cdn.ymaws.com · web view2018. 4. 4. · academic performance: level 1 review. a. c. a. dem. i....

Whe

n to

use

…

Annual Feedback Tool Ideas for Authorizers

Level 1 Annual Feedback Level 2 Annual Feedback Level 3 Annual FeedbackAppropriate when:• Authorizer has limited capacity/people/ time to put toward

annual feedback• A charter school has a long history of strong performance• A charter school is far away from scheduled renewal

process

Appropriate when:• Authorizer has some capacity to put toward annual

feedback• A charter school has demonstrated strong recent

performance• A school is only a couple of years from scheduled renewal

process• The authorizer has some questions about the school’s

performance

Appropriate when :• Authorizer has capacity to engage in significant annual

feedback• Authorizer maintains short contracts (3-5 years)• A school is headed into renewal in the next year or two• A school has asked for specific feedback from authorizer• The authorizer has some concern about the school’s

performance

Acad

emic

Per

form

ance

The following sections are pulled from the State issued SchoolPerformance Framework (SPF)

Performance Indicators from front page• Academic achievement• Academic Growth• Academic Growth Gaps• Post Secondary and Workforce Readiness

From the UIPReview (and provide feedback in narrative) on the quality of the root cause analysis AND the alignment of strategies to the root cause

All content from level 1 review AND the following additional data from the State issued School Performance Framework (SPF)

• Reading Growth• Writing Growth• Math Growth

From the UIPReview WHO participated in the UIP process and give feedback in the narrative about whether the constituent groups identified in the charter contract were appropriately involved.

All content from level 1 and 2 reviews AND the following additional data from the State issued School Performance Framework (SPF)

Relevant Gaps data selected by the authorizer

From the UIPReview plans for progress monitoring and give feedback in the narrative about the degree to which the progress monitoring measures will yield helpful implementation information

No site visit No site visit ½ to 1 full day site visit to directly observe indicators of greatest concern

• Scheduled in advance with school leaders• Including school leaders and potentially board members• Specific observables identified before the visit• Provide the school with a written summary of what is observed• Provide the school with a summary statement explaining

whether what you saw helped alleviate concerns, was neutral or increased your level of concern.

Overall Rating

Green: The authorizer has determined that the school is achieving or exceeding the terms set forth in their contract.

Yellow: The authorizer is concerned about academic performance, which is not meeting district standard, but trending positively – and will be watching closely in the next year.

Orange: The authorizer is concerned about academic performance, which is low and/or trending negatively. Adequate improvement must be made in the coming school year. The authorizer will set a meeting with board and school leaders in which “adequate progress” is clearly defined in writing.

Red: The authorizer has serious concerns about academic performance, which may be addressed through non-renewal or revocation if this does not improve significantly in the next year. The authorizer will set a meeting with board and school leaders in which “adequate progress” is clearly defined in writing.

Summary Authorizer Comments: (optional)

Charter Leader and Board Comments (optional)

Fina

ncia

l Per

form

ance

Look to see if the school did each of the following. For each report yes or no

• Maintained financial transparency (postings on their website etc.)

• Completed an annual audit• Audit didn’t raise any big red flags (you receive a letter

from the state audit department if there are red flags)o If audit raised red flags, indicate here what

needs to be resolved in the school’s financial system and by when to be in line with legal requirements and content of their contract

o Review the plan the school submits addressing concerns identified in the annual audit (this assumes that the authorizer provided the school with specific concerns to address in writing)

Provide school with overall color rating in the area of finance

All content from level 1 review AND

• Check audit to see that TABOR reserve was maintained• Review quarterly financial reports the charter provides

to the authorizer (this assumes the authorizer has asked for these quarterly)

• Report any variance between projected and actual enrollment

•

All content from level 1 and 2 reviews AND

• Review minutes from finance committee meetings• Attend one finance committee meeting• Review monthly financial reports the charter provides to the

authorizer. (this assumes the authorizer has asked for these monthly)

• Review plan the school leadership and board submit to the authorizer in response to feedback previously received from authorizer re: budget viability and/or budgeting and financial oversight processes. (this assumes that the authorizer has provided the school with specific concerns in writing)

• Pull the following indicators of financial viability from the audit and report them here: (authorizers may determine cut mark standards for each – suggestions below came primarily from NACSA: “Framework for Monitoring and Oversight of Charter School Financial Performance” for ideas about but points.

o 2-3% Reserve beyond TABORo Unrestricted Days Cash (cash on hand divided by

the total expenses/365) should be enough for 60days of operation, or be between 30 and 60 dayswith a one-year positive trend, or between 20-30 days with a two-year + trend.

o Debt to asset ratio (total liabilities divided by total assets) ratio less than .90 is the standard

o Cash flow (how long has it been positive)o For schools who have been open for 3 or more

years, the standard is that they have a cumulativepositive cash flow over the three-year period, and that cash flow be positive in the most recent year and one other of the two.

• Green: The authorizer has determined that the school is achieving or exceeding the financial performance terms set forth in their contract.• Yellow: The authorizer is concerned about 1-2 indicators, where there were problems, but the authorizer believes they were adequately addressed – and will be watching closely in the next year• Orange: The authorizer has concern about 1-4 indicators, where there were problems and not all are yet resolved. What must be done to be in line with authorizer standards for charter finance

and the charter contract to resolve these issues in the next year is clearly stated. The district will be watching closely at this in the next year.• Red: The authorizer has serious concerns about finance at the school, which may be addressed through non-renewal or revocation if this does not improve. Authorizer then needs to clearly

state what must be addressed to come in line with authorizer standards and the charter contract, and in what specific timeline.Summary Authorizer Comments: (optional)

Charter Leader and Board Comments: (optional)

Gove

rnan

ce

Document compliance or non-compliance with sunshine laws. Schools website or binders with the following available:

• Board policies• Board by laws• Open meeting schedule postings and minutes• Code of ethics• Conflicts of interest• Board composition• Membership rules


Document complaints made (and resolved) over the year re:board processes or decisions.


Audit board through observation• Attend board meeting to see that they are compliant

with board processes• Survey the board about best practice to assess their

understanding of their roles and responsibilities

ANDReview principal evaluation process – ensure completion and alignment with plan described in waiver of educator effectiveness statute

Provide school with overall color rating in the area of governance• Green: The authorizer has determined that the school is achieving or exceeding the governance terms set forth in their contract.• Yellow: The authorizer is concerned about 1-2 indicators, where there were problems, but the district believes they were adequately addressed – and will be watching closely in the next year• Orange: The authorizer is concerned about 1-4 indicators, where there were problems and not all are yet resolved. What must be done to be in line with authorizer standards for charter

governance and the charter contract to resolve these issues in the next year is clearly stated. The district will be watching closely at this in the next year.• Red: The authorizer has serious concerns about governance at the school, which may be addressed through non-renewal or revocation if this does not improve. Authorizer then needs to clearly

state what must be addressed to come in line with authorizer standards and the charter contract, and in what specific timeline.Summary Authorizer Comments: (optional)


Sum

mar

yO

pera

tions

Submitted all required reports complete and on time (see authorizer checklist and document any late or missing reports in the review)


Document and complaints and resolutions that came to the district in the last year in the areas of:

• Special education• ELL• Due process and student rights• Student discipline• Employee HR• Safety incidents• FERPA


½ or full day visit to assess alignment between academic program as seen and as defined in charter application and contract

Provide the school with an overall color rating in the area of operations• Green: The authorizer has determined that the school is achieving or exceeding the operations terms set forth in their contract.• Yellow: The authorizer is concerned about 1-2 indicators, where there were problems, but the district believes they were adequately addressed – and will be watching closely in the next year• Orange: The authorizer has concern about 1-4 indicators, where there were problems and not all are yet resolved. What must be done to be in line with authorizer standards for charter

operations and the charter contract to resolve these issues in the next year is clearly stated. The authorizer will be watching closely at this in the next year.• Red: The authorizer has serious concerns about operations at the school, which may be addressed through non-renewal or revocation if this does not improve. Authorizer then needs to

clearly state what must be addressed to come in line with authorizer standards and the charter contract, and in what specific timeline.Summary Authorizer Comments: (optional)


A summary narrative is written saying whether the authorizer believes the school is Green, Yellow, Orange or Red overall.

Green: The authorizer believes the school is achieving or exceeding the terms of their charter contract.

Yellow: The authorizer is concerned about 1-2 areas, but the authorizer believes the school is making progress or has adequately addressed those concerns– and will be watching closely in the next year

Orange: The authorizer has concern about 1-4 indicators, the authorizer believes the school is not making progress or has not yet resolved those concerns. What must be done to be in line withauthorizer standards and the charter contract to resolve these issues in the next year is clearly stated in the following narrative. The authorizer will be watching closely for impotents in these areas in thenext year.

Red: The authorizer has serious concerns about the school, which may be addressed through non-renewal or revocation if performance does not improve. What must be addressed to come in line with authorizer standards and the charter contract, and in what specific timeline is described in the following narrative.

If the authorizer assesses the charter school as orange or red or orange overall – the summary will identify the specific set of actions that will be taken to closely monitor in the next year and starting points for defining “adequate” progress will be defined. This may also include a statement describing the kind of annual feedback the school will receive next year.

1

Purpose and Rationale:

As a charter authorizer, has the responsibility to evaluate the initial quality of charter school plans and the responsibility to monitor quality ongoing. In the NACSA standards, adopted by the State Board of Education, annual feedback is identified as a high leverage practice to ensure effective communication and oversight between authorizer and school. As an authorizer we may choose to look with more or less depth in different areas, but we commit to providing each school in our authorizer with some qualitative feedback on their performance each year.

Level 1 feedback is the least in depth, and Level 3 is the most in depth. This table provides an overview of why _authorizer may select level 1, 2 or 3 for an area within the annual feedback tool.

Level 1 Review Level 2 Review Level 3 ReviewAppropriate when:• Authorizer has limited

capacity/people/ time to put toward annual feedback

• A charter school has a long history of strong performance

• A charter school is far away from scheduled renewal process

Appropriate when:• Authorizer has some

capacity to put toward annual feedback

• A charter school has demonstrated strong recent performance

• A school is only a 1-2 years from scheduled renewal process

• The authorizer has some questions about the school’s performance

Appropriate when :• Authorizer has capacity to

engage in significant annual feedback

• Authorizer maintains short contracts (3-5 years)

• A school is headed into renewal in the next year or two

• A school has asked for specific feedback from authorizer

• The authorizer has some concern about the school’s performance

Each school will receive feedback in the following areas each year.

• Academic Performance• Finance• Governance• Operations

This year school will receive the following levels of feedback in each area.

Level 1 Review Level 2 Review Level 3 ReviewAcademic PerformanceFinanceGovernanceOperations

For each area, schools will receive a rating of red, orange, yellow or green. Definitions for each rating are specified for each area within the feedback tool.

2

Each school also receives a summary narrative and rating that makes clear to the school whether the

authorizer supports their continued operation as is, or whether changes will be required to come in Iine

with their contract before their next renewal process.

Schools may respond to this feedback in writing;this annual feedback and the school's response become

the running record of performance that is used to make decisions in renewal.

Ac adem ic Per form ance : Le vel 1 Re view

3

Performance Indicators: taken from front page of State issuedSchool Performance Framework (SPF)

SPF Rating Trending (up ordown) for last three years

Academic AchievementAcademic GrowthAcademic Growth GapsPost Secondary and Workforce ReadinessOverall SPF points earned

Feedback on the UIP Consider the following Provide FeedbackRoot Cause Analysis The quality of the logic in

the root cause analysis Suggest other factors to be considered

Overall Authorizer Feedback re: Academic Performance

Authorizers – please delete all ratings except the one you are assigning to the school





Additional Authorizer Comments: (optional unless orange or red)

School Response: (optional)

Ac adem ic Per form ance: Le vel 2 Re view

4




Performance Indicators: taken from the second section of State issued School Performance Framework (SPF)

Reading Growth Writing Growth Math Growth

Median GrowthPercentile (MGP)

Trending (up or down) for last three years

Feedback on the UIP Consider the following Provide FeedbackRoot Cause Analysis The quality of the logic in

the root cause analysisSuggest other factors tobe considered

Participation Who participatedThe degree to which thataligns with theconstituent groupsidentified in the charterapplication/contract.

Overall Authorizer Feedback re: Academic Performance





5




6

A c a dem i c P er f orm a nce: L e v el 3 Re vi ew




Performance Indicators: taken from the second section of State issued School Performance Framework (SPF)

Reading GrowthWriting GrowthMath Growth

Median GrowthPercentile (MGP)

Trending (up or down) for last three years

Subject Area Gaps (taken from 2nd section of SPF) SPF Rating Trending (up or down) for lastthree years

Authorizer type in gaps you want to highlight here

Feedback on the UIP Consider the following Provide FeedbackRoot Cause Analysis The wide consideration of

variablesThe quality of the logic in the root cause analysis

Participation Who participatedThe degree to which that aligns with the constituent groups identified in the charter application/contract

Progress Monitoring Whether plans forprogress monitoring are likely to yield timely and actionable informationHow the board will participate

7

Overall Authorizer Feedback re: Academic Performance as Reported in the SPF








Summary of Site Visit

First area of FocusWe observed…•These observations caused us to question/confirmed/enhanced our positive view of performance in this area.These observations alleviated/did not change/exacerbated our concerns in this area.

Authorizers – please delete all ratings except the one you are assigning to the school for this area of focus Green: The authorizer has determined that the school is achieving or exceeding the terms set forth in their contract in this area.

Yellow: The authorizer is concerned about this indicator, which is low, but trending positively – and will be watching closely in the next year.

Orange: The authorizer is concerned about this indicator, which is low and/or trending negatively. Adequate improvement must be made in the coming school year. We will set a meeting where “adequate progress” is clearly defined in writing.

8

Red: The authorizer has serious concerns about this indicator, which may be addressed through non- renewal or revocation if this does not improve significantly in the next year. We will set a meeting where “adequate progress” is clearly defined in writing.

S e c on d a r e a of F o c u s We observed…•These observations caused us to question/confirmed/enhanced our positive view of performance in this area.These observations alleviated/did not change/exacerbated our concerns in this area.





T h ird a r e a of F o c u s We observed…•These observations caused us to question/confirmed/enhanced our positive view of performance in this area.These observations alleviated/did not change/exacerbated our concerns in this area.





Overall Authorizer Feedback re: Observations of Academic Program

9


Green: The authorizer has determined that the school is achieving or exceeding the terms set forth in their contract in this area.






Fin ance: Le vel 1 Re v iew

10

Finance Indicators What the authorizer looked at Authorizer RatingY/N

Maintained financial transparency School websiteCompleted an audit Audit cover pageAudit was clean Audit cover page

If the response to any of the above was no:Area where plan was needed: was one submitted

Plan Highlights Authorizer feedback on plan If there is no plan – please address expectations for plan including content andtimeline in the overall narrative

(Example) Financial Transparency:yes

Overall Rating for Finance


Green: The authorizer has determined that the school is achieving or exceeding the financial performance terms set forth in their contract.

Yellow: The authorizer is concerned about 1-2 indicators, where there were problems, but the authorizer believes they were adequately addressed – and will be watching closely in the next year

Orange: The authorizer has concern about 1-4 indicators, where there were problems and not all are yet resolved. What must be done to be in line with authorizer standards for charter finance and the charter contract to resolve these issues in the next year is clearly stated. The district will be watching closely at this in the next year.

Red: The authorizer has serious concerns about finance at the school, which may be addressed through non-renewal or revocation if this does not improve. Authorizer then needs to clearly state what must be addressed to come in line with authorizer standards and the charter contract, and in what specific timeline.




Finance Indicators What the authorizer looked at AuthorizerRating Y/N

Maintained financial transparencyCompleted an auditAudit was cleanTabor reserve maintained

School websiteAudit cover page Audit cover page Audit

11

Quarterly financial reports are clean and indicate the school is on track with annual budgetNeutral or positive variance between projected and actual enrollment

Quarterly report provided to authorizer (if requested in contract)

Oct 1 count & number of students in school budget approved previous spring by the charter board


Plan Highlights Authorizer feedback on plan If there is no plan – please address expectations for plan including content andtimeline in the overall narrative

(Example) Financial Transparency:yes










Finance Indicators What the authorizer looked at AuthorizerRating Y/N

Maintained financial transparencyCompleted an auditAudit was cleanTabor reserve maintained

School websiteAudit cover page Audit cover page Audit

12

MONTHLY financial reports are clean and indicate the school is on track with annual budgetNeutral or positive variance between projected and actual enrollment

Finance committee follows appropriate protocolsSchool maintains a 2% or greater reserve on top of TABORUnrestricted Days Cash (cash on hand divided by the total expenses/365) is either enough for 60 days of operation, or enough for between 30 and 60 days

with a one-year positive trend, or enough for between 20-30 days with a

two-year + trend.School maintains a debt to asset ration that is less than .90School maintains a positive 3-year cumulative cash flow (or shorter if not inoperation for 3 years)

Monthly report provided to authorizer (if requested in contract)

Oct 1 count & number of students in school budget approved previous spring by the charter boardReview of minutes, observation of meetingApproved budget or audit

Financial statements or reports to authorizer

audit

Financial statements or reports to authorizer


Plan Highlights Authorizer feedback on plan If there is no plan – please address expectations for plan including content and timeline in the overall narrative

(Example)Financial Transparency:yes



13







Go vern ance: Le vel 1 Re view

14

Governance Indicators –were thesematerials available in alignment with sunshine law?

What the authorizer looked at AuthorizerRating Y/N

Board policies School website/Binder in officeBoard by laws School website/Binder in officeOpen meeting schedule postings andminutes

School website/Binder in office

Code of ethics School website/Binder in officeConflicts of interest School website/Binder in officeBoard composition School website/Binder in officeMembership rules School website/Binder in office

Provide school with overall color rating in the area of governance


Green: The authorizer has determined that the school is achieving or exceeding the governance terms set forth in their contract.

Yellow: The authorizer is concerned about 1-2 indicators, where there were problems, but the district believes they were adequately addressed – and will be watching closely in the next year

Orange: The authorizer is concerned about 1-4 indicators, where there were problems and not all are yet resolved. What must be done to be in line with authorizer standards for charter governance and the charter contract to resolve these issues in the next year is clearly stated. The district will be watching closely at this in the next year.

Red: The authorizer has serious concerns about governance at the school, which may be addressed through non-renewal or revocation if this does not improve. Authorizer then needs to clearly state what must be addressed to come in line with authorizer standards and the charter contract, and in what specific timeline.




15






Documentation of Complaints re: Governance at (school) in the Past Year

Complaint raised By whom Resolved? Pending?










16






Documentation of Complaints re: Governance at (school) in the Past Year


Direct Assessment of Board Practice

Direct Assessment of Board Practice Observation of board meeting Survey of board members re: common boardrules

What the Authorizer Saw Commendations and Concerns

Principal (head of school or other) Evaluation

Part of EvaluationProcess

Brief description Describe alignment with chartercontract and description of evaluation in waiver request

Evaluation Plan Evaluation Tools Follow-through Principal indicated the following on

(date)

Board president indicated the followingon (date)

17









Oper ation s: Le vel 1 Re v iew

18

Reports to be Provided to Authorizer (authorizer) annually

Authorizers – update this list to match your existing checklist

UIP

Enrollment Projection

Enrollment actuals (Oct 1 process)

Projected budget

Governance information

Board approved budget

Quarterly financial reports

Prior fiscal year EOY trial balance

Insurance certificates

Health and safety information

School calendar

DAC

Submitted on time? Y/N

Met quality criteria? Y/N

Provide the school with an overall color rating in the area of operations

Green: The authorizer has determined that the school is achieving or exceeding the operations terms set forth in their contract.


Orange: The authorizer has concern about 1-4 indicators, where there were problems and not all are yet resolved. What must be done to be in line with authorizer standards for charter operations and the charter contract to resolve these issues in the next year is clearly stated. The authorizer will be watching closely at this in the next year.

Red: The authorizer has serious concerns about operations at the school, which may be addressed through non-renewal or revocation if this does not improve. Authorizer then needs to clearly state what must be addressed to come in line with authorizer standards and the charter contract, and in what specific timeline.



Oper ation s: Le vel 2 Re v iew

19



UIP



Projected budget







School calendar

DAC



Documentation of Complaints re: Special Education, ELL, Due Process/Student Rights, StudentDiscipline, Employee HR, Safety Incidents, FERPA at __(school) in the Past Year





Orange: The authorizer has concern about 1-4 indicators, where there were problems and not all are yet resolved. What must be done to be in line with authorizer standards for charter operations and the charter contract to resolve these issues in the next year is clearly stated. The authorizer will be watching closely at this in the next year.


20



21

O per at i on s: L e v el 3 Re v i ew



UIP



Projected budget







School calendar

DAC



Documentation of Complaints re: Special Education, ELL, Due Process/Student Rights, StudentDiscipline, Employee HR, Safety Incidents, FERPA at (school) in the Past Year


Feedback on Academic Program Alignment with Application and Contract

Provide feedback on what was observed and the degree to which that aligns with the school’s defined academic program as described in the application and contract.




Orange: The authorizer has concern about 1-4 indicators, where there were problems and not all are yet resolved. What must be done to be in line with authorizer standards for charter operations and the

22

charter contract to resolve these issues in the next year is clearly stated. The authorizer will be watching closely at this in the next year.




23

Summary

Dashboard of Previous and Current Annual Feedback

11-12 School Year 12-13 School Year 13-14 School YearAreas ofPerformance

Level ofReview

SummativeRating

Level ofReview

SummativeRating

Level ofReview

SummativeRating

AcademicFinancialGovernanceOperationalOverall

Provide the school with an overall color rating


Green: The authorizer believes the school is achieving or exceeding the authorizer standard

Yellow: The authorizer is concerned about 1-2 areas, but the authorizer believes the school is making progress or has adequately addressed those concerns– and will be watching closely in the next year

Orange: The authorizer has concern about 1-4 indicators, the authorizer believes the school is not making progress or has not yet resolved those concerns. What must be done to be in line with authorizer standards for charter operations and the charter contract to resolve these issues in the next year is clearly stated below. The authorizer will be watching closely at this in the next year.

Red: The authorizer has serious concerns about the school, which may be addressed through non-renewal or revocation if performance does not improve. What must be addressed to come in line with authorizer standards and the charter contract, and in what specific timeline is described below.

Authorizers – please write a brief narrative explaining your final rating and discussing trends if you have any. If the rating is orange or red use this space to remind them of those issues that need to be resolved in the coming year and committing to a conversation to identify what adequate progress toward resolving those issues looks like in the next year.

cdn.ymaws.com · web view2018. 4. 4. · academic performance: level 1 review. a. c. a. dem. i....

Documents