MALLA DE PERFORACION DE LA CITA DELMAHISAC SECCION 0.8 m x 2.4 m ROCA BUENA

• Please explain any performance that did not meet the organization’s expectations, and how that underperformance was or is being addressed.

• What are the key areas in which existing schools need to improve, and what are the priorities to drive further success?

• What are the key areas in which the organization needs to improve, and what are the priorities to drive further success?

Performance of AUSL schools. Preliminary ISAT results were just released in early July, and we are very encouraged by our results and progress. Three of our four Turnaround elementary schools, Harvard, Howe, and Sherman, had 50 percent or more of their students meeting or exceeding state standards on the composite test, an average gain of about 15 points. Seven of AUSL’s eight elementary schools improved their performance. See Exhibits 1 and 2.

In AUSL’s 2008 elementary proposal, we were asked to set five-year performance goals for Turnaround schools. Our response:

“During the first two years of our elementary Turnaround schools, as a result of all of the strategies described elsewhere in this proposal, we expect to perform better than

comparable schools on the ISAT, with the specific targets delineated in the table below. In Years 3 through 5, we expect to outperform the district average on the ISAT. We plan for continued growth beyond year five as we look to become a leader in the state.” Five-Year ISAT Performance Goals for AUSL Turnaround Schools

Percent of students

Year 1 Year 2 Years 3-4 Year 5 ISAT scores at meet or exceed in

reading, math, and science

40% 50% 70% 80% ISAT composite scores at exceed for

reading, math, and science

5% 5% 15% 25%

ISAT composite scores at exceed for the highest grade level

5% 5% 15% 25%

This table, for comparison, shows the 2009 ISAT preliminary results of our four elementary Turnaround schools on the first two of these metrics. The number to

compare to the table above is first, followed by the school’s cumulative gain/loss from its pre-turnaround level.

2009 Preliminary ISAT Performance Results for AUSL Turnaround Schools (July 8) Table shows percentage for 2009, and change from pre-turnaround percentage Howe (Year 1) Morton (Year 1) Harvard (Year 2) Sherman (Year 3) ISAT composite scores at meet or

exceed 50.6% (+7.8) 33.2% (-7.8) 56.4% (+24.6) 51.0% (+21.1) ISAT composite scores at exceed 3.3%

(+1.0) 1.3% (-1.5) 6.2% (+4.8) 3.8% (+2.3)

At Morton School of Excellence, the first-year ISAT results showed a decline in performance. We have had concerns about Morton for the past several months, which led to our decision to appoint a new leadership team as of July 1, 2009 Terrance Little will be principal, and Angel Turner will be Assistant Principal. Both of these individuals have prior experience in their roles, and both have been part of AUSL for a year or more. We have also replaced several of Morton’s teachers. We are committed to achieving significant improvements at Morton.

While Sherman School of Excellence’s results are not yet at the ambitious 70 percent Year 3 target, the 10-point gain between 2008 and 2009 is encouraging, especially for a school with over 50 percent mobility. Sherman’s “control schools” Holmes and Libby saw 2-point gains, and Parkman a 3-point decline.

We do not yet have student achievement data for 2008-09 for AUSL’s high schools. Interim results, while helpful as formative assessments, do not typically align with EPAS gains because interims are designed to get progressively more difficult relative to standards as the school year goes on. However, data on attendance and misconducts shows positive progress for our schools (see Exhibit 8). Orr Academy High School’s agenda for improvement is described on pages 37 to 39 of this document.

Performance improvement agenda for AUSL’s central organization. In terms of supporting our schools, the emphasis for 2009-10 for AUSL’s leadership and central program staff is on “P” (Positive school culture), “G” (Guaranteed and viable curriculum), and “E” (Engaging and personalized instruction). Specific initiatives are described in various places elsewhere in this document.

Perhaps the biggest challenge we face at the AUSL network level relates to ensuring that we bring in enough high-quality talent, and that we develop people rapidly enough, to meet our challenging expansion targets. We have been asked by CPS to accelerate the development of our capacity to accept Turnaround high schools. Because trained residents are key to our model, we need to recruit and train future mentor teachers so they can in turn train more secondary residents. In 2009-10, all of AUSL’s three high schools will be training sites for residents.

Another challenge for AUSL is to generate new sources of non-CPS funding. We are applying for a sizable federal grant for our UTR program, which would reduce our reliance on philanthropy to fund the growth of our teacher residency program.

Foundations and individuals are enthusiastic about our model and performance, but as we get larger our needs will exceed the amounts they typically give to new, innovative ventures.

AUSL’s central organization also needs to continue to develop its own systems and structures, in particular to get our technology infrastructure more codified to better support internal communications and access to information by multiple individuals and teams.