Architecture Options
This appendix presents the three distinct implementation architectures considered during the UPF analysis phase. Each architecture represents a different risk/reward profile, enabling stakeholders to understand the full spectrum of possibilities before selecting the recommended hybrid approach.
Architecture Comparison Summary
| Dimension | Architecture 1 | Architecture 2 | Architecture 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Name | AI Awareness Initiative | El Segundo AI Academy | El Segundo Talent Lab |
| Approach | Supplemental curriculum | Comprehensive three-tier program | Radical reimagination |
| Timeline | 1 year | 18 months | 2-3 years |
| Year 1 Budget | $50,000 | $350,000 | $750,000 |
| Risk Level | Low | Moderate | High |
| Innovation Score | 20/100 | 75/100 | 95/100 |
| Workforce Impact | Minimal | Significant | Transformative |
| Gender Equity | Not addressed | Integrated design | Core differentiator |
Architecture 1: Conservative - "AI Awareness Initiative"
Core Approach
Add AI literacy as supplemental curriculum without fundamental changes to educational delivery or workforce preparation.
Components
- 6-hour teacher professional development on AI basics
- Guest speakers from technology companies
- Student access to AI for homework help
- Updated acceptable use policies
Financial Profile
| Item | Amount |
|---|---|
| Year 1 Investment | $50,000 |
| Ongoing Annual Cost | $25,000 |
| Total 3-Year Cost | $100,000 |
Scoring
| Metric | Score | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Innovation | 20/100 | Incremental improvement only |
| Executability | 95/100 | Easy to implement |
| Risk | Low | Minimal disruption |
| Workforce Readiness | 15/100 | Does not address job market changes |
| Gender Equity | 10/100 | No targeted intervention |
Advantages
- Easy to approve through standard budget processes
- Minimal disruption to existing operations
- Low political risk
- Quick implementation timeline
Limitations
- Does not address the workforce development crisis
- Does not close the AI gender gap
- Students remain unprepared for AI-transformed economy
- Does not differentiate ESUSD from other districts
- No measurable competitive advantage for graduates
Architecture 2: Balanced - "El Segundo AI Academy"
Core Approach
Comprehensive three-tier program with Skafld/SA partnership, addressing administrator readiness, teacher empowerment, and student transformation simultaneously.
Implementation Tiers
Tier 1: Administrator Readiness (Months 1-2)
- Executive briefings on AI economic transformation
- Strategic planning workshops
- Policy framework development
- Stakeholder engagement strategy
Tier 2: Teacher Empowerment (Months 2-8)
Phase 1: AI Champions Cohort 1 (20 early adopter teachers)
- 40 hours intensive training (Skafld-led)
- Sandbox period: Build AI-augmented lesson plans
- Peer showcase and feedback loops
Phase 2: AI Champions Cohort 2 (50 next-wave teachers)
- Trained by Cohort 1 (train-the-trainer model)
- Ongoing support community
Phase 3: Full Faculty Rollout (Months 5-8)
- Required 12-hour AI literacy certification
- Ongoing "office hours" with champions
- Quarterly innovation showcases
Tier 3: Student Transformation (Months 3-12)
Phase A: Foundation (All Students)
- K-5: AI literacy basics, computational thinking
- 6-8: AI tool proficiency, ethics, bias awareness
- 9-12: AI-augmented disciplinary work, portfolio building
Phase B: AI Studio Teams (Voluntary but Incentivized)
- Teams of 8-12 students (grades 9-12)
- Cross-grade mentorship (12th to 10th, 11th to 9th)
- Teacher-mentor assigned per team
- Weekly 90-minute studio sessions
- Girls-only studio teams available Year 1
- Female teacher mentors prioritized
- Semester projects showing AI augmentation
- Portfolio with narrative reflection
- Public presentation/exhibition
- Optional employer pitch day
Phase C: Workforce Pipeline
- Partner with local employers (aerospace, tech, entertainment)
- Student portfolios reviewed by industry panels
- Micro-internships (10-20 hours) with local businesses
- "El Segundo AI-Ready Certificate" validated by employers
Financial Profile
| Item | Amount |
|---|---|
| Year 1 Investment | $350,000 |
| Year 2 Investment | $200,000 |
| Year 3+ Ongoing | $150,000 |
| Total 3-Year Cost | $700,000 |
Scoring
| Metric | Score | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Innovation | 75/100 | Systematic, comprehensive approach |
| Executability | 82/100 | Proven patterns, manageable scope |
| Risk | Moderate | Requires sustained commitment |
| Workforce Readiness | 70/100 | Direct employer engagement |
| Gender Equity | 75/100 | Integrated intervention design |
Advantages
- Addresses all three problems systematically
- Scalable model other districts can adopt
- Creates competitive advantage for ESUSD students
- Gender equity integrated into design
- Real workforce outcomes
- Proven implementation patterns (train-the-trainer, cohort model)
- Feasible 18-month timeline
- Manageable budget with clear ROI
Limitations
- Requires sustained multi-year commitment
- Teacher time investment significant
- Needs board and community buy-in
- Implementation complexity moderate
- Employer validation requires ongoing cultivation
Architecture 3: Breakthrough - "El Segundo Talent Lab"
Core Approach
Radically reimagine school as an AI-native talent development system where the school becomes a talent incubator recognized by employers as superior to traditional credentials.
Key Innovations
1. Flip the Credential Model
- Traditional grades optional for colleges that want them
- Primary output: Verified Capability Portfolio (employer-validated skills)
- Students graduate with portfolio plus employer endorsements, not just diploma
2. Studio Model Replaces Some Traditional Classes
- 20% of junior/senior schedule allocated to AI Studio time
- Real client projects from local businesses
- Students as "AI Consultants" solving actual problems
- Paid micro-engagements (students earn while learning)
3. Peer Teaching Economy
- 11th/12th graders officially "teach" 9th/10th graders
- Transcript credit for mentoring
- Sustainable transfer of knowledge
- Models collaborative work environment
4. Gender Equity as Competitive Advantage
- "50/50 by Design" requirement: Every AI program must hit gender parity
- Female-founded companies prioritized as studio clients
- Girls explicitly recruited into tech pathways
- Track outcomes: wage data for graduates by gender
5. Living Lab for Education Research
- Partner with universities studying AI plus education
- Publish findings, host visiting educators
- Generate revenue from "El Segundo Model" consulting
- District becomes thought leader, attracts grants
Financial Profile
| Item | Amount |
|---|---|
| Year 1 Investment | $750,000 |
| Year 2-3 Investment | $500,000/year |
| Year 4+ Potential | Revenue-positive |
| Total 3-Year Cost | $1,750,000 |
Scoring
| Metric | Score | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Innovation | 95/100 | True breakthrough, national model |
| Executability | 65/100 | Major culture change required |
| Risk | High | Regulatory and adoption hurdles |
| Workforce Readiness | 95/100 | Direct workforce integration |
| Gender Equity | 90/100 | Core design principle |
Advantages
- True breakthrough with national model potential
- Solves workforce problem definitively
- Students have demonstrable competitive advantage
- Potential self-funding model through consulting and licensing
- Creates sustainable ecosystem for talent development
- Positions ESUSD as education thought leader
Limitations
- Requires major culture change across district
- Regulatory hurdles (credential recognition)
- High stakeholder management needs
- Longer timeline to prove out (2-3 years to pilot)
- Significant initial investment
- Political complexity with multiple constituencies
Recommendation: Hybrid Architecture (2 + 3 Elements)
Rationale for Hybrid Approach
The analysis recommends starting with Architecture 2's proven structure while incorporating select elements from Architecture 3 to maximize innovation potential while maintaining executability.
Architecture 2 Foundation
- Feasible 18-month implementation timeline
- Manageable risk and budget profile
- Proven implementation patterns
- Clear path to demonstrate results
Architecture 3 Elements Incorporated
| Element | Integration Approach |
|---|---|
| Portfolio-first mindset | Built into studio team design from day 1 |
| Real client projects | Studio teams work on actual business challenges, not simulations |
| Employer validation | Partnerships established early, employers co-design portfolio requirements |
| 50/50 gender parity | Explicit goal for all AI programming |
| Research potential | Document model for potential expansion |
Hybrid Benefits
- Feasible implementation timeline (18 months)
- Manageable risk and budget ($350K Year 1)
- True innovation that differentiates ESUSD
- Clear path to Architecture 3 if pilot succeeds
- Gender equity built into design from start
- Workforce outcomes measurable within first cohort
Migration Path to Full Architecture 3
| Year | Milestone | Architecture 3 Elements Added |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | Pilot success | Employer validation, portfolio assessment |
| Year 2 | Scale proven | Real client projects, peer teaching economy |
| Year 3 | Full transformation | Studio schedule integration, credential innovation |
| Year 4+ | National model | Research partnerships, model licensing |
Decision Framework
When to Choose Architecture 1
- Budget crisis prevents any significant investment
- Political environment hostile to innovation
- Risk tolerance extremely low
- Short-term survival priority
When to Choose Architecture 2 (Recommended)
- Moderate budget available ($350K Year 1)
- Board willing to commit for 2-3 years
- Teacher champions can be identified
- Employer partnerships feasible
- Desire for meaningful impact with manageable risk
When to Choose Architecture 3
- Significant budget available ($750K+ Year 1)
- Board fully committed to multi-year transformation
- Strong superintendent leadership
- Community ready for fundamental change
- Regulatory environment supportive
- University partnerships available
When to Choose Hybrid (Recommended Default)
- Want Architecture 3 outcomes with Architecture 2 risk profile
- Prefer "prove and expand" over "launch and hope"
- Need early wins to build political support
- Value optionality and adaptability