academic report - k12.comappendix c: k12 private school profiles (2015–2016) appendix d:...

2017 K12

ACADEMICREPORT

3 | 2017 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT

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

CAO Foreword: Changes in State Testing and School Accountability

K12 Public School Programs: Performance Analysis and Innovation

The “State” of State Testing in 2015–2016

Market Demand for Online Learning

K12 Driving Innovation: Accountability Dashboards

Appendices

Appendix A: School Comparisons to the States (2015–2016)

Appendix B: Free and Reduced Price Lunch and Special Education Eligibility by School Compared to State

Appendix C: K12 Private School Profiles (2015–2016)

Appendix D: Alphabetical Guide to Schools Included in 2017 K12 Academic Report

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 with whom we contract; 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.

2

4

78

28

40

4748

99

102

103

TABLE OF CONTENTS


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

This report provides test results for 2015–2016 comparing school performance to state performance and shows the difference between school and state performance for representative schools. We are encouraged to see certain exams and grades in some schools that have exceeded the state proficiency percentages, and we have instituted programs to improve academic performance across all the schools we serve.

The focus on improving instruction in 2015–2016 was (1) reporting critical data to schools in a timely manner so that midyear adjustments could be made, and (2) expanding and refining the Instructional Coaching program to strengthen teacher effectiveness in English Language Arts/Reading and in Mathematics. Teachers routinely received coaching support from experienced teachers in the online and blended environment. Although this transformation across all the schools we serve will likely take more than one year, we know that this investment in teachers is an investment in helping students learn and achieve.

Our analyses indicates that many K12 school1 programs continue to underperform their states in Mathematics, which is not uncommon in public schools with high proportions of economically disadvantaged students.2, 3 We are still seeing the impact of poverty as students who are eligible for free and reduced price lunch continue to underperform students

who are not eligible for subsidized meals. Again, this is a common reality in brick and mortar public schools as well. All schools need to meet the nonacademic needs of students who suffer from the broader impact of poverty. K12 has taken and continues to take this challenge seriously. We expanded our Family Academic Support Team (FAST) initiative to mitigate many of the nonacademic challenges facing students. While supporting the individual needs of students, in 2015–2016, we also initiated a national instructional coaching program for both new and returning teachers to increase their abilities to support every student. And we sustained our ongoing research initiatives to determine the efficacy of instructional programs.

Leveraging the research findings and best practices within our schools and in the industry, we developed a new Academic Excellence Framework as a guide and a set of criteria to improve instructional effectiveness in the online learning environment. This new plan was launched in 2016–2017 across all our managed public school programs and we will be reporting on its efficacy in future academic reports.

We have extended our view of persistence—students who remain continuously enrolled for three or more years continue to outperform students who are enrolled one year or less. Again, this is a reminder that the impact of mobility occurs in brick and mortar schools as well as in

1 This report sometimes refers to “K12 schools” or “our schools” or “K12 students” as a shorthand way to describe the online and blended 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. We are honored to be selected as a vendor to the public boards we serve.

2 J. Isaacs, & K. Magnuson, Income and Education as Predictors of Children’s School Readiness, (Washington, DC: Center on Children and Families, Brookings Institute, 2011).3 The Impact of Poverty on Student Outcomes (Hanover Institute, 2015, January).

The fifth annual K12 Academic Report continues our commitment to accountability and transparency. It includes all K12 online and blended public school programs with publicly available state test results for 2015–2016 in grades 3–8 English Language Arts and/or Reading and Mathematics as well as in high school for assessments in English and Mathematics/Algebra 1.

3

online and blended schools. Students need stability in their educational environment through graduation to be able to succeed. Our Students First initiative this year also included the introduction of a customizable graduation planning tool to keep students on-track for commencement. The tool features a centralized repository with complete course credit history to help schools thoughtfully manage each student’s personalized graduation roadmap. Characterized by a handy dashboard and data analytics capabilities, the tool identifies credit gaps so that educators can step in and provide assistance exactly when it is needed, as opposed to after it is too late.

One of the distinct advantages of online and blended learning environments is that many more data points are readily available to heads of school than in traditional brick and mortar schools. While we protect individual student data consistent with state and federal privacy laws, aggregated student engagement information in the online and blended environment helps us to understand learning patterns and how students choose to use their instructional time. Our goal is to identify the different ways we can motivate students to learn rigorous content while stimulating their engagement.

The K12 Academic Report is part of our broad research efforts at K12. We are committed to continuing to research the relationship between student achievement and variables such as school structure, teacher effectiveness, learner preferences for synchronous or asynchronous instructional sessions, as well as any other engagement behaviors that will help us better meet the needs of every student. We regularly collect and examine data at the classroom, school, regional, and national levels to ensure that we are doing everything possible to support student learning. These data hold promise for enhancing the learning outcomes of many

students who struggle in traditional school environments and will enhance the learning for the many advanced learners in online and blended schools.

In 2015–2016, K12 served more than 100,000 students in grades kindergarten through grade 12 and graduated more than 5,800 high school seniors. We are proud of the families who choose K12 managed public schools as well as those who use our course offerings at their local traditional brick and mortar districts/schools. These families are searching for the best solutions for their students, and our goal is to meet and exceed their expectations.

Online and blended schools and programs face many of the same challenges of brick and mortar schools. We continue to share what we have learned through blogs, white papers published throughout each year, and presentations at educator and policy meetings. We look for partnerships across the online and blended learning environment.

We will extend our research to cover new initiatives in future reports as well as in research briefs, white papers, and blogs. All of us at K12 are committed and dedicated to supporting the academic success of students and families who choose the online learning environment. We know that we can only succeed when our students succeed—so we begin and end each day with “Students First.”

Nate Davis Executive Chairman

Stuart Udell Chief Executive Officer


The 2017 K12 Academic Report continues our commitment to effective practices and innovation designed to improve the learning experience for students. The main body of this Academic Report is structured to focus on three areas of interest. First, we present a description of the continuing changes in state testing programs with examples of results for grades 3–8 and high school. Second, we provide an update on market demand for new approaches to online learning. Third, we preview an innovative approach to school accountability that focuses on students. In the Appendices, we report the 2015–2016 assessment results and demographics for the online and blended public school programs that K12 managed during that year.

CAO FOREWORD: Changes in State Testing and School Accountability


States have historically wanted autonomy in establishing curricula and testing programs. While the consortia, established through grants from the federal government in 2010, appeared to have caused states to agree on common assessments (PARCC and SBAC),4 states began withdrawing from these collaborative ventures in 2014–2015. The state testing environment continued to change in the 2015–2016 school year. More states chose to depart from the consortia, leading to more and more states having their own state assessment programs.

The number of states using PARCC shrank from 11 states plus the District of Columbia in 2014–2015 to eight states plus the District of Columbia in 2015–2016 and in SBAC from 18 in 2014–2015 to 15 in 2015–2016. These shifts resulted in six states moving to their own new state assessment systems in 2015–2016. Only 23 states used the same assessments in 2015–2016 that they had administered in prior years. Of the 33 states plus the District of Columbia in which K12 managed public school programs, the number of states with new state testing programs was 11 in 2014–2015 and 11 in 2015–

2016.5 This continued the challenges in interpreting school performance year over year.

K12 works diligently to improve the learning experience and the learning outcomes for students who choose to participate in online and blended schools. In order to ensure that we are making the right decisions about teacher and administrator training, curriculum structure, interim assessments, etc., we have developed several different ways to support credible and valid interpretation of academic performance year-over-year in such a changing testing environment. In this report, the reader will see examples of one approach—that is comparing school performance to state performance by subject and grade to understand the extent to which schools are performing on par with the state aggregate percentage of students at or above proficiency. In other documents produced through our rigorous research program, we also report out on school comparisons using a methodology which normalizes scores around proficiency cut-scores. All of our research is focused on improving teaching, the curriculum, and learning in the environment for students who choose to attend an online or blended school managed by K12.

4 Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Career (PARCC) and the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC).5 Calculated from data found in the following articles representing grades 3–8 and high school: L. Jurkowitz & S. Decker, “The National Testing Landscape,” Education Week (2015),

http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/map-the-national-k-12-testing-landscape.html, and S. Bannerjee, “State Testing: An Interactive Breakdown of 2015-16 Plans. (2016), http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/state-testing-an-interactive-breakdown-of-2015-16.html

5

Due to the discontinuity of 11 states withdrawing from the testing consortia, establishing their own state-specific testing programs in 2015–2016, it becomes challenging to fully understand whether schools are becoming more or less effective—since the measures are changing. At the same time, we continue to see school and state results reported between the end of the school year and the beginning of the second quarter of the next school year. This lag between testing and reporting makes it impossible to intervene in a timely manner so that students who need additional academic support can be ready for the following school year. Stability of state testing programs and more timely delivery of results back to the schools are important to helping each student learn at grade level.

K12 continues to report school results from 2015–2016 in terms of the percent proficient by grade for English Language Arts or Reading, and Mathematics in grades 3–8, and their equivalent content areas in high school. And, because some of the managed public schools are still part of PARCC, some are part of SBAC, some have used the same state-specific testing programs for several years, and others have launched a new testing program in 2015–2016, we compare school results with either the consortium aggregate or with the state aggregate.


K12 continues to innovate in response to market demands. Our partnership with urban school districts provides opportunities for delivering a blended learning model for students. The Chicago Virtual Charter School, founded in 2006, was one of the earliest comprehensive blended models in the country. Public districts and schools want to incorporate technology into teaching and learning and K12 is eager to support them to best meet and exceed their needs. Additionally, K12 understands the necessity of preparing students both academically and technically for college and career opportunities in their future. Over the course of the 2016–2017 school year, K12 expanded career technical education (CTE) programs across six schools and up to eight different CTE areas of focus.


We continue to study the relationship between student mobility and poverty on academic performance. Because both mobility (movement from school-to-school) and poverty have long been recognized as having a negative effect on student learning, it makes sense to recognize that “success” in a school with high mobility and high levels of family poverty may not be the same as “success” in a school without those external pressures. It is time to use these findings to innovate school accountability systems to recognize that all students are not the same and that measures of success should reflect the student and family populations that each school serves along with the unique mission of each school. We believe that measures of school effectiveness need to take these differences into account through a student-centered accountability model.

The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) gives individual states more flexibility in shaping their accountability systems and assessments. We anticipate that states will make varying use of summative and interim assessments to measure within-year growth along with movement toward standards mastery. We hope that many states may revise their growth models to incorporate interim results as well as factoring in both mobility and poverty. Finally, we anticipate that schools and states will choose to report information that their stakeholders (families) are interested in, such as teacher turnover, student attendance, etc. In the section on K12 Driving Innovation: Accountability Dashboards, we offer a dashboard approach that supports a new and more transparent reporting approach in order to recognize additional measures that contribute to student success.

Everything we examine and research in our online and blended school programs is focused on improving the learning experience and outcomes for the students and families who choose this option for public education. We remain committed to this goal.

Margaret Jorgensen, Chief Academic Officer

7

K12 Public School Programs: Performance Analysis and Innovation



State testing programs have long had both great potential as well as caused great frustration. From educators' perspectives, these programs improve teaching and learning. From the perspectives of students and families, they take too much time away from learning and add too much stress on students to demonstrate "on demand" what they have learned. In 2015–2016, these same potential benefits and costs remained. The tension between these two positions points to important information that both educators and families need to know: (a) What do students know and what do they not know? and (b) How do we reduce the length (and stress) of the testing experience while still capturing valid and reliable information about each student’s learning? The assessment results provide, after all, an important, reliable, and valid source of information about what students know and can do.

In addition to these foundational tensions, states have historically wanted autonomy in setting content standards, selecting testing vendors, specifying specific content to be assessed, and setting the cut scores that determine student proficiency. Adding complexity to this is the process of states periodically updating learning standards, leading to new state assessments, shifts in professional development for teachers, and new learning goals for students. These factors have resulted in state assessment results that are not directly comparable across states, nor even across years within a state. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) does provide state-by-state comparable information but the assessment used is administered to samples of students, not entire populations; it is administered to only certain grade levels and in certain content areas—and it is not administered on an annual basis. While NAEP provides a valid and reliable longitudinal view of education in the United States, it does not provide information to drive either instruction or school improvement.

The introduction of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and the creation of two multistate testing consortia were the recent attempts of the federal government to bring commonality across the states with respect to both content standards and assessment rigor and experience.

Many educators, families, and state leaders pushed back on these efforts from the beginning and by 2015–2016, the depth of discontent with the common content standards and especially with the testing consortia (Partnership for Readiness for College and Career [PARCC] and Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium [SBAC]) was evident. Indicators of discontent included families opting out for their students, refusing to have their children participate in PARCC, or SBAC testing; administrators noting that the lag time between test administration and score reporting was the same or longer than state-specific testing programs; educators complaining about how early in the school year the assessments were administered (February, March, April); and virtually everyone complaining about the extended time spent in testing as opposed to learning.

For states adopting new state assessments, there are additional delays resulting from the processes of setting proficiency standards on those new assessments. The political process alone can take months beginning with convening standard setting committees, reviewing data against the proposed proficiency standards, and, finally, obtaining state board of education approval of those standards.

9

6 J. Gonzales, “Many Tennessee Teachers Find State’s Standardized Assessments Unhelpful, Survey Says,” Tennessean.com (August 9, 2017), http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/education/2017/08/09/tennessee-educator-survey-find-states-standardized-assessments-unhelpful-tnready/551736001/

Federal intervention in education vis-à-vis the Race to the Top funding of both adoption of CCSS and membership in the testing consortia was an opportunity to at least allow direct comparisons of state academic performance in grades K–12. But the notable dropouts from each of the two testing consortia has essentially limited comparing school performance year-over-year across states.

The reality of 2015–2016 and going forward will be that more states are likely to drop out of the consortia seeking less expensive assessment alternatives. Families will continue to push back on multiple days of testing in vocal, if not large numbers. Scoring and reporting will continue to take months, not weeks, complicated periodically by new proficiency standards adopted through a lengthy political review process.

But the most important issue not being addressed is the quality and timeliness of the assessment results to help teachers better meet the needs of families. In a survey conducted with teachers in Tennessee, 65 percent of educators said that assessments do not help redefine teaching practices.6 In response to this deficiency, K12 is innovating around using interim assessments and predictive data so that teachers know whether students have mastered the content needed to reach proficiency and are trending positively toward goals. We are developing methodologies to allow for valid direct comparisons across different assessments (interim and summative) and to ensure that teachers have the information they need, when they need it, to ensure that students are on track to proficiency and higher achievement. While we recognize the need for state boards of education and other regulatory entities to hold public schools to specific performance standards, the core of school performance and improvement is student learning, and student learning is best informed by timely, reliable, and valid assessment information.

Length of Time Between Testing and Reporting In the 21st century, current information is available in real time in banking, entertainment, news, etc., it is concerning that testing information takes weeks, or even months, to be available for families and educators. If the primary purpose of assessment is to tell teachers and families what students know and can do and what they need to learn to progress

through the grade levels, delays of weeks or months make that information less valuable. While this delayed data can help when making decisions about the health of a whole school or district, but the irony is that these aggregate data come from students and those students are not being helped to improve their learning in a timely manner.

Figure 1 shows the lag between the first day of student testing and the date those scores were available to the schools for state assessment administered in grades 3–8. The 21 schedules reported in Figure 1 are for those states that have either a large school (enrollment > 3,000) or multiple schools managed by K12 in 2015–2016. Note that only two states (Florida and Texas) reported results before the end of the school year in which the assessments were administered. Three states delivered results after October 1, 2016, and 16 states delivered reports during the summer. This suggests that, for most students, the opportunity to intervene and remediate before the 2015–2016 school year ended was not available, and in too many states, data were not available to customize instruction before schools and teachers developed plans for the next school year.

The initial purpose of the standards-based assessment movement was to define and measure student performance on the specific content standards for each subject and grade that students need to have mastered in order to be successful in the subsequent grade. Unfortunately, the long period of time between test administration and the receipt of student score reports makes it very difficult for teachers to intervene and provide the appropriate remediation for students before they begin the next school year. This lag between test administration and report availability is caused by different reasons. Some of the delays are caused by scoring of open-ended questions in addition to multiple-choice questions. Some of the delays are caused by equating processes to ensure comparability year-over-year. Some of the delays are because of the standard-setting process when state testing programs change. The standard-setting process is political and requires the adoption of proficiency category cut scores by state boards of education. Some of the delays are caused by vendor errors and technology issues. Regardless of the reasons, the use of assessment results to intervene in a timely manner for students who need additional instruction is delayed until the next school year when these students likely have different teachers and are beginning the new school year—already behind.


10/5/166/27/163/19/1612/10/159/1/15 1/13/17

ALARAZCACODCFL

GAIDILIN

MAMNNCNMOHPASCTXUTWI

FIGURE 1: State Testing Time Between Testing and Reporting (Grades 3–8, 2015–2016 School Year)

Days Without Testing

Figure 2 shows the same pattern for high school assessments.

10/5/166/27/163/19/1612/10/159/1/15 1/13/17

ALARAZCACODCFL

GAIDILIN

MAMNNCNMOHPASCTXUTWI

FIGURE 2: State Testing Time Between Testing and Reporting (High School, 2015–2016 School Year)

Days Without Testing

The opportunity cost of this lag is dramatic. While there are many differences across industries, an analogous industry is healthcare. It is difficult to imagine that customers would be

satisfied with this lag between seeing a doctor for a diagnosis and receiving the diagnosis and treatment plan months later.

STA

TE

DATE

STA

TE

DATE

Note: District of Columbia school only served students in grades 3–8; therefore, data is reported in Figure 1.

11

K12 Public School Programs Performance Analysis 2015–2016: IntroductionIn the 2015–2016 school year, the landscape of state testing continued to shift. As shown in Figure 3, in 2010, 19 states had joined SBAC; 13 states had joined PARCC; and 13 states had joined both SBAC and PARCC. By May of school year 2015–2016, the total number of states still in one or both consortia was down to 20. Many states switched to new state-specific assessments. Most states using a consortia assessment followed the consortia’s recommendations for cut scores to determine proficiency, but some set their own cut scores. There were other challenges as well. For example, Tennessee invalidated all state assessment results due to assessment scoring issues. Additionally some states suspended school accountability ratings.7

One can hypothesize that the driver leading to withdrawal from the consortia was funding since the Race to the Top funds were no longer available and states had to pay the full price for development, deployment, scoring, and reporting. Another hypothesis is that the market response, especially to PARCC, was that the tests were too difficult and required too many days of testing. From a policy perspective, education has always been a state right. Without a significant benefit to each state from the consortia and without continued strong support for the CCSS, it is not a surprise to see states reverting to their historical practice of building their own state assessments. This movement has been driven by strong grass roots initiatives of parents and families to take back control over their children’s education.8 Families have opted out in large numbers in some states.9 One source reported that, in 2014–2015, more than 675,000 students refused to participate in state testing across the United States.10 In addition, the “so-called Mommy Lobby” has been vocal about CCSS, and this has sparked a strong political backlash across a range of voter constituencies.

7 A. Jochim & P. McGuinn, “The Politics of the Common Core Assessments: Why States Are Quitting the PARCC and Smarter Balanced Testing Consortia,” Education Next (Fall 2016), http://educationnext.org/files/ednext_xvi_4_jochim_mcguinn.pdf

8 Arizonans Against Common Core, http://www.arizonansagainstcommoncore.com/news.html9 J. Schweig, “The Opt-Out Reckoning: An Ever-Growing Call to Opt Out of Standardized Tests Is Prompting Serious Questions in Education,” USNews (2016), https://www.

usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-05-09/who-does-the-movement-to-opt-out-of-standardized-testing-help10 FairTest: The National Center for Fair and Open Testing, “More Than 670,000 Refused Tests in 2015,” December 12, 2015, updated August 29, 2916, to “More Than 675,000

Students Refused State Tests Across U.S. in 2015,” http://www.fairtest.org/more-500000-refused-tests-2015

2010 2016

THE SHIFTING LANDSCAPE OF STATE TESTING

2010 TESTINGLANDSCAPE

2016 TESTINGLANDSCAPE

05

1015

20253035404550

2010 2016

SBAC

PARCC

Both SBAC & PARCC

SBAC, PARCC, or Both

SBAC PARCC Both SBAC & PARCC State-Designed

Nearly half of all states have dropped SBAC and PARCC tests

It takes, on average, 22 weeks from the time the student takes the test until the results are released to the student and school.

LENGTH OF TIME: TEST TAKEN TO RESULTS RETURNED

0

10

20

30

40

GRADES 3–8 WEEKS WITHOUT DATA

Weeks Without Data

0

10

20

30

40

HIGH SCHOOL WEEKS WITHOUT DATA

Weeks Without DataMin Max Mean

Min Max Mean

11.1%

37.6

22.7%

4.6%

37.6

22.0%

NU

MB

ER O

F ST

ATE

S P

AR

TIC

IPA

TIN

G

FIGURE 3: The Shifting Landscape of State Testing


The disruption of changing testing programs brings various delay issues, from timing of test administration to anticipating delays in reporting and acting on data. Educators and families must get prepared for different test blueprints, often new question types and question formats, and often different testing times. Issues involving transitions to and from participation in one of the two primary testing consortia highlight these disruptions. Movement into the testing consortia was a major adjustment for many families and educators. Then, movement out of the consortia back to state-specific testing programs caused another wave of disruption.

These continued changes add to the complication in analyzing the year-over-year trends in the performance of K12 managed 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 the same or new 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 continued to shift in 2015–2016, we have retained the analytic framework we introduced in the 2016 K12 Academic Report (which reported data from the 2014–2015 school year), organizing our performance analysis in ways that we hope will help readers navigate the sometimes confusing landscape of state testing. We are retaining the same structure (PARCC, SBAC, Same State Tests Year-Over-Year, and New State Tests). But, as mentioned above, some states departed the consortia in 2015–2016—so while they were in either the PARCC or SBAC

sections of the 2016 K12 Academic Report, they are reported in the 2017 K12 Academic Report in the section titled Group 4: K12 Public School Programs Administering New State Tests in 2015–2016.

Persistence and Free and Reduced Price Lunch

We report overall results from K12 public school programs from which publicly available test results were available 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)

For the 2015–2016 school year, we continue to see a positive relationship between length of a student’s continuous enrollment in a K12 managed public school and their proficiency on state assessments. (See Figure 4.)

• 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: 17 percentage points higher in English Language Arts, 12 percentage points higher in Reading, and 14 percentage points higher in Mathematics. (See Table 1.)

FIGURE 4: 2015–2016 Proficiency Percentages by Subject and Persistence (Grades 3–8)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

3 years or more2 years but less than three years

1 year but less than two years

Less than 1 year

70%

39%

30%24%

32%39%

32%

49%

38%

65%61%

73%

PER

CEN

TAG

E A

T O

R A

BO

VE

PR

OFI

CIE

NC

Y

PERSISTENCE BY SUBJECT

English Language Arts Reading Mathematics

13

ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS READING MATHEMATICS

%AAP Total Count %AAP Total Count %AAP Total Count

Less than 1 year 32% 10,843 61% 2,814 24% 13,481

1 year but less than 2 years 39% 9,695 65% 2,522 30% 12,121

2 years but less than 3 years 39% 4,904 70% 801 32% 5,682

3 years or more 49% 7,090 73% 845 38% 7,959

%AAP Increase or Decrease* +17 +12 +14

TABLE 1: 2015–2016 Proficiency Percentages by Subject and Persistence (Grades 3–8)

*%AAP = percentage at or above prof iciency. Calculation represents students enrolled 3 years or more compared to students enrolled less than 1 year in percentage points.

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

For HSGTs and EOCs, students enrolled in K12 public school programs 3 or more years, compared to students enrolled

less than 1 year, achieved higher percentages at or above proficiency: 18 percentage points higher in English Language Arts, 3 percentage points higher in Mathematics, 7 percentage points higher in English 1, and 10 percentage points in Algebra 1. (See Table 2)

FIGURE 5: 2015–2016 Proficiency Percentages by Subject (High School)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%



Less than 1 year

54%

45%

17%18%

46%50%

20%

53%

29%25% 34% 35%

21%

50%47%

65%

PER

CEN

TAG

E A

T O

R A

BO

VE

PR

OFI

CIE

NC

Y


HSGT EOC

ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS MATHEMATICS ENGLISH 1 ALGEBRA 1

%AAP Total Count %AAP Total Count %AAP Total Count %AAP Total Count

Less than 1 year 47% 856 18% 1,255 46% 1,156 25% 1,223

1 year but less than 2 years 50% 1,036 17% 1,252 45% 1,304 29% 1,410

2 years but less than 3 years 54% 532 20% 620 50% 524 34% 659

3 years or more 65% 678 21% 808 53% 902 35% 1,033

%AAP Increase or Decrease* +18 +3 +7 +10

TABLE 2: 2015–2016 Proficiency Percentages by Subject (High School)

*%AAP = percentage at or above prof iciency. Calculation represents students enrolled 3 years or more compared to students enrolled less than 1 year in percentage points.

English Language Arts Mathematics English 1 Algebra 1


STUDENTS ELIGIBLE FOR FREE AND REDUCED PRICE LUNCH

Nationwide All K12 Public School Programs

52% 61%

In 2015–2016, for K12 students across all grades and subjects tested eligible for free or reduced price lunch, performance trends consistent with prior years are reported in Figures 6 and 7 and Tables 3 and 4.

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

• Both free and reduced price lunch eligible underperformed students who were not eligible for subsidized meals.

According to the National Center for Education Statistics for the most recent school year available (2014–2015), nationally, 51.65% of students were eligible for free or reduced price lunch. In comparison, for all students in grades 3–8 and high school in K12 public school programs, 60.82% (rounded to the nearest whole number in the table to the right) were eligible for free or reduced price lunch in 2015–2016. (NCES has not released data for the 2015–2016 school year, but the data released for the 2014–2015 school year was 59% at K12 schools.) See appendix B for more information on free and reduced price lunch status by school.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

%AAPMathematics

%AAPReading

%AAPEnglish Language Arts

42%

33%

51%

65%60%

75%

32%

23%

41%

PER

CEN

TAG

E A

T O

R A

BO

VE

PR

OFI

CIE

NC

Y

SUBJECT AND FRL STATUS

Free Lunch Eligible

Reduced Price Lunch Eligible

Not Eligible

FIGURE 6: 2015–2016 Proficiency Percentages by Subject and FRL Eligibility (Grades 3–8)

ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS READING MATHEMATICS

%AAP

Difference Relative

to Not Eligiblein percentage points

Total Count %AAP

Difference Relative


Total Count %AAP

Difference Relative


Total Count

Free Lunch Eligible 33% -18 11,968 60% -15 2,253 23% -18 14,136

Reduced Price Eligible 42% -9 3,795 65% -10 879 32% -9 4,635

Not Eligible 51% NA 10,064 75% NA 2,038 41% NA 11,996

TABLE 3: 2015–2016 Proficiency Percentages by Subject and FRL Eligibility (Grades 3–8)

%AAP = percentage at or above prof iciency. “Dif ference” columns report the gap (in percentage points) between students eligible for subsidized meals and those not eligible. NA: Not applicable because the numbers in this column report the gap relative to Not Eligible students.

15

The same pattern reported for grades 3–8 is evident in high school (see Figure 7 and Table 4) with the single exception of Mathematics where reduced price eligible and not eligible

%AAP suggest equivalency between reduced price lunch and not eligible students.

TABLE 4: 2015–2016 Proficiency Percentages by Subject and FRL Eligibility (High School)

HSGT EOC

ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS READING ENGLISH 1 ALGEBRA 1

%AAP

Difference Relative

to Not Eligiblein percentage

points

Total Count %AAP

Difference Relative


points

Total Count %AAP

Difference Relative


points

Total Count %AAP

Difference Relative


points

Total Count

Free Lunch Eligible

45% -15 1,098 15% -6 1,288 41% -18 1,353 25% -15 1,660

Reduced Price Eligible

51% -9 414 22% +1 471 52% -7 474 32% -8 586

NotEligible 60% NA 1,304 21% NA 1,463 59% NA 1,164 40% NA 1,370

%AAP = percentage at or above prof iciency. “Dif ference” columns report the gap (in percentage points) between students eligible for subsidized meals and those not eligible. NA: Not applicable because the numbers in this column report the gap relative to Not Eligible students.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Algebra 1English 1MathematicsEnglish Language Arts

45%51%

60%

15%

22% 21%

41%

52%59%

25%32%

40%

SUBJECT AND FRL STATUS

FIGURE 7: 2015–2016 Proficiency Percentages by Subject and FRL Eligibility (High School)

PER

CEN

TAG

E A

T O

R A

BO

VE

PR

OFI

CIE

NC

Y Free Lunch Eligible

Reduced Price Lunch Eligible

Not Eligible


How Performance Analyses Are Organized

Further complicating the interpretation scenario across states is the fact that while PARCC reported proficiency levels across the consortium, SBAC did not report these data across its consortium. Therefore, the reader will see school performance on PARCC compared to the state performance in the state in which each school resides and to the PARCC consortium as well as the district comparison. For schools that administered SBAC, those results are compared to the state only. For the schools in non-consortia states, we report out the school results from 2015–2016 compared to the state. Included in each of the four analyses, each section contains an example of school results from the K12 public school programs within that grouping.

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS GROUPINGS

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

• Group 1: K12 Public School Programs Administering PARCC in 2015–2016

• Group 2: K12 Public School Programs Administering SBAC in 2015–2016

• Group 3: K12 Public school Programs Using the Same State Testing Program from 2014–2015 to 2015–2016

• Group 4: K12 Public School Programs Administering New State Testing Programs in 2015–2016

Results from K12 public school programs include Full Academic Year (FAY) students who enroll by each state’s unique FAY state date and remain continuously enrolled.

17

2015–2016 ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY

Grade FPCSO %AAP

FPCSOTotal Count

District %AAP

Difference Between FPCSO and the District of Columbia

in percentage points

Overall PARCC Consortium %AAP

Difference Between FPCSO and the PARCC Consortium


3rd * * 26% * 38% *

4th * * 29% * 42% *

5th 20% 10 29% -9 41% -16

6th 64% 11 26% +38 39% +31

7th 31% 13 27% +4 42% +2

8th 42% 12 29% +13 42% +16

TABLE 5: 2015–2016 FPCSO Comparison to District and PARCC Consortium: English Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 3–8)

%AAP = percentage at or above prof iciency. *Results not reported because the number of students was not suf f icient (n<10) to support meaningful analysis.

GRADES 3–8

English Language Arts

• In 2015–2016 English Language Arts, FPCSO outperformed the District of Columbia schools in grades 6, 7, and 8 by 4 to 38 percentage points.

• In 2015–2016 English Language Arts/Literacy, FPCSO students outperformed the PARCC consortium in grades 6, 7, and 8 by 2 to 31 percentage points.

FRIENDSHIP PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL ONLINE (FPCSO)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

8th7th6th5th

20%

29%

41%

64%

26%

39%

31%27%

42% 42%

29%

42%

PER

CEN

TAG

E A

T O

R A

BO

VE

PR

OFI

CIE

NC

Y

GRADE LEVEL

Group 1: K12 Public School Programs Administering PARCC in 2015–2016

2015–2016 FPCSO

2015–2016 District

2015–2016 Overall PARCC Consortium

FIGURE 8: 2015–2016 FPCSO Comparison to District and PARCC Consortium: English Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 3–8)

Sources: State data: ht tp://results.osse.dc.gov/state/DC PARCC consortium data: ht tp://www.polit ico.com/states/f/?id=00000158-73e6-dc8a-a15c-f f fe6d460000 School data: K12 Academic Performance Database.


Mathematics

• In 2015–2016 Mathematics, FPCSO outperformed the District of Columbia schools in grades 6 and 8 by 15 and 19 percentage points, respectively, and equaled district performance in grade 7.

• In 2015–2016 Mathematics, FPCSO students outperformed the PARCC consortium in grades 6 and 8 by 3 and 7 percentage points, respectively.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

8th7th6th5th

20%

30%36% 35%

21%

33%

17% 17%

29%33%

14%

26%

GRADE LEVEL

TABLE 6: 2015–2016 FPCSO Comparison to District and PARCC Consortium: Mathematics (Grades 3–8)

%AAP = percentage at or above prof iciency. *Results not reported because the number of students was not suf f icient (n<10) to support meaningful analysis.

2015–2016 MATHEMATICS

Grade FPCSO %AAP

FPCSOTotal Count

District %AAP

Difference Between FPCSO and the District of Columbia



Difference Between FPCSO and the PARCC Consortium


3rd * * 37% * 43% *

4th * * 32% * 35% *

5th 20% 10 30% -10 36% -16

6th 36% 11 21% +15 33% +3

7th 17% 12 17% = 29% -12

8th 33% 12 14% +19 26% +7

2015–2016 FPCSO

2015–2016 District


FIGURE 9: 2015–2016 FPCSO Comparison to District and PARCC Consortium: Mathematics (Grades 3–8)


PER

CEN

TAG

E A

T O

R A

BO

VE

PR

OFI

CIE

NC

Y

19

HIGH SCHOOL

• In 2015–2016 English Language Arts/Literacy, CVCS students outperformed the state by 3 percentage points.

• In 2015–2016 Algebra 1, CVCS students outperformed the state by 4 percentage points.

CHICAGO VIRTUAL CHARTER SCHOOL (CVCS)

2015–2016 SCHOOL YEAR

Subject (grade) CVCS %AAP

CVCS Total

Count

State %AAP

Difference Between CVCS and State in percentage points


Difference Between CVCS and PARCC

Consortium in percentage points

English Language Arts/Literacy (grade 9) 37% 27 34% +3 39% -2

Algebra 1 (grade 9) 26% 31 22% +4 33% -7

TABLE 7: 2015–2016 CVCS Comparison to District and PARCC Consortium: By Subjects (High School)

%AAP = percentage at or above prof iciency.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Algebra 1 (grade 9)English Language Arts/Literacy (grade 9)

34%37% 39%

22%26%

33%

PER

CEN

TAG

E A

T O

R A

BO

VE

PR

OFI

CIE

NC

Y

SUBJECT

2015–2016 CVCS

2015–2016 State


FIGURE 10: 2015–2016 CVCS Comparison to District and PARCC Consortium: By Subject (High School)



GRADES 3–8

English Language Arts/Literacy

• In 2015–2016 English Language Arts/Literacy, CAVA-San Mateo students outperformed the state in grades 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 by 1 to 25 percentage points.

CALIFORNIA VIRTUAL ACADEMY AT SAN MATEO (CAVA-SAN MATEO)

GRADE LEVEL

Group 2: K12 Public School Programs Administering SBAC in 2015–2016

2015–2016 CAVA-San Mateo

2015–2016 State (CA)

TABLE 8: 2015–2016 CAVA-San Mateo Comparison to State: English Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 3–8)

2015–2016 ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY

Grade CAVA-San Mateo %AAP

CAVA-San MateoTotal Count

State %AAP

Difference Between CAVA-San Mateo and the State


3rd 68% 38 43% +25

4th 45% 42 44% +1

5th 53% 30 49% +4

6th 40% 52 48% -8

7th 51% 72 48% +3

8th 54% 79 48% +6


FIGURE 11: 2015–2016 CAVA-San Mateo Comparison to State: English Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 3–8)

PER

CEN

TAG

E A

T O

R A

BO

VE

PR

OFI

CIE

NC

Y

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

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

43% 44%49% 48% 48% 48%

68%

45%

53%

40%

51% 54%

Sources: State data: ht tp://caaspp.cde.ca.gov School data: K12 Academic Performance Database.

21

Mathematics

• In 2015–2016 Mathematics, CAVA-San Mateo students outperformed the state in grades 4 and 5 by 5 to 14 percentage points and equaled the state in grades 6 and 7.

TABLE 9: 2015–2016 CAVA-San Mateo Comparison to State: Mathematics (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 12: 2015–2016 CAVA-San Mateo Comparison to State: Mathematics (Grades 3–8)


Grade CAVA-San Mateo %AAP

CAVA-San MateoTotal Count

State %AAP

Difference Between CAVA-San Mateo and the State


3rd 47% 38 46% -1

4th 43% 42 38% +5

5th 47% 30 33% +14

6th 35% 52 35% =

7th 36% 72 36% =

8th 23% 78 36% -13


GRADE LEVEL

2015–2016 CAVA-San Mateo

2015–2016 State (CA)

PER

CEN

TAG

E A

T O

R A

BO

VE

PR

OFI

CIE

NC

Y

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


46%

38%33% 35% 36% 36%

47%43%

47%

35% 36%

23%

Sources: State data: ht tp://caaspp.cde.ca.gov School data: K12 Academic Performance Database.


HIGH SCHOOL

• In 2015–2016 English Language Arts/Literacy, WAVA-Omak students outperformed the state by 41 percentage points.

• In 2015–2016 Mathematics, WAVA-Omak scored within 6 percentage points of the state.

WASHINGTON VIRTUAL ACADEMY AT OMAK (WAVA-OMAK)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Mathematics (grade 11)English Language Arts/Literacy (grade 11)

74%

33%29%

35%

SUBJECT

2015–2016 WAVA-Omak

2015–2016 State (WA)


Subject (grade) WAVA-Omak %AAP

WAVA-Omak Total Count

State %AAP

Difference BetweenWAVA-Omak and State


English Language Arts/Literacy (grade 11) 74% 177 33% +41

Mathematics (grade 11) 29% 164 35% -6

TABLE 10: WAVA-Omak Comparison to State: By Subject (High School)


FIGURE 13: 2015–2016 WAVA-Omak Comparison to State: By Subject (High School)

PER

CEN

TAG

E A

T O

R A

BO

VE

PR

OFI

CIE

NC

Y

Sources: State data: ht tp://www.k12.wa.us/ School data: K12 Academic Performance Database.

23

GRADES 3–8

Reading

• In 2015–2016 Reading, TOPS students outperformed the state in grades 3–8 by 10 to 31 percentage points.

TEXAS ONLINE PREPARATORY SCHOOL (TOPS)

GRADE LEVEL

Group 3: K12 Public School Programs Using the Same State Testing Program from 2014–2015 to 2015–2016

2015–2016 TOPS

2015–2016 State (TX)

TABLE 11: 2015–2016 TOPS Comparison to State: Reading (Grades 3–8)

2015–2016 READING

Grade TOPS %AAP

TOPS Total Count

State %AAP

Difference Between TOPS and the State in percentage points

3rd 93% 15 73% +20

4th 94% 34 75% +19

5th 97% 35 81% +16

6th 100% 47 69% +31

7th 88% 60 71% +17

8th 97% 65 87% +10


FIGURE 14: 2015–2016 TOPS Comparison to State: Reading (Grades 3–8)

PER

CEN

TAG

E A

T O

R A

BO

VE

PR

OFI

CIE

NC

Y

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


73% 75%81%

69% 71%

87%93% 94% 97% 100%

88%

97%

Sources: State data: ht tps://rptsvr1.tea.texas.gov/perfreport /tprs/2016/srch.html?srch=C School data: K12 Academic Performance Database.


Mathematics

• In 2015–2016 Mathematics, TOPS students outperformed the state in grades 3–8 by 6 to 22 percentage points.

TABLE 12: 2015–2016 TOPS Comparison to State: Mathematics (Grades 3–8)

FIGURE 15: 2015–2016 TOPS Comparison to State: Mathematics (Grades 3–8)


Grade TOPS %AAP

TOPS Total Count

State %AAP

Difference Between TOPS and the State in percentage points

3rd 87% 15 75% +12

4th 82% 34 73% +9

5th 94% 35 86% +8

6th 94% 48 72% +22

7th 82% 60 69% +13

8th 88% 58 82% +6


GRADE LEVEL

2015–2016 TOPS

2015–2016 State (TX)

PER

CEN

TAG

E A

T O

R A

BO

VE

PR

OFI

CIE

NC

Y

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


75% 73%

86%

72% 69%

82%87%

82%

94% 94%

82%88%


25

HIGH SCHOOL

• In 2015–2016 English 1, TOPS students outperformed the state by 33 percentage points.

• In 2015–2016 Algebra 1, TOPS students outperformed the state by 17 percentage points.


Subject (grade) TOPS%AAP

TOPSTotal Count

State %AAP

Difference Between TOPS and Statein percentage points

English 1 (grade 9) 98% 57 65% +33

Algebra 1 (grade 9) 95% 38 78% +17

TABLE 13: 2015–2016 TOPS Comparison to State: By Subject (High School)


SUBJECT

2015–2016 TOPS

2015–2016 State (TX)

FIGURE 16: 2015–2016 TOPS Comparison to State: By Subject (High School)

PER

CEN

TAG

E A

T O

R A

BO

VE

PR

OFI

CIE

NC

Y

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Algebra 1 (grade 9)English 1 (grade 9)

98%

65%

95%

78%



HIGH SCHOOL

• In 2015–2016 English 1, OHVA students outperformed the state by 9 percentage points.

• In 2015–2016 Algebra 1, OHVA students outperformed the state by 8 percentage points.

OHIO VIRTUAL ACADEMY (OHVA)

Group 4: K12 Public School Programs Administering New State Testing Programs in 2015–2016

SUBJECT

2015–2016 OHVA

2015–2016 State (OH)


Subject (grade) OHVA %AAP

OHVA Total Count

State %AAP

Difference Between OHVA and Statein percentage points

English 1 (grade 9) 64% 457 55% +9

Algebra 1 (grade 9) 56% 245 48% +8

TABLE 14: 2015–2016 OHVA Comparison to State: By Subject (High School)


FIGURE 17: 2015–2016 OHVA Comparison to State: By Subject (High School)

PER

CEN

TAG

E A

T O

R A

BO

VE

PR

OFI

CIE

NC

Y

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Algebra 1 (grade 9)English 1 (grade 9)

64%

55% 56%

48%

Sources: State data: ht tp://reportcard.education.ohio.gov/Pages/default .aspx School data: K12 Academic Performance Database.

27

HIGH SCHOOL

• In 2015–2016 Evidence-Based Reading and Writing,11 MVCA students outperformed the state by 14 percentage points.

• In 2015–2016 Mathematics, MVCA students outperformed the state by 13 percentage points.

MICHIGAN VIRTUAL CHARTER ACADEMY (MVCA)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

SAT-Mathematics (grade 11)SAT-Evidence-Based Reading and Writing (grade 11)

74%

60%

50%

37%

SUBJECT

2015–2016 MVCA

2015–2016 State (MI)


Subject (grade) MVCA %AAP

MVCATotal Count

State %AAP

Difference Between MVCA and Statein percentage points

SAT-Evidence-Based Reading and Writing (grade 11) 74% 137 60% +14

SAT-Mathematics (grade 11) 50% 137 37% +13

TABLE 15: 2015–2016 MVCA Comparison to State: By Subject (High School)


FIGURE 18: 2015–2016 MVCA Comparison to State: By Subject (High School)

PER

CEN

TAG

E A

T O

R A

BO

VE

PR

OFI

CIE

NC

Y

Sources: State data: ht tps://www.mischooldata.org/ School data: K12 Academic Performance Database.

11 Evidence-Based Reading and Writing is the name of the state's English Language Arts assessment.



Blended Learning Programs

For many educators, the beauty of technology is that it provides the ability to truly customize students’ learning experiences. Does a child learn best with the structure of a brick and mortar school or the flexibility of pace and place that a fully online experience allows? What about those students who require a little bit of both—brick and mortar structure and in-person instruction with the flexibility of an online environment? For these students, blended learning can be the bridge between the two approaches.

What Is Blended Learning?

Blended learning has been defined as a formal education program in which a student learns in an environment that integrates online and face-to-face learning. Students in blended learning programs learn at least in part through:

• online learning, with some element of student control over time, place, path, and/or pace; and

• face-to-face learning in a supervised brick and mortar location away from home.

In most blended models, the modalities along each student’s learning path within a course or subject are connected to provide an integrated learning experience. While there are a number of different blended learning models being implemented in school districts, the K12 Blended Services team supports district and nonprofit partners in implementing what is typically referred to as the Enriched Virtual Model.12 In this model, students attend required face-to-face learning sessions with their teachers and then are free to complete their remaining coursework remotely. The amount of required face-to-face learning is determined by student needs. For example, those struggling or not engaging may be required to attend onsite instruction more often. Social services,

counseling, and other key aspects of the model may also be provided during face-to-face sessions. The extent to which students are required to be onsite and/or allowed to work remotely is also determined by state and district policy.

Benefits of Blending Learning

• Individualized Learning: Students work at their own pace and can often pursue their own paths to knowledge. Teachers use assessment data to drive instruction to meet student needs.

• Flexible Schedules: With a mixture of synchronous instruction (student and teacher online together) and asynchronous instruction13 (student working more independently off-line), students and teachers can develop schedules that meet the specific needs of each student or family. This is important for high school students who must work or who are engaged in internships, students with medical conditions, high-achieving student athletes and performers, and many others.

• Student Engagement: Technology engages today’s generation. The online component allows students to explore concepts on their own and focus on their interests.

12 M. B. Horn & H. Staker, Blended: Using Disruptive Innovation to Improve Schools. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2014), as referenced by the Clayton Christensen Institute, a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank, at http://www.christenseninstitute.org/blended-learning-definitions-and-models/

13 Asynchronous learning is a general term used to describe forms of education, instruction, and learning that do not occur in the same place or at the same time as stated by http://edglossary.org/asynchronous-learning/

29

14 Dr. Loewenstein, Omaha Virtual School Student Handbook, http://www.ovs.k12.com/content/dam/schools/ovs/files/OVS-StudentHandbook-031417.pdf, page 25

• Targeted Instruction: Online learning software continuously collects academic data and performance for every student, which allows teachers to tailor each class to best suit the needs of their students.

• Student Preparedness: Students in a blended environment are better prepared for higher education and the workplace as these environments have increasingly become far more technology-enriched than in the past. Blended learning also requires young people to learn the skills and habits of self-motivation and self-discipline which have lifelong benefits.

• One-on-One Student to Teacher Interactions: Blended learning opens doors to multiple methods of communication, including face-to-face, email, telephone, and web-based classroom sessions, and allows students to interact with teachers and peers in the mediums in which they are most confident.

K12’s Partnership with Omaha Public Schools as a Model

In June 2016, Omaha Public Schools (OPS) issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) to develop a K–8 blended educational program. By providing an innovative, flexible program, OPS hoped to reclaim and retain district students opting to enroll elsewhere and simultaneously engage homeschool students and others choosing nonpublic school options.

K12 responded to this request and a contract was executed on August 24, 2016. OPS chose to engage K12 to provide curriculum, the learning management system, marketing and enrollment services, academic professional development and training, operations, and a dedicated relationship manager. Omaha Public Schools provides state certified teachers, a program director, and all special education and direct services to its students. Omaha Public Schools served 115 students in school year 2016–2017, all of whom were previously unserved by OPS.

Under OPS’s blended model, enrolled students take most of their coursework online, but each student attends a district-provided facility one day per week for a minimum of three hours.14 During the first year, the OPS program served a total of 115 students enrolled in kindergarten through eighth grade. In school year 2017–2018, OPS will expand its offerings to ninth grade with the goal of adding one more grade per year going forward.

Benefits to a District

• K12 provides curriculum, instruction, technology, and administrative services as well as local, regional, and national resources and support.

• The program attracts new students and appeals to students who do not currently attend the district, including homeschoolers, private school students, and students attending other districts. This also helps the district increase their enrollment counts.

• The district creates new innovate job opportunities for teachers, administrators, and support staff.

• The district is also able to utilize underused facilities or help resolve overcrowding concerns.

• Blended programs provide students an innovative, flexible, and individualized learning model.

• Blended programs establish the district as a leader in innovation and offers opportunities to partner with districts throughout the state.

• Blended programs typically allow for lower facility and staffing costs, along with the ability to attract and retain students who might otherwise pursue schooling options outside of the district.

8th7th6th5th4th3rd2nd1stK

16

9

13

111010

16

13

17

GRADE LEVEL

NU

MB

ER O

F ST

UD

ENTS

FIGURE 19: 2016–2017 Student Count Omaha Public Schools Blended Education Program by Grade Level

Source: Omaha Virtual School Student Course Report, May 31, 2017


Omaha Virtual School: Student Outcomes

School districts that operate blended learning models often field questions from parents and traditional educators such as, “How does that work for the student?” Parents and educators will need to know that the student spends some of the time in a physical classroom, just as he would at a traditional school, but then he spends another portion of time in an online classroom. The student is at home,

logged into his computer while the teacher meets the class in an online classroom for live, synchronous instruction. Some of the coursework is completed asynchronously through the blended program’s learning management system. While this can look very different between blended learning programs and school types, the OPS program’s breakdown is as follows:

PERCENTAGE OF TIME ONLINE VS. IN PERSON

Number of Enrolled Courses

Weekly Hour Requirement

Face to face (F2F) % Online Session %

Coursework % (Online/Offline -

Session Dependent)

Tutoring Hours Online or F2F

3 15 20% 13% 54% 13%

4–5 20–25 12–15% 8–10% 65–72% 8–10%

6–7 30–40 8–10% 5–7% 67–82% 5–7%

During the inaugural year, the students in kindergarten through fifth grade achieved a course passing percentage higher than 80 percent in all four of the core courses—English Language Arts (ELA), Mathematics, History, and Science.

COURSE PASSING RATES (Grades Kindergarten Through Fif th)

Grade Course Passing Rate Student Count

K–5 ELA 88% 48

K–5 MATHEMATICS 83% 58

K–5 HISTORY 84% 44

K–5 SCIENCE 86% 44

TABLE 16: Omaha Virtual School Percentage of Time Online versus In Person (2016–2017 School Year)

FIGURE 20: Omaha Virtual School Course Passing Rates in Four Subject Areas for Kindergarten Through Fifth Grade (2016–2017 School Year)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

K-5 SCIENCEK–5 HISTORYK–5 MATHEMATICSK–5 ELA

84%83%88% 86%

GRADE BAND AND SUBJECT

PER

CEN

TAG

E A

T O

R A

BO

VE

PR

OFI

CIE

NC

Y

TABLE 17: Omaha Virtual School Course Passing Rates in Four Subject Areas for Kindergarten Through Fifth Grade (2016–2017 School Year)

Note: Based on the students who were enrolled in a course.

31

Middle school students performed slightly lower than elementary students. These passing rates include the second-semester course grade for ELA, Mathematics, History, and Science.

COURSE PASSING RATES (Grades Sixth Through Eighth)

Grade Course Passing Rate Student Count

6–8 ELA 84% 31

6–8 HISTORY 67% 21

6–8 MATHEMATICS 70% 33

6–8 SCIENCE 78% 36

FIGURE 21: Omaha Virtual School Course Passing Rates in Four Subject Areas for Sixth Through Eighth Grade (2016–2017 School Year)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

6–8 SCIENCE6–8 MATHEMATICS6–8 HISTORY6–8 ELA

70%67%

84%78%

GRADE BAND AND SUBJECTP

ERC

ENTA

GE

AT

OR

AB

OV

E P

RO

FIC

IEN

CY

TABLE 18: Omaha Virtual School Course Passing Rates in Four Subject Areas for Sixth Through Eighth Grade (2016–2017 School Year)

When taking into account all grade levels and courses the OPS program achieved an overall passing rate of 75.2 percent.

Student performance can be measured in many different ways. Another avenue of student success can be measured through interim assessments. To determine growth, a student is tested upon enrolling at the school. A similar test is provided at the end of the school year. The difference in these scores shows student growth during the time of enrollment at the school. At the OPS program, during the first year, all grades showed positive movement, on average, in both Mathematics and Reading on the NWEA MAP assessment between fall and spring administrations. At the time of this publication, the state test scores for the 2016–2017 school year were not available.

Not only was there positive movement in student growth, but 70 percent of students met, or exceeded, their growth goal in reading.

The blended approach allows school districts to attract new students and the program can be self-funding from its inception. Additionally, as a blended learning program is launched in one district, schools, teachers, and staff can more easily study and explore how innovative blended options can be implemented within their other schools.

In the first couple of years, the blended learning program may grow in enrollment garnering interest from partnerships with other districts. It may make sense for a district to specialize in providing the core online aspects of the model (which are not dependent on location) and allow each participating district to focus on the delivery of the onsite aspects of the model.

Additionally, there is much more potential in partnership that could be realized over the course of time. K12 has been working to develop programs that many school districts have not had the time, the number of students, or the resources

Note: Subjects represent ELA Semester 2, Mathematics Semester 2, Science Semester 2, and History Semester 1 and 2.


to establish. Once participating districts have an established relationship via a full-time blended learning program, K12 and the partner school/district have the opportunity to study, consider, and potentially launch additional programs that could include:

• Programs designed for dropouts or for students at risk of dropping out.

• Blended or online programs to provide dual credit options which can save families thousands of dollars in tuition.

• Programs focused on Career Technical Education (CTE) for high school students.

• Schools or programs designed to serve students with long-term suspensions.

• Schools or programs for students who need medical care on a regular basis, for a specific period of time, and for those who require long-term care.

In this way, blended learning programs not only address a specific need for a district but can serve as an incubator wherein districts can explore a variety of other innovative options on behalf of their current and potential students.

Implementing a Blended Model in an Urban Setting

Chicago Virtual Charter School (CVCS) was founded to meet the needs of students who were seeking a more flexible and supportive school. CVCS is one example of a fully accredited15 school designed specifically to meet the needs of urban Chicago students who are seeking an alternative to the school(s) in their home attendance zone.

In 2006, CVCS was founded through a partnership between the leadership of Chicago Public Schools (CPS), Arne Duncan the CEO of the CPS district, community leaders, the parents in the community, and K12. CVCS is a full-time public charter school that serves students from across the CPS district in grades K–12. From its establishment, the school was designed to be different. It was, and remains, housed in the middle of downtown Chicago—near public rail and bus lines—making it accessible to students across the city.16

Merit School of Music is a music school located in downtown Chicago that had underutilized classrooms during the day. CVCS wanted to provide students from all across the district the opportunity to learn in a safe environment at all times and to work independently, yet also be monitored and receive

instruction from a teacher. It was important for CVCS to create a work area in which the students could work toward achieving their college and career goals. The CVCS/Merit partnership offered an opportunity to rent out space in the music school building that was not being utilized during daytime hours. For CVCS, the music lesson rooms became safe classrooms for small groups of students to work on academic materials during the day. And for students, the central location of CVCS to residents of Chicago made the commute to the school easily doable either through walking or public transportation. CVCS was one of the earliest blended learning environments supported by K12.

In the CVCS blended model, students work remotely throughout the year on appropriate materials to be on track for meeting grade level and, eventually, high school graduation requirements in Illinois. The curriculum is delivered online through course modules tied to semesters and to grade levels in required core content areas. In addition, students are required to be onsite for at least one half-day per week at the Merit School of Music facility. During these face-to-face interactions with certified teachers, students receive instruction, remediation, and enrichment (as applicable) to supplement or augment what each student has learned online in each required course.

Blended Models in an Urban Setting

15 Illinois At-A-Glance Report Card 2015–2016, Chicago Virtual Charter School, https://iirc.niu.edu/ataglancepdf/printtopdf.aspx?rcdts=15016299025225C&ver=3.0 16 The CVCS/Merit School of Music is located at the Joy Faith Knapp Music Center, 38 South Peoria Street, Chicago, IL 60607

33

17 Illinois At-A-Glance Report Card 2015–2016, Chicago Virtual Charter School, https://iirc.niu.edu/ataglancepdf/printtopdf.aspx?rcdts=15016299025225C&ver=3.0 /18 Data was analyzed using School Report Card data from each year, from the Illinois State Board of Education, “Data Analysis Illinois State Report Card Data,” https://www.isbe.net/

Pages/Illinois-State-Report-Card-Data.aspx19 Illinois At-A-Glance Report Card 2015–2016, Chicago Virtual Charter School, https://iirc.niu.edu/ataglancepdf/printtopdf.aspx?rcdts=15016299025225C&ver=3.0 /

Students also use the center to interact with peers on projects and to discuss what they are learning. CVCS always has enough certified staff on site to support the demand. The majority of teachers work from the school two days per week and three days remotely online to best meet the needs of their students.

Chicago Virtual Charter School: Student Outcomes

More recently, in the 2015–2016 school year, high school students at CVCS taking the ACT in grade 11 outperformed 44 percent of other schools nationally.17 For the most recently available data comparing ACT composite scores from CVCS with the CPS District, CVCS outperformed CPS from 2009–2010 through 2015–2016 school years18 (see Figure 22).

0

5

10

15

20

25

2015–20162014–20152013–20142012–20132011–20122010–20112009–20102009–2010 2010–2011 2011–2012 2012–2013 2013–2014 2014–2015 2015–2016

CVCS 19.30 18.70 17.80 18.30 18.60 20.00 18.80

CPS District 16.80 16.85 17.09 16.59 16.74 18.20 18.40

FIGURE 22: Comparison of the ACT Composite Score for CVCS and CPS Charters

AC

T C

OM

PO

SIT

E SC

OR

E

Source: CVCS ACT Profile Report, received by CVCS on August 10, 2017.

Earning ACT scores indicating readiness for college is just the beginning. Students must also navigate the college application process, be admitted, and attend. For CPS, 57.9 percent of the 2015 graduating seniors enrolled in college year following graduation. Sixty-eight percent of 2015 high school graduates at CVCS enrolled in college within two years of graduating from high school. For the students enrolling in college the year after graduation, 53 percent of the CVCS graduates persisted and remained enrolled in college for a second year.19

Students who are credit deficient are at risk of not graduating on time.18 In the school year ending in June 2016 44.7 percent of freshman were on-track relative to credits earned for graduation in four years. Data indicate that CVCS serves a higher percentage of at-risk students than the state as a whole, making the school’s academic success even more noteworthy. When comparing CVCS relative to other Chicago Public Schools, CVCS ranked in the 86th percentile in English and Reading (see Figure 23).


TABLE 19: CVCS ACT Reading Average Scores—2010 to 2016

School Year CVCS Mean (Absolute) Score Year over Year % Growth All CPS Schools

Average Scores Year over Year % Growth

2010 20.50 17.3

2011 19.30 -5.9% 17.0 -1.7%

2012 18.60 -3.6% 16.9 -0.6%

2013 19.30 3.8% 17.6 4.1%

2014 20.10 4.1% 17.9 1.7%

2015 21.60 7.5% 18.1 1.1%

2016 19.40 -10.2% 18.3 1.1%

FIGURE 23: Relative Percentile Rank of CVCS Compared to CPS Schools

CVCS Composite

Score Average (Mean)

CVCS English Score Average

(Mean)

CVCS Reading Score Average

(Mean)

CVCS Mathematics

Score Average (Mean)

CVCS Science Score Average

(Mean)

Percentile 80% 86% 86% 70% 72%

Source: CVCS ACT Profile Report, received by CVCS on August 24, 2016.

When comparing CVCS students to students from the Chicago Public School District (#299), CVCS students outperformed students in the district in ELA at every grade level 3 through 8 and in grades 3, 7, and 8 by double digits.

In Mathematics, CVCS students outperformed the district in Mathematics at every grade except grade 5 where it was within one percentage point of the district. And, in grades 3, 6, and 7, CVCS outperformed CPS by double digits.

PER

CEN

TILE

RA

NK

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

70%

86%86%80%

72%

Source: CVCS Board administration report, Absolute and Relative Scores 2013.

Note: K12 internal calculation using excel in July 2017. Percentile Ranks were determined using average school ACT score distribution from CPS district schools.

35

Sources: District data from https://www.illinoisreportcard.com/Default .aspx School data from K12 Academic Performance Database

TABLE 20: 2013–2014 Through 2015–2016 Reading, English Language Arts/Literacy Comparison of CVCS to the Chicago Public Schools District

Note: In 2013–2014, Illinois administered the Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT). In 2014–2015, the state switched to the Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness of College and Careers (PARCC).

2013–2014 2014–2015 2015–2016

READING ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY

Grade CVCS %AAP (All)

District %AAP (All)

Difference Between School

(All) and District (All)

in Percentage Points

CVCS %AAP (All)

District %AAP (All)




CVCS %AAP (All)

District %AAP (All)




3rd 47% 43% +5 46% 30% +16 37% 32% +5

4th 56% 45% +11 41% 35% +6 45% 30% +15

5th 55% 45% +10 38% 35% +3 33% 24% +9

6th 58% 47% +11 31% 23% +8 24% 26% -2

7th 63% 53% +10 39% 28% +11 29% 29% =

8th 49% 46% +3 38% 27% +11 36% 30% +6

TABLE 21: 2013–2014 Through 2015–2016 Mathematics Comparison of CVCS to the Chicago Public Schools District

Note: In 2013–2014, Illinois administered the Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT). In 2014–2015, the state switched to the Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness of College and Careers (PARCC).

2013–2014 2014–2015 2015–2016

MATHEMATICS MATHEMATICS MATHEMATICS

Grade CVCS %AAP (All)

District %AAP (All)




CVCS %AAP (All)

District %AAP (All)




CVCS %AAP (All)

District %AAP (All)




3rd 49% 48% +2 41% 26% +15 35% 33% +2

4th 53% 55% -2 22% 21% +1 39% 22% +17

5th 57% 58% -1 19% 20% -1 29% 24% +5

6th 62% 52% +10 31% 19% +12 19% 21% -2

7th 55% 51% +4 36% 20% +16 19% 21% -2

8th 47% 54% -7 27% 23% +4 32% 23% +9

Extending Persistence Matters

For CVCS, as for many schools in urban school districts, mobility presents a challenge for students and for teachers.

For any student, a move from one school to another can introduce adjustment and assimilation issues. Whatever these adjustments are, they insert complication into instruction and learning that takes some period of time to abate. For many online and blended schools, this adjustment period can be considerable. However, what is consistent across these learning environments is that,

typically, by the time a student has remained continuously enrolled for three or more years, their accountability assessment performance rises.

As reported in Figure 24 and Table 22, at CVCS the number of students reaching proficiency or above after three years of continuous enrollment increased by 16 percentage points in English Language Arts and 20 percentage points in Mathematics.


FIGURE 24: 2015–2016 CVCS Proficiency Percentages by Subject and Persistence (Grades 3–8)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%



Less than 1 year

30%

22%

20%18%

27%

23%

46%

38%

PER

CEN

TAG

E A

T O

R A

BO

VE

PR

OFI

CIE

NC

Y


English Language Arts Mathematics

ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS MATHEMATICS

%AAP Total Count %AAP Total Count

Less than 1 year 30% 57 18% 57

1 year but less than 2 years 20% 99 22% 101

2 years but less than 3 years 27% 48 23% 48

3 years or more 46% 150 38% 150

TABLE 22: 2015–2016 CVCS Proficiency Percentages by Subject and Persistence (Grades 3–8)

STUDENTS ENROLLED THREE YEARS OR MORE COMPARED TO STUDENTS ENROLLED LESS THAN ONE YEAR

Subject %AAP: Increase or Decreasein Percentage Points

English Language Arts +16

Mathematics +20

TABLE 23: 2015–2016 Persistence Grades 3–8: 3 Years or More Compared to Less than 1 Year

Blended schools in an urban district can successfully educate and prepare students for future success. For families who want to be involved in their children’s education and foster independent learning, blended learning is a solution that provides this opportunity along with accountability and

support of in-person teachers and staff. The story of Chicago Virtual Charter School proves that students can flourish within this learning environment despite socioeconomic factors that so often challenge inner-city families and urban district schools.


Source for persistence data: K12 Academic Performance Database


37

Career Technical Education

K12 is most well-known for its innovative online and blended academies and public school partnerships. Consistent with that spirit of innovation, during the 2015–2016 school year, K12 expanded the ability of middle and high school students to explore Career Technical Education (CTE) pathways. In addition to offering more courses, K12 also helped launch a CTE-focused school in Idaho in 2015. During the 2016–2017 school year, the program was expanded into more states through both the offering of exploratory courses in some schools and the opportunity to pursue pathways in others and was rolled out to represent K12’s forward-looking view of a robust, flexible CTE program. Career Technical Education provides middle and high school students with the academic and technical skills, knowledge, and training necessary to succeed in future careers.19

19 “Career Technical Education,” Advance CTE: State Leaders Connecting Learning to Work, https://careertech.org/cte

CTE Clusters

HEALTH SCIENCE BUSINESS MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

STEM

MANUFACTURING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

CONSTRUCTION HOSPITALITY AND TOURISM

AGRICULTURE

During the 2016–2017 school year, there were six K12 full-time online schools that offered CTE programs with a wide range of CTE courses. Career Technical Education schools may include one, multiple, or all of the CTE pathways offered, but most of these schools focus the pathways meeting the regional needs of their cities and states. These courses have been specifically designed to prepare students for

career readiness through several course options. Online and blended models are less impacted by the very real constraints of scheduling in traditional models, therefore, these models can create opportunities for students, especially in the areas of internships and apprenticeships, that are often difficult to replicate in traditional high schools.

FIGURE 25: Eight Career Clusters Offered Through K12’s CTE Programs


K12 currently offers eight different career clusters for its CTE schools from which students can choose. The clusters include occupational preparation in:

• Health Science

• Business Management and Administration

• Manufacturing

• Information Technology

• Agriculture

• Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM)

• Construction

• Hospitality and Tourism20

The goal of these varied clusters is to help close the skills gap and reduce the worker shortage in each individual category. It is estimated that 22 percent of all skilled manufacturing workers will be retiring over the next ten years. The industry is slated to fall approximately two million workers short of required workers needed for the jobs available.21 These predicted shortages are being recognized across the nation, as evidenced by 18 governors citing CTE initiatives in their state-of-the state addresses for the 2016–2017 year.22

The K12 CTE clusters are built in such a way that the pathways within each are customizable and can be adapted to meet the unique the offering school's local of local and regional industries. The services offered are delivered through online or blended school formats and during continued enrollment in the program.

CTE Pathways

To better meet the growing concern that not enough high school and college graduates have the training and skills needed to compete in the quickly changing environment, K12 offer several pathways within each available cluster from which a student can choose depending on career preparation interests. The Department of Labor estimates that there are currently more than five million job vacancies in the United States.23 Shortages are seen more abundantly in high growth technical fields, such as Information

Technology (IT) where more than 70 percent of posted jobs are left unfilled.24

K12 CTE School Options

School-Within-a-School Model

In 2016–2017, six different K12 schools offered full-time CTE programs in two different formats. One format is the school-within-a-school model. These schools are existing full-time online schools that added the CTE pathways and courses to their course catalogs. These schools include:

• Cyber Academy of South Carolina (CASC)

• Utah Virtual Academy (UTVA)

Stand-Alone Schools

The other CTE school model is the stand-alone model. K12 and our partners call these schools Destinations Career Academies (DCA). In 2016–2017, there were four K12 CTE stand-alone models including:

• Colorado Destinations Career Academy (CODCA)

• Idaho Technical Career Academy (ITCA)

• Nevada Destinations Career Academy (NVDCA)

• Wisconsin Destinations Career Academy (WIDCA)

CTE Student Overview

In the 2016–2017 school year, CTE students were enrolled from grades 9–12 across the six different schools with the highest enrollments coming from the sophomores. The majority of CTE students in these schools were enrolled as first-time students in a K12 school. The CTE program is designed to assist students in career exploration and to support the learner in determining areas of interest for future careers. Four of the top five courses taken by CTE students demonstrate that students are searching for personalized career advice and individual fit.

The most popular CTE-specialized course during the 2016–2017 school year was Business Healthcare Explorations. About 20 percent of all K12 CTE students showed interest in this pathway. Every student has a different reason to enroll in a CTE program and because of this, not all students take

20 The Hospitality and Tourism career cluster was only available for Fuel Education schools during the 2016–2017 school year.21 M. Josephs, “U.S. Manufacturing Labor Shortage: How to Make Your Company a Happy Exception,” Forbes (2017, March 15), https://www.forbes.com/sites/maryjosephs/2017/03/15/

u-s-manufacturing-labor-shortage-how-to-make-your-company-a-happy-exception/#72ab5a587e13 22 E. Williamson, “CTE Month Special: What Do the State of the States Mean for CTE,” Advance CTE, http://blog.careertech.org/?p=9990 when counting the number of states between

part 1 and part 2 of the blog series. 23 “Job Openings and Labor Turnover Summary,” Economic News Release, issued December 7, 2016, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, https://www.bls.gov/news.

release/jolts.nr0.htm 24 J. McKendrick, “Seven in 10 Openings for Key IT Jobs Going Unfilled, Study Reveals,” ZDNet (2015, December 6), http://www.zdnet.com/article/software-jobs-top-list-of-2016s-

hottest-occupations/

39

the same number of CTE courses, nor are they similar in the degree to which they focus on specific pathways.

There are some major differences between the K12 CTE programs in place at K12 schools and the CTE courses provided by K12 to traditional and charter schools. A K12 CTE program may include both the full complement of courses, but also includes CTE specific teachers, administrators, counselors, and an advisory council to create opportunities for work-based experience partnerships. All CTE programs at K12 schools includes a SkillsUSA25 chapter for additional work-based opportunities.

CTE courses may be purchased by schools and school

districts through the Fuel Education arm of K12. Fuel Education works with more than 2,000 school districts in all 50 states offering the full suite of CTE courses and pathways to interested school districts. The courses may be purchased to include the use of a certified content teacher from K12, or the school/district can use one of its own teachers and only purchase the content for its student body. A school or district can elect to purchase only specific CTE course(s) or the full suite of CTE options.

THE DESTINATIONS CAREER ACADEMY OF WISCONSIN

Students in the state of Wisconsin have a unique opportunity to enroll in the state’s

first-ever CTE-focused online high school. The partnerships and school format have

created a truly ground-breaking opportunity. The school has formed distinctive

partnerships with the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 139 (heavy

equipment operators) and Fox Valley Technical College. Students who enroll early in

their high school career have college credits while still in grades 9–12. The skills they

learn while in high school will position them for industry certification opportunities

and possibly apprenticeships as well as job opportunities right out of high school.

25 SkillsUSA is a partnership of students, teachers, and industries working together to ensure America has a skilled workforce. SkillsUSA helps each student excel. They provide educational programs, events, and competitions that support career technical education (CTE) in the nation’s classrooms. See http://www.skillsusa.org



K12 Inc. prides itself as a catalyst for innovation within the education space. As the national landscape for school accountability has shifted in the last few years, K12 has dedicated itself to advocating for innovative student-centered accountability policies. Because we operate in a large number of states, we have a unique perspective to see how schools are evaluated. In looking across this landscape, we think the best accountability models understand that there are multiple consumers of school and student data. The topics that are most important to each can vary greatly. Our work on student-centered accountability comes from working across so many state-specific models and gathering some of the best from each. While certainly not exhaustive, what follows is intended to be illustrative of an approach that may yield better information for each stakeholder. One of the cornerstones of those policies is the idea that school data should be available to all stakeholders in a manner that is transparent and answers questions that may be of unique interest to them. What is most important to a school board president may be substantively different from the primary concern of a parent. In that spirit, we believe dashboards should highlight a wide array of topics and questions.

• From parents: When considering multiple factors like academic success, teacher qualifications, success after graduation, and safety, is my student better suited to attend our assigned school or a school of choice?

• From school boards: Which of our high schools are most effectively progressing students toward graduation and what do our schools contribute to student performance?

• From community members: How much are students in my local school growing when compared to schools with similar missions and demographics?

• From regulators and policymakers: Are schools appropriately resourced to meet the needs of enrolled students and do policies provide opportunities for students to excel in multiple ways through a range of school options?

Dashboards for Accountability

In 1999, when Florida first adopted A–F school ratings, the push was a significant step forward as it provided

understanding to parents about the performance of their children’s schools in a consistent manner. This consistency allowed schools to be comparable with other schools for the first time. In the 18 years since those first letter grades, more than a dozen states have adopted A–F school rating systems in an effort to provide similar measurements for all schools. However, each school is unique and serves a diverse population of students while focusing on its specific mission and vision. In the same way, every stakeholder is unique, valuing a wide range of distinctive metrics as evidence of the best school option for specific students. Expecting a single summative letter-grade system to equitably and completely measure thousands of unique schools and meaningfully differentiate quality on behalf of hundreds of thousands of stakeholders is unreasonable. For this reason, dashboards that capture multiple and customizable measurements are K12’s preferred approach.

As states are beginning to rework annual report cards in order to comply with the new Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA),26 now is a perfect time for transitioning to a dashboard. High-quality dashboards should be easily accessible from state websites and should include charts and infographics that are visually appealing and easy to understand. All educational jargon should be avoided (or at least clearly defined) and a user should be able to choose schools or districts to make comparisons on various, relevant data points. The dashboard should be 100% mobile-friendly and intuitive to users.

More than just accessible and user-friendly, a dashboard should include school metrics that may be of importance to an array of stakeholders. Some metrics that we believe are vitally important include:

• Multiple Years of Academic Data: If stakeholders are provided with two to three years of assessment, growth, and graduation rate data, it gives context to the metrics and allows them to better understand the trajectory of the students within the school.

• School Mobility Rate and Details: This should include the percentage of students who enroll after the first day of school; the percentage of new high school students enrolling who are behind, or off track, for graduation; and the percentage of new students with prior failing state assessment scores. Mobility matters and schools with large

26 U.S. Department of Education, Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), https://www.ed.gov/esea

41

27 The sample dashboard includes sample data and is not representative of a single K12-powered school or summative data for all K12-powered schools.

numbers of late-enrolling students or new students have different challenges than schools with a stable population.

• Mission-Specific Goals: Because different schools serve different purposes and populations of students, part of the ESSA-required School Quality and Student Success indicator should be dedicated to the reporting of goals specific to the mission of the school. For example, a traditional high school may be measured on average ACT scores and annual progress toward graduation, where a Career Technical Education (CTE) high school might be measured on the percentage of students earning CTE credentials while progressing toward graduation.

• Teacher Quality Metrics: Teachers are key to school and student success, and stakeholders should be able to easily locate teacher demographics including the percentage with an advanced degree, the percentage who are effective and ineffective, and the school’s teacher retention rate.

• School Environment Metrics: Because not all stakeholders value the same things in a quality school, a wide range of school environment metrics should be reported on dashboards including student engagement levels, school safety/bullying information, parent and student satisfaction, reasons families choose the school, and college entrance rates.

Dashboard Sample

In the spirit of leading the charge for dashboard accountability, K12 is working with our partner schools across the country to build an internal dashboard to track some of the above metrics. Following, you will find a sample dashboard developed by K12.27 along with an explanation of some of the key metrics contained within.

SCHOOL DEMOGRAPHICS

In the School Demographics section of the dashboard, there are multiple metrics that paint a picture of the school population. These include the typical rates for Race/Ethnicity, Free and Reduced Price Lunch, Students with Disabilities, and English Language Learners, and for each, a comparison to the state rates in order to provide proper perspective. Those metrics alone provide only a surface-level understanding of the school population; therefore it is important that additional metrics are considered. While not an exhaustive list, the sample dashboard displays a few options for additional elements, including mobility rate, parental intent for length of student enrollment, parent and student satisfaction rate, and student access to other school choice options within 20 miles of the student’s zip code.

SCHOOL DEMOGRAPHICS

RACE/ETHNICITY FREE AND REDUCED PRICE LUNCH (FRL)

African American

American Indian

Asian

Hispanic

Pacific Islander

White

24%

4%5%

17%3%

47%57%

FRL

Not FRL

ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS (ELL)

2%

ELL

Not ELL

STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES (SWD)

12%

SWD

Not SWD

STUDENTS ACCESS TO SCHOOL OF CHOICE OPTIONS (<20 MILES)

No Access to Choice

Access to Choice

27%

ENROLLMENT STATUS AND MOBILITY

New

New: Late-Start

Returning

35%

14%

51%

PARENTAL INTENT: EXPECTED LENGTH OF ENROLLMENT

1 year or less

2 years

3+ years

32%

41%

27%

SOLID COLOR = SCHOOL PATTERN = STATE

PARENT AND STUDENT SATISFACTION

Satisfaction Rate

49%MOBILITY

RATE

FIGURE 26: An Example of a Data Dashboard from K12 Developers


ELA Mathematics

SpringWinterFall

38%

46%

31%

22%

68%

47%

% PROFICIENT LOCAL ASSESSMENTS LOCAL ASSESSMENTS PARTICIPATION

78%

ASSESSMENTS

Two sections of the sample dashboard summarize Local Assessments and State Assessments. Displaying both emphasizes the importance of using ongoing local assessment as a tool to improve individual student learning outcomes in a timely manner, in addition to the once-a-year state assessments used for accountability purposes. Because participation and proficiency rates offer a limited view of school success without a proper perspective, the dashboard displays a few additional details including:

• Prior Year Proficiency Rate for New Students—In highly mobile schools, understanding the incoming achievement

level of new students is necessary in order to fairly interpret state test results for the current year.

• Growth Rates—Growth rates provide a view that goes beyond simple proficiency rates and highlights the school’s impact on the learning of every single student, from the struggling learner to the advanced learner.

• Proficiency Rates by Length of Enrollment—Looking at proficiency rates by length of enrollment is an effective way to flip the negative impact of mobility into the positive impact of student persistence. In short, students typically perform better the longer they are enrolled.

LOCAL ASSESSMENTS

FIGURE 27: An Example of Local Assessment Data on the Dashboard

43

% PROFICIENT PRIOR YEAR STATE ASSESSMENTS:

NEW STUDENTS

CURRENT YEAR STATE ASSESSMENTS PARTICIPATION

% MEETING GROWTH TARGET CURRENT YEAR STATE ASSESSMENTS

59%

41%

96%Mathematics

ELA

% PROFICIENT CURRENT YEAR STATE ASSESSMENTS

% PROFICIENT CURRENT YEAR STATE ASSESSMENTS: BY LENGTH OF ENROLLMENT

State

Similar Schools

School

State

Similar Schools

School

English Language Arts (ELA)

64%

73%

71% State

Similar Schools

School

Mathematics

54%

47%

59%

54%51%

39%

55%

31%37%

20%

35%



Less than 1 year

79%

46%

ELA Mathematics

ELA Mathematics Not Proficient

FIGURE 28: An Example of State Assessment Data on the Dashboard

STATE ASSESSMENTS


CREDIT-DEFICIENT NEW STUDENTS GRADUATION RATES

12th Grade

11th Grade

10th Grade

45%

37%

59%

ANNUAL PROGRESS TOWARD GRADUATION

82%85%

81%

67%67%

57%56%

67%

64%17%

19%

201620152014

Continuously Enrolled Graduation Rate ESSA Required Graduation Rate State Reported Cohort Graduation Rate Adequate Annual Progress

Inadequate: Slightly Behind Inadequate: Significantly Behind

CREDITS AND GRADUATION

While a four-year cohort graduation rate is an indicator included in every state’s accountability report card, there is a shortage of detailed data in this area at the state level. The Credits and Graduation section of the sample dashboard displays additional metrics such as the percentage of new students who enroll in the school credit-deficient and the graduation rate for continuously enrolled students. Understanding metrics like these provides for a deeper understanding of the cohort graduation rate, especially in highly mobile schools.

Inclusion of a metric tracking annual progress toward graduation, for example the percentage of students earning the credits required within a single year, provides transparency into the success of the school in moving every student toward graduation, regardless of current credit status. This metric levels the playing field for a more accurate comparison between both low-mobility and highly mobile schools.

CREDITS AND GRADUATION

FIGURE 29: An Example Showing Inclusion of Annual Progress Toward Graduation, and Other Credits and Graduation Data, on the Dashboard

45

Looking to the Future

While this is only a small glimpse of the work happening at K12, the dashboard points to the company’s commitment to advancing student-centered accountability policies and

providing transparency and accountability for schools. It is a work in progress and will continue to improve as additional metrics become available.

LETTER GRADE POINTS

C 71YEAR LETTER GRADE POINTS

2015 D 61

2016 D 68

HISTORICAL COMPARISON: ACCOUNTABILITY POINTS EARNED

201720162015

6868

6765

6163

74

65

71

School Similar Schools’ Average State Average

STATE ACCOUNTABILITY

The State Accountability section of the dashboard displays historical ratings for the school, but also provides a detailed look at the points earned under the accountability system

for those years. By providing this view over a period of three years, it allows for comparisons of the school’s trend to both similar schools and the state as a whole.

FIGURE 30: An Example of State Accountability Ratings and Historical Trend Data on the Dashboard

STATE ACCOUNTABILITY

CURRENT YEAR RATING: 2017 HISTORICAL RATINGS

47

Appendices


Appendix A:SCHOOL COMPARISONS TO THE STATE (2015–2016)

In this section, we report overall results from K12 public school programs in four categories:

• Group 1: K12 Public School Programs Administering PARCC in 2015–2016

• Group 2: K12 Public School Programs Administering SBAC in 2015–2016

• Group 3: K12 Public School Programs Using the Same State Testing Program from 2014–2015 to 2015–2016

• Group 4: K12 Public School Programs Administering New State Testing Programs in 2015–2016

Results from K12 public school programs include Full Academic Year (FAY) students who enroll by each state’s unique FAY state date and remain continuously enrolled.

FRL ELIGIBLE SPECIAL EDUCATION

SCHOOL NAME K12 State K12 State

Chicago Virtual Charter School 89% 54% -- --

Colorado Preparatory Academy 57% 42% 11% 11%

Friendship Public Charter School Online 65% 92% 15% 15%

Insight School of Colorado 53% 42% -- --

Massachusetts Virtual Academy at Greenfield Commonwealth Virtual School 59% 40% -- --

New Mexico Virtual Academy 55% 63% -- --

Newark Preparatory Charter School 88% 37% 19% 16%

Pikes Peak Online School 52% 42% 14% 11%

PARCC offers assessments in English Language Arts (ELA)/Literacy and Mathematics for grades 3–8 and 11.

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

GROUP 1 K12 Public School Programs Administering PARCC

TABLE A1: Demographics of K12 Public School Programs Administering PARCC

49

COLORADO

GRADES 6–8

TABLE A4: ISCO Comparison to the State (Grades 6–8)

%AAP = percentage at or above prof iciency.*Results not reported because the number of students was not suf f icient (n<10) to support meaningful analysis.

Sources: State data: http://www.cde.state.co.us/assessment School data: K12 Academic Performance Database

INSIGHT SCHOOL OF COLORADO (ISCO)

NOTE: Insight School of Colorado serves students in grades 6–12.28

28 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.

GRADES 3–8

TABLE A2: CPA Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)



COLORADO PREPARATORY ACADEMY (CPA)


2015–2016 ENGLISH LANGUAGE

ARTS/LITERACY


Grade CPA %AAP

CPA Total Count

State%AAP

CPA %AAP

CPA Total Count

State%AAP

3rd 17% 46 37% 29% 45 39%

4th 6% 49 44% 6% 49 33%

5th 11% 61 41% 10% 60 34%

6th 22% 58 38% 23% 56 31%

7th 24% 88 41% 14% 88 26%

8th 23% 92 42% 18% 92 20%


Subject (grade) CPA%AAP

CPATotal Count

State %AAP

English Language Arts/Literacy (grade 9) 39% 64 37%

Algebra 1 (grade 9) 19% 47 32%


ARTS/LITERACY


Grade ISCO%AAP

ISCO Total Count

State%AAP

ISCO%AAP

ISCO Total Count

State%AAP

6th * * 38% * * 31%

7th 13% 23 41% 4% 24 26%

8th 9% 22 42% 5% 22 20%


Subject (grade) ISCO%AAP

ISCOTotal Count

State %AAP




HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A3: CPA Comparison to the State (High School)

HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A5: ISCO Comparison to the State (High School)


HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A6: PPOS Comparison to the State (High School)



PIKES PEAK ONLINE SCHOOL (PPOS)

NOTE: Pike Peak Online School serves students in high school (grades 9–12).

FRIENDSHIP PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL ONLINE (FPCSO)

NOTE: Friendship Public Charter School Online serves students in grades 3–8.

GRADES 3–8

TABLE A7: FPCSO Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)


Sources: State data: http://results.osse.dc.gov/state/DC School data: K12 Academic Performance Database


Subject (grade) PPOS%AAP

PPOSTotal Count

State %AAP




ARTS/LITERACY


Grade FPCSO%AAP

FPCSO Total Count

State%AAP

FPCSO%AAP

FPCSO Total Count

State%AAP

3rd * * 26% * * 37%

4th * * 29% * * 32%

5th 20% 10 29% 20% 10 30%

6th 64% 11 26% 36% 11 21%

7th 31% 13 27% 17% 12 17%

8th 42% 12 29% 33% 12 14%

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

51

MASSACHUSETTS VIRTUAL ACADEMY AT GREENFIELD COMMONWEALTH VIRTUAL SCHOOL (MAVA)

NOTES: In 2015–2016, the state of Massachusetts administered PARCC to students in grades 3–9; therefore, these data are reported in group 3.Students in Massachusetts participated in PARCC or MCAS as determined by each district.


ARTS/LITERACY


Grade CVCS%AAP

CVCS Total Count

State%AAP

CVCS%AAP

CVCS Total Count

State%AAP

3rd 37% 30 35% 40% 30 40%

4th 43% 37 37% 32% 37 31%

5th 28% 29 35% 20% 30 32%

6th 30% 40 35% 25% 40 29%

7th 35% 43 38% 26% 43 27%

8th 40% 57 40% 35% 57 32%

GRADES 3–8

TABLE A8: CVCS Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)


Sources: State data: https://www.illinoisreportcard.com/Default.aspx School data: K12 Academic Performance Database

HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A9: CVCS Comparison to the State (High School)


Subject (grade) CVCS%AAP

CVCSTotal Count

State %AAP





ARTS/LITERACY


Grade MAVA %AAP

MAVA Total Count

State%AAP

MAVA %AAP

MAVA Total Count

State%AAP

3rd 44% 34 53% 15% 34 57%

4th 33% 33 56% 33% 33 53%

5th 41% 32 59% 19% 31 51%

6th 39% 51 58% 33% 52 48%

7th 49% 51 61% 35% 51 48%

8th 45% 66 60% 36% 66 50%

GRADES 3–8

TABLE A10: MAVA Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)

ILLINOIS

MASSACHUSETTS

CHICAGO VIRTUAL CHARTER SCHOOL (CVCS)

HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A9: CVCS Comparison to the State (High School)


Sources: State data: http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/mcas/achievement_level.aspx?linkid = 32&orgcode = 00000000&orgtypecode = 0& School data: K12 Academic Performance Database


GRADES 6–8

TABLE A11: NMVA Comparison to the State (Grades 6–8)


Sources: State data: http://ped.state.nm.us/AssessmentAccountability/AcademicGrowth/NMSBA.html School data: K12 Academic Performance Database

NOTE: New Mexico Virtual Academy serves students in grades 6–12.


ARTS/LITERACY


Grade NMVA %AAP

NMVA Total Count

State%AAP

NMVA %AAP

NMVA Total Count

State%AAP

6th 20% 30 24% 10% 30 20%

7th 23% 53 23% 15% 52 17%

8th 23% 87 26% 16% 76 20%


Subject (grade) NMVA %AAP

NMVA Total Count

State %AAP




HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A13: Newark Prep Comparison to the State (High School)

NOTE: Newark Preparatory Charter School serves students in high school (grades 9–12). Newark has too few tested in grade 9; therefore, results for both school and state are reported for grade 10.


Subject (grade) Newark Prep %AAP

Newark PrepTotal Count

State %AAP


Algebra 1 (grade 10) * * *

NEW MEXICO

NEW MEXICO VIRTUAL ACADEMY (NMVA)

NEW JERSEY

NEWARK PREPARATORY CHARTER SCHOOL (NEWARK PREP)

HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A12: NMVA Comparison to the State (High School)


Sources: State data: http://www.state.nj.us/education/schools/achievement/15/parcc/ School data: K12 Academic Performance Database

53



California Virtual Academy at Fresno 62%

59% 12%* 11%

California Virtual Academy at Jamestown 59%

California Virtual Academy at Kings 48%

California Virtual Academy at Los Angeles 56%

California Virtual Academy at Maricopa 62%

California Virtual Academy at Maricopa High School 58%

California Virtual Academy at San Diego 53%

California Virtual Academy at San Joaquin 53%

California Virtual Academy at San Mateo 43%

California Virtual Academy at Sonoma 54%

California Virtual Academy at Sutter 57%

Idaho College and Career Readiness Academy** 54% 49% 6% 10%

Idaho Virtual Academy 57% 49% 12% 10%

Insight School of California at Los Angeles 67% 59% 17% 11%

Insight School of California at San Diego 58% 59% 13% 11%

Insight School of California at San Joaquin 61% 59% 20% 11%

Insight School of Oregon** 67% 51% -- 15%

Insight School of Oregon at Painted Hills 65% 51% 15% 15%

Insight School of Washington 57% 46% 13% 12%

iQ Academy California at Los Angeles 61% 59% 7% 11%

Nevada Virtual Academy 56% 52% 11% 12%

Oregon Virtual Academy 59% 51% 15% 15%

Silicon Valley Flex Academy** 33% 59% 25% 11%

Washington Virtual Academy at Omak 49% 46% 11% 12%

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 instead of the SBAC grade 11 assessment.

Note: FRL = Free and Reduced Price Lunch. See Appendix B for data sources. *The special education eligibility percentage is an aggregate f igure encompassing the specif ied separate K12 California Vir tual Academy schools. **The following schools are not included in analysis:• Idaho College and Career Readiness Academy (IDCCRA) serves students in grades 9–12 only. IDCCRA high school results are reported in group 3. • Insight School of Oregon is not included in the analyses because the school did not provide data to K12 at the time of this report.• Silicon Valley Flex Academy is not included in the analyses because the school did not provide data to K12 at the time of this report.

GROUP 2 K12 Public School Programs Administering SBAC

TABLE A14: Demographics of K12 Public School Programs Administering SBAC


NOTE: California Virtual Academy at Fresno serves students in grades 3–8.

CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA VIRTUAL ACADEMY AT FRESNO (CAVA-FRESNO)

GRADES 3–8

TABLE A15: CAVA-Fresno Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)


Sources: State data: http://caaspp.cde.ca.gov School data: K12 Academic Performance Database


ARTS/LITERACY


GradeCAVA-Fresno%AAP

CAVA-Fresno

Total Count

State%AAP

CAVA-Fresno%AAP

CAVA-Fresno

Total Count

State%AAP

3rd 36% 36 43% 31% 36 46%

4th 36% 50 44% 24% 50 38%

5th 30% 44 49% 20% 44 33%

6th 24% 50 48% 16% 50 35%

7th 42% 62 48% 18% 62 36%

8th 41% 66 48% 20% 66 36%

NOTE: California Virtual Academy at Jamestown serves students in high school (grades 9–12).

CALIFORNIA VIRTUAL ACADEMY AT JAMESTOWN (CAVA-JAMESTOWN)

HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A16: CAVA-Jamestown Comparison to the State (High School)




Subject (grade)CAVA-

Jamestown%AAP

CAVA-JamestownTotal Count

State %AAP


Mathematics (grade 11) 13% 23 33%

55

CALIFORNIA VIRTUAL ACADEMY AT KINGS (CAVA-KINGS)

GRADES 3–8

TABLE A17: CAVA-Kings Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)



HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A18: CAVA-Kings Comparison to the State (High School)


2015–2016 ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/

LITERACY


GradeCAVA-Kings %AAP

CAVA-Kings Total Count

State%AAP

CAVA-Kings%AAP

CAVA-Kings Total Count

State%AAP

3rd 62% 13 43% 31% 13 46%

4th * * 44% * * 38%

5th 18% 22 49% 14% 22 33%

6th 24% 21 48% 19% 21 35%

7th 30% 30 48% 23% 30 36%

8th 36% 39 48% 18% 39 36%


Subject (grade)CAVA-Kings%AAP

CAVA-Kings

Total Count

State %AAP



CALIFORNIA VIRTUAL ACADEMY AT LOS ANGELES (CAVA-LOS ANGELES)

GRADES 3–8

TABLE A19: CAVA-Los Angeles Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)



HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A20: CAVA-Los Angeles Comparison to the State (High School)



ARTS/LITERACY


Grade

CAVA-Los

Angeles%AAP

CAVA-Los Angeles

Total Count

State%AAP

CAVA-Los

Angeles%AAP

CAVA-Los Angeles

Total Count

State%AAP

3rd 39% 128 43% 25% 128 46%

4th 32% 179 44% 23% 179 38%

5th 36% 140 49% 16% 141 33%

6th 33% 243 48% 22% 243 35%

7th 40% 260 48% 25% 260 36%

8th 45% 314 48% 21% 314 36%


Subject (grade)

CAVA-Los

Angeles%AAP

CAVA- Los

AngelesTotal Count

State %AAP




NOTE: California Virtual Academy at Maricopa serves students in grades 3–8.

CALIFORNIA VIRTUAL ACADEMY AT MARICOPA (CAVA-MARICOPA)

GRADES 3–8

TABLE A21: CAVA-Maricopa Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)




ARTS/LITERACY


GradeCAVA-

Maricopa %AAP

CAVA-Maricopa

Total Count

State%AAP

CAVA-Maricopa

%AAP

CAVA-Maricopa

Total Count

State%AAP

3rd 34% 109 43% 21% 108 46%

4th 27% 109 44% 17% 109 38%

5th 27% 112 49% 15% 112 33%

6th 24% 135 48% 15% 135 35%

7th 32% 119 48% 19% 118 36%

8th 42% 174 48% 15% 173 36%

NOTE: California Virtual Academy at Maricopa-HS serves students in high school (grades 9–12).

CALIFORNIA VIRTUAL ACADEMY AT MARICOPA HIGH SCHOOL (CAVA-MARICOPA-HS)

HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A22: CAVA-Maricopa-HS Comparison to the State (High School)





Maricopa-HS%AAP

CAVA-Maricopa-HSTotal Count

State %AAP



57

CALIFORNIA VIRTUAL ACADEMY AT SAN DIEGO (CAVA-SAN DIEGO)

GRADES 3–8

TABLE A23: CAVA-San Diego Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)



HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A24: CAVA-San Diego Comparison to the State (High School)



ARTS/LITERACY


GradeCAVA-

San Diego%AAP

CAVA- San Diego Total Count

State%AAP

CAVA- San Diego

%AAP


State%AAP

3rd 40% 124 43% 34% 123 46%

4th 34% 143 44% 25% 143 38%

5th 38% 143 49% 17% 143 33%

6th 36% 172 48% 24% 172 35%

7th 48% 222 48% 29% 223 36%

8th 41% 249 48% 18% 249 36%


Subject (grade)

CAVA- San

Diego %AAP


State %AAP



CALIFORNIA VIRTUAL ACADEMY AT SAN JOAQUIN (CAVA-SAN JOAQUIN)

GRADES 3–8

TABLE A25: CAVA-San Joaquin Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)



HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A26: CAVA-San Joaquin Comparison to the State (High School)



Subject (grade)

CAVA-San

Joaquin%AAP

CAVA- San

JoaquinTotal Count

State %AAP




ARTS/LITERACY


GradeCAVA-

San Joaquin %AAP

CAVA- San Joaquin Total Count

State%AAP

CAVA- San Joaquin

%AAP

CAVA- San Joaquin Total Count

State%AAP

3rd 36% 66 43% 26% 66 46%

4th 30% 76 44% 29% 76 38%

5th 42% 78 49% 27% 78 33%

6th 22% 93 48% 13% 93 35%

7th 37% 134 48% 17% 133 36%

8th 36% 145 48% 17% 145 36%


CALIFORNIA VIRTUAL ACADEMY AT SAN MATEO (CAVA-SAN MATEO)

GRADES 3–8

TABLE A27: CAVA-San Mateo Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)



HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A28: CAVA-San Mateo Comparison to the State (High School)



ARTS/LITERACY


GradeCAVA-

San Mateo%AAP

CAVA- San Mateo Total Count

State%AAP

CAVA- San Mateo

%AAP

CAVA- San Mateo Total Count

State%AAP

3rd 68% 38 43% 47% 38 46%

4th 45% 42 44% 43% 42 38%

5th 53% 30 49% 47% 30 33%

6th 40% 52 48% 35% 52 35%

7th 51% 72 48% 36% 72 36%

8th 54% 79 48% 23% 78 36%

CALIFORNIA VIRTUAL ACADEMY AT SONOMA (CAVA-SONOMA)

GRADES 3–8

TABLE A29: CAVA-Sonoma Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)



HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A30: CAVA-Sonoma Comparison to the State (High School)




Sonoma%AAP

CAVA- Sonoma

Total Count

State %AAP




ARTS/LITERACY


GradeCAVA-

Sonoma %AAP

CAVA- Sonoma

Total Count

State%AAP

CAVA- Sonoma%AAP

CAVA- Sonoma

Total Count

State%AAP

3rd 35% 37 43% 30% 37 46%

4th 42% 24 44% 38% 24 38%

5th 51% 37 49% 19% 37 33%

6th 32% 34 48% 15% 34 35%

7th 28% 53 48% 17% 53 36%

8th 38% 65 48% 20% 65 36%


Subject (grade)

CAVA-San

Mateo%AAP

CAVA- San

MateoTotal Count

State %AAP



59

CALIFORNIA VIRTUAL ACADEMY AT SUTTER (CAVA-SUTTER)

GRADES 3–8

TABLE A31: CAVA-Sutter Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)



HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A32: CAVA-Sutter Comparison to the State (High School)



ARTS/LITERACY


GradeCAVA- Sutter %AAP

CAVA- Sutter

Total Count

State%AAP

CAVA- Sutter %AAP

CAVA- Sutter

Total Count

State%AAP

3rd 34% 38 43% 18% 38 46%

4th 38% 39 44% 26% 39 38%

5th 22% 36 49% 22% 36 33%

6th 36% 66 48% 29% 66 35%

7th 40% 85 48% 21% 86 36%

8th 40% 81 48% 17% 81 36%


Subject (grade)CAVA- Sutter %AAP

CAVA- Sutter

Total Count

State %AAP



NOTE: Insight School of California at Los Angeles serves students in high school (grades 9–12).29

INSIGHT SCHOOL OF CALIFORNIA AT LOS ANGELES (ISCA-LA)

HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A33: ISCA-LA Comparison to the State (High School)




Subject (grade) ISCA-LA%AAP

ISCA-LATotal Count

State %AAP





NOTE: Insight School of California at San Diego serves students in high school (grades 9–12).30

INSIGHT SCHOOL OF CALIFORNIA AT SAN DIEGO (ISCA-SD)

HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A34: ISCA-SD Comparison to the State (High School)




Subject (grade) ISCA-SD%AAP

ISCA-SDTotal Count

State %AAP



30, 31 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.

NOTE: Insight School of California at San Joaquin serves students in high school (grades 9–12).31

INSIGHT SCHOOL OF CALIFORNIA AT SAN JOAQUIN (ISCA-SJ)

HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A35: ISCA-SJ Comparison to the State (High School)




Subject (grade) ISCA-SJ%AAP

ISCA-SJTotal Count

State %AAP



61

iQ ACADEMY OF CALIFORNIA AT LOS ANGELES (iQCA-LA)

GRADES 3–8

TABLE A36: iQCA-LA Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)



HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A37: iQCA-LA Comparison to the State (High School)



ARTS/LITERACY


Grade iQCA-LA %AAP

iQCA-LA Total Count

State%AAP

iQCA-LA%AAP

iQCA-LA Total Count

State%AAP

3rd 31% 26 43% 23% 26 46%

4th 37% 27 44% 30% 27 38%

5th 50% 22 49% 23% 22 33%

6th 43% 44 48% 32% 44 35%

7th 49% 85 48% 21% 85 36%

8th 46% 52 48% 17% 52 36%


Subject (grade) iQCA-LA %AAP

iQCA-LA Total Count

State %AAP



NOTE: Silicon Valley Flex Academy was not analyzed because the school did not provide data to K12 at the time of this report.

SILICON VALLEY FLEX ACADEMY (SV-FLEX)


IDAHO VIRTUAL ACADEMY (IDVA)

GRADES 3–8

TABLE A38: IDVA Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)


Sources: State data: http://apps.sde.idaho.gov/ReportCard/ School data: K12 Academic Performance Database


ARTS/LITERACY


Grade IDVA%AAP

IDVA Total Count

State%AAP

IDVA%AAP

IDVA Total Count

State%AAP

3rd 42% 93 49% 34% 93 52%

4th 42% 102 50% 42% 102 47%

5th 46% 96 54% 29% 94 40%

6th 43% 86 51% 34% 86 40%

7th 60% 131 53% 43% 130 42%

8th 56% 127 54% 35% 127 39%

NOTES:

In 2015–2016, the state of Idaho administered SBAC to students in grade 3–8 only; therefore, results for Idaho high students are reported in group 3.

Idaho College and Career Readiness Academy (IDCCRA) serves students in grades 9–12 only. IDCCRA high school results are reported in group 3.

The Idaho High School assessment results came from Idaho Standards Achievement Test and those results are reported within group 3.

IDAHO

63

NEVADA VIRTUAL ACADEMY (NVVA)

GRADES 3–8

TABLE A39: NVVA Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)

%AAP = percentage at or above prof iciency.*The state of Nevada calls English Language Arts Reading

Sources: State data: http://www.nevadareportcard.com/di/ School data: K12 Academic Performance Database

2015–2016 READING


Grade NVVA*%AAP

NVVA Total Count

State%AAP

NVVA%AAP

NVVA Total Count

State%AAP

3rd 37% 98 46% 32% 98 45%

4th 30% 93 47% 20% 92 38%

5th 43% 111 51% 20% 111 32%

6th 46% 138 42% 22% 138 30%

7th 48% 162 47% 28% 162 29%

8th 55% 182 47% 31% 182 18%

NOTE: In 2015–2016, the state of Nevada administered SBAC to students in grade 3–8 only; therefore, results for Nevada high students are reported in group 3.

NEVADA


ARTS/LITERACY


Grade ORVA%AAP

ORVA Total Count

State%AAP

ORVA%AAP

ORVA Total Count

State%AAP

3rd 45% 75 47% 42% 73 48%

4th 49% 74 50% 37% 68 44%

5th 47% 89 57% 34% 82 40%

6th 40% 109 53% 25% 104 39%

7th 43% 121 56% 32% 117 44%

8th 42% 165 57% 22% 161 42%

GRADES 3–8

TABLE A40: ORVA Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)


Sources: State data: http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/results/?id = 116 School data: K12 Academic Performance Database


Subject (grade) ORVA%AAP

ORVATotal Count

State %AAP




OREGON

OREGON VIRTUAL ACADEMY (ORVA)

HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A41: ORVA Comparison to the State (High School)


NOTE: Insight School of Oregon was not analyzed because the school did not provide data to K12 at the time of this report.

INSIGHT SCHOOL OF OREGON (ISOR)

NOTES: Insight School of Oregon at Painted Hills serves students in high school (grades 9–12). Results for ISOR-PH grades 7–8 are not reported because the numbers of students were not sufficient (n<10) to support meaningful analysis.32

INSIGHT SCHOOL OF OREGON AT PAINTED HILLS (ISOR-PH)

HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A42: ISOR-PH Comparison to the State (High School)


Sources: State data: http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/results/?id = 116 School data: K12 Academic Performance Database


Subject (grade) ISOR-PH %AAP

ISOR-PH Total Count

State %AAP




65


ARTS/LITERACY


GradeWAVA-Omak%AAP


State%AAP

WAVA-Omak%AAP


State%AAP

3rd 46% 149 55% 40% 149 60%

4th 53% 160 58% 46% 160 57%

5th 53% 187 61% 38% 187 50%

6th 49% 217 58% 39% 217 49%

7th 55% 283 60% 39% 282 51%

8th 55% 363 62% 24% 359 49%

GRADES 3–8

TABLE A43: WAVA-Omak Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)


Sources: State data: http://www.k12.wa.us/ School data: K12 Academic Performance Database


Subject (grade)WAVA-Omak%AAP

WAVA-Omak

Total Count

State %AAP




WASHINGTON

WASHINGTON VIRTUAL ACADEMY AT OMAK (WAVA-OMAK)

HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A44: WAVA-Omak Comparison to the State (High School)

NOTE: Insight School of Washington serves students in high school (grades 9–12).33

INSIGHT SCHOOL OF WASHINGTON (ISWA)

HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A45: ISWA Comparison to the State (High School)


Sources: State data: http://www.k12.wa.us/ School data: K12 Academic Performance Database


Subject (grade) ISWA %AAP

ISWA Total Count

State %AAP







Alabama Virtual Academy at Eufaula** 78% 52% 13% 11%

Arizona Virtual Academy 62% 39% 11% 12%


Cyber Academy of South Carolina 75% 56% 18% 13%

Florida Virtual Academy at Broward 67% 58%

10%* 13%

Florida Virtual Academy at Clay** 77% 58%

Florida Virtual Academy at Duval 70% 58%

Florida Virtual Academy at Hillsborough 66% 58%

Florida Virtual Academy at Osceola 74% 58%

Florida Virtual Academy at Palm Beach 66% 58%

Florida Virtual Academy at Pasco 64% 58%

Florida Virtual Academy at Pinellas 69% 58%

Georgia Cyber Academy 66% 62% 12% 11%

Hill House Passport Academy Charter School** 84% 46% 19% 17%

Hoosier Academy Indianapolis 63% 49%15%* 16%

Hoosier Academy Virtual School 68% 49%


Idaho College and Career Readiness Academy** 54% 49% 6% 10%

Insight Academy of Arizona 64% 39% 15% 12%

Insight School of Colorado 53% 42% -- 11%

Insight School of Kansas 58% 50% -- 14%

Insight School of Michigan 62% 47% 18% 13%

Insight School of Minnesota 55% 38% 29% 15%

Insight School of Oklahoma 64% 60% 22% 15%

Iowa Virtual Academy 64% 41% 8% 13%

iQ Academy Minnesota 54% 38% -- 15%

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 2015–2016, we compare the 2015–2016

proficiency percentages of the K12 public school program to the state’s proficiency percentages.

K12 Public School Programs Using the Same State Testing Program From 2014–2015 to 2015–2016

TABLE A46: Demographics of K12 Public School Programs Using the Same State Testing Programs from 2014–2015 to 2015–2016

GROUP 3

67


K12 State K12 State

Kansas Virtual Academy 67% 50% -- 14%

Louisiana Virtual Charter Academy 67% 64% 12% 11%

Massachusetts Virtual Academy at Greenfield Commonwealth Virtual School 59% 40% -- 18%

Michigan Great Lakes Virtual Academy 65% 47% 15% 13%

Michigan Virtual Charter Academy 66% 47% 17% 13%

Minnesota Flex Academy 63% 38% 21% 15%

Minnesota Virtual Academy 60% 38% -- 15%

North Carolina Virtual Academy 61% 57% 14% 13%

Oklahoma Virtual Charter Academy 65% 60% 14% 15%


South Carolina Virtual Charter School 62% 56% -- 13%

Tennessee Virtual Academy** 74% 56% 16% 13%

Texas Online Preparatory School 45% 59% 4% 9%

Texas Virtual Academy 60% 59% -- 9%

Utah Virtual Academy 56% 37% 15% 12%

Virginia Virtual Academy-King and Queen 45% 40%5%* 13%

Virginia Virtual Academy-Patrick 45% 40%

Wisconsin Virtual Academy 57% 41% 16% 14%

Wyoming Virtual Academy 51% 38% -- 14%

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

*For Florida, Indiana, and Virginia, the special education percentages are aggregate figures encompassing the specified individual K12 public school programs in each state.

**The following schools are not included in analysis:

• Alabama Virtual Academy at Eufaula because the school did not provide data to K12 at the time of this report.

• Florida Virtual Academy at Clay is not reported because the number of students was not sufficient (n<10) to support meaningful analysis.

• Hill House Passport Academy Charter School because the school did not provide data to K12 at the time of this report.

• Idaho College and Career Readiness Academy is not reported because the number of high school students was not sufficient (n<10) to support meaningful analysis.

• Tennessee Virtual Academy results are not reported because Tennessee invalidated all state assessment results due to vendor scoring issues.


ALABAMA

NOTE: Alabama Virtual Academy at Eufaula was not analyzed because the school did not provide data to K12 at the time of this report.

ALABAMA VIRTUAL ACADEMY AT EUFAULA (ALVA)

2015–2016 ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS


Grade AZVA%AAP

AZVA Total Count

State%AAP

AZVA%AAP

AZVA Total Count

State%AAP

3rd 46% 152 41% 33% 153 46%

4th 41% 174 46% 28% 173 45%

5th 40% 190 46% 20% 195 46%

6th 34% 208 38% 25% 209 39%

7th 44% 247 41% 26% 243 31%

8th 35% 273 33% 20% 261 26%

GRADES 3–8

TABLE A47: AZVA Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)


Sources: State data: https://azreportcards.com/ReportCard School data: K12 Academic Performance Database


Subject (grade) AZVA%AAP

AZVATotal Count

State %AAP

English Language Arts 9 (grade 9) 42% 146 34%



ARIZONA

ARIZONA VIRTUAL ACADEMY (AZVA)

HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A48: AZVA Comparison to the State (High School)

69



Grade ISAZ%AAP

ISAZ Total Count

State%AAP

ISAZ%AAP

ISAZ Total Count

State%AAP

7th 18% 11 41% 9% 11 31%

8th 8% 38 33% 3% 38 26%

GRADES 7–8

TABLE A49: ISAZ Comparison to the State (Grades 7–8)


Sources: State data: https://azreportcards.com/ReportCard School data: K12 Academic Performance Database


Subject (grade) ISAZ%AAP

ISAZTotal Count

State %AAP

English Language Arts 9 (grade 9) * * 34%



INSIGHT ACADEMY OF ARIZONA (ISAZ)

HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A50: ISAZ Comparison to the State (High School)

NOTE: Insight School of Arizona serves students in grades 7–12.34


NOTE: In 2015–2016, the state of Colorado administered PARCC to students in grades 3–9; therefore, those data are reported in group 1.

COLORADO PREPARATORY ACADEMY (CPA)

HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A51: CPA Comparison to the State (High School)

%AAP = percentage at or above prof iciency.*State reports percent ACT College Readiness Benchmark

Sources: State data: https://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/state06_Colorado_Web_Secured.pdf School data: K12 Academic Performance Database


Subject (grade) CPA%AAP

CPATotal Count

State %AAP*

ACT English (grade 11) 56% 18 61%


ACT Mathematics (grade 11) 28% 18 39%

COLORADO


NOTE: Insight School of Colorado serves students in high school (grades 9–12).35

INSIGHT SCHOOL OF COLORADO (ISCO)

HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A52: ISCO Comparison to the State (High School)




Subject (grade) ISCO%AAP

ISCOTotal Count

State %AAP





NOTES: Pikes Peak Online School serves students in high school (grades 9–12).

PIKES PEAK ONLINE SCHOOL (PPOS)

HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A53: PPOS Comparison to the State (High School)




Subject (grade) PPOS%AAP

PPOSTotal Count

State %AAP*




71



GradeFLVA-

Broward%AAP

FLVA-Broward

Total Count

State%AAP

FLVA-Broward

%AAP

FLVA-Broward

Total Count

State%AAP

3rd 57% 14 54% 50% 14 61%

4th 56% 16 52% 53% 19 59%

5th 63% 19 52% 52% 21 55%

6th 59% 17 52% 26% 19 50%

7th 64% 11 49% 50% 12 52%

8th 75% 12 57% 67% 12 48%

GRADES 3–8

TABLE A54: FLVA-Broward Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)


Sources: State data: http://www.fldoe.org/accountability/assessments/k-12-student-assessment/results/ School data: K12 Academic Performance Database


Subject (grade)FLVA-

Broward%AAP

FLVA-Broward

Total Count

State %AAP

English Language Arts 9 (grade 9) 36% 11 51%



FLORIDA

FLORIDA VIRTUAL ACADEMY AT BROWARD (FLVA-BROWARD)

HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A55: FLVA-Broward Comparison to the State (High School)

NOTE: Florida Virtual Academy at Clay was not because the number of students was not sufficient (n<10) to support meaningful analysis.

FLORIDA VIRTUAL ACADEMY AT CLAY (FLVA-CLAY)



GradeFLVA-Duval%AAP

FLVA-Duval Total Count

State%AAP

FLVA-Duval%AAP

FLVA-Duval Total Count

State%AAP

3rd 67% 12 54% 58% 12 61%

4th * * * * * *

5th 30% 10 52% 20% 10 55%

6th 55% 11 52% 27% 11 50%

7th 62% 13 49% 33% 15 52%

8th 65% 20 57% 37% 19 48%

GRADES 3–8

TABLE A56: FLVA-Duval Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)

%AAP = percentage at or above prof iciency.* Results not reported because the number of students was not suf f icient (n<10) to support meaningful analysis.


FLORIDA VIRTUAL ACADEMY AT DUVAL (FLVA-DUVAL)

NOTE: The analysis for FLVA-Duval includes grades 3–8 only because the number of high school students was not sufficient (n<10) to support meaningful analysis.


NOTE: The analysis for FLVA-Hillsborough includes grades 3–8 only because the number of high school students was not sufficient (n<10) to support meaningful analysis.

FLORIDA VIRTUAL ACADEMY AT HILLSBOROUGH (FLVA-HILLSBOROUGH)



GradeFLVA-

Hillsborough%AAP

FLVA-Hillsborough Total Count

State%AAP

FLVA-Hillsborough

%AAP

FLVA-Hillsborough Total Count

State%AAP

3rd 50% 12 54% 42% 12 61%

4th 30% 10 52% 18% 11 59%

5th 54% 13 52% 21% 14 55%

6th 44% 18 52% 13% 16 50%

7th 50% 12 49% 62% 13 52%

8th 62% 13 57% 42% 12 48%

GRADES 3–8

TABLE A57: FLVA-Hillsborough Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)



NOTE: The analysis for FLVA-Osceola includes grades 3–8 only because the number of high school students was not (n<10) to support meaningful analysis.

FLORIDA VIRTUAL ACADEMY AT OSCEOLA (FLVA-OSCEOLA)



GradeFLVA-

Osceola %AAP

FLVA-Osceola

Total Count

State%AAP

FLVA-Osceola %AAP

FLVA-Osceola

Total Count

State%AAP

3rd * * * * * *

4th * * * * * *

5th * * * * * *

6th 60% 10 52% 50% 10 50%

7th * * * 60% 10 52%

8th * * * * * *

GRADES 3–8

TABLE A58: FLVA-Osceola Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)



73

NOTE: The analysis for FLVA-Palm Beach includes grades 3–8 only because the number of high school students was not sufficient (n<10) to support meaningful analysis.

FLORIDA VIRTUAL ACADEMY AT PALM BEACH (FLVA-PALM BEACH)



GradeFLVA-

Palm Beach%AAP

FLVA- Palm Beach Total Count

State%AAP

FLVA- Palm Beach

%AAP

FLVA- Palm Beach Total Count

State%AAP

3rd * * * * * *

4th * * * * * *

5th * * * * * *

6th 19% 16 52% 0% 16 50%

7th 57% 14 49% 31% 13 52%

8th 47% 19 57% 35% 20 48%

GRADES 3–8

TABLE A59: FLVA-Palm Beach Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8



NOTES: The analysis for FLVA-Pasco English Language Arts grades 3–8 is not reported because the number of students was not sufficient (n<10) to support meaningful analysis. The analysis for FLVA-Pasco includes grades 3–8 only because numbers of high school students were not sufficient to support meaningful analysis.

FLORIDA VIRTUAL ACADEMY AT PASCO (FLVA-PASCO)


Grade FLVA-Pasco%AAP

FLVA-Pasco Total Count

State%AAP

3rd * * *

4th 20% 10 59%

5th * * *

6th * * *

7th 20% 10 52%

8th 20% 10 48%

GRADES 3–8

TABLE A60: FLVA-Pasco Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)




NOTE: The analysis for FLVA-Pinellas includes grades 3–8 only because the number of high school students was not sufficient (n<10) to support meaningful analysis.

FLORIDA VIRTUAL ACADEMY AT PINELLAS (FLVA-PINELLAS)



GradeFLVA-

Pinellas %AAP

FLVA-Pinellas

Total Count

State%AAP

FLVA- Pinellas %AAP

FLVA-Pinellas

Total Count

State%AAP

3rd * * * * * *

4th 18% 11 52% 20% 10 59%

5th * * * * * *

6th * * * * * *

7th * * * * * *

8th * * * * * *

GRADES 3–8

TABLE A61: FLVA-Pinellas Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)





Grade GCA %AAP

GCA Total Count

State%AAP

GCA %AAP

GCA Total Count

State%AAP

3rd 31% 560 35% 28% 560 40%

4th 28% 678 35% 28% 681 40%

5th 35% 707 41% 21% 712 38%

6th 36% 916 39% 27% 915 38%

7th 36% 1118 39% 32% 1121 42%

8th 40% 1212 44% 20% 1157 33%

GRADES 3–8

TABLE A62: GCA Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)


Sources: State data: http://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Assessment/Pages/Georgia-Milestones-Statewide-Scores.aspx School data: K12 Academic Performance Database


Subject (grade) GCA %AAP

GCA Total Count

State %AAP

Literature & Composition (grade 9) 38% 1,000 41%

Coordinate Algebra (grade 9) 17% 18 31%


GEORGIA

GEORGIA CYBER ACADEMY (GCA)

HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A63: GCA Comparison to the State (High School)

75

NOTE: In 2015–2016, the state of Idaho administered SBAC to students in grades 3–8; therefore, those data are reported in group 2.

IDAHO

NOTE: Idaho College and Career Readiness Academy serves students in grades 9–12 only. Results for IDCCRA is not reported because

the number of high school students was not sufficient (n<10) to support meaningful analysis.

IDAHO COLLEGE AND CAREER READINESS ACADEMY (IDCCRA)

NOTE: Students enrolled in the IDVA-Alt campus were removed from the following analysis.

IDAHO VIRTUAL ACADEMY (IDVA)

HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A64: IDVA Comparison to the State (High School)


Sources: State data: http://apps.sde.idaho.gov/ReportCard School data: K12 Academic Performance Database


Subject (grade) IDVA%AAP

IDVATotal Count

State %AAP

English Language Arts (grade 10) 71% 138 62%



NOTE: In 2015–2016, the state of Indiana administered a different assessment than was used in 2014–2015 for students in grades 9–12; therefore, those results are reported in group 4.

INDIANA



GradeHoosier-

Indy %AAP

Hoosier- Indy

Total Count

State%AAP

Hoosier-Indy

%AAP

Hoosier- Indy

Total Count

State%AAP

3rd 58% 19 69% 47% 19 60%

4th 65% 23 68% 74% 23 62%

5th 15% 13 63% 62% 13 66%

6th 50% 12 66% 42% 12 60%

7th 71% 17 68% 35% 17 52%

8th 63% 19 62% 42% 19 53%

GRADES 3–8

TABLE A65: Hoosier-Indy Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)


Sources: State data: http://compass.doe.in.gov/dashboard/istep.aspx?type = state School data: K12 Academic Performance Database

HOOSIER ACADEMY INDIANAPOLIS (HOOSIER-INDY)



Grade HAVS %AAP

HAVS Total Count

State%AAP

HAVS %AAP

HAVS Total Count

State%AAP

3rd 39% 150 69% 28% 154 60%

4th 45% 105 68% 30% 105 62%

5th 33% 123 63% 21% 124 66%

6th 41% 161 66% 28% 167 60%

7th 44% 207 68% 16% 211 52%

8th 40% 210 62% 21% 217 53%

GRADES 3–8

TABLE A66: HAVS Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)



HOOSIER ACADEMY VIRTUAL CHARTER SCHOOL (HAVS)

77

2015–2016 READING


Grade IAVA %AAP

IAVA Total Count

State%AAP

IAVA %AAP

IAVA Total Count

State%AAP

3rd 67% 12 77% 33% 12 80%

4th * * * * * *

5th * * * * * *

6th * * * * * *

7th 67% 12 76% 42% 12 84%

8th 77% 13 76% 46% 13 76%

GRADES 3–8

TABLE A67: IAVA Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)


Sources: State data: http://reports.educateiowa.gov/ School data: K12 Academic Performance Database


Subject (grade) IAVA %AAP

IAVA Total Count

State %AAP

Reading (grade 11) 100% 11 78%



IOWA

IOWA VIRTUAL ACADEMY (IAVA)

HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A68: IAVA Comparison to the State (High School)

KANSAS



Grade KSVA %AAP

KSVA Total Count

State%AAP

KSVA %AAP

KSVA Total Count

State%AAP

3rd 33% 24 45% 21% 24 53%

4th 30% 30 52% 13% 31 36%

5th 26% 23 45% 21% 24 34%

6th 43% 35 40% 14% 35 32%

GRADES 3–6

TABLE A69: KSVA Comparison to the State (Grades 3–6)


Sources: State data: http://ksreportcard.ksde.org/assessment_results.aspx?org_no = State&rptType = 3 School data: K12 Academic Performance Database

KANSAS VIRTUAL ACADEMY (KSVA)

NOTE: Kansas Virtual Academy serves students in grades 3–6.




Grade ISKS%AAP

ISKS Total Count

State%AAP

ISKS%AAP

ISKS Total Count

State%AAP

7th 32% 41 38% 17% 41 30%

8th 26% 54 30% 7% 54 25%

GRADES 7–8

TABLE A70: ISKS Comparison to the State (Grades 7–8)


Sources: State data: http://ksreportcard.ksde.org/assessment_results.aspx?org_no = State&rptType = 3 School data: K12 Academic Performance Database


Subject (grade) ISKS%AAP

ISKS Total Count

State %AAP




INSIGHT SCHOOL OF KANSAS (ISKS)

HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A71: ISKS Comparison to the State (High School)

NOTE: Insight School of Kansas serves students in grades 7–12.36


HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A72: LAVCA Comparison to the State (High School)

NOTE: In 2015–2016, the state of Louisiana administered a new assessment compared to what was administered in 2014–2015 in grades 3–8; therefore, those data are reported in group 4.


Subject (grade) LAVCA %AAP

LAVCATotal Count

State %AAP

English 2 (grade 10) 94% 65 91%


LOUISIANA

LOUISIANA VIRTUAL CHARTER ACADEMY (LAVCA)


Sources: State data:https://www.louisianabelieves.com/resources/library/test-results School data: K12 Academic Performance Database

79

HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A73: MAVA Comparison to the State (High School)


Subject (grade) MAVA %AAP

MAVATotal Count

State %AAP



MASSACHUSETTS


Sources: State data: http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/mcas/achievement_level.aspx?linkid = 32&orgcode = 00000000&orgtypecode = 0& School data: K12 Academic Performance Database

NOTE: In 2015–2016, the state of Massachusetts administered PARCC to students in grades 3–8; therefore, those data are reported in group 1.

MASSACHUSETTS VIRTUAL ACADEMY AT GREENFIELD COMMONWEALTH VIRTUAL SCHOOL (MAVA)

MICHIGAN

NOTE: In 2015–2016, the state of Michigan administered a different assessment for high school students than was used in 2014–2015; therefore, those figures are reported in group 4.



Grade MGLVA %AAP

MGLVATotal Count

State%AAP

MGLVA %AAP

MGLVATotal Count

State%AAP

3rd 38% 61 46% 25% 61 45%

4th 46% 83 46% 30% 82 44%

5th 41% 90 51% 30% 90 34%

6th 55% 110 45% 32% 110 33%

7th 59% 146 47% 34% 146 35%

8th 55% 200 49% 30% 200 33%

GRADES 3–8

TABLE A74: MGLVA Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)


Sources: State data: https://www.mischooldata.org/ School data: K12 Academic Performance Database

MICHIGAN GREAT LAKES VIRTUAL ACADEMY (MGLVA)





Grade MVCA %AAP

MVCATotal Count

State%AAP

MVCA %AAP

MVCATotal Count

State%AAP

3rd 41% 111 46% 30% 111 45%

4th 48% 130 46% 49% 129 44%

5th 50% 120 51% 26% 121 34%

6th 61% 175 45% 37% 175 33%

7th 54% 214 47% 35% 214 35%

8th 63% 226 49% 35% 226 33%

GRADES 3–8

TABLE A75: MVCA Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)






Grade ISMI %AAP

ISMITotal Count

State%AAP

ISMI %AAP

ISMITotal Count

State%AAP

6th 38% 13 45% 8% 13 33%

7th 45% 40 47% 18% 40 35%

8th 43% 47 49% 17% 47 33%

GRADES 6–8

TABLE A76: ISMI Comparison to the State (Grades 6–8)



INSIGHT SCHOOL OF MICHIGAN (ISMI)

NOTE: Insight School of Michigan serves students in grades 7–12.37

81

2015–2016 READING


Grade MNVA %AAP

MNVA Total Count

State%AAP

MNVA %AAP

MNVA Total Count

State%AAP

3rd 56% 55 58% 51% 55 70%

4th 55% 53 58% 62% 53 69%

5th 63% 71 68% 34% 70 59%

6th 69% 72 62% 42% 72 56%

7th 58% 85 57% 39% 85 56%

8th 47% 113 57% 23% 112 58%

GRADES 3–8

TABLE A77: MNVA Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)


Sources: State data: http://rc.education.state.mn.us/#testResults/orgId--999999000000__groupType--state__test--allAccount__subject--R__year--trend__grade--all__p--1 School data: K12 Academic Performance Database


Subject (grade) MNVA %AAP

MNVA Total Count

State %AAP




MINNESOTA

MINNESOTA VIRTUAL ACADEMY (MNVA)

HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A78: MNVA Comparison to the State (High School)


Subject (grade) ISMN %AAP

ISMNTotal Count

State %AAP




INSIGHT SCHOOL OF MINNESOTA (ISMN)

HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A80: ISMN Comparison to the State (High School)

NOTE: Insight School of Minnesota serves students in grades 6–12.38

2015–2016 READING


Grade ISMN %AAP

ISMNTotal Count

State%AAP

ISMN %AAP

ISMNTotal Count

State%AAP

6th * * 62% * * 56%

7th * * 57% * * 56%

8th 36% 25 57% 17% 24 58%

GRADES 6–8

TABLE A79: ISMN Comparison to the State (Grades 6–8)





2015–2016 READING


Grade iQMN %AAP

iQMN Total Count

State%AAP

iQMN %AAP

iQMN Total Count

State%AAP

3rd * * 58% * * 70%

4th * * 58% * * 69%

5th 57% 14 68% 29% 14 59%

6th 73% 11 62% 45% 11 56%

7th 29% 14 57% 0% 14 56%

8th 45% 20 57% 30% 20 58%

GRADES 3–8

TABLE A81: iQMN Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)

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



Subject (grade) iQMN %AAP

iQMN Total Count

State %AAP




iQ ACADEMY MINNESOTA (iQMN)

HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A82: iQMN Comparison to the State (High School)

2015–2016 READING


Grade MN Flex %AAP

MN FlexTotal Count

State%AAP

MN Flex %AAP

MN FlexTotal Count

State%AAP

5th * * 68% * * 59%

6th 63% 24 62% 29% 24 56%

7th 29% 14 57% 23% 13 56%

GRADES 5–7

TABLE A83: MN Flex Comparison to the State (Grades 5–7)



MINNESOTA FLEX ACADEMY (MN FLEX)

NOTE: Minnesota Flex Academy serves students in grades 5–7.

83

2015–2016 READING


Grade NCVA %AAP

NCVA Total Count

State%AAP

NCVA %AAP

NCVA Total Count

State%AAP

3rd 55% 101 58% 42% 101 65%

4th 47% 90 58% 23% 90 57%

5th 52% 96 55% 26% 96 60%

6th 57% 128 59% 26% 128 52%

7th 54% 125 59% 28% 124 49%

8th 62% 120 53% 29% 120 45%

GRADES 3–8

TABLE A84: NCVA Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)


Sources: State data: http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/accountability/reporting/acctsumm16.xlsx School data: K12 Academic Performance Database


Subject (grade) NCVA %AAP

NCVA Total Count

State %AAP

English 2 (grade 10) 74% 27 59%

Mathematics 1 (grade 9) 27% 56 61%


NORTH CAROLINA

NORTH CAROLINA VIRTUAL ACADEMY (NCVA)

HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A85: NCVA Comparison to the State (High School)

2015–2016 READING


Grade OVCA %AAP

OVCA Total Count

State%AAP

OVCA %AAP

OVCA Total Count

State%AAP

3rd 44% 84 72% 24% 84 66%

4th 53% 98 68% 44% 97 69%

5th 62% 91 72% 48% 91 70%

6th 52% 143 63% 48% 143 66%

7th 65% 160 71% 52% 160 66%

8th 67% 157 75% 48% 143 53%

GRADES 3–8

TABLE A86: OVCA Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)


Sources: State data: http://sde.ok.gov/sde/assessment-administrator-resources-administrators School data: K12 Academic Performance Database


Subject (grade) OVCA %AAP

OVCA Total Count

State %AAP

English 2 (grade 10) 80% 140 76%

Algebra 1 (grade 9) 49% 116 74%


OKLAHOMA

OKLAHOMA VIRTUAL CHARTER ACADEMY (OVCA)

HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A87: OVCA Comparison to the State (High School)


INSIGHT SCHOOL OF OKLAHOMA (ISOK)

NOTE: Insight School of Oklahoma serves students in grades 7–12.39

2015–2016 READING


Grade ISOK %AAP

ISOKTotal Count

State%AAP

ISOK %AAP

ISOKTotal Count

State%AAP

7th 38% 13 71% 0% 13 66%

8th 46% 24 75% 4% 24 53%

GRADES 7–8

TABLE A88: ISOK Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)


Sources: State data: http://sde.ok.gov/sde/assessment-administrator-resources-administrators School data: K12 Academic Performance Database


Subject (grade) ISOK %AAP

ISOKTotal Count

State %AAP

English 2 (grade 10) 60% 43 76%



HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A89: ISOK Comparison to the State (High School)

PENNSYLVANIA

NOTE: Hill House Passport Academy Charter School was not analyzed because the school did not provide data to K12 at the time of this report.

HILL HOUSE PASSPORT ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL (HHPACS)


85

CYBER ACADEMY OF SOUTH CAROLINA (CASC)

NOTE: The state of South Carolina administered a different assessment in 2014–2015 and 2015–2016 to high school students; therefore, those data are reported in group 4.

SOUTH CAROLINA


Subject (grade) CASC %AAP

CASC Total Count

State %AAP

English 1 (grade 9) 82% 61 79%

Algebra 1 / Mathematics for the Technologies (grades 9)

57% 28 82%


Sources: State data: http://ed.sc.gov/data/test-scores/ School data: K12 Academic Performance Database

HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A90: CASC Comparison to the State (High School)

SOUTH CAROLINA VIRTUAL CHARTER SCHOOL (SCVCS)


Subject (grade) SCVCS%AAP

SCVCSTotal Count

State %AAP

English 1 (grade 9) 79% 140 79%

Algebra 1 / Mathematics for the Technologies (grades 9)

72% 109 82%



HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A91: SCVCS Comparison to the State (High School)


TENNESSEE

NOTE: Tennessee Virtual Academy was not analyzed because Tennessee invalidated all state assessment results due to vendor scoring issues.

TENNESSEE VIRTUAL ACADEMY (TNVA)

NOTE: Texas changed the proficiency cut scores in 2015–2016 as outlined in the phase-in plan introduced with STAAR. The proficiency cut scores changed as part of Phase-In II in spring 2016. For more information see Understanding the Different Scores on STAAR_Aug21.pdf, published August 29, 2014.

TEXAS

2015–2016 READING


Grade TXVA %AAP

TXVA Total Count

State%AAP

TXVA %AAP

TXVA Total Count

State%AAP

3rd 59% 138 73% 42% 139 75%

4th 60% 251 75% 37% 250 73%

5th 69% 288 81% 54% 289 86%

6th 62% 437 69% 53% 439 72%

7th 71% 580 71% 56% 588 69%

8th 84% 683 87% 51% 675 82%

GRADES 3–8

TABLE A92: TXVA Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)


Sources: State data: https://rptsvr1.tea.texas.gov/perfreport//tprs/2015/srch.html?srch = D School data: K12 Academic Performance Database


Subject (grade) TXVA %AAP

TXVA Total Count

State %AAP

English 1 (grade 9) 65% 376 65%

Algebra 1 (grade 9) 64% 397 78%


TEXAS VIRTUAL ACADEMY (TXVA)

HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A93: TXVA Comparison to the State (High School)

87

2015–2016 READING


Grade TOPS %AAP

TOPS Total Count

State%AAP

TOPS %AAP

TOPS Total Count

State%AAP

3rd 93% 15 73% 87% 15 75%

4th 94% 34 75% 82% 34 73%

5th 97% 35 81% 94% 35 86%

6th 100% 47 69% 94% 48 72%

7th 88% 60 71% 82% 60 69%

8th 97% 65 87% 88% 58 82%

GRADES 3–8

TABLE A94: TOPS Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)


Sources: State data: https://rptsvr1.tea.texas.gov/perfreport/tprs/2016/srch.html?srch=C School data: K12 Academic Performance Database


Subject (grade) TOPS %AAP

TOPS Total Count

State %AAP




TEXAS ONLINE PREPARATORY SCHOOL (TOPS)

HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A95: TOPS Comparison to the State (High School)

UTAH

2015–2016 LANGUAGE ARTS


Grade UTVA %AAP

UTVA Total Count

State%AAP

UTVA %AAP

UTVA Total Count

State%AAP

3rd 39% 38 48% 30% 40 53%

4th 36% 50 43% 39% 51 52%

5th 20% 49 47% 22% 49 50%

6th 12% 57 48% 9% 57 41%

7th 25% 71 44% 29% 73 48%

8th 23% 91 42% 20% 94 45%

GRADES 3–8

TABLE A96: UTVA Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)


Sources: State data: http://www.schools.utah.gov/data/Reports/Assessment.aspx School data: K12 Academic Performance Database


Subject (grade) UTVA %AAP

UTVA Total Count

State %AAP

Language Arts (grade 9) 34% 110 41%

Secondary Mathematics 1 (grade 9) 28% 108 42%


UTAH VIRTUAL ACADEMY (UTVA)

HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A97: UTVA Comparison to the State (High School)

NOTE: UTVA-PT students have been removed from this analysis.


VIRGINIA

2015–2016 READING


Grade

VAVA-King and Queen %AAP

VAVA-King and Queen Total Count

State%AAP

VAVA-King and Queen %AAP

VAVA-King and Queen Total Count

State%AAP

3rd 76% 17 76% 65% 17 77%

4th 68% 25 77% 86% 22 83%

5th * * * * * *

6th * * * * * *

GRADES 3–6

TABLE A98: VAVA-King and Queen Comparison to the State (Grades 3–6)


Sources: State data: https://p1pe.doe.virginia.gov/reportcard/report.do?division = All&schoolName = All School data: K12 Academic Performance Database

VIRGINIA VIRTUAL ACADEMY-KING AND QUEEN (VAVA-KING AND QUEEN)

NOTE: Virginia Virtual Academy-King and Queen serves students in grades 3–6.

2015–2016 READING


GradeVAVA-Patrick%AAP

VAVA-Patrick

Total Count

State%AAP

VAVA-Patrick%AAP

VAVA-Patrick

Total Count

State%AAP

3rd 70% 27 76% 63% 27 77%

4th 81% 32 77% 90% 31 83%

5th 93% 44 81% 91% 43 79%

6th 94% 32 77% 97% 31 82%

7th 94% 34 82% 79% 34 72%

GRADES 3–7

TABLE A99: VAVA-Patrick Comparison to the State (Grades 3–7)


Sources: State data: https://p1pe.doe.virginia.gov/reportcard/report.do?division = All&schoolName = All School data: K12 Academic Performance Database

VIRGINIA VIRTUAL ACADEMY-PATRICK (VAVA-PATRICK)

NOTE: Virginia Virtual Academy-Patrick serves students in grades 3–7.

89

WISCONSIN VIRTUAL ACADEMY (WIVA)

NOTE: In 2015–2016, the state of Wisconsin administered a different assessment to high school students than was administered in 2014–2015; therefore, additional data are reported in group 4.

WISCONSIN


Subject (grade) WIVA %AAP

WIVA Total Count

State %AAP

ACT English Language Arts* (grade 11) 24% 195 41%


%AAP = percentage at or above prof iciency.*ACT English Language Arts is a composite of English Language Arts, Reading and Writing.

Sources: State data: http://wisedash.dpi.wi.gov/Dashboard/portalHome.jsp School data: K12 Academic Performance Database

HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A100: WIVA Comparison to the State (High School)

2015–2016 READING


Grade WYVA %AAP

WYVA Total Count

State%AAP

WYVA %AAP

WYVA Total Count

State%AAP

3rd 46% 26 58% 23% 26 53%

4th 80% 25 65% 48% 25 55%

5th 55% 29 61% 31% 29 56%

6th 66% 35 58% 54% 35 50%

7th 67% 36 60% 42% 36 49%

8th 51% 45 54% 13% 45 48%

GRADES 3–8

TABLE A101: WYVA Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)


Sources: State data: https://portals.edu.wyoming.gov/Reports/Public/wde-reports-2012/public-reports/assessment/pawsresultsstatelevelaggregated School data: K12 Academic Performance Database


Subject (grade) WYVA %AAP

WYVA Total Count

State %AAP

ACT Reading (grade 11) 49% 37 36%



WYOMING

WYOMING VIRTUAL ACADEMY (WYVA)

HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A102: WYVA Comparison to the State (High School)




Arkansas Virtual Academy 65% 62% 13% 14%



Hoosier Academy Indianapolis 63% 49%15%* 16%

Hoosier Academy Virtual School 68% 49%


Insight School of Ohio 67% 45% 20% 15%


Maine Virtual Academy 60% 47% 17% 17%




Ohio Virtual Academy 59% 45% 14% 15%

South Carolina Virtual Charter School 62% 56% -- --


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 2015–2016.

K12 Public School Programs Administering New State Testing Programs in 2015–2016

TABLE A103: Demographics of K12 Public School Programs Administering New State Testing Programs in 2015–2016

GROUP 4

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

Special education eligibility percentages are reported only for schools in which K12 is responsible for special education services.

* The special education eligibility percentage is an aggregate figure encompassing the specified individual Indiana K12 public school programs.

91

2015–2016 ACT ASPIRE ENGLISH

LANGUAGE ARTS*


Grade ARVA %AAP

ARVATotal Count

State%AAP

ARVA %AAP

ARVATotal Count

State%AAP

3rd 39% 93 40% 39% 114 56%

4th 35% 101 41% 44% 109 54%

5th 49% 116 51% 35% 121 48%

6th 55% 129 58% 44% 135 55%

7th 43% 180 50% 26% 183 44%

8th 54% 181 53% 27% 181 38%

GRADES 3–8

TABLE A104: ARVA Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)

%AAP = percentage at or above prof iciency.*English Language Arts is a composite (arithmetic average) of English, Reading, and Writing. State level data represents an average score of the district data.

Sources: State data: http://www.arkansased.gov/divisions/learning-services/student-assessment/test-scores School data: K12 Academic Performance Database


Subject (grade) ARVA %AAP

ARVATotal Count

State %AAP

ACT Aspire English Language Arts (grade 9)*

53% 124 48%

ACT Aspire Mathematics (grade 9) 26% 128 28%


ARKANSAS

ARKANSAS VIRTUAL ACADEMY (ARVA)

HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A105: ARVA Comparison to the State (High School)

GEORGIA CYBER ACADEMY (GCA)

NOTES:

The state of Georgia administered the same assessment in 2014–2015 and 2015–2016 for grades 3–8; therefore, those results are reported in group 3.

Georgia administered Algebra 1 for the first time in 2015–2016 to high school students; therefore, those results are reported in this section.

GEORGIA


Subject (grade) GCA %AAP

GCA Total Count

State %AAP

Algebra I (grade 9) 17% 903 36%


Sources: State data: http://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Assessment/Pages/Georgia-Milestones-Statewide-Scores.aspx School data: K12 Academic Performance Database

HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A106: GCA Comparison to the State (High School)


HOOSIER ACADEMY INDIANAPOLIS (HOOSIER-INDY)

NOTE: The state of Indiana administered the same assessment in 2014–2015 and 2015–2016 for grades 3–8; therefore, those results are reported in group 3.

INDIANA


Subject (grade)Hoosier-

Indy %AAP

Hoosier-Indy

Total Count

State %AAP





HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A107: Hoosier-Indy Comparison to the State (High School)

HOOSIER ACADEMY VIRTUAL CHARTER SCHOOL (HAVS)


Subject (grade) HAVS %AAP

HAVSTotal Count

State %AAP





HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A108: HAVS Comparison to the State (High School)

93

LOUISIANA

NOTE: The state of Louisiana administered the same assessment in 2014–2015 and 2015–2016 for high students; therefore, those results are reported in group 3.



Grade LAVCA%AAP

LAVCA Total Count

State%AAP

LAVCA%AAP

LAVCA Total Count

State%AAP

3rd 46% 103 62% 47% 102 74%

4th 50% 101 70% 35% 101 69%

5th 51% 110 69% 34% 110 64%

6th 65% 146 74% 42% 146 60%

7th 66% 158 70% 47% 158 60%

8th 78% 138 77% 57% 138 56%

GRADES 3–8

TABLE A109: LAVCA Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)


Sources: State data: https://www.louisianabelieves.com/resources/library/test-results School data: K12 Academic Performance Database

LOUISIANA VIRTUAL CHARTER ACADEMY (LAVCA)

MAINE


ARTS/LITERACY


Grade MEVA %AAP

MEVATotal Count

State%AAP

MEVA %AAP

MEVATotal Count

State%AAP

7th 59% 27 48% 19% 27 40%

8th 50% 18 48% 22% 18 35%

GRADES 7–8

TABLE A110: MEVA Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)


Sources: State data: http://www.maine.gov/doe/assessment/index.html School data: K12 Academic Performance Database


Subject (grade) MEVA %AAP

MEVATotal Count

State %AAP


Secondary Mathematics 1 (grade 9) 19% 32 35%


MAINE VIRTUAL ACADEMY (MEVA)

HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A111: MEVA Comparison to the State (High School)

NOTE: Maine Virtual Academy serves students in grades 7–12.


MICHIGAN GREAT LAKES VIRTUAL ACADEMY (MGLVA)

NOTE: The state of Michigan administered the same assessment in 2014–2015 and 2015–2016 for grades 3–8; therefore, those results are reported in group 3.

MICHIGAN


Subject (grade) MGLVA%AAP

MGLVA Total Count

State %AAP

SAT Evidence-Based Reading and Writing (grade 11)

73% 98 60%

SAT Mathematics (grade 11) 40% 98 37%


Sources: State data: https://www.mischooldata.org/DistrictSchoolProfiles/AssessmentResults/AssessmentGradesPerformance.aspx School data: K12 Academic Performance Database

HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A112: MGLVA Comparison to the State (High School)



Subject (grade) MVCA%AAP

MVCA Total Count

State %AAP


74% 137 60%




HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A113: MVCA Comparison to the State (High School)

95

INSIGHT SCHOOL OF MICHIGAN (ISMI)


Subject (grade) ISMI %AAP

ISMI Total Count

State %AAP


54% 71 60%




HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A114: ISMI Comparison to the State (High School)

NOTE: Insight School of Michigan serves students in high school (grades 9–12).40


NEVADA VIRTUAL ACADEMY (NVVA)

NOTE: In 2015–2016, the state of Nevada administered SBAC to students in grades 3–9; therefore, those results are reported in group 3.

NEVADA


Subject (grade) NVVA %AAP

NVVA Total Count

State %AAP

English 2 (grade 10) 48% 63 70%

Mathematics 2 (grade 10) 6% 142 33%


Sources: State data: http://www.nevadareportcard.com/di/ School data: K12 Academic Performance Database

HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A115: NVVA Comparison to the State (High School)




Grade OHVA %AAP

OHVA Total Count

State%AAP

OHVA %AAP

OHVA Total Count

State%AAP

3rd 49% 534 55% 47% 530 66%

4th 52% 486 58% 49% 485 69%

5th 57% 515 60% 39% 515 62%

6th 51% 576 54% 34% 578 57%

7th 49% 575 54% 38% 570 55%

8th 36% 591 48% 32% 605 65%

GRADES 3–8

TABLE A116: OHVA Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)


Sources: State data: http://reportcard.education.ohio.gov/Pages/default.aspx School data: K12 Academic Performance Database


Subject (grade) OHVA %AAP

OHVA Total Count

State %AAP

English 1 (grade 9) 64% 457 55%

Algebra 1 (grade 9) 56% 245 48%


OHIO

OHIO VIRTUAL ACADEMY (OHVA)

HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A117: OHVA Comparison to the State (High School)

INSIGHT SCHOOL OF OHIO (ISOH)

NOTE: Insight School of Ohio serves students in grades 6–12.41



Grade ISOH %AAP

ISOHTotal Count

State%AAP

ISOH %AAP

ISOHTotal Count

State%AAP

6th 23% 13 54% 8% 13 57%

7th 20% 69 54% 14% 69 55%

8th 18% 101 48% 7% 101 65%

GRADES 6–8

TABLE A118: ISOH Comparison to the State (Grades 6–8)


Sources: State data: http://reportcard.education.ohio.gov/Pages/default.aspx School data: K12 Academic Performance Database


Subject (grade) ISOH %AAP

ISOHTotal Count

State %AAP




HIGH SCHOOL

TABLE A119: ISOH Comparison to the State (High School)


97

SOUTH CAROLINA

NOTE: The state of South Carolina administered the same assessment in 2014–2015 and 2015–2016 to high school students; therefore, those results are reported in group 3.



Grade CASC%AAP

CASC Total Count

State%AAP

CASC%AAP

CASC Total Count

State%AAP

3rd 27% 44 44% 28% 43 54%

4th 32% 50 43% 32% 50 47%

5th 33% 58 41% 28% 58 44%

6th 29% 56 41% 23% 56 40%

7th 47% 59 41% 24% 59 35%

8th 30% 101 45% 12% 101 32%

GRADES 3–8

TABLE A120: CASC Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)



CYBER ACADEMY OF SOUTH CAROLINA (CASC)



Grade SCVCS%AAP

SCVCS Total Count

State%AAP

SCVCS%AAP

SCVCS Total Count

State%AAP

3rd 42% 103 44% 37% 103 54%

4th 36% 109 43% 29% 109 47%

5th 32% 105 41% 36% 105 44%

6th 36% 156 41% 29% 156 40%

7th 38% 224 41% 27% 224 35%

8th 47% 281 45% 23% 283 32%

GRADES 3–8

TABLE A121: SCVCS Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)



SOUTH CAROLINA VIRTUAL CHARTER SCHOOL (SCVCS)


WISCONSIN

NOTE: The state of Wisconsin administered the same assessment in 2014–2015 and 2015–2016 to high school students; therefore, those results are reported in group 3.



Grade WIVA %AAP

WIVA Total Count

State%AAP

WIVA %AAP

WIVA Total Count

State%AAP

3rd 34% 67 43% 30% 67 48%

4th 39% 51 44% 27% 51 45%

5th 31% 80 43% 24% 80 44%

6th 48% 85 43% 33% 84 43%

7th 45% 93 42% 31% 93 39%

8th 43% 123 41% 21% 123 34%

GRADES 3–8

TABLE A122: WIVA Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)


Sources: State data: http://wisedash.dpi.wi.gov/Dashboard/portalHome.jsp School data: K12 Academic Performance Database

WISCONSIN VIRTUAL ACADEMY (WIVA)

99

Appendix B:FREE AND REDUCED PRICE LUNCH AND SPECIAL EDUCATION ELIGIBILITY BY SCHOOL COMPARED TO STATE

In this appendix, we present Free and Reduced Price Lunch (FRL) and Special Education (SPED) eligibility data by school compared to state data.

Table B1 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 (SPED).

• We identified 61 K12 public school programs that serve higher percentages of students eligible for free and reduced price lunch than their states serve.

• We identified 36 K12 public school programs that serve higher percentages of students eligible for special education services than their states serve.

In Table B1, state percentages are based on the 2014–2015 school year, which is the most recent data available from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) at the time of the analysis reported in this document.

The cells highlighted in the table indicate a higher percentage of K12 students42 qualifying for FRL or SPED 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, Indiana, and Virginia, the special education percentages are aggregate figures encompassing the specified individual K12 public school programs in each state.

PERCENT FRL PERCENT SPED

SCHOOL NAME School State School State

Alabama Virtual Academy at Eufaula 78% 52% 13% 11%

Arizona Virtual Academy 62% 39% 11% 12%

Arkansas Virtual Academy 65% 62% 13% 14%

California Virtual Academy at Fresno 62% 59%

12%* 11%

California Virtual Academy at Jamestown 59% 59%

California Virtual Academy at Kings 48% 59%

California Virtual Academy at Los Angeles 56% 59%

California Virtual Academy at Maricopa 62% 59%

California Virtual Academy at Maricopa High School 58% 59%

California Virtual Academy at San Diego 53% 59%

California Virtual Academy at San Joaquin 53% 59%

California Virtual Academy at San Mateo 43% 59%

California Virtual Academy at Sonoma 54% 59%

California Virtual Academy at Sutter 57% 59%

42 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.

TABLE B1: K12 Public School Programs Compared to State Percentage Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch (FRL) and Special Education (SPED)


Chicago Virtual Charter School 89% 54% -- 14%



Florida Virtual Academy at Broward 67% 58%

10%* 13%

Florida Virtual Academy at Clay 77% 58%

Florida Virtual Academy at Duval 70% 58%

Florida Virtual Academy at Hillsborough 66% 58%

Florida Virtual Academy at Osceola 74% 58%

Florida Virtual Academy at Palm Beach 66% 58%

Florida Virtual Academy at Pasco 64% 58%

Florida Virtual Academy at Pinellas 69% 58%

Friendship Public Charter School Online 65% 92% 15% 15%


Hill House Passport Academy Charter School 84% 46% 19% 17%

Hoosier Academy Virtual Charter School 68% 49%15%* 16%

Hoosier Academy Indianapolis 63% 49%

Idaho College and Career Readiness Academy 54% 49% 6% 10%


Insight Academy of Arizona 64% 39% 15% 12%

Insight School of California at Los Angeles 67% 59% 17% 11%

Insight School of California at San Diego 58% 59% 13% 11%

Insight School of California at San Joaquin 61% 59% 20% 11%

Insight School of Colorado 53% 42% -- 11%

Insight School of Kansas 58% 50% -- 14%


Insight School of Minnesota 55% 38% 29% 15%

Insight School of Ohio 67% 45% 20% 15%

Insight School of Oklahoma 64% 60% 22% 15%

Insight School of Oregon 67% 51% -- 15%

Insight School of Oregon at Painted Hills 65% 51% 15% 15%

Insight School of Washington 57% 46% 13% 12%

Iowa Virtual Academy 64% 41% 8% 13%

iQ Academy California at Los Angeles 61% 59% 7% 11%

iQ Academy Minnesota 54% 38% -- 15%

Kansas Virtual Academy 67% 50% -- 14%




101



Maine Virtual Academy 60% 47% 17% 17%

Massachusetts Virtual Academy at Greenfield Commonwealth Virtual School 59% 40% -- 18%



Minnesota Flex Academy 63% 38% 21% 15%

Minnesota Virtual Academy 60% 38% -- 15%


New Mexico Virtual Academy 55% 63% -- 14%

Newark Preparatory Charter School 88% 37% 19% 16%

North Carolina Virtual Academy 61% 57% 14% 13%

Ohio Virtual Academy 59% 45% 14% 15%

Oklahoma Virtual Charter Academy 65% 60% 14% 15%

Oregon Virtual Academy 59% 51% 15% 15%


Silicon Valley Flex Academy 33% 59% 25% 11%

South Carolina Virtual Charter School 62% 56% -- 13%

Tennessee Virtual Academy 74% 56% 16% 13%

Texas Online Preparatory School 45% 59% 4% 9%

Texas Virtual Academy 60% 59% -- 9%

Utah Virtual Academy 56% 37% 15% 12%

Virginia Virtual Academy-King and Queen 45% 40%5%* 13%

Virginia Virtual Academy-Patrick 45% 40%

Washington Virtual Academy at Omak 49% 46% 11% 12%


Wyoming Virtual Academy 51% 38% -- 14%

K12 FRL source: Academic Performance Database, FRL as of 04/2016. K12 SPED source: Internal Student Database as of 12/2015.

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. Information was provided to K12 by families during the enrollment process, and was 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 (2014–2015): http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/elsi/

*For California, Florida, Indiana, and Virginia, the special education percentages are aggregate figures encompassing the specified individual K12 public school program in each state.


K12 operates three online private schools: The George Washington University Online High School, K12 International Academy, and The Keystone School. Each of the three accredited private schools offers a distinctly different school model, meeting student needs that range from the highest degree of independence and flexibility in The Keystone School, to a more teacher-led and supported model in K12 International Academy, and the premium college preparatory experience available at The George Washington University

Online High School. Outcomes remain strong across all three schools, with college entrance and Advanced Placement (AP®) test scores demonstrating the readiness of our graduates for success at the postsecondary level. We are especially proud of the level of scholarships awarded to our graduates, recognizing not only student academic excellence, but also the effective support and guidance available through the college counseling programs at all three schools.

TABLE C1: 2015–2016 K12 Private School Profiles

GWUOHS (6–12)

K12 INT’L ACADEMY (K–12)

KEYSTONE (6–12)

Credits Required to Graduate 24 24 21

Accreditation Middle States Commission on Secondary Schools AdvancED43

AdvancED and Middle States Commission on Secondary

Schools44

National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Approved Yes Yes No

Total Enrolled Full-Time Students 120 1,727 8,632

Number of Graduates 28 179 731

College Acceptances to 1 or more Colleges 100% 100% 80%

Scholarships Awarded45 $2.8M ($100K/graduate average)

$1.5M($8K/graduate average)

$4.4M($6K/graduate average)

GPA of Graduates 3.5 (non-weighted) 3.16 (weighted)46 3.4 (non-weighted)

SAT Average – Total 1,772 (up to March 2016)1,144 (after March 2016)

1,581 (up to March 2016)1,135 (after March 2016)

1,555 (up to March 2016)1,114 (after March 2016)

ACT Composite Average 25.29 24.3 23.3

Percent of Students Scoring 3 or above on AP® tests taken47 72% 74% 74%

43 AdvancED is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that conducts rigorous, onsite external reviews of Pre-K-12 schools and school systems to ensure that all learners realize their full potential. AdvancED was created through a 2006 merger of the Pre-K–12 divisions of the North Central Association Commission on Accreditation and School Improvement (NCA CASI) and the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Council on Accreditation and School Improvement (SACS CASI)—and expanded through the addition of the Northwest Accreditation Commission (NWAC) in 2012. Source: http://www.advanc-ed.org/about-us

44 From Middle States Commission on Secondary Schools. The Commissions on Elementary and Secondary Schools accredit early childhood through postsecondary, nondegree granting public, private, faith-based educational institutions including special purpose schools, supplementary education centers, learning services providers, and distance education institutions. Source: http://www.msa-cess.org/default.aspx?RelID=606486

45 Scholarship data is based upon student-reported data. 46 GPA of Course weights: Weighted grades are number or letter grades that are assigned a numerical advantage when calculating a grade point average, or GPA. In K12

International Academy, Honors and AP® courses are weighted more heavily than credits for standard courses. While some high schools traditionally weight grades for more advanced courses, many colleges will unweight the grades when reviewing applications to compare all students on a standard scale, and look at a student’s transcript along with their GPA to account for advanced courses taken.

47 Percent of students who score 3 or above on AP® tests taken: A score of 3, 4, or 5 on an AP® test is normally required for a college to issue higher level course placement or credit for the AP® subject area. Acceptance of AP® courses for credit or placement is at the discretion of each college.

Appendix C:K12 PRIVATE SCHOOL PROFILES (2015–2016)

103

Appendix D:ALPHABETICAL GUIDE TO SCHOOLS INCLUDED IN 2017 ACADEMIC REPORT

Alabama Virtual Academy at Eufaula 66, 68, 99

Arizona Virtual Academy 66, 68, 99

Arkansas Virtual Academy 90, 91, 99

California Virtual Academy at Fresno 53, 54, 99

California Virtual Academy at Jamestown 53, 54, 99

California Virtual Academy at Kings 53, 55, 99

California Virtual Academy at Los Angeles 53, 55, 99

California Virtual Academy at Maricopa 53, 56, 99

California Virtual Academy at Maricopa High School 53, 56, 99

California Virtual Academy at San Diego 53, 57, 99

California Virtual Academy at San Joaquin 53, 57, 99

California Virtual Academy at San Mateo 20-21, 53, 58, 99

California Virtual Academy at Sonoma 53, 58, 99

California Virtual Academy at Sutter 53, 59, 99

Chicago Virtual Charter School 19, 32-36, 48, 51, 100

Colorado Preparatory Academy 48, 49, 66, 69, 100

Cyber Academy of South Carolina 38, 66, 85, 90, 97, 100

Florida Virtual Academy at Broward 66, 71, 100

Florida Virtual Academy at Clay 66, 67, 71, 100

Florida Virtual Academy at Duval 66, 71, 100

Florida Virtual Academy at Hillsborough 66, 72, 100

Florida Virtual Academy at Osceola 66, 72, 100

Florida Virtual Academy at Palm Beach 66, 73, 100

Florida Virtual Academy at Pasco 66, 73, 100

Florida Virtual Academy at Pinellas 66, 74, 100

Friendship Public Charter School Online 17-18, 48, 50, 100

Georgia Cyber Academy 66, 74, 90, 91, 100

Hill House Passport Academy Charter School 66, 67, 84, 100

Hoosier Academy Indianapolis 66, 76, 90, 92, 100

Hoosier Academy Virtual Charter School 66, 76, 90, 92, 100

Idaho College and Career Readiness Academy 53, 62, 66, 75, 100

Idaho Virtual Academy 53, 62, 66, 75, 100

Insight Academy of Arizona 66, 69, 100

Insight School of California at Los Angeles 53, 59, 100

Insight School of California at San Diego 53, 60, 100

Insight School of California at San Joaquin 49, 56, 96

Insight School of Colorado 48, 49, 66, 70, 100

Insight School of Kansas 66, 78, 100

Insight School of Michigan 66, 80, 90, 95, 100

Insight School of Minnesota 66, 81, 100

Insight School of Ohio 90, 96, 100

Insight School of Oklahoma 66, 84, 100

Insight School of Oregon 53, 64, 100

Insight School of Oregon at Painted Hills 53, 64, 100

Insight School of Washington 53, 65, 100

Iowa Virtual Academy 66, 77, 100

iQ Academy California at Los Angeles 53, 61, 100

iQ Academy Minnesota 66, 82, 100

Kansas Virtual Academy 67, 77, 100

Louisiana Virtual Charter Academy 67, 78, 90, 93, 100

Maine Virtual Academy 90, 93, 101

Massachusetts Virtual Academy at Greenfield Commonwealth Virtual School 48, 51, 66, 79, 101

Michigan Great Lakes Virtual Academy 67, 79, 90, 94, 101

Michigan Virtual Charter Academy 27, 67, 80, 90, 94, 101

Minnesota Flex Academy 67, 82, 101

Minnesota Virtual Academy 67, 81, 101

Nevada Virtual Academy 53, 63, 90, 95, 101

New Mexico Virtual Academy 48, 52, 101

Newark Preparatory Charter School 48, 52, 101

North Carolina Virtual Academy 67, 83, 101

Ohio Virtual Academy 26, 90, 96, 101

Oklahoma Virtual Charter Academy 67, 83, 101

Oregon Virtual Academy 53, 63, 101

Pikes Peak Online School 48, 50, 67, 70, 101

Silicon Valley Flex Academy 53, 61, 101

South Carolina Virtual Charter School 67, 85, 90, 97, 101

Tennessee Virtual Academy 67, 86, 101

Texas Online Preparatory School 23-25, 67, 87, 101

Texas Virtual Academy 67, 86, 101

Utah Virtual Academy 38, 67, 87, 101

Virginia Virtual Academy-King and Queen 67, 88, 101

Virginia Virtual Academy-Patrick 67, 88, 101

Washington Virtual Academy at Omak 22, 53, 65, 101

Wisconsin Virtual Academy 67, 89, 90, 98, 101

Wyoming Virtual Academy 67, 89, 101

Copyright © 2017 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.

VISIT US: K12.comTALK WITH US: 866.968.7512

academic report - k12.comappendix c: k12 private school profiles (2015–2016) appendix d:...

Documents