2016 K12
ACADEMIC REPORT
Alphabetical Guide to Schools Included in 2016 Academic Report Analyses
For schools organized by test group and schools not included, see pages 22–24.
Arizona Virtual Academy
Arkansas Virtual Academy
106
39, 44
Insight School of Michigan
75
Insight School of Minnesota
79
California Virtual Academy at Fresno
48
Insight School of Ohio
132
California Virtual Academy at Jamestown
48
Insight School of Oklahoma
89
California Virtual Academy at Kings
48
Insight School of Oregon-Charter Option
59
California Virtual Academy at Los Angeles
48
Insight School of Washington
65
California Virtual Academy at Maricopa
48
Iowa Virtual Academy
71
California Virtual Academy at Maricopa High School
48
iQ Academy California at Los Angeles
48
California Virtual Academy at San Diego
48
iQ Academy Minnesota
82
California Virtual Academy at San Joaquin
48
Kansas Virtual Academy
120
California Virtual Academy at San Mateo
48
Louisiana Virtual Charter Academy
125
California Virtual Academy at Sonoma
48
California Virtual Academy at Sutter
48
Massachusetts Virtual Academy at Greenfield
Commonwealth Virtual School
39
Chicago Virtual Charter School
39
Michigan Great Lakes Virtual Academy
74
Colorado Preparatory Academy
39
Michigan Virtual Charter Academy
74
Community Academy Public Charter School Online
39
Minnesota Virtual Academy
76
Cyber Academy of South Carolina
136
Nevada Virtual Academy
85
Florida Virtual Academy at Broward
112
New Mexico Virtual Academy
39
Florida Virtual Academy at Clay
112
Newark Preparatory Charter School
39
Florida Virtual Academy at Duval
112
Florida Virtual Academy at Hillsborough
112
Florida Virtual Academy at Palm Beach
112
Florida Virtual Academy at Pasco
112
Florida Virtual Academy at Pinellas
112
Georgia Cyber Academy
114
Hoosier Academies Indianapolis
117
Hoosier Academies Virtual School
117
Idaho Virtual Academy
54
Insight Academy of Arizona
109
Insight School of California-Los Angeles
52
Insight School of California-San Diego
53
Insight School of Colorado
39
Insight School of Kansas
122
Ohio Virtual Academy
128
Oklahoma Virtual Charter Academy
86
Oregon Virtual Academy
56
Silicon Valley Flex Academy
48
South Carolina Virtual Charter School
139
Tennessee Virtual Academy
92
Texas Online Preparatory School
94
Texas Virtual Academy
94
Utah Virtual Academy
97
Virginia Virtual Academy-King and Queen
100
Virginia Virtual Academy-Patrick
100
Washington Virtual Academy-Monroe
62
Washington Virtual Academy-Omak
62
Wisconsin Virtual Academy
66, 142
Wyoming Virtual Academy
102
Table of Contents
A Letter from Nate Davis, Executive Chairman,
and Stuart Udell, Chief Executive Officer
06
Foreword: The Shifting Landscape of State Testing
08
Performance Analysis: Executive Overview
11
K12 Public School Programs Performance Analysis 2014–2015
21
Norm-Referenced Tests to Gauge Student Progress
26
Overall Analysis: Persistence and FRL
31
Group 1: K12 Public School Programs Administering PARCC
39
Group 2: K12 Public School Programs Administering SBAC
47
Group 3: K12 Public School Programs Using Same State Testing Program
from 2013–2014 to 2014–2015
67
Group 4: K12 Public School Programs Administering New State Tests
in 2014–2015
Featured Programs and Highlights
105
145
K12 Private Schools: Preparing for College and Career
145
Meeting the Diverse Needs of High School Students: Dual Credit and
Credit Recovery Programs in K12 Schools
149
Effective Teaching in the K12 Online Learning Environment: Developing
a Research-Based Rubric and Implementing an Instructional Coaching Program
151
Understanding Student Progress toward Graduation in K12 Public School Programs
154
Appendices
159
Appendix 1: FRL and Special Education Eligibility by School Compared to State
160
Appendix 2: State Assessment Programs: 2013–2014 and 2014–2015
163
Appendix 3: K12 Leaders
169
Appendix 4: Norm-Referenced Tests to Gauge Student Progress: Results for 2013–2014
171
Appendix 5: Norm-Referenced Tests to Gauge Student Progress: Results for 2013–2014
2015 Academic Report Methodology, Including Certain Previously
Excluded Scores
173
This report contains certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. We have tried, whenever
possible, to identify these forward-looking statements using words such as “anticipates,” “believes,” “estimates,” “continues,” “likely,” “may,” “opportunity,”
“potential,” “projects,” “will,” “expects,” “plans,” “intends,” and similar expressions to identify forward-looking statements, whether in the negative or the
affirmative. These statements reflect our current beliefs and are based upon information currently available to us. Accordingly, such forward-looking statements
involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors that could cause actual academic performance to differ materially from those expressed
in, or implied by, such statements. These risks, uncertainties, factors, and contingencies include, but are not limited to: test result presentations and data
interpretations; descriptions of testing and academic outcomes; individual school, grade and subject performance reporting; educational achievements; the
potential inability to further develop, maintain, and enhance our curriculum products, instructional services, and teacher training; the reduction of per pupil funding
amounts at the schools we serve; reputation harm resulting from poor academic performance in the managed schools we contract with; challenges from online
public school or hybrid school opponents; failure of the schools we serve to comply with applicable education requirements, student privacy, and other applicable
regulations; inability to recruit, train, and retain quality teachers and employees; and other risks and uncertainties associated with our business described in the
Company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Although the Company believes the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements
are based upon reasonable assumptions, it can give no assurance that the expectations will be attained or that any deviation will not be material.
FIGURES
FIGURE 31: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State: CA English
Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 1: 2014–2015 Proficiency Percentages by Subject and
Persistence (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 32: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State: CA
Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 2: 2014–2015 Proficiency Percentages by Subject and FRL
Eligibility (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 33: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State by Subject:
CA (High School)
FIGURE 3: K12 Comparison to PARCC Consortium: ELA/Literacy
(Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 34: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State by Subject:
CA (High School)
FIGURE 4: K12 Comparison to PARCC Consortium: Mathematics
(Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 35: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State by Subject:
CA (High School)
FIGURE 5: K12 SBAC Comparison to State: OR English Language
Arts/Literacy (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 36: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State: IDVA
English Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 6: K12 SBAC Comparison to State: OR Mathematics
(Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 37: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State: IDVA
Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 7: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State by Subject:
WA (High School)
FIGURE 38: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State: OR
English Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 8: Same Students and Same Assessment Program:
Overall %AAP by School Year and Subject (Grades 4–8)
FIGURE 39: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State: OR
Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 9: 2014–2015 State Comparison by Subject: TX
(High School)
FIGURE 40: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State by
Subject: OR (High School)
FIGURE 10: 2014–2015 State Comparison: VA Reading (Grades
3–6)
FIGURE 41: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: OR English
Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 11: 2014–2015 State Comparison: VA Mathematics
(Grades 3–6)
FIGURE 42: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: OR
Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 12: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: WI English
Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 43: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: OR
(High School)
FIGURE 13: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: OH Reading
(Grade 3) / ELA/Literacy (Grades 4–8)
FIGURE 44: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State: WA
English Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 14: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: OH
(High School)
FIGURE 45: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State: WA
Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 15: 2014–2015 Scantron Mean Gain Comparison: Reading
FIGURE 46: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State by Subject:
WA (High School)
FIGURE 16: 2014–2015 Scantron Mean Gain Comparison:
Mathematics
FIGURE 17: 2014–2015 Scantron Mean Gain Comparison by FRL
Eligibility: Reading
FIGURE 18: 2014–2015 Scantron Mean Gain by Comparison FRL
Eligibility: Mathematics
FIGURE 19: 2014–2015 Proficiency Percentages by Subject and
Persistence (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 20: 2014–2015 Proficiency Percentages by Subject and
Persistence (HSGT)
FIGURE 21: 2014–2015 Proficiency Percentages by Subject and
Persistence (EOC)
FIGURE 47: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State by Subject:
WA (High School)
FIGURE 48: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State: WI
Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 49: Same Students and Same Assessment Program:
Overall %AAP by School Year and Subject (Grades
4–8)
FIGURE 50: Same Students and Same Assessment Program:
%AAP by School Year and Grade Level in Reading
(Grades 4–8)
FIGURE 22: 2014–2015 Proficiency Percentages by Subject and
FRL Eligibility (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 51: Same Students and Same Assessment Program:
%AAP by School Year and Grade Level in Mathematics
(Grades 4–8)
FIGURE 23: 2014–2015 Proficiency Percentages by Subject and
FRL Eligibility (HSGT)
FIGURE 52: 2014–2015 State Comparison: IA Reading (Grades
3–8)
FIGURE 24: 2014–2015 Proficiency Percentages by Subject and
FRL Eligibility (EOC)
FIGURE 53: 2014–2015 State Comparison: IA Mathematics
(Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 25: K12 Comparison to PARCC Consortium: ELA/Literacy
(Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 54: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: MI
(High School)
FIGURE 26: K12 Comparison to PARCC Consortium: Mathematics
(Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 55: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: MI
(High School)
FIGURE 27: K12 Comparison to PARCC Consortium: English
Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 9–11)
FIGURE 56: 2014–2015 State Comparison: MN Reading (Grades
3–8)
FIGURE 28: K12 Comparison to PARCC Consortium: Algebra 1
(Overall 9–11)
FIGURE 57: 2014–2015 State Comparison: MN Mathematics
(Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 29: ARVA Year-Over-Year School-State Comparison:
English Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 58: 2014–2015 State Comparison by Subject: MN (High
School)
FIGURE 30: ARVA Year-Over-Year School-State Comparison:
Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 59: 2014–2015 State Comparison: MN Reading (Grade 8)
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
FIGURE 60: 2014–2015 State Comparison: MN Mathematics
(Grade 8)
FIGURE 61: 2014–2015 State Comparison by Subject: MN
(High School)
FIGURE 62: 2014–2015 State Comparison: MN Reading
(Grade 3–8)
FIGURE 63: 2014–2015 State Comparison: MN Mathematics
(Grade 3–8)
FIGURE 64: 2014–2015 State Comparison by Subject: MN
(High School)
FIGURE 65: 2014–2015 State Comparison by Subject: NV
(High School)
FIGURE 66: 2014–2015 State Comparison: OK Reading
(Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 67: 2014–2015 State Comparison: OK Mathematics
(Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 68: 2014–2015 State Comparison by Subject: OK
(High School)
FIGURE 69: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: OK Reading
(Grades 7–8)
FIGURE 70: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: OK
Mathematics (Grades 7–8)
FIGURE 71: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: OK
(High School)
FIGURE 72: 2014–2015 State Comparison: TN Reading/Language
Arts (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 73: 2014–2015 State Comparison: TN Mathematics
(Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 74: 2014–2015 State Comparison: TX Reading
(Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 75: 2014–2015 State Comparison: TX Mathematics
(Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 76: 2014–2015 State Comparison by Subject: TX
(High School)
FIGURE 77: 2014–2015 State Comparison: UT Language Arts
(Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 78: 2014–2015 State Comparison: UT Mathematics
(Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 79: 2014–2015 State Comparison by Subject: UT
(High School)
FIGURE 80: 2014–2015 State Comparison: VA Reading (Grades
3–6)
FIGURE 81: 2014–2015 State Comparison: VA Mathematics
(Grades 3–6)
FIGURE 82: 2014–2015 State Comparison: WY Reading (Grades
3–8)
FIGURE 83: 2014–2015 State Comparison: WY Mathematics
(Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 84: 2014–2015 State Comparison by Subject: WY
(High School)
FIGURE 85: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: AZ English
Language Arts (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 86: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: AZ Mathematics
(Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 87: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: AZ
(High School)
FIGURE 88: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: AZ English
Language Arts (Grade 8)
FIGURE 89: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: AZ Mathematics
(Grade 8)
FIGURE 90: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: AZ
(High School)
FIGURE 91: 2014–2015 K12 %AAP: FL English Language Arts
(Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 92: 2014–2015 K12 %AAP: FL Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 93: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: GA English
Language Arts (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 94: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: GA
Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 95: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: GA
(High School)
FIGURE 96: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: IN English
Language Arts (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 97: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: IN Mathematics
(Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 98: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: IN
(High School)
FIGURE 99: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: KS English
Language Arts (Grades 3–6)
FIGURE 100: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: KS
Mathematics (Grades 3–6)
FIGURE 101: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: KS English
Language Arts (Grades 7–8)
FIGURE 102: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: KS
Mathematics (Grades 7–8)
FIGURE 103: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: KS
(High School)
FIGURE 104: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: LA English
Language Arts (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 105: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: LA
Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 106: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: LA
(High School)
FIGURE 107: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: OH Reading
(Grade 3) / ELA/Literacy (Grades 4–8)
FIGURE 108: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: OH
Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 109: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: Ohio
Graduation Tests
FIGURE 110: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject:
PARCC High School Assessments
FIGURE 111: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: OH English
Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 6–8)
FIGURE 112: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: OH
Mathematics (Grades 6–8)
FIGURE 113: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: Ohio
Graduation Tests
FIGURE 114: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject:
PARCC High School Assessments
FIGURE 115: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: SC ACT-Reading
(Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 116: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: SC ACTMathematics (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 117: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: SC
(High School)
FIGURE 118: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: SC ACT-Reading
(Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 119: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: SC
ACT-Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 120: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: SC
(High School)
FIGURE 121: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: WI English
Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 122: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: WI
(High School)
3
TABLES
TABLE 1: 2014–2015 Proficiency Percentages by Subject and
Persistence (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 2: 2014–2015 Persistence Grades 3–8: 3 Years or More
Compared to Less Than 1 Year
TABLE 3: 2014–2015 Proficiency Percentages by Subject and
FRL Eligibility (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 4: K12 Public School Programs by Performance Analysis
Grouping
TABLE 5: K12 Public School Programs Using Scantron
TABLE 6: 2014–2015 Scantron Mean Gain Comparison: Reading
TABLE 7: 2014–2015 Scantron Mean Gain Comparison:
Mathematics
TABLE 8: 2014–2015 Scantron Mean Gain by Comparison FRL
Eligibility: Reading
TABLE 9: 2014–2015 Scantron Mean Gain by Comparison FRL
Eligibility: Mathematics
TABLE 10: 2014–2015 Proficiency Percentages by Subject and
Persistence (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 11: 2014–2015 Persistence Grades 3–8: 3 Years or More
Compared to Less Than 1 Year
TABLE 12: 2014–2015 Proficiency Percentages by Subject and
Persistence (HSGT)
TABLE 13: 2014–2015 Persistence HSGT: 3 Years or More
Compared to Less Than 1 Year
TABLE 14: 2014–2015 Proficiency Percentages by Subject and
Persistence (EOC)
TABLE 15: 2014–2015 Persistence EOC: 3 Years or More
Compared to Less Than 1 Year
TABLE 16: 2014–2015 Proficiency Percentages by Subject and
FRL Eligibility (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 17: 2014–2015 Proficiency Percentages by Subject and
FRL Eligibility (HSGT)
TABLE 18: 2014–2015 Proficiency Percentages by Subject and
FRL Eligibility (EOC)
TABLE 19: K12 Comparison to PARCC Consortium: ELA/Literacy
(Grades 3–8)
TABLE 20: K12 Comparison to PARCC Consortium: Mathematics
(Grades 3–8)
TABLE 21: K12 Comparison to PARCC Consortium: English
Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 9–11)
TABLE 22: K12 Comparison to PARCC Consortium: Algebra 1
(Grades 9–11)
TABLE 23: ARVA Year-Over-Year School-State Gap Analysis:
English Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 24: ARVA Year-Over-Year School-State Gap Analysis:
Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 25: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State: CA
English Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 26: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State: CA
Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 27: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State by Subject:
CA (High School)
TABLE 28: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State by Subject:
CA (High School)
TABLE 29: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State by
Subject: CA (High School)
TABLE 30: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State: IDVA
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
English Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 31: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State: IDVA
Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 32: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State: OR
English Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 33: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State: OR
Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 34: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State by
Subject: OR (High School)
TABLE 35: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: OR English
Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 36: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: OR
Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 37: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: OR
(High School)
TABLE 38: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State: WA
English Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 39: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State: WA
Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 40: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State by
Subject: WA (High School)
TABLE 41: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: WA
(High School)
TABLE 42: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State: WI
Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 43: Same Students and Same Assessment Program:
Overall %AAP Change (Grades 4–8)
TABLE 44: Same Students and Same Assessment Program:
Overall %AAP Change by Grade Level in Reading
(Grades 4–8)
TABLE 45: Same Students and Same Assessment Program:
Overall %AAP Change by Grade Level in Mathematics
(Grades 4–8)
TABLE 46: 2014–2015 State Comparison: IA Reading
(Grades 3–8)
TABLE 47: 2014–2015 State Comparison: IA Mathematics
(Grades 3–8)
TABLE 48: 2014–2015 State Comparison by Subject: IA
(High School)
TABLE 49: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: MI
(High School)
TABLE 50: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: MI
(High School)
TABLE 51: 2014–2015 State Comparison: MN Reading
(Grades 3–8)
TABLE 52: 2014–2015 State Comparison: MN Mathematics
(Grades 3–8)
TABLE 53: 2014–2015 State Comparison by Subject: MN
(High School)
TABLE 54: 2014–2015 State Comparison: MN Reading
(Grades 6–8)
TABLE 55: 2014–2015 State Comparison: MN Mathematics
(Grades 6–8)
TABLE 56: 2014–2015 State Comparison by Subject: MN
(High School)
TABLE 57: 2014–2015 State Comparison: MN Reading
(Grades 3–8)
TABLE 58: 2014–2015 State Comparison: MN Mathematics
(Grades 3–8)
TABLE 59: 2014–2015 State Comparison by Subject: MN
(High School)
TABLE 89: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: GA
Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 60: 2014–2015 State Comparison by Subject: NV
(High School)
TABLE 90: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: GA
(High School)
TABLE 61: 2014–2015 State Comparison: OK Reading (Grades
3–8)
TABLE 91: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: IN English
Language Arts (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 62: 2014–2015 State Comparison: OK Mathematics
(Grades 3–8)
TABLE 92: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: IN Mathematics
(Grades 3–8)
TABLE 63: 2014–2015 State Comparison by Subject: OK
(High School)
TABLE 93: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: IN
(High School)
TABLE 64: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: OK Reading
(Grades 7–8)
TABLE 94: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: KS English
Language Arts (Grades 3–6)
TABLE 65: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: OK
Mathematics (Grades 7–8)
TABLE 95: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: KS Mathematics
(Grades 3–6)
TABLE 66: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: OK
(High School)
TABLE 96: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: KS English
Language Arts (Grades 7–8)
TABLE 67: 2014–2015 State Comparison: TN Reading/Language
Arts (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 97: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: KS Mathematics
(Grades 7–8)
TABLE 68: 2014–2015 State Comparison: TN Mathematics
(Grades 3–8)
TABLE 98: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: KS
(High School)
TABLE 69: 2014–2015 State Comparison: TX Reading
(Grades 3–8)
TABLE 99: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: LA English
Language Arts (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 70: 2014–2015 State Comparison: TX Mathematics
(Grades 3–8)
TABLE 100: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: LA
Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 71: 2014–2015 State Comparison by Subject: TX
(High School)
TABLE 101: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: LA
(High School)
TABLE 72: 2014–2015 State Comparison: UT Language Arts
(Grades 3–8)
TABLE 102: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: OH Reading
(Grade 3) / ELA/Literacy (Grades 4–8)
TABLE 73: 2014–2015 State Comparison: UT Mathematics
(Grades 3–8)
TABLE 103: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: OH
Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 74: 2014–2015 State Comparison by Subject: UT
(High School)
TABLE 104: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject:
Ohio Graduation Tests
TABLE 75: 2014–2015 State Comparison: VA Reading
(Grades 3–6)
TABLE 105: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject:
PARCC High School Assessments
TABLE 76: 2014–2015 State Comparison: VA Mathematics
(Grades 3–6)
TABLE 106: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: OH English
Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 6–8)
TABLE 77: 2014–2015 State Comparison: WY Reading
(Grades 3–8)
TABLE 107: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: OH
Mathematics (Grades 6–8)
TABLE 78: 2014–2015 State Comparison: WY Mathematics
(Grades 3–8)
TABLE 108: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject:
Ohio Graduation Tests
TABLE 79: 2014–2015 State Comparison by Subject: WY
(High School)
TABLE 109: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject:
PARCC High School Assessments
TABLE 80: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: AZ English
Language Arts (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 110: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: SC ACTReading (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 81: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: AZ Mathematics
(Grades 3–8)
TABLE 111: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: SC ACTMathematics (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 82: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: AZ
(High School)
TABLE 112: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: SC
(High School)
TABLE 83: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: AZ English
Language Arts (Grades 7–8)
TABLE 113: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: SC
ACT-Reading (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 84: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: AZ
Mathematics (Grades 7–8)
TABLE 114: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: SC ACTMathematics (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 85: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: AZ
(High School)
TABLE 115: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: SC
(High School)
TABLE 86: 2014–2015 K12 %AAP: FL English Language Arts
(Grades 3–8)
TABLE 116: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: WI English
Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 87: 2014–2015 K12 %AAP: FL Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 117: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: WI
(High School)
TABLE 88: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: GA English
Language Arts (Grades 3–8)
5
A Letter from Nate Davis, Executive Chairman,
and Stuart Udell, Chief Executive Officer
This fourth annual K12 Academic Report continues our
commitment to accountability and transparency. This
report has expanded to include all K12 public school
programs with valid state test results for 2014–2015 as
well as more results from key high school assessments.
The state testing environment changed dramatically
in the 2014–2015 school year. In previous years, for
accountability purposes, most states administered
their own state-specific tests. In 2014–2015, some
states administered new tests tied to the Common Core
State Standards. These tests were developed by one of
two consortia, either the Partnership for Assessment
of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) or the
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC).
Most PARCC and SBAC states administered the new
assessments as provided by the consortia, but some
changed the consortia assessments or departed from
the consortia’s recommended minimum scores to
determine proficiency on the tests.
These, and other changes in state testing, present
challenges to those analyzing the overall performance
of K12 public school programs and examining their
performance over time. Results from assessments that
were new in 2014–2015 cannot be directly compared to
scores on previous state assessments because many of
the new assessments are aligned to different content
standards and different definitions of what constitutes
proficiency.
Faced with these challenges, K12 Inc. has worked
diligently to analyze state testing data in ways that
are useful and make sense. One way is to organize our
analysis into groups according to test type. Another
way is to report the data in context by comparing
performance at the school and state levels. Finally, we
also report year-over-year results from those schools
that have retained the same testing program since the
prior school year.
Our analyses show that many K12 school programs still
underperform the state in Mathematics, a situation we
are determined to change through multiple ongoing
efforts in improved curriculum, instruction, and student
support. From the data in the following pages, certain
encouraging highlights emerge:
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
• On the PARCC assessment—generally acknowledged
as more rigorous than previous state tests—students
in K12 public school programs achieved proficiency
percentages within 1 percentage point of the overall
PARCC consortium in grades 7 and 8 in Mathematics
and within 1 to 3 percentage points of the consortium
in grades 3–5 in English Language Arts/Literacy.
• For K12 schools that used the same state-specific
assessment program from 2013–2014 to 2014–2015,
when we compare the proficiency percentages for the
same students year-over-year, students in grades 4–8
improved by 2 percentage points in both Reading and
Mathematics.
• In 2014–2015, on tests of Reading and English
Language Arts, in many grades a number of K12
public school programs—such as those in Ohio, Texas,
Virginia, and Wisconsin—performed as well as (and in
some grades better than) the state.
• For the 2014–2015 school year, in most grades
and subjects, we continue to see the benefits of
persistence—that is, students who stay in K12 schools
longer (especially those who remain continuously
enrolled for three or more years) achieve higher
percentages at or above proficiency.
We regularly gather and
examine data at the classroom,
school, regional, and national
levels in order to identify areas
for continued improvement in
our mission to support student
learning.
This Academic Report is an important part of our
research efforts at K12 Inc. We continue to research the
relationship between student achievement and such
variables as school structure, teacher development, and
the use of synchronous or asynchronous instruction.
We regularly gather and examine data at the classroom,
school, regional, and national levels to ensure that
we are doing everything possible to support student
learning. Our teachers use this data to adjust their
instruction to meet the strengths and needs of
individual students.
The thoughtful use of data can help individualize
instruction, giving teachers insights that help them
build strong relationships with students and families so
they can sustain a learning environment in which each
student remains engaged, challenged, and nurtured.
We’re very proud of the schools we support, the
educators who work with students, and the students
themselves for doing the hard work of learning. In
2014–2015, K12 public school programs served more
than 118,000 students from kindergarten to grade 12,
with 4,784 students graduating from high school, many
of them focused on college and career. The dedicated
teachers in K12 schools strive to meet the individual
educational needs of each and every student.
Like many traditional schools, we continue to face both
opportunities and challenges. Across this country, not
every student comes to school ready to learn or wellprepared for the academic challenges that face them.
Not every student appreciates the value of an education.
Some students struggle to achieve academically while
overcoming obstacles of poverty or mobility. Whether
students come to us needing remediation or seeking
advanced challenges and enrichment, we aim to help all
of them thrive and succeed.
We look forward to the release of the first phases of our
new curriculum in the fall of 2016 and the launch of new
Destinations Career Academies. As our tools, program
offerings, and systems evolve, we come closer to the
ideal of an optimally personalized learning experience
for each and every student.
We will report on new initiatives in each forthcoming
Academic Report and in other publications issued
throughout the year. All of us at K12 are dedicated to
fostering the academic success of the students in our
public school programs. We know that we succeed only
when our students succeed, and so we begin and end
each day by putting students first.
Nate Davis,
Executive Chairman
Stuart Udell,
Chief Executive Officer
7
Foreword: The Shifting Landscape of State Testing
This 2016 K12 Academic Report embodies both
consistency and change. Consistent with previous
Academic Reports, our purpose here is to give a
transparent view of key accountability test results in
K12 public school programs. In contrast to the previous
Academic Reports, in this report we introduce some
changes in our presentation and analyses of the data—
changes necessitated by what a study published by the
Education Commission of the States (ECS) describes
as “the continually changing nature of the state
assessments landscape” due to “political pressures
and evolving state approaches.” 1
In the 2014–2015 school year, many states changed
their accountability assessments. Across all K12 public
school programs, only eight states did not change
their state accountability tests in 2014–2015: Iowa,
Minnesota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
Virginia, and Wyoming.
The changes in state tests were in part a consequence
of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), initially
released in 2010. In that year, most states began the
process of adopting the Common Core standards,
encouraged by the federal grant program called Race
to the Top, which favored applicants that agreed to
adopt Common Core.
New content standards required new assessments.
To develop assessments aligned to the Common
Core, the federal government funded two testing
consortia: the Partnership for Assessment of
Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) and the
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC).
These consortia developed assessments intended
for use across multiple states, at a level of rigor
commensurate with the overall Common Core goals of
career and college readiness. In addition, PARCC and
SBAC introduced technology-enhanced questions,
longer and more complex passages, paired passages,
and constructed response items requiring students to
justify or explain the reasoning behind their answers.
With the rollout of PARCC and SBAC, for the first time
since the passage of No Child Left Behind, multiple
states were administering the same assessments.
Because these consortia-developed assessments
were more rigorous than previous state tests,1a
student performance results were, in many cases,
not encouraging, with lower percentages at or above
proficiency compared to previous years—not a valid
comparison but an inevitable one. For various reasons,
state officials soon found themselves facing what
ECS sums up as “political backlash against the two
assessment consortia” and “dissatisfaction with the
quantity and relevance of current testing.” 2
At one time, 24 states and the District of Columbia
were signed on to administer the PARCC assessments.
But in the 2014–2015 school year, only the District
of Columbia and 10 states fully administered the
PARCC assessments. The Education Commission of
the States notes that, in 2015–2016, only six states
and the District of Columbia plan to use the PARCC
assessments. While the Smarter Balanced consortium
has experienced fewer withdrawals, its members have
decreased to 15 states planning to administer the
full SBAC assessment in the 2015–2016 school year.
ECS notes that in 2015–2016 “at least 25 states will
administer a state-specific assessment in grades 3–8
math and English-language arts.” 3
In reporting on the academic performance of K12
public school programs, our practice is, when
possible, to present and compare data across multiple
consecutive school years. But when states change to
new tests based on new content standards, and use
different definitions of proficiency, the results of the
new tests cannot be directly compared to results from
previous tests—a fact that complicates any attempt
to present a long-term, comparative, year-over-year
analysis of academic performance. The results of the
new tests become, in effect, the starting point for
future year-over-year analyses. In the current shifting
landscape of state testing, however, that new starting
Woods, J. R. State Summative Assessments: 2015–16 school year. Denver, CO, Education Commission of the States (2015). Retrieved from http://www.ecs.org/state-summativeassessments-2015-16-school-year/
Evidence of the rigor of the PARCC assessments is documented by independent research studies conducted by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute and Human Resources Organization
(February 2016), Mathematica Policy Research (November 2015) and the American Institutes for Research (AIR) National Benchmarks for State Assessment Standards Study (February
2016). (Source: http://parcconline.org/assessments/test-design/independent-studies)
2
Woods, J. R. Testing Trends: Considerations for choosing and using assessments. Denver, CO, Education Commission of the States (2015). Retrieved from http://www.ecs.org/testingtrends-considerations-for-choosing-and-using-assessments/
3
Woods, J. R. State Summative Assessments: 2015–16 school year. Denver, CO, Education Commission of the States (2015). Retrieved from http://www.ecs.org/state-summativeassessments-2015-16-school-year/. Because the state testing landscape continues to shift, the figures reported may have changed by the time of the publication of this Academic Report.
1
1a
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
point can be elusive as states change their tests and
then change them again. More than a dozen states
suspended their accountability ratings for 2014–2015,
and most are using 2015–2016 as a baseline year.
ARKANSAS
• 2013–2014 Arkansas Comprehensive Testing Program
• 2014–2015 PARCC
• 2015–2016 ACT Aspire
As examples of the shifting landscape of state testing,
consider the changes from 2013–2014 to 2015–2016 in
three states in which K12 public school programs are
located, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Arkansas:
MASSACHUSETTS
• 2013–2014 MCAS (Massachusetts Comprehensive
Assessment System)
• 2014–2015 MCAS or PARCC (district option)
• 2015–2016 MCAS or PARCC (district option)
• 2016–2017 Planned hybrid combination of MCAS
and PARCC
OHIO
• 2013–2014 OAA (Ohio Achievement Assessments)
• 2014–2015 PARCC
• 2015–2016 New Ohio state test
We anticipate that difficulties in comparing test results
year-over-year will continue into 2015–2016 as many
states roll out new state tests.
While this shifting assessment landscape presents
challenges, in this Academic Report we remain
committed to presenting a comprehensive overview
of school performance for the 2014–2015 school year.
The PARCC and SBAC assessments differ in important
fundamental ways from previous state assessments.
Because the consortia tests present more rigorous
content and more open-ended questions and innovative
question types, it can be misleading to aggregate them
with more traditional assessments across K12 public
school programs, since such aggregation would imply
comparisons that are not valid.3a Therefore, we have
organized our analyses of student performance data into
four groups:
• K12 public school programs administering PARCC in
2014–2015 4
9
• K12 public school programs administering SBAC in
2014–2015
• K12 public school programs using the same state
testing program from 2013–2014 to 2014–2015
• K12 public school programs administering new state
tests in 2014–2015
For a listing of specific K12 public school programs within
each of those four groups, see pages 23–24.
Because many states have changed to new tests in
2014–2015, our ability to provide a year-over-year view of
school performance is limited to those in states in which
the same assessments and performance standards were
used in consecutive school years. In order to provide
some context for understanding a school’s performance
on the new tests, we have in many cases analyzed the
school’s performance compared to that of the state.
Reported information from state test results are from
publicly available sources, usually state departments
of education. The persistence analysis is an internal
calculation based on state reported test performance
and our internal enrollment records.
As in our previous Academic Reports, we report results
on norm-referenced tests (Scantron) used by many
K12 public school programs. The analysis of Scantron
results in the 2015 Academic Report erroneously
excluded students whose difference in scale scores
between the fall and spring Scantron assessments fell
within Scantron’s standard error of measurement for
that difference (that is, students whose scale scores
differential was not statistically distinct from zero).
An updated analysis of the Scantron results reported
last year is located in Appendices 4 and 5 (N.B. see
footnotes to Appendices 4 and 5 for additional context)
to this Academic Report and includes those students’
scores. We also continue the practice of analyzing in
aggregate the performance of students in all K12 public
school programs relative to their eligibility for federally
subsidized meals through the National School Lunch
Program. And, as in previous reports, we present an
aggregate analysis of the effects of persistence, that
is, the relationship between length of enrollment and
performance on state assessments.
As No Child Left Behind gives way to the Every Student
Succeeds Act, individual states will have more flexibility
in shaping their accountability systems and assessments.
While we cannot precisely predict how the assessment
landscape will change, we will continue to support our
teachers so that they can best meet the learning needs
of their students. One critical way to support teachers
is to help them understand the academic strengths and
weaknesses of their students from the beginning of the
school year. In 2016–2017, teachers in K12 public school
programs will have access to assessments, chosen
by school administrators, to gauge where students
stand academically as the school year begins. In future
reports, we intend to report school-level data from
these assessments. Because there is not likely to be
a “one size fits all” assessment solution across all the
school programs K12 supports, we anticipate less direct
comparability of results, year-over-year and school to
school, than we have previously reported. We will, in
any case, continue to work closely with our public school
programs to ensure that their teachers and staff have the
assessment information they need to maximize every
student’s potential.
At K12 Inc., we continue to engage in a focused effort to
broaden and improve our data collection and analysis
systems, which will improve our learning systems
and teacher tools. We are expanding our database to
house a wider range of assessment information and are
coordinating efforts across several divisions to determine
the efficacy of a range of initiatives aimed at improving
teaching and learning. Going forward, we will continue
to gather and analyze more data as measured by various
assessments, including diagnostic or readiness, interims
(formative or benchmark), summative, and state level
accountability measures. We will persist in using data to
understand best practices in order to improve student
outcomes in various learning environments.
Margaret Jorgensen, Chief Academic Officer
Nicholas-Barrer, Ira, Place, Kate, Dillon, Erin, and Gill, Brian. (2015). Mathematic Policy Research: InFocus; For Massachusetts Students, PARCC and MCAS Exams Comparable in
Predicting College Outcomes
In this group, we include only those K12 public school programs that both administered PARCC and used the recommended PARCC proficiency cut score. The cut score is in effect the score
that constitutes passing the test—specifically, the value that determines whether a student has achieved at least an adequate level of performance, typically labeled “proficiency,” on the
assessment. Even if states administered the same test, the results of State A cannot be directly compared to those of State B if the two states set different cut scores.
3a
4
We anticipate that states will make varying use of
summative and interim assessments, and many states
may revise their growth models. In short, we expect
the state assessment landscape will continue to shift
dramatically. As assessments change from year to year
and state to state, we at K12 will face greater challenges
in comparing performance year-over-year and across K12
public school programs in different states with different
content standards.
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
Performance Analysis: Executive Overview
In the 2014–2015 school year, many states switched to new assessments. Some developed new
state-specific assessments. Some turned to the Common Core consortia, either the Partnership for
Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) or the Smarter Balanced Assessment
Consortium (SBAC). Because the PARCC and SBAC assessments are in many cases significantly more
rigorous than previous state assessments, with more challenging content and question types, it can
be misleading to aggregate the results of those tests with results from more traditional state tests.
When states change to new tests based on new content standards, and use different definitions of proficiency, the results of
the new tests cannot be directly compared to results from previous tests. Because test types and categories shifted so much
in 2014–2015, we have organized our analysis of state test performance into four groups by related test types:
Group 1
K12 public school programs administering PARCC in 2014–20155
Group 2
K12 public school programs administering SBAC in 2014–2015
Group 3
K12 public school programs using the same state testing program from 2013–2014 to 2014–2015
Group 4
K12 public school programs administering new state tests in 2014–2015
Consistent with our practice in previous Academic Reports, we present overall analyses of general trends across all K12 schools6
regarding performance by persistence (length of continuous enrollment) and eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch (FRL).
In this group, we include only those K12 public school programs that both administered PARCC and used the recommended PARCC proficiency cut score (the score that in effect
constitutes passing the test). Evidence of the rigor of the PARCC assessments is documented by independent research studies conducted by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute and
Human Resources Organization (February 2016), Mathematica Policy Research (November 2015) and the American Institutes for Research (AIR) National Benchmarks for State
Assessment Standards Study (February 2016). (Source: http://parcconline.org/assessments/test-design/independent-studies)
6
This report sometimes refers to “K12 schools” or “our schools” or “K12 students” as a shorthand way to describe the online public schools we serve pursuant to a contract with an
independent not-for-profit board or school district governing board. We do not mean to suggest or imply that K12 Inc. has any ownership or control over those schools. Because the
independent boards seek a managed contractual arrangement, the references to “K12 schools” and similar language are simply for ease and do not describe a legal relationship.
5
11
Summary Analysis Grades 3–8 (Persistence and FRL)
PERSISTENCE
For the 2014–2015 school year, in most cases we continue to see a positive relationship between length of continuous
enrollment and proficiency.
• In grades 3–8, in English Language Arts and Mathematics, compared to students enrolled in K12 public school programs
less than one year, students enrolled three years or more achieved higher percentages at or above proficiency.
• On high school graduation tests in English Language Arts and Mathematics, students enrolled three years or more
achieved higher percentages at or above proficiency than students enrolled less than one year. (See the “Performance by
Persistence” section beginning on page 31 for more detailed analysis of high school persistence results.)
FIGURE 1: 2014–2015 PROFICIENCY PERCENTAGES BY SUBJECT AND PERSISTENCE (GRADES 3–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
60%
52%
45%
50%
41%
36%
40%
42%
36%
34%
30%
28%
20%
10%
0%
Less than 1 year
1 yr but <2
2 yrs but < 3
3 yrs or more
Persistence by Subject
English Language Arts
Mathematics
TABLE 1: 2014–2015 PROFICIENCY PERCENTAGES BY SUBJECT AND PERSISTENCE (GRADES 3–8)
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS
MATHEMATICS
%AAP
Total Count
%AAP
Total Count
Less than 1 year
36%
4,115
28%
5,141
1 year but less than 2 years
41%
8,822
34%
11,046
2 years but less than 3 years
45%
3,848
36%
4,960
3 years or more
52%
6,409
42%
7,576
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
TABLE 2: 2014–2015 PERSISTENCE GRADES 3–8: 3 YEARS OR MORE COMPARED TO LESS THAN 1 YEAR
GRADES 3–8
Students enrolled 3 years or more compared to students enrolled less than 1 year
Subject
%AAP: Increase or Decrease (in percentage points)
English Language Arts
+16
Mathematics
+14
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
2016 K12
2016
K12 AC
AC ADEMIC
ADEMIC REPORT
REPORT
ELIGIBILITY FOR FREE AND REDUCED-PRICE LUNCH
In 2014–2015, for K12 students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, we see performance trends consistent with FRL
analyses in our previous Academic Reports (and consistent with national trends), specifically:
• Students identified as eligible for free lunch had lower percentages at or above proficiency than students eligible for
reduced-price lunch.
• Both groups underperformed students identified as not eligible for subsidized meals.
The following aggregated data from grades 3–8 are representative of FRL results across all grades and subjects7:
FIGURE 2: 2014–2015 PROFICIENCY PERCENTAGES BY SUBJECT AND FRL ELIGIBILITY (GRADES 3–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
60%
54%
50%
46%
44%
40%
34%
34%
26%
30%
20%
10%
0%
English Language Arts
Mathematics
Subject and FRL Status
Free Lunch Eligible
Reduced-Price Lunch Eligible
Not Eligible
TABLE 3: 2014–2015 PROFICIENCY PERCENTAGES BY SUBJECT AND FRL ELIGIBILITY (GRADES 3–8)
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS
%AAP
Gap Relative to
Not Eligible
in percentage points
MATHEMATICS
Total
Count
%AAP
Gap Relative to
Not Eligible
in percentage points
Total
Count
Free Lunch
Eligible
34%
-20
9,823
26%
-20
12,210
Reduced-Price
Eligible
44%
-10
3,416
34%
-12
4,300
Not Eligible
54%
--
9,246
46%
--
11,372
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
7
In Table 3, the column headed “Gap Relative to Not Eligible” specifies the number of percentage points by which students eligible for subsidized meals underperform those not eligible.
13
Group 1: K12 Public School Programs Administering PARCC in 2014–2015
We compare the aggregate performance of K12 public school programs that administered PARCC to the overall PARCC
consortium performance data for grades 3–8 and high school.
• Students in K12 public school programs achieved proficiency percentages within 1 to 3 percentage points of the overall
PARCC consortium in grades 3–5 in English Language Arts/Literacy.
• In high school, students in K12 public school programs underperformed the overall PARCC consortium.
• On the PARCC Mathematics test students in K12 public school programs in grades 7 and 8 were within 1 percentage
point of the PARCC consortium but the students in grades 3–7 underperformed the consortium by between 6 and 10
percentage points.
FIGURE 3: K12 COMPARISON TO PARCC CONSORTIUM: ELA/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
41%
38%
37%
36%
41%
40%
42%
41%
39%
35%
32%
27%
30%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
K12 Public School Programs
Overall PARCC Consortium
FIGURE 4: K12 COMPARISON TO PARCC CONSORTIUM: MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
37%
32%
31%
32%
26%
30%
32%
28%
27%
25%
27%
26%
22%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
Grade Level
K12 Public School Programs
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
Overall PARCC Consortium
8th
Group 2: K12 Public School Programs Administering SBAC in 2014–2015
At the time of this report, no overall results were available for all SBAC consortium states, so we cannot (as we did with
PARCC) compare the aggregate performance of K12 schools that administered SBAC to overall consortium performance.
Instead we compare K12 SBAC results to the state’s proficiency percentages.
In general, in grades 3–8, K12 public school programs that administered SBAC sometimes equaled or exceeded the state’s
proficiency percentages in English Language Arts/Literacy, but underperformed the state in Mathematics. Here are
representative results from Oregon and Washington:
OREGON: GRADES 3–8
FIGURE 5: K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE: OR ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
65%
60%
53%
50%
49%
46%
50%
57%
56%
54%
51%
48%
45%
44%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
ORVA
State (OR)
FIGURE 6: K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE: OR MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
46%
46%
44%
43%
43%
41%
43%
38%
40%
34%
30%
30%
25%
30%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
ORVA
State (OR)
15
WASHINGTON: HIGH SCHOOL
FIGURE 7: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: WA (HIGH SCHOOL)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
73%
70%
60%
52%
50%
40%
31%
29%
30%
20%
10%
0%
English Language Arts/Literacy
Mathematics
Subject
K12 Public School Programs (WA)
State (WA)
Group 3: K12 Public School Programs Using the Same State Testing Program
from 2013–2014 to 2014–2015
In 2014–2015, K12 public school programs in eight states used the same state-specific assessment program each had used
in 2013–2014, with no change in proficiency cut scores8: Iowa, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and
Wyoming. Michigan and Nevada continued the use of certain high school assessments, the results of which are reported in
this group.9
In analyses that compare the proficiency percentages for the same students year-over-year, aggregate scores for grades
4–8 show that the percentage of students at or above proficiency improved by 2 percentage points in both Reading and
Mathematics.
FIGURE 8: SAME STUDENTS AND SAME ASSESSMENT PROGRAM: OVERALL %AAP BY SCHOOL YEAR AND SUBJECT (GRADES 4–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
66%
68%
60%
50%
50%
44%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Reading
Mathematics
Subject
2013–2014
2014–2015
The cut score is in effect the score that constitutes passing the test—specifically, the value that determines whether a student has achieved at least an adequate level of performance,
typically labeled “proficiency,” on the assessment. Even if states administered the same test, the results of State A cannot be directly compared to those of State B if the two states set
different cut scores.
9
Michigan also introduced a new state assessment program called M-Step, the results of which were embargoed and unavailable at the time of this report. Nevada administered SBAC
in 2014–2015 but the scores were invalidated.
8
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
K12 public school programs that generally performed as well as (or, in some grades, better than) the state include those in
Texas and Virginia, especially in English and Reading. In Virginia, K12 students in grades 4, 5, and 6 outperformed the state in
Mathematics as well.
TEXAS: HIGH SCHOOL
• In English 1 (grade 9), students at K12 public school programs in Texas outperformed the state by 5 percentage points.
• In Algebra 1 (grade 9), students at K12 public school programs in Texas underperformed the state by 15 percentage points.
FIGURE 9: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON BY SUBJECT: TX (HIGH SCHOOL)
90%
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
79%
80%
74%
69%
70%
64%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
English 1
Algebra 1
Subject
K12 Public School Programs (TX)
State (TX)
VIRGINIA: GRADES 3–610
• In Reading, at K12 public school programs in Virginia, students in grades 4, 5, and 6 outperformed the state by 12 to 19
percentage points.
FIGURE 10: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: VA READING (GRADES 3–6)
98%
100%
93%
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
89%
90%
80%
79%
77%
75%
76%
70%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
Grade Level
K12 Public School Programs (VA)
10
State (VA)
In the 2014–2015 school year (for which this report includes data), K12 public school programs in Virginia enrolled students in grades K–6, with state testing beginning in grade 3.
17
• In Mathematics, at K12 public school programs in Virginia, students in grades 4, 5, and 6 outperformed the state by 1 to 15
percentage points.
FIGURE 11: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: VA MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–6)
98%
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
100%
85%
90%
84%
84%
83%
79%
74%
80%
70%
63%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
Grade Level
K12 Public School Programs (VA)
State (VA)
Group 4: K12 Public School Programs Administering New State Tests in
2014–2015
In this section, we compare the percentage of K12 students at or above proficiency within a given state to the state’s overall
percentage of students at or above proficiency. We report results from K12 public school programs in states that, while in
general not members of PARCC or SBAC, changed to new assessment programs in 2014–2015. These states include Arizona,
Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Indiana, South Carolina, and Wisconsin. (Wisconsin results are reported for grades 3–8 English
Language Arts and high school only).11
We also include in this section the results from K12 public school programs in Ohio and Louisiana. These states administered
PARCC assessments but used a lower cut score to define proficiency than the proficiency standards recommended by the
PARCC consortium.
In high school Mathematics, most K12 public school programs school scored below the state (though K12 schools in Ohio
and Louisiana outperformed the state in Algebra 1). In tests of Reading and English Language Arts, some K12 public school
programs, including those in Wisconsin and Ohio, performed as well as (or, in some grades, better than) the state.
11
Wisconsin administered the SBAC Mathematics assessment in grades 3–8. Wisconsin Virtual Academy’s Mathematics results are reported in the SBAC Analysis section of this report.
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
WISCONSIN: GRADES 3–8
• In English Language Arts/Literacy, Wisconsin Virtual Academy outperformed the state in grades 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
FIGURE 12: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: WI ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
60%
58%
57%
60%
52%
55%
53%
52%
51%
46%
50%
53%
52%
46%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
WIVA
State (WI)
OHIO: GRADES 3–8
• In English Language Arts/Literacy, Ohio Virtual Academy (OHVA) outperformed the state in grade 8 and equaled the state
in grade 7. In grades 3–6, OHVA performed within 2 to 10 percentage points of the state.
FIGURE 13: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: OH READING (GRADE 3) / ELA/LITERACY (GRADES 4–8)
90%
79%
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
80%
72%
72%
70%
70%
70%
68%
69%
69%
69%
68%
70%
60%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
OHVA
State (OH)
19
OHIO: HIGH SCHOOL
• In English Language Arts/Literacy, 82 percent of OHVA students performed at or above proficiency, outperforming the
state by 9 percentage points.
• In Algebra 1 (grade 9), OHVA students outperformed the state by 6 percentage points.
FIGURE 14: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: OH (HIGH SCHOOL)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
82%
80%
73%
72%
66%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
English Language Arts/Literacy
Algebra 1
Subject
OHVA
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
State (OH)
K12 Public School Programs
Performance Analysis
2014–2015
21
K12 Public School Programs Performance Analysis
2014–2015: Introduction
In the 2014–2015 school year, the landscape of state testing shifted dramatically. Many states switched to new assessments.
Some developed new state-specific assessments. Some turned to the Common Core consortia, either the Partnership
for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) or the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC).
Some states used assessments from the consortia but changed or added to them. Most states followed the consortia’s
recommendations for cut scores to determine proficiency but some set their own cut scores. Some states invalidated all state
assessment results due to test administration or scoring issues, while some suspended school accountability ratings.
These changes complicate our efforts to analyze the performance of K12 public school programs. In previous Academic
Reports, our practice has been, when possible, to compare data across multiple consecutive school years. But when states
change to new tests based on new standards, and use different definitions of proficiency, the results of the new tests cannot be
directly compared to results from previous tests.
Moreover, because the PARCC and SBAC assessments are in many cases significantly more rigorous than previous state
assessments, it can be misleading to aggregate the results of those tests with results from more traditional state tests.
Because test types and categories shifted so much in 2014–2015, we are organizing our performance analysis in ways that we
hope will help readers navigate the sometimes confusing landscape of state testing.
How Performance Analyses Are Organized
NORM-REFERENCED TESTS TO GAUGE
STUDENT PROGRESS
• Group 2: K12 public school programs administering
SBAC in 2014–2015
Many K12 public school programs administer normreferenced tests to gauge students’ academic progress
at different points during the school year. We report
results from the Scantron Performance Series®, which is
the norm-referenced assessment used by the majority of
K12 schools.
• Group 3: K12 public school programs using the same
state testing program from 2013–2014 to 2014–2015
• Group 4: K12 public school programs administering new
state tests in 2014–2015
Table 4 identifies the specific K12 public school programs
within each of those four groups.
OVERALL ANALYSES
We report overall results from K12 public school
programs in two specific cases:
• By eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch
• By persistence, that is, the relationship between length
of enrollment and performance on state assessments
PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS GROUPINGS12
Analyses of student performance data are organized into
four groups as follows:
NOTE: For K12 public school programs in some states, we
separately analyze the results of K12 virtual academies
and Insight Schools. Among K12 public school programs,
most of those designated as Insight Schools focus on
serving academically struggling students in grades 6–12,
with a few serving only high school students. While these
schools accept students of all ability levels, most focus
on providing programs specifically designed to meet
the needs of the struggling student. Some K12 Insight
Schools are officially designated as “alternative” or “atrisk” schools based on state criteria, but most states do
not have official criteria for these types of schools.
• Group 1: K12 public school programs administering
PARCC in 2014–201512a
Within specific groups of schools or individual schools, there may be differences between the number of students for whom we report scores on math and ELA. These differences may be
attributable to a variety of reasons such as student attendance on days the different assessments were administered or students who took alternative or accommodated assessments in
one content area.
12a
In this group, we include only those K12 public school programs that both administered PARCC and used the recommended PARCC proficiency cut score. The cut score is in effect the
score that constitutes passing the test—specifically, the value that determines whether a student has achieved at least an adequate level of performance, typically labeled “proficiency,”
on the assessment. Even if states administered the same test, the results of State A cannot be directly compared to those of State B if the two states set different cut scores.
12
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
TABLE 4: K12 PUBLIC SCHOOL PROGRAMS BY PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS GROUPING
GROUP 1
K12 Public School Programs Administering PARCC 2014–2015
K12 PUBLIC SCHOOL PROGRAMS
NOTES/EXCEPTIONS
Included in analysis:
Not included in analysis:
Arkansas Virtual Academy
Chicago Virtual Charter School
Louisiana Virtual Charter Academy and Ohio
Colorado Preparatory Academy
Community Academy Public Charter School Online
Insight School of Colorado
Massachusetts Virtual Academy at Greenfield
Commonwealth Virtual School
New Mexico Virtual Academy
Newark Preparatory Charter School
Virtual Academy: In 2014–2015 Louisiana and Ohio
administered PARCC but used a lower cut score to
define proficiency than the proficiency standards
recommended by the consortium. For this reason,
results from K12 schools in Louisiana and Ohio are
included in Group 4.
Youth Connection Charter School Virtual High School:
Results not available at the time of this report.
Included only in high school analysis:
Newark Preparatory Charter School
GROUP 2
K12 Public School Programs Administering SBAC 2014–2015
K12 PUBLIC SCHOOL PROGRAMS
NOTES/EXCEPTIONS
Included in analysis:
Not included in analysis:
California Virtual Academy at Fresno
California Virtual Academy at Jamestown
California Virtual Academy at Kings
California Virtual Academy at Los Angeles
California Virtual Academy at Maricopa
California Virtual Academy at Maricopa High School
California Virtual Academy at San Diego
California Virtual Academy at San Joaquin
California Virtual Academy at San Mateo
California Virtual Academy at Sonoma
California Virtual Academy at Sutter
Idaho Virtual Academy
Insight School of California-Los Angeles
Insight School of Oregon-Charter Option
Insight School of California-San Diego
Insight School of Washington
iQ Academy California at Los Angeles
Oregon Virtual Academy
Silicon Valley Flex Academy
Washington Virtual Academy-Monroe
Washington Virtual Academy-Omak
Wisconsin Virtual Academy (3–8 Mathematics only)
San Francisco Flex Academy, Insight School of
Oregon-ALT, and iQ Washington: Results not
available at the time of this report.
Idaho College and Career Readiness Academy:
The number of student scores reported was not
sufficient (n<10) to support meaningful analysis.
Nevada Virtual Academy: The state of Nevada
invalidated all SBAC scores for the state’s schools.
Wisconsin Virtual Academy: In grades 3–8,
Wisconsin used a modified form of SBAC English
Language Arts/Literacy, the results of which
cannot be grouped with SBAC. In high school,
Wisconsin used state-specific tests rather than SBAC.
Included only in high school analysis:
California Virtual Academy at Maricopa High School
Insight School of California-Los Angeles
Insight School of California-San Diego
Insight School of Washington
Washington Virtual Academy-Monroe
23
TABLE 4: K12 PUBLIC SCHOOL PROGRAMS BY PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS GROUPING (continued)
GROUP 3
K12 Public School Programs Using the Same State Testing Program from 2013–2014 to 2014–2015
K12 PUBLIC SCHOOL PROGRAMS
NOTES/EXCEPTIONS
Included in analysis:
Not included in analysis:
Insight School of Michigan
Hill House Passport Academy Charter School:
Insight School of Minnesota
Insight School of Oklahoma
Results not available at the time of this report.
Iowa Virtual Academy
iQ Academy Minnesota
Michigan Great Lakes Virtual Academy
Michigan Virtual Charter Academy
Minnesota Virtual Academy and
Nevada Virtual Academy
Oklahoma Virtual Charter Academy
Tennessee Virtual Academy
Texas Online Preparatory School
Texas Virtual Academy
Utah Virtual Academy
Virginia Virtual Academy-King and Queen
Virginia Virtual Academy-Patrick
Wyoming Virtual Academy
Included only in high school analysis:
K12 public school programs in Michigan: Results
from Michigan’s high school ACT assessments are
reported in Group 3. (In 2014–2015, Michigan also
administered a new testing program called M-Step.
As of the time of this report, M-Step results were
embargoed and thus unavailable.)
Nevada Virtual Academy: In 2014–2015, Nevada
SBAC scores were invalidated. Here we report
results from Nevada’s High School Proficiency
Examination.
GROUP 4
K12 Public School Programs Administering New State Tests in 2014–2015
K12 PUBLIC SCHOOL PROGRAMS
NOTES/EXCEPTIONS
Included in analysis:
Not included in analysis:
Arizona Virtual Academy
Cyber Academy of South Carolina
Florida Virtual Academy at Broward
Florida Virtual Academy at Clay
Florida Virtual Academy at Duval
Florida Virtual Academy at Hillsborough
Florida Virtual Academy at Palm Beach
Florida Virtual Academy at Pasco
Florida Virtual Academy at Pinellas
Georgia Cyber Academy
Hoosier Academies Indianapolis
Hoosier Academies Virtual School
Insight Academy of Arizona
Insight School of Kansas
Insight School of Ohio
Kansas Virtual Academy
Louisiana Virtual Charter Academy
Ohio Virtual Academy
South Carolina Virtual Charter School
Wisconsin Virtual Academy (ELA/Literacy and high
school only)
Alaska Virtual Academy and Florida Virtual
Academy at Osceola: Results not available at the
time of this report.
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
K12 public school programs in Michigan: Results
from Michigan’s high school ACT assessments are
reported in Group 3. In 2014–2015, Michigan also
administered a new testing program called M-Step.
As of the time of this report, M-Step results were
embargoed and thus unavailable.
Wisconsin Virtual Academy, Grades 3–8
Mathematics: Wisconsin administered SBAC
Mathematics, for which results are reported in
Group 2.
States Suspending Accountability Ratings in 2014–2015
Typically states assessments are considered “high stakes” because some form of accountability is associated with
performance. This accountability usually has student- and school-level consequences such as a student’s eligibility to
graduate or a school’s performance rating. Many state policymakers suspended accountability associated with performance
on state assessments in 2014–2015 due to implementation issues and significant changes in the new assessments. Some
states also established 2014–2015 as a baseline year for purposes of growth measurements associated with accountability.
Since the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, there have been consequences related to performance on state
assessments. For the states that suspended accountability, the 2014–2015 school year marks the first time in more than a
decade that no accountability was associated with state test performance.
States with K12 public school programs that suspended accountability for 2014–2015 include:
• Arizona
• Colorado
• Florida
• Idaho
• Louisiana
• Massachusetts
• Minnesota
• Nevada
• Oregon
• Wisconsin
25
Norm-Referenced Tests to Gauge Student Progress:
Results for 2014–2015
Many K12 public school programs administer norm-referenced tests to gauge students’ academic progress at different points
during the school year. We report results from the Scantron Performance Series®, which is the norm-referenced assessment
used by the majority of K12 schools.
In 2014–2015, K12 Inc. continued the use of the Scantron Performance Series® in more than 50 K12 public school programs.
(See Table 5.)
The following analysis compares the mean gain—the change in scale scores from fall to spring administrations of the Scantron
assessments—made by K12 students to that of the Scantron Norm Group mean gain.13 The national Scantron Norm Group,
made up of thousands of students, comprises a diverse range of students by socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and other
demographic characteristics.
TABLE 5: K12 PUBLIC SCHOOL PROGRAMS USING SCANTRON
Alaska Virtual Academy
Arizona Virtual Academy
Arkansas Virtual Academy
Community Academy Public Charter School Online
Cyber Academy of South Carolina
California Virtual Academy at Fresno
California Virtual Academy at Jamestown
California Virtual Academy at Kings
California Virtual Academy at Los Angeles
California Virtual Academy at Maricopa
California Virtual Academy at Maricopa High School
California Virtual Academy at San Diego
California Virtual Academy at San Joaquin
California Virtual Academy at San Mateo
California Virtual Academy at Sonoma
California Virtual Academy at Sutter
Colorado Preparatory Academy
Chicago Virtual Charter School
Georgia Cyber Academy
Hill House Passport Academy Charter School
Iowa Virtual Academy
Idaho College and Career Readiness Academy
Idaho Virtual Academy
iQ Academy California at Los Angeles
iQ Academy Minnesota
Insight Academy of Arizona
Insight School of California-Los Angeles
Insight School of Colorado
Insight School of Kansas
Insight School of Kansas-Adult
Insight School of Minnesota
13
Insight School of Ohio
Insight School of Oklahoma
Insight School of Oregon
Insight School of Oregon-Charter Option
Insight School of California at San Diego
Insight School of Washington
Kansas Virtual Academy
Massachusetts Virtual Academy at Greenfield
Commonwealth Virtual School
Michigan Great Lakes Virtual Academy
Minnesota Virtual Academy
Newark Preparatory Charter School
New Mexico Virtual Academy
Ohio Virtual Academy
Oregon Virtual Academy
South Carolina Virtual Charter School
San Francisco Flex Academy
Silicon Valley Flex Academy
Texas Online Preparatory School
Texas Virtual Academy
Virginia Virtual Academy-King and Queen
Virginia Virtual Academy-Patrick
Washington Virtual Academy-Monroe
Washington Virtual Academy-Omak
Wisconsin Virtual Academy
Wyoming Virtual Academy
The methodology employed in the analysis of Scantron results in this 2016 Academic Report differs from the methodology used in prior years’ Academic Reports. As noted, the analysis
in the 2015 Academic Report (which set forth the results for SY 2013–2014) erroneously excluded students whose difference in scale scores between the fall and spring Scantron
assessments fell within Scantron’s standard error of measurement for that difference (that is, students whose scale scores differential was not statistically distinct from zero). Such scores
are included in the analysis of Scantron results set forth in this 2016 Academic Report. In addition, the methodology used in previous reports identified outliers (which were excluded
from the analysis) as students whose gain scores were outside three standard deviations of zero or their grade’s mean gain. For the 2016 Academic Report, the methodology identifies
(and excludes) outliers consistent with the methodology used by Scantron in its calculation of the national Scantron Norm Group, as documented in the 13th Edition of the Scantron
Performance Series Technical Report which was published in December, 2015. Specifically, for both Mathematics and Reading and for each grade, only students who completed Scantron
assessments in both fall 2014 and spring 2015 and whose fall 2014 scores were between the 25th and 75th percentiles are included in the analysis. In the prior year, outliers were defined
as students who were plus or minus one standard error of the mean of the distribution of gains or as students with zero gains as well as students beyond three standard deviations of
the mean. Although this year’s outlier approach excludes more gain scores than in prior years, it more closely aligns our methodology for analyzing our students’ Scantron gains with
Scantron’s own methodology for calculating the Scantron Norm Group mean gain. Finally, this 2016 Academic Report calculates the overall percentage of the Scantron Norm Group mean
gain as a weighted average of the grade-level percentages, where the weights are the number of students in each grade. (SEM not an error, but we improved upon this.)
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
Scantron Performance Series® Assessment Results (2014–2015)
READING
As reported in Figure 15 and Table 6, in Reading, K12 students exceeded the Scantron Norm Group mean gain in grades 4–7
and achieved 86 percent of the overall norm group mean gain from fall to spring. K12 students were within 20 percent of the
Scantron Norm Group mean gain in grade 3.
FIGURE 15: 2014–2015 SCANTRON MEAN GAIN COMPARISON: READING
250
Mean Gain
200
150
100
50
0
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
Grade Level
2014–2015 K12 Mean Gain
2014–2015 Scantron Norm Group Mean Gain
TABLE 6: 2014–2015 SCANTRON MEAN GAIN COMPARISON: READING
Number of
Students
Included in
Gains Analysis
Grade 3
1,353
Fall Mean
Scale Score
Spring Mean
Scale Score
K12 Mean Gain
Scantron Norm
Group Mean Gain
Percentage of
Norm Group
Mean Gain *
2,586.43
2,756.06
169.63
202.7
84%
Grade 4
1,717
2,737.51
2,892.65
155.14
146.72
106%
Grade 5
1,874
2,849.95
2,973.55
123.59
108.06
114%
Grade 6
2,163
2,952.59
3,053.20
100.61
80.91
124%
Grade 7
2,650
3,023.23
3,100.05
76.82
66.37
116%
Grade 8
3,164
3,087.85
3,125.98
38.14
61.52
62%
Grade 9
2,437
3,132.14
3,164.25
32.10
42.96
75%
Grade 10
2,370
3,188.37
3,199.21
10.84
48.88
22%
Overall
17,728
85%
* The overall percentage of the norm group mean gain is calculated as a weighted average of the grade-level percentages, where the weights are the number of students in each grade.
Source: SY 2014–2015 Gains Data; SY 2014–2015 FRL Data
27
MATHEMATICS
As reported in Figure 16 and Table 7, in Mathematics, K12 students exceeded the Scantron Norm Group mean gain in grades 4,
6, and 9 and achieved 94 percent of the overall Scantron Norm Group mean gain from fall to spring. K12 students were within
20 percentage points of the Scantron Norm Group mean gain in grades 3, 5, and 7.
FIGURE 16: 2014–2015 SCANTRON MEAN GAIN COMPARISON: MATHEMATICS
250
Mean Gain
200
150
100
50
0
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
Grade Level
2014–2015 K12 Mean Gain
2014–2015 Scantron Norm Group Mean Gain
TABLE 7: 2014–2015 SCANTRON MEAN GAIN COMPARISON: MATHEMATICS
Number of
Students
Included in
Gains Analysis
Fall Mean
Scale Score
Spring Mean
Scale Score
K12 Mean Gain
Scantron Norm
Group Mean Gain
Percentage of
Norm Group
Mean Gain *
1,372
2,369.05
2,526.56
157.51
179.98
88%
Grade 4
1,725
2,461.77
2,613.07
151.30
141.21
107%
Grade 5
1,885
2,551.63
2,668.80
117.17
132.47
88%
Grade 6
2,185
2,625.68
2,753.22
127.54
113.65
112%
Grade 7
2,663
2,715.33
2,798.56
83.23
91.99
90%
Grade 3
Grade 8
3,189
2,777.81
2,832.69
54.88
77.41
71%
Grade 9
2,464
2,798.80
2,848.99
50.19
39.37
127%
Grade 10
2,415
2,849.75
2,889.46
39.71
50.78
78%
Overall
17,898
94%
* The overall percentage of the norm group mean gain is calculated as a weighted average of the grade-level percentages, where the weights are the number of students in each grade.
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
Scantron Performance Series® Assessment Results by Eligibility
for Free and Reduced-Price Lunch (2014–2015)
READING
As reported in Figure 17 and Table 8, in Reading, K12 FRL-eligible students exceeded the Scantron Norm Group mean gain
in grades 4–6, while K12 students not eligible for FRL exceeded the Scantron Norm Group mean gain in grades 4–7. Overall,
K12 FRL eligible students achieved 83 percent of the overall Scantron Norm Group mean gain from fall to spring, while K12
students not eligible for FRL achieved 94 percent of the Scantron Norm Group mean gain.
FIGURE 17: 2014–2015 SCANTRON MEAN GAIN COMPARISON BY FRL ELIGIBILITY: READING
250
Mean Gain
200
150
100
50
0
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
Grade Level
K12 FRL Eligible
K12 Not Eligible for FRL
2014–2015 Scantron Norm Group Mean Gain
TABLE 8: 2014–2015 SCANTRON MEAN GAIN COMPARISON BY FRL ELIGIBILITY: READING
K12 FRL Eligible
Scantron
Norm Group
Mean Gain
Grade 3
202.7
Number of
Students
Mean Gain
K12 Not Eligible for FRL
Percentage of
Norm Group
Mean Gain
Number of
Students
Mean Gain
Percentage of
Norm Group
Mean Gain
83%
654
166.62
82%
425
168.08
Grade 4
146.72
817
149.60
102%
562
160.24
109%
Grade 5
108.06
872
122.90
114%
610
111.93
104%
Grade 6
80.91
981
99.25
123%
682
99.08
122%
Grade 7
66.37
1,127
55.32
83%
863
91.31
138%
Grade 8
61.52
1,379
31.52
51%
1,038
46.28
75%
Grade 9
42.96
1,117
41.86
97%
756
34.02
79%
Grade 10
48.88
979
12.09
25%
870
25.24
52%
83%
5,806
Overall*
7,926
94%
* The overall percentage of the norm group mean gain is calculated as a weighted average of the grade-level percentages, where the weights are the number of students in each grade.
Note: Table includes data for students who provided information regarding FRL eligibility.
29
MATHEMATICS
As reported in Figure 18 and Table 9, in Mathematics, K12 FRL-eligible students exceeded the Scantron Norm Group mean
gain in grades 4 and 9, while K12 students not eligible for FRL exceeded the Scantron Norm Group mean gain in grades 4, 6,
7, 9, and 10. Overall, K12 FRL eligible students achieved 87 percent of the overall Scantron Norm Group mean gain from fall to
spring, while K12 students not eligible for FRL achieved 108 percent of the Scantron Norm Group mean gain.
FIGURE 18: 2014–2015 SCANTRON MEAN GAIN COMPARISON BY FRL ELIGIBILITY: MATHEMATICS
250
Mean Gain
200
150
100
50
0
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
Grade Level
K12 FRL Eligible
K12 Not Eligible for FRL
2014–2015 Scantron Norm Group Mean Gain
TABLE 9: 2014–2015 SCANTRON MEAN GAIN COMPARISON BY FRL ELIGIBILITY: MATHEMATICS
K12 FRL Eligible
Scantron
Norm Group
Mean Gain
Number of
Students
Mean Gain
K12 Not Eligible for FRL
Percentage of
Norm Group
Mean Gain
Number of
Students
Mean Gain
Percentage of
Norm Group
Mean Gain
Grade 3
179.98
668
149.96
83%
428
163.75
91%
Grade 4
141.21
818
144.11
102%
568
158.78
112%
Grade 5
132.47
881
109.59
83%
613
129.11
97%
Grade 6
113.65
990
110.80
97%
681
146.43
129%
Grade 7
91.99
1,137
69.40
75%
865
104.32
113%
Grade 8
77.41
1,398
44.16
57%
1,046
70.10
91%
Grade 9
39.37
1,137
52.76
134%
761
50.02
127%
Grade 10
50.78
1,004
37.29
73%
884
51.98
87%
5,846
Overall*
8,033
102%
108%
* The overall percentage of the norm group mean gain is calculated as a weighted average of the grade-level percentages, where the weights are the number of students in each grade.
Note: Table includes data for students who provided information regarding FRL eligibility.
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
OVERALL ANALYSIS GRADES 3–8 AND HIGH SCHOOL:
Persistence and FRL
In this section, we report overall results from K12 public school programs in two specific cases:
• By persistence, that is, the relationship between length of enrollment and performance on state assessments
• By eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch (FRL)
Performance by Persistence
Educational researchers have demonstrated that mobility— repeatedly moving from one school setting to another—can
have a destabilizing influence, causing students to struggle and lapse in academic performance. Conversely, persistence—
remaining continuously enrolled in the same school—generally proves beneficial to students as they are promoted through
the grade levels.13a
Research findings on the beneficial effects of persistence are confirmed by our analysis of student performance on state tests.
The overall results of that analysis show that, in general, students who stay in K12 public school programs longer achieve
higher percentages at or above proficiency on state assessments, while students who stay the least amount of time show
lower percentages at or above proficiency.
In our analyses of the effects of persistence, we present data on the percentage of students at or above proficiency on state
assessments for students in four categories based on length of enrollment:
• Less than 1 year
• 1 year but less than 2
• 2 years but less than 3
• 3 years or more
For the 2014–2015 school year, in most cases we continue to see a positive relationship between length of continuous
enrollment and proficiency. (See Figure 19.) In the following analyses, we present data for grades 3–8 and for high school.
The analyses aggregate results from all K12 school programs from which valid test results were available.
13a
Ashby, Cornelia M. (2010). K–12 Education: Many Challenges Arise in Educating Students Who Change Schools Frequently. Report to Congressional Requesters, GAO-11-40. US
Government Accountability O. ce: 1–52.
31
GRADES 3–8
• In grades 3–8, in English Language Arts and Mathematics, the longer students remain enrolled, the better they perform.
Compared to students enrolled in K12 public school programs less than 1 year, students enrolled 3 years or more achieved
higher percentages at or above proficiency: 16 percentage points higher in English Language Arts and 14 percentage points
higher in Mathematics. (See Table 11.)
FIGURE 19: 2014–2015 PROFICIENCY PERCENTAGES BY SUBJECT AND PERSISTENCE (GRADES 3–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
60%
52%
45%
50%
41%
36%
40%
42%
36%
34%
30%
28%
20%
10%
0%
Less than 1 year
1 yr but <2
2 yrs but < 3
3 yrs or more
Persistence by Subject
English Language Arts
Mathematics
TABLE 10: 2014–2015 PROFICIENCY PERCENTAGES BY SUBJECT AND PERSISTENCE (GRADES 3–8)
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS
MATHEMATICS
%AAP
Total Count
%AAP
Total Count
Less than 1 year
36%
4,115
28%
5,141
1 year but less than 2 years
41%
8,822
34%
11,046
2 years but less than 3 years
45%
3,848
36%
4,960
3 years or more
52%
6,409
42%
7,576
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
TABLE 11: 2014–2015 PERSISTENCE GRADES 3–8: 3 YEARS OR MORE COMPARED TO LESS THAN 1 YEAR
GRADES 3–8
Students enrolled 3 years or more compared to students enrolled less than 1 year
Subject
%AAP: Increase or Decrease (in percentage points)
English Language Arts
+16
Mathematics
+14
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
HIGH SCHOOL
Our analysis of the effects of persistence in high school is organized by test type: either end-of-course assessments (EOCs) or
high school graduation tests (HSGTs).14
HSGT PROFICIENCY PERCENTAGES BY PERSISTENCE
For HSGTs, compared to students enrolled in K12 public school programs less than 1 year, students enrolled 3 years or more
achieved higher percentages at or above proficiency: 15 percentage points higher in English Language Arts and 9 percentage
points higher in Mathematics. (See Table 13.)
FIGURE 20: 2014–2015 PROFICIENCY PERCENTAGES BY SUBJECT AND PERSISTENCE (HSGT)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
67%
70%
60%
57%
56%
34%
35%
52%
50%
40%
40%
31%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Less than 1 year
1 yr but <2
2 yrs but < 3
3 yrs or more
Persistence by Subject
English Language Arts
Mathematics
TABLE 12: 2014–2015 PROFICIENCY PERCENTAGES BY SUBJECT AND PERSISTENCE (HSGT)
ENGLISH
LANGUAGE ARTS
Less than 1 year
MATHEMATICS
%AAP
Total Count
%AAP
Total Count
52%
753
31%
850
1 year but less than 2 years
57%
1,212
34%
1,368
2 years but less than 3 years
56%
616
35%
651
3 years or more
67%
913
40%
1,141
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
Data represents students in grades 9–12 only.
TABLE 13: 2014–2015 PERSISTENCE HSGT: 3 YEARS OR MORE COMPARED TO LESS THAN 1 YEAR
HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION TESTS
Students enrolled 3 years or more compared to students enrolled less than 1 year
Subject
%AAP: Increase or Decrease (in percentage points)
English Language Arts
+15
Mathematics
+9
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
14
HSGTs are designed to measure the basic knowledge and skills that students should know and be able to do by the end of high school. High school graduation tests
do not measure specific content standards associated with specific courses such as English Literature, Algebra, Biology, or U.S. History. While HSGTs set a floor for
academic achievement in broad domains of reading, writing, mathematics, science, and social studies, EOCs measure proficiency in the specific courses that students
take to meet their high school graduation requirements (for example, in Algebra 1, Algebra 2, Geometry, English 1, etc.).
33
EOC PROFICIENCY PERCENTAGES BY PERSISTENCE
In high school, for students who took an end-of-course assessment in English 1 or Algebra 1, the relationship between
persistence and proficiency is not consistent with either grades 3–8 or HSGT results. Relative to students enrolled less than 1
year, the proficiency percentage of students enrolled 3 years or more was 3 percentage points less in English 1 and remained
unchanged in Algebra 1.
FIGURE 21: 2014–2015 PROFICIENCY PERCENTAGES BY SUBJECT AND PERSISTENCE (EOC)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
60%
48%
47%
45%
50%
45%
40%
36%
30%
36%
33%
32%
20%
10%
0%
Less than 1 year
1 yr but <2
2 yrs but < 3
3 yrs or more
Persistence by Subject
English 1
Algebra 1
TABLE 14: 2014–2015 PROFICIENCY PERCENTAGES BY SUBJECT AND PERSISTENCE (EOC)
ENGLISH 1
ALGEBRA 1
%AAP
Total Count
%AAP
Less than 1 year
48%
382
36%
Total Count
586
1 year but less than 2 years
47%
918
32%
1,429
2 years but less than 3 years
45%
348
33%
601
3 years or more
45%
530
36%
895
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
Data represents students in grades 9–12 only.
TABLE 15: 2014–2015 PERSISTENCE EOC: 3 YEARS OR MORE COMPARED TO LESS THAN 1 YEAR
END-OF-COURSE ASSESSMENTS
Students enrolled 3 years or more compared to students enrolled less than 1 year
Subject
%AAP: Increase or Decrease (in percentage points)
English 1
-3
Algebra 1
=
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
Performance by Free and Reduced-Price Lunch Eligibility
The National School Lunch Program—a federally
assisted program overseen by the United States
Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service
and usually administered by state education agencies—
provides free or reduced-price lunches to students
whose families earn at or below a set percentage of the
U.S. poverty level.
In educational research, eligibility for free or reducedprice lunch (FRL) is often used as an indicator of poverty.15
While FRL eligibility cannot be automatically equated
with poverty, it is an indicator of a range of income that
can extend down to the poverty level and below.
The National School Lunch Program has four
classifications:
• Free Lunch Eligible
• Reduced-Price Lunch Eligible
• Not Eligible
• Unknown Eligibility
Eligibility is based on self-reported family data that
include income and the size of the household. In this
report, we include data for students in all eligibility
categories except Unknown. For more information see
Appendix 1.
THE EFFECTS OF LOW INCOME AND POVERTY
When we take into consideration students’ eligibility
for subsidized meals under the National School Lunch
Program, we see a fairly consistent relationship between
this indicator of family poverty and students’ proficiency
on state assessments. Of course family income is only
one in a complex array of factors that can negatively
affect academic performance, including other criteria
considered by National School Lunch Program such as
number of people in the household and frequency of
income during the year.
The K12 experience is more than education. We are a
caring community committed to offering assistance that
helps students thrive. Our Family Academic Support
Team (FAST) provides social, emotional, medical, and
other services to help families overcome challenges that
can affect students’ academic success.
Overall, the data below show that students who choose
to enroll in a K12 public school program, and who are
eligible for subsidized meals, tend to be less successful
on state tests than students who are not eligible. This
pattern is consistent with national trends confirmed in
many studies, such as the research reported by Dahl
and Lochner, which indicates that family income has a
significant effect on a child’s mathematics and reading
achievement as measured on standardized tests.17
According to data from the National Center for Education
Statistics for the most recent school year available
(2013–2014), nationally, 50.24% of students were eligible
for free or reduced-price lunch.16 In comparison, based
on self-reported family data, for all students in grades
3–8 and high school in K12 public school programs,
59% were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch in
2014–2015.
In 2014–2015, for K12 students eligible for free or
reduced-price lunch, we see patterns consistent with FRL
analyses in our previous Academic Reports, specifically:
STUDENTS ELIGIBLE FOR FREE
AND REDUCED-PRICE LUNCH
In our overall analysis of data from across K12 public
school programs, these patterns hold true for all subjects
in both grades 3–8 and high school. (See Figures 22–24
and Tables 16–18.)
Nationwide
All K12 Public School
Programs
50%
59%
• Students identified as eligible for free lunch had lower
percentages at or above proficiency than students
eligible for reduced-price lunch.
• Both groups underperformed students identified as
not eligible for subsidized meals.
New America Foundation (April 24, 2014). Background and Analysis: Federal School Nutrition Programs. Retrieved from http://febp.newamerica.net/backgroundanalysis/federalschool-nutrition-programs.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “Local Education Agency (School District) Universe Survey”, 2013–
2014 v.1a; “Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey”, 2013–2014 v.1a; “State Non-fiscal Public Elementary/Secondary Education Survey”, 2013–2014 v.1a.
17
Dahl, Gordon B. and Lance Lochner. 2012. “The Impact of Family Income on Child Achievement: Evidence from the Earned Income Tax Credit.” American Economic
Review, 102(5):1927–56. Retrieved from www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.102.5.1927. Dahl and Lochner report that a $1,000 increase in family income raised
mathematics and reading test scores by about 6 percent of a standard deviation.
15
16
35
GRADES 3–8
The following data present overall percentages of students at or above proficiency by free and reduced-price lunch eligibility
for grades 3–8.
FIGURE 22: 2014–2015 PROFICIENCY PERCENTAGES BY SUBJECT AND FRL ELIGIBILITY (GRADES 3–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
60%
54%
50%
46%
44%
40%
34%
34%
26%
30%
20%
10%
0%
English Language Arts
Mathematics
Subject and FRL Status
Free Lunch Eligible
Reduced-Price Lunch Eligible
Not Eligible
TABLE 16: 2014–2015 PROFICIENCY PERCENTAGES BY SUBJECT AND FRL ELIGIBILITY (GRADES 3–8)
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS
Gap Relative to
Not Eligible
%AAP
in percentage points
MATHEMATICS
Total
Count
%AAP
Gap Relative to
Not Eligible
in percentage points
Total
Count
Free Lunch
Eligible
34%
-20
9,823
26%
-20
12,210
Reduced-Price
Eligible
44%
-10
3,416
34%
-12
4,300
Not Eligible
54%
--
9,246
46%
--
11,372
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
“Gap Relative to Not Eligible” specifies the number of percentage points that separate students eligible for subsidized meals from those not eligible.
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
HIGH SCHOOL
The following data present overall percentages of students at or above proficiency by free and reduced-price lunch eligibility
for high school graduation tests (HSGT).
FIGURE 23: 2014–2015 PROFICIENCY PERCENTAGES BY SUBJECT AND FRL ELIGIBILITY (HSGT)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
65%
70%
58%
60%
52%
50%
40%
40%
33%
31%
30%
20%
10%
0%
English Language Arts
Mathematics
Subject and FRL Status
Free Lunch Eligible
Reduced-Price Lunch Eligible
Not Eligible
TABLE 17: 2014–2015 PROFICIENCY PERCENTAGES BY SUBJECT AND FRL ELIGIBILITY (HSGT)
ENGLISH
LANGUAGE ARTS
MATHEMATICS
%AAP
%AAP
Gap Relative
to Not Eligible
-13
1,339
31%
-9
1,565
58%
-7
542
33%
-7
604
65%
--
1,539
40%
--
1,736
%AAP
Gap Relative
to Not Eligible
Free Lunch Eligible
52%
Reduced-Price
Lunch Eligible
Not Eligible
in percentage
points
in percentage
points
%AAP
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
“Gap Relative to Not Eligible” specifies the number of percentage points that separate students eligible for subsidized meals from those not eligible.
37
HIGH SCHOOL (continued)
The following data present overall percentages of students at or above proficiency by free and reduced-price lunch eligibility
for high school end-of-course tests (EOC).
FIGURE 24: 2014–2015 PROFICIENCY PERCENTAGES BY SUBJECT AND FRL ELIGIBILITY (EOC)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
55%
60%
50%
50%
40%
39%
42%
40%
27%
30%
20%
10%
0%
English 1
Algebra 1
Subject and FRL Status
Free Lunch Eligible
Reduced-Price Lunch Eligible
Not Eligible
TABLE 18: 2014–2015 PROFICIENCY PERCENTAGES BY SUBJECT AND FRL ELIGIBILITY (EOC)
ENGLISH 1
%AAP
Gap Relative
to Not Eligible
in percentage
points
ALGEBRA 1
%AAP
%AAP
Gap Relative
to Not Eligible
in percentage
points
%AAP
Free Lunch Eligible
39%
-16
1,008
27%
-15
1,550
Reduced-Price
Eligible
50%
-5
353
40%
-2
542
Not Eligible
55%
--
806
42%
--
1,229
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
“Gap Relative to Not Eligible” specifies the number of percentage points that separate students eligible for subsidized meals from
those not eligible.
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
GROUP 1
K12 Public School Programs
Administering PARCC
K12 Public School Programs
Administering PARCC 2014–2015
• The PARCC consortium offers assessments
in English Language Arts (ELA)/Literacy and
Mathematics for grades 3–8 and high school.
NOTES/EXCEPTIONS
Included in analysis:
Not included in analysis:
Arkansas Virtual Academy
Chicago Virtual Charter School
Colorado Preparatory Academy
Community Academy Public
Charter School Online
Insight School of Colorado
Massachusetts Virtual Academy
at Greenfield Commonwealth
Virtual School
New Mexico Virtual Academy
Newark Preparatory Charter
School
Louisiana Virtual Charter
Academy and Ohio Virtual
Academy: In 2014–2015
Louisiana and Ohio administered
PARCC but used a lower cut
score to define proficiency
than the proficiency standards
recommended by the
consortium. For this reason,
results from K12 schools in
Louisiana and Ohio are included
in Group 4.
Youth Connection Charter
School Virtual High School:
Results not available at the time
of this report.
Included only in high school
analysis:
Newark Preparatory Charter
School
K12 Public School Programs Included in PARCC Analysis
• K12 Public School Programs Aggregate
Comparison to PARCC Consortium: For the
2014–2015 PARCC testing administration, overall
results for all consortium states are available.18
We compare the aggregate performance of K12
public school programs19 that administered PARCC
(with the exceptions noted at left) to the overall
PARCC consortium performance data for grades
3–8 and high school.
• Year-Over-Year Case Study: The Example of
Arkansas Virtual Academy: We analyze the results
from a single K12 public school program, Arkansas
Virtual Academy, as an example of the complexities
in attempting to understand the year-over-year
performance of schools that have changed from
state-specific tests in 2013–2014 to Common Core
consortia assessments in 2014–2015.
FRL Eligible
Special Education
K12
State
K12
State
Arkansas Virtual Academy
65%
61%
15%
13%
Chicago Virtual Charter School
76%
54%
Colorado Preparatory Academy
57%
42%
10%
10%
Community Academy Public Charter School Online
69%
99%
17%
15%
Insight School of Colorado
48%
42%
--
--
Massachusetts Virtual Academy
at Greenfield Commonwealth Virtual School
56%
38%
--
--
New Mexico Virtual Academy
50%
67%
--
--
Newark Preparatory Charter School
70%
38%
16%
15%
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
Special education eligibility percentages are reported only for schools in which K12 is responsible for special education services.
18
19
Source for PARCC consortium data: http://www.parcconline.org/images/Consortium_and_State_Tables_FINAL_3_7_16.pdf
Results from K12 public school programs include Full Academic Year students (those who have been continuously enrolled starting on or before a specified date usually close to the
beginning of the school year).
39
K12 Public School Programs Aggregate Comparison to PARCC Consortium
GRADES 3–8
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)
• On the PARCC English Language Arts/Literacy test, students in K12 public school programs performed better in grades 3–5
than in grades 6–8 achieved proficiency percentages within 1 to 3 percentage points of the overall PARCC consortium.
• In grades 6–8, K12 students performed within 6 to 12 percentage points the overall PARCC consortium.
FIGURE 25: K12 COMPARISON TO PARCC CONSORTIUM: ELA/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
41%
41%
40%
38%
37%
36%
42%
41%
39%
35%
32%
27%
30%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
K12 Public School Programs
Overall PARCC Consortium
TABLE 19: K12 COMPARISON TO PARCC CONSORTIUM: ELA/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count
Per Category
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY
K12 %AAP
K12
Total Count
Overall PARCC
Consortium
%AAP
Overall PARCC
Consortium
Count
Gap between
K12 and PARCC
Consortium
in percentage points
Grade 3
36%
163
37%
508,108
-1
Grade 4
38%
182
41%
623,065
-3
Grade 5
40%
203
41%
628,924
-1
Grade 6
27%
295
39%
622,022
-12
Grade 7
35%
343
41%
615,390
-6
Grade 8
32%
368
42%
609,868
-10
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
• On the PARCC Mathematics test, students in grades 7 and 8 were within 1 percentage point of the PARCC consortium but
the students in grades 3–7 underperformed the consortium by between 6 and 10 percentage points.
FIGURE 26: K12 COMPARISON TO PARCC CONSORTIUM: MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
37%
32%
31%
32%
26%
30%
32%
28%
27%
25%
27%
26%
22%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
K12 Public School Programs
Overall PARCC Consortium
TABLE 20: K12 COMPARISON TO PARCC CONSORTIUM: MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count
Per Category
MATHEMATICS
K12 %AAP
Grade 3
31%
K12
Total Count
164
Overall PARCC
Consortium
%AAP
Overall PARCC
Consortium
Count
Gap between
K12 and PARCC
Consortium
37%
640,416
-6
in percentage points
Grade 4
22%
183
32%
625,699
-10
Grade 5
26%
205
32%
630,748
-6
Grade 6
25%
298
32%
622,136
-7
Grade 7
27%
343
28%
600,339
-1
Grade 8
26%
364
27%
497,597
-1
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
41
HIGH SCHOOL
In K12 public school programs across grades 9–11, 598 students received scores on the PARCC assessment in English
Language Arts/Literacy and 217 on Algebra 1. The analysis of high school results includes these K12 public school programs:
• Arkansas Virtual Academy
• Colorado Preparatory Academy
• Insight School of Colorado
• Chicago Virtual Charter School
• Newark Preparatory Charter School
• New Mexico Virtual Academy
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY: GRADES 9–11
• In grades 9–11, K12 public school programs underperformed the overall PARCC consortium in English Language Arts/
Literacy by 11 to 13 percentage points.
FIGURE 27: K12 COMPARISON TO PARCC CONSORTIUM: ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 9–11)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
39%
38%
40%
30%
28%
27%
25%
20%
10%
0%
9th
10th
11th
Grade Level
K12 Public School Programs
Overall PARCC Consortium
TABLE 21: K12 COMPARISON TO PARCC CONSORTIUM: ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 9–11)
Total Student Count
Per Category
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY
K12 %AAP
Grade 9
K12
Total Count
Overall PARCC
Consortium
%AAP
Overall PARCC
Consortium
Count
Gap between
K12 and PARCC
Consortium
40%
401,304
-13
in percentage points
27%
214
Grade 10
25%
212
38%
269,778
-13
Grade 11
28%
172
39%
163,956
-11
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
ALGEBRA 1
• In K12 public school programs, across grades 9–11, the overall proficiency percentage in Algebra 1 was 9% compared to 31%
at or above proficiency across the PARCC consortium.
FIGURE 28: K12 COMPARISON TO PARCC CONSORTIUM: ALGEBRA 1 (OVERALL 9–11)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
31%
30%
20%
9%
10%
0%
Algebra 1
Subject
K12 Public School Programs
Overall PARCC Consortium
TABLE 22: K12 COMPARISON TO PARCC CONSORTIUM: ALGEBRA 1 (GRADES 9–11)
PARCC
CONSORTIUM**
K12
%AAP
Total
Count
%AAP
Total
Count
Grade 9
10%
177
--
--
Grade 10
6%
34
--
--
Grade 11
*
*
--
--
Overall
9%
217
31%
473,060
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
* Results not reported because the number of students was not sufficient (n<10) to support meaningful analysis.
**PARCC reported overall results for Algebra 1; no grade level was specified.
Note: PARCC consortium data for Algebra 1 do not specify a grade level for the overall percentage of students at or above proficiency.
43
Year-Over-Year Case Study:
The Example of Arkansas Virtual Academy
In 2013–2014, the state of Arkansas administered the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing Program. In 2014–2015, the state
administered the PARCC assessments. Here we analyze the results from Arkansas Virtual Academy as an example of how we
can address the complexities in attempting to understand the year-over-year performance of schools that have changed from
state-specific tests in 2013–2014 to Common Core consortia assessments in 2014–2015.
Because the assessments developed by the PARCC and SBAC consortia were in general more demanding than previous
state tests, states that followed the consortia-recommended cut scores reported lower percentages at or above proficiency
compared to previous years. However, when states change to new tests based on new standards, the results of the new tests
cannot be directly compared to results from previous tests. Thus, for Arkansas and other states that changed to PARCC in
2014–2015, the 2014–2015 results cannot be compared to results from state-specific tests administered in 2013–2014.
We can, however, compare how the K12 school performed relative to the state year-over-year. Specifically, for each tested
subject reported, we can calculate the gap in percentage points between the K12 school’s percentage of students at or above
proficiency and state’s percentage at or above proficiency.
In comparing the performance of the K12 school relative to the state year-over-year, we are not comparing test results from
the current year to prior year results, which would constitute an invalid comparison. Instead, by comparing the school-state
gap in 2013–2014 to the gap in 2014–2015, we can see whether the school is improving or declining relative to the state in
specific subjects and grade levels.
ARVA: School and State Comparison20
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)
School Year
Assessment Program Administered
2013–2014
Arkansas Comprehensive Testing Program: Literacy
2014–2015
PARCC English Language Arts/Literacy
• In 2014–2015, on the more rigorous PARCC English Language Arts/Literacy assessment, ARVA equaled the state in grade 3
and outperformed the state in grade 4.
• In English Language Arts/Literacy, relative to 2013–2014, in 2014–2015 the gap between ARVA and the state closed or
narrowed in grades 3–6 by 6 to 25 percentage points.
20
In this analysis, both school and state results are (as reported in the state data source) for all students regardless of enrollment date.
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
FIGURE 29: ARVA YEAR-OVER-YEAR SCHOOL-STATE COMPARISON: ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)
90%
83%
82%
77%
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
77% 77%
76% 77%
80%
69%
66%
70%
59%
58%
57%
60%
50%
35% 34%
40%
33%
32%
29% 29%
27%
35%
31%
30%
32%
27%
30%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
2013–2014 ARVA
2013–2014 State
2014–2015 ARVA
2014–2015 State
TABLE 23: ARVA YEAR-OVER-YEAR SCHOOL-STATE GAP ANALYSIS: ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)
2013–2014
ARVA
2013–2014
State
2013–2014
ARVA/
State Gap
2014–2015
ARVA
2014–2015
State
2014–2015
ARVA/State
Gap
Change in
School/State
Gap*
in percentage points
3rd
13–14 ARVA n=130
14–15 ARVA n=107
58%
77%
-19
29%
29%
=
+19
4th
13–14 ARVA n=131
14–15 ARVA n=122
59%
83%
-24
35%
34%
+1
+ 25
5th
13–14 ARVA n=142
14–15 ARVA n=118
66%
82%
-16
27%
32%
-5
+11
6th
13–14 ARVA n=146
14–15 ARVA n=160
57%
69%
-12
27%
33%
-6
+6
7th
13–14 ARVA n=172
14–15 ARVA n=185
76%
77%
-1
31%
35%
-4
-3
8th
13–14 ARVA n=171
14–15 ARVA n=196
77%
77%
=
30%
32%
-2
-2
* A positive value indicates the number of percentage points by which the gap between ARVA and the state narrowed (relative to percentage of students at or above
proficiency) from the 2013–2014 school year to the 2014–2015 school year.
45
MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
• In 2014–2015, on the more rigorous PARCC
Mathematics assessment, ARVA outperformed the
state in grade 8.
School Year
Assessment Program Administered
2013–2014
Arkansas Comprehensive Testing Program:
Mathematics
2014–2015
PARCC Mathematics
• In Mathematics, relative to 2013–2014, in 2014–2015
the gap between ARVA and the state closed or
narrowed in all grades by 2 to 15 percentage points.
FIGURE 30: ARVA YEAR-OVER-YEAR SCHOOL-STATE COMPARISON: MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
90%
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
80%
84%
76%
73%
71%
69%
68%
70%
64%
64%
63%
61%
58%
60%
51%
50%
40%
31%
29%
30%
24%
25%
24%
20%
20%
20%
25%
20%
19%
17%
14%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
2013–2014 ARVA
2013–2014 State
2014–2015 ARVA
2014–2015 State
TABLE 24: ARVA YEAR-OVER-YEAR SCHOOL-STATE GAP ANALYSIS: MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
2013–2014
ARVA
2013–2014
State
2013–2014
ARVA/
State Gap
2014–2015
ARVA
2014–2015
State
2014–2015
ARVA/State
Gap
Change in
School/State
Gap*
in percentage points
3rd
13–14 ARVA n=130
14–15 ARVA n=107
71%
84%
-13
20%
31%
-11
+2
4th
13–14 ARVA n=131
14–15 ARVA n=122
64%
76%
-12
14%
24%
-10
+2
5th
13–14 ARVA n=142
14–15 ARVA n=120
51%
68%
-17
20%
24%
-4
+13
6th
13–14 ARVA n=146
14–15 ARVA n=159
63%
73%
-10
20%
25%
-5
+5
7th
13–14 ARVA n=172
14–15 ARVA n=184
58%
69%
-11
19%
25%
-6
+5
8th
13–14 ARVA n=171
14–15 ARVA n=195
61%
64%
-3
29%
17%
+12
+15
* A positive value indicates the number of percentage points by which the gap between ARVA and the state narrowed (relative to percentage of students at or above
proficiency) from the 2013–2014 school year to the 2014–2015 school year.
Source for state data: http://www.arkansased.gov/public/userfiles/Learning_Services/Student%20Assessment/2015/Arkansas_PARCC_Results_for_Students_in_Grades_3_
through_8_and_High_School_Final_1.pdf
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
GROUP 2
K12 Public School Programs
Administering SBAC
K12 Public School Programs Administering SBAC 2014–2015
Included in analysis:
Not included in analysis:
California Virtual Academy at Fresno
California Virtual Academy at Jamestown
California Virtual Academy at Kings
California Virtual Academy at Los Angeles
California Virtual Academy at Maricopa
California Virtual Academy at Maricopa High School
California Virtual Academy at San Diego
California Virtual Academy at San Joaquin
California Virtual Academy at San Mateo
California Virtual Academy at Sonoma
California Virtual Academy at Sutter
Idaho Virtual Academy
Insight School of California-Los Angeles
Insight School of Oregon-Charter Option
Insight School of California-San Diego
Insight School of Washington
iQ Academy California at Los Angeles
Oregon Virtual Academy
Silicon Valley Flex Academy
Washington Virtual Academy-Monroe
Washington Virtual Academy-Omak
Wisconsin Virtual Academy (3–8 Mathematics only)
San Francisco Flex Academy, Insight School of
Oregon-ALT, and iQ Washington: Results not
available at the time of this report.
Idaho College and Career Readiness Academy: The
number of student scores reported was not sufficient
(n<10) to support meaningful analysis.
Nevada Virtual Academy: The state of Nevada
invalidated all SBAC scores for the state’s schools.
Wisconsin Virtual Academy : In grades 3–8, Wisconsin
used a modified form of SBAC English Language
Arts/Literacy, the results of which cannot be grouped
with SBAC. In high school, Wisconsin used statespecific tests rather than SBAC.
Included only in high school analysis:
California Virtual Academy at Maricopa High School
Insight School of California–Los Angeles
Insight School of California-San Diego
Insight School of Washington
Washington Virtual Academy-Monroe
• SBAC offers assessments in English Language Arts (ELA)/Literacy and Mathematics for grades 3–8 and grade 11. Several
SBAC states used other assessments in high school.
• As of the publication of this report, SBAC had not published overall results for all consortium states, and the consortium had
no plans to report overall proficiency percentages for all participating states.
• SBAC Comparison by State: Because no overall consortium results are available from SBAC, we cannot (as we did with
PARCC) compare the aggregate performance of K12 public school programs that administered SBAC to overall consortium
proficiency percentages. Instead we compare K12 SBAC results to the state’s proficiency percentages.21
21
Unless otherwise noted, results from K12 public school programs are for Full Academic Year students (those who have been continuously enrolled starting on or before a specified date
usually close to the beginning of the school year), while state results are (as reported in the state data source) for all students regardless of enrollment date.
47
CALIFORNIA
K12 Public School Programs in California
Included in Analysis
FRL Eligible
K12
Special Education
State
K12
State
58%
11%*
11%
California Virtual Academy at Fresno
61%
California Virtual Academy at Jamestown
65%
California Virtual Academy at Kings
53%
California Virtual Academy at Los Angeles
54%
California Virtual Academy at Maricopa
61%
California Virtual Academy at Maricopa High
School*
(included in high school analysis only)
55%
California Virtual Academy at San Diego
51%
California Virtual Academy at San Joaquin
51%
California Virtual Academy at San Mateo
42%
California Virtual Academy at Sonoma
52%
California Virtual Academy at Sutter
55%
iQ Academy California at Los Angeles
55%
58%
9%
11%
Silicon Valley Flex Academy
10%
58%
16%
11%
NOTE: This analysis aggregates data
from all of the separate California K12
public school programs listed in the
table at left. Results from two high
school programs, Insight School of
California-Los Angeles and Insight
School of California-San Diego, are
reported separately.
* The special education eligibility percentage is an aggregate figure encompassing the specified individual K12 California Virtual Academy schools.
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
GRADES 3–8
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)
• In English Language Arts/Literacy, K12 public school programs in California performed within 1 percentage point of the
state in grades 3 and 8 and within 4 percentage points of the state in grade 7.22
• Across all grades (3–8), the gap between K12 public school programs in California and the state did not exceed 8
percentage points.
FIGURE 31: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE: CA ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
44%
40%
38%
37%
42%
38%
44%
45%
44%
40%
34%
32%
30%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
K12 Public School Programs (CA)
State (CA)
TABLE 25: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE: CA ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count Per
Category
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY
CA K12 %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
37%
748
38%
Grade 4
32%
786
40%
Grade 5
38%
822
44%
Grade 6
34%
1,022
42%
Grade 7
40%
1,321
44%
Grade 8
44%
1,547
45%
Grade 3
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
22
Unless otherwise noted, results from K12 public school programs are for Full Academic Year students (those who have been continuously enrolled starting on or before a specified date
usually close to the beginning of the school year), while state results are (as reported in the state data source) for all students regardless of enrollment date.
49
CALIFORNIA K12 PUBLIC SCHOOL PROGRAMS
continued
MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
• In Mathematics, K12 public school programs in California performed within 9 to 10 percentage points of the state in
grades 4–8.
• The largest gap between California K12 public school programs and the state was in grade 3 (13 percentage points).
FIGURE 32: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE: CA MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
35%
40%
34%
33%
33%
30%
30%
27%
26%
24%
24%
24%
21%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
K12 Public School Programs (CA)
State (CA)
TABLE 26: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE: CA MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count Per
Category
MATHEMATICS
CA K12 %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 3
27%
747
40%
Grade 4
26%
784
35%
Grade 5
21%
819
30%
Grade 6
24%
1,025
33%
Grade 7
24%
1,316
34%
Grade 8
24%
1,544
33%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
HIGH SCHOOL 23
• In English Language Arts/Literacy (grade 11), K12 public school programs in California outperformed the state by
5 percentage points.
• In Mathematics (grade 11), K12 public school programs in California underperformed the state by 12 percentage points.
FIGURE 33: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: CA (HIGH SCHOOL)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
61%
56%
60%
50%
40%
29%
30%
17%
20%
10%
0%
English Language Arts/Literacy
Mathematics
Subject
K12 Public School Programs (CA)
State (CA)
TABLE 27: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: CA (HIGH SCHOOL)
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/
LITERACY
Grade 11
CA K12
%AAP
Total
Count
State
%AAP
61%
1,283
56%
MATHEMATICS
CA K12
%AAP
17%
Total
Count
State
%AAP
1,281
29%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
Source for state data: http://caaspp.cde.ca.gov
23
As noted earlier, the aggregated data here do not include results from two high school programs, Insight School of California-Los Angeles and Insight School of California-San Diego,
which are reported separately.
51
INSIGHT SCHOOL OF CALIFORNIA-LOS ANGELES
Insight School of California-Los Angeles (ISCA-LA)
Insight School of California-Los Angeles
FRL Eligible
serves students in high school (grades 9–12).24
Special Education
K12
State
K12
State
66%
58%
14%
11%
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
HIGH SCHOOL
• In English Language Arts/Literacy (grade 11), ISCA-LA students underperformed the state by 27 percentage points.
• In Mathematics (grade 11), ISCA-LA students underperformed the state by 24 percentage points.
FIGURE 34: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: CA (HIGH SCHOOL)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
56%
60%
50%
40%
29%
29%
30%
20%
5%
10%
0%
English Language Arts/Literacy
Mathematics
Subject
ISCA-LA
State (CA)
TABLE 28: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: CA (HIGH SCHOOL)
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/
LITERACY
Grade 11
ISCA-LA
%AAP
Total
Count
State
%AAP
29%
55
56%
MATHEMATICS
ISCA-LA
%AAP
5%
Total
Count
55
State
%AAP
29%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
Source for state data: http://caaspp.cde.ca.gov
24
Among K12 public school programs, most of those designated as Insight Schools focus on serving academically struggling students in grades 6–12, with a few serving only high school
students. While these schools accept students of all ability levels, most focus on providing programs specifically designed to meet the needs of the struggling student. Some K12 Insight
Schools are officially designated as “alternative” or “at-risk” schools based on state criteria, but most states do not have official criteria for these types of schools.
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
INSIGHT SCHOOL OF CALIFORNIA-SAN DIEGO
Insight School of California-San Diego (ISCA-SD)
serves students in high school (grades 9–12).25
Insight School of California-San Diego
FRL Eligible
Special Education
K12
State
K12
State
56%
58%
17%
11%
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
HIGH SCHOOL
• In English Language Arts/Literacy (grade 11), ISCA-SD students underperformed the state by 20 percentage points.
• In Mathematics (grade 11), ISCA-SD students underperformed the state by 25 percentage points.
FIGURE 35: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: CA (HIGH SCHOOL)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
56%
60%
50%
36%
40%
29%
30%
20%
10%
4%
0%
English Language Arts/Literacy
Mathematics
Subject
ISCA-SD
State (CA)
TABLE 29: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: CA (HIGH SCHOOL)
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/
LITERACY
Grade 11
ISCA-SD
%AAP
Total
Count
State
%AAP
36%
55
56%
MATHEMATICS
ISCA-SD
%AAP
4%
Total
Count
25
State
%AAP
29%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
Source for state data: http://caaspp.cde.ca.gov
25
Among K12 public school programs, most of those designated as Insight Schools focus on serving academically struggling students in grades 6–12, with a few serving only high school
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.
53
IDAHO
FRL Eligible
K12 Public School Programs in Idaho
Included in Analysis
Idaho Virtual Academy (IDVA)
NOTE: IDVA participated in SBAC in
grades 3–8 only.
Special Education
K12
State
K12
State
58%
47%
9%
9%
NOTE: Results from Idaho College
and Career Readiness Academy are
not included because the number
of student scores reported was
not sufficient (n<10) to support
meaningful analysis.
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
GRADES 3–8
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)
• In English Language Arts/Literacy, IDVA equaled the state in grade 8 and performed within 3 percentage points of the
state in grade 7 and within 4 percentage points in grade 5.
• Across all grades (3–8), the gap between IDVA and the state did not exceed 10 percentage points.
FIGURE 36: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE: IDVA ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
60%
52%
49%
48%
46%
50%
38%
52%
52%
51%
48%
45%
39%
38%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
IDVA
State (ID)
TABLE 30: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE: IDVA ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count Per
Category
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY
IDVA %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 3
38%
104
48%
Grade 4
38%
109
46%
Grade 5
45%
88
52%
Grade 6
39%
107
49%
Grade 7
48%
107
51%
Grade 8
52%
153
52%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
• In Mathematics, IDVA equaled the state in grade 7.
• In grades 3–6 and 8, IDVA underperformed the state by 7 to 12 percentage points.
FIGURE 37: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE: IDVA MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
50%
43%
40%
38%
40%
31%
37%
38%
38%
37%
31%
30%
30%
30%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
IDVA
State (ID)
TABLE 31: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE: IDVA MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count Per
Category
MATHEMATICS
IDVA %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 3
40%
103
50%
Grade 4
31%
108
43%
Grade 5
30%
87
38%
Grade 6
31%
110
37%
Grade 7
38%
108
38%
Grade 8
30%
153
37%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
Source for state data: http://apps.sde.idaho.gov/ReportCard
55
OREGON
FRL Eligible
K12 Public School Programs in Oregon
Included in Analysis
Oregon Virtual Academy (ORVA)
NOTE: Results from Insight School of
Oregon-Charter Option (ISOR-CO) are
reported separately.
Special Education
K12
State
K12
State
62%
51%
13%
15%
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
GRADES 3–8
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)
• In English Language Arts/Literacy, ORVA students outperformed the state by 19 percentage points in grade 3 and by 2
percentage points in grade 4.
• In grades 5–8, ORVA students performed within 6 to 10 percentage points of the state.
FIGURE 38: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE: OR ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
65%
60%
53%
50%
49%
46%
50%
57%
56%
54%
51%
48%
45%
44%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
ORVA
State (OR)
TABLE 32: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE: OR ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count Per
Category
Grade 3
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY
ORVA %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
65%
82
46%
Grade 4
51%
95
49%
Grade 5
44%
94
54%
Grade 6
45%
111
53%
Grade 7
50%
121
56%
Grade 8
48%
163
57%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
• In Mathematics, ORVA students equaled the state in grade 3 and performed within 1 percentage point of the state in
grade 4.
• In grades 5 and 6, ORVA students performed within 7 to 8 percentage points of the state.
FIGURE 39: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE: OR MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
46%
46%
44%
43%
43%
41%
43%
38%
40%
34%
30%
30%
25%
30%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
ORVA
State (OR)
TABLE 33: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE: OR MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count Per
Category
MATHEMATICS
ORVA %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
46%
83
46%
Grade 4
43%
93
44%
Grade 5
34%
95
41%
Grade 3
Grade 6
30%
111
38%
Grade 7
30%
122
43%
Grade 8
25%
158
43%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
57
OREGON VIRTUAL ACADEMY
continued
HIGH SCHOOL
• In English Language Arts/Literacy, ORVA students equaled the state’s percentage at or above proficiency.
• In Mathematics, ORVA students underperformed the state by 13 percentage points.
FIGURE 40: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: OR (HIGH SCHOOL)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
67%
70%
67%
60%
50%
40%
31%
30%
18%
20%
10%
0%
English Language Arts/Literacy
Mathematics
Subject
ORVA
State (OR)
TABLE 34: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: OR (HIGH SCHOOL)
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/
LITERACY
Grade 11
ORVA %AAP
Total
Count
State
%AAP
67%
93
67%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
Source for state data: http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/results/?id=116
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
MATHEMATICS
ORVA %AAP
18%
Total
Count
94
State
%AAP
31%
INSIGHT SCHOOL OF OREGON-CHARTER OPTION
Insight School of Oregon-Charter Option (ISOR-CO)26
serves students in grades 7–12.27
Insight School of Oregon-Charter Option
FRL Eligible
Special Education
K12
State
K12
State
52%
51%
--
--
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
Special education eligibility percentages are reported only for schools in which K12 is
responsible for special education services.
GRADES 3–8
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)
• In English Language Arts/Literacy, ISOR-CO students outperformed the state by 9 percentage points in grade 3, by 1
percentage point in grade 4, and by 7 percentage points in grade 8.
• In grades 5–7, ISOR-CO students underperformed the state by 21 to 35 percentage points.
FIGURE 41: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: OR ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
60%
64%
55%
54%
50%
57%
56%
53%
49%
46%
50%
35%
40%
27%
30%
18%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
ISOR-CO
State (OR)
TABLE 35: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: OR ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count Per
Category
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY
ISOR-CO %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 3
55%
11
46%
Grade 4
50%
10
49%
Grade 5
27%
11
54%
Grade 6
18%
11
53%
Grade 7
35%
23
56%
Grade 8
64%
25
57%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
26
27
As of the 2015–2016 school year, the school’s name has changed to Insight School of Oregon-Painted Hills (ISOR-PH).
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.
59
INSIGHT SCHOOL OF OREGON-CHARTER OPTION
continued
MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
• In Mathematics, ISOR-CO students performed within 4 percentage points of the state in grade 4 and within 10
percentage points of the state in grade 3.
• In grades 5–7, ISOR-CO students underperformed the state by 14 to 34 percentage points.
FIGURE 42: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: OR MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
60%
46%
50%
44%
40%
43%
41%
40%
43%
38%
36%
27%
30%
25%
20%
10%
9%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
ISOR-CO
State (OR)
TABLE 36: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: OR MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count Per
Category
MATHEMATICS
ISOR-CO %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 3
36%
11
46%
Grade 4
40%
10
44%
Grade 5
27%
11
41%
Grade 6
10%
10
38%
Grade 7
9%
23
43%
Grade 8
25%
24
43%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
HIGH SCHOOL
• In English Language Arts/Literacy, ISOR-CO students underperformed the state by 14 percentage points.
• In Mathematics, ISOR-CO students underperformed the state by 22 percentage points.
FIGURE 43: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: OR (HIGH SCHOOL)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
67%
70%
60%
53%
50%
40%
31%
30%
20%
9%
10%
0%
English Language Arts/Literacy
Mathematics
Subject
ISOR-CO
State (OR)
TABLE 37: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: OR (HIGH SCHOOL)
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/
LITERACY
Grade 11
ISOR-CO
%AAP
Total
Count
State
%AAP
53%
55
67%
MATHEMATICS
ISOR-CO
%AAP
9%
Total
Count
55
State
%AAP
31%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
Source for state data: http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/results/?id=116
61
WASHINGTON
FRL Eligible
K12 Public School Programs in Washington
Included in Analysis28
K12
State
Washington Virtual Academy-Monroe
38%
46%
NOTE: The analysis of grades 3–8
includes only Washington Virtual
Academy-Omak (WAVA-Omak). The
high school analysis aggregates data
from these Washington K12 public
school programs:
Special Education
K12
State
12%
11%
Washington Virtual Academy-Omak
48%
46%
12%
– Washington Virtual AcademyOmak, which serves grades K–12
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
*The Special Education percentage is an aggregate figure that includes students qualifying for Special Education in all K12
Washington Virtual Academies.
– Washington Virtual AcademyMonroe (WAVA-Monroe), which
serves high school only
NOTE: Results from Insight School of Washington are reported separately.
GRADES 3–8
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)
• In English Language Arts/Literacy, WAVA-Omak students outperformed the state by 9 percentage points in grade 3 and by
1 percentage point in grade 4.
• In grades 5–8, WAVA-Omak students performed within 1 to 8 percentage points of the state.
FIGURE 44: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE: WA ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
62%
57%
60%
56%
59%
58%
59%
59%
57%
55%
53%
51%
50%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
K12 Public School Programs (WA)
State (WA)
TABLE 38: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE: WA ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count Per
Category
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY
WAVA-Omak %AAP
Grade 3
Total Count
159
Grade 4
57%
152
56%
Grade 5
58%
191
59%
Grade 6
50%
181
55%
53%
Grade 7
51%
255
59%
Grade 8
57%
336
59%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
28
State %AAP
62%
iQ Washington is not included because results from this school were not available at the time of this analysis.
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
• In Mathematics, WAVA-Omak students performed within 6 percentage points of the state in grades 5 and 6.
• In grades 4 and 7, WAVA-Omak students performed within 7 to 9 percentage points of the state.
FIGURE 45: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE: WA MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
58%
55%
60%
50%
49%
50%
43%
43%
48%
47%
46%
43%
41%
40%
29%
30%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
K12 Public School Programs (WA)
State (WA)
TABLE 39: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE: WA MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count Per
Category
MATHEMATICS
WAVA-Omak %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 3
43%
148
58%
Grade 4
46%
153
55%
Grade 5
43%
191
49%
Grade 6
41%
180
47%
Grade 7
43%
253
50%
Grade 8
29%
332
48%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
63
WASHINGTON K12 PUBLIC SCHOOL PROGRAMS
continued
HIGH SCHOOL 29
The high school analysis aggregates data from these Washington K12 public school programs:
– Washington Virtual Academy-Omak, which serves grades K–12
– Washington Virtual Academy-Monroe (WAVA-Monroe), which serves high school only
• In English Language Arts/Literacy, K12 Washington students (WAVA-Omak and WAVA-Monroe) outperformed the state by
21 percentage points.
• In Mathematics, K12 Washington students outperformed the state by 2 percentage points.
FIGURE 46: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: WA (HIGH SCHOOL)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
73%
70%
60%
52%
50%
40%
31%
29%
30%
20%
10%
0%
English Language Arts/Literacy
Mathematics
Subject
K12 Public School Programs (WA)
State (WA)
TABLE 40: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: WA (HIGH SCHOOL)
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/
LITERACY
Grade 11
MATHEMATICS
WA K12
%AAP
Total
Count
State
%AAP
WA K12
%AAP
Total
Count
State
%AAP
73%
105
52%
31%
103
29%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
Source for state data: http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/Summary.aspx?year=2014-15&yrs=2014-15
29
Results for Insight School of Washington high school program are reported separately.
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
INSIGHT SCHOOL OF WASHINGTON
Insight School of Washington
FRL Eligible
Special Education
K12
State
K12
State
58%
46%
12%
12%
Insight School of Washington (ISWA) serves students
in high school (grades 9–12).30
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
HIGH SCHOOL
• In English Language Arts/Literacy, ISWA students outperformed the state by 8 percentage points.
• In Mathematics, ISWA students underperformed the state by 17 percentage points.
FIGURE 47: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: WA (HIGH SCHOOL)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
64%
60%
52%
50%
40%
29%
30%
20%
12%
10%
0%
English Language Arts/Literacy
Mathematics
Subject
ISWA
State (WA)
TABLE 41: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: WA (HIGH SCHOOL)
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/
LITERACY
Grade 11
MATHEMATICS
ISWA
%AAP
Total
Count
State
%AAP
ISWA
%AAP
Total
Count
State
%AAP
64%
213
52%
12%
204
29%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
Source for state data: http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/Summary.aspx?year=2014-15&yrs=2014-15
30
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.
65
WISCONSIN
FRL Eligible
K12 Public School Programs in Wisconsin
Included in Analysis
Wisconsin Virtual Academy (WIVA)
NOTE: Wisconsin administered
a modified form of the SBAC
English Language Arts/Literacy
assessment, and so here we report
only Wisconsin’s SBAC results for
Mathematics. 31
Special Education
K12
State
K12
State
56%
42%
15%
14%
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
GRADES 3–8
MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
• In Mathematics, WIVA performed within 5 to 7 percentage points of the state in grades 6 and 7. In grades 3, 4, 5, and 8,
WIVA underperformed the state by 11 to 21 percentage points.
FIGURE 48: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE: WI MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
60%
52%
48%
50%
40%
34%
43%
41%
40%
39%
38%
34%
31%
29%
28%
30%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
WIVA
State (WI)
TABLE 42: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE: WI MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count Per
Category
MATHEMATICS
WIVA K12 %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 3
31%
64
52%
Grade 4
34%
65
48%
Grade 5
29%
97
40%
Grade 6
34%
86
41%
Grade 7
38%
126
43%
Grade 8
28%
127
39%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
Source for state data: http://wisedash.dpi.wi.gov/Dashboard/portalHome.jsp
31
In grades 3–8, Wisconsin administered SBAC Mathematics but administered a modified form of SBAC English Language Arts/Literacy. In high school, Wisconsin used state-specific
tests rather than SBAC. Wisconsin’s ELA/Literacy and high school results are reported in the Group 4 Analysis section.
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
GROUP 3
K12 Public School Programs Using Same State
Testing Program from 2013–2014 to 2014–2015
K12 Public School Programs Using Same
State Testing Program from 2013–2014 to
2014–2015
Included in analysis:
– Iowa
Insight School of Michigan
Insight School of Minnesota
Insight School of Oklahoma
Iowa Virtual Academy
iQ Academy Minnesota
Michigan Great Lakes Virtual Academy
Michigan Virtual Charter Academy
Minnesota Virtual Academy
Nevada Virtual Academy
Oklahoma Virtual Charter Academy
Tennessee Virtual Academy
Texas Online Preparatory School
Texas Virtual Academy
Utah Virtual Academy
Virginia Virtual Academy-King and Queen
Virginia Virtual Academy-Patrick
Wyoming Virtual Academy
– Minnesota
Not included in analysis:
Hill House Passport Academy Charter
School: Results not available at the time of
this report.
Included only in high school analysis:
K12 public school programs in Michigan
(Insight School of Michigan, Michigan
Great Lakes Virtual Academy, and Michigan
Virtual Charter Academy)
Nevada Virtual Academy: In 2014–2015,
Nevada SBAC scores were invalidated.
Here we report results from Nevada’s High
School Proficiency Examination.
32
33
• In 2014–2015, K12 public school programs in eight states used the same
state-specific assessment program each had used in 2013–2014, with no
change in proficiency cut scores:
– Oklahoma
– Tennessee
– Texas
– Utah
– Virginia
– Wyoming
• Michigan and Nevada continued the use of certain high school
assessments, the results of which are reported in this group. 32
• Overall Analysis (Same Students Year-Over-Year): For K12 public
school programs in these states that did not change their state-specific
assessment program in 2014–2015, we present our analysis in two
sections. First, we aggregate the data from these schools in order to
compare the overall performance of the same students taking tests in the
same assessment program from 2013–2014 to 2014–2015.
– Because these analyses compare the proficiency percentages for
the same students year-over-year, there are no results reported for
grade 3. (Grade 3 is the initial grade of state testing, and so there are
no prior-year state test results for students who were third graders in
2014–2015.)
– Aggregate scores for grades 4–8 show that the percentage of students
at or above proficiency improved by 2 percentage points in both
Reading and Mathematics.
• Comparisons to State Proficiency Percentages: Following the overall
analysis, for each K12 public school program in states that did not change
their state-specific assessment program in 2014–2015, we compare the
2014–2015 proficiency percentages of the K12 school or schools to the
state’s proficiency percentages.33
Michigan also introduced a new state assessment program called M-Step, the results of which were embargoed and unavailable at the time of this report.
Unless otherwise noted, results from K12 public school programs are for Full Academic Year students (those who have been continuously enrolled starting on or before a specified date
usually close to the beginning of the school year), while state results are (as reported in the state data source) for all students regardless of enrollment date. High School data from a K12
public school program represents students in grades 9–12 during the school year 2014–2015 who participated in state assessments.
67
OVERALL ANALYSIS (Same Students Year-Over-Year)
GRADES 4–8
READING AND MATHEMATICS: AGGREGATE (GRADES 4–8)
Overall, aggregate results from all grades (4 through 8) in all schools with unchanged assessment programs show that
students improved by 2 percentage points in Reading and 6 percentage points in Mathematics from 2013–2014 to 2014–
2015.34
FIGURE 49: SAME STUDENTS AND SAME ASSESSMENT PROGRAM: OVERALL %AAP BY SCHOOL YEAR AND SUBJECT (GRADES 4–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
66%
70%
68%
60%
50%
50%
44%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Reading
Mathematics
Subject
2013–2014
2014–2015
TABLE 43: SAME STUDENTS AND SAME ASSESSMENT PROGRAM: OVERALL %AAP CHANGE (GRADES 4–8)
READING
%AAP
2013–2014
66%
%AAP
2014–2015
68%
Change
MATHEMATICS
Change
in percentage
points
Total Count
%AAP
2013–2014
%AAP
2014–2015
in percentage
points
Total Count
+2
2,499
44%
50%
+6
3,951
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
34
Results from 2014–2015 include Full Academic Year students (those who have been continuously enrolled starting on or before a specified date usually close to the beginning of the
school year), while results from 2013–2014 include all students regardless of enrollment date.
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
READING: BY GRADE LEVEL (GRADES 4–8)
Overall, results from all schools with unchanged assessment programs show that students improved in Reading by 2 to 8
percentage points in all grades except grade 6.
FIGURE 50: SAME STUDENTS AND SAME ASSESSMENT PROGRAM: %AAP BY SCHOOL YEAR AND GRADE LEVEL IN READING (GRADES 4–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
73%
67%
70%
70%
64%
62%
60%
70%
68%
67%
59%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
2013–2014
2014–2015
TABLE 44: SAME STUDENTS AND SAME ASSESSMENT PROGRAM: OVERALL %AAP CHANGE BY GRADE LEVEL IN READING (GRADES 4–8)
Total Student Count Per
Category
Grade 4
READING
Change
%AAP 2013–2014
%AAP 2014–2015
60%
62%
+2
in percentage points
Total Count
346
Grade 5
59%
67%
+8
387
Grade 6
67%
64%
-3
476
Grade 7
68%
70%
+2
575
Grade 8
70%
73%
+3
715
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
69
MATHEMATICS: BY GRADE LEVEL (GRADES 4–8)
Overall, results from all schools with unchanged assessment programs show that students improved in Mathematics by 7 to 9
percentage points in grades 4, 5, 6, and 7 and remained unchanged in grade 8.
FIGURE 51: SAME STUDENTS AND SAME ASSESSMENT PROGRAM: %AAP BY SCHOOL YEAR AND GRADE LEVEL IN MATHEMATICS (GRADES 4–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
60%
54%
53%
50%
47%
50%
47%
46%
46%
44%
41%
40%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
2013–2014
2014–2015
TABLE 45: SAME STUDENTS AND SAME ASSESSMENT PROGRAM: OVERALL %AAP CHANGE BY GRADE LEVEL IN MATHEMATICS (GRADES 4–8)
Total Student Count Per
Category
MATHEMATICS
%AAP 2013–2014
%AAP 2014–2015
Grade 4
41%
50%
Grade 5
40%
Grade 6
44%
Change
in percentage points
Total Count
+9
562
47%
+7
677
53%
+9
714
Grade 7
47%
54%
+7
912
Grade 8
46%
46%
=
1,086
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
IOWA
FRL Eligible
K12 Public School Programs in Iowa
Included in Analysis
Iowa Virtual Academy (IAVA)
Special Education
K12
State
K12
State
60%
41%
6%
13%
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
GRADES 3–8
READING (GRADES 3–8)
• In many grades, results are not reported because the number of students was not sufficient to support meaningful analysis.
• In Reading, in grades 7 and 8, IAVA students underperformed the state by 6 percentage points.
FIGURE 52: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: IA READING (GRADES 3–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
76%
80%
76%
70%
70%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
7th
8th
Grade Level
IAVA
State
TABLE 46: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: IA READING (GRADES 3–8)
READING
IAVA %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
*
*
76%
Grade 3
Grade 4
*
*
76%
Grade 5
*
*
78%
Grade 6
*
*
75%
Grade 7
70%
10
76%
Grade 8
70%
10
76%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
* Results not reported because the number of students was not sufficient (n<10) to support meaningful analysis.
71
IOWA VIRTUAL ACADEMY
continued
MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
• In many grades, results are not reported because the number of students was not sufficient to support meaningful analysis.
• In Mathematics, IAVA students underperformed the state by 13 percentage points in grade 7 and by 26 percentage points
in grade 8.
FIGURE 53: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: IA MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
83%
76%
80%
70%
70%
60%
50%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
7th
8th
Grade Level
IAVA
State
TABLE 47: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: IA MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
MATHEMATICS
IAVA %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
*
*
80%
Grade 3
Grade 4
*
*
79%
Grade 5
*
*
77%
Grade 6
*
*
78%
Grade 7
70%
10
83%
Grade 8
50%
10
76%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
* Results not reported because the number of students was not sufficient (n<10) to support meaningful analysis.
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
HIGH SCHOOL
At IAVA, the number of high school students was too low to support meaningful analysis.
TABLE 48: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON BY SUBJECT: IA (HIGH SCHOOL)
READING
Grade 10
MATHEMATICS
IAVA
%AAP
Total
Count
State
%AAP
*
*
86%
IAVA
%AAP
*
Total
Count
*
State
%AAP
83%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
* Results not reported because the number of students was not sufficient (n<10) to support meaningful analysis.
Source for state data: http://reports.educateiowa.gov/
73
MICHIGAN
K12 Public School Programs in Michigan
Included in Analysis
FRL Eligible
NOTE: Here we report results
from Michigan’s high school ACT
assessments. In 2014–2015, Michigan
also administered a new testing
program called M-Step. As of the time
of this report, M-Step results were
embargoed and thus unavailable.
Special Education
K12
State
K12
State
Michigan Great Lakes Virtual Academy
(MGLVA)
63%
48%
12%
13%
Michigan Virtual Charter Academy (MVCA)
67%
48%
16%
13%
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
NOTE: Results from Insight School of
Michigan are reported separately.
HIGH SCHOOL
• Percentages are reported for the grade level in which the test is first administered or usually taken.
• In high school (grade 11), K12 Michigan students (MVCA and MGLVA) performed within 6 percentage points of the state in
Reading and within 9 percentage points of the state in English.
• K12 Michigan students underperformed the state by 21 percentages points in Mathematics.
FIGURE 54: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: MI (HIGH SCHOOL)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
58%
60%
49%
50%
36%
40%
34%
30%
30%
20%
13%
10%
0%
ACT-Reading
ACT-English
ACT-Mathematics
Subject
K12 Public School Programs (MI)
State (MI)
TABLE 49: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: MI (HIGH SCHOOL)
ACT-READING
Grade 11
ACT-ENGLISH
ACT-MATHEMATICS
MI K12
%AAP
Total
Count
State
%AAP
MI K12
%AAP
Total
Count
State
%AAP
MI K12
%AAP
Total
Count
State
%AAP
30%
181
36%
49%
181
58%
13%
181
34%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
Source for state data: https://www.mischooldata.org/DistrictSchoolProfiles/AssessmentResults/AssessmentSummary.aspx
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
INSIGHT SCHOOL OF MICHIGAN
Insight School of Michigan (ISMI) serves students in
grades 6–12.35
Insight School of Michigan
FRL Eligible
Special Education
K12
State
K12
State
56%
58%
17%
11%
NOTE: Here we report results from Michigan’s high
school ACT assessments. In 2014–2015, Michigan
also administered a new testing program called
M-Step. As of the time of this report, M-Step results
were embargoed and thus unavailable.
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
HIGH SCHOOL
• Percentages are reported for the grade level in which the test is first administered or usually taken.
• In high school (grade 11), ISMI students underperformed the state by 26 percentages points in Reading, 37 percentage
points in English, and 31 percentage points in Mathematics.
FIGURE 55: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: MI (HIGH SCHOOL)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
58%
60%
50%
36%
40%
34%
30%
20%
24%
10%
10%
3%
0%
ACT-Reading
ACT-English
ACT-Mathematics
Subject
ISMI
State (MI)
TABLE 50: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: MI (HIGH SCHOOL)
ACT-READING
Grade 11
ACT-ENGLISH
ISMI
%AAP
Total
Count
State
%AAP
ISMI
%AAP
10%
29
36%
21%
Total
Count
29
ACT-MATHEMATICS
State
%AAP
ISMI
%AAP
Total
Count
State
%AAP
58%
3%
29
34%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
Source for state data: https://www.mischooldata.org/DistrictSchoolProfiles/AssessmentResults/AssessmentSummary.aspx
35
Among K12 public school programs, most of those designated as Insight Schools focus on serving academically struggling students in grades 6–12, with a few serving only high school
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.
75
MINNESOTA
FRL Eligible
K12 Public School Programs in Minnesota
Included in Analysis
Minnesota Virtual Academy (MNVA)
Special Education
K12
State
K12
State
49%
38%
--
--
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
Special education eligibility percentages are reported only for schools in which K12 is responsible for special education services.
GRADES 3–8
READING (GRADES 3–8)
• In Reading, students in grades 4, 5, 7, and 8 outperformed the state by between 1 and 8 percentage points.
FIGURE 56: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: MN READING (GRADES 3–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
75%
80%
67%
70%
60%
64%
59%
57%
61%
60%
58%
57%
56%
55%
56%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
MNVA
State (MN)
TABLE 51: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: MN READING (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count Per
Category
READING
MNVA %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 3
57%
67
59%
Grade 4
60%
73
58%
Grade 5
75%
87
67%
Grade 6
55%
78
64%
Grade 7
61%
83
56%
Grade 8
57%
129
56%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
• In Mathematics, students in grades 3–8 underperformed the state by between 6 to 22 percentage points.
FIGURE 57: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: MN MATHEMATICS (GRADE 3–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
71%
70%
70%
64%
60%
60%
58%
57%
58%
55%
50%
41%
40%
36%
40%
36%
30%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
MNVA
State (MN)
TABLE 52: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: MN MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count Per
Category
MATHEMATICS
MNVA %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 3
57%
67
71%
Grade 4
64%
72
70%
Grade 5
41%
87
60%
Grade 6
36%
78
58%
Grade 7
40%
83
55%
Grade 8
36%
127
58%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
77
MINNESOTA VIRTUAL ACADEMY
continued
HIGH SCHOOL
• In grade 10 Reading, students enrolled in MNVA outperformed the state by 1 percentage point.
• In grade 11 Mathematics, students enrolled in MNVA underperformed the state by 11 percentage points.
FIGURE 58: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON BY SUBJECT: MN (HIGH SCHOOL)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
58%
60%
57%
49%
50%
38%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Reading (Grade 10)
Mathematics (Grade 11)
Subject
MNVA
State (MN)
TABLE 53: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON BY SUBJECT: MN (HIGH SCHOOL)
READING
MATHEMATICS
Total
Count
State
%AAP
MNVA
%AAP
Total
Count
State
%AAP
Grade 10
58%
131
57%
--
--
--
Grade 11
--
--
--
38%
121
49%
MNVA
%AAP
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
Source for state data: http://rc.education.state.mn.us/#testResults/orgId--999999000000__groupType--state__test--allAccount__subject--R__year--trend__grade--all__p--1
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
INSIGHT SCHOOL OF MINNESOTA
FRL Eligible
K12 Public School Programs in Minnesota
Included in Analysis
Insight School of Minnesota (ISMN)
Special Education
K12
State
K12
State
54%
38%
26%
15%
Insight School of Minnesota (ISMN)
serves students in grades 6–12.36
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
GRADES 6–8
READING (GRADES 6–8)
• Results are not reported for grades 6 and 7 because the number of ISMN students was not sufficient to support meaningful
analysis.
• In Reading, ISMN students in grade 8 underperformed the state by 49 percentage points.
FIGURE 59: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: MN READING (GRADE 8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
56%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
7%
10%
0%
8th
Grade Level
ISMN
State (MN)
TABLE 54: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: MN READING (GRADES 6–8)
Total Student Count Per
Category
READING
ISMN %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 6
*
*
*
Grade 7
*
*
*
Grade 8
7%
15
56%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
*Results not reported because the number of students was not sufficient (n<10) to support meaningful analysis.
36
Among K12 public school programs, most of those designated as Insight Schools focus on serving academically struggling students in grades 6–12, with a few serving only high school
students. While these schools accept students of all ability levels, most focus on providing programs specifically designed to meet the needs of the struggling student. Some K12
Insight Schools are officially designated as “alternative” or “at-risk” schools based on state criteria, but most states do not have official criteria for these types of schools.
79
INSIGHT SCHOOL OF MINNESOTA
continued
MATHEMATICS (GRADES 6–8)
• Results are not reported for grades 6 and 7 because the number of ISMN students was not sufficient to support
meaningful analysis.
• In Mathematics, ISMN students in grade 8 underperformed the state by 51 percentage points.
FIGURE 60: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: MN MATHEMATICS (GRADE 8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
58%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
7%
10%
0%
8th
Grade Level
ISMN
State (MN)
TABLE 55: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: MN MATHEMATICS (GRADES 6–8)
Total Student Count Per
Category
Grade 6
MATHEMATICS
ISMN %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
*
*
*
Grade 7
*
*
*
Grade 8
7%
15
58%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
*Results not reported because the number of students was not sufficient (n<10) to support meaningful analysis.
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
HIGH SCHOOL
• Percentages are reported for the grade level in which the test is first administered or usually taken.
• In high school, ISMN students underperformed the state by 17 percentage points in Reading (grade 10) and by 38
percentages points in Mathematics (grade 11).
FIGURE 61: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON BY SUBJECT: MN (HIGH SCHOOL)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
57%
60%
49%
50%
40%
40%
30%
20%
11%
10%
0%
Reading (Grade 10)
Mathematics (Grade 11)
Subject
ISMN
State (MN)
TABLE 56: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON BY SUBJECT: MN (HIGH SCHOOL)
READING
MATHEMATICS
ISMN
%AAP
Total
Count
State
%AAP
ISMN
%AAP
Total
Count
State
%AAP
Grade 10
40%
35
57%
--
--
--
Grade 11
--
--
--
11%
46
49%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
Source for state data: http://rc.education.state.mn.us/#testResults/orgId--999999000000__groupType--state__test--allAccount__subject--R__year--trend__grade--all__p--1
81
iQ ACADEMY MINNESOTA
FRL Eligible
K12 Public School Programs in Minnesota
Included in Analysis
iQ Academy Minnesota (iQMN)
Special Education
K12
State
K12
State
50%
38%
--
--
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
Special education eligibility percentages are reported only for schools in which K12 is responsible for special education services.
GRADES 3–8
READING (GRADES 3–8)
• In Reading, students in iQMN outperformed the state in grade 6 by 9 percentage points but underperformed the state in
grades 3, 4, 7, and 8 by between 5 and 28 percentage points.
FIGURE 62: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: MN READING (GRADE 3–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
73%
67%
70%
64%
59%
60%
58%
56%
54%
56%
50%
50%
42%
40%
30%
30%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
iQMN
State (MN)
TABLE 57: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: MN READING (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count Per
Category
READING
iQMN %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 3
54%
13
Grade 4
30%
10
58%
Grade 5
*
*
67%
Grade 6
73%
11
64%
Grade 7
50%
16
56%
Grade 8
42%
19
56%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
* Results not reported because the number of students was not sufficient (n<10) to support meaningful analysis.
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
59%
MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
• In Mathematics, students in iQMN underperformed the state in grades 3 through 8 by between 2 and 42 percentage
points.
FIGURE 63: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: MN MATHEMATICS (GRADE 3–8)
90%
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
79%
80%
71%
69%
70%
60%
58%
58%
55%
60%
50%
40%
40%
31%
27%
30%
16%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
iQMN
State (MN)
TABLE 58: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: MN MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count Per
Category
MATHEMATICS
iQMN %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 3
69%
13
71%
Grade 4
40%
10
70%
Grade 5
*
*
60%
Grade 6
27%
11
58%
Grade 7
31%
16
55%
Grade 8
16%
19
58%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
* Results not reported because the number of students was not sufficient (n<10) to support meaningful analysis.
83
iQ ACADEMY MINNESOTA
continued
HIGH SCHOOL
• In Reading in grade 10, students in iQMN underperformed the state by 14 percentage points.
• In Mathematics in grade 11, students in iQMN underperformed the state by 34 percentage points.
FIGURE 64: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON BY SUBJECT: MN (HIGH SCHOOL)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
57%
60%
49%
50%
43%
40%
30%
15%
20%
10%
0%
Reading (Grade 10)
Mathematics (Grade 11)
Subject
iQMN
State (MN)
TABLE 59: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON BY SUBJECT: MN (HIGH SCHOOL)
READING
MATHEMATICS
Total
Count
State
%AAP
iQMN
%AAP
Total
Count
State
%AAP
Grade 10
43%
28
57%
--
--
--
Grade 11
--
--
--
15%
39
49%
iQMN
%AAP
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
Source for state data: http://rc.education.state.mn.us/#testResults/orgId--999999000000__groupType--state__test--allAccount__subject--R__year--trend__grade--all__p--1
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
NEVADA
FRL Eligible
K12 Public School Programs in Nevada
Included in Analysis
Nevada Virtual Academy (NVVA)
NOTE: In 2014–2015, the state of
Nevada invalidated all SBAC scores
for the state’s schools. Here we report
results from Nevada’s High School
Proficiency Examination.
Special Education
K12
State
K12
State
57%
53%
12%
12%
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
Special education eligibility percentages are reported only for schools in which K12 is responsible for special education services.
HIGH SCHOOL
• Percentages are reported for the grade level in which the test is first administered or usually taken.
• NVVA underperformed the state by 27 percentage points in Reading and by 44 percentage points in Mathematics.
FIGURE 65: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON BY SUBJECT: NV (HIGH SCHOOL)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
82%
76%
80%
70%
55%
60%
50%
40%
32%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Reading
Mathematics
Subject
NVVA
State (NV)
TABLE 60: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON BY SUBJECT: NV (HIGH SCHOOL)
READING
Grade 11
MATHEMATICS
NVVA
%AAP
Total
Count
State
%AAP
NVVA
%AAP
Total
Count
State
%AAP
55%
47
82%
32%
56
76%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
Source for state data: http://www.nevadareportcard.com/di/
85
OKLAHOMA
FRL Eligible
NOTE: Results from Insight School of
Oklahoma are reported separately.
Special Education
K12 Public School Programs in Oklahoma
Included in Analysis
K12
State
K12
State
Oklahoma Virtual Charter Academy (OVCA)
61%
61%
14%
15%
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
GRADES 3–8
READING (GRADES 3–8)
• In Reading, OVCA students performed within 3 to 9 percentage points of the state in grades 4–8. In grade 3, OVCA
underperformed the state by 16 percentage points.
FIGURE 66: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: OK READING (GRADES 3–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
75%
80%
66%
70%
60%
72%
70%
69%
70%
68%
66%
63%
57%
55%
53%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
OVCA
State (OK)
TABLE 61: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: OK READING (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count Per
Category
READING
OVCA %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 3
53%
109
69%
Grade 4
66%
109
70%
Grade 5
57%
127
66%
Grade 6
55%
142
63%
Grade 7
69%
157
72%
Grade 8
71%
177
75%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
• In Mathematics, OVCA students performed within 7 to 10 percentage points of the state in grades 6–8. In grades 3–5,
OVCA students underperformed the state by 15 to 23 percentage points.
FIGURE 67: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: OK MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
72%
67%
70%
67%
66%
62%
59%
57%
60%
53%
52%
51%
50%
43%
39%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
OVCA
State (OK)
TABLE 62: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: OK MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count Per
Category
MATHEMATICS
OVCA %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 3
39%
109
62%
Grade 4
51%
108
72%
Grade 5
52%
128
67%
Grade 6
57%
142
67%
Grade 7
59%
157
66%
Grade 8
43%
171
53%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
87
OKLAHOMA VIRTUAL CHARTER ACADEMY
continued
HIGH SCHOOL
• Percentages are reported for the grade level in which the test is first administered or usually taken.
• In English II (grade 10), OVCA students outperformed the state by 4 percentage points.
• In Algebra 1 (grade 9), OVCA students underperformed the state by 29 percentage points.
FIGURE 68: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON BY SUBJECT: OK (HIGH SCHOOL)
85%
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
81%
76%
80%
70%
60%
47%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
English 2 (Grade 10)
Algebra 1 (Grade 9)
Subject
OVCA
State (OK)
TABLE 63: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON BY SUBJECT: OK (HIGH SCHOOL)
ENGLISH 2
ALGEBRA 1
OVCA
%AAP
Total
Count
State
%AAP
OVCA
%AAP
Total
Count
State
%AAP
Grade 9
--
--
--
47%
122
76%
Grade 10
85%
143
81%
--
--
--
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
Source for state data: http://sde.ok.gov/sde/sites/ok.gov.sde/files/2014–2015%20Oklahoma%20School%20Testing%20Program%20%28OSTP%29%20Results.pdf
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
INSIGHT SCHOOL OF OKLAHOMA
Insight School of Oklahoma (ISOK) serves students in
grades 7–12.37
Insight School of Oklahoma
FRL Eligible
Special Education
K12
State
K12
State
68%
61%
13%
15%
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
GRADES 7–8
READING (GRADES 7–8)
• In Reading, ISOK students underperformed the state by 11 percentage points in grade 7 and by 16 percentage points in
grade 8.
FIGURE 69: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: OK READING (GRADES 7–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
75%
80%
72%
70%
61%
59%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
7th
8th
Subject
ISOK
State (OK)
TABLE 64: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: OK READING (GRADES 7–8)
Total Student Count Per
Category
READING
ISOK %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 7
61%
18
72%
Grade 8
59%
22
75%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
36
Among K12 public school programs, most of those designated as Insight Schools focus on serving academically struggling students in grades 6–12, with a few serving only high school
students. While these schools accept students of all ability levels, most focus on providing programs specifically designed to meet the needs of the struggling student. Some K12
Insight Schools are officially designated as “alternative” or “at-risk” schools based on state criteria, but most states do not have official criteria for these types of schools.
89
INSIGHT SCHOOL OF OKLAHOMA
continued
MATHEMATICS (GRADES 7–8)
• In Mathematics, ISOK students underperformed the state by 27 percentage points in grade 7 and by 39 percentage
points in grade 8.
FIGURE 70: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: OK MATHEMATICS (GRADES 7–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
66%
70%
60%
53%
50%
39%
40%
30%
20%
14%
10%
0%
7th
8th
Grade Level
ISOK
State (OK)
TABLE 65: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: OK MATHEMATICS (GRADES 7–8)
Total Student Count Per
Category
MATHEMATICS
ISOK %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 7
39%
18
66%
Grade 8
14%
22
53%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
HIGH SCHOOL
• In English II (grade 10), ISOK students performed within 10 percentage points of the state.
• In Algebra 1 (grade 9), ISOK students underperformed the state by 47 percentage points.
FIGURE 71: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: OK (HIGH SCHOOL)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
81%
76%
80%
71%
70%
60%
50%
40%
29%
30%
20%
10%
0%
English 2 (grade 10)
Algebra 1 (Grade 9)
Subject
ISOK
State (OK)
TABLE 66: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: OK (HIGH SCHOOL)
ENGLISH 2
ALGEBRA 1
ISOK
%AAP
Total
Count
State
%AAP
ISOK
%AAP
Grade 9
--
--
--
29%
Grade 10
71%
14
81%
--
Total
Count
17
--
State
%AAP
76%
--
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
Source for state data: http://sde.ok.gov/sde/sites/ok.gov.sde/files/2014–2015%20Oklahoma%20School%20Testing%20Program%20%28OSTP%29%20Results.pdf
91
TENNESSEE
FRL Eligible
K12 Public School Programs in Tennessee
Included in Analysis38
Tennessee Virtual Academy (TNVA)
Special Education
K12
State
K12
State
71%
58%
15%
13%
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
GRADES 3–8
READING/LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–8)
• In Reading/Language Arts, TNVA students performed within 4 to 18 percentage points of the state.
FIGURE 72: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: TN READING/LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
60%
52%
50%
50%
40%
43%
51%
50%
47%
45%
45%
41%
37%
32%
31%
30%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
TNVA
State (TN)
TABLE 67: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: TN READING/LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count Per
Category
READING/LANGUAGE ARTS
TNVA %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 3
31%
118
43%
Grade 4
37%
108
45%
Grade 5
32%
133
50%
Grade 6
41%
143
52%
Grade 7
47%
177
51%
Grade 8
45%
197
50%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
38
For Tennessee, results from both K12 public school programs and the state are (as reported in the state data source) for Full Academic Year students (those who have been continuously
enrolled starting on or before a specified date usually close to the beginning of the school year).
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
• In Mathematics, TNVA students underperformed the state by 20 to 39 percentage points.
FIGURE 73: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: TN MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
66%
70%
62%
60%
51%
50%
50%
51%
47%
42%
40%
27%
25%
30%
25%
24%
20%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
TNVA
State (TN)
TABLE 68: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: TN MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count Per
Category
MATHEMATICS
TNVA %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 3
42%
118
62%
Grade 4
25%
106
50%
Grade 5
27%
133
66%
Grade 6
24%
143
51%
Grade 7
20%
177
51%
Grade 8
25%
198
47%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
Source for state data: http://www.tn.gov/education/section/data
93
TEXAS
FRL Eligible
K12 Public School Programs in Texas
Included in Analysis39
Special Education
K12
State
K12
State
Texas Online Preparatory School (TOPS)
43%
60%
4%
9%
Texas Virtual Academy (TXVA)
56%
60%
--
--
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
Special education eligibility percentages are reported only for schools in which K12 is responsible for special education services.
GRADES 3–8
READING (GRADES 3–8)
• In Reading, students at K12 public school programs in Texas outperformed the state in grades 5–8 by 8 to 10 percentage
points.
FIGURE 74: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: TX READING (GRADES 3–8)
100%
95%
93%
84%
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
75%
80%
70%
82%
74%
72%
70%
85%
82%
73%
66%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
K12 Public School Programs (TX)
State (TX)
TABLE 69: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: TX READING (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count Per
Category
READING
TX K12 %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 3
66%
160
75%
Grade 4
70%
272
72%
Grade 5
93%
285
84%
Grade 6
82%
416
74%
Grade 7
82%
517
73%
Grade 8
95%
570
85%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
39
For Texas, results from both K12 public school programs and the state are (as reported in the state data source) for Full Academic Year students (those who have been continuously
enrolled starting on or before a specified date usually close to the beginning of the school year).
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
• In Mathematics, students at K12 public school programs in Texas outperformed the state in grade 6 by 2 percentage
points and in grade 7 by 5 percentage points and, in other grades, underperformed the state by 14 to 30 percentage
points.
FIGURE 75: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: TX MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
90%
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
77%
76%
80%
75%
73%
72%
75%
72%
70%
70%
58%
60%
50%
50%
49%
46%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
K12 Public School Programs (TX)
State (TX)
TABLE 70: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: TX MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count Per
Category
MATHEMATICS
TX K12 %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
46%
160
76%
Grade 4
50%
272
72%
Grade 5
49%
358
77%
Grade 6
75%
416
73%
Grade 7
75%
512
70%
Grade 8
58%
615
72%
Grade 3
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
95
TEXAS K12 PUBLIC SCHOOL PROGRAMS
continued
HIGH SCHOOL
• Percentages are reported for the grade level in which the test is first administered or usually taken.
• In English 1 (grade 9), students at K12 public school programs in Texas outperformed the state by 5 percentage points.
• In Algebra 1 (grade 9), students at K12 public school programs in Texas underperformed the state by 15 percentage points.
FIGURE 76: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON BY SUBJECT: TX (HIGH SCHOOL)
90%
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
79%
80%
74%
69%
70%
64%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
English 1
Algebra 1
Subject
K12 Public School Programs (TX)
State (TX)
TABLE 71: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: TX (HIGH SCHOOL)
ENGLISH 1
Grade 9
ALGEBRA 1
TX K12
%AAP
Total
Count
State
%AAP
74%
410
69%
TX K12
%AAP
64%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
Source for state data: https://rptsvr1.tea.texas.gov/perfreport//tprs/2015/srch.html?srch=D
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
Total
Count
414
State
%AAP
79%
UTAH
FRL Eligible
K12 Public School Programs in Utah
Included in Analysis40
Utah Virtual Academy (UTVA)
Special Education
K12
State
K12
State
57%
37%
16%
12%
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
GRADES 3–8
READING (GRADES 3–8)
• In Language Arts, UTVA students underperformed the state by 11 to 25 percentage points.
FIGURE 77: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: UT LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–8)
90%
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
80%
70%
60%
46%
50%
40%
45%
45%
44%
42%
43%
35%
31%
30%
28%
27%
30%
19%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
UTVA
State (UT)
TABLE 72: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: UT LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count Per
Category
LANGUAGE ARTS
UTVA %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 3
35%
37
46%
Grade 4
30%
53
42%
Grade 5
27%
55
45%
Grade 6
28%
72
45%
Grade 7
19%
83
44%
Grade 8
31%
125
43%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
40
For Utah, results from both K12 public school programs and the state are (as reported in the state data source) for Full Academic Year students (those who have been continuously
enrolled starting on or before a specified date usually close to the beginning of the school year).
97
UTAH VIRTUAL ACADEMY
continued
MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
• In Mathematics, UTVA students underperformed the state by 16 to 32 percentage points.
FIGURE 78: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: UT MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
90%
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
80%
70%
60%
51%
50%
49%
46%
50%
42%
38%
40%
33%
28%
30%
24%
22%
22%
18%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
UTVA
State (UT)
TABLE 73: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: UT MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count Per
Category
MATHEMATICS
UTVA %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 3
18%
44
50%
Grade 4
33%
54
51%
Grade 5
28%
57
49%
Grade 6
22%
74
38%
Grade 7
24%
84
46%
Grade 8
22%
132
42%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
HIGH SCHOOL
• Percentages are reported for the grade level in which the test is first administered or usually taken.
• In Language Arts (grade 9), UTVA students underperformed the state by 28 percentage points.
• In Mathematics (grade 9), UTVA students underperformed the state by 32 percentage points.
FIGURE 79: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON BY SUBJECT: UT (HIGH SCHOOL)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
60%
45%
50%
41%
40%
30%
17%
20%
11%
10%
0%
Language Arts
Secondary Math 1
Subject
UTVA
State (UT)
TABLE 74: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON BY SUBJECT: UT (HIGH SCHOOL)
LANGUAGE ARTS
Grade 9
SECONDARY MATH 1
UTVA
%AAP
Total
Count
State
%AAP
UTVA
%AAP
Total
Count
State
%AAP
17%
90
45%
11%
104
41%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
Source for state data: http://schools.utah.gov/data/Reports/Assessment.aspx (SAGE 2014–2015)
99
VIRGINIA
FRL Eligible
K12 Public School Programs in Virginia
Included in Analysis
K12
State
Virginia Virtual Academy-King and Queen
(VAVA-King and Queen)
50%
40%
Virginia Virtual Academy-Patrick
(VAVA-Patrick)
47%
Special Education
K12
State
13%
5%*
40%
13%
NOTE: In the 2014–2015 school year
(for which this report includes data),
VAVA schools enrolled students
in grades K–6, with state testing
beginning in grade 3. In 2015–2016,
VAVA schools added grade 7.
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for
data sources.
* The special education eligibility percentage is an aggregate figure encompassing the specified individual Virginia K12
public school programs.
GRADES 3–6
READING (GRADES 3–6)
• In Reading, at K12 public school programs in Virginia, students in grades 4, 5, and 6 outperformed the state by 12 to 19
percentage points.
FIGURE 80: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: VA READING (GRADES 3–6)
98%
100%
93%
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
89%
90%
79%
77%
75%
80%
76%
70%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
Grade Level
K12 Public School Programs (VA)
State (VA)
TABLE 75: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: VA READING (GRADES 3–6)
Total Student Count Per
Category
READING
VA K12 %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 3
70%
64
75%
Grade 4
89%
55
77%
Grade 5
98%
43
79%
Grade 6
93%
40
76%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–6)
• In Mathematics, at K12 public school programs in Virginia, students in grades 4, 5, and 6 outperformed the state by 1 to
15 percentage points.
FIGURE 81: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: VA MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–6)
98%
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
100%
85%
90%
84%
84%
83%
79%
74%
80%
70%
63%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
Grade Level
K12 Public School Programs (VA)
State (VA)
TABLE 76: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: VA MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–6)
Total Student Count Per
Category
Grade 3
MATHEMATICS
VA K12 %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
63%
64
74%
Grade 4
85%
54
84%
Grade 5
84%
43
79%
Grade 6
98%
40
83%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
Source for state data: https://p1pe.doe.virginia.gov/reportcard/report.do?division=All&schoolName=All
101
WYOMING
K12 Public School Programs in Wyoming
Included in Analysis41
Wyoming Virtual Academy (WYVA)
FRL Eligible
Special Education
K12
State
K12
State
47%
38%
11%
14%
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
GRADES 3–8
READING (GRADES 3–8)
• In Reading, WYVA students outperformed the state in grades 4–8 by 1 to 9 percentage points.
FIGURE 82: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: WY READING (GRADES 3–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
64%
63%
61%
59%
60%
60%
59%
59%
61%
57%
60%
57%
52%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
WYVA
State (WY)
TABLE 77: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: WY READING (GRADES 3–8)
READING
Grade 3
WYVA %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
59%
29
61%
Grade 4
64%
33
60%
Grade 5
60%
30
59%
Grade 6
59%
37
57%
Grade 7
63%
35
57%
Grade 8
61%
51
52%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
41
For Wyoming, results from both K12 public school programs and the state are (as reported in the state data source) for Full Academic Year students (those who have been continuously
enrolled starting on or before a specified date usually close to the beginning of the school year).
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
• In Mathematics, WYVA students outperformed the state in grade 5 by 4 percentage points and in grade 8 by 5
percentage points. In other grades, WYVA students underperformed the state by 5 to 18 percentage points.
FIGURE 83: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: WY MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
57%
60%
53%
51%
49%
52%
49%
47%
50%
43%
39%
40%
38%
31%
31%
30%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
WYVA
State (WY)
TABLE 78: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: WY MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count Per
Category
MATHEMATICS
WYVA %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 3
31%
29
49%
Grade 4
39%
33
51%
Grade 5
57%
30
53%
Grade 6
38%
37
49%
Grade 7
31%
35
43%
Grade 8
52%
52
47%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
103
WYOMING VIRTUAL ACADEMY
continued
HIGH SCHOOL
• Percentages are reported for the grade level in which the test is first administered or usually taken.
• In ACT-Reading (grade 11), WYVA students outperformed the state by 11 percentage points.
• In ACT-Mathematics (grade 11), WYVA students underperformed the state by 12 percentage points.
FIGURE 84: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON BY SUBJECT: WY (HIGH SCHOOL)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
43%
38%
40%
32%
26%
30%
20%
10%
0%
ACT-Reading
ACT-Mathematics
Subject
WYVA
State (WY)
TABLE 79: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON BY SUBJECT: WY (HIGH SCHOOL)
ACT-READING
Grade 11
ACT-MATHEMATICS
WYVA
%AAP
Total
Count
State
%AAP
43%
46
32%
WYVA
%AAP
26%
Total
Count
46
State
%AAP
38%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
Source for state data: https://portals.edu.wyoming.gov/Reports/Public/wde-reports-2012/public-reports/assessment/pawsresultsstatelevelaggregated
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
GROUP 4
K12 Public School Programs
Administering New State Tests in 2014–2015
K12 Public School Programs Administering New State Tests in 2014–2015
Included in analysis:
Not included in analysis:
Arizona Virtual Academy
Cyber Academy of South Carolina
Florida Virtual Academy at Broward
Florida Virtual Academy at Clay
Florida Virtual Academy at Duval
Florida Virtual Academy at Hillsborough
Florida Virtual Academy at Palm Beach
Florida Virtual Academy at Pasco
Florida Virtual Academy at Pinellas
Georgia Cyber Academy
Hoosier Academies Indianapolis
Hoosier Academies Virtual School
Insight Academy of Arizona
Insight School of Kansas
Insight School of Ohio
Kansas Virtual Academy
Louisiana Virtual Charter Academy
Ohio Virtual Academy
South Carolina Virtual Charter School
Wisconsin Virtual Academy (ELA/Literacy and high
school only)
Alaska Virtual Academy and Florida Virtual Academy
at Osceola: Results not available at the time of this
report.
K12 public school programs in Michigan: Results
from Michigan’s high school ACT assessments are
reported in Group 3. In 2014–2015, Michigan also
administered a new testing program called M-Step.
As of the time of this report, M-Step results were
embargoed and thus unavailable.
Wisconsin Virtual Academy, Grades 3–8 Mathematics:
Wisconsin administered SBAC Mathematics, for
which results are reported in Group 2.
In this section, we report results from K12 public school programs in states that, while in general not members of PARCC or
SBAC, changed to new assessment programs in 2014–2015. These states include Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Indiana,
South Carolina, and Wisconsin. (Wisconsin results are reported for grades 3–8 English Language Arts and high school only).42
We also include in this section the results from K12 public school programs in Louisiana and Ohio. These states administered
PARCC but used a lower cut score to define proficiency than the proficiency standards recommended by the PARCC
consortium.
In this section:
• We report only 2014–2015 data since results of the new tests cannot be directly compared to results from previous tests.
• Except as noted, in states with more than one K12 public school program, we aggregate the results from the programs in order
to present the percentage of K12 students at or above proficiency within a given state. We compare the percentage of K12
students at or above proficiency within a given state to the state’s overall percentage of students at or above proficiency.43
42
43
Wisconsin administered the SBAC Mathematics assessment in grades 3–8. Wisconsin Virtual Academy’s Mathematics results are reported in the SBAC analysis section of this report.
Unless otherwise noted, results from K12 public school programs are for Full Academic Year students (those who have been continuously enrolled starting on or before a specified date
usually close to the beginning of the school year), while state results are (as reported in the state data source) for all students regardless of enrollment date.
105
ARIZONA
FRL Eligible
K12 Public School Programs in Arizona
Included in Analysis
Arizona Virtual Academy (AZVA)
NOTE: Results from Insight Academy
of Arizona (ISAZ) are reported
separately after the AZVA analysis.
Special Education
K12
State
K12
State
60%
52%
13%
12%
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
GRADES 3–8
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–8)
• In English Language Arts, AZVA outperformed the state in grades 5, 7, and 8.
• In grades 3, 4, and 6, AZVA performed within 2 to 7 percentage points of the state.
FIGURE 85: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: AZ ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
42%
41%
39%
36%
35%
40%
33%
32%
38%
36%
35%
33%
32%
30%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
AZVA
State (AZ)
TABLE 80: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: AZ ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count Per
Category
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS
AZVA %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 3
39%
144
41%
Grade 4
35%
164
42%
Grade 5
33%
175
32%
Grade 6
32%
199
36%
Grade 7
38%
226
33%
Grade 8
36%
266
35%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
• In Mathematics, AZVA outperformed the state in grade 7.
• In grades 3–6 and grade 8, AZVA underperformed the state by 10 to 21 percentage points.
FIGURE 86: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: AZ MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
42%
41%
40%
40%
33%
30%
34%
32%
31%
24%
23%
24%
20%
19%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
AZVA
State (AZ)
TABLE 81: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: AZ MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count Per
Category
MATHEMATICS
AZVA %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 3
20%
148
41%
Grade 4
23%
164
42%
Grade 5
24%
178
40%
Grade 6
19%
200
33%
Grade 7
32%
226
31%
Grade 8
24%
269
34%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
107
ARIZONA VIRTUAL ACADEMY
continued
HIGH SCHOOL
• In English Language Arts 9, AZVA outperformed the state by 7 percentage points.
• In Algebra 1, AZVA performed within 2 percentage points of the state.
FIGURE 87: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: AZ (HIGH SCHOOL)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
34%
30%
27%
30%
32%
20%
10%
0%
English Language Arts 9
Algebra 1
Subject
AZVA
State (AZ)
TABLE 82: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: AZ (HIGH SCHOOL)
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS 9
Grade 9
ALGEBRA 1
AZVA
%AAP
Total
Count
State
%AAP
AZVA
%AAP
Total
Count
State
%AAP
34%
181
27%
30%
115
32%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
Source for state data: https://azreportcards.com/ReportCard
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
INSIGHT ACADEMY OF ARIZONA
Insight Academy of Arizona (ISAZ) serves students in
grades 7–12.44
Insight Academy of Arizona
FRL Eligible
Special Education
K12
State
K12
State
65%
52%
16%
12%
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
GRADES 7–8
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 7–8)
• Results are not reported for grade 7 because the number of ISAZ students was not sufficient to support meaningful
analysis.
• In English Language Arts, ISAZ students in grade 8 underperformed the state by 18 percentage points.
FIGURE 88: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: AZ ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADE 8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
35%
40%
30%
17%
20%
10%
0%
8th
Grade Level
ISAZ
State (AZ)
TABLE 83: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: AZ ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 7–8)
Total Student Count Per
Category
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS
ISAZ %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 7
*
*
33%
Grade 8
17%
30
35%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
*Results not reported because the number of students was not sufficient (n<10) to support meaningful analysis
44
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.
109
INSIGHT ACADEMY OF ARIZONA
continued
MATHEMATICS (GRADES 7–8)
• Results are not reported for grade 7 because the number of ISAZ students was not sufficient to support meaningful
analysis.
• In Mathematics, no ISAZ students in grade 8 scored at or above proficiency.
FIGURE 89: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: AZ MATHEMATICS (GRADE 8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
34%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0%
8th
Grade Level
ISAZ
State (AZ)
TABLE 84: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: AZ MATHEMATICS (GRADES 7–8)
Total Student Count Per
Category
MATHEMATICS
ISAZ %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 7
*
*
31%
Grade 8
0%
30
34%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
*Results not reported because the number of students was not sufficient (n<10) to support meaningful analysis.
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
HIGH SCHOOL
• Results are not reported for English Language Arts 9 because the number of ISAZ students was not sufficient to support
meaningful analysis.
• In Algebra 1, ISAZ students underperformed the state by 21 percentage points.
FIGURE 90: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: AZ (HIGH SCHOOL)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
32%
30%
20%
11%
10%
0%
Algebra 1
Subject
ISAZ
State (AZ)
TABLE 85: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: AZ (HIGH SCHOOL)
Total Student Count Per
Category
ALGEBRA 1
ISAZ %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
English Language Arts 9
*
*
27%
Algebra 1
11%
35
32%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
*Results not reported because the number of students was not sufficient (n<10) to support meaningful analysis.
Source for state data: https://azreportcards.com/ReportCard
111
FLORIDA
FRL Eligible
K12 Public School Programs in Florida
Included in Analysis
K12
State
Florida Virtual Academy at Broward
63%
58%
Florida Virtual Academy at Clay
75%
58%
Florida Virtual Academy at Duval
66%
58%
Florida Virtual Academy at Hillsborough
63%
58%
Florida Virtual Academy at Palm Beach
65%
58%
Florida Virtual Academy at Pasco
71%
58%
Florida Virtual Academy at Pinellas
66%
58%
NOTE: This analysis aggregates data from
the separate Florida K12 public school
programs listed in the table at left. The
analysis includes grades 3–8 only because in
almost all FLVA schools the number of high
school students tested was not sufficient to
support meaningful analysis.
Special Education
K12
State
9%*
13%
NOTE: Florida Virtual Academy at Osceola
is not included in this analysis because
no scores were available for ELA or
Mathematics.
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for
data sources.
* The special education eligibility percentage is an
aggregate figure encompassing the specified individual
Florida K12 public school programs.
GRADES 3–8
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–8)
• In English Language Arts, FLVA students outperformed the state in grades 4 and 8, and scored within 1 to 3 percentage
points of the state in grades 5 and 7. In grades 3 and 6, FLVA underperformed the state by 13 to 15 percentage points.
FIGURE 91: 2014–2015 K12 %AAP: FL ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
62%
56%
60%
55%
54%
53%
52%
51%
51%
51%
48%
50%
38%
38%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
K12 Public School Programs (FL)
State (FL)
TABLE 86: 2014–2015 K12 %AAP: FL ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count Per
Category
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS
FL K12 %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 3
38%
73
53%
Grade 4
56%
63
54%
Grade 5
51%
72
52%
Grade 6
38%
64
51%
Grade 7
48%
69
51%
Grade 8
62%
58
55%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
• In Mathematics, FLVA students outperformed the state in grades 7 and 8. In grades 3–6, FLVA underperformed the state
by 19 to 25 percentage points.
FIGURE 92: 2014–2015 K12 %AAP: FL MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
59%
58%
55%
60%
56%
54%
52%
50%
45%
50%
40%
40%
34%
33%
31%
30%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
K12 Public School Programs (FL)
State (FL)
TABLE 87: 2014–2015 K12 %AAP: FL MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count Per
Category
MATHEMATICS
FL K12 %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 3
33%
73
58%
Grade 4
40%
67
59%
Grade 5
34%
74
55%
Grade 6
31%
58
50%
Grade 7
54%
72
52%
Grade 8
56%
48
45%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
Source for state data: http://www.fldoe.org/accountability/assessments/k-12-student-assessment/history-of-fls-statewide-assessment/fcat-2-0/retrofitted-statewide-assessmentscore/2015.stml
113
GEORGIA
FRL Eligible
K12 Public School Programs in Georgia
Included in Analysis
Georgia Cyber Academy (GCA)
Special Education
K12
State
K12
State
65%
62%
13%
11%
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
GRADES 3–8
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–8)
• In English Language Arts, GCA students equaled the performance of the state in grades 6 and 7 and, in other grades,
scored within 2 to 7 percentage points of the state.
FIGURE 93: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: GA ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–8)
90%
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
37%
39%
37%
34%
32%
39%
39%
37%
37%
39%
37%
32%
30%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
GCA
State (GA)
TABLE 88: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: GA ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count Per
Category
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS
GCA %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 3
32%
609
37%
Grade 4
34%
641
37%
Grade 5
32%
698
39%
Grade 6
39%
848
39%
Grade 7
37%
1,018
37%
Grade 8
37%
1,147
39%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
• In Mathematics, GCA students underperformed the state by 5 to 11 percentage points.
FIGURE 94: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: GA MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
90%
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
38%
40%
38%
37%
32%
30%
28%
37%
36%
33%
27%
27%
30%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
GCA
State (GA)
TABLE 89: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: GA MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count Per
Category
MATHEMATICS
GCA %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 3
28%
622
38%
Grade 4
33%
650
40%
Grade 5
27%
701
38%
Grade 6
30%
856
36%
Grade 7
32%
1,025
37%
Grade 8
27%
1,151
37%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
115
GEORGIA CYBER ACADEMY
continued
HIGH SCHOOL
• In 9th Grade Literature & Composition, the percentage of GCA students at or above proficiency is within 3 percentage
points of the state.
• In Coordinate Algebra (grade 9), GCA students underperformed the state by 17 percentage points.
FIGURE 95: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: GA (HIGH SCHOOL)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
36%
40%
39%
34%
30%
17%
20%
10%
0%
Literature & Composition (Grade 9)
Coordinate Algebra
Subject
GCA
State (GA)
TABLE 90: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: GA (HIGH SCHOOL)
LITERATURE & COMPOSITION
(GRADE 9)
Grade 9
COORDINATE ALGEBRA
GCA %AAP
Total
Count
State
%AAP
GCA %AAP
Total
Count
State
%AAP
36%
942
39%
17%
1,052
34%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
Source for state data: http://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Assessment/Pages/Georgia-Milestones-Statewide-Scores.aspx
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
INDIANA
FRL Eligible
K12 Public School Programs in Indiana
Included in Analysis
Special Education
K12
State
K12
State
Hoosier Academies Indianapolis
27%
49%
18%
16%
Hoosier Academies Virtual School
50%
49%
15%
16%
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
GRADES 3–8
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–8)
• In English Language Arts, K12 public school programs in Indiana underperformed the state by 18 to 29 percentage points.
FIGURE 96: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–8)
90%
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
80%
73%
70%
60%
50%
66%
65%
70%
66%
64%
52%
46%
44%
42%
39%
35%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
K12 Public School Programs (IN)
State (IN)
TABLE 91: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count Per
Category
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS
IN K12 %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 3
42%
161
73%
Grade 4
52%
126
70%
Grade 5
39%
142
65%
Grade 6
46%
184
66%
Grade 7
44%
190
66%
Grade 8
35%
279
64%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
117
INDIANA K12 PUBLIC SCHOOL PROGRAMS
MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
• In Mathematics, K12 public school programs in Indiana underperformed the state by 21 to 36 percentage points.
FIGURE 97: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: IN MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
68%
70%
65%
63%
62%
60%
54%
50%
40%
42%
54%
41%
36%
32%
31%
26%
30%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
K12 Public School Programs (IN)
State (IN)
TABLE 92: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: IN MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count Per
Category
MATHEMATICS
IN K12 %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 3
36%
157
63%
Grade 4
42%
123
65%
Grade 5
32%
143
68%
Grade 6
41%
182
62%
Grade 7
31%
178
54%
Grade 8
26%
265
54%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
HIGH SCHOOL
• In English 10, K12 public school programs in Indiana underperformed the state by 14 percentage points.
• In Algebra 1, K12 public school programs in Indiana underperformed the state by 37 percentage points.
FIGURE 98: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: IN (HIGH SCHOOL)
90%
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
79%
80%
71%
65%
70%
60%
50%
34%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
English 10 (Grade 10)
Algebra 1 (Grade 9)
Subject
K12 Public School Programs (IN)
State (IN)
TABLE 93: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: IN (HIGH SCHOOL)
ENGLISH 10
ALGEBRA 1
IN K12
%AAP
Total
Count
State
%AAP
IN K12
%AAP
Total
Count
State
%AAP
Grade 9
--
--
--
34%
122
71%
Grade 10
65%
301
79%
--
--
--
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
Source for state data: http://compass.doe.in.gov/dashboard/istep.aspx?type=state
119
KANSAS
FRL Eligible
K12 Public School Programs in Kansas
Included in Analysis
Kansas Virtual Academy (KSVA)
Special Education
K12
State
K12
State
70%
50%
--
--
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
Special education eligibility percentages are reported only for schools in which K12 is responsible for special
education services.
NOTE: Kansas Virtual Academy serves
students in grades 3–6.
NOTE: Results from Insight School
of Kansas (ISKS) are reported
separately.
GRADES 3–6
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–6)
• In English Language Arts, KSVA students performed within 3 percentage points of the state in grade 3 and within 6
percentage points of the state in grade 6.
• In grade 5, KSVA students underperformed the state by 12 percentage points and, in grade 4, by 34 percentage points.
FIGURE 99: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: KS ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–6)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
60%
54%
48%
47%
50%
44%
39%
36%
40%
33%
30%
20%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
Grade Level
KSVA
State (KS)
TABLE 94: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: KS ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–6)
Total Student Count Per
Category
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS
KSVA %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 3
44%
16
47%
Grade 4
20%
15
54%
Grade 5
36%
14
48%
Grade 6
33%
21
39%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–6)
• In Mathematics, KSVA students performed within 8 percentage points of the state in grade 6.
• In grades 3–5, KSVA students underperformed the state by 19 to 32 percentage points.
FIGURE 100: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: KS MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–6)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
60%
51%
50%
35%
40%
33%
32%
30%
24%
19%
20%
14%
7%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
Grade Level
KSVA
State (KS)
TABLE 95: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: KS MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–6)
Total Student Count Per
Category
Grade 3
MATHEMATICS
KSVA %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
19%
16
51%
Grade 4
7%
15
35%
Grade 5
14%
14
33%
Grade 6
24%
21
32%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
Source for state data: http://ksreportcard.ksde.org/assessment_results.aspx?org_no=State&rptType=3
121
INSIGHT SCHOOL OF KANSAS
Insight School of Kansas (ISKS) serves students in
grades 7–12.45
Insight School of Kansas
FRL Eligible
Special Education
K12
State
K12
State
55%
50%
--
--
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
Special education eligibility percentages are reported only for schools in which K12 is
responsible for special education services.
GRADES 7–8
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 7–8)
• In English Language Arts, ISKS students performed within 2 percentage points of the state in grade 8.
• In grade 7, ISKS students underperformed the state by 17 percentage points.
FIGURE 101: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: KS ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 7–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
39%
40%
29%
27%
30%
22%
20%
10%
0%
7th
8th
Grade Level
ISKS
State (KS)
TABLE 96: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: KS ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (7–8)
Total Student Count Per
Category
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS
ISKS %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 7
22%
18
39%
Grade 8
27%
33
29%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
45
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.
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
MATHEMATICS (GRADES 7–8)
• In Mathematics, ISKS students performed within 4 percentage points of the state in grade 8.
• In grade 7 no ISKS students scored at or above proficiency.
FIGURE 102: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: KS MATHEMATICS (GRADES 7–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
28%
30%
22%
18%
20%
10%
0%
0%
7th
8th
Grade Level
ISKS
State (KS)
TABLE 97: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: KS MATHEMATICS (7–8)
Total Student Count Per
Category
MATHEMATICS
ISKS %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 7
0%
18
28%
Grade 8
18%
33
22%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
123
INSIGHT SCHOOL OF KANSAS
continued
HIGH SCHOOL
• In English Language Arts (grade 10), ISKS students underperformed the state by 9 percentage points.
• In Mathematics (grade 10), ISKS students underperformed the state by 17 percentage points.
FIGURE 103: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: KS (HIGH SCHOOL)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
30%
24%
21%
20%
7%
10%
0%
English Language Arts
Mathematics
Subject
ISKS
State (KS)
TABLE 98: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: KS (HIGH SCHOOL)
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS
Grade 9
MATHEMATICS
ISKS
%AAP
Total
Count
State
%AAP
ISKS
%AAP
Total
Count
State
%AAP
21%
86
30%
7%
86
24%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
Source for state data: http://ksreportcard.ksde.org/assessment_results.aspx?org_no=State&rptType=3
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
LOUISIANA
FRL Eligible
NOTE: The state of Louisiana
administered PARCC in grades 3–8
but used a lower cut score to define
proficiency than the proficiency
standards recommended by the
PARCC consortium. Therefore,
LAVCA’s proficiency percentages
cannot be compared to the overall
PARCC consortium results.
Special Education
K12 Public School Programs in Louisiana
Included in Analysis
K12
State
K12
State
Louisiana Virtual Charter Academy (LAVCA)
66%
66%
16%
11%
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
GRADES 3–8
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–8)
• In English Language Arts, LAVCA students outperformed the state by 1 percentage point in grade 6. LAVCA students
equaled the state in grade 8 and performed within 2 percentage points of the state in grades 5 and 7.
• LAVCA underperformed the state by 20 percentage points in grade 3 and by 21 percentage points in grade 4.
FIGURE 104: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: LA ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
75%
74%
74%
70%
70%
70%
63%
60%
50%
66%
64%
66%
65%
53%
43%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
LAVCA
State (LA)
TABLE 99: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: LA ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count Per
Category
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS
LAVCA%AAP
Grade 3
Total Count
State %AAP
43%
69
63%
Grade 4
53%
92
74%
Grade 5
64%
111
66%
Grade 6
75%
109
74%
Grade 7
65%
161
66%
Grade 8
70%
154
70%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
125
LOUISIANA VIRTUAL CHARTER ACADEMY
continued
MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
• In Mathematics, LAVCA students performed within 10 percentage points of the state in grades 7 and 8.
• In grades 3–6, LAVCA underperformed the state by 13 to 40 percentage points.
FIGURE 105: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: LA MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
67%
70%
64%
59%
59%
58%
55%
60%
46%
50%
40%
48%
47%
35%
30%
30%
24%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
LAVCA
State (LA)
TABLE 100: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: LA MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count Per
Category
MATHEMATICS
LAVCA %AAP
Grade 3
Total Count
State %AAP
35%
69
67%
Grade 4
24%
92
64%
Grade 5
30%
111
59%
Grade 6
46%
108
59%
Grade 7
48%
160
58%
Grade 8
47%
153
55%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
HIGH SCHOOL
NOTE: In high school, Louisiana used state-specific tests rather than PARCC.
• In English II (grade 10), LAVCA students outperformed the state by 4 percentage points.
• In Algebra I (grade 9), LAVCA students outperformed the state by 8 percentage points.
FIGURE 106: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: LA (HIGH SCHOOL)
97%
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
100%
93%
89%
90%
81%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
English 2 (Grade 10)
Algebra 1 (Grade 9)
Subject
LAVCA
State (LA)
TABLE 101: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: LA (HIGH SCHOOL)
ENGLISH 2
ALGEBRA 1
LAVCA
%AAP
Total
Count
State
%AAP
97%
78
93%
Grade 9
Grade 10
LAVCA
%AAP
Total
Count
State
%AAP
89%
64
81%
--
--
--
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
Source for state data: https://www.louisianabelieves.com/resources/library/test-results
127
OHIO
FRL Eligible
K12 Public School Programs in Ohio
Included in Analysis
Ohio Virtual Academy (OHVA)
NOTE: Results from Insight School of
Ohio are reported separately below.
Special Education
K12
State
K12
State
59%
44%
14%
15%
NOTE: The state of Ohio administered
PARCC but used a lower cut score
to define proficiency than the
proficiency standards recommended
by the PARCC consortium. Therefore,
Ohio’s proficiency percentages cannot
be compared to the overall PARCC
consortium results.
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
GRADES 3–8
READING (GRADE 3) / ELA/LITERACY (GRADES 4–8)
• In grades 4–8, Ohio administered the PARCC assessment in English Language Arts/Literacy. In Grade 3, however, Ohio
chose not to use the PARCC ELA/Literacy assessment but instead used the Ohio Achievement Assessment.
• In English Language Arts/Literacy, OHVA outperformed the state in grade 8 and equaled the state in grade 7. In grades
3–6, OHVA performed within 2 to 10 percentage points of the state.
FIGURE 107: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: OH READING (GRADE 3) / ELA/LITERACY (GRADES 4–8)
90%
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
79%
80%
72%
72%
70%
70%
70%
68%
69%
69%
69%
68%
70%
60%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
OHVA
State (OH)
TABLE 102: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: OH READING (GRADE 3) / ELA/LITERACY (GRADES 4–8)
Total Student Count Per
Category
GRADE 3: READING
GRADES 4–8: ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY
OHVA %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 3
72%
300
79%
Grade 4
70%
493
72%
Grade 5
60%
576
70%
Grade 6
68%
585
70%
Grade 7
69%
656
69%
Grade 8
69%
775
68%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
• In Mathematics, OHVA outperformed the state in grade 8.
• OHVA performed within 4 percentage points of the state in grade 7.
FIGURE 108: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: OH MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
66%
70%
66%
65%
65%
61%
60%
50%
65%
55%
54%
47%
54%
46%
38%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
OHVA
State (OH)
TABLE 103: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: OH MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count Per
Category
MATHEMATICS
OHVA %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 3
47%
525
66%
Grade 4
46%
497
65%
Grade 5
38%
576
66%
Grade 6
54%
578
65%
Grade 7
61%
649
65%
Grade 8
55%
651
54%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
129
ARIZONA
OHIO
VIRTUAL
VIRTUAL
ACADEMY
ACADEMY
continued
HIGH SCHOOL
NOTE: In high school, Ohio administered both Ohio Graduation Tests (OGT) and PARCC assessments.
OHIO GRADUATION TESTS
• In Reading (grade 10), 89% of OHVA students performed at or above proficiency, outperforming the state by 3 percentage
points.
• In Mathematics, OHVA students performed within 7 percentage points of the state.
FIGURE 109: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: OHIO GRADUATION TESTS
89%
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
86%
82%
75%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Reading
Mathematics
Subject
OHVA
State (OH)
TABLE 104: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: OHIO GRADUATION TESTS
READING
Grade 9
MATHEMATICS
OHVA
%AAP
Total
Count
State
%AAP
OHVA
%AAP
Total
Count
State
%AAP
89%
800
86%
75%
825
82%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
PARCC HIGH SCHOOL ASSESSMENTS
• In English Language Arts/Literacy (grade 9), 82% of OHVA students performed at or above proficiency, outperforming the
state by 9 percentage points.
• In Algebra 1 (grade 9), OHVA students outperformed the state by 6 percentage points.
FIGURE 110: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: PARCC HIGH SCHOOL ASSESSMENTS
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
82%
80%
73%
72%
66%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
English Language Arts/Literacy
Algebra 1
Subject
OHVA
State (OH)
TABLE 105: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: PARCC HIGH SCHOOL ASSESSMENTS
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/
LITERACY
Grade 9
ALGEBRA 1
OHVA
%AAP
Total
Count
State
%AAP
OHVA
%AAP
Total
Count
State
%AAP
82%
728
73%
72%
278
66%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
Source for state data: http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Testing/Testing-Results/2014_2015-Ohio_s-State-Test-Results
131
INSIGHT SCHOOL OF OHIO
Insight School of Ohio (ISOH) serves students in
grades 6–12.46
Insight School of Ohio
FRL Eligible
Special Education
K12
State
K12
State
62%
43%
20%
15%
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
GRADES 6–8
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 6–8)
• In English Language Arts/Literacy, ISOH students in grades 6–8 underperformed the state by 20 to 37 percentage points.
FIGURE 111: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: OH ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 6–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
69%
68%
70%
60%
50%
49%
50%
40%
31%
30%
20%
10%
0%
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
ISOH
State (OH)
TABLE 106: 22014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: OH ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 6–8)
Total Student Count Per
Category
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS
ISOH %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 6
50%
18
70%
Grade 7
49%
63
69%
Grade 8
31%
59
68%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
46
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.
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
MATHEMATICS (GRADES 6–8)
• In Mathematics, ISOH students in grade 6 (in which 18 scores were reported) underperformed the state 54 percentage
points.
• ISOH students in grade 7 underperformed the state by 26 percentage points, and in grade 8 by 41 percentage points.
FIGURE 112: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: OH MATHEMATICS (GRADES 6–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
65%
70%
65%
60%
54%
50%
40%
28%
30%
24%
20%
11%
10%
0%
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
ISOH
State (OH)
TABLE 107: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: OH MATHEMATICS (GRADES 6–8)
Total Student Count Per
Category
MATHEMATICS
ISOH %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 6
11%
18
65%
Grade 7
24%
63
65%
Grade 8
28%
61
54%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
133
INSIGHT SCHOOL OF OHIO
continued
HIGH SCHOOL
NOTE: In high school, Ohio administered both Ohio Graduation Tests (OGT) and PARCC assessments.
OHIO GRADUATION TESTS
• In Reading (grade 10), 70% of ISOH students scored at or above proficiency, underperforming the state by 16 percentage
points.
• In Mathematics, ISOH students underperformed the state by 35 percentage points.
FIGURE 113: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: OHIO GRADUATION TESTS
86%
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
82%
80%
70%
70%
60%
47%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Reading
Mathematics
Subject
ISOH
State (OH)
TABLE 108: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: OHIO GRADUATION TESTS
READING
Grade 10
MATHEMATICS
ISOH
%AAP
Total
Count
State
%AAP
ISOH
%AAP
Total
Count
State
%AAP
70%
89
86%
47%
90
82%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
PARCC HIGH SCHOOL ASSESSMENTS
• In English Language Arts/Literacy (grade 9), 62% of ISOH students performed at or above proficiency, underperforming
the state by 11 percentage points.
• No results are reported for Algebra 1 (grade 9) because the number of ISOH students was not sufficient to support
meaningful analysis.
FIGURE 114: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: PARCC HIGH SCHOOL ASSESSMENTS
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
73%
70%
62%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
English Language Arts/Literacy
Subject
ISOH
State (OH)
TABLE 109: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: PARCC HIGH SCHOOL ASSESSMENTS
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/
LITERACY
ISOH
%AAP
Grade 9
62%
Total
Count
58
ALGEBRA 1
State
%AAP
ISOH
%AAP
Total
Count
State
%AAP
73%
*
*
66%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
*Results not reported because the number of students was not sufficient (n<10) to support meaningful analysis.
Source for state data: http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Testing/Testing-Results/2014_2015-Ohio_s-State-Test-Results
135
SOUTH CAROLINA
FRL Eligible
K12 Public School Programs in
South Carolina Included in Analysis
Cyber Academy of South Carolina (CASC)
Special Education
K12
State
K12
State
65%
57%
16%
13%
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
GRADES 3–8
READING (GRADES 3–8)
• In Reading, CASC outperformed the state by 3 percentage points in grade 6, equaled the state in grade 7, and performed
within 3 to 4 percentage points of the state in grades 4 and 5. CASC students in grade 3 underperformed the state by 14
percentage points.
FIGURE 115: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: SC ACT ASPIRE-READING (GRADES 3–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
60%
47%
50%
40%
37%
40%
33%
32%
29%
39%
37%
37%
34%
31%
30%
18%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
CASC
State (SC)
TABLE 110: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: SC ACT ASPIRE-READING (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count Per
Category
ACT ASPIRE-READING
CASC %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 3
18%
33
32%
Grade 4
29%
31
33%
Grade 5
31%
49
34%
Grade 6
40%
45
37%
Grade 7
37%
76
37%
Grade 8
39%
77
47%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
• In Mathematics, CASC performed within 9 percentage points of the state in grade 7, and in other grades
underperformed the state by 17 to 37 percentage points.
FIGURE 116: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: SC ACT ASPIRE-MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
58%
58%
60%
53%
48%
50%
36%
40%
30%
36%
32%
27%
26%
22%
21%
20%
6%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
CASC
State (SC)
TABLE 111: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: SC ACT ASPIRE-MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count Per
Category
ACT ASPIRE-MATHEMATICS
CASC %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 3
21%
33
58%
Grade 4
26%
31
58%
Grade 5
22%
49
48%
Grade 6
36%
45
53%
Grade 7
27%
77
36%
Grade 8
6%
77
32%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
137
CYBER ACADEMY OF SOUTH CAROLINA
continued
HIGH SCHOOL
• In English 1 (grade 9), 57% of CASC students performed at or above proficiency, underperforming the state by 18
percentage points.
• In Mathematics, 44% of CASC students performed at or above proficiency, underperforming the state by 42 percentage
points.
FIGURE 117: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: SC (HIGH SCHOOL)
86%
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
75%
80%
70%
57%
60%
50%
44%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
English 1
Algebra 1/Mathematics for the Technologies 2
Subject
CASC
State (SC)
TABLE 112: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: SC (HIGH SCHOOL)
ALGEBRA 1/MATHEMATICS FOR
THE TECHNOLOGIES 2
ENGLISH 1
Grade 9
CASC
%AAP
Total
Count
State
%AAP
CASC
%AAP
Total
Count
State
%AAP
57%
90
75%
44%
93
86%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
Source for state data: http://ed.sc.gov/data/test-scores/state-assessments/
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
SOUTH CAROLINA VIRTUAL CHARTER SCHOOL
FRL Eligible
Special Education
K12 Public School Programs in
South Carolina Included in Analysis
K12
State
K12
State
South Carolina Virtual Charter School (SCVCS)
64%
57%
--
--
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
Special education eligibility percentages are reported only for schools in which K12 is responsible for special education services.
GRADES 3–8
ACT ASPIRE –READING (GRADES 3–8)
• In Reading in grades 3–5, students at SCVCS underperformed the state by between 1 and 3 percentage points.
• In Reading in grade 7, students at SCVCS equaled the state.
• In grades 6 and 8, students at SCVCS underperformed the state by 6 and 7 percentage points respectively.
FIGURE 118: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: SC ACT ASPIRE-READING (GRADES 3–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
60%
47%
50%
40%
37%
40%
32%
30%
33%
32%
37%
37%
34%
31%
31%
30%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
SCVCS
State (SC)
TABLE 113: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: SC ACT ASPIRE-READING (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count Per
Category
ACT ASPIRE-READING
SCVCS %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 3
30%
132
32%
Grade 4
32%
130
33%
Grade 5
31%
113
34%
Grade 6
31%
181
37%
Grade 7
37%
222
37%
Grade 8
40%
267
47%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
139
SOUTH CAROLINA VIRTUAL CHARTER SCHOOL
continued
ACT ASPIRE –MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
• In Mathematics in grades 3–8, students at SCVCS underperformed the state by between 1 and 25 percentage points.
FIGURE 119: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: SC ACT ASPIRE-MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
58%
60%
53%
49%
50%
48%
43%
40%
40%
36%
36%
35%
33%
32%
30%
22%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
SCVCS
State (SC)
TABLE 114: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: SC ACT ASPIRE-MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count Per
Category
ACT ASPIRE-MATHEMATICS SCVCS %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 3
33%
132
58%
Grade 4
40%
130
49%
Grade 5
32%
113
48%
Grade 6
36%
181
53%
Grade 7
35%
222
36%
Grade 8
22%
267
32%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
HIGH SCHOOL
• In grade 9, students at SCVCS outperformed the state in English 1 by 1 percentage point.
• In grade 9, students at SCVCS underperformed the state by 2 percentage points.
FIGURE 120: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: SC (HIGH SCHOOL)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
84%
76%
80%
86%
75%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
English 1
Algebra 1/Mathematics for the Technologies 2
Subject
SCVCS
State (SC)
TABLE 115: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: SC (HIGH SCHOOL)
ALGEBRA 1/MATHEMATICS FOR
THE TECHNOLOGIES 2
ENGLISH 1
Grade 9
SCVCS
%AAP
Total
Count
State
%AAP
SCVCS
%AAP
Total
Count
State
%AAP
76%
168
75%
84%
95
86%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
Source for state data: http://ed.sc.gov/data/test-scores/state-assessments/
141
WISCONSIN
FRL Eligible
K12 Public School Programs in Wisconsin
Included in Analysis
Wisconsin Virtual Academy (WIVA)
NOTE: The state of Wisconsin
administered a variety of assessments
in 2014–2015, including:
Special Education
K12
State
K12
State
56%
42%
15%
14%
• Grades 3–8
– Mathematics: SBAC: Results
reported in the SBAC analysis
section of this report.
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
– English Language Arts/Literacy:
State-specific variation of the SBAC
blueprint: Results reported below.
• High school ACT-English and ACTMathematics: Results reported below.
GRADES 3–8
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)
• In English Language Arts/Literacy, WIVA outperformed the state in grades 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
FIGURE 121: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: WI ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
60%
58%
57%
60%
52%
55%
53%
52%
51%
46%
50%
53%
52%
46%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
WIVA
State (WI)
TABLE 116: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: WI ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count Per
Category
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY
WIVA %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 3
58%
65
52%
Grade 4
46%
65
51%
Grade 5
57%
98
55%
Grade 6
52%
87
46%
Grade 7
53%
123
52%
Grade 8
60%
128
53%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
HIGH SCHOOL
• In ACT-English (grade 11), WIVA students underperformed the state by 11 percentage points.
• In ACT-Mathematics (grade 11), WIVA students underperformed the state by 24 percentage points.
FIGURE 122: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: WI (HIGH SCHOOL)
Percentage At or Above Proficiency
90%
80%
70%
60%
54%
50%
43%
36%
40%
30%
20%
12%
10%
0%
ACT-English
ACT-Mathematics
Subject
WIVA
State (WI)
TABLE 117: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: WI (HIGH SCHOOL)
ACT-ENGLISH
Grade 9
ACT-MATHEMATICS
WIVA
%AAP
Total
Count
State
%AAP
WIVA
%AAP
Total
Count
State
%AAP
43%
181
54%
12%
181
36%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
Source for state data: http://wisedash.dpi.wi.gov/Dashboard/portalHome.jsp
143
Featured Programs
and Highlights
145
K12 Private Schools: Preparing for College and Career
K12 Inc. is nationally known for its online virtual academies and other public school programs.
Beyond these public school partnerships, K12 also operates three online private schools: The George
Washington University Online High School, K12 International Academy, and The Keystone School.
While each school focuses on meeting the needs of distinct bodies of students, all three focus on
preparation for college and career. Graduates of K12’s online private schools have been accepted to
prestigious public and private colleges and universities across the country.
The George Washington University Online High School
GWUOHS.COM
The George Washington University Online High was founded in 2010 with the mission to serve motivated students from
across the United States and around the world who desire a one-to-one yet rigorous college preparatory education. GWUOHS
serves students in grades 6–12.
Unique to GWUOHS is the Journeys Symposium, a multi-year course sequence that promotes self-awareness, leadership,
service, and personal success. In high school, the Journeys Symposium offers year-long seminars that help students navigate
their passage from the classroom to the real world, including:
• The Writer Within: Reflect, Respond, Reaffirm
• Service to a Cause: Community, Compassion, Commitment
• Insights into Leadership: Valor, Vision, Voices
• The Capstone Project: Achievement into Action
The GWUOHS experience is built on one-to-one relationships between teachers and students. Each GWUOHS student
receives an Academic Plan and intensive, personalized college counseling and planning.
K12 International Academy
ICADEMY.COM
K12 International Academy is an accredited online private school for grades K–12 that serves students from every state in the
U.S. and more than 90 countries around the globe. The school’s stated vision is “to create a global community of students,
teachers, parents, and mentors that is connected by technology and dedicated to developing the unique character and
intellect of each student, thereby laying the foundation for his or her success in life.”
Courses are synchronous in design, with a high degree of interaction between the student and teacher. Students in K12
International Academy meet regularly with their teachers in online class sessions, with many opportunities to receive
one-to-one guidance and instruction.
Each full-time and part-time student of K12 International Academy also has the support of an academic support team and fulltime students are assigned a college counselor in an effort to promote personal and academic success. Many clubs, activities,
and organizations are available to provide students opportunities to develop leadership skills, make friends, and nurture their
talents and interests.
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
The Keystone School
KEYSTONESCHOOLONLINE.COM
Founded in 1974, Keystone has a continuing mission to provide high-quality, one-to-one educational experiences in a safe,
technology-enabled learning environment to empower students to achieve their academic and personal goals. Keystone
offers accredited online middle and high school programs with a level of flexibility that traditional brick-and-mortar schools
generally do not provide. At Keystone, students can enroll full-time or take individual courses to supplement their current
education.
Keystone also offers numerous credit recovery courses that help students who have fallen behind and need to make up
credits to advance to the next grade or reach graduation. Enrollments for credit recovery courses are accepted any time of
the year.
K12 Private School Profiles (2014–2015)
GWUOHS (6–12)
K12 Int’l Academy (K–12)
Keystone (6–12)
Credits Required to
Graduate
24
24
21
Accreditation
Middle States Commission
on Secondary Schools
AdvancED
AdvancED and Middle
States Commission on
Secondary Schools
NCAA Approved
Yes
Yes
No
Total Enrolled FT
Students
146
1872
8224
Number of Graduates
33
203
632
College Acceptances to 1
or more Colleges
100%
99%
90%
Scholarships Awarded
$ 1.1M
$1.5M
$1.4M
GPA of Graduates
3.3 (non-weighted)
3.5 (weighted)
3.5 (non-weighted)
SAT Average - Total
1779
1661
1587
ACT Composite Average
27.1
23.1
21
% of Students Scoring
3 or above on AP tests
taken
75%
72%
73%
147
Profiles of Three Recent K12 Private School Graduates
Sarah Depew
The George Washington University Online High School
Sarah Depew is a 2015 graduate of The George
Washington University Online High School (GWUOHS).
In Sarah’s own words, “Enrolling at The George
Washington University Online High School changed my
life by permitting me to maintain my love of learning,
strengthen my web of cross-curricular connections,
hone my ability to see the big picture, and evolve my
self-motivation.” Admitted to Bryn Mawr College,
Smith College, Colorado College, Rhodes College,
Agnes Scott, and Hope College, Sarah received merit
awards amounting to a total of $415,000 based upon
her academic accomplishments, character, leadership,
and service.
GWUOHS gave Sarah and her fellow graduates the
opportunity to practice skills in global leadership,
interaction, and communication skills that will be
invaluable in college and in life. Sarah feels that
because of her three years of study at GWUOHS, she
was especially well prepared for college, more so than
her college peers, especially in study skills and time
management.
Sarah enrolled at Bryn Mawr as a Presidential Scholar.
She is pursuing a double major in chemistry and
mathematics and plans to complete a 4+1 engineering
program that will allow her to graduate in five years
with her undergraduate degree from Bryn Mawr and
her Master in Engineering degree from University of
Pennsylvania.
Eliot Paul
K12 International Academy
Eliot Paul, a 2015 graduate of K12 International
Academy, is currently a student athlete on the men’s
soccer team at Wheaton College in Illinois. After Eliot’s
family used the K12 curriculum for homeschooling
in grades K–8, Eliot enrolled in K12 International
Academy for grades 9–12. He was in the National
Honor Society for two years and recognized as an AP
Scholar with distinction. He has volunteered regularly
in his community and received numerous awards in
soccer. Eliot graduated with an unweighted GPA of
3.96 and was honored at graduation with the science
achievement award.
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
At Wheaton College, he is majoring in economics
and considering a math minor. Eliot credits his online
learning experience with preparing him for the demands
of athletics and academics in college. During his four
years at K12 International Academy, he gained valuable
experience with both a rigorous course load and highlevel sport requirements. The program gave him what
he needed—both the structure to keep him on track and
the flexibility to meet the expectations placed upon him
as a serious athlete.
Noalani Hendricks
The Keystone School
Noalani Hendricks graduated from The Keystone
School in 2014 and went on to attend her mother’s alma
mater, Cedar Crest College in Allentown, Pennsylvania,
where she is majoring in English and global studies and
minoring in history and Spanish. She is also president of
the Diversity Council Organization and a member of the
History Club, Amnesty International, Muslim Student
Association, and the Cultural Connections Club.
Noalani believes her Keystone education truly helped
prepare her for college. Keystone’s flexibility allowed
her to finish many of her courses early. Noalani feels as
though she has an edge over her current peers because
of her Keystone experience. She knows how to work
independently, but when she needs help, she is not
afraid to go to her professors with questions.
Upon graduation, Noalani wants to join the Peace Corps
and then attend graduate school to earn a degree in
international history. She hopes one day to work for the
United Nations or in government.
Meeting the Diverse Needs of High School Students:
Dual Credit and Credit Recovery Programs in K12 Schools
In K12 public school programs, when students enroll in high school, they arrive with highly diverse
instructional needs and goals, based on varying academic backgrounds and levels of preparation.
Some students seek opportunities to earn college credit before graduation from high school. Others
need efficient programs that give them an opportunity to earn credit for courses they have taken
before but failed. To meet these varied needs, many K12 high school programs offer dual credit
programs as well as an extensive array of credit recovery courses.
Early College Dual Credit Programs
Among K12 public school programs that include high school (grades 9–12), more than 95 percent offer programs that allow
students to earn college credit before graduation. These programs, collectively referred to as Early College, help meet the
needs of students seeking traditional four-year degrees as well as those seeking associate degrees or certification from
community college and technical education programs.
In the 2014–2015 school year, more than 1,000 students enrolled in 3,760 courses that qualified for college credit. These Early
College courses earned students more than 11,000 postsecondary credit hours, which amounted to an estimated aggregate
savings of more than $4,900,000 in college tuition costs.1
Early College programs are implemented within the framework of the legislation for the state in which the school is chartered.
States are becoming increasingly friendly to these types of programs, and are expanding access to these programs to include
more at-risk students, students at lower grade levels, and students who want to work directly to earn credentials such as
associate degrees.
Across all K12 public school programs, high schools enrolling the most students in Early College courses include Georgia Cyber
Academy, Ohio Virtual Academy, and Idaho Virtual Academy (IDVA). At IDVA, the number of students taking dual credit
courses adds up to more than a quarter of the school’s high school population. (See Table 1.)
TABLE 1: EARLY COLLEGE DUAL CREDIT ENROLLMENTS: THREE LEADING K12 HIGH SCHOOLS
School
Number of students
enrolled in dual credit
courses*
Percentage of total HS
population enrolled in dual
credit courses
Postsecondary institutions at which K12
students take dual credit courses**
Idaho Virtual Academy
247
27%
Boise State University, College of Southern
Idaho, College of Western Idaho, Idaho
State University, Northern Idaho College,
Northwest Nazarene University
Ohio Virtual Academy
221
6%
University of Toledo, Cuyahoga Community
College, Columbus State Community College,
Sinclair Community College
Georgia Cyber Academy
198
4%
University of Georgia, Gwinnett Technical
College, Georgia State
*Fall semester of 2016
**A representative sampling, not a complete listing
1
Cost savings are the result of the difference between the average credit cost for the student if he was paying the full, average postsecondary tuition in the U. S. and the amount the
student actually paid for the credit. The difference is paid by one or more of the following: the state in which the student resides, the postsecondary institution, and/or the school.
149
CREDIT RECOVERY PROGRAMS:
FOCUS ON HOOSIER ACADEMIES
Credit recovery courses are for students who have
previously taken a course but did not pass it, and thus
did not earn academic credit toward graduation. Because
students taking these courses are revisiting subject
matter, students can quickly review what they already
understand and have retained while devoting more time
to topics not yet mastered. With focused effort, many
students can proceed relatively quickly to earn credit by
demonstrating mastery of the content.
Many K12 public school programs are working hard
to serve a growing body of high school students who
need credit recovery courses to put them back on track
for graduation. As a case in point, consider Hoosier
Academies Indianapolis and Hoosier Academies Virtual
School, two affiliated K12 school programs in Indiana
collectively referred to as Hoosier Academies.
(For information on these schools, see Table 2.)
The number of credit deficient students turning to
TABLE 2: INFORMATION ON HOOSIER ACADEMIES
(AS OF 2014–2015 SCHOOL YEAR)
Hoosier
Academies
Indianapolis
Hoosier
Academies
Virtual School
2008
--
Blended*
100% Virtual
Enrollment
255
3,690
Percentage Eligible for
Free or Reduced-Price
Lunch
28%
50%
Percentage with IEPs**
18%
14%
Year Founded
Instructional Model
*At least 51% of instruction in brick-and-mortar setting
**IEP = Individualized Education Program
Hoosier Academies has grown steadily in recent years.
The most recent available figures (from the 2015–2016
school year) show a significant percentage of high school
students who, upon enrollment, are deficient in three or
more credits:
• 9th:
75%1
• 10th: 73%
• 11th:
68%
• 12th: 55%
1
Credit-deficient students in grade 9 enter with no transfer grades or first semester credits earned.
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
At the time of the collection of the above data, 70 percent
of Hoosier Academies Virtual School students in grades
9–12 were credit deficient. Of those students, 81 percent
were six or more credits deficient. Of the overall
population of credit-deficient high school students,
49 percent were new to Hoosier Academies Virtual
School in the fall of 2015.
According to head of school Byron Ernest, “In many cases,
families select Hoosier Academies as a short-term solution
for students with health issues, bullying, differentiated
learning needs, academic deficiencies, credit deficiencies,
or other special circumstances. Our targeted credit
recovery program enables us to provide a path for
students to get caught up quickly on credit requirements.”
In the 2014–2015 school year, out of a population of
1,628 high school students at Hoosier Academies,
236 students (approximately 14.5 percent of the overall
high school student population) earned 474 credits
through credit recovery courses. (See Table 3.)
TABLE 3: HOOSIER ACADEMIES CREDIT RECOVERY:
DISTRIBUTION OF CREDITS EARNED IN 2014–2015
SCHOOL YEAR
Number of Credits
Recovered*
Number of Students
1
129
2
72
3
35
4
7
5
4
6 or more
6
* At Hoosier, a single recovered credit is achieved by earning a passing grade for
the course.
“After seeing success during the 2013–2014 school year,”
says Hoosier’s Byron Ernest, “we decided it was in our
school’s best interest to dramatically expand the program
and course offerings for the 2014–2015 school year.”
Hoosier’s efforts are representative of the hard work
going on in many K12 schools to help struggling students
make progress and get back on track for graduation.
Effective Teaching in the K12 Online Learning Environment:
Developing a Research-Based Rubric and Implementing an
Instructional Coaching Program
At K12 Inc., we know that teachers have a powerful influence on student learning and engagement.
As our instructional model has matured, the roles and responsibilities of teachers have expanded.
As part of multiple efforts focused on ensuring and improving teacher effectiveness, K12 partnered
with the National Institute for Excellence in Teaching (NIET) to develop a researched-based rubric
that can serve as the basis for evaluation, coaching, and teacher development in virtual learning
environments. Building on this solid foundation of research, K12 has implemented a teacher
effectiveness initiative that features, as a central component, a non-evaluative Instructional
Coaching program piloted at 18 K12 partner schools in the 2014–2015 school year.
The following pages present a detailed overview of K12’s collaborative efforts with NIET, followed by a report on the
Instructional Coaching pilot program and its preliminary results.
Collaborating to Develop a Research-Based Evaluation Rubric
In many ways, the growth of virtual academies has
outpaced traditional teacher education programs. Not
only do teachers in virtual academies, and to some extent
in blended brick-and-mortar schools, have to navigate
digital tools and help their students do the same, but they
also need to be able to build and sustain long-distance
relationships while encouraging their students to do the
hard work of learning. Most teachers begin their work
in virtual academies without having previously taught
in an online environment. This challenge shapes the
experiences of teachers in the schools we serve, and
makes it even more important that we clearly define
and articulate criteria that specifically apply to effective
teaching in a virtual learning environment. To this end, K12
Inc. partnered with the National Institute for Excellence in
Teaching (NIET) to develop a researched-based teacher
evaluation rubric that can also be used in coaching and
teacher development.
WHY DID K12 PARTNER WITH NIET?
Because of K12’s commitment to increasing teacher
effectiveness in the virtual learning environment, we
chose to partner with NIET, renowned for its work
in building evaluation rubrics and comprehensive
evaluation systems.
Founded in 1999, NIET is credited with developing TAP™:
The System for Teacher and Student Advancement. TAP
has become one of the nation’s largest multi-year, multistate systems focused on advancing performance-based
evaluation. NIET reports that TAP initiatives affect more
than 200,000 educators and 2.5 million students.
HOW WAS THE RUBRIC DEVELOPED?
Most K12 public school programs use state-mandated
teacher evaluation rubrics designed for brick-and-mortar
classrooms. Early on, both K12 Inc. and NIET recognized
the need to develop an evaluation rubric applicable to
the virtual learning environment, whether in a purely
online or blended model.
To get a clear understanding of the practices specific
to the virtual learning environment, NIET researchers
observed many K12 teachers at work. The researchers
also held focus groups with teachers and followed up
with discussions with school administrators.
In the early phases of the research, NIET representatives
visited K12 teachers in Arizona and Tennessee to observe
them at work in their “classroom environment”—a term
that takes on a new meaning for the online teacher
who has no brick-and-mortar classroom and works
with students at a distance rather than face to face.
The researchers observed how teachers set up their
workspace, how they organized their school day, how they
planned online lessons, and how they used technology,
including a range of online tools for communication and
tracking of student performance data.
A second phase of research involved observations and
interviews with a group of teachers selected to ensure
representation from across many different K12 public
school programs, which vary in enrollment, grades
served, student demographics, and instructional models.
151
In February 2014, teachers from 20 K12 public school
programs traveled to the offices of Texas Virtual
Academy for two days of meetings. The researchers
observed the teachers interacting with students during
online instructional sessions, followed by focus groups
with lively discussion of best practices and behaviors for
online teachers.
The researchers paid special attention to teacher
practices and behavior during synchronous sessions,
in which teachers and students use an online platform
to meet virtually in whole-class or group sessions.
In a synchronous session, a teacher might work with
students on, for example, strategies for solving word
problems in mathematics. K12’s online platform
offers tools that allow the teacher to divide students
into groups. Teachers and students can write in an
online whiteboard, and the teacher can deploy a quick
online survey to elicit student responses. Speaking
into microphones, teachers and students can hold
conversations, while messaging tools allow for
individualized written communications. Clearly, the
adept and fluent use of these online tools would need
to be seriously considered in developing a rubric for
teacher effectiveness in the virtual classroom.
From the many observations, interviews, and focus
group discussions, NIET worked with K12 to develop a
draft rubric that was then field-tested and revised.
WHAT’S IN THE K12 RUBRIC?
The K12 Rubric is organized into four domains:
1. Professionalism: Reflecting on Teaching
2. Synchronous Instruction
3. Planning
4. Environment
The K12 Rubric provides specific indicators of effective
performance in each domain. For each indicator, a
teacher may earn a score from 1 (Significantly Below
Expectations) to 5 (Significantly Above Expectations).
Some of the indicators apply to effective teaching
practices in general, whether online or in a brick-andmortar classroom, for example, “Teacher Content
Knowledge” and “Instructional Plans.” Other indicators
focus on practices and behaviors specific to online
teaching, for example, “Asynchronous Environment OLS
[Online School] Alerts.” (See Figure 1.)
The K12 Rubric is presented in the K12 Rubric Instructional
Handbook, which provides detailed explanations and
examples for each of the indicators. The handbook
serves as a guide for both teachers and leadership team
members in implementing the K12 teaching standards.
The handbook gives teachers many descriptive scenarios
of best practices in action. For administrators, school
leaders, and instructional coaches, the handbook
provides question prompts that can guide dialogue
during post-observation feedback conversations.
FIGURE 1: A SAMPLE FROM THE K12 RUBRIC
K12 Asynchronous Environment — OLS Alerts
Significantly Below
Expectations
– Teacher rarely manages
OLS alerts by pulling from
the student management
tracker and demonstrating
analysis of the information.
Performance
definitions are
provided at levels 5,
3, and 1. Raters can
score performance at
levels 2 or 4 based on
their judgment.
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
At Expectations
– Teacher sometimes manages
OLS alerts by pulling from the
student management tracker
and demonstrating analysis
of the information.
– Teacher rarely uses alerts
to inform student support
actions, contact students
and coaches, and inform
team members.
– Teacher sometimes uses
alerts to inform student
support actions, contact
students and coaches, and
inform team members.
– Teacher rarely provides
adequate notes in Total View
of each point of contact
– Teacher sometimes provides
adequate notes in Total View
of each point of contact
related to the OLS alerts.
related to the OLS alerts.
Significantly Above
Expectations
– Teacher consistently
manages OLS alerts by
pulling information from the
student management tracker
and demonstrating analysis
of the information.
– Teacher consistently uses
alerts to inform student
support actions, contact
students and coaches, and
inform team members.
– Teacher consistently provides
adequate notes in Total View
of each point of contact
related to OLS alerts.
Instructional Coaching to Improve Teacher Effectiveness
In working with NIET to develop a teacher evaluation rubric and handbook, our goal was to ground
K12 teacher effectiveness initiatives in a strong foundation based on research and experience.
The research has resulted not only in a comprehensive guide for evaluation but also a broad-based
support system for teachers.
In 2015–2016, 18 schools, spanning all four regions of K12’s public school programs (Northern, Southern, Central, and
Western), implemented a pilot program for non-evaluative Instructional Coaching. Each of the 18 pilot schools has one or
more Instructional Coaches to provide observation and feedback to help teachers, both new and returning, become more
effective. The pilot program provided support and coaching to help more than a thousand teachers improve their craft and
deepen their expertise in online instruction.
PROGRAM DESIGN
Instructional Coaches were selected from the 2014–2015
teacher population across all K12 public school programs.
Coaches were selected based on empirical evidence of
successful teaching in a virtual learning environment,
including measures of student mastery levels and
academic growth, or evidence of successful mentoring
of other teachers within the virtual school environment.
The teachers represented a mix of strengths in English
Language Arts and Mathematics.
Instructional Coaches are not evaluators but instead
work to provide monitoring and feedback on specific
behaviors associated with student learning and growth.
The coaching cycle ensures that each teacher receives
feedback every two weeks and has an opportunity to
reflect on the feedback experience every four weeks.
In the first quarter, 44 Instructional Coaches observed
1,299 teachers across K–8 and high school, and conducted
3,980 conferences in which teachers were provided
systematic feedback and guidance. The observations and
conferences are supportive and non-evaluative.
All Instructional Coaches participate in training as
part of an ongoing quality control process to ensure
comparability of the rubric score information and
improve the validity of each teacher indicator. The
team will also continue to collect examples of specific
behaviors associated with each rubric score in order to
help teachers better understand how they can modify
their practice to become more effective.
PRELIMINARY RESULTS
K12 researchers are gathering data on whether the
Instructional Coaching program affects student
academic growth. Preliminary information indicates
a positive relationship between teacher rubric scores
and student academic achievement. Further research
is ongoing to test the hypothesis that more effective
teachers (as identified by higher rubric scores) produce
better academic outcomes among their students.
Based on these promising preliminary results, K12 is
planning to expand the Instructional Coaching program
in the 2016–2017 school year to serve approximately half
of K12 public school programs across all regions.
To provide Instructional Coaches with a shared
vocabulary and frame of reference for what constitutes
effective teaching, and to ensure the consistent and
systematic capture of behaviors indicative of teacher
effectiveness, K12 leadership staff drew from the
Instructional Rubric developed with NIET. Of the 29
indicators in the K12 Instructional Rubric, 11 were
identified as most directly descriptive of teacher
behaviors in the instructional process in the virtual
learning environment. Of these 11, two indicators
(Engaging Students, and Standards and Objectives) were
identified as critically important to merit observation in
each observational session. The other nine indicators are
observed in rotating order throughout the school year.
153
Understanding Student Progress toward Graduation
in K12 Public School Programs
In the past decade, prompted by regulations growing out of No Child Left Behind, both states
and schools have been reporting data on graduation rate. For such data to be meaningful, some
consensus on the definition of “graduation rate” was needed because, as noted by the National
Center on Secondary Education and Transition (NCSET), “Multiple methods and definitions can
result in what appears to be conflicting information.”1
The following discussion summarizes recent regulatory considerations regarding graduation rate and proposes the need
to see the bigger picture, that is, to understand an abstract statistic in the context of student progress toward graduation.
Many students who enroll in online high schools, including K12 public school programs, are struggling to make up credits
or meet other significant challenges to on-time graduation, including the difficulties of mobility (moving from one school to
another). When one examines how students who start out behind make progress toward graduation, then the data show that
K12 public school programs can effectively get and keep high school students on track to graduation when the school has
sufficient time to meet the students’ needs.
The Recent Regulatory Background
In 2005, the National Governors Association (NGA) convened the Task Force on State High School Graduation Data. The task
force discussed the need for comparable high school graduation data and recommended measuring the four-year graduation
cohort rate, that is, the percentage of students who graduate from high school within four years of their entry into ninth
grade.2 A compact endorsed by the 50 state governors embraced the concept of the four-year graduation cohort rate. In
2008, the United States Department of Education incorporated the four-year graduation cohort rate into regulations as part
of the accountability provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act. The USDOE issued the first four-year graduation cohort rate
report in October 2012.
While the four-year graduation cohort rate became integrated into school accountability systems across the states, it is
important to note that early discussions of the NGA task force included a commitment to consider the “treatment of students
whose graduation is delayed due to issues beyond a state’s or school’s control.” The task force also stressed the need for
improvement targets for high schools that serve many struggling students. Specifically, the task force chairs said, “In short,
the use of a high school graduation rate in any accountability framework must serve as an incentive to promote state and
local innovation to better engage and educate every student. . . .”3
While the NGA task force emphasized student improvement and engagement, federal regulations focused more on reporting
“a graduation rate that provides . . . better information on school’s progress while allowing for meaningful comparisons of
graduation rates across states and school districts.”4 These regulations focused entirely on school performance, not individual
student progress toward graduation. States were required to incorporate the four-year graduation cohort rate into school
accountability frameworks. To meet the expectations in the regulations, students have to graduate within four years from the
time they enter ninth grade. During those four years, students might transfer from school to school but from the regulatory
perspective, the school enrolling the student in the fourth year is responsible for graduating the student.
Lehr, C. A., Johnson, D. R., Bremer, C. D., Cosio, A., & Thompson, M. (2004). Essential tools: Increasing rates of school completion: Moving from policy and research to practice. Minneapolis,
MN: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration, National Center on Secondary Education and Transition. Retrieved from http://www.ncset.org/publications/
essentialtools/dropout/part1.2.asp
2
National Governors Association (2005). Graduation Counts: A Compact on State High School Graduation Data. Retrieved from http://www.nga.org/cms/home/nga-center-for-bestpractices/center-publications/page-edu-publications/col2-content/main-content-list/graduation-counts-a-compact-on-s.html
3
National Governors Association (2008). No Child Left Behind/Graduation Rate: Letter (June 11, 2008) from Govs. Carcieri and Henry to U.S. Dept. of Education. Retrieved from http://
www.nga.org/cms/home/federal-relations/nga-letters/archived-letters--2008/col2-content/main-content-list/title_june-11-2008-l.html
4
U.S. Dept. of Education (2012). States Report New High School Graduation Rates Using More Accurate, Common Measure. USDOE Press Release (November 26, 2012). Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/states-report-new-high-school-graduation-rates-using-more-accurate-common-measur
1
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
A Closer Look at One K12 School Program
The federal regulations assume that students generally remain enrolled in the same school for four years. Given such stability
of continuous enrollment in one school, it might seems reasonable to hold a school accountable if a student does not graduate
in four years. But this assumption neglects the effects of student mobility, of moving between schools. Many students who
change high schools are often economically disadvantaged, under-credited, over-aged, and academically at risk. A recent
Evergreen Education Group report looked at enrollment data for 24 full-time online schools. In these schools, the report
found that on average 35 percent of students who entered the schools in grades 10, 11, and 12 were not on track for graduation
based on the four-year cohort rate.5
The trends referenced in the Evergreen Education Group are evident in the experience of Insight School of Oregon-Charter
Option (Insight Oregon), a K12 public school program. The school was established in part to serve struggling students. Of
students who should have graduated in spring 2014, only approximately 30 percent of newly-enrolled juniors and seniors
entered the school on track for on-time graduation.
At Insight Oregon, of students who first enrolled in the fall 2014 semester as seniors, as many as 32 percent were six or
more credits behind their cohort group. Later in the school year, the likelihood of a newly enrolled twelfth-grader getting on
track for graduation shrinks. Of seniors newly enrolled in the spring semester, 62 percent were 3 or more credits behind the
expected number of credits earned by the four-year cohort group. It is highly unlikely that students who enter as seniors and
already behind in credits will graduate “on time.” The trend is only slightly better for juniors, indicating that students who are
significantly behind in 11th grade are already off-track for graduation with the four-year cohort group. (See Table 1.)
TABLE 1: INSIGHT OREGON SPRING 2014 FOUR-YEAR GRADUATION COHORT: STUDENTS NEWLY ENROLLED AS SENIORS OR JUNIORS
Students (upon enrollment)
on track for on-time graduation
Students (upon enrollment)
6 or more credits behind
Seniors newly enrolled in spring
23%
54%
Seniors newly enrolled in fall
32%
32%
Juniors newly enrolled in spring
30%
24%
Juniors newly enrolled in fall
41%
20%
The data from Insight Oregon are consistent with what we find in a cross-section of K12 public school programs. Across ten
of these schools, of 1,800 students newly enrolled in high school for the 2014–2015 school year, 48 percent enrolled offtrack for graduation.
For example, at Arizona Virtual Academy (AZVA), a large K12 public school program enrolling approximately 2,000 students,
nearly 40 percent of students who enroll as seniors are more than one year behind compared to less than 10 percent of
seniors who have attended the school for three or more years. At AZVA, data from the 2013 graduation cohort show that
students who have been enrolled three or more years are on track for graduation at a rate more than two-and-a-half-times
that of students who initially enroll as seniors. (See Figure 1 below.)
5
Watson, John, & Pape, L. (2015). School Accountability in the Digital Age (Feb. 2015 Policy Brief). Evergreen Education Group. Retrieved from http://www.kpk12.com/wp-content/
uploads/KP-AccountabilityInTheDigitalAge.pdf
155
Percentage of Students On Track for Graduation
FIGURE 1: AZVA STUDENTS ON TRACK FOR GRADUATION BY YEARS OF ENROLLMENT
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
All
New as seniors
2–3 years enrolled
3 or more years enrolled
Grade Level
On track
> 1 year behind
Enrolling credit-deficient students negatively impacts many virtual academies’ ratings on state accountability frameworks.
This impact is more pronounced in states in which graduation rate counts for 50 percent or more of a school’s overall
rating such as Idaho, Illinois, and Wisconsin. In many cases, full-time virtual schools have received lower ratings on state
accountability frameworks exclusively because of the negative impact of the high weighting placed on graduation rate.
(See Table 2.6)
TABLE 2: K12 PUBLIC SCHOOL PROGRAMS EARNING LOWER RATINGS DUE TO GRADUATION RATE
6
Colorado Preparatory Academy
“performance” instead of “improvement”
Idaho Virtual Academy
4 stars instead of 3 stars
Insight School of Colorado
“improvement” instead of “priority improvement”
Louisiana Virtual Academy
C instead of D
Nevada Virtual Academy
3 stars instead of 2 stars
Texas Virtual Academy
“met standard” instead of “did not meet standard”
Wisconsin Virtual Academy
“exceeds expectations” instead of “meets expectations”
Because many states suspended accountability ratings for 2014–2015, all ratings are from the 2013–2014 school year, except LAVCA, which is from 2014–2015.
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
Mobility and Accountability
Just as credit status is one significant factor that impacts graduation rates in virtual schools, so is
student mobility. The Evergreen Education Group report cites well-known research regarding the
impacts of mobility: “Students who change schools often face challenges due to differences in what
is taught and how it is taught. Students may arrive without records or with incomplete records,
making it difficult for teachers to make placement decisions and identify special education needs.”7
Similarly, a meta-analysis found that “mobility was consistently associated with lower achievement
and higher rates of high school dropout. Findings were larger, more consistent, and of greater
practical significance for school dropout than for achievement.”8
The Evergreen Education Group report (see footnote 5 on page 155) notes that the United States Government Accountability
Office characterizes high mobility schools as those in which more than 10 percent of the student population leaves before the
end of the school year. Many online schools have mobility rates three times this threshold. According to a study completed by
the Colorado Department of Education, online schools in that state had a mobility rate twice as high as the statewide average.9
Of the more than 180,000 online students included in the Evergreen Education Group report’s analysis, 52 percent enrolled
after the start of the 2013–2014 school year. Thirty-three percent enrolled four weeks or more after the start of the school year.
These national findings are supported by data from Arizona Virtual Academy. At AZVA, in the 2013–2014 school year,
• 78% of high school students were enrolled for two years or less.
• More than half of those students (58%) were enrolled for one year or less.
• Of the students who were enrolled for one year or less, 75% were enrolled for six months or less.
• 79% who were enrolled for one year or less also withdrew during the same academic year.
Even after these students leave AZVA or some other virtual school, they may still negatively impact the school’s graduation
rate. If it happens that the virtual school cannot provide documentation that the student enrolled in another public school, the
student remains on the online school’s four-year cohort roster. Most state tracking systems do not provide real-time information
regarding student enrollment. In only a few states, such as Texas, is a school counselor or registrar able to verify that a student
has enrolled in another school by looking up the student’s ID number within a state system. Not only must the state’s system
have the capacity to track this information, schools must be required to submit information to the state throughout the year
to capture data on mobile students. If schools are not required to routinely upload student-level information to a state data
management system, there is no way to easily determine where students are enrolled or what credits have been awarded. If a
state has no system that accurately and promptly tracks student enrollment, school registrars must become amateur detectives
and work to accumulate evidence regarding a student’s whereabouts.
High numbers of credit-deficient students and high mobility rates adversely impact the four-year graduation cohort rate for
online schools. As the previously cited research demonstrates, these factors disproportionately impact online schools when
compared with the mobility rates of even highly mobile traditional schools.
United States Government Accountability Office. (2010). Many Challenges Arise in Educating Students Who Change Schools Frequently. GAO-11-40. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/
assets/320/312480.pdf
Reynolds, Arthur J., Chen, C., and Herbers, J. (2009). School Mobility and Educational Success: A Research Synthesis and Evidence on Prevention. University of Minnesota. Retrieved from
http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/Children/ChildMobility/Reynolds%20Chen%20and%20Herbers.pdf
9
Heiney, A., Lefly, D., and Anderson, A. (2012). Characteristics of Colorado’s Online Students. Colorado Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.cde.state.co.us/sites/
default/files/documents/onlinelearning/download/ol_research_final.pdf
7
8
157
K12 public school programs are implementing processes to collect credit information upon enrollment and track students
after withdrawing, as permitted by state systems and consistent with state regulations. The company has also undertaken
a public policy effort to work with state regulators and legislators to change regulations and laws to more closely measure
individual student progress toward graduation for each of the high school years, not just at the end of the fourth year. This
approach is consistent with the original intent of the National Governors Association’s compact, which focused not only on
measuring graduation rate but also on developing improvement targets based on individual student progress.
The December 2015 passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act provides promise. Specifically, S. 1177-37 provides states
some flexibility in school accountability frameworks to factor out students who did not attend at least one-half of a school
year and instead assign this student’s status to the school in which the student was enrolled for the greatest proportion of
high school days.
Student Progress toward Graduation in K12 Public School Programs
In spite of regulations that fail to account for student mobility, as well as state student tracking
systems that have not kept up with regulatory expectations, K12 public school programs are making
enormous strides in improving progress toward graduation.
High school students in K12 public school programs can earn their diplomas if the school has sufficient time with the
student or the student is enrolled in the same school for all four years, as presumed in the assumptions underlying federal
regulations about four-year graduation cohort rates. Among K12 public school programs, for students who enrolled in ninth
grade and remained enrolled until twelfth grade, the following virtual academies have four-year cohort graduation rates of
at least 90 percent:
• Idaho Virtual Academy (IDVA): 90%
• Nevada Virtual Academy (NVVA): 100%
• Ohio Virtual Academy (OHVA): 92%
• Oklahoma Virtual Charter Academy (OVCA): 91%
• Texas Virtual Academy (TXVA): 96%
• Utah Virtual Academy (UTVA): 96%
• Wisconsin Virtual Academy (WIVA): 96%
Some schools, such as Nevada Virtual Academy (NVVA), demonstrate as much as a 70 percent improvement in the four-year
cohort graduation rate. NVVA credits its improvement to carefully tracking students who withdraw and actively engaging
students upon enrollment. Regarding the new students, NVVA has developed ways to customize a student’s path toward
graduation with course selection, blended options, counseling, and support services.
K12 public school programs are implementing innovative initiatives focused on increasing student engagement, which will
result in improved student progress toward graduation. As described by the NGA task force more than a decade ago, the
inclusion of high school graduation rate in any accountability framework must serve as an incentive to promote state and local
innovation to better engage and educate every student.
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
Appendices
159
Appendix 1:
FRL and Special Education Eligibility by School Compared to State
The table below compares the percentage of students in K12 public school programs to the percentage among the total
school population in each school’s state with regard to eligibility for free and reduced-price lunch (FRL) and eligibility for
special education services.
• With regard to eligibility for free and reduced-price lunch, 51 K12 public school programs served a higher percentage of
students than the state.
• With regard to students eligible for special education services, 20 K12 public school programs served a higher percentage
of students than the state.
IN THE FOLLOWING TABLE:
• State percentages are based on 2013–2014 school year, the most recent data available from the National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES) at this time of this analysis.
• Cells highlighted light blue in the table indicate a higher percentage of K12 students qualifying for FRL or special education
services compared to the state.
• Special education eligibility percentages are reported only for schools in which K12 is responsible for special education
services.
• For California, Florida, and Virginia, the special education percentages are aggregate figures encompassing the specified
individual K12 public school programs in each state.
K12 PUBLIC SCHOOL PROGRAM COMPARED TO STATE: PERCENTAGE ELIGIBLE FOR FREE AND REDUCED-PRICE LUNCH
(FRL) AND SPECIAL EDUCATION
FRL
Special Education
K12
State
K12
State
Alaska Virtual Academy
44%
43%
12%
14%
Arizona Virtual Academy
60%
52%*
13%
12%
Arkansas Virtual Academy
65%
61%
15%
13%
California Virtual Academy at Fresno
61%
58%
California Virtual Academy at Jamestown
65%
58%
California Virtual Academy at Kings
53%
58%
California Virtual Academy at Los Angeles
54%
58%
California Virtual Academy at Maricopa
61%
58%
California Virtual Academy at Maricopa High School
55%
58%
11%**
11%
California Virtual Academy at San Diego
51%
58%
California Virtual Academy at San Joaquin
51%
58%
California Virtual Academy at San Mateo
42%
58%
California Virtual Academy at Sonoma
52%
58%
California Virtual Academy at Sutter
55%
58%
Chicago Virtual Charter School
76%
54%
--
--
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
FRL
Special Education
K12
State
K12
State
Colorado Preparatory Academy
57%
42%
10%
10%
Community Academy Public Charter School Online
69%
76%
17%
15%
Cyber Academy of South Carolina
65%
57%
16%
13%
Florida Virtual Academy at Broward
63%
58%
Florida Virtual Academy at Clay
75%
58%
Florida Virtual Academy at Duval
66%
58%
Florida Virtual Academy at Hillsborough
63%
58%
Florida Virtual Academy at Osceola
72%
58%
9%**
13%
Florida Virtual Academy at Palm Beach
65%
58%
Florida Virtual Academy at Pasco
71%
58%
Florida Virtual Academy at Pinellas
66%
58%
Georgia Cyber Academy
65%
62%
13%
11%
Hill House Passport Academy Charter School
61%
43%
21%
17%
Hoosier Academies Indianapolis
27%
49%
18%
16%
Hoosier Academies Virtual School
50%
49%
15%
16%
Idaho College and Career Readiness Academy
59%
47%
9%
9%
Idaho Virtual Academy
58%
47%
9%
9%
Insight Academy of Arizona
65%
52%*
16%
12%
Insight School of California-Los Angeles
66%
58%
14%
11%
Insight School of California-San Diego
56%
58%
17%
11%
Insight School of Colorado
48%
42%
--
--
Insight School of Kansas
55%
50%
--
--
Insight School of Michigan
62%
48%
20%
13%
Insight School of Minnesota
54%
38%
26%
15%
Insight School of Ohio
62%
44%
20%
15%
Insight School of Oklahoma
68%
61%
13%
15%
Insight School of Oregon-Charter Option
52%
51%
--
--
Insight School of Oregon-Alternative Option
68%
51%
--
--
Insight School of Washington
58%
46%
12%
12%
Iowa Virtual Academy
60%
41%
6%
13%
K12 source: Academic Performance Database: FRL as of 04/2015, K12 Special Education source: Internal Student Database: as of 12/2014 (except Newark Preparatory Academy, Hoosier
Academies Virtual School, Hoosier Academies Indianapolis, and Hill House Passport Academy Charter School as of 02/2016). San Francisco Flex Academy not reported because data not
available at the time of this report. Illinois school and state FRL data pulled from 2015 state report card: https://www.illinoisreportcard.com/Default.aspx, Silicon Valley Flex Academy: Silicon
Valley Student Information System. The percentage of students overall and by school determined to qualify for free or reduced-price lunch within K12-managed public schools reflects analysis by
K12’s Academic Policy Team of information provided to K12 by families during the enrollment process, and as augmented by data submitted to individual schools. During the enrollment process,
K12 requests that each family complete a family income form (FIF) in order to provide information corresponding to the eligibility standards prescribed by the National School Lunch Program
(NSLP)—including information related to income amount, frequency of income, and number of people in the family’s household. To the extent a family volunteers the requested information,
K12 stores that data in its database, a secure information repository used to manage student enrollment and monitor student performance. Separately, the respective public schools may give
enrolled families the option each fall of submitting the same information called for by the FIF, which the schools in turn provide to the districts and states in which they are located, in accordance
with state-specific requirements. Schools may update family information in the database as they receive such additional data following enrollment. K12 understands that this data serves as the
basis for the statistics reported by the NSLP and NCES.
K12 calculates its own FRL eligibility statistics utilizing the same methodology that NCES uses on a national scale, as follows. First, once per year, usually in the first two weeks of May, K12 retrieves
two reports generated from its internal database: one containing the income, frequency of income, number of household members, and related data available for all families, and another report
identifying all enrolled students at the time of the report generation. K12 then compares the full universe of family income and household member information in its database against the list of
enrolled students in order to generate a data set limited to enrolled students.
Second, K12 consults the corresponding year’s NSLP table from the Food and Nutrition Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which sets forth standards dictating FRL eligibility. See
http://www.fns.usda.gov/school-meals/income-eligibility-guidelines; see also Income Eligibility Guidelines (effective July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2015), available at http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/
default/files/2014-04788.pdf. With reference to the NSLP rubric, K12 determines the qualification levels of its enrolled families for FRL status.
Finally, K12 calculates the percentage of enrolled students at the public schools it serves who qualify as FRL eligible.
State Source for FRL and Special Education data (2013–2014): http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/elsi/
* Arizona FRL data (2014) from state website: https://azreportcards.com/
** For California, Florida, Virginia, and Washington, the special education percentages are aggregate figures encompassing the specified individual K12 public school programs in each state.
Agora Cyber Charter School and Maurice J. Moyer Academic Institute were not included because management contracts concluded on June 30, 2015, and the schools did not provide K12 with
student-level data from the 2014–2015 school year.
161
FRL
Special Education
K12
State
K12
State
iQ Academy California at Los Angeles
55%
58%
9%
11%
iQ Academy Minnesota
50%
38%
--
--
iQ Washington
69%
46%
--
--
Kansas Virtual Academy
70%
50%
--
--
Louisiana Virtual Charter Academy
Massachusetts Virtual Academy
at Greenfield Commonwealth Virtual School
Michigan Great Lakes Virtual Academy
66%
66%
16%
11%
56%
38%
--
--
63%
48%
12%
13%
Michigan Virtual Charter Academy
67%
48%
16%
13%
Minnesota Virtual Academy
49%
38%
--
--
Nevada Virtual Academy
57%
53%
12%
12%
New Mexico Virtual Academy
50%
67%
--
--
Newark Preparatory Charter School
70%
38%
16%
15%
Ohio Virtual Academy
59%
44%
14%
15%
Oklahoma Virtual Charter Academy
61%
61%
14%
15%
Oregon Virtual Academy
62%
51%
13%
15%
San Francisco Flex Academy
20%
58%
--
--
Silicon Valley Flex Academy
10%
58%
16%
11%
South Carolina Virtual Charter School
64%
57%
--
--
Tennessee Virtual Academy
71%
58%
15%
13%
Texas Online Preparatory School
43%
60%
4%
9%
Texas Virtual Academy
56%
60%
--
--
Utah Virtual Academy
57%
37%
16%
12%
Virginia Virtual Academy-King and Queen
50%
40%
5%**
13%
Virginia Virtual Academy-Patrick
47%
40%
Washington Virtual Academy-Monroe
38%
46%
12%
11%
Washington Virtual Academy-Omak
48%
46%
12%
Wisconsin Virtual Academy
56%
42%
15%
14%
Wyoming Virtual Academy
47%
38%
11%
14%
Youth Connection Charter Virtual High School
98%
51%
--
--
K12 source: Academic Performance Database: FRL as of 04/2015, K12 Special Education source: Internal Student Database: as of 12/2014 (except Newark Preparatory Academy, Hoosier
Academies Virtual School, Hoosier Academies Indianapolis, and Hill House Passport Academy Charter School as of 02/2016). San Francisco Flex Academy not reported because data not
available at the time of this report. Illinois school and state FRL data pulled from 2015 state report card: https://www.illinoisreportcard.com/Default.aspx, Silicon Valley Flex Academy: Silicon
Valley Student Information System. The percentage of students overall and by school determined to qualify for free or reduced-price lunch within K12-managed public schools reflects analysis by
K12’s Academic Policy Team of information provided to K12 by families during the enrollment process, and as augmented by data submitted to individual schools. During the enrollment process,
K12 requests that each family complete a family income form (FIF) in order to provide information corresponding to the eligibility standards prescribed by the National School Lunch Program
(NSLP)—including information related to income amount, frequency of income, and number of people in the family’s household. To the extent a family volunteers the requested information,
K12 stores that data in its database, a secure information repository used to manage student enrollment and monitor student performance. Separately, the respective public schools may give
enrolled families the option each fall of submitting the same information called for by the FIF, which the schools in turn provide to the districts and states in which they are located, in accordance
with state-specific requirements. Schools may update family information in the database as they receive such additional data following enrollment. K12 understands that this data serves as the
basis for the statistics reported by the NSLP and NCES.
K12 calculates its own FRL eligibility statistics utilizing the same methodology that NCES uses on a national scale, as follows. First, once per year, usually in the first two weeks of May, K12 retrieves
two reports generated from its internal database: one containing the income, frequency of income, number of household members, and related data available for all families, and another report
identifying all enrolled students at the time of the report generation. K12 then compares the full universe of family income and household member information in its database against the list of
enrolled students in order to generate a data set limited to enrolled students.
Second, K12 consults the corresponding year’s NSLP table from the Food and Nutrition Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which sets forth standards dictating FRL eligibility. See
http://www.fns.usda.gov/school-meals/income-eligibility-guidelines; see also Income Eligibility Guidelines (effective July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2015), available at http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/
default/files/2014-04788.pdf. With reference to the NSLP rubric, K12 determines the qualification levels of its enrolled families for FRL status.
Finally, K12 calculates the percentage of enrolled students at the public schools it serves who qualify as FRL eligible.
State Source for FRL and Special Education data (2013–2014): http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/elsi/
* Arizona FRL data (2014) from state website: https://azreportcards.com/
** For California, Florida, Virginia, and Washington, the special education percentages are aggregate figures encompassing the specified individual K12 public school programs in each state.
Agora Cyber Charter School and Maurice J. Moyer Academic Institute were not included because management contracts concluded on June 30, 2015, and the schools did not provide K12 with
student-level data from the 2014–2015 school year.
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
Appendix 2:
State Assessment Programs: 2013–2014 and 2014–2015
The table below identifies state assessment programs by subject area and grade band (grades 3–8 and high school) for the
2013–2014 and 2014–2015 school years.
2013–2014
State
2013–2014 Grades
3–8 Reading, ELA,
& Mathematics
2013–2014 HS
Reading, ELA,
& Mathematics
2013–2014 Science
2013–2014 Social
Studies, History
2013–2014
Writing
Alaska
Standards Based
Assessment (SBA)
Standards Based
Assessment (SBA)
Science Standard
Based Assessment
(Science SBA)
--
--
Arizona
Arizona's Instrument
to Measure Standards
(AIMS)
Arizona's Instrument
to Measure Standards
(AIMS)
Arizona's Instrument
to Measure Standards
(AIMS)
--
--
Arkansas
Arkansas
Comprehensive
Testing, Assessment,
and Accountability
Program (ACTAAP)
Arkansas
Comprehensive
Testing, Assessment,
and Accountability
Program (ACTAAP)
EOCs
Arkansas
Comprehensive
Testing, Assessment,
and Accountability
Program (ACTAAP),
grades 5, 7, HS
--
--
California
Smarter Balanced
Consortium (SBAC)
field test
Smarter Balanced
Consortium (SBAC)
field test / California
High School Exit Exam
(CAHSEE)
California Standard
Tests (CST), grades
5, 8, 10
--
--
Colorado
Transitional Colorado
Assessment Program
(TCAP)
Colorado Measures
of Academic Success
(CMAS), grades 5,
8, 10
--
Transitional Colorado
Assessment Program
(TCAP), grades 3–10
Comprehensive
Assessment System
Results (DC CAS)
Transitional Colorado
Assessment Program
(TCAP)
ACT, grade 11
District
of Columbia
Comprehensive
Assessment System
Results (DC CAS)
Comprehensive
Assessment System
Results (DC CAS)
Comprehensive
Assessment System
Results (DC CAS),
grades 5, 8, 10
--
Florida
Florida
Comprehensive
Assessment Test
(FCAT)
Florida End-of-Course
(EOC) Exams
Florida
Comprehensive
Assessment Test
(FCAT), grades 5, 8,
Biology EOC
Florida End-of-Course
(EOC) Exams, Civics
and U.S. History
Florida
Comprehensive
Assessment Test
(FCAT)
Georgia
Criterion-Referenced
Competency Tests
(CRCT)
Criterion-Referenced
Competency Tests
(CRCT),
Criterion-Referenced
Competency Tests
(CRCT),
Georgia Writing
Assessments, grades
3, 5, 8
End of Course Tests
(ECOT), HS
End of Course Tests
(ECOT), HS
Georgia High School
Writing Test (GHSWT)
Idaho
Smarter Balanced
Consortium (SBAC)
field test
End of Course Tests
(EOCT)
Georgia High School
Graduation Test
(GHSGT)
Smarter Balanced
Consortium (SBAC)
field test, SAT, grade
11
Idaho Standard
Achievement Test
(ISAT), grades 5, 7, 10
--
--
163
State
2013–2014 Grades
3–8 Reading, ELA,
& Mathematics
2013–2014 HS
Reading, ELA,
& Mathematics
2013–2014 Science
2013–2014 Social
Studies, History
2013–2014
Writing
--
--
--
--
--
--
"Illinois Standards
Achievement Test
(ISAT), grades 4 and 7
Illinois
Illinois Standards
Achievement Test
(ISAT)
Prairie State
Achievement
Examination (PSAE),
grade 11
Indiana
Indiana Statewide
Testing for
Educational Progress
(ISTEP), IREAD, grade
3 Reading
ISTEP End of Course
Assessments (ECA)
Iowa
Iowa Assessment
Iowa Assessment,
grade 11
Iowa Assessment
Kansas
Kansas Assessment
Program (KAP)
Kansas Assessment
Program (KAP),
grade 11
Kansas Assessment
Program (KAP),
grades 4, 7, 11
Kansas Assessment
Program (KAP),
grades 6, 8, 9–12
--
Louisiana
Integrated Louisiana
Educational
Assessment Program
(iLEAP-Grades 3, 5,
6, 7)/LEAP (Grades 4
and 8)
End of Course
End of Course
End of Course
--
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Comprehensive
Assessment System
(MCAS)
Massachusetts
Comprehensive
Assessment System
(MCAS)
Massachusetts
Comprehensive
Assessment System
(MCAS)
Michigan
Michigan Educational
Assessment Program
Michigan Educational
Assessment Program,
grade 11
Minnesota
Minnesota
Comprehensive
Assessments (MCA)
Minnesota
Comprehensive
Assessments (MCA)
Nevada
New Jersey
Criterion-Referenced
Tests (CRT)
--
High School
Proficiency Exam
(HSPE)
High School
Proficiency
Assessment (HSPA)
Prairie State
Achievement
Examination (PSAE),
grade 11
--
--
--
Michigan Educational
Assessment Program,
grades 5, 8
Michigan Educational
Assessment Program,
grades 6, 9
Michigan Educational
Assessment Program,
grades 4, 7, 11
Minnesota
Comprehensive
Assessments (MCA),
grades 5, 8, HS
--
GRAD Writing
Assessment, grade 9
Science CriterionReferenced Tests
(CRT), grades 5, 8
High School
Proficiency Exam
(HSPE)
--
--
--
--
--
New Mexico
Standards-Based
Assessment
Standards-Based
Assessment
Standards-Based
Assessment
Standards-Based
Assessment
Ohio
Ohio Achievement
Assessment (OAA)
Ohio Achievement
Assessment (OAA),
grade 10
Ohio Achievement
Assessment (OAA),
grades 5, 8, 10
Ohio Achievement
Assessment (OAA),
grades 4, 6, 10
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
Standards-Based
Assessment
--
State
2013–2014 Grades
3–8 Reading, ELA,
& Mathematics
2013–2014 HS
Reading, ELA,
& Mathematics
Oklahoma Core
Curriculum Tests
(OCCT), grades 5, 8
End-of-Instruction
(EOI), HS
End-of-Instruction
(EOI), HS
End-of-Instruction
(EOI), HS
Oregon Assessment
of Knowledge and
Skills (OAKS)
Oregon Assessment
of Knowledge and
Skills (OAKS)
Oregon Assessment
of Knowledge and
Skills (OAKS)
Oregon Assessment
of Knowledge and
Skills (OAKS)
Palmetto Assessment
of State Standards
(PASS)
Palmetto Assessment
of State Standards
(PASS)
Palmetto Assessment
of State Standards
(PASS)
Palmetto Assessment
of State Standards
(PASS)
Keystone Exams
“Pennsylvania System
School Assessment
(PSSA), grades 4, 8
Keystone Exams (HS)
Keystone Exams (HS)
--
Tennessee
Comprehensive
Assessment Program
(TCAP) Writing
Assessment, grades
3–8
Oregon
Oregon Assessment
of Knowledge and
Skills (OAKS)
South Carolina
Palmetto Assessment
of State Standards
(PASS)
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania System
School Assessment
(PSSA)
Tennessee
Texas
State of Texas
Assessments of
Academic Readiness
(STAAR)
Utah
Student Assessment
of Growth and
Excellence (SAGE)
Virginia
Standards of Learning
(SOL)
Washington
Measurement of
Student Progress
(MSP)
Wisconsin
The Wisconsin
Knowledge and
Concepts Examination
(WKCE)
Wyoming
Proficiency
Assessments for
Wyoming Students
(PAWS)
2013–2014
Writing
Oklahoma Core
Curriculum Tests
(OCCT), grades 5, 8
End-of-Instruction
(EOI)
Tennessee
Comprehensive
Assessment Program
(TCAP)
2013–2014 Social
Studies, History
Oklahoma Core
Curriculum Tests
(OCCT), grades 5, 8
Oklahoma Core
Curriculum Tests
(OCCT)
Oklahoma
2013–2014 Science
Keystone Exams
(HS)”
--
Tennessee
Comprehensive
Assessment Program
(TCAP), grades 3–8
State of Texas
Assessments of
Academic Readiness
(STAAR), grade 8
State of Texas
Assessments of
Academic Readiness
(STAAR)
State of Texas
Assessments of
Academic Readiness
(STAAR), grades 5, 8, HS
Student Assessment
of Growth and
Excellence (SAGE)
--
ACT (11)
Student Assessment
of Growth and
Excellence (SAGE),
grades 4–11
Standards of Learning
(SOL)
Standards of Learning
(SOL), grades 5, 8, HS
Standards of Learning
(SOL), grade 4
Virginia Studies,
grade 7 Civics, grade 8
End-of-Course (EOC)
Measurement of
Student Progress
(MSP)
High School
Proficiency Exam
(HSPE), grade 10
The Wisconsin
Knowledge and
Concepts Examination
(WKCE)
ACT Explore, grade 9
ACT Plan, grade 10
ACT Plus Writing,
grade 11
Measurement of
Student Progress
(MSP)
The Wisconsin
Knowledge and
Concepts Examination
(WKCE)
State of Texas
Assessments of
Academic Readiness
(STAAR), grades 4, 7
--
Standards of Learning
(SOL), grades 5 and 8
End-of-Course (EOC)
--
--
The Wisconsin
Knowledge and
Concepts Examination
(WKCE)
--
Proficiency
Assessments for
Wyoming Students
(PAWS), grades 4, 8
ACT Explore, grade 9
--
ACT Plus Writing,
grade 11
ACT Plan, grade 10
ACT Plus Writing,
grade 11
165
2014–2015
2014–2015 Grades
3–8 Reading, ELA,
& Mathematics
2014–2015 HS
Reading, ELA,
& Mathematics
2014–2015 Science
2014–2015 Social
Studies, History
2014–2015
Writing
--
--
--
Arizona
Arizona’s
Measurement of
Educational Readiness
to Inform Teaching
(AzMERIT)
Arizona's Instrument
to Measure Standards
(AIMS) or Arizona’s
Measurement of
Educational Readiness
to Inform Teaching
(AzMERIT)
Arizona's Instrument
to Measure Standards
(AIMS) grades 4, 8, HS
--
Arkansas
Partnership for
Assessment of
Readiness for College
and Careers (PARCC)
Partnership for
Assessment of
Readiness for College
and Careers (PARCC)
Arkansas
Comprehensive
Testing, Assessment,
and Accountability
Program (ACTAAP),
grades 5, 7, HS
--
--
California
Smarter Balanced
Consortium (SBAC)
Smarter Balanced
Consortium (SBAC),
grade 11 CAHSEE (HS)
California Standard
Tests (CST) grades 5,
8, 10
--
--
Colorado
Colorado Measures
of Academic Success
(CMAS) - PARCC
Colorado Measures
of Academic Success
(CMAS) - PARCC,
grades 9–11
Colorado Measures
of Academic Success
(CMAS), grades 5, 8, 12
State
Alaska
Alaska Measures of
Progress (AMP)
Alaska Measures of
Progress (AMP), grade
10
ACT, grade 11
Colorado Measures
of Academic Success
(CMAS), grades 4, 7
AzMERIT (grades 3–8)
AIMS (HS)
--
ACT (HS), grade 11
District of
Columbia
Partnership for
Assessment of
Readiness for College
and Careers (PARCC)
Partnership for
Assessment of
Readiness for College
and Careers (PARCC)
Partnership for
Assessment of
Readiness for College
and Careers (PARCC)
Florida
Florida Standards
Assessments (FSA)
Florida Standards
Assessments (FSA)
Florida Comprehensive
Assessment Test
(FCAT), grades 5, 8
Next Generation
Sunset State
Standards (NGSSS)
End-of-Course, Civics
and U.S. History
Georgia Milestones
End-Of-Grade (EOG),
grades 3–8
Georgia Milestones
End-Of-Grade (EOG),
grades 3–8
Georgia Milestone
End-Of-Course (EOC),
Biology and Physical
Science
Georgia Milestones
End-Of-Course (EOC),
U.S. History and
Economics
--
Idaho Standards
Achievement Test
(ISAT), grades 5, 7, 10
--
--
Georgia
Georgia Milestones
End-Of-Grade (EOG)
Idaho
Smarter Balanced
Consortium (SBAC)
Idaho Standards
Achievement Test
(ISAT)
Georgia
Georgia Milestones
End-Of-Grade (EOG)
Illinois
Partnership for
Assessment of
Readiness for College
and Careers (PARCC)
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
Georgia Milestones
End-Of-Course (EOC)
Georgia High School
Graduation Test
(GHSGT)
Smarter Balanced
Consortium (SBAC)
Idaho Standards
Achievement Test
(ISAT)
--
--
Florida Standards
Assessments (FSA),
grades 4–10
SAT, grade 11
SAT, grade 11
Georgia Milestones
End-Of-Course (EOC)
Georgia High School
Graduation Test
(GHSGT)
Partnership for
Assessment of
Readiness for College
and Careers (PARCC)
ACT Plus Writing,
grade 11
Georgia Milestones
End-Of-Grade (EOG),
grades 3–8
Georgia Milestones
End-Of-Grade (EOG),
grades 3–8
Georgia Milestone
End-Of-Course (EOC),
Biology and Physical
Science
Georgia Milestones
End-Of-Course (EOC),
U.S. History and
Economics
Illinois Science
Assessment (ISA),
grades 5, 8, HS
--
Georgia High School
Writing Test (GHSWT)
--
State
Indiana
2014–2015 Grades
3–8 Reading, ELA,
& Mathematics
Indiana Statewide
Testing for Educational
Progress-Plus
(ISTEP+)
IREAD, grade 3
Reading
Iowa
Iowa Assessment
Kansas
Kansas Assessment
Program (KAP)
Louisiana
Partnership for
Assessment of
Readiness for College
and Careers (PARCC)
Massachusetts
Partnership for
Assessment of
Readiness for College
and Careers (PARCC)
or Massachusetts
Comprehensive
Assessment System
(MCAS)
Michigan
Michigan Merit
Examination (MME)
Minnesota
Minnesota
Comprehensive
Assessments (MCA)
2014–2015 HS
Reading, ELA,
& Mathematics
2014–2015 Science
2014–2015 Social
Studies, History
2014–2015
Writing
ISTEP+ End-of-Course
(ECA) tests in English
10, Algebra 1 and
Biology 1
Indiana Statewide
Testing for Educational
Progress-Plus (ISTEP+)
in grades 4 and 6
Indiana Statewide
Testing for Educational
Progress-Plus (ISTEP+)
in grades 5 and 7
--
Iowa Assessment,
grade 11
Iowa Assessment
--
--
Kansas Assessment
Program (KAP),
grade 11
"Kansas Assessment
Program (KAP), grades
4, 7, 11
Kansas Assessment
Program (KAP), grades
6, 8, 11
ACT Plan, grade 10
ACT, grade 11
Integrated Louisiana
Educational
Assessment Program
(iLEAP) grades 5, 7
Integrated Louisiana
Educational
Assessment Program
(iLEAP) grades 5, 7
End-of-Course
ACT, ACT-Plan (HS)
ACT, ACT-Plan (HS)
End-of-Course (HS)
End-of-Course (HS)
Kansas Assessment
Program (KAP), grades
3–8
Multidisciplinary
Performance Task,
(MDPT), grades 10–11
--
Massachusetts
Comprehensive
Assessment System
(MCAS)
Massachusetts
Comprehensive
Assessment System
(MCAS)
--
Michigan Merit
Examination (MME)
Michigan Student Test
of Educational Progress
(M-STEP), grades 5,
8, 11
--
Minnesota
Comprehensive
Assessments (MCA)
Minnesota
Comprehensive
Assessments (MCA),
grades 5, 8, HS
--
--
Nevada
Partnership for
Assessment of
Readiness for College
and Careers (PARCC)
New Jersey Biology
Competency Test
(NJBCT), HS
--
--
New Jersey
Partnership for
Assessment of
Readiness for College
and Careers (PARCC)
New Jersey Biology
Competency Test
(NJBCT), HS
--
--
New Mexico
Partnership for
Assessment of
Readiness for College
and Careers (PARCC)
and NMHSCE
Ohio
Partnership for
Assessment of
Readiness for College
and Careers (PARCC)
Partnership for
Assessment of
Readiness for College
and Careers (PARCC)
grades 4–8
Ohio Achievement Test
(OAA) for
grade 3
ACT Plus Writing,
grade 11
Ohio Graduation Test
(OGT)
Partnership for
Assessment of
Readiness for College
and Careers (PARCC)
Standards-Based
Assessment (SBA),
grades 4, 7, 11
End-of-Course (EOC),
HS
Ohio State Tests,
grades 5, 8
Ohio State Tests grades
4,6, HS
Ohio Graduation Test
(HS)
Ohio Graduation Test
(HS)
--
ACT Plus Writing,
grade 11
Partnership for
Assessment Readiness
for College and Career
(PARCC)
New Mexico High
School Competency
Examination (NMHSCE)
Ohio Graduation Test
(HS)
167
State
2014–2015 Grades
3–8 Reading, ELA,
& Mathematics
2014–2015 HS
Reading, ELA,
& Mathematics
Oklahoma Core
Curriculum Tests
(OCCT)
End-of-Instruction
(EOI)
Oregon
Smarter Balanced
Consortium (SBAC)
Smarter Balanced
Consortium (SBAC)
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Systems
School Assessment
(PSSA)
Keystone Exams
ACT Aspire
End-of-Course
Examination of
Progress (EOCEP)
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Tennessee
®
--
ACT Plan, grade 8
Texas
Utah
Student Assessment of
Growth and Excellence
(SAGE)
Virginia
Standards of Learning
(SOL)
Washington
Smarter Balanced
Consortium (SBAC)
Wisconsin
Badger Exam 3–8,
Smarter Balanced
Consortium (SBAC),
Math only
Wyoming
Proficiency
Assessments for
Wyoming Students
(PAWS)
2014–2015
Writing
Oklahoma Core
Curriculum Tests
(OCCT), grades 5, 8
Oklahoma Core
Curriculum Tests
(OCCT), grades 5, 8
Oklahoma Core
Curriculum Tests
(OCCT), grades 5, 8
End-of-Instruction
(EOI), HS
End-of-Instruction
(EOI), HS
End-of-Instruction
(EOI), HS
Oregon Assessment of
Knowledge and Skills
(OAKS), grades 5, 8, HS
Oregon Assessment of
Knowledge and Skills
(OAKS), grades 5, 8, HS
Oregon Assessment of
Knowledge and Skills
(OAKS), grade 12
Pennsylvania Systems
School Assessment
(PSSA), grades 4, 8
Keystone Exams (HS)
--
South Carolina
Palmetto Assessment
of State Standards
South Carolina
Palmetto Assessment
of State Standards
ACT Aspire®
SCPASS, grades 4–8
SCPASS, grades 4–8
State of Texas
Assessments of
Academic Readiness
(STAAR)
Student Assessment of
Growth and Excellence
(SAGE)
ACT (11)
Standards of Learning
(SOL)
End-of-Course Exams
(EOC)
Smarter Balanced
Consortium (SBAC),
grade 11
ACT Aspire, grades
9, 10
ACT Plus Writing,
grade 11
ACT Explore, grade 9
ACT Plan, grade 10
ACT Plus Writing,
grade 11
Tennessee
Comprehensive
Assessment Program
(TCAP), grades 3–8
State of Texas
Assessments of
Academic Readiness
(STAAR), 5, 8, HS
Student Assessment of
Growth and Excellence
(SAGE), grades 4–11
Standards of Learning
(SOL), grades 5, 8
Standards of Learning
(SOL) End-of-Course
Exams (EOC)
--
State of Texas
Assessments of
Academic Readiness
(STAAR), grade 8
--
Standards of Learning
(SOL), grade 4 Virginia
Studies, grade 7, Civics,
grade 8 End-of-Course
(EOC)
Tennessee
Comprehensive
Assessment Program
(TCAP) Writing
Assessment, grades
3–8
State of Texas
Assessments of
Academic Readiness
(STAAR), grades 4, 7
--
Standards of Learning
(SOL), grade 8
Standards of Learning
(SOL) End-of-Course
Exam (EOC)
End-of-Course test in
Biology
Measurements of
Student Progress
(MSP) Science,
grades 5, 8
Wisconsin Knowledge
and Concepts
Examination (WKCE),
grades 4, 8
ACT Plus Writing,
grade 11
--
ACT Explore, grade 9
ACT Plan, grade 10
--
Wisconsin Knowledge
and Concepts
Examination (WKCE),
grades 4, 8, 10
ACT Plus Writing,
grade 11
--
ACT Plus Writing,
grade 11
Proficiency
Assessments for
Wyoming Students
(PAWS), grades 4, 8
ACT Plus Writing,
grade 11
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
2014–2015 Social
Studies, History
Keystone Exams (HS)
Tennessee
Comprehensive
Assessment Program
(TCAP)
State of Texas
Assessments of
Academic Readiness
(STAAR)
2014–2015 Science
Appendix 3:
K12 Leaders
Nathaniel A. Davis, Executive Chairman, is a seasoned
leader of transformational telecommunications, media,
and software development companies, with a record of
improving operations, launching innovative new products,
and strengthening relationships with a wide range of
customers and authorizers. Mr. Davis joined K12 after
a long career in consulting for venture capital, media,
and technology-based companies. He previously served
as chief executive officer and president of XM Satellite
Radio, and as a member of the company’s board of
directors, where he strengthened operations and financial
performance and led the company through its merger
with Sirius Satellite Radio. Mr. Davis was also president
and then CEO of XO Communications, an early innovator
in telecom that bundled together Internet access, web
hosting, and telephone service. Prior to that he helped
build the wireless network at Nextel as the executive vice
president, and was CFO at MCI Telecom. Along with his
broad-based experience in business, Mr. Davis brings a
background in computer science and engineering as well
as a focused commitment to meeting the needs of every
student who chooses to come to K12 to learn and to grow.
Stuart J. Udell, Chief Executive Officer, joined K12 in
February 2016 and brings significant strategic and
operational experience acquired over a 27-year career in
education. Most recently, Mr. Udell served as executive
chairman and chief executive officer of Catapult Learning,
Inc., a privately held operator of schools and provider of
instructional services and professional development. Prior
to joining Catapult Learning, Mr. Udell was the president
of postsecondary education at The Princeton Review. He
was concurrently the chief executive officer of Penn Foster,
a global leader in high school and career-focused online
learning (acquired in 2009 by The Princeton Review). Mr.
Udell spent 11 years at Kaplan, most recently as president
of Kaplan K12 Learning Services, where he built the
K–12 school division. From 1997 to 2001, Mr. Udell was
president of the School Renaissance Institute, the training,
publishing, and research subsidiary of Renaissance
Learning. Mr. Udell has served for more than thirteen
years on the board of directors of the National Dropout
Prevention Center/Network (at Clemson University),
where he was recently recognized for his contributions
as chairman. Mr. Udell holds an MBA from Columbia
University and a BS from Bucknell University.
Allison Cleveland, Executive Vice President of School
Management and Services, is one of the original staff
members of K12, with academic training as an engineer
and master’s degrees in both business and education.
She joined K12 in 2002 and, since then, has been
instrumental in building the managed public school line
of business from the school level to the regional level,
and now to the national level. Before holding her current
position, she served as the senior vice president of school
services, overseeing academic and operational services in
the managed public schools. Prior to that, Ms. Cleveland
was vice president of the K12 Southern Region and was
responsible for schools in the southeastern portion of the
United States. In her early years at K12, Ms. Cleveland
worked in support of new school startup and school
operations, where she was responsible for the successful
launch of K12 online academies throughout the country.
Lynda Cloud, Executive Vice President, Products,
joined K12 in September 2014. As the head of K12’s
Curriculum and Products organization, she oversees
the development and delivery of all program content
and customer-facing technologies, and drives product
strategy and results across all areas of the business.
Prior to joining K12, she was with Pearson Publishing for
more than 20 years, where she held senior leadership
positions in product development, marketing, and
product management. In her role as Pearson’s general
manager (for science, humanities, and the online learning
exchange), she drove strategy for the company’s print
and digital properties in the North American educational
market.
James Rhyu, Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer, joined K12 in June 2013, bringing more
than 20 years of financial management experience in
various global industries. In addition to his extensive
finance background, he brings a wealth of experience
across a broad range of functions, including human
resources, legal, information technology, back office
operations, international operations, and product
development. Mr. Rhyu holds a BS from the Wharton
School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania and
an MBA from the London Business School.
Mary Gifford, Senior Vice President of Academic Policy
and External Relations, joined K12 in September 2003.
Ms. Gifford leads the Office of Academic Policy, which
assists specific schools on key academic challenges,
provides support for the efficacy of K12 educational
programs, develops new school models, and educates
legislators and regulators about virtual learning. Ms.
Gifford also provides training to school board partners
in the areas of succession planning, governance, and
169
strategic planning. She previously served as senior vice
president of the K12 Central Region, supporting more
than a dozen schools in eight states. During her tenure
with K12, she has integrated iQ and Insight programs
and been involved in opening many new schools. She
has led various innovations, including unique hybrid
models such as the YMCA and military drop-in sites, and
the development of an at-risk model. Ms. Gifford served
on the Arizona State Board for Charter Schools (which
authorizes more than 500 charter schools) for 11 years
as a gubernatorial and state superintendent appointee.
Prior to joining K12, Ms. Gifford served as the leadership
development director at Mackinac Center for Public Policy
and as the education policy director at the Goldwater
Institute (during which time the state’s charter school, tax
credit, ESA, and other laws were written and researched
by the institute). She currently serves on the board of
directors of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and as
president of a non-profit charter organization in Phoenix.
Ms. Gifford holds a BA in political science and economics
from Arizona State University, and an MA in educational
leadership from Northern Arizona University.
Margaret Jorgensen, Senior Vice President and Chief
Academic Officer, is an expert in the use of educational
assessments as a powerful instructional tool. She joined
K12 in February 2013, bringing extensive experience
in design and development work for some of the
leading producers of assessment products and other
psychometric measures. As chief academic officer, Dr.
Jorgensen is helping to lead K12’s ongoing efforts to apply
insights from data analysis to the development of stateof-the-art curriculum, technology, learning systems,
and teacher support. She is also focused on designing
assessments that can be used to improve learning and
accountability. She holds master’s degrees in school
psychology and business administration, and a doctorate
in measurement, evaluation, and statistical analysis.
Jayaram “Bala” Balachander, Chief Technology Officer,
joined K12 in August 2014, and is responsible for driving
K12’s software development strategy, including the
design and development of innovative educational
solutions, programs, courses, and products as well as the
systems and platforms to support product creation and
delivery. Prior to joining K12, Mr. Balachander was senior
vice president of product development for educational
platforms at Blackboard. Prior to that, he led product
development and product management as senior vice
president of products for Blackboard Engage. He has also
held the chief technology officer role at CTB McGrawHill, Pearson School Technologies, and Big Chalk. Mr.
Balachander has an MS in chemical engineering from
Tulane University and a BS in chemical engineering from
Birla Institute of Technology and Science.
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
Karen Ghidotti, Senior Vice President of School Services,
Southern Region, joined K12 in December 2002 as an
operations manager for Arkansas Virtual School and
worked with the Department of Education to transform
ARVS into Arkansas Virtual Academy (ARVA), an
independent statewide charter school. After successfully
establishing ARVA, Ms. Ghidotti became vice president
for the K12 Southern Region. Before joining K12,
Ms. Ghidotti worked for the Winthrop Rockefeller
Foundation to establish and support strong economic
and preschool education development initiatives. She
spent more than five years managing state and federal
grants for the Arkansas Department of Education and
working with local school districts to develop after-school
programs and parent education programs. Ms. Ghidotti
is currently helping to develop K12 initiatives to train and
develop highly effective online teachers.
Desiree Laughlin, Vice President of School Services,
Western Region, is responsible for supporting K12’s
managed schools in seven western states that altogether
serve more than 25,000 students. Since joining K12
in 2005, she has held a number of positions, including
special education director and head of school for Idaho
Virtual Academy. Ms. Laughlin brings more than 25 years
of experience in education, including experience in
increasing student academic performance among diverse
groups of learners (at risk, special needs, and gifted and
talented). She holds degrees in education, including
a master’s degree in educational leadership. With a
background in special education, she understands the
value of identifying student strengths and weaknesses in
order to better meet their learning needs.
Jennifer Sims, Senior Vice President of School Services,
Northern Region, has more than 30 years of experience
in education, including 24 years in administrative roles
in a variety of traditional and charter school settings.
Previously, she served as the vice president for academic
services across K12 online and hybrid schools, with a focus
on special populations, assessment, accountability, and
student achievement. She has served as national director
of special programs for K12, with a focus on special
education students, English Language Learners, and
gifted and talented populations. She received her MEd in
administration and supervision.
Todd Thorpe, Vice President of School Services, Central
Region, assumed his current position in 2013 after filling
a variety of roles at K12, including operations manager
for Washington Virtual Academy, head of school for
Oregon Virtual Academy, and director of operations and
senior director responsible for launching and staffing
new schools in the K12 Western Region. In addition to his
professional experience, Mr. Thorpe brings an academic
background in business and project management. He
works closely with leaders across all four K12 regions to
ensure consistency in accountability systems.
Appendix 4:
Norm-Referenced Tests to Gauge Student Progress:
Results for 2013–2014
Scantron Performance Series® Assessment Results (2013–2014)1
READING
TABLE 1: 2013–2014 SCANTRON MEAN GAIN COMPARISON: READING
Number of
Students
Included in
Gains Analysis
Fall Mean
Scale Score
Spring Mean
Scale Score
K12 Mean Gain
Scantron Norm
Group Mean Gain
Percentage of
Norm Group
Mean Gain
Grade 3
2,298
2,562.79
2,760.23
197.45
202.7
97%
Grade 4
2,449
2,735.94
2,895.24
159.30
146.72
109%
Grade 5
2,672
2,839.92
2,980.52
140.61
108.06
130%
Grade 6
3,137
2,939.85
3,054.57
114.72
80.91
142%
Grade 7
3,914
3,007.24
3,101.72
94.47
66.37
142%
Grade 8
4,362
3,065.31
3,126.41
61.11
61.52
99%
Grade 9
3,780
3,107.63
3,147.79
40.15
42.96
93%
Grade 10
3,687
3,162.90
3,182.04
19.15
48.88
39%
Overall
26,299
105%
MATHEMATICS
TABLE 2: 2013–2014 SCANTRON MEAN GAIN COMPARISON: MATHEMATICS
Number of
Students
Included in
Gains Analysis
Fall Mean
Scale Score
Spring Mean
Scale Score
K12 Mean Gain
Scantron Norm
Group Mean Gain
Percentage of
Norm Group
Mean Gain
Grade 3
2,329
2,328.82
2,519.50
190.69
179.98
106%
Grade 4
2,482
2,446.97
2,607.32
160.34
141.21
114%
Grade 5
2,692
2,539.07
2,683.04
143.97
132.47
109%
Grade 6
3,174
2,613.01
2,749.31
136.30
113.65
120%
Grade 7
3,966
2,691.62
2,794.96
103.34
91.99
112%
Grade 8
4,416
2,749.76
2,824.91
75.15
77.41
97%
Grade 9
3,861
2,775.87
2,819.66
43.79
39.37
111%
Grade 10
3,769
2,820.93
2,861.10
40.17
50.78
79%
Overall
26,689
105%
Source: SY 2013–2014 Gains Data; SY 2013–2014 FRL Data
1
Scantron results reported in this appendix are based on the updated methodology (including the methodology for identifying and excluding outliers) we recently adopted and utilized in
analyzing the Scantron results contained in this Report, as described on page 26, n. 13.
171
READING
TABLE 3: 2013–2014 SCANTRON MEAN GAIN COMPARISON BY FRL ELIGIBILITY: READING
K12 FRL Eligible
Scantron
Norm Group
Mean Gain
Number of
Students
K12 Mean Gain
K12 Not Eligible for FRL
Percentage of
Norm Group
Mean Gain
Number of
Students
K12 Mean Gain
Percentage of
Norm Group
Mean Gain
Grade 3
202.7
1,283
188.08
93%
755
205.43
101%
Grade 4
146.72
1,341
151.99
104%
814
162.43
111%
Grade 5
108.06
1,417
136.50
126%
921
136.86
127%
Grade 6
80.91
1,612
120.02
148%
1,085
114.31
141%
Grade 7
66.37
2,047
92.10
139%
1,363
97.24
147%
Grade 8
61.52
2,231
60.24
98%
1,524
68.86
112%
Grade 9
42.96
2,044
33.30
78%
1,250
46.96
109%
Grade 10
48.88
1,887
14.67
30%
1,272
19.95
101%
8,984
Overall
13,862
41%
111%
MATHEMATICS
TABLE 4: 2013–2014 SCANTRON MEAN GAIN COMPARISON BY FRL ELIGIBILITY: MATHEMATICS
K12 FRL Eligible
Grade 3
K12 Not Eligible for FRL
Scantron
Norm Group
Mean Gain
Number of
Students
K12 Mean Gain
Percentage of
Norm Group
Mean Gain
179.98
1,316
172.56
96%
Number of
Students
763
K12 Mean Gain
Percentage of
Norm Group
Mean Gain
204.36
114%
Grade 4
141.21
1,364
151.10
107%
819
169.79
120%
Grade 5
132.47
1,442
130.03
98%
926
155.60
117%
Grade 6
113.65
1,634
115.79
102%
1,095
160.05
141%
Grade 7
91.99
2,078
94.87
103%
1,363
117.85
128%
Grade 8
77.41
2,264
66.67
86%
1,531
84.75
109%
Grade 9
39.37
2,103
29.29
74%
1,264
59.86
152%
Grade 10
50.78
1,932
37.85
75%
1,292
44.88
88%
91%
9,053
Overall
14,133
Source: SY 2013–2014 Gains Data; SY 2013–2014 FRL Data
121%
Appendix 5:
Norm-Referenced Tests to Gauge Student Progress:
Results for 2013–2014
2015 Academic Report Methodology, Including Certain
Previously Excluded Scores
Scantron Performance Series® Assessment Results (2013–2014)1
READING
TABLE 1: 2013–2014 SCANTRON READING PERCENTAGE OF NORM GROUP MEAN GAIN BY GRADE
Number of
Students
Included in
Gains Analysis
Fall Mean
Scale Score
Spring Mean
Scale Score
K12 Mean Gain
Scantron Norm
Group Mean Gain
Percentage of
Norm Group
Mean Gain
Grade 3
4,523
2,539.81
2,732.41
192.60
202.7
95%
Grade 4
4,821
2,695.53
2,865.89
170.37
146.72
116%
Grade 5
5,251
2,799.90
2,940.17
140.27
108.06
130%
Grade 6
6,180
2,895.20
3,020.80
125.59
80.91
155%
Grade 7
7,698
2,963.04
3,069.40
106.37
66.37
160%
Grade 8
8,548
3,029.10
3,103.09
73.99
61.52
120%
Grade 9
7,433
3,069.92
3,124.44
54.53
42.96
127%
Grade 10
7,235
3,129.63
3,164.58
34.95
48.88
Overall
51,689
71%
109%
NOTE: The Scantron analysis set forth in the 2015 Academic Report reflected an N-size of 34,445 for Reading. The Scantron
analysis set forth in the 2015 Academic Report reported that the percentage of Scantron Norm Group mean gain achieved
was 161% for Reading.
173
MATHEMATICS
TABLE 2: 2013–2014 SCANTRON MATHEMATICS PERCENTAGE OF NORM GROUP MEAN GAIN BY GRADE
Number of
Students
Included in
Gains Analysis
Fall Mean
Scale Score
Spring Mean
Scale Score
K12 Mean Gain
Scantron Norm
Group Mean Gain
Percentage of
Norm Group
Mean Gain
Grade 3
4,619
2,326.24
2,515.08
188.83
179.98
105%
Grade 4
4,891
2,444.66
2,604.68
160.01
141.21
113%
Grade 5
5,314
2,536.90
2,674.80
137.90
132.47
104%
Grade 6
6,261
2,607.04
2,741.29
134.26
113.65
118%
Grade 7
7,812
2,682.89
2,792.62
109.72
91.99
119%
Grade 8
8,695
2,740.27
2,825.55
85.29
77.41
110%
Grade 9
7,616
2,771.77
2,829.71
57.95
39.37
147%
7,432
2,819.96
2,872.30
52.34
50.78
Grade 10
Overall
52,640
103%
104%
NOTE: The Scantron analysis set forth in the 2015 Academic Report reflected an N-size of 37,190 for Mathematics.
The Scantron analysis set forth in the 2015 Academic Report reported that the percentage of Scantron Norm Group mean
gain achieved was 145% for Mathematics.
Source: SY 2013–2014 Gains Data; SY 2013–2014 FRL Data; 2015 Academic Report
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
READING
TABLE 3: 2013–2014 SCANTRON READING PERCENTAGE OF NORM GROUP MEAN GAIN BY FRL ELIGIBILITY
K12 FRL Eligible
K12 Not Eligible for FRL
Scantron
Norm Group
Mean Gain
Number of
Students
K12 Mean Gain
Percentage of
Norm Group
Mean Gain
202.7
2,519
185.81
92%
1,497
Grade 4
146.72
2,628
163.11
111%
1,608
178.01
121%
Grade 5
108.06
2,779
138.38
128%
1,819
134.83
125%
Grade 3
Number of
Students
K12 Mean Gain
Percentage of
Norm Group
Mean Gain
203.11
100%
Grade 6
80.91
3,154
126.32
156%
2,158
124.69
154%
Grade 7
66.37
4,012
107.75
162%
2,682
105.20
159%
Grade 8
61.52
4,360
71.64
116%
2,995
76.51
124%
Grade 9
42.96
4,011
49.98
116%
2,466
59.33
138%
Grade 10
48.88
3,698
33.34
68%
2,499
35.50
73%
Overall
94.77
107%
110%
NOTE: FRL Eligible: The Scantron analysis set forth in the 2015 Academic Report reflected an N-size of 18,560 for Reading
for FRL Eligible. The Scantron analysis set forth in the 2015 Academic Report reported that the percentage of Scantron
Norm Group mean gain achieved was 157% for Reading for FRL Eligible.
Not Eligible for FRL: The Scantron analysis set forth in the 2015 Academic Report reflected an N-size of 11,395 for Reading
for Not Eligible for FRL. The Scantron analysis set forth in the 2015 Academic Report reported that the percentage of
Scantron Norm Group mean gain achieved was 166% for Reading for Not Eligible for FRL.
1
Scantron results reported in this appendix are based on the same methodology used for calculating Scantron results in the 2015 Academic Report, with the exception that they include
scores of students whose difference in scale score fell within Scantron’s standard error of measurement for that difference, which were erroneously excluded in last year’s report. To allow
for consistent comparison against the SY 2013–2014 Scantron results as originally reported last year, the revised SY 2013–2014 results reflected in this table does not otherwise use the
updated methodology (including the methodology for identifying and excluding outliers) we recently adopted and utilized in analyzing the Scantron results contained in this Report, as
described on page 26, n. 13.
175
MATHEMATICS
TABLE 4: 2013–2014 SCANTRON MATHEMATICS PERCENTAGE OF NORM GROUP MEAN GAIN BY FRL ELIGIBILITY
K12 FRL Eligible
Grade 3
K12 Not Eligible for FRL
Scantron
Norm Group
Mean Gain
Number of
Students
K12 Mean Gain
Percentage of
Norm Group
Mean Gain
179.98
2,587
172.04
96%
1,511
Number of
Students
K12 Mean Gain
Percentage of
Norm Group
Mean Gain
209.38
116%
Grade 4
141.21
2,675
147.68
105%
1,627
173.71
123%
Grade 5
132.47
2,839
127.35
96%
1,825
148.62
112%
Grade 6
113.65
3,212
122.35
108%
2,167
149.42
131%
Grade 7
91.99
4,093
101.92
111%
2,701
120.46
131%
Grade 8
77.41
4,463
79.00
102%
3,015
92.29
119%
Grade 9
39.37
4,151
47.40
120%
2,492
70.76
180%
Grade 10
50.78
3,813
46.26
91%
2,540
60.38
119%
Overall
103.36
95%
115%
NOTE: FRL Eligible: The Scantron analysis set forth in the 2015 Academic Report reflected an N-size of 19,427 for
Mathematics for FRL Eligible. The Scantron analysis set forth in the 2015 Academic Report reported that the percentage of
Scantron Norm Group mean gain achieved was 136% for Mathematics for FRL Eligible.
Not Eligible for FRL: The Scantron analysis set forth in the 2015 Academic Report reflected an N-size of 12,810 for
Mathematics for Not Eligible For FRL. The Scantron analysis set forth in the 2015 Academic Report reported that the
percentage of Scantron Norm Group mean gain achieved was 157% for Mathematics for Not Eligible For FRL.
Source: SY 2013–2014 Gains Data; SY 2013–2014 FRL Data; 2015 Academic Report
2016 K12 AC ADEMIC REPORT
VISIT US:
TALK WITH US:
K12.com
866.968.7512
Copyright © 2016 K12 Inc. All rights reserved. K12 is a registered trademark of K12 Inc. The K12 logo and other marks referenced herein are trademarks
of K12 Inc. and its subsidiaries, and other marks are owned by third parties.