The Essential Features of Pilot Schools
All Pilot Schools share the following essential features:
  • Autonomy.  While part of the larger district, Pilot Schools exercise increased control over their own resources.  Pilot Schools are granted five key areas of autonomy: 1) budget; 2) staffing; 3) schedule; 4) curriculum and assessment; and 5) governance.  These areas of autonomy allow the schools flexibility in making decisions that best meet the needs of students and their families.
  • Accountability.  Pilot Schools are held to higher levels of accountability in exchange for increased autonomy.  In addition to ongoing assessments, every five years each Pilot School undertakes a School Quality Review process based on a set of common benchmarks for a high-performing school.
  • Small Size.  Pilot Schools are small in size in order to facilitate students and adults knowing each other well.  Only 2of the 20 Pilot Schools enroll more than 450 students, and both of these schools are divided into multiple small academies.  Pilot Schools work to create nurturing environments in which staff attend to the learning needs of all students. 
  • Commitment to Equity.  Pilot Schools are not selective and strive to enroll students representative of the larger district.  Each Pilot School has developed a vision and mission around how to educate students, which includes the belief that every student is able to achieve academic success, regardless of his or her background.  Pilot Schools are committed to continually examining student data to ensure that all students are served well.
Types of Pilot Schools

   There are three ways in which Pilot Schools may be established in the Boston Public Schools.  For all types of schools, Pilot School proposals must be submitted to the BPS/BTU Joint Steering Committee for consideration.  The steering committee consists of six BPS members and six BTU members, and is co-chaired by the BPS superintendent and BTU president.  The committee may then recommend approval to the school committee, and the school committee votes on all Pilot School proposals.

1) New, Start-Up Pilot School.  Through a Request for Proposals issued by the BPS, design teams may apply to create a Pilot School in a designated facility.
2) Pilot Conversion.  An existing BPS school, by virtue of a two-thirds majority vote of BTU members who work more than 50% of their week at the school, and with support of the school’s site council, may convert to Pilot status.  In addition, a charter school may convert to Pilot status. 
3) Pilot Conversion of a Separate School within the Same Facility.  An existing BPS school, by virtue of a two-thirds majority vote of BTU members who work more than 50% of their week at the school, and with support of the school’s site council, may agree to create a separate Pilot School within the existing facility, in addition to the regular BPS school that the facility currently houses.  In this case, it is assumed that the Pilot proposal would include a plan for the existing school to decrease in enrollment as the Pilot School increases in enrollment, in order to address the overall enrollment limitations of the facility.  All BPS teachers who elect to become a staff member in the new Pilot School would do so voluntarily.
Pilot Schools Overview Chart

School Name

Grades Served,
2005-06

Enrollment,
2005-06*

Initial Year of Pilot Status

How School Became a Pilot School

Elementary

 

 

 

 

Baldwin ELC

K0 to 1

175

2003

Converted

Thomas Gardner Elementary School**

K0 to 5

337

2007

Converted

Samuel Mason School

K0 to 5

215

2003

Converted

Lee Academy***

K0 to 1

153

2004

Start-up

Elementary-Middle

Lyndon Elementary School

K to 8

472

1995

Start-up

Young Achievers

K to 8

285

1995

Start-up

Mission Hill School

K to 8

156

1997

Start-up

Orchard Gardens Pilot School

K to 8

612

2003

Start-up

Middle

 

 

 

 

The Harbor School

6 to 8

262

1997

Start-up

Lilla G. Frederick Pilot Middle School (formerly New Boston Pilot Middle School)

6 to 8

678

2003

Start-up

Middle-High

 

 

 

 

Josiah Quincy Upper School

6 to 12

471

1999

Start-up

High

 

 

 

 

Fenway High School

9 to 12

280

1995

Converted

Greater Egleston Community High School

Ungraded

107

1996

Converted

New Mission High School

9 to 12

260

1996

Start-up

Heath Careers Academy (Horace Mann Charter)

9 to 12

203

1995

Start-up

Boston Arts Academy

9 to 12

399

1998

Start-up

Boston Day and Evening Academy (Horace Mann Charter)

Ungraded

311

1995

Start-up

Boston Community Leadership Academy

9 to 12

392

2002

Converted

Tech Boston Academy

9 to 12

346

2002

Start-up

Another Course to College

9 to12

223

2003

Converted

* Enrollment data is from the Massachusetts Department of Education, School Profiles, http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/, accessed June 23, 2006. 
**The Thomas Gardner Elementary School was approved as the 20th Pilot School in June 2006; it will open with Pilot status in September 2007.
*** This school is adding one grade per year and will eventually be a K0-5 school.

Pilot Schools Areas of Autonomy
Staffing:  Pilot Schools have the freedom to hire and excess their staff in order to create a unified school community.  Teachers should play a significant role in staff hiring.

Pilot Schools:
  • Decide on the staffing pattern and work assignments that create the optimal learning environment for students.
  • Hire staff who best fit the needs of the school, regardless of his/her current union status (member of the district, or not, although every teacher hired becomes a member of the Boston Teachers Union bargaining unit).

Budget:  Pilot Schools have a lump sum per pupil budget that allows the school to decide on spending that best provides programs and services to students and their families. 

Pilot Schools:

  • Have a lump sum per pupil budget, the sum of which is equivalent to other district schools within that grade span and includes salaries, instructional materials, consultants, etc.
  • Choose either to purchase identified discretionary district services or to not purchase them and include the per pupil cost in the school’s lump sum per pupil budget.

Curriculum and Assessment:  Pilot Schools have freedom to structure their curriculum and assessment practices to meet students’ learning needs.  While all Pilot Schools are held accountable to federal- and state-required tests, including the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS), these schools are given the flexibility to determine the school-based curriculum and assessment practices that best prepare students for federal and state assessments. 

Pilot Schools:

  • Are freed from local district curriculum requirements - they can choose what content to cover and how to cover it.
  • Set their own promotion and graduation requirements, although they must be comparable in rigor to the district requirements.  Pilot Schools have an emphasis on competency-based, performance-based assessments.
  • Decide on professional development in which faculty engage.
Governance:  Pilot Schools have the freedom to create their own governance structure that has increased decision making powers over budget approval, principal selection and evaluation, and programs and policies, while being mindful of state requirements, including MCAS and school councils. Pilot Schools have governing boards that assume increased governing responsibilities, while being mindful of state mandates, including the following:
  • Set and maintain the school vision.
  • Select, supervise, and annually evaluate the principal.
  • Approve the annual budget.
  • Set their own policies that the school community feels will help students to be successful.
  Schedule:  Pilot Schools have the freedom to set longer school days and calendar years for both students and faculty in accordance with their principles or school reform models.  In particular, research supports a correlation between increased faculty planning time spent on teaching and learning and increased student achievement.  Scheduling which allows for summer and school year faculty planning time contributes to a more unified school community and education program.

Pilot Schools:
  • Increase planning and professional development time for faculty.
  • Organize the school schedule in ways that maximize learning time for students.
Equity graph

Pilot Schools Network
List of Central Office Discretionary Line Items – FY 2007
The following is a list of Pilot School central office discretionary line items for fiscal year 2007 from the BPS Budget Office.  Pilot Schools may choose to purchase or not purchase these items from the district. 
  • Substitutes
  • Textbooks
  • Athletics
  • Math Coaches
  • Alternative Education Bilingual / Sheltered English Instruction
  • Career Education / School-to-Career / High School Renewal
  • Center for Leadership Development
  • Curriculum and Instruction
  • Student Support
  • Summer School
  • Office of Instructional and Information Technology Support
  • Instructional Technology / Tech Boston Program / Technology Support Teachers
  • Miscellaneous
Portfolios and Exhibitions at Mission Hill School
Below is one school’s description of their portfolio and exhibition process, from “Overview of Mission Hill School’s Graduation Requirements and Portfolio Review Process,” January 2006

   While portfolios and exhibitions have not been used extensively in the Boston Public Schools, they are commonly used in the adult world.  As we prepare young people for adulthood, school exhibitions are a reflection of adult practice. Consider how gymnasts train and prepare for a demonstration of their skills and abilities or how a researcher presents her work in science as the oral defense of a doctoral dissertation.  Even obtaining a driver’s license requires demonstrating competence in operating a car and knowing the rules of the road. 

   Our graduation requirements represent a broad range of evidence for a student’s readiness and competence for high school level work.  Conversely, standardized testing offers only one way to measure knowledge.  Imagine asking drivers only to complete a timed multiple-choice test in order to get a license. Portfolios put the students at the center of the process: they are given the opportunity to thoughtfully prepare and defend what they have learned through demonstration, conversation, and written material. This process of presenting and defending one’s work before a group of parents and teachers –experts in the adult world—is tangible, interactive, and concrete, and has immediate and very real consequences.

   The Mission Hill School faculty has delineated six domains for the school’s graduation requirements: Science, History, Literature and Writing, the Arts, Beyond the Classroom, and Mathematics.  Each requires that students demonstrate mastery of the Habits of Mind. These Habits of Mind, put succinctly, are the habits of asking oneself questions (in whatever situations, conversations or processes in which one finds oneself) about evidence, relevance, supposition, connections and alternative points of view. The Habits of Mind are an approach to both the traditional academic disciplines (math, science, literature, and history) and the interdisciplinary topics of everyday life.  They lead us to ask good questions and seek solid answers.  In short, they define a well educated person and one who is ready to do high school level work.

   Preparation for graduation begins in the sixth grade as students begin to build their portfolios.  Portfolios are a collection of a student’s work from 6th, 7th and 8th grades in each domain, with accompanying reflections from the student.  Each student has his or her own portfolio box in which evidence is collected.  Boxes contain a “living history” of a student’s middle school experience—and a variety of works in progress as the student prepares for his/her exhibition.

   Exhibitions take place throughout the students’ 7th and 8th grade years.  While the graduation standards (see p. 9) apply to all students, the way they present their work varies according to individual interests and strengths. In this same spirit, students with special learning needs and disabilities may require modifications of this process to take into account the ways in which they can best show their work.  When a student needs such modifications, the committee is informed before the presentation.  All work collected for graduation purposes as well as videotapes of some of the presentations and the committee judging discussions are kept for public record.
back to top
Fenway Graduation Requirements

The following list from the Fenway High School Handbook, 2005–06, shows how curriculum and assessment autonomy is used in one Pilot School.

Graduating from Fenway takes far more than showing up! Students are expected to work independently, demonstrate mastery of competencies, learn in the work place and exhibit good citizenship through community service. Below is a concise list of graduation requirements for students who attend Fenway.

• Academic Courses
In order to graduate from Fenway, a student who begins in ninth grade* must take and pass the following courses:
4 years of Math
4 years of Humanities
4 years of Science
Spanish I and II
• Portfolios
Seniors must complete a portfolio in Math, Humanities, and Science that demonstrates their mastery of competencies defined by each academic department. In addition, seniors must complete an internship portfolio.
• Internship
Before graduation, seniors must complete a six-week internship, providing a total of 60 hours.
• Position Paper
Each student must complete a position paper that is approved by the head of school.
• Science Fair
Each student must pass science fair for each year he/she attends Fenway. (The science fair is recorded as Science Project on the student’s transcript.)
• Community Service
Each student must complete a total of 40 hours of community service. (This is usually completed in the sophomore year.)
• Standardized Tests
In order to receive a diploma from Boston Public Schools, all students must take and pass the ELA and Math MCAS.
* For students transferring in from another school, the Student Support Team, administration and registrar will interpret and match varying courses and credentials.
Budget and Staffing Autonomy in a Pilot High School
The following chart provides an example of how one Pilot high school implemented budget and staffing autonomy.  The chart compares a regular BPS high school with a Pilot high school of similar size and proportion of students with disabilities. 

A regular BPS high school
of 292 students with 7.9% with a 502.1-.3 prototype and 6.8% with a 502.4 prototype.

A Pilot high school of 292 students with 7.9% with a 502.1-.3 prototype and 6.8% with a 502.4 prototype.

Using BPS staff allocation rules

Using budget and staffing autonomy

Lump Sum Budget

1 director

 

1 head of school
1 development staff
1 registrar/business manager

$10,550 per student = $3,080,600 lump sum

Subtract central, nondiscretionary costs (including library, benefits, facilities, safety) of $891,724 and 10% FY06 adjustment. 

From the remainder, allocate teacher salaries and discretionary costs (which non-Pilot schools receive as services) totaling roughly $481/student.

2005–06 discretionary line items:
Textbooks
Contracted services
Multicultural parent center Stipends
Aides
Testing materials
Miscellaneous
Athletics
Math coaches
School-to-career teachers
Exam School program

1 assistant director

1 associate head of school

1 academic support administrator

 

1 resource room teacher
2 substantially separate special education teachers
2 aides
1special education department head
1 student support coordinator
1 guidance counselor
1 guidance clerical staff
1 resource room staff

3 student support staff
4 special education staff

0.5 librarian
1 library aide
0.5 nurse

0.5 librarian
0.8 library aide
0.5 nurse
1 technology support

1 secretary

1 secretary

15.3 regular education teachers (includes academic subject, physical education, foreign language, and electives teachers)

5 humanities teachers
4 math teachers
4.5 science teachers
0.25 psychology teacher
1.5 Spanish teacher
1 ventures teacher
1 literacy teacher
1 athletics teacher

18.25 teachers

School based management decision positions (using discretionary funds):
Specialist
Instructional aides
Community field coordinators

 

31.3 staff total

33 full-time equivalent staff
 
Shared Leadership and Decision-Making Bodies Chart
  
 
The following chart shows a sample of groups contributing to shared leadership and decision-making in Pilot Schools. 
 
 
 Shared Leadership and Decision-Making Bodies in Pilot Schools

Name

Roles

Membership

Meetings

Design Team

Assists in initial planning and school design.

Six to 15 members, including educators from local school district, students, families, and community members.

As needed

Governance Board

Oversees:
(1) Hiring and supervision of the principal (with the superintendent having final sign-off);
(2) Approval of the annual budget; and
(3) Setting of school policies (i.e. promotion and retention policies).

Number of members is up to each school.  Goverance boards are similar to school site councils.  Board members consist of the principal and may also include community members (i.e. higher education and business leaders), families, and students. At least four teachers are members of each governing board.  The principal and one other member are co-chairs.

Once every four to eight weeks

Leadership Team

Coordinates change efforts. Facilitates and manages data-based inquiry and decision- making. Models shared leadership for the school.  Develops collaborative accountability.

Six to 12 members, including teachers representing all student age levels and subject areas, the principal, instructional specialists, parents (optional), students (optional), and community member (optional).

Once every two weeks for two hours
 
 

Academic Team

Develops instructional practice to improve teaching and learning for students. Uses protocols for discussion and peer observation.  Makes proposals to the leadership team for school-wide changes in curriculum and instruction based on their work.

Two to six teachers who share the same students.

At lease twice a week for at least 45 minutes each time

Critical Friends Group

Engages in structured discussions about classroom practice. May develop proposals for full faculty to consider.

Six to ten teachers across grade levels and teams.

At least once a month for at least two hours

Study Group

Investigates a topic related to teaching and learning based on data and consensus from full faculty.

Four to eight members: mostly teachers; may include administrators, parents, community members.

Every two to four weeks for one to two hours

Discipline-Based Team

Maps school curriculum within the discipline. Develops curriculum coherence within discipline from grade to grade. Identifies best practices within the discipline.

 

 

Full Faculty

Makes decisions by consensus on whole-school issues.

Full Faculty.

Once a month