June 2014 Accountability Review Report: Massachusetts Virtual Academy at Greenfield Commonwealth

Accountability Review of the Massachusetts Virtual Academy at Greenfield Commonwealth Virtual School

Virtual school accountability reviews are conducted in accordance with CMR 52.08(2): “(2) Accountability Reviews. The Department may send evaluation teams to visit each Commonwealth of Massachusetts virtual school on an annual or as-needed basis to corroborate and augment the information provided in the annual report. The Department may conduct other accountability reviews as necessary. Accountability review teams will gather any other evidence relevant to the virtual school's performance. The written reports from these reviews shall become part of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts virtual school's record, along with any written comments that the school wishes to submit.”

Date of visit: June 5, 2014 Date of this report: September 17, 2014 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 75 Pleasant Street, Malden, MA 02148-4906 Phone 781-338-3000 TTY: N.E.T. Relay 800-439-2370 www.doe.mass.edu

This document was prepared by the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Mitchell D. Chester, Ed.D. Commissioner

The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, an affirmative action employer, is committed to ensuring that all of its programs and facilities are accessible to all members of the public. We do not discriminate on the basis of age, color, disability, national origin, race, religion, sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation. Inquiries regarding the Department’s compliance with Title IX and other civil rights laws may be directed to the Human Resources Director, 75 Pleasant St., Malden, MA 02148-4906. Phone: 781-338-6105.

© 2014 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Permission is hereby granted to copy any or all parts of this document for non-commercial educational purposes. Please credit the “Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.”

This document printed on recycled paper

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 75 Pleasant Street, Malden, MA 02148-4906 Phone 781-338-3000 TTY: N.E.T. Relay 800-439-2370 www.doe.mass.edu

Table of Contents GCVS Accountability Review Date of Review: June 5, 2014

1. School profile The Massachusetts Virtual Academy at Greenfield Commonwealth Virtual School (GCVS) is a conversion of a virtual innovation school in the Greenfield School District. GCVS began operations as a virtual public school under the Innovation School plan approved in 2010 by the Greenfield School Committee. In 2010-11 GCVS served grades K-8; in 2012-13 the school expanded to serve grades K-10. In April 2013, the Greenfield School Committee as “founder entity” submitted an application for a virtual certificate to the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (ESE); on June 25, 2013 the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education approved a three-year operating certificate for GCVS under the state's new virtual school legislation (Chapter 379 of the Acts of 2012). GCVS converted to Commonwealth Virtual School status under the statute and served students in grades K-12 in the 2013-14 school year. On the date of the visit the school enrolled a total of 482 students Educational courses and teaching services, including management software, learning materials, and technical support services are provided by K12, Inc., a virtual school provider, based in Herndon, Virginia.

2. Description of the accountability review On June 5, 2014 the following members of the accountability review team (“team”) visited GCVS at its administrative offices, located at 289 Main Street in Greenfield, Massachusetts: Kenneth Klau, ESE Susan Hargrave, ESE

Alison Bagg, ESE Anne McKenzie, Lower Pioneer Valley Educational Collaborative

Jennifer Gwatkin, ESE Eleanor Rounds, ESE

In addition, the following individuals contributed to the accountability review: Cliff Chuang, ESE Annamaria Schrimpf, Digital Learning Advisory Council (DLAC)

Christopher Hieber, ESE Melanie Manares, ESE

Prior to the on-site portion of the visit, the team reviewed the following information: Application for certificate School report card and accountability report

2013-14 annual goals List of students by sending district

Recent internal and external Samples of individualized learning plans assessment data Curricular materials, including the MARK12 reading series and an K12, Inc. employee handbook alignment of the school’s curriculum to the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks Personnel policies Teacher training document (“National Math Lab”) Bylaws End-of-year parent surveys (2014, 2013) Board minutes Draft parent/student handbook Organizational chart Description of professional development Student demographic information School report card and accountability report

In addition, a telephone interview was conducted with Board of Trustees Chair Ed Berlin on May 29, 2014. The team collectively observed 33 synchronous class sessions (lessons), either in real-time or as recordings. On site, the team reviewed curricular documents and other information provided by GCVS, and conducted in-person focus groups Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Page 5 of 23 GCVS Accountability Review Date of Review: June 5, 2014 with high school leaders (4), trustees (2), administrators (3), representatives from K12, Inc. (5), and special education staff (2). The team conducted virtual focus groups of middle/high school general education teachers (6), elementary/middle learning coaches/parents (5), high school learning coaches/parents (3), elementary/middle students (9) and high school students (3).

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Page 6 of 23 GCVS Accountability Review Date of Review: June 5, 2014

3. Findings

Rating Scale:

Exceeds The school fully and consistently meets the criterion and is a potential exemplar in this area.

Meets The school generally meets the criterion; minor concerns are noted.

Partially meets The school meets some aspects of the criterion but not others and/or moderate concerns are noted.

Falls far below The school falls far below the criterion; significant concern(s) are noted.

Guiding area Criteria Rating

1. Mission and key design elements: The school is faithful to its mission, Partially meets implements the key design elements outlined in its certificate, and substantially meets its accountability plan goals. Faithfulnes s to 2. Access and equity: The school ensures program access and equity for all Falls far below certificate students eligible to attend the school.

3. Compliance: The school compiles a record of compliance with the terms of Partially meets its certificate and applicable state and federal laws and regulations.

4. Student performance: The school consistently meets state student Falls far below performance standards for academic growth, proficiency, and college and career readiness.

5. Program delivery: The school delivers an Curriculum Partially meets academic program that delivers improved Instruction Falls bar below Academic academic outcomes and educational success for all students. and Assessment and program Partially meets program evaluation success Diverse learners Partially meets

9. Culture and family engagement: The school Social, emotional, and Partially meets supports students’ social and emotional health needs health in a safe and respectful learning Family and community Partially meets environment that engages families. engagement

Organizatio 11. Capacity: The school sustains a well- School leadership Partially meets nal viability functioning organizational structure and Professional climate Falls bar below Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Page 7 of 23 GCVS Accountability Review Date of Review: June 5, 2014

creates a professional working climate for all staff. Contractual relationships Partially meets

14. Governance: The Board of Trustees act as public agents authorized by the Partially meets state and provide competent governance to ensure the success and sustainability of the school.

15. Finance: The school maintains a sound and stable financial condition that To be determined operates in a fiscally responsible and publicly accountable manner.

4. Faithfulness to certificate

1. Mission and key design elements Rating: Partially meets While no single stakeholder group was able to articulate all aspects of the school’s mission, they did so collectively; however, certain stakeholders perceive the mission statement as inadequate or incomplete. According to the school’s Terms of Certificate: “The mission of the Massachusetts Virtual Academy at Greenfield Commonwealth Virtual School is to provide a standards-based, Massachusetts public education to students statewide who cannot or do not attend a brick-and-mortar school. The school will serve primarily students in selected target groups, as indicated in the enrollment preferences.” The school’s board of trustees reported that the mission of GCVS is to provide “online learning plus individualized attention to meet students’ learning needs.” However, members of the board of trustees noted that the mission statement is “not adequate.” The board planned an August 2014 retreat to formulate a new mission statement, although it is unclear whether this occurred. The school’s leadership team reported the mission is to provide students with a standards-based curriculum, an alternative public school option, and the ability to serve the needs of students who are not successful in brick-and- mortar schools. Examples cited included students with mental health issues and extracurricular commitments. The parent and student focus groups cited similar examples. While no focus group was able to articulate all aspects of the school’s mission, they did so collectively, with the exception of elementary/middle school teachers. They reported that the school is trying to formulate a mission that was never formalized. Findings for other key design elements articulated in the certificate are provided in the following sections: student performance, program delivery, culture and family engagement, and governance.

2. Access and equity Rating: Falls far below GCVS does not promote program access and equity for English language learners (ELLs) because it has insufficient systems for appropriately identifying students’ English language proficiency. The school’s website does not provide descriptions of the programs or services offered to ELL or special education students, it was unclear to the school and the virtual school provider which entity is responsible for the provision of instructional materials and supplies for special education students, and parents reported being unclear regarding the availability of and means of accessing support services. Furthermore, policies regarding technology requirements in the home may discourage families and students from low-income families from accessing the educational program. GCVS reported serving no ELL students in the school’s 2013-14 student information management system (SIMS) submission, although teachers in the focus groups noted that they had taught students who, in their judgment, might have qualified as ELL students. The home language survey, distributed at the beginning of the school year, was provided to parents in English only, which may have been a contributing factor. Moreover, the school’s website does not provide a description of the programs or services provided to ELL students. A description of the school’s ELL program was not made available to team members (aside from the school’s original application for certificate).

Special education students accounted for 8 percent of GCVS enrollment in 2013-14. While the school anticipates this figure will rise to 25 percent in 2014-15, the school’s website does not provide a description of the programs or services provided to special education students. Furthermore, parents reported being unclear regarding the availability of and means of accessing support services. The K12, Inc. focus group said the school was in a state of “transition” with regard to serving special education and ELL students and is “recruiting nationally” for educators who are able to provide special education, ELL, and response to intervention (RTI) services. There is also debate between GCVS leadership and K12, Inc. as to which entity is responsible for the provision of instructional materials and supplies for special education students. That the pacing of the curriculum accommodates students with different needs and living circumstances—including students who frequently travel, students with other commitments during the day, and students who suffered from bullying or other forms of emotional or physical abuse—was uniformly cited across all of the focus groups. According to school leadership, the school actively monitors its student attrition. The following “in-year withdrawal information” is from the June 3, 2014 board report, which was provided to the review team by the school leadership:

Percent Reason for withdrawal # Students 29% never attended 47 18% Learning coach unavailable 29 15% students needs structure of brick and mortar 24 14% school attendance/progress policy 22 6% objects to ps requirements 10 4% time commitment/org skills 6 4% moved out 6 3% school too structured 4 2% curriculum/materials 3 2% transition plan to B&M 3 1% student wants GED 2 1% Parent personal/health issues 1 1% socialization issue 1 1% withdrawal for non-attendance 1 1% another K12 opportunity 1

The school’s bylaws as provided to the team for review contain a statement regarding non-discriminatory enrollment practices; however, the bylaws are not available publicly on the school’s website. According to the GCVS website, computer systems are provided to students “based on financial need and eligibility…Each family will need to secure their own Internet service provider… the Learning Coach (responsible adult in the home) needs to have at least basic computer skills.” These statements may give the appearance of preventing or discouraging families and students from low income families from accessing the educational program.

3. Compliance Rating: Partially meets Evidence suggests that the school is out of compliance in certain areas; moreover, the school’s learning management system does not appear to utilize the appropriate security protocols. GCVS does not have a plan to address bullying prevention and intervention in accordance with 603 CMR 49.00 and it is unclear whether administrators, faculty, and other mandatory reporters receive training on recognizing and reporting suspected child abuse and neglect in accordance with M.G.L. ch.119 §51A. The review team viewed the properties of the school’s LMS at lms.k12.com and noted the following:  In the identity section the website does not supply ownership or verification information and does not appear to possess an extended validation certificate that indicates to the user the website is authentic.  In the technical details section there is a statement that the LMS does not support encryption; information sent over the Internet without encryption can be seen by other people when it is in transit. Other findings are cited elsewhere in the report with the appropriate citation in statute and/or regulations.

5. Academic and program success

4. Student performance Rating: Falls far below

In 2014 GCVS placed at the 7th percentile of all middle/high schools and K-12 schools in the Commonwealth and is classified in Level 3 of the state’s five-level accountability and assistance system; moreover, the school’s White subgroup placed among the lowest 20 percent of subgroups statewide. Furthermore, in 2014 the school’s high needs subgroup did not meet the 95 percent threshold required for assessment participation in either mathematics (94 percent) or science (94 percent). The school’s 2014 cumulative progress and performance index (PPI) was 63, indicating that the school is not making sufficient progress toward closing proficiency gaps. The team examined the school’s performance from 2011 through 2014. GCVS received an annual progress and performance (PPI) score based on the improvement it made toward its own targets over the following two-year periods: 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14. Based on 2014 accountability data, the school’s annual PPI has declined over each period: 90 (2012), 80 (2013), and 38 (2014). In English language arts, GCVS earned an “On Target” rating for narrowing proficiency gaps in 2012 and 2013; however, in 2014 the school earned a rating of “No Change.” In 2012 and 2013, GCVS earned ratings of “Improved Below Target” and “On Target”, respectively, for growth; however, in 2014 the school earned a rating of “No Change” for growth. In 2012 and 2013, GCVS earned extra credit toward its annual PPI calculation for decreasing the percentage of students scoring at the Warning/Failing level on the ELA MCAS test by 10 percent or more; in 2014 the school did not earn extra credit. GCVS did, however, earn extra credit for increasing the percentage of students scoring at the Advanced level on MCAS by 10 percent or more in 2012 and 2013. In mathematics, GCVS earned an “On Target” rating for narrowing proficiency gaps in 2012; however, in 2013 the school earned a rating of “Improved Below Target,” and in 2014 GCVS earned a rating of “No Change.” Across all three periods, GCVS earned a rating of “Improved Below Target” for growth. In none of the three periods under review did the school extra credit for decreasing the percentage of students scoring at the Warning/Failing level on the mathematics MCAS test by 10 percent or more. GCVS earned extra credit for increasing the percentage of students scoring at the Advanced level on MCAS by 10 percent or more in 2012 and 2013 but did not earn extra credit for this indicator in 2014. In science, GCVS earned a rating of “Above Target” in 2012 and a rating of “On Target” in 2013 for narrowing proficiency gaps; however, in 2014 the school earned a rating of “No Change.” Across the three periods under review, GCVS earned extra credit for decreasing the percentage of students scoring at the Warning/Failing level on the science MCAS test by 10 percent or more in 2013. The school earned extra credit for increasing the percentage of students scoring at the Advanced level on MCAS by 10 percent or more in 2012 and 2014 but did not earn extra credit for this indicator in 2013. The above data are used by the Department to calculate the school’s cumulative PPI, which is the average of the school’s annual PPIs over the most recent four year period, weighting later years the most (1-2-3-4). Until 2014, GCVS did not have sufficient data to calculate a cumulative PPI. For a school to be considered to be making progress toward narrowing proficiency gaps, its cumulative PPI must be 75 or higher. The school’s 2014 cumulative PPI of 63, in addition to the low assessment participation and subgroup performance described in the next paragraph, means that the school is classified in Level 3 of the state’s five-level accountability and assistance system. In addition to the PPI, which measures a school’s performance toward its own targets over a number of years, these data are also used to calculate a school percentile, an indication of the school's overall performance relative to other schools that serve the same or similar grades. In 2014 GCVS placed at the 7th percentile (on a 1-99 scale) of all middle/high schools and K-12 schools in the Commonwealth, and the school’s White subgroup placed among the lowest 20 percent of subgroups statewide. Furthermore, in 2014 the school’s high needs subgroup did not meet the 95 percent threshold required for assessment participation in either mathematics (94 percent) or science (94%). percent).

5. Program delivery - Curriculum Rating: Partially meets The alignment between the school’s documented curriculum and the state curriculum frameworks varies across grades and subjects. School leadership provided the team with grade and subject area documents comparing K12, Inc.’s curricula with the Massachusetts curriculum frameworks. Each stated standard included performance indicators by topic, corresponding provider grade/course/unit/lesson, and an indication of the extent to which the specified performance indicator addressed the frameworks (i.e. “full,” “partial”). The level of “coverage” specified varied across curriculum maps. In instances where coverage was cited as “partial,” a field entitled “comments” provided information regarding how teachers would supplement the curriculum. In the majority of ClassConnect lessons the

team observed, teachers suggested alignment to the curriculum frameworks by showing students the relevant standard(s) to be addressed in the lesson. According to representatives from K12, Inc., the company develops the school’s proprietary curriculum, with the expectation that it will be supplemented with materials provided by GCVS teachers. When asked for examples of the kinds of curricular materials they are expected to provide, teachers reported that they tended to modify the existing curriculum rather than creating something new. High school teachers reported that the curriculum is laid out by the day, explaining that students click on a day and complete the assigned task. They noted that the teacher can monitor quality of work, but that a lot of work is comprised of “automated tasks.” The high school teachers noted that K12, Inc. is responsive to feedback about the curriculum, noting that they have changed questions on tests and quizzes in the past. Some teachers expressed a desire to have more “control” over the content of the curriculum.

5. Program delivery - Instruction Rating: Falls far below There is minimal evidence to support that instruction features checking for student understanding or requires critical thinking (i.e., analyzing, creating, evaluating); moreover, the level of student engagement and the effective use of time was highly variable. ClassConnect is the school’s online platform for teacher-student interaction, including synchronous lessons. (It should be noted, however, that synchronous instruction is intended as an accompaniment to self-paced, self- directed learning.) The team requested and received access to ClassConnect lessons from May through June. Between May 21, 2014 and June 9, 2014, the team observed 33 lessons comprising 967 minutes of instruction, 208 students, and 33 teachers. The average lesson was 33 minutes long and the average class size was 6 students (8 of the 33 lessons observed were one-to-one lessons). According to K12, Inc., this was the first time that a state education agency requested to observe instruction online. Review team members were asked to record their observations on a common observation form. Reviewers looked for certain “expected practices” as described by the school leadership team in the areas of instruction, behavior, and accommodations. In addition, team members recorded what was happening and for how long, including what learning management system (LMS) functions were used in the lessons. Members provided evidence and assigned ratings in the areas provided in the graph on the next page and described below. The percentage of lessons observed exhibiting these practices are provided in the chart below.

Teachers were rarely observed using various checks for understanding in lessons (“Understanding” in the above graph). Checks for understanding were infrequent or, when teachers asked for understanding, responses were minimal. For example, of the nine students in one class who were asked to indicate they understood what had just been presented by the teacher, four responded affirmatively, but it was unclear whether the remaining five students understood. In another lesson consisting of three students, all participated in the lesson, but provided one- word answers. Teachers were observed using closed-ended questions to check for understanding. For example, teachers checked by asking, “You guys follow that?”, “Right?”, "Is this OK?”, and “Do you get it?" In sum, the team had difficulty ascertaining whether students truly understood the content because students were not observed to explain their thinking. In a majority of classes the level of cognitive demand—analyzing, creating, evaluating (“Complexity”)—was low (19 percent of lessons observed exhibited sufficient or consistent evidence). For example, some lessons appeared to cover content that was several grades below the grade level of the students in the lesson; in other lessons, teachers asked literal questions and/or the engagement was about procedures and routines. For the purpose of this report, “differentiation” refers to the use of different activities, materials, and/or strategies to provide support to all learners. While differentiation was limited—reviewers observed it in a third of the lessons —the reviewers could not determine whether the lack of differentiation was a facet of the online delivery system. The majority of the lessons were dedicated to presenting or reviewing content; students and learning coaches are expected to engage in varied activities at home that the reviewers were not able to observe. As such, in most cases students were observed to engage in the same activities without many visible adaptations provided during instruction. About half (53 percent) of lessons featured practices that sufficiently or consistently engaged students (“Engagement”). In observing the frequency of student contributions via the platform’s chat function, a small percentage of students tended to contribute the majority of the messages. In several lessons, students frequently entered and exited lessons throughout the lesson for reasons that were unapparent to the observers. Teachers Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Page 12 of 23 GCVS Accountability Review Date of Review: June 5, 2014

were frequently observed to do most or all of the talking. For example, in one lesson, a teacher read the information displayed in the screen, asked questions, and then answered the teacher’s own questions. In another lesson, the teacher spoke for the entire time, only pausing to ask questions at the very end of the lesson. In other lessons, students asked questions but were not observed to receive a response from the teacher. A few lessons were highly engaging; in these lessons, teachers frequently interacted with each student, students received immediate and explicit feedback to guide their learning, and all students had opportunities to express or demonstrate understanding. As teachers were observed to do most of the talking as noted above, most lessons did not maximize opportunities for meaningful student contributions (“Time”). Some reviewers noted difficulty determining the percentage of students who were on-task during the lessons. One 30-minute lesson with two students featured only five contributions and it was difficult for the reviewer to determine the extent to which they were consistently engaged. Instruction was observed to be sufficiently or consistently aligned to grade-level standards and/or students’ educational needs in about two-thirds (64 percent) of the lessons (“Alignment”). Observers noted that in some lessons teachers presented standards to the students, often framing the objective for the lesson in terms of the knowledge and skills articulated in the standards. In the other lessons, however, standards, objectives, and/or goals were either partially or not defined. Across 97 percent of lessons observed, reviewers noted the presence of a positive classroom climate as indicated by routines, relationships, behaviors, tones, and discourse (“Climate”). GCVS provided the team with a list of specific practices in the areas of instruction, behavior, and accommodations: Instruction Behavior Accommodations

Effective use of classroom tools and Arrive promptly at the scheduled Tools we use in ClassConnect are technology time for the ClassConnect lesson. some accommodations that you will see. Use of emoticons such as smiley Meaningful interaction with Whiteboard and microphone face, LOL, confusion, applause, students privileges will be assigned at the approval, disapproval, slower, and discretion of the teacher. faster. Students also have the use of Collaborative learning environment tools that will allow them to inform Direct messaging conversions should the teacher when they have stepped Safe learning environment be limited to the content of the away, or to raise their hand when it lesson. Voice Control is needed to get the teachers Respectful and courteous behavior attention. Respect for all learners towards others is expected at all Accommodations used during times. Standards based lesson preparation ClassConnect lessons for students with disabilities are recordings Timing Non-participation or stepping away without the teacher’s approval will available for students needing more Objectives stated clearly and be seen as an absence from the time or review, the ability to use achieved lesson. magnification tools to increase font size, volume controls, and text to Assessment used for understanding If there are multiple students in your speech software. using various modalities and diverse home, each student needs to log in needs of learning and child to a lesson individually. development Students and parents are expected Tie in with MCAS preparation to follow the netiquette previously described. Well-structured lessons Students will not be allowed to Is the lesson engaging and leaving cause disruptions to learning during students wanting to come back for class connect lessons including use more? of inappropriate language, posting Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Page 13 of 23 GCVS Accountability Review Date of Review: June 5, 2014

Instruction Behavior Accommodations

pictures or images to whiteboard, disrespect of teachers or other students. (If a student is causing disruption to learning they will be removed from class connect lesson and parents contacted).

Taken as a whole, sufficient or consistent evidence of these practices were observed in 57 percent of the lessons (“Model”):  In most cases, teachers appeared adept with the technology needed to deliver lessons. Teachers used a variety of tools such as the whiteboard, virtual hand-raising, emoticons, check marks, pointers, underlining, screen-sharing, and pen tools. Emoticons and hand-raising tools were most prevalent. In some instances but not all, students informed the teacher when they stepped away. In only one lesson did the teacher appear to have difficulty using the LMS or its tools.  Collaboration tended to be between the teacher and students; less collaboration was observed between students.  Nearly all lessons were characterized by a safe learning environment, appropriate voice control for the medium, and respect for all learners.  In nearly all lessons, the teacher assigned whiteboard and microphone privileges, the discourse was marked by respectful and courteous behavior, and students and learning coaches followed appropriate “netiquette.” Observations regarding timing, objectives, assessment, and engagement are provided elsewhere in this section; observations about attendance and participation are provided above.

5. Program delivery - Assessment and program evaluation Rating: Partially meets GCVS utilizes formal and informal assessments, the LMS automatically generates student progress reports, and students and learning coaches are able to access student grades in real time. Despite these features it is not clear how assessment data are used by teachers to inform instruction or programming. According to the leadership team and teacher focus groups, GCVS provides an initial assessment of each student at the beginning of the year and students are tested again at the end of the year. Each student is placed on an individual learning plan. The leadership team noted several changes to the program as a result of reviewing data. For example, the school hired a Title I reading intervention specialist and purchased two intervention programs: Lexia Reading and Symphony Mathematics. The leadership team noted, however, that while the LMS lends itself to generating data that can be analyzed, but that they have not had time to establish data-driven programming. Minutes from the board of trustees meetings and interviews with several focus groups noted that student progress is tracked and reported, but the board members also acknowledged that the process for using these data to drive instruction needs to be formalized. Teachers can generate spreadsheets that enable them to monitor student engagement, attendance, and course progress, but how they are expected to use this information to inform instruction seemed nascent. The K12, Inc. focus group noted the goal of “teaching teachers how to respond to data.” The board of trustees identified mathematics as a particular area needing improvement. The board is contemplating a block schedule for the 2014-15 school year, whereby students can choose to focus on a few subjects for a concentrated amount of time, which they feel would allow for more individualized help. The board acknowledged that the teaching of mathematics in the virtual context is challenging and an area of focus. The executive director, his counterpart from K12, Inc. or both have weekly conferences with K-8 teachers via telephone or in person. The purpose of these conferences is to how teachers are adjusting instruction using information from a variety of sources such as Scantron scores, data from a supplemental web-based application called Study Island, and DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills) data. The teacher focus groups mentioned use of data to drive instruction, although evidence suggests it tended to be initiated by individual

teachers, as opposed to a collective, collaborative, or systematic effort. For example, one teacher used the polling feature in the LMS to quickly ascertain student understanding and another teacher assessed understanding through questioning strategies and by asking students to write, but these were strategies devised by those particular teachers and not common, shared strategies. Students appreciated the ability to see their grades in real time, as opposed to brick and mortar schools in which the cumulative grade is not available to them until the end of the term.

5. Program delivery - Diverse learners Rating: Partially meets The accountability roles of the teacher and the learning coach are unclear, most notably in the early grades. While some interventions exist to support students with diverse learning needs, the school is still in the planning stages of setting expectations for teachers and learning coaches and structuring a program that serves all students. The teacher focus groups reported that opportunities exist to help struggling students when they need extra help, but it was unclear to the review team how this was operationalized across all grades. Indeed, elementary and middle school teacher focus group acknowledged that reaching all learners by incorporating multiple learning styles was an ongoing challenge. According to both school leadership and K12, Inc., every student has an individualized learning plan (ILP). However, it was not clear to the review team how it is used on a day-to-day basis, how frequently it is reviewed and revised, or which party (the teacher or the learning coach) takes ownership for the ILP. In general, the teacher focus groups appeared divided on whether overall responsibility for learning lies with the teacher, the learning coach, or the student. In the high school grades, it was clear from the parent and student focus groups that most of the onus for progressing through the curriculum is on individual students. They noted the need for students to be able to independently manage their time and take the initiative in contacting their teacher if they need support. This was supported by online lessons in which students were frequently observed to check in and out of the lesson throughout the session. In the early grades, much of the responsibility for student learning was placed on the learning coach, because they are expected to deliver some instruction and supervise most learning activities. It was unclear to the review team how learning coaches are supported and how the school ensures teachers are ultimately held accountable for student learning. Moreover, there was no explicit mention of how the school demonstrates sensitivity specific to cultural differences. Because the accommodations provided by GCVS would only be visible to the students who needed them, the team was unable to verify whether students used magnification tools to increase font size, volume controls, or text-to- speech software. The team did confirm that the school records all lessons, thereby providing students the opportunity to review lessons again or observe them at a different pace. According to the parent focus group and the special education focus group, the school is working hard to provide more interventions and support for students with diverse learning needs, but these elements are not yet in place. The special education focus group provided some information about special education referrals, but the explanation did not articulate a formal process, nor the existence of a protocol or a child study team. Findings related to the school’s ELL program are provided in the Access and Equity section of this report.

6. School culture and family engagement Social, emotional, and health needs; family and community engagement Rating for both indicators: Partially meets In general, while stakeholders reported that the school provides an environment in which teachers make efforts to know their students and students and parents are encouraged to feel part of the wider community, many of the school’s initiatives to better engage students and families are in the planning stages. The school administered an 11-question end-of-year parent survey (for 2014 and 2013) and provided the team with the results. The 2014 results indicate that the parents feel strongly that “the school and parents work together to achieve school goals.” The school has a guidance counselor who was identified by the high school students as a particularly helpful resource for students. According to the school leadership team, efforts will be made to use data to make decisions based on students’ needs. Many of the engagement efforts cited during the visit are in the planning stage. The school leadership reported, and the minutes of board of trustees meetings reflect, that expanding outreach is a school priority. The school leadership team noted that it is planning an outing committee for the 2014-15 school year and the board of trustees indicated a

desire to offer students more opportunities to socialize on a regional basis. In addition, the leadership team reported that it will have two family engagement coordinators on staff in the 2014-15 school year and will seek to conduct home visits. The school indicated plans to add team-building activities, such as overnight trips, with a goal of bringing curricula into the outings (i.e., during trips to Sturbridge Village or Plimoth Plantation). While acknowledging that the majority of outreach efforts are geared toward K-8 students and families, the school leadership team indicated the desire to include all grades. Parents noted that the school works hard to organize school-wide activities such as school picnics, and some families have taken the initiative to create a Facebook page. Per the school leadership team, the school sponsors an outing every month such as trips to zoos and museums, picnics, and skating. Faculty and staff communicate information about student progress to parents and learning coaches. Methods of communication include a school newsletter, Kmail (the school’s LMS-based email system), and the school website. In addition, the K12, Inc. focus group referenced "drop in" lessons for parents and trainings, although it is unclear how often this occurs or what information is shared between educators and parents in these sessions. The school leadership team cited biweekly high school gatherings through ClassConnect. The school provided the team with a copy of its draft parent/ student handbook. Pending approval by the school’s board of trustees, this document will be effective for the 2014-15 school year.

6. Organizational viability

6. Capacity – School leadership Rating: Partially meets The roles of school leadership and the provider in making instructional and programmatic decisions is unclear. The school’s leadership team is comprised of the following individuals: Mr. Carl Tillona, Executive Director (equivalent to the position of superintendent/principal); Mr. Ryan Clepper, Head Program Administrator (employee of K12, Inc. and chief liaison to GCVS); Ms. Wendy Farley, Guidance Counselor; and Mr. Robert Kumin, Special Education Case Manager. The above-named members of the school leadership team, with the exception of Head Program Administrator Ryan Clepper, are employees of the school. This group indicated that they take their roles seriously and intend to hold K12, Inc. accountable for the delivery of the school’s instructional program and the provision of supports. The school leader (executive director) reports directly to the board and has board support. He indicated that he has a collaborative relationship with K12, Inc.’s Ryan Clepper with respect to the hiring and evaluation of teachers. Across the teacher focus groups, members indicated that they report both to K12, Inc. and school leadership; moreover, per the school’s contract with K12, Inc., the company hires and evaluates teachers. Teachers have a regularly scheduled one-on-one meeting with either K12, Inc. staff or school leadership, but the content of the meeting is unclear, as is how the information gleaned from these meetings is used by K12, Inc. or by school leadership to make decisions. As indicated elsewhere in this report, some teachers reported that they have not been evaluated, and that they are not aware of a formal evaluation process or who will conduct the evaluation. It is also unclear how professional development is coordinated by K12, Inc. and overseen by school leadership (discussed in more detail in the next section).

7. Capacity – Professional climate Rating: Falls far below The school has not established clear expectations for effective instructional practice. Teachers are provided with technical training related to the LMS platform. Team members found no clear evidence of regular, frequent collaboration and professional development to improve implementation of the curriculum and instructional practice. Moreover, the school does not fully implement an educator evaluation system in all grades in accordance with 603 CMR 35.00. According to the school leadership team and K12, Inc., both are responsible for professional development, although it is unclear how the work is shared and whether this arrangement is deliberate and strategic or just a division of responsibilities. The leadership team reported that it has worked collaboratively with all new teachers hired for the 2013-14 school year. This consists of one-on-one meetings between the teacher and the school leader, the K12, Inc. liaison, or both individuals. The leadership team acknowledged that the school needs to “develop a set of standards

for what we expect to see” in the delivery of instruction. Professional learning opportunities for the high school teachers are more limited because they work part-time; the leadership team noted that they have not been working with the high school teachers in as much depth as the elementary and middle school teachers. The leadership team noted that as part of its oversight function of the school’s instructional program that it has been seeking additional assistance from K12, Inc. in helping teachers use ClassConnect. Specific areas needing additional emphasis include making the online sessions more engaging and ensuring that instruction is aligned to the standards. K12, Inc. distributes an “academic newsletter” with information about training opportunities and other resources and the LMS sends reminders to teachers about required trainings. High school teachers have weekly meetings described as a free exchange of ideas, but aside from the requirement that they meet weekly, these meetings do not appear to follow a formal structure, nor do they appear to be designed to address/improve specific instructional practices in a systematic way. The guidance counselor has a weekly “coffee talk” with colleagues in other schools serviced by K12, Inc., consisting of topical issues that are available live or as recordings. Both teacher focus groups reported that much of the professional development, as well as technical training (not considered by the Department to be professional development), occurs at the beginning of the school year and is extensive. A “help desk” is available to assist teachers with technical questions. The leadership team is working to “encourage passion” for professional learning among educators and for them to share what they learn. The leadership team expressed an interest in seeing what other virtual schools are doing for professional development. Both of the teacher focus groups referenced evaluations, but it was unclear whether the school and K12, Inc. are using the same or different instruments. K12, Inc. performs evaluations in the middle of the year and at the end of the year. The team reviewed both the school’s personnel policies and the K12, Inc. employee handbook; neither document references the Massachusetts educator evaluation system. The elementary/middle school teacher focus group referenced evaluation but the high school group did not. While the high school teachers mentioned meetings with the leadership team, the review team did not find evidence that they had been formally evaluated. There is a formal process of evaluation at the middle school level consisting of twice-yearly evaluations. The board and leadership focus group cited plans to align the school’s evaluation process to state law, a process that reportedly will involve modification of the MA Model rubric to reflect the virtual school classroom. The board indicated at the time of the review that it had not yet evaluated the school leader, but expressed its intention to do so at the end of the 2013-14 school year (see governance section).

7. Capacity – Contractual relationships Rating: Partially meets As of September 8, 2014, the school’s contract with its virtual school provider had not been finalized, although a provision of the draft contract indicates the per pupil capitation charged by the provider ensures the school covers its other operating costs. According to the board of trustees, an important initial function of the board was to review the school’s existing contract with K12, Inc. The original contract, which was with the Greenfield school district, was restructured from that of a “management” contract to that of a “provider of educational materials.” The contract between the school and K12, Inc. is not yet finalized. The most recent draft of the contract does, however, impose certain safeguards to ensure the financial health of the school, including a maximum per pupil capitation to K12, Inc. According to the board, the obligation was capped at a level that ensures the school can cover its other operating costs. It was not clear to the review team which indicators the board will ultimately use to evaluate the efficacy of K12, Inc.’s products and services. In addition, as referenced in the Access and Equity finding above, it was unclear to the school and K12, Inc. which entity is responsible for the provision of instructional materials and supplies for special education students.

8. Governance Rating: Partially meets Evidence indicates that the board of trustees is committed to overseeing the administration of the school, monitoring the efficacy of the virtual school provider, and remaining engaged in supporting the school’s progress towards its academic and other goals. However, it is less clear how the board intends to carry out these functions. According to the board chair, the board’s initial charge was “to create something from nothing.” In 2013, when the school was granted its certificate to operate as a Commonwealth Virtual School, “the school began to exist and

formulate bylaws and a board.” The board reported overseeing the transition from Innovation School to Commonwealth Virtual School in the 2013-14 school year. The board identified the 2014-15 school year as the time to develop a strategic plan for the school and planned an August, 2014 retreat to craft a new mission statement, noting that the existing statement is inadequate. However, the retreat has not taken place. Conversations with school leadership and the board affirmed that the board sees itself as responsible and accountable for the hiring and evaluation of the school leader, with the first evaluation scheduled to take place at the end of the 2013-14 school year. However, it is unclear how the board and administration oversees the school’s academic program more generally and conducts ongoing internal evaluations to determine program success. The team was also unable to verify that the school communicates evaluation results to program stakeholders, districts that have students enrolled in the school, and local communities. On June 2, 2014 the school’s board of trustees submitted a request to add two members; this request was approved by the Commissioner on July 15, 2014. The total number of trustees is now 7, all of whom have strong ties and personal connections with the community, including a former member of the school committee of the Greenfield public schools. At the time of the visit, the board expressed that it sought “gender diversity as well as expertise in curriculum” and to “recruit members with expertise and energy.” According to the board, the board now includes financial and curriculum expertise.

9. Finance Rating to be determined

7. Appendix A: Annual Goals 2013-14 The first column lists the goals which were provided to the Department by school leadership as required by the school’s terms of certificate. The second column indicates where in this report the goals are addressed based on data collected by the review team.

Provided by the school: Addressed in:

Satisfaction Goal 1 Program delivery – Instruction With a starting benchmark of 80%, and incrementally growing, 83% in 2014- 15; 86% in 2014-15, and by School Year 2016-17, 90% or greater of families surveyed will respond as Program delivery – being overall satisfied within the areas of instruction, communication and support, as Diverse Learners measured by the K-8 and High School Parent Survey School culture and 1. Learning Coaches play a crucial role in our school. Ensuring that they feel that the family engagement – curriculum of instruction is comprehensive, and the communication and support from Social, emotional, and teachers and administrators lays the foundations for student success in our program health needs; family and community 2. Focus on 3 questions that address the overall satisfaction each year. Questions will engagement focus on instruction, communication and support.

3. Use in-house survey and automated survey for anonymity and easy tabulation; provide parent testimonials in between survey lessons.

4. 3 focus questions will assist staff at the beginning of the year to identify strategies for improving family satisfaction. The staff will use these results of the second survey (to take place in late January) and share with staff to evaluate the efficacy and impact of those strategies.

5. Survey twice a year (Late January and Late June)

Satisfaction Goal 2 School culture and family engagement – Student Retention Goal: With a starting benchmark of 80%, and incrementally growing Social, emotional, and 83% in 2014-15; 86% in 2014-15, and by School Year 2016-17, 90% of students who health needs; family transfer out of the school into other setting will express satisfaction with their experience and community at MAVA. engagement

1. Develop a process to collect reasons and follow up with families not re-registering. This Access and equity goal excludes dropouts.

2. We will use End of Year (EOY) SIMS data as a basis for calculating this goal – the previous number of transfers out plus dropouts from the previous year will be the marker for this goal. We will also pull a withdrawal report and consolidate withdrawal reasons. WD Reasons will be included.

3. As before, tie into school goals and actions to meet parent satisfaction goals.

4. Review in early fall after withdrawals complete around Oct. 1

Satisfaction Goal 3 School culture and

With a starting benchmark of 80%, and incrementally growing 83% in 2014-15; 86% in family engagement – 2014-15, and by School Year 2016-17, 90% -- when surveyed parents/learning coaches will Social, emotional, and report satisfaction with the school support from teachers and administration provided for health needs; family their child's program. and community engagement 1. Focus on 3 questions that address the student support satisfaction each year.

2. Use the in-house survey and automated survey for anonymity and easy tabulation; provide parent testaments in between survey lessons.

3. Develop 3 focus questions at the beginning of the year and share with staff.

4. Survey twice a year

Operational Goal 1 Program delivery - Diverse learners GCVS will follow the MassCore Recommended Program of Studies for High School Graduation.

1. http://www.doe.mass.edu/ccr/masscore/

2. Use transcript, Individual Learning Plan (ILP), credit audits, MCAS scores required for graduation and other counselor documented items.

3. Clearly defined in ILP meeting, student handbook and other student expectations set at the beginning of the year.

4. Goal will be reviewed at least twice a year.

Operational Goal 2 School culture and family engagement – Community Building: Student/Family attendance at GCVS community building events will Social, emotional, and be established at 50% at two events or more and incrementally grow to 55% in 2014-15; health needs; family 60% in 2014-15, and 65% by School Year 2016-17. and community engagement 1. At least 7 community building events and activities planned yearly for students/families to attend: Parent Learning Coach community, monthly outings, use HR model with all teachers.

2. Attendance will be taken at events. Students and parents will be expected to attend at least two community building events per year.

3. Numerous events and activities planned monthly for students/families to attend.

4. The goal will be set to ensure strong communication surrounding these goals and events.

5. Monthly

Academic Goal 1 Student performance

Reducing the Proficiency Gap in Math: The school will meet its PPI in Math by showing at Program delivery - least 2 points gained in CPI annually and by an annual reduction in students scoring a % of

Warning /Failing by >/= to 10% Curriculum

Reducing the Proficiency Gap in Math: The school will meet its SGP in Math by showing at least 10-14 point gain annually or an annual reduction in students scoring a % of Warning /Failing by >/= to 10%.

1. MCAS test results

2. Main focus of all teachers, use interim measures, intervention programs, professional development, Study Island, focus on standards, school-wide mnemonic devices and data talks.

3. Goal is set and defined by the state.

4. October yearly

Reducing the Proficiency Gap in ELA: The school will meet its PPI in ELA by showing at least Program delivery - a 1.55 point increase in annual CPI to reach the 2016-2017 goal of 90.65 CPI in ELA and by Curriculum an annual reduction in students scoring a % of Warning /Failing by

>/= to 10%.

Reducing the Proficiency Gap in ELA: The school will meet its SGP in ELA by showing at least 8-12 point gain annually or an annual reduction in students scoring a % of Warning /Failing by >/= to 10%.

4. October yearly

High Needs: Students with High Needs will show an improvement on ELA with a 3.2 CPI Program delivery - and 4.8 SGP and an improvement on Math with a 4.8 CPI and 5.5 SGP or a decrease of the Curriculum annual % of students not proficient by >/= 10%

1. Main focus of all teachers, use interim measures, intervention programs, professional development, Study Island, focus on standards, school-wide mnemonic devices and

data talks.

4. October yearly

MCAS Participation: At least 95% of student’s subgroups will be assessed in ELA, Math, and Science MCAS test each year.

1. Student attendance will be measured by state reporting statistics.

2. Each year MAVA has attained 95% or higher participation in MCAS testing.

3. Goal is set and defined by the state and/or K12.

4. Yearly

In Grades K-12 meet academic goals using internal DDMs assessments, course completion and state testing.

1. Set 10 pt goal using the K8 mastery of courses (at least 80% completion of the course), HS Passing rates, Scantron or other Nationally Normed Assessment Analysis, and Study Island.

2. 1 pt: 90% of students master K8 courses; 1 pt: 60% of students pass HS courses; 4 pt: Scantron Gains or other Nationally Normed Assessment Analysis Met Target is 67% for Math and 74% for Reading; 2 pt: 95% Study Island completion of monthly pathways (Defined by blue ribbon earned OR 10+ questions answered in one topic) 3 - 10; 2 pt (1 pt each): MCAS Growth Percentile is 34 for Math and 40 for ELA

3. Goal is set and defined by the state and/or K12.

4. Monthly: K8 Progress, HS Passing Rates, SI BR Completion

School Growth Goal 1 Capacity – Professional climate Through Professional Development, cooperation and communication, the Head Program Administrator and Executive Director ensure a yearly teacher retention rate of 80%.

1. Biweekly faculty meetings, one-on –one meetings as well as guest speakers and conferences in which Best Practices of MAVA @ GCVS as well as other virtual schools is discussed, shared, and initiated in developing Professional Learning Communities (PLC) that foster a culture of collaboration ensuring school improvement and results focusing on student success.

2. Faculty will participate in bi-weekly faculty meetings in which a designated time will be allotted to focus on Virtual School best practices. Faculty will attend a conference approved by the school that focuses in their subject area or in virtual schools.

3. As part of the Teacher Evaluation process the school, along with collaboration from the teacher, will assist in creating personal and professional goals in subject area and in virtual schooling.

4. The Executive Director and Head Program Administrator will meet with each teacher at the beginning of the year, mid-way point and end of the year as well as bi-weekly meetings to access that the school and teacher goals are being met.

School Growth Goal 2 School culture and family engagement – Teachers play an integral role in the academics, family and community engagement, and Social, emotional, and professional culture of the school by attending at least two outing per year. health needs; family and community 1. Participation in school events and outings; participation with PLC groups, book studies engagement or other professional activities outside of the school PD lessons

2. Attendance and collaborative time; MA Teacher evaluation.

3. Many events and activities currently built into school model.

4. Attendance will be taken at all events to ensure that faculty are present in at least two community building events per year

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Page 23 of 23