Performance Framework Policy

Performance Framework Policy. The Mississippi Charter School Authorizer Board (MCSAB or Board) has the responsibility of making sure charter schools provide an excellent education for Mississippi public school students. The Board also acknowledges that charter schools need independence in order to develop and apply the policies and educational strategies that maximize their effectiveness. The Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework (Performance Framework) balances these two considerations as the primary accountability mechanism for all charter schools authorized by the MCSAB. The MCSAB is accountable for implementing a rigorous and fair oversight process that respects the autonomy that is vital to charter school success. The Performance Framework helps the Board fulfill this responsibility by providing: ● Clear standards and expectations for schools ● A transparent, consistent oversight process that is respectful of school autonomy ● A focus on student outcomes and not on inputs Source: Miss Code Ann, § 37-28-29, 37-28-31 CHARTER SCHOOL PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK BOARD APPROVED ~ March 2024 Table of Contents Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Introduction Introduction Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Introduction The Mississippi Charter School Authorizer Board (MCSAB or Board) has the responsibility of making sure charter schools provide an excellent education for Mississippi public school students. The Board also acknowledges that charter schools need independence in order to develop and to apply the policies and educational strategies that maximize their effectiveness. The Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework (Performance Framework) balances these two considerations as the primary accountability mechanism for all charter schools authorized by the MCSAB. The Mississippi Department of Education (MDE) functions as a resource for federal education requirements, special education compliance, and funding for charter schools. However, the MCSAB is accountable for implementing a rigorous and fair oversight process that respects the autonomy that is vital to charter school success. The Performance Framework helps the Board fulfill this responsibility by providing: • Clear standards and expectations for schools • A transparent, consistent oversightprocess that is respectful of school autonomy • A focus on student outcomes, not inputs Background The MCSAB first released the Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework through the Board’s creation in 2013. This revised performance framework takes into consideration the valuable input of Mississippi’s stakeholders—including school leaders and representatives, community advocates, and external experts. The Board invites Mississippi’s charter schools to be partners in the continuous improvement of the Performance Framework, as it remains a dynamic process subject to continuous review and improvement. Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Introduction Introduction Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Guiding Criteria for the MCSAB Performance Framework The content of the framework is guided by the following criteria: Research-motivated Measurable Stakeholder Agreement Aligned • Research‐motivated: There is strong theory and empirical evidence to support the use of the performance indicator • Measurable: Data are available and accessible to measure and track progress on the performance indicator • Stakeholder Agreement: Stakeholders prioritize the performance indicators and agree that a school could impact the performance indicators • Aligned: Indicators are aligned to Miss Code Ann. § 37-28-29, national best practices, and the charter contract Using Information from the Performance Framework MCSAB will use the information from the Performance Framework for multiple purposes and activities: • Providing each school with a complete Annual Performance Framework Report • Communicating clear information so all stakeholders can understand where Mississippi’s charter schools are meeting or exceeding standards, and where they are failing to achieve key performance standards • Capturing comprehensive information for data-driven charter renewal determinations, in combination with other materials • Differentiating monitoring and oversight based on each school’s performance • Offering incentives for high-performing charter schools that regularly achieve their academic, financial soundness, and organizational performance standards • Providing objective information for students and families who want to learn more about the charter schools in their community Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Introduction Introduction Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Framework Structure The Performance Framework is comprised of three performance areas: 1. Academic Performance 2. Financial Performance 3. Organizational Performance Determination of Charter School Performance MCSAB will use each section of the framework as a stand-alone performance evaluation tool; therefore, each school will receive a separate, overall rating for Academic Performance, Financial Performance, and Organizational Performance. MCSAB will exercise a high degree of professional judgment to evaluate evidence, assign ratings, and assess the overall academic, financial, and organizational health of a school. The Performance Framework serves as a tool to assist MCSAB in monitoring and decision-making and is meant to complement, not replace, the critical role of professional judgment in determining overall charter school performance. Dissemination of Information To ensure the integrity of the accountability model, MCSAB will adhere to the following business rules for dissemination of results from the Performance Framework evaluation: • As soon as practical after receipt of the necessary data, schools will receive Academic, Financial, and Organizational Annual Performance Framework reports, Framework Excel workbooks, and backup documentation for review. Within fifteen (15) business days of receipt, written evidence must be submitted for any factual errors identified. • The finalized report in PDF format and Framework Excel workbooks will be the official sole source documentation retained and published by MCSAB. Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Academic Performance Framework Academic Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Academic Performance Framework The MCSAB academic performance framework is a multi-measure framework that provides information about whether the charter school's education program results in high student outcomes. The academic performance framework indicators, measures, metrics, and cut scores are designed to (1) align to but not be limited to the measures defined by the Mississippi Charter School Law, (2) include outcome measures covering the full span of grade levels offered by a school, (3) include measures where publicly available data are available and easy to use in calculations, and (4) use comparisons to the geographic district, where available, to provide information about relative performance. The academic performance framework is comprised of seven indicators: 1. State Accountability 2. Academic Proficiency 3. Academic Growth 4. Academic Gap 5. Academic Readiness 6. Postsecondary Readiness 7. School-Specific [OPTIONAL] Each indicator within the academic performance framework includes measures and metrics. Measures and metrics provide the details to evaluate the indicator. Ratings The academic performance framework includes a rubric with rating criteria and cut scores for each metric that indicate the metric performance targets associated with four ratings: 1. Exceeds Expectations 2. Meets Expectations Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Academic Performance Framework Academic Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. 3. Approaches Expectations 4. Fails to Meet Expectations Weights The academic performance framework assigns weights to indicators and measures based on the importance of the indicators and weights. The weights may vary based on the grade configuration of the charter school and data availability (note: more inform ation about the weights can be found in the academic performance framework workbook). Calculating an Overall Academic Performance Rating Academic performance framework data are collected, scored, and aggregated based on the following steps: 1. Collect data for each metric based on internal companion guidance 2. Enter data in academic performance framework workbook 3. Verify data with charter schools 4. Score metric data based on rating criteria and cut scores 5. Take average of data scores within a metric to produce measure score 6. Multiply measure score by measure weights to produce weighted measure subscores (weights based on grade configuration and data availability) 7. Add weighted measure subscores within indicators to produce weighted indicator scores 8. Divide weighted indicator scores by indicator weights to produce indicator scores (weights based on grade configuration and data availability) 9. Add indicator scores to produce overall academic performance framework score that corresponds to a rating Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Academic Performance Framework Academic Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Indicator 1: State Accountability Measure 1(a): School Grade This measure evaluates the official letter grade assigned to all public schools as calculated by MDE. Measure Metric Fails to Meet Expectations Approaches Expectations Meets Expectations Exceeds Expectations (1a) School Letter Grade Letter Grade (A-F) F D B-C A MCSAB staff will reference the following information to evaluate this measure: Data Source Groups Subject Grade Levels MS Succeeds Report Card All All 3-8, HS Cut Score Notes: • Cut score ranges based on prior academic performance framework scoring Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Academic Performance Framework Academic Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Indicator 2: Academic Proficiency Measure 2(a): MAAP Proficiency, Overall This measure evaluates the difference in overall academic proficiency between charter schools and the geographic school district in which the school is located. Measure Metric Fails to Meet Expectations Approaches Expectations Meets Expectations Exceeds Expectations (2a) MAAP Proficiency, Overall Percent of students scoring PL4 (Proficient) or PL5 (Advanced) 20 percentage points or more below geographic district average 19 percentage points or less below geographic district average Equal to or up to 19 percentage points above geographic district average 20 percentage points or more above geographic district average MCSAB staff will reference the following information to evaluate this measure: Data Source Groups Subject Grade Levels 1. Mississippi Academic Assessment Program (MAAP) 2. MDE fall enrollment count All English Language Arts (ELA), Mathematics, Science, Algebra I, Biology I, English II, and US History 3-8, HS Cut Score Notes: • Cut scores based on an analysis of historical MAAP proficiency and growth data for three years of data (2016-17 - 2018-19) • The analysis used overall and subgroup data by grade level to examine the distribution of differences between school and geographic district or state averages, testing cut score options with the district or state average serving as the floor of the Meets Expectations category • The range of 20 percent around the district average allowed for the most differentiation between schools Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Academic Performance Framework Academic Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Indicator 2: Academic Proficiency Measure 2(b): MAAP Proficiency, Subgroup This measure evaluates the difference in subgroup academic proficiency between charter schools and the geographic school district in which the school is located. Measure Metric Fails to Meet Expectations Approaches Expectations Meets Expectations Exceeds Expectations (2b) MAAP Proficiency, Subgroup Percent of students scoring PL4 (Proficient) or PL5 (Advanced) 20 percentage points or more below geographic district average 19 percentage points or less below geographic district average Equal to or up to 19 percentage points above geographic district average 20 percentage points or more above geographic district average MCSAB staff will reference the following information to evaluate this measure: Data Source Groups Subject Grade Levels 1. Mississippi Academic Assessment Program (MAAP) 2. MDE fall enrollment count Subgroups (gender, race, poverty, special education, English learner) English Language Arts (ELA), Mathematics, Science, Algebra I, Biology I, English II, and US History 3-8, HS Cut Score Notes: • Cut scores based on an analysis of historical MAAP proficiency and growth data for three years of data (2016-17 - 2018-19) • The analysis used overall and subgroup data by grade level to examine the distribution of differences between school and geographic district or state averages, testing cut score options with the district or state average serving as the floor of the Meets Expectations category • The range of 20 percent% around the district average allowed for the most differentiation between schools Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Academic Performance Framework Academic Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Indicator 3: Academic Growth Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Academic Performance Framework Academic Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Indicator 3: Academic Growth Measure 3(a): MAAP Growth, Overall This measure evaluates the difference in overall weighted average growth percent, the growth measure for the state assessment, between charter schools and the geographic school district in which the school is located. Measure Metric Fails to Meet Expectations Approaches Expectations Meets Expectations Exceeds Expectations (3a) MAAP Growth, Overall Weighted average growth percent 20 percentage points or more below geographic district average 19 percentage points or less below geographic district average Equal to or up to 19 percentage points above geographic district average 20 percentage points or more above geographic district average MCSAB staff will reference the following information to evaluate this measure: Data Source Groups Subject Grade Levels 1. Mississippi Academic Assessment Program (MAAP) 2. MDE fall enrollment count All English Language Arts (ELA), Mathematics 3-8, HS Cut Score Notes: • Cut scores based on an analysis of historical MAAP proficiency and growth data for three years of data (2016-17 - 2018-19) • The analysis used overall and subgroup data by grade level to examine the distribution of differences between school and geographic district or state averages, testing cut score options with the district or state average serving as the floor of the Meets Expectations category • The range of 20 percent around the district average allowed for the most differentiation between schools Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Academic Performance Framework Academic Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Indicator 3: Academic Growth Measure 3(b): MAAP Growth, Subgroup Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Academic Performance Framework Academic Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Indicator 3: Academic Growth Measure 3(b): MAAP Growth, Subgroup This measure evaluates the difference in subgroup weighted average growth percent, the growth measure for the state assessment, between charter schools and the geographic school district in which the school is located. Measure Metric Fails to Meet Expectations Approaches Expectations Meets Expectations Exceeds Expectations (3a) MAAP Growth, Subgroup Weighted average growth percent 20 percentage points or more below geographic district average 19 percentage points or less below geographic district average Equal to or up to 19 percentage points above geographic district average 20 percentage points or more above geographic district average MCSAB staff will reference the following information to evaluate this measure: Data Source Groups Subject Grade Levels 1. Mississippi Academic Assessment Program (MAAP) 2. MDE fall enrollment count Subgroups (gender, race, poverty, special education, English learner) English Language Arts (ELA), Mathematics 3-8, HS Cut Score Notes: • Cut scores based on an analysis of historical MAAP proficiency and growth data for three years of data (2016-17 - 2018-19) • The analysis used overall and subgroup data by grade level to examine the distribution of differences between school and geographic district or state averages, testing cut score options with the district or state average serving as the floor of the Meets Expectations category • The range of 20 percent around the district average allowed for the most differentiation between schools Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Academic Performance Framework Academic Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Indicator 3: Academic Growth Measure 3(c): School-Selected Growth Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Academic Performance Framework Academic Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Indicator 3: Academic Growth Measure 3(c): School-Selected Growth This measure evaluates academic growth for students in the charter school, which may include grade levels not tested by the state assessment. Measure Metric Fails to Meet Expectations Approaches Expectations Meets Expectations Exceeds Expectations (3c) School-Selected Growth [School chooses one benchmark assessment and one metric] Percent of students meeting growth projection between fall and spring (option 1) 29% or less 30% to 49% 50% to 69% 70% or more Median Student Growth Percentile (SGP) (option 2) Median SGP of 44 or less Median SGP between 45 and 49 Median SGP between 50 and Median SGP of 65 or higher TBD based on agreement between MCSAB and school (option 3) TBD TBD TBD TBD Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Academic Performance Framework Academic Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. MCSAB staff will reference the following information to evaluate this measure: Cut Score Notes: • Documentation from assessments that report student growth projections (e.g., NWEA MAP and STAR) indicate a normal distribution, on average, of the percent of students who meet growth projections, which supports putting the floor for Meeting Expectations at 50 percent% • Median SGP cut scores based on review of median SGP ranges used by national authorizers • MCSAB and school may agree on different student growth targets based on assessment vendor documentation 1. NWEA MAP, STAR, or another benchmark assessment (approved by MCSAB) that reports student-level growth projects OR 2. STAR or another benchmark assessment (approved by MCSAB) that reports student-level median SGP OR 3. Another benchmark assessment (approved by MCSAB) that reports a student-level growth measure Grade Levels Reading, Mathematics KG-8 Data Source Groups Subject Grade Levels Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Academic Performance Framework Academic Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Indicator 4: Academic Gap Measure 4(a): MAAP Academic Gap This measure evaluates the difference in subgroup academic gaps between charter schools and the geographic school district in which the school is located. Measure Metric (4a) MAAP Academic Gap Academic gap between major subgroups MCSAB staff will reference the following information to evaluate this measure: Data Source Groups Subject Grade Levels 1. Mississippi Academic Assessment Program (MAAP) Subgroups (gender, race, poverty, special education, English learner) English Language Arts (ELA), Mathematics 3-8 Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Academic Performance Framework Indicator 5: Academic Readiness Academic Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Measure 5(a): Kindergarten Readiness This measure evaluates the kindergarten reading readiness of students in charter schools. Measure Metric Fails to Meet Expectations Approaches Expectations Meets Expectations Exceeds Expectations (5a) Kindergarten Readiness Average spring scale score Spring scale score between 300-487 Spring scale score between 488-674 Spring scale score between 675-774 Spring scale score between 775-900 MCSAB staff will reference the following information to evaluate this measure: Data Source Groups Subject Grade Levels 1. Kindergarten Readiness Assessment All Reading KG Cut Score Notes: • Cut score ranges based on STAR Early Literacy Achievement Standards: Early Emergent Reader (300-487), Late Emergent Reader (488-674), Transitional Reader (675-774), Probable Reader (775-900) Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Academic Performance Framework Indicator 5: Academic Readiness Academic Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Measure 5(b): 3rd Grade Reading Readiness This measure evaluates the difference in 3rd grade reading readiness between charter schools and the geographic school district in which the school is located. Measure Metric Fails to Meet Expectations Approaches Expectations Meets Expectations Exceeds Expectations (5b) 3rd Grade Reading Readiness Percent of students scoring at or above PL3 20 percentage points or more below geographic district average 19 percentage points or less below geographic district average Equal to or up to 19 percentage points above geographic district average 20 percentage points or more above geographic district average MCSAB staff will reference the following information to evaluate this measure: Data Source Groups Subject Grade Levels 1. Mississippi Academic Assessment Program (MAAP) All English Language Arts (ELA) Subscore 3rd Cut Score Notes: • PL3 and above meets requirements of Mississippi Literacy-Based Promotion Act • Cut score ranges based on the analysis of other Mississippi proficiency and growth data Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Academic Performance Framework Indicator 6: Postsecondary Readiness Academic Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Measure 6(a): Graduation Rate This measure evaluates the high school 4-year cohort graduation rate for charter schools. Measure Metric Fails to Meet Expectations Approaches Expectations Meets Expectations Exceeds Expectations (6a) Graduation Rate 4-year cohort graduation rate 69% or less 70% and 79% 80% and 89% 90% or higher MCSAB staff will reference the following information to evaluate this measure: Data Source Groups Subject Grade Levels MS Succeeds Report Card All, Subgroups HS Cut Score Notes: • Cut score ranges based on review of absolute 4-year cohort graduation rate ranges for used by regional and national authorizers Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Academic Performance Framework Indicator 6: Postsecondary Readiness Academic Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Measure 6(b): Application Rate This measure evaluates the postsecondary application rate for charter schools. Measure Metric Fails to Meet Expectations Approaches Expectations Meets Expectations Exceeds Expectations (6b) Application Rate Percent of 12th grade students applying to a postsecondary institution 49% or less 50% and 69% 70% and 89% 90% or higher MCSAB staff will reference the following information to evaluate this measure: Data Source Groups Subject Grade Levels 1. School student exit survey 2. MDE fall enrollment count All HS Cut Score Notes: • Postsecondary application rate cut score range is based on the ranges for admission and matriculation rates in NACSA's Core Performance Framework and Guidance Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Academic Performance Framework Indicator 6: Postsecondary Readiness Academic Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Measure 6(c): Admission Rate This measure evaluates the postsecondary admission rate for charter schools. Measure Metric Fails to Meet Expectations Approaches Expectations Meets Expectations Exceeds Expectations (6c) Admission Rate Percent of 12th grade students admitted to a postsecondary institution 49% or less 50% and 69% 70% and 89% 90% or higher MCSAB staff will reference the following information to evaluate this measure: Data Source Groups Subject Grade Levels 1. School student exit survey 2. MDE fall enrollment count All HS Cut Score Notes: • Postsecondary admission rate cut score range based on the ranges in NACSA's Core Performance Framework and Guidance Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Academic Performance Framework Academic Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Indicator 6: Postsecondary Readiness Measure 6(d): Matriculation Rate This measure evaluates the immediate postsecondary enrollment rate for charter schools. Measure Metric Fails to Meet Expectations Approaches Expectations Meets Expectations Exceeds Expectations (6d) Matriculation Rate Percent of graduates enrolled in postsecondary institutions in the fall following graduation 49% or less 50% and 69% 70% and 89% 90% or higher MCSAB staff will reference the following information to evaluate this measure: Data Source Groups Subject Grade Levels 1. School student exit survey OR National Student Clearinghouse (NSC) 2. MDE fall enrollment count All HS Cut Score Notes: • Immediate postsecondary enrollment rate cut score range based on the ranges in NACSA’s Core Performance Framework and Guidance Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Academic Performance Framework Academic Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Indicator 6: Postsecondary Readiness Measure 6(e): Employment Rate This measure evaluates the immediate postsecondary enrollment rate for charter schools. Measure Metric Fails to Meet Expectations Approaches Expectations Meets Expectations Exceeds Expectations (6e) Employment Rate Percent of graduates who did not enroll in postsecondary institutions employed in the fall following graduation (including military service) 49% or less 50% and 69% 70% and 89% 90% or higher MCSAB staff will reference the following information to evaluate this measure: Data Source Groups Subject Grade Levels 1. School student exit survey All HS Cut Score Notes: • Postsecondary employment rate cut score range based on ranges in NACSA's Core Performance Framework and Guidance Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Academic Performance Framework Academic Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Indicator 7: School-Specific [OPTIONAL] Measure 7(a): TBD based on agreement between MCSAB and school The school-specific indicator is optional in the academic performance framework. Charter schools may opt to use this indicator to identify and set targets for alternative measures of school performance. The school may select one or more alternative measures for the school-specific indicator. School-specific measures may include, but are not limited to, student/family satisfaction, student engagement, student social-emotional development, and school climate. The school must work with MCSAB to approve measures and targets. Measure Metric Fails to Meet Expectations Approaches Expectations Meets Expectations Exceeds Expectations 7(a) TBD based on agreement between MCSAB and school TBD based on agreement between MCSAB and school TBD TBD TBD TBD MCSAB staff will reference the following information to evaluate this measure: Data Source Groups Subject Grade Levels Data provided by school Cut Score Notes: TBD Annual Performance Framework Academic Performance Internal Companion Guidance Internal Companion Guidance_Academic Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. The Internal Companion Guidance document is intended to provide MCSAB staff and charter schools with guidance on how the components of the Academic Performance Framework will be defined and calculated to create the Annual Performance Report for each school. MCSAB staff should use this document in conjunction with the Academic Performance Framework Workbook. Contents Annual Performance Framework Academic Performance Internal Companion Guidance Internal Companion Guidance_Academic Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Geographic School District The following measures use metrics that compare charter school data with data from traditional public schools in the school district in which the school is located, or the geographic school district: • (2a) MAAP Proficiency, Overall • (2b) MAAP Proficiency, Subgroup • (3a) MAAP Growth, Overall • (3b) MAAP Growth, Subgroup • (5b) 3rd Grade Reading Readiness The geographic school district shall be composed of traditional public schools from the district in which the charter school is located that have the same school type (i.e., elementary, elementary/middle, middle, middle/high, and high schools) as the charter school. Annually, MCSAB will identify the set of traditional public schools in each charter school’s geographic school district. The set of schools in the geographic school district will be the same for a charter school for each of the measures listed above. Identify the set of traditional public schools in a charter school’s geographic school district with the following steps: 1. Use the MDE fall enrollment count data file to establish the lowest and highest grade levels offered at (1) the charter school and (2) all the traditional public schools in the school district in which the charter school is located 2. Establish the school type for the charter school and all traditional public schools in the school district using the following rules: • Elementary School: lowest grade = PK/ECE or KG and highest grade = PK/ECE, KG, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 • Elementary/Middle School: lowest grade = PK/ECE or KG and highest grade = 6, 7, or 8 • Middle School: lowest grade = 5 or 6 and highest grade = 5, 6, 7, or 8 • Middle/High School: lowest grade = 5 or 6 and highest grade = 9, 10, 11, or 12 • High School: lowest grade = 9 and highest grade = 9, 10, 11, or 12 3. Once the school type is established for the charter school, identify the traditional public schools (excluding magnet and special schools) from the district in which the charter school is located that have the same school type. Match charter schools identified as elementary/middle with both elementary and middle traditional public schools. Match charter schools identified as middle/high with both middle and high traditional public schools. Use the list of traditional public schools matched to the charter school by school type as the charter school’s geographic school district for analysis of the measures listed above. Annual Performance Framework Academic Performance Internal Companion Guidance Internal Companion Guidance_Academic Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Indicator 1: State Accountability Measure 1(a): School Grade Metric: Letter Grade (A-F) Metric Calculation Notes: • Collect charter school grade data from MS Succeeds Report Card when released by MDE • Enter charter school grade into “data – mde” tab of the Academic Framework workbook • Score charter school grade data based on rating criteria and cut scores Indicator 2: Academic Proficiency Measure 2(a): MAAP Proficiency, Overall Metric: Percent of students scoring PL4 (Proficient) or PL5 (Advanced) Metric Calculation Notes: • Collect school-level overall proficiency data from MAAP data files provided by MDE for the charter school and schools in the geographic school district with the same school type as the charter school • For each school, add the percent of students scoring PL4 (Proficient) with the percent of students scoring PL5 (Advanced) for the total percent of students scoring PL4 (Proficient) or PL5 (Advanced) for each subgroup, by subject area • Calculate an average school-level overall percent proficiency (PL4 + PL5) for schools in the geographic school district with the same school type as the charter school, by subject area • Enter the charter school overall percent proficient (PL4 + PL5) and geographic school district average overall percent proficient (PL4 + PL5) into “data–mde” tab of the Academic Framework workbook, by subject area • Subtract the charter school’s school-level overall percent proficient (PL4 + PL5) from geographic school district overall average percent proficient (PL4 + PL5), by subject area • Score difference between charter school and geographic district average based on rating criteria and cut scores Annual Performance Framework Academic Performance Internal Companion Guidance Internal Companion Guidance_Academic Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Measure 2(b): MAAP Proficiency, Subgroup Metric: Percent of students scoring PL4 (Proficient) or PL5 (Advanced) Metric Calculation Notes: • Collect school-level subgroup proficiency data from MAAP data files provided by MDE for the charter school and schools in the geographic school district with the same school type as the charter school o Note: only subgroups reported in MAAP data files by MDE are eligible for scoring • For each school, add the percent of students scoring PL4 (Proficient) with the percent of students scoring PL5 (Advanced) for the total percent of students scoring PL4 (Proficient) or PL5 (Advanced) for each subgroup, by subject area • Calculate average school-level subgroup percent proficient (PL4 + PL5) for each reported subgroup for schools in the geographic school district with the same school type as the charter school, by subject area • Enter the charter school subgroup percent proficient (PL4 + PL5) and geographic school district average subgroup percent proficient (PL4 + PL5) for each subgroup into “data– mde” tab of the Academic Framework workbook, by subject area • Subtract the charter school’s school-level subgroup percent proficient (PL4 + PL5) from geographic school district overall average percent proficient (PL4 + PL5) for each subgroup, by subject area • Score difference between charter school and geographic district average for each subgroup based on rating criteria and cut scores Indicator 3: Academic Growth Measure 3(a): MAAP Growth, Overall Metric: Weighted average growth percent Metric Calculation Notes: • Collect school-level overall weighted average growth percent data from MAAP data files provided by MDE for the charter school and schools in the geographic school district with the same school type as the charter school • Calculate an average school-level weighted average growth percent for schools in the geographic school district with the same school type as the charter school, by subject area • Enter the charter school overall weighted average growth percent and geographic school district average weighted average growth percent into “data–mde” tab of the Academic Framework workbook, by subject area Annual Performance Framework Academic Performance Internal Companion Guidance Internal Companion Guidance_Academic Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. • Subtract the charter school’s school-level overall weighted average growth percent from geographic school district overall average weighted average growth percent, by subject area • Score difference between charter school and geographic district average based on rating criteria and cut scores Measure 3(b): MAAP Growth, Subgroup Metric: Weighted average growth percent Metric Calculation Notes: • Collect school-level subgroup weighted average growth percent data from MAAP data files provided by MDE for the charter school and schools in the geographic school district with the same school type as the charter school o Note: only subgroups reported in MAAP data files by MDE are eligible for scoring • Calculate average school-level subgroup weighted average growth percent for each reported subgroup for schools in the geographic school district with the same school type as the charter school, by subject area • Enter the charter school subgroup weighted average growth percent and geographic school district average subgroup weighted average growth percent for each subgroup into “data–mde” tab of the Academic Framework workbook, by subject area • Subtract the charter school’s school-level subgroup weighted average growth percent from geographic school district overall average weighted average growth percent for each subgroup, by subject area • Score difference between charter school and geographic district average for each subgroup based on rating criteria and cut scores Measure 3(c): School-Selected Growth Metric: Percent of students meeting growth projection between fall and spring (option 1) Metric Calculation Notes: • If the metric is selected, collect from the charter school the percent of students making growth projection, by subject area and grade level, on NWEA MAP, STAR, or another MCSAB-approved benchmark assessment that reports student-level growth projections • All students taking both fall and spring benchmark assessment are eligible and should be included in metric calculation • Enter the charter school percent of students making growth projections, by subject area and grade level, into “data–mde” tab of the Academic Framework workbook • Score percent of students making growth projection data, by subject area and grade level, Annual Performance Framework Academic Performance Internal Companion Guidance Internal Companion Guidance_Academic Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. based on rating criteria and cut scores Metric: Median Student Growth Percentile (SGP) (option 2) Metric Calculation Notes: • If the metric is selected, collect from the charter school the median student growth percentile (SGP), by subject area and grade level, on STAR or another MCSAB-approved benchmark assessment that reports student-level median SGP • All students taking both fall and spring benchmark assessment are eligible and should be included in metric calculation • Enter the charter school median SGP, by subject area and grade level, into “data – benchmark assessment” tab of the Academic Framework workbook • Score median SGP data, by subject area and grade level, based on rating criteria and cut scores Metric: TBD based on agreement between MCSAB and school (option 3) Metric Calculation Notes: • If charter school and MCSAB agree on another benchmark assessment or another metric based on the assessments listed (e.g., NWEA MAP and STAR), they will work together to identify an appropriate student growth metric and targets based on documentation from assessment vendor Indicator 4: Academic Gap Measure 4(a): MAAP Academic Gap Metric: Academic gap between major subgroups Metric Calculation Notes: • If charter school LEAs are not included in MDE academic gap data file, do not include measure in performance framework • Currently, the MDE academic gap data files only include gaps in academic proficiency. Use the available data. If new MDE gap data files include gaps in both academic proficiency and academic growth, report both. • Collect charter school LEA academic gap data from academic gap data files provided by MDE Annual Performance Framework Academic Performance Internal Companion Guidance Internal Companion Guidance_Academic Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. • Include only subgroups reported by MDE in academic gap data file (schools do not need to request a waiver for subgroups with low N counts) • Collect LEA-level academic gap data from academic gap data files provided by MDE for the charter school LEA o Note: MDE academic gap data files report data at the LEA-level, not the school- level Indicator 5: Academic Readiness Measure 5(a): Kindergarten Readiness Metric: Average spring scale score Metric Calculation Notes: • Collect charter school average spring scale score from Kindergarten Readiness Assessment from MDE report • Enter the charter school average spring scale score data into the “data—kg readiness” tab of the Academic Framework workbook • Score average spring scale score based on rating criteria and cut scores Measure 5(b): 3rd Grade Reading Readiness Metric: Percent of students scoring at or above PL3 Metric Calculation Notes: • Collect 3rd grade percent scoring PL3 or higher data from MAAP ELA subscore report provided by MDE for the charter school and schools in the geographic school district with the same school type as the charter school o Note: percent scoring PL3 or higher may be called “Met LBPA Requirements” in MDE report Annual Performance Framework Academic Performance Internal Companion Guidance Internal Companion Guidance_Academic Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. • Calculate an average 3rd grade percent scoring PL3 or higher for schools in the geographic school district with the same school type as the charter school • Enter the charter school 3rd grade percent scoring PL3 or higher and geographic school district average 3rd grade percent scoring PL3 or higher into “data–mde” tab of the Academic Framework workbook • Subtract the charter school’s 3rd grade percent scoring PL3 or higher from geographic school district 3rd grade percent scoring PL3 or higher • Score difference between charter school and geographic district average based on rating criteria and cut scores Indicator 6: Postsecondary Readiness Measure 6(a): Graduation Rate Metric: 4-year cohort graduation rate Metric Calculation Notes: • Collect charter school 4-year cohort graduation rate data from MS Succeeds Report Card data files provided by MDE • Enter the charter school 4-year cohort graduation rate data into the “data–high school” tab of the Academic Framework workbook • Score 4-year cohort graduation rate based on rating criteria and cut scores Measure 6(b): Application Rate Metric: Percent of 12th grade students applying to a postsecondary institution Metric Calculation Notes: • Collect from the charter school the number of 12th grade students who submitted postsecondary applications before high school graduation • Collect fall count enrollment numbers for 12th grade students at charter school from the MDE fall enrollment count data file • Divide the number of 12th grade students who applied to a postsecondary institution by the 12th grade fall enrollment numbers • Enter the charter school application rate data into the “data–high school” tab of the Academic Framework workbook • Score application rate based on rating criteria and cut scores Measure 6(c): Admission Rate Annual Performance Framework Academic Performance Internal Companion Guidance Internal Companion Guidance_Academic Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Metric: Percent of 12th grade students admitted to a postsecondary institution Metric Calculation Notes: • Collect from the charter school the number of 12th grade students who were admitted to a postsecondary institution before high school graduation • Collect fall count enrollment numbers for 12th grade students at charter school from the MDE fall enrollment count data file • Divide the number of 12th grade students who were admitted to a postsecondary institution by the 12th grade fall enrollment numbers • Enter the charter school admission rate data into the “data–high school” tab of the Academic Framework workbook • Score admission rate based on rating criteria and cut scores Measure 6(d): Matriculation Rate Metric: Percent of graduates enrolled in postsecondary institutions in the fall following high school graduation Metric Calculation Notes: • Collect from the charter school the number of high school graduates who immediately enrolled in a postsecondary institution in the fall following high school graduation o Note: charter school may have access to NSC StudentTracker data which provides information about college enrollment across the country • Collect charter school number of high school graduates from MS Succeeds Report Card data files provided by MDE • Divide the number of graduates who immediately enrolled in a postsecondary institution by the total number of high school graduates • Enter the charter school matriculation rate data into the “data–high school” tab of the Academic Framework workbook • Score matriculation rate based on rating criteria and cut scores Measure 6(e): Employment Rate Metric: Percent of graduates who did not enroll in postsecondary institutions employed in the fall following high school graduation (including military service) Metric Calculation Notes: Annual Performance Framework Academic Performance Internal Companion Guidance Internal Companion Guidance_Academic Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. • Collect from the charter school the number of graduates who do not plan to enroll in a postsecondary institution in the fall following graduation • Collect from the charter school the number of graduates who plan to work or join the military by the fall following graduation • Divide the number of graduates who plan to work or join the military by the number of graduates who do not plan to enroll in a postsecondary institution • Enter the charter school employment rate data into the “data–high school” tab of the Academic Framework workbook • Score employment rate based on rating criteria and cut scores Indicator 7: School-Specific [OPTIONAL] Measure 7(a): TBD Metric: TBD based on agreement between MCSAB and school Metric Calculation Notes: • If charter school and MCSAB agree to include a school-specific measure, they will work together to identify appropriate data collection and measurement strategies, as well as metrics and targets Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Financial Performance Framework Financial Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Financial Performance Framework The MCSAB financial performance framework indicators, measures, metrics, and cut scores are based on alignment with the Mississippi Charter School Law and informed by national best practices established in the National Association of Charter School Authorizer’s (NACSA) Core Performance Framework and Guidance,1 which was created from a review of model authorizer practices, charter school lender guidance, professional judgment, and practices used by other nonprofit and governmental entities. The indicators, measures, and metrics have been implemented by a wide range of regional and national authorizers, including the Alabama Public Charter School Commission, the Tennessee Department of Education, the Indiana Charter School Board, the Georgia State Charter School Commission, the Washington State Charter School Commission, the Colorado Charter School Institute, the D.C. Public Charter School Board, and the New Jersey Department of Education, among others. The financial performance framework is comprised of the following indicators and measures: 1. Short-term Financial Health (Current Year) a. Current Ratio b. Unrestricted Days Cash c. Current-year Enrollment Variance d. Debt (or lease) Default 2. Long-term Financial Health (Multiple Years) a. Debt-to-Asset Ratio b. Total Margin c. Cash Flow 3. Financial Management and Oversight a. MCSAB and MDE Financial Reporting and Compliance Requirements b. Annual Financial Audit/Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) Requirements 1 <www.qualitycharters.org> Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Financial Performance Framework Financial Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Measures The financial performance framework includes a combination of compliance measures and performance measures: • Compliance measures evaluate if a school is meeting legal and contractual obligations • Performance measures evaluate if a school is meeting a target Ratings The financial performance framework includes a rubric with rating criteria and cut scores for each metric that indicate the measure performance targets associated with three ratings: 1. Meets Expectations 2. Approaches Expectations 3. Fails to Meet Expectations Data The financial performance framework relies primarily on data collected from the independent annual financial audit submitted by schools. Audit data is often dated by the time it is submitted to the authorizer and may not provide a complete view of a school’s financial health. MCSAB will use the audit data to diagnose immediate, initial financial concerns and may follow up directly with schools to clarify or receive updated financial information before calculating an overall financial performance rating, if there are concerns. Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Financial Performance Framework Financial Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Calculating an Overall Financial Performance Rating MCSAB will exercise a high degree of professional judgment to evaluate data, assign ratings, and assess the overall financial health of a school. The methodology described below serves as a tool to assist MCSAB in monitoring and decision-making and is meant to complement, not replace, the critical role of professional judgment in determining overall financial performance. Financial performance framework data are collected, scored, and aggregated based on the following steps: 1. Collect data for each measure based on internal companion guidance 2. Enter data in the financial performance framework workbook 3. Verify data with charter schools, including receiving up-to-date financial information upon request 4. Score measure data based on rating criteria and cut scores 5. Take average of data scores within a measure to produce indicator subscore 6. Take average of indicator subscores to produce an indicator score 7. Average indicator scores to produce overall financial performance framework score that corresponds to a rating Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Financial Performance Framework Indicator 1: Short-term Financial Health (Current Year) Financial Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Measure 1(a): Current Ratio This measure evaluates whether a school has enough resources to meet short-term financial obligations, or those due within one year. Measure Measure Type Metric Target Differentiation Fails to Meet Expectations Approaches Expectations Meets Expectations Current Ratio Performance Ratio of current assets and current liabilities All Years Less than or equal to 0.9 Between 0.9 and 1.0 or equal to 1.0 or Between 1.0 and 1.1 and one-year trend is negative Greater than or equal to 1.1 or Between 1.0 and 1.1 and one-year trend is positive MCSAB staff will reference the following data source(s) and calculation method to evaluate this measure: Data Source Metric Calculation 1. Audited Statement of Financial Position Current Ratio = Total Current Assets/Total Current Liabilities (Positive Trend = Increase from prior year current ratio) (Negative Trend = Decrease from prior year current ratio) Cut Score Notes: Common industry standard sets a minimum of 1.0. A positive trend greater than 1.0 suggests increasing financial health, therefore NACSA sets greater than or equal to 1.1 as a target that also meets expectations. Common standards suggest a ratio less than or equal to 0.9 indicates a serious financial health risk.2 2 National Association of Charter School Authorizers. Core Financial Performance Framework and Guidance. <www.qualitycharters.org> Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Financial Performance Framework Indicator 1: Short-term Financial Health (Current Year) Financial Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Measure 1(b): Unrestricted Days Cash This measure evaluates the number of days a school can continue to pay its operating expenses, given the amount of cash available. Measure Measure Type Metric Target Differentiation Fails to Meet Expectations Approaches Expectations Meets Expectations Between 15-30 days cash Unrestricted Days Cash Performance Ratio of unrestricted cash and total expenses Year 1 and Year 2 Less than or equal to 15 days cash or Between 30-60 days cash and one-year trend is negative Greater than or equal to 30 days cash Between 15-30 days cash Greater than or equal to 60 days cash Year 3+ Less than or equal to 15 days cash or Between 30-60 days cash and one-year trend is negative or between 30-60 days cash and one-year trend is positive MCSAB staff will reference the following data source(s) and calculation method to evaluate this measure: Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Financial Performance Framework Financial Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Data Source Metric Calculation 1. Audited Statement of Financial Position and Audited Statement of Activities Unrestricted Days Cash = Unrestricted Cash/([Total Expenses - Depreciation Expense] /365) (Depreciation expense is removed from the total expenses denominator because it is not a cash expense.) Cut Score Notes: Common industry standard is at least 30 days cash for operating expenses. NACSA suggests a 60-day cut score for meeting expectations because charter school cash flow can often times be irregular. Schools in Year 3 of operation and beyond can also meet expectations by showing an increasing cash balance from earlier years and having enough cash to pay at least 30 days cash, as they are considered financially stable and show positive trending. With fewer than 15 days cash, a school is at high risk for immediate financial challenges.3 3 National Association of Charter School Authorizers. Core Financial Performance Framework and Guidance. <www.qualitycharters.org> Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Financial Performance Framework Financial Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Indicator 1: Short-term Financial Health (Current Year) Measure 1(c): Current-year Enrollment Variance This measure evaluates how well a school is meeting its board-approved, budgeted enrollment targets. Because enrollment numbers primarily dictate revenue, this measure helps an authorizer understand if the school can generate enough revenue to fund operations. Measure Measure Type Metric Target Differentiation Fails to Meet Expectations Approaches Expectations Meets Expectations Current-year Enrollment Variance Performance Ratio of actual enrollment compared to projected enrollment in the board- approved budget All Years Actual enrollment is less than or equal to 85% of budgeted enrollment in the current year Actual enrollment is 86%-94% of budgeted enrollment in the current year Actual enrollment is equal to or greater than 95% of budgeted enrollment in the current year4 MCSAB staff will reference the following data source(s) and calculation method to evaluate this measure: 4 A charter school shall not enroll more than 120% of the total number of students that it is authorized to enroll pursuant to the Charter School’s Enrollment Projection Table in the Charter Contract without an approved amendment . MCSAB Charter School Contract (2.6.2) Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Financial Performance Framework 5 National Association of Charter School Authorizers. Core Financial Performance Framework and Guidance. <www.qualitycharters.org> Financial Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Data Source Metric Calculation 1. July 31 charter school board-approved enrollment budget for current year 2. Actual enrollment as of October 1 via MSIS submission Current-year Enrollment Variance = Actual enrollment as of October 1/Projected Enrollment in July 31 charter school board- approved budget Cut Score Notes: A school may be at significant risk if the enrollment variance is less than 85 percent, which indicates a large gap in revenue that the school will no longer receive for operating expenses. If enrollment variance is equal to or greater than 95 percent, schools will generally be able to meet expenses and may not be at significant risk.5 Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Financial Performance Framework 6 National Association of Charter School Authorizers. Core Financial Performance Framework and Guidance. <www.qualitycharters.org> Financial Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Indicator 1: Short-term Financial Health (Current Year) Measure 1(d): Debt (or lease) Default This measure evaluates whether a school is paying its debt obligations in a timely manner, or if the school is out of compliance with requirements in its loan covenants with lenders. Default typically occurs when a school does not make minimum payments on debt. Measure Measure Type Metric Target Differentiation Fails to Meet Expectations Approaches Expectations Meets Expectations Debt (or lease) Default Performance Compliance with loan covenants and debt service payments All Years School is in default of loan covenant(s) and/or is delinquent with debt service payments School is in default of loan covenant but has worked with lenders to restructure debt service payments School is not in default of loan covenant(s) and/or is not delinquent with debt service payments MCSAB staff will reference the following data source(s) and calculation method to evaluate this measure: Data Source Metric Calculation 1. Notes to the audited Financial Statements Review notes to the audited Financial Statement to determine if school is/is not in default of loan covenant(s) and /or is/is not delinquent with debt service payments. Cut Score Notes: Missed payments or non-compliance with the terms of loan agreements may indicate financial distress.6 Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Financial Performance Framework Indicator 2: Long-term Financial Health (Sustainability Over Multiple Years) 7 National Association of Charter School Authorizers. Core Financial Performance Framework and Guidance. <www.qualitycharters.org> Financial Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Measure 2(a): Debt-to-Asset Ratio This measure evaluates whether a school is maintaining a healthy balance between assets and liabilities over time. Measure Measure Type Metric Target Differentiation Fails to Meet Expectations Approaches Expectations Meets Expectations Debt-to-Asset Ratio Performance Ratio of total liabilities and total assets All Years Greater than 1.0 Between 0.9 and 1.0 Less than 0.9 MCSAB staff will reference the following data source(s) and calculation method to evaluate this measure: Data Source Metric Calculation 1. Audited Statement of Financial Position Debt to Asset Ratio = Total Liabilities/Total Assets Cut Score Notes: Common industry standard is a debt to asset ratio that is greater than 1.0. It could indicate potential long-term financial challenges, as the school has more liabilities than assets. A ratio less than 0.9 generally indicates stronger financial health.7 Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Financial Performance Framework Indicator 2: Long-term Financial Health (Sustainability Over Multiple Years) Financial Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Measure 2(b): Total Margin This measure evaluates whether a school is managing costs appropriately within its available resources for the current year as well as over a three-year time period. Measure Measure Type Metric Target Differentiation Fails to Meet Expectations Approaches Expectations Meets Expectations Total Margin Performance Ratio of net income and total revenues Year 1 and Year 2 Current Year Total Margin is negative N/A Current Year Total Margin is positive (or greater than 0) Year 3+ 3-Year Total Margin is less than or equal to - 1.5% or Current Year Total Margin is less than -10% 3-Year Total Margin is greater than - 1.5 percent, but trend does not “Meet Expectations” 3-Year Total Margin is positive (or greater than 0) and Current Year Total Margin is positive or 3-Year Total Margin is greater than -1.5%, the trend is positive for the last two years, and the Current Year Total Margin is positive Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Financial Performance Framework Financial Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. MCSAB staff will reference the following data source(s) and calculation method to evaluate this measure: Data Source Metric Calculation 1. For Year 1 and Year 2 calculations: Audited Statement of Financial Position 2. For Year 3+ calculations: Three years of Audited Statements of Financial Position (Year 3 = most recent year) (Year 1 = earliest year of operation) Current Year Total Margin = Current Year Net Income/Current Year Total Revenue Cumulative 3-year Total Margin: Total Three-Year Net Income/Total Three-Year Revenues Cut Score Notes: Common industry standard is that total margin is positive. NACSA suggests cut scores should be flexible over a three-year time frame, in the event schools operate at a deficit for a certain period of time to accommodate a large expense. The cut scores require a positive total margin in the most recent year to meet expectations. A school may be at financial risk if a margin in any year is less than -10 percent or a cumulative three-year total margin is less than or equal to -1.5 percent.8 8 National Association of Charter School Authorizers. Core Financial Performance Framework and Guidance. <www.qualitycharters.org Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Financial Performance Framework Financial Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Indicator 2: Long-term Financial Health (Sustainability Over Multiple Years) Measure 2(c): Cash Flow This measure evaluates cash inflows and outflows related to a school's main operational activities for the current year as well as over multiple years. This measure requires at least two years of data to calculate. Measure Measure Type Metric Target Differentiation Fails to Meet Expectations Approaches Expectations Meets Expectations Cash Flow Performance Trend in cash balance from year to year Year 1 and Year 2 One-Year Cash Flow, or Total Cash Balance, is negative N/A One-Year Cash Flow, or Total Cash Balance, is positive Year 3+ Multi-Year Cumulative Cash Flow is negative Multi-Year Cumulative Cash Flow is positive, but trend does not “Meet Expectations” Multi-Year Cumulative Cash Flow is positive and Cash Flow is positive each year or Multi-Year Cumulative Cash Flow is positive, Cash Flow is positive in one of two years, and Cash Flow in the most recent year is positive Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Financial Performance Framework Financial Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. MCSAB staff will reference the following data source(s) and calculation method to evaluate this measure: Data Source Metric Calculation 1. For Year 1 and Year 2 calculations: At least two years of Audited Statement of Cash Flows 2. For Year 3+ calculations: At least three years of Audited Statement of Cash Flows (Year 3 = most recent year) (Year 1 = earliest year of operation) One-Year Cash Flow = Year 2 Total Cash – Year 1 Total Cash Multi-Year Cash Flow = Year 3 Total Cash – Year 1 Total Cash Cut Score Notes: An increasing cash balance from year to year indicates increasing financial health over time.9 9 National Association of Charter School Authorizers. Core Financial Performance Framework and Guidance. <www.qualitycharters.org> Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Financial Performance Framework Financial Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Indicator 3: Financial Management and Oversight Measure 3(a): MCSAB and MDE Financial Reporting and Compliance Requirements This measure evaluates whether a school is complying with financial reporting obligations as required by MCSAB and the Mississippi Department of Education (MDE). Measure Measure Type Metric Target Differentiation Fails to Meet Expectations Approaches Expectations Meets Expectations MCSAB and MDE Financial Reporting and Compliance Requirements Compliance N/A All Years The school failed to fulfill at least one legal and contractual obligation related to financial reporting and compliance and failures have not been remedied. N/A The school fulfilled all legal and contractual obligations related to financial reporting and compliance. Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Financial Performance Framework Financial Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. MCSAB staff will reference the following data/evidence and sources to evaluate this measure: Data Source Metric Calculation Evidence of compliance with: 1. Complete, accurate, and timely submission of quarterly financial reports due at the end of each quarter 2. Complete, accurate, and timely submission of annual board- approved budget due by July 31 annually 3. Timely submission of the annual independent financial audit due on or before September 30 annually 4. Annual independent financial audit completed by firm approved by State Auditor 5. Annual independent financial audit only completed by same auditor for three consecutive years 6. MDE Financial Data for Financial Exchange Transaction System (FETS) due mid-October annually 1. Epicenter submissions per Annual Reporting Calendar 2. MDE: Notification 3. Ongoing MCSAB Monitoring 4. Charter Contract Exhibit G-Charter School Fiscal Oversight Policy Citations: • Miss. Code Ann. § 37-28-57(1) • MCSAB Charter School Contract (3.2) Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Financial Performance Framework Financial Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Indicator 3: Financial Management and Oversight Measure 3(b): Annual Financial Audit/Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) Requirements This measure evaluates whether a school is complying with financial practice and management expectations. Measure Measure Type Metric Target Differentiation Fails to Meet Expectations Approaches Expectations Meets Expectations Annual Financial Audit/Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) Requirements Compliance N/A All Years The school failed to fulfill at least one legal and contractual obligation related to financial management and oversight and failures have not been remedied. The school failed to fulfill at least one legal or contractual obligation, but the school is actively working toward compliance. The school fulfilled all legal and contractual obligations related to financial management and oversight. Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Financial Performance Framework Financial Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. MCSAB staff will reference the following data/evidence and sources to evaluate this measure: Data Source Metric Calculation Evidence of compliance with: 1. An unqualified audit opinion 2. An audit without significant findings, recurring findings, material weaknesses, or significant internal control weaknesses 3. An audit that does not include a going concern disclosure in the audit notes Primary Source: 1. Annual independent financial audit Secondary Source: 1. Financial Practices Self-Assessment Citations: • Miss Code Ann. § 37-28-57(1) • MCSAB Charter School Contract (3.2) Annual Performance Framework Financial Performance Internal Companion Guidance Internal Companion Guidance_Financial Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant The Internal Companion Guidance document is intended to provide MCSAB staff and charter schools with guidance on how the components of the Financial Performance Framework will be defined and calculated to create the Annual Performance Report for each school. MCSAB staff should use this document in conjunction with the Financial Performance Framework Workbook. Contents Measure 3(b): Annual Financial Audit/Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) Annual Performance Framework Financial Performance Internal Companion Guidance Internal Companion Guidance_Financial Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant Indicator 1: Short-term Financial Health (Current Year) Measure 1(a): Current Ratio Metric: Ratio of current assets and current liabilities This measure evaluates whether a school has enough resources to meet short-term financial obligations, or those due within one year. Metric Calculation: Current Ratio = Total Current Assets/Total Current Liabilities (Positive Trend = Increase from prior year current ratio) (Negative Trend = Decrease from prior year current ratio) Metric Calculation Notes: • Collect "Total Current Assets" data from Statement of Financial Position in audit • Collect "Total Current Liabilities" data from Statement of Financial Position in audit • Enter data into “current ratio” tab of the Financial Performance Framework Workbook • Score based on rating criteria and cut scores Measure 1(b): Unrestricted Days Cash Metric: Ratio of unrestricted cash and total expenses This measure evaluates the number of days a school can continue to pay its operating expenses, given the amount of cash available. Metric Calculation: Unrestricted Days Cash = Unrestricted Cash/([Total Expenses - Depreciation Expense] /365) (Depreciation expense is removed from the total expenses denominator because it is not a cash expense.) Metric Calculation Notes: • Collect "Cash" data from Statement of Financial Position in audit if not restricted • Collect "Total Expenses" from Statement of Activities in audit • Collect "Depreciation" from Statement of Cash Flows in audit • Enter data into “unrestricted days cash” tab of the Financial Performance Framework Workbook Annual Performance Framework Financial Performance Internal Companion Guidance • Score based on rating criteria and cut scores Internal Companion Guidance_Financial Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant Measure 1(c): Current-year Enrollment Variance Metric: Ratio of actual enrollment compared to projected enrollment in the board- approved budget This measure evaluates how well a school is meeting its board-approved, budgeted enrollment targets. Because enrollment numbers primarily dictate revenue, this measure helps an authorizer understand if the school can generate enough revenue to fund operations. Metric Calculation: Current-year Enrollment Variance = Actual enrollment as of October 1/Projected Enrollment in July 31 charter school board-approved budget Metric Calculation Notes: • Collect actual enrollment count from official Fall October 1 enrollment count in MSIS • Collect projected enrollment number from July 31 charter school board-approved budget • Enter data into “enrollment variance” tab of the Financial Performance Framework Workbook • Score based on rating criteria and cut scores Measure 1(d): Debt (or lease) Default Metric: Compliance with loan covenants and debt service payments This measure evaluates whether a school is paying its debt obligations in a timely manner, or if the school is out of compliance with requirements in its loan covenants with lenders. Default typically occurs when a school does not make minimum payments on debt. Metric Calculation: Review notes to the audited Financial Statement to determine if school is/is not in default of loan covenant(s) and /or is/is not delinquent with debt service payments. Metric Calculation Notes: • Review Notes to Financial Statements in audit for reference to debt, default, missed payments, etc. • The absence of a finding means a school is in compliance with this measure • Enter data into “debt default” tab of the Financial Performance Framework Workbook Annual Performance Framework Financial Performance Internal Companion Guidance • Score based on rating criteria and cut scores Internal Companion Guidance_Financial Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant Indicator 2: Long-term Financial Health (Sustainability Over Multiple Years) Measure 2(a): Debt-to-Asset Ratio Metric: Ratio of total liabilities and total assets This measure evaluates whether a school is maintaining a healthy balance between assets and liabilities over time. Metric Calculation: Debt to Asset Ratio = Total Liabilities/Total Assets Metric Calculation Notes: • Collect "Total Liabilities" data from Statement of Financial Position in audit • If a school has long-term liabilities, it will be included in "Total Liabilities" • Collect "Total Assets" from Statement of Financial Position in audit • Do not use “Net Assets" • Enter data into “debt to asset ratio” tab of the Financial Performance Framework Workbook • Score based on rating criteria and cut scores Measure 2(b): Total Margin Metric: Ratio of net income and total revenues This measure evaluates whether a school is managing costs appropriately within its available resources for the current year as well as over a three-year time period. Metric Calculation: Current Year Total Margin = Current Year Net Income/Current Year Total Revenue Cumulative 3-year Total Margin = Total Three-Year Net Income/Total Three-Year Revenues Metric Calculation Notes: • Collect "Change in Net Assets" from Statement of Activities in audit • Collect "Total Revenue" from Statement of Activities in audit • Enter data into “total margin” tab of the Financial Performance Framework Workbook • Score based on rating criteria and cut scores Annual Performance Framework Financial Performance Internal Companion Guidance Internal Companion Guidance_Financial Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant Measure 2(c): Cash Flow Metric: Trend in cash balance from year to year This measure evaluates cash inflows and outflows related to a school's main operational activities for the current year as well as over multiple years. Metric Calculation: One-Year Cash Flow = Year 2 Total Cash – Year 1 Total Cash Multi-Year Cash Flow = Year 3 Total Cash – Year 1 Total Cash (Year 3 = most recent year) (Year 1 = earliest year of operation) Metric Calculation Notes: • This measure requires at least two years of data to calculate • Collect "Cash, End of Year" from Statement of Cash Flows in audit • Enter data into “cash flow” tab of the Financial Performance Framework Workbook • To calculate One-Year Cash Flow, subtract Year 1 Total Cash Balance from Year 2 Total Cash Balance. • To calculate Multi-Year Cash Flow, subtract the most recent year Cash Flow from Year 1 Cash Flow. • Score based on rating criteria and cut scores Indicator 3: Financial Management and Oversight Measure 3(a): MCSAB and MDE Financial Reporting and Compliance Requirements Measure Type: Compliance This measure evaluates whether a school is complying with financial reporting and compliance obligations as required by MCSAB and the Mississippi Department of Education (MDE). Reference the following data/evidence and sources to evaluate this measure: Data/Evidence Source(s) Evidence of compliance with: 1. Complete, accurate, and timely submission of quarterly financial reports due at the end of each quarter 1. Epicenter submissions per Annual Reporting Calendar 2. MDE: Notification 3. Ongoing MCSAB Monitoring Annual Performance Framework Financial Performance Internal Companion Guidance Internal Companion Guidance_Financial Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant 2. Complete, accurate, and timely submission of annual board-approved budget due by July 31 annually 3. Timely submission of the annual independent financial audit due on or before September 30 annually 4. Annual independent financial audit completed by firm approved by State Auditor 5. Annual independent financial audit only completed by same auditor for three consecutive years 6. MDE Financial Data for Financial Exchange Transaction System (FETS) due mid-October annually 4. Charter Contract Exhibit G- Charter School Fiscal Oversight Policy Measure Notes: • Consider interventions issued, authorizer notes, remediation status, or return to good standing notices (as applicable) when determining compliance • Enter rating in the “Measure Score/Subscore” column of the “financial management & oversight” tab of the Financial Performance Framework Workbook based on rating criteria Measure 3(b): Annual Financial Audit/Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) Requirements Measure Type: Compliance This measure evaluates whether a school is complying with financial practice and management expectations. Reference the following data/evidence and sources to evaluate this measure: Data/Evidence Source(s) Evidence of compliance with: 1. An unqualified audit opinion 2. An audit devoid of significant findings and conditions, material weaknesses, or significant internal control weaknesses 3. An audit that does not include a going concern disclosure in the notes or an explanatory paragraph within the audit report Primary Source: 1. Annual independent financial audit Secondary Source: 1. Financial Practices Self- Assessment Measure Notes: • A summary of findings is often located in the Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs at the end of a typical audit • Consider interventions issued, authorizer notes, remediation status, or return to good Annual Performance Framework Financial Performance Internal Companion Guidance Internal Companion Guidance_Financial Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant • standing notices (as applicable) when determining compliance • Enter rating in the “Measure Score/Subscore” column of the “financial management & oversight” tab of the Financial Performance Framework Workbook based on rating criteria Audit Opinion Notes: • The audit opinion provides the professional opinion of the auditor as to whether the financial statements, as provided by the school, fairly represent the financial position of the school • Auditors provide one of four opinions: o Unqualified, also known as “unmodified,” means the auditor found no significant issues and believes the financial statements accurately reflect the organization’s financial position o Qualified, also known as “modified,” means the auditor has found an error or misstatement that made a significant difference to the financial statements; however, that error does not indicate a wider organizational problem o Adverse means that the auditor believes the financial statements do not accurately represent the financial position of the organization because of large or widespread problems in the accounting process o Disclaimed means that the auditor did not have enough information to come to an opinion about the accuracy of the financial statements Material Findings Notes: • The auditor will assess the adequacy of the school’s internal controls and will make note of “material weaknesses” or “significant deficiencies” or “recurring findings” • A material weakness is a lapse in internal controls that can jeopardize the accuracy of the financial statements because a control does not allow employees to detect, prevent, or correct an error, leading to the possible misstatement of financial information • A significant deficiency is a lapse in internal controls that, while important and needing corrective action, does not rise to the level of a material weakness • If a school had a material finding in a prior year that has not been corrected, an auditor will note a “recurring” or “unresolved prior year” finding Going Concern Notes: • A “going concern disclosure” is found in the audit notes and indicates an auditors’ concerns about a schools financial viability • Audits consider schools that are a “going concern” to be financially healthy enough to operate for a year1 1 National Association of Charter School Authorizers. Core Organizational Performance Framework and Guidance. Annual Performance Framework Financial Performance Internal Companion Guidance Internal Companion Guidance_Financial Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant <www.qualitycharters.org> Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Organizational Performance Framework The MCSAB organizational performance framework indicators, measures, metrics, and cut scores reflect only the minimum requirements in the Mississippi Charter School Law and the MCSAB charter school contract. Informed by national best practices as established in the National Association of Charter School Authorizer's (NACSA) Core Performance Framework and Guidance,1 the framework streamlines reporting requirements where applicable to reduce administrative burdens on schools and authorizer staff. The organizational performance framework is comprised of six indicators: 1. Educational Program Requirements 2. Enrollment and Admissions 3. Discipline 4. Special Populations 5. School Environment 6. Governance and Reporting Measures The organizational performance framework includes a combination of compliance measures and performance measures: • Compliance measures evaluate if a school is meeting legal and contractual obligations. • Performance measures evaluate if a school is meeting a target. Ratings The organizational performance framework includes a rubric with rating criteria and cut scores for each metric that indicate the measure performance targets associated with three ratings: 1. Meets Expectations 1 <www.qualitycharters.org> Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. 2. Approaches Expectations 3. Fails to Meet Expectations Data Assessing organizational performance and compliance requires the evaluation of multiple data sources throughout the course of a school year. MCSAB may collect data such as reports, statements of assurances, board documents, permits, school policies, etc. to evaluate organizational compliance. Calculating an Overall Organizational Performance Rating MCSAB will exercise a high degree of professional judgment to evaluate evidence, determine compliance, and assign ratings. The methodology described below serves as a tool to assist MCSAB in monitoring and decision-making and is meant to complement, not replace, the critical role of professional judgment in determining overall organizational performance. Organizational performance framework data are collected, scored, and aggregated based on the following steps: 1. Collect data for each measure based on internal companion guidance 2. Enter data in organizational performance framework workbook 3. Verify data with charter schools 4. Score measure data based on rating criteria and cut scores 5. Take average of data scores within a measure to produce indicator subscore 6. Take average of indicator subscores to produce an indicator score 7. Average indicator scores to produce overall organizational performance framework score that corresponds to a rating Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Indicator 1: Educational Program Requirements Measure 1(a): Essential Terms of the Charter Contract This measure evaluates a school’s implementation of the essential terms listed in its charter contract. Schools may have multiple essential terms, depending on their school design. Measure Measure Type Fails to Meet Expectations Approaches Expectations Meets Expectations Essential Terms of the Charter Contract Compliance The school failed to fully implement all essential terms as defined in the charter contract. The school fully implemented at least one essential term as defined in the charter contract. The school fully implemented all essential terms as defined in the charter contract. MCSAB staff will reference the following data/evidence and sources to evaluate this measure: Data/Evidence Source(s) Evidence of: 1. Alignment to the educational model 2. Adherence to the essential terms as listed in Exhibit C of the charter contract 1. Charter Contract Exhibit C Educational Program Requirements - Essential Terms 2. Approved Contract Amendments (as applicable) 3. Board meeting agendas, packets, reports, minutes 4. Site Visit Observation (as applicable) 5. Renewal Application (as applicable) 6. School website Citation(s): MCSAB Charter School Contract (2.5.1) Measure Notes: Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. • This measure is not intended to evaluate how well a school is performing on its essential terms.2 • A charter school may not modify the essential terms items listed in Exhibit C without an approved amendment from the Authorizer via the amendment process set forth in the Board’s Annual Reporting Calendar.3 2 National Association of Charter School Authorizers. Core Organizational Performance Framework and Guidance. <www.qualitycharters.org> 3 MCSAB Charter School Contract (2.5.1) Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Indicator 1: Educational Program Requirements Measure 1(b): Educational Program Requirements This measure evaluates if a school is complying with the specific elements of its education program that are required by law. Measure Measure Type Fails to Meet Expectations Approaches Expectations Meets Expectations Educational Program Requirements Compliance The school failed to fulfill at least one legal and contractual obligation related to educational program requirements and failures have not been remedied. The school failed to fulfill at least one legal or contractual obligation, but the school is actively working toward compliance. The school fulfilled all legal and contractual obligations related to educational program requirements. MCSAB staff will reference the following data/evidence and sources to evaluate this measure: Data/Evidence Source(s) Evidence of compliance with: 1. MS State Standards Requirements 2. Instructional Days Requirements 3. Compliance with MS Educator Code of Ethics Policy 4. Graduation and promotion requirements 5. State assessments Primary Source: 1. Signed Statement of Assurance and no verified complaints Secondary Source(s): 1. Academic Calendar 2. Charter Contract Exhibit H Employee Code of Ethics Citation(s): Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. • MCSAB Charter School Contract (4.2.3), (2.8.1), (2.5.4), (2.12.1), (2.19.1) • Miss. Code Ann. § 37-28-23(5) • Miss. Code Ann. § 37-28-15 Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Indicator 1: Educational Program Requirements Measure 1(c): Teacher and Employee Credentialing Requirements This measure evaluates if a school is complying with state requirements for teacher and administrator qualifications. Measure Measure Type Fails to Meet Expectations Approaches Expectations Meets Expectations Teacher and Employee Credentialing Requirements Compliance The school failed to fulfill at least one legal and contractual obligation related to teacher and employee credentialing requirements and failures have not been remedied. N/A The school fulfilled all legal and contractual obligations related to teacher and employee credentialing requirements. MCSAB staff will reference the following data/evidence and sources to evaluate this measure: Data/Evidence Source(s) Evidence of compliance with: 1. Appropriate qualifications and credentials for school staff Primary Source: 1. Board Member and School Staff Information Form 2. Site Visit results, if applicable Secondary Source(s): 1. Mississippi Educator Career Continuum Archive (MECCA) (for verification) Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Citation(s): • Miss. Code Ann. § 37-28-47(1)(a) • MCSAB Charter School Contract (4.2.1) Measure Notes: Charter schools must comply with applicable federal laws, rules and regulations regarding the qualification of teachers and other instructional staff. No more than twenty-five percent (25%) of teachers in a charter school may be exempt from state teacher licensure requirements. Administrators of charter schools are exempt from state administrator licensure requirements. However, teachers and administrators must have a bachelor's degree as a minimum requirement, and teachers must have demonstrated subject- matter competency. Within three (3) years of the date of a teacher’s employment by a charter school, the teacher must have, at a minimum, alternative licensure approved by the Commission on Teacher and Administrator Education, Certification and Licensure and Development.4 4 Miss. Code Ann. § 37-28-47(1)(a) Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Indicator 1: Educational Program Requirements Measure 1(d): Annual Chronic Absenteeism Rate This measure evaluates student attendance. Chronic absenteeism measures the percentage of students in a school who have missed 10 percent or more of their enrolled school days for any reason. Chronically absent students are more likely to fall behind academically and are less likely to graduate from high school.5 Measure Measure Type Fails to Meet Expectations Approaches Expectations Meets Expectations Annual Chronic Absenteeism Rate Performance Greater than or equal to 20% 19%-14% Less than or equal to 13% MCSAB staff will reference the following data/evidence and sources to evaluate this measure: Data/Evidence Source(s) 1. Annual chronic absenteeism rate by school 1. MDE Chronic Absenteeism Report (published annually) Citation(s): Miss. Code Ann. § 37-13-91; Miss. Code Ann. § 37-28-29(1)(d) Measure Notes: The Mississippi Department of Education (MDE) defines chronic absenteeism as missing 10 percent (18 days) of the school year for any reason.6 5 <https://www.mdek12.org/chronicabsenteeism> 6 <https://www.mdek12.org/chronicabsenteeism/calculation> Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Indicator 2: Enrollment and Admissions Measure 2(a): Underserved Student Enrollment Percentage Requirement This measure evaluates if a school is complying with the statutory requirement that a charter school’s underserved population must reflect 80 percent or greater of the geographic district’s underserved student population. Measure Measure Type Fails to Meet Expectations Approaches Expectations Meets Expectations Underserved Student Enrollment Percentage Requirement Compliance The school's percentages of students who qualify for free lunch and students with disabilities percentages, respectively, are less than 80% of the geographic district's underserved enrollment percentage by grade levels served. N/A The school's percentages of students who qualify for free lunch and students with disabilities percentages, respectively, are equal to or greater than 80% of the geographic district's underserved enrollment percentage by grade levels served. Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. MCSAB staff will reference the following data/evidence and sources to evaluate this measure: Data/Evidence Source(s) Evidence of compliance with: 1. Free lunch enrollment by grade levels served for geographic district and charter school 2. Students with disabilities enrollment by grade levels served for geographic district and charter school 1. MDE data request (MOU) Citation(s): • Miss. Code Ann. § 37-28-23(5) • MCSAB Charter School Contract (2.7.2) Measure Notes: Because schools that have a Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) designation may not report the free lunch status of individual students, schools (both charter and geographic district) with the CEP designation will be treated as 100 percent free lunch. Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Indicator 2: Enrollment and Admissions Measure 2(b): Enrollment and Admission Requirements This measure evaluates if a school is complying with obligations related to recruitment, lottery, enrollment, admissions, and truancy policies. Measure Measure Type Fails to Meet Expectations Approaches Expectations Meets Expectations Enrollment and Admissions Requirements Compliance The school failed to fulfill at least one legal and contractual obligation related to enrollment and admissions requirements and failures have not been remedied. N/A The school fulfilled all legal and contractual obligations related to enrollment and admissions requirements. MCSAB staff will reference the following data/evidence and sources to evaluate this measure: Data/Evidence Source(s) Evidence of compliance with: 1. Recruitment and enrollment policy, lottery policy 2. Non-discriminatory admissions* 3. Attendance laws and truancy policy Primary Source: 1. Statement of Assurance and no verified complaints Secondary Source(s): 1. Charter Contract Exhibit E-Charter School Enrollment Policies and Procedures Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Citation(s): • Miss. Code Ann. § 37-28-23 • Miss. Code Ann. § 37-28-23(3) • Miss. Code Ann. § 37-28-23(6) • Miss. Code Ann. § 37-28-23(7) • MCSAB Charter School Contract (2.7.1), (2.7.4) Measure Notes: *A finding by the Authorizer that the Charter School is operating in a discriminatory manner in its admissions practices shall be grounds for termination of the Charter Contract. The Authorizer, prior to termination of the contract, may take remedial steps short of revocation in accordance with its policies.7 The Charter Operator shall not enroll more than 120 percent of the total number of students that it is authorized to enroll pursuant to the Charter School’s Enrollment Projection Table.8 7 MCSAB Charter School Contract (2.7.4) 8 MCSAB Charter School Contract (2.6.2) Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Indicator 2: Enrollment and Admissions Measure 2(c): Re-current Enrollment Rate This measure evaluates changes in a school's enrollment from year to year. Measure Measure Type Fails to Meet Expectations Approaches Expectations Meets Expectations Re-current Enrollment Rate Performance Re-current enrollment rate decrease is greater than or equal to fifteen percent (-15%) -14% and -11% Re-current enrollment rate decrease is less than ten percent (-10%) MCSAB staff will reference the following data/evidence and sources to evaluate this measure: Data/Evidence Source(s) 1. Current Year Net Membership 2. Previous Year Net Membership 1. MDE publicly reported annual net membership data via the Superintendent's Annual Report Citation(s): • Miss. Code Ann. § 37-28-29(1)(e) Calculation Methodology: • Re-current Enrollment Rate = (Current Year Net Membership - Previous Year Net Membership)/(Previous Year Net Membership) Measure Notes: Student mobility within a school year is common, but significant decreases in student enrollment over time may indicate the school is failing to keep enrolled students, which impacts a school's budget and recruitment strategy. Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Indicator 3: Discipline Organizational Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Measure 3(a): Student Discipline Requirements This measure evaluates whether a school is complying with their code of conduct and discipline policy. Measure Measure Type Fails to Meet Expectations Approaches Expectations Meets Expectations Student Discipline Requirements Compliance The school failed to fulfill at least one legal and contractual obligation related to student discipline requirements and failures have not been remedied. N/A The school fulfilled all legal and contractual obligations related to student discipline requirements. MCSAB staff will reference the following data/evidence and sources to evaluate this measure: Data/Evidence Source(s) Evidence of compliance with: 1. Student code of conduct 2. Discipline policy Primary Source: 1. Statement of Assurance and no verified complaints Secondary Source(s): 1. Student Handbook Citation(s): Miss. Code Ann. § 37-9-14; Miss. Code Ann. § 37-11-29; MCSAB Charter School Contract (2.10) Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Indicator 3: Discipline Organizational Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Measure 3(b): In-school and Out-of-School Suspension and Expulsion Rates This measure evaluates whether a school is excessively excluding students from regular instruction. Measure Measure Type Fails to Meet Expectations Approaches Expectations Meets Expectations In-school and Out-of-school Suspension and Expulsion Rates Performance Any of the school’s rates are 2.5 or more percentage points higher than the geographic district’s rates. Any of the school’s rates are higher than the geographic district’s rates, but the higher rates are less than 2.5 percentage points higher. The school’s in- school and out-of- school suspension and expulsion rates are at or below the geographic district’s rates. MCSAB staff will reference the following data/evidence and sources to evaluate this measure: Data/Evidence Source(s) 1. In-school suspension rates for charter school and geographic district 2. Out-of-school suspension rates for charter school and geographic district 3. Expulsion rates for charter school and geographic district 1. MS Succeeds Report Card 2. MDE data request (MOU) Citation(s): Miss. Code Ann. § 37-28-29(1)(f) Calculation Methodology: Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. • Establish the geographic school district for the charter school o The geographic school district shall be composed of traditional public schools from the district in which the charter school is located that have the same school type (i.e., elementary, elementary/middle, middle, middle/high, and high schools) as the charter school • Given that publicly available MDE data for suspension and expulsion rates are masked for less than 5%, MCSAB will secure a MOU with MDE to collect charter and geographic district data annually Cut Score Notes: • Cut score ranges are based on prior precedence from previous performance framework Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Indicator 4: Special Populations Measure 4(a): Student with Disabilities Rights and Requirements This measure evaluates whether a school is complying with obligations for protecting the rights of students with disabilities. Measure Measure Type Fails to Meet Expectations Approaches Expectations Meets Expectations Students with Disabilities Rights and Requirements Compliance The school failed to fulfill at least one legal and contractual obligation related to students with disabilities rights and requirements and failures have not been remedied. The school failed to fulfill at least one legal or contractual obligation, but the school is actively working toward compliance. The school fulfilled all legal and contractual obligations related to students with disabilities rights and requirements. MCSAB staff will reference the following data/evidence and sources to evaluate this measure: Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Data/Evidence Source(s) Evidence of compliance with: 1. Identification: Effective steps are implemented to identify and refer students in need of special education services. 2. Operational Compliance: School complies with rules relating to academic program, assessments, and discipline. 3. IEPs: Appropriate staff implemented individualized education plans and section 504 plans. 4. Accessibility: Provided students and families access to school facility and high-quality educational programming consistent with legal obligations and student abilities. 1. MDE Office of Special Education Onsite Fiscal Monitoring Protocol 2. MDE Office of Special Education Policies and Procedures Monitoring Protocol 3. MDE Office of Special Education Delivery of Services Monitoring Protocol (FAPE/LRE) 4. MDE Office of Special Education Child Find—Initial Evaluation 5. MDE Office of Special Education Child Find—Re-Evaluation 6. MDE Special Education Determination Report 7. Site Visit Report Citation(s): • IDEA (20 U.S.C. §1401 et seq.) • ADA (42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq.) • Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. §794) • Miss. Code Ann. § 37-28-29(4) • Miss. Code Ann. § 37-28-43(3) • MCSAB Charter School Contract (2.19.1) Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Indicator 4: Special Populations Measure 4(b): English Learner (EL) Student Rights and Requirements This measure evaluates whether a school is complying with obligations for protecting the rights of English Learner students. Measure Measure Type Fails to Meet Expectations Approaches Expectations Meets Expectations English Learner (EL) Student Rights and Requirements Compliance The school failed to fulfill at least one legal and contractual obligation related to EL student rights and requirements and failures have not been remedied. The school failed to fulfill at least one legal or contractual obligation, but the school is actively working toward compliance. The school fulfilled all legal and contractual obligations related to EL student rights and requirements. MCSAB staff will reference the following data/evidence and sources to evaluate this measure: Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Data/Evidence Source(s) Evidence of compliance with: 1. Identification: Effective steps are implemented to identify students in need of EL services. 2. Delivery: Appropriate EL services are provided to identified EL students by appropriate staff and according to the school's policy. 3. Accommodations: EL students are provided with appropriate accommodations on assessments. 4. Exiting: EL students are exited from services according to their capacities. 5. Monitoring: Former EL students are monitored for at least two years upon exiting services. 1. MDE Office of Federal Programs and Grants Management–Fiscal Monitoring Instrument for ESSA Programs 2. Site Visit Report, if applicable Citation(s): • Title III, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) • MCSAB Charter School Contract (2.7.1) Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Indicator 5: School Environment Measure 5(a): Facilities, Health, Safety, and Transportation Requirements This measure evaluates whether a school is complying with all relevant inspections, codes, and regulations related to facilities, health, safety, and transportation. Measure Measure Type Fails to Meet Expectations Approaches Expectations Meets Expectations Facilities, Health, Safety, and Transportation Requirements Compliance The school failed to fulfill at least one legal and contractual obligation related to facilities, health, safety, and transportation requirements and failures have not been remedied. N/A The school fulfilled all legal and contractual obligations related to facilities, health, safety, and transportation requirements. MCSAB staff will reference the following data/evidence and sources to evaluate this measure: Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Data/Evidence Source(s) Evidence of compliance with: 1. Local and state fire and life safety codes 2. Public health sanitary codes 3. ADA requirements 4. Transportation plan 5. Bus safety protocols 6. Health service requirements 7. Property insurance 1. Fire Marshal Inspection 2. Facility Review (Fire Safety and Maintenance) 3. Facility Review (Cafeteria/Kitchen, Public Health) 4. Statement of Assurance and no verified complaints 5. State Department of Health Food Service Permit 6. Current certificates of insurance signed by an authorized representative of the insurer 7. Certificate of Occupancy (Epicenter) 8. MDPH Immunization Compliance Report 9. Site visit report, if applicable Citation(s): • 42 U.S.C. §12101, et seq. • MCSAB Charter School Contract (1.3.7), (2.13.1), (2.14.1), (2.25.1), (3.6) • Miss. Code Ann. § 37-28-43(5) Measure Notes: A charter school may not modify the transportation policy without approval from the Authorizer.9 Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. 9 MCSAB Charter Contract (2.14.1) Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Indicator 5: School Environment Measure 5(b): Student Records and Information Handling Requirements This measure evaluates whether a school is complying with obligations related to the management of student records and information. Measure Measure Type Fails to Meet Expectations Approaches Expectations Meets Expectations Student Records and Information Handling Requirements Compliance The school failed to fulfill at least one legal and contractual obligation related to student records and information handling requirements and failures have not been remedied. N/A The school fulfilled all legal and contractual obligations related to student records and information handling requirements. MCSAB staff will reference the following data/evidence and sources to evaluate this measure: Data/Evidence Source(s) Evidence of compliance with: 1. Public records requirements 2. Student record-keeping and records transfer requirements Primary Source: 1. Statement of Assurance and no verified complaints Secondary Source: 1. Site Visit Report, if applicable Citation(s): Miss. Code Ann. § 37-28-45(6); MCSAB Charter School Contract (2.16) Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Indicator 5: School Environment Measure 5(c): Background Check Requirements This measure evaluates whether a school is complying with fingerprint background check requirements. Measure Measure Type Fails to Meet Expectations Approaches Expectations Meets Expectations Background Check Requirements Compliance The school failed to fulfill at least one legal and contractual obligation related to background check requirements and failures have not been remedied. N/A The school fulfilled all legal and contractual obligations related to background check requirements. MCSAB staff will reference the following data/evidence and sources to evaluate this measure: Data/Evidence Source(s) Evidence of compliance with: 1. Updated background checks Primary Source: 1. Statement of Assurance and no verified complaints Secondary Source(s): 1. Site Visit Report, if applicable 2. Charter Contract Exhibit I-Criminal Background Checks Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Citation(s): • Miss. Code Ann. § 37-28-49(1) • MCSAB Charter School Contract (4.4.1) Measure Notes: • All charter school teachers and other school personnel, as well as members of the governing board and any education service provider with whom a charter school contracts, are subject to criminal history record checks and fingerprinting requirements applicable to employees of other public schools. Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Indicator 5: School Environment Measure 5(d): Employee Rights and Requirements This measure evaluates whether a school is complying with obligations related to employee rights. Measure Measure Type Fails to Meet Expectations Approaches Expectations Meets Expectations Employee Rights and Requirements Compliance The school failed to fulfill at least one legal and contractual obligation related to employee rights and requirements and failures have not been remedied. N/A The school fulfilled all legal and contractual obligations related to employee rights and requirements. MCSAB staff will reference the following data/evidence and sources to evaluate this measure: Data/Evidence Source(s) Evidence of compliance with: 1. Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) 2. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 3. Employment contracts Primary Source: 1. Statement of Assurance and no verified complaints Secondary Source(s): 1. School Employee Handbook Citation(s): MCSAB Charter School Contract (1.3.7), (2.16.2), (4.1) Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Indicator 6: Governance and Reporting Measure 6(a): School Board Governance Requirements This measure evaluates whether a school is complying with school board governance obligations. Measure Measure Type Fails to Meet Expectations Approaches Expectations Meets Expectations School Board Governance Requirements Compliance The school failed to fulfill at least one legal and contractual obligation related to governance requirements and failures have not been remedied. N/A The school fulfilled all legal and contractual obligations related to governance requirements. MCSAB staff will reference the following data/evidence and sources to evaluate this measure: Data/Evidence Source(s) Evidence of compliance with: 1. Registered non-profit status 2. Mississippi Open Meetings Act §25-41-1 3. Mississippi Public Records Act 4. Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) 5. Charter board bylaws, conflict of interest policy, and charter board composition 1. Mississippi Secretary of State Office Charities Search 2. IRS Tax Exempt Organization Search 3. Charter Board Bylaws 4. Articles of Incorporation 5. Statement of Assurance and no verified complaints 6. Charter Board Member and School Staff Information (form) 7. Charter Board packets/minutes Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Citation(s): • Miss. Code Ann. § 37-28-39(2) • Miss. Code Ann. § 25-41-1 • Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) 20 U.S.C.A § 1232(g) • MCSAB Charter School Contract (1.1.4), (2.3.1), (2.3.3), (2.3.4), (2.27.5) Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. Indicator 6: Governance and Reporting Measure 6(b): MCSAB and MDE Reporting, Training, and Meeting Requirements This measure evaluates whether a school is complying with training and meeting requirements as well as the timely submission of required documents to MCSAB or to the Mississippi Department of Education (MDE). Measure Measure Type Fails to Meet Expectations Approaches Expectations Meets Expectations MCSAB and MDE Reporting, Training, and Meeting Requirements Compliance The school failed to fulfill at least one legal and contractual obligation related to MCSAB and MDE reporting, training, and meeting requirements and failures have not been remedied. N/A The school fulfilled all legal and contractual obligations related to MCSAB and MDE reporting, training, and meeting requirements. Mississippi Charter School Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Organizational Performance Framework Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant. MCSAB staff will reference the following data/evidence and sources to evaluate this measure: Data/Evidence Source(s) Evidence of compliance with: 1. Submission of all required reports, attendance and enrollment data, test results, and other information in a timely and accurate manner as set forth by the MCSAB and MDE 2. Timely communication of deficiencies to the MCSAB 3. Attendance at required trainings and meetings by MCSAB, including meetings with MCSAB and/or MDE staff, MCSAB committee meetings, and MCSAB board meetings 1. Epicenter dashboard submissions per Annual Reporting Calendar Citation(s): MCSAB Charter School Contract (2.1.1), (2.17.1), (2.24.1), (2.24.2), (2.3.5) Measure Notes: Schools have a five-day grace period after the submission deadline to comply before a reporting submission is deemed late. Schools are notified in writing should additional documentation be required throughout the year. Submission deadlines for additional documentation is generally ten days after notification, with the same grace period as all other submissions. Annual Performance Framework Organizational Performance Internal Companion Guidance Internal Companion Guidance_Organizational Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant The Internal Companion Guidance document is intended to provide MCSAB staff and charter schools with guidance on how the components of the Organizational Performance Framework will be defined and calculated to create the Annual Performance Report for each school. MCSAB staff should use this document in conjunction with the Organizational Performance Framework Workbook. Contents Annual Performance Framework Organizational Performance Internal Companion Guidance Internal Companion Guidance_Organizational Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant Indicator 1: Education Program Requirements Measure 1(a): Essential Terms of the Charter Contract Measure Type: Compliance This measure evaluates a school’s implementation of the essential terms listed in its charter contract. Schools may have multiple essential terms, depending on their school design. Reference the following data/evidence and sources to evaluate this measure: Data/Evidence Source(s) Evidence of: 1. Alignment to the educational model 2. Adherence to the essential terms as listed in Exhibit C of the charter contract 1. Charter Contract Exhibit C Educational Program Requirements - Essential Terms 2. Approved Contract Amendments (as applicable) 3. Board meeting agendas, packets, reports, minutes 4. Site Visit Observation (as applicable) 5. Renewal Application (as applicable) 6. School website Measure Notes: • Consider interventions issued, authorizer notes, remediation status, or return to good standing notices (as applicable) when determining compliance • Enter rating in the “Measure Score/Subscore” column of the “educational program requirements” tab of the Organizational Performance Framework Workbook based on rating criteria • Measure is not intended to evaluate how well a school is performing on its essential terms o It evaluates only whether the school’s programming is aligned to the essential terms laid out in its contract and whether the school has received approval for changes to those essential terms through the authorizer’s contract amendment process1 Other Notes: • A charter school may not modify the essential terms items listed in Exhibit C without an approved amendment from the Authorizer 1 National Association of Charter School Authorizers. Core Financial Performance Framework and Guidance. <www.qualitycharters.org> 2 MCSAB Charter School Contract (2.5.1) Annual Performance Framework Organizational Performance Internal Companion Guidance Internal Companion Guidance_Organizational Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant Measure 1(b): Educational Program Requirements Measure Type: Compliance This measure evaluates if a school is complying with the specific elements of its education program that are required by law. Reference the following data/evidence and sources to evaluate this measure: Data/Evidence Source(s) Evidence of compliance with: 1. MS State Standards Requirements 2. Instructional Days Requirements 3. Compliance with MS Educator Code of Ethics Policy 4. Graduation and promotion requirements 5. State assessments Primary Source: 1. Signed Statement of Assurance and no verified complaints Secondary Source(s): 1. Academic Calendar 2. Charter Contract Exhibit H Employee Code of Ethics Measure Notes: • Reference the signed Charter School Board Annual Statement of Assurances document as a primary source of compliance for this measure • Confirm there are no verified complaints • Consider interventions issued, authorizer notes, remediation status, or and return to good standing notices (as applicable) when determining compliance • Enter rating in the “Measure Score/Subscore” column of the “educational program requirements” tab of the Organizational Framework Workbook based on rating criteria Measure 1(c): Teacher and Employee Credentialing Requirements Measure Type: Compliance This measure evaluates if a school is complying with state requirements for teacher and administrator qualifications. Annual Performance Framework Organizational Performance Internal Companion Guidance Internal Companion Guidance_Organizational Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant Reference the following data/evidence and source to evaluate this measure: Data/Evidence Source(s) Evidence of compliance with: 1. Appropriate qualifications and credentials for school staff Primary Source: 1. Board Member and School Staff Information Form 2. Site Visit report, if applicable 3. Statement of Assurance and no verified complaints Secondary Source(s): 1. Mississippi Educator Career Continuum Archive (MECCA) (for verification) Measure Notes: • Review Board Member and School Staff Information Form for current teacher licenses. • Reference the signed Charter School Board Annual Statement of Assurances document as a primary source of compliance • Confirm there are no verified complaints • Consider interventions issued, authorizer notes, remediation status, or return to good standing notices (as applicable) when determining compliance • Enter rating in the “Measure Score/Subscore” column of the “educational program requirements” tab of the Organizational Framework Workbook based on rating criteria Other Notes: • Under state law, at least 75% of a charter school’s teachers must meet state requirements for licensure. All teachers must have a bachelor’s degree and demonstrate subject-matter competence (such as through a passing score on a subject-matter test) as well as meet any other applicable federal requirements. Administrators are not required to have state licensure but must have a bachelor’s degree. A charter school may not employ nonimmigrant foreign workers, regardless of visa status, as teachers without a waiver from the MCSAB.3 3 Miss. Code Ann. § 37-28-47(1)(a) Measure 1(d): Annual Chronic Absenteeism Rate Measure Type: Performance This measure evaluates student attendance. Chronic absenteeism measures the percentage of students in a school who have missed 10 percent or more of their enrolled school days for any Annual Performance Framework Organizational Performance Internal Companion Guidance Internal Companion Guidance_Organizational Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant reason. Chronically absent students are more likely to fall behind academically and are less likely to graduate from high school.4 Reference the following data/evidence and sources to evaluate this measure: Data/Evidence Source(s) 1. Annual chronic absenteeism rate by school 1. MDE Chronic Absenteeism Report (published annually) Measure Notes: • Collect chronic absenteeism rates for the relevant school year from the Chronic Absenteeism Report provide by MDE for each charter school • Enter the chronic absenteeism rate data into the “educational program requirements” tab of the Organizational Performance Framework Workbook • Score chronic absenteeism rate based on rating criteria and cut scores • Consider interventions issued, authorizer notes, remediation status, or return to good standing notices (as applicable) when determining compliance Indicator 2: Enrollment and Admissions Measure 2(a): Underserved Student Enrollment Percentage Requirement Measure Type: Compliance This measure evaluates if a school is complying with the statutory requirement that a charter school’s underserved population must reflect 80 percent or greater of the geographic district’s underserved student population. Reference the following data/evidence and sources to evaluate this measure: Data/Evidence Source(s) Evidence of compliance with: 1. Free lunch enrollment by grade levels served for geographic district and charter school 2. Students with disabilities enrollment by grade levels served for geographic district and charter school 1. MDE data request (MOU) 4 <https://www.mdek12.org/chronicabsenteeism Annual Performance Framework Organizational Performance Internal Companion Guidance Internal Companion Guidance_Organizational Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant Measure Notes: • Establish the geographic school district for the charter school o The geographic school district shall be composed of traditional public schools from the district in which the charter school is located that have the same school type (i.e., elementary, elementary/middle, middle, middle/high, and high schools) as the charter school • Collect percentage of students who qualify for free lunch enrollment by grade levels served for charter school from the data request (MOU) provided by MDE • Collect percentage of students who qualify for free lunch enrollment by grade levels served for the geographic school district from the data request (MOU) provided by MDE • Collect percentage of students with disabilities by grade levels served for charter school from the data request (MOU) provided by MDE • Collect percentage of students with disabilities by grade levels served for the geographic school district from the data request (MOU) provided by MDE • Divide the charter school percentage of students who qualify for free lunch enrollment by the geographic district percentage of students who quality for free lunch enrollment • Divide the charter school percentage of students with disabilities by the geographic district percentage of students with disabilities • Enter data into the “enrollment and admissions” tab of the Organizational Performance Framework Workbook • The charter school percentage will be calculated as a percentage of the geographic district percentage (i.e. charter school percentage divided by the geographic district percentage) • Score based on rating criteria and cut scores • Consider interventions issued, authorizer notes, remediation status, or return to good standing notices (as applicable) when determining compliance Other Notes: • Because schools that have a Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) designation may not report the free lunch status of individual students, schools (both charter and geographic district) with the CEP designation will be treated as 100 percent free lunch. Annual Performance Framework Organizational Performance Internal Companion Guidance Internal Companion Guidance_Organizational Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant Measure 2(b): Enrollment and Admissions Requirements Measure Type: Compliance This measure evaluates if a school is complying with obligations related to recruitment, lottery, enrollment, admissions, and truancy policies. Reference the following data/evidence and sources to evaluate this measure: Data/Evidence Source(s) Evidence of compliance with: 1. Recruitment and enrollment policy, lottery policy 2. Non-discriminatory admissions* 3. Attendance laws and truancy policy Primary Source: 1. Statement of Assurance and no verified complaints Secondary Source(s): 1. Charter Contract Exhibit E-Charter School Enrollment Policies and Procedures Measure Notes: • Reference the signed Charter School Board Annual Statement of Assurances document as a primary source of compliance • Confirm there are no verified complaints • Enter rating in the “Measure Score/Subscore” column of the “enrollment and admissions requirements” tab of the Organizational Framework Workbook based on rating criteria • Consider interventions issued, authorizer notes, remediation status, or return to good standing notices (as applicable) when determining compliance Other Notes: • *A finding by MCSAB that the school is operating in a discriminatory manner in its admissions practices shall be grounds for termination of the Charter Contract o The Authorizer, prior to termination of the contract, may take remedial steps short of revocation in accordance with its policies5 • In all cases, student recruitment and enrollment decisions shall be made in a nondiscriminatory manner and without regard to race, creed, color, ethnicity, sex, disability, national origin, religion, gender, income level, minority status, limited English proficiency, ancestry, need for special education services, or academic or athletic ability6 5 MCSAB Charter School Contract (2.7.4) Annual Performance Framework Organizational Performance Internal Companion Guidance Internal Companion Guidance_Organizational Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant 6 MCSAB Charter School Contract (2.7.1) • For a school’s pre-opening year, MCSAB will review the school’s Recruitment and Enrollment Policy and its lottery policy as submitted through Epicenter prior to school opening • Schools are allowed to enroll up to 120% of the number of students in the Enrollment Projection Table without seeking permission for an enrollment increase from the Authorizer Board7 Measure 2(c): Re-current Enrollment Rate Measure Type: Performance This measure evaluates changes in a school's enrollment from year to year. Reference the following data/evidence and sources to evaluate this measure: Data/Evidence Source(s) 1. Current Year Net Membership 2. Previous Year Net Membership 1.MDE publicly reported annual net membership data via the Superintendent's Annual Report Calculation Methodology • Calculation requires data from two school years and is only applicable to schools after their first full year of operation • Re-current Enrollment Rate = (Current Year Net Membership - Previous Year Net Membership)/(Previous Year Net Membership) Measure Notes: • Collect total current year net membership data for the relevant school year from the Superintendent’s Annual Report provided by MDE • Collect total previous year net membership data for the relevant school year from the Superintendent’s Annual Report provided by MDE • Enter the total current year net membership data and the total previous year net membership data into the “enrollment and admissions” tab of the Organizational Performance Framework Workbook • Score based on rating criteria and cut scores Annual Performance Framework Organizational Performance Internal Companion Guidance Internal Companion Guidance_Organizational Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant 7 MCSAB Charter School Contract (2.6.2) Other Notes: • MDE defines net membership as the number of students belonging to a school unit at any given time. • Membership is an ever-changing number and is found by adding the total number of student entries and total student re-entries and subtracting the number of withdrawals. • Student mobility within a school year is common, but significant decreases in student enrollment over time may indicate the school is failing to keep enrolled students, which impacts a school's budget and recruitment strategy Indicator 3: Discipline Measure 3(a): Student Discipline Requirements Measure Type: Compliance This measure evaluates whether a school is complying with their code of conduct and discipline policy. Reference the following data/evidence and sources to evaluate this measure: Data/Evidence Source(s) Evidence of compliance with: 1. Student code of conduct 2. Discipline policy Primary Source: 1. Statement of Assurance and no verified complaints Secondary Source(s): 1. Student Handbook Measure Notes: • Reference the signed Charter School Board Annual Statement of Assurances document as a primary source of compliance • Confirm there are no verified complaints • Consider interventions issued, authorizer notes, remediation status, or return to good standing notices (as applicable) when determining compliance • Enter rating in the “Measure Score/Subscore” column of the “discipline” tab of the Organizational Performance Framework Workbook based on rating criteria Other Notes: • Per the charter contract, schools must submit their student handbook, including the student code of conduct, complaint policy, and discipline management plan, for authorizer approval Annual Performance Framework Organizational Performance Internal Companion Guidance Internal Companion Guidance_Organizational Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant • Annual Performance Framework Organizational Performance Internal Companion Guidance Internal Companion Guidance_Organizational Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant Annual Performance Framework Organizational Performance Internal Companion Guidance Internal Companion Guidance_Organizational Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant Annual Performance Framework Organizational Performance Internal Companion Guidance Internal Companion Guidance_Organizational Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant Measure 3(b): In-school and Out-of-School Suspension and Expulsion Rates Measure Type: Performance This measure evaluates whether a school is excessively excluding students from regular instruction. Reference the following data/evidence and sources to evaluate this measure: Data/Evidence Source(s) 1. In-school suspension rates for charter school and geographic district 2. Out-of-school suspension rates for charter school and geographic district 3. Expulsion rates for charter school and geographic district 1. MS Succeeds Report Card 2. MDE data request (MOU) Annual Performance Framework Organizational Performance Internal Companion Guidance Internal Companion Guidance_Organizational Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant Measure Notes: • This measure includes three separate rates: (1) In-school suspension rate, (2) Out-of- school suspension rate, and (3) Expulsion rate • Establish the geographic school district for the charter school o The geographic school district shall be composed of traditional public schools from the district in which the charter school is located that have the same school type (i.e., elementary, elementary/middle, middle, middle/high, and high schools) as the charter school • Collect in-school suspension rate for charter school for the relevant school year from MS Succeeds Report Card or MOU data request (as applicable) • Collect in-school suspension rate for geographic district for the relevant school year from MS Succeeds Report Card or MOU data request (as applicable) • Collect out-of-school suspension rate for charter school for the relevant school year from MS Succeeds Report Card or MOU data request (as applicable) • Collect out-of-school suspension rate for geographic district for the relevant school year from MS Succeeds Report Card or MOU data request (as applicable) • Collect expulsion rate for charter school for the relevant school year from MS Succeeds Report Card or MOU data request (as applicable) • Collect expulsion rate for geographic district for the relevant school year from MS Succeeds Report Card or MOU data request (as applicable) • Enter the data into the “discipline” tab of the Organizational Performance Framework Workbook. • Score difference between charter school and geographic district rates based on rating criteria and cut scores. Other Notes: • Given that publicly available MDE data for suspension and expulsion rates are masked for less than 5 percent, MCSAB will secure a MOU with MDE to collect charter and geographic district data annually • Cut score ranges are based on prior precedence from previous performance framework Indicator 4: Special Populations Measure 4(a): Students with Disabilities Rights and Requirements Measure Type: Compliance This measure evaluates whether a school is complying with obligations for protecting the rights of students with disabilities. Annual Performance Framework Organizational Performance Internal Companion Guidance Internal Companion Guidance_Organizational Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant Reference the following data/evidence and sources to evaluate this measure: Data/Evidence Source(s) Evidence of compliance with: 1. Identification: Effective steps are implemented to identify and refer students in need of special education services 2. Operational Compliance: School complies with rules relating to academic program, assessments, and discipline 3. IEPs: Appropriate staff implemented students individualized education plans and section 504 plans 4. Accessibility: Provided students and families access to school facility and high-quality educational programming consistent with legal obligations and student abilities 1. MDE Office of Special Education Onsite Fiscal Monitoring Protocol 2. MDE Office of Special Education Policies and Procedures Monitoring Protocol 3. MDE Office of Special Education Delivery of Services Monitoring Protocol (FAPE/LRE) 4. MDE Office of Special Education Child Find-Initial Evaluation 5. MDE Office of Special Education Child Find-Re- Evaluation 6. MDE Special Education Determination Report 7. Site Visit Report (as applicable) Measure Notes: • Both MCSAB and MDE have responsibility for ensuring charter schools’ compliance in special education • The MDE Office of Special Education performs routine oversight and monitoring of special education services for all public schools in Mississippi • MCSAB will use findings from this monitoring as well as its own oversight to determine if the school is compliant • Consider interventions issued, authorizer notes, remediation status, or return to good standing notices (as applicable) when determining compliance • Enter rating in the “Measure Score/Subscore” column of the “special populations” tab of the Organizational Performance Framework Workbook based on rating criteria Identification Notes: Reference the following sources to evaluate if schools ensure effective steps are implemented to identify and refer students in need of special education services: • Child Find-Initial Evaluation: MCSAB will review the findings for Record Review Items CFI- 8, CFI-9, CFI-11, and CFI-12 • MDE Policies and Procedures Monitoring Protocol: MDE Special Education Monitoring Team will review whether the charter school abides by special education regulations • Review the findings for Record Review Item CF-A and CF-B Annual Performance Framework Organizational Performance Internal Companion Guidance Internal Companion Guidance_Organizational Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant Operational Compliance Notes: Reference the following sources to evaluate if schools administer appropriate state and assessments, including alternate assessments, discipline procedures, and appropriate academic programming when appropriate: • MDE Delivery of Service Monitoring Protocol: MDE special education monitoring team will review whether the school provides access to appropriate assessments. • MCSAB will base its evaluation on whether the MDE monitoring team determines the school is compliant and will review the finding for Record Review Item DS-19 • MDE Fiscal Monitoring Instrument for Federal Programs: MDE Federal Programs monitoring team will review whether the charter school provides English learners access to appropriate assessments under Title III, Part A • Review the findings for NN-7 through NN-9, as applicable Reference the following sources to evaluate if schools implement special education services and curricular modifications and accommodations are provided: • Special Education Determination Report: Review the Special Education Determination Level to assess whether the school is providing appropriate programming • MDE Special Education Policies and Procedures Implementation Protocol: MDE special education monitoring team will review whether the charter school abides by special education regulations • Review the findings for Record Review Items FAPE-A through FAPE-D, LRE-A, and LRE-B • Site Visit Report (as applicable): School site visit team may collect information about the implementation of special education Reference the following sources to evaluate if schools conduct appropriate and timely evaluations, re-evaluations, and re-evaluation waivers. If schools contract with external evaluators, they must establish and implement standards of practice for evaluators, per the charter school contract. • MDE Special Education Monitoring—Child Find-Initial Evaluation: Review the findings for Record Review Items CFI-1 through CFI-7; CFI-10; and CFI-13 • MDE Special Education Monitoring—Child Find-Re-Evaluation: Review the findings for Record Review Items CFR-1 through CFR-5 Reference the following sources to evaluate if schools abide by IDEA regulations concerning discipline of students with disabilities: • MDE Discipline Monitoring Protocol: Review the findings for Record Review Items Dis-1 through Dis-7 • MDE Policies and Procedures Implementation Protocol: Review the finding for Record Review Item Dis-A Annual Performance Framework Organizational Performance Internal Companion Guidance Internal Companion Guidance_Organizational Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant Individualized Education Plan (IEP) Notes: Reference the following sources to evaluate if schools ensure appropriate staff implemented students individualized education plans and section 504 plans: • MDE Delivery of Services Monitoring Protocol: MDE special education monitoring team will review whether IEPs and 504 plans are appropriately written • Use MDE’s determination for its assessment of whether the school is compliant. • Review the findings for Record Review Items DS-1 through DS-18; DS-20.1.-3., 20.6.-8.; DS- 22; DS-23; and FAPE-1 Accessibility Notes: Reference the following sources to evaluate if schools provided students and families access to school facility and high-quality educational programming consistent with legal obligations and student abilities. • Special Education Performance Determination Report: Review the chronic absenteeism of students with disabilities compared to both the chronic absenteeism of the school’s students without disabilities and the state average chronic absenteeism of the students with disabilities • MDE Delivery of Services Monitoring Protocol: MDE special education monitoring team will review whether the charter school abides by special education regulations • Review the findings for Record Review Items DS-20.4.-5. as well as DS-21 Measure 4(b): English Learner (EL) Student Rights and Requirements Measure Type: Compliance This measure evaluates whether a school is complying with obligations for protecting the rights of English Learner students. Reference the following data/evidence and sources to evaluate this measure: Data/Evidence Source(s) Evidence of compliance with: 1. Identification: Effective steps are implemented to identify students in need of EL services 2. Delivery: Appropriate EL services are provided to identified EL students by appropriate staff and according to the school's policy 3. Accommodations: EL students are provided with appropriate accommodations on assessments 1. MDE Office of Federal Programs and Grants Management - Fiscal Monitoring Instrument for ESSA Programs 2. Site Visit Report (as applicable) Annual Performance Framework Organizational Performance Internal Companion Guidance Internal Companion Guidance_Organizational Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant 4. Exiting: EL students are exited from services according to their capacities 5. Monitoring: Former EL students are monitored for at least two years upon exiting services Measure Notes: • Both MCSAB and MDE have responsibility for ensuring charter schools’ compliance in special education • MDE Office of Federal Programs and Grants Management performs routine oversight and monitoring of English Learner services for all public schools in Mississippi • MCSAB will use findings from this monitoring as well as its own oversight to determine if the school is compliant • Consider interventions issued, authorizer notes, remediation status, or return to good standing notices (as applicable) when determining compliance • Enter rating in the “Measure Score/Subscore” column of the “special populations” tab of the Organizational Performance Framework Workbook based on rating criteria Identification Notes: Reference the following sources to evaluate if schools implement effective steps to identify students in need of EL services: • MDE Fiscal Monitoring Instrument for Federal Programs: MDE Federal Programs monitoring team will review whether the charter school abides by regulations concerning the identification of English learners under Title III, Part A • Review the findings for NN-4 and NN-15, as applicable Delivery Notes: Reference the following sources to evaluate if schools provide appropriate EL service to identified EL students by appropriate staff and according to the school's policy: • MDE Fiscal Monitoring Instrument for Federal Programs: MDE Federal Programs monitoring team will review whether the charter school abides by regulations concerning the provision of English learner services under Title III, Part A • Review the findings for NN-1 through NN-3, NN-5 and NN-6, NN-10 through NN-12, NN-14, and NN-16, as applicable Accommodations Notes: Reference the following sources to evaluate if schools provide ELL students with appropriate accommodations on assessments: Annual Performance Framework Organizational Performance Internal Companion Guidance Internal Companion Guidance_Organizational Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant • MDE Fiscal Monitoring Instrument for Federal Programs: MDE Federal Programs monitoring team will review whether the charter school provides English learners access to appropriate assessments under Title III, Part A • Review the findings for NN-7 through NN-9, as applicable Exiting Notes: Reference the following sources to evaluate if schools exit EL students from services according to their capacities: • MDE Fiscal Monitoring Instrument for Federal Programs: MDE Federal Programs monitoring team will review whether the charter school abides by regulations concerning the provision of English learner services under Title III, Part A • Review the findings for NN-1 through NN-3, NN-5 and NN-6, NN-10 through NN-12, NN-14, and NN-16, as applicable Monitoring Notes: Reference the following sources to evaluate if schools Former EL students are monitored for at least two years upon exiting services: • MDE Fiscal Monitoring Instrument for Federal Programs: MDE Federal Programs monitoring team will review whether the charter school abides by regulations concerning the provision of English learner services under Title III, Part A • Review the findings for NN-1 through NN-3, NN-5 and NN-6, NN-10 through NN-12, NN-14, and NN-16, as applicable Indicator 5: School Environment Measure 5(a): Facilities, Health, Safety, and Transportation Requirements Measure Type: Compliance This measure evaluates whether a school is complying with all relevant inspections, codes, and regulations related to facilities, health, safety, and transportation. Reference the following data/evidence and sources to evaluate this measure: Data/Evidence Source(s) Evidence of compliance with: 1. Local and state fire and life safety codes 2. Public health sanitary codes 3. ADA requirements 4. Transportation plan 5. Bus safety protocols 1. Fire Marshal Inspection 2. Facility Review (Fire Safety and Maintenance) 3. Facility Review (Cafeteria/Kitchen, Public Health) 4. Statement of Assurance and no verified complaints 5. State Department of Health Food Service Permit Annual Performance Framework Organizational Performance Internal Companion Guidance Internal Companion Guidance_Organizational Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant 6. Health service requirements 7. Property insurance 6. Current certificates of insurance signed by an authorized representative of the insurer 7. Certificate of Occupancy 8. MDPH Immunization Compliance Report 9. Site visit report, if applicable Measure Notes: • Reference the signed Charter School Board Annual Statement of Assurances document as needed • Confirm there are no verified complaints • Consider interventions issued, authorizer notes, remediation status, or return to good standing notices (as applicable) when determining compliance • Enter rating in the “Measure Score/Subscore” column of the “school environment” tab of the Organizational Performance Framework Workbook based on rating criteria Local and State Fire and Life Safety Codes Notes: Reference the following sources to evaluate if schools meet all relevant fire and life safety codes for public schools: • Fire Marshal Inspection: Use the Fire Marshal inspection to ensure that a school’s facility is safe for students • Facility Review: Review the findings from the Fire Safety and Maintenance portions of the Facility Review • Certificate of Occupancy: Confirm the submission of the Certificate of Occupancy Public Health Sanitary Codes Notes: Reference the following sources to evaluate if the school passed all relevant inspections: • Facility Review: Review the findings from the Cafeteria/Kitchen and Public Health section • State Department of Health Food Service Permit: This certificate allows a school to store and serve food on-site o Check that this certificate has been issued prior to opening and will also review that it is up to date each year ADA Requirements Notes: Reference the following sources to evaluate if schools facilities are compliant with ADA regulations: • Statement of Assurance and no verified complaints • Site Visit Report (as applicable) Annual Performance Framework Organizational Performance Internal Companion Guidance Internal Companion Guidance_Organizational Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant Transportation Plan Notes: Reference the following sources to evaluate if the school follows its transportation policy as approved by the MCSAB: • Statement of Assurance and no verified complaints • Site Visit Report (as applicable) Bus Safety Protocols Notes: Reference the following sources to evaluate if the school follows applicable bus safety protocols: • Statement of Assurance and no verified complaints • Site Visit Report (as applicable) Health Service Requirements Notes: Reference the following sources to evaluate if the school is meeting obligations related to health services. • Facility Review: Review the findings from the Public Health section • MDPH Immunization Compliance Report • Site Visit Report (as applicable) Property Insurance Notes: Reference the following sources to evaluate if the school provides documentation of required insurance coverage: • Current certificates of insurance signed by an authorized representative of the insurer Other Notes: • A charter school may not modify the transportation policy without approval from the Authorizer8 Measure 5 (b): Student Records and Information Handling Requirements Measure Type: Compliance This measure evaluates whether a school is complying with obligations related to the management of student records and information. 8 MCSAB Charter Contract (Approved 7/31/2020)(2.14.1) Annual Performance Framework Organizational Performance Internal Companion Guidance Internal Companion Guidance_Organizational Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant Reference the following data/evidence and sources to evaluate this measure: Data/Evidence Source(s) Evidence of compliance with: 1. Public records requirements 2. Student record-keeping and records transfer requirements Primary Source: 1. Statement of Assurance and no verified complaints Secondary Source: 1. Site Visit Report, if applicable Measure Notes: • Reference the signed Charter School Board Annual Statement of Assurances document as a primary source of compliance • Confirm there are no verified complaints • Consider interventions issued, authorizer notes, remediation status, or return to good standing notices (as applicable) when determining compliance • Enter rating in the “Measure Score/Subscore” column of the “school environment” tab of the Organizational Performance Framework Workbook based on rating criteria Measure 5 (c): Background Check Requirements Measure Type: Compliance This measure evaluates whether a school is complying with fingerprint background check requirements. Reference the following data/evidence and sources to evaluate this measure: Data/Evidence Source(s) 1. Evidence of updated background checks Primary Source: 1. Statement of Assurance and no verified complaints Secondary Source(s): 1. Site Visit Report, if applicable 2. Charter Contract Exhibit I-Criminal Background Checks Measure Notes: • Reference the signed Charter School Board Annual Statement of Assurances document as a primary source of compliance • Confirm there are no verified complaints • MCSAB may also conduct onsite reviews of documents related to employee background Annual Performance Framework Organizational Performance Internal Companion Guidance Internal Companion Guidance_Organizational Proposed 2024 A portion of this project has been funded through the Charter School Program (CSP) Grant checks per the procedure developed in consultation with relevant entities • Consider interventions issued, authorizer notes, remediation status, or return to good standing notices (as applicable) when determining compliance • Enter rating in the “Measure Score/Subscore” column of the “school environment” tab of the Organizational Framework Workbook based on rating criteria Other Notes: • All charter school teachers and other school personnel, as well as members of the governing board and any education service provider with whom a charter school contracts, are subject to criminal history record checks and fingerprinting requirements applicable to employees of other public schools9 Measure 5 (d): Employee Rights and Requirements Measure Type: Compliance This measure evaluates whether a school is complying with obligations related to employee rights. Reference the following data/evidence and sources to evaluate this measure: Data/Evidence Source(s) Evidence of compliance with: 1. Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) 2. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 3. Employment contracts Primary