Future of Schools

Can a program designed for British diplomats fix Chicago’s schools?

PHOTO: Steve Hendershot/Chalkbeat
An International Baccalaureate class at Senn High School in Edgewater on the North Side of Chicago.

Senn High senior Shrda Shrestha is attending her neighborhood high school in Edgewater against pretty much everybody’s advice.

“When I first started looking at high schools, people were usually like, ‘It’s selective enrollment or nothing,’” said Shrestha. “Then I found out about IB.”

IB, or International Baccalaureate, is the rigorous curriculum that Chicago Public Schools hopes will improve the health of its neighborhood schools, both by improving academic outcomes and influencing the decisions of top students such as Shrestha.

The idea is that IB’s rigorous academics will both improve outcomes for low-income and black and Latino students, and also keep middle- and upper-income families from skipping on out on neighborhood schools, either in favor of one of Chicago’s 11 elite, selective-enrollment high schools or more drastic options such as private school or a move to the suburbs.

There are reasons for optimism. First, Chicago district students who complete the full IB curriculum are 40 percent more likely to attend college than a matched group of non-IB students, and also more likely to persist in college, according to a 2012 report by the University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research.

That’s especially encouraging because the city’s IB students closely mirror the overall district population — mostly low-income, and mostly Latino and African-American — compared with the whiter and wealthier student populations at selective-enrollment schools.

Second, IB is helping neighborhood schools make inroads with top students, as 23 percent of kids who were admitted both to IB and selective-enrollment schools last year chose IB, according to district data — music to the ears of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

IB is “becoming a true qualitative choice and competitor to the selective-enrollment schools,” Emanuel told Chalkbeat. (Read our full interview with Emanuel and Chicago schools chief Janice Jackson here.)

Indeed, IB’s success is a potential silver lining for Emanuel, who is trying to recalibrate an education legacy marked by declining enrollment and punctuated by the closing of 50 schools in 2013.

Chicago’s IB push already has survived two mayors and nine school chiefs, likely because it’s working—and indeed, the Geneva, Switzerland-based IB holds up its results in Chicago as an example of the curriculum’s potential to transform schools worldwide. Administrators here see it not just as a sell to parents but also a way to connect students and teachers around one consistent curriculum.

It’s clear that the program is different from traditional coursework, both in its rigor and its cross-disciplinary approach.

IB is “about expanding your knowledge in all subjects and then seeing that they all connect somehow,” says Senn High’s Shrestha.

From elite international schools to Chicago

The International Baccalaureate Organization developed its initial curriculum 50 years ago with the idea that the children of British diplomats living abroad could point to it as a reliable, standardized credential when applying to Cambridge and Oxford. Plenty of elite boarding schools use IB, but there’s been a dramatic shift in IB’s clientele, to the point that the organization’s biggest North American customer is Chicago Public Schools, which supports IB programming in 59 schools.

IB’s founders “would never have imagined in their wildest dreams that the people that benefit most from it seem to be kids in urban schools,” said Paul Campbell, the organization’s head of regional development in the Americas.

Now, as Chicago signals that IB is the centerpiece of its efforts to revitalize neighborhood schools, other urban districts around the country are following suit — Los Angeles, Dallas, and Milwaukee each offer IB at a handful of schools, for example. That means taking up the challenge of preparing students for a demanding curriculum.

The cornerstone of the International Baccalaureate curriculum is its Diploma Program, the intensive two-year curriculum for 11th and 12th graders. These students take seven college-level courses that include specialized exams graded by IBO staffers — the externally evaluated tests, which cost up to $291 per student, are one of the most significant costs associated with IB.

The full Diploma Program courseload is notoriously difficult, to the point where “it’s a professional joke among DP advisers that they are also on-the-ground counselors for kids struggling with the courseload,” said Charles Tocci, an education professor at Loyola University. “It’s intense and it’s heavy duty.”

The Diploma Program isn’t right for every student, even the brightest ones. Students who play sports or hold a job can find the Diploma Program to be too much—in fact, the daughter of IB’s Campbell chose not to pursue the Diploma Program because she was also in her school’s orchestra.

Students who pursue the program anyway do so while counting the cost.

PHOTO: Steve Hendershot/Chalkbeat
Senn High School Principal Mary Beck talks to students.

“I don’t sleep—that’s how I do it,” said Senn senior Lynn Trieu, who works part-time at a sushi restaurant in addition to her studies. Yet Trieu also says she has no regrets. “It’s a little harder, I can see that, but it’s also something I like because it’s challenging me.”

Not every IB student needs to sign up for the heavy-duty experience. Statistically, the program’s strong postsecondary outcomes are achieved not only by students who pass the tests and earn IB’s prestigious diploma (which is separate from a school diploma), but also to students who complete the program and graduate but don’t earn the IB Diploma. And Chicago leaders say that taking even a couple of IB-level courses enhances students’ college readiness.

Building an IB pipeline

One of the main challenges for IB in Chicago is that few students arrive in 11th grade equipped to thrive in IB’s signature, two-year Diploma Program. Even when the transition starts earlier, it can still be jarring.

Fiske Elementary in Woodlawn, for example, was certified earlier this year to offer IB’s Middle Years Program, which begins in sixth grade. Fiske Principal Cynthia Miller was immediately convinced it wasn’t enough.

“My children from pre-K to fifth grade are not exposed to that type of rigor, so it makes us work even harder to try to get them caught up,” said Miller.

Now Miller is getting her wish as part of Chicago’s latest expansion of its big bet on IB — the school will add IB’s Primary Years Program as part of a district initiative announced last month to create a citywide network of elementary and high schools.

The expanded IB curriculum not only acclimates students to the program’s intensiveness, but also starts them on a track that’s designed to improve the odds of completing the challenging diploma program.

At Senn High, for example, sophomore English students in the middle-years program spent last week comparing the rhetorical strategies employed in speeches by Michelle Obama and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The exercise serves as a practice run for an assignment that students will be given during the diploma program.

“Our department has done a lot of work in these lower grades to get students ready for [the diploma program],” says Senn teacher Erin Riordan. “It’s useful and it’s good for us to work toward that.”

Chicago’s investment in IB’s early grades programming seems to be paying off as the number of students entering the diploma program has doubled in five years, from an average of 450 from 2012-15 to 911 last school year. (Citywide, there are 16,000 students in IB programs, but that figure includes elementary and middle programs.)

Even though it’s on the upswing, the 911 diploma-seeking high schoolers pales when compared with about 14,500 in the city’s selective-enrollment high schools.

Still, administrators say that IB’s expansion into Chicago elementary schools is useful because it funnels more students to the Diploma Program. That is a primary goal, but educators say IB’s lower-years programming, which includes extensive teacher training, is paying dividends beyond the students it sends to the Diploma Program.

“You’re creating the same expectations amongst all classrooms at a grade level,” says Lori Zaimi, principal of Peirce Elementary in Edgewater — Senn High’s IB feeder school. Without IB, “often you’ll see teachers dabbling in different training opportunities and there’s no consistency across the grade level. Now everybody’s teaching the same unit, and teachers are talking the same language, including the emphasis on things like inquiry and a global context.”

IB also emphasizes continuity by employing a handful of themes that are consistent from year to year such as “how we express ourselves,” “how the world works,” and “sharing the planet.”

Teachers implementing IB have also found the curriculum useful beyond preparing students for the Diploma Program. When Senn High added a Middle Years Program in 2013, program Director David Gregg quickly concluded “it wasn’t inherently honors level — it was really just best practices that was engaging and would help students kind of build skills and connect to their worlds.”

In response, Senn then pushed to make IB’s ninth- and 10th-grade programming the standard throughout their building, even for students who aren’t planning to enter the Diploma Program.

Compared with other premium curricular options such as the Advanced Placement courses supported by the College Board, IB’s offerings are notable for their emphasis on “sustained inquiry around topics,” said Jal Mehta, a Harvard education professor and coauthor of an upcoming book that examines attempts to remake American high schools, including IB.

Mehta said teachers “still experience the AP curriculum as essentially like racing through lots of topics fairly quickly, without opportunities for an in-depth exploration. On the whole, I think IB does a much better job of balancing breadth and depth.”

There are no externally moderated tests that measure effectiveness of the IB elementary and middle-year programs.

Becoming an IB school takes years to apply, train teachers and often rewrite the school’s mission statement to ensure that it encompasses IB’s desired level of rigor.

Every certified elementary school must teach only IB’s program, rather than offering it as one track among several. Middle year programs don’t have that restriction, but IB-only curriculum — which Chicago schools officials refer to as “wall-to-wall IB” — is the strong preference of the international organization behind the curriculum.  

A 40-year rollout aimed at access

From the beginning, Chicago’s rolled out IB as a neighborhood-school alternative to the district’s sought-after test-in high schools. Those selective schools, while high-performing, have traditionally skewed whiter and wealthier than the district’s overall student population—and their limited number of seats means that few students have access.

At Chicago’s IB high schools, in contrast, three-quarters of students in the Diploma Program are African-American or Latino, according to the University of Chicago study. “Equity has been baked into the process for IB expansion at every step,” says Kyle Westbrook, executive director of the nonprofit Partnership for College Completion and formerly the executive director of Chicago schools’ Magnet, Gifted and IB programs.

One reason for that is the federal grants that have funded much of Chicago’s IB expansion are specifically geared toward desegregation. In 1980, when Lincoln Park High became the first Chicago high school to offer IB’s Diploma Program, the school was largely African-American and Latino, and IB was intended to diversify the student body by drawing in more white students from the then-gentrifying neighborhood.

(Lincoln Park looks very different now, whiter and wealthier, and in fact its IB program was left off the University of Chicago study because it differed from the city’s other IB high schools both in demographic composition and in its highly selective admissions process.)

The early anecdotal success of Lincoln Park’s IB graduates led then schools-chief Paul Vallas to expand IB in the 1998, adding Diploma Programs in neighborhood high schools around the city: Amundsen and Senn to the north; Prosser, Steinmetz and Taft to the northwest; Clark to the west; Curie, Hubbard and Kelly to the southwest; and Bronzeville and Hyde Park to the South.

A 2012 expansion spearheaded by Emanuel increased the number of Chicago high schools offering the Diploma Program (there are now 25), but focused on adding middle-school programs to elementary schools to better prepare students for entering the Diploma Program. But IB seats remain unevenly distributed across the city, despite the program’s aim. A regional report released by the district in August showed that the city’s West Side offers very few IB seats  — a shortage made more glaring when Clark High in Austin shuttered its IB program in 2011.

One reason for the unevenness is school size. Clark, for example, has just over 500 students, whereas most IB high schools have more than 1,000. “The West Side of Chicago is still an area where there’s an opportunity, but there’s a challenge in terms of the numbers, because to really to make it cost effective, schools have to really be of a certain size,” said Westbrook.

Despite those regional gaps, the IB initiative is largely fulfilling its mission to bring a premium offering to neighborhood schools. 

Latino students make up the largest single ethnic group within IB, and their experience within the program is different than that of African-Americans. Students from both groups enroll in ninth-grade IB classes in similar numbers, but Latinos are far more likely to enter the Diploma Program in 11th grade, according to the 2012 study.

One reason could be affinity with the curriculum: A 2015 doctoral dissertation by Chicago schools educator Sandra Arreguín found that Latino students were especially drawn to IB’s international focus. And Latino students are likely to have a leg up when it comes to IB’s emphasis on learning multiple languages. Senn High even offers a special track with a bilingual version of the IB Diploma.

“It helps close the achievement gap,” said IBO’s Campbell. “Instead of taking the advantage that these kids have and trying to put it aside, we take it and build on it.”

Can it last?

The addition of more early-years programs and establishment of IB feeder-school relationships like the one between Senn and Peirce open the door for parents to start their 3-year-old children on an IB track in hopes that — without leaving their neighborhood schools — the children will be prepared to thrive in a Diploma Program when they reach their junior year.

But that assumes that IB will still be around, which is hardly a given considering the program’s expense and the pending change in mayoral administration. Emanuel, an IB advocate, announced last month he won’t seek re-election. IB schools pay $11,650 each year to offer the Diploma Program, and slightly less to offer the Middle Years and Early Years Programs. That’s separate from the added faculty and faculty-training costs associated with IB, as well as the costs associated with IB testing.

“I’ve felt skeptical about IB’s long-term viability, because it’s expensive,” said Loyola’s Tocci. “When the district’s budgets were tight a few years ago, I expected IB would go on chopping block.”

Yet IB has plenty working in its favor, too. For one, educators such as Mehta say that developing an alternative, premium curriculum in house would likely be at least as expensive, and probably less effective. And the program has already survived several different administrations within Chicago schools, as well as two mayors.

“IB has been one of the only things that’s stuck around and withstood [the changes],” said Westbrook. “It would be hard for me to imagine the district unwinding that.”

 

resentment and hurt

‘We are all educators:’ How the teachers strike opened at a rift at one Denver middle school network that will take time to close

PHOTO: Melanie Asmar/Chalkbeat
Students at Kepner Beacon Middle School work on an assignment.

For the first time since this week’s Denver teacher strike exposed divisions in their ranks, the 100 grownups who make the Beacon middle school network run gathered in the same room.

Teachers, some still wearing red for the union cause, came with breakfast burritos to share. Upbeat soul music pumped through the speakers, an attempt to set a positive tone.  

Speaking to the group assembled Friday for a long-scheduled planning day in the cafeteria of Grant Beacon Middle School, Alex Magaña acknowledged the awkwardness and hurt feelings that have taken a toll on a school community that prides itself on a strong culture.  

The network’s two schools — Grant Beacon in east Denver and Kepner Beacon in southwest Denver — aim to provide a high-quality education to some of the city’s neediest students. A day after most teachers returned to work after the three-day strike, Denver students had a day off Friday, giving school leaders the opportunity to begin repairing any damage done.

“It’s never been administration-versus-teachers, district-versus-teachers, in the culture we have created here,” said Magaña, executive principal of the two schools. “We have a lot of good leadership, a lot of input from teachers. But this caught everyone kind of surprise.”

By “this,” Magaña means the tension that developed on the two campuses during the strike over teacher pay that put Denver in an unfamiliar national glare. The 93,000-student district is better known for its unique brand of at times controversial education reform — of which the Beacon network is part — than labor strife and division in the educator ranks.

Against the backdrop of the strike, Magaña realized words matter. Everyone in the building, he thought, not just teachers, ought to be considered educators and referred to as such. That was the role everyone was thrust into — administrators, deans, and district central office staff who through no choice of their own had to cover for absent teachers. Magaña, too. He taught math.

When teachers, administrators, and staff arrived for Friday morning’s meeting, they congregated at tables with colored pencils and “reflection forms.” Everyone was asked to write down answers to two questions: What did you learn about yourself? What did you learn about your colleagues?

“I also brought out the obvious — the elephant in the room,” Magaña said. “There are hurt feelings. There is resentment from teachers to staff to students to parents. That is something we can’t pretend isn’t there, and we put it out there and acknowledge it to move forward.”

Go to the vast majority of public schools in this country and classrooms look largely the same. Not so in Denver Public Schools, which is deep into its second decade of offering a menu of choices at traditional district-run, charter, and hybrid “innovation” schools.

From this approach sprung Grant Beacon Middle School, which opened on the east side of Denver in 2011. The school seeks to build students’ character and promote personalized learning — essentially, using data and technology to tailor instruction to individual students.

Grant Beacon is an innovation school, meaning it doesn’t need to follow all aspects of state law or the teachers union contract.

Using one of its more controversial school improvement strategies, the Denver district began phasing out struggling Kepner Middle School in 2014 and moved to put two schools in the same building: a new Beacon school and an outpost of the STRIVE charter network.  

The Denver district allows charter schools to use extra space in its school buildings essentially at cost, creating shared campuses with district-run schools. It’s an arrangement that would be unfathomable in most U.S. cities where districts and charter schools are in perpetual conflict.

Both schools on the shared campus were “green,” the second-highest ranking, on the district’s most recent school ratings report last fall.

The teacher strike, however, exposed the stark differences between the two Beacon campuses.

Both schools serve a high proportion of low-income students. At Grant Beacon, 80 percent of students qualify for subsidized lunch, a measure of poverty — slightly above the district average. But things are far more challenging at Kepner, where 96 percent of students fit that definition. The school is a refuge where students can be fed and be safe from trauma.

The differences in student attendance and teacher strike participation at the two schools were stark. About half of Grant Beacon students showed up for school during the strike, and six in 10 teachers joined the strike. Four miles and a world away at Kepner Beacon, 90 percent of students showed up for school — and all but a few teachers were out on strike.

At Kepner Beacon, the network’s “all-for-one, one-for-all” culture of togetherness helped unite its relatively young corps of teachers in a shared resolve to go on strike.

That and high student attendance meant Kepner Beacon faced far greater challenges to keep operating, perhaps as much as any of the city’s 147 district-run schools during the strike.

Linsey Cobb had an emotionally wrenching weekend ahead of the strike’s start. She was torn. A special education teacher and the special education team leader at Kepner Beacon, she stood with teachers fighting for a system they believed would pay them a better, fairer wage.

But the third-year teacher decided to report to work as usual Monday morning, feeling too strong of a pull to fulfill her responsibilities supporting the neediest students — those with individualized lesson plans, the complex and sometimes confounding binding documents for students with special needs.

Cobb was not fully prepared by what she experienced on that morning.

“Even though I am very close with my students, I felt incredibly isolated,” she said. “I got the weirdest feeling. I got a lot of, ‘Miss, why aren’t you striking? Don’t you believe what teachers are fighting for?’ I was like, ‘I do!’ I had a little bit of an internal struggle.”

Cobb’s Monday ended early enough for her to attend the big teachers union rally at the Capitol. She said she was touched by the camaraderie. She caught up with old friends from her days with the Denver Teachers Residency, an important training ground of the city’s teaching corps.

Taking all of that into consideration, Cobb joined her colleagues picketing the next day Teachers shared donuts and coffee. Parents brought them hand-warmers in the 20-degree chill.

One teacher sat in her car with the engine running recording a video message to her students, telling them where she was and spelling out the day’s lesson plan before she joined everyone else on the picket line.

Though the district spent $136,000 to prepare makeshift lesson plans for the strike, Beacon teachers prepared their own and uploaded them to the network’s cloud-based system.

On Friday, Cobb was back with all of her colleagues — striking teachers, those who never left the classroom, and staff and administrators who experienced the life of a teacher for three days.

“It’s about trust,” Magaña said. “Some of it was cracked a little it. There was no contention in the room (Friday). It was really coming in with openness and willingness by everyone to say, ‘It’s done, and we did the right thing for ourselves. Now it’s time to come closer together.’”

“Normalcy will happen,” added Cobb, the special education teacher. “But it might take a bit.”

Frequently asked

New Denver teacher contract: We answer the most common questions about the tentative pact

PHOTO: Joe Amon/The Denver Post
Students in class at Dora Moore ECE-8 during the second day of the Denver Public Schools teachers strike.

One reason many Denver educators didn’t like the district’s old ProComp pay system was that it was too complicated and unpredictable. Both sides agree that the deal reached early Thursday morning creates a much simpler pay system for teachers.

But educators — and the general public — still have a lot of questions about the tentative ProComp agreement, which still needs to be ratified by union members and the Denver school board. Here we’ve answered some of the most common questions we’ve heard since the end of the strike.

How do I place myself on the salary schedule?

The salary schedule is made up of “steps” and “lanes.” The “steps” represent years of service for which a teacher had a positive evaluation. The “lanes” represent levels of education. The new schedule has 20 steps and seven lanes.

Worked in Denver Public Schools for five years and have a master’s degree? Go to step five and then slide your finger over to the master’s degree lane. That’s your base salary.

Did you have a year when your evaluation wasn’t good? Go back one step. Have an additional 18 credits on top of your master’s degree? Go up one more lane.

Teachers can also go up a lane once they hit the 10-year mark because the district wanted to reward longevity. Other milestones that merit a lane change: earning national board certification or an advanced license, or completing six “professional development unit” training courses.

Still not sure? Denver Public Schools plans to put a salary calculator on its website soon.

What if I have more than 20 years of experience?

If you have 20 or more years of experience, you’re placed at the top of the salary schedule, on step 20. After step 20, you’ll get yearly cost-of-living raises. You’re still eligible to change lanes, but you won’t get any more step raises.

Does the district know everything it needs to know about individual educators to pay them the correct salary?

Denver Public Schools plans to send letters or emails this spring to every teacher and special service provider (nurses, counselors, and others) covered by the contract, laying out where the district believes that employee falls on the schedule based on information they have on file. Educators will have a certain amount of time to correct any wrong information and get on the correct step and lane for the 2019-20 school year.

Under the new salary schedule, it looks like I’ll earn less next year than I do now. Am I taking a pay cut?

No. The agreement includes a “hold harmless” clause that ensures everyone will get a raise next year. Those whose salaries are higher now than they would be under the new schedule will get a cost-of-living raise each year until the salary schedule catches up with them.

How are bonuses and incentives different under the new contract?

The bonuses and incentives are different in three ways: There are fewer of them, the dollar amounts are different, and the dollar amounts won’t change year to year.

This year, there are six bonuses and incentives offered by the district: one for educators who work in Title I schools where 60 percent or more of the student population qualifies for subsidized meals; one for educators who work in hard-to-fill positions; one for educators who work in “hard-to-serve” schools; one for educators who work in one of 30 “highest-priority” schools; one for educators who return year over year to those schools; and one for educators who work in schools deemed top-performing or high-growth, as based on school ratings.

Here’s what’s left in the new contract: Teachers in Title 1 schools and those in hard-to-fill positions, such as secondary math, will get $2,000 a year. Teachers who return year over year to 30 highest-priority schools will get $3,000 a year. Teachers in 10 schools deemed “distinguished” will get $750 a year, with the criteria to be determined by the district and the union.

Why aren’t the district and the union tying bonuses to test scores anymore?

Unions have traditionally been skeptical of paying teachers based on student test scores because the scores are so closely correlated with factors like race and household income. In Denver, these bonuses were also less predictable for teachers because the district often changed the criteria it used to rate schools and award “top-performing” bonuses.

The district also came to see these bonuses as canceling out the effects of bonuses for teachers at high-poverty schools. A teacher could get nearly the same kind of monetary reward by moving to a more affluent school or by staying in one where students face more challenges. The new bonus system provides clearer monetary benefits to working in a high-poverty school.

Why did the union agree to keep the incentive for highest-priority schools, when that had been such a sticking point?

In any negotiation, there’s give and take and a lot of moving pieces. 

Here’s what lead negotiator Rob Gould said to district officials during bargaining: “We are open to the incentive because we know it’s important to you. And we’re willing to entertain your ideas if we can get the base salary schedule that our teachers need. Because if we can get the base salaries we need, we can keep our teachers in Denver.”

This was also an issue that divided teachers, with some teachers at schools that received the highest-priority incentive pushing to keep them.

Did teachers get a better deal out of the strike than the district’s last offer before the strike?

Teachers were getting a raise no matter what. The district was offering an average 10 percent raise before the strike (this included a cost-of-living raise that was agreed to back in 2017). Now teachers will get an average 11.7 percent raise, though individual teachers will see a wide range.

The district is putting the same amount of new money — $23.5 million — into teacher compensation as it was offering before the strike. It can give a larger average raise with that same amount of money because the incentives are smaller than under the previous proposal and because of limits on how teachers can use training to get raises. That gives the district more predictability about how many teachers will get raises each year.

Union leaders call the deal a win. They secured more opportunities for teachers to earn raises and move into higher categories on the salary schedule, including through completing training partially during work hours at no additional cost. And teachers can get to $100,000 in 20 years, rather than the 30 years in the last district proposal.

However, individual teachers aren’t necessarily getting more base pay next year than they would have under the district’s last offer. Early-career teachers without advanced degrees would have earned more in base pay under the district’s last offer. The teachers who do better under the deal reached after the strike are veteran educators with more education.

To take two examples: A second-year educator with a bachelor’s degree and no extra credits or training would have earned $47,550 in base pay under the district’s last offer before the strike but will earn $46,869 under the deal reached this week.

But a 20-year educator who has a master’s degree and an advanced license who has been with the district for 10 years will earn $88,907 in base pay under the new agreement, compared with $87,550 under the district’s last proposal before the strike.

The union fought for this kind of salary schedule in part to address a longstanding complaint that teachers have little reason to stay in a district where base pay levels off.

You can see the salary schedule from the district’s last offer here and the schedule from the tentative agreement here.

Is this deal financially sustainable for the district?

Denver Public Schools Chief Financial Officer Mark Ferrandino says that is the “million-dollar question,” perhaps closer to the “half-billion-dollar question,” since that is roughly how much the district spends on educator compensation.

Ferrandino believes the answer is yes, with the standard caveat that all projections are just that.

What will be cut to pay for this?

The district plans to cut $20 million from administrative costs over the next two years. That includes cutting 150 jobs in the central office and ending all executive bonuses. The bulk of it — $13 million — will go to fund the ProComp agreement.

District officials have not yet said which central office jobs will be cut, though Superintendent Susana Cordova has said cuts will be to “discretionary” departments. Departments that will not be cut include special education, English language acquisition, and transportation, she said.

Teachers will get a raise. What about paraprofessionals, bus drivers, custodians, and cafeteria workers?

These other district employees, much lower paid than teachers, are not covered by the contract that was the subject of the strike. Cordova has said these workers also deserve raises and a portion of administrative cuts will go to pay for them.

But how much of a raise will they get? That will all be worked out over the next few months and include discussions with the unions that represent these employees.

Will striking teachers get back pay?

Not according to district officials. Here’s the word from Denver Public Schools spokesperson Will Jones: “This was one of the items negotiated (Wednesday) night and early into the morning (Thursday). The result of that discussion was that teachers will not receive back pay.”

When will the new agreement go into effect? How long will it last?

Assuming both sides ratify it, the new agreement technically (and retroactively) went into effect Jan. 19, the day after the old one expired. But educators won’t start receiving the new salaries, incentives, and bonuses negotiated under it until Aug. 1. The agreement expires Aug. 31, 2022.