· web viewcharter schools within their school administrative units. at present the commission has...

Report on Maine Public Charter School Program

May 2018

Report on Maine Public Charter School Program

May 2018

Introduction

In 2011 Maine became the 41st state to authorize the creation of public

charter schools. At present the Maine Charter School Commission (“Commission”)

has authorized and oversees nine (9) public charter schools that enroll

approximately 2000 students in the 2016-17 school year, which is approximately

1% of Maine’s K-12 school age population.

In authorizing the creation of public charter schools the Legislature required

the Commissioner of Education to submit a status report on the operation and

performance of Maine’s charter schools every four years. More specifically, Title 20-

A, Chapter 112, Section 2403 of Maine Revised Statutes, states the following:

Four years after public charter schools have been in operation, the commissioner shall issue to the Governor, the legislature and the public a report on the State’s public charter school program, drawing from the annual reports submitted by every authorizer pursuant to section 2405, subsection 4, as well as any additional relevant data compiled by the commissioner up to the school year ending in the preceding calendar year. The report must include an assessment of the public charter school program’s successes, challenges and areas for improvement in meeting the purposes of this chapter and any suggested changes in state law or policy necessary to strengthen the public charter school program. The commissioner shall issue a similar report after 8 years of operation of public charter school.

Accordingly, the Maine Commissioner of Education is submitting this

report on the operation and performance of Maine’s charter school program.

Background

Maine statute permits the creation of two types of public charter

schools. The Commission may authorize up to 10 charter schools in the first

ten years, and local school boards may authorize any number of public

2

charter schools within their school administrative units. At present the

Commission has authorized 9 charter schools, and no local school board has

chosen to authorize a charter schools within its jurisdiction.

Maine’s charter schools are designed to improve student achievement

by creating more high-quality education programs for Maine’s students.

According to Maine Revised Statues, Title 20-A, chapter 112, paragraph 2402,

public charter schools are designed to:

….to improve pupil learning by creating more high-quality schools with high standards for pupil performance; to close achievement gaps between high-performing and low-performing groups of public school students; to increase high-quality educational opportunities within the public education system; to provide alternative learning environments for students who are not thriving in traditional school settings; to create new professional opportunities for teachers and other school personnel; to encourage the use of different, high-quality models of teaching and other aspects of schooling; and to provide students, parents, community members and local entities with expanded opportunities for involvement in the public school system.

Maine Charter School Commission

The Maine Charter School Commission is composed of seven members who

are appointed by the Maine State Board of Education. Three Commission members

must be members of the State Board of Education, and the remaining four members

of the Commission are nominated by the three state board members, interviewed

and appraised by the Joint Standing Committee on Educational and Cultural Affairs

pursuant to 20-A MRS §2405(8) and approved by a majority vote of the State Board

of Education. Currently, the Commission also employs three and a half contracted

staff members; an executive director, a director of program management, a senior

support coordinator and a part-time administrative assistant.

As mentioned above, the Commission is authorized to approve charter

schools. To be authorized, a charter school must submit an extensive application,

3

proceed through a rigorous review process, and if approved, be awarded an initial

five-year charter. During the five years, the Commission conducts annual reviews of

a charter school’s performance, recommends and approves any changes in a charter

school’s contract and/or operation, and reviews any re-authorization applications

and requests. If the charter school’s performance is deemed successful, the

Commission may approve a renewal contract, for an additional five, ten, or fifteen

years.

Description of Maine Public Charter Schools

According to state statute, in approving the creation of charter

schools, the Commission may give priority to proposals designed to address

the needs of high-risk students by employing specific academic approaches.

Section 2406 of the same law states in part:

Authorizers may give priority to proposals that expand opportunities for children who are not realizing their full potential, who may be disaffected or disengaged in their current education situations and who may be at risk of failure academically, socially, economically or personally. Authorizers may encourage proposals that include a specific academic approach or theme to address the diverse educational needs of communities in the State.

Even though a charter school may be authorized for a specific

population of students, all Maine students are eligible to attend. The

Commission has initially authorized nine Maine public charter schools. The

charter schools include two virtual schools and seven brick and mortar

schools of which two offer residential facilities. Summary descriptions of the

nine public charter schools authorized to date by the Commission are

provided below, along with their school opening dates, and their mission and

vision statements:

1. ACADIA Academy (2016-17)

Mission: To provide a rigorous comprehensive educational program for the Lewiston/Auburn area in grades prek-6th through direct teaching

4

opportunities that are entwined with extensive experiential learning opportunities.

Vision: To provide a unique and innovative educational experience for students who will experience rigorous daily instruction comprised of carefully selected curricula to allow for academic acceleration, small group interaction and meaningful application through authentic, relevant experiential activities that will provide critical opportunities for our students to grasp real world application of concepts and skills.

2. Baxter Academy for Technology and Science (2013-14)

Mission: To be a rigorous, college preparatory high school promoting student ownership of learning through curriculum focused specifically on science, technology, engineering, and math.

Vision: To use a technology-rich, project-based learning approach to education at the secondary level.

3. Cornville Regional Charter School (2012-13)

Mission: To create a safe, respectful, nurturing and active learning community where every child is given the opportunity to thrive academically, to be accepted, to celebrate accomplishments and to develop a lifetime love of learning.

Vision: To create a school where learning is built around each student so that they become engaged learners with relevant and challenging work.

4. Fiddlehead School of Arts and Science (2013-14)

Mission: To unfold the potential of children, in a respectful, loving culture through authentic and meaningful experiences that sustain a sense of wonder, a love of learning and embrace the interconnectedness of all things.

Vision: To provide for the foundational needs of growing children in a community where children, teachers, and families learn together in a nurturing environment.

5. Harpswell Coastal Academy (2013-14)

Mission: To offer a rigorous, personalized, project-based education to mid-coast Maine students in grades 6-12.

Vision: To use Maine’s shorelines, working waterfronts, forests, and farms as classrooms. To partner with local organizations and businesses, entrepreneurs, and community members who are committed to our goal of

5

preparing caring, creative, resilient citizen-scholars who will flourish in a rapidly changing economy.

6. Maine Academy of Natural Sciences (2012-13)

Mission: To inspire and engage students using hands-on learning experiences tailored to students’ interests, introducing them to careers in farming, forestry, sustainability, and alternative energy and other related fields.

Vision: To encourage students to re-engage with their education, and grow as critical thinkers and problem solvers by developing habits of heart and mind that lead them to take responsibility for their own actions, as well as the welfare of their community.

7. Maine Connections Academy (2014-15)

Mission: To help each student maximize his or her potential and meet the highest performance standards through a uniquely individualized learning program in grades 7-12 throughout the state of Maine for students who need an alternative to the traditional classroom.

Vision: To reach students for whom a cutting-edge virtual approach provides the very best pathway to school success through a uniquely individualized learning program that combines the best virtual education with the very real connections among students, family, teachers, and the community to promote academic and emotional success for every learner. 8. Maine Virtual Academy (2015-16)

Mission: To develop each student’s full potential with learner-centered instruction, research-based curriculum and educational tools and resources to provide a high quality learning experience for grades 7-12 students who are in need of alternative educational options.

Vision: To improve student learning outcomes through individualized instruction, as evidenced by student academic proficiency, student academic growth, post-secondary readiness and the demonstration of 21st century skills such as critical thinking, problem-solving and self direction.

9. Snow Pond Arts Academy (2016-17)

Mission: To transform students’ lives and contribute to the cultural capital of Central Maine by providing high quality, comprehensive, college preparatory Academic and Arts education in an inclusive, nurturing, and culturally rich environment for high school age students.

6

Vision: To serve as a center of excellence for both academic and arts learning in Central Maine through the initial introduction of Music, Theatre, and Dance, and ultimately the inclusion of all the Creative and Visual Arts to bring people together, to create an engaged vibrant community, and to cultivate the traits that are so vitally important in the next generation of citizens.

It is clear from the mission and vision statements of the nine charter

schools that the Commission has approved charter schools designed to fulfill

the intent of the state statute, in that the approved charters have been

created to address the needs of high-risk student through unique academic

programs.

In terms of enrollment, the nine approved public charter schools

enrolled approximately 2,240 students in 2017-18 representing a large

number of resident districts and three of the schools had waiting lists of

students wishing to be enrolled in charter schools. The enrollment and

resident district information on each of the charter schools appears in Table

1.

Table 1: Charter School 2017-18 Enrollment and No. of Resident DistrictsSchool Grades

Served Contract

Enrollment Actual

Enrollment (10/1 Count)

Number on Waiting List

Special Education

Count

Special Education

Percent

% Free and Reduced

Lunch

No. of Resident districts

ACADIA

PreK - 3 164

10% 148 - 180 172 28 27 15.7% 31.4% 9

Baxter

9 - 12 400 10% 360 - 440

400 26 74 18.5% 16.2% 38

Cornville

PreK-9 243 10% 219 - 267

221 42 52 23.5% 64.3% 11

Fiddlehead

PreK - 5 128 10% 115 - 141

133 27 34 25.6% 23.3% 15

Harpswell

6 - 12 210 - 240 10% 189 - 264

195 0 64 32.8% 36.9% 13

MeANS

9 - 12 170 10% 153 - 187

178 28 65 36.5% 64.6% 32

MCA

7 - 12 429 (Maximum)

406 36 63 15.5% 40.4% 112

MeVA

7 - 12 390 (Maximum)

390 202 59 15.1% 61.3% 105

Snow Pond

9 - 12 192 * 10% 173 - 212

145 5 21 14.5% 24.1% 32

Total 2,240 394 456 20.4% 40.3% 137 2015-16

State Average **

17% 45.6%

*The Maine Charter School Commission gave permission to Snow Pond Arts Academy to open with fewer students than anticipated contract enrollment.

**2016-17 State Averages are not yet available.

7

Performance of Maine Public Charter Schools

The performance of the charter schools is extensively monitored annually by

the Commission using a multi-part Performance Framework (“Framework”) as

defined by State statute, and Performance Measures developed by the Commission.

The Commission establishes performance benchmarks for each charter school,

some of which are common across all nine charters and some unique to specific

charters. The Framework and Performance Measures documents are designed to

measure performance in multiple areas and in multiple ways:

1. Academic Proficiency (4 measures); 2. Academic Growth (4 measures);3. Achievement Gaps (4 measures);4. Student Attendance (1 measure);5. Student Enrollment (3 measures);6. Financial Performance and Sustainability (1 measure);7. Governance Board Performance and Stewardship (1 measure);8. Adequacy of Facilities Maintenance (1 measure);9. Transportation and Food Service (2 measures);10. School Social and Academic Climate (2 measures);11. Parent and Community Engagement (4 measures)

In total, each year the charter schools must submit their performance

evidence for all 27 measures, and this evidence, along with site visits and on-site

interviews at the charter schools, is used by the Commission in preparing the annual

monitoring reports. Copies of the Framework established in state statute and the

Performance Measures documents developed by the Commission appear in

Appendix A.

The Commission examines evidence in all the areas identified above and

makes a yearly determination as to whether the charter school Meets Standards,

Partially Meets Standards or Does Not Meet Standards, as detailed in its charter

contract. This information becomes part of the annual monitoring report of the

charter school. The final report also includes specific Commendations and

Recommendations by the Commission, as appropriate.

8

Table 2 provides a compilation of the 2016-17 performance assessments

given by the Commission for the nine charter schools.

Table 2: Summary of Charter School Performance Assessments

IndicatorMeets Contract Standards

Partially Meets Contract Standards

Does Not Meet Contract Standards

Not Able to Determine

Student Academic Proficiency 2 6 0 1

Student Academic Growth 0 6 1 2

Achievement Gaps in Proficiency and Growth by Subgroups

6 0 0 3

Student Attendance 4 2 3 1

Recurrent Yearly Enrollment 8 0 0 0

Post-Secondary Readiness 6 1 0 0

Financial Performance and Sustainability

9 0 0 0

Governance Board Performance and Stewardship

7 2 0 0

Adequacy of Facilities Management 9 0 0 0

Food Service 9 0 0

Transportation 9 0 0 0

School Social and Academic Climate 6 3 0 0

Parent and Community Engagement 5 3 1 0

As may be seen from the table, in 2016-17 all nine charter schools met their

benchmarks and expectations in four areas: (1) financial performance and

sustainability; (2) adequacy of facilities management; (3) food service; and (4)

transportation. Seven or more of the nine schools also met expectations in the areas

of: (5) recurrent enrollment year-to-year; and (6) governance board performance

and stewardship. Additionally, two-thirds of the charter schools met expectations in

the areas of: (7) achievement gaps; (8) post-secondary readiness; and (9) school

and academic climate.

The areas of performance experiencing the most uneven results were in the

two broad academic performance areas of proficiency, and growth, and to a limited

9

extent in closing achievement gaps. Some charter schools showed improved

academic performance and met expectations in 2016-17, while others had more

mixed results.

The Commission has found that evaluating the evidence from the charter

schools in these three performance areas has been more difficult than expected to

date. In some areas the evidence is clear, but in others it has been less clear for

several reasons. In all three areas the evidence used to report and evaluate

performance is based on a statewide, standardized test. The statewide test has gone

through several changes and iterations in recent years. Although there has been a

clear rationale and purpose for these changes, the charter schools, like all Maine

schools, have had difficulty getting a consistent picture of performance across

multiple years. Beginning in 2017, the same test, the revised Maine Education

Assessments (MEAs), has now been used for 2 years, which will allow for analysis of

student performance across multiple years.

Another problem area for the charter schools has been receiving the state

test result and analysis in time to meet reporting timelines established in state

statute. According to statute, the Commission must report performance results by

June of each year. However, the MEA results and analysis for schools reported by the

Maine Department of Education in annual school reports do not become available

until December in the following year. Thus, neither the charter schools nor the

Commission has been able to determine performance measured by the MEAs on the

timeline established by statute.

A third problem area is that some subgroups of students in several of the

charter schools are too small in number to permit reporting of performance. To

protect student identities and confidential information, some performance results

for subgroups cannot be reported. This is particularly applicable for the subgroups

of economically disadvantaged, special education and English learners. As a result,

10

the charter schools, like other public schools are not able to report on the

performance of these subgroups.

For the reasons described above, the evidence on academic performance in

the charter schools is somewhat unclear and has been of concern to the Commission

and the Commissioner of Education. Accordingly, the Commission has taken steps to

address these concerns that are outlined later in this report.

Charter School Renewals

As previously mentioned, charter schools may file an application for a

renewal of their charters. The Commission has recently received and reviewed four

applications for charter renewals. Based upon the review of the schools’ annual

performance reports, and site visits and interviews with the charter schools, the

Commission has approved these 5 charter renewal applications, three renewals for

5 years, and two for 10 years, as permitted under state statute. These charter

renewals are:

1. Baxter Academy for Technology and Science 10-year Renewal (2018-2028)

2. Cornville Regional Charter School 5-year Renewal (2017-2023)

3. Fiddlehead School of Arts and Science 10-year Renewal (2018-2028)

4. Harpswell Coastal Academy 5-year Renewal (2018-2023)

5. Maine Academy of Natural Sciences 5-year Renewal (2017-2022)

Maine Charter School Successes

The Maine charter school program has been successful on many fronts. In a

short time span of six years, nine charter schools have been created serving

approximately 2,240 students with diverse needs in academically challenging

alternative programs. Evidence from parent surveys indicates parents are very

pleased with the opportunities offered their children in these charter schools. This

11

positive assessment of the charter schools is further supported by the fact that some

of the schools have waiting lists of students who hope to attend the schools.

In that same short time span, the Maine Charter School Commission has

established a rigorous process for authorizing charter schools and has put in place

an equally rigorous process for the annual monitoring of the performance of each

charter school. This work of the Commission has been validated in an evaluation of

the Commission by the National Association of Charter School Authorizer (NACSA).

After evaluating the Commission, NACSA concluded:

The Maine Charter School Commission (MCSC or Commission) has taken a thoughtful approach to establishing a quality charter school authorizing program that will help promote a thriving charter school sector focused on school performance and meeting the educational needs of the state. Constantly reflective, MCSC works with a singular vision of quality charter school options for Maine’s students. MCSC actively sought a formative evaluation, and Commissioners and staff alike have continually reflected on the Commission’s progress since the first charter school opened in 2012. This focus on continuous improvement will ensure the Commission remains at the forefront of the sector as its portfolio continues to mature (p.7).

The performance framework used by the Commission to monitor and

evaluate the charter schools has also been singled out for commendation and

recommendation as a model for use in all Maine schools. Recently the

Commission has requested an independent external review of its

performance framework. The external consultants concluded:

…[W]e would like to commend the Commission for their work on developing and using the Performance Framework in the processes of approving, monitoring, and renewing charters. We believe the framework provides an excellent model for monitoring the charter schools and insuring that they are making good progress in providing their students a high quality education. Further, we believe the Framework provides an excellent model that should be implemented in all public schools in Maine to insure that all Maine’s schools are held to high standards and accountable for educating Maine students (p.2).

12

Maine Charter School Program Challenges

The Commission and charter schools have made significant strides in just a

few short years in establishing public charter schools in Maine that are producing

positive impacts for Maine students. But as the Commission and charter school

program continues to grow and practices are refined, overcoming key challenges in

four areas will be at the forefront of the work.

Access Challenges

A key challenge faced by the Commission is providing greater access for

students to Maine public charter schools. One barrier to the expansion of charter

schools is the current state statute limiting the number of Commission authorized

charter schools to ten during the first ten years. A second barrier may be provisions

in current state law that discourage local school boards from authorizing the

creation of charter schools within their school districts. To date no school district

has requested authorization to create a public charter school. Third, while the nine

authorized charter schools have been judged successful in many ways, including by

parents, many are located in more populous areas of the state. It is unclear as to

what barriers are prohibiting the creation of more charter schools in more rural

areas of the state where more students at-risk could benefit from having access to

greater diversity of academic programs. Another barrier that has been expressed by

applicants is the lack of available start-up funds.

A second access challenge faced by some charter schools is providing

opportunities for their students to participate in co- and extra-curricular programs

at resident or neighboring school districts. At present, there are no clear rules and

guidelines governing how access is to be provided and what school districts may

charge the charter schools for student participation in activities or extra-curricular

13

sport teams. In some cases, charter schools have experienced significant costs for

providing this access for their students.

Cost Challenges

One challenge facing charter schools is ensuring that the needs of high-cost

out-of-district special education students are being met. At present, charter schools

are subject to existing state school funding policies governing reimbursement for

these costs. As is the case for traditional public schools, school administrative

districts are reimbursed for cost above four times the district’s average Essential

Programs and Services (EPS) funding allocation. Traditional public schools have

access to a local tax base to support these high costs. However, public charter

schools do not have access to local taxpayer funds to support the cost of ensuring

that the needs of high-cost, out-of-district special education students are being met.

The charter schools must use existing state funds they receive to cover these high-

cost, thereby reducing funds available for providing programs and services for other

students.

Another cost challenge many of Maine’s charter schools face is having access

to funds for physical facility renovations. As the enrollments in Maine’s charter

schools expand, funds are needed to renovate facilities or upgrade them over time.

Currently, and in accordance with state policy, charter schools do not have the

ability to secure bonds to fund these renovations. Thus, the charter schools face a

significant barrier in accessing to funds for improving their school facilities.

Assessing Academic Performance

A third challenge area is the ongoing assessment of the performance of the

students in the charter schools. Maine’s public charter schools are designed to

provide rigorous alternative academic programs to meet the needs of high-risk

students. To ensure their success and the success of their students, regular,

14

systematic assessment is needed of the academic performance of charter school

students. Although the Commission has actively monitored charter school

performance, their work has been hindered by changes in the state accountability

test, the lack of the release of performance data in time for meeting the annual

reporting requirement by statute; and the absence of a standardized, widely

recognized methodology to compare charter school performance.

The lack of a standardized and widely recognized methodology for

comparing charter school performance has been a problem facing charter schools

not only in Maine, but also across the nation. The gold standard methodology for

comparing performance is designed to compare individual student performance and

is dependent upon having large waiting lists of students who have not been

admitted to a charter school through application of a lottery system for enrollment.

However, Maine does not have extensive waiting lists for each charter school.

Consequently, the Commission needs to establish a process for comparing

individual student performance that is fair, accurate and defensible.

Staffing Challenge

A final challenge area involves the staffing and support of the Commission

staff. As the number of charter schools has increased, and the number of charter

school renewals has increased, the administrative staff needed to support the work

of the Commission has significantly increased. The Commission has taken steps to

establish a staff to support their work, but at present these employees are

contracted personnel, whose contracts must be renewed each year. Staffing by

contract may lead to a lack of stability in staffing the work of the Commission and

can increase the potential for significant turnover in staffing, which in turn lead to

inconsistencies in implementation and the need to frequent training and

orientation. Thus, the Commission needs to identify a strategy for ensuring greater

stability in staffing in the future.

15

Recommendations

Based on this review of Maine’s public charter schools and the work of the

Maine Charter School Commission, a series of recommendations are hereby made

for continuing the development of Maine’s charter schools.

Changes in Charter School Commission and Program

It is recommended that the Commission:

1. Review and implement recommendations from the NACSA Report that

improve the operation of the Commission and charter schools.

2. Review and implement recommendations from the Silver Analytics external

review report that will increase the ability of the state and Commission to

assess annually the performance of the charter schools.

3. Explore strategies for establishing greater stability in staffing the work of the

Commission.

4. Explore ways to encourage the development of charter schools in more rural

areas of the state, particularly in more economically depressed areas.

Changes in State Regulations and/or Policy

The following changes are recommended in state regulations and/or policy:

1. Change the deadline for submission of the annual charter school report to the

commissioner of education to reflect the availability of annual state

standardized test data and state report cards. The recommended deadline

16

would be 150 days after the end of the fiscal year in order to ensure the

availability of annual state standardized test data and state report cards.

2. Establish a process to ensure that rigorous, standardized, nationally

recognized research methodologies and practices are used in assessing

charter school student performance by matching individual charter school

students with non-charter school students.

3. Conduct a feasibility study of providing access to the state revolving

renovation fund or some alternative fund to provide charter schools

opportunity to secure funds for school facility renovations.

4. Review statute and rules regarding providing access and approved cost for

charter school student participation in co- and extra-curricular activities in

traditional public schools.

5. As part of the Essential Programs and Services (EPS) component review of

public charter schools pursuant to 20-A MRS §15686-A, sub-§3, the 2019-20

review should include analysis of transportation costs, bus purchases, special

education costs including responsibility of high-cost, out-of-district special

needs students enrolled in charter schools, charter school student

participation in co- and extra-curricular activities in traditional public

schools and teacher participation in the state retirement system and health

insurance plan and recommend any needed revisions to state statute.

6. Identify any barriers to the creation of school administrative unit-charter

schools and propose any needed revision to state statute.

Summary

In summary, significant progress has been made in the last six years in

increasing opportunities for Maine students to have access to public charter schools

17

offering alternative academically challenging programs. The Maine Charter

Commission have carefully reviewed and approved nine charters, and has

implemented an extensive program of annually evaluating the progress each charter

school is making in achieving its performance targets. Through its work, the

Commission has also uncovered some key challenges it faces in the implementation

of current policies and practices that will impact the continued progress in the

development and support of Maine’s public charter schools. Accordingly, this report

includes a series of recommendations for enhancing the opportunities Maine’s

public charter schools can provide for Maine students.

18

References

National Association of Charter School Authorizers (November 3, 2017). NACSA Authorizer Evaluation Report: Maine Charter School Commission. Chicago, IL: National Association of Charter School Authorizers.

Barnes, R., & Silvernail, D. (December 2017). An External Review of the Maine Public Charter School Performance and Annual Report Frameworks, and Student Performance Part I. Portland, Maine: Silver Analytics Consulting Services.

19

Appendix A

Performance Framework and Measures

20

Performance MeasuresGuidance

Indicator and Measure ExplanationDocumentation to

be Provided by School

A. Student Academic Proficiency: State Assessments Measure 1: Proficiency on State Assessments in reading.

Percent of students scoring proficient and above on the ELA portion of the Maine State Assessment.

School must include all grades and tested subjects. Year one should be to establish a baseline. Subsequent years should be written in relationship to the state or local average.

Percent of students at each grade level scoring proficient on the ELA portion of the Maine State Assessment on a yearly basis.

A. Student Academic Proficiency: State AssessmentsMeasure 2: Proficiency on State Assessments in math.

Percent of students scoring proficient and above on the math portion of the Maine State Assessment will meet or exceed the state average.

School must include all grades and tested subjects. Year one should be to establish a baseline. Subsequent years should be written in relationship to the state or local average.

Percent of students at each grade level scoring proficient on the math portion of the Maine State Assessment on a yearly basis.

B. Student Academic Proficiency: School Selected AssessmentsMeasure 1: Proficiency on school selected standardized test in reading.

Report the percent of students who score proficient or above on a standardized assessment selected by the school. Types of standardized assessments include: NWEA, DIBELS, AimsWeb, DRA

First year is to establish baseline. Subsequent years should be growth targets based on the baseline.

Percent of students scoring proficient or above (or the equivalent on the selected assessment) in reading.

B. Student Academic Proficiency: School Selected AssessmentsMeasure 2: Proficiency on school selected standardized test in math.

Report the percent of students who score proficient or above on a standardized assessment selected by the school. Types of standardized assessments include: NWEA, DIBELS Math, AimsWeb

First year is to establish baseline. Subsequent years should be growth targets based on the baseline.

Percent of students scoring proficient or above (or the equivalent on the selected assessment) in math.



C. Student Academic Growth: State Assessment Measure 1: Growth on state assessment in reading

Same Cohort Growth: Compares percent of proficient and above students in one year to the percent of proficient and above students from the same cohort in the following year.

Successive Cohort Growth: Compares percent of proficient and above students in one year to the percent of proficient and above students at the same grade level in the following year.

Year one: Establish baseline and create goals for each cohort and grade level for the next four

years.

Chart comparing same and successive cohort growth in reading.

C. Student Academic Growth: State Assessment Measure 2: Growth on state assessment in math




years.

Chart comparing same and successive cohort growth in math.

D. Student Academic Growth: School Selected AssessmentsMeasure 1: Proficiency on school selected standardized test in reading.



Year one: Establish baseline and create goals for each cohort and grade level for the next four years.


D. Student Academic Growth: School Selected AssessmentsMeasure 2: Proficiency on school selected standardized test in math.




years.


22



E. Achievement Gaps: State Assessment MathMeasure 2: Gaps in proficiency and growth between major student subgroups are reduced on the state Math assessment.

Year One: School identifies baseline gaps between non-identified subgroups and identified subgroups on proficiency in math on the state assessment and creates goals for years 2-4.

Chart comparing percent of proficient students in non-identified subgroups and proficiency levels of students in identified subgroups.

E. Achievement Gaps: Local Assessment ELAMeasure 3: Gaps in proficiency and growth between major student subgroups are reduced on the school’s standardized ELA assessment.

Year One: School identifies baseline gaps between non-identified subgroups and identified subgroups on proficiency in ELA on the school’s local assessment and creates goals for years 2-4.


E. Achievement Gaps: Local Assessment MathMeasure 4: Gaps in proficiency and growth between major student subgroups are reduced on the school’s standardized math assessment.

Year One: School identifies baseline gaps between non-identified subgroups and identified subgroups on proficiency in math on the state assessment and creates goals for years 2-4.


23

Performance MeasuresGuidance

Non-Academic



Student AttendanceMeasure 1: Average Daily Attendance Rate

Yearly Target: The Average attendance rate as reported in the MEDMS data system for CRCS will be at or above x%

ADA for each grade level on a yearly basis.

Student EnrollmentMeasure 1: Maintaining student enrollment throughout the year.

Yearly Target: percent off students enrolled on state “count day” who are still enrolled on the last day of school

Report on percent of students enrolled on state “count day” who are still enrolled on last day of school.

Student EnrollmentMeasure 2: Student re-enrollment from one year to the next

Yearly Target: Percent of the student body who are eligible for re-enrollment at the end of one year will indicate their intent to return the following school year.

Enrollment Records

Family enrollment data as needed.

Student EnrollmentMeasure 3: Student enrolled continuously for multiple years

Percent of students enrolled continuously for multiple years Enrollment RecordsGraph/data table indicating longevity of students enrolled.

Financial Performance and SustainabilityMeasure 1: Budget versus actual revenue and expenditures

School will produce monthly financial reports and evidence reviewed by governing board monthly through agenda item. When monthly financials vary by more than 5%, the variance will be flagged for special governing board consideration to ensure a positive cash flow at the end of each school year.

Quarterly financial reports must be made available to the authorizer.

Annual financial audit by a qualified, certified public accountant or public accountant certified by the board of accountancy must be submitted to the Maine State charter School

24

Committee.



Governance Board Performance & StewardshipMeasure 1: Public accountability – Transparent, responsive, and legally compliant Board operations

Yearly Goal One: Board will meet one time per month at a minimum.Evidence of required bylaws and policies are in place and are regularly reviewed as indicated in minutes. Yearly Goal Two: 100% of Governing Board agendas and minutes are made available to the public.

Agendas and minutes may be posted on the school’s website and/or posted at the school in a public place.

Adequacy of Facilities Maintenance in Support of ProgramMeasure 1: Facility meets State standards

Yearly Goal: Facility will meet all applicable state expectations for public schools.

Annual review of maintenance for facilityObservation during authorizer visitsFacility records, policies, and procedures available on request.

Capital Improvement Plan

Transportation & Food Service Measure 1: Record of costs and student utilization

Contract for transportation

Record of costs

Transportation & Food Service Measure 2: Record of costs and student utilization

Example: Catered lunch that meets federal and state guidelines for food service will not exceed our budgeted amount.

Contract for food service

Record of costs and student utilization

Survey students and parents annually regarding satisfaction food (quality and cost).

School Social and Academic ClimateMeasure 1: Instances of bullying, harassment, or other abusive practices.

Yearly Goal: School will report the number of behavioral incidents using the state and federal reporting requirements.

Record of reports submitted to state and federal

Action plans taken by the school

25

to improve the school climate



School Social and Academic ClimateMeasure 2: Confidential survey of parents, staff, and students.

School will gather and respond to family, student, and staff perceptions of the quality of the school’s social and academic climate.Year 1 & 2: Surveys administered to students and distributed to parentsYear 3 and each successive year: Each year the school will survey parents/staff/students and from the results identify a specific area to improve and show improvement in those areas.

Results of completed surveys of families.

Action plans taken by the school to improve the school climate

Parent and Community EngagementMeasure 1: School selected

Example: 100% of students will participate in student interest groups Example: Record of offerings for students and student rosters indicating the percentage of students involved

Parent and Community EngagementMeasure 2: School Selected

Example: 100% of parents will be sent a weekly newsletter from the office. A hardcopy will be provided upon request if access to email is unavailable.

Example: 80% of returned parent surveys will indicate satisfaction with level of parent communication.

Percentage of parents who subscribe to the newsletter/Facebook pages electronically and hard copy.

Survey parents


Example: Goal is to have all families involved in the school community in ways that are meaningful to parents.

Example: 100% of parents will be invited and a minimum of 70% of parents will participate in 1 or more activities throughout the year. (Includes field trip chaperones, student interest group facilitator, volunteering, PTF sponsored events, PTF meetings, classroom and school wide events, board meetings, etc)

A log of parents attending events.

List of possible involvement opportunities noted in the school handbooks and on other school publications for parents and students.

Students, Parents, and Staff will have the opportunity to add activities for student interest groups or other clubs, etc.


Example: Year 1 & 2 target: 100% participation from parents in PLP meetings Percentage of PLP meetings that have parent attendance via in

26

Year 3 and all successive years target: 100% participation from students and 90% (to increase by 2% each year) participation from parents in PLP meetings and goal setting on PLPs.

person, phone, or home visits

27

· web viewcharter schools within their school administrative units. at present the commission has...

Documents