2016 Academic Report - K12 Guide to Schools Included in 2016 Academic Report Analyses For schools...

2016 K12

ACADEMIC REPORT

Arizona Virtual Academy 106

Arkansas Virtual Academy 39, 44

California Virtual Academy at Fresno 48

California Virtual Academy at Jamestown 48

California Virtual Academy at Kings 48

California Virtual Academy at Los Angeles 48

California Virtual Academy at Maricopa 48

California Virtual Academy at Maricopa High School 48

California Virtual Academy at San Diego 48

California Virtual Academy at San Joaquin 48

California Virtual Academy at San Mateo 48

California Virtual Academy at Sonoma 48

California Virtual Academy at Sutter 48

Chicago Virtual Charter School 39

Colorado Preparatory Academy 39

Community Academy Public Charter School Online 39

Cyber Academy of South Carolina 136

Florida Virtual Academy at Broward 112

Florida Virtual Academy at Clay 112

Florida Virtual Academy at Duval 112

Florida Virtual Academy at Hillsborough 112

Florida Virtual Academy at Palm Beach 112

Florida Virtual Academy at Pasco 112

Florida Virtual Academy at Pinellas 112

Georgia Cyber Academy 114

Hoosier Academies Indianapolis 117

Hoosier Academies Virtual School 117

Idaho Virtual Academy 54

Insight Academy of Arizona 109

Insight School of California-Los Angeles 52

Insight School of California-San Diego 53

Insight School of Colorado 39

Insight School of Kansas 122

Insight School of Michigan 75

Insight School of Minnesota 79

Insight School of Ohio 132

Insight School of Oklahoma 89

Insight School of Oregon-Charter Option 59

Insight School of Washington 65

Iowa Virtual Academy 71

iQ Academy California at Los Angeles 48

iQ Academy Minnesota 82

Kansas Virtual Academy 120

Louisiana Virtual Charter Academy 125

Massachusetts Virtual Academy at Greenfield Commonwealth Virtual School 39

Michigan Great Lakes Virtual Academy 74

Michigan Virtual Charter Academy 74

Minnesota Virtual Academy 76

Nevada Virtual Academy 85

New Mexico Virtual Academy 39

Newark Preparatory Charter School 39

Ohio Virtual Academy 128

Oklahoma Virtual Charter Academy 86

Oregon Virtual Academy 56

Silicon Valley Flex Academy 48

South Carolina Virtual Charter School 139

Tennessee Virtual Academy 92

Texas Online Preparatory School 94

Texas Virtual Academy 94

Utah Virtual Academy 97

Virginia Virtual Academy-King and Queen 100

Virginia Virtual Academy-Patrick 100

Washington Virtual Academy-Monroe 62

Washington Virtual Academy-Omak 62

Wisconsin Virtual Academy 66, 142

Wyoming Virtual Academy 102

Alphabetical Guide to Schools Included in 2016 Academic Report Analyses

For schools organized by test group and schools not included, see pages 22–24.

Table of Contents

This report contains certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. We have tried, whenever possible, to identify these forward-looking statements using words such as “anticipates,” “believes,” “estimates,” “continues,” “likely,” “may,” “opportunity,” “potential,” “projects,” “will,” “expects,” “plans,” “intends,” and similar expressions to identify forward-looking statements, whether in the negative or the affirmative. These statements reflect our current beliefs and are based upon information currently available to us. Accordingly, such forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors that could cause actual academic performance to differ materially from those expressed in, or implied by, such statements. These risks, uncertainties, factors, and contingencies include, but are not limited to: test result presentations and data interpretations; descriptions of testing and academic outcomes; individual school, grade and subject performance reporting; educational achievements; the potential inability to further develop, maintain, and enhance our curriculum products, instructional services, and teacher training; the reduction of per pupil funding amounts at the schools we serve; reputation harm resulting from poor academic performance in the managed schools we contract with; challenges from online public school or hybrid school opponents; failure of the schools we serve to comply with applicable education requirements, student privacy, and other applicable regulations; inability to recruit, train, and retain quality teachers and employees; and other risks and uncertainties associated with our business described in the Company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Although the Company believes the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements are based upon reasonable assumptions, it can give no assurance that the expectations will be attained or that any deviation will not be material.

A Letter from Nate Davis, Executive Chairman, and Stuart Udell, Chief Executive Officer

Foreword: The Shifting Landscape of State Testing

Performance Analysis: Executive Overview

K12 Public School Programs Performance Analysis 2014–2015

Norm-Referenced Tests to Gauge Student Progress

Overall Analysis: Persistence and FRL

Group 1: K12 Public School Programs Administering PARCC

Group 2: K12 Public School Programs Administering SBAC

Group 3: K12 Public School Programs Using Same State Testing Program from 2013–2014 to 2014–2015

Group 4: K12 Public School Programs Administering New State Tests in 2014–2015

Featured Programs and Highlights

K12 Private Schools: Preparing for College and Career

Meeting the Diverse Needs of High School Students: Dual Credit and Credit Recovery Programs in K12 Schools

Effective Teaching in the K12 Online Learning Environment: Developing a Research -Based Rubric and Implementing an Instructional Coaching Program

Understanding Student Progress toward Graduation in K12 Public School Programs

Appendices

Appendix 1: FRL and Special Education Eligibility by School Compared to State

Appendix 2: State Assessment Programs: 2013–2014 and 2014–2015

Appendix 3: K12 Leaders

Appendix 4: Norm-Referenced Tests to Gauge Student Progress: Results for 2013–2014

Appendix 5: Norm-Referenced Tests to Gauge Student Progress: Results for 2013–2014 2015 Academic Report Methodology, Including Certain Previously

Excluded Scores

06

08

11

21

26

31

39

47

67

105

145

145

149

151

154

159

160

163

169

171

173

2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT

FIGURES

FIGURE 1: 2014–2015 Proficiency Percentages by Subject and Persistence (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 2: 2014–2015 Proficiency Percentages by Subject and FRL Eligibility (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 3: K12 Comparison to PARCC Consortium: ELA/Literacy (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 4: K12 Comparison to PARCC Consortium: Mathematics (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 5: K12 SBAC Comparison to State: OR English Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 6: K12 SBAC Comparison to State: OR Mathematics (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 7: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State by Subject: WA (High School)

FIGURE 8: Same Students and Same Assessment Program: Overall %AAP by School Year and Subject (Grades 4–8)

FIGURE 9: 2014–2015 State Comparison by Subject: TX (High School)

FIGURE 10: 2014–2015 State Comparison: VA Reading (Grades 3–6)

FIGURE 11: 2014–2015 State Comparison: VA Mathematics (Grades 3–6)

FIGURE 12: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: WI English Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 13: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: OH Reading (Grade 3) / ELA/Literacy (Grades 4–8)

FIGURE 14: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: OH (High School)

FIGURE 15: 2014–2015 Scantron Mean Gain Comparison: Reading

FIGURE 16: 2014–2015 Scantron Mean Gain Comparison: Mathematics

FIGURE 17: 2014–2015 Scantron Mean Gain Comparison by FRL Eligibility: Reading

FIGURE 18: 2014–2015 Scantron Mean Gain by Comparison FRL Eligibility: Mathematics

FIGURE 19: 2014–2015 Proficiency Percentages by Subject and Persistence (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 20: 2014–2015 Proficiency Percentages by Subject and Persistence (HSGT)

FIGURE 21: 2014–2015 Proficiency Percentages by Subject and Persistence (EOC)

FIGURE 22: 2014–2015 Proficiency Percentages by Subject and FRL Eligibility (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 23: 2014–2015 Proficiency Percentages by Subject and FRL Eligibility (HSGT)

FIGURE 24: 2014–2015 Proficiency Percentages by Subject and FRL Eligibility (EOC)

FIGURE 25: K12 Comparison to PARCC Consortium: ELA/Literacy (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 26: K12 Comparison to PARCC Consortium: Mathematics (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 27: K12 Comparison to PARCC Consortium: English Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 9–11)

FIGURE 28: K12 Comparison to PARCC Consortium: Algebra 1 (Overall 9–11)

FIGURE 29: ARVA Year-Over-Year School-State Comparison: English Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 30: ARVA Year-Over-Year School-State Comparison: Mathematics (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 31: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State: CA English Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 32: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State: CA Mathematics (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 33: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State by Subject: CA (High School)



FIGURE 36: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State: IDVA English Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 37: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State: IDVA Mathematics (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 38: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State: OR English Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 39: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State: OR Mathematics (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 40: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State by Subject: OR (High School)

FIGURE 41: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: OR English Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 42: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: OR Mathematics (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 43: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: OR (High School)

FIGURE 44: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State: WA English Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 45: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State: WA Mathematics (Grades 3–8)



FIGURE 48: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State: WI Mathematics (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 49: Same Students and Same Assessment Program: Overall %AAP by School Year and Subject (Grades 4–8)

FIGURE 50: Same Students and Same Assessment Program: %AAP by School Year and Grade Level in Reading (Grades 4–8)

FIGURE 51: Same Students and Same Assessment Program: %AAP by School Year and Grade Level in Mathematics (Grades 4–8)

FIGURE 52: 2014–2015 State Comparison: IA Reading (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 53: 2014–2015 State Comparison: IA Mathematics (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 54: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: MI (High School)

FIGURE 55: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: MI (High School)

FIGURE 56: 2014–2015 State Comparison: MN Reading (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 57: 2014–2015 State Comparison: MN Mathematics (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 58: 2014–2015 State Comparison by Subject: MN (High School)

FIGURE 59: 2014–2015 State Comparison: MN Reading (Grade 8)

FIGURE 60: 2014–2015 State Comparison: MN Mathematics (Grade 8)

3


FIGURE 62: 2014–2015 State Comparison: MN Reading (Grade 3–8)

FIGURE 63: 2014–2015 State Comparison: MN Mathematics (Grade 3–8)


FIGURE 65: 2014–2015 State Comparison by Subject: NV (High School)

FIGURE 66: 2014–2015 State Comparison: OK Reading (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 67: 2014–2015 State Comparison: OK Mathematics (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 68: 2014–2015 State Comparison by Subject: OK (High School)

FIGURE 69: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: OK Reading (Grades 7–8)

FIGURE 70: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: OK Mathematics (Grades 7–8)

FIGURE 71: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: OK (High School)

FIGURE 72: 2014–2015 State Comparison: TN Reading/Language Arts (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 73: 2014–2015 State Comparison: TN Mathematics (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 74: 2014–2015 State Comparison: TX Reading (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 75: 2014–2015 State Comparison: TX Mathematics (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 76: 2014–2015 State Comparison by Subject: TX (High School)

FIGURE 77: 2014–2015 State Comparison: UT Language Arts (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 78: 2014–2015 State Comparison: UT Mathematics (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 79: 2014–2015 State Comparison by Subject: UT (High School)

FIGURE 80: 2014–2015 State Comparison: VA Reading (Grades 3–6)

FIGURE 81: 2014–2015 State Comparison: VA Mathematics (Grades 3–6)

FIGURE 82: 2014–2015 State Comparison: WY Reading (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 83: 2014–2015 State Comparison: WY Mathematics (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 84: 2014–2015 State Comparison by Subject: WY (High School)

FIGURE 85: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: AZ English Language Arts (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 86: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: AZ Mathematics (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 87: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: AZ (High School)

FIGURE 88: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: AZ English Language Arts (Grade 8)

FIGURE 89: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: AZ Mathematics (Grade 8)

FIGURE 90: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: AZ (High School)

FIGURE 91: 2014–2015 K12 %AAP: FL English Language Arts (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 92: 2014–2015 K12 %AAP: FL Mathematics (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 93: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: GA English Language Arts (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 94: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: GA Mathematics (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 95: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: GA (High School)

FIGURE 96: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: IN English Language Arts (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 97: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: IN Mathematics (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 98: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: IN (High School)

FIGURE 99: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: KS English Language Arts (Grades 3–6)

FIGURE 100: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: KS Mathematics (Grades 3–6)

FIGURE 101: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: KS English Language Arts (Grades 7–8)

FIGURE 102: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: KS Mathematics (Grades 7–8)

FIGURE 103: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: KS (High School)

FIGURE 104: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: LA English Language Arts (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 105: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: LA Mathematics (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 106: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: LA (High School)

FIGURE 107: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: OH Reading (Grade 3) / ELA/Literacy (Grades 4–8)

FIGURE 108: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: OH Mathematics (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 109: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: Ohio Graduation Tests

FIGURE 110: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: PARCC High School Assessments

FIGURE 111: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: OH English Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 6–8)

FIGURE 112: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: OH Mathematics (Grades 6–8)

FIGURE 113: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: Ohio Graduation Tests

FIGURE 114: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: PARCC High School Assessments

FIGURE 115: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: SC ACT-Reading (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 116: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: SC ACT-Mathematics (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 117: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: SC (High School)

FIGURE 118: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: SC ACT-Reading (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 119: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: SC ACT-Mathematics (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 120: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: SC (High School)

FIGURE 121: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: WI English Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 122: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: WI (High School)


TABLES

TABLE 1: 2014–2015 Proficiency Percentages by Subject and Persistence (Grades 3–8)

TABLE 2: 2014–2015 Persistence Grades 3–8: 3 Years or More Compared to Less Than 1 Year

TABLE 3: 2014–2015 Proficiency Percentages by Subject and FRL Eligibility (Grades 3–8)

TABLE 4: K12 Public School Programs by Performance Analysis Grouping

TABLE 5: K12 Public School Programs Using Scantron

TABLE 6: 2014–2015 Scantron Mean Gain Comparison: Reading

TABLE 7: 2014–2015 Scantron Mean Gain Comparison: Mathematics

TABLE 8: 2014–2015 Scantron Mean Gain by Comparison FRL Eligibility: Reading

TABLE 9: 2014–2015 Scantron Mean Gain by Comparison FRL Eligibility: Mathematics

TABLE 10: 2014–2015 Proficiency Percentages by Subject and Persistence (Grades 3–8)

TABLE 11: 2014–2015 Persistence Grades 3–8: 3 Years or More Compared to Less Than 1 Year

TABLE 12: 2014–2015 Proficiency Percentages by Subject and Persistence (HSGT)

TABLE 13: 2014–2015 Persistence HSGT: 3 Years or More Compared to Less Than 1 Year

TABLE 14: 2014–2015 Proficiency Percentages by Subject and Persistence (EOC)

TABLE 15: 2014–2015 Persistence EOC: 3 Years or More Compared to Less Than 1 Year

TABLE 16: 2014–2015 Proficiency Percentages by Subject and FRL Eligibility (Grades 3–8)

TABLE 17: 2014–2015 Proficiency Percentages by Subject and FRL Eligibility (HSGT)

TABLE 18: 2014–2015 Proficiency Percentages by Subject and FRL Eligibility (EOC)

TABLE 19: K12 Comparison to PARCC Consortium: ELA/Literacy (Grades 3–8)

TABLE 20: K12 Comparison to PARCC Consortium: Mathematics (Grades 3–8)

TABLE 21: K12 Comparison to PARCC Consortium: English Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 9–11)

TABLE 22: K12 Comparison to PARCC Consortium: Algebra 1 (Grades 9–11)

TABLE 23: ARVA Year-Over-Year School-State Gap Analysis: English Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 3–8)

TABLE 24: ARVA Year-Over-Year School-State Gap Analysis: Mathematics (Grades 3–8)

TABLE 25: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State: CA English Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 3–8)

TABLE 26: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State: CA Mathematics (Grades 3–8)

TABLE 27: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State by Subject: CA (High School)



TABLE 30: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State: IDVA

English Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 3–8)

TABLE 31: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State: IDVA Mathematics (Grades 3–8)

TABLE 32: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State: OR English Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 3–8)

TABLE 33: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State: OR Mathematics (Grades 3–8)

TABLE 34: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State by Subject: OR (High School)

TABLE 35: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: OR English Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 3–8)

TABLE 36: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: OR Mathematics (Grades 3–8)

TABLE 37: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: OR (High School)

TABLE 38: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State: WA English Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 3–8)

TABLE 39: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State: WA Mathematics (Grades 3–8)

TABLE 40: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State by Subject: WA (High School)

TABLE 41: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: WA (High School)

TABLE 42: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State: WI Mathematics (Grades 3–8)

TABLE 43: Same Students and Same Assessment Program: Overall %AAP Change (Grades 4–8)

TABLE 44: Same Students and Same Assessment Program: Overall %AAP Change by Grade Level in Reading (Grades 4–8)

TABLE 45: Same Students and Same Assessment Program: Overall %AAP Change by Grade Level in Mathematics (Grades 4–8)

TABLE 46: 2014–2015 State Comparison: IA Reading (Grades 3–8)

TABLE 47: 2014–2015 State Comparison: IA Mathematics (Grades 3–8)

TABLE 48: 2014–2015 State Comparison by Subject: IA (High School)

TABLE 49: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: MI (High School)

TABLE 50: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: MI (High School)

TABLE 51: 2014–2015 State Comparison: MN Reading (Grades 3–8)

TABLE 52: 2014–2015 State Comparison: MN Mathematics (Grades 3–8)

TABLE 53: 2014–2015 State Comparison by Subject: MN (High School)






5


TABLE 60: 2014–2015 State Comparison by Subject: NV (High School)

TABLE 61: 2014–2015 State Comparison: OK Reading (Grades 3–8)

TABLE 62: 2014–2015 State Comparison: OK Mathematics (Grades 3–8)

TABLE 63: 2014–2015 State Comparison by Subject: OK (High School)

TABLE 64: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: OK Reading (Grades 7–8)

TABLE 65: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: OK Mathematics (Grades 7–8)

TABLE 66: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: OK (High School)

TABLE 67: 2014–2015 State Comparison: TN Reading/Language Arts (Grades 3–8)

TABLE 68: 2014–2015 State Comparison: TN Mathematics (Grades 3–8)

TABLE 69: 2014–2015 State Comparison: TX Reading (Grades 3–8)

TABLE 70: 2014–2015 State Comparison: TX Mathematics (Grades 3–8)

TABLE 71: 2014–2015 State Comparison by Subject: TX (High School)

TABLE 72: 2014–2015 State Comparison: UT Language Arts (Grades 3–8)

TABLE 73: 2014–2015 State Comparison: UT Mathematics (Grades 3–8)

TABLE 74: 2014–2015 State Comparison by Subject: UT (High School)

TABLE 75: 2014–2015 State Comparison: VA Reading (Grades 3–6)

TABLE 76: 2014–2015 State Comparison: VA Mathematics (Grades 3–6)

TABLE 77: 2014–2015 State Comparison: WY Reading (Grades 3–8)

TABLE 78: 2014–2015 State Comparison: WY Mathematics (Grades 3–8)

TABLE 79: 2014–2015 State Comparison by Subject: WY (High School)

TABLE 80: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: AZ English Language Arts (Grades 3–8)

TABLE 81: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: AZ Mathematics (Grades 3–8)

TABLE 82: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: AZ (High School)

TABLE 83: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: AZ English Language Arts (Grades 7–8)

TABLE 84: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: AZ Mathematics (Grades 7–8)

TABLE 85: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: AZ (High School)

TABLE 86: 2014–2015 K12 %AAP: FL English Language Arts (Grades 3–8)

TABLE 87: 2014–2015 K12 %AAP: FL Mathematics (Grades 3–8)

TABLE 88: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: GA English Language Arts (Grades 3–8)

TABLE 89: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: GA Mathematics (Grades 3–8)

TABLE 90: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: GA (High School)

TABLE 91: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: IN English Language Arts (Grades 3–8)

TABLE 92: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: IN Mathematics (Grades 3–8)

TABLE 93: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: IN (High School)

TABLE 94: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: KS English Language Arts (Grades 3–6)

TABLE 95: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: KS Mathematics (Grades 3–6)

TABLE 96: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: KS English Language Arts (Grades 7–8)

TABLE 97: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: KS Mathematics (Grades 7–8)

TABLE 98: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: KS (High School)

TABLE 99: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: LA English Language Arts (Grades 3–8)

TABLE 100: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: LA Mathematics (Grades 3–8)

TABLE 101: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: LA (High School)

TABLE 102: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: OH Reading (Grade 3) / ELA/Literacy (Grades 4–8)

TABLE 103: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: OH Mathematics (Grades 3–8)

TABLE 104: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: Ohio Graduation Tests

TABLE 105: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: PARCC High School Assessments

TABLE 106: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: OH English Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 6–8)

TABLE 107: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: OH Mathematics (Grades 6–8)

TABLE 108: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: Ohio Graduation Tests

TABLE 109: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: PARCC High School Assessments

TABLE 110: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: SC ACT-Reading (Grades 3–8)

TABLE 111: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: SC ACT-Mathematics (Grades 3–8)

TABLE 112: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: SC (High School)

TABLE 113: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: SC ACT-Reading (Grades 3–8)

TABLE 114: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: SC ACT-Mathematics (Grades 3–8)

TABLE 115: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: SC (High School)

TABLE 116: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: WI English Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 3–8)

TABLE 117: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: WI (High School)


This fourth annual K12 Academic Report continues our commitment to accountability and transparency. This report has expanded to include all K12 public school programs with valid state test results for 2014–2015 as well as more results from key high school assessments.

The state testing environment changed dramatically in the 2014–2015 school year. In previous years, for accountability purposes, most states administered their own state-specific tests. In 2014–2015, some states administered new tests tied to the Common Core State Standards. These tests were developed by one of two consortia, either the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) or the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC). Most PARCC and SBAC states administered the new assessments as provided by the consortia, but some changed the consortia assessments or departed from the consortia’s recommended minimum scores to determine proficiency on the tests.

These, and other changes in state testing, present challenges to those analyzing the overall performance of K12 public school programs and examining their performance over time. Results from assessments that were new in 2014–2015 cannot be directly compared to scores on previous state assessments because many of the new assessments are aligned to different content standards and different definitions of what constitutes proficiency.

Faced with these challenges, K12 Inc. has worked diligently to analyze state testing data in ways that are useful and make sense. One way is to organize our analysis into groups according to test type. Another way is to report the data in context by comparing performance at the school and state levels. Finally, we also report year-over-year results from those schools that have retained the same testing program since the prior school year.

Our analyses show that many K12 school programs still underperform the state in Mathematics, a situation we are determined to change through multiple ongoing efforts in improved curriculum, instruction, and student support. From the data in the following pages, certain encouraging highlights emerge:

• On the PARCC assessment—generally acknowledged as more rigorous than previous state tests—students in K12 public school programs achieved proficiency percentages within 1 percentage point of the overall PARCC consortium in grades 7 and 8 in Mathematics and within 1 to 3 percentage points of the consortium in grades 3–5 in English Language Arts/Literacy.

• For K12 schools that used the same state-specific assessment program from 2013–2014 to 2014–2015, when we compare the proficiency percentages for the same students year-over-year, students in grades 4–8 improved by 2 percentage points in both Reading and Mathematics.

• In 2014–2015, on tests of Reading and English Language Arts, in many grades a number of K12 public school programs—such as those in Ohio, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin—performed as well as (and in some grades better than) the state.

• For the 2014–2015 school year, in most grades and subjects, we continue to see the benefits of persistence—that is, students who stay in K12 schools longer (especially those who remain continuously enrolled for three or more years) achieve higher percentages at or above proficiency.

We regularly gather and examine data at the classroom, school, regional, and national levels in order to identify areas for continued improvement in our mission to support student learning.

This Academic Report is an important part of our research efforts at K12 Inc. We continue to research the relationship between student achievement and such variables as school structure, teacher development, and the use of synchronous or asynchronous instruction. We regularly gather and examine data at the classroom, school, regional, and national levels to ensure that we are doing everything possible to support student learning. Our teachers use this data to adjust their instruction to meet the strengths and needs of individual students.

A Letter from Nate Davis, Executive Chairman, and Stuart Udell, Chief Executive Officer

7

The thoughtful use of data can help individualize instruction, giving teachers insights that help them build strong relationships with students and families so they can sustain a learning environment in which each student remains engaged, challenged, and nurtured.

We’re very proud of the schools we support, the educators who work with students, and the students themselves for doing the hard work of learning. In 2014–2015, K12 public school programs served more than 118,000 students from kindergarten to grade 12, with 4,784 students graduating from high school, many of them focused on college and career. The dedicated teachers in K12 schools strive to meet the individual educational needs of each and every student.

Like many traditional schools, we continue to face both opportunities and challenges. Across this country, not every student comes to school ready to learn or well-prepared for the academic challenges that face them. Not every student appreciates the value of an education. Some students struggle to achieve academically while overcoming obstacles of poverty or mobility. Whether students come to us needing remediation or seeking advanced challenges and enrichment, we aim to help all of them thrive and succeed.

We look forward to the release of the first phases of our new curriculum in the fall of 2016 and the launch of new Destinations Career Academies. As our tools, program offerings, and systems evolve, we come closer to the ideal of an optimally personalized learning experience for each and every student.

We will report on new initiatives in each forthcoming Academic Report and in other publications issued throughout the year. All of us at K12 are dedicated to fostering the academic success of the students in our public school programs. We know that we succeed only when our students succeed, and so we begin and end each day by putting students first.

Nate Davis, Executive Chairman

Stuart Udell, Chief Executive Officer


1 Woods, J. R. State Summative Assessments: 2015–16 school year. Denver, CO, Education Commission of the States (2015). Retrieved from http://www.ecs.org/state-summative-assessments-2015-16-school-year/

1a Evidence of the rigor of the PARCC assessments is documented by independent research studies conducted by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute and Human Resources Organization (February 2016), Mathematica Policy Research (November 2015) and the American Institutes for Research (AIR) National Benchmarks for State Assessment Standards Study (February 2016). (Source: http://parcconline.org/assessments/test-design/independent-studies)

2 Woods, J. R. Testing Trends: Considerations for choosing and using assessments. Denver, CO, Education Commission of the States (2015). Retrieved from http://www.ecs.org/testing-trends-considerations-for-choosing-and-using-assessments/

3 Woods, J. R. State Summative Assessments: 2015–16 school year. Denver, CO, Education Commission of the States (2015). Retrieved from http://www.ecs.org/state-summative-assessments-2015-16-school-year/. Because the state testing landscape continues to shift, the figures reported may have changed by the time of the publication of this Academic Report.

This 2016 K12 Academic Report embodies both consistency and change. Consistent with previous Academic Reports, our purpose here is to give a transparent view of key accountability test results in K12 public school programs. In contrast to the previous Academic Reports, in this report we introduce some changes in our presentation and analyses of the data—changes necessitated by what a study published by the Education Commission of the States (ECS) describes as “the continually changing nature of the state assessments landscape” due to “political pressures and evolving state approaches.”1

In the 2014–2015 school year, many states changed their accountability assessments. Across all K12 public school programs, only eight states did not change their state accountability tests in 2014–2015: Iowa, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming.

The changes in state tests were in part a consequence of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), initially released in 2010. In that year, most states began the process of adopting the Common Core standards, encouraged by the federal grant program called Race to the Top, which favored applicants that agreed to adopt Common Core.

New content standards required new assessments. To develop assessments aligned to the Common Core, the federal government funded two testing consortia: the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) and the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC). These consortia developed assessments intended for use across multiple states, at a level of rigor commensurate with the overall Common Core goals of career and college readiness. In addition, PARCC and SBAC introduced technology-enhanced questions, longer and more complex passages, paired passages, and constructed response items requiring students to justify or explain the reasoning behind their answers.

With the rollout of PARCC and SBAC, for the first time since the passage of No Child Left Behind, multiple states were administering the same assessments. Because these consortia-developed assessments were more rigorous than previous state tests,1a student performance results were, in many cases, not encouraging, with lower percentages at or above proficiency compared to previous years—not a valid comparison but an inevitable one. For various reasons, state officials soon found themselves facing what ECS sums up as “political backlash against the two assessment consortia” and “dissatisfaction with the quantity and relevance of current testing.”2

At one time, 24 states and the District of Columbia were signed on to administer the PARCC assessments. But in the 2014–2015 school year, only the District of Columbia and 10 states fully administered the PARCC assessments. The Education Commission of the States notes that, in 2015–2016, only six states and the District of Columbia plan to use the PARCC assessments. While the Smarter Balanced consortium has experienced fewer withdrawals, its members have decreased to 15 states planning to administer the full SBAC assessment in the 2015–2016 school year. ECS notes that in 2015–2016 “at least 25 states will administer a state-specific assessment in grades 3–8 math and English-language arts.”3

In reporting on the academic performance of K12 public school programs, our practice is, when possible, to present and compare data across multiple consecutive school years. But when states change to new tests based on new content standards, and use different definitions of proficiency, the results of the new tests cannot be directly compared to results from previous tests—a fact that complicates any attempt to present a long-term, comparative, year-over-year analysis of academic performance. The results of the new tests become, in effect, the starting point for future year-over-year analyses. In the current shifting landscape of state testing, however, that new starting

Foreword: The Shifting Landscape of State Testing

9

point can be elusive as states change their tests and then change them again. More than a dozen states suspended their accountability ratings for 2014–2015, and most are using 2015–2016 as a baseline year.

As examples of the shifting landscape of state testing, consider the changes from 2013–2014 to 2015–2016 in three states in which K12 public school programs are located, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Arkansas:

MASSACHUSETTS

• 2013–2014 MCAS (Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System)

• 2014–2015 MCAS or PARCC (district option)

• 2015–2016 MCAS or PARCC (district option)

• 2016–2017 Planned hybrid combination of MCAS and PARCC

OHIO

• 2013–2014 OAA (Ohio Achievement Assessments)

• 2014–2015 PARCC

• 2015–2016 New Ohio state test

ARKANSAS

• 2013–2014 Arkansas Comprehensive Testing Program

• 2014–2015 PARCC

• 2015–2016 ACT Aspire

We anticipate that difficulties in comparing test results year-over-year will continue into 2015–2016 as many states roll out new state tests.

While this shifting assessment landscape presents challenges, in this Academic Report we remain committed to presenting a comprehensive overview of school performance for the 2014–2015 school year. The PARCC and SBAC assessments differ in important fundamental ways from previous state assessments. Because the consortia tests present more rigorous content and more open-ended questions and innovative question types, it can be misleading to aggregate them with more traditional assessments across K12 public school programs, since such aggregation would imply comparisons that are not valid.3a Therefore, we have organized our analyses of student performance data into four groups:

• K12 public school programs administering PARCC in 2014–20154


3a Nicholas-Barrer, Ira, Place, Kate, Dillon, Erin, and Gill, Brian. (2015). Mathematic Policy Research: InFocus; For Massachusetts Students, PARCC and MCAS Exams Comparable in Predicting College Outcomes

4 In this group, we include only those K12 public school programs that both administered PARCC and used the recommended PARCC proficiency cut score. The cut score is in effect the score that constitutes passing the test—specifically, the value that determines whether a student has achieved at least an adequate level of performance, typically labeled “proficiency,” on the assessment. Even if states administered the same test, the results of State A cannot be directly compared to those of State B if the two states set different cut scores.

• K12 public school programs administering SBAC in 2014–2015

• K12 public school programs using the same state testing program from 2013–2014 to 2014–2015

• K12 public school programs administering new state tests in 2014–2015

For a listing of specific K12 public school programs within each of those four groups, see pages 23–24.

Because many states have changed to new tests in 2014–2015, our ability to provide a year-over-year view of school performance is limited to those in states in which the same assessments and performance standards were used in consecutive school years. In order to provide some context for understanding a school’s performance on the new tests, we have in many cases analyzed the school’s performance compared to that of the state. Reported information from state test results are from publicly available sources, usually state departments of education. The persistence analysis is an internal calculation based on state reported test performance and our internal enrollment records.

As in our previous Academic Reports, we report results on norm-referenced tests (Scantron) used by many K12 public school programs. The analysis of Scantron results in the 2015 Academic Report erroneously excluded students whose difference in scale scores between the fall and spring Scantron assessments fell within Scantron’s standard error of measurement for that difference (that is, students whose scale scores differential was not statistically distinct from zero). An updated analysis of the Scantron results reported last year is located in Appendices 4 and 5 (N.B. see footnotes to Appendices 4 and 5 for additional context) to this Academic Report and includes those students’ scores. We also continue the practice of analyzing in aggregate the performance of students in all K12 public school programs relative to their eligibility for federally subsidized meals through the National School Lunch Program. And, as in previous reports, we present an aggregate analysis of the effects of persistence, that is, the relationship between length of enrollment and performance on state assessments.

As No Child Left Behind gives way to the Every Student Succeeds Act, individual states will have more flexibility in shaping their accountability systems and assessments.

We anticipate that states will make varying use of summative and interim assessments, and many states may revise their growth models. In short, we expect the state assessment landscape will continue to shift dramatically. As assessments change from year to year and state to state, we at K12 will face greater challenges in comparing performance year-over-year and across K12 public school programs in different states with different content standards.

While we cannot precisely predict how the assessment landscape will change, we will continue to support our teachers so that they can best meet the learning needs of their students. One critical way to support teachers is to help them understand the academic strengths and weaknesses of their students from the beginning of the school year. In 2016–2017, teachers in K12 public school programs will have access to assessments, chosen by school administrators, to gauge where students stand academically as the school year begins. In future reports, we intend to report school-level data from these assessments. Because there is not likely to be a “one size fits all” assessment solution across all the school programs K12 supports, we anticipate less direct comparability of results, year-over-year and school to school, than we have previously reported. We will, in any case, continue to work closely with our public school programs to ensure that their teachers and staff have the assessment information they need to maximize every student’s potential.

At K12 Inc., we continue to engage in a focused effort to broaden and improve our data collection and analysis systems, which will improve our learning systems and teacher tools. We are expanding our database to house a wider range of assessment information and are coordinating efforts across several divisions to determine the efficacy of a range of initiatives aimed at improving teaching and learning. Going forward, we will continue to gather and analyze more data as measured by various assessments, including diagnostic or readiness, interims (formative or benchmark), summative, and state level accountability measures. We will persist in using data to understand best practices in order to improve student outcomes in various learning environments.

Margaret Jorgensen, Chief Academic Officer

11

Performance Analysis: Executive Overview

In the 2014–2015 school year, many states switched to new assessments. Some developed new

state-specific assessments. Some turned to the Common Core consortia, either the Partnership for

Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) or the Smarter Balanced Assessment

Consortium (SBAC). Because the PARCC and SBAC assessments are in many cases significantly more

rigorous than previous state assessments, with more challenging content and question types, it can

be misleading to aggregate the results of those tests with results from more traditional state tests.

When states change to new tests based on new content standards, and use different definitions of proficiency, the results of the new tests cannot be directly compared to results from previous tests. Because test types and categories shifted so much in 2014–2015, we have organized our analysis of state test performance into four groups by related test types:

5 In this group, we include only those K12 public school programs that both administered PARCC and used the recommended PARCC proficiency cut score (the score that in effect constitutes passing the test). Evidence of the rigor of the PARCC assessments is documented by independent research studies conducted by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute and Human Resources Organization (February 2016), Mathematica Policy Research (November 2015) and the American Institutes for Research (AIR) National Benchmarks for State Assessment Standards Study (February 2016). (Source: http://parcconline.org/assessments/test-design/independent-studies)

6 This report sometimes refers to “K12 schools” or “our schools” or “K12 students” as a shorthand way to describe the online public schools we serve pursuant to a contract with an independent not-for-profit board or school district governing board. We do not mean to suggest or imply that K12 Inc. has any ownership or control over those schools. Because the independent boards seek a managed contractual arrangement, the references to “K12 schools” and similar language are simply for ease and do not describe a legal relationship.

Group 1 K12 public school programs administering PARCC in 2014–20155

Group 2 K12 public school programs administering SBAC in 2014–2015

Group 3 K12 public school programs using the same state testing program from 2013–2014 to 2014–2015

Group 4 K12 public school programs administering new state tests in 2014–2015

Consistent with our practice in previous Academic Reports, we present overall analyses of general trends across all K12 schools6 regarding performance by persistence (length of continuous enrollment) and eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch (FRL).

2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT

Summary Analysis Grades 3–8 (Persistence and FRL)

PERSISTENCE

For the 2014–2015 school year, in most cases we continue to see a positive relationship between length of continuous enrollment and proficiency.

• In grades 3–8, in English Language Arts and Mathematics, compared to students enrolled in K12 public school programs less than one year, students enrolled three years or more achieved higher percentages at or above proficiency.

• On high school graduation tests in English Language Arts and Mathematics, students enrolled three years or more achieved higher percentages at or above proficiency than students enrolled less than one year. (See the “Performance by Persistence” section beginning on page 31 for more detailed analysis of high school persistence results.)

%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency

FIGURE 1: 2014–2015 PROFICIENCY PERCENTAGES BY SUBJECT AND PERSISTENCE (GRADES 3–8)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

3 yrs or more2 yrs but < 31 yr but <2Less than 1 year

36%41%

45%

52%

28%

34%36%

42%

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Persistence by Subject

English Language Arts Mathematics

TABLE 1: 2014–2015 PROFICIENCY PERCENTAGES BY SUBJECT AND PERSISTENCE (GRADES 3–8)

TABLE 2: 2014–2015 PERSISTENCE GRADES 3–8: 3 YEARS OR MORE COMPARED TO LESS THAN 1 YEAR

GRADES 3–8

Students enrolled 3 years or more compared to students enrolled less than 1 year

Subject %AAP: Increase or Decrease (in percentage points)

English Language Arts +16

Mathematics +14


ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS MATHEMATICS

%AAP Total Count %AAP Total Count

Less than 1 year 36% 4,115 28% 5,141

1 year but less than 2 years 41% 8,822 34% 11,046

2 years but less than 3 years 45% 3,848 36% 4,960

3 years or more 52% 6,409 42% 7,576

1313

FIGURE 2: 2014–2015 PROFICIENCY PERCENTAGES BY SUBJECT AND FRL ELIGIBILITY (GRADES 3–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Subject and FRL Status

Free Lunch Eligible Reduced-Price Lunch Eligible Not Eligible

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

MathematicsEnglish Language Arts

54%

46%44%

34%34%

26%



%AAPGap Relative to

Not Eligible in percentage points

Total Count %AAP

Gap Relative to Not Eligible

in percentage points

Total Count

Free Lunch Eligible 34% -20 9,823 26% -20 12,210

Reduced-Price Eligible 44% -10 3,416 34% -12 4,300

Not Eligible 54% -- 9,246 46% -- 11,372

TABLE 3: 2014–2015 PROFICIENCY PERCENTAGES BY SUBJECT AND FRL ELIGIBILITY (GRADES 3–8)

ELIGIBILITY FOR FREE AND REDUCED-PRICE LUNCH

In 2014–2015, for K12 students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, we see performance trends consistent with FRL analyses in our previous Academic Reports (and consistent with national trends), specifically:

• Students identified as eligible for free lunch had lower percentages at or above proficiency than students eligible for reduced-price lunch.

• Both groups underperformed students identified as not eligible for subsidized meals.

The following aggregated data from grades 3–8 are representative of FRL results across all grades and subjects7:

7 In Table 3, the column headed “Gap Relative to Not Eligible” specifies the number of percentage points by which students eligible for subsidized meals underperform those not eligible.


Group 1: K12 Public School Programs Administering PARCC in 2014–2015

We compare the aggregate performance of K12 public school programs that administered PARCC to the overall PARCC consortium performance data for grades 3–8 and high school.

• Students in K12 public school programs achieved proficiency percentages within 1 to 3 percentage points of the overall PARCC consortium in grades 3–5 in English Language Arts/Literacy.

• In high school, students in K12 public school programs underperformed the overall PARCC consortium.

• On the PARCC Mathematics test students in K12 public school programs in grades 7 and 8 were within 1 percentage point of the PARCC consortium but the students in grades 3–7 underperformed the consortium by between 6 and 10 percentage points.

FIGURE 3: K12 COMPARISON TO PARCC CONSORTIUM: ELA/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

K12 Public School Programs Overall PARCC Consortium

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd

37%41% 41% 39% 41% 42%

36% 38% 40%

27%

35%32%

FIGURE 4: K12 COMPARISON TO PARCC CONSORTIUM: MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


37%32% 32% 32%

28% 27%31%

22%26% 25% 27% 26%

1515

Group 2: K12 Public School Programs Administering SBAC in 2014–2015

At the time of this report, no overall results were available for all SBAC consortium states, so we cannot (as we did with PARCC) compare the aggregate performance of K12 schools that administered SBAC to overall consortium performance. Instead we compare K12 SBAC results to the state’s proficiency percentages.

In general, in grades 3–8, K12 public school programs that administered SBAC sometimes equaled or exceeded the state’s proficiency percentages in English Language Arts/Literacy, but underperformed the state in Mathematics. Here are representative results from Oregon and Washington:

OREGON: GRADES 3–8

FIGURE 5: K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE: OR ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

ORVA State (OR)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


46%49%

54% 53%56% 57%

65%

51%

44% 45%50% 48%

FIGURE 6: K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE: OR MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

ORVA State (OR)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


46% 44%41%

38%43% 43%

46%43%

34%30% 30%

25%


WASHINGTON: HIGH SCHOOL

Group 3: K12 Public School Programs Using the Same State Testing Program from 2013–2014 to 2014–2015

In 2014–2015, K12 public school programs in eight states used the same state-specific assessment program each had used in 2013–2014, with no change in proficiency cut scores8: Iowa, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming. Michigan and Nevada continued the use of certain high school assessments, the results of which are reported in this group.9

In analyses that compare the proficiency percentages for the same students year-over-year, aggregate scores for grades 4–8 show that the percentage of students at or above proficiency improved by 2 percentage points in both Reading and Mathematics.

8 The cut score is in effect the score that constitutes passing the test—specifically, the value that determines whether a student has achieved at least an adequate level of performance, typically labeled “proficiency,” on the assessment. Even if states administered the same test, the results of State A cannot be directly compared to those of State B if the two states set different cut scores.

9 Michigan also introduced a new state assessment program called M-Step, the results of which were embargoed and unavailable at the time of this report. Nevada administered SBAC in 2014–2015 but the scores were invalidated.

FIGURE 7: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: WA (HIGH SCHOOL)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Subject

K12 Public School Programs (WA) State (WA)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

MathematicsEnglish Language Arts/Literacy

52%

29%

73%

31%

FIGURE 8: SAME STUDENTS AND SAME ASSESSMENT PROGRAM: OVERALL %AAP BY SCHOOL YEAR AND SUBJECT (GRADES 4–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Subject

2013–2014 2014–2015

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

MathematicsReading

68%

50%

66%

44%

1717

10 In the 2014–2015 school year (for which this report includes data), K12 public school programs in Virginia enrolled students in grades K–6, with state testing beginning in grade 3.

K12 public school programs that generally performed as well as (or, in some grades, better than) the state include those in Texas and Virginia, especially in English and Reading. In Virginia, K12 students in grades 4, 5, and 6 outperformed the state in Mathematics as well.

TEXAS: HIGH SCHOOL

• In English 1 (grade 9), students at K12 public school programs in Texas outperformed the state by 5 percentage points.

• In Algebra 1 (grade 9), students at K12 public school programs in Texas underperformed the state by 15 percentage points.

VIRGINIA: GRADES 3–610

• In Reading, at K12 public school programs in Virginia, students in grades 4, 5, and 6 outperformed the state by 12 to 19 percentage points.

FIGURE 9: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON BY SUBJECT: TX (HIGH SCHOOL)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Subject

K12 Public School Programs (TX) State (TX)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Algebra 1English 1

69%

79%74%

64%

FIGURE 10: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: VA READING (GRADES 3–6)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

K12 Public School Programs (VA) State (VA)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

6th5th4th3rd

75% 77% 79%76%

70%

89%

98%93%


• In Mathematics, at K12 public school programs in Virginia, students in grades 4, 5, and 6 outperformed the state by 1 to 15 percentage points.

11 Wisconsin administered the SBAC Mathematics assessment in grades 3–8. Wisconsin Virtual Academy’s Mathematics results are reported in the SBAC Analysis section of this report.

Group 4: K12 Public School Programs Administering New State Tests in 2014–2015

In this section, we compare the percentage of K12 students at or above proficiency within a given state to the state’s overall percentage of students at or above proficiency. We report results from K12 public school programs in states that, while in general not members of PARCC or SBAC, changed to new assessment programs in 2014–2015. These states include Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Indiana, South Carolina, and Wisconsin. (Wisconsin results are reported for grades 3–8 English Language Arts and high school only).11

We also include in this section the results from K12 public school programs in Ohio and Louisiana. These states administered PARCC assessments but used a lower cut score to define proficiency than the proficiency standards recommended by the PARCC consortium.

In high school Mathematics, most K12 public school programs school scored below the state (though K12 schools in Ohio and Louisiana outperformed the state in Algebra 1). In tests of Reading and English Language Arts, some K12 public school programs, including those in Wisconsin and Ohio, performed as well as (or, in some grades, better than) the state.

FIGURE 11: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: VA MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–6)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

6th5th4th3rd

74%

84%79%

83%

63%

85% 84%

98%

19

WISCONSIN: GRADES 3–8

• In English Language Arts/Literacy, Wisconsin Virtual Academy outperformed the state in grades 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8.

OHIO: GRADES 3–8

• In English Language Arts/Literacy, Ohio Virtual Academy (OHVA) outperformed the state in grade 8 and equaled the state in grade 7. In grades 3–6, OHVA performed within 2 to 10 percentage points of the state.

FIGURE 12: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: WI ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

WIVA State (WI)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


52% 51%55%

46%

52% 53%58%

46%

57%52% 53%

60%

FIGURE 13: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: OH READING (GRADE 3) / ELA/LITERACY (GRADES 4–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

OHVA State (OH)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


79%

72% 70% 70% 69% 68%72% 70%

60%

68% 69% 69%


OHIO: HIGH SCHOOL

• In English Language Arts/Literacy, 82 percent of OHVA students performed at or above proficiency, outperforming the state by 9 percentage points.

• In Algebra 1 (grade 9), OHVA students outperformed the state by 6 percentage points.

FIGURE 14: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: OH (HIGH SCHOOL)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Subject

OHVA State (OH)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Algebra 1English Language Arts/Literacy

73%

66%

82%

72%

21

K12 Public School Programs Performance Analysis 2014–2015


In the 2014–2015 school year, the landscape of state testing shifted dramatically. Many states switched to new assessments. Some developed new state-specific assessments. Some turned to the Common Core consortia, either the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) or the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC). Some states used assessments from the consortia but changed or added to them. Most states followed the consortia’s recommendations for cut scores to determine proficiency but some set their own cut scores. Some states invalidated all state assessment results due to test administration or scoring issues, while some suspended school accountability ratings.

These changes complicate our efforts to analyze the performance of K12 public school programs. In previous Academic Reports, our practice has been, when possible, to compare data across multiple consecutive school years. But when states change to new tests based on new standards, and use different definitions of proficiency, the results of the new tests cannot be directly compared to results from previous tests.

Moreover, because the PARCC and SBAC assessments are in many cases significantly more rigorous than previous state assessments, it can be misleading to aggregate the results of those tests with results from more traditional state tests. Because test types and categories shifted so much in 2014–2015, we are organizing our performance analysis in ways that we hope will help readers navigate the sometimes confusing landscape of state testing.

How Performance Analyses Are Organized

12 Within specific groups of schools or individual schools, there may be differences between the number of students for whom we report scores on math and ELA. These differences may be attributable to a variety of reasons such as student attendance on days the different assessments were administered or students who took alternative or accommodated assessments in one content area.

12a In this group, we include only those K12 public school programs that both administered PARCC and used the recommended PARCC proficiency cut score. The cut score is in effect the score that constitutes passing the test—specifically, the value that determines whether a student has achieved at least an adequate level of performance, typically labeled “proficiency,” on the assessment. Even if states administered the same test, the results of State A cannot be directly compared to those of State B if the two states set different cut scores.

NORM-REFERENCED TESTS TO GAUGE STUDENT PROGRESS

Many K12 public school programs administer norm-referenced tests to gauge students’ academic progress at different points during the school year. We report results from the Scantron Performance Series®, which is the norm-referenced assessment used by the majority of K12 schools.

OVERALL ANALYSES

We report overall results from K12 public school programs in two specific cases:

• By eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch

• By persistence, that is, the relationship between length of enrollment and performance on state assessments

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS GROUPINGS12

Analyses of student performance data are organized into four groups as follows:

• Group 1: K12 public school programs administering PARCC in 2014–201512a

• Group 2: K12 public school programs administering SBAC in 2014–2015

• Group 3: K12 public school programs using the same state testing program from 2013–2014 to 2014–2015

• Group 4: K12 public school programs administering new state tests in 2014–2015

Table 4 identifies the specific K12 public school programs within each of those four groups.

NOTE: For K12 public school programs in some states, we separately analyze the results of K12 virtual academies and Insight Schools. Among K12 public school programs, most of those designated as Insight Schools focus on serving academically struggling students in grades 6–12, with a few serving only high school students. While these schools accept students of all ability levels, most focus on providing programs specifically designed to meet the needs of the struggling student. Some K12 Insight Schools are officially designated as “alternative” or “at-risk” schools based on state criteria, but most states do not have official criteria for these types of schools.

K12 Public School Programs Performance Analysis 2014–2015: Introduction

23

TABLE 4: K12 PUBLIC SCHOOL PROGRAMS BY PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS GROUPING

GROUP 1K12 Public School Programs Administering PARCC 2014–2015

K12 PUBLIC SCHOOL PROGRAMS NOTES/EXCEPTIONS

Included in analysis:

Arkansas Virtual Academy

Chicago Virtual Charter School

Colorado Preparatory Academy

Community Academy Public Charter School Online

Insight School of Colorado

Massachusetts Virtual Academy at Greenfield Commonwealth Virtual School

New Mexico Virtual Academy

Newark Preparatory Charter School

Not included in analysis:

Louisiana Virtual Charter Academy and Ohio

Virtual Academy: In 2014–2015 Louisiana and Ohio

administered PARCC but used a lower cut score to

define proficiency than the proficiency standards

recommended by the consortium. For this reason,

results from K12 schools in Louisiana and Ohio are

included in Group 4.

Youth Connection Charter School Virtual High School:

Results not available at the time of this report.

Included only in high school analysis:Newark Preparatory Charter School

GROUP 2K12 Public School Programs Administering SBAC 2014–2015



California Virtual Academy at Fresno

California Virtual Academy at Jamestown

California Virtual Academy at Kings

California Virtual Academy at Los Angeles

California Virtual Academy at Maricopa

California Virtual Academy at Maricopa High School

California Virtual Academy at San Diego

California Virtual Academy at San Joaquin

California Virtual Academy at San Mateo

California Virtual Academy at Sonoma

California Virtual Academy at Sutter

Idaho Virtual Academy

Insight School of California-Los Angeles

Insight School of Oregon-Charter Option

Insight School of California-San Diego

Insight School of Washington

iQ Academy California at Los Angeles

Oregon Virtual Academy

Silicon Valley Flex Academy

Washington Virtual Academy-Monroe

Washington Virtual Academy-Omak

Wisconsin Virtual Academy (3–8 Mathematics only)


San Francisco Flex Academy, Insight School of

Oregon-ALT, and iQ Washington: Results not

available at the time of this report.

Idaho College and Career Readiness Academy:

The number of student scores reported was not

sufficient (n<10) to support meaningful analysis.

Nevada Virtual Academy: The state of Nevada

invalidated all SBAC scores for the state’s schools.

Wisconsin Virtual Academy: In grades 3–8,

Wisconsin used a modified form of SBAC English

Language Arts/Literacy, the results of which

cannot be grouped with SBAC. In high school,

Wisconsin used state-specific tests rather than SBAC.

Included only in high school analysis:







GROUP 3K12 Public School Programs Using the Same State Testing Program from 2013–2014 to 2014–2015



Insight School of Michigan

Insight School of Minnesota

Insight School of Oklahoma

Iowa Virtual Academy

iQ Academy Minnesota

Michigan Great Lakes Virtual Academy

Michigan Virtual Charter Academy

Minnesota Virtual Academy and

Nevada Virtual Academy

Oklahoma Virtual Charter Academy

Tennessee Virtual Academy

Texas Online Preparatory School

Texas Virtual Academy

Utah Virtual Academy

Virginia Virtual Academy-King and Queen

Virginia Virtual Academy-Patrick

Wyoming Virtual Academy


Hill House Passport Academy Charter School:

Results not available at the time of this report.


K12 public school programs in Michigan: Results

from Michigan’s high school ACT assessments are

reported in Group 3. (In 2014–2015, Michigan also

administered a new testing program called M-Step.

As of the time of this report, M-Step results were

embargoed and thus unavailable.)

Nevada Virtual Academy: In 2014–2015, Nevada

SBAC scores were invalidated. Here we report

results from Nevada’s High School Proficiency

Examination.

GROUP 4K12 Public School Programs Administering New State Tests in 2014–2015



Arizona Virtual Academy

Cyber Academy of South Carolina

Florida Virtual Academy at Broward

Florida Virtual Academy at Clay

Florida Virtual Academy at Duval

Florida Virtual Academy at Hillsborough

Florida Virtual Academy at Palm Beach

Florida Virtual Academy at Pasco

Florida Virtual Academy at Pinellas

Georgia Cyber Academy

Hoosier Academies Indianapolis

Hoosier Academies Virtual School

Insight Academy of Arizona

Insight School of Kansas

Insight School of Ohio

Kansas Virtual Academy

Louisiana Virtual Charter Academy

Ohio Virtual Academy

South Carolina Virtual Charter School

Wisconsin Virtual Academy (ELA/Literacy and high school only)


Alaska Virtual Academy and Florida Virtual

Academy at Osceola: Results not available at the

time of this report.

K12 public school programs in Michigan: Results

from Michigan’s high school ACT assessments are

reported in Group 3. In 2014–2015, Michigan also

administered a new testing program called M-Step.

As of the time of this report, M-Step results were

embargoed and thus unavailable.

Wisconsin Virtual Academy, Grades 3–8

Mathematics: Wisconsin administered SBAC

Mathematics, for which results are reported in

Group 2.

TABLE 4: K12 PUBLIC SCHOOL PROGRAMS BY PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS GROUPING (continued)

25

States Suspending Accountability Ratings in 2014–2015

Typically states assessments are considered “high stakes” because some form of accountability is associated with performance. This accountability usually has student- and school-level consequences such as a student’s eligibility to graduate or a school’s performance rating. Many state policymakers suspended accountability associated with performance on state assessments in 2014–2015 due to implementation issues and significant changes in the new assessments. Some states also established 2014–2015 as a baseline year for purposes of growth measurements associated with accountability.

Since the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, there have been consequences related to performance on state assessments. For the states that suspended accountability, the 2014–2015 school year marks the first time in more than a decade that no accountability was associated with state test performance.

States with K12 public school programs that suspended accountability for 2014–2015 include:

• Arizona

• Colorado

• Florida

• Idaho

• Louisiana

• Massachusetts

• Minnesota

• Nevada

• Oregon

• Wisconsin


Norm-Referenced Tests to Gauge Student Progress: Results for 2014–2015

Many K12 public school programs administer norm-referenced tests to gauge students’ academic progress at different points during the school year. We report results from the Scantron Performance Series®, which is the norm-referenced assessment used by the majority of K12 schools.

In 2014–2015, K12 Inc. continued the use of the Scantron Performance Series® in more than 50 K12 public school programs. (See Table 5.)

The following analysis compares the mean gain—the change in scale scores from fall to spring administrations of the Scantron assessments—made by K12 students to that of the Scantron Norm Group mean gain.13 The national Scantron Norm Group, made up of thousands of students, comprises a diverse range of students by socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and other demographic characteristics.

Alaska Virtual AcademyArizona Virtual AcademyArkansas Virtual AcademyCommunity Academy Public Charter School OnlineCyber Academy of South CarolinaCalifornia Virtual Academy at FresnoCalifornia Virtual Academy at JamestownCalifornia Virtual Academy at KingsCalifornia Virtual Academy at Los AngelesCalifornia Virtual Academy at MaricopaCalifornia Virtual Academy at Maricopa High SchoolCalifornia Virtual Academy at San DiegoCalifornia Virtual Academy at San JoaquinCalifornia Virtual Academy at San MateoCalifornia Virtual Academy at SonomaCalifornia Virtual Academy at SutterColorado Preparatory AcademyChicago Virtual Charter SchoolGeorgia Cyber AcademyHill House Passport Academy Charter School Iowa Virtual AcademyIdaho College and Career Readiness AcademyIdaho Virtual AcademyiQ Academy California at Los AngelesiQ Academy MinnesotaInsight Academy of ArizonaInsight School of California-Los AngelesInsight School of ColoradoInsight School of Kansas Insight School of Kansas-Adult Insight School of Minnesota

Insight School of OhioInsight School of Oklahoma Insight School of Oregon Insight School of Oregon-Charter OptionInsight School of California at San DiegoInsight School of WashingtonKansas Virtual AcademyMassachusetts Virtual Academy at Greenfield Commonwealth Virtual School Michigan Great Lakes Virtual AcademyMinnesota Virtual AcademyNewark Preparatory Charter SchoolNew Mexico Virtual AcademyOhio Virtual AcademyOregon Virtual AcademySouth Carolina Virtual Charter SchoolSan Francisco Flex AcademySilicon Valley Flex AcademyTexas Online Preparatory SchoolTexas Virtual AcademyVirginia Virtual Academy-King and QueenVirginia Virtual Academy-PatrickWashington Virtual Academy-MonroeWashington Virtual Academy-OmakWisconsin Virtual AcademyWyoming Virtual Academy

TABLE 5: K12 PUBLIC SCHOOL PROGRAMS USING SCANTRON

13 The methodology employed in the analysis of Scantron results in this 2016 Academic Report differs from the methodology used in prior years’ Academic Reports. As noted, the analysis in the 2015 Academic Report (which set forth the results for SY 2013–2014) erroneously excluded students whose difference in scale scores between the fall and spring Scantron assessments fell within Scantron’s standard error of measurement for that difference (that is, students whose scale scores differential was not statistically distinct from zero). Such scores are included in the analysis of Scantron results set forth in this 2016 Academic Report. In addition, the methodology used in previous reports identified outliers (which were excluded from the analysis) as students whose gain scores were outside three standard deviations of zero or their grade’s mean gain. For the 2016 Academic Report, the methodology identifies (and excludes) outliers consistent with the methodology used by Scantron in its calculation of the national Scantron Norm Group, as documented in the 13th Edition of the Scantron Performance Series Technical Report which was published in December, 2015. Specifically, for both Mathematics and Reading and for each grade, only students who completed Scantron assessments in both fall 2014 and spring 2015 and whose fall 2014 scores were between the 25th and 75th percentiles are included in the analysis. In the prior year, outliers were defined as students who were plus or minus one standard error of the mean of the distribution of gains or as students with zero gains as well as students beyond three standard deviations of the mean. Although this year’s outlier approach excludes more gain scores than in prior years, it more closely aligns our methodology for analyzing our students’ Scantron gains with Scantron’s own methodology for calculating the Scantron Norm Group mean gain. Finally, this 2016 Academic Report calculates the overall percentage of the Scantron Norm Group mean gain as a weighted average of the grade-level percentages, where the weights are the number of students in each grade. (SEM not an error, but we improved upon this.)

27

Scantron Performance Series® Assessment Results (2014–2015)

READING

As reported in Figure 15 and Table 6, in Reading, K12 students exceeded the Scantron Norm Group mean gain in grades 4–7 and achieved 86 percent of the overall norm group mean gain from fall to spring. K12 students were within 20 percent of the Scantron Norm Group mean gain in grade 3.

TABLE 6: 2014–2015 SCANTRON MEAN GAIN COMPARISON: READING

* The overall percentage of the norm group mean gain is calculated as a weighted average of the grade-level percentages, where the weights are the number of students in each grade.

FIGURE 15: 2014–2015 SCANTRON MEAN GAIN COMPARISON: READING

0

50

100

150

200

250

10th9th8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd

Mea

n G

ain

Grade Level

2014–2015 K12 Mean Gain 2014–2015 Scantron Norm Group Mean Gain

Source: SY 2014–2015 Gains Data; SY 2014–2015 FRL Data

Number of Students

Included in Gains Analysis

Fall Mean Scale Score

Spring Mean Scale Score K12 Mean Gain Scantron Norm

Group Mean Gain

Percentage of Norm Group Mean Gain *

Grade 3 1,353 2,586.43 2,756.06 169.63 202.7 84%

Grade 4 1,717 2,737.51 2,892.65 155.14 146.72 106%

Grade 5 1,874 2,849.95 2,973.55 123.59 108.06 114%

Grade 6 2,163 2,952.59 3,053.20 100.61 80.91 124%

Grade 7 2,650 3,023.23 3,100.05 76.82 66.37 116%

Grade 8 3,164 3,087.85 3,125.98 38.14 61.52 62%

Grade 9 2,437 3,132.14 3,164.25 32.10 42.96 75%

Grade 10 2,370 3,188.37 3,199.21 10.84 48.88 22%

Overall 17,728 85%


MATHEMATICS

As reported in Figure 16 and Table 7, in Mathematics, K12 students exceeded the Scantron Norm Group mean gain in grades 4, 6, and 9 and achieved 94 percent of the overall Scantron Norm Group mean gain from fall to spring. K12 students were within 20 percentage points of the Scantron Norm Group mean gain in grades 3, 5, and 7.

Number of Students




Group Mean Gain

Percentage of Norm Group Mean Gain *

Grade 3 1,372 2,369.05 2,526.56 157.51 179.98 88%

Grade 4 1,725 2,461.77 2,613.07 151.30 141.21 107%

Grade 5 1,885 2,551.63 2,668.80 117.17 132.47 88%

Grade 6 2,185 2,625.68 2,753.22 127.54 113.65 112%

Grade 7 2,663 2,715.33 2,798.56 83.23 91.99 90%

Grade 8 3,189 2,777.81 2,832.69 54.88 77.41 71%

Grade 9 2,464 2,798.80 2,848.99 50.19 39.37 127%

Grade 10 2,415 2,849.75 2,889.46 39.71 50.78 78%

Overall 17,898 94%

TABLE 7: 2014–2015 SCANTRON MEAN GAIN COMPARISON: MATHEMATICS

* The overall percentage of the norm group mean gain is calculated as a weighted average of the grade-level percentages, where the weights are the number of students in each grade.

FIGURE 16: 2014–2015 SCANTRON MEAN GAIN COMPARISON: MATHEMATICS

0

50

100

150

200

250


Mea

n G

ain

Grade Level

2014–2015 K12 Mean Gain 2014–2015 Scantron Norm Group Mean Gain

29

Scantron Performance Series® Assessment Results by Eligibility for Free and Reduced-Price Lunch (2014–2015)

READING

As reported in Figure 17 and Table 8, in Reading, K12 FRL-eligible students exceeded the Scantron Norm Group mean gain in grades 4–6, while K12 students not eligible for FRL exceeded the Scantron Norm Group mean gain in grades 4–7. Overall, K12 FRL eligible students achieved 83 percent of the overall Scantron Norm Group mean gain from fall to spring, while K12 students not eligible for FRL achieved 94 percent of the Scantron Norm Group mean gain.

TABLE 8: 2014–2015 SCANTRON MEAN GAIN COMPARISON BY FRL ELIGIBILITY: READING

FIGURE 17: 2014–2015 SCANTRON MEAN GAIN COMPARISON BY FRL ELIGIBILITY: READING

0

50

100

150

200

250


Mea

n G

ain

Grade Level

K12 FRL Eligible K12 Not Eligible for FRL 2014–2015 Scantron Norm Group Mean Gain

K12 FRL Eligible K12 Not Eligible for FRL

Scantron Norm Group Mean Gain

Number of Students Mean Gain

Percentage of Norm Group Mean Gain



Grade 3 202.7 654 166.62 82% 425 168.08 83%

Grade 4 146.72 817 149.60 102% 562 160.24 109%

Grade 5 108.06 872 122.90 114% 610 111.93 104%

Grade 6 80.91 981 99.25 123% 682 99.08 122%

Grade 7 66.37 1,127 55.32 83% 863 91.31 138%

Grade 8 61.52 1,379 31.52 51% 1,038 46.28 75%

Grade 9 42.96 1,117 41.86 97% 756 34.02 79%

Grade 10 48.88 979 12.09 25% 870 25.24 52%

Overall* 7,926 83% 5,806 94%

* The overall percentage of the norm group mean gain is calculated as a weighted average of the grade-level percentages, where the weights are the number of students in each grade.Note: Table includes data for students who provided information regarding FRL eligibility.


MATHEMATICS

As reported in Figure 18 and Table 9, in Mathematics, K12 FRL-eligible students exceeded the Scantron Norm Group mean gain in grades 4 and 9, while K12 students not eligible for FRL exceeded the Scantron Norm Group mean gain in grades 4, 6, 7, 9, and 10. Overall, K12 FRL eligible students achieved 87 percent of the overall Scantron Norm Group mean gain from fall to spring, while K12 students not eligible for FRL achieved 108 percent of the Scantron Norm Group mean gain.







Grade 3 179.98 668 149.96 83% 428 163.75 91%

Grade 4 141.21 818 144.11 102% 568 158.78 112%

Grade 5 132.47 881 109.59 83% 613 129.11 97%

Grade 6 113.65 990 110.80 97% 681 146.43 129%

Grade 7 91.99 1,137 69.40 75% 865 104.32 113%

Grade 8 77.41 1,398 44.16 57% 1,046 70.10 91%

Grade 9 39.37 1,137 52.76 134% 761 50.02 127%

Grade 10 50.78 1,004 37.29 73% 884 51.98 102%

Overall* 8,033 87% 5,846 108%

TABLE 9: 2014–2015 SCANTRON MEAN GAIN COMPARISON BY FRL ELIGIBILITY: MATHEMATICS

FIGURE 18: 2014–2015 SCANTRON MEAN GAIN COMPARISON BY FRL ELIGIBILITY: MATHEMATICS

0

50

100

150

200

250


Mea

n G

ain

Grade Level

K12 FRL Eligible K12 Not Eligible for FRL 2014–2015 Scantron Norm Group Mean Gain

* The overall percentage of the norm group mean gain is calculated as a weighted average of the grade-level percentages, where the weights are the number of students in each grade.Note: Table includes data for students who provided information regarding FRL eligibility.

31

OVERALL ANALYSIS GRADES 3–8 AND HIGH SCHOOL: Persistence and FRL

In this section, we report overall results from K12 public school programs in two specific cases:

• By persistence, that is, the relationship between length of enrollment and performance on state assessments

• By eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch (FRL)

Performance by Persistence

Educational researchers have demonstrated that mobility— repeatedly moving from one school setting to another—can have a destabilizing influence, causing students to struggle and lapse in academic performance. Conversely, persistence—remaining continuously enrolled in the same school—generally proves beneficial to students as they are promoted through the grade levels.13a

Research findings on the beneficial effects of persistence are confirmed by our analysis of student performance on state tests. The overall results of that analysis show that, in general, students who stay in K12 public school programs longer achieve higher percentages at or above proficiency on state assessments, while students who stay the least amount of time show lower percentages at or above proficiency.

In our analyses of the effects of persistence, we present data on the percentage of students at or above proficiency on state assessments for students in four categories based on length of enrollment:

• Less than 1 year

• 1 year but less than 2

• 2 years but less than 3

• 3 years or more

For the 2014–2015 school year, in most cases we continue to see a positive relationship between length of continuous enrollment and proficiency. (See Figure 19.) In the following analyses, we present data for grades 3–8 and for high school. The analyses aggregate results from all K12 school programs from which valid test results were available.

13a Ashby, Cornelia M. (2010). K–12 Education: Many Challenges Arise in Educating Students Who Change Schools Frequently. Report to Congressional Requesters, GAO-11-40. US Government Accountability O. ce: 1–52.


GRADES 3–8

• In grades 3–8, in English Language Arts and Mathematics, the longer students remain enrolled, the better they perform. Compared to students enrolled in K12 public school programs less than 1 year, students enrolled 3 years or more achieved higher percentages at or above proficiency: 16 percentage points higher in English Language Arts and 14 percentage points higher in Mathematics. (See Table 11.)

FIGURE 19: 2014–2015 PROFICIENCY PERCENTAGES BY SUBJECT AND PERSISTENCE (GRADES 3–8)


TABLE 10: 2014–2015 PROFICIENCY PERCENTAGES BY SUBJECT AND PERSISTENCE (GRADES 3–8)

TABLE 11: 2014–2015 PERSISTENCE GRADES 3–8: 3 YEARS OR MORE COMPARED TO LESS THAN 1 YEAR


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


36%41%

45%

52%

28%

34%36%

42%

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy



GRADES 3–8




Mathematics +14



Less than 1 year 36% 4,115 28% 5,141


2 years but less than 3 years 45% 3,848 36% 4,960

3 years or more 52% 6,409 42% 7,576

33

HIGH SCHOOL

Our analysis of the effects of persistence in high school is organized by test type: either end-of-course assessments (EOCs) or high school graduation tests (HSGTs).14

HSGT PROFICIENCY PERCENTAGES BY PERSISTENCE

For HSGTs, compared to students enrolled in K12 public school programs less than 1 year, students enrolled 3 years or more achieved higher percentages at or above proficiency: 15 percentage points higher in English Language Arts and 9 percentage points higher in Mathematics. (See Table 13.)

FIGURE 20: 2014–2015 PROFICIENCY PERCENTAGES BY SUBJECT AND PERSISTENCE (HSGT)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


52%57% 56%

67%

31%34% 35%

40%

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy



14 HSGTs are designed to measure the basic knowledge and skills that students should know and be able to do by the end of high school. High school graduation tests do not measure specific content standards associated with specific courses such as English Literature, Algebra, Biology, or U.S. History. While HSGTs set a floor for academic achievement in broad domains of reading, writing, mathematics, science, and social studies, EOCs measure proficiency in the specific courses that students take to meet their high school graduation requirements (for example, in Algebra 1, Algebra 2, Geometry, English 1, etc.).

%AAP = percentage at or above proficiencyData represents students in grades 9–12 only.

TABLE 12: 2014–2015 PROFICIENCY PERCENTAGES BY SUBJECT AND PERSISTENCE (HSGT)



Less than 1 year 52% 753 31% 850


2 years but less than 3 years 56% 616 35% 651

3 years or more 67% 913 40% 1,141

TABLE 13: 2014–2015 PERSISTENCE HSGT: 3 YEARS OR MORE COMPARED TO LESS THAN 1 YEAR

HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION TESTS




Mathematics +9



EOC PROFICIENCY PERCENTAGES BY PERSISTENCE

In high school, for students who took an end-of-course assessment in English 1 or Algebra 1, the relationship between persistence and proficiency is not consistent with either grades 3–8 or HSGT results. Relative to students enrolled less than 1 year, the proficiency percentage of students enrolled 3 years or more was 3 percentage points less in English 1 and remained unchanged in Algebra 1.

FIGURE 21: 2014–2015 PROFICIENCY PERCENTAGES BY SUBJECT AND PERSISTENCE (EOC)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


48%

36%

47%

32%

45%

33%

45%

36%

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy


English 1 Algebra 1

TABLE 14: 2014–2015 PROFICIENCY PERCENTAGES BY SUBJECT AND PERSISTENCE (EOC)

%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency Data represents students in grades 9–12 only.

ENGLISH 1 ALGEBRA 1


Less than 1 year 48% 382 36% 586

1 year but less than 2 years 47% 918 32% 1,429

2 years but less than 3 years 45% 348 33% 601

3 years or more 45% 530 36% 895

TABLE 15: 2014–2015 PERSISTENCE EOC: 3 YEARS OR MORE COMPARED TO LESS THAN 1 YEAR

END-OF-COURSE ASSESSMENTS



English 1 -3

Algebra 1 =


35

STUDENTS ELIGIBLE FOR FREE AND REDUCED-PRICE LUNCH

Nationwide All K12 Public School Programs

50% 59%

Performance by Free and Reduced-Price Lunch Eligibility

The National School Lunch Program—a federally assisted program overseen by the United States Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service and usually administered by state education agencies—provides free or reduced-price lunches to students whose families earn at or below a set percentage of the U.S. poverty level.

In educational research, eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch (FRL) is often used as an indicator of poverty.15 While FRL eligibility cannot be automatically equated with poverty, it is an indicator of a range of income that can extend down to the poverty level and below.

The National School Lunch Program has four classifications:

• Free Lunch Eligible

• Reduced-Price Lunch Eligible

• Not Eligible

• Unknown Eligibility

Eligibility is based on self-reported family data that include income and the size of the household. In this report, we include data for students in all eligibility categories except Unknown. For more information see Appendix 1.

According to data from the National Center for Education Statistics for the most recent school year available (2013–2014), nationally, 50.24% of students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.16 In comparison, based on self-reported family data, for all students in grades 3–8 and high school in K12 public school programs, 59% were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch in 2014–2015.

THE EFFECTS OF LOW INCOME AND POVERTY

When we take into consideration students’ eligibility for subsidized meals under the National School Lunch Program, we see a fairly consistent relationship between this indicator of family poverty and students’ proficiency on state assessments. Of course family income is only one in a complex array of factors that can negatively affect academic performance, including other criteria considered by National School Lunch Program such as number of people in the household and frequency of income during the year.

The K12 experience is more than education. We are a caring community committed to offering assistance that helps students thrive. Our Family Academic Support Team (FAST) provides social, emotional, medical, and other services to help families overcome challenges that can affect students’ academic success.

Overall, the data below show that students who choose to enroll in a K12 public school program, and who are eligible for subsidized meals, tend to be less successful on state tests than students who are not eligible. This pattern is consistent with national trends confirmed in many studies, such as the research reported by Dahl and Lochner, which indicates that family income has a significant effect on a child’s mathematics and reading achievement as measured on standardized tests.17

In 2014–2015, for K12 students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, we see patterns consistent with FRL analyses in our previous Academic Reports, specifically:

• Students identified as eligible for free lunch had lower percentages at or above proficiency than students eligible for reduced-price lunch.

• Both groups underperformed students identified as not eligible for subsidized meals.

In our overall analysis of data from across K12 public school programs, these patterns hold true for all subjects in both grades 3–8 and high school. (See Figures 22–24 and Tables 16–18.)

15 New America Foundation (April 24, 2014). Background and Analysis: Federal School Nutrition Programs. Retrieved from http://febp.newamerica.net/background-analysis/federalschool-nutrition-programs.

16 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “Local Education Agency (School District) Universe Survey”, 2013–2014 v.1a; “Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey”, 2013–2014 v.1a; “State Non-fiscal Public Elementary/Secondary Education Survey”, 2013–2014 v.1a.

17 Dahl, Gordon B. and Lance Lochner. 2012. “The Impact of Family Income on Child Achievement: Evidence from the Earned Income Tax Credit.” American Economic Review, 102(5):1927–56. Retrieved from www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.102.5.1927. Dahl and Lochner report that a $1,000 increase in family income raised mathematics and reading test scores by about 6 percent of a standard deviation.


FIGURE 22: 2014–2015 PROFICIENCY PERCENTAGES BY SUBJECT AND FRL ELIGIBILITY (GRADES 3–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


54%

46%44%

34%34%

26%


“Gap Relative to Not Eligible” specifies the number of percentage points that separate students eligible for subsidized meals from those not eligible.

TABLE 16: 2014–2015 PROFICIENCY PERCENTAGES BY SUBJECT AND FRL ELIGIBILITY (GRADES 3–8)

GRADES 3–8

The following data present overall percentages of students at or above proficiency by free and reduced-price lunch eligibility for grades 3–8.


%AAPGap Relative to

Not Eligible in percentage points

Total Count %AAP

Gap Relative to Not Eligible


Total Count


Reduced-Price Eligible 44% -10 3,416 34% -12 4,300

Not Eligible 54% -- 9,246 46% -- 11,372

37

HIGH SCHOOL

The following data present overall percentages of students at or above proficiency by free and reduced-price lunch eligibility for high school graduation tests (HSGT).



TABLE 17: 2014–2015 PROFICIENCY PERCENTAGES BY SUBJECT AND FRL ELIGIBILITY (HSGT)


%AAPGap Relative

to Not Eligiblein percentage

points

%AAP %AAPGap Relative


points

%AAP


Reduced-Price Lunch Eligible

58% -7 542 33% -7 604

Not Eligible 65% -- 1,539 40% -- 1,736

FIGURE 23: 2014–2015 PROFICIENCY PERCENTAGES BY SUBJECT AND FRL ELIGIBILITY (HSGT)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


65%

40%

58%

33%

52%

31%


FIGURE 24: 2014–2015 PROFICIENCY PERCENTAGES BY SUBJECT AND FRL ELIGIBILITY (EOC)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Algebra 1English 1

55%

42%

50%

40%39%

27%

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy





TABLE 18: 2014–2015 PROFICIENCY PERCENTAGES BY SUBJECT AND FRL ELIGIBILITY (EOC)

ENGLISH 1 ALGEBRA 1

%AAPGap Relative


points

%AAP %AAPGap Relative


points

%AAP


Reduced-Price Eligible

50% -5 353 40% -2 542

Not Eligible 55% -- 806 42% -- 1,229

HIGH SCHOOL (continued)

The following data present overall percentages of students at or above proficiency by free and reduced-price lunch eligibility for high school end-of-course tests (EOC).

39

K12 Public School Programs Administering PARCC

GROUP 1

K12 Public School Programs Administering PARCC 2014–2015 NOTES/EXCEPTIONS


Arkansas Virtual Academy

Chicago Virtual Charter School

Colorado Preparatory Academy

Community Academy Public Charter School Online

Insight School of Colorado

Massachusetts Virtual Academy at Greenfield Commonwealth

Virtual School

New Mexico Virtual Academy



Louisiana Virtual Charter Academy and Ohio Virtual Academy: In 2014–2015 Louisiana and Ohio administered PARCC but used a lower cut score to define proficiency than the proficiency standards recommended by the consortium. For this reason, results from K12 schools in Louisiana and Ohio are included in Group 4.

Youth Connection Charter School Virtual High School: Results not available at the time of this report.



• The PARCC consortium offers assessments in English Language Arts (ELA)/Literacy and Mathematics for grades 3–8 and high school.

• K12 Public School Programs Aggregate Comparison to PARCC Consortium: For the 2014–2015 PARCC testing administration, overall results for all consortium states are available.18 We compare the aggregate performance of K12 public school programs19 that administered PARCC (with the exceptions noted at left) to the overall PARCC consortium performance data for grades 3–8 and high school.

• Year-Over-Year Case Study: The Example of Arkansas Virtual Academy: We analyze the results from a single K12 public school program, Arkansas Virtual Academy, as an example of the complexities in attempting to understand the year-over-year performance of schools that have changed from state-specific tests in 2013–2014 to Common Core consortia assessments in 2014–2015.

K12 Public School Programs Included in PARCC AnalysisFRL Eligible Special Education

K12 State K12 State

Arkansas Virtual Academy 65% 61% 15% 13%

Chicago Virtual Charter School 76% 54%

Colorado Preparatory Academy 57% 42% 10% 10%

Community Academy Public Charter School Online 69% 99% 17% 15%

Insight School of Colorado 48% 42% -- --

Massachusetts Virtual Academy at Greenfield Commonwealth Virtual School

56% 38% -- --

New Mexico Virtual Academy 50% 67% -- --

Newark Preparatory Charter School 70% 38% 16% 15%FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.Special education eligibility percentages are reported only for schools in which K12 is responsible for special education services.

18 Source for PARCC consortium data: http://www.parcconline.org/images/Consortium_and_State_Tables_FINAL_3_7_16.pdf19 Results from K12 public school programs include Full Academic Year students (those who have been continuously enrolled starting on or before a specified date usually close to the

beginning of the school year).


K12 Public School Programs Aggregate Comparison to PARCC Consortium

GRADES 3–8ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)

• On the PARCC English Language Arts/Literacy test, students in K12 public school programs performed better in grades 3–5 than in grades 6–8 achieved proficiency percentages within 1 to 3 percentage points of the overall PARCC consortium.

• In grades 6–8, K12 students performed within 6 to 12 percentage points the overall PARCC consortium.

TABLE 19: K12 COMPARISON TO PARCC CONSORTIUM: ELA/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)

Total Student Count Per Category ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY

K12 %AAP K12 Total Count

Overall PARCC Consortium

%AAP


Count

Gap between K12 and PARCC

Consortiumin percentage points

Grade 3 36% 163 37% 508,108 -1

Grade 4 38% 182 41% 623,065 -3

Grade 5 40% 203 41% 628,924 -1

Grade 6 27% 295 39% 622,022 -12

Grade 7 35% 343 41% 615,390 -6

Grade 8 32% 368 42% 609,868 -10


FIGURE 25: K12 COMPARISON TO PARCC CONSORTIUM: ELA/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


37%41% 41% 39% 41% 42%

36% 38% 40%

27%

35%32%

41

MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)

• On the PARCC Mathematics test, students in grades 7 and 8 were within 1 percentage point of the PARCC consortium but the students in grades 3–7 underperformed the consortium by between 6 and 10 percentage points.

FIGURE 26: K12 COMPARISON TO PARCC CONSORTIUM: MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


37%32% 32% 32%

28% 27%31%

22%26% 25% 27% 26%

TABLE 20: K12 COMPARISON TO PARCC CONSORTIUM: MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)

Total Student Count Per Category MATHEMATICS



%AAP


Count



Grade 3 31% 164 37% 640,416 -6

Grade 4 22% 183 32% 625,699 -10

Grade 5 26% 205 32% 630,748 -6

Grade 6 25% 298 32% 622,136 -7

Grade 7 27% 343 28% 600,339 -1

Grade 8 26% 364 27% 497,597 -1



HIGH SCHOOL

In K12 public school programs across grades 9–11, 598 students received scores on the PARCC assessment in English Language Arts/Literacy and 217 on Algebra 1. The analysis of high school results includes these K12 public school programs:

• Arkansas Virtual Academy

• Colorado Preparatory Academy

• Insight School of Colorado

• Chicago Virtual Charter School

• Newark Preparatory Charter School

• New Mexico Virtual Academy

ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY: GRADES 9–11

• In grades 9–11, K12 public school programs underperformed the overall PARCC consortium in English Language Arts/Literacy by 11 to 13 percentage points.

FIGURE 27: K12 COMPARISON TO PARCC CONSORTIUM: ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 9–11)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

11th10th 9th

40% 38% 39%

27% 25%28%

TABLE 21: K12 COMPARISON TO PARCC CONSORTIUM: ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 9–11)




%AAP


Count



Grade 9 27% 214 40% 401,304 -13

Grade 10 25% 212 38% 269,778 -13

Grade 11 28% 172 39% 163,956 -11


43

ALGEBRA 1

• In K12 public school programs, across grades 9–11, the overall proficiency percentage in Algebra 1 was 9% compared to 31% at or above proficiency across the PARCC consortium.

FIGURE 28: K12 COMPARISON TO PARCC CONSORTIUM: ALGEBRA 1 (OVERALL 9–11)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Algebra 1

31%

9%

TABLE 22: K12 COMPARISON TO PARCC CONSORTIUM: ALGEBRA 1 (GRADES 9–11)


* Results not reported because the number of students was not sufficient (n<10) to support meaningful analysis. **PARCC reported overall results for Algebra 1; no grade level was specified. Note: PARCC consortium data for Algebra 1 do not specify a grade level for the overall percentage of students at or above proficiency.

Subject

K12 PARCC CONSORTIUM**

%AAP Total Count %AAP Total

Count

Grade 9 10% 177 -- --

Grade 10 6% 34 -- --

Grade 11 * * -- --

Overall 9% 217 31% 473,060


In 2013–2014, the state of Arkansas administered the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing Program. In 2014–2015, the state administered the PARCC assessments. Here we analyze the results from Arkansas Virtual Academy as an example of how we can address the complexities in attempting to understand the year-over-year performance of schools that have changed from state-specific tests in 2013–2014 to Common Core consortia assessments in 2014–2015.

Because the assessments developed by the PARCC and SBAC consortia were in general more demanding than previous state tests, states that followed the consortia-recommended cut scores reported lower percentages at or above proficiency compared to previous years. However, when states change to new tests based on new standards, the results of the new tests cannot be directly compared to results from previous tests. Thus, for Arkansas and other states that changed to PARCC in 2014–2015, the 2014–2015 results cannot be compared to results from state-specific tests administered in 2013–2014.

We can, however, compare how the K12 school performed relative to the state year-over-year. Specifically, for each tested subject reported, we can calculate the gap in percentage points between the K12 school’s percentage of students at or above proficiency and state’s percentage at or above proficiency.

In comparing the performance of the K12 school relative to the state year-over-year, we are not comparing test results from the current year to prior year results, which would constitute an invalid comparison. Instead, by comparing the school-state gap in 2013–2014 to the gap in 2014–2015, we can see whether the school is improving or declining relative to the state in specific subjects and grade levels.

ARVA: School and State Comparison20

ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)

School Year Assessment Program Administered

2013–2014 Arkansas Comprehensive Testing Program: Literacy

2014–2015 PARCC English Language Arts/Literacy

• In 2014–2015, on the more rigorous PARCC English Language Arts/Literacy assessment, ARVA equaled the state in grade 3 and outperformed the state in grade 4.

• In English Language Arts/Literacy, relative to 2013–2014, in 2014–2015 the gap between ARVA and the state closed or narrowed in grades 3–6 by 6 to 25 percentage points.

20 In this analysis, both school and state results are (as reported in the state data source) for all students regardless of enrollment date.

Year-Over-Year Case Study: The Example of Arkansas Virtual Academy

45

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

8th7th6th5th4th3rd

29%34% 32% 33% 35%

32%29%

35%

27% 27%31% 30%

77%

83% 82%

69%

77% 77%

58% 59%

66%

57%

76% 77%

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

2013–2014 ARVA 2013–2014 State 2014–2015 ARVA 2014–2015 State

FIGURE 29: ARVA YEAR-OVER-YEAR SCHOOL-STATE COMPARISON: ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)

2013–2014 ARVA

2013–2014 State

2013–2014 ARVA/

State Gap

2014–2015 ARVA

2014–2015 State

2014–2015 ARVA/State

Gap

Change in School/State

Gap*in percentage points

3rd 13–14 ARVA n=13014–15 ARVA n=107

58% 77% -19 29% 29% = +19

4th13–14 ARVA n=13114–15 ARVA n=122

59% 83% -24 35% 34% +1 + 25

5th13–14 ARVA n=14214–15 ARVA n=118

66% 82% -16 27% 32% -5 +11

6th13–14 ARVA n=14614–15 ARVA n=160

57% 69% -12 27% 33% -6 +6

7th13–14 ARVA n=17214–15 ARVA n=185

76% 77% -1 31% 35% -4 -3

8th13–14 ARVA n=17114–15 ARVA n=196

77% 77% = 30% 32% -2 -2

TABLE 23: ARVA YEAR-OVER-YEAR SCHOOL-STATE GAP ANALYSIS: ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)

* A positive value indicates the number of percentage points by which the gap between ARVA and the state narrowed (relative to percentage of students at or above proficiency) from the 2013–2014 school year to the 2014–2015 school year.


Source for state data: http://www.arkansased.gov/public/userfiles/Learning_Services/Student%20Assessment/2015/Arkansas_PARCC_Results_for_Students_in_Grades_3_through_8_and_High_School_Final_1.pdf

TABLE 24: ARVA YEAR-OVER-YEAR SCHOOL-STATE GAP ANALYSIS: MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)

* A positive value indicates the number of percentage points by which the gap between ARVA and the state narrowed (relative to percentage of students at or above proficiency) from the 2013–2014 school year to the 2014–2015 school year.

2013–2014 ARVA

2013–2014 State

2013–2014 ARVA/

State Gap

2014–2015 ARVA

2014–2015 State

2014–2015 ARVA/State

Gap

Change in School/State

Gap*in percentage points

3rd 13–14 ARVA n=13014–15 ARVA n=107

71% 84% -13 20% 31% -11 +2

4th13–14 ARVA n=13114–15 ARVA n=122

64% 76% -12 14% 24% -10 +2

5th13–14 ARVA n=14214–15 ARVA n=120

51% 68% -17 20% 24% -4 +13

6th13–14 ARVA n=14614–15 ARVA n=159

63% 73% -10 20% 25% -5 +5

7th13–14 ARVA n=17214–15 ARVA n=184

58% 69% -11 19% 25% -6 +5

8th13–14 ARVA n=17114–15 ARVA n=195

61% 64% -3 29% 17% +12 +15

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

8th7th6th5th4th3rd

31%

24% 24% 25% 25%

17%20%

14%

20% 20% 19%

29%

84%

76%

68%73%

69%64%

71%

64%

51%

63%58%

61%

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

2013–2014 ARVA 2013–2014 State 2014–2015 ARVA 2014–2015 State

FIGURE 30: ARVA YEAR-OVER-YEAR SCHOOL-STATE COMPARISON: MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)


• In 2014–2015, on the more rigorous PARCC Mathematics assessment, ARVA outperformed the state in grade 8.

• In Mathematics, relative to 2013–2014, in 2014–2015 the gap between ARVA and the state closed or narrowed in all grades by 2 to 15 percentage points.

School Year Assessment Program Administered

2013–2014Arkansas Comprehensive Testing Program: Mathematics

2014–2015 PARCC Mathematics

47

K12 Public School Programs Administering SBAC

GROUP 2

K12 Public School Programs Administering SBAC 2014–2015


California Virtual Academy at Fresno

California Virtual Academy at Jamestown

California Virtual Academy at Kings

California Virtual Academy at Los Angeles

California Virtual Academy at Maricopa


California Virtual Academy at San Diego

California Virtual Academy at San Joaquin

California Virtual Academy at San Mateo

California Virtual Academy at Sonoma

California Virtual Academy at Sutter

Idaho Virtual Academy





iQ Academy California at Los Angeles

Oregon Virtual Academy

Silicon Valley Flex Academy


Washington Virtual Academy-Omak

Wisconsin Virtual Academy (3–8 Mathematics only)


San Francisco Flex Academy, Insight School of Oregon-ALT, and iQ Washington: Results not available at the time of this report.

Idaho College and Career Readiness Academy: The number of student scores reported was not sufficient (n<10) to support meaningful analysis.

Nevada Virtual Academy: The state of Nevada invalidated all SBAC scores for the state’s schools.

Wisconsin Virtual Academy : In grades 3–8, Wisconsin used a modified form of SBAC English Language Arts/Literacy, the results of which cannot be grouped with SBAC. In high school, Wisconsin used state-specific tests rather than SBAC.



Insight School of California–Los Angeles




• SBAC offers assessments in English Language Arts (ELA)/Literacy and Mathematics for grades 3–8 and grade 11. Several SBAC states used other assessments in high school.

• As of the publication of this report, SBAC had not published overall results for all consortium states, and the consortium had no plans to report overall proficiency percentages for all participating states.

• SBAC Comparison by State: Because no overall consortium results are available from SBAC, we cannot (as we did with PARCC) compare the aggregate performance of K12 public school programs that administered SBAC to overall consortium proficiency percentages. Instead we compare K12 SBAC results to the state’s proficiency percentages.21

21 Unless otherwise noted, results from K12 public school programs are for Full Academic Year students (those who have been continuously enrolled starting on or before a specified date usually close to the beginning of the school year), while state results are (as reported in the state data source) for all students regardless of enrollment date.


K12 Public School Programs in California Included in Analysis

FRL Eligible Special Education

K12 State K12 State

California Virtual Academy at Fresno 61%

58% 11%* 11%

California Virtual Academy at Jamestown 65%

California Virtual Academy at Kings 53%

California Virtual Academy at Los Angeles 54%

California Virtual Academy at Maricopa 61%

California Virtual Academy at Maricopa High School* (included in high school analysis only)

55%

California Virtual Academy at San Diego 51%

California Virtual Academy at San Joaquin 51%

California Virtual Academy at San Mateo 42%

California Virtual Academy at Sonoma 52%

California Virtual Academy at Sutter 55%

iQ Academy California at Los Angeles 55% 58% 9% 11%

Silicon Valley Flex Academy 10% 58% 16% 11%

NOTE: This analysis aggregates data from all of the separate California K12 public school programs listed in the table at left. Results from two high school programs, Insight School of California-Los Angeles and Insight School of California-San Diego, are reported separately.

* The special education eligibility percentage is an aggregate figure encompassing the specified individual K12 California Virtual Academy schools.

FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.

CALIFORNIA

49

GRADES 3–8 ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)

• In English Language Arts/Literacy, K12 public school programs in California performed within 1 percentage point of the state in grades 3 and 8 and within 4 percentage points of the state in grade 7.22

• Across all grades (3–8), the gap between K12 public school programs in California and the state did not exceed 8 percentage points.

FIGURE 31: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE: CA ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


38% 40%44% 42% 44% 45%

37%32%

38%34%

40%44%

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

K12 Public School Programs (CA) State (CA)

TABLE 25: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE: CA ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)


CA K12 %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 3 37% 748 38%

Grade 4 32% 786 40%

Grade 5 38% 822 44%

Grade 6 34% 1,022 42%

Grade 7 40% 1,321 44%

Grade 8 44% 1,547 45%


22 Unless otherwise noted, results from K12 public school programs are for Full Academic Year students (those who have been continuously enrolled starting on or before a specified date usually close to the beginning of the school year), while state results are (as reported in the state data source) for all students regardless of enrollment date.


CALIFORNIA K12 PUBLIC SCHOOL PROGRAMS continued


• In Mathematics, K12 public school programs in California performed within 9 to 10 percentage points of the state in grades 4–8.

• The largest gap between California K12 public school programs and the state was in grade 3 (13 percentage points).

FIGURE 32: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE: CA MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


40%35%

30%33% 34% 33%

27% 26%21%

24% 24% 24%

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level


TABLE 26: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE: CA MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)


CA K12 %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 3 27% 747 40%

Grade 4 26% 784 35%

Grade 5 21% 819 30%

Grade 6 24% 1,025 33%

Grade 7 24% 1,316 34%

Grade 8 24% 1,544 33%


51

HIGH SCHOOL23

• In English Language Arts/Literacy (grade 11), K12 public school programs in California outperformed the state by 5 percentage points.

• In Mathematics (grade 11), K12 public school programs in California underperformed the state by 12 percentage points.

FIGURE 33: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: CA (HIGH SCHOOL)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


56%

29%

61%

17%

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Subject


TABLE 27: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: CA (HIGH SCHOOL)


ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY MATHEMATICS

CA K12 %AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

CA K12 %AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

Grade 11 61% 1,283 56% 17% 1,281 29%

Source for state data: http://caaspp.cde.ca.gov 23 As noted earlier, the aggregated data here do not include results from two high school programs, Insight School of California-Los Angeles and Insight School of California-San Diego,

which are reported separately.


INSIGHT SCHOOL OF CALIFORNIA-LOS ANGELES

Source for state data: http://caaspp.cde.ca.gov 24 Among K12 public school programs, most of those designated as Insight Schools focus on serving academically struggling students in grades 6–12, with a few serving only high school

students. While these schools accept students of all ability levels, most focus on providing programs specifically designed to meet the needs of the struggling student. Some K12 Insight Schools are officially designated as “alternative” or “at-risk” schools based on state criteria, but most states do not have official criteria for these types of schools.

HIGH SCHOOL• In English Language Arts/Literacy (grade 11), ISCA-LA students underperformed the state by 27 percentage points.

• In Mathematics (grade 11), ISCA-LA students underperformed the state by 24 percentage points.


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


56%

29%29%

5%Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Subject

ISCA-LA State (CA)




ISCA-LA%AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

ISCA-LA%AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

Grade 11 29% 55 56% 5% 55 29%




K12 State K12 State

66% 58% 14% 11%

Insight School of California-Los Angeles (ISCA-LA)

serves students in high school (grades 9–12).24

53

INSIGHT SCHOOL OF CALIFORNIA-SAN DIEGO

Source for state data: http://caaspp.cde.ca.gov 25 Among K12 public school programs, most of those designated as Insight Schools focus on serving academically struggling students in grades 6–12, with a few serving only high school


HIGH SCHOOL• In English Language Arts/Literacy (grade 11), ISCA-SD students underperformed the state by 20 percentage points.

• In Mathematics (grade 11), ISCA-SD students underperformed the state by 25 percentage points.


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


56%

29%

36%

4%Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Subject

ISCA-SD State (CA)




ISCA-SD%AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

ISCA-SD%AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

Grade 11 36% 55 56% 4% 25 29%




K12 State K12 State

56% 58% 17% 11%

Insight School of California-San Diego (ISCA-SD) serves students in high school (grades 9–12).25


K12 Public School Programs in Idaho Included in Analysis


K12 State K12 State

Idaho Virtual Academy (IDVA) 58% 47% 9% 9%


• In English Language Arts/Literacy, IDVA equaled the state in grade 8 and performed within 3 percentage points of the state in grade 7 and within 4 percentage points in grade 5.

• Across all grades (3–8), the gap between IDVA and the state did not exceed 10 percentage points.

IDAHO

NOTE: IDVA participated in SBAC in grades 3–8 only.

NOTE: Results from Idaho College and Career Readiness Academy are not included because the number of student scores reported was not sufficient (n<10) to support meaningful analysis.

FIGURE 36: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE: IDVA ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


48% 46%

52%49% 51% 52%

38% 38%

45%

39%

48%52%

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

IDVA State (ID)



TABLE 30: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE: IDVA ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)


IDVA %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 3 38% 104 48%

Grade 4 38% 109 46%

Grade 5 45% 88 52%

Grade 6 39% 107 49%

Grade 7 48% 107 51%

Grade 8 52% 153 52%

55


TABLE 31: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE: IDVA MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)


IDVA %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 3 40% 103 50%

Grade 4 31% 108 43%

Grade 5 30% 87 38%

Grade 6 31% 110 37%

Grade 7 38% 108 38%

Grade 8 30% 153 37%


• In Mathematics, IDVA equaled the state in grade 7.

• In grades 3–6 and 8, IDVA underperformed the state by 7 to 12 percentage points.

FIGURE 37: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE: IDVA MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


50%

43%38% 37% 38% 37%

40%

31% 30% 31%

38%

30%

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

IDVA State (ID)

Source for state data: http://apps.sde.idaho.gov/ReportCard


K12 Public School Programs in Oregon Included in Analysis


K12 State K12 State

Oregon Virtual Academy (ORVA) 62% 51% 13% 15%


• In English Language Arts/Literacy, ORVA students outperformed the state by 19 percentage points in grade 3 and by 2 percentage points in grade 4.

• In grades 5–8, ORVA students performed within 6 to 10 percentage points of the state.

OREGON

NOTE: Results from Insight School of Oregon-Charter Option (ISOR-CO) are reported separately.

FIGURE 38: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE: OR ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


46%49%

54% 53%56% 57%

65%

51%

44% 45%50% 48%

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

ORVA State (OR)



TABLE 32: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE: OR ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)


ORVA %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 3 65% 82 46%

Grade 4 51% 95 49%

Grade 5 44% 94 54%

Grade 6 45% 111 53%

Grade 7 50% 121 56%

Grade 8 48% 163 57%

57


TABLE 33: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE: OR MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)


ORVA %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 3 46% 83 46%

Grade 4 43% 93 44%

Grade 5 34% 95 41%

Grade 6 30% 111 38%

Grade 7 30% 122 43%

Grade 8 25% 158 43%


• In Mathematics, ORVA students equaled the state in grade 3 and performed within 1 percentage point of the state in grade 4.

• In grades 5 and 6, ORVA students performed within 7 to 8 percentage points of the state.

FIGURE 39: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE: OR MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


46% 44%41%

38%43% 43%

46%43%

34%30% 30%

25%

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

ORVA State (OR)


OREGON VIRTUAL ACADEMY continued

HIGH SCHOOL• In English Language Arts/Literacy, ORVA students equaled the state’s percentage at or above proficiency.

• In Mathematics, ORVA students underperformed the state by 13 percentage points.

FIGURE 40: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: OR (HIGH SCHOOL)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


67%

31%

67%

18%

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Subject

ORVA State (OR)

TABLE 34: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: OR (HIGH SCHOOL)



ORVA %AAPTotal

CountState %AAP

ORVA %AAPTotal

CountState %AAP

Grade 11 67% 93 67% 18% 94 31%

Source for state data: http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/results/?id=116

59

INSIGHT SCHOOL OF OREGON-CHARTER OPTION

FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.Special education eligibility percentages are reported only for schools in which K12 is responsible for special education services.



K12 State K12 State

52% 51% -- --

GRADES 3–8ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)

• In English Language Arts/Literacy, ISOR-CO students outperformed the state by 9 percentage points in grade 3, by 1 percentage point in grade 4, and by 7 percentage points in grade 8.

• In grades 5–7, ISOR-CO students underperformed the state by 21 to 35 percentage points.

26 As of the 2015–2016 school year, the school’s name has changed to Insight School of Oregon-Painted Hills (ISOR-PH).27 Among K12 public school programs, most of those designated as Insight Schools focus on serving academically struggling students in grades 6–12, with a few serving only high school


FIGURE 41: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: OR ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


46%49%

54% 53%56% 57%55%

50%

27%

18%

35%

64%

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

ISOR-CO State (OR)

Insight School of Oregon-Charter Option (ISOR-CO)26 serves students in grades 7–12.27


TABLE 35: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: OR ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)


ISOR-CO %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 3 55% 11 46%

Grade 4 50% 10 49%

Grade 5 27% 11 54%

Grade 6 18% 11 53%

Grade 7 35% 23 56%

Grade 8 64% 25 57%


INSIGHT SCHOOL OF OREGON-CHARTER OPTION continued


• In Mathematics, ISOR-CO students performed within 4 percentage points of the state in grade 4 and within 10 percentage points of the state in grade 3.

• In grades 5–7, ISOR-CO students underperformed the state by 14 to 34 percentage points.

FIGURE 42: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: OR MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


46% 44%41%

38%43% 43%

36%40%

27%

10% 9%

25%

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

ISOR-CO State (OR)

TABLE 36: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: OR MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)


ISOR-CO %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 3 36% 11 46%

Grade 4 40% 10 44%

Grade 5 27% 11 41%

Grade 6 10% 10 38%

Grade 7 9% 23 43%

Grade 8 25% 24 43%


61

HIGH SCHOOL• In English Language Arts/Literacy, ISOR-CO students underperformed the state by 14 percentage points.

• In Mathematics, ISOR-CO students underperformed the state by 22 percentage points.

FIGURE 43: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: OR (HIGH SCHOOL)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


67%

31%

53%

9%

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Subject

ISOR-CO State (OR)

TABLE 37: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: OR (HIGH SCHOOL)



ISOR-CO %AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

ISOR-CO %AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

Grade 11 53% 55 67% 9% 55 31%

Source for state data: http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/results/?id=116


TABLE 38: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE: WA ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)


WAVA-Omak %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 3 62% 159 53%

Grade 4 57% 152 56%

Grade 5 58% 191 59%

Grade 6 50% 181 55%

Grade 7 51% 255 59%

Grade 8 57% 336 59%


K12 Public School Programs in Washington Included in Analysis28


K12 State K12 State

Washington Virtual Academy-Monroe 38% 46% 11%

12%

Washington Virtual Academy-Omak 48% 46% 12%


• In English Language Arts/Literacy, WAVA-Omak students outperformed the state by 9 percentage points in grade 3 and by 1 percentage point in grade 4.

• In grades 5–8, WAVA-Omak students performed within 1 to 8 percentage points of the state.

WASHINGTON

NOTE: The analysis of grades 3–8 includes only Washington Virtual Academy-Omak (WAVA-Omak). The high school analysis aggregates data from these Washington K12 public school programs:

– Washington Virtual Academy-Omak, which serves grades K–12

– Washington Virtual Academy-Monroe (WAVA-Monroe), which serves high school only

FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.*The Special Education percentage is an aggregate figure that includes students qualifying for Special Education in all K12 Washington Virtual Academies.

NOTE: Results from Insight School of Washington are reported separately.

28 iQ Washington is not included because results from this school were not available at the time of this analysis.

FIGURE 44: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE: WA ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


53%56%

59%55%

59% 59%62%

57% 58%

50% 51%

57%

63

TABLE 39: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE: WA MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)


WAVA-Omak %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 3 43% 148 58%

Grade 4 46% 153 55%

Grade 5 43% 191 49%

Grade 6 41% 180 47%

Grade 7 43% 253 50%

Grade 8 29% 332 48%



• In Mathematics, WAVA-Omak students performed within 6 percentage points of the state in grades 5 and 6.

• In grades 4 and 7, WAVA-Omak students performed within 7 to 9 percentage points of the state.

FIGURE 45: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE: WA MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


58%55%

49% 47%50% 48%

43%46%

43% 41% 43%

29%


WASHINGTON K12 PUBLIC SCHOOL PROGRAMS continued

HIGH SCHOOL29

The high school analysis aggregates data from these Washington K12 public school programs:

– Washington Virtual Academy-Omak, which serves grades K–12

– Washington Virtual Academy-Monroe (WAVA-Monroe), which serves high school only

• In English Language Arts/Literacy, K12 Washington students (WAVA-Omak and WAVA-Monroe) outperformed the state by 21 percentage points.

• In Mathematics, K12 Washington students outperformed the state by 2 percentage points.

Source for state data: http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/Summary.aspx?year=2014-15&yrs=2014-15 29 Results for Insight School of Washington high school program are reported separately.


Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Subject


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


52%

29%

73%

31%

TABLE 40: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: WA (HIGH SCHOOL)



WA K12 %AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

WA K12 %AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

Grade 11 73% 105 52% 31% 103 29%

65

INSIGHT SCHOOL OF WASHINGTON

Source for state data: http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/Summary.aspx?year=2014-15&yrs=2014-1530 Among K12 public school programs, most of those designated as Insight Schools focus on serving academically struggling students in grades 6–12, with a few serving only high school


HIGH SCHOOL• In English Language Arts/Literacy, ISWA students outperformed the state by 8 percentage points.

• In Mathematics, ISWA students underperformed the state by 17 percentage points.




K12 State K12 State

58% 46% 12% 12%

Insight School of Washington (ISWA) serves students in high school (grades 9–12).30


Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


52%

29%

64%

12%

Subject

ISWA State (WA)

TABLE 41: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: WA (HIGH SCHOOL)



ISWA %AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

ISWA %AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

Grade 11 64% 213 52% 12% 204 29%


FIGURE 48: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE: WI MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

WIVA State (WI)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


52%48%

40% 41% 43%39%

31%34%

29%34%

38%

28%

TABLE 42: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE: WI MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)


K12 Public School Programs in Wisconsin Included in Analysis


K12 State K12 State

Wisconsin Virtual Academy (WIVA) 56% 42% 15% 14%

GRADES 3–8 MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)

• In Mathematics, WIVA performed within 5 to 7 percentage points of the state in grades 6 and 7. In grades 3, 4, 5, and 8, WIVA underperformed the state by 11 to 21 percentage points.

WISCONSIN

NOTE: Wisconsin administered a modified form of the SBAC English Language Arts/Literacy assessment, and so here we report only Wisconsin’s SBAC results for Mathematics.31


Source for state data: http://wisedash.dpi.wi.gov/Dashboard/portalHome.jsp 31 In grades 3–8, Wisconsin administered SBAC Mathematics but administered a modified form of SBAC English Language Arts/Literacy. In high school, Wisconsin used state-specific

tests rather than SBAC. Wisconsin’s ELA/Literacy and high school results are reported in the Group 4 Analysis section.


WIVA K12 %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 3 31% 64 52%

Grade 4 34% 65 48%

Grade 5 29% 97 40%

Grade 6 34% 86 41%

Grade 7 38% 126 43%

Grade 8 28% 127 39%

67

K12 Public School Programs Using Same State Testing Program from 2013–2014 to 2014–2015

GROUP 3

K12 Public School Programs Using Same State Testing Program from 2013–2014 to 2014–2015



Insight School of Minnesota


Iowa Virtual Academy

iQ Academy Minnesota

Michigan Great Lakes Virtual Academy

Michigan Virtual Charter Academy

Minnesota Virtual Academy

Nevada Virtual Academy

Oklahoma Virtual Charter Academy

Tennessee Virtual Academy

Texas Online Preparatory School

Texas Virtual Academy

Utah Virtual Academy

Virginia Virtual Academy-King and Queen

Virginia Virtual Academy-Patrick

Wyoming Virtual Academy


Hill House Passport Academy Charter School: Results not available at the time of this report.


K12 public school programs in Michigan (Insight School of Michigan, Michigan Great Lakes Virtual Academy, and Michigan Virtual Charter Academy)

Nevada Virtual Academy: In 2014–2015, Nevada SBAC scores were invalidated. Here we report results from Nevada’s High School Proficiency Examination.

• In 2014–2015, K12 public school programs in eight states used the same state-specific assessment program each had used in 2013–2014, with no change in proficiency cut scores:

– Iowa

– Minnesota

– Oklahoma

– Tennessee

– Texas

– Utah

– Virginia

– Wyoming

• Michigan and Nevada continued the use of certain high school assessments, the results of which are reported in this group.32

• Overall Analysis (Same Students Year-Over-Year): For K12 public school programs in these states that did not change their state-specific assessment program in 2014–2015, we present our analysis in two sections. First, we aggregate the data from these schools in order to compare the overall performance of the same students taking tests in the same assessment program from 2013–2014 to 2014–2015.

– Because these analyses compare the proficiency percentages for the same students year-over-year, there are no results reported for grade 3. (Grade 3 is the initial grade of state testing, and so there are no prior-year state test results for students who were third graders in 2014–2015.)

– Aggregate scores for grades 4–8 show that the percentage of students at or above proficiency improved by 2 percentage points in both Reading and Mathematics.

• Comparisons to State Proficiency Percentages: Following the overall analysis, for each K12 public school program in states that did not change their state-specific assessment program in 2014–2015, we compare the 2014–2015 proficiency percentages of the K12 school or schools to the state’s proficiency percentages.33

32 Michigan also introduced a new state assessment program called M-Step, the results of which were embargoed and unavailable at the time of this report.33 Unless otherwise noted, results from K12 public school programs are for Full Academic Year students (those who have been continuously enrolled starting on or before a specified date

usually close to the beginning of the school year), while state results are (as reported in the state data source) for all students regardless of enrollment date. High School data from a K12 public school program represents students in grades 9–12 during the school year 2014–2015 who participated in state assessments.


OVERALL ANALYSIS (Same Students Year-Over-Year)

GRADES 4–8 READING AND MATHEMATICS: AGGREGATE (GRADES 4–8)

Overall, aggregate results from all grades (4 through 8) in all schools with unchanged assessment programs show that students improved by 2 percentage points in Reading and 6 percentage points in Mathematics from 2013–2014 to 2014–2015.34

34 Results from 2014–2015 include Full Academic Year students (those who have been continuously enrolled starting on or before a specified date usually close to the beginning of the school year), while results from 2013–2014 include all students regardless of enrollment date.

FIGURE 49: SAME STUDENTS AND SAME ASSESSMENT PROGRAM: OVERALL %AAP BY SCHOOL YEAR AND SUBJECT (GRADES 4–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Subject

2013–2014 2014–2015

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

MathematicsReading

68%

50%

66%

44%

TABLE 43: SAME STUDENTS AND SAME ASSESSMENT PROGRAM: OVERALL %AAP CHANGE (GRADES 4–8)


READING MATHEMATICS

%AAP2013–2014

%AAP2014–2015

Change in percentage

pointsTotal Count %AAP

2013–2014%AAP

2014–2015Change


Total Count

66% 68% +2 2,499 44% 50% +6 3,951

69

READING: BY GRADE LEVEL (GRADES 4–8)

Overall, results from all schools with unchanged assessment programs show that students improved in Reading by 2 to 8 percentage points in all grades except grade 6.

FIGURE 50: SAME STUDENTS AND SAME ASSESSMENT PROGRAM: %AAP BY SCHOOL YEAR AND GRADE LEVEL IN READING (GRADES 4–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

2013–2014 2014–2015

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

8th 7th 6th 5th 4th

62%67%

64%

70%73%

60% 59%

67% 68% 70%

TABLE 44: SAME STUDENTS AND SAME ASSESSMENT PROGRAM: OVERALL %AAP CHANGE BY GRADE LEVEL IN READING (GRADES 4–8)

Total Student Count Per Category READING

%AAP 2013–2014 %AAP 2014–2015 Changein percentage points

Total Count

Grade 4 60% 62% +2 346

Grade 5 59% 67% +8 387

Grade 6 67% 64% -3 476

Grade 7 68% 70% +2 575

Grade 8 70% 73% +3 715



MATHEMATICS: BY GRADE LEVEL (GRADES 4–8)

Overall, results from all schools with unchanged assessment programs show that students improved in Mathematics by 7 to 9 percentage points in grades 4, 5, 6, and 7 and remained unchanged in grade 8.

FIGURE 51: SAME STUDENTS AND SAME ASSESSMENT PROGRAM: %AAP BY SCHOOL YEAR AND GRADE LEVEL IN MATHEMATICS (GRADES 4–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

2013–2014 2014–2015

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

8th 7th 6th 5th 4th

50%47%

53% 54%

46%41% 40%

44%47% 46%

TABLE 45: SAME STUDENTS AND SAME ASSESSMENT PROGRAM: OVERALL %AAP CHANGE BY GRADE LEVEL IN MATHEMATICS (GRADES 4–8)


%AAP 2013–2014 %AAP 2014–2015 Changein percentage points

Total Count

Grade 4 41% 50% +9 562

Grade 5 40% 47% +7 677

Grade 6 44% 53% +9 714

Grade 7 47% 54% +7 912

Grade 8 46% 46% = 1,086


71

K12 Public School Programs in Iowa Included in Analysis


K12 State K12 State

Iowa Virtual Academy (IAVA) 60% 41% 6% 13%

GRADES 3–8 READING (GRADES 3–8)

• In many grades, results are not reported because the number of students was not sufficient to support meaningful analysis.

• In Reading, in grades 7 and 8, IAVA students underperformed the state by 6 percentage points.

IOWA


FIGURE 52: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: IA READING (GRADES 3–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

IAVA State

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

8th7th

76% 76%

70% 70%

TABLE 46: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: IA READING (GRADES 3–8)


* Results not reported because the number of students was not sufficient (n<10) to support meaningful analysis.

READING

IAVA %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 3 * * 76%

Grade 4 * * 76%

Grade 5 * * 78%

Grade 6 * * 75%

Grade 7 70% 10 76%

Grade 8 70% 10 76%



• In many grades, results are not reported because the number of students was not sufficient to support meaningful analysis.

• In Mathematics, IAVA students underperformed the state by 13 percentage points in grade 7 and by 26 percentage points in grade 8.

IOWA VIRTUAL ACADEMY continued

FIGURE 53: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: IA MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

IAVA State

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

8th7th

83%

76%

70%

50%

TABLE 47: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: IA MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)



MATHEMATICS

IAVA %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 3 * * 80%

Grade 4 * * 79%

Grade 5 * * 77%

Grade 6 * * 78%

Grade 7 70% 10 83%

Grade 8 50% 10 76%

73

HIGH SCHOOLAt IAVA, the number of high school students was too low to support meaningful analysis.

Source for state data: http://reports.educateiowa.gov/

TABLE 48: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON BY SUBJECT: IA (HIGH SCHOOL)



READING MATHEMATICS

IAVA %AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

IAVA %AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

Grade 10 * * 86% * * 83%


MICHIGAN

K12 Public School Programs in Michigan Included in Analysis


K12 State K12 State

Michigan Great Lakes Virtual Academy (MGLVA)

63% 48% 12% 13%

Michigan Virtual Charter Academy (MVCA) 67% 48% 16% 13%

HIGH SCHOOL • Percentages are reported for the grade level in which the test is first administered or usually taken.

• In high school (grade 11), K12 Michigan students (MVCA and MGLVA) performed within 6 percentage points of the state in Reading and within 9 percentage points of the state in English.

• K12 Michigan students underperformed the state by 21 percentages points in Mathematics.

NOTE: Here we report results from Michigan’s high school ACT assessments. In 2014–2015, Michigan also administered a new testing program called M-Step. As of the time of this report, M-Step results were embargoed and thus unavailable.

NOTE: Results from Insight School of Michigan are reported separately.


FIGURE 54: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: MI (HIGH SCHOOL)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Subject

K12 Public School Programs (MI) State (MI)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

ACT-MathematicsACT-EnglishACT-Reading

36%

58%

34%

30%

49%

13%

TABLE 49: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: MI (HIGH SCHOOL)


ACT-READING ACT-ENGLISH ACT-MATHEMATICS

MI K12 %AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

MI K12 %AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

MI K12 %AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

Grade 11 30% 181 36% 49% 181 58% 13% 181 34%

Source for state data: https://www.mischooldata.org/DistrictSchoolProfiles/AssessmentResults/AssessmentSummary.aspx

75

INSIGHT SCHOOL OF MICHIGAN

Source for state data: https://www.mischooldata.org/DistrictSchoolProfiles/AssessmentResults/AssessmentSummary.aspx 35 Among K12 public school programs, most of those designated as Insight Schools focus on serving academically struggling students in grades 6–12, with a few serving only high school


HIGH SCHOOL• Percentages are reported for the grade level in which the test is first administered or usually taken.

• In high school (grade 11), ISMI students underperformed the state by 26 percentages points in Reading, 37 percentage points in English, and 31 percentage points in Mathematics.



K12 State K12 State

56% 58% 17% 11%

Insight School of Michigan (ISMI) serves students in grades 6–12.35

NOTE: Here we report results from Michigan’s high school ACT assessments. In 2014–2015, Michigan also administered a new testing program called M-Step. As of the time of this report, M-Step results were embargoed and thus unavailable.


FIGURE 55: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: MI (HIGH SCHOOL)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Subject

ISMI State (MI)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

ACT-MathematicsACT-EnglishACT-Reading

36%

58%

34%

10%

24%

3%

TABLE 50: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: MI (HIGH SCHOOL)


ACT-READING ACT-ENGLISH ACT-MATHEMATICS

ISMI %AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

ISMI %AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

ISMI %AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

Grade 11 10% 36% 21% 29 58% 3% 29 34%29


MINNESOTA

K12 Public School Programs in Minnesota Included in Analysis


K12 State K12 State

Minnesota Virtual Academy (MNVA) 49% 38% -- --


• In Reading, students in grades 4, 5, 7, and 8 outperformed the state by between 1 and 8 percentage points.


FIGURE 56: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: MN READING (GRADES 3–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

MNVA State (MN)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


59% 58%

67%64%

56% 56%57%60%

75%

55%

61%57%

TABLE 51: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: MN READING (GRADES 3–8)


MNVA %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 3 57% 67 59%

Grade 4 60% 73 58%

Grade 5 75% 87 67%

Grade 6 55% 78 64%

Grade 7 61% 83 56%

Grade 8 57% 129 56%


77


• In Mathematics, students in grades 3–8 underperformed the state by between 6 to 22 percentage points.

FIGURE 57: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: MN MATHEMATICS (GRADE 3–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

MNVA State (MN)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


71% 70%

60% 58%55%

58%57%

64%

41%36%

40%36%

TABLE 52: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: MN MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)


MNVA %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 3 57% 67 71%

Grade 4 64% 72 70%

Grade 5 41% 87 60%

Grade 6 36% 78 58%

Grade 7 40% 83 55%

Grade 8 36% 127 58%



MINNESOTA VIRTUAL ACADEMY continued

HIGH SCHOOL• In grade 10 Reading, students enrolled in MNVA outperformed the state by 1 percentage point.

• In grade 11 Mathematics, students enrolled in MNVA underperformed the state by 11 percentage points.

Source for state data: http://rc.education.state.mn.us/#testResults/orgId--999999000000__groupType--state__test--allAccount__subject--R__year--trend__grade--all__p--1

FIGURE 58: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON BY SUBJECT: MN (HIGH SCHOOL)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Subject

MNVA State (MN)

TABLE 53: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON BY SUBJECT: MN (HIGH SCHOOL)


READING MATHEMATICS

MNVA %AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

MNVA %AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

Grade 10 58% 131 57% -- -- --

Grade 11 -- -- -- 38% 121 49%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Mathematics (Grade 11)Reading (Grade 10)

57%

49%

58%

38%

79

INSIGHT SCHOOL OF MINNESOTA



K12 State K12 State

Insight School of Minnesota (ISMN) 54% 38% 26% 15%


Insight School of Minnesota (ISMN) serves students in grades 6–12.36

GRADES 6–8READING (GRADES 6–8)

• Results are not reported for grades 6 and 7 because the number of ISMN students was not sufficient to support meaningful analysis.

• In Reading, ISMN students in grade 8 underperformed the state by 49 percentage points.

36 Among K12 public school programs, most of those designated as Insight Schools focus on serving academically struggling students in grades 6–12, with a few serving only high school students. While these schools accept students of all ability levels, most focus on providing programs specifically designed to meet the needs of the struggling student. Some K12 Insight Schools are officially designated as “alternative” or “at-risk” schools based on state criteria, but most states do not have official criteria for these types of schools.

FIGURE 59: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: MN READING (GRADE 8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

ISMN State (MN)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

8th

56%

7%



ISMN %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 6 * * *

Grade 7 * * *

Grade 8 7% 15 56%


*Results not reported because the number of students was not sufficient (n<10) to support meaningful analysis.


INSIGHT SCHOOL OF MINNESOTA continued


• Results are not reported for grades 6 and 7 because the number of ISMN students was not sufficient to support meaningful analysis.

• In Mathematics, ISMN students in grade 8 underperformed the state by 51 percentage points.

FIGURE 60: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: MN MATHEMATICS (GRADE 8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

ISMN State (MN)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

8th

58%

7%



ISMN %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 6 * * *

Grade 7 * * *

Grade 8 7% 15 58%



81


• In high school, ISMN students underperformed the state by 17 percentage points in Reading (grade 10) and by 38 percentages points in Mathematics (grade 11).


Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Subject

ISMN State (MN)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


57%

49%

40%

11%



READING MATHEMATICS

ISMN %AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

ISMN %AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

Grade 10 40% 35 57% -- -- --

Grade 11 -- -- -- 11% 46 49%



iQ ACADEMY MINNESOTA



K12 State K12 State

iQ Academy Minnesota (iQMN) 50% 38% -- --


• In Reading, students in iQMN outperformed the state in grade 6 by 9 percentage points but underperformed the state in grades 3, 4, 7, and 8 by between 5 and 28 percentage points.


FIGURE 62: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: MN READING (GRADE 3–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

iQMN State (MN)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


59% 58%

67%64%

56% 56%54%

30%

73%

50%

42%



iQMN %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 3 54% 13 59%

Grade 4 30% 10 58%

Grade 5 * * 67%

Grade 6 73% 11 64%

Grade 7 50% 16 56%

Grade 8 42% 19 56%

%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency* Results not reported because the number of students was not sufficient (n<10) to support meaningful analysis.

83


• In Mathematics, students in iQMN underperformed the state in grades 3 through 8 by between 2 and 42 percentage points.

FIGURE 63: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: MN MATHEMATICS (GRADE 3–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

iQMN State (MN)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


71%

79%

60% 58%55%

58%

69%

40%

27%31%

16%



iQMN %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 3 69% 13 71%

Grade 4 40% 10 70%

Grade 5 * * 60%

Grade 6 27% 11 58%

Grade 7 31% 16 55%

Grade 8 16% 19 58%

%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency* Results not reported because the number of students was not sufficient (n<10) to support meaningful analysis.


iQ ACADEMY MINNESOTA continued

HIGH SCHOOL• In Reading in grade 10, students in iQMN underperformed the state by 14 percentage points.

• In Mathematics in grade 11, students in iQMN underperformed the state by 34 percentage points.


Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Subject

iQMN State (MN)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


57%

49%

43%

15%



READING MATHEMATICS

iQMN %AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

iQMN %AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

Grade 10 43% 28 57% -- -- --

Grade 11 -- -- -- 15% 39 49%


85

NEVADA

K12 Public School Programs in Nevada Included in Analysis


K12 State K12 State

Nevada Virtual Academy (NVVA) 57% 53% 12% 12%


• NVVA underperformed the state by 27 percentage points in Reading and by 44 percentage points in Mathematics.

NOTE: In 2014–2015, the state of Nevada invalidated all SBAC scores for the state’s schools. Here we report results from Nevada’s High School Proficiency Examination.


FIGURE 65: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON BY SUBJECT: NV (HIGH SCHOOL)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Subject

NVVA State (NV)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

MathematicsReading

82%

76%

55%

32%

TABLE 60: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON BY SUBJECT: NV (HIGH SCHOOL)


READING MATHEMATICS

NVVA %AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

NVVA %AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

Grade 11 55% 47 82% 32% 56 76%

Source for state data: http://www.nevadareportcard.com/di/


OKLAHOMA

K12 Public School Programs in Oklahoma Included in Analysis


K12 State K12 State

Oklahoma Virtual Charter Academy (OVCA) 61% 61% 14% 15%


• In Reading, OVCA students performed within 3 to 9 percentage points of the state in grades 4–8. In grade 3, OVCA underperformed the state by 16 percentage points.

NOTE: Results from Insight School of Oklahoma are reported separately.


FIGURE 66: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: OK READING (GRADES 3–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

OVCA State (OK)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


69% 70%66%

63%

72%75%

53%

66%

57% 55%

68% 70%

TABLE 61: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: OK READING (GRADES 3–8)


OVCA %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 3 53% 109 69%

Grade 4 66% 109 70%

Grade 5 57% 127 66%

Grade 6 55% 142 63%

Grade 7 69% 157 72%

Grade 8 71% 177 75%


87


• In Mathematics, OVCA students performed within 7 to 10 percentage points of the state in grades 6–8. In grades 3–5, OVCA students underperformed the state by 15 to 23 percentage points.

FIGURE 67: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: OK MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

OVCA State (OK)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


62%

72%67% 67% 66%

53%

39%

51% 52%57% 59%

43%

TABLE 62: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: OK MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)


OVCA %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 3 39% 109 62%

Grade 4 51% 108 72%

Grade 5 52% 128 67%

Grade 6 57% 142 67%

Grade 7 59% 157 66%

Grade 8 43% 171 53%



OKLAHOMA VIRTUAL CHARTER ACADEMY continued


• In English II (grade 10), OVCA students outperformed the state by 4 percentage points.

• In Algebra 1 (grade 9), OVCA students underperformed the state by 29 percentage points.

Source for state data: http://sde.ok.gov/sde/sites/ok.gov.sde/files/2014–2015%20Oklahoma%20School%20Testing%20Program%20%28OSTP%29%20Results.pdf

FIGURE 68: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON BY SUBJECT: OK (HIGH SCHOOL)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Subject

OVCA State (OK)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Algebra 1 (Grade 9)English 2 (Grade 10)

81%

76%

85%

47%

TABLE 63: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON BY SUBJECT: OK (HIGH SCHOOL)


ENGLISH 2 ALGEBRA 1

OVCA %AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

OVCA %AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

Grade 9 -- -- -- 47% 122 76%

Grade 10 85% 143 81% -- -- --

89

INSIGHT SCHOOL OF OKLAHOMA




K12 State K12 State

68% 61% 13% 15%

GRADES 7–8READING (GRADES 7–8)

• In Reading, ISOK students underperformed the state by 11 percentage points in grade 7 and by 16 percentage points in grade 8.


Insight School of Oklahoma (ISOK) serves students in grades 7–12.37

FIGURE 69: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: OK READING (GRADES 7–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Subject

ISOK State (OK)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

8th7th

72%75%

61% 59%

TABLE 64: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: OK READING (GRADES 7–8)


ISOK %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 7 61% 18 72%

Grade 8 59% 22 75%



INSIGHT SCHOOL OF OKLAHOMAcontinued


• In Mathematics, ISOK students underperformed the state by 27 percentage points in grade 7 and by 39 percentage points in grade 8.

FIGURE 70: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: OK MATHEMATICS (GRADES 7–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

ISOK State (OK)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

8th7th

66%

53%

39%

14%

TABLE 65: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: OK MATHEMATICS (GRADES 7–8)


ISOK %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 7 39% 18 66%

Grade 8 14% 22 53%


91

HIGH SCHOOL• In English II (grade 10), ISOK students performed within 10 percentage points of the state.

• In Algebra 1 (grade 9), ISOK students underperformed the state by 47 percentage points.

Source for state data: http://sde.ok.gov/sde/sites/ok.gov.sde/files/2014–2015%20Oklahoma%20School%20Testing%20Program%20%28OSTP%29%20Results.pdf

FIGURE 71: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: OK (HIGH SCHOOL)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Subject

ISOK State (OK)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Algebra 1 (Grade 9)English 2 (grade 10)

81%

76%71%

29%

TABLE 66: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: OK (HIGH SCHOOL)


ENGLISH 2 ALGEBRA 1

ISOK %AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

ISOK %AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

Grade 9 -- -- -- 29% 17 76%

Grade 10 71% 14 81% -- -- --


K12 Public School Programs in Tennessee Included in Analysis38


K12 State K12 State

Tennessee Virtual Academy (TNVA) 71% 58% 15% 13%

GRADES 3–8 READING/LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–8)

• In Reading/Language Arts, TNVA students performed within 4 to 18 percentage points of the state.

TENNESSEE


38 For Tennessee, results from both K12 public school programs and the state are (as reported in the state data source) for Full Academic Year students (those who have been continuously enrolled starting on or before a specified date usually close to the beginning of the school year).

FIGURE 72: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: TN READING/LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

TNVA State (TN)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


43% 45%50% 52% 51% 50%

31%

37%32%

41%

47% 45%

TABLE 67: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: TN READING/LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–8)

Total Student Count Per Category READING/LANGUAGE ARTS

TNVA %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 3 31% 118 43%

Grade 4 37% 108 45%

Grade 5 32% 133 50%

Grade 6 41% 143 52%

Grade 7 47% 177 51%

Grade 8 45% 197 50%


93


• In Mathematics, TNVA students underperformed the state by 20 to 39 percentage points.

FIGURE 73: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: TN MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

TNVA State (TN)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


62%

50%

66%

51% 51%47%

42%

25% 27%24%

20%25%

TABLE 68: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: TN MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)


TNVA %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 3 42% 118 62%

Grade 4 25% 106 50%

Grade 5 27% 133 66%

Grade 6 24% 143 51%

Grade 7 20% 177 51%

Grade 8 25% 198 47%


Source for state data: http://www.tn.gov/education/section/data



• In Reading, students at K12 public school programs in Texas outperformed the state in grades 5–8 by 8 to 10 percentage points.

TEXAS

K12 Public School Programs in Texas Included in Analysis39


K12 State K12 State

Texas Online Preparatory School (TOPS) 43% 60% 4% 9%

Texas Virtual Academy (TXVA) 56% 60% -- --


FIGURE 74: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: TX READING (GRADES 3–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


75%72%

84%

74% 73%

85%

66%70%

93%

82% 82%

95%

TABLE 69: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: TX READING (GRADES 3–8)


TX K12 %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 3 66% 160 75%

Grade 4 70% 272 72%

Grade 5 93% 285 84%

Grade 6 82% 416 74%

Grade 7 82% 517 73%

Grade 8 95% 570 85%


39 For Texas, results from both K12 public school programs and the state are (as reported in the state data source) for Full Academic Year students (those who have been continuously enrolled starting on or before a specified date usually close to the beginning of the school year).

95


• In Mathematics, students at K12 public school programs in Texas outperformed the state in grade 6 by 2 percentage points and in grade 7 by 5 percentage points and, in other grades, underperformed the state by 14 to 30 percentage points.

FIGURE 75: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: TX MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


76%72%

77%73%

70% 72%

46%50% 49%

75% 75%

58%

TABLE 70: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: TX MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)


TX K12 %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 3 46% 160 76%

Grade 4 50% 272 72%

Grade 5 49% 358 77%

Grade 6 75% 416 73%

Grade 7 75% 512 70%

Grade 8 58% 615 72%



TEXAS K12 PUBLIC SCHOOL PROGRAMS continued


• In English 1 (grade 9), students at K12 public school programs in Texas outperformed the state by 5 percentage points.

• In Algebra 1 (grade 9), students at K12 public school programs in Texas underperformed the state by 15 percentage points.

Source for state data: https://rptsvr1.tea.texas.gov/perfreport//tprs/2015/srch.html?srch=D

FIGURE 76: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON BY SUBJECT: TX (HIGH SCHOOL)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Subject


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Algebra 1English 1

69%

79%74%

64%

TABLE 71: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: TX (HIGH SCHOOL)


ENGLISH 1 ALGEBRA 1

TX K12 %AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

TX K12 %AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

Grade 9 74% 410 69% 64% 414 79%

97

K12 Public School Programs in Utah Included in Analysis40


K12 State K12 State

Utah Virtual Academy (UTVA) 57% 37% 16% 12%


• In Language Arts, UTVA students underperformed the state by 11 to 25 percentage points.

UTAH


40 For Utah, results from both K12 public school programs and the state are (as reported in the state data source) for Full Academic Year students (those who have been continuously enrolled starting on or before a specified date usually close to the beginning of the school year).

FIGURE 77: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: UT LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

UTVA State (UT)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


46%42%

45% 45% 44% 43%

35%30%

27% 28%

19%

31%

TABLE 72: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: UT LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–8)

Total Student Count Per Category LANGUAGE ARTS

UTVA %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 3 35% 37 46%

Grade 4 30% 53 42%

Grade 5 27% 55 45%

Grade 6 28% 72 45%

Grade 7 19% 83 44%

Grade 8 31% 125 43%




• In Mathematics, UTVA students underperformed the state by 16 to 32 percentage points.

UTAH VIRTUAL ACADEMY continued

FIGURE 78: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: UT MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

UTVA State (UT)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


50% 51% 49%

38%

46%42%

18%

33%28%

22% 24% 22%

TABLE 73: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: UT MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)


UTVA %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 3 18% 44 50%

Grade 4 33% 54 51%

Grade 5 28% 57 49%

Grade 6 22% 74 38%

Grade 7 24% 84 46%

Grade 8 22% 132 42%


99


• In Language Arts (grade 9), UTVA students underperformed the state by 28 percentage points.

• In Mathematics (grade 9), UTVA students underperformed the state by 32 percentage points.

Source for state data: http://schools.utah.gov/data/Reports/Assessment.aspx (SAGE 2014–2015)

FIGURE 79: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON BY SUBJECT: UT (HIGH SCHOOL)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Subject

UTVA State (UT)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Secondary Math 1Language Arts

45%41%

17%

11%

TABLE 74: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON BY SUBJECT: UT (HIGH SCHOOL)


LANGUAGE ARTS SECONDARY MATH 1

UTVA %AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

UTVA %AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

Grade 9 17% 90 45% 11% 104 41%



• In Reading, at K12 public school programs in Virginia, students in grades 4, 5, and 6 outperformed the state by 12 to 19 percentage points.

VIRGINIA

K12 Public School Programs in Virginia Included in Analysis


K12 State K12 State

Virginia Virtual Academy-King and Queen (VAVA-King and Queen)

50% 40%

5%*

13%

Virginia Virtual Academy-Patrick (VAVA-Patrick)

47% 40% 13%

* The special education eligibility percentage is an aggregate figure encompassing the specified individual Virginia K12 public school programs.

NOTE: In the 2014–2015 school year (for which this report includes data), VAVA schools enrolled students in grades K–6, with state testing beginning in grade 3. In 2015–2016, VAVA schools added grade 7.


TABLE 75: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: VA READING (GRADES 3–6)


VA K12 %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 3 70% 64 75%

Grade 4 89% 55 77%

Grade 5 98% 43 79%

Grade 6 93% 40 76%


FIGURE 80: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: VA READING (GRADES 3–6)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

6th5th4th3rd

75% 77% 79%76%

70%

89%

98%93%

101


• In Mathematics, at K12 public school programs in Virginia, students in grades 4, 5, and 6 outperformed the state by 1 to 15 percentage points.

FIGURE 81: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: VA MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–6)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

6th5th4th3rd

74%

84%79%

83%

63%

85% 84%

98%

TABLE 76: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: VA MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–6)


VA K12 %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 3 63% 64 74%

Grade 4 85% 54 84%

Grade 5 84% 43 79%

Grade 6 98% 40 83%


Source for state data: https://p1pe.doe.virginia.gov/reportcard/report.do?division=All&schoolName=All


WYOMING

K12 Public School Programs in Wyoming Included in Analysis41


K12 State K12 State

Wyoming Virtual Academy (WYVA) 47% 38% 11% 14%


• In Reading, WYVA students outperformed the state in grades 4–8 by 1 to 9 percentage points.


FIGURE 82: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: WY READING (GRADES 3–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

WYVA State (WY)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


61% 60% 59% 57% 57%52%

59%64%

60% 59%63% 61%

TABLE 77: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: WY READING (GRADES 3–8)


READING

WYVA %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 3 59% 29 61%

Grade 4 64% 33 60%

Grade 5 60% 30 59%

Grade 6 59% 37 57%

Grade 7 63% 35 57%

Grade 8 61% 51 52%

41 For Wyoming, results from both K12 public school programs and the state are (as reported in the state data source) for Full Academic Year students (those who have been continuously enrolled starting on or before a specified date usually close to the beginning of the school year).

103


• In Mathematics, WYVA students outperformed the state in grade 5 by 4 percentage points and in grade 8 by 5 percentage points. In other grades, WYVA students underperformed the state by 5 to 18 percentage points.

FIGURE 83: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: WY MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

WYVA State (WY)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


49% 51% 53%49%

43%47%

31%

39%

57%

38%

31%

52%

TABLE 78: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: WY MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)


WYVA %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 3 31% 29 49%

Grade 4 39% 33 51%

Grade 5 57% 30 53%

Grade 6 38% 37 49%

Grade 7 31% 35 43%

Grade 8 52% 52 47%



WYOMING VIRTUAL ACADEMY continued


• In ACT-Reading (grade 11), WYVA students outperformed the state by 11 percentage points.

• In ACT-Mathematics (grade 11), WYVA students underperformed the state by 12 percentage points.

Source for state data: https://portals.edu.wyoming.gov/Reports/Public/wde-reports-2012/public-reports/assessment/pawsresultsstatelevelaggregated

TABLE 79: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON BY SUBJECT: WY (HIGH SCHOOL)


ACT-READING ACT-MATHEMATICS

WYVA%AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

WYVA%AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

Grade 11 43% 46 32% 26% 46 38%

FIGURE 84: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON BY SUBJECT: WY (HIGH SCHOOL)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Subject

WYVA State (WY)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

ACT-MathematicsACT-Reading

32%

38%43%

26%

105

K12 Public School Programs Administering New State Tests in 2014–2015

GROUP 4

K12 Public School Programs Administering New State Tests in 2014–2015


Arizona Virtual Academy

Cyber Academy of South Carolina

Florida Virtual Academy at Broward

Florida Virtual Academy at Clay

Florida Virtual Academy at Duval

Florida Virtual Academy at Hillsborough

Florida Virtual Academy at Palm Beach

Florida Virtual Academy at Pasco

Florida Virtual Academy at Pinellas

Georgia Cyber Academy

Hoosier Academies Indianapolis

Hoosier Academies Virtual School




Kansas Virtual Academy

Louisiana Virtual Charter Academy

Ohio Virtual Academy

South Carolina Virtual Charter School

Wisconsin Virtual Academy (ELA/Literacy and high school only)


Alaska Virtual Academy and Florida Virtual Academy at Osceola: Results not available at the time of this report.

K12 public school programs in Michigan: Results from Michigan’s high school ACT assessments are reported in Group 3. In 2014–2015, Michigan also administered a new testing program called M-Step. As of the time of this report, M-Step results were embargoed and thus unavailable.

Wisconsin Virtual Academy, Grades 3–8 Mathematics: Wisconsin administered SBAC Mathematics, for which results are reported in Group 2.

In this section, we report results from K12 public school programs in states that, while in general not members of PARCC or SBAC, changed to new assessment programs in 2014–2015. These states include Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Indiana, South Carolina, and Wisconsin. (Wisconsin results are reported for grades 3–8 English Language Arts and high school only).42

We also include in this section the results from K12 public school programs in Louisiana and Ohio. These states administered PARCC but used a lower cut score to define proficiency than the proficiency standards recommended by the PARCC consortium.

In this section:

• We report only 2014–2015 data since results of the new tests cannot be directly compared to results from previous tests.

• Except as noted, in states with more than one K12 public school program, we aggregate the results from the programs in order to present the percentage of K12 students at or above proficiency within a given state. We compare the percentage of K12 students at or above proficiency within a given state to the state’s overall percentage of students at or above proficiency.43

42 Wisconsin administered the SBAC Mathematics assessment in grades 3–8. Wisconsin Virtual Academy’s Mathematics results are reported in the SBAC analysis section of this report.43 Unless otherwise noted, results from K12 public school programs are for Full Academic Year students (those who have been continuously enrolled starting on or before a specified date

usually close to the beginning of the school year), while state results are (as reported in the state data source) for all students regardless of enrollment date.


ARIZONA

K12 Public School Programs in Arizona Included in Analysis


K12 State K12 State

Arizona Virtual Academy (AZVA) 60% 52% 13% 12%

GRADES 3–8 ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–8)

• In English Language Arts, AZVA outperformed the state in grades 5, 7, and 8.

• In grades 3, 4, and 6, AZVA performed within 2 to 7 percentage points of the state.

NOTE: Results from Insight Academy of Arizona (ISAZ) are reported separately after the AZVA analysis.


TABLE 80: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: AZ ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–8)

Total Student Count Per Category ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS

AZVA %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 3 39% 144 41%

Grade 4 35% 164 42%

Grade 5 33% 175 32%

Grade 6 32% 199 36%

Grade 7 38% 226 33%

Grade 8 36% 266 35%


FIGURE 85: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: AZ ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

AZVA State (AZ)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


41% 42%

32%36%

33% 35%39%

35% 33% 32%

38% 36%

107


• In Mathematics, AZVA outperformed the state in grade 7.

• In grades 3–6 and grade 8, AZVA underperformed the state by 10 to 21 percentage points.

FIGURE 86: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: AZ MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

AZVA State (AZ)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


41% 42% 40%

33% 31%34%

20%23% 24%

19%

32%

24%

TABLE 81: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: AZ MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)


AZVA %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 3 20% 148 41%

Grade 4 23% 164 42%

Grade 5 24% 178 40%

Grade 6 19% 200 33%

Grade 7 32% 226 31%

Grade 8 24% 269 34%



ARIZONA VIRTUAL ACADEMYcontinued

HIGH SCHOOL• In English Language Arts 9, AZVA outperformed the state by 7 percentage points.

• In Algebra 1, AZVA performed within 2 percentage points of the state.

Source for state data: https://azreportcards.com/ReportCard

FIGURE 87: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: AZ (HIGH SCHOOL)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Subject

AZVA State (AZ)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Algebra 1English Language Arts 9

27%32%34%

30%

TABLE 82: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: AZ (HIGH SCHOOL)


ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS 9 ALGEBRA 1

AZVA %AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

AZVA %AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

Grade 9 34% 181 27% 30% 115 32%

109

INSIGHT ACADEMY OF ARIZONA




K12 State K12 State

65% 52% 16% 12%

GRADES 7–8ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 7–8)

• Results are not reported for grade 7 because the number of ISAZ students was not sufficient to support meaningful analysis.

• In English Language Arts, ISAZ students in grade 8 underperformed the state by 18 percentage points.


Insight Academy of Arizona (ISAZ) serves students in grades 7–12.44

FIGURE 88: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: AZ ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADE 8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

ISAZ State (AZ)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

8th

35%

17%

TABLE 83: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: AZ ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 7–8)


ISAZ %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 7 * * 33%

Grade 8 17% 30 35%


*Results not reported because the number of students was not sufficient (n<10) to support meaningful analysis



• Results are not reported for grade 7 because the number of ISAZ students was not sufficient to support meaningful analysis.

• In Mathematics, no ISAZ students in grade 8 scored at or above proficiency.

INSIGHT ACADEMY OF ARIZONA continued

FIGURE 89: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: AZ MATHEMATICS (GRADE 8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

ISAZ State (AZ)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

8th

34%

0%

TABLE 84: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: AZ MATHEMATICS (GRADES 7–8)



Grade 7 * * 31%

Grade 8 0% 30 34%



111

HIGH SCHOOL• Results are not reported for English Language Arts 9 because the number of ISAZ students was not sufficient to support

meaningful analysis.

• In Algebra 1, ISAZ students underperformed the state by 21 percentage points.

Source for state data: https://azreportcards.com/ReportCard

FIGURE 90: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: AZ (HIGH SCHOOL)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Subject

ISAZ State (AZ)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Algebra 1

32%

11%

TABLE 85: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: AZ (HIGH SCHOOL)

Total Student Count Per Category ALGEBRA 1


English Language Arts 9 * * 27%

Algebra 1 11% 35 32%




K12 Public School Programs in Florida Included in Analysis


K12 State K12 State

Florida Virtual Academy at Broward 63% 58%

9%* 13%

Florida Virtual Academy at Clay 75% 58%

Florida Virtual Academy at Duval 66% 58%

Florida Virtual Academy at Hillsborough 63% 58%

Florida Virtual Academy at Palm Beach 65% 58%

Florida Virtual Academy at Pasco 71% 58%

Florida Virtual Academy at Pinellas 66% 58%

FLORIDA

NOTE: This analysis aggregates data from the separate Florida K12 public school programs listed in the table at left. The analysis includes grades 3–8 only because in almost all FLVA schools the number of high school students tested was not sufficient to support meaningful analysis.

NOTE: Florida Virtual Academy at Osceola is not included in this analysis because no scores were available for ELA or Mathematics.

FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.* The special education eligibility percentage is an aggregate figure encompassing the specified individual Florida K12 public school programs.


• In English Language Arts, FLVA students outperformed the state in grades 4 and 8, and scored within 1 to 3 percentage points of the state in grades 5 and 7. In grades 3 and 6, FLVA underperformed the state by 13 to 15 percentage points.

FIGURE 91: 2014–2015 K12 %AAP: FL ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

K12 Public School Programs (FL) State (FL)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


53% 54% 52% 51% 51%55%

38%

56%51%

38%

48%

62%

TABLE 86: 2014–2015 K12 %AAP: FL ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–8)


FL K12 %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 3 38% 73 53%

Grade 4 56% 63 54%

Grade 5 51% 72 52%

Grade 6 38% 64 51%

Grade 7 48% 69 51%

Grade 8 62% 58 55%


113


• In Mathematics, FLVA students outperformed the state in grades 7 and 8. In grades 3–6, FLVA underperformed the state by 19 to 25 percentage points.

FIGURE 92: 2014–2015 K12 %AAP: FL MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

K12 Public School Programs (FL) State (FL)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


58% 59%55%

50% 52%

45%

33%

40%

34%31%

54% 56%

TABLE 87: 2014–2015 K12 %AAP: FL MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)


FL K12 %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 3 33% 73 58%

Grade 4 40% 67 59%

Grade 5 34% 74 55%

Grade 6 31% 58 50%

Grade 7 54% 72 52%

Grade 8 56% 48 45%


Source for state data: http://www.fldoe.org/accountability/assessments/k-12-student-assessment/history-of-fls-statewide-assessment/fcat-2-0/retrofitted-statewide-assessment-score/2015.stml


K12 Public School Programs in Georgia Included in Analysis


K12 State K12 State

Georgia Cyber Academy (GCA) 65% 62% 13% 11%


• In English Language Arts, GCA students equaled the performance of the state in grades 6 and 7 and, in other grades, scored within 2 to 7 percentage points of the state.

GEORGIA


FIGURE 93: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: GA ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

GCA State (GA)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


37% 37% 39% 39% 37% 39%

32% 34% 32%

39% 37% 37%

TABLE 88: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: GA ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–8)


GCA %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 3 32% 609 37%

Grade 4 34% 641 37%

Grade 5 32% 698 39%

Grade 6 39% 848 39%

Grade 7 37% 1,018 37%

Grade 8 37% 1,147 39%


115


• In Mathematics, GCA students underperformed the state by 5 to 11 percentage points.

FIGURE 94: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: GA MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

GCA State (GA)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


38% 40% 38% 36% 37% 37%

28%33%

27%30% 32%

27%

TABLE 89: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: GA MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)


GCA %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 3 28% 622 38%

Grade 4 33% 650 40%

Grade 5 27% 701 38%

Grade 6 30% 856 36%

Grade 7 32% 1,025 37%

Grade 8 27% 1,151 37%



GEORGIA CYBER ACADEMYcontinued

HIGH SCHOOL• In 9th Grade Literature & Composition, the percentage of GCA students at or above proficiency is within 3 percentage

points of the state.

• In Coordinate Algebra (grade 9), GCA students underperformed the state by 17 percentage points.

Source for state data: http://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Assessment/Pages/Georgia-Milestones-Statewide-Scores.aspx

FIGURE 95: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: GA (HIGH SCHOOL)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Subject

GCA State (GA)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Coordinate AlgebraLiterature & Composition (Grade 9)

39%34%36%

17%

TABLE 90: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: GA (HIGH SCHOOL)


LITERATURE & COMPOSITION (GRADE 9) COORDINATE ALGEBRA

GCA %AAP Total Count

State %AAP GCA %AAP Total

CountState %AAP

Grade 9 36% 942 39% 17% 1,052 34%

117

INDIANA


• In English Language Arts, K12 public school programs in Indiana underperformed the state by 18 to 29 percentage points.

K12 Public School Programs in IndianaIncluded in Analysis


K12 State K12 State

Hoosier Academies Indianapolis 27% 49% 18% 16%

Hoosier Academies Virtual School 50% 49% 15% 16%


FIGURE 96: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

K12 Public School Programs (IN) State (IN)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


73%70%

65% 66% 66% 64%

42%

52%

39%

46% 44%

35%

TABLE 91: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–8)


IN K12 %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 3 42% 161 73%

Grade 4 52% 126 70%

Grade 5 39% 142 65%

Grade 6 46% 184 66%

Grade 7 44% 190 66%

Grade 8 35% 279 64%




• In Mathematics, K12 public school programs in Indiana underperformed the state by 21 to 36 percentage points.

INDIANA K12 PUBLIC SCHOOL PROGRAMS

FIGURE 97: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: IN MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


63% 65%68%

62%

54% 54%

36%

42%

32%

41%

31%26%

TABLE 92: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: IN MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)


IN K12 %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 3 36% 157 63%

Grade 4 42% 123 65%

Grade 5 32% 143 68%

Grade 6 41% 182 62%

Grade 7 31% 178 54%

Grade 8 26% 265 54%


119

HIGH SCHOOL• In English 10, K12 public school programs in Indiana underperformed the state by 14 percentage points.

• In Algebra 1, K12 public school programs in Indiana underperformed the state by 37 percentage points.

Source for state data: http://compass.doe.in.gov/dashboard/istep.aspx?type=state

FIGURE 98: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: IN (HIGH SCHOOL)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Subject


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


79%

71%

65%

34%

TABLE 93: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: IN (HIGH SCHOOL)


ENGLISH 10 ALGEBRA 1

IN K12 %AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

IN K12 %AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

Grade 9 -- -- -- 34% 122 71%

Grade 10 65% 301 79% -- -- --


K12 Public School Programs in Kansas Included in Analysis


K12 State K12 State

Kansas Virtual Academy (KSVA) 70% 50% -- --


• In English Language Arts, KSVA students performed within 3 percentage points of the state in grade 3 and within 6 percentage points of the state in grade 6.

• In grade 5, KSVA students underperformed the state by 12 percentage points and, in grade 4, by 34 percentage points.

KANSAS


NOTE: Kansas Virtual Academy serves students in grades 3–6.

NOTE: Results from Insight School of Kansas (ISKS) are reported separately.

FIGURE 99: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: KS ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–6)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

KSVA State (KS)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

6th5th4th3rd

47%

54%

48%

39%44%

20%

36%33%

TABLE 94: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: KS ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–6)


KSVA %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 3 44% 16 47%

Grade 4 20% 15 54%

Grade 5 36% 14 48%

Grade 6 33% 21 39%


121


• In Mathematics, KSVA students performed within 8 percentage points of the state in grade 6.

• In grades 3–5, KSVA students underperformed the state by 19 to 32 percentage points.

FIGURE 100: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: KS MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–6)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

KSVA State (KS)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

6th5th4th3rd

51%

35% 33% 32%

19%

7%

14%

24%

TABLE 95: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: KS MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–6)


KSVA %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 3 19% 16 51%

Grade 4 7% 15 35%

Grade 5 14% 14 33%

Grade 6 24% 21 32%


Source for state data: http://ksreportcard.ksde.org/assessment_results.aspx?org_no=State&rptType=3


INSIGHT SCHOOL OF KANSAS




K12 State K12 State

55% 50% -- --


• In English Language Arts, ISKS students performed within 2 percentage points of the state in grade 8.

• In grade 7, ISKS students underperformed the state by 17 percentage points.


Insight School of Kansas (ISKS) serves students in grades 7–12.45

FIGURE 101: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: KS ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 7–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

ISKS State (KS)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

8th7th

39%

29%

22%27%

TABLE 96: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: KS ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (7–8)


ISKS %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 7 22% 18 39%

Grade 8 27% 33 29%


123


• In Mathematics, ISKS students performed within 4 percentage points of the state in grade 8.

• In grade 7 no ISKS students scored at or above proficiency.

FIGURE 102: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: KS MATHEMATICS (GRADES 7–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

ISKS State (KS)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

8th7th

28%

22%

0%

18%

TABLE 97: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: KS MATHEMATICS (7–8)


ISKS %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 7 0% 18 28%

Grade 8 18% 33 22%



INSIGHT SCHOOL OF KANSAS continued

HIGH SCHOOL• In English Language Arts (grade 10), ISKS students underperformed the state by 9 percentage points.

• In Mathematics (grade 10), ISKS students underperformed the state by 17 percentage points.

Source for state data: http://ksreportcard.ksde.org/assessment_results.aspx?org_no=State&rptType=3

FIGURE 103: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: KS (HIGH SCHOOL)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Subject

ISKS State (KS)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


30%

24%21%

7%

TABLE 98: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: KS (HIGH SCHOOL)



ISKS %AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

ISKS %AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

Grade 9 21% 86 30% 7% 86 24%

125

LOUISIANA

K12 Public School Programs in Louisiana Included in Analysis


K12 State K12 State

Louisiana Virtual Charter Academy (LAVCA) 66% 66% 16% 11%


• In English Language Arts, LAVCA students outperformed the state by 1 percentage point in grade 6. LAVCA students equaled the state in grade 8 and performed within 2 percentage points of the state in grades 5 and 7.

• LAVCA underperformed the state by 20 percentage points in grade 3 and by 21 percentage points in grade 4.

NOTE: The state of Louisiana administered PARCC in grades 3–8 but used a lower cut score to define proficiency than the proficiency standards recommended by the PARCC consortium. Therefore, LAVCA’s proficiency percentages cannot be compared to the overall PARCC consortium results.


FIGURE 104: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: LA ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

LAVCA State (LA)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


63%

74%

66%

74%

66%70%

43%

53%

64%

75%

65%70%

TABLE 99: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: LA ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–8)


LAVCA%AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 3 43% 69 63%

Grade 4 53% 92 74%

Grade 5 64% 111 66%

Grade 6 75% 109 74%

Grade 7 65% 161 66%

Grade 8 70% 154 70%




• In Mathematics, LAVCA students performed within 10 percentage points of the state in grades 7 and 8.

• In grades 3–6, LAVCA underperformed the state by 13 to 40 percentage points.

FIGURE 105: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: LA MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

LAVCA State (LA)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


67%64%

59% 59% 58%55%

35%

24%

30%

46% 48% 47%

TABLE 100: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: LA MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)


LAVCA %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 3 35% 69 67%

Grade 4 24% 92 64%

Grade 5 30% 111 59%

Grade 6 46% 108 59%

Grade 7 48% 160 58%

Grade 8 47% 153 55%


LOUISIANA VIRTUAL CHARTER ACADEMY continued

127

HIGH SCHOOL

NOTE: In high school, Louisiana used state-specific tests rather than PARCC.

• In English II (grade 10), LAVCA students outperformed the state by 4 percentage points.

• In Algebra I (grade 9), LAVCA students outperformed the state by 8 percentage points.

Source for state data: https://www.louisianabelieves.com/resources/library/test-results

FIGURE 106: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: LA (HIGH SCHOOL)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Subject

LAVCA State (LA)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


93%

81%

97%

89%

TABLE 101: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: LA (HIGH SCHOOL)


ENGLISH 2 ALGEBRA 1

LAVCA %AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

LAVCA %AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

Grade 9 89% 64 81%

Grade 10 97% 78 93% -- -- --


OHIO

K12 Public School Programs in Ohio Included in Analysis


K12 State K12 State

Ohio Virtual Academy (OHVA) 59% 44% 14% 15%

GRADES 3–8 READING (GRADE 3) / ELA/LITERACY (GRADES 4–8)

• In grades 4–8, Ohio administered the PARCC assessment in English Language Arts/Literacy. In Grade 3, however, Ohio chose not to use the PARCC ELA/Literacy assessment but instead used the Ohio Achievement Assessment.

• In English Language Arts/Literacy, OHVA outperformed the state in grade 8 and equaled the state in grade 7. In grades 3–6, OHVA performed within 2 to 10 percentage points of the state.

NOTE: Results from Insight School of Ohio are reported separately below.

NOTE: The state of Ohio administered PARCC but used a lower cut score to define proficiency than the proficiency standards recommended by the PARCC consortium. Therefore, Ohio’s proficiency percentages cannot be compared to the overall PARCC consortium results.


FIGURE 107: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: OH READING (GRADE 3) / ELA/LITERACY (GRADES 4–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

OHVA State (OH)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


79%

72% 70% 70% 69% 68%72% 70%

60%

68% 69% 69%

TABLE 102: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: OH READING (GRADE 3) / ELA/LITERACY (GRADES 4–8)

Total Student Count Per Category

GRADE 3: READINGGRADES 4–8: ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY

OHVA %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 3 72% 300 79%

Grade 4 70% 493 72%

Grade 5 60% 576 70%

Grade 6 68% 585 70%

Grade 7 69% 656 69%

Grade 8 69% 775 68%


129


• In Mathematics, OHVA outperformed the state in grade 8.

• OHVA performed within 4 percentage points of the state in grade 7.

FIGURE 108: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: OH MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

OHVA State (OH)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


66% 65% 66% 65% 65%

54%

47% 46%

38%

54%

61%

55%

TABLE 103: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: OH MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)


OHVA %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 3 47% 525 66%

Grade 4 46% 497 65%

Grade 5 38% 576 66%

Grade 6 54% 578 65%

Grade 7 61% 649 65%

Grade 8 55% 651 54%



ARIZONA VIRTUAL ACADEMYOHIO VIRTUAL ACADEMY continued

HIGH SCHOOLNOTE: In high school, Ohio administered both Ohio Graduation Tests (OGT) and PARCC assessments.

OHIO GRADUATION TESTS

• In Reading (grade 10), 89% of OHVA students performed at or above proficiency, outperforming the state by 3 percentage points.

• In Mathematics, OHVA students performed within 7 percentage points of the state.

TABLE 104: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: OHIO GRADUATION TESTS


READING MATHEMATICS

OHVA %AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

OHVA %AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

Grade 9 89% 800 86% 75% 825 82%

FIGURE 109: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: OHIO GRADUATION TESTS

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Subject

OHVA State (OH)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

MathematicsReading

86%82%

89%

75%

131

PARCC HIGH SCHOOL ASSESSMENTS

• In English Language Arts/Literacy (grade 9), 82% of OHVA students performed at or above proficiency, outperforming the state by 9 percentage points.

• In Algebra 1 (grade 9), OHVA students outperformed the state by 6 percentage points.

Source for state data: http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Testing/Testing-Results/2014_2015-Ohio_s-State-Test-Results

FIGURE 110: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: PARCC HIGH SCHOOL ASSESSMENTS

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Subject

OHVA State (OH)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Algebra 1English Language Arts/Literacy

73%

66%

82%

72%

TABLE 105: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: PARCC HIGH SCHOOL ASSESSMENTS


ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY ALGEBRA 1

OHVA %AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

OHVA %AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

Grade 9 82% 728 73% 72% 278 66%


INSIGHT SCHOOL OF OHIO




K12 State K12 State

62% 43% 20% 15%


• In English Language Arts/Literacy, ISOH students in grades 6–8 underperformed the state by 20 to 37 percentage points.


Insight School of Ohio (ISOH) serves students in grades 6–12.46

FIGURE 111: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: OH ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 6–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

ISOH State (OH)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

8th7th6th

70% 69% 68%

50% 49%

31%

TABLE 106: 22014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: OH ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 6–8)


ISOH %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 6 50% 18 70%

Grade 7 49% 63 69%

Grade 8 31% 59 68%


133


• In Mathematics, ISOH students in grade 6 (in which 18 scores were reported) underperformed the state 54 percentage points.

• ISOH students in grade 7 underperformed the state by 26 percentage points, and in grade 8 by 41 percentage points.

FIGURE 112: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: OH MATHEMATICS (GRADES 6–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

ISOH State (OH)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

8th7th6th

65% 65%

54%

11%

24%28%

TABLE 107: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: OH MATHEMATICS (GRADES 6–8)


ISOH %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 6 11% 18 65%

Grade 7 24% 63 65%

Grade 8 28% 61 54%



INSIGHT SCHOOL OF OHIO continued

HIGH SCHOOLNOTE: In high school, Ohio administered both Ohio Graduation Tests (OGT) and PARCC assessments.

OHIO GRADUATION TESTS

• In Reading (grade 10), 70% of ISOH students scored at or above proficiency, underperforming the state by 16 percentage points.

• In Mathematics, ISOH students underperformed the state by 35 percentage points.

FIGURE 113: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: OHIO GRADUATION TESTS

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Subject

ISOH State (OH)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

MathematicsReading

86%82%

70%

47%

TABLE 108: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: OHIO GRADUATION TESTS


READING MATHEMATICS

ISOH %AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

ISOH%AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

Grade 10 70% 89 86% 47% 90 82%

135

PARCC HIGH SCHOOL ASSESSMENTS

• In English Language Arts/Literacy (grade 9), 62% of ISOH students performed at or above proficiency, underperforming the state by 11 percentage points.

• No results are reported for Algebra 1 (grade 9) because the number of ISOH students was not sufficient to support meaningful analysis.

TABLE 109: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: PARCC HIGH SCHOOL ASSESSMENTS



ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY ALGEBRA 1

ISOH %AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

ISOH%AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

Grade 9 62% 58 73% * * 66%

FIGURE 114: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: PARCC HIGH SCHOOL ASSESSMENTS

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Subject

ISOH State (OH)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

English Language Arts/Literacy

73%

62%

Source for state data: http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Testing/Testing-Results/2014_2015-Ohio_s-State-Test-Results


SOUTH CAROLINA


• In Reading, CASC outperformed the state by 3 percentage points in grade 6, equaled the state in grade 7, and performed within 3 to 4 percentage points of the state in grades 4 and 5. CASC students in grade 3 underperformed the state by 14 percentage points.

K12 Public School Programs in South Carolina Included in Analysis


K12 State K12 State

Cyber Academy of South Carolina (CASC) 65% 57% 16% 13%


FIGURE 115: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: SC ACT ASPIRE-READING (GRADES 3–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

CASC State (SC)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


32% 33% 34%37% 37%

47%

18%

29% 31%

40%37% 39%

TABLE 110: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: SC ACT ASPIRE-READING (GRADES 3–8)

Total Student Count Per Category ACT ASPIRE-READING

CASC %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 3 18% 33 32%

Grade 4 29% 31 33%

Grade 5 31% 49 34%

Grade 6 40% 45 37%

Grade 7 37% 76 37%

Grade 8 39% 77 47%


137


• In Mathematics, CASC performed within 9 percentage points of the state in grade 7, and in other grades underperformed the state by 17 to 37 percentage points.

FIGURE 116: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: SC ACT ASPIRE-MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

CASC State (SC)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


58% 58%

48%53%

36%32%

21%26%

22%

36%

27%

6%

TABLE 111: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: SC ACT ASPIRE-MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)

Total Student Count Per Category ACT ASPIRE-MATHEMATICS

CASC %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 3 21% 33 58%

Grade 4 26% 31 58%

Grade 5 22% 49 48%

Grade 6 36% 45 53%

Grade 7 27% 77 36%

Grade 8 6% 77 32%



CYBER ACADEMY OF SOUTH CAROLINA continued

HIGH SCHOOL• In English 1 (grade 9), 57% of CASC students performed at or above proficiency, underperforming the state by 18

percentage points.

• In Mathematics, 44% of CASC students performed at or above proficiency, underperforming the state by 42 percentage points.

FIGURE 117: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: SC (HIGH SCHOOL)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Subject

CASC State (SC)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Algebra 1/Mathematics for the Technologies 2English 1

75%

86%

57%

44%

TABLE 112: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: SC (HIGH SCHOOL)


ENGLISH 1 ALGEBRA 1/MATHEMATICS FOR THE TECHNOLOGIES 2

CASC %AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

CASC%AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

Grade 9 57% 90 75% 44% 93 86%

Source for state data: http://ed.sc.gov/data/test-scores/state-assessments/

139

SOUTH CAROLINA VIRTUAL CHARTER SCHOOL

GRADES 3–8 ACT ASPIRE –READING (GRADES 3–8)

• In Reading in grades 3–5, students at SCVCS underperformed the state by between 1 and 3 percentage points.

• In Reading in grade 7, students at SCVCS equaled the state.

• In grades 6 and 8, students at SCVCS underperformed the state by 6 and 7 percentage points respectively.

K12 Public School Programs in South Carolina Included in Analysis


K12 State K12 State

South Carolina Virtual Charter School (SCVCS) 64% 57% -- --


FIGURE 118: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: SC ACT ASPIRE-READING (GRADES 3–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

SCVCS State (SC)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


32% 33% 34%37% 37%

47%

30% 32% 31% 31%

37%40%

TABLE 113: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: SC ACT ASPIRE-READING (GRADES 3–8)

Total Student Count Per Category ACT ASPIRE-READING

SCVCS %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 3 30% 132 32%

Grade 4 32% 130 33%

Grade 5 31% 113 34%

Grade 6 31% 181 37%

Grade 7 37% 222 37%

Grade 8 40% 267 47%



SOUTH CAROLINA VIRTUAL CHARTER SCHOOL continued

ACT ASPIRE –MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)

• In Mathematics in grades 3–8, students at SCVCS underperformed the state by between 1 and 25 percentage points.

FIGURE 119: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: SC ACT ASPIRE-MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

SCVCS State (SC)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


58%

49% 48%53%

36%32%33%

40%43%

36% 35%

22%

TABLE 114: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: SC ACT ASPIRE-MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)

Total Student Count Per Category ACT ASPIRE-MATHEMATICS

SCVCS %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 3 33% 132 58%

Grade 4 40% 130 49%

Grade 5 32% 113 48%

Grade 6 36% 181 53%

Grade 7 35% 222 36%

Grade 8 22% 267 32%


141

HIGH SCHOOL• In grade 9, students at SCVCS outperformed the state in English 1 by 1 percentage point.

• In grade 9, students at SCVCS underperformed the state by 2 percentage points.

FIGURE 120: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: SC (HIGH SCHOOL)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Subject

SCVCS State (SC)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Algebra 1/Mathematics for the Technologies 2English 1

75%

86%

76%

84%

TABLE 115: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: SC (HIGH SCHOOL)


ENGLISH 1 ALGEBRA 1/MATHEMATICS FOR THE TECHNOLOGIES 2

SCVCS %AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

SCVCS%AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

Grade 9 76% 168 75% 84% 95 86%

Source for state data: http://ed.sc.gov/data/test-scores/state-assessments/


WISCONSIN

K12 Public School Programs in Wisconsin Included in Analysis


K12 State K12 State

Wisconsin Virtual Academy (WIVA) 56% 42% 15% 14%


• In English Language Arts/Literacy, WIVA outperformed the state in grades 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8.

NOTE: The state of Wisconsin administered a variety of assessments in 2014–2015, including:

• Grades 3–8

– Mathematics: SBAC: Results reported in the SBAC analysis section of this report.

– English Language Arts/Literacy: State-specific variation of the SBAC blueprint: Results reported below.

• High school ACT-English and ACT-Mathematics: Results reported below.


FIGURE 121: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: WI ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Grade Level

WIVA State (WI)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


52% 51%55%

46%

52% 53%58%

46%

57%52% 53%

60%

TABLE 116: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: WI ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)


WIVA %AAP Total Count State %AAP

Grade 3 58% 65 52%

Grade 4 46% 65 51%

Grade 5 57% 98 55%

Grade 6 52% 87 46%

Grade 7 53% 123 52%

Grade 8 60% 128 53%


143

HIGH SCHOOL• In ACT-English (grade 11), WIVA students underperformed the state by 11 percentage points.

• In ACT-Mathematics (grade 11), WIVA students underperformed the state by 24 percentage points.

FIGURE 122: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: WI (HIGH SCHOOL)

Per

cen

tag

e A

t or

Ab

ove

Pro

ficie

ncy

Subject

WIVA State (WI)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

ACT-MathematicsACT-English

54%

36%

43%

12%

TABLE 117: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: WI (HIGH SCHOOL)


ACT-ENGLISH ACT-MATHEMATICS

WIVA %AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

WIVA%AAP

Total Count

State %AAP

Grade 9 43% 181 54% 12% 181 36%

Source for state data: http://wisedash.dpi.wi.gov/Dashboard/portalHome.jsp

145

Featured Programs and Highlights


K12 Private Schools: Preparing for College and Career

K12 Inc. is nationally known for its online virtual academies and other public school programs. Beyond these public school partnerships, K12 also operates three online private schools: The George Washington University Online High School, K12 International Academy, and The Keystone School. While each school focuses on meeting the needs of distinct bodies of students, all three focus on preparation for college and career. Graduates of K12’s online private schools have been accepted to prestigious public and private colleges and universities across the country.

The George Washington University Online High School

GWUOHS.COM

The George Washington University Online High was founded in 2010 with the mission to serve motivated students from across the United States and around the world who desire a one-to-one yet rigorous college preparatory education. GWUOHS serves students in grades 6–12.

Unique to GWUOHS is the Journeys Symposium, a multi-year course sequence that promotes self-awareness, leadership, service, and personal success. In high school, the Journeys Symposium offers year-long seminars that help students navigate their passage from the classroom to the real world, including:

• The Writer Within: Reflect, Respond, Reaffirm

• Service to a Cause: Community, Compassion, Commitment

• Insights into Leadership: Valor, Vision, Voices

• The Capstone Project: Achievement into Action

The GWUOHS experience is built on one-to-one relationships between teachers and students. Each GWUOHS student receives an Academic Plan and intensive, personalized college counseling and planning.

K12 International Academy

ICADEMY.COM

K12 International Academy is an accredited online private school for grades K–12 that serves students from every state in the U.S. and more than 90 countries around the globe. The school’s stated vision is “to create a global community of students, teachers, parents, and mentors that is connected by technology and dedicated to developing the unique character and intellect of each student, thereby laying the foundation for his or her success in life.”

Courses are synchronous in design, with a high degree of interaction between the student and teacher. Students in K12 International Academy meet regularly with their teachers in online class sessions, with many opportunities to receive one-to-one guidance and instruction.

Each full-time and part-time student of K12 International Academy also has the support of an academic support team and full-time students are assigned a college counselor in an effort to promote personal and academic success. Many clubs, activities, and organizations are available to provide students opportunities to develop leadership skills, make friends, and nurture their talents and interests.

147

K12 Private School Profiles (2014–2015)

The Keystone School

KEYSTONESCHOOLONLINE.COM

Founded in 1974, Keystone has a continuing mission to provide high-quality, one-to-one educational experiences in a safe, technology-enabled learning environment to empower students to achieve their academic and personal goals. Keystone offers accredited online middle and high school programs with a level of flexibility that traditional brick-and-mortar schools generally do not provide. At Keystone, students can enroll full-time or take individual courses to supplement their current education.

Keystone also offers numerous credit recovery courses that help students who have fallen behind and need to make up credits to advance to the next grade or reach graduation. Enrollments for credit recovery courses are accepted any time of the year.

K12 Private School Profiles (2014–2015)

GWUOHS (6–12) K12 Int’l Academy (K–12) Keystone (6–12)

Credits Required to Graduate

24 24 21

AccreditationMiddle States Commission on Secondary Schools

AdvancEDAdvancED and Middle States Commission on Secondary Schools

NCAA Approved Yes Yes No

Total Enrolled FT Students

146 1872 8224

Number of Graduates 33 203 632

College Acceptances to 1 or more Colleges

100% 99% 90%

Scholarships Awarded $ 1.1M $1.5M $1.4M

GPA of Graduates 3.3 (non-weighted) 3.5 (weighted) 3.5 (non-weighted)

SAT Average - Total 1779 1661 1587

ACT Composite Average 27.1 23.1 21

% of Students Scoring 3 or above on AP tests taken

75% 72% 73%


Profiles of Three Recent K12 Private School Graduates

Sarah Depew The George Washington University Online High School

Sarah Depew is a 2015 graduate of The George Washington University Online High School (GWUOHS). In Sarah’s own words, “Enrolling at The George Washington University Online High School changed my life by permitting me to maintain my love of learning, strengthen my web of cross-curricular connections, hone my ability to see the big picture, and evolve my self-motivation.” Admitted to Bryn Mawr College, Smith College, Colorado College, Rhodes College, Agnes Scott, and Hope College, Sarah received merit awards amounting to a total of $415,000 based upon her academic accomplishments, character, leadership, and service.

GWUOHS gave Sarah and her fellow graduates the opportunity to practice skills in global leadership, interaction, and communication skills that will be invaluable in college and in life. Sarah feels that because of her three years of study at GWUOHS, she was especially well prepared for college, more so than her college peers, especially in study skills and time management.

Sarah enrolled at Bryn Mawr as a Presidential Scholar. She is pursuing a double major in chemistry and mathematics and plans to complete a 4+1 engineering program that will allow her to graduate in five years with her undergraduate degree from Bryn Mawr and her Master in Engineering degree from University of Pennsylvania.

Eliot PaulK12 International Academy

Eliot Paul, a 2015 graduate of K12 International Academy, is currently a student athlete on the men’s soccer team at Wheaton College in Illinois. After Eliot’s family used the K12 curriculum for homeschooling in grades K–8, Eliot enrolled in K12 International Academy for grades 9–12. He was in the National Honor Society for two years and recognized as an AP Scholar with distinction. He has volunteered regularly in his community and received numerous awards in soccer. Eliot graduated with an unweighted GPA of 3.96 and was honored at graduation with the science achievement award.

At Wheaton College, he is majoring in economics and considering a math minor. Eliot credits his online learning experience with preparing him for the demands of athletics and academics in college. During his four years at K12 International Academy, he gained valuable experience with both a rigorous course load and high-level sport requirements. The program gave him what he needed—both the structure to keep him on track and the flexibility to meet the expectations placed upon him as a serious athlete.

Noalani HendricksThe Keystone School

Noalani Hendricks graduated from The Keystone School in 2014 and went on to attend her mother’s alma mater, Cedar Crest College in Allentown, Pennsylvania, where she is majoring in English and global studies and minoring in history and Spanish. She is also president of the Diversity Council Organization and a member of the History Club, Amnesty International, Muslim Student Association, and the Cultural Connections Club.

Noalani believes her Keystone education truly helped prepare her for college. Keystone’s flexibility allowed her to finish many of her courses early. Noalani feels as though she has an edge over her current peers because of her Keystone experience. She knows how to work independently, but when she needs help, she is not afraid to go to her professors with questions.

Upon graduation, Noalani wants to join the Peace Corps and then attend graduate school to earn a degree in international history. She hopes one day to work for the United Nations or in government.

149

Meeting the Diverse Needs of High School Students: Dual Credit and Credit Recovery Programs in K12 Schools

In K12 public school programs, when students enroll in high school, they arrive with highly diverse instructional needs and goals, based on varying academic backgrounds and levels of preparation. Some students seek opportunities to earn college credit before graduation from high school. Others need efficient programs that give them an opportunity to earn credit for courses they have taken before but failed. To meet these varied needs, many K12 high school programs offer dual credit programs as well as an extensive array of credit recovery courses.

Early College Dual Credit Programs

Among K12 public school programs that include high school (grades 9–12), more than 95 percent offer programs that allow students to earn college credit before graduation. These programs, collectively referred to as Early College, help meet the needs of students seeking traditional four-year degrees as well as those seeking associate degrees or certification from community college and technical education programs.

In the 2014–2015 school year, more than 1,000 students enrolled in 3,760 courses that qualified for college credit. These Early College courses earned students more than 11,000 postsecondary credit hours, which amounted to an estimated aggregate savings of more than $4,900,000 in college tuition costs.1

Early College programs are implemented within the framework of the legislation for the state in which the school is chartered. States are becoming increasingly friendly to these types of programs, and are expanding access to these programs to include more at-risk students, students at lower grade levels, and students who want to work directly to earn credentials such as associate degrees.

Across all K12 public school programs, high schools enrolling the most students in Early College courses include Georgia Cyber Academy, Ohio Virtual Academy, and Idaho Virtual Academy (IDVA). At IDVA, the number of students taking dual credit courses adds up to more than a quarter of the school’s high school population. (See Table 1.)

SchoolNumber of students enrolled in dual credit courses*

Percentage of total HS population enrolled in dual credit courses

Postsecondary institutions at which K12 students take dual credit courses**

Idaho Virtual Academy 247 27%

Boise State University, College of Southern Idaho, College of Western Idaho, Idaho State University, Northern Idaho College, Northwest Nazarene University

Ohio Virtual Academy 221 6%University of Toledo, Cuyahoga Community College, Columbus State Community College, Sinclair Community College

Georgia Cyber Academy 198 4%University of Georgia, Gwinnett Technical College, Georgia State

TABLE 1: EARLY COLLEGE DUAL CREDIT ENROLLMENTS: THREE LEADING K12 HIGH SCHOOLS

*Fall semester of 2016**A representative sampling, not a complete listing

1 Cost savings are the result of the difference between the average credit cost for the student if he was paying the full, average postsecondary tuition in the U. S. and the amount the student actually paid for the credit. The difference is paid by one or more of the following: the state in which the student resides, the postsecondary institution, and/or the school.


CREDIT RECOVERY PROGRAMS: FOCUS ON HOOSIER ACADEMIES

Credit recovery courses are for students who have previously taken a course but did not pass it, and thus did not earn academic credit toward graduation. Because students taking these courses are revisiting subject matter, students can quickly review what they already understand and have retained while devoting more time to topics not yet mastered. With focused effort, many students can proceed relatively quickly to earn credit by demonstrating mastery of the content.

Many K12 public school programs are working hard to serve a growing body of high school students who need credit recovery courses to put them back on track for graduation. As a case in point, consider Hoosier Academies Indianapolis and Hoosier Academies Virtual School, two affiliated K12 school programs in Indiana collectively referred to as Hoosier Academies. (For information on these schools, see Table 2.)

The number of credit deficient students turning to

Hoosier Academies has grown steadily in recent years. The most recent available figures (from the 2015–2016 school year) show a significant percentage of high school students who, upon enrollment, are deficient in three or more credits:

• 9th: 75%1

• 10th: 73%

• 11th: 68%

• 12th: 55%

Hoosier Academies

Indianapolis

Hoosier Academies

Virtual School

Year Founded 2008 --

Instructional Model Blended* 100% Virtual

Enrollment 255 3,690

Percentage Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price Lunch

28% 50%

Percentage with IEPs** 18% 14%

TABLE 2: INFORMATION ON HOOSIER ACADEMIES (AS OF 2014–2015 SCHOOL YEAR)

*At least 51% of instruction in brick-and-mortar setting**IEP = Individualized Education Program

1 Credit-deficient students in grade 9 enter with no transfer grades or first semester credits earned.

At the time of the collection of the above data, 70 percent of Hoosier Academies Virtual School students in grades 9–12 were credit deficient. Of those students, 81 percent were six or more credits deficient. Of the overall population of credit-deficient high school students, 49 percent were new to Hoosier Academies Virtual School in the fall of 2015.

According to head of school Byron Ernest, “In many cases, families select Hoosier Academies as a short-term solution for students with health issues, bullying, differentiated learning needs, academic deficiencies, credit deficiencies, or other special circumstances. Our targeted credit recovery program enables us to provide a path for students to get caught up quickly on credit requirements.”

In the 2014–2015 school year, out of a population of 1,628 high school students at Hoosier Academies, 236 students (approximately 14.5 percent of the overall high school student population) earned 474 credits through credit recovery courses. (See Table 3.)

“After seeing success during the 2013–2014 school year,” says Hoosier’s Byron Ernest, “we decided it was in our school’s best interest to dramatically expand the program and course offerings for the 2014–2015 school year.” Hoosier’s efforts are representative of the hard work going on in many K12 schools to help struggling students make progress and get back on track for graduation.

Number of Credits Recovered* Number of Students

1 129

2 72

3 35

4 7

5 4

6 or more 6

TABLE 3: HOOSIER ACADEMIES CREDIT RECOVERY: DISTRIBUTION OF CREDITS EARNED IN 2014–2015 SCHOOL YEAR

* At Hoosier, a single recovered credit is achieved by earning a passing grade for the course.

151

Effective Teaching in the K12 Online Learning Environment: Developing a Research-Based Rubric and Implementing an Instructional Coaching Program

At K12 Inc., we know that teachers have a powerful influence on student learning and engagement. As our instructional model has matured, the roles and responsibilities of teachers have expanded. As part of multiple efforts focused on ensuring and improving teacher effectiveness, K12 partnered with the National Institute for Excellence in Teaching (NIET) to develop a researched-based rubric that can serve as the basis for evaluation, coaching, and teacher development in virtual learning environments. Building on this solid foundation of research, K12 has implemented a teacher effectiveness initiative that features, as a central component, a non-evaluative Instructional Coaching program piloted at 18 K12 partner schools in the 2014–2015 school year.

The following pages present a detailed overview of K12’s collaborative efforts with NIET, followed by a report on the Instructional Coaching pilot program and its preliminary results.

In many ways, the growth of virtual academies has outpaced traditional teacher education programs. Not only do teachers in virtual academies, and to some extent in blended brick-and-mortar schools, have to navigate digital tools and help their students do the same, but they also need to be able to build and sustain long-distance relationships while encouraging their students to do the hard work of learning. Most teachers begin their work in virtual academies without having previously taught in an online environment. This challenge shapes the experiences of teachers in the schools we serve, and makes it even more important that we clearly define and articulate criteria that specifically apply to effective teaching in a virtual learning environment. To this end, K12 Inc. partnered with the National Institute for Excellence in Teaching (NIET) to develop a researched-based teacher evaluation rubric that can also be used in coaching and teacher development.

WHY DID K12 PARTNER WITH NIET?

Because of K12’s commitment to increasing teacher effectiveness in the virtual learning environment, we chose to partner with NIET, renowned for its work in building evaluation rubrics and comprehensive evaluation systems.

Founded in 1999, NIET is credited with developing TAP™: The System for Teacher and Student Advancement. TAP has become one of the nation’s largest multi-year, multi-state systems focused on advancing performance-based evaluation. NIET reports that TAP initiatives affect more than 200,000 educators and 2.5 million students.

HOW WAS THE RUBRIC DEVELOPED?

Most K12 public school programs use state-mandated teacher evaluation rubrics designed for brick-and-mortar classrooms. Early on, both K12 Inc. and NIET recognized the need to develop an evaluation rubric applicable to the virtual learning environment, whether in a purely online or blended model.

To get a clear understanding of the practices specific to the virtual learning environment, NIET researchers observed many K12 teachers at work. The researchers also held focus groups with teachers and followed up with discussions with school administrators.

In the early phases of the research, NIET representatives visited K12 teachers in Arizona and Tennessee to observe them at work in their “classroom environment”—a term that takes on a new meaning for the online teacher who has no brick-and-mortar classroom and works with students at a distance rather than face to face. The researchers observed how teachers set up their workspace, how they organized their school day, how they planned online lessons, and how they used technology, including a range of online tools for communication and tracking of student performance data.

A second phase of research involved observations and interviews with a group of teachers selected to ensure representation from across many different K12 public school programs, which vary in enrollment, grades served, student demographics, and instructional models.

Collaborating to Develop a Research-Based Evaluation Rubric


– Teacher sometimes manages

OLS alerts by pulling from the

student management tracker

and demonstrating analysis

of the information.

– Teacher sometimes uses

alerts to inform student

support actions, contact

students and coaches, and

inform team members.

– Teacher sometimes provides

adequate notes in Total View

of each point of contact

related to the OLS alerts.

K12 Asynchronous Environment — OLS Alerts

– Teacher rarely manages

OLS alerts by pulling from

the student management

tracker and demonstrating

analysis of the information.

– Teacher rarely uses alerts

to inform student support

actions, contact students

and coaches, and inform

team members.

– Teacher rarely provides



related to the OLS alerts.

– Teacher consistently

manages OLS alerts by

pulling information from the

student management tracker

and demonstrating analysis

of the information.

– Teacher consistently uses

alerts to inform student

support actions, contact

students and coaches, and

inform team members.

– Teacher consistently provides



related to OLS alerts.

Performance

definitions are

provided at levels 5,

3, and 1. Raters can

score performance at

levels 2 or 4 based on

their judgment.

At Expectations Significantly Above Expectations

Significantly Below Expectations

In February 2014, teachers from 20 K12 public school programs traveled to the offices of Texas Virtual Academy for two days of meetings. The researchers observed the teachers interacting with students during online instructional sessions, followed by focus groups with lively discussion of best practices and behaviors for online teachers.

The researchers paid special attention to teacher practices and behavior during synchronous sessions, in which teachers and students use an online platform to meet virtually in whole-class or group sessions. In a synchronous session, a teacher might work with students on, for example, strategies for solving word problems in mathematics. K12’s online platform offers tools that allow the teacher to divide students into groups. Teachers and students can write in an online whiteboard, and the teacher can deploy a quick online survey to elicit student responses. Speaking into microphones, teachers and students can hold conversations, while messaging tools allow for individualized written communications. Clearly, the adept and fluent use of these online tools would need to be seriously considered in developing a rubric for teacher effectiveness in the virtual classroom.

From the many observations, interviews, and focus group discussions, NIET worked with K12 to develop a draft rubric that was then field-tested and revised.

WHAT’S IN THE K12 RUBRIC?

The K12 Rubric is organized into four domains:

1. Professionalism: Reflecting on Teaching

2. Synchronous Instruction

3. Planning

4. Environment

The K12 Rubric provides specific indicators of effective performance in each domain. For each indicator, a teacher may earn a score from 1 (Significantly Below Expectations) to 5 (Significantly Above Expectations). Some of the indicators apply to effective teaching practices in general, whether online or in a brick-and-mortar classroom, for example, “Teacher Content Knowledge” and “Instructional Plans.” Other indicators focus on practices and behaviors specific to online teaching, for example, “Asynchronous Environment OLS [Online School] Alerts.” (See Figure 1.)

The K12 Rubric is presented in the K12 Rubric Instructional Handbook, which provides detailed explanations and examples for each of the indicators. The handbook serves as a guide for both teachers and leadership team members in implementing the K12 teaching standards. The handbook gives teachers many descriptive scenarios of best practices in action. For administrators, school leaders, and instructional coaches, the handbook provides question prompts that can guide dialogue during post-observation feedback conversations.

FIGURE 1: A SAMPLE FROM THE K12 RUBRIC

153

Instructional Coaching to Improve Teacher Effectiveness

In working with NIET to develop a teacher evaluation rubric and handbook, our goal was to ground K12 teacher effectiveness initiatives in a strong foundation based on research and experience. The research has resulted not only in a comprehensive guide for evaluation but also a broad-based support system for teachers.

In 2015–2016, 18 schools, spanning all four regions of K12’s public school programs (Northern, Southern, Central, and Western), implemented a pilot program for non-evaluative Instructional Coaching. Each of the 18 pilot schools has one or more Instructional Coaches to provide observation and feedback to help teachers, both new and returning, become more effective. The pilot program provided support and coaching to help more than a thousand teachers improve their craft and deepen their expertise in online instruction.

PROGRAM DESIGN

Instructional Coaches were selected from the 2014–2015 teacher population across all K12 public school programs. Coaches were selected based on empirical evidence of successful teaching in a virtual learning environment, including measures of student mastery levels and academic growth, or evidence of successful mentoring of other teachers within the virtual school environment. The teachers represented a mix of strengths in English Language Arts and Mathematics.

Instructional Coaches are not evaluators but instead work to provide monitoring and feedback on specific behaviors associated with student learning and growth. The coaching cycle ensures that each teacher receives feedback every two weeks and has an opportunity to reflect on the feedback experience every four weeks.

In the first quarter, 44 Instructional Coaches observed 1,299 teachers across K–8 and high school, and conducted 3,980 conferences in which teachers were provided systematic feedback and guidance. The observations and conferences are supportive and non-evaluative.

To provide Instructional Coaches with a shared vocabulary and frame of reference for what constitutes effective teaching, and to ensure the consistent and systematic capture of behaviors indicative of teacher effectiveness, K12 leadership staff drew from the Instructional Rubric developed with NIET. Of the 29 indicators in the K12 Instructional Rubric, 11 were identified as most directly descriptive of teacher behaviors in the instructional process in the virtual learning environment. Of these 11, two indicators (Engaging Students, and Standards and Objectives) were identified as critically important to merit observation in each observational session. The other nine indicators are observed in rotating order throughout the school year.

All Instructional Coaches participate in training as part of an ongoing quality control process to ensure comparability of the rubric score information and improve the validity of each teacher indicator. The team will also continue to collect examples of specific behaviors associated with each rubric score in order to help teachers better understand how they can modify their practice to become more effective.

PRELIMINARY RESULTS

K12 researchers are gathering data on whether the Instructional Coaching program affects student academic growth. Preliminary information indicates a positive relationship between teacher rubric scores and student academic achievement. Further research is ongoing to test the hypothesis that more effective teachers (as identified by higher rubric scores) produce better academic outcomes among their students.

Based on these promising preliminary results, K12 is planning to expand the Instructional Coaching program in the 2016–2017 school year to serve approximately half of K12 public school programs across all regions.


Understanding Student Progress toward Graduationin K12 Public School Programs

In the past decade, prompted by regulations growing out of No Child Left Behind, both states and schools have been reporting data on graduation rate. For such data to be meaningful, some consensus on the definition of “graduation rate” was needed because, as noted by the National Center on Secondary Education and Transition (NCSET), “Multiple methods and definitions can result in what appears to be conflicting information.”1

The following discussion summarizes recent regulatory considerations regarding graduation rate and proposes the need to see the bigger picture, that is, to understand an abstract statistic in the context of student progress toward graduation. Many students who enroll in online high schools, including K12 public school programs, are struggling to make up credits or meet other significant challenges to on-time graduation, including the difficulties of mobility (moving from one school to another). When one examines how students who start out behind make progress toward graduation, then the data show that K12 public school programs can effectively get and keep high school students on track to graduation when the school has sufficient time to meet the students’ needs.

The Recent Regulatory Background

In 2005, the National Governors Association (NGA) convened the Task Force on State High School Graduation Data. The task force discussed the need for comparable high school graduation data and recommended measuring the four-year graduation cohort rate, that is, the percentage of students who graduate from high school within four years of their entry into ninth grade.2 A compact endorsed by the 50 state governors embraced the concept of the four-year graduation cohort rate. In 2008, the United States Department of Education incorporated the four-year graduation cohort rate into regulations as part of the accountability provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act. The USDOE issued the first four-year graduation cohort rate report in October 2012.

While the four-year graduation cohort rate became integrated into school accountability systems across the states, it is important to note that early discussions of the NGA task force included a commitment to consider the “treatment of students whose graduation is delayed due to issues beyond a state’s or school’s control.” The task force also stressed the need for improvement targets for high schools that serve many struggling students. Specifically, the task force chairs said, “In short, the use of a high school graduation rate in any accountability framework must serve as an incentive to promote state and local innovation to better engage and educate every student. . . .”3

While the NGA task force emphasized student improvement and engagement, federal regulations focused more on reporting “a graduation rate that provides . . . better information on school’s progress while allowing for meaningful comparisons of graduation rates across states and school districts.”4 These regulations focused entirely on school performance, not individual student progress toward graduation. States were required to incorporate the four-year graduation cohort rate into school accountability frameworks. To meet the expectations in the regulations, students have to graduate within four years from the time they enter ninth grade. During those four years, students might transfer from school to school but from the regulatory perspective, the school enrolling the student in the fourth year is responsible for graduating the student.

1 Lehr, C. A., Johnson, D. R., Bremer, C. D., Cosio, A., & Thompson, M. (2004). Essential tools: Increasing rates of school completion: Moving from policy and research to practice. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration, National Center on Secondary Education and Transition. Retrieved from http://www.ncset.org/publications/essentialtools/dropout/part1.2.asp

2 National Governors Association (2005). Graduation Counts: A Compact on State High School Graduation Data. Retrieved from http://www.nga.org/cms/home/nga-center-for-best-practices/center-publications/page-edu-publications/col2-content/main-content-list/graduation-counts-a-compact-on-s.html

3 National Governors Association (2008). No Child Left Behind/Graduation Rate: Letter (June 11, 2008) from Govs. Carcieri and Henry to U.S. Dept. of Education. Retrieved from http://www.nga.org/cms/home/federal-relations/nga-letters/archived-letters--2008/col2-content/main-content-list/title_june-11-2008-l.html

4 U.S. Dept. of Education (2012). States Report New High School Graduation Rates Using More Accurate, Common Measure. USDOE Press Release (November 26, 2012). Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/states-report-new-high-school-graduation-rates-using-more-accurate-common-measur

155

A Closer Look at One K12 School Program

The federal regulations assume that students generally remain enrolled in the same school for four years. Given such stability of continuous enrollment in one school, it might seems reasonable to hold a school accountable if a student does not graduate in four years. But this assumption neglects the effects of student mobility, of moving between schools. Many students who change high schools are often economically disadvantaged, under-credited, over-aged, and academically at risk. A recent Evergreen Education Group report looked at enrollment data for 24 full-time online schools. In these schools, the report found that on average 35 percent of students who entered the schools in grades 10, 11, and 12 were not on track for graduation based on the four-year cohort rate.5

The trends referenced in the Evergreen Education Group are evident in the experience of Insight School of Oregon-Charter Option (Insight Oregon), a K12 public school program. The school was established in part to serve struggling students. Of students who should have graduated in spring 2014, only approximately 30 percent of newly-enrolled juniors and seniors entered the school on track for on-time graduation.

At Insight Oregon, of students who first enrolled in the fall 2014 semester as seniors, as many as 32 percent were six or more credits behind their cohort group. Later in the school year, the likelihood of a newly enrolled twelfth-grader getting on track for graduation shrinks. Of seniors newly enrolled in the spring semester, 62 percent were 3 or more credits behind the expected number of credits earned by the four-year cohort group. It is highly unlikely that students who enter as seniors and already behind in credits will graduate “on time.” The trend is only slightly better for juniors, indicating that students who are significantly behind in 11th grade are already off-track for graduation with the four-year cohort group. (See Table 1.)

Students (upon enrollment) on track for on-time graduation

Students (upon enrollment) 6 or more credits behind

Seniors newly enrolled in spring 23% 54%

Seniors newly enrolled in fall 32% 32%

Juniors newly enrolled in spring 30% 24%

Juniors newly enrolled in fall 41% 20%

TABLE 1: INSIGHT OREGON SPRING 2014 FOUR-YEAR GRADUATION COHORT: STUDENTS NEWLY ENROLLED AS SENIORS OR JUNIORS

The data from Insight Oregon are consistent with what we find in a cross-section of K12 public school programs. Across ten of these schools, of 1,800 students newly enrolled in high school for the 2014–2015 school year, 48 percent enrolled off-track for graduation.

For example, at Arizona Virtual Academy (AZVA), a large K12 public school program enrolling approximately 2,000 students, nearly 40 percent of students who enroll as seniors are more than one year behind compared to less than 10 percent of seniors who have attended the school for three or more years. At AZVA, data from the 2013 graduation cohort show that students who have been enrolled three or more years are on track for graduation at a rate more than two-and-a-half-times that of students who initially enroll as seniors. (See Figure 1 below.)

5 Watson, John, & Pape, L. (2015). School Accountability in the Digital Age (Feb. 2015 Policy Brief). Evergreen Education Group. Retrieved from http://www.kpk12.com/wp-content/uploads/KP-AccountabilityInTheDigitalAge.pdf


Enrolling credit-deficient students negatively impacts many virtual academies’ ratings on state accountability frameworks. This impact is more pronounced in states in which graduation rate counts for 50 percent or more of a school’s overall rating such as Idaho, Illinois, and Wisconsin. In many cases, full-time virtual schools have received lower ratings on state accountability frameworks exclusively because of the negative impact of the high weighting placed on graduation rate. (See Table 2.6)

Colorado Preparatory Academy “performance” instead of “improvement”

Idaho Virtual Academy 4 stars instead of 3 stars

Insight School of Colorado “improvement” instead of “priority improvement”

Louisiana Virtual Academy C instead of D

Nevada Virtual Academy 3 stars instead of 2 stars

Texas Virtual Academy “met standard” instead of “did not meet standard”

Wisconsin Virtual Academy “exceeds expectations” instead of “meets expectations”

TABLE 2: K12 PUBLIC SCHOOL PROGRAMS EARNING LOWER RATINGS DUE TO GRADUATION RATE

FIGURE 1: AZVA STUDENTS ON TRACK FOR GRADUATION BY YEARS OF ENROLLMENTP

erce

nta

ge

of S

tud

ents

On

Trac

k fo

r G

rad

uati

on

Grade Level

On track > 1 year behind

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

3 or more years enrolled2–3 years enrolledNew as seniorsAll

6 Because many states suspended accountability ratings for 2014–2015, all ratings are from the 2013–2014 school year, except LAVCA, which is from 2014–2015.

157

Mobility and Accountability

The Evergreen Education Group report (see footnote 5 on page 155) notes that the United States Government Accountability Office characterizes high mobility schools as those in which more than 10 percent of the student population leaves before the end of the school year. Many online schools have mobility rates three times this threshold. According to a study completed by the Colorado Department of Education, online schools in that state had a mobility rate twice as high as the statewide average.9

Of the more than 180,000 online students included in the Evergreen Education Group report’s analysis, 52 percent enrolled after the start of the 2013–2014 school year. Thirty-three percent enrolled four weeks or more after the start of the school year.

These national findings are supported by data from Arizona Virtual Academy. At AZVA, in the 2013–2014 school year,

• 78% of high school students were enrolled for two years or less.

• More than half of those students (58%) were enrolled for one year or less.

• Of the students who were enrolled for one year or less, 75% were enrolled for six months or less.

• 79% who were enrolled for one year or less also withdrew during the same academic year.

Even after these students leave AZVA or some other virtual school, they may still negatively impact the school’s graduation rate. If it happens that the virtual school cannot provide documentation that the student enrolled in another public school, the student remains on the online school’s four-year cohort roster. Most state tracking systems do not provide real-time information regarding student enrollment. In only a few states, such as Texas, is a school counselor or registrar able to verify that a student has enrolled in another school by looking up the student’s ID number within a state system. Not only must the state’s system have the capacity to track this information, schools must be required to submit information to the state throughout the year to capture data on mobile students. If schools are not required to routinely upload student-level information to a state data management system, there is no way to easily determine where students are enrolled or what credits have been awarded. If a state has no system that accurately and promptly tracks student enrollment, school registrars must become amateur detectives and work to accumulate evidence regarding a student’s whereabouts.

High numbers of credit-deficient students and high mobility rates adversely impact the four-year graduation cohort rate for online schools. As the previously cited research demonstrates, these factors disproportionately impact online schools when compared with the mobility rates of even highly mobile traditional schools.

Just as credit status is one significant factor that impacts graduation rates in virtual schools, so is student mobility. The Evergreen Education Group report cites well-known research regarding the impacts of mobility: “Students who change schools often face challenges due to differences in what is taught and how it is taught. Students may arrive without records or with incomplete records, making it difficult for teachers to make placement decisions and identify special education needs.”7 Similarly, a meta-analysis found that “mobility was consistently associated with lower achievement and higher rates of high school dropout. Findings were larger, more consistent, and of greater practical significance for school dropout than for achievement.”8

7 United States Government Accountability Office. (2010). Many Challenges Arise in Educating Students Who Change Schools Frequently. GAO-11-40. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/312480.pdf

8 Reynolds, Arthur J., Chen, C., and Herbers, J. (2009). School Mobility and Educational Success: A Research Synthesis and Evidence on Prevention. University of Minnesota. Retrieved from http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/Children/ChildMobility/Reynolds%20Chen%20and%20Herbers.pdf

9 Heiney, A., Lefly, D., and Anderson, A. (2012). Characteristics of Colorado’s Online Students. Colorado Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.cde.state.co.us/sites/default/files/documents/onlinelearning/download/ol_research_final.pdf


Student Progress toward Graduation in K12 Public School Programs

In spite of regulations that fail to account for student mobility, as well as state student tracking systems that have not kept up with regulatory expectations, K12 public school programs are making enormous strides in improving progress toward graduation.

High school students in K12 public school programs can earn their diplomas if the school has sufficient time with the student or the student is enrolled in the same school for all four years, as presumed in the assumptions underlying federal regulations about four-year graduation cohort rates. Among K12 public school programs, for students who enrolled in ninth grade and remained enrolled until twelfth grade, the following virtual academies have four-year cohort graduation rates of at least 90 percent:

• Idaho Virtual Academy (IDVA): 90%

• Nevada Virtual Academy (NVVA): 100%

• Ohio Virtual Academy (OHVA): 92%

• Oklahoma Virtual Charter Academy (OVCA): 91%

• Texas Virtual Academy (TXVA): 96%

• Utah Virtual Academy (UTVA): 96%

• Wisconsin Virtual Academy (WIVA): 96%

Some schools, such as Nevada Virtual Academy (NVVA), demonstrate as much as a 70 percent improvement in the four-year cohort graduation rate. NVVA credits its improvement to carefully tracking students who withdraw and actively engaging students upon enrollment. Regarding the new students, NVVA has developed ways to customize a student’s path toward graduation with course selection, blended options, counseling, and support services.

K12 public school programs are implementing innovative initiatives focused on increasing student engagement, which will result in improved student progress toward graduation. As described by the NGA task force more than a decade ago, the inclusion of high school graduation rate in any accountability framework must serve as an incentive to promote state and local innovation to better engage and educate every student.

K12 public school programs are implementing processes to collect credit information upon enrollment and track students after withdrawing, as permitted by state systems and consistent with state regulations. The company has also undertaken a public policy effort to work with state regulators and legislators to change regulations and laws to more closely measure individual student progress toward graduation for each of the high school years, not just at the end of the fourth year. This approach is consistent with the original intent of the National Governors Association’s compact, which focused not only on measuring graduation rate but also on developing improvement targets based on individual student progress.

The December 2015 passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act provides promise. Specifically, S. 1177-37 provides states some flexibility in school accountability frameworks to factor out students who did not attend at least one-half of a school year and instead assign this student’s status to the school in which the student was enrolled for the greatest proportion of high school days.

159

Appendices


The table below compares the percentage of students in K12 public school programs to the percentage among the total school population in each school’s state with regard to eligibility for free and reduced-price lunch (FRL) and eligibility for special education services.

• With regard to eligibility for free and reduced-price lunch, 51 K12 public school programs served a higher percentage of students than the state.

• With regard to students eligible for special education services, 20 K12 public school programs served a higher percentage of students than the state.

IN THE FOLLOWING TABLE:

• State percentages are based on 2013–2014 school year, the most recent data available from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) at this time of this analysis.

• Cells highlighted light blue in the table indicate a higher percentage of K12 students qualifying for FRL or special education services compared to the state.

• Special education eligibility percentages are reported only for schools in which K12 is responsible for special education services.

• For California, Florida, and Virginia, the special education percentages are aggregate figures encompassing the specified individual K12 public school programs in each state.

K12 PUBLIC SCHOOL PROGRAM COMPARED TO STATE: PERCENTAGE ELIGIBLE FOR FREE AND REDUCED-PRICE LUNCH (FRL) AND SPECIAL EDUCATION

Appendix 1:FRL and Special Education Eligibility by School Compared to State

FRL Special Education

K12 State K12 State

Alaska Virtual Academy 44% 43% 12% 14%

Arizona Virtual Academy 60% 52%* 13% 12%

Arkansas Virtual Academy 65% 61% 15% 13%

California Virtual Academy at Fresno 61% 58%

11%** 11%

California Virtual Academy at Jamestown 65% 58%

California Virtual Academy at Kings 53% 58%

California Virtual Academy at Los Angeles 54% 58%

California Virtual Academy at Maricopa 61% 58%

California Virtual Academy at Maricopa High School 55% 58%

California Virtual Academy at San Diego 51% 58%

California Virtual Academy at San Joaquin 51% 58%

California Virtual Academy at San Mateo 42% 58%

California Virtual Academy at Sonoma 52% 58%

California Virtual Academy at Sutter 55% 58%

Chicago Virtual Charter School 76% 54% -- --

161


K12 State K12 State

Colorado Preparatory Academy 57% 42% 10% 10%

Community Academy Public Charter School Online 69% 76% 17% 15%

Cyber Academy of South Carolina 65% 57% 16% 13%

Florida Virtual Academy at Broward 63% 58%

9%** 13%

Florida Virtual Academy at Clay 75% 58%

Florida Virtual Academy at Duval 66% 58%

Florida Virtual Academy at Hillsborough 63% 58%

Florida Virtual Academy at Osceola 72% 58%

Florida Virtual Academy at Palm Beach 65% 58%

Florida Virtual Academy at Pasco 71% 58%

Florida Virtual Academy at Pinellas 66% 58%

Georgia Cyber Academy 65% 62% 13% 11%

Hill House Passport Academy Charter School 61% 43% 21% 17%

Hoosier Academies Indianapolis 27% 49% 18% 16%

Hoosier Academies Virtual School 50% 49% 15% 16%

Idaho College and Career Readiness Academy 59% 47% 9% 9%

Idaho Virtual Academy 58% 47% 9% 9%

Insight Academy of Arizona 65% 52%* 16% 12%

Insight School of California-Los Angeles 66% 58% 14% 11%

Insight School of California-San Diego 56% 58% 17% 11%

Insight School of Colorado 48% 42% -- --

Insight School of Kansas 55% 50% -- --

Insight School of Michigan 62% 48% 20% 13%

Insight School of Minnesota 54% 38% 26% 15%

Insight School of Ohio 62% 44% 20% 15%

Insight School of Oklahoma 68% 61% 13% 15%

Insight School of Oregon-Charter Option 52% 51% -- --

Insight School of Oregon-Alternative Option 68% 51% -- --

Insight School of Washington 58% 46% 12% 12%

Iowa Virtual Academy 60% 41% 6% 13%

K12 source: Academic Performance Database: FRL as of 04/2015, K12 Special Education source: Internal Student Database: as of 12/2014 (except Newark Preparatory Academy, Hoosier Academies Virtual School, Hoosier Academies Indianapolis, and Hill House Passport Academy Charter School as of 02/2016). San Francisco Flex Academy not reported because data not available at the time of this report. Illinois school and state FRL data pulled from 2015 state report card: https://www.illinoisreportcard.com/Default.aspx, Silicon Valley Flex Academy: Silicon Valley Student Information System. The percentage of students overall and by school determined to qualify for free or reduced-price lunch within K12-managed public schools reflects analysis by K12’s Academic Policy Team of information provided to K12 by families during the enrollment process, and as augmented by data submitted to individual schools. During the enrollment process, K12 requests that each family complete a family income form (FIF) in order to provide information corresponding to the eligibility standards prescribed by the National School Lunch Program (NSLP)—including information related to income amount, frequency of income, and number of people in the family’s household. To the extent a family volunteers the requested information, K12 stores that data in its database, a secure information repository used to manage student enrollment and monitor student performance. Separately, the respective public schools may give enrolled families the option each fall of submitting the same information called for by the FIF, which the schools in turn provide to the districts and states in which they are located, in accordance with state-specific requirements. Schools may update family information in the database as they receive such additional data following enrollment. K12 understands that this data serves as the basis for the statistics reported by the NSLP and NCES.

K12 calculates its own FRL eligibility statistics utilizing the same methodology that NCES uses on a national scale, as follows. First, once per year, usually in the first two weeks of May, K12 retrieves two reports generated from its internal database: one containing the income, frequency of income, number of household members, and related data available for all families, and another report identifying all enrolled students at the time of the report generation. K12 then compares the full universe of family income and household member information in its database against the list of enrolled students in order to generate a data set limited to enrolled students.

Second, K12 consults the corresponding year’s NSLP table from the Food and Nutrition Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which sets forth standards dictating FRL eligibility. See http://www.fns.usda.gov/school-meals/income-eligibility-guidelines; see also Income Eligibility Guidelines (effective July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2015), available at http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2014-04788.pdf. With reference to the NSLP rubric, K12 determines the qualification levels of its enrolled families for FRL status.

Finally, K12 calculates the percentage of enrolled students at the public schools it serves who qualify as FRL eligible.

State Source for FRL and Special Education data (2013–2014): http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/elsi/ * Arizona FRL data (2014) from state website: https://azreportcards.com/** For California, Florida, Virginia, and Washington, the special education percentages are aggregate figures encompassing the specified individual K12 public school programs in each state.

Agora Cyber Charter School and Maurice J. Moyer Academic Institute were not included because management contracts concluded on June 30, 2015, and the schools did not provide K12 with student-level data from the 2014–2015 school year.



K12 State K12 State

iQ Academy California at Los Angeles 55% 58% 9% 11%

iQ Academy Minnesota 50% 38% -- --

iQ Washington 69% 46% -- --

Kansas Virtual Academy 70% 50% -- --

Louisiana Virtual Charter Academy 66% 66% 16% 11%Massachusetts Virtual Academy at Greenfield Commonwealth Virtual School

56% 38% -- --

Michigan Great Lakes Virtual Academy 63% 48% 12% 13%

Michigan Virtual Charter Academy 67% 48% 16% 13%

Minnesota Virtual Academy 49% 38% -- --

Nevada Virtual Academy 57% 53% 12% 12%

New Mexico Virtual Academy 50% 67% -- --

Newark Preparatory Charter School 70% 38% 16% 15%

Ohio Virtual Academy 59% 44% 14% 15%

Oklahoma Virtual Charter Academy 61% 61% 14% 15%

Oregon Virtual Academy 62% 51% 13% 15%

San Francisco Flex Academy 20% 58% -- --

Silicon Valley Flex Academy 10% 58% 16% 11%

South Carolina Virtual Charter School 64% 57% -- --

Tennessee Virtual Academy 71% 58% 15% 13%

Texas Online Preparatory School 43% 60% 4% 9%

Texas Virtual Academy 56% 60% -- --

Utah Virtual Academy 57% 37% 16% 12%

Virginia Virtual Academy-King and Queen 50% 40%5%** 13%

Virginia Virtual Academy-Patrick 47% 40%

Washington Virtual Academy-Monroe 38% 46%11%

12%

Washington Virtual Academy-Omak 48% 46% 12%

Wisconsin Virtual Academy 56% 42% 15% 14%

Wyoming Virtual Academy 47% 38% 11% 14%

Youth Connection Charter Virtual High School 98% 51% -- --

K12 source: Academic Performance Database: FRL as of 04/2015, K12 Special Education source: Internal Student Database: as of 12/2014 (except Newark Preparatory Academy, Hoosier Academies Virtual School, Hoosier Academies Indianapolis, and Hill House Passport Academy Charter School as of 02/2016). San Francisco Flex Academy not reported because data not available at the time of this report. Illinois school and state FRL data pulled from 2015 state report card: https://www.illinoisreportcard.com/Default.aspx, Silicon Valley Flex Academy: Silicon Valley Student Information System. The percentage of students overall and by school determined to qualify for free or reduced-price lunch within K12-managed public schools reflects analysis by K12’s Academic Policy Team of information provided to K12 by families during the enrollment process, and as augmented by data submitted to individual schools. During the enrollment process, K12 requests that each family complete a family income form (FIF) in order to provide information corresponding to the eligibility standards prescribed by the National School Lunch Program (NSLP)—including information related to income amount, frequency of income, and number of people in the family’s household. To the extent a family volunteers the requested information, K12 stores that data in its database, a secure information repository used to manage student enrollment and monitor student performance. Separately, the respective public schools may give enrolled families the option each fall of submitting the same information called for by the FIF, which the schools in turn provide to the districts and states in which they are located, in accordance with state-specific requirements. Schools may update family information in the database as they receive such additional data following enrollment. K12 understands that this data serves as the basis for the statistics reported by the NSLP and NCES.

K12 calculates its own FRL eligibility statistics utilizing the same methodology that NCES uses on a national scale, as follows. First, once per year, usually in the first two weeks of May, K12 retrieves two reports generated from its internal database: one containing the income, frequency of income, number of household members, and related data available for all families, and another report identifying all enrolled students at the time of the report generation. K12 then compares the full universe of family income and household member information in its database against the list of enrolled students in order to generate a data set limited to enrolled students.

Second, K12 consults the corresponding year’s NSLP table from the Food and Nutrition Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which sets forth standards dictating FRL eligibility. See http://www.fns.usda.gov/school-meals/income-eligibility-guidelines; see also Income Eligibility Guidelines (effective July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2015), available at http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2014-04788.pdf. With reference to the NSLP rubric, K12 determines the qualification levels of its enrolled families for FRL status.

Finally, K12 calculates the percentage of enrolled students at the public schools it serves who qualify as FRL eligible.

State Source for FRL and Special Education data (2013–2014): http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/elsi/ * Arizona FRL data (2014) from state website: https://azreportcards.com/** For California, Florida, Virginia, and Washington, the special education percentages are aggregate figures encompassing the specified individual K12 public school programs in each state.

Agora Cyber Charter School and Maurice J. Moyer Academic Institute were not included because management contracts concluded on June 30, 2015, and the schools did not provide K12 with student-level data from the 2014–2015 school year.

163

The table below identifies state assessment programs by subject area and grade band (grades 3–8 and high school) for the 2013–2014 and 2014–2015 school years.

State2013–2014 Grades 3–8 Reading, ELA,

& Mathematics

2013–2014 HS Reading, ELA, & Mathematics

2013–2014 Science 2013–2014 Social Studies, History

2013–2014 Writing

Alaska Standards Based Assessment (SBA)

Standards Based Assessment (SBA)

Science Standard Based Assessment (Science SBA)

-- --

ArizonaArizona's Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS)

Arizona's Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS)

Arizona's Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS)

-- --

Arkansas

Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program (ACTAAP)

Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program (ACTAAP) EOCs

Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program (ACTAAP), grades 5, 7, HS

-- --

CaliforniaSmarter Balanced Consortium (SBAC) field test

Smarter Balanced Consortium (SBAC) field test / California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE)

California Standard Tests (CST), grades 5, 8, 10

-- --

ColoradoTransitional Colorado Assessment Program (TCAP)

Transitional Colorado Assessment Program (TCAP)

ACT, grade 11

Colorado Measures of Academic Success (CMAS), grades 5, 8, 10

--Transitional Colorado Assessment Program (TCAP), grades 3–10

District of Columbia

Comprehensive Assessment System Results (DC CAS)

Comprehensive Assessment System Results (DC CAS)

Comprehensive Assessment System Results (DC CAS), grades 5, 8, 10

--Comprehensive Assessment System Results (DC CAS)

Florida

Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT)

Florida End-of-Course (EOC) Exams

Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT), grades 5, 8, Biology EOC

Florida End-of-Course (EOC) Exams, Civics and U.S. History

Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT)

GeorgiaCriterion-Referenced Competency Tests (CRCT)

End of Course Tests (EOCT)

Georgia High School Graduation Test (GHSGT)

Criterion-Referenced Competency Tests (CRCT),

End of Course Tests (ECOT), HS

Criterion-Referenced Competency Tests (CRCT),

End of Course Tests (ECOT), HS

Georgia Writing Assessments, grades 3, 5, 8

Georgia High School Writing Test (GHSWT)

IdahoSmarter Balanced Consortium (SBAC) field test

Smarter Balanced Consortium (SBAC) field test, SAT, grade 11

Idaho Standard Achievement Test (ISAT), grades 5, 7, 10

-- --

Appendix 2:State Assessment Programs: 2013–2014 and 2014–2015

2013–2014



& Mathematics



2013–2014 Writing

IllinoisIllinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT)

Prairie State Achievement Examination (PSAE), grade 11

"Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT), grades 4 and 7

Prairie State Achievement Examination (PSAE), grade 11

-- --

Indiana

Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational Progress (ISTEP), IREAD, grade 3 Reading

ISTEP End of Course Assessments (ECA)

-- -- --

Iowa Iowa AssessmentIowa Assessment, grade 11

Iowa Assessment -- --

Kansas Kansas Assessment Program (KAP)

Kansas Assessment Program (KAP), grade 11

Kansas Assessment Program (KAP), grades 4, 7, 11

Kansas Assessment Program (KAP), grades 6, 8, 9–12

--

Louisiana

Integrated Louisiana Educational Assessment Program (iLEAP-Grades 3, 5, 6, 7)/LEAP (Grades 4 and 8)

End of Course End of Course End of Course --

Massachusetts

Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS)



-- --

Michigan Michigan Educational Assessment Program

Michigan Educational Assessment Program, grade 11

Michigan Educational Assessment Program, grades 5, 8

Michigan Educational Assessment Program, grades 6, 9

Michigan Educational Assessment Program, grades 4, 7, 11

MinnesotaMinnesota Comprehensive Assessments (MCA)

Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments (MCA)

Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments (MCA), grades 5, 8, HS

--GRAD Writing Assessment, grade 9

Nevada Criterion-Referenced Tests (CRT)

High School Proficiency Exam (HSPE)

Science Criterion-Referenced Tests (CRT), grades 5, 8

High School Proficiency Exam (HSPE)

-- --

New Jersey --High School Proficiency Assessment (HSPA)

-- -- --

New Mexico Standards-Based Assessment

Standards-Based Assessment




Ohio Ohio Achievement Assessment (OAA)

Ohio Achievement Assessment (OAA), grade 10

Ohio Achievement Assessment (OAA), grades 5, 8, 10

Ohio Achievement Assessment (OAA), grades 4, 6, 10

--

165


& Mathematics



2013–2014 Writing

Oklahoma Oklahoma Core Curriculum Tests (OCCT)

End-of-Instruction (EOI)

Oklahoma Core Curriculum Tests (OCCT), grades 5, 8

End-of-Instruction (EOI), HS





OregonOregon Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (OAKS)

Oregon Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (OAKS)




South CarolinaPalmetto Assessment of State Standards (PASS)

Palmetto Assessment of State Standards (PASS)




PennsylvaniaPennsylvania System School Assessment (PSSA)

Keystone Exams

“Pennsylvania System School Assessment (PSSA), grades 4, 8

Keystone Exams (HS)”

Keystone Exams (HS) Keystone Exams (HS)

Tennessee

Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program (TCAP)

--

Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program (TCAP), grades 3–8

--

Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program (TCAP) Writing Assessment, grades 3–8

Texas

State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR)


State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR), grades 5, 8, HS

State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR), grade 8

State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR), grades 4, 7

UtahStudent Assessment of Growth and Excellence (SAGE)

Student Assessment of Growth and Excellence (SAGE)

ACT (11)

Student Assessment of Growth and Excellence (SAGE), grades 4–11

-- --

Virginia Standards of Learning (SOL)

Standards of Learning (SOL)

Standards of Learning (SOL), grades 5, 8, HS

Standards of Learning (SOL), grade 4 Virginia Studies, grade 7 Civics, grade 8 End-of-Course (EOC)

Standards of Learning (SOL), grades 5 and 8

End-of-Course (EOC)

Washington Measurement of Student Progress (MSP)

Measurement of Student Progress (MSP)

High School Proficiency Exam (HSPE), grade 10

Measurement of Student Progress (MSP)

-- --

Wisconsin

The Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examination (WKCE)




--

Wyoming

Proficiency Assessments for Wyoming Students (PAWS)

ACT Explore, grade 9

ACT Plan, grade 10

ACT Plus Writing, grade 11

Proficiency Assessments for Wyoming Students (PAWS), grades 4, 8


ACT Plan, grade 10


--ACT Plus Writing, grade 11



& Mathematics



2014–2015 Writing

Alaska Alaska Measures of Progress (AMP)

Alaska Measures of Progress (AMP), grade 10

ACT, grade 11

-- -- --

Arizona

Arizona’s Measurement of Educational Readiness to Inform Teaching (AzMERIT)

Arizona's Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS) or Arizona’s Measurement of Educational Readiness to Inform Teaching (AzMERIT)

Arizona's Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS) grades 4, 8, HS

--AzMERIT (grades 3–8)

AIMS (HS)

Arkansas

Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC)


Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program (ACTAAP), grades 5, 7, HS

-- --

California Smarter Balanced Consortium (SBAC)

Smarter Balanced Consortium (SBAC), grade 11 CAHSEE (HS)

California Standard Tests (CST) grades 5, 8, 10

-- --

ColoradoColorado Measures of Academic Success (CMAS) - PARCC

Colorado Measures of Academic Success (CMAS) - PARCC, grades 9–11

ACT (HS), grade 11

Colorado Measures of Academic Success (CMAS), grades 5, 8, 12

Colorado Measures of Academic Success (CMAS), grades 4, 7

--

District of Columbia




-- --

Florida Florida Standards Assessments (FSA)

Florida Standards Assessments (FSA)

Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT), grades 5, 8

Next Generation Sunset State Standards (NGSSS) End-of-Course, Civics and U.S. History

Florida Standards Assessments (FSA), grades 4–10

Georgia Georgia Milestones End-Of-Grade (EOG)

Georgia Milestones End-Of-Course (EOC)


Georgia Milestones End-Of-Grade (EOG), grades 3–8

Georgia Milestone End-Of-Course (EOC), Biology and Physical Science


Georgia Milestones End-Of-Course (EOC), U.S. History and Economics

--

Idaho

Smarter Balanced Consortium (SBAC) Idaho Standards Achievement Test (ISAT)

Smarter Balanced Consortium (SBAC) Idaho Standards Achievement Test (ISAT)

SAT, grade 11

Idaho Standards Achievement Test (ISAT), grades 5, 7, 10

SAT, grade 11

-- --

Georgia Georgia Milestones End-Of-Grade (EOG)

Georgia Milestones End-Of-Course (EOC)



Georgia Milestone End-Of-Course (EOC), Biology and Physical Science


Georgia Milestones End-Of-Course (EOC), U.S. History and Economics

Georgia High School Writing Test (GHSWT)

Illinois




Illinois Science Assessment (ISA), grades 5, 8, HS

-- --

2014–2015

167


& Mathematics



2014–2015 Writing

Indiana

Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational Progress-Plus (ISTEP+)

IREAD, grade 3 Reading

ISTEP+ End-of-Course (ECA) tests in English 10, Algebra 1 and Biology 1

Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational Progress-Plus (ISTEP+) in grades 4 and 6

Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational Progress-Plus (ISTEP+) in grades 5 and 7

--

Iowa Iowa Assessment Iowa Assessment, grade 11 Iowa Assessment -- --

Kansas Kansas Assessment Program (KAP)

Kansas Assessment Program (KAP), grade 11

"Kansas Assessment Program (KAP), grades 4, 7, 11

Kansas Assessment Program (KAP), grades 6, 8, 11

Kansas Assessment Program (KAP), grades 3–8

Multidisciplinary Performance Task, (MDPT), grades 10–11

Louisiana


ACT Plan, grade 10

ACT, grade 11

End-of-Course

Integrated Louisiana Educational Assessment Program (iLEAP) grades 5, 7

ACT, ACT-Plan (HS)

End-of-Course (HS)

Integrated Louisiana Educational Assessment Program (iLEAP) grades 5, 7

ACT, ACT-Plan (HS)

End-of-Course (HS)

--

Massachusetts

Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) or Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS)



-- --

Michigan Michigan Merit Examination (MME)

Michigan Merit Examination (MME)


Michigan Student Test of Educational Progress (M-STEP), grades 5, 8, 11

-- ACT Plus Writing, grade 11

MinnesotaMinnesota Comprehensive Assessments (MCA)

Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments (MCA)

Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments (MCA), grades 5, 8, HS

-- --

Nevada


New Jersey Biology Competency Test (NJBCT), HS

-- --

New Jersey


New Jersey Biology Competency Test (NJBCT), HS

-- --

New Mexico


Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) and NMHSCE

Standards-Based Assessment (SBA), grades 4, 7, 11

End-of-Course (EOC), HS

Partnership for Assessment Readiness for College and Career (PARCC)

New Mexico High School Competency Examination (NMHSCE)

Ohio

Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) grades 4–8

Ohio Achievement Test (OAA) for grade 3

Ohio Graduation Test (OGT)


Ohio State Tests, grades 5, 8

Ohio Graduation Test (HS)

Ohio State Tests grades 4,6, HS





& Mathematics



2014–2015 Writing

Oklahoma Oklahoma Core Curriculum Tests (OCCT)

End-of-Instruction (EOI)







Oregon Smarter Balanced Consortium (SBAC)

Smarter Balanced Consortium (SBAC)

Oregon Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (OAKS), grades 5, 8, HS

Oregon Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (OAKS), grades 5, 8, HS

Oregon Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (OAKS), grade 12

PennsylvaniaPennsylvania Systems School Assessment (PSSA)

Keystone Exams

Pennsylvania Systems School Assessment (PSSA), grades 4, 8

Keystone Exams (HS)

Keystone Exams (HS) --

South Carolina ACT Aspire®

End-of-Course Examination of Progress (EOCEP)

South Carolina Palmetto Assessment of State Standards

SCPASS, grades 4–8

South Carolina Palmetto Assessment of State Standards

SCPASS, grades 4–8

ACT Aspire®

Tennessee

Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program (TCAP)

ACT Plan, grade 8

--

Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program (TCAP), grades 3–8

--

Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program (TCAP) Writing Assessment, grades 3–8

Texas



State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR), 5, 8, HS

State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR), grade 8

State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR), grades 4, 7

UtahStudent Assessment of Growth and Excellence (SAGE)

Student Assessment of Growth and Excellence (SAGE)

ACT (11)

Student Assessment of Growth and Excellence (SAGE), grades 4–11

-- --

Virginia Standards of Learning (SOL)

Standards of Learning (SOL)

End-of-Course Exams (EOC)

Standards of Learning (SOL), grades 5, 8

Standards of Learning (SOL) End-of-Course Exams (EOC)

Standards of Learning (SOL), grade 4 Virginia Studies, grade 7, Civics, grade 8 End-of-Course (EOC)

Standards of Learning (SOL), grade 8

Standards of Learning (SOL) End-of-Course Exam (EOC)

Washington Smarter Balanced Consortium (SBAC)

Smarter Balanced Consortium (SBAC), grade 11

End-of-Course test in Biology

Measurements of Student Progress (MSP) Science, grades 5, 8

-- --

Wisconsin

Badger Exam 3–8, Smarter Balanced Consortium (SBAC), Math only

ACT Aspire, grades 9, 10


Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examination (WKCE), grades 4, 8


Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examination (WKCE), grades 4, 8, 10


Wyoming

Proficiency Assessments for Wyoming Students (PAWS)


ACT Plan, grade 10


Proficiency Assessments for Wyoming Students (PAWS), grades 4, 8


ACT Plan, grade 10


--ACT Plus Writing, grade 11

169

Appendix 3:K12 Leaders

Nathaniel A. Davis, Executive Chairman, is a seasoned leader of transformational telecommunications, media, and software development companies, with a record of improving operations, launching innovative new products, and strengthening relationships with a wide range of customers and authorizers. Mr. Davis joined K12 after a long career in consulting for venture capital, media, and technology-based companies. He previously served as chief executive officer and president of XM Satellite Radio, and as a member of the company’s board of directors, where he strengthened operations and financial performance and led the company through its merger with Sirius Satellite Radio. Mr. Davis was also president and then CEO of XO Communications, an early innovator in telecom that bundled together Internet access, web hosting, and telephone service. Prior to that he helped build the wireless network at Nextel as the executive vice president, and was CFO at MCI Telecom. Along with his broad-based experience in business, Mr. Davis brings a background in computer science and engineering as well as a focused commitment to meeting the needs of every student who chooses to come to K12 to learn and to grow.

Stuart J. Udell, Chief Executive Officer, joined K12 in February 2016 and brings significant strategic and operational experience acquired over a 27-year career in education. Most recently, Mr. Udell served as executive chairman and chief executive officer of Catapult Learning, Inc., a privately held operator of schools and provider of instructional services and professional development. Prior to joining Catapult Learning, Mr. Udell was the president of postsecondary education at The Princeton Review. He was concurrently the chief executive officer of Penn Foster, a global leader in high school and career-focused online learning (acquired in 2009 by The Princeton Review). Mr. Udell spent 11 years at Kaplan, most recently as president of Kaplan K12 Learning Services, where he built the K–12 school division. From 1997 to 2001, Mr. Udell was president of the School Renaissance Institute, the training, publishing, and research subsidiary of Renaissance Learning. Mr. Udell has served for more than thirteen years on the board of directors of the National Dropout Prevention Center/Network (at Clemson University), where he was recently recognized for his contributions as chairman. Mr. Udell holds an MBA from Columbia University and a BS from Bucknell University.

Allison Cleveland, Executive Vice President of School Management and Services, is one of the original staff members of K12, with academic training as an engineer

and master’s degrees in both business and education. She joined K12 in 2002 and, since then, has been instrumental in building the managed public school line of business from the school level to the regional level, and now to the national level. Before holding her current position, she served as the senior vice president of school services, overseeing academic and operational services in the managed public schools. Prior to that, Ms. Cleveland was vice president of the K12 Southern Region and was responsible for schools in the southeastern portion of the United States. In her early years at K12, Ms. Cleveland worked in support of new school startup and school operations, where she was responsible for the successful launch of K12 online academies throughout the country.

Lynda Cloud, Executive Vice President, Products, joined K12 in September 2014. As the head of K12’s Curriculum and Products organization, she oversees the development and delivery of all program content and customer-facing technologies, and drives product strategy and results across all areas of the business. Prior to joining K12, she was with Pearson Publishing for more than 20 years, where she held senior leadership positions in product development, marketing, and product management. In her role as Pearson’s general manager (for science, humanities, and the online learning exchange), she drove strategy for the company’s print and digital properties in the North American educational market.

James Rhyu, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, joined K12 in June 2013, bringing more than 20 years of financial management experience in various global industries. In addition to his extensive finance background, he brings a wealth of experience across a broad range of functions, including human resources, legal, information technology, back office operations, international operations, and product development. Mr. Rhyu holds a BS from the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania and an MBA from the London Business School.

Mary Gifford, Senior Vice President of Academic Policy and External Relations, joined K12 in September 2003. Ms. Gifford leads the Office of Academic Policy, which assists specific schools on key academic challenges, provides support for the efficacy of K12 educational programs, develops new school models, and educates legislators and regulators about virtual learning. Ms. Gifford also provides training to school board partners in the areas of succession planning, governance, and


strategic planning. She previously served as senior vice president of the K12 Central Region, supporting more than a dozen schools in eight states. During her tenure with K12, she has integrated iQ and Insight programs and been involved in opening many new schools. She has led various innovations, including unique hybrid models such as the YMCA and military drop-in sites, and the development of an at-risk model. Ms. Gifford served on the Arizona State Board for Charter Schools (which authorizes more than 500 charter schools) for 11 years as a gubernatorial and state superintendent appointee. Prior to joining K12, Ms. Gifford served as the leadership development director at Mackinac Center for Public Policy and as the education policy director at the Goldwater Institute (during which time the state’s charter school, tax credit, ESA, and other laws were written and researched by the institute). She currently serves on the board of directors of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and as president of a non-profit charter organization in Phoenix. Ms. Gifford holds a BA in political science and economics from Arizona State University, and an MA in educational leadership from Northern Arizona University.

Margaret Jorgensen, Senior Vice President and Chief Academic Officer, is an expert in the use of educational assessments as a powerful instructional tool. She joined K12 in February 2013, bringing extensive experience in design and development work for some of the leading producers of assessment products and other psychometric measures. As chief academic officer, Dr. Jorgensen is helping to lead K12’s ongoing efforts to apply insights from data analysis to the development of state-of-the-art curriculum, technology, learning systems, and teacher support. She is also focused on designing assessments that can be used to improve learning and accountability. She holds master’s degrees in school psychology and business administration, and a doctorate in measurement, evaluation, and statistical analysis.

Jayaram “Bala” Balachander, Chief Technology Officer, joined K12 in August 2014, and is responsible for driving K12’s software development strategy, including the design and development of innovative educational solutions, programs, courses, and products as well as the systems and platforms to support product creation and delivery. Prior to joining K12, Mr. Balachander was senior vice president of product development for educational platforms at Blackboard. Prior to that, he led product development and product management as senior vice president of products for Blackboard Engage. He has also held the chief technology officer role at CTB McGraw-Hill, Pearson School Technologies, and Big Chalk. Mr. Balachander has an MS in chemical engineering from Tulane University and a BS in chemical engineering from Birla Institute of Technology and Science.

Karen Ghidotti, Senior Vice President of School Services, Southern Region, joined K12 in December 2002 as an operations manager for Arkansas Virtual School and worked with the Department of Education to transform ARVS into Arkansas Virtual Academy (ARVA), an independent statewide charter school. After successfully establishing ARVA, Ms. Ghidotti became vice president for the K12 Southern Region. Before joining K12, Ms. Ghidotti worked for the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation to establish and support strong economic and preschool education development initiatives. She spent more than five years managing state and federal grants for the Arkansas Department of Education and working with local school districts to develop after-school programs and parent education programs. Ms. Ghidotti is currently helping to develop K12 initiatives to train and develop highly effective online teachers.

Desiree Laughlin, Vice President of School Services, Western Region, is responsible for supporting K12’s managed schools in seven western states that altogether serve more than 25,000 students. Since joining K12 in 2005, she has held a number of positions, including special education director and head of school for Idaho Virtual Academy. Ms. Laughlin brings more than 25 years of experience in education, including experience in increasing student academic performance among diverse groups of learners (at risk, special needs, and gifted and talented). She holds degrees in education, including a master’s degree in educational leadership. With a background in special education, she understands the value of identifying student strengths and weaknesses in order to better meet their learning needs.

Jennifer Sims, Senior Vice President of School Services, Northern Region, has more than 30 years of experience in education, including 24 years in administrative roles in a variety of traditional and charter school settings. Previously, she served as the vice president for academic services across K12 online and hybrid schools, with a focus on special populations, assessment, accountability, and student achievement. She has served as national director of special programs for K12, with a focus on special education students, English Language Learners, and gifted and talented populations. She received her MEd in administration and supervision.

Todd Thorpe, Vice President of School Services, Central Region, assumed his current position in 2013 after filling a variety of roles at K12, including operations manager for Washington Virtual Academy, head of school for Oregon Virtual Academy, and director of operations and senior director responsible for launching and staffing new schools in the K12 Western Region. In addition to his professional experience, Mr. Thorpe brings an academic background in business and project management. He works closely with leaders across all four K12 regions to ensure consistency in accountability systems.

171

Appendix 4:Norm-Referenced Tests to Gauge Student Progress: Results for 2013–2014

Scantron Performance Series® Assessment Results (2013–2014)1

READING

Number of Students




Group Mean Gain


Grade 3 2,298 2,562.79 2,760.23 197.45 202.7 97%

Grade 4 2,449 2,735.94 2,895.24 159.30 146.72 109%

Grade 5 2,672 2,839.92 2,980.52 140.61 108.06 130%

Grade 6 3,137 2,939.85 3,054.57 114.72 80.91 142%

Grade 7 3,914 3,007.24 3,101.72 94.47 66.37 142%

Grade 8 4,362 3,065.31 3,126.41 61.11 61.52 99%

Grade 9 3,780 3,107.63 3,147.79 40.15 42.96 93%

Grade 10 3,687 3,162.90 3,182.04 19.15 48.88 39%

Overall 26,299 105%

TABLE 1: 2013–2014 SCANTRON MEAN GAIN COMPARISON: READING


MATHEMATICS

Number of Students




Group Mean Gain


Grade 3 2,329 2,328.82 2,519.50 190.69 179.98 106%

Grade 4 2,482 2,446.97 2,607.32 160.34 141.21 114%

Grade 5 2,692 2,539.07 2,683.04 143.97 132.47 109%

Grade 6 3,174 2,613.01 2,749.31 136.30 113.65 120%

Grade 7 3,966 2,691.62 2,794.96 103.34 91.99 112%

Grade 8 4,416 2,749.76 2,824.91 75.15 77.41 97%

Grade 9 3,861 2,775.87 2,819.66 43.79 39.37 111%

Grade 10 3,769 2,820.93 2,861.10 40.17 50.78 79%

Overall 26,689 105%

TABLE 2: 2013–2014 SCANTRON MEAN GAIN COMPARISON: MATHEMATICS

1 Scantron results reported in this appendix are based on the updated methodology (including the methodology for identifying and excluding outliers) we recently adopted and utilized in analyzing the Scantron results contained in this Report, as described on page 26, n. 13.

READING

TABLE 3: 2013–2014 SCANTRON MEAN GAIN COMPARISON BY FRL ELIGIBILITY: READING

MATHEMATICS

TABLE 4: 2013–2014 SCANTRON MEAN GAIN COMPARISON BY FRL ELIGIBILITY: MATHEMATICS



Number of Students K12 Mean Gain




Grade 3 179.98 1,316 172.56 96% 763 204.36 114%

Grade 4 141.21 1,364 151.10 107% 819 169.79 120%

Grade 5 132.47 1,442 130.03 98% 926 155.60 117%

Grade 6 113.65 1,634 115.79 102% 1,095 160.05 141%

Grade 7 91.99 2,078 94.87 103% 1,363 117.85 128%

Grade 8 77.41 2,264 66.67 86% 1,531 84.75 109%

Grade 9 39.37 2,103 29.29 74% 1,264 59.86 152%

Grade 10 50.78 1,932 37.85 75% 1,292 44.88 88%

Overall 14,133 91% 9,053 121%







Grade 3 202.7 1,283 188.08 93% 755 205.43 101%

Grade 4 146.72 1,341 151.99 104% 814 162.43 111%

Grade 5 108.06 1,417 136.50 126% 921 136.86 127%

Grade 6 80.91 1,612 120.02 148% 1,085 114.31 141%

Grade 7 66.37 2,047 92.10 139% 1,363 97.24 147%

Grade 8 61.52 2,231 60.24 98% 1,524 68.86 112%

Grade 9 42.96 2,044 33.30 78% 1,250 46.96 109%

Grade 10 48.88 1,887 14.67 30% 1,272 19.95 41%

Overall 13,862 101% 8,984 111%


173

Appendix 5:Norm-Referenced Tests to Gauge Student Progress: Results for 2013–2014 2015 Academic Report Methodology, Including Certain Previously Excluded Scores

Scantron Performance Series® Assessment Results (2013–2014)1

READING

Number of Students




Group Mean Gain


Grade 3 4,523 2,539.81 2,732.41 192.60 202.7 95%

Grade 4 4,821 2,695.53 2,865.89 170.37 146.72 116%

Grade 5 5,251 2,799.90 2,940.17 140.27 108.06 130%

Grade 6 6,180 2,895.20 3,020.80 125.59 80.91 155%

Grade 7 7,698 2,963.04 3,069.40 106.37 66.37 160%

Grade 8 8,548 3,029.10 3,103.09 73.99 61.52 120%

Grade 9 7,433 3,069.92 3,124.44 54.53 42.96 127%

Grade 10 7,235 3,129.63 3,164.58 34.95 48.88 71%

Overall 51,689 109%

TABLE 1: 2013–2014 SCANTRON READING PERCENTAGE OF NORM GROUP MEAN GAIN BY GRADE

NOTE: The Scantron analysis set forth in the 2015 Academic Report reflected an N-size of 34,445 for Reading. The Scantron analysis set forth in the 2015 Academic Report reported that the percentage of Scantron Norm Group mean gain achieved was 161% for Reading.


MATHEMATICS

Number of Students




Group Mean Gain


Grade 3 4,619 2,326.24 2,515.08 188.83 179.98 105%

Grade 4 4,891 2,444.66 2,604.68 160.01 141.21 113%

Grade 5 5,314 2,536.90 2,674.80 137.90 132.47 104%

Grade 6 6,261 2,607.04 2,741.29 134.26 113.65 118%

Grade 7 7,812 2,682.89 2,792.62 109.72 91.99 119%

Grade 8 8,695 2,740.27 2,825.55 85.29 77.41 110%

Grade 9 7,616 2,771.77 2,829.71 57.95 39.37 147%

Grade 10 7,432 2,819.96 2,872.30 52.34 50.78 103%

Overall 52,640 104%

TABLE 2: 2013–2014 SCANTRON MATHEMATICS PERCENTAGE OF NORM GROUP MEAN GAIN BY GRADE

NOTE: The Scantron analysis set forth in the 2015 Academic Report reflected an N-size of 37,190 for Mathematics. The Scantron analysis set forth in the 2015 Academic Report reported that the percentage of Scantron Norm Group mean gain achieved was 145% for Mathematics.

Source: SY 2013–2014 Gains Data; SY 2013–2014 FRL Data; 2015 Academic Report

175

READING

TABLE 3: 2013–2014 SCANTRON READING PERCENTAGE OF NORM GROUP MEAN GAIN BY FRL ELIGIBILITY

NOTE: FRL Eligible: The Scantron analysis set forth in the 2015 Academic Report reflected an N-size of 18,560 for Reading for FRL Eligible. The Scantron analysis set forth in the 2015 Academic Report reported that the percentage of Scantron Norm Group mean gain achieved was 157% for Reading for FRL Eligible.

Not Eligible for FRL: The Scantron analysis set forth in the 2015 Academic Report reflected an N-size of 11,395 for Reading for Not Eligible for FRL. The Scantron analysis set forth in the 2015 Academic Report reported that the percentage of Scantron Norm Group mean gain achieved was 166% for Reading for Not Eligible for FRL.







Grade 3 202.7 2,519 185.81 92% 1,497 203.11 100%

Grade 4 146.72 2,628 163.11 111% 1,608 178.01 121%

Grade 5 108.06 2,779 138.38 128% 1,819 134.83 125%

Grade 6 80.91 3,154 126.32 156% 2,158 124.69 154%

Grade 7 66.37 4,012 107.75 162% 2,682 105.20 159%

Grade 8 61.52 4,360 71.64 116% 2,995 76.51 124%

Grade 9 42.96 4,011 49.98 116% 2,466 59.33 138%

Grade 10 48.88 3,698 33.34 68% 2,499 35.50 73%

Overall 94.77 107% 110%

1 Scantron results reported in this appendix are based on the same methodology used for calculating Scantron results in the 2015 Academic Report, with the exception that they include scores of students whose difference in scale score fell within Scantron’s standard error of measurement for that difference, which were erroneously excluded in last year’s report. To allow for consistent comparison against the SY 2013–2014 Scantron results as originally reported last year, the revised SY 2013–2014 results reflected in this table does not otherwise use the updated methodology (including the methodology for identifying and excluding outliers) we recently adopted and utilized in analyzing the Scantron results contained in this Report, as described on page 26, n. 13.


MATHEMATICS

TABLE 4: 2013–2014 SCANTRON MATHEMATICS PERCENTAGE OF NORM GROUP MEAN GAIN BY FRL ELIGIBILITY

NOTE: FRL Eligible: The Scantron analysis set forth in the 2015 Academic Report reflected an N-size of 19,427 for Mathematics for FRL Eligible. The Scantron analysis set forth in the 2015 Academic Report reported that the percentage of Scantron Norm Group mean gain achieved was 136% for Mathematics for FRL Eligible.

Not Eligible for FRL: The Scantron analysis set forth in the 2015 Academic Report reflected an N-size of 12,810 for Mathematics for Not Eligible For FRL. The Scantron analysis set forth in the 2015 Academic Report reported that the percentage of Scantron Norm Group mean gain achieved was 157% for Mathematics for Not Eligible For FRL.







Grade 3 179.98 2,587 172.04 96% 1,511 209.38 116%

Grade 4 141.21 2,675 147.68 105% 1,627 173.71 123%

Grade 5 132.47 2,839 127.35 96% 1,825 148.62 112%

Grade 6 113.65 3,212 122.35 108% 2,167 149.42 131%

Grade 7 91.99 4,093 101.92 111% 2,701 120.46 131%

Grade 8 77.41 4,463 79.00 102% 3,015 92.29 119%

Grade 9 39.37 4,151 47.40 120% 2,492 70.76 180%

Grade 10 50.78 3,813 46.26 91% 2,540 60.38 119%

Overall 103.36 95% 115%

Source: SY 2013–2014 Gains Data; SY 2013–2014 FRL Data; 2015 Academic Report

VISIT US: K12.com

TALK WITH US: 866.968.7512

Copyright © 2016 K12 Inc. All rights reserved. K12 is a registered trademark of K12 Inc. The K12 logo and other marks referenced herein are trademarks of K12 Inc. and its subsidiaries, and other marks are owned by third parties.

2016 Academic Report - K12 Guide to Schools Included in 2016 Academic Report Analyses For schools...

Documents

Transcript of 2016 Academic Report - K12 Guide to Schools Included in 2016 Academic Report Analyses For schools...