• Unity College (near Ecology Learning Center) is gifting a full space to ELC to use a facility.
• Due to more space with the new facility, they are requesting an enrollment increase from 106 to 120. 
• They will be keeping current facility where it is, they have an annex under a lease that they will be allowing to expire and possibly get out earlier than end of contract to help save some funds. 
• Unity Foundation has worked with school since beginning. 
• Building was assessed, $800K+ dollars worth.
• Actual cost to buy building is zero. But some maintenance costs and they are planning to fundraise for some of the money for maintenance needed on the building.
• Between FY24 and FY27 being out of pocket by 60k
• Via Joe, ELC has budgeted a breakeven year this year, $130k in bank, break-even last two quarters.
• Extra kids in enrollment will make helpful 'insurance'. 
• Joe suggests a possible small loan for building maintenance; maybe a resource for financial connection, to have money in hand before fundraising possibly. 
• Building is very close (right next door) to school. 
• Question of insurance. Building insured once ELC is in control should be priority.
• If they get student numbers they need and if they get fundraising they need - not guaranteed.
• Facility acquirement currently still private and not shared with school until officialized if officialized as still not approved by commission.
• Timeline around acquiring school very quick compared to normal situation. Would all be done by end of this month if by planned. 
• Enrollment amendment request is backed up by long waitlist with enough able to enroll. Leza is excited about facility opportunities and can be integrated into community and generate revenue from doing that with community partnerships. Lots of benefits programmatically. 
• Joe's suggestions of needing to know ELC's plan with protection for the year, insurance on the facility, and plan of what to do to ensure the funds (fundraising and enrollment), look at challenge with transportation in past and see if there is anything that will effect and analyze maintenance fully with new building to avoid serious costs in repairs or unexpected repairs.
• Everyone in committee recommends at least programmatically. 
• There was an inspection on facility by a board member, no second inspection done as of yet. Check for asbestos, mold, etc. Was just being used for a university so inspections would have been done within last couple of years.
• Recommendation is yes unless finance committee recommends no then the recommendation would change. 

• Time to vote to decide which revisions should be included this year.
• Lana sent out copy to everyone in committee with notes prior to meeting. 
• 1.1 State Assessment Proficiency Results - schools were reporting but there was no official rating so possibly set meets expectation to be around state average. State releases averages and base them off that number within around 10%. Most states do this with charter schools vs. state averages. 
• Tori stated that charter schools were marketed as, "as good as or better" so the expectation of schools should match that but that she is accepting of this idea for now as a scale. 
• 1.1C the same would be the case with subgroups of students (IEPs, multilingual learners, economically disadvantaged, race/ethnicity) and compared to state's subgroup averages to use as targets. 
• Sending district information and chronic absenteeism more accurate numbers but MCSC does not use more sending district information as base of chronic absenteeism. 
• 1.2 Reading and Grade Level possibly add established outcomes, uncertain how to do without being inaccurate at this point in time. Need target for end of third grade; find fair way to assess what would be a good way to test this. Possibly 90% based on importance of reading by end of third grade. State average in Maine is 40% or 60% - lower to match state average? Currently below Oklahoma. Possibly look for a specialist to help with this?
• NWEA Map Growth - same ranges, no changes. Next year should there be a waiver offered or not? Was continued this year but it can be hard not to have school data and because most of schools just did State Assessment instead of also NWEA Growth so could help get MCSC more accurate data faster.
• Targets all remain the same for subgroups. 
• 1.5A - Addition of High School Graduation Targets - percentage for four year, five year, six year. Five and six year will be averaged together like the state does as is; maybe change this to show expectation numbers up a lot more after four year instead. Schools doing better with graduation rates than in previous years. 
• Tori mentioned temptation in schools to pass kids to get numbers up with graduation. Basing data off of assessments compared would be good way to make sure accurate. 
• Re-assess for next year.
• 1.6A - Accuplacer/SAT Scores. Rate data this year, not just collecting it as in past. 75%-85% meeting and over 85% exceeding for scores.
• 1.6B - Same thing but with subgroups. Broken out a little more than before in past; each subgroup to have same expectations for each subgroup.
• 1.6D - FAFSA, nothing changes, schools reporting to MCSC, wording changed. Goal is to encourage schools to work with students to fill out FAFSA. 
• Moved framework into academic section, no changes made just location in document.
• Section 2 - School climate and family engagement. Panorama survey results. Targets written in way that was unclear in pasts so has been changed.
• Finance Section has a few clarification edits. 
• Section 5 Renaming to 'School Mission and Student Persistence' but no targets in that section changed. 
• Jim suggests Science Standard for MCSC being included. 
• Many states don't include it due to it not being required federally. Would be 5th, 8th, and 10th grade assessments. Consider.
• Tom, "Several schools have science in their focus" for the charters. Push to include in assessments. 
• Tori in agreement, science will start to be included. (FY25-26)

• Baxter did not state assessment last year. Didn't think it was required, but did take NWEA Map Growth but didn't take three year assessment.
• Lana reminded them it is a state requirement every year and a commission requirement and that they are in violation of their charter contract for having violated that. 
• From state perspective, concern of funding could end up being withheld but possible no action will be taken.
• Possibly write formal letter about the situation and that there is a possibly their charter will be lost if the test isn't completed again. 
• Assessment calendar being built by Amy to give to schools to remind them of what should be done and when that is required. 
• Suggestion to have school report to department to find out specific consequences if any. 

• Lana will be making presentation to state board about performance framework on the 14th. 
• Include panoramic survey, how many times executive director meets with schools, and how specific conversation around performance framework and panoramic survey in performance framework, as well as board training information - include report to commissioner.

None.

None.