Aspire Public Schools Business Plan, Lecture notes of Business Administration

Download Aspire Public Schools Business Plan and more Lecture notes Business Administration in PDF only on Docsity!

BUSINESS PLAN

May 2004

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

• EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• ASPIRE’S STRATEGY FOR IMPACT
  • Overview of Aspire Public Schools..............................................................................................................................
  • The education challenge in California
  • The role of choice..........................................................................................................................................................
  • Current alternatives for increasing school choice in California
  • Aspire’s strategy for improving statewide education
• ASPIRE’S MODEL FOR GROWTH
  • Growth plan..................................................................................................................................................................
  • Phases of growth..........................................................................................................................................................
  • Phase One: Strengthening and planning................................................................................................................
  • Phase Two: Full-potential execution.........................................................................................................................
  • Key success factors and potential risks....................................................................................................................
• SCHOOL DESIGN
  • Aspire educational model
  • Aspire school prototypes
• ORGANIZATION
  • Governance
  • Management Team
  • Organization Structure
  • Staffing plan..................................................................................................................................................................
  • Aspire’s core processes
  • Culture
• FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS
  • Total Financial Requirements.....................................................................................................................................
  • Financial Requirements by Phase.............................................................................................................................
  • Existing and New School Financial requirements...................................................................................................
  • Home Office Financial requirements
  • Regional Offices Financial requirements.................................................................................................................
  • Sustainability
• FUND DEVELOPMENT
  • Sources of Funds
  • Total Philanthropy Required.......................................................................................................................................
  • Philanthropy targets by Phase and Checkpoint....................................................................................................
  • Funding targets for Strategic Initiatives....................................................................................................................
  • Impact of pace on fund development...................................................................................................................
  • Early Sustainability........................................................................................................................................................
  • Leverage
• METRICS
  • Measuring Aspire’s direct impact: Theory of Action
  • Measuring Aspire’s indirect impact: Theory of Change
• PARTNERS............................................................................................................................................................................
  • Lead Investors...............................................................................................................................................................
  • Sponsoring Districts
• Aspire Public Schools Executive Summary – May 2004 Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYEXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Aspire Public Schools is a pioneer and leader in California public education. In five years, Aspire has opened 10 high-quality, small, college-preparatory schools throughout northern California, and has demonstrated the important role of charter schools in providing education opportunities for California’s diverse youth. Aspire is now widely regarded as one of the leading not-for-profit charter management organizations in the country.

The need for change in California’s public school system is unquestionable. Less than half of its fourth graders have basic reading skills and only two-thirds have acquired basic math skills^1 ; schools in urban areas are woefully overcrowded; and the shortage of teachers has brought the system to a breaking point.

Fortunately, Aspire and other charter organizations have already begun to shift the landscape of California education. Educators, parents and politicians increasingly recognize the value of providing public school choices to families – particularly those who historically have not had access to, information about, or a sufficient supply of high quality alternatives to failing schools.

2001 2002 2003

466 546

659

0

200

400

600

800

Profile: Monarch Academy Oakland CA 97% FR/L 3yr API growth

In its first five years, Aspire focused on testing the concept of a charter management organization. Aspire developed its education model, navigated the challenges of finding and financing facilities, cultivated relationships with districts, and created 10 high performing schools in 5 districts. In the process, Aspire has established itself as a premier provider of public school choice in California: its schools have had strong academic results, parents and teachers are highly satisfied, and the organization was named by Fast Company magazine as one of the top 20 social entrepreneurial organization in the country in 2004.

Now Aspire is at a strategic turning point, with an opportunity to fulfill its longer-term vision of improving education statewide. Aspire’s refined strategy continues to create direct impact with students by building quality small schools, and expands its efforts to generate a broader impact in the state – by influencing changes in districts, building the capacity of other CMOs, and advocating for educational reforms. This strategy builds on Aspire’s experience and knowledge from its work thus far.

Profile: Ravenswood City and Sequoia Union School Districts East Palo Alto, CA As part of its collaborative strategy, Aspire is working with the Sequoia Union and Ravenswood City School districts to create new options for students in East Palo Alto. These districts are working together to build a new Aspire secondary school in a neighborhood that has not had its own high school for nearly 30 years. Aspire has already seen evidence that its strategy of working collaboratively with districts can create change. From opening their own charter schools to building new schools for Aspire to run, districts are beginning to experiment with new ways to provide quality education and choice in their communities in ways that were not thought possible just five years ago.

Aspire Public Schools Executive Summary – May 2004 Page 3

(^1) National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003

To implement its strategy and achieve its ultimate vision of improved student achievement statewide, Aspire plans to grow significantly in the next decade. Specifically, Aspire hopes to operate 50 schools by 2015. At 50, Aspire will have more schools serving at-risk youth in California than any other district aside from Los Angeles and Fresno.

Growth will occur primarily in four strategic geographies: Los Angeles, Oakland, Sacramento, and Stockton. Smaller-scale strategic initiatives are also planned in East Palo Alto and Modesto. Focusing on a select number of geographies will enable Aspire to create local district change while creating a statewide platform for advocacy and capacity building.

Aspire’s growth will occur in two phases. In the first phase, Aspire will strengthen and build the organization in anticipation of further growth. In the second phase, the organization will refine the strategy and implement it to reach Aspire’s full potential. The second phase will include strategic checkpoints every 10 schools, during which Aspire will assess its progress and impact, and re- evaluate its strategy.

As it grows, Aspire will continue to implement its successful elementary educational model, and will refine its secondary model to enhance students’ preparation for college. Aspire’s schools will cover their costs with state and federal per-pupil funding once they are fully enrolled and initial start- up/scale-up costs are paid.

To manage the expansion, Aspire will realign its organization by creating regional offices in the Central Valley, Los Angeles, and the Bay Area. The Home Office will set strategy, manage quality and provide support to the regional offices, which in turn will implement Aspire’s systems and processes, manage quality, and provide day-to-day support for the schools.

To reach 50 schools, Aspire will raise $17 million in new philanthropy (through FY2015). $ million is required by FY2009. This will cover the costs of new school start-up and scale-up, as well as home office and regional office operations. It includes expected one-time facility costs for some schools, assuming a mix of facility types and facility financing approaches. It assumes that Aspire will receive gifts already pledged, and that past philanthropic commitments and federal grants will continue to be available for new school start-up.

With this investment, Aspire can build an organization that will provide a high quality education to 17,500 students, catalyze positive changes in districts, advocate for improvement in public education, and ultimately make a fundamental difference in the lives of children throughout California.

Aspire Public Schools Executive Summary – May 2004 Page 4

ASPIRE’S STRATEGY FOR IMPACT

OVERVIEW OF ASPIRE PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Vision To enrich students’ lives and reshape local public school systems. Mission Aspire builds quality small schools that provide choice in underserved neighborhoods, in order to: ƒ Increase the academic performance of California’s diverse students, ƒ Develop effective educators, ƒ Catalyze change in public schools, and ƒ Share successful practices with other forward-thinking educators

Aspire Public Schools was founded by Don Shalvey and Reed Hastings in 1998^2. In his role as superintendent of San Carlos Unified School District, Dr. Shalvey was responsible for starting California's first, and the nation’s second, charter school. Mr. Hastings, a prominent Silicon Valley entrepreneur and former teacher, joined forces with Dr. Shalvey in the late 1990’s to advocate successfully for raising the cap on the number of charter schools allowed in the state. In the process, they realized there was a tremendous need for talented educators to create the hundreds of charter schools they envisioned. Thus, in 1998, with seed funding from Mr. Hastings, Dr. Shalvey started Aspire Public Schools and the organization opened its first charter school.

Since that time, Aspire has grown significantly, operating 10 schools in four California communities (East Palo Alto, Modesto, Oakland, and Stockton/Lodi), serving more than 3,100 children in 2003-

2004. Aspire’s model emphasizes building highly personalized, high-quality, small schools that provide an alternative to failing schools. Aspire seeks to provide a choice to families and communities that would otherwise not have access to high quality education, particularly in communities where more than 75% of the students are low-income (i.e., they qualify for federally subsidized free or reduced price meals).

To date, Aspire’s 10 schools have had a 91% re-enrollment rate and demand for places in Aspire schools exceeds capacity by over 50%. Teacher and parent feedback is impressive – more than 90% of Aspire parents rate their children’s school an “A” or a “B” (compare that with a national average of about 58%), and 97% of teachers express satisfaction with their job.

Even more impressive are the academic gains achieved by Aspire students. Between 2000 and 2003, University Public School in Stockton (Aspire’s first campus) gained 160 points on California’s Academic Performance Index (API^3 ). Between 2001 and 2003, Monarch Academy in East Oakland gained over 200 points on the California API. That performance placed both schools in the top 1% of all California schools by API growth for that period.

Values ƒ Collaboration: Working collectively to accomplish more than what is possible alone

rs

ƒ Ownership: Individual and group responsibility for results, actions and decisions ƒ Quality: Commitment to excellence and the discipline to continually improve ƒ Customer Service: Responsiveness to the needs of external and internal custome ƒ Purposefulness: Deliberate action, focused on the organization’s goals and priorities

(^2) Originally founded as University Public Schools, the organization changed its name in July 2000 to avoid confusion with other education institutions, provide legal protection for its brand, and create a theme for naming new schools. (^3) The Academic Performance Index (API) is the cornerstone of California's Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999 (PSAA). The API measures the academic performance and growth of schools. It is a numeric index (or scale) with a low of 200 and a high of 1000. The statewide API performance target is 800

Aspire Public Schools Section One – Strategy - May 2004 Page 5

THE EDUCATION CHALLENGE IN CALIFORNIA

California’s schools are failing. Only 49% of fourth graders have achieved at least a basic reading level (compared to 62% nationwide), and the state scored 47th^ out of 50 states in reported reading test scores. Math scores were similarly dismal; the state tied for 45th^ out of 50 states.^4 About 67% of students graduate high school, compared to the national average of 70%; and that number falls to 58% and 56% for California’s African American and Hispanic students respectively.^5

This is sad, but perhaps not surprising, given the state of our schools and the complexity of educating California's children. California’s schools are overcrowded and many lack the funds to repair basic infrastructure, let alone to provide up-to-date textbooks, build libraries, or install computers. The average parochial school in the United States has 204 students, the average private school 137 students, while the average public school in California has 638 and 1,458 students for elementary and secondary respectively.^6 Over 1,000 schools are deemed critically overcrowded: 200 to 300% above the recommended school density level.^7 The state per pupil funding is just $6,055 on average, one of the lowest in the nation, half of the District of Columbia’s per pupil funding, and a quarter of private school tuitions in places like Palo Alto.^8

To add to the challenge, many students come to school hungry and tired; in many urban schools 90% of students are eligible for free or reduced lunch, compared to 31% statewide.^9 Over one- quarter of California’s students come to school with limited understanding of English (i.e., are designated English Language Learners). In addition, many schools are a melting pot of students from many cultural backgrounds; California is one of only five states with a "minority majority".^10

Successfully teaching such a diversity of students requires some fundamental changes in California’s education system.

THE ROLE OF CHOICE

One powerful way to improve California’s public education system is to increase the supply of small, high-quality alternatives to the current schools. Research has shown that student performance increases when students are educated in smaller environments where they know and are known by their teachers.^11 When parents have meaningful choices, they can select a school that best meets the needs of their child. Furthermore, by going through the process of choosing a school, parents get more involved in their child’s education. This is a powerful combination that has traditionally only

(^4) National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003 (^5) Green, Jay and Greg Forster, “Public High School Graduation and College Readiness Rates in the United States,” Center for Civic Innovation at the Manhattan Institute, September 2003. (^6) National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES), Private School Survey 1999-2000; NCES Common Core Survey Data 2000- (^7) California Department of Education (^8) National Education Association, 2003; Menlo High School, Atherton, California (^9) NCES, 2003 (^10) NCES, 2000 (^11) Small Schools: Great Strides , Wasley, Fine, Gladden et al, 2000; and High school size: which works best and for whom? , Lee and Smith, 1997

Aspire Public Schools Section One – Strategy - May 2004 Page 6

been available to those who can afford to send their students to private or parochial schools. To alter the system, real choices must be made available to families at all socio-economic levels.

For that choice to be effective, parents must have: 1) a reliable supply of high quality alternatives; 2) reasonable access to those schools, including transportation; and 3) information to make informed choices about which school will provide the best education for their child’s individual needs.

In an effort to increase the supply of high-performing schools, California became the second of 40 states plus the District of Columbia to pass legislation that authorizes the creation of charter schools. A charter school is a public school that has been given freedom from state educational regulations. In exchange, the charter school is fully accountable for its educational results and fiscal solvency. Charter schools receive funding from the state, according to the same per-pupil formula used to fund non-charter public schools. Charter schools have no admission requirements, are non- sectarian, and do not charge tuition. [See Appendix A for additional background on charter schools]

Charter schools are an important mechanism for increasing educational choices for all Californians. Other efforts to increase supply, access and information will undoubtedly continue to be an important part of education reform efforts nationwide.

CURRENT ALTERNATIVES FOR INCREASING SCHOOL CHOICE IN CALIFORNIA

While a number of efforts have been made to improve the system and provide choice, supply is limited and there are a number of shortcomings with current alternatives. [See Appendix B for a more detailed discussion of the current marketplace]

Public school reform efforts While many local public schools are inadequate, even the most impoverished areas have a few schools that excel. To improve performance, some public schools adopt a whole school reform model, working with school reform support providers such as Coalition for Equitable Schools, or Accelerated Schools. Other public schools adopt a specific curriculum (e.g. Success for All) to improve student performance; often these programs also require changes in pedagogy, scheduling, staff development, student grouping, and assessment. These approaches to school reform have mixed results: some schools have experienced tremendous improvement, while others are no different. Changing existing systems is extremely difficult, very time-consuming, and often less effective than starting anew. Some districts have tried to address this challenge by creating some choice within the district, through magnet schools, schools within a school, and “small autonomous schools.” These initiatives, when supported internally by teachers unions, can be effective; sometimes they are still saddled with bureaucracy or programmatic constraints.

For-profit charter schools and management contracts In other states, for-profit school management companies have been established to take advantage of the nationwide charter school business opportunity. However, the average per-student funding in California is so low (46th^ in the nation and over $2000 less than New York City)^12 that most companies have chosen not to venture into California because operations would be unprofitable. It is often politically difficult for for-profit companies to operate charters, since many parents and

(^12) National Education Association

Aspire Public Schools Section One – Strategy - May 2004 Page 7

educators fear that for-profit companies might focus on stockholder returns to the detriment of educational quality and student achievement. Many for-profit companies have the advantages of scale, experience, and funding from the private sector.

Not-for-profit individual charter schools Charter schools hold tremendous promise for improved public education. Many of the 400+ charter schools in California have strong support from the community they serve, and some have demonstrated educational results. However, individual charter schools are usually small, stand-alone programs designed to serve a specific neighborhood, not to change the system. They typically lack the interest, financial backing and political force necessary to change California’s public education landscape more broadly.

Not-for-profit Charter Management Organizations Charter management organizations (CMOs) are centrally managed systems of charter schools that can leverage the benefits of scale and experience. CMOs can take a number of different approaches to organizing and managing the education program, governance, and business functions; managed correctly, they can increase school quality and consistency, increase the leverage of organizational resources and expertise, and attract and develop new educators and leaders. California is home to several CMOs, and the sector has attracted the interest of many education philanthropists. Aspire was the first to develop and implement a not-for-profit CMO business model, and is now widely considered one of the leading charter management organizations in the country.

ASPIRE’S STRATEGY FOR IMPROVING STATEWIDE EDUCATION

Aspire Public Schools is at an important juncture. Even more than at its founding, the organization’s work has tremendous potential to catalyze change in the public education system statewide. As a result, Aspire has honed its strategy to reflect its refined views on what is needed to create change in California and what the organization’s role will be in that change.

Theory of Action What the organization must do to create direct impact Theory of Change What the organization must do and what must happen externally to cause direct and indirect

Vision

Aspire’s ultimate goal is to improve the achievement of all students in California – as

measured by academic performance and increased college matriculation and graduation rates. There are two steps to achieving that vision:

1. Aspire must open enough schools in underserved neighborhoods to provide real choices for families and demonstrate superior academic achievement in these schools. Aspire’s “Theory of Action” describes the activities required to achieve this direct impact in Aspire’s targeted communities.
2. Then, Aspire must leverage its success to improve student achievement for all students in California. This impact would be indirect, but broader. The “Theory of Change” describes how Aspire plans to translate its direct impact into systemic change.

Aspire Public Schools Section One – Strategy - May 2004 Page 8

District Change

Building capacity

Advocacy

Aspire’s Strategy for Improving Public Education California-wide

All Aspire schools demonstrate superior achievement and provide choice in under-performing neighborhoods

Select “ strategic” geographic areas where Aspire develops a critical mass of schools in order to create positive change

CA student achievement improves; more students attend and complete college

Theory of Change

Intended Direct Impact

Ultimate Goal

Create community demand for Aspire schools

Cultivate a positive environment for starting Aspire schools

Deliver consistently superior results in Aspire schools

Provide schools with appropriate support

Create community demand for Aspire schools

Cultivate a positive environment for starting Aspire schools Create community demand for Aspire schools

Cultivate a positive environment for starting Aspire schools

Deliver consistently superior results in Aspire schools

Provide schools with appropriate support

Theory of Action

“Tip California”

Aspire’s Theory of Action – Achieving direct impact Aspire’s Theory of Action focuses on creating a critical mass of high-performing schools in strategic geographies. Geographies are selected for their demonstrated need, fit with Aspire’s strategy, and Aspire’s ability to open schools there. (See Section 2, Growth Plan)

In each of these geographies, Aspire must:

1. Cultivate a positive environment for starting Aspire schools by building relationships with local districts, improving the legislative environment for charter schools, and working with others to solve systemic obstacles to charter growth.
2. Create community demand for Aspire schools, by educating and informing parents, students, and community leaders about charters, the power of choice, and Aspire.
3. Deliver consistently superior results in those schools, by attracting and developing talented educators, ensuring that the education design is effective, and using data well.
4. Provide appropriate support for schools from the home office, by providing administrative and operational support, creating physical environments conducive to learning, and ensuring a strong funding base.

Aspire believes that these four tasks, well-executed, will lead to its Intended Direct Impact of demonstrating superior achievement and providing choice in the neighborhoods where Aspire operates.

Aspire’s Theory of Change – Achieving broader impact With its network of high-performing schools, Aspire seeks to have broader impact using three levers. First, Aspire seeks to create district change within its selected geographies, by influencing, modeling or pressuring change. District change is the primary focus of Aspire’s work. In addition, Aspire seeks to build capacity among other educators, charters, and CMOs, which collectively will create a statewide network of high performing schools. Finally, Aspire will advocate for changes in educational policies, practices and institutions in California. Together, these three activities will create the changes necessary for improved achievement for all California students.

Aspire Public Schools Section One – Strategy - May 2004 Page 9

District change

Aspire aims to influence districts to alter their practices to improve student achievement. Specifically, Aspire encourages districts to create more choices for students and more flexibility for educators, with the goal of improving schools and student achievement. Aspire does not promote a specific education design or curriculum.

Districts are a key lever in education reform because they are the main provider of public education services, and they influence state education policies. Aspire has chosen to work with a small number of highly influential districts that can serve as a model for change, are prominent in the dialogue about reform, and directly influence leaders and policymakers. Aspire’s interactions with these districts will vary by geography and over time. In some cases, merely building a small cluster of schools may be sufficient to inspire district-level changes. However, in most cases, Aspire will create a deeper collaborative relationship with the district to stimulate change. Collaboration, rather than competition, is Aspire’s strongly preferred method of engaging with a district. Collaboration is most likely where Aspire is able to support solutions to the district’s problems (e.g. overcrowding, schools affected by No Child Left Behind), and could take a variety of forms that cannot be predicted. An Aspire Board member may have an informal conversation with a district Board member that leads to a new Board policy embracing choice. Aspire might partner with the teachers’ union to open small academies within schools. Aspire practices might provide a model that inspires district teachers to try a new approach. The district may initially use Aspire to solve its overcrowding problem, and find later that Aspire leaders are valuable thought partners in crafting the district’s reform strategy. A district principal may send teachers to Aspire’s model classrooms to learn a specific pedagogical practice. Regardless of the form, Aspire hopes that its district relationships will evolve in ways that benefit all of a district’s students.

If a collaborative approach fails to result in meaningful changes over time, Aspire may increase financial and community pressure on the district to try to spark change. Financial pressure can be created by building a significant number of additional charters within a single geography, drawing more students into the charter schools. Community pressure can be created by working with community groups to increase awareness of public education choices.

Capacity building

The growing number of charter management organizations is another important lever in education reform, one which can help Aspire multiply its own impact. As one of the leading CMOs in California, Aspire has already addressed some of the challenges that other organizations have yet to face; this experience can be used to accelerate the creation, growth and efficacy of other charter organizations. Aspire has and will continue to provide technical assistance to other charter organizations nationwide. Aspire shares policies, procedures, curriculum, and other information; Aspire executives serve as mentors to other charter leaders. Aspire believes that its support will help other charter organizations create change in the districts in which they work, and the resulting number of high-performing schools will serve as a platform for promoting statewide change.

Advocacy

Improvement in California’s educational policies, practices and institutions is essential if Aspire is to accomplish its ultimate vision of increasing statewide student achievement. Therefore, Aspire will also engage in advocacy to bolster education reform efforts. Aspire will increase public awareness of charters as a lever to improve education opportunities, join advocacy campaigns, and participate in

Aspire Public Schools Section One – Strategy - May 2004 Page 10

government decision-making entities. Aspire’s CEO serves on the Board of Directors for EdVoice, an education advocacy organization; he also serves on the California State Education Commission on Special Education. In these roles, he increases policymakers’ understanding about the real challenges of running effective schools.

All Aspire schools demonstrate superior achievement and provide choice in under-performing neighborhoods

Intended Direct Impact

Recruit & develop teaching & administrative talent

Use student information systems to enhance quality of the educational program

Develop appropriate educational facilities

Design & implement high quality educational program

Build relationships with district leadership Work with advocacy groups and legislators to improve laws that affect charter schools Work with other charters to solve common problems

Educate local leaders about school choice & Aspire

Educate parents about school choice and Aspire

Provide administrative and operational support Raise philanthropic funds and in-kind donations

Positive environment cultivated for starting Aspire schools

Schools consistently deliver a high quality educational program

Communities are engaged and demand Aspire schools

Schools receive appropriate support from Aspire

Select “ strategic” geographies where Aspire develops a critical mass of schools in order to create positive change

Aspire’s Theory of Action

District Change

Capacity building

Advocacy

CA student achievement improves; more students attend and complete college

Ultimate vision CA student achievement improves; more students attend and complete college

Ultimate vision

Create legislative pressure for educational reform

Competition (if needed): Increase competitive pressure on districts

Intended Impact

CA policies, practices and institutions change

Student achievement improves in geographies where others work

Student achievement improves in Aspire’s geographies

Districts in Aspire’s geographies alter practices to improve student achievement

Other CMOs create change in the geographies where they work

Build capacity of other CMOs by mentoring & sharing best practices

Collaboration: Increase collaborative efforts with Intended districts Direct Impact All Aspire schools demonstrate superior achievement and provide choice in under- performing neighborhoods

Aspire’s Theory of Change

Aspire Public Schools Section One – Strategy - May 2004 Page 11

ASPIRE’S MODEL FOR GROWTH

GROWTH PLAN

To accomplish its strategy, Aspire plans to grow to 50 schools, primarily in four strategic geographies: Oakland, Sacramento, Stockton, and Los Angeles. A few new schools may also be opened in East Palo Alto and Modesto, as part of strategic initiatives. This approach of concentrated growth is designed to lead to both the direct and indirect impact that Aspire seeks.

Growth target: 50 schools Aspire believes that impact will require scale, and that at 50 schools, it will be:

1. big enough to be relevant in California, and
2. big enough to reach financially sustainability, but
3. small enough to preserve flexibility, culture, and values.

Relevance: Being relevant in California will require Aspire to serve a high number of disadvantaged students, face similar challenges as school districts, and attract the attention of legislators. At 50 schools, Aspire will be a “top five” district in terms of number of schools serving low income students, and a “top 10” district in terms of number of low-income students served.

Aspire’s rank among districts serving over 70% F/RL students^13 Number of Aspire schools

Number of Aspire students

District Rank: number of schools serving 70%+ F/RL

District rank: number of F/RL students 20 8,000 12 21 40 16,000 5 11 60 24,000 3 7 80 32,000 3 6 100 40,000 2 4

At 50 schools, Aspire will be larger than 90% of the districts in the state (regardless of student population), and will have faced many challenges that districts confront. This experience will provide credibility in the eyes of district officials and state policy makers.

Financial sustainability : Aspire has always intended to become financially self-sustaining with state, federal and local per pupil funding, without additional philanthropy to cover the recurring costs of school, home office, and regional office operations. (Aspire expects to continue to require philanthropy to cover the costs of starting new schools.) Based on financial projections, Aspire will reach that point of sustainability at about 45 schools. (See Section 5, Financial Projections)

(^13) Source: API base index 2001-2002 for California; QuickQuest 2002-2003 enrollment data; assumes 400 students per Aspire school; The top five districts by number of schools are Los Angeles Unified, Fresno Unified, San Bernardino City Unified, Santa Ana Unified and Bakersfield City Elementary; by number of students are Los Angeles Unified, Fresno Unified, Santa Ana Unified, San Bernardino City Unified, and Stockton City Elementary

Aspire Public Schools Section Two – Growth Plan - May 2004 Page 12

Home office/regional office (HO/RO) expense versus revenue

Revenues from schools HO/RO expenses

10 20 30 40 50 60 0

2

4

6

8

Revenues/Expenses (in $ miilion)

Number of schools in Aspire system

Revenues from schools HO/RO expenses

10 20 30 40 50 60 0

2

4

6

8

Revenues/Expenses (in $ miilion)

Number of schools in Aspire system

Culture: Aspire feels that at 50 schools, it will still be small enough to preserve its high quality, flexibility, culture and attention to the individual students.

Strategic Clusters: Oakland, Sacramento, Stockton, and Los Angeles Aspire has always believed that geographic concentration is essential to maintaining high quality, ensuring operational efficacy, and maximizing potential impact. Educators within a smaller geographic area can more easily visit each other, share best practices, and build collaborative relationships. Schools can share special subject teachers, and instructional coaches can spend more time in schools rather than in transit. Clusters of schools can take advantage of economies of scale to reduce operating costs (e.g. recruiting, purchasing). Word-of mouth among satisfied parents and fulfilled teachers makes enrollment and recruiting more effective, and builds community support for additional schools. Starting new schools in an area is easier after the first one has been proven a success. A cluster of schools in an area is also more likely to spark change in the system simply because it will have a greater presence and share of mind among educators, legislators, and parents.

Aspire envisions that each cluster, once fully completed, will have between 8-12 schools, and would include several feeder patterns of elementary and secondary schools. Each cluster will be built at a moderate pace, over about 10 years. Early growth will emphasize K-5 schools; grade 6-12 campuses will be added over time to accommodate new grade levels of enrolled students. Grade distribution between campuses can be temporarily flexible (i.e. 6th^ graders may be temporarily housed at the elementary school), and may also vary depending on the needs of the community.

The organization has selected four geographic areas in which to build clusters. Aspire already has a presence in three of those areas: Oakland, Sacramento, and Stockton. A fourth strategically critical area, Los Angeles, will be added.

Individually, each geographic area matches Aspire’s criteria. Together, they maximize the likelihood of Aspire’s achieving its ultimate vision. These selected geographies:

1. Have a demonstrated need,
2. Fit with Aspire’s strategy, and
3. Are places where implementation is possible.

Aspire Public Schools Section Two – Growth Plan - May 2004 Page 13

Demonstrated need

Part of Aspire’s mission is to educate kids who are not well-served by the existing educational system. As a result, Aspire targets neighborhoods where 1) a high percentage of students receive free or reduced lunch, 2) many schools have low relative API rankings, and 3) many schools are crowded.

A Demonstrated Need^14

Geography % students with free or reduced lunch

% students in schools with ≤ 3 “similar schools” API ranking

Average number of students per school Oakland 51% 61% 551 Sacramento 62% 34% 685 Stockton 69% 84% 927 Los Angeles 76% 28% 1,

Fit with the strategy

Individually and collectively, Aspire’s target geographies will maximize the organization’s ability to execute its Theory of Change. Catalyzing district change through collaboration is most likely in areas with some smaller districts, where a cluster of Aspire schools would be more visible. In gigantic Los Angeles Unified School District, Aspire plans to focus in a few sub-districts in Central and East Los Angeles to increase concentration. Aspire’s impact through capacity-building will be proportional to the number of other organizations in any given area. Los Angeles has the largest number of charters and CMOs to work with, while Sacramento and Oakland a smaller but growing number of charter organizations. Most of Aspire’s advocacy work will be done through partners such as EdVoice.^15 However, Aspire also plans to work directly with decision makers, influencers, and advocates for change. A presence in Sacramento, the state capitol, will increase Aspire’s visibility among legislators. Los Angeles, represented by nearly one-third of state’s senators and assemblymen, is also crucial for advocacy. Oakland is a high-profile district because of its size, complexity, and history.

Fit with Strategy

District change Capacity building Advocacy Oakland High Medium Medium Sacramento High Medium High Stockton High Low Medium Los Angeles Low High High

Ability to implement

Each of the selected geographies has conditions that will make it possible to develop a cluster of schools. Aspire’s ability to implement is influenced by many factors, including: availability of facilities, predisposition of districts towards charters, presence of implementation partners, and interest among investors. Although each district poses unique implementation challenges, Aspire believes it will be able to execute its strategy in each of the chosen geographies.

(^14) Source: API base index 2001-2002 for California; QuickQuest 2002-2003 enrollment data (^15) EdVoice is a statewide, grassroots organization promoting education reform and support for California public schools.

Aspire Public Schools Section Two – Growth Plan - May 2004 Page 14

Strategic initiatives In addition to the four primary geographies, Aspire will pursue smaller-scale strategic initiatives in East Palo Alto and Modesto.

East Palo Alto^16 , with a considerable proportion of low income students and high concentration of existing charters, presents a unique opportunity to test the effects of clustering at a smaller scale. Aspire plans to establish 1-2 new schools in the area, in addition to its two current schools. Lessons learned from the East Palo Alto will inform Aspire’s broader strategy as it continues growing.

As one of Aspire’s first geographies, Modesto has demonstrated the importance of high quality small schools in communities. Aspire expects that Modesto will continue to serve as a laboratory for informing Aspire’s strategy. No new schools are likely to be added to Aspire’s current two, but the well-established Modesto schools will continue to play an important role as Aspire perfects its design, adds supplemental programs, and refines its strategy.

Scale within geographies: 10% of enrollment Aspire aims to enroll about 10% of students in selected geographies, in order to:

1. create change within the district(s), and
2. reach a minimum efficient operating scale for its regional offices.

Research indicates that when 5-10% of students are enrolled in schools of choice, districts change in ways that increase student achievement.^17 To get to that target enrollment, Aspire would need to operate 13 schools in Oakland, 11 in Sacramento, 12 in Stockton, and 12 in selected sub-districts of Los Angeles. (Los Angeles Unified School District’s mammoth size makes it impractical to achieve 10% of enrollment.)

To operate efficiently, Aspire needs seven or more schools in each region. This assumes that, of Aspire’s 7% overhead charge, one-third is used to cover home office costs and two-thirds are used to cover regional office costs.^18 Aspire expects to reach efficient scale in all of its regional offices well before achieving the targeted enrollment level.

Growth trajectory Aspire expects to grow gradually and evenly in all four geographies simultaneously, rather than sequentially cluster by cluster. Assuming a steady rate of growth of about 3-5 schools per year, Aspire will be able to reach its overall target of 50 schools system-wide by 2015.

PHASES OF GROWTH

This growth strategy will be implemented in multiple phases. During the first phase, from Spring 2004 to Fall 2005, Aspire will strengthen and expand its core elementary offering and build

(^16) East Palo Alto is served by two school districts: Ravenswood (elementary) and Sequoia (high school). (^17) The limited research suggests that “a persistent drawing away of more than 5 percent of enrollment” can catalyze change at the district level. From Carolyn Hoxby, “School Choice and School Competition: Evidence from the United States,” U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey,” 2001-02. (^18) Using the projections for Los Angeles, at 7 schools the regional office costs $0.6m and Aspire receives approximately $1m in revenue, $0.7m for regional office and $0.3 for the home office.

Aspire Public Schools Section Two – Growth Plan - May 2004 Page 15

infrastructure and systems for growth. In the second phase, Aspire will execute the growth plan, expanding to Los Angeles and expanding its secondary program, with strategic checkpoints planned for every 10 new schools. Ultimately, Aspire expects to reach 50 schools in four strategic clusters by 2015.

PHASE ONE: STRENGTHENING AND PLANNING

The objective of Phase One is to build an organization capable of supporting its growth plans. This phase also serves as a planning period for Aspire’s two major growth initiatives: expanding to Southern California and augmenting its secondary school offering. Main activities during this phase include: developing and implementing systems and processes; hiring and training staff; and creating implementation plans for the growth initiatives.

To track its progress, Aspire has identified key milestones that must be achieved before moving from Phase One to Phase Two. If any milestones are not met, Aspire will revisit its assumptions and fine-tune its strategy to address the emerging issues. [See Appendix C for a list of phase one milestones] In addition, Aspire will continue to track its Balanced Scorecard metrics to evaluate its own results on the Theory of Action and Theory of Change. [See Section 7, Metrics]

Feb ‘04 May‘04 Aug‘04 Nov‘04 Feb ‘05 May‘05 Aug‘

Build the organization:

• Hire key HO staff
• Codify HO/RO structure
• Test RO roles and responsibilities in Central Valley
• Develop financial and student info systems for HO/RO
• Codify processes for site support Expand elementary schools:
• Prepare for two other elementary schools in existing regions Refine and expand secondary schools:
• Test and refine 6-12 core secondary model
• Plan and pilot Early College experience extension Expand to Los Angeles:
• Develop implementation plan
• Hire Regional VP
• Create L.A. Advisory Board
• Prepare to open two elementary schools in L.A.
• Hire planning principals

Phase One Activities and Timing

PHASE TWO: FULL-POTENTIAL EXECUTION

The objective of Phase Two is to reach 50 schools in four clusters by 2015. During this phase, Aspire expects to open about 3-5 schools per year. Growth will be staged with checkpoints every 10 schools , in order to ensure the organization’s strategy is refined as needed. In the process, Aspire will test its clustering strategy, develop its regional capabilities, and extend the early college component of the secondary model. Growth plans and strategy will be adjusted as necessary.

Aspire Public Schools Section Two – Growth Plan - May 2004 Page 16

Aspire will continue to build the organization. In addition to investing in additional systems and staff, Aspire will establish teacher credentialing and administrator credentialing programs^19. These programs, likely designed and implemented in partnership with others, will be critical to ensuring all Aspire schools are staffed with high quality educators and leaders who are aligned with Aspire’s culture and values.

Phase Two will also include expansion of the early college component of Aspire’s secondary model, with the addition of a variety of mechanisms to provide students with college experiences in high school. The pilot of Grade 13, including both the curriculum and the economics, is a particularly important project. If the pilot is successful, Aspire expects that all new secondary schools will be designed with Grade 13.

Expansion to Los Angeles will be a crucial test of the feasibility and efficacy of the regional management structure. Aspire plans to start initially with two elementary schools, refine regional management systems and processes, and then increase both the number and grade levels served.

Checkpoints As Aspire implements it growth plan, the organization’s management team and Board of Directors will monitor the metrics and milestones on a quarterly basis to determine the organization’s progress and refine its strategy as appropriate. [See Section 7 and Appendix C] In addition, after every new 10 schools, Aspire will conduct a major review of progress against its metrics. This formal review will also include an evaluation of the external environment, risks, opportunities, and the organization’s impact to date. Given the projected pace of growth, these checkpoints will occur roughly every two-three years after Phase One.

KEY SUCCESS FACTORS AND POTENTIAL RISKS

Aspire’s success will depend on its ability to manage seven major risk factors:

1. Organizational capability : building the systems, infrastructure and staffing at the Home Office and Regional Offices, as required to support organizational objectives;
2. Program quality : consistently executing high-quality, personalized, college-preparatory learning experiences that lead to exceptional academic results;
3. Facilities development and financing : acquiring and developing suitable and affordable school facilities;
4. District relations: managing the relationship with local school districts, including acquiring and renewing charters and preparing for the possibility of hostility from districts;
5. Human resource management: attracting, developing and retaining high quality educators and administrators who are able to implement the Aspire education design at the school sites;
6. Government funding : securing all available federal, state and local per pupil funds to ensure all schools are financially self-sustainable at steady state; and
7. Philanthropic funding: securing the gifts and grants required to start and scale new schools and to cover scale-up costs of home and regional offices

(^19) Aspire has already received approval from the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing to pilot an alternative teacher certification program, much like a district intern program. Aspire has also established a relationship with San Jose State University to provide a Tier I administrator credentialing option for working Aspire administrators.

Aspire Public Schools Section Two – Growth Plan - May 2004 Page 17

Building organizational capability Aspire must have a strong organizational infrastructure capable of consistently implementing the educational program in a growing number of schools. Without it, the quality of Aspire schools may decrease or become more variable, academic results could plateau or decline, and staff could burnout. Because organizational capability is so foundational to the strategy, building organizational capacity is the primary focus of Phase One. Aspire will mitigate this risk by: developing competencies across its core systems; expanding management, staff and Board; providing extensive professional development; and modifying the organizational structure for growth. [See Section 4 on Organization Requirements]

Maintaining consistently high quality Exceptional academic results across the system are essential to the organization’s success. This requires consistent execution of the education program. [See Section 3 for more information on the educational model] Failure to do so could lead to parent dissatisfaction, enrollment declines, pressure from the sponsoring district, and eventually financial problems. Aspire will maintain educational quality with: ƒ Clearly Defined Performance Metrics: All levels in the organization are held accountable for results on clearly defined metrics related to student achievement, parent satisfaction, teacher development, organizational effectiveness, and financial stability [See Section 7 and Appendix C). ƒ Management through Data: Student achievement data from a variety of assessments are used regularly to refine teaching and evaluate teachers and principals. (The use of data for individual students and teachers is very rare in public schools.) ƒ Management by Walking Around: Senior management is visibly present at sites, visiting classrooms and working with educators to provide on site support. The new regional structure will increase management’s ability to monitor school site performance.

Managing the Facilities Portfolio Lack of available and affordable facilities has always been, and will likely continue to be, the organization’s greatest bottleneck to growth. Although the external environment has improved significantly since Aspire’s inception, more changes are still required. As a result, much of Aspire’s advocacy work in the near term will be focused on the facilities challenge. Without additional legislative progress, Aspire will need to be increasingly creative in locating and financing its new school facilities. [See Appendices E and F for more information on facilities and facilities financing]

Facilities Acquisition

Aspire uses a multi-pronged approach to facilities acquisition, including:

• Leasing old private or parochial schools: This is the preferred strategy for acquiring facilities. This approach requires relatively low (~$150K-300K) up-front investment in tenant improvements and provides a link to the community. An increasing number of parochial schools are financially unstable, and may seek to lease their facilities. Other charters frequently compete for the same available space.
• Leasing existing school sites from sponsoring districts (potentially under California’s Proposition 39): This is potentially an attractive and reasonably low-cost approach. However, district officials often view Prop 39 requests as adversarial moves, potentially jeopardizing the relationship.

Aspire Public Schools Section Two – Growth Plan - May 2004 Page 18

• Building prefabricated buildings (modulars) on leased or purchased land: This is an extremely expensive option that will only rarely be used by Aspire in the future. In many urban neighborhoods, there is no open land available anyway.
• Converting commercial, industrial, or retail use properties into schools: Upgrades for earthquake safety, Americans for Disability Act compliance, and modern fire code can make this approach as expensive as new construction. However, in urban in-fill areas, more properties of this type may be available.
• Partnering with higher education campuses, corporations and planned communities to build or share classroom buildings: This approach will probably be used infrequently because of the rarity of opportunities. Aspire has had conversations with several developers about this possibility, and none have come to fruition.

Facilities Financing

Aspire uses diverse mechanisms to finance new school buildings, including state bond funds via Proposition 47/55, local bond funds, and program-related investments from foundations. Aspire will manage its portfolio to bring the system-wide facility occupancy cost down to less than 12% of per pupil revenue.

Managing District Relationships, including Chartering Aspire’s success also depends upon its ability to manage district relationships effectively. Failure to do so could jeopardize the organization’s ability to acquire and renew its charters with sponsoring agencies, resulting in instability for individual schools. Adversarial district relationships can also be damaging for Aspire schools when the schools rely on local districts for services that Aspire cannot efficiently provide, such as food service and transportation. Equally important, meaningful and productive district relationships will be critical to the organization’s efficacy as a change agent.

Aspire maintains positive relationships with its local school districts primarily by taking a forthright and collaborative approach. Aspire gives the local district “first right of refusal” for any new charter school, manages the charter petition process in a way that is respectful of the district’s internal political dynamics, and attempts to work with the district to ensure that the new school meets some needs of the district. For example, to the extent possible, Aspire will try to locate a new school in the neighborhoods that are most overcrowded or high-need from the district’s perspective. As a former district superintendent, Aspire’s CEO is particularly effective in developing constructive relationships with district superintendents, and encouraging districts to embrace charters.

If a district does not wish to work with Aspire, Aspire can also secure charters from the County Office of Education. COEs are petitioned when the local district declines the charter, either formally or informally. Aspire may also present a charter to a COE if a planned school’s enrollment is expected to draw from multiple districts. In addition, the State Board of Education has charter- granting authority, and has already exercised it in a few cases. The State Board would likely grant Aspire a charter based on its existing track record. Aspire expects to present a multi-site, multi- county charter petition to the State Board within the next few years, to enhance its growth flexibility.

To maintain Aspire services from districts, and to maximize Aspire’s efficacy as a district change agent, the organization closely manages the relationship with local districts at all levels, from Board and Superintendent to district accountants to local site principals and teachers.

Aspire Public Schools Section Two – Growth Plan - May 2004 Page 19

Human Resource Management Aspire’s ability to foster effective educators is crucial: the education program requires bright, highly skilled, creative, and dedicated educators to create powerful, high-quality personalized learning experiences. Accordingly, Aspire has created a system to attract, select, develop, inspire, and reward the best educators. Aspire tends to attract educators interested in working in more accountable, innovative, collaborative environments through self-selection. In addition, Aspire uses both more personal methods of recruiting (e.g. relationships, word-of-mouth, and presentations) and standard print methods of teacher recruitment (i.e. classified advertisements, Internet postings, and job announcements through local credentialing programs). Aspire uses a rigorous multiple-stage approach to selection that includes: a resume screen; interview with a site hiring committee (comprised of Aspire principal, teachers, and parents); writing sample; demonstration lesson with students; and reference checks. Criteria for selection are based on those used by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. Once teachers are hired, Aspire invests deeply in developing those individuals, including: 3 weeks of summer training; several school-year workshops; coaching by the school principal, instructional coaches, and lead teachers; and access to external training. Compensation for Aspire teachers is competitive with local school districts, and pay increases are based on multiple measures of performance, including student growth, parent/student satisfaction, and principal evaluations based on criteria set by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. Benefits are better than those offered by most school districts. As a rapidly growing organization, Aspire provides a faster career path for educators with aspirations for professional advancement.

Aspire’s school site principals are the lynchpin of the organization, and attracting and developing outstanding site leadership is a top priority. Potential principals, like teachers, tend to be attracted to Aspire because of its organizational mission, educational approach, and top-notch team. Aspire’s senior management team members, including the CEO, personally interview all potential principals extensively. Once hired, principals receive one-on-one coaching on an on-going basis by Aspire’s experienced school and business executives. Aspire is also creating a more formal training curriculum. Incoming principals are compensated at a base salary that is competitive with local school districts. Principal pay raises are determined based on performance—specifically, a combination of student academic growth, parent/student feedback, and management evaluation. Most of Aspire’s principals are experienced former public school administrators. Aspire has also established a partnership with New Leaders for New Schools, a not-for-profit organization that develops new school principals. As the organization grows, Aspire is committed to growing new leaders from within.

Securing government funding Because of California’s low per pupil funding level, self-sustainability of each individual school site is dependent on Aspire’s ability to access all available state and federal funding sources. Many of these categorical funding programs have onerous and confusing administration requirements; categorical funds and their regulations change often. Furthermore, there is always a risk that a key funding source (for example, SB 740 for lease aid) may be discontinued in any given budget year. Aspire will mitigate these risks by developing the ability to identify and secure all funding programs that its students are eligible for; this requires sufficient staffing, staff training, relationships with key information sources (e.g. School Services of California), and relationships with finance staff in sponsoring districts. Aspire will also undertake advocacy work to preserve important funding sources and flexibility as needed.

Aspire Public Schools Section Two – Growth Plan - May 2004 Page 20

Securing philanthropic funding Executing its growth strategy will require Aspire to continue to be successful securing gifts and grants to cover new school start up costs and home office and regional office operating deficits until the sustainability point is reached. [See Financial Projections for more information on sustainability] While the philanthropic funding environment is as challenging as ever, Aspire has developed strong relationships with several major foundations whose objectives are closely aligned with Aspire’s mission. Aspire plans to stage its growth in a way that involves major investors in evaluating progress and updating the strategy. Aspire also expects to reach out to national foundations, who have largely not yet been tapped by the charter movement.

Aspire Public Schools Section Two – Growth Plan - May 2004 Page 21

SCHOOL DESIGN

All Aspire schools must demonstrate superior student achievement while maintaining financial sustainability. Aspire has designed the seven elements of its education model to ensure consistently high quality across the system. Aspire has defined three prototypes - “unit models” – in which the education design can be implemented in a financially sustainable way.

ASPIRE EDUCATIONAL MODEL

An Aspire education is designed to provide students with access to opportunities and tools to succeed in higher education, work, and citizenship. Through personalized learning experiences, students learn and master skills needed for the rigorous work of post-secondary life. To maintain consistent and high quality results, Aspire tracks school performance and outcomes with a Balanced Scorecard [see Section 7 and Appendix C for more information on metrics].

Aspire’s education design has seven core elements, each aligned with the others:

1. High standards and clear learning objectives
2. A sense of community
3. More time for learning
4. A balanced curriculum
5. A variety of teaching methods
6. Rigorous and ongoing assessment
7. Extra support for students as needed

1. High Standards and Clear Learning Goals To establish a foundation for success, Aspire students will learn and master:

• Basic Skills: Students will master at least grade level competency in the four core subjects: mathematics, science, social studies, and language arts (including reading, writing, listening and speaking);
• Thinking Skills: Students will be able to apply classroom learning to their real world experiences in a relevant and valuable way, using higher-order thinking skills (including critical thinking, creativity, decision-making, problem solving, reasoning, knowing how to learn);
• Life Skills: Students will demonstrate development of personal qualities of individual responsibility, intellectual curiosity, sociability, self-management, confidence, and integrity.^20

Aspire sets high standards for all students^21 and each student has a Personal Learning Plan (PLP) – developed in collaboration with his/her teacher and parent(s) – that outlines the student’s specific learning goals each semester. Aspire’s secondary courses also conform to the University of California/California State University (UC/CSU) system A-G requirements.

2. A Sense of Community

(^20) Based on important workplace skills as determined by the U.S. Department of Labor Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS), Learning a Living: A Blueprint for High Performance. April 1992. (^21) Standards are based on: California State Content Standards, Newman’s Standards for Authentic Instruction and Assessment, and Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS)

Aspire Public Schools Section Three – School Design - May 2004 Page 22

Aspire’s small schools and its small, multi-age classes create an intimate community in which each student is known personally.

• Small Schools: Aspire elementary schools will have no more than 410 grade K-5 students, and its secondary schools will have less than 450 grade 6-13 students.^22
• Small Class Sizes: Aspire maintains a 20:1 student-teacher ratio in kindergarten through third grade, a 28:1 ratio in grades four and five, and 29:1 ratio in grades six through twelve. In addition, students at the secondary level will spend part of each day in seminars with a student- teacher ratio of 15:1.
• Multi-Grade Classes: Aspire uses multi-grade classes that offer opportunities for teachers to spend more time working with students they know.
• Advisory Groups: Beginning in the 6th^ grade, each student is assigned to an advisory group of no more than 15 students that meets daily with an adult advisor. The advisor acts as a bridge between the school and the students’ other communities (e.g. family, work, clubs, social service agencies). The same group stays together until graduation, and provides a support structure for students.

Children learn best when parents are engaged in their education. Aspire uses a variety of methods to help parents and guardians become coaches for their children, and to increase their participation in all aspects of school life.

• School-Family-Student Compact: The teacher, parent(s), and student all sign a compact during a three-way conference at the beginning of the school year. The compact outlines the rights and responsibilities of each stakeholder, and affirms the three parties’ mutual accountability for student success, staff development, and parent satisfaction.
• Special Saturday Classes: Scheduled at the beginning of the year, these mandatory half-day sessions enable parents to attend school with their children and understand students’ learning at a deeper level.
• Guidance About At-home Support: Aspire offers coaching to parents on reading at home (20+ min per day), providing the right level of help with homework, participating in projects, and playing games that reinforce learning.
• Participation in School Decision-making: In addition to roles in the school’s parent organization, Aspire includes two parent representatives on the Advisory School Council (described below) and parents participate on the school’s Teacher Hiring Committee.

Aspire’s commitment to parents is further demonstrated in the formal Guarantee to Parents. At any Aspire campus, parents can expect:

• A demonstrated improvement in their child’s academic performance;
• An open invitation to attend their child’s classes;
• Easy, open communication with their child’s teacher via voice mail and email;
• The opportunity to rate the performance of teachers and the school annually; and
• Eligibility to serve on the school’s governing body, the Advisory School Council.

(^22) Although researchers have documented the positive effects of small schools, they are relatively uncommon in California: at the elementary level, only 5% of California students were in small schools of less than 350 students, versus 17% nationally.

Aspire Public Schools Section Three – School Design - May 2004 Page 23

Participation in school governance can help build a strong sense of community. Aspire encourages all stakeholders to participate in and take responsibility for the educational process, and its results, to maintain a sense of community. Each school has an Advisory School Council (ASC), which holds the school accountable for the performance of its students. The Council also serves as the school’s expulsion board, conducts the lottery if enrollment exceeds capacity, addresses school safety issues, reviews parental concerns, and sets policies that are unique to the school. The ASC consists of the principal, two teachers, two parents, one member of the chartering district’s Board, and one community member at large.

3. More Time for Learning Aspire provides 15% more learning time for students, and uses time effectively during the year and the day to maximize in-depth learning.

• Longer School Day: Aspire students receive about one hour more instruction each day than students in traditional public schools. Aspire schools have, on average, a seven-and-a-half hour school day for grades 1-12, and five-hour school day for kindergarten.
• Longer School Year: Aspire schools provide 190 days of instruction, ten days more than traditional public schools. 3-5 of these additional days are on Saturday, when parents can attend class with their children.
• Modified Traditional Calendar: When possible, Aspire schools use a modified traditional calendar (trimesters with shorter summer recess) to decrease the loss of learning during extended recesses.
• Intersessions: Intersessions are 1-2 week periods of deep exploration in a single topic. Aspire secondary students will have 3-4 intersessions during the year, including at least one on a topic chosen by individual students according to their own interests.
• Block Scheduling: The daily schedule at Aspire’s secondary schools is organized around blocks of 90-120 minutes. Students can delve more deeply into subjects with these extended periods of time, and teachers can work together to integrate the curriculum more seamlessly. 4. A Balanced Curriculum Aspire uses a combination of adopted programs and elements developed in-house to build basic skills, higher-order thinking skills, and life-skills. The curriculum is based on California state standards. Teachers have flexibility to use a variety of texts and materials depending on the needs of their students. The curriculum is clearly articulated as a K-12 system and includes language arts, mathematics, science, social science, and Spanish. Other subjects essential to a healthy and balanced life are also covered through classes in visual and performing arts, health and nutrition, and physical education. 5. A Variety of Teaching Methods Aspire educators use the organization’s Instructional Guidelines, which describe a variety of pedagogical strategies and guides educators in employing the strategies most effective for the subject matter and for individual students. Instructional Guidelines are not a script, and good implementation of Aspire’s program requires highly skilled teachers. CD-ROMs of best practices, observations and model lessons by instructional coaches, visits to Aspire Model Classrooms, and coaching by the school principal all support individual teachers in implementing the Instructional Guidelines effectively.

Broadly, the Instructional Guidelines require use of a variety of pedagogical strategies, including:

Aspire Public Schools Section Three – School Design - May 2004 Page 24

• Explicit Instruction: provides students a traditional form of teaching wherein the teacher presents the lesson and students individually demonstrate their new skills or knowledge.
• Massed and Distributed Practice: gives students multiple opportunities over the course of the year to use and practice previously learned skills and knowledge. This increases students’ retention of the newly learned material.
• Problem Solving: gives students a step-by-step process for determining a solution.
• Inquiry: presents students with a problem or question, around which they formulate and test theories to work towards a solution.
• Project-based Instruction: offers students the opportunity to apply learning to complex problems; students are required to conduct extended research, analyze and synthesize information across subject areas, and develop written and oral end products.
• Apprenticeship: at the secondary level, students spend part of their time working in the community for local organizations, applying their learning to work alongside professionals.
• Distance Learning: Students in 11th, 12th, and 13th^ grade may elect to take some specialized coursework on-line, through colleges and universities.

Technology is used as a tool for research, communication, and production. Each classroom in grades K-6 has three to five computers with Internet access, students in grades 7-10 have access to movable laptop carts, banks of computers throughout the school and a computer lab. Students exercise their higher-order thinking skills through simulations and presentations, their communication and production skills through electronic mail and publishing, and their research skills through use of electronic references, including the Internet.

6. Rigorous and Ongoing Assessment Assessment allows Aspire to observe individual student progress, determine the efficacy of individual teachers, and evaluate the success of the program as a whole. Multiple assessments are used because no single assessment provides sufficient information on students’ learning in the three outcomes (basic skills, thinking skills, life skills). Students are assessed through local district and nationally recognized tests (e.g. High School Exit Exam, SAT, Durrell Oral Reading, Berkeley Readiness Test, Advanced Placement tests), day-to-day assessments (e.g. quizzes, unit tests), qualitative observations of the process of learning (e.g. teachers’ anecdotal notes, student reflection logs, internship mentor reports), and examination of final products including an interdisciplinary final project, the Rites of Passage (ROPES) project. 7. Extra Support for Students as needed Aspire employs a variety of “safety net” strategies to provide extra support for students who are below grade level. This can include before/after school tutoring, work with a literacy specialist, pull- out programs, and/or push-in programs.

To meet the needs of English Language Learners, Aspire uses a number of bilingual teaching strategies in addition to its core repertoire, including: building on students’ culture, language, and experiences; teaching the second language through content; allowing community language; and using computers and peer tutors to enhance language skills.

Aspire supports all special education students in compliance with state and federal laws. Students who perform below the school-determined acceptable level are required to participate in the school's tutoring program either before or after school until grade level is met. No student is denied

Aspire Public Schools Section Three – School Design - May 2004 Page 25