1. AUTHORIZING QUALITY TEAM Dana C. Reed Assistant Superintendent

2. AUTHORIZING QUALITY TEAM MEMBERS  Dana C. Reed – Assistant Superintendent  William James – Director of Technology Services  Zenobia “Z” Ealy – Assistant Director of Technology  Kendall Stewart – Coordinator of Student Information  Catherine Watt – Compliance Coordinator  Bobby Rykard – Director of Performance Management

3. MISSION DRIVEN  Aligned with the mission of the SCPCSD Board of Trustees, the Authorizing Quality Division is focused on ensuring positive academic, fiscal, and organizational outcomes for all schools sponsored by the SCPCSD.

4. DATA DRIVEN  We strive to integrate and use data from a number of systems and processes to inform school communities and drive continuous improvement.  We aim to align the SCPCSD annual reporting, application review, compliance, charter amendment, data reporting, intervention, monitoring, and renewal processes with the Performance Framework.

5. 1. Greater focus on outcomes, not inputs. 2. Authorize charter schools consistent with national best practice. 3. Evaluate charter schools consistent with national best practice. 4. Utilize limited resources to target intervention, support continuous improvement, and promote quality. 5. Align and streamline processes to reduce burden on schools. 6. Spotlight on academic achievement, fiscal stewardship, and organizational soundness.

6. 1. Focus on school’s mission. 2. Treat students, parents, and employees fairly. 3. Strive to provide a high quality education for your students and be good stewards of public funds. 4. Monitor performance. 5. Know and implement the Charter. 6. Adhere to the terms of the school contract with the District. 7. Comply with the law and District policies and procedures. 8. Keep the school board informed. 9. Keep the District informed. 10. Avoid conflicts of interest.

7.  1.adopt national industry standards of quality charter schools and authorize and implement practices consistent with those standards;  2. approve charter applications that meet the requirements specified in state charter school law;  3. decline to approve charter applications in accordance with state charter school law;  4. negotiate and execute sound charter contracts with each approved charter school;  5. monitor, in accordance with charter contract terms, the performance and legal/fiscal compliance of charter schools to include collecting and analyzing data to support ongoing evaluation according to the charter contract;

8.  6. collect an annual report from each school;  7. notify the schools of any perceived problems regarding performance and legal compliance;  8. take appropriate corrective actions and impose sanctions short of revocation;  9. determine whether each charter contract merits renewal, nonrenewal, or revocation;  10. provide to parents and the general public information about charter schools authorized by the sponsor as an enrollment option; and  11. permanently close any charter school at the conclusion of the school year after receiving the lowest performance level rating as defined by the federal accountability system for three consecutive years.

9. Application Review Charter Approval and Contract Annual Review Intervention (if applicable) Renewal Process Performance Framework

10. CONTACT INFORMATION Dana C. Reed (803) 734-4181 dcreed@sccharter.org  Developed to create shared standards between the district as authorizer and the schools to evaluate local level performance in the following areas:  Academic – Is the educational program successful?  Financial – Is the school financially viable/solvent?  Organizational – Is the organization effective and well run?

11. SCPCSD PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK Bobby Rykard Director of Performance Management

12. PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK  Developed to create shared standards between the district as authorizer and the schools to evaluate local level performance in the following areas:  Academic – Is the educational program successful?  Financial – Is the school financially viable/solvent?  Organizational – Is the organization effective and well run?  Developed to create shared standards between the district as authorizer and the schools to evaluate local level performance in the following areas:  Academic – Is the educational program successful?  Financial – Is the school financially viable/solvent?  Organizational – Is the organization effective and well run?

13. PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK  The Performance Framework itself may be found at the following link: https://sccharter- public.sharepoint.com/Documents/Accountability/Performance%20Framework/SCPCSD% 20Performance%20Framework%20Rev%208-5-14.pdf

14. ACADEMIC  Proficiency in ELA/Math  Advanced proficiency in ELA/Math  Student achievement – growth  Performance in ELA/Math compared to resident district  (b/m compared to b/m and virtual compared to virtual)  Graduation rate  4 year rate (required by ESEA)  5 year rate  Life Scholarship eligibility  Accountability Targets  State-Absolute and Growth Ratings  Federal  Meeting targets as defined in the Charter

15. FINANCIAL  Near-Term  Ability to cover current liabilities  Adequate cash on hand  Meet enrollment projections  Meeting debt obligations  Long-Term  Living within available resources (Margin)  Reasonable proportion of assets financed  Positive cash trend  Covering long-term debt/avoiding default

16. ORGANIZATIONAL  Educational Program  Access and Equity (Admissions/Enrollment Policies)  Governance  School Environment  Students/Employees  Management/Oversight  Reporting

17. PROCEDURAL UPDATES  New staff assignments  Financial Analyst – Janise Dove starting 8/3/2015  Director of Performance Management – Bobby Rykard  Compliance Coordinator – Catherine Watt  Add comments to each section for school input where data does not always tell “the rest of the story”  Aligning processes - such as possibilities for updating enrollment projections for the Office of Finance and projections in the school’s Charter when an amendment is not required  Increases/Decreases < 15% of projected enrollment in the Charter  Change in grade structure of the school  Continue development by:  Coordinating with school leaders through stakeholder groups  Coordinating with financial managers and financial experts  Coordinating with the National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA)

18. ACADEMIC UPDATES  Accountability targets will be suspended for the evaluation of the 2014-15 school year  State – Absolute and Growth Ratings  Federal – ESEA rating  Add student achievement (growth) in the evaluation for the 2015-16 school year  Developed to create shared standards between the district as authorizer and the schools to evaluate local level performance in the following areas:  Academic – Is the educational program successful?  Financial – Is the school financially viable/solvent?  Organizational – Is the organization effective and well run?

19. FINANCIAL UPDATES  Continuing conversations with financial staff and contractors.  Indicators appear to be standard  But, always open to conversation for input and to look at possibilities for improvement  Continuing conversations with school leaders  Meetings to walk through financial information and calculations including school board members

20. ORGANIZATIONAL UPDATES  Some indicators were considered “Not Applicable” for the 2014 evaluation  Working on source data and conversations with school leaders regarding the appropriate information to be used with a focus on consistency and fairness among schools

21. TIMELINE  The evaluation of the 2014 year was a pilot year  Much of the source input is received in the district in November  The goal is to send school evaluation reports to school leaders, the school board chair, and the SCPCSD Board by January 31 st

22. CONTACT INFORMATION Bobby Rykard (803) 734-0669 rrykard@sccharter.org  Developed to create shared standards between the district as authorizer and the schools to evaluate local level performance in the following areas:  Academic – Is the educational program successful?  Financial – Is the school financially viable/solvent?  Organizational – Is the organization effective and well run?