Understanding of Performance Criteria (shared by Jane)

-discussion of above as pertains to where the caregiver survey belongs

-"how we get to be a charter school, requirements to maintain charter

-brief review of criteria, see attached

-->#7 school climate and family engagement (does not explicitly call out survey)

-->#9: governance, i.e. BoT

However under committee descriptions, what under this would entail/require a caregiver survey? Survey is called out as an example under BoT responsibilities, is this really AC? If it doesn't sit with a committee, then how well will the survey be overseen? 

Possibility of a separate survey, more for feedback to the BoT, less focused for the Director, from the caregivers. 

Transfer of who's writing it (not so much AC, but rather management, i.e. Jane and Karen).

--what can we do to get feedback from the AC incorporated into the survey

--what can we (AC) do to help with the writing in a collaborative fashion?

----working group is a plausible solution

Suggestion from Mason - if not via AC, what is the role of the BoT in assessing general feel of the caregiver community? Could it be a shorter, e.g. 3-4 Q, culture survey? (additional ex Q's in email from Mason)

-importance of separating governance from management, e.g. dictating questions to Karen and Jane to include in the survey

-importance of communication of survey results back to community - this is something that has been missing up till now. 

-Q raised on to how trends observed were communicated to AC in years past? This was mostly verbal, but how we keep track of this in AC so we can trend this over years.

--something that should likely be pulled into the dashboard

-need to make sure we evolve our approach to match up with increasing data focus of DESE, in a sustainable manner

-Q of how to keep this well maintained over succession of new directors, etc. Can/should this be done via BoT/AC?

-again raised, communication back to caregivers of administration's analysis and action plan from the survey 

Separate aside on Title I status per # of free lunch recipients now given new participation in program.

it was then clarified that it was seen on DESEs RVCS report card and Karen/Jane were going to look into. 

Screener data covered at prior AC mtg

MCAS still not shared, will be discussed at next AC mtg

Essential elements Montessori audit:

attached

opportunities - increase partnership/engagement with caregivers to increase e.g. absenteeism 

--further pt on above, we're in line with sending NBPT district. Q raised on reliability of data reporting due to some taking time to extend vacations, but not necessarily reporting that, e.g. saying "they're sick" vs. "on vacation"

-Suggestion from Karen and Jane - the Audit might be more useful once per charter term, not every other year. Would be a cost savings. Timing - mid charter term. Agreement from AC on this approach. Internal audit every year except that external audit. 

Survey - timing: early next year, 1Q2025

-Jane to circulate to AC before next mtg

-preference for notification to AC team when documents are posted

-can we make a separate survey folder within AC