches Standard: The school achieves an aggregate proficiency index score within 10.0 points of the state’s score.


• Does Not Meet Standard: The school did not meet the criteria for any of the ratings above. Approaches Standard: Statewide the proficiency index score for Free & Reduced Lunch students is 30%. Aurora students of the same demographic have a proficiency index score of 22%. Measure 6 – 1%: In aggregate, from FY15-FY17 the school’s FRP subgroup will achieve a proficiency index score greater than that of the local district (ISD 1 – Minneapolis) for the same subgroup and the same grades (3-8).


• Meets Standard: The school achieves an aggregate proficiency index score greater than the district’s score.

• Approaches Standard: The school achieves an aggregate proficiency index score within 5.0 points of the district’s score.

• Does Not Meet Standard: The school did not meet the criteria for any of the ratings above. Does Not Meet Standard: In ISD 1 the proficiency index score for Free & Reduced Lunch students is 53%. Aurora students of the same demographic have a proficiency index score of 22%. Measure 7 – 1%: In aggregate, from FY15-FY17 the school’s English Learner subgroup will achieve a proficiency index score equal to or greater than that of the state for the same subgroup and the same grades (3-8).

• Exceeds Standard: The school achieves an aggregate proficiency index score at least 10.0 points above the state’s score. Meets Standard: The school achieves an aggregate proficiency index score equal to or greater than the state’s score.

• Meets Standard: The school achieves an aggregate proficiency index score equal to or greater than the state’s score.

• Approaches Standard: The school achieves an aggregate proficiency index score within 10.0 points of the state’s score.

• Does Not Meet Standard: The school did not meet the criteria for any of the ratings above. Meets Standard: Aurora Students have a 22.2% proficiency index score for All students, the State’s proficiency index score for EL students is 21%. Measure 8 – 1%: In aggregate, from FY15-FY17 the school’s English Learner subgroup will achieve a proficiency index score greater than that of the local district (ISD 1 – Minneapolis) for the same subgroup and the same grades (3-8).


• Meets Standard: The school achieves an aggregate proficiency index score greater than the district’s score.

• Approaches Standard: The school achieves an aggregate proficiency index score within 5.0 points of the district’s score.

• Does Not Meet Standard: The school did not meet the criteria for any of the ratings above. Exceeds Standard: Aurora Students have a 22.2% proficiency index score for All students. Minneapolis Public Schools EL subgrouping has a proficiency index of 8.4%. While Aurora EL students score 13.8% higher than MPS.


11. GOVERNANCE & MANAGEMENT Elected Officials: School Board elections were held in April of 2015. Board Terms are 3 years long. Board vacancies will be filled as they open

during the 3-year board terms.

Member Name Board Position Affiliation Date

Elected

Date

Seated

Term End

Date Email Address

Romulo Nieto Chair Parent 4/2015 4/16/2015 4/2018 [email protected]

Melanie Seiser Vice Chair Community Member 4/2015 4/16/2015 4/2018 [email protected]

Maribel Zuñiga Treasurer Teacher 4/2015 5/21/2015 5/2018 [email protected]

Guadalupe Quintero Member Community Member 4/2015 4/16/2015 4/2018 [email protected]

Adrian Hernandez Member Parent 4/2016 4/21/2016 4/2019 [email protected]

Diana Armenta Secretary Teacher 11/19/2015 11/19/2015 4/2018 [email protected]

Rodolfo Gutierrez Member Community 4/2015 4/16/2015 8/25/2016

Jaqueline Silva Secretary Teacher 4/2015 4/16/2015 11/19/2015

mailto:[email protected]






Board Training and Development

Provide a brief narrative regarding the school’s commitment and approach to board training and

development.

Annual Training

Board Member Name

Original

Date

Seated

Board’s Role &

Responsibilities

Employment

Policies &

Practices

Financial

Management

Romulo Nieto 4/16/2015 9/26/2015

Linda Tacke

9/26/2015

Linda Tacke

9/26/2015

Ellen McVeigh

Melanie Seiser 4/16/2015 9/26/2015

Linda Tacke

9/26/2015

Linda Tacke

04/15/2016

MACS

Maribel Zuñiga 5/21/2015 9/26/2015

Linda Tacke

9/26/2015

Linda Tacke

9/26/2015

Ellen McVeigh

Guadalupe Quintero 4/16/2015 9/26/2015

Linda Tacke

9/26/2015

Linda Tacke

9/26/2015

Ellen McVeigh

Adrian Hernandez

(This training was

originally scheduled for

10/08/2016. St Thomas

canceled the training

due to lack of

enrollment)

4/21/2016

12/10/2016

(Scheduled at St.

Thomas Executive

Education)

12/10/2016

(Scheduled at St.

Thomas Executive

Education)

12/10/2016

(Scheduled at St.

Thomas Executive

Education)

Diana Armenta 11/19/2015 12/05/2015

Linda Tacke

12/05/2015

Linda Tacke

12/05/2015

Ellen McVeigh

Rodolfo Gutierrez 4/16/2015 9/26/2015

Linda Tacke

9/26/2015

Linda Tacke

9/26/2015

Ellen McVeigh

Jaqueline Silva 4/16/2015 9/26/2015

Linda Tacke

9/26/2015

Linda Tacke

9/26/2015

Ellen McVeigh

Annual Training

Provide information on the ongoing annual training attended by each current board member in FY16 (July

1, 2015 – June 30, 2016). A list of trainings attended by the board without specifically indicating who


attended which training is insufficient. Two possible table formats are provided below (add rows or

columns as necessary).

The school board also engaged in a book reading of “The Seven Outs” by Brian Carpenter. The board

read and discussed chapters of the book at several board meetings. In addition, a representative from

the MN Council for Non-Profits attended a board meeting and provided some very valuable feedback to

the ACS School Board.

12. MANAGEMENT Provide a brief narrative regarding the school’s management. This could include a discussion of:

Aurora Charter School is run by an Executive Director, Matt Cisewski; and the school’s Business

Administrator, Naomi Christianson. The Executive Director and Business Administrator were hired

during the 2013/14 school year and will continue in those positions in the 2016/17 school year. They

report to the school’s Board of Directors. The School Board is the governing body of the school, and the

management team manages the school’s day-to-day activities. The Executive Director reports directly

to the School Board, and the Business Administrator reports directly to him. The Business

Administrator manages the school’s financial and administrative activities, facilities, food service,

student transportation, and mandatory reporting.

Although a Director of Teaching and Learning is indicated in the management structure approved prior

to SY2015, the school’s management

and governance decided not to hire a

new Director of Teaching and Learning

for SY2016 after not renewing the

contract of the person who had filled

that position the previous year.

Instead, ACS divided the

responsibilities of the position by

creating a position, Student Support

Liaison, to help manage student

behavior; the Reading Specialist took

on the responsibilities of Data and

District Assessment Coordinator; she

and the Business Administrator

became the leads in developing the

school’s Environmental Education

implementation plan; and the school

contracted services of a Bicultural

Education Specialist to help develop

the school’s professional development

program, teacher coaching, and socio-emotional response efforts. The structure pictured in this section

more accurately demonstrates the structure the school followed during the 2015-2016 school year. The

school has been working toward a more horizontal management plan, starting with the division of

responsibilities mentioned above and with the development of its Leadership Implementation Team.


Describe Administrative Professional Development Plan(s) and Implementation. As per MN Statute: The

board of directors and an individual who does not hold a valid administrative license and who serves in an

administrative, supervisory, or instructional leadership position shall develop a professional

development plan. Documentation of the implementation of the professional development plan of these

persons shall be included in the school’s annual report.

Provide information on that plan and the implementation of that plan. Please note, documentation of such

a plan and its implementation is required for all non-licensed individuals in an administrative,

supervisory, or instructional leadership position.

LIST OF ADMINISTRATORS/QUALIFICATIONS Provide the names of each individual in an administrative role at the school. Include their position title and a brief summary of their role/responsibilities at the school and their qualifications (including licensure information as applicable). Matt Cisewski, Executive Director: Matt Cisewski is a licensed Social Studies teacher with a Master’s Degree in Educational Leadership. As Executive Director, he provides energetic, visionary leadership for Aurora Charter School and its stakeholders, such as students, faculty, staff, parents, school board, contractors, community partners, and donors. The Executive Director leads efforts in ACS’s development, strategic planning, fiscal management, and external relations. The Executive Director reports directly to ACS’s School Board.

Naomi Christianson, Business Administrator: Naomi, a licensed secondary Communication Arts and Literature teacher, became ACS’s Business Administrator in 2014. Her role is to manage the school’s operations, including student accounting, student records, food service, State and authorizer reporting, day-to-day finances and accounts payable, human resources, employee benefits, orders, technology, facilities, and scheduling, among other duties. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR Matt Cisewski, Executive Director Professional Development Goals/Areas of Focus for 2015-16:

● Leadership Organizational Management

● Administration of Special Programs (Title Programs, Special Education)

● Educational Leadership

Activities Completed/Progress/Results for 2015-16:

● University of St. Thomas, EDLD 801x – LEADERSHIP AND ORGANIZATIONAL

THEORY:

○ The course focuses on three core strands of subject matter. The first, individual

habits and interpretations of group interactions, is foundational to

understanding oneself as a potential manager and leader. It is the focus of a

number of personal inventories. The second, fundamental theory concerning

organizational life and implications for influencing it in positive directions, is

primarily accessed in the course texts and other class content. The third strand

consists of various pathways for applying the principles learned, primarily in


group exercises concerning a “live” leadership dilemma (or in the course

terminology, “organizational disruption”).

● University of St. Thomas, EDLD 840X Administration of Special Programs:

○ This course is designed to present an overview of administration and policy

issues, current and emerging programmatic trends related to the delivery and

administration of special programs. The course examines federal requirements

and statutes that form the foundation of federal disability law, the Individuals

with Disabilities Education Improvement (IDEA) Act 2004, Section 504 of the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, statutes addressing “at-risk” learners including the

Bilingual Education Act and Title VII (ELL), the Elementary and Secondary

Education Act (ESEA-Title Programs), Gifted and Talented programs, and Non-

public settings, as they relate to pupil services. Particular attention is paid to the

leadership principles that support the skills, knowledge, and abilities associated

with successful learning communities for all students.

● University of St. Thomas, EDLD 874x: Principalship K-12

○ This is a core course in Educational Leadership, which examines the key

concepts of school administration with emphasis on the skills needed to

function as an effective building principal. Professional Development Goals/Areas of Focus for 2016-17:

● Communication

● Spanish Proficiency

● Community Partnerships

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR Naomi Christianson, Business Administrator

Professional Development Goals/Areas of Focus for 2015-16:

● Environmental Education

● ESEA – NCLB to ESSA Transition

● State and Mandated Reporting

● Student Socio-Emotional Well-Being

Activities Completed/Progress/Results for 2015-16:

● Audubon Center of the North Woods Environmental Education Conference – August 3-4, 2015

○ This conference focused on formulating SMART goals, incorporating Environmental

Education (EE) across the curriculum, presenting teachers with practical and applicable

EE activities, and presenting ways of conducting EE field trips.

● Verification of Compensatory Revenue Counts – October 20, 2015

○ This WebEx session provided information on how compensatory revenue is calculated

and how to report students’ economic status in MARSS.

● 2015 ACNW Charter School Leaders Retreat – November 13-14, 2015

○ This conference was for school board members and school administrators and focused

on leadership and governance.


● Team Teaching with Mother Nature: Fun in the Winter – January 23, 2016

○ This Saturday workshop was presented by the Jeffers Foundation and focused on how

schools can use their own environment to teach environmental lessons at any time of

year.

● MAASFEP 2016 Spring Conference – March 17-18, 2016

○ The Minnesota Association of Administrators of State and Federal Education Programs

(MAASFEP) conference included two days of information presented by MDE and others

regarding information and changes to governmental programs that affect public

schools. Topics included ESSA updates, Gifted & Talented programs, and subject-

specific program techniques.

● ACA Essentials – Stay ahead of what 2017 brings – March 29, 2016

○ This webinar focused on the Affordable Care Act and its impact on employers,

employees, and Human Resources.

● Direct Reporters Workshop – April 1, 2016

○ This workshop provided direct reporters with updates on Minnesota programs and

reporting systems, such as MARSS, Student Transportation, UFARS, Special Education,

and IDEAS.

● MACMH 2016 Conference – April 24-26, 2016

○ The Minnesota Association for Children’s Mental Health presented a three-day

conference which included sessions on a variety of topics, such as a Supervision Series;

Cultivating School Success Through Trauma Informed Practices and Collaboration;

How Poverty, Stress, and Learned Helplessness Affect Students in School; Twin Cities

Spanish Speaking Provider Consoritum; and Why Suspension and Other Exclusionary

Practices Don’t Work.

● Other various MDE WebEx opportunities throughout the year

Professional Development Goals/Areas of Focus for 2016-17:

● Environmental Education

● State and Mandated Reporting

● Transition from NCLB to ESSA

● Special Education Funding

● Currently considering and searching for an appropriate and applicable Master's program to

better assist Aurora Charter School’s administration, teachers, and students.


13. STAFFING The school’s overall goals are to reduce the achievement gap and to provide our student with an

education that allows them to grow strong in both their native language, Spanish, and in English. One

way we support these goals is by hiring staff that are strong in either Spanish, English, or both

depending on the work the employee is to perform. Employees who work primarily with grades K-2 are

native Spanish-speakers because instruction is primarily delivered in Spanish at these grade levels. Staff

who work with grades 3-8 are a mixture of native Spanish and native English speakers, primarily

depending on whether their classes are taught in English or Spanish.

2015-16 Licensed Teaching Staff

Name File # License and Assignment

(subject/grades)

2016-17

Status*

Comments

Abigail Reeves 445487 Elementary Ed.

3rd Grade

R

Adam Michalek 405864 Physical Education NR

Adriana Hazi Aviña 396946 Elementary Ed.

1st Grade

R

Alex Lager 474939 Social Studies

7th and 8th Grade

R

Alexandra Schulz 6th Grade NR January-April

Ayme Almendarez 446469 Elementary Ed.

1st Grade

R

Bélen Junquera 481358 Substitute Teacher R Renewing Classroom

Music License

Candace Aldun 366781 Elementary Ed./EBD/LD

Special Education

R


Diana Armenta 385306 Communication

Arts/Literature

6-8th Grade Language

Arts

R

Doris Schulz 997134 Elementary Ed.

Kindergarten

R Returning as 2nd Grade

Teacher

Gavin Nachtigall 488562 Elementary Education

6th Grade

R Returning as Response

to Intervention

Gregoria Arita 448011 Elementary Education

2nd Grade

R Community Expert

License

Returning as Student

Support/ Reserve

Teacher

Gustavo Lira 997135 Visual Arts NR Community Expert

License

Holly Peters 488010 Communication

Arts/Literature

7th and 8th Grade

R

Janna Cuevas 467031 Elementary Education

2nd Grade

R

Jaqueline Silva 475400 Elementary Education

Bilingual/Bicultural

Education

4th Grade

NR Left Mid-Year for out-

of-state move

Jesse Moravec 483754 English as a Second

Language

R

Jessica Gustafson 416572 Elementary Education & R Returning as District

Assessment/Interventi


Reading on Coordinator

Jill Romans 355379 5th Grade NR

Joy Decker 377394 Elementary Education &

Learning Disabilities

R

Julie Reiss 482148 Early Childhood

Education

Kindergarten

R

Kyle Duesler 479022 Elementary Education

3rd Grade

R

Leticia Perez 996684 Elementary Education

2nd Grade

R Community Expert,

Teaching 1st Grade

16/17

Maria Ferri 483056 Early Childhood

Education

NR Left Mid-Year for out-

of-state move

Maribel Zuniga 447074 Mathematics

7-8th Grade

R Was employed for 8

weeks due to an

immigration issue

Maritza Flores 996685 Elementary Education

Kindergarten

R Community Expert

Moises Fernandez 453351 English as a Second

Language

R

Oscar Guerrero 997458 Spanish

7th & 8th Grade Spanish

NR Moved out of state

after school year

Patricia Claire Gilbert 450003 Elementary Education

5th Grade

NR Left Mid-Year


Rachele Naab 476017 English as a Second

Language

R

Rhebekkah Westre 484299 Science 5-8

7th & 8th Grade Science

NR

Stephanie Smith 387665 Elementary Education

5th Grade

R

* R = Returning, NR = Not Returning

2015-16 Teacher Professional Development Activities:

Provide the professional development activities completed by teachers in 2015-16. Especially highlight

professional development activities that focused in whole or in part on developing quality assessments and

measures of student outcomes.

2016-17 NEW Licensed Teaching Staff

Name File # License and

Assignment

(subject/grades)

Comments

Include information regarding special

licensure (e.g., Community Expert) or

other relevant information.

Bethany Peterson 435768 English as a Second

Language

Returning from 14/15 school year

Katie VanderBloomer 492245 Elementary Education

k-6

6th Grade English

Language Arts and

Social Studies

Keith Encalada 449773 Spanish

5th Grade Math and

Science

Has a variance for Elementary

Education

Luis Regalado 996309 Elementary Education Community Expert License


4th Grade Math and

Science

Maya Kruger 451884 Social Studies

6th Grade Math and

Science

Has a variance for Elementary

Education

Nicole Bolduc 996191 English as a Second

Language

Community Expert License until

December 2016

Will Tyler 495671 Science 5-8

7th & 8th Grade

Science

Provide a brief narrative discussing the teacher turnover rate. Include trend data from previous years as

appropriate.

Teacher turnover has been an issue at Aurora Charter School for the past few years for several reasons.

The turnover rate in SY2014-2015 was 37.5%, so we were pleased to have a smaller turnover rate of 23%

this school year. This year, a few teachers moved out of state during or after the school year due to

their spouses’ work situations, which was an unusual circumstance for our school. In addition, two

teachers’ contracts were not renewed by the school, and two teachers resigned for personal reasons or

a different position. The number of teachers who resigned mid-year was unprecedented and presented

a unique challenge this school year. However, the school was able to find skilled replacements for the

upcoming school year, and we have high hopes that the turnover rate next year will be even lower and

student satisfaction and test scores much higher.

Percentage of Licensed Teachers from 2015-16 not returning in 2016-17

(non-returning teachers/total teachers from 2015-16 X 100)

23%

2015-16 Other Licensed (non-teaching) Staff

Name License and Assignment 2016-17

Status*

Comments

Elizabeth Rundquist Short-Call Substitute R

Lady Montoya Substitute License –

Reserve Teacher and

R


Interventionist

Matt Cisewski Social Studies

Executive Director

R

Naomi Christianson Communication

Arts/Literature

Business Administrator

R

Nubia Morales Short-Call Substitute R


2015-16 Non-Licensed Staff

Name Assignment 2016-17

Status* Comments

Alejandro Aviña Maintenance R

Ana Soria Administrative Assistant R

Blanca Sanchez Education Assistant R

Briseida Diaz Education Assistant R Returning as Spanish Teacher

Carmen Wiedemann Education Assistant R Returning as Receptionist

Cecilia Monzon Education Assistant R

Elena Dumford Food Service R

Francini Acuna Education Assistant R

Francisco Gurrola Education Assistant R Returning as Physical Education

Teacher

Gerardo Moreno Education Assistant R Returning as Spanish Teacher


Guadalupe Hernández Food Service R

Guillermo Leal Special Education Assistant R Returning as Technology Teacher

Leticia Terán Receptionist R

Madeline Weiler Education Assistant R

Marcia Lema Food Service R

Maria Leticia Pérez Education Assistant R

Neila Garzon Education Assistant R

Rosalia Tepozteco Education Assistant R

Rubenia Olivares Special Ed. Assistant R

Soky Efteland Education Assistant R

Tania Betance Education Assistant R

Vanessa Gamez Receptionist R Returning as Family

Engagement Coordinator

Veronica Rodriguez Education Assistant R


2016-2017 New Non-Licensed Staff

Name Assignment Comments

Carrie Tatro Special Education Assistant

Geraldine Carstens Special Education Assistant

Molly Mattson Special Education Assistant


14. OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE

HEALTH AND SAFETY AT THE SCHOOL The school currently does not have a nurse on staff, so all nursing services are administered by our

receptionists, aides, and occasionally administrators. For students who have medications that must be

kept at school (emergency inhalers, EpiPens, etc.), parents must complete a Medication Permission

Form, which gives the school permission to administer the medication, and provide the school with a

copy of the student's Action Plan, the prescription, and instructions for administering the medication.

The receptionists may administer generic medications (Tums, aspirin, etc.) to students only with

previous parental permission, either with a note or a phone call. They try to solve whatever health

problems they can with water and rest before administering medication. The only regular challenge the

school faced was that parents were sometimes unable to answer calls when children were ill or the

receptionists were seeking permission to administer medication. In those circumstances, no medication

was administered until parental permission was acquired. If a medical condition is too urgent or too

serious to handle in the school, we obtain permission from the students’ parents and call 911. The

current management team is in the process of developing and implementing an emergency

management plan for the next school year, including but not limited to periodic fire drills, clearly

marked maps in each room that specify emergency exit routes, a school-wide procedure for medical

emergencies, and the installation of an AED.

TRANSPORTATION Aurora contracted with Billie Bus Transportation for the 15/16 school year. This was our first year

working with Billie Bus. Contracting our transportation allows ACS to pay only for the services it uses,

and at this point, contracting out this service is more cost effective than purchasing buses and hiring

drivers. The company also carries its own insurance, which saves us that expense. Any concerns about

transportation services are communicated to the bus company and are dealt with promptly. The

majority of the students at ACS ride the bus to and from school. A small minority of students are driven

to and from school by their parents. ACS is only obligated to provide bus transportation to students

who live within the Minneapolis city limits, but if a family lives outside this area, we will attempt to

provide them with transportation whenever possible.

FACILITIES Aurora Charter School and Aurora Middle School are joined under one roof in Minneapolis’ Longfellow

neighborhood. The facility is two floors high, though only one small section of the second floor is

utilized for school operations. There are two main entrances to the building, one for each school, and

each school has a reception desk to better serve families, staff, and students. When the elementary

school was relocated to its current location in 2013, the school also added a new gymnasium, and the

middle school’s old gymnasium became the cafeteria for both schools. The facility is equipped with a

kitchen, full-size loading dock, and plenty of space should we ever choose to expand further into the

second floor.

FOOD SERVICE PROGRAMS Aurora Charter School has its meals catered through Caravan Kids Catering (CKC) Good Food. We do

not have a full-service kitchen with the appliances needed to prepare meals at our school, so having our

meals catered to the school saves us a lot of time, labor, and money. The school also offers a salad bar


for our school lunches in an attempt to give our students healthier food choices. This has had the

desired effect on many of our students, and we hope that, with additional nutritional education, it will

be even more of a success each new school year.

By having our food catered, we rely heavily on the caterer's ability to provide us with fresh salad bar

items and tasty food. Due to regular changes in USDA regulations, CKC is constantly working to

provide our students with tasty, regulation-compliant, and nutritious meals. In an attempt to

strengthen our food service and help the school financially, we also began actively practicing Offer vs.

Serve for both our breakfast and lunch services. This change has altered the way we order our food,

reduced food waste, and encouraged CKC to lower the meal prices.

PARENT ENGAGEMENT Our parent group is called Amig@s en Aurora and was active for its second year during 2015/16. Their

goals were to:

● Increase regular involvement of parents so that every grade is represented.

● Increase fundraising efforts

● Partner with other organizations that will help us educate the parents on needed content.

They saw great success in fundraising towards a playground and cultivated greater parent involvement

in the school.

HIRING PRACTICES Available positions at the school are posted online on St. Cloud State’s EdPost, the Minnesota

Association of Charter Schools (MACS), the Minnesota Association of School Administrators (MNASA),

and on the school’s website, and applications materials are sent to ACS’s Human Resources email

address. Administration reviews applications and offers interviews, and a small group of staff members,

including administrators and relevant teachers/staff members conducts the interviews. The interviews

questions are an established of ten questions. Answers to these questions are scored on a scale of 1-4 to

keep results and hiring decisions more objective. If necessary, additional rounds of interviews may be

conducted. Administration makes the final decision on potential candidates recommended for hire. The

ACS Board, the governing body of the organization, finalizes the process by approving the

recommendation of hire by the administration. ACS hires certified teachers and qualified staff

members to provide high-quality services to staff, students, and families.

BACKGROUND CHECK PROCESS FOR STAFF, BOARD, AND VOLUNTEERS Aurora Charter School conducts a background check with the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension at the

beginning of each and every school year for individuals who will have contact with students throughout

the school day, including volunteers. Conducting background checks on employees help ensure a safe

and secure learning environment for Aurora students.

REPORTING AND COMPLIANCE PRACTICES The school materially complies with applicable laws, rules, regulations and provisions of the charter

contract relating to agency and federal authorities. Submissions are made to both our authorizer and

the Minnesota Department of Education. With the assistance of cmERDC, Aurora Charter School

regularly updates and submits MARSS data and submits STARS twice per year. CliftonLarsonAllen

codes, monitors, and reports UFARS data; prints the school’s accounts payable checks; provides the


school board with monthly financial reports; and assists with the school’s yearly financial audit. The

administration submits EDRS, DIRS, and applies for lease aid.

Once an employee is hired, that person is automatically enrolled in either TRA (for licensed teachers) or

PERA (for non-licensed staff members). Contribution to TRA and PERA is automatically taken from the

employee’s gross income, and the school matches the employee’s minimum contribution. After each

payroll, a check is generated and sent to each retirement agency.

The administration and School Board have acquired a new website for the 2014-2015 school year to

better serve Aurora’s families and staff members. This new website is more user-friendly and is,

therefore, easier to update, keep compliant, and keep families, the community, and the school

connected.

Aurora Charter School uses two insurance brokers, Dolliff Insurance and Ahmann Martin Risks and

Benefits Consulting, to provide the school, building, and staff members with proper insurance coverage

and plans. Dolliff Insurance provides our casualty, liability, worker’s compensation, and umbrella

insurance coverage through Hanover Insurance Company and AmTrust. Ahmann Martin provides the

school with two benefits plans through HealthPartners insurance. The school pays the employee's’

entire premiums for the base plan, in which most ACS employees participate, and the majority of the

premium for the buy-up plan.

ADMISSION AND ENROLLMENT Aurora Charter School accepts enrollment applications throughout the year, and during the 2014-2015

school year, students were accepted into the program based on a lottery process, as per the school’s

enrollment policy. Students who are not initially accepted into the school during this lottery are placed

on a waiting list, also by lottery, and are contacted in order if and when a spot opens. Siblings of

currently enrolled students and the children of staff members are given first priority for enrollment.

Families can find the school’s enrollment form on the school’s website or acquire one from the school.

Once the student has been selected for enrollment, the selected student’s family must complete the

entire application and provide the school with birth certificates and immunization records. If applicable,

the school contacts the student’s previous school for student records and transcripts.


15. FINANCES For questions regarding school finances and for complete financials for 2015-16 and/or an

organizational budget for 2016-17, contact:

Name: Matt Wylie

Position: Controller

Phone: 651-295-3118

Email: [email protected]

Information presented below is derived from preliminary audit figures. The full financial audit will be

completed and presented to the Minnesota Department of Education and Audubon Center of the North

Woods no later than December 31, 2016.

FY16 Finances Fund 1 Fund 2 Fund 4

Total Revenues 5,367,828 432,270 232,336

Total Expenditures 5,188,208 432,270 232,336

Net Income 179,620 0 0

Total Fund Balance 1,278,624 0 0

Overview

Aurora Charter School was able to add to their fund balance reserve again in the fiscal year 2015-2016.

Their strong enrollment allowed them to free up some funds during the revised budget, which they

ended the year very close to – within a 2% variance.

Revenues

The main source of revenue for Aurora, as a charter school, is aid received from the MN Dept. of

Education and is driven by enrollment

Expenses

Following suit of previous years, Aurora’s expenses were primarily made up of salaries/benefits,

facilities lease, and transportation. An increase in special education was necessary due to the needs of

their enrollment in 2016 and was offset by larger than budgeted revenue from MDE. Their FD 04

program continued to grow and is highly valued by the school. In future years, funding is expected to

increase to help offset the programs.

Net Income and Fund Balance

Aurora added $179,620 to their fund balance as of year-end, bringing the total to 1,278,624 – which

puts them in a very strong position. The fund balance is reflected by being 22% of expenditures as of

6/30/2016. Their long-term goal is to reach 25%, and they continued to make progress towards that in

2015-2016.


ATTACHMENT 1

public charter school district # 4067-07 school year …€¦ · as our enrollment increased, we...

Documents