Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Improvement Plans topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Aurora East USD 131 presents finalized school improvement plans, highlights research-based priorities and big PD cost savings
Summary
District leaders presented finalized school improvement plans tied to three district priorities — literacy, numeracy and culture of belonging — said each school selected a research‑backed priority teaching practice, and reported an estimated $410,006.73 savings after shifting summer professional development in‑house; the plans will be forwarded to the full board for action in August.
John Yep introduced the district’s school improvement planning work and the learning-and-leadership team’s summer work to prepare each school’s plan for 2026–27, telling the curriculum committee the plans are intended to be “living, changing documents” rather than one‑time reports.
The district framed every school’s plan around three district priorities — literacy, numeracy and a culture of belonging — and said each building now lists a single priority teaching practice paired with observable student skills and measurable goals. Learning‑leadership staff emphasized that the selections are grounded in research: presenters cited John Hattie’s visible learning effect‑size threshold (0.4 as a hinge point) and said many adopted practices exceed that benchmark.
Why it matters: District leaders said the change is designed to create a shared language about instructional impact and to focus limited professional‑development resources on practices with documented effects on student growth.
The presentation included a breakdown of the summer professional development model. District staff reported the 2025 summer series was contracted with the external provider WestEd at a cost of $386,500 and drew about 325 unique staff; this year the district delivered the series in‑house and reported PD spending of $0 and a smaller attendance time cost, producing a combined reduction from $449,752.73 in 2025 to $39,746 in 2026, a stated savings of $410,006.73 (91.2%). The district said the in‑house approach was intended to build internal capacity and tailor learning to the district context.
Officials described a follow‑up and monitoring cadence: principals and school teams will continue to refine plans through coaching, 45‑day monitoring cycles and monthly check‑ins, culminating in an end‑of‑year evaluation to inform the next cycle.
Several board members asked about parent involvement in SIP development. Board vice president Saul Olivas pressed how parents are included; presenters said schools often present their SIPs at “coffee with the principal” events and will now set specific, monitorable parent‑engagement goals so family feedback becomes evidence used to adjust plans.
Formal next steps: Learning leadership staff told the committee the finalized school improvement plans will be brought forward as an action item at the full board’s August meeting for formal consideration. No vote was taken at the curriculum‑committee meeting.
Attribution: The presentation and numbers were provided by district learning‑and‑leadership staff and introduced by John Yep. A member of the team stated, “I had a feeling you'd ask, so I'm prepared,” when asked to explain SIOP and related supports; that comment was made by Dr. Jennifer Van Duzen during the SIOP explanation.
