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, ExED, 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 $600k per
school)
Access to CDE revolver loan (up to $250k 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-8s and 1 high school
 2 K-5s, 1 middle school, and 1 high school
 2 K-5s, 1 span secondary school (6th-12th 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
single k-12
Matriculation
Continuity
Public Funding
Private Funding
Cost to Operate
k-5, k-5, 6-12
k-8, k-8, 9-12
k-5, k-5, 6-8, 912
automatic
no, 1 transition no, 1 transition no, 2 transitions
most continuity for
students
more continuity more continuity least continuity
k-8, k-5, 9-12
automatic
most continuity
for students
would have the
elementary rate
would have the
would have the
at the k-5, the
blended k-12 per
blended per
would have
would have the blended at the
pupil funding rate ; pupil rate at the blended rate for best per pupil
k-8 and the h.s.
would not be
6-12 which is
k-8s ; would
funding; would rate at h.s.,
eligible for nearly
qualifies for 2
qualify for 2
qualify for 3
would qualify for
$2m in start up
additional start additional start additional start 2 additional start
grant and CDE
up grants and
up grants and
up grants and
up grants and
revolver funding
CDE revolvers
CDE revolvers
CDE revolvers
CDE revolvers
not generally
attractive to
attractive to
attractive to
attractive to
attractive to
charter funders
funders
funders
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 3 site leaders, nd 4 site leaders, nd 3 site leaders,
3 office
3 office
4 office
3 office
managers, What managers, What managers, What managers, What
about personnel about personnel about personnel about personnel
for art, music, pe, for art, music, pe, for art, music, pe, for art, music, pe,
asp, etc.
asp, etc.
asp, etc.
asp, etc.
Facilities
1-2 sites
1-3 sites
1-3 sites
1-4 sites
1-2 sites
Governance
1 board
1-3 boards
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