{ "schema_version": "1.0", "framework": "Charter Governance Maturity & Integration", "framework_code": "CGMI-F", "publisher": "CGMI", "effective_date": "2026-01-01", "summary": "Initial publication of the CGMI-F framework — five domains, twenty practice areas, five maturity levels, three appraisal tiers.", "levels": [ { "level": 1, "name": "Emerging", "tagline": "Reactive. Ad hoc. Dependent on individuals.", "descriptor": "Governance exists nominally but is not systematically practiced. The board meets minimum legal requirements inconsistently. Success depends on individual heroics rather than repeatable processes. Governance quality is fragile and would deteriorate significantly if key individuals left.", "gates": [ "School is legally incorporated as a nonprofit", "Board has minimum required seats (per bylaws)", "School has an active charter agreement", "Board has met at least once in the past 90 days" ], "platform_signals": [ "Governance Maturity Score typically 0–45", "Meeting notice compliance below 70%", "Less than 50% board certification completion", "Multiple unresolved Critical policy audit findings", "No financial documents uploaded in 90+ days" ], "domain_descriptions": { "D1": "Board has required seats filled but little formal orientation, inconsistent training, and no succession planning.", "D2": "Meetings happen but notice compliance is inconsistent, minutes are often late or incomplete, and policies exist but aren't actively maintained.", "D3": "Board receives reports but doesn't actively drive strategy. Leadership evaluation is informal or absent.", "D4": "Budget is approved annually but financial oversight between meetings is limited. Treasurer may be the only board member engaging with financial data.", "D5": "Required notices are posted but community engagement is minimal. Authorizer relationship is reactive." } }, { "level": 2, "name": "Developing", "tagline": "Aware. Basic processes in place. Compliance-focused.", "descriptor": "The board has established basic governance processes and consistently meets legal compliance requirements. Governance is predictable at a minimum level. The board understands its responsibilities but governance practices are compliance-driven rather than quality-driven. There is limited proactive governance activity.", "gates": [ "All Emerging gates met", "Meeting notice compliance ≥ 85% over trailing 6 months", "Minutes approved within 30 days for ≥ 80% of meetings", "No unresolved Critical policy audit findings", "Annual audit completed within required timeframe", "At least 50% of board members have completed foundational training" ], "platform_signals": [ "Governance Maturity Score typically 45–62", "Meeting notice compliance 85–95%", "50–75% board certification completion", "Policy audit: only Advisory findings remain", "Financial documents uploaded on schedule" ], "domain_descriptions": { "D1": "All board positions filled, roles understood, basic orientation for new members. Training is happening but not systematically tracked.", "D2": "Meeting notices consistently posted on time, minutes completed within 30 days, basic policy library in place.", "D3": "Strategic plan exists and is referenced. Leadership receives performance feedback. Academic data is reviewed at meetings.", "D4": "Annual audit completed on time. Budget reviewed monthly. Treasurer actively engaged. No material audit findings.", "D5": "Meeting documents published. Parent input mechanisms exist. Authorizer reporting completed on time." } }, { "level": 3, "name": "Established", "tagline": "Proactive. Documented standards. Governance-driven culture.", "descriptor": "The board governs through well-defined, documented processes that go beyond minimum compliance requirements. Governance quality is consistent regardless of which individuals are serving. The board is proactive — it anticipates issues rather than reacting to them. There is a clear culture of governance quality and continuous improvement.", "gates": [ "All Developing gates met", "100% of board members certified in role-specific training", "Board self-assessment conducted within last 12 months", "Strategic plan current (adopted within 3 years, progress reviewed annually)", "Formal executive evaluation process documented and executed annually", "Policy audit: zero unresolved Advisory findings older than 90 days", "Governance Maturity Score ≥ 70" ], "platform_signals": [ "Governance Maturity Score typically 63–78", "Meeting notice compliance ≥ 95%", "100% board certification completion", "Policy audit: only Informational findings", "Multi-year financial trend positive or stable", "Transparency portal fully active and current" ], "domain_descriptions": { "D1": "All members certified in their roles. Succession plan active. Board composition regularly reviewed against strategic needs. Skills gaps identified and recruitment targets set.", "D2": "Governance processes are documented and followed consistently. Policy library fully compliant, regularly reviewed, and maintained. Board self-assessment conducted annually.", "D3": "Multi-year strategic plan actively monitored. Executive evaluation is formal, documented, and tied to charter commitments. Academic performance data drives board discussion.", "D4": "Board financial literacy demonstrated across multiple members. Audit committee functioning. Reserve fund policy in place and funded. Financial risks proactively monitored.", "D5": "Transparency portal fully active. Annual community engagement cycle in place. Authorizer relationship is collaborative and proactive. Board self-assessment drives annual improvements." } }, { "level": 4, "name": "Advanced", "tagline": "Data-driven. Measured. Benchmarked. Continuously improving.", "descriptor": "The board manages governance quality through quantitative data and proactive benchmarking. Governance decisions are evidence-based. The board tracks its own performance metrics, compares to peers, and uses data to prioritize improvement. Year-over-year governance improvement is demonstrated and measured. At this level, governance is a competitive advantage for the school.", "gates": [ "All Established gates met", "Governance Maturity Score ≥ 80 for two consecutive cycles", "Year-over-year improvement documented across at least 3 of 5 domains", "Peer benchmark comparison conducted and acted upon", "Board composition skills matrix current and actively used for recruitment", "Multi-year financial model maintained and reviewed quarterly", "At least 2 board members advancing to intermediate/expert training tier" ], "platform_signals": [ "Governance Maturity Score typically 78–90", "Year-over-year score improvement documented", "Peer benchmark: top 25% of comparable schools", "Zero compliance incidents in trailing 12 months", "Board self-assessment drives measurable improvement" ], "domain_descriptions": { "D1": "Board composition is data-informed (skills matrix, community representation analysis). Member performance is tracked. Development plans exist for each member.", "D2": "Governance processes are measured and their effectiveness is evaluated. Compliance rates are tracked as KPIs. Process improvement is data-driven.", "D3": "Strategic planning is tied to quantitative outcomes. Executive evaluation uses objective metrics aligned to charter commitments. Academic accountability includes leading indicators, not just results.", "D4": "Board financial oversight includes trend analysis, scenario planning, and peer benchmarking. Financial risk indicators are defined and monitored. Multi-year financial model is maintained.", "D5": "Community engagement is tracked and measured. Authorizer feedback loop is formalized. Annual governance review compares year-over-year on all dimensions." } }, { "level": 5, "name": "Exemplary", "tagline": "Systemic. Institutional. Adaptive. A governance model for others.", "descriptor": "Governance is deeply embedded in the school's organizational culture and operates as a systemic capability. The board continuously improves its own governance practices, contributes to sector-wide knowledge, and adapts governance systems to meet evolving needs. At this level, the school's governance practices are worth studying and replicating. Level 5 schools are candidates to serve as governance exemplars for their authorizers and state associations.", "gates": [ "All Advanced gates met", "Governance Maturity Score ≥ 90 for two consecutive cycles", "Active contribution to charter governance sector (hosting learning, speaking, publishing, or mentoring)", "Expert-tier training completion for at least one board member per role", "Zero compliance incidents across any domain in trailing 24 months", "Authorizer has cited school as a governance model or best practice", "Full year-over-year improvement documented across all 5 domains" ], "platform_signals": [ "Governance Maturity Score consistently ≥ 90", "Peer benchmark: top 10% of comparable schools", "School cited by authorizer or state association as governance model", "Expert-tier training completion" ], "domain_descriptions": { "D1": "Board composition is a strategic asset. Governance knowledge is institutionalized — not dependent on individuals. Alumni network of past board members actively contributes.", "D2": "Governance processes evolve continuously based on evidence. The board proactively updates policies in response to regulatory changes before being required to do so.", "D3": "Strategic oversight is anticipatory. The board regularly engages with emerging challenges before they become crises. Charter promise delivery is a point of organizational pride.", "D4": "Financial governance is a model for the sector. The school may mentor other boards on financial oversight practices. Long-term financial sustainability is structurally assured.", "D5": "The school actively contributes to the charter governance ecosystem — sharing practices, participating in sector improvement, and hosting peer learning for other boards." } } ], "domains": [ { "code": "D1", "name": "Board Composition & Competency", "rationale": "A governance body is only as capable as its members. This domain measures whether the board has the right people, in the right roles, with the right knowledge.", "nacsa_alignment": "Governing in the Public Interest — Board composition and independence", "csp_section": "Section H — Governing Board Quality", "practice_areas": [ { "code": "D1.PA1", "name": "Board Composition", "description": "Board size, seat count, required positions (Chair, Treasurer, Secretary), vacancy management, term limits" }, { "code": "D1.PA2", "name": "Member Competency", "description": "Role-specific knowledge, certification completion, ongoing professional development, skill gap identification" }, { "code": "D1.PA3", "name": "Succession Planning", "description": "Officer election cycles, recruitment pipeline, transition protocols, knowledge transfer processes" }, { "code": "D1.PA4", "name": "Diversity & Independence", "description": "Board composition diversity (skills, background, community representation), independence from management and EMO/CMO" } ] }, { "code": "D2", "name": "Governance Processes & Compliance", "rationale": "Processes are the engine of governance. This domain measures whether governance operates through repeatable, documented processes that meet legal requirements and best practice standards.", "nacsa_alignment": "Compliance indicators across all five performance domains", "csp_section": "Section G — Governance Policies & Procedures", "practice_areas": [ { "code": "D2.PA1", "name": "Meeting Management", "description": "Notice compliance, quorum achievement, agenda structure, open meetings law adherence, closed session protocols" }, { "code": "D2.PA2", "name": "Records & Documentation", "description": "Minutes quality, completeness, timeliness, retention, public records compliance, document management" }, { "code": "D2.PA3", "name": "Policy Framework", "description": "Policy library completeness, currency, alignment with state law, conflict of interest enforcement, whistleblower protection" }, { "code": "D2.PA4", "name": "Legal & Regulatory Compliance", "description": "Charter agreement adherence, state statute compliance, federal law compliance (IDEA, FERPA, Title IX), authorizer reporting" } ] }, { "code": "D3", "name": "Strategic Oversight & Accountability", "rationale": "Boards govern strategy, not operations. This domain measures whether the board provides meaningful strategic direction, evaluates school leadership performance, and maintains accountability for the charter's promises.", "nacsa_alignment": "Ongoing oversight and evaluation — school quality accountability", "csp_section": "Section A — Grant Project Goals (performance measures, logic model)", "practice_areas": [ { "code": "D3.PA1", "name": "Strategic Planning", "description": "Existence and currency of strategic plan, board role in plan development, monitoring of strategic milestones" }, { "code": "D3.PA2", "name": "Leadership Oversight", "description": "Executive director/principal evaluation process, performance metrics, accountability mechanisms, management separation" }, { "code": "D3.PA3", "name": "Academic Accountability", "description": "Board oversight of academic performance data, response to underperformance, alignment with charter mission" }, { "code": "D3.PA4", "name": "Charter Promise Fidelity", "description": "Monitoring compliance with charter commitments, enrollment targets, grade expansion, program fidelity" } ] }, { "code": "D4", "name": "Financial Governance & Sustainability", "rationale": "Charter boards are fiduciaries of public funds. This domain measures whether the board provides meaningful financial oversight — not just receives reports, but actively understands, monitors, and acts on financial health.", "nacsa_alignment": "Financial performance domain — fiscal oversight and auditing", "csp_section": "Section F — Financial Management & Sustainability", "practice_areas": [ { "code": "D4.PA1", "name": "Financial Oversight", "description": "Budget approval and monitoring, fund balance management, Treasurer engagement, financial dashboard use, board financial literacy" }, { "code": "D4.PA2", "name": "Audit & Internal Controls", "description": "Annual audit process, audit committee function (if applicable), response to audit findings, internal control policies" }, { "code": "D4.PA3", "name": "Financial Sustainability", "description": "Revenue diversification, reserve fund management, multi-year financial planning, facility cost management" }, { "code": "D4.PA4", "name": "Procurement & Compliance", "description": "Procurement policy compliance, conflict of interest in contracting, CMO/EMO financial independence, grant management" } ] }, { "code": "D5", "name": "Transparency & Stakeholder Accountability", "rationale": "Charter schools are public institutions. This domain measures whether the board governs transparently — making information available to the public, engaging the community, and fulfilling its obligations as a steward of public education.", "nacsa_alignment": "Transparency and public accountability standards", "csp_section": "Section E — Student Demand and Community/Local Support", "practice_areas": [ { "code": "D5.PA1", "name": "Public Transparency", "description": "Meeting notice publication, agenda and minutes availability, annual report publication, public access compliance" }, { "code": "D5.PA2", "name": "Community Engagement", "description": "Parent and community input mechanisms, stakeholder communication, public comment processes" }, { "code": "D5.PA3", "name": "Authorizer Relationship", "description": "Quality of authorizer communication, proactive disclosure, response to authorizer requests, renewal readiness" }, { "code": "D5.PA4", "name": "Continuous Improvement Culture", "description": "Board self-assessment practice, governance review cycles, learning from failures, benchmarking against peers" } ] } ], "appraisal_tiers": [ { "name": "Self-Assessment", "abbreviation": "SA", "frequency": "Ad hoc (point-in-time, typically annual or as needed)", "conducted_by": "Board members + school administrators", "output": "Self-attested domain-level ratings (capped at Level 2)", "rigor": "Foundational — manual evidence collection, self-attested, capped at Level 2" }, { "name": "Guided Appraisal", "abbreviation": "GA", "frequency": "Annual (typically includes a baseline analysis)", "conducted_by": "Platform-facilitated appraisal using automated tools + evidence analysis", "output": "CGMI Domain Ratings + Level Determination + Evidence Report (capped at Level 4)", "rigor": "High — platform-driven evidence collection, standardized methodology, documented reasoning, capped at Level 4" }, { "name": "Certified Appraisal", "abbreviation": "CA", "frequency": "On demand (typically at charter renewal or upon request)", "conducted_by": "CGMI Certified Appraiser (human) — trained and credentialed through CGMI", "output": "Official CGMI Maturity Level Rating + Appraiser-signed Report (any level, required for Level 5)", "rigor": "Highest — human judgment + platform data + formal methodology" } ], "scoring": { "name": "Governance Maturity Score", "abbreviation": "GMS", "scale": { "min": 0, "max": 100 }, "formula": "GMS = D1 + D2 + D3 + D4 + D5 (each domain 0–20, each PA 0–5)", "domain_max": 20, "pa_max": 5, "pa_scoring": [ { "level": 0, "label": "Not assessed", "points": 0, "description": "Practice area has not been evaluated or school is non-compliant with foundational requirements." }, { "level": 1, "label": "Emerging", "points": 1, "description": "Governance activity exists but is ad hoc, inconsistent, and dependent on individuals." }, { "level": 2, "label": "Developing", "points": 2, "description": "Basic processes in place. Minimum compliance requirements met consistently." }, { "level": 3, "label": "Established", "points": 3, "description": "Documented, repeatable processes that go beyond compliance. Proactive governance culture." }, { "level": 4, "label": "Advanced", "points": 4, "description": "Data-driven, measured, benchmarked. Year-over-year improvement demonstrated." }, { "level": 5, "label": "Exemplary", "points": 5, "description": "Systemic, institutional capability. Continuous improvement. Sector model." } ], "interpretations": [ { "min": 0, "max": 29, "label": "Critical", "description": "Critical governance gaps. Immediate attention required across multiple domains." }, { "min": 30, "max": 44, "label": "Foundational", "description": "Foundational governance in place but inconsistent. Significant improvement needed." }, { "min": 45, "max": 62, "label": "Compliant", "description": "Basic processes established. Compliance-focused. Room for proactive governance." }, { "min": 63, "max": 69, "label": "Approaching Established", "description": "Governance culture emerging. Approaching Level 3 gate threshold." }, { "min": 70, "max": 79, "label": "Strong", "description": "Strong governance culture. Proactive, documented, consistent across domains." }, { "min": 80, "max": 89, "label": "Distinguished", "description": "Data-driven governance. Measurable improvement. Benchmarked against peers." }, { "min": 90, "max": 100, "label": "Exemplary", "description": "Institutional governance capability. Sector model. Sustained excellence." } ], "gate_thresholds": [ { "level_number": 1, "level_name": "Emerging", "type": "signal", "threshold": "0–45", "note": "GMS is a diagnostic indicator at this level. Not a gate requirement." }, { "level_number": 2, "level_name": "Developing", "type": "signal", "threshold": "45–62", "note": "GMS is a diagnostic indicator. Score reflects compliance-level governance." }, { "level_number": 3, "level_name": "Established", "type": "gate", "threshold": "≥ 70", "note": "First level where GMS becomes a gate requirement. Must be met in a single appraisal cycle." }, { "level_number": 4, "level_name": "Advanced", "type": "gate", "threshold": "≥ 80", "note": "Must be sustained for two consecutive appraisal cycles." }, { "level_number": 5, "level_name": "Exemplary", "type": "gate", "threshold": "≥ 90", "note": "Must be sustained for two consecutive appraisal cycles." } ] } }