Strategic Planning Update BOARD RETREAT 51411 Strategic Planning

Strategic Planning Update BOARD RETREAT 5/14/11

Strategic Planning �What: Plan to achieve growth outlined in the charter and desired by our school community �Who: Strategic planning committee with stakeholder representatives assisted by a budget work group �How: 1) Through community input on key questions; 2) Through research on best practices; 3) Through detailed financial analysis and planning

Synthesis of Stakeholder Input �What people value most: the mission and model, social emotional development, community �What people want to see in the future: excited for additional service learning, math and science programming, ASP enrichment offerings, technology in the classroom, etc.

Synthesis of Stakeholder Input Continued �What people want to see at the middle and high school level: rich curriculum (APs, foreign languages, electives, internships, etc. ) and extra curricular offerings (clubs, drama, sports, etc. ) �What people are most concerned about: maintaining the model through the upper grades, ensuring schools remain diverse, rigorous, competitive, with tight knit community and sustained focus on social emotional development, security, facilities

Research �Sources and process - CCSA, Ex. ED, USC, NCSRP, CSMC, NRCCSFG, MYM, local charter networks, etc. �Key findings: Create a strategy for growth – know why you are growing, avoid being overly aggressive or opportunistic merely following the funding or facilities Define what you are replicating, ensure effective design implementation with growth, Money matters – financial planning is key Avoid staff overload, invest in people early, identify and staff key positions to support growth, recognize skill set to start a school is different than the skills needed to run a group of them

Budget Considerations • Develop budget for 2011 -2012 that prioritizes funding what the community values most • Integrate resources needed to grow in to budget for 2011 -2012 and beyond • Analyze financial impact of different growth options • • • Access to PCSGP start up grant funding (up to $600 k per school) Access to CDE revolver loan (up to $250 k per school) Different per pupil funding rates for different types of schools (elementary v. middle v. high v. blended)

Recommendation � Build budget for 2011 -2012 to prioritize funding according to what community values most � Based on the stakeholder input it is clear that in order to achieve the community’s vision of a K-12 option with a desire to maintain the model and have rich competitive programming (both curricular and extracurricular) it is necessary to have a high school of 400+ students (100+/grade) � CWC has 60 students/grade = high school of 240 students � In order to reach that vision, another elementary school soon would create a pool of students to join CWC students at a 400+ student high school

Recommendation continued �There are different ways to get there: Single K-12 school 2 K-8 s and 1 high school 2 K-5 s, 1 middle school, and 1 high school 2 K-5 s, 1 span secondary school (6 th-12 th grade) We are doing a comparative analysis of these models looking at the impact on the educational program, school culture, students, parents and staff, the availability of public and private funding, the cost to operate, the governance, facilities and staffing implications, etc.

Comparative Analysis Matriculation Continuity Public Funding Private Funding Cost to Operate single k-12 k-5, 6 -12 k-8, 9 -12 k-5, 6 -8, 9 -12 k-8, k-5, 9 -12 automatic most continuity for students no, 1 transition no, 2 transitions more continuity least continuity automatic most continuity for students would have the elementary rate at would have the k-5, the blended k-12 per blended per pupil would have best per pupil blended at the k-8 pupil funding rate ; rate at the 6 -12 blended rate for k- funding; would and the h. s. rate at would not be eligible which is qualifies 8 s ; would qualify for 3 h. s. , would qualify for nearly $2 m in start for 2 additional start up for 2 additional up grant and CDE start up grants and CDE start up grants and revolver funding CDE revolvers CDE revolvers not generally attractive to charter attractive to funders funders lower admin cost spread over single school (presumably same site, same leader, same office mgr, shared asp, pe, art, music, sped staff, etc) nd 3 site leaders, nd 4 site leaders, nd 3 site leaders, 3 office managers, 4 office managers, 3 office managers, What about personnel for art, music, pe, asp, etc. Facilities 1 -2 sites 1 -3 sites 1 -4 sites 1 -2 sites Governance 1 board 1 -3 boards 1 -4 boards 1 board

Draft Budget for New Charter �Assumptions 240 K-3 students 1 Assistant Principal, 1 Office Staff, 20: 1 with teacher and TA in every class Prop 39 space at similar to current costs Some capital cost to launch (most covered by prop 39) Start up grant, CDE revolver and fundraising at current level ($1300/family x 240 students) �Expensive to launch because of deferrals (cashflow)

Critical Factors for Growth � Sufficient demand – must have documented demand (signatures for petition and for Prop 39 app by November 2011) � Sufficient funding for cashflow – will need start up funding to hire staff, pay bills in advance of PCSGP and PENSEC � Facilities � Staff – sufficient bandwidth to do launch both the middle school and new charter the same year � Circle back with Mark and his larger vision and the work he’s been doing on a parallel track to launch a network of schools to see if there is a natural synergy and if it’s logical to merge efforts and how we go about doing that

Next Steps �Connect with Mark Gordon about alignment on vision and support for future growth �Authorize pursuit of new charter subject to certain preconditions to submit: Percentage of funds needed in first year raised Documented interest of prospective students and staff Facilities options researched