From Afton Partners, April 2013. An overview of NGLC financial and operational expectations, spending trends from 12/2011 – 09/2012 for 8 K-12 Breakthrough Models in their first year vs. national benchmarks, and software usage. This analysis was meant to provide information to applicants for NGLC's "Wave IV: Breakthrough School Models" grant opportunity, as they finalized their financial and operating plans.

1. 1
Breakthrough school models
A preliminary assessment of NGLC Wave IIIa grantees
April 2013

2. 2
Included in this document are:
1. An overview of NGLC financial and operational expectations
2. Comparison of spending trends from 12/2011 – 09/2012 for
successful Wave IIIa applications vs. national benchmarks
(including human capital, space, and other financial and
operational data points)
3. Software usage and school design options for Wave IIIa grantees
The following analysis is meant to provide information to Wave IV
applicants as they finalize their financial and operating plans
Trends and data: NGLC Wave IIIa grantees

3. 3
Before you review the ensuing
data and findings, please note:
Unless otherwise noted:
(1) Sample set for analysis contains 19 schools; excludes one school that did not submit a complete business plan
(2) Tertiles are sorted in ascending order of metric evaluated
(3) All data in this analysis reflects Year 5 of each school’s operation
NGLC Wave IIIa Grantees
• Afton Partners' analysis
leverages data provided by
Wave IIIa grantees at the time
of their application submission.
It does not reflect any actual
results.
• Afton is currently participating in
a study to obtain actual financial
and operational results for
schools that have launched,
and will update this analysis on
a regular basis. This document
provides directional information
on criteria used to identify
successful applications under
Wave IIIa.
Notes on data & findings
Round School Name Location
Grades
Served
District, CMO,
or Other
Operator
Opened in Fall 2012
1 Alpha PS CA 6 - 8 CMO
1 Leadership CA 9 - 13 CMO
1 USC CA 9 - 12 CMO
1 KIPP - Chicago IL 5 - 8 CMO
1 Touchstone NJ 6 - 12 CMO
2 Schools for the Future MI 8 - 12 CMO
2 Academy 21 VT 9 - 13 CMO
2 EAA MI K - 8 District
2 Cornerstone MI 9 - 12 CMO
3 Generation CO 6 - 12 Non-Profit
Opening in Fall 2013
2 Venture Academies MN 6 - 12 CMO
2 DaVinci Schools CA 9 - 13 CMO
2 Summit CA 6 - 12 CMO
2 MATCH School MA 6 - 8 CMO
3 Intrinsic IL 6 - 12 CMO
3 Aspire TN K - 8 CMO
3 Fayette County KY 9 - 12 District
3 iCan SC 6 - 8 District
3 Matchbook TN 5 - 8 Non-Profit
Opening in Fall 2014
3 Foundation IL 6 - 12 CMO
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2

4. 4
Breakthrough
School
Design
Sustainable
Cost
Structure
• A breakthrough school design
• Personalized learning to help students learn more rapidly and deeply
• Financially sustainable
• The ability to scale
NGLC: What are they looking for?

5. 5
Student :
Teacher
Ratio
Student :
Total Staff
Ratio
Square
Feet /
Student
Salaries &
Facilities as
% of Total
Revenues &
Budget
IT cost per
pupil
Human Capital
Space
Cost Structure
Cost to
Breakeven
Analysis: Sample financial and operational
benchmarks

6. 6
10.5
14.5
21.3
9.2
15.2
1st Tertile 2nd Tertile 3rd Tertile
Grantees Benchmark Grantee
Avg
Assessing Human Capital: Student-Staff Ratios
Student : Instructional Staff Student : Total Staff
Note: Additional grantee home office
personnel (other staff) may be included in
“CMO fees” or home office expense, and
not reflected in this analysis.
Source: (1) IES FY2011 Enrollment & Staffing; (2) Council of the Great City Schools Urban School Statistics 2009 – 10
34%
higher
than
State
Averages
65%
higher
than State
Averages
Grantees projected higher student-teacher and student-total staff ratios
than existing schools operating in their respective states.
Note: Tertiles are sorted in ascending order of the metric being evaluated, unless otherwise noted
(1) Figures represent difference between each school’s average ratio vs. their respective state averages, aggregated into
tertiles based on this variance
Note: Grantee averages exclude aides,
paraprofessionals, lab technicians, and other
non-core teaching positions
Student : Teacher
3%
higher
than
State
Averages
Note: For this analysis, grantee data includes
all staff designated as “instructional”;
benchmark average shown for comparison
purposes only
12.2
18.4
25.7
17.9
18.4
1st Tertile 2nd Tertile 3rd Tertile
Grantees Benchmark Grantee
Avg
16.0
22.0
35.2
17.9
24.0
1st Tertile 2nd Tertile 3rd Tertile
Grantees Benchmark Grantee
Avg

7. 7
0.3%
1.3%
5.2%
2.2%
1st Tertile 2nd Tertile 3rd Tertile
Grantees Grantee
Avg
1.5%
1.9%
3.3%
2.2%
1st Tertile 2nd Tertile 3rd Tertile
Grantees Grantee
Avg
Human Capital: Professional Development (PD)
Prof. Dev. (% of Total Expense) Yr. 1 Prof. Dev. (% of Total Expense) Yr. 5
Note: Tertiles are sorted in ascending order of the metric being evaluated, unless otherwise noted
Grantee investments were projected to stay relatively constant. Most
schools began spending less by Year 5, but one-third spent more.

8. 8
Human Capital: Instructional Staff Salaries
Notes
(1) Figures represent difference between each school’s average teacher salary vs. their respective state averages, aggregated into tertiles based on this variance.
(2) Grantee averages exclude aides, paraprofessionals, lab technicians, and other non-core teaching positions
(3) Grantee Year 5 average is projected to be $61K, while state average (adjusted for inflation) is projected to be $67K. The collective salary of all instructional
staff for Wave IIIa grantees is projected to be $54K.
Variance from State Avg. ($) Variance from State Avg. ($ by Region)
On average, grantees projected lower instructional staff salaries than
their respective state average teacher salaries (adjusted for inflation).
# of schools 7 6 6 # of schools3 7 63
3
Source: www.teacherportal.com/teacher-salaries-by-state, whose data comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Assumes 2% annual increase through Y5
($20,576)
($2,905)
$7,722
($6,060)
1st Tertile 2nd Tertile 3rd Tertile
Grantees Grantee
Avg
$5,097 $5,003
($8,537)
($14,280)
Northeast South Mid-West West
8

9. 9
Use of Space: Facility Square Footage
Notes
(1) Does not include information from three grantee applications that did not have estimates available at the time of submission.
(2) Tertiles sorted in ascending order of metric evaluated, unless otherwise noted.
Benchmark source:
School Planning & Management 2012 Annual School Construction Report
Grantees projected to utilize less space than traditional schools.
57.1
88.1
152.3137.5
165.3
96.5
1st Tertile 2nd Tertile 3rd Tertile
Grantees Nat'l - MS
Nat'l - HS Grantee
Avg
42% less
than
National
MS
Average
71% less
than
National
HS
Average

10. 10
Grantee IT Spending
Year 1 Year 5
Notes:
(1) IT costs include hardware, software, digital content, and infrastructure
(2) Tertiles are sorted in ascending order of metric evaluated, unless otherwise noted.
Benchmark source:
Managing for Results in Americas Great City Schools, 2012
$220
$457
$828
$147
$487
1st Tertile 2nd Tertile 3rd Tertile
Grantees Nat'l Grantee
Avg
$500
$1,119
$1,858
$1,125
1st Tertile 2nd Tertile 3rd Tertile
Grantees Grantee
Avg
Year 5 IT spending is projected to be more than 3x greater than the
current national average.

11. 11
Information Technology: Most popular providers
19 grantees included 121
software options in their
applications (80 of them
unique)
19 grantees included 121
software options in their
applications (80 of them
unique)
The top four software
providers mentioned
were: Khan Academy,
Compass Learning,
Apex Learning, and
Achieve 3000
Number of projected software options
Most popular software and digital content providers for Wave IIIa grantees
121
single occurrence
two occurrences
three occurrences
> three occurrences
26
12
22
61
#
khan
academy,
11
compass
learning, 6
apex
learning, 5
achieve
3000, 4

12. 12
Total Per Pupil Cost: Year 5 Projections
By Operator Type
By Total Cost By Region
$6,844
$9,434
$11,731
$9,069
1st Tertile 2nd Tertile 3rd Tertile
Grantees Grantee
Avg
$9,070
$11,344
$5,183
$9,069
Charter District Non-profit
Grantees Grantee
Avg
$12,152
$10,550
$9,514
$6,941
$9,069
Northeast South Mid-West West
Grantees Grantee
Avg
Note: Tertiles are sorted in ascending order of the metric being evaluated, unless otherwise noted
# of schools 15 3 1
# of schools3 7 63

13. 13
Total Per Pupil Cost: Year 5 Projections (cont’d)
By School Size
(at full enrollment)
School size 200 – 484 522 – 564 576 – 1,050
$9,428
$9,688
$8,357
$9,069
1st Tertile 2nd Tertile 3rd Tertile
Grantees Grantee
Avg
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
$16,000
$18,000
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
Per pupil spending varied even among schools with comparable enrollment
Per Pupil Spending
by School Size

14. 14
Projected Salaries and Facilities Costs
Salaries and Facilities Expenses
63%
66%
67%
72%
71%
73%
1st Tertile 2nd Tertile 3rd Tertile
% of Revenue % of Budget
Notes
(1) Represents personnel included in each school’s budget. Does not account for salaries that may be included in their CMO or
Home Office fees.
(2) Tertiles are sorted in ascending order of metric evaluated, unless otherwise noted.
Grantees projected spending by their 5th year of operation:

15. 15
($1,554)
($1,204)
($471)
($1,383)
Charter District Non-profit
Grantees Grantee
Avg
Cost to Breakeven: Average of Grantees
Notes
(1) Represents total investment required before each school generates cash net income. Per pupil calculations reflect the
school at year 5 enrollment
(2) Tertiles are sorted in ascending order of the metric being evaluated, unless otherwise noted
By Operator Type By School Size
# schools 15 3 1 school size200 – 484 522 – 564 576 – 1,050
The average per pupil cost to breakeven, projected by all Wave IIIa
grantees:
($1,816)
($1,534)
($978)
($1,383)
1st Tertile 2nd Tertile 3rd Tertile
Grantees Grantee
Avg

16. 16
Cost to Breakeven (cont’d): how many years did
grantees project cash deficits?
By Operator Type By School Size
# schools 15 3 1 school size200 – 484 522 – 564 576 – 1,050
Notes
(1) Represents the time period, in years, before each school is projected to generate cash net income
(2) Tertiles are sorted in ascending order of the metric being evaluated, unless otherwise noted
2.9
1.0
2.0
2.5
Charter District Non-profit
Yrs to Breakeven
Grantee Avg (Yrs)
2.9 2.8
1.8
2.5
1st Tertile 2nd Tertile 3rd Tertile
Yrs to Breakeven
Grantee Avg (Yrs)

17. 17
www.aftonpartners.com