Pilot Schools

The Boston pilot school system came into existence through social and political conditions that shaped the new schools - conditions that affect Boston's pilot school system to this day. To further distinguish what comprises a pilot school, this paper compares pilot schools with the traditional public schools that co-exist with them within the same public school district, and summarizes the basic characteristics of pilot schools. The paper then analyzes the evidence on whether pilot schools are more effective institutions than traditional school systems, examines the various problems that pilot schools face, and concludes with citing current and future trends relating to pilot school projects around the nation.

Keywords Admissions Screening; Boston Public Schools (BPS); Boston School Committee (BSC); Boston Teachers' Union (BTU); Charter School; Massachusetts Education Reform Act; Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS); Pilot School; U.S. Department of Education

Overview

A good way to examine the birth of the Boston Public School system's (BPS) pilot school project is to look at the history of the Fenway pilot school, which was among the first pilot schools to start in Boston, Massachusetts. The history of Fenway Middle College High School also sheds light on the social and political background that caused the emergence of the Boston pilot school program. In 1994, the Boston Teachers' Union (BTU) and the Boston School Committee (BSC) signed a landmark contract that was the foundation upon which pilot schools could be legally created - but Fenway, a public high school in Boston, had already requested a change to become a charter school. This was because in 1993, just months before the BPS district program came into existence, The Massachusetts State Legislature had passed the Education Reform Act, and this caused a significant change in the possibilities for public schools. Part of the Education Reform Act was an authorization to legally create 25 new charter schools. Fenway quickly applied for the new charter school status, and within a few months received one of the first charters granted under the new act. Fenway was quick to apply for charter school status, and the reasons give us insight into problems within Boston's public school system.

The Birth of the Pilot School

According to the top administrators of Fenway at the time, the school's administration felt "fatigued from years of union grievances and central office resistance to Fenway's progressive ideas about curriculum, assessment, and organization" (Nathan & Myatt, 1998, p. 279). Charter school status gave Fenway teachers and administrators the opportunity to take control of their school so that many operations - like curriculum and assessment decisions - were not at the mercy of a distant and bureaucratic central office controlled by district administrators. Under the new private charter, the principal, or "headmaster" as it is known in BPS, could hand over many decisions concerning classroom content and management to the teachers themselves, and they would not have to rigidly obey all the dictates and procedures of the BTU or BPS central offices.

It seems that specific social, legal and political pressures caused the birth of pilot schools. The BPS and BTU came to the realization that, if they did not somehow quickly compete with the new charter schools invoked by the Massachusetts Legislature, Boston's public school system would likely lose some of its best schools, and the BTU would lose its strength as well as job capacity. Fenway had already received the new charter school status, which was about to effectively remove that school from any relationship to the public school system as well as the BTU. Nathan and Myatt (1998) note that, within months of Fenway having received its independent charter, "the Boston Public Schools (BPS) - in a rare alignment of the teacher union, the school committee and superintendent, and the mayor - secured a teacher contract that created 'in-district' charters to be known as 'pilot schools'" (Nathan & Myatt, 1998, p. 279). The sudden, new plan for creating an in-district pilot school system can be interpreted in a number of ways, or perhaps was motivated by a combination of factors relating to the parties involved in creating the plan. The BTU was responding to the privatization trend that was happening "at an alarming rate" in other cities; the superintendent, who administered the district in a traditional and conservative way, was showing a movement toward "more progressive ideas." The new mayor was demonstrating his intention and support for "improving the public school system" (Nathan & Myatt, 1998, p. 279).

One City's Experiment

Peirce echoes the political and pragmatic necessity to set up pilot schools when he writes that "Boston's first-in-nation experiment with pilot schools began in 1995 when Mayor Thomas Menino and the Boston Teachers Union, worried about the growing popularity of charter schools, decided to allow limited numbers of pilot schools as long as two-thirds of any school's faculty voted in favor, and the union could veto any new school" (Peirce, 2006, ¶ 8). It is important to note that the Massachusetts lawmakers' authorization for the state's first charter schools created the possibility for the growth of a non-centralized system of schools. The schools would be exempt from many state regulations and, even more important for the BTU, it was to be a school system "free of the need to hire unionized or state-certified staff members" (Hendrie, 1998, ¶ 5). The Boston school leaders and the city teachers' union agreed to allow a modified version of charter-like schools that would then be "governed by the city school board and must use unionized teachers" (Hendrie, 1998, ¶ 6).

Thus, the agreement between the Boston Teachers Union and city and school officials offered high schools like Fenway (though the plan eventually included 10 elementary and middle schools as well) the opportunity to function in effect like charter schools, while staying within the district as pilot schools. Pilot school status contractually meant much more autonomy and control over curricula, hiring decisions, scheduling, and budgeting. The teachers would benefit by having "smaller class sizes and student loads, a degree of freedom in course content and instructional approach, and time for planning and collaboration with their peers" (Manzo, 2007b, ¶ 9).

Charter v. Pilot School?

This new public school design caused Fenway to face a very important question that led to a critical decision: should Fenway keep its newly-awarded charter school status, or should it cancel its new charter and stay within Boston's public school district as a new pilot school? The pilot school program would give schools like Fenway what they had previously sought through obtaining charter status. Pilot schools would be freed from "district mandates and union-negotiated rules, allowing principals ... to hire teachers who are committed to a school's mission and agree to longer work hours" (Manzo, 2007b, ¶ 13).

Nathan and Myatt (1998) give an important view from behind the scenes as to what ultimately motivated Fenway (and by extension, other schools) to relinquish the new charter school status so as to gain pilot school status and remain within the BPS system. The authors write that many of the parents, when deciding whether Fenway should keep its charter or become an in-district pilot school, felt that the BPS pilot status was a safer alternative. Some parents had already seen their children attend charter schools that had failed to make it, so this of course concerned them. Also, some pointed out that a new legislative act could suddenly end charter funding or otherwise curtail the progress of running a truly independent charter school. A pilot school, as part of the district, might be more successful at attracting a diverse student population. Nathan and Myatt conclude that, "even though there was great skepticism about the school system's ability to keep its promises to the pilots, the fickle nature of the legislature and questions about its commitment to education reform made us seriously consider this [pilot school] alternative" (Nathan & Myatt, 1998, p. 279).

Hendrie (1998) cites yet another reason that Fenway was inclined to become a pilot school. He writes that, "Linda Nathan, the school's codirector, said the conservative political agenda of charter school supporters in Massachusetts helped sour the school on keeping its charter" (Hendrie, 1998, ¶ 16). For all of the above reasons, Fenway cancelled its newly awarded state charter in order to become an in-district pilot school. Other public schools that were heading in the charter direction followed suit, and the nation's first pilot school system within a public district got under way.

What is a Pilot School?

The current pilot school system is run by independent governing boards, and Boston's pilot schools are free from many union and school system restrictions. Manzo (2007a) notes that, "given the increased freedoms, pilots were charged with producing better student results" (¶ 13). The defining characteristics of a pilot school, then, are the following:

• A smaller student population of 200-300 students for the entire high school

• A smaller number of students per classroom to increase one-on-one style instruction

• Operation and oversight of the pilot school by independent governing boards

• Autonomy from district administration for curricula decisions/assessment procedures

• Autonomy from district administration in budget, governance, and also personnel

• Autonomy from any hindering practices of teacher unions (Nathan & Myatt, 1998).

Thus, pilot schools are smaller than regular high schools, and have a great deal more autonomy from a central district administration. However, these outward characteristics are all sought in an effort to make a fundamental change in the inner workings of the school. As the administrators at Fenway put it, they believed that the curricula and school standards should be shaped by those who work within and with the school, meaning the students, staff, parents, and advisors. The administration also desired that these same constituencies - rather than a distant and often uninformed central office - should help decide how much time and money is allotted to personnel, instructional materials, professional development, etc. The school also sought the right to "search for and hire the best possible faculty - teachers who knew and were committed to our particular values, community, and mission" (Nathan & Myatt, 1998, p. 280).

In fact, if we look at the objectives of the Fenway administration, those objectives are essentially about building a sense of self-empowered community within the school - and note the use of the word "community" in the previous quote. Nathan & Myatt (1998) also write that they wanted "the guidance and power of a governance structure whose members knew us intimately, appreciated our needs and beliefs, and served us by choice and with determination because of what our school represented" (Nathan & Myatt, 1998, p. 280). So pilot schools, by attempting to create a system that allows more individual input locally, and more individual attention in the classroom, are in effect attempting to build a stronger sense of community, which is a primary objective within all pilot schools. Manzo also emphasizes this central feature for what distinguishes a pilot school from a regular public school, when she writes,

Those teachers [in pilot schools] are expected to build a "nurturing environment" and strong relationships with each of their students. In regular advisory sessions, they also offer individual guidance on academic issues and even social, family, and developmental concerns that might affect students' work (Manzo, 2007b, ¶ 14).

Community & Diversity

The pilot school is designed, then, to reach into the community surrounding it through its own network or system of contacts, so as to create a sense of belonging as well as a sense of personal and community responsibility within the teachers, students, and parents. As Nathan and Myatt write, one of the primary objectives at the Fenway pilot school was to "create a community focused on maintaining high expectations for all students," and this was the reason Fenway's faculty members opted for two basic initiatives that they believed would help accomplish that primary goal:

• They believed that they should gain a better understanding of "their own and their students' diversity," and

• That they should learn better ways of "teaching in heterogeneous classrooms that include both special-needs and 'regular' students" (Nathan & Myatt, 1998, p. 281).

Consequently, the Fenway administration brought in consultants who were experts in diversity and multicultural training to help the teachers and students understand their own issues of "race, class, and gender bias" (Nathan & Myatt, 1998, p. 281).

Further Insights

Do Pilot Schools Work?

According to a study released at the beginning of 2006, the results "strongly suggest that personalized, autonomous schools are able to create nurturing learning environments in which students achieve academically" (Manzo, 2006a, ¶ 5). The study made a detailed comparison of state test scores in English/language arts and mathematics for students in 14 of the BPS pilot schools with student results from the other non-pilot public schools in the same district. The study covered grades K-12, and it also examined student mobility, grade-retention rates, and other indicators of school effectiveness (Manzo, 2006a, ¶ 6). At the high school level, over 80 percent of the pilot school students passed the state tests in English/language arts and math, whereas less than 60 percent passed in the non-pilot schools. Another revealing statistic from the study is that "75 percent of 2003 graduates of pilot schools went on to college, compared with 49 percent of graduates of regular public schools" (Manzo, 2006a, ¶ 10). Manzo (2007b) summarizes the effects of the pilot school system in the following way:

...students in pilot schools, from all racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic backgrounds, do better than their peers at regular high schools on a number of indicators of student achievement and engagement. Even students who have been at risk of failing have higher success rates at pilot schools than their counterparts on other campuses (Manzo, 2007b, ¶ 11).

Manzo (2007b) makes the above statement based on results from another study that was a four-year study of the pilot school network, which was released in November 2007. That study showed "significantly higher promotion and graduation rates, fewer dropouts, and fewer disciplinary issues" (¶ 2). The study also revealed that students had higher ninth-grade attendance, higher promotion rates to the 10th grade, and higher 10th-grade MCAS scores. Yet another source cites from the same study that "70.4 percent of at-risk pilot school students who failed the eighth-grade math MCAS [Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System] passed the 10th-grade exam, while only 50.7 percent of at-risk students attending regular high schools passed" (Jan, 2007, ¶ 22). Again, there is an overall improvement of around 20 percent, which is a significant difference.

However, others have questioned the fairness of the study, particularly in its assumption that the two student bodies are truly equal in representation, and that they can be directly compared in this way. Reporters from the Boston Globe point out that the BPS pilot high schools often demand, before admitting new students, student transcripts, teacher recommendations, and essays from applicants, which are practices more common in private schools (Sachetti & Jan, 2007, ¶ 2). This admissions screening system may create a significant difference between the two student bodies being compared within the study, which would mean the results of the study misrepresent reality. The BPS superintendent and other educators comment in the Sachetti and Jan article that admissions screening systems "fly in the face of the pilot schools' original purpose, which was to show that given more freedom in budgeting, teaching, and hiring, they could produce higher test scores with the same pool of students" (Sachetti & Jan, 2007, ¶ 3).

Sachetti and Jan (2007) also claim that regular school principals, who must accept any student who applies for enrollment, are "infuriated" by the special admissions criteria set up by several of the pilot schools - particularly because the recent study "hailed pilot schools' superior test scores and college-going rates" (Sachetti & Jan, 2007, ¶ 4). For example, Fenway requires students to provide their full transcripts, write an essay, and submit two letters of recommendation in order to be considered for entrance, and students must also attend an information session (Sachetti & Jan, 2007, ¶ 22). The pilot school administrations argue that such admissions criteria are used to help ensure that students and parents are committed to education at the school. They argue that regular schools should consider using this same entrance and admissions model (Sachetti & Jan, 2007, ¶ 23). Also, the current Fenway headmaster, Peggy Kemp, claims that school officials divide all the applicants by race, gender, and academic grades, then they select a representative number from each pile (Sachetti & Jan, 2007, ¶ 24). In any case, the fundamental issue is whether, on average, the students are essentially the same in both types of schools, so that the improved student scores can fairly be said to result from the different model of education found in pilot schools.

What Problems do Pilot Schools Face?

Teacher Unpaid Time

Ironically, one of the positive aspects of pilot schools has also created one of its biggest problems. In a recent article, one student mentions that teachers at her pilot school are willing to work with students until 7 o'clock at night if they need help (Manzo, 2007b, ¶ 8). Teachers spending more time on their students caused the BTU to step in with objections over unpaid time. Richard Stutman, the president of the BTU, was quoted in as saying, "In the past, some pilot school teachers had to work more than 300 hours without pay" (cited in Manzo, 2006b, ¶ 8). Using his political leverage, Stutman vetoed and stopped a school from joining the pilot school system in 2004. As Peirce (2006) notes, another likely reason for the veto was "the union leadership's belief that member support is based on years of struggle for rights, hours, salary, length of school day and grievance procedures - most of which, salary excepted, don't apply in pilot schools" (¶ 11).

That particular issue was resolved by an agreement that would place a 100 hour cap per school year on the unpaid hours, and the agreement requires the district or the schools to pay additional hourly wages to teachers who work beyond the 100-hour cap (Manzo, Feb. 2006, ¶ 7). Thus, if, as Stutman claims above, some pilot-school teachers work 300 hours of overtime at their schools, they will now be paid for 200 of those overtime hours. Another example of friction with the BTU was the union's attempt to "bump" pilot-school teachers on the basis of seniority. According to Nathan and Myatt (1998), when Fenway administrators discussed this dilemma with the union president, they were told that the contract was quite clear. The Fenway board then wrote a letter to the superintendent and Boston School Committee in which they demanded "assurance that pilot schools would not be subject to union bumping" (Nathan & Myatt, 1998, ¶ 31). That issue was resolved by agreeing that only during layoffs could a pilot school teacher be "bumped," which was probably a compromise that pilot schools did not enjoy making since it still infringes on their autonomy.

Union Relations

Smooth cooperation with the BTU is one problem that pilot schools will probably continue to face. For example, according to a Boston Globe article, the president of BTU has vowed that he will veto future pilot schools that plan to have selective admissions policies (Sachetti & Jan, 2007, ¶ 33), and the pilot schools will quite likely consider this as yet another infringement on their autonomy. Pilot schools also face conflicts with the district administration. Nathan and Myatt disclose this in detail in their article, and they summarize the problem by saying that they have already faced many tensions and test cases that "raised serious questions about pilot schools' autonomy" (Nathan & Myatt, 1998, ¶ 25). The authors conclude that "Budgeting and purchasing - as well as curriculum, assessment, and standards - continue to be areas in which the school's and the district's definitions of autonomy do not match" (Nathan & Myatt, 1998, ¶ 26).

Viewpoints

What is the Future for Pilot Schools?

Boston officials have been working to improve the remaining larger schools by making them more like pilot schools. As Manzo observes, over the past several years BPS has divided four of its nine comprehensive high schools into 12 smaller ones, and have also set up some specialized programs in the remaining schools (Manzo, 2007b, ¶ 29). All things considered, most students, teachers, and administrators do agree that the pilot school project has been successful, and it is rather a question of exactly how successful they have been. However, Jan (2007) writes that an middle school and an elementary school that attempted to become pilot schools saw their plans come to an end because the teachers voted down the proposal (¶ 27).

However, educators in other states have been watching the Boston experiment, and they seem to have been sold on the system. Some districts have begun imitating the Boston pilot school experiment. For example, the Los Angeles school system will open 10 pilot high schools by 2009 (Sachetti & Jan, 2007, ¶ 31). Also in California, La Jolla High in San Diego was offered pilot school status by the Superintendent (Bowman, 2002, ¶ 4), though this offer, much like the BPS offer to Fenway, was a successful attempt at preventing a top school from abandoning the district for a charter plan (Bowman, 2002, ¶ 15). Also, in North Carolina, state legislators recently approved $1.3 million for efforts to restructure seven high schools, and $4.4 million for a pilot school improvement initiative in five districts (Manzo, Aug. 2007, ¶ 1).

One of the most important reasons that pilot schools are a good idea is that pilot schools offer a real solution to competing with a privatized charter school system. This conversion of the public school system into pilot schools, so as to compete with charter schools, could ultimately save the public school system from falling apart. As Hendrie notes, "some advocates of pilot schools in Boston believe that by remaining within the system they are affecting district policy - on everything from accountability to budgeting - in ways that charter schools cannot" (Hendrie, 1998, ¶ 18). The Boston pilot school system has also made its mark at the national level: the U.S. Department of Education is using Boston's pilot system as a model to reform failing schools (Jan, 2007, ¶ 27). Since the Boston pilot school program has influenced the U.S. Department of Education, it seems even more likely that there will be many other pilot projects throughout the United States in the coming years.

Terms & Concepts

Admissions Screening: a system used to select the students to be admitted into a school. Admissions screening policies often use mandatory transcript submission, written essays, and/or letters of recommendation in order to qualify for admission into a school

Boston Public Schools (BPS): is the public school district for the Boston area. The BPS has approximately 56,000 students, and there are 144 schools in the BPS district; of these, 18 are pilot schools: 1 early learning center, 3 elementary, 4 K-8, 2 middle schools, and 8 high schools.

Boston School Committee (BSC): The governing board of the BPS. The BSC consists of seven appointed members. The Mayor of Boston appoints the seven members who must be Boston residents. The Mayor is also obligated to appoint individuals who reflect the ethnic, racial and socioeconomic diversity of the city of Boston and its public school population.

Boston Teachers' Union (BTU): The exclusive collective bargaining agent for teachers in the BPS district, and also for many other non-administrative workers in Boston's public schools. The BTU is affiliated with the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), the AFL-CIO, and the Greater Boston Labor Council (GBLC).

Charter Schools: Elementary or secondary schools which are publicly funded but are exempted from some of the rules, regulations, and statutes that apply to other public schools, in order to offer alternative education options which fulfill areas otherwise unaddressed by the public schools in the region.

Massachusetts Education Reform Act: of 1993 is legislation passed in Massachusetts that mandated several modern educational reforms over a 7-year period. The reforms included the introduction of charter schools and the standardized test, the MCAS. The legislation is grounded in an Outcomes Based Education.

Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS): In response to the Massachusetts Education Reform Act of 1993, this standards-based assessment program is used throughout the state to measure student learning for all students enrolled in the tested grades and who are educated with Massachusetts public funds. Advancement to the next grade and ultimately, graduation from secondary school is dependent upon successfully passing the MCAS at each level. Results are used to assess student as well as district and school performance.

Pilot Schools: According to the Boston Teacher’s Union, Pilot Schools are similar to charter schools but are part of a public school district. Pilot schools do, however, operate differently than regular public schools. These schools have greater flexibility in the areas of governance, school budget, staffing, curriculum, and scheduling. Teachers in Pilot schools have greater independence in areas of professional development and teaching strategies, but teachers in pilot schools often do not receive many of the rights and protections within teachers' union contracts (www.btu.org).

U.S. Department of Education: Created in 1980 by combining offices from several federal agencies and is responsible for establishing policies on federal financial aid for education, and distributing as well as monitoring those funds. It also collects data on America's schools and disseminates research, focuses national attention on key educational issues, and prohibiting discrimination and ensuring equal access to education.

Bibliography

Abdulkadiroglu, A., Angrist, J.D., Dynarski, S.M., Kane, T.J., & Pathak, P.A. (2011). Accountability and flexibility in public schools: Evidence from Boston's charters and pilots. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126, 699-748. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=74440562&site=ehost-live

Barrett, L. (2013). More districts try innovation schools. Education Digest, 79, 52-55. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=89804304&site=ehost-live

Bowman, D. (2002). San Diego high school granted special status. Education Week; 21 , 3.

Hendrie, C. (1998). From charters to pilots, Boston offers a variety of small-school options. Education Week; 17 . 19. Retrieved December 29, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=598382&site=ehost-live

Hendrie, C. (2005). After a 10-year run, Boston "pilot" schools sore point for union. Education Week; 24 , 1-19. Retrieved January 2, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=17772396&site=ehost-live

Jan, T. (2007). High-flying pilot schools. The Boston Globe. November 9, 2007. Retrieved December 29, 2007 from boston.com. http://www.boston.com/news/education/k%5f12/mcas/articles/2007/11/09/high%5fflying%5fpilot%5fschools/

Knoester, M. (2011). Is the outcry for more pilot schools warranted? Democracy, collective bargaining, deregulation, and the politics of school reform in Boston. Educational Policy, 25, 387-423. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=60221118&site=ehost-live

Manzo, K. (2006a). Boston's Small "Pilot" schools found to outperform others. Education Week; 25 , 9. Retrieved January 3, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=19543658&site=ehost-live

Manzo, K. (2006b). Boston district and union agree on adding "pilot schools". Education Week; 25 , 12. Retrieved January 2, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=19998590&site=ehost-live

Manzo, K. (2007a). School programs win big increases in N.C. Education Week; 26 , 21. Retrieved December 29, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=26260502&site=ehost-live

Manzo, K. (2007b). Students in Boston's "Pilot" schools outpacing others. Education Week; 27 , 1-14. Retrieved December 30, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=27530527&site=ehost-live

Nathan, L. & Myatt, L. (1998). A journey toward autonomy. Phi Delta Kappan; 80 , 278. Retrieved December 29, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=1423368&site=ehost-live

Peirce, N. (2006). Boston's "pilot schools" -- Breakthrough formula for cities? Stateline.org (Pew Charitable Trust), March 27, 2006. Retrieved December 29, 2007 from website. http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=99536

Sachetti, M. & Jan, T. (2007). Pilot schools setting more hurdles. The Boston Globe. July 8, 2007. Retrieved December 29, 2007 from the World Wide Web. http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/07/08/pilot%5fschools%5fsetting%5fmore%5fhurdles/

Suggested Reading

Gewertz, C. (2007). Easing rules over schools gains favor. Education Week; 26 1-15. Retrieved December 30, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=24487165&site=ehost-live

Manzo, K. (2006). L.A. proceeds with plans to open "pilot schools" in Belmont area. Education Week; 25 8. Retrieved December 30, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=22249840&site=ehost-live

Tech pilot school opens with 75 students. (Nov. 2003). Electronic Education Report; 9 , 8. Retrieved December 29, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=8603043&site=ehost-live

Tonn, J. (2006). Union, district court charters. Education Week; 25 5.