This year the Charter School Performance Framework (CSPF) underwent a substantial review with input from stakeholders. After that review process, the TEA proposed the new CSPF and allowed feedback from interested parties before official adoption. TCSA submitted comments to TEA regarding the proposed changes. The TEA agreed with the vast majority of TCSA’s comments and updated the rules to reflect the changes we requested.
First TCSA requested TEA to add clarification to the overview section of the CSPF to describe any way in which the CSPF could be used. The agency agreed and modified the overview section to properly reflect the purpose of the manual.
TCSA also asked for clarification on what specific data would be used for Indicators 1b and 1c. TEA explained that within the Closing the Gaps Status Table, the “Academic Achievement Status” is the data source for Indicator 1b” and the “English Language Proficiency Status” data will be used for Indicator 1c.
TCSA commented regarding Indicator 3f, the training of board members, noting that timelines on the CSPF did not match the timing requirements in the Texas Administration Code. TEA clarified that the Annual Governance Reporting Form allows schools to indicate that a board member is not trained, but is still within the one year they are allotted to receive all the training. As long as that form has been properly filled out, a charter school will still be able to receive a Meets Expectations mark for this sector of the CSPF.
In Indicator 3i, TREx Usage, the words timely and consistently were used, but not defined. TCSA asked for clarification regarding those terms and TEA agreed the terms needed explanation. The indicator has now been updated with specific timelines to follow.
The CSPF requirement that 50% of students are in tested grades. TCSA pointed out the requirement does not apply to all charter schools and TEA agreed and modified the indicator. There are now a number of different ways to qualify for a Meets Expectation for this Indicator.
Unfortunately, TEA did not accept two of our comments. TCSA asked that TEA look for other indicators rather than the academic accountability ratings or the Charter FIRST ratings since the system allows for a double-counting of those factors. TEA disagreed. TCSA also asked for clarification in the Indicator regarding what constitutes a teacher for purposes of requiring a baccalaureate degree. TEA declined to modify the description.
Overall, TCSA was able to get a lot of changes made to the CSPF that help clarify what is required of charters to successfully meet their requirements. Please be sure to read the new CSPF to see all the areas TEA is using to generate a rating for your school.