Falls Far Below Standard. Upon further review following a preliminary Pending rating, the Commission identifies significant financial risk and has concerns about financial viability such that heightened monitoring and/or intervention are necessary. 2.b.
Falls Far Below Standard. The school failed to implement the program in the described manner; the failure(s) were material and significant to the viability of the school, or regardless of the severity of the failure(s), the board has not instituted remedies that have resulted in prompt and sufficient movement toward compliance to the satisfaction of the authorizer.
Falls Far Below Standard. The school did not meet its AMO or is equal to or below the Established Minimum Proficiency.
Falls Far Below Standard. The school fell far below its school-specific academic goal(s). About 4: Schools have been given Xxxxxxxx Xxx’x Making the Mission Matter literature as initial guidance in developing School-Specific Measures (SSMs). The Commission created an Ad Hoc Committee to establish official guidance on SSM development; this guidance is currently being finalized within the Performance and Accountability Committee before being approved by the General Commission for release to schools. Weighting Plan with 25% Weighted School-Specific Measures Indicator Overall Weight by Indicator Effective Weight by Grade Level and Measure ES MS HS 1. API Proficiency 50% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% Student Growth 25.0% 22.5% 7.5% Readiness 2.5% 7.5% 25.0% Achievement Gaps 10.0% 7.5% 5.0% 2. Standards Goals: Achievement 2a. High-Needs Proficiency 25% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 2b. High-Needs Growth (SGP) 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 2c. High-Needs Growth (AGP) - - -
Falls Far Below Standard. Upon further review following a preliminary Pending rating, the Commission identifies significant financial risk and has concerns about financial viability such that heightened monitoring and/or intervention are necessary. 1.b. Unrestricted Days Cash: Unrestricted Cash divided by ((Total Expenses-Depreciation Expenses)/365) Preliminary Rating Final Rating (Following Additional Analysis) Meets Standard: 60 Days Cash or Meets Standard: Indicates sound financial viability based on the overall financial record. Either the school has already met the
Falls Far Below Standard. Upon further review following a preliminary Pending rating, the Commission identifies significant financial risk and has concerns about financial viability such that heightened monitoring and/or intervention are necessary. EXHIBIT B.2 . ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK The purpose of the Organizational Performance Framework is to communicate to the charter school and public the compliance-related standards which the charter school must meet. The Organizational Framework includes the standards that the charter school is already required to meet through state and federal law, rules or the charter contract. NACSA Principles & Standards (2012) states that, “A Quality Authorizer implements an accountability system that effectively streamlines federal, state, and local…compliance requirements while protecting schools’ legally entitled autonomy and minimizing schools’ administrative and reporting burdens” (p. 16). For each measure a school receives one of three ratings. Meets Standard: The school materially meets the expectations outlined below.
Falls Far Below Standard. Upon further review following a preliminary Pending rating, the Commission identifies significant financial risk and has concerns about financial viability such that heightened monitoring and/or intervention are necessary. 2.d. Unrestricted Fund Balance Percentage: Fund balance / Total Expenses Preliminary Rating Final Rating (Following Additional Analysis) Meets Standard: Fund balance percentage is greater than or equal to 25% Meets Standard: Indicates sound financial viability based on the overall financial record. Either the school has already met the standard based on the financials under review, or previous financial concerns that produced a preliminary Pending rating have been adequately remedied based on more current financial data or addressed adequately based on additional information such that the Commission concludes that performance against the standard indicates sound financial viability. Pending Further Analysis: Fund balance percentage is less than 25% Does Not Meet Standard: Upon further review following a preliminary Pending rating, the Commission concludes that there is financial risk such that heightened monitoring and/or intervention may be warranted. A Does Not Meet rating means that even based on more current financial information, the school is not currently meeting the standard or concerns previously identified, although not currently manifested, have been of a depth or duration that warrants continued attention.
Falls Far Below Standard. Upon further analysis, the school’s performance on this component signals a significant financial risk to the school. 2.e. Change in Total Fund Balance: Multi-Year= ; One-Year= Preliminary Rating Final Rating (Following Additional Analysis)
Falls Far Below Standard. The school did not meet its progress goal and had a four-year ACGR below 66%. 0-65 0 Notes The school's graduation rate progress goal will be established by the state accountability system. If such goals are not established by the state accountability system in any given year, the school's graduation rate progress goal will be established as follows: The progress goal will represent the school's most recent four-year ACGR plus one-sixth of the amount of growth needed to decrease the rate of non- graduates by 50% within 6 years, using the most recent school year as the baseline year. If the school does not have baseline data, its progress goal will initially be based on the surrounding district average graduation rate. Graduation rates are calculated on a 4-year-plus-summer cohort; for this reason, data availability will always run one year behind (that is, annual reports will contain graduation rate data from the cohort preceding the most recent school year. For example, 2015-16 ACGRs will be reflected in 2017 reports.) The 66% "floor" established by the bottom two categories is based on ESSA's mandatory inclusion in Targeted Support of any school that graduates fewer than 2/3 of its students on time. 0
Falls Far Below Standard. The school did not meet its progress goal and had a four-year ACGR below 66%. 0-65 0 Notes The school's graduation rate progress goal will be established by the state accountability system. If such goals are not established by the state accountability system in any given year, the school's graduation rate progress goal will be established as follows: The progress goal will represent the school's most recent four-year ACGR plus one-sixth of the amount of growth needed to decrease the rate of non- graduates by 50% within 6 years, using the most recent school year as the baseline year. If the school does not have baseline data, its progress goal will initially be based on the surrounding district average graduation rate. Graduation rates are calculated on a 4-year-plus-summer cohort; for this reason, data availability will always run one year behind (that is, annual reports will contain graduation rate data from the cohort preceding the most recent school year. For example, 2015-16 ACGRs will be reflected in 2017 reports.) The 66% "floor" established by the bottom two categories is based on ESSA's mandatory inclusion in Targeted Support of any school that graduates fewer than 2/3 of its students on time. 0 ALTERNATIVE ACADEMIC All proficiency and growth measures will be scored using the ISAT by SBAC, or any state-required standardized test as may replace it. Subject area (math and ELA) may be replaced by similar subject areas if necessary due to statewide changes. On all applicable measures, standard rounding to the nearest whole number will be used for scoring purposes. Measures based on ISAT outcomes exclude alternate ISAT data; as a result, the outcomes shown may differ slightly from those published on the State Department of Education's website.
