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

6. 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?

7. SCPCSD PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK Bobby Rykard Director of Performance Management

8. 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

9. 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?

10. ACADEMIC  Proficiency in ELA/Math  Advanced proficiency in ELA/Math  Student achievement – growth (beginning for 2016)  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 (suspended for 2015)  State-Absolute and Growth Ratings  Federal  Meeting targets as defined in the Charter

11. 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

12. ORGANIZATIONAL  Educational Program  Access and Equity  Governance  School Environment  Students/Employees  Management/Oversight  Reporting

13. SAMPLE SCHOOL PROFILE:

14. 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

15. CONTACT INFORMATION Bobby Rykard (803) 734-0669 rrykard@sccharter.org