Upload
duongnhi
View
219
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
2016 K12
ACADEMIC REPORT
Arizona Virtual Academy 106
Arkansas Virtual Academy 39, 44
California Virtual Academy at Fresno 48
California Virtual Academy at Jamestown 48
California Virtual Academy at Kings 48
California Virtual Academy at Los Angeles 48
California Virtual Academy at Maricopa 48
California Virtual Academy at Maricopa High School 48
California Virtual Academy at San Diego 48
California Virtual Academy at San Joaquin 48
California Virtual Academy at San Mateo 48
California Virtual Academy at Sonoma 48
California Virtual Academy at Sutter 48
Chicago Virtual Charter School 39
Colorado Preparatory Academy 39
Community Academy Public Charter School Online 39
Cyber Academy of South Carolina 136
Florida Virtual Academy at Broward 112
Florida Virtual Academy at Clay 112
Florida Virtual Academy at Duval 112
Florida Virtual Academy at Hillsborough 112
Florida Virtual Academy at Palm Beach 112
Florida Virtual Academy at Pasco 112
Florida Virtual Academy at Pinellas 112
Georgia Cyber Academy 114
Hoosier Academies Indianapolis 117
Hoosier Academies Virtual School 117
Idaho Virtual Academy 54
Insight Academy of Arizona 109
Insight School of California-Los Angeles 52
Insight School of California-San Diego 53
Insight School of Colorado 39
Insight School of Kansas 122
Insight School of Michigan 75
Insight School of Minnesota 79
Insight School of Ohio 132
Insight School of Oklahoma 89
Insight School of Oregon-Charter Option 59
Insight School of Washington 65
Iowa Virtual Academy 71
iQ Academy California at Los Angeles 48
iQ Academy Minnesota 82
Kansas Virtual Academy 120
Louisiana Virtual Charter Academy 125
Massachusetts Virtual Academy at Greenfield Commonwealth Virtual School 39
Michigan Great Lakes Virtual Academy 74
Michigan Virtual Charter Academy 74
Minnesota Virtual Academy 76
Nevada Virtual Academy 85
New Mexico Virtual Academy 39
Newark Preparatory Charter School 39
Ohio Virtual Academy 128
Oklahoma Virtual Charter Academy 86
Oregon Virtual Academy 56
Silicon Valley Flex Academy 48
South Carolina Virtual Charter School 139
Tennessee Virtual Academy 92
Texas Online Preparatory School 94
Texas Virtual Academy 94
Utah Virtual Academy 97
Virginia Virtual Academy-King and Queen 100
Virginia Virtual Academy-Patrick 100
Washington Virtual Academy-Monroe 62
Washington Virtual Academy-Omak 62
Wisconsin Virtual Academy 66, 142
Wyoming Virtual Academy 102
Alphabetical Guide to Schools Included in 2016 Academic Report Analyses
For schools organized by test group and schools not included, see pages 22–24.
Table of Contents
This report contains certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. We have tried, whenever possible, to identify these forward-looking statements using words such as “anticipates,” “believes,” “estimates,” “continues,” “likely,” “may,” “opportunity,” “potential,” “projects,” “will,” “expects,” “plans,” “intends,” and similar expressions to identify forward-looking statements, whether in the negative or the affirmative. These statements reflect our current beliefs and are based upon information currently available to us. Accordingly, such forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors that could cause actual academic performance to differ materially from those expressed in, or implied by, such statements. These risks, uncertainties, factors, and contingencies include, but are not limited to: test result presentations and data interpretations; descriptions of testing and academic outcomes; individual school, grade and subject performance reporting; educational achievements; the potential inability to further develop, maintain, and enhance our curriculum products, instructional services, and teacher training; the reduction of per pupil funding amounts at the schools we serve; reputation harm resulting from poor academic performance in the managed schools we contract with; challenges from online public school or hybrid school opponents; failure of the schools we serve to comply with applicable education requirements, student privacy, and other applicable regulations; inability to recruit, train, and retain quality teachers and employees; and other risks and uncertainties associated with our business described in the Company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Although the Company believes the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements are based upon reasonable assumptions, it can give no assurance that the expectations will be attained or that any deviation will not be material.
A Letter from Nate Davis, Executive Chairman, and Stuart Udell, Chief Executive Officer
Foreword: The Shifting Landscape of State Testing
Performance Analysis: Executive Overview
K12 Public School Programs Performance Analysis 2014–2015
Norm-Referenced Tests to Gauge Student Progress
Overall Analysis: Persistence and FRL
Group 1: K12 Public School Programs Administering PARCC
Group 2: K12 Public School Programs Administering SBAC
Group 3: K12 Public School Programs Using Same State Testing Program from 2013–2014 to 2014–2015
Group 4: K12 Public School Programs Administering New State Tests in 2014–2015
Featured Programs and Highlights
K12 Private Schools: Preparing for College and Career
Meeting the Diverse Needs of High School Students: Dual Credit and Credit Recovery Programs in K12 Schools
Effective Teaching in the K12 Online Learning Environment: Developing a Research -Based Rubric and Implementing an Instructional Coaching Program
Understanding Student Progress toward Graduation in K12 Public School Programs
Appendices
Appendix 1: FRL and Special Education Eligibility by School Compared to State
Appendix 2: State Assessment Programs: 2013–2014 and 2014–2015
Appendix 3: K12 Leaders
Appendix 4: Norm-Referenced Tests to Gauge Student Progress: Results for 2013–2014
Appendix 5: Norm-Referenced Tests to Gauge Student Progress: Results for 2013–2014 2015 Academic Report Methodology, Including Certain Previously
Excluded Scores
06
08
11
21
26
31
39
47
67
105
145
145
149
151
154
159
160
163
169
171
173
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
FIGURES
FIGURE 1: 2014–2015 Proficiency Percentages by Subject and Persistence (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 2: 2014–2015 Proficiency Percentages by Subject and FRL Eligibility (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 3: K12 Comparison to PARCC Consortium: ELA/Literacy (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 4: K12 Comparison to PARCC Consortium: Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 5: K12 SBAC Comparison to State: OR English Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 6: K12 SBAC Comparison to State: OR Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 7: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State by Subject: WA (High School)
FIGURE 8: Same Students and Same Assessment Program: Overall %AAP by School Year and Subject (Grades 4–8)
FIGURE 9: 2014–2015 State Comparison by Subject: TX (High School)
FIGURE 10: 2014–2015 State Comparison: VA Reading (Grades 3–6)
FIGURE 11: 2014–2015 State Comparison: VA Mathematics (Grades 3–6)
FIGURE 12: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: WI English Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 13: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: OH Reading (Grade 3) / ELA/Literacy (Grades 4–8)
FIGURE 14: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: OH (High School)
FIGURE 15: 2014–2015 Scantron Mean Gain Comparison: Reading
FIGURE 16: 2014–2015 Scantron Mean Gain Comparison: Mathematics
FIGURE 17: 2014–2015 Scantron Mean Gain Comparison by FRL Eligibility: Reading
FIGURE 18: 2014–2015 Scantron Mean Gain by Comparison FRL Eligibility: Mathematics
FIGURE 19: 2014–2015 Proficiency Percentages by Subject and Persistence (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 20: 2014–2015 Proficiency Percentages by Subject and Persistence (HSGT)
FIGURE 21: 2014–2015 Proficiency Percentages by Subject and Persistence (EOC)
FIGURE 22: 2014–2015 Proficiency Percentages by Subject and FRL Eligibility (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 23: 2014–2015 Proficiency Percentages by Subject and FRL Eligibility (HSGT)
FIGURE 24: 2014–2015 Proficiency Percentages by Subject and FRL Eligibility (EOC)
FIGURE 25: K12 Comparison to PARCC Consortium: ELA/Literacy (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 26: K12 Comparison to PARCC Consortium: Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 27: K12 Comparison to PARCC Consortium: English Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 9–11)
FIGURE 28: K12 Comparison to PARCC Consortium: Algebra 1 (Overall 9–11)
FIGURE 29: ARVA Year-Over-Year School-State Comparison: English Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 30: ARVA Year-Over-Year School-State Comparison: Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 31: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State: CA English Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 32: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State: CA Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 33: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State by Subject: CA (High School)
FIGURE 34: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State by Subject: CA (High School)
FIGURE 35: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State by Subject: CA (High School)
FIGURE 36: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State: IDVA English Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 37: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State: IDVA Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 38: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State: OR English Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 39: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State: OR Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 40: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State by Subject: OR (High School)
FIGURE 41: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: OR English Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 42: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: OR Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 43: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: OR (High School)
FIGURE 44: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State: WA English Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 45: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State: WA Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 46: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC Comparison to State by Subject: WA (High School)
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 51: Same Students and Same Assessment Program: %AAP by School Year and Grade Level in Mathematics (Grades 4–8)
FIGURE 52: 2014–2015 State Comparison: IA Reading (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 53: 2014–2015 State Comparison: IA Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 54: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: MI (High School)
FIGURE 55: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: MI (High School)
FIGURE 56: 2014–2015 State Comparison: MN Reading (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 57: 2014–2015 State Comparison: MN Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 58: 2014–2015 State Comparison by Subject: MN (High School)
FIGURE 59: 2014–2015 State Comparison: MN Reading (Grade 8)
FIGURE 60: 2014–2015 State Comparison: MN Mathematics (Grade 8)
3
FIGURE 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 ACT-Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 117: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: SC (High School)
FIGURE 118: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: SC ACT-Reading (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 119: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: SC ACT-Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 120: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: SC (High School)
FIGURE 121: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: WI English Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 3–8)
FIGURE 122: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: WI (High School)
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
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
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)
5
TABLE 59: 2014–2015 State Comparison by Subject: MN (High School)
TABLE 60: 2014–2015 State Comparison by Subject: NV (High School)
TABLE 61: 2014–2015 State Comparison: OK Reading (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 62: 2014–2015 State Comparison: OK Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 63: 2014–2015 State Comparison by Subject: OK (High School)
TABLE 64: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: OK Reading (Grades 7–8)
TABLE 65: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: OK Mathematics (Grades 7–8)
TABLE 66: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: OK (High School)
TABLE 67: 2014–2015 State Comparison: TN Reading/Language Arts (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 68: 2014–2015 State Comparison: TN Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 69: 2014–2015 State Comparison: TX Reading (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 70: 2014–2015 State Comparison: TX Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 71: 2014–2015 State Comparison by Subject: TX (High School)
TABLE 72: 2014–2015 State Comparison: UT Language Arts (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 73: 2014–2015 State Comparison: UT Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 74: 2014–2015 State Comparison by Subject: UT (High School)
TABLE 75: 2014–2015 State Comparison: VA Reading (Grades 3–6)
TABLE 76: 2014–2015 State Comparison: VA Mathematics (Grades 3–6)
TABLE 77: 2014–2015 State Comparison: WY Reading (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 78: 2014–2015 State Comparison: WY Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 79: 2014–2015 State Comparison by Subject: WY (High School)
TABLE 80: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: AZ English Language Arts (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 81: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: AZ Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 82: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: AZ (High School)
TABLE 83: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: AZ English Language Arts (Grades 7–8)
TABLE 84: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: AZ Mathematics (Grades 7–8)
TABLE 85: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: AZ (High School)
TABLE 86: 2014–2015 K12 %AAP: FL English Language Arts (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 87: 2014–2015 K12 %AAP: FL Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 88: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: GA English Language Arts (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 89: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: GA Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 90: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: GA (High School)
TABLE 91: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: IN English Language Arts (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 92: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: IN Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 93: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: IN (High School)
TABLE 94: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: KS English Language Arts (Grades 3–6)
TABLE 95: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: KS Mathematics (Grades 3–6)
TABLE 96: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: KS English Language Arts (Grades 7–8)
TABLE 97: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: KS Mathematics (Grades 7–8)
TABLE 98: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: KS (High School)
TABLE 99: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: LA English Language Arts (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 100: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: LA Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 101: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: LA (High School)
TABLE 102: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: OH Reading (Grade 3) / ELA/Literacy (Grades 4–8)
TABLE 103: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: OH Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 104: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: Ohio Graduation Tests
TABLE 105: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: PARCC High School Assessments
TABLE 106: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: OH English Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 6–8)
TABLE 107: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: OH Mathematics (Grades 6–8)
TABLE 108: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: Ohio Graduation Tests
TABLE 109: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: PARCC High School Assessments
TABLE 110: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: SC ACT-Reading (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 111: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: SC ACT-Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 112: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: SC (High School)
TABLE 113: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: SC ACT-Reading (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 114: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: SC ACT-Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 115: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: SC (High School)
TABLE 116: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State: WI English Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 3–8)
TABLE 117: 2014–2015 K12 Comparison to State by Subject: WI (High School)
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
This fourth annual K12 Academic Report continues our commitment to accountability and transparency. This report has expanded to include all K12 public school programs with valid state test results for 2014–2015 as well as more results from key high school assessments.
The state testing environment changed dramatically in the 2014–2015 school year. In previous years, for accountability purposes, most states administered their own state-specific tests. In 2014–2015, some states administered new tests tied to the Common Core State Standards. These tests were developed by one of two consortia, either the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) or the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC). Most PARCC and SBAC states administered the new assessments as provided by the consortia, but some changed the consortia assessments or departed from the consortia’s recommended minimum scores to determine proficiency on the tests.
These, and other changes in state testing, present challenges to those analyzing the overall performance of K12 public school programs and examining their performance over time. Results from assessments that were new in 2014–2015 cannot be directly compared to scores on previous state assessments because many of the new assessments are aligned to different content standards and different definitions of what constitutes proficiency.
Faced with these challenges, K12 Inc. has worked diligently to analyze state testing data in ways that are useful and make sense. One way is to organize our analysis into groups according to test type. Another way is to report the data in context by comparing performance at the school and state levels. Finally, we also report year-over-year results from those schools that have retained the same testing program since the prior school year.
Our analyses show that many K12 school programs still underperform the state in Mathematics, a situation we are determined to change through multiple ongoing efforts in improved curriculum, instruction, and student support. From the data in the following pages, certain encouraging highlights emerge:
• On the PARCC assessment—generally acknowledged as more rigorous than previous state tests—students in K12 public school programs achieved proficiency percentages within 1 percentage point of the overall PARCC consortium in grades 7 and 8 in Mathematics and within 1 to 3 percentage points of the consortium in grades 3–5 in English Language Arts/Literacy.
• For K12 schools that used the same state-specific assessment program from 2013–2014 to 2014–2015, when we compare the proficiency percentages for the same students year-over-year, students in grades 4–8 improved by 2 percentage points in both Reading and Mathematics.
• In 2014–2015, on tests of Reading and English Language Arts, in many grades a number of K12 public school programs—such as those in Ohio, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin—performed as well as (and in some grades better than) the state.
• For the 2014–2015 school year, in most grades and subjects, we continue to see the benefits of persistence—that is, students who stay in K12 schools longer (especially those who remain continuously enrolled for three or more years) achieve higher percentages at or above proficiency.
We regularly gather and examine data at the classroom, school, regional, and national levels in order to identify areas for continued improvement in our mission to support student learning.
This Academic Report is an important part of our research efforts at K12 Inc. We continue to research the relationship between student achievement and such variables as school structure, teacher development, and the use of synchronous or asynchronous instruction. We regularly gather and examine data at the classroom, school, regional, and national levels to ensure that we are doing everything possible to support student learning. Our teachers use this data to adjust their instruction to meet the strengths and needs of individual students.
A Letter from Nate Davis, Executive Chairman, and Stuart Udell, Chief Executive Officer
7
The thoughtful use of data can help individualize instruction, giving teachers insights that help them build strong relationships with students and families so they can sustain a learning environment in which each student remains engaged, challenged, and nurtured.
We’re very proud of the schools we support, the educators who work with students, and the students themselves for doing the hard work of learning. In 2014–2015, K12 public school programs served more than 118,000 students from kindergarten to grade 12, with 4,784 students graduating from high school, many of them focused on college and career. The dedicated teachers in K12 schools strive to meet the individual educational needs of each and every student.
Like many traditional schools, we continue to face both opportunities and challenges. Across this country, not every student comes to school ready to learn or well-prepared for the academic challenges that face them. Not every student appreciates the value of an education. Some students struggle to achieve academically while overcoming obstacles of poverty or mobility. Whether students come to us needing remediation or seeking advanced challenges and enrichment, we aim to help all of them thrive and succeed.
We look forward to the release of the first phases of our new curriculum in the fall of 2016 and the launch of new Destinations Career Academies. As our tools, program offerings, and systems evolve, we come closer to the ideal of an optimally personalized learning experience for each and every student.
We will report on new initiatives in each forthcoming Academic Report and in other publications issued throughout the year. All of us at K12 are dedicated to fostering the academic success of the students in our public school programs. We know that we succeed only when our students succeed, and so we begin and end each day by putting students first.
Nate Davis, Executive Chairman
Stuart Udell, Chief Executive Officer
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
1 Woods, J. R. State Summative Assessments: 2015–16 school year. Denver, CO, Education Commission of the States (2015). Retrieved from http://www.ecs.org/state-summative-assessments-2015-16-school-year/
1a Evidence of the rigor of the PARCC assessments is documented by independent research studies conducted by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute and Human Resources Organization (February 2016), Mathematica Policy Research (November 2015) and the American Institutes for Research (AIR) National Benchmarks for State Assessment Standards Study (February 2016). (Source: http://parcconline.org/assessments/test-design/independent-studies)
2 Woods, J. R. Testing Trends: Considerations for choosing and using assessments. Denver, CO, Education Commission of the States (2015). Retrieved from http://www.ecs.org/testing-trends-considerations-for-choosing-and-using-assessments/
3 Woods, J. R. State Summative Assessments: 2015–16 school year. Denver, CO, Education Commission of the States (2015). Retrieved from http://www.ecs.org/state-summative-assessments-2015-16-school-year/. Because the state testing landscape continues to shift, the figures reported may have changed by the time of the publication of this Academic Report.
This 2016 K12 Academic Report embodies both consistency and change. Consistent with previous Academic Reports, our purpose here is to give a transparent view of key accountability test results in K12 public school programs. In contrast to the previous Academic Reports, in this report we introduce some changes in our presentation and analyses of the data—changes necessitated by what a study published by the Education Commission of the States (ECS) describes as “the continually changing nature of the state assessments landscape” due to “political pressures and evolving state approaches.”1
In the 2014–2015 school year, many states changed their accountability assessments. Across all K12 public school programs, only eight states did not change their state accountability tests in 2014–2015: Iowa, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming.
The changes in state tests were in part a consequence of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), initially released in 2010. In that year, most states began the process of adopting the Common Core standards, encouraged by the federal grant program called Race to the Top, which favored applicants that agreed to adopt Common Core.
New content standards required new assessments. To develop assessments aligned to the Common Core, the federal government funded two testing consortia: the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) and the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC). These consortia developed assessments intended for use across multiple states, at a level of rigor commensurate with the overall Common Core goals of career and college readiness. In addition, PARCC and SBAC introduced technology-enhanced questions, longer and more complex passages, paired passages, and constructed response items requiring students to justify or explain the reasoning behind their answers.
With the rollout of PARCC and SBAC, for the first time since the passage of No Child Left Behind, multiple states were administering the same assessments. Because these consortia-developed assessments were more rigorous than previous state tests,1a student performance results were, in many cases, not encouraging, with lower percentages at or above proficiency compared to previous years—not a valid comparison but an inevitable one. For various reasons, state officials soon found themselves facing what ECS sums up as “political backlash against the two assessment consortia” and “dissatisfaction with the quantity and relevance of current testing.”2
At one time, 24 states and the District of Columbia were signed on to administer the PARCC assessments. But in the 2014–2015 school year, only the District of Columbia and 10 states fully administered the PARCC assessments. The Education Commission of the States notes that, in 2015–2016, only six states and the District of Columbia plan to use the PARCC assessments. While the Smarter Balanced consortium has experienced fewer withdrawals, its members have decreased to 15 states planning to administer the full SBAC assessment in the 2015–2016 school year. ECS notes that in 2015–2016 “at least 25 states will administer a state-specific assessment in grades 3–8 math and English-language arts.”3
In reporting on the academic performance of K12 public school programs, our practice is, when possible, to present and compare data across multiple consecutive school years. But when states change to new tests based on new content standards, and use different definitions of proficiency, the results of the new tests cannot be directly compared to results from previous tests—a fact that complicates any attempt to present a long-term, comparative, year-over-year analysis of academic performance. The results of the new tests become, in effect, the starting point for future year-over-year analyses. In the current shifting landscape of state testing, however, that new starting
Foreword: The Shifting Landscape of State Testing
9
point can be elusive as states change their tests and then change them again. More than a dozen states suspended their accountability ratings for 2014–2015, and most are using 2015–2016 as a baseline year.
As examples of the shifting landscape of state testing, consider the changes from 2013–2014 to 2015–2016 in three states in which K12 public school programs are located, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Arkansas:
MASSACHUSETTS
• 2013–2014 MCAS (Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System)
• 2014–2015 MCAS or PARCC (district option)
• 2015–2016 MCAS or PARCC (district option)
• 2016–2017 Planned hybrid combination of MCAS and PARCC
OHIO
• 2013–2014 OAA (Ohio Achievement Assessments)
• 2014–2015 PARCC
• 2015–2016 New Ohio state test
ARKANSAS
• 2013–2014 Arkansas Comprehensive Testing Program
• 2014–2015 PARCC
• 2015–2016 ACT Aspire
We anticipate that difficulties in comparing test results year-over-year will continue into 2015–2016 as many states roll out new state tests.
While this shifting assessment landscape presents challenges, in this Academic Report we remain committed to presenting a comprehensive overview of school performance for the 2014–2015 school year. The PARCC and SBAC assessments differ in important fundamental ways from previous state assessments. Because the consortia tests present more rigorous content and more open-ended questions and innovative question types, it can be misleading to aggregate them with more traditional assessments across K12 public school programs, since such aggregation would imply comparisons that are not valid.3a Therefore, we have organized our analyses of student performance data into four groups:
• K12 public school programs administering PARCC in 2014–20154
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
3a Nicholas-Barrer, Ira, Place, Kate, Dillon, Erin, and Gill, Brian. (2015). Mathematic Policy Research: InFocus; For Massachusetts Students, PARCC and MCAS Exams Comparable in Predicting College Outcomes
4 In this group, we include only those K12 public school programs that both administered PARCC and used the recommended PARCC proficiency cut score. The cut score is in effect the score that constitutes passing the test—specifically, the value that determines whether a student has achieved at least an adequate level of performance, typically labeled “proficiency,” on the assessment. Even if states administered the same test, the results of State A cannot be directly compared to those of State B if the two states set different cut scores.
• K12 public school programs administering SBAC in 2014–2015
• K12 public school programs using the same state testing program from 2013–2014 to 2014–2015
• K12 public school programs administering new state tests in 2014–2015
For a listing of specific K12 public school programs within each of those four groups, see pages 23–24.
Because many states have changed to new tests in 2014–2015, our ability to provide a year-over-year view of school performance is limited to those in states in which the same assessments and performance standards were used in consecutive school years. In order to provide some context for understanding a school’s performance on the new tests, we have in many cases analyzed the school’s performance compared to that of the state. Reported information from state test results are from publicly available sources, usually state departments of education. The persistence analysis is an internal calculation based on state reported test performance and our internal enrollment records.
As in our previous Academic Reports, we report results on norm-referenced tests (Scantron) used by many K12 public school programs. The analysis of Scantron results in the 2015 Academic Report erroneously excluded students whose difference in scale scores between the fall and spring Scantron assessments fell within Scantron’s standard error of measurement for that difference (that is, students whose scale scores differential was not statistically distinct from zero). An updated analysis of the Scantron results reported last year is located in Appendices 4 and 5 (N.B. see footnotes to Appendices 4 and 5 for additional context) to this Academic Report and includes those students’ scores. We also continue the practice of analyzing in aggregate the performance of students in all K12 public school programs relative to their eligibility for federally subsidized meals through the National School Lunch Program. And, as in previous reports, we present an aggregate analysis of the effects of persistence, that is, the relationship between length of enrollment and performance on state assessments.
As No Child Left Behind gives way to the Every Student Succeeds Act, individual states will have more flexibility in shaping their accountability systems and assessments.
We anticipate that states will make varying use of summative and interim assessments, and many states may revise their growth models. In short, we expect the state assessment landscape will continue to shift dramatically. As assessments change from year to year and state to state, we at K12 will face greater challenges in comparing performance year-over-year and across K12 public school programs in different states with different content standards.
While we cannot precisely predict how the assessment landscape will change, we will continue to support our teachers so that they can best meet the learning needs of their students. One critical way to support teachers is to help them understand the academic strengths and weaknesses of their students from the beginning of the school year. In 2016–2017, teachers in K12 public school programs will have access to assessments, chosen by school administrators, to gauge where students stand academically as the school year begins. In future reports, we intend to report school-level data from these assessments. Because there is not likely to be a “one size fits all” assessment solution across all the school programs K12 supports, we anticipate less direct comparability of results, year-over-year and school to school, than we have previously reported. We will, in any case, continue to work closely with our public school programs to ensure that their teachers and staff have the assessment information they need to maximize every student’s potential.
At K12 Inc., we continue to engage in a focused effort to broaden and improve our data collection and analysis systems, which will improve our learning systems and teacher tools. We are expanding our database to house a wider range of assessment information and are coordinating efforts across several divisions to determine the efficacy of a range of initiatives aimed at improving teaching and learning. Going forward, we will continue to gather and analyze more data as measured by various assessments, including diagnostic or readiness, interims (formative or benchmark), summative, and state level accountability measures. We will persist in using data to understand best practices in order to improve student outcomes in various learning environments.
Margaret Jorgensen, Chief Academic Officer
11
Performance Analysis: Executive Overview
In the 2014–2015 school year, many states switched to new assessments. Some developed new
state-specific assessments. Some turned to the Common Core consortia, either the Partnership for
Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) or the Smarter Balanced Assessment
Consortium (SBAC). Because the PARCC and SBAC assessments are in many cases significantly more
rigorous than previous state assessments, with more challenging content and question types, it can
be misleading to aggregate the results of those tests with results from more traditional state tests.
When states change to new tests based on new content standards, and use different definitions of proficiency, the results of the new tests cannot be directly compared to results from previous tests. Because test types and categories shifted so much in 2014–2015, we have organized our analysis of state test performance into four groups by related test types:
5 In this group, we include only those K12 public school programs that both administered PARCC and used the recommended PARCC proficiency cut score (the score that in effect constitutes passing the test). Evidence of the rigor of the PARCC assessments is documented by independent research studies conducted by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute and Human Resources Organization (February 2016), Mathematica Policy Research (November 2015) and the American Institutes for Research (AIR) National Benchmarks for State Assessment Standards Study (February 2016). (Source: http://parcconline.org/assessments/test-design/independent-studies)
6 This report sometimes refers to “K12 schools” or “our schools” or “K12 students” as a shorthand way to describe the online public schools we serve pursuant to a contract with an independent not-for-profit board or school district governing board. We do not mean to suggest or imply that K12 Inc. has any ownership or control over those schools. Because the independent boards seek a managed contractual arrangement, the references to “K12 schools” and similar language are simply for ease and do not describe a legal relationship.
Group 1 K12 public school programs administering PARCC in 2014–20155
Group 2 K12 public school programs administering SBAC in 2014–2015
Group 3 K12 public school programs using the same state testing program from 2013–2014 to 2014–2015
Group 4 K12 public school programs administering new state tests in 2014–2015
Consistent with our practice in previous Academic Reports, we present overall analyses of general trends across all K12 schools6 regarding performance by persistence (length of continuous enrollment) and eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch (FRL).
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
Summary Analysis Grades 3–8 (Persistence and FRL)
PERSISTENCE
For the 2014–2015 school year, in most cases we continue to see a positive relationship between length of continuous enrollment and proficiency.
• In grades 3–8, in English Language Arts and Mathematics, compared to students enrolled in K12 public school programs less than one year, students enrolled three years or more achieved higher percentages at or above proficiency.
• On high school graduation tests in English Language Arts and Mathematics, students enrolled three years or more achieved higher percentages at or above proficiency than students enrolled less than one year. (See the “Performance by Persistence” section beginning on page 31 for more detailed analysis of high school persistence results.)
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
FIGURE 1: 2014–2015 PROFICIENCY PERCENTAGES BY SUBJECT AND PERSISTENCE (GRADES 3–8)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
3 yrs or more2 yrs but < 31 yr but <2Less than 1 year
36%41%
45%
52%
28%
34%36%
42%
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Persistence by Subject
English Language Arts Mathematics
TABLE 1: 2014–2015 PROFICIENCY PERCENTAGES BY SUBJECT AND PERSISTENCE (GRADES 3–8)
TABLE 2: 2014–2015 PERSISTENCE GRADES 3–8: 3 YEARS OR MORE COMPARED TO LESS THAN 1 YEAR
GRADES 3–8
Students enrolled 3 years or more compared to students enrolled less than 1 year
Subject %AAP: Increase or Decrease (in percentage points)
English Language Arts +16
Mathematics +14
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS MATHEMATICS
%AAP Total Count %AAP Total Count
Less than 1 year 36% 4,115 28% 5,141
1 year but less than 2 years 41% 8,822 34% 11,046
2 years but less than 3 years 45% 3,848 36% 4,960
3 years or more 52% 6,409 42% 7,576
1313
FIGURE 2: 2014–2015 PROFICIENCY PERCENTAGES BY SUBJECT AND FRL ELIGIBILITY (GRADES 3–8)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Subject and FRL Status
Free Lunch Eligible Reduced-Price Lunch Eligible Not Eligible
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
MathematicsEnglish Language Arts
54%
46%44%
34%34%
26%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS MATHEMATICS
%AAPGap Relative to
Not Eligible in percentage points
Total Count %AAP
Gap Relative to Not Eligible
in percentage points
Total Count
Free Lunch Eligible 34% -20 9,823 26% -20 12,210
Reduced-Price Eligible 44% -10 3,416 34% -12 4,300
Not Eligible 54% -- 9,246 46% -- 11,372
TABLE 3: 2014–2015 PROFICIENCY PERCENTAGES BY SUBJECT AND FRL ELIGIBILITY (GRADES 3–8)
ELIGIBILITY FOR FREE AND REDUCED-PRICE LUNCH
In 2014–2015, for K12 students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, we see performance trends consistent with FRL analyses in our previous Academic Reports (and consistent with national trends), specifically:
• Students identified as eligible for free lunch had lower percentages at or above proficiency than students eligible for reduced-price lunch.
• Both groups underperformed students identified as not eligible for subsidized meals.
The following aggregated data from grades 3–8 are representative of FRL results across all grades and subjects7:
7 In Table 3, the column headed “Gap Relative to Not Eligible” specifies the number of percentage points by which students eligible for subsidized meals underperform those not eligible.
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
Group 1: K12 Public School Programs Administering PARCC in 2014–2015
We compare the aggregate performance of K12 public school programs that administered PARCC to the overall PARCC consortium performance data for grades 3–8 and high school.
• Students in K12 public school programs achieved proficiency percentages within 1 to 3 percentage points of the overall PARCC consortium in grades 3–5 in English Language Arts/Literacy.
• In high school, students in K12 public school programs underperformed the overall PARCC consortium.
• On the PARCC Mathematics test students in K12 public school programs in grades 7 and 8 were within 1 percentage point of the PARCC consortium but the students in grades 3–7 underperformed the consortium by between 6 and 10 percentage points.
FIGURE 3: K12 COMPARISON TO PARCC CONSORTIUM: ELA/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
K12 Public School Programs Overall PARCC Consortium
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
37%41% 41% 39% 41% 42%
36% 38% 40%
27%
35%32%
FIGURE 4: K12 COMPARISON TO PARCC CONSORTIUM: MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
K12 Public School Programs Overall PARCC Consortium
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
37%32% 32% 32%
28% 27%31%
22%26% 25% 27% 26%
1515
Group 2: K12 Public School Programs Administering SBAC in 2014–2015
At the time of this report, no overall results were available for all SBAC consortium states, so we cannot (as we did with PARCC) compare the aggregate performance of K12 schools that administered SBAC to overall consortium performance. Instead we compare K12 SBAC results to the state’s proficiency percentages.
In general, in grades 3–8, K12 public school programs that administered SBAC sometimes equaled or exceeded the state’s proficiency percentages in English Language Arts/Literacy, but underperformed the state in Mathematics. Here are representative results from Oregon and Washington:
OREGON: GRADES 3–8
FIGURE 5: K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE: OR ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
ORVA State (OR)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
46%49%
54% 53%56% 57%
65%
51%
44% 45%50% 48%
FIGURE 6: K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE: OR MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
ORVA State (OR)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
46% 44%41%
38%43% 43%
46%43%
34%30% 30%
25%
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
WASHINGTON: HIGH SCHOOL
Group 3: K12 Public School Programs Using the Same State Testing Program from 2013–2014 to 2014–2015
In 2014–2015, K12 public school programs in eight states used the same state-specific assessment program each had used in 2013–2014, with no change in proficiency cut scores8: Iowa, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming. Michigan and Nevada continued the use of certain high school assessments, the results of which are reported in this group.9
In analyses that compare the proficiency percentages for the same students year-over-year, aggregate scores for grades 4–8 show that the percentage of students at or above proficiency improved by 2 percentage points in both Reading and Mathematics.
8 The cut score is in effect the score that constitutes passing the test—specifically, the value that determines whether a student has achieved at least an adequate level of performance, typically labeled “proficiency,” on the assessment. Even if states administered the same test, the results of State A cannot be directly compared to those of State B if the two states set different cut scores.
9 Michigan also introduced a new state assessment program called M-Step, the results of which were embargoed and unavailable at the time of this report. Nevada administered SBAC in 2014–2015 but the scores were invalidated.
FIGURE 7: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: WA (HIGH SCHOOL)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Subject
K12 Public School Programs (WA) State (WA)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
MathematicsEnglish Language Arts/Literacy
52%
29%
73%
31%
FIGURE 8: SAME STUDENTS AND SAME ASSESSMENT PROGRAM: OVERALL %AAP BY SCHOOL YEAR AND SUBJECT (GRADES 4–8)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Subject
2013–2014 2014–2015
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
MathematicsReading
68%
50%
66%
44%
1717
10 In the 2014–2015 school year (for which this report includes data), K12 public school programs in Virginia enrolled students in grades K–6, with state testing beginning in grade 3.
K12 public school programs that generally performed as well as (or, in some grades, better than) the state include those in Texas and Virginia, especially in English and Reading. In Virginia, K12 students in grades 4, 5, and 6 outperformed the state in Mathematics as well.
TEXAS: HIGH SCHOOL
• In English 1 (grade 9), students at K12 public school programs in Texas outperformed the state by 5 percentage points.
• In Algebra 1 (grade 9), students at K12 public school programs in Texas underperformed the state by 15 percentage points.
VIRGINIA: GRADES 3–610
• In Reading, at K12 public school programs in Virginia, students in grades 4, 5, and 6 outperformed the state by 12 to 19 percentage points.
FIGURE 9: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON BY SUBJECT: TX (HIGH SCHOOL)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Subject
K12 Public School Programs (TX) State (TX)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Algebra 1English 1
69%
79%74%
64%
FIGURE 10: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: VA READING (GRADES 3–6)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
K12 Public School Programs (VA) State (VA)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
6th5th4th3rd
75% 77% 79%76%
70%
89%
98%93%
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
• In Mathematics, at K12 public school programs in Virginia, students in grades 4, 5, and 6 outperformed the state by 1 to 15 percentage points.
11 Wisconsin administered the SBAC Mathematics assessment in grades 3–8. Wisconsin Virtual Academy’s Mathematics results are reported in the SBAC Analysis section of this report.
Group 4: K12 Public School Programs Administering New State Tests in 2014–2015
In this section, we compare the percentage of K12 students at or above proficiency within a given state to the state’s overall percentage of students at or above proficiency. We report results from K12 public school programs in states that, while in general not members of PARCC or SBAC, changed to new assessment programs in 2014–2015. These states include Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Indiana, South Carolina, and Wisconsin. (Wisconsin results are reported for grades 3–8 English Language Arts and high school only).11
We also include in this section the results from K12 public school programs in Ohio and Louisiana. These states administered PARCC assessments but used a lower cut score to define proficiency than the proficiency standards recommended by the PARCC consortium.
In high school Mathematics, most K12 public school programs school scored below the state (though K12 schools in Ohio and Louisiana outperformed the state in Algebra 1). In tests of Reading and English Language Arts, some K12 public school programs, including those in Wisconsin and Ohio, performed as well as (or, in some grades, better than) the state.
FIGURE 11: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: VA MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–6)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
K12 Public School Programs (VA) State (VA)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
6th5th4th3rd
74%
84%79%
83%
63%
85% 84%
98%
19
WISCONSIN: GRADES 3–8
• In English Language Arts/Literacy, Wisconsin Virtual Academy outperformed the state in grades 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
OHIO: GRADES 3–8
• In English Language Arts/Literacy, Ohio Virtual Academy (OHVA) outperformed the state in grade 8 and equaled the state in grade 7. In grades 3–6, OHVA performed within 2 to 10 percentage points of the state.
FIGURE 12: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: WI ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
WIVA State (WI)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
52% 51%55%
46%
52% 53%58%
46%
57%52% 53%
60%
FIGURE 13: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: OH READING (GRADE 3) / ELA/LITERACY (GRADES 4–8)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
OHVA State (OH)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
79%
72% 70% 70% 69% 68%72% 70%
60%
68% 69% 69%
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
OHIO: HIGH SCHOOL
• In English Language Arts/Literacy, 82 percent of OHVA students performed at or above proficiency, outperforming the state by 9 percentage points.
• In Algebra 1 (grade 9), OHVA students outperformed the state by 6 percentage points.
FIGURE 14: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: OH (HIGH SCHOOL)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Subject
OHVA State (OH)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Algebra 1English Language Arts/Literacy
73%
66%
82%
72%
21
K12 Public School Programs Performance Analysis 2014–2015
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
In the 2014–2015 school year, the landscape of state testing shifted dramatically. Many states switched to new assessments. Some developed new state-specific assessments. Some turned to the Common Core consortia, either the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) or the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC). Some states used assessments from the consortia but changed or added to them. Most states followed the consortia’s recommendations for cut scores to determine proficiency but some set their own cut scores. Some states invalidated all state assessment results due to test administration or scoring issues, while some suspended school accountability ratings.
These changes complicate our efforts to analyze the performance of K12 public school programs. In previous Academic Reports, our practice has been, when possible, to compare data across multiple consecutive school years. But when states change to new tests based on new standards, and use different definitions of proficiency, the results of the new tests cannot be directly compared to results from previous tests.
Moreover, because the PARCC and SBAC assessments are in many cases significantly more rigorous than previous state assessments, it can be misleading to aggregate the results of those tests with results from more traditional state tests. Because test types and categories shifted so much in 2014–2015, we are organizing our performance analysis in ways that we hope will help readers navigate the sometimes confusing landscape of state testing.
How Performance Analyses Are Organized
12 Within specific groups of schools or individual schools, there may be differences between the number of students for whom we report scores on math and ELA. These differences may be attributable to a variety of reasons such as student attendance on days the different assessments were administered or students who took alternative or accommodated assessments in one content area.
12a In this group, we include only those K12 public school programs that both administered PARCC and used the recommended PARCC proficiency cut score. The cut score is in effect the score that constitutes passing the test—specifically, the value that determines whether a student has achieved at least an adequate level of performance, typically labeled “proficiency,” on the assessment. Even if states administered the same test, the results of State A cannot be directly compared to those of State B if the two states set different cut scores.
NORM-REFERENCED TESTS TO GAUGE STUDENT PROGRESS
Many K12 public school programs administer norm-referenced tests to gauge students’ academic progress at different points during the school year. We report results from the Scantron Performance Series®, which is the norm-referenced assessment used by the majority of K12 schools.
OVERALL ANALYSES
We report overall results from K12 public school programs in two specific cases:
• By eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch
• By persistence, that is, the relationship between length of enrollment and performance on state assessments
PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS GROUPINGS12
Analyses of student performance data are organized into four groups as follows:
• Group 1: K12 public school programs administering PARCC in 2014–201512a
• Group 2: K12 public school programs administering SBAC in 2014–2015
• Group 3: K12 public school programs using the same state testing program from 2013–2014 to 2014–2015
• Group 4: K12 public school programs administering new state tests in 2014–2015
Table 4 identifies the specific K12 public school programs within each of those four groups.
NOTE: For K12 public school programs in some states, we separately analyze the results of K12 virtual academies and Insight Schools. Among K12 public school programs, most of those designated as Insight Schools focus on serving academically struggling students in grades 6–12, with a few serving only high school students. While these schools accept students of all ability levels, most focus on providing programs specifically designed to meet the needs of the struggling student. Some K12 Insight Schools are officially designated as “alternative” or “at-risk” schools based on state criteria, but most states do not have official criteria for these types of schools.
K12 Public School Programs Performance Analysis 2014–2015: Introduction
23
TABLE 4: K12 PUBLIC SCHOOL PROGRAMS BY PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS GROUPING
GROUP 1K12 Public School Programs Administering PARCC 2014–2015
K12 PUBLIC SCHOOL PROGRAMS NOTES/EXCEPTIONS
Included in analysis:
Arkansas Virtual Academy
Chicago Virtual Charter School
Colorado Preparatory Academy
Community Academy Public Charter School Online
Insight School of Colorado
Massachusetts Virtual Academy at Greenfield Commonwealth Virtual School
New Mexico Virtual Academy
Newark Preparatory Charter School
Not included in analysis:
Louisiana Virtual Charter Academy and Ohio
Virtual Academy: In 2014–2015 Louisiana and Ohio
administered PARCC but used a lower cut score to
define proficiency than the proficiency standards
recommended by the consortium. For this reason,
results from K12 schools in Louisiana and Ohio are
included in Group 4.
Youth Connection Charter School Virtual High School:
Results not available at the time of this report.
Included only in high school analysis:Newark Preparatory Charter School
GROUP 2K12 Public School Programs Administering SBAC 2014–2015
K12 PUBLIC SCHOOL PROGRAMS NOTES/EXCEPTIONS
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)
Not included in analysis:
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
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
GROUP 3K12 Public School Programs Using the Same State Testing Program from 2013–2014 to 2014–2015
K12 PUBLIC SCHOOL PROGRAMS NOTES/EXCEPTIONS
Included in analysis:
Insight School of Michigan
Insight School of Minnesota
Insight School of Oklahoma
Iowa Virtual Academy
iQ Academy Minnesota
Michigan Great Lakes Virtual Academy
Michigan Virtual Charter Academy
Minnesota Virtual Academy and
Nevada Virtual Academy
Oklahoma Virtual Charter Academy
Tennessee Virtual Academy
Texas Online Preparatory School
Texas Virtual Academy
Utah Virtual Academy
Virginia Virtual Academy-King and Queen
Virginia Virtual Academy-Patrick
Wyoming Virtual Academy
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: Results
from Michigan’s high school ACT assessments are
reported in Group 3. (In 2014–2015, Michigan also
administered a new testing program called M-Step.
As of the time of this report, M-Step results were
embargoed and thus unavailable.)
Nevada Virtual Academy: In 2014–2015, Nevada
SBAC scores were invalidated. Here we report
results from Nevada’s High School Proficiency
Examination.
GROUP 4K12 Public School Programs Administering New State Tests in 2014–2015
K12 PUBLIC SCHOOL PROGRAMS NOTES/EXCEPTIONS
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)
Not included in analysis:
Alaska Virtual Academy and Florida Virtual
Academy at Osceola: Results not available at the
time of this report.
K12 public school programs in Michigan: Results
from Michigan’s high school ACT assessments are
reported in Group 3. In 2014–2015, Michigan also
administered a new testing program called M-Step.
As of the time of this report, M-Step results were
embargoed and thus unavailable.
Wisconsin Virtual Academy, Grades 3–8
Mathematics: Wisconsin administered SBAC
Mathematics, for which results are reported in
Group 2.
TABLE 4: K12 PUBLIC SCHOOL PROGRAMS BY PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS GROUPING (continued)
25
States Suspending Accountability Ratings in 2014–2015
Typically states assessments are considered “high stakes” because some form of accountability is associated with performance. This accountability usually has student- and school-level consequences such as a student’s eligibility to graduate or a school’s performance rating. Many state policymakers suspended accountability associated with performance on state assessments in 2014–2015 due to implementation issues and significant changes in the new assessments. Some states also established 2014–2015 as a baseline year for purposes of growth measurements associated with accountability.
Since the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, there have been consequences related to performance on state assessments. For the states that suspended accountability, the 2014–2015 school year marks the first time in more than a decade that no accountability was associated with state test performance.
States with K12 public school programs that suspended accountability for 2014–2015 include:
• Arizona
• Colorado
• Florida
• Idaho
• Louisiana
• Massachusetts
• Minnesota
• Nevada
• Oregon
• Wisconsin
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
Norm-Referenced Tests to Gauge Student Progress: Results for 2014–2015
Many K12 public school programs administer norm-referenced tests to gauge students’ academic progress at different points during the school year. We report results from the Scantron Performance Series®, which is the norm-referenced assessment used by the majority of K12 schools.
In 2014–2015, K12 Inc. continued the use of the Scantron Performance Series® in more than 50 K12 public school programs. (See Table 5.)
The following analysis compares the mean gain—the change in scale scores from fall to spring administrations of the Scantron assessments—made by K12 students to that of the Scantron Norm Group mean gain.13 The national Scantron Norm Group, made up of thousands of students, comprises a diverse range of students by socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and other demographic characteristics.
Alaska Virtual AcademyArizona Virtual AcademyArkansas Virtual AcademyCommunity Academy Public Charter School OnlineCyber Academy of South CarolinaCalifornia Virtual Academy at FresnoCalifornia Virtual Academy at JamestownCalifornia Virtual Academy at KingsCalifornia Virtual Academy at Los AngelesCalifornia Virtual Academy at MaricopaCalifornia Virtual Academy at Maricopa High SchoolCalifornia Virtual Academy at San DiegoCalifornia Virtual Academy at San JoaquinCalifornia Virtual Academy at San MateoCalifornia Virtual Academy at SonomaCalifornia Virtual Academy at SutterColorado Preparatory AcademyChicago Virtual Charter SchoolGeorgia Cyber AcademyHill House Passport Academy Charter School Iowa Virtual AcademyIdaho College and Career Readiness AcademyIdaho Virtual AcademyiQ Academy California at Los AngelesiQ Academy MinnesotaInsight Academy of ArizonaInsight School of California-Los AngelesInsight School of ColoradoInsight School of Kansas Insight School of Kansas-Adult Insight School of Minnesota
Insight School of OhioInsight School of Oklahoma Insight School of Oregon Insight School of Oregon-Charter OptionInsight School of California at San DiegoInsight School of WashingtonKansas Virtual AcademyMassachusetts Virtual Academy at Greenfield Commonwealth Virtual School Michigan Great Lakes Virtual AcademyMinnesota Virtual AcademyNewark Preparatory Charter SchoolNew Mexico Virtual AcademyOhio Virtual AcademyOregon Virtual AcademySouth Carolina Virtual Charter SchoolSan Francisco Flex AcademySilicon Valley Flex AcademyTexas Online Preparatory SchoolTexas Virtual AcademyVirginia Virtual Academy-King and QueenVirginia Virtual Academy-PatrickWashington Virtual Academy-MonroeWashington Virtual Academy-OmakWisconsin Virtual AcademyWyoming Virtual Academy
TABLE 5: K12 PUBLIC SCHOOL PROGRAMS USING SCANTRON
13 The methodology employed in the analysis of Scantron results in this 2016 Academic Report differs from the methodology used in prior years’ Academic Reports. As noted, the analysis in the 2015 Academic Report (which set forth the results for SY 2013–2014) erroneously excluded students whose difference in scale scores between the fall and spring Scantron assessments fell within Scantron’s standard error of measurement for that difference (that is, students whose scale scores differential was not statistically distinct from zero). Such scores are included in the analysis of Scantron results set forth in this 2016 Academic Report. In addition, the methodology used in previous reports identified outliers (which were excluded from the analysis) as students whose gain scores were outside three standard deviations of zero or their grade’s mean gain. For the 2016 Academic Report, the methodology identifies (and excludes) outliers consistent with the methodology used by Scantron in its calculation of the national Scantron Norm Group, as documented in the 13th Edition of the Scantron Performance Series Technical Report which was published in December, 2015. Specifically, for both Mathematics and Reading and for each grade, only students who completed Scantron assessments in both fall 2014 and spring 2015 and whose fall 2014 scores were between the 25th and 75th percentiles are included in the analysis. In the prior year, outliers were defined as students who were plus or minus one standard error of the mean of the distribution of gains or as students with zero gains as well as students beyond three standard deviations of the mean. Although this year’s outlier approach excludes more gain scores than in prior years, it more closely aligns our methodology for analyzing our students’ Scantron gains with Scantron’s own methodology for calculating the Scantron Norm Group mean gain. Finally, this 2016 Academic Report calculates the overall percentage of the Scantron Norm Group mean gain as a weighted average of the grade-level percentages, where the weights are the number of students in each grade. (SEM not an error, but we improved upon this.)
27
Scantron Performance Series® Assessment Results (2014–2015)
READING
As reported in Figure 15 and Table 6, in Reading, K12 students exceeded the Scantron Norm Group mean gain in grades 4–7 and achieved 86 percent of the overall norm group mean gain from fall to spring. K12 students were within 20 percent of the Scantron Norm Group mean gain in grade 3.
TABLE 6: 2014–2015 SCANTRON MEAN GAIN COMPARISON: READING
* The overall percentage of the norm group mean gain is calculated as a weighted average of the grade-level percentages, where the weights are the number of students in each grade.
FIGURE 15: 2014–2015 SCANTRON MEAN GAIN COMPARISON: READING
0
50
100
150
200
250
10th9th8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
Mea
n G
ain
Grade Level
2014–2015 K12 Mean Gain 2014–2015 Scantron Norm Group Mean Gain
Source: SY 2014–2015 Gains Data; SY 2014–2015 FRL Data
Number of Students
Included in Gains Analysis
Fall Mean Scale Score
Spring Mean Scale Score K12 Mean Gain Scantron Norm
Group Mean Gain
Percentage of Norm Group Mean Gain *
Grade 3 1,353 2,586.43 2,756.06 169.63 202.7 84%
Grade 4 1,717 2,737.51 2,892.65 155.14 146.72 106%
Grade 5 1,874 2,849.95 2,973.55 123.59 108.06 114%
Grade 6 2,163 2,952.59 3,053.20 100.61 80.91 124%
Grade 7 2,650 3,023.23 3,100.05 76.82 66.37 116%
Grade 8 3,164 3,087.85 3,125.98 38.14 61.52 62%
Grade 9 2,437 3,132.14 3,164.25 32.10 42.96 75%
Grade 10 2,370 3,188.37 3,199.21 10.84 48.88 22%
Overall 17,728 85%
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
MATHEMATICS
As reported in Figure 16 and Table 7, in Mathematics, K12 students exceeded the Scantron Norm Group mean gain in grades 4, 6, and 9 and achieved 94 percent of the overall Scantron Norm Group mean gain from fall to spring. K12 students were within 20 percentage points of the Scantron Norm Group mean gain in grades 3, 5, and 7.
Number of Students
Included in Gains Analysis
Fall Mean Scale Score
Spring Mean Scale Score K12 Mean Gain Scantron Norm
Group Mean Gain
Percentage of Norm Group Mean Gain *
Grade 3 1,372 2,369.05 2,526.56 157.51 179.98 88%
Grade 4 1,725 2,461.77 2,613.07 151.30 141.21 107%
Grade 5 1,885 2,551.63 2,668.80 117.17 132.47 88%
Grade 6 2,185 2,625.68 2,753.22 127.54 113.65 112%
Grade 7 2,663 2,715.33 2,798.56 83.23 91.99 90%
Grade 8 3,189 2,777.81 2,832.69 54.88 77.41 71%
Grade 9 2,464 2,798.80 2,848.99 50.19 39.37 127%
Grade 10 2,415 2,849.75 2,889.46 39.71 50.78 78%
Overall 17,898 94%
TABLE 7: 2014–2015 SCANTRON MEAN GAIN COMPARISON: MATHEMATICS
* The overall percentage of the norm group mean gain is calculated as a weighted average of the grade-level percentages, where the weights are the number of students in each grade.
FIGURE 16: 2014–2015 SCANTRON MEAN GAIN COMPARISON: MATHEMATICS
0
50
100
150
200
250
10th9th8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
Mea
n G
ain
Grade Level
2014–2015 K12 Mean Gain 2014–2015 Scantron Norm Group Mean Gain
29
Scantron Performance Series® Assessment Results by Eligibility for Free and Reduced-Price Lunch (2014–2015)
READING
As reported in Figure 17 and Table 8, in Reading, K12 FRL-eligible students exceeded the Scantron Norm Group mean gain in grades 4–6, while K12 students not eligible for FRL exceeded the Scantron Norm Group mean gain in grades 4–7. Overall, K12 FRL eligible students achieved 83 percent of the overall Scantron Norm Group mean gain from fall to spring, while K12 students not eligible for FRL achieved 94 percent of the Scantron Norm Group mean gain.
TABLE 8: 2014–2015 SCANTRON MEAN GAIN COMPARISON BY FRL ELIGIBILITY: READING
FIGURE 17: 2014–2015 SCANTRON MEAN GAIN COMPARISON BY FRL ELIGIBILITY: READING
0
50
100
150
200
250
10th9th8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
Mea
n G
ain
Grade Level
K12 FRL Eligible K12 Not Eligible for FRL 2014–2015 Scantron Norm Group Mean Gain
K12 FRL Eligible K12 Not Eligible for FRL
Scantron Norm Group Mean Gain
Number of Students Mean Gain
Percentage of Norm Group Mean Gain
Number of Students Mean Gain
Percentage of Norm Group Mean Gain
Grade 3 202.7 654 166.62 82% 425 168.08 83%
Grade 4 146.72 817 149.60 102% 562 160.24 109%
Grade 5 108.06 872 122.90 114% 610 111.93 104%
Grade 6 80.91 981 99.25 123% 682 99.08 122%
Grade 7 66.37 1,127 55.32 83% 863 91.31 138%
Grade 8 61.52 1,379 31.52 51% 1,038 46.28 75%
Grade 9 42.96 1,117 41.86 97% 756 34.02 79%
Grade 10 48.88 979 12.09 25% 870 25.24 52%
Overall* 7,926 83% 5,806 94%
* The overall percentage of the norm group mean gain is calculated as a weighted average of the grade-level percentages, where the weights are the number of students in each grade.Note: Table includes data for students who provided information regarding FRL eligibility.
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
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.
K12 FRL Eligible K12 Not Eligible for FRL
Scantron Norm Group Mean Gain
Number of Students Mean Gain
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 51.98 102%
Overall* 8,033 87% 5,846 108%
TABLE 9: 2014–2015 SCANTRON MEAN GAIN COMPARISON BY FRL ELIGIBILITY: MATHEMATICS
FIGURE 18: 2014–2015 SCANTRON MEAN GAIN COMPARISON BY FRL ELIGIBILITY: MATHEMATICS
0
50
100
150
200
250
10th9th8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
Mea
n G
ain
Grade Level
K12 FRL Eligible K12 Not Eligible for FRL 2014–2015 Scantron Norm Group Mean Gain
* The overall percentage of the norm group mean gain is calculated as a weighted average of the grade-level percentages, where the weights are the number of students in each grade.Note: Table includes data for students who provided information regarding FRL eligibility.
31
OVERALL ANALYSIS GRADES 3–8 AND HIGH SCHOOL: Persistence and FRL
In this section, we report overall results from K12 public school programs in two specific cases:
• By persistence, that is, the relationship between length of enrollment and performance on state assessments
• By eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch (FRL)
Performance by Persistence
Educational researchers have demonstrated that mobility— repeatedly moving from one school setting to another—can have a destabilizing influence, causing students to struggle and lapse in academic performance. Conversely, persistence—remaining continuously enrolled in the same school—generally proves beneficial to students as they are promoted through the grade levels.13a
Research findings on the beneficial effects of persistence are confirmed by our analysis of student performance on state tests. The overall results of that analysis show that, in general, students who stay in K12 public school programs longer achieve higher percentages at or above proficiency on state assessments, while students who stay the least amount of time show lower percentages at or above proficiency.
In our analyses of the effects of persistence, we present data on the percentage of students at or above proficiency on state assessments for students in four categories based on length of enrollment:
• Less than 1 year
• 1 year but less than 2
• 2 years but less than 3
• 3 years or more
For the 2014–2015 school year, in most cases we continue to see a positive relationship between length of continuous enrollment and proficiency. (See Figure 19.) In the following analyses, we present data for grades 3–8 and for high school. The analyses aggregate results from all K12 school programs from which valid test results were available.
13a Ashby, Cornelia M. (2010). K–12 Education: Many Challenges Arise in Educating Students Who Change Schools Frequently. Report to Congressional Requesters, GAO-11-40. US Government Accountability O. ce: 1–52.
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
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)
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
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
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
3 yrs or more2 yrs but < 31 yr but <2Less than 1 year
36%41%
45%
52%
28%
34%36%
42%
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Persistence by Subject
English Language Arts Mathematics
GRADES 3–8
Students enrolled 3 years or more compared to students enrolled less than 1 year
Subject %AAP: Increase or Decrease (in percentage points)
English Language Arts +16
Mathematics +14
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS MATHEMATICS
%AAP Total Count %AAP Total Count
Less than 1 year 36% 4,115 28% 5,141
1 year but less than 2 years 41% 8,822 34% 11,046
2 years but less than 3 years 45% 3,848 36% 4,960
3 years or more 52% 6,409 42% 7,576
33
HIGH SCHOOL
Our analysis of the effects of persistence in high school is organized by test type: either end-of-course assessments (EOCs) or high school graduation tests (HSGTs).14
HSGT PROFICIENCY PERCENTAGES BY PERSISTENCE
For HSGTs, compared to students enrolled in K12 public school programs less than 1 year, students enrolled 3 years or more achieved higher percentages at or above proficiency: 15 percentage points higher in English Language Arts and 9 percentage points higher in Mathematics. (See Table 13.)
FIGURE 20: 2014–2015 PROFICIENCY PERCENTAGES BY SUBJECT AND PERSISTENCE (HSGT)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
3 yrs or more2 yrs but < 31 yr but <2Less than 1 year
52%57% 56%
67%
31%34% 35%
40%
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Persistence by Subject
English Language Arts Mathematics
14 HSGTs are designed to measure the basic knowledge and skills that students should know and be able to do by the end of high school. High school graduation tests do not measure specific content standards associated with specific courses such as English Literature, Algebra, Biology, or U.S. History. While HSGTs set a floor for academic achievement in broad domains of reading, writing, mathematics, science, and social studies, EOCs measure proficiency in the specific courses that students take to meet their high school graduation requirements (for example, in Algebra 1, Algebra 2, Geometry, English 1, etc.).
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiencyData represents students in grades 9–12 only.
TABLE 12: 2014–2015 PROFICIENCY PERCENTAGES BY SUBJECT AND PERSISTENCE (HSGT)
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS MATHEMATICS
%AAP Total Count %AAP Total Count
Less than 1 year 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
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
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
EOC PROFICIENCY PERCENTAGES BY PERSISTENCE
In high school, for students who took an end-of-course assessment in English 1 or Algebra 1, the relationship between persistence and proficiency is not consistent with either grades 3–8 or HSGT results. Relative to students enrolled less than 1 year, the proficiency percentage of students enrolled 3 years or more was 3 percentage points less in English 1 and remained unchanged in Algebra 1.
FIGURE 21: 2014–2015 PROFICIENCY PERCENTAGES BY SUBJECT AND PERSISTENCE (EOC)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
3 yrs or more2 yrs but < 31 yr but <2Less than 1 year
48%
36%
47%
32%
45%
33%
45%
36%
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Persistence by Subject
English 1 Algebra 1
TABLE 14: 2014–2015 PROFICIENCY PERCENTAGES BY SUBJECT AND PERSISTENCE (EOC)
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency Data represents students in grades 9–12 only.
ENGLISH 1 ALGEBRA 1
%AAP Total Count %AAP Total Count
Less than 1 year 48% 382 36% 586
1 year but less than 2 years 47% 918 32% 1,429
2 years but less than 3 years 45% 348 33% 601
3 years or more 45% 530 36% 895
TABLE 15: 2014–2015 PERSISTENCE EOC: 3 YEARS OR MORE COMPARED TO LESS THAN 1 YEAR
END-OF-COURSE ASSESSMENTS
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
35
STUDENTS ELIGIBLE FOR FREE AND REDUCED-PRICE LUNCH
Nationwide All K12 Public School Programs
50% 59%
Performance by Free and Reduced-Price Lunch Eligibility
The National School Lunch Program—a federally assisted program overseen by the United States Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service and usually administered by state education agencies—provides free or reduced-price lunches to students whose families earn at or below a set percentage of the U.S. poverty level.
In educational research, eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch (FRL) is often used as an indicator of poverty.15 While FRL eligibility cannot be automatically equated with poverty, it is an indicator of a range of income that can extend down to the poverty level and below.
The National School Lunch Program has four classifications:
• Free Lunch Eligible
• Reduced-Price Lunch Eligible
• Not Eligible
• Unknown Eligibility
Eligibility is based on self-reported family data that include income and the size of the household. In this report, we include data for students in all eligibility categories except Unknown. For more information see Appendix 1.
According to data from the National Center for Education Statistics for the most recent school year available (2013–2014), nationally, 50.24% of students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.16 In comparison, based on self-reported family data, for all students in grades 3–8 and high school in K12 public school programs, 59% were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch in 2014–2015.
THE EFFECTS OF LOW INCOME AND POVERTY
When we take into consideration students’ eligibility for subsidized meals under the National School Lunch Program, we see a fairly consistent relationship between this indicator of family poverty and students’ proficiency on state assessments. Of course family income is only one in a complex array of factors that can negatively affect academic performance, including other criteria considered by National School Lunch Program such as number of people in the household and frequency of income during the year.
The K12 experience is more than education. We are a caring community committed to offering assistance that helps students thrive. Our Family Academic Support Team (FAST) provides social, emotional, medical, and other services to help families overcome challenges that can affect students’ academic success.
Overall, the data below show that students who choose to enroll in a K12 public school program, and who are eligible for subsidized meals, tend to be less successful on state tests than students who are not eligible. This pattern is consistent with national trends confirmed in many studies, such as the research reported by Dahl and Lochner, which indicates that family income has a significant effect on a child’s mathematics and reading achievement as measured on standardized tests.17
In 2014–2015, for K12 students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, we see patterns consistent with FRL analyses in our previous Academic Reports, specifically:
• Students identified as eligible for free lunch had lower percentages at or above proficiency than students eligible for reduced-price lunch.
• Both groups underperformed students identified as not eligible for subsidized meals.
In our overall analysis of data from across K12 public school programs, these patterns hold true for all subjects in both grades 3–8 and high school. (See Figures 22–24 and Tables 16–18.)
15 New America Foundation (April 24, 2014). Background and Analysis: Federal School Nutrition Programs. Retrieved from http://febp.newamerica.net/background-analysis/federalschool-nutrition-programs.
16 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “Local Education Agency (School District) Universe Survey”, 2013–2014 v.1a; “Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey”, 2013–2014 v.1a; “State Non-fiscal Public Elementary/Secondary Education Survey”, 2013–2014 v.1a.
17 Dahl, Gordon B. and Lance Lochner. 2012. “The Impact of Family Income on Child Achievement: Evidence from the Earned Income Tax Credit.” American Economic Review, 102(5):1927–56. Retrieved from www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.102.5.1927. Dahl and Lochner report that a $1,000 increase in family income raised mathematics and reading test scores by about 6 percent of a standard deviation.
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
FIGURE 22: 2014–2015 PROFICIENCY PERCENTAGES BY SUBJECT AND FRL ELIGIBILITY (GRADES 3–8)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Subject and FRL Status
Free Lunch Eligible Reduced-Price Lunch Eligible Not Eligible
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
MathematicsEnglish Language Arts
54%
46%44%
34%34%
26%
%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.
TABLE 16: 2014–2015 PROFICIENCY PERCENTAGES BY SUBJECT AND FRL ELIGIBILITY (GRADES 3–8)
GRADES 3–8
The following data present overall percentages of students at or above proficiency by free and reduced-price lunch eligibility for grades 3–8.
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS MATHEMATICS
%AAPGap Relative to
Not Eligible in percentage points
Total Count %AAP
Gap Relative to Not Eligible
in percentage points
Total Count
Free Lunch Eligible 34% -20 9,823 26% -20 12,210
Reduced-Price Eligible 44% -10 3,416 34% -12 4,300
Not Eligible 54% -- 9,246 46% -- 11,372
37
HIGH SCHOOL
The following data present overall percentages of students at or above proficiency by free and reduced-price lunch eligibility for high school graduation tests (HSGT).
%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.
TABLE 17: 2014–2015 PROFICIENCY PERCENTAGES BY SUBJECT AND FRL ELIGIBILITY (HSGT)
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS MATHEMATICS
%AAPGap Relative
to Not Eligiblein percentage
points
%AAP %AAPGap Relative
to Not Eligiblein percentage
points
%AAP
Free Lunch Eligible 52% -13 1,339 31% -9 1,565
Reduced-Price Lunch Eligible
58% -7 542 33% -7 604
Not Eligible 65% -- 1,539 40% -- 1,736
FIGURE 23: 2014–2015 PROFICIENCY PERCENTAGES BY SUBJECT AND FRL ELIGIBILITY (HSGT)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Subject and FRL Status
Free Lunch Eligible Reduced-Price Lunch Eligible Not Eligible
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
MathematicsEnglish Language Arts
65%
40%
58%
33%
52%
31%
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
FIGURE 24: 2014–2015 PROFICIENCY PERCENTAGES BY SUBJECT AND FRL ELIGIBILITY (EOC)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Algebra 1English 1
55%
42%
50%
40%39%
27%
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Subject and FRL Status
Free Lunch Eligible Reduced-Price Lunch Eligible Not Eligible
%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.
TABLE 18: 2014–2015 PROFICIENCY PERCENTAGES BY SUBJECT AND FRL ELIGIBILITY (EOC)
ENGLISH 1 ALGEBRA 1
%AAPGap Relative
to Not Eligiblein percentage
points
%AAP %AAPGap Relative
to Not Eligiblein 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
HIGH SCHOOL (continued)
The following data present overall percentages of students at or above proficiency by free and reduced-price lunch eligibility for high school end-of-course tests (EOC).
39
K12 Public School Programs Administering PARCC
GROUP 1
K12 Public School Programs Administering PARCC 2014–2015 NOTES/EXCEPTIONS
Included in analysis:
Arkansas Virtual Academy
Chicago Virtual Charter School
Colorado Preparatory Academy
Community Academy Public Charter School Online
Insight School of Colorado
Massachusetts Virtual Academy at Greenfield Commonwealth
Virtual School
New Mexico Virtual Academy
Newark Preparatory Charter School
Not included in analysis:
Louisiana Virtual Charter Academy and Ohio Virtual Academy: In 2014–2015 Louisiana and Ohio administered PARCC but used a lower cut score to define proficiency than the proficiency standards recommended by the consortium. For this reason, results from K12 schools in Louisiana and Ohio are included in Group 4.
Youth Connection Charter School Virtual High School: Results not available at the time of this report.
Included only in high school analysis:
Newark Preparatory Charter School
• The PARCC consortium offers assessments in English Language Arts (ELA)/Literacy and Mathematics for grades 3–8 and high school.
• K12 Public School Programs Aggregate Comparison to PARCC Consortium: For the 2014–2015 PARCC testing administration, overall results for all consortium states are available.18 We compare the aggregate performance of K12 public school programs19 that administered PARCC (with the exceptions noted at left) to the overall PARCC consortium performance data for grades 3–8 and high school.
• Year-Over-Year Case Study: The Example of Arkansas Virtual Academy: We analyze the results from a single K12 public school program, Arkansas Virtual Academy, as an example of the complexities in attempting to understand the year-over-year performance of schools that have changed from state-specific tests in 2013–2014 to Common Core consortia assessments in 2014–2015.
K12 Public School Programs Included in PARCC AnalysisFRL Eligible Special Education
K12 State K12 State
Arkansas Virtual Academy 65% 61% 15% 13%
Chicago Virtual Charter School 76% 54%
Colorado Preparatory Academy 57% 42% 10% 10%
Community Academy Public Charter School Online 69% 99% 17% 15%
Insight School of Colorado 48% 42% -- --
Massachusetts Virtual Academy at Greenfield Commonwealth Virtual School
56% 38% -- --
New Mexico Virtual Academy 50% 67% -- --
Newark Preparatory Charter School 70% 38% 16% 15%FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.Special education eligibility percentages are reported only for schools in which K12 is responsible for special education services.
18 Source for PARCC consortium data: http://www.parcconline.org/images/Consortium_and_State_Tables_FINAL_3_7_16.pdf19 Results from K12 public school programs include Full Academic Year students (those who have been continuously enrolled starting on or before a specified date usually close to the
beginning of the school year).
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
K12 Public School Programs Aggregate Comparison to PARCC Consortium
GRADES 3–8ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)
• On the PARCC English Language Arts/Literacy test, students in K12 public school programs performed better in grades 3–5 than in grades 6–8 achieved proficiency percentages within 1 to 3 percentage points of the overall PARCC consortium.
• In grades 6–8, K12 students performed within 6 to 12 percentage points the overall PARCC consortium.
TABLE 19: K12 COMPARISON TO PARCC CONSORTIUM: ELA/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count Per Category ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY
K12 %AAP K12 Total Count
Overall PARCC Consortium
%AAP
Overall PARCC Consortium
Count
Gap between K12 and PARCC
Consortiumin percentage points
Grade 3 36% 163 37% 508,108 -1
Grade 4 38% 182 41% 623,065 -3
Grade 5 40% 203 41% 628,924 -1
Grade 6 27% 295 39% 622,022 -12
Grade 7 35% 343 41% 615,390 -6
Grade 8 32% 368 42% 609,868 -10
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
FIGURE 25: K12 COMPARISON TO PARCC CONSORTIUM: ELA/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
K12 Public School Programs Overall PARCC Consortium
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
37%41% 41% 39% 41% 42%
36% 38% 40%
27%
35%32%
41
MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
• On the PARCC Mathematics test, students in grades 7 and 8 were within 1 percentage point of the PARCC consortium but the students in grades 3–7 underperformed the consortium by between 6 and 10 percentage points.
FIGURE 26: K12 COMPARISON TO PARCC CONSORTIUM: MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
K12 Public School Programs Overall PARCC Consortium
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
37%32% 32% 32%
28% 27%31%
22%26% 25% 27% 26%
TABLE 20: K12 COMPARISON TO PARCC CONSORTIUM: MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count Per Category MATHEMATICS
K12 %AAP K12 Total Count
Overall PARCC Consortium
%AAP
Overall PARCC Consortium
Count
Gap between K12 and PARCC
Consortiumin percentage points
Grade 3 31% 164 37% 640,416 -6
Grade 4 22% 183 32% 625,699 -10
Grade 5 26% 205 32% 630,748 -6
Grade 6 25% 298 32% 622,136 -7
Grade 7 27% 343 28% 600,339 -1
Grade 8 26% 364 27% 497,597 -1
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
HIGH SCHOOL
In K12 public school programs across grades 9–11, 598 students received scores on the PARCC assessment in English Language Arts/Literacy and 217 on Algebra 1. The analysis of high school results includes these K12 public school programs:
• Arkansas Virtual Academy
• Colorado Preparatory Academy
• Insight School of Colorado
• Chicago Virtual Charter School
• Newark Preparatory Charter School
• New Mexico Virtual Academy
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY: GRADES 9–11
• In grades 9–11, K12 public school programs underperformed the overall PARCC consortium in English Language Arts/Literacy by 11 to 13 percentage points.
FIGURE 27: K12 COMPARISON TO PARCC CONSORTIUM: ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 9–11)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
K12 Public School Programs Overall PARCC Consortium
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
11th10th 9th
40% 38% 39%
27% 25%28%
TABLE 21: K12 COMPARISON TO PARCC CONSORTIUM: ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 9–11)
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
Consortiumin percentage points
Grade 9 27% 214 40% 401,304 -13
Grade 10 25% 212 38% 269,778 -13
Grade 11 28% 172 39% 163,956 -11
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
43
ALGEBRA 1
• In K12 public school programs, across grades 9–11, the overall proficiency percentage in Algebra 1 was 9% compared to 31% at or above proficiency across the PARCC consortium.
FIGURE 28: K12 COMPARISON TO PARCC CONSORTIUM: ALGEBRA 1 (OVERALL 9–11)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
K12 Public School Programs Overall PARCC Consortium
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Algebra 1
31%
9%
TABLE 22: K12 COMPARISON TO PARCC CONSORTIUM: ALGEBRA 1 (GRADES 9–11)
%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.
Subject
K12 PARCC CONSORTIUM**
%AAP Total Count %AAP Total
Count
Grade 9 10% 177 -- --
Grade 10 6% 34 -- --
Grade 11 * * -- --
Overall 9% 217 31% 473,060
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
In 2013–2014, the state of Arkansas administered the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing Program. In 2014–2015, the state administered the PARCC assessments. Here we analyze the results from Arkansas Virtual Academy as an example of how we can address the complexities in attempting to understand the year-over-year performance of schools that have changed from state-specific tests in 2013–2014 to Common Core consortia assessments in 2014–2015.
Because the assessments developed by the PARCC and SBAC consortia were in general more demanding than previous state tests, states that followed the consortia-recommended cut scores reported lower percentages at or above proficiency compared to previous years. However, when states change to new tests based on new standards, the results of the new tests cannot be directly compared to results from previous tests. Thus, for Arkansas and other states that changed to PARCC in 2014–2015, the 2014–2015 results cannot be compared to results from state-specific tests administered in 2013–2014.
We can, however, compare how the K12 school performed relative to the state year-over-year. Specifically, for each tested subject reported, we can calculate the gap in percentage points between the K12 school’s percentage of students at or above proficiency and state’s percentage at or above proficiency.
In comparing the performance of the K12 school relative to the state year-over-year, we are not comparing test results from the current year to prior year results, which would constitute an invalid comparison. Instead, by comparing the school-state gap in 2013–2014 to the gap in 2014–2015, we can see whether the school is improving or declining relative to the state in specific subjects and grade levels.
ARVA: School and State Comparison20
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)
School Year Assessment Program Administered
2013–2014 Arkansas Comprehensive Testing Program: Literacy
2014–2015 PARCC English Language Arts/Literacy
• In 2014–2015, on the more rigorous PARCC English Language Arts/Literacy assessment, ARVA equaled the state in grade 3 and outperformed the state in grade 4.
• In English Language Arts/Literacy, relative to 2013–2014, in 2014–2015 the gap between ARVA and the state closed or narrowed in grades 3–6 by 6 to 25 percentage points.
20 In this analysis, both school and state results are (as reported in the state data source) for all students regardless of enrollment date.
Year-Over-Year Case Study: The Example of Arkansas Virtual Academy
45
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th7th6th5th4th3rd
29%34% 32% 33% 35%
32%29%
35%
27% 27%31% 30%
77%
83% 82%
69%
77% 77%
58% 59%
66%
57%
76% 77%
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
2013–2014 ARVA 2013–2014 State 2014–2015 ARVA 2014–2015 State
FIGURE 29: ARVA YEAR-OVER-YEAR SCHOOL-STATE COMPARISON: ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)
2013–2014 ARVA
2013–2014 State
2013–2014 ARVA/
State Gap
2014–2015 ARVA
2014–2015 State
2014–2015 ARVA/State
Gap
Change in School/State
Gap*in percentage points
3rd 13–14 ARVA n=13014–15 ARVA n=107
58% 77% -19 29% 29% = +19
4th13–14 ARVA n=13114–15 ARVA n=122
59% 83% -24 35% 34% +1 + 25
5th13–14 ARVA n=14214–15 ARVA n=118
66% 82% -16 27% 32% -5 +11
6th13–14 ARVA n=14614–15 ARVA n=160
57% 69% -12 27% 33% -6 +6
7th13–14 ARVA n=17214–15 ARVA n=185
76% 77% -1 31% 35% -4 -3
8th13–14 ARVA n=17114–15 ARVA n=196
77% 77% = 30% 32% -2 -2
TABLE 23: ARVA YEAR-OVER-YEAR SCHOOL-STATE GAP ANALYSIS: ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)
* A positive value indicates the number of percentage points by which the gap between ARVA and the state narrowed (relative to percentage of students at or above proficiency) from the 2013–2014 school year to the 2014–2015 school year.
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
Source for state data: http://www.arkansased.gov/public/userfiles/Learning_Services/Student%20Assessment/2015/Arkansas_PARCC_Results_for_Students_in_Grades_3_through_8_and_High_School_Final_1.pdf
TABLE 24: ARVA YEAR-OVER-YEAR SCHOOL-STATE GAP ANALYSIS: MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
* A positive value indicates the number of percentage points by which the gap between ARVA and the state narrowed (relative to percentage of students at or above proficiency) from the 2013–2014 school year to the 2014–2015 school year.
2013–2014 ARVA
2013–2014 State
2013–2014 ARVA/
State Gap
2014–2015 ARVA
2014–2015 State
2014–2015 ARVA/State
Gap
Change in School/State
Gap*in percentage points
3rd 13–14 ARVA n=13014–15 ARVA n=107
71% 84% -13 20% 31% -11 +2
4th13–14 ARVA n=13114–15 ARVA n=122
64% 76% -12 14% 24% -10 +2
5th13–14 ARVA n=14214–15 ARVA n=120
51% 68% -17 20% 24% -4 +13
6th13–14 ARVA n=14614–15 ARVA n=159
63% 73% -10 20% 25% -5 +5
7th13–14 ARVA n=17214–15 ARVA n=184
58% 69% -11 19% 25% -6 +5
8th13–14 ARVA n=17114–15 ARVA n=195
61% 64% -3 29% 17% +12 +15
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th7th6th5th4th3rd
31%
24% 24% 25% 25%
17%20%
14%
20% 20% 19%
29%
84%
76%
68%73%
69%64%
71%
64%
51%
63%58%
61%
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
2013–2014 ARVA 2013–2014 State 2014–2015 ARVA 2014–2015 State
FIGURE 30: ARVA YEAR-OVER-YEAR SCHOOL-STATE COMPARISON: MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
• In 2014–2015, on the more rigorous PARCC Mathematics assessment, ARVA outperformed the state in grade 8.
• In Mathematics, relative to 2013–2014, in 2014–2015 the gap between ARVA and the state closed or narrowed in all grades by 2 to 15 percentage points.
School Year Assessment Program Administered
2013–2014Arkansas Comprehensive Testing Program: Mathematics
2014–2015 PARCC Mathematics
47
K12 Public School Programs Administering SBAC
GROUP 2
K12 Public School Programs Administering SBAC 2014–2015
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)
Not included in analysis:
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
• 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.
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
K12 Public School Programs in California Included in Analysis
FRL Eligible Special Education
K12 State K12 State
California Virtual Academy at Fresno 61%
58% 11%* 11%
California Virtual Academy at Jamestown 65%
California Virtual Academy at Kings 53%
California Virtual Academy at Los Angeles 54%
California Virtual Academy at Maricopa 61%
California Virtual Academy at Maricopa High School* (included in high school analysis only)
55%
California Virtual Academy at San Diego 51%
California Virtual Academy at San Joaquin 51%
California Virtual Academy at San Mateo 42%
California Virtual Academy at Sonoma 52%
California Virtual Academy at Sutter 55%
iQ Academy California at Los Angeles 55% 58% 9% 11%
Silicon Valley Flex Academy 10% 58% 16% 11%
NOTE: This analysis aggregates data from all of the separate California K12 public school programs listed in the table at left. Results from two high school programs, Insight School of California-Los Angeles and Insight School of California-San Diego, are reported separately.
* The special education eligibility percentage is an aggregate figure encompassing the specified individual K12 California Virtual Academy schools.
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
CALIFORNIA
49
GRADES 3–8 ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)
• In English Language Arts/Literacy, K12 public school programs in California performed within 1 percentage point of the state in grades 3 and 8 and within 4 percentage points of the state in grade 7.22
• Across all grades (3–8), the gap between K12 public school programs in California and the state did not exceed 8 percentage points.
FIGURE 31: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE: CA ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
38% 40%44% 42% 44% 45%
37%32%
38%34%
40%44%
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
K12 Public School Programs (CA) State (CA)
TABLE 25: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE: CA ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count Per Category ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY
CA K12 %AAP Total Count State %AAP
Grade 3 37% 748 38%
Grade 4 32% 786 40%
Grade 5 38% 822 44%
Grade 6 34% 1,022 42%
Grade 7 40% 1,321 44%
Grade 8 44% 1,547 45%
%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.
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
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)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
40%35%
30%33% 34% 33%
27% 26%21%
24% 24% 24%
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
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
51
HIGH SCHOOL23
• In English Language Arts/Literacy (grade 11), K12 public school programs in California outperformed the state by 5 percentage points.
• In Mathematics (grade 11), K12 public school programs in California underperformed the state by 12 percentage points.
FIGURE 33: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: CA (HIGH SCHOOL)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
MathematicsEnglish Language Arts/Literacy
56%
29%
61%
17%
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Subject
K12 Public School Programs (CA) State (CA)
TABLE 27: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: CA (HIGH SCHOOL)
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY MATHEMATICS
CA K12 %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
CA K12 %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 11 61% 1,283 56% 17% 1,281 29%
Source for state data: http://caaspp.cde.ca.gov 23 As noted earlier, the aggregated data here do not include results from two high school programs, Insight School of California-Los Angeles and Insight School of California-San Diego,
which are reported separately.
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
INSIGHT SCHOOL OF CALIFORNIA-LOS ANGELES
Source for state data: http://caaspp.cde.ca.gov 24 Among K12 public school programs, most of those designated as Insight Schools focus on serving academically struggling students in grades 6–12, with a few serving only high school
students. While these schools accept students of all ability levels, most focus on providing programs specifically designed to meet the needs of the struggling student. Some K12 Insight Schools are officially designated as “alternative” or “at-risk” schools based on state criteria, but most states do not have official criteria for these types of schools.
HIGH SCHOOL• In English Language Arts/Literacy (grade 11), ISCA-LA students underperformed the state by 27 percentage points.
• In Mathematics (grade 11), ISCA-LA students underperformed the state by 24 percentage points.
FIGURE 34: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: CA (HIGH SCHOOL)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
MathematicsEnglish Language Arts/Literacy
56%
29%29%
5%Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Subject
ISCA-LA State (CA)
TABLE 28: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: CA (HIGH SCHOOL)
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY MATHEMATICS
ISCA-LA%AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
ISCA-LA%AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 11 29% 55 56% 5% 55 29%
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
Insight School of California-Los Angeles
FRL Eligible Special Education
K12 State K12 State
66% 58% 14% 11%
Insight School of California-Los Angeles (ISCA-LA)
serves students in high school (grades 9–12).24
53
INSIGHT SCHOOL OF CALIFORNIA-SAN DIEGO
Source for state data: http://caaspp.cde.ca.gov 25 Among K12 public school programs, most of those designated as Insight Schools focus on serving academically struggling students in grades 6–12, with a few serving only high school
students. While these schools accept students of all ability levels, most focus on providing programs specifically designed to meet the needs of the struggling student. Some K12 Insight Schools are officially designated as “alternative” or “at-risk” schools based on state criteria, but most states do not have official criteria for these types of schools.
HIGH SCHOOL• In English Language Arts/Literacy (grade 11), ISCA-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)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
MathematicsEnglish Language Arts/Literacy
56%
29%
36%
4%Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Subject
ISCA-SD State (CA)
TABLE 29: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: CA (HIGH SCHOOL)
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY MATHEMATICS
ISCA-SD%AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
ISCA-SD%AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 11 36% 55 56% 4% 25 29%
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
Insight School of California-San Diego
FRL Eligible Special Education
K12 State K12 State
56% 58% 17% 11%
Insight School of California-San Diego (ISCA-SD) serves students in high school (grades 9–12).25
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
K12 Public School Programs in Idaho Included in Analysis
FRL Eligible Special Education
K12 State K12 State
Idaho Virtual Academy (IDVA) 58% 47% 9% 9%
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.
IDAHO
NOTE: IDVA participated in SBAC in grades 3–8 only.
NOTE: Results from Idaho College and Career Readiness Academy are not included because the number of student scores reported was not sufficient (n<10) to support meaningful analysis.
FIGURE 36: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE: IDVA ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
48% 46%
52%49% 51% 52%
38% 38%
45%
39%
48%52%
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
IDVA State (ID)
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
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%
55
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
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%
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)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
50%
43%38% 37% 38% 37%
40%
31% 30% 31%
38%
30%
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
IDVA State (ID)
Source for state data: http://apps.sde.idaho.gov/ReportCard
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
K12 Public School Programs in Oregon Included in Analysis
FRL Eligible Special Education
K12 State K12 State
Oregon Virtual Academy (ORVA) 62% 51% 13% 15%
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.
OREGON
NOTE: Results from Insight School of Oregon-Charter Option (ISOR-CO) are reported separately.
FIGURE 38: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE: OR ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
46%49%
54% 53%56% 57%
65%
51%
44% 45%50% 48%
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
ORVA State (OR)
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
TABLE 32: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE: OR ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count Per Category ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY
ORVA %AAP Total Count State %AAP
Grade 3 65% 82 46%
Grade 4 51% 95 49%
Grade 5 44% 94 54%
Grade 6 45% 111 53%
Grade 7 50% 121 56%
Grade 8 48% 163 57%
57
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
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
Grade 3 46% 83 46%
Grade 4 43% 93 44%
Grade 5 34% 95 41%
Grade 6 30% 111 38%
Grade 7 30% 122 43%
Grade 8 25% 158 43%
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)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
46% 44%41%
38%43% 43%
46%43%
34%30% 30%
25%
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
ORVA State (OR)
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
OREGON VIRTUAL ACADEMY continued
HIGH SCHOOL• In English Language Arts/Literacy, ORVA students equaled the state’s percentage at or above proficiency.
• In Mathematics, ORVA students underperformed the state by 13 percentage points.
FIGURE 40: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: OR (HIGH SCHOOL)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
MathematicsEnglish Language Arts/Literacy
67%
31%
67%
18%
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Subject
ORVA State (OR)
TABLE 34: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: OR (HIGH SCHOOL)
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY MATHEMATICS
ORVA %AAPTotal
CountState %AAP
ORVA %AAPTotal
CountState %AAP
Grade 11 67% 93 67% 18% 94 31%
Source for state data: http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/results/?id=116
59
INSIGHT SCHOOL OF OREGON-CHARTER OPTION
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.Special education eligibility percentages are reported only for schools in which K12 is responsible for special education services.
Insight School of Oregon-Charter Option
FRL Eligible Special Education
K12 State K12 State
52% 51% -- --
GRADES 3–8ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)
• In English Language Arts/Literacy, ISOR-CO students outperformed the state by 9 percentage points in grade 3, by 1 percentage point in grade 4, and by 7 percentage points in grade 8.
• In grades 5–7, ISOR-CO students underperformed the state by 21 to 35 percentage points.
26 As of the 2015–2016 school year, the school’s name has changed to Insight School of Oregon-Painted Hills (ISOR-PH).27 Among K12 public school programs, most of those designated as Insight Schools focus on serving academically struggling students in grades 6–12, with a few serving only high school
students. While these schools accept students of all ability levels, most focus on providing programs specifically designed to meet the needs of the struggling student. Some K12 Insight Schools are officially designated as “alternative” or “at-risk” schools based on state criteria, but most states do not have official criteria for these types of schools.
FIGURE 41: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: OR ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
46%49%
54% 53%56% 57%55%
50%
27%
18%
35%
64%
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
ISOR-CO State (OR)
Insight School of Oregon-Charter Option (ISOR-CO)26 serves students in grades 7–12.27
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
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%
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
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)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
46% 44%41%
38%43% 43%
36%40%
27%
10% 9%
25%
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
ISOR-CO State (OR)
TABLE 36: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: OR MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
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
61
HIGH SCHOOL• In English Language Arts/Literacy, ISOR-CO students underperformed the state by 14 percentage points.
• In Mathematics, ISOR-CO students underperformed the state by 22 percentage points.
FIGURE 43: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: OR (HIGH SCHOOL)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
MathematicsEnglish Language Arts/Literacy
67%
31%
53%
9%
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Subject
ISOR-CO State (OR)
TABLE 37: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: OR (HIGH SCHOOL)
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY MATHEMATICS
ISOR-CO %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
ISOR-CO %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 11 53% 55 67% 9% 55 31%
Source for state data: http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/results/?id=116
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
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 Total Count State %AAP
Grade 3 62% 159 53%
Grade 4 57% 152 56%
Grade 5 58% 191 59%
Grade 6 50% 181 55%
Grade 7 51% 255 59%
Grade 8 57% 336 59%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
K12 Public School Programs in Washington Included in Analysis28
FRL Eligible Special Education
K12 State K12 State
Washington Virtual Academy-Monroe 38% 46% 11%
12%
Washington Virtual Academy-Omak 48% 46% 12%
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.
WASHINGTON
NOTE: The analysis of grades 3–8 includes only Washington Virtual Academy-Omak (WAVA-Omak). The high school analysis aggregates data from these Washington K12 public school programs:
– Washington Virtual Academy-Omak, which serves grades K–12
– Washington Virtual Academy-Monroe (WAVA-Monroe), which serves high school only
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.*The Special Education percentage is an aggregate figure that includes students qualifying for Special Education in all K12 Washington Virtual Academies.
NOTE: Results from Insight School of Washington are reported separately.
28 iQ Washington is not included because results from this school were not available at the time of this analysis.
FIGURE 44: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE: WA ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
K12 Public School Programs (WA) State (WA)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
53%56%
59%55%
59% 59%62%
57% 58%
50% 51%
57%
63
TABLE 39: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE: WA MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
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
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)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
K12 Public School Programs (WA) State (WA)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
58%55%
49% 47%50% 48%
43%46%
43% 41% 43%
29%
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
WASHINGTON K12 PUBLIC SCHOOL PROGRAMS continued
HIGH SCHOOL29
The high school analysis aggregates data from these Washington K12 public school programs:
– Washington Virtual Academy-Omak, which serves grades K–12
– Washington Virtual Academy-Monroe (WAVA-Monroe), which serves high school only
• In English Language Arts/Literacy, K12 Washington students (WAVA-Omak and WAVA-Monroe) outperformed the state by 21 percentage points.
• In Mathematics, K12 Washington students outperformed the state by 2 percentage points.
Source for state data: http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/Summary.aspx?year=2014-15&yrs=2014-15 29 Results for Insight School of Washington high school program are reported separately.
FIGURE 46: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: WA (HIGH SCHOOL)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Subject
K12 Public School Programs (WA) State (WA)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
MathematicsEnglish Language Arts/Literacy
52%
29%
73%
31%
TABLE 40: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: WA (HIGH SCHOOL)
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY MATHEMATICS
WA K12 %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
WA K12 %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 11 73% 105 52% 31% 103 29%
65
INSIGHT SCHOOL OF WASHINGTON
Source for state data: http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/Summary.aspx?year=2014-15&yrs=2014-1530 Among K12 public school programs, most of those designated as Insight Schools focus on serving academically struggling students in grades 6–12, with a few serving only high school
students. While these schools accept students of all ability levels, most focus on providing programs specifically designed to meet the needs of the struggling student. Some K12 Insight Schools are officially designated as “alternative” or “at-risk” schools based on state criteria, but most states do not have official criteria for these types of schools.
HIGH SCHOOL• In English Language Arts/Literacy, ISWA students outperformed the state by 8 percentage points.
• In Mathematics, ISWA students underperformed the state by 17 percentage points.
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
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
FIGURE 47: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: WA (HIGH SCHOOL)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
MathematicsEnglish Language Arts/Literacy
52%
29%
64%
12%
Subject
ISWA State (WA)
TABLE 41: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: WA (HIGH SCHOOL)
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY MATHEMATICS
ISWA %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
ISWA %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 11 64% 213 52% 12% 204 29%
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
FIGURE 48: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE: WI MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
WIVA State (WI)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
52%48%
40% 41% 43%39%
31%34%
29%34%
38%
28%
TABLE 42: 2014–2015 K12 SBAC COMPARISON TO STATE: WI MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
K12 Public School Programs in Wisconsin Included in Analysis
FRL Eligible Special Education
K12 State K12 State
Wisconsin Virtual Academy (WIVA) 56% 42% 15% 14%
GRADES 3–8 MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
• In Mathematics, WIVA performed within 5 to 7 percentage points of the state in grades 6 and 7. In grades 3, 4, 5, and 8, WIVA underperformed the state by 11 to 21 percentage points.
WISCONSIN
NOTE: Wisconsin administered a modified form of the SBAC English Language Arts/Literacy assessment, and so here we report only Wisconsin’s SBAC results for Mathematics.31
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
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.
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%
67
K12 Public School Programs Using Same State Testing Program from 2013–2014 to 2014–2015
GROUP 3
K12 Public School Programs Using Same State Testing Program from 2013–2014 to 2014–2015
Included in analysis:
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
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.
• In 2014–2015, K12 public school programs in eight states used the same state-specific assessment program each had used in 2013–2014, with no change in proficiency cut scores:
– Iowa
– Minnesota
– Oklahoma
– Tennessee
– Texas
– Utah
– Virginia
– Wyoming
• Michigan and Nevada continued the use of certain high school assessments, the results of which are reported in this group.32
• Overall Analysis (Same Students Year-Over-Year): For K12 public school programs in these states that did not change their state-specific assessment program in 2014–2015, we present our analysis in two sections. First, we aggregate the data from these schools in order to compare the overall performance of the same students taking tests in the same assessment program from 2013–2014 to 2014–2015.
– Because these analyses compare the proficiency percentages for the same students year-over-year, there are no results reported for grade 3. (Grade 3 is the initial grade of state testing, and so there are no prior-year state test results for students who were third graders in 2014–2015.)
– Aggregate scores for grades 4–8 show that the percentage of students at or above proficiency improved by 2 percentage points in both Reading and Mathematics.
• Comparisons to State Proficiency Percentages: Following the overall analysis, for each K12 public school program in states that did not change their state-specific assessment program in 2014–2015, we compare the 2014–2015 proficiency percentages of the K12 school or schools to the state’s proficiency percentages.33
32 Michigan also introduced a new state assessment program called M-Step, the results of which were embargoed and unavailable at the time of this report.33 Unless otherwise noted, results from K12 public school programs are for Full Academic Year students (those who have been continuously enrolled starting on or before a specified date
usually close to the beginning of the school year), while state results are (as reported in the state data source) for all students regardless of enrollment date. High School data from a K12 public school program represents students in grades 9–12 during the school year 2014–2015 who participated in state assessments.
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
OVERALL ANALYSIS (Same Students Year-Over-Year)
GRADES 4–8 READING AND MATHEMATICS: AGGREGATE (GRADES 4–8)
Overall, aggregate results from all grades (4 through 8) in all schools with unchanged assessment programs show that students improved by 2 percentage points in Reading and 6 percentage points in Mathematics from 2013–2014 to 2014–2015.34
34 Results from 2014–2015 include Full Academic Year students (those who have been continuously enrolled starting on or before a specified date usually close to the beginning of the school year), while results from 2013–2014 include all students regardless of enrollment date.
FIGURE 49: SAME STUDENTS AND SAME ASSESSMENT PROGRAM: OVERALL %AAP BY SCHOOL YEAR AND SUBJECT (GRADES 4–8)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Subject
2013–2014 2014–2015
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
MathematicsReading
68%
50%
66%
44%
TABLE 43: SAME STUDENTS AND SAME ASSESSMENT PROGRAM: OVERALL %AAP CHANGE (GRADES 4–8)
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
READING MATHEMATICS
%AAP2013–2014
%AAP2014–2015
Change in percentage
pointsTotal Count %AAP
2013–2014%AAP
2014–2015Change
in percentage points
Total Count
66% 68% +2 2,499 44% 50% +6 3,951
69
READING: BY GRADE LEVEL (GRADES 4–8)
Overall, results from all schools with unchanged assessment programs show that students improved in Reading by 2 to 8 percentage points in all grades except grade 6.
FIGURE 50: SAME STUDENTS AND SAME ASSESSMENT PROGRAM: %AAP BY SCHOOL YEAR AND GRADE LEVEL IN READING (GRADES 4–8)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
2013–2014 2014–2015
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th 7th 6th 5th 4th
62%67%
64%
70%73%
60% 59%
67% 68% 70%
TABLE 44: SAME STUDENTS AND SAME ASSESSMENT PROGRAM: OVERALL %AAP CHANGE BY GRADE LEVEL IN READING (GRADES 4–8)
Total Student Count Per Category READING
%AAP 2013–2014 %AAP 2014–2015 Changein percentage points
Total Count
Grade 4 60% 62% +2 346
Grade 5 59% 67% +8 387
Grade 6 67% 64% -3 476
Grade 7 68% 70% +2 575
Grade 8 70% 73% +3 715
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
MATHEMATICS: BY GRADE LEVEL (GRADES 4–8)
Overall, results from all schools with unchanged assessment programs show that students improved in Mathematics by 7 to 9 percentage points in grades 4, 5, 6, and 7 and remained unchanged in grade 8.
FIGURE 51: SAME STUDENTS AND SAME ASSESSMENT PROGRAM: %AAP BY SCHOOL YEAR AND GRADE LEVEL IN MATHEMATICS (GRADES 4–8)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
2013–2014 2014–2015
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th 7th 6th 5th 4th
50%47%
53% 54%
46%41% 40%
44%47% 46%
TABLE 45: SAME STUDENTS AND SAME ASSESSMENT PROGRAM: OVERALL %AAP CHANGE BY GRADE LEVEL IN MATHEMATICS (GRADES 4–8)
Total Student Count Per Category MATHEMATICS
%AAP 2013–2014 %AAP 2014–2015 Changein percentage points
Total Count
Grade 4 41% 50% +9 562
Grade 5 40% 47% +7 677
Grade 6 44% 53% +9 714
Grade 7 47% 54% +7 912
Grade 8 46% 46% = 1,086
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
71
K12 Public School Programs in Iowa Included in Analysis
FRL Eligible Special Education
K12 State K12 State
Iowa Virtual Academy (IAVA) 60% 41% 6% 13%
GRADES 3–8 READING (GRADES 3–8)
• In many grades, results are not reported because the number of students was not sufficient to support meaningful analysis.
• In Reading, in grades 7 and 8, IAVA students underperformed the state by 6 percentage points.
IOWA
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
FIGURE 52: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: IA READING (GRADES 3–8)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
IAVA State
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th7th
76% 76%
70% 70%
TABLE 46: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: IA READING (GRADES 3–8)
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
* Results not reported because the number of students was not sufficient (n<10) to support meaningful analysis.
READING
IAVA %AAP Total Count State %AAP
Grade 3 * * 76%
Grade 4 * * 76%
Grade 5 * * 78%
Grade 6 * * 75%
Grade 7 70% 10 76%
Grade 8 70% 10 76%
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
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.
IOWA VIRTUAL ACADEMY continued
FIGURE 53: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: IA MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
IAVA State
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th7th
83%
76%
70%
50%
TABLE 47: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: IA MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
* Results not reported because the number of students was not sufficient (n<10) to support meaningful analysis.
MATHEMATICS
IAVA %AAP Total Count State %AAP
Grade 3 * * 80%
Grade 4 * * 79%
Grade 5 * * 77%
Grade 6 * * 78%
Grade 7 70% 10 83%
Grade 8 50% 10 76%
73
HIGH SCHOOLAt IAVA, the number of high school students was too low to support meaningful analysis.
Source for state data: http://reports.educateiowa.gov/
TABLE 48: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON BY SUBJECT: IA (HIGH SCHOOL)
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
* Results not reported because the number of students was not sufficient (n<10) to support meaningful analysis.
READING MATHEMATICS
IAVA %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
IAVA %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 10 * * 86% * * 83%
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
MICHIGAN
K12 Public School Programs in Michigan Included in Analysis
FRL Eligible 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%
HIGH SCHOOL • Percentages are reported for the grade level in which the test is first administered or usually taken.
• In high school (grade 11), K12 Michigan students (MVCA and MGLVA) performed within 6 percentage points of the state in Reading and within 9 percentage points of the state in English.
• K12 Michigan students underperformed the state by 21 percentages points in Mathematics.
NOTE: Here we report results from Michigan’s high school ACT assessments. In 2014–2015, Michigan also administered a new testing program called M-Step. As of the time of this report, M-Step results were embargoed and thus unavailable.
NOTE: Results from Insight School of Michigan are reported separately.
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
FIGURE 54: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: MI (HIGH SCHOOL)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Subject
K12 Public School Programs (MI) State (MI)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
ACT-MathematicsACT-EnglishACT-Reading
36%
58%
34%
30%
49%
13%
TABLE 49: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: MI (HIGH SCHOOL)
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
ACT-READING ACT-ENGLISH ACT-MATHEMATICS
MI K12 %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
MI K12 %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
MI K12 %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 11 30% 181 36% 49% 181 58% 13% 181 34%
Source for state data: https://www.mischooldata.org/DistrictSchoolProfiles/AssessmentResults/AssessmentSummary.aspx
75
INSIGHT SCHOOL OF MICHIGAN
Source for state data: https://www.mischooldata.org/DistrictSchoolProfiles/AssessmentResults/AssessmentSummary.aspx 35 Among K12 public school programs, most of those designated as Insight Schools focus on serving academically struggling students in grades 6–12, with a few serving only high school
students. While these schools accept students of all ability levels, most focus on providing programs specifically designed to meet the needs of the struggling student. Some K12 Insight Schools are officially designated as “alternative” or “at-risk” schools based on state criteria, but most states do not have official criteria for these types of schools.
HIGH SCHOOL• 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.
Insight School of Michigan
FRL Eligible Special Education
K12 State K12 State
56% 58% 17% 11%
Insight School of Michigan (ISMI) serves students in grades 6–12.35
NOTE: Here we report results from Michigan’s high school ACT assessments. In 2014–2015, Michigan also administered a new testing program called M-Step. As of the time of this report, M-Step results were embargoed and thus unavailable.
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
FIGURE 55: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: MI (HIGH SCHOOL)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Subject
ISMI State (MI)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
ACT-MathematicsACT-EnglishACT-Reading
36%
58%
34%
10%
24%
3%
TABLE 50: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: MI (HIGH SCHOOL)
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
ACT-READING ACT-ENGLISH ACT-MATHEMATICS
ISMI %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
ISMI %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
ISMI %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 11 10% 36% 21% 29 58% 3% 29 34%29
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
MINNESOTA
K12 Public School Programs in Minnesota Included in Analysis
FRL Eligible Special Education
K12 State K12 State
Minnesota Virtual Academy (MNVA) 49% 38% -- --
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.
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.
FIGURE 56: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: MN READING (GRADES 3–8)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
MNVA State (MN)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
59% 58%
67%64%
56% 56%57%60%
75%
55%
61%57%
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
77
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)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
MNVA State (MN)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
71% 70%
60% 58%55%
58%57%
64%
41%36%
40%36%
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
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
MINNESOTA VIRTUAL ACADEMY continued
HIGH SCHOOL• In grade 10 Reading, students enrolled in MNVA outperformed the state by 1 percentage point.
• In grade 11 Mathematics, students enrolled in MNVA underperformed the state by 11 percentage points.
Source for state data: http://rc.education.state.mn.us/#testResults/orgId--999999000000__groupType--state__test--allAccount__subject--R__year--trend__grade--all__p--1
FIGURE 58: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON BY SUBJECT: MN (HIGH SCHOOL)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Subject
MNVA State (MN)
TABLE 53: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON BY SUBJECT: MN (HIGH SCHOOL)
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
READING MATHEMATICS
MNVA %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
MNVA %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 10 58% 131 57% -- -- --
Grade 11 -- -- -- 38% 121 49%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Mathematics (Grade 11)Reading (Grade 10)
57%
49%
58%
38%
79
INSIGHT SCHOOL OF MINNESOTA
K12 Public School Programs in Minnesota Included in Analysis
FRL Eligible Special Education
K12 State K12 State
Insight School of Minnesota (ISMN) 54% 38% 26% 15%
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
Insight School of Minnesota (ISMN) serves students in grades 6–12.36
GRADES 6–8READING (GRADES 6–8)
• Results are not reported for grades 6 and 7 because the number of ISMN students was not sufficient to support meaningful analysis.
• In Reading, ISMN students in grade 8 underperformed the state by 49 percentage points.
36 Among K12 public school programs, most of those designated as Insight Schools focus on serving academically struggling students in grades 6–12, with a few serving only high school students. While these schools accept students of all ability levels, most focus on providing programs specifically designed to meet the needs of the struggling student. Some K12 Insight Schools are officially designated as “alternative” or “at-risk” schools based on state criteria, but most states do not have official criteria for these types of schools.
FIGURE 59: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: MN READING (GRADE 8)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
ISMN State (MN)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th
56%
7%
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.
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
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)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
ISMN State (MN)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th
58%
7%
TABLE 55: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: MN MATHEMATICS (GRADES 6–8)
Total Student Count Per Category MATHEMATICS
ISMN %AAP Total Count State %AAP
Grade 6 * * *
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.
81
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)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Subject
ISMN State (MN)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Mathematics (Grade 11)Reading (Grade 10)
57%
49%
40%
11%
TABLE 56: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON BY SUBJECT: MN (HIGH SCHOOL)
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
READING MATHEMATICS
ISMN %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
ISMN %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 10 40% 35 57% -- -- --
Grade 11 -- -- -- 11% 46 49%
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 ACADEMIC REPORT
iQ ACADEMY MINNESOTA
K12 Public School Programs in Minnesota Included in Analysis
FRL Eligible Special Education
K12 State K12 State
iQ Academy Minnesota (iQMN) 50% 38% -- --
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.
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.
FIGURE 62: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: MN READING (GRADE 3–8)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
iQMN State (MN)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
59% 58%
67%64%
56% 56%54%
30%
73%
50%
42%
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 59%
Grade 4 30% 10 58%
Grade 5 * * 67%
Grade 6 73% 11 64%
Grade 7 50% 16 56%
Grade 8 42% 19 56%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency* Results not reported because the number of students was not sufficient (n<10) to support meaningful analysis.
83
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)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
iQMN State (MN)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
71%
79%
60% 58%55%
58%
69%
40%
27%31%
16%
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.
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
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)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Subject
iQMN State (MN)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Mathematics (Grade 11)Reading (Grade 10)
57%
49%
43%
15%
TABLE 59: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON BY SUBJECT: MN (HIGH SCHOOL)
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
READING MATHEMATICS
iQMN %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
iQMN %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 10 43% 28 57% -- -- --
Grade 11 -- -- -- 15% 39 49%
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
85
NEVADA
K12 Public School Programs in Nevada Included in Analysis
FRL Eligible Special Education
K12 State K12 State
Nevada Virtual Academy (NVVA) 57% 53% 12% 12%
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.
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.
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.
FIGURE 65: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON BY SUBJECT: NV (HIGH SCHOOL)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Subject
NVVA State (NV)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
MathematicsReading
82%
76%
55%
32%
TABLE 60: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON BY SUBJECT: NV (HIGH SCHOOL)
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
READING MATHEMATICS
NVVA %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
NVVA %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 11 55% 47 82% 32% 56 76%
Source for state data: http://www.nevadareportcard.com/di/
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
OKLAHOMA
K12 Public School Programs in Oklahoma Included in Analysis
FRL Eligible Special Education
K12 State K12 State
Oklahoma Virtual Charter Academy (OVCA) 61% 61% 14% 15%
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.
NOTE: Results from Insight School of Oklahoma are reported separately.
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
FIGURE 66: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: OK READING (GRADES 3–8)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
OVCA State (OK)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
69% 70%66%
63%
72%75%
53%
66%
57% 55%
68% 70%
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
87
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)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
OVCA State (OK)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
62%
72%67% 67% 66%
53%
39%
51% 52%57% 59%
43%
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
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
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.
Source for state data: http://sde.ok.gov/sde/sites/ok.gov.sde/files/2014–2015%20Oklahoma%20School%20Testing%20Program%20%28OSTP%29%20Results.pdf
FIGURE 68: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON BY SUBJECT: OK (HIGH SCHOOL)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Subject
OVCA State (OK)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Algebra 1 (Grade 9)English 2 (Grade 10)
81%
76%
85%
47%
TABLE 63: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON BY SUBJECT: OK (HIGH SCHOOL)
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
ENGLISH 2 ALGEBRA 1
OVCA %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
OVCA %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 9 -- -- -- 47% 122 76%
Grade 10 85% 143 81% -- -- --
89
INSIGHT SCHOOL OF OKLAHOMA
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
Insight School of Oklahoma
FRL Eligible Special Education
K12 State K12 State
68% 61% 13% 15%
GRADES 7–8READING (GRADES 7–8)
• In Reading, ISOK students underperformed the state by 11 percentage points in grade 7 and by 16 percentage points in grade 8.
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.
Insight School of Oklahoma (ISOK) serves students in grades 7–12.37
FIGURE 69: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: OK READING (GRADES 7–8)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Subject
ISOK State (OK)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th7th
72%75%
61% 59%
TABLE 64: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: OK READING (GRADES 7–8)
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
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
INSIGHT SCHOOL OF OKLAHOMAcontinued
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)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
ISOK State (OK)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th7th
66%
53%
39%
14%
TABLE 65: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: OK MATHEMATICS (GRADES 7–8)
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
91
HIGH SCHOOL• In English II (grade 10), ISOK students performed within 10 percentage points of the state.
• In Algebra 1 (grade 9), ISOK students underperformed the state by 47 percentage points.
Source for state data: http://sde.ok.gov/sde/sites/ok.gov.sde/files/2014–2015%20Oklahoma%20School%20Testing%20Program%20%28OSTP%29%20Results.pdf
FIGURE 71: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: OK (HIGH SCHOOL)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Subject
ISOK State (OK)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Algebra 1 (Grade 9)English 2 (grade 10)
81%
76%71%
29%
TABLE 66: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: OK (HIGH SCHOOL)
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
ENGLISH 2 ALGEBRA 1
ISOK %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
ISOK %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 9 -- -- -- 29% 17 76%
Grade 10 71% 14 81% -- -- --
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
K12 Public School Programs in Tennessee Included in Analysis38
FRL Eligible Special Education
K12 State K12 State
Tennessee Virtual Academy (TNVA) 71% 58% 15% 13%
GRADES 3–8 READING/LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–8)
• In Reading/Language Arts, TNVA students performed within 4 to 18 percentage points of the state.
TENNESSEE
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
38 For Tennessee, results from both K12 public school programs and the state are (as reported in the state data source) for Full Academic Year students (those who have been continuously enrolled starting on or before a specified date usually close to the beginning of the school year).
FIGURE 72: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: TN READING/LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–8)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
TNVA State (TN)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
43% 45%50% 52% 51% 50%
31%
37%32%
41%
47% 45%
TABLE 67: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: TN READING/LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count Per Category READING/LANGUAGE ARTS
TNVA %AAP Total Count State %AAP
Grade 3 31% 118 43%
Grade 4 37% 108 45%
Grade 5 32% 133 50%
Grade 6 41% 143 52%
Grade 7 47% 177 51%
Grade 8 45% 197 50%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
93
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)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
TNVA State (TN)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
62%
50%
66%
51% 51%47%
42%
25% 27%24%
20%25%
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
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
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.
TEXAS
K12 Public School Programs in Texas Included in Analysis39
FRL Eligible 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.
FIGURE 74: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: TX READING (GRADES 3–8)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
K12 Public School Programs (TX) State (TX)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
75%72%
84%
74% 73%
85%
66%70%
93%
82% 82%
95%
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).
95
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)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
K12 Public School Programs (TX) State (TX)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
76%72%
77%73%
70% 72%
46%50% 49%
75% 75%
58%
TABLE 70: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: TX MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count Per Category MATHEMATICS
TX K12 %AAP Total Count State %AAP
Grade 3 46% 160 76%
Grade 4 50% 272 72%
Grade 5 49% 358 77%
Grade 6 75% 416 73%
Grade 7 75% 512 70%
Grade 8 58% 615 72%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
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.
Source for state data: https://rptsvr1.tea.texas.gov/perfreport//tprs/2015/srch.html?srch=D
FIGURE 76: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON BY SUBJECT: TX (HIGH SCHOOL)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Subject
K12 Public School Programs (TX) State (TX)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Algebra 1English 1
69%
79%74%
64%
TABLE 71: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: TX (HIGH SCHOOL)
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
ENGLISH 1 ALGEBRA 1
TX K12 %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
TX K12 %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 9 74% 410 69% 64% 414 79%
97
K12 Public School Programs in Utah Included in Analysis40
FRL Eligible Special Education
K12 State K12 State
Utah Virtual Academy (UTVA) 57% 37% 16% 12%
GRADES 3–8 READING (GRADES 3–8)
• In Language Arts, UTVA students underperformed the state by 11 to 25 percentage points.
UTAH
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
40 For Utah, results from both K12 public school programs and the state are (as reported in the state data source) for Full Academic Year students (those who have been continuously enrolled starting on or before a specified date usually close to the beginning of the school year).
FIGURE 77: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: UT LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–8)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
UTVA State (UT)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
46%42%
45% 45% 44% 43%
35%30%
27% 28%
19%
31%
TABLE 72: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: UT LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count Per Category LANGUAGE ARTS
UTVA %AAP Total Count State %AAP
Grade 3 35% 37 46%
Grade 4 30% 53 42%
Grade 5 27% 55 45%
Grade 6 28% 72 45%
Grade 7 19% 83 44%
Grade 8 31% 125 43%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
• In Mathematics, UTVA students underperformed the state by 16 to 32 percentage points.
UTAH VIRTUAL ACADEMY continued
FIGURE 78: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: UT MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
UTVA State (UT)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
50% 51% 49%
38%
46%42%
18%
33%28%
22% 24% 22%
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
99
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.
Source for state data: http://schools.utah.gov/data/Reports/Assessment.aspx (SAGE 2014–2015)
FIGURE 79: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON BY SUBJECT: UT (HIGH SCHOOL)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Subject
UTVA State (UT)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Secondary Math 1Language Arts
45%41%
17%
11%
TABLE 74: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON BY SUBJECT: UT (HIGH SCHOOL)
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
LANGUAGE ARTS SECONDARY MATH 1
UTVA %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
UTVA %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 9 17% 90 45% 11% 104 41%
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
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.
VIRGINIA
K12 Public School Programs in Virginia Included in Analysis
FRL Eligible Special Education
K12 State K12 State
Virginia Virtual Academy-King and Queen (VAVA-King and Queen)
50% 40%
5%*
13%
Virginia Virtual Academy-Patrick (VAVA-Patrick)
47% 40% 13%
* The special education eligibility percentage is an aggregate figure encompassing the specified individual Virginia K12 public school programs.
NOTE: In the 2014–2015 school year (for which this report includes data), VAVA schools enrolled students in grades K–6, with state testing beginning in grade 3. In 2015–2016, VAVA schools added grade 7.
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
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
FIGURE 80: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: VA READING (GRADES 3–6)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
K12 Public School Programs (VA) State (VA)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
6th5th4th3rd
75% 77% 79%76%
70%
89%
98%93%
101
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)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
K12 Public School Programs (VA) State (VA)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
6th5th4th3rd
74%
84%79%
83%
63%
85% 84%
98%
TABLE 76: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: VA MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–6)
Total Student Count Per Category MATHEMATICS
VA K12 %AAP Total Count State %AAP
Grade 3 63% 64 74%
Grade 4 85% 54 84%
Grade 5 84% 43 79%
Grade 6 98% 40 83%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
Source for state data: https://p1pe.doe.virginia.gov/reportcard/report.do?division=All&schoolName=All
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
WYOMING
K12 Public School Programs in Wyoming Included in Analysis41
FRL Eligible Special Education
K12 State K12 State
Wyoming Virtual Academy (WYVA) 47% 38% 11% 14%
GRADES 3–8 READING (GRADES 3–8)
• In Reading, WYVA students outperformed the state in grades 4–8 by 1 to 9 percentage points.
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
FIGURE 82: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: WY READING (GRADES 3–8)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
WYVA State (WY)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
61% 60% 59% 57% 57%52%
59%64%
60% 59%63% 61%
TABLE 77: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON: WY READING (GRADES 3–8)
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
READING
WYVA %AAP Total Count State %AAP
Grade 3 59% 29 61%
Grade 4 64% 33 60%
Grade 5 60% 30 59%
Grade 6 59% 37 57%
Grade 7 63% 35 57%
Grade 8 61% 51 52%
41 For Wyoming, results from both K12 public school programs and the state are (as reported in the state data source) for Full Academic Year students (those who have been continuously enrolled starting on or before a specified date usually close to the beginning of the school year).
103
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)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
WYVA State (WY)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
49% 51% 53%49%
43%47%
31%
39%
57%
38%
31%
52%
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
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
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.
Source for state data: https://portals.edu.wyoming.gov/Reports/Public/wde-reports-2012/public-reports/assessment/pawsresultsstatelevelaggregated
TABLE 79: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON BY SUBJECT: WY (HIGH SCHOOL)
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
ACT-READING ACT-MATHEMATICS
WYVA%AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
WYVA%AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 11 43% 46 32% 26% 46 38%
FIGURE 84: 2014–2015 STATE COMPARISON BY SUBJECT: WY (HIGH SCHOOL)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Subject
WYVA State (WY)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
ACT-MathematicsACT-Reading
32%
38%43%
26%
105
K12 Public School Programs Administering New State Tests in 2014–2015
GROUP 4
K12 Public School Programs Administering New State Tests in 2014–2015
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)
Not included in analysis:
Alaska Virtual Academy and Florida Virtual Academy at Osceola: Results not available at the time of this report.
K12 public school programs in Michigan: Results from Michigan’s high school ACT assessments are reported in Group 3. In 2014–2015, Michigan also administered a new testing program called M-Step. As of the time of this report, M-Step results were embargoed and thus unavailable.
Wisconsin Virtual Academy, Grades 3–8 Mathematics: Wisconsin administered SBAC Mathematics, for which results are reported in Group 2.
In this section, we report results from K12 public school programs in states that, while in general not members of PARCC or SBAC, changed to new assessment programs in 2014–2015. These states include Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Indiana, South Carolina, and Wisconsin. (Wisconsin results are reported for grades 3–8 English Language Arts and high school only).42
We also include in this section the results from K12 public school programs in Louisiana and Ohio. These states administered PARCC but used a lower cut score to define proficiency than the proficiency standards recommended by the PARCC consortium.
In this section:
• We report only 2014–2015 data since results of the new tests cannot be directly compared to results from previous tests.
• Except as noted, in states with more than one K12 public school program, we aggregate the results from the programs in order to present the percentage of K12 students at or above proficiency within a given state. We compare the percentage of K12 students at or above proficiency within a given state to the state’s overall percentage of students at or above proficiency.43
42 Wisconsin administered the SBAC Mathematics assessment in grades 3–8. Wisconsin Virtual Academy’s Mathematics results are reported in the SBAC analysis section of this report.43 Unless otherwise noted, results from K12 public school programs are for Full Academic Year students (those who have been continuously enrolled starting on or before a specified date
usually close to the beginning of the school year), while state results are (as reported in the state data source) for all students regardless of enrollment date.
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
ARIZONA
K12 Public School Programs in Arizona Included in Analysis
FRL Eligible Special Education
K12 State K12 State
Arizona Virtual Academy (AZVA) 60% 52% 13% 12%
GRADES 3–8 ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–8)
• In English Language Arts, AZVA outperformed the state in grades 5, 7, and 8.
• In grades 3, 4, and 6, AZVA performed within 2 to 7 percentage points of the state.
NOTE: Results from Insight Academy of Arizona (ISAZ) are reported separately after the AZVA analysis.
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
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
FIGURE 85: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: AZ ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–8)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
AZVA State (AZ)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
41% 42%
32%36%
33% 35%39%
35% 33% 32%
38% 36%
107
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)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
AZVA State (AZ)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
41% 42% 40%
33% 31%34%
20%23% 24%
19%
32%
24%
TABLE 81: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: AZ MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
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
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
ARIZONA VIRTUAL ACADEMYcontinued
HIGH SCHOOL• In English Language Arts 9, AZVA outperformed the state by 7 percentage points.
• In Algebra 1, AZVA performed within 2 percentage points of the state.
Source for state data: https://azreportcards.com/ReportCard
FIGURE 87: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: AZ (HIGH SCHOOL)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Subject
AZVA State (AZ)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Algebra 1English Language Arts 9
27%32%34%
30%
TABLE 82: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: AZ (HIGH SCHOOL)
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS 9 ALGEBRA 1
AZVA %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
AZVA %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 9 34% 181 27% 30% 115 32%
109
INSIGHT ACADEMY OF ARIZONA
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
Insight Academy of Arizona
FRL Eligible Special Education
K12 State K12 State
65% 52% 16% 12%
GRADES 7–8ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 7–8)
• Results are not reported for grade 7 because the number of ISAZ students was not sufficient to support meaningful analysis.
• In English Language Arts, ISAZ students in grade 8 underperformed the state by 18 percentage points.
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.
Insight Academy of Arizona (ISAZ) serves students in grades 7–12.44
FIGURE 88: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: AZ ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADE 8)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
ISAZ State (AZ)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th
35%
17%
TABLE 83: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: AZ ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 7–8)
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
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
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.
INSIGHT ACADEMY OF ARIZONA continued
FIGURE 89: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: AZ MATHEMATICS (GRADE 8)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
ISAZ State (AZ)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th
34%
0%
TABLE 84: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: AZ MATHEMATICS (GRADES 7–8)
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.
111
HIGH SCHOOL• Results are not reported for English Language Arts 9 because the number of ISAZ students was not sufficient to support
meaningful analysis.
• In Algebra 1, ISAZ students underperformed the state by 21 percentage points.
Source for state data: https://azreportcards.com/ReportCard
FIGURE 90: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: AZ (HIGH SCHOOL)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Subject
ISAZ State (AZ)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Algebra 1
32%
11%
TABLE 85: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: AZ (HIGH SCHOOL)
Total Student Count Per Category ALGEBRA 1
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.
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
K12 Public School Programs in Florida Included in Analysis
FRL Eligible Special Education
K12 State K12 State
Florida Virtual Academy at Broward 63% 58%
9%* 13%
Florida Virtual Academy at Clay 75% 58%
Florida Virtual Academy at Duval 66% 58%
Florida Virtual Academy at Hillsborough 63% 58%
Florida Virtual Academy at Palm Beach 65% 58%
Florida Virtual Academy at Pasco 71% 58%
Florida Virtual Academy at Pinellas 66% 58%
FLORIDA
NOTE: This analysis aggregates data from the separate Florida K12 public school programs listed in the table at left. The analysis includes grades 3–8 only because in almost all FLVA schools the number of high school students tested was not sufficient to support meaningful analysis.
NOTE: Florida Virtual Academy at Osceola is not included in this analysis because no scores were available for ELA or Mathematics.
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.* The special education eligibility percentage is an aggregate figure encompassing the specified individual Florida K12 public school programs.
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)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
K12 Public School Programs (FL) State (FL)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
53% 54% 52% 51% 51%55%
38%
56%51%
38%
48%
62%
TABLE 86: 2014–2015 K12 %AAP: FL ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–8)
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
113
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)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
K12 Public School Programs (FL) State (FL)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
58% 59%55%
50% 52%
45%
33%
40%
34%31%
54% 56%
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-assessment-score/2015.stml
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
K12 Public School Programs in Georgia Included in Analysis
FRL Eligible Special Education
K12 State K12 State
Georgia Cyber Academy (GCA) 65% 62% 13% 11%
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.
GEORGIA
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
FIGURE 93: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: GA ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–8)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
GCA State (GA)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
37% 37% 39% 39% 37% 39%
32% 34% 32%
39% 37% 37%
TABLE 88: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: GA ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–8)
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
115
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)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
GCA State (GA)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
38% 40% 38% 36% 37% 37%
28%33%
27%30% 32%
27%
TABLE 89: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: GA MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
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
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
GEORGIA CYBER ACADEMYcontinued
HIGH SCHOOL• In 9th Grade Literature & Composition, the percentage of GCA students at or above proficiency is within 3 percentage
points of the state.
• In Coordinate Algebra (grade 9), GCA students underperformed the state by 17 percentage points.
Source for state data: http://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Assessment/Pages/Georgia-Milestones-Statewide-Scores.aspx
FIGURE 95: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: GA (HIGH SCHOOL)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Subject
GCA State (GA)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Coordinate AlgebraLiterature & Composition (Grade 9)
39%34%36%
17%
TABLE 90: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: GA (HIGH SCHOOL)
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
LITERATURE & COMPOSITION (GRADE 9) COORDINATE ALGEBRA
GCA %AAP Total Count
State %AAP GCA %AAP Total
CountState %AAP
Grade 9 36% 942 39% 17% 1,052 34%
117
INDIANA
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.
K12 Public School Programs in IndianaIncluded in Analysis
FRL Eligible 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.
FIGURE 96: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–8)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
K12 Public School Programs (IN) State (IN)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
73%70%
65% 66% 66% 64%
42%
52%
39%
46% 44%
35%
TABLE 91: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–8)
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
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
• In Mathematics, K12 public school programs in Indiana underperformed the state by 21 to 36 percentage points.
INDIANA K12 PUBLIC SCHOOL PROGRAMS
FIGURE 97: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: IN MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
K12 Public School Programs (IN) State (IN)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
63% 65%68%
62%
54% 54%
36%
42%
32%
41%
31%26%
TABLE 92: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: IN MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
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
119
HIGH SCHOOL• In English 10, K12 public school programs in Indiana underperformed the state by 14 percentage points.
• In Algebra 1, K12 public school programs in Indiana underperformed the state by 37 percentage points.
Source for state data: http://compass.doe.in.gov/dashboard/istep.aspx?type=state
FIGURE 98: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: IN (HIGH SCHOOL)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Subject
K12 Public School Programs (IN) State (IN)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Algebra 1 (Grade 9)English 10 (Grade 10)
79%
71%
65%
34%
TABLE 93: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: IN (HIGH SCHOOL)
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
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% -- -- --
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
K12 Public School Programs in Kansas Included in Analysis
FRL Eligible Special Education
K12 State K12 State
Kansas Virtual Academy (KSVA) 70% 50% -- --
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.
KANSAS
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.
FIGURE 99: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: KS ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–6)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
KSVA State (KS)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
6th5th4th3rd
47%
54%
48%
39%44%
20%
36%33%
TABLE 94: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: KS ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–6)
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
121
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)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
KSVA State (KS)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
6th5th4th3rd
51%
35% 33% 32%
19%
7%
14%
24%
TABLE 95: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: KS MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–6)
Total Student Count Per Category MATHEMATICS
KSVA %AAP Total Count State %AAP
Grade 3 19% 16 51%
Grade 4 7% 15 35%
Grade 5 14% 14 33%
Grade 6 24% 21 32%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
Source for state data: http://ksreportcard.ksde.org/assessment_results.aspx?org_no=State&rptType=3
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
INSIGHT SCHOOL OF KANSAS
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.
Insight School of Kansas
FRL Eligible Special Education
K12 State K12 State
55% 50% -- --
GRADES 7–8ENGLISH 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.
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.
Insight School of Kansas (ISKS) serves students in grades 7–12.45
FIGURE 101: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: KS ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 7–8)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
ISKS State (KS)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th7th
39%
29%
22%27%
TABLE 96: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: KS ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (7–8)
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
123
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)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
ISKS State (KS)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th7th
28%
22%
0%
18%
TABLE 97: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: KS MATHEMATICS (7–8)
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
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
INSIGHT SCHOOL OF KANSAS continued
HIGH SCHOOL• In English Language Arts (grade 10), ISKS students underperformed the state by 9 percentage points.
• In Mathematics (grade 10), ISKS students underperformed the state by 17 percentage points.
Source for state data: http://ksreportcard.ksde.org/assessment_results.aspx?org_no=State&rptType=3
FIGURE 103: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: KS (HIGH SCHOOL)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Subject
ISKS State (KS)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
MathematicsEnglish Language Arts
30%
24%21%
7%
TABLE 98: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: KS (HIGH SCHOOL)
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS MATHEMATICS
ISKS %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
ISKS %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 9 21% 86 30% 7% 86 24%
125
LOUISIANA
K12 Public School Programs in Louisiana Included in Analysis
FRL Eligible Special Education
K12 State K12 State
Louisiana Virtual Charter Academy (LAVCA) 66% 66% 16% 11%
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.
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.
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
FIGURE 104: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: LA ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–8)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
LAVCA State (LA)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
63%
74%
66%
74%
66%70%
43%
53%
64%
75%
65%70%
TABLE 99: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: LA ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count Per Category ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS
LAVCA%AAP Total Count State %AAP
Grade 3 43% 69 63%
Grade 4 53% 92 74%
Grade 5 64% 111 66%
Grade 6 75% 109 74%
Grade 7 65% 161 66%
Grade 8 70% 154 70%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
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)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
LAVCA State (LA)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
67%64%
59% 59% 58%55%
35%
24%
30%
46% 48% 47%
TABLE 100: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: LA MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count Per Category MATHEMATICS
LAVCA %AAP Total Count State %AAP
Grade 3 35% 69 67%
Grade 4 24% 92 64%
Grade 5 30% 111 59%
Grade 6 46% 108 59%
Grade 7 48% 160 58%
Grade 8 47% 153 55%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
LOUISIANA VIRTUAL CHARTER ACADEMY continued
127
HIGH SCHOOL
NOTE: In high school, Louisiana used state-specific tests rather than PARCC.
• In English II (grade 10), LAVCA students outperformed the state by 4 percentage points.
• In Algebra I (grade 9), LAVCA students outperformed the state by 8 percentage points.
Source for state data: https://www.louisianabelieves.com/resources/library/test-results
FIGURE 106: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: LA (HIGH SCHOOL)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Subject
LAVCA State (LA)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Algebra 1 (Grade 9)English 2 (Grade 10)
93%
81%
97%
89%
TABLE 101: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: LA (HIGH SCHOOL)
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
ENGLISH 2 ALGEBRA 1
LAVCA %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
LAVCA %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 9 89% 64 81%
Grade 10 97% 78 93% -- -- --
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
OHIO
K12 Public School Programs in Ohio Included in Analysis
FRL Eligible Special Education
K12 State K12 State
Ohio Virtual Academy (OHVA) 59% 44% 14% 15%
GRADES 3–8 READING (GRADE 3) / ELA/LITERACY (GRADES 4–8)
• In grades 4–8, Ohio administered the PARCC assessment in English Language Arts/Literacy. In Grade 3, however, Ohio chose not to use the PARCC ELA/Literacy assessment but instead used the Ohio Achievement Assessment.
• In English Language Arts/Literacy, OHVA outperformed the state in grade 8 and equaled the state in grade 7. In grades 3–6, OHVA performed within 2 to 10 percentage points of the state.
NOTE: Results from Insight School of Ohio are reported separately below.
NOTE: The state of Ohio administered PARCC but used a lower cut score to define proficiency than the proficiency standards recommended by the PARCC consortium. Therefore, Ohio’s proficiency percentages cannot be compared to the overall PARCC consortium results.
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
FIGURE 107: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: OH READING (GRADE 3) / ELA/LITERACY (GRADES 4–8)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
OHVA State (OH)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
79%
72% 70% 70% 69% 68%72% 70%
60%
68% 69% 69%
TABLE 102: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: OH READING (GRADE 3) / ELA/LITERACY (GRADES 4–8)
Total Student Count Per Category
GRADE 3: READINGGRADES 4–8: ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY
OHVA %AAP Total Count State %AAP
Grade 3 72% 300 79%
Grade 4 70% 493 72%
Grade 5 60% 576 70%
Grade 6 68% 585 70%
Grade 7 69% 656 69%
Grade 8 69% 775 68%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
129
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)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
OHVA State (OH)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
66% 65% 66% 65% 65%
54%
47% 46%
38%
54%
61%
55%
TABLE 103: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: OH MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
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
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
ARIZONA VIRTUAL ACADEMYOHIO VIRTUAL ACADEMY continued
HIGH SCHOOLNOTE: In high school, Ohio administered both Ohio Graduation Tests (OGT) and PARCC assessments.
OHIO GRADUATION TESTS
• In Reading (grade 10), 89% of OHVA students performed at or above proficiency, outperforming the state by 3 percentage points.
• In Mathematics, OHVA students performed within 7 percentage points of the state.
TABLE 104: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: OHIO GRADUATION TESTS
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
READING MATHEMATICS
OHVA %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
OHVA %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 9 89% 800 86% 75% 825 82%
FIGURE 109: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: OHIO GRADUATION TESTS
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Subject
OHVA State (OH)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
MathematicsReading
86%82%
89%
75%
131
PARCC HIGH SCHOOL ASSESSMENTS
• In English Language Arts/Literacy (grade 9), 82% of OHVA students performed at or above proficiency, outperforming the state by 9 percentage points.
• In Algebra 1 (grade 9), OHVA students outperformed the state by 6 percentage points.
Source for state data: http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Testing/Testing-Results/2014_2015-Ohio_s-State-Test-Results
FIGURE 110: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: PARCC HIGH SCHOOL ASSESSMENTS
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Subject
OHVA State (OH)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Algebra 1English Language Arts/Literacy
73%
66%
82%
72%
TABLE 105: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: PARCC HIGH SCHOOL ASSESSMENTS
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY ALGEBRA 1
OHVA %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
OHVA %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 9 82% 728 73% 72% 278 66%
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
INSIGHT SCHOOL OF OHIO
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
Insight School of Ohio
FRL Eligible Special Education
K12 State K12 State
62% 43% 20% 15%
GRADES 6–8ENGLISH 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.
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.
Insight School of Ohio (ISOH) serves students in grades 6–12.46
FIGURE 111: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: OH ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 6–8)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
ISOH State (OH)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th7th6th
70% 69% 68%
50% 49%
31%
TABLE 106: 22014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: OH ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 6–8)
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
133
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)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
ISOH State (OH)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th7th6th
65% 65%
54%
11%
24%28%
TABLE 107: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: OH MATHEMATICS (GRADES 6–8)
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
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
INSIGHT SCHOOL OF OHIO continued
HIGH SCHOOLNOTE: In high school, Ohio administered both Ohio Graduation Tests (OGT) and PARCC assessments.
OHIO GRADUATION TESTS
• In Reading (grade 10), 70% of ISOH students scored at or above proficiency, underperforming the state by 16 percentage points.
• In Mathematics, ISOH students underperformed the state by 35 percentage points.
FIGURE 113: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: OHIO GRADUATION TESTS
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Subject
ISOH State (OH)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
MathematicsReading
86%82%
70%
47%
TABLE 108: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: OHIO GRADUATION TESTS
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
READING MATHEMATICS
ISOH %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
ISOH%AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 10 70% 89 86% 47% 90 82%
135
PARCC HIGH SCHOOL ASSESSMENTS
• In English Language Arts/Literacy (grade 9), 62% of ISOH students performed at or above proficiency, underperforming the state by 11 percentage points.
• No results are reported for Algebra 1 (grade 9) because the number of ISOH students was not sufficient to support meaningful analysis.
TABLE 109: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: PARCC HIGH SCHOOL ASSESSMENTS
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
*Results not reported because the number of students was not sufficient (n<10) to support meaningful analysis.
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY ALGEBRA 1
ISOH %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
ISOH%AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 9 62% 58 73% * * 66%
FIGURE 114: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: PARCC HIGH SCHOOL ASSESSMENTS
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Subject
ISOH State (OH)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
English Language Arts/Literacy
73%
62%
Source for state data: http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Testing/Testing-Results/2014_2015-Ohio_s-State-Test-Results
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
SOUTH CAROLINA
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.
K12 Public School Programs in South Carolina Included in Analysis
FRL Eligible Special Education
K12 State K12 State
Cyber Academy of South Carolina (CASC) 65% 57% 16% 13%
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
FIGURE 115: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: SC ACT ASPIRE-READING (GRADES 3–8)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
CASC State (SC)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
32% 33% 34%37% 37%
47%
18%
29% 31%
40%37% 39%
TABLE 110: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: SC ACT ASPIRE-READING (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count Per Category ACT ASPIRE-READING
CASC %AAP Total Count State %AAP
Grade 3 18% 33 32%
Grade 4 29% 31 33%
Grade 5 31% 49 34%
Grade 6 40% 45 37%
Grade 7 37% 76 37%
Grade 8 39% 77 47%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
137
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)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
CASC State (SC)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
58% 58%
48%53%
36%32%
21%26%
22%
36%
27%
6%
TABLE 111: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: SC ACT ASPIRE-MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count Per Category ACT ASPIRE-MATHEMATICS
CASC %AAP Total Count State %AAP
Grade 3 21% 33 58%
Grade 4 26% 31 58%
Grade 5 22% 49 48%
Grade 6 36% 45 53%
Grade 7 27% 77 36%
Grade 8 6% 77 32%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
CYBER ACADEMY OF SOUTH CAROLINA continued
HIGH SCHOOL• In English 1 (grade 9), 57% of CASC students performed at or above proficiency, underperforming the state by 18
percentage points.
• In Mathematics, 44% of CASC students performed at or above proficiency, underperforming the state by 42 percentage points.
FIGURE 117: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: SC (HIGH SCHOOL)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Subject
CASC State (SC)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Algebra 1/Mathematics for the Technologies 2English 1
75%
86%
57%
44%
TABLE 112: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: SC (HIGH SCHOOL)
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
ENGLISH 1 ALGEBRA 1/MATHEMATICS FOR THE TECHNOLOGIES 2
CASC %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
CASC%AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 9 57% 90 75% 44% 93 86%
Source for state data: http://ed.sc.gov/data/test-scores/state-assessments/
139
SOUTH CAROLINA VIRTUAL CHARTER SCHOOL
GRADES 3–8 ACT ASPIRE –READING (GRADES 3–8)
• In Reading in grades 3–5, students at SCVCS underperformed the state by between 1 and 3 percentage points.
• In Reading in grade 7, students at SCVCS equaled the state.
• In grades 6 and 8, students at SCVCS underperformed the state by 6 and 7 percentage points respectively.
K12 Public School Programs in South Carolina Included in Analysis
FRL Eligible Special Education
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.
FIGURE 118: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: SC ACT ASPIRE-READING (GRADES 3–8)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
SCVCS State (SC)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
32% 33% 34%37% 37%
47%
30% 32% 31% 31%
37%40%
TABLE 113: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: SC ACT ASPIRE-READING (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count Per Category ACT ASPIRE-READING
SCVCS %AAP Total Count State %AAP
Grade 3 30% 132 32%
Grade 4 32% 130 33%
Grade 5 31% 113 34%
Grade 6 31% 181 37%
Grade 7 37% 222 37%
Grade 8 40% 267 47%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
SOUTH CAROLINA VIRTUAL CHARTER SCHOOL continued
ACT ASPIRE –MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
• In Mathematics in grades 3–8, students at SCVCS underperformed the state by between 1 and 25 percentage points.
FIGURE 119: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: SC ACT ASPIRE-MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
SCVCS State (SC)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
58%
49% 48%53%
36%32%33%
40%43%
36% 35%
22%
TABLE 114: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: SC ACT ASPIRE-MATHEMATICS (GRADES 3–8)
Total Student Count Per Category ACT ASPIRE-MATHEMATICS
SCVCS %AAP Total Count State %AAP
Grade 3 33% 132 58%
Grade 4 40% 130 49%
Grade 5 32% 113 48%
Grade 6 36% 181 53%
Grade 7 35% 222 36%
Grade 8 22% 267 32%
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
141
HIGH SCHOOL• In grade 9, students at SCVCS outperformed the state in English 1 by 1 percentage point.
• In grade 9, students at SCVCS underperformed the state by 2 percentage points.
FIGURE 120: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: SC (HIGH SCHOOL)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Subject
SCVCS State (SC)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Algebra 1/Mathematics for the Technologies 2English 1
75%
86%
76%
84%
TABLE 115: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: SC (HIGH SCHOOL)
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
ENGLISH 1 ALGEBRA 1/MATHEMATICS FOR THE TECHNOLOGIES 2
SCVCS %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
SCVCS%AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 9 76% 168 75% 84% 95 86%
Source for state data: http://ed.sc.gov/data/test-scores/state-assessments/
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
WISCONSIN
K12 Public School Programs in Wisconsin Included in Analysis
FRL Eligible Special Education
K12 State K12 State
Wisconsin Virtual Academy (WIVA) 56% 42% 15% 14%
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.
NOTE: The state of Wisconsin administered a variety of assessments in 2014–2015, including:
• Grades 3–8
– Mathematics: SBAC: Results reported in the SBAC analysis section of this report.
– English Language Arts/Literacy: State-specific variation of the SBAC blueprint: Results reported below.
• High school ACT-English and ACT-Mathematics: Results reported below.
FRL = Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. See Appendix 1 for data sources.
FIGURE 121: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: WI ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Grade Level
WIVA State (WI)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd
52% 51%55%
46%
52% 53%58%
46%
57%52% 53%
60%
TABLE 116: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE: WI ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY (GRADES 3–8)
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
143
HIGH SCHOOL• In ACT-English (grade 11), WIVA students underperformed the state by 11 percentage points.
• In ACT-Mathematics (grade 11), WIVA students underperformed the state by 24 percentage points.
FIGURE 122: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: WI (HIGH SCHOOL)
Per
cen
tag
e A
t or
Ab
ove
Pro
ficie
ncy
Subject
WIVA State (WI)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
ACT-MathematicsACT-English
54%
36%
43%
12%
TABLE 117: 2014–2015 K12 COMPARISON TO STATE BY SUBJECT: WI (HIGH SCHOOL)
%AAP = percentage at or above proficiency
ACT-ENGLISH ACT-MATHEMATICS
WIVA %AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
WIVA%AAP
Total Count
State %AAP
Grade 9 43% 181 54% 12% 181 36%
Source for state data: http://wisedash.dpi.wi.gov/Dashboard/portalHome.jsp
145
Featured Programs and Highlights
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
K12 Private Schools: Preparing for College and Career
K12 Inc. is nationally known for its online virtual academies and other public school programs. Beyond these public school partnerships, K12 also operates three online private schools: The George Washington University Online High School, K12 International Academy, and The Keystone School. While each school focuses on meeting the needs of distinct bodies of students, all three focus on preparation for college and career. Graduates of K12’s online private schools have been accepted to prestigious public and private colleges and universities across the country.
The George Washington University Online High School
GWUOHS.COM
The George Washington University Online High was founded in 2010 with the mission to serve motivated students from across the United States and around the world who desire a one-to-one yet rigorous college preparatory education. GWUOHS serves students in grades 6–12.
Unique to GWUOHS is the Journeys Symposium, a multi-year course sequence that promotes self-awareness, leadership, service, and personal success. In high school, the Journeys Symposium offers year-long seminars that help students navigate their passage from the classroom to the real world, including:
• The Writer Within: Reflect, Respond, Reaffirm
• Service to a Cause: Community, Compassion, Commitment
• Insights into Leadership: Valor, Vision, Voices
• The Capstone Project: Achievement into Action
The GWUOHS experience is built on one-to-one relationships between teachers and students. Each GWUOHS student receives an Academic Plan and intensive, personalized college counseling and planning.
K12 International Academy
ICADEMY.COM
K12 International Academy is an accredited online private school for grades K–12 that serves students from every state in the U.S. and more than 90 countries around the globe. The school’s stated vision is “to create a global community of students, teachers, parents, and mentors that is connected by technology and dedicated to developing the unique character and intellect of each student, thereby laying the foundation for his or her success in life.”
Courses are synchronous in design, with a high degree of interaction between the student and teacher. Students in K12 International Academy meet regularly with their teachers in online class sessions, with many opportunities to receive one-to-one guidance and instruction.
Each full-time and part-time student of K12 International Academy also has the support of an academic support team and full-time students are assigned a college counselor in an effort to promote personal and academic success. Many clubs, activities, and organizations are available to provide students opportunities to develop leadership skills, make friends, and nurture their talents and interests.
147
K12 Private School Profiles (2014–2015)
The Keystone School
KEYSTONESCHOOLONLINE.COM
Founded in 1974, Keystone has a continuing mission to provide high-quality, one-to-one educational experiences in a safe, technology-enabled learning environment to empower students to achieve their academic and personal goals. Keystone offers accredited online middle and high school programs with a level of flexibility that traditional brick-and-mortar schools generally do not provide. At Keystone, students can enroll full-time or take individual courses to supplement their current education.
Keystone also offers numerous credit recovery courses that help students who have fallen behind and need to make up credits to advance to the next grade or reach graduation. Enrollments for credit recovery courses are accepted any time of the year.
K12 Private School Profiles (2014–2015)
GWUOHS (6–12) K12 Int’l Academy (K–12) Keystone (6–12)
Credits Required to Graduate
24 24 21
AccreditationMiddle States Commission on Secondary Schools
AdvancEDAdvancED and Middle States Commission on Secondary Schools
NCAA Approved Yes Yes No
Total Enrolled FT Students
146 1872 8224
Number of Graduates 33 203 632
College Acceptances to 1 or more Colleges
100% 99% 90%
Scholarships Awarded $ 1.1M $1.5M $1.4M
GPA of Graduates 3.3 (non-weighted) 3.5 (weighted) 3.5 (non-weighted)
SAT Average - Total 1779 1661 1587
ACT Composite Average 27.1 23.1 21
% of Students Scoring 3 or above on AP tests taken
75% 72% 73%
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
Profiles of Three Recent K12 Private School Graduates
Sarah Depew The George Washington University Online High School
Sarah Depew is a 2015 graduate of The George Washington University Online High School (GWUOHS). In Sarah’s own words, “Enrolling at The George Washington University Online High School changed my life by permitting me to maintain my love of learning, strengthen my web of cross-curricular connections, hone my ability to see the big picture, and evolve my self-motivation.” Admitted to Bryn Mawr College, Smith College, Colorado College, Rhodes College, Agnes Scott, and Hope College, Sarah received merit awards amounting to a total of $415,000 based upon her academic accomplishments, character, leadership, and service.
GWUOHS gave Sarah and her fellow graduates the opportunity to practice skills in global leadership, interaction, and communication skills that will be invaluable in college and in life. Sarah feels that because of her three years of study at GWUOHS, she was especially well prepared for college, more so than her college peers, especially in study skills and time management.
Sarah enrolled at Bryn Mawr as a Presidential Scholar. She is pursuing a double major in chemistry and mathematics and plans to complete a 4+1 engineering program that will allow her to graduate in five years with her undergraduate degree from Bryn Mawr and her Master in Engineering degree from University of Pennsylvania.
Eliot PaulK12 International Academy
Eliot Paul, a 2015 graduate of K12 International Academy, is currently a student athlete on the men’s soccer team at Wheaton College in Illinois. After Eliot’s family used the K12 curriculum for homeschooling in grades K–8, Eliot enrolled in K12 International Academy for grades 9–12. He was in the National Honor Society for two years and recognized as an AP Scholar with distinction. He has volunteered regularly in his community and received numerous awards in soccer. Eliot graduated with an unweighted GPA of 3.96 and was honored at graduation with the science achievement award.
At Wheaton College, he is majoring in economics and considering a math minor. Eliot credits his online learning experience with preparing him for the demands of athletics and academics in college. During his four years at K12 International Academy, he gained valuable experience with both a rigorous course load and high-level sport requirements. The program gave him what he needed—both the structure to keep him on track and the flexibility to meet the expectations placed upon him as a serious athlete.
Noalani HendricksThe Keystone School
Noalani Hendricks graduated from The Keystone School in 2014 and went on to attend her mother’s alma mater, Cedar Crest College in Allentown, Pennsylvania, where she is majoring in English and global studies and minoring in history and Spanish. She is also president of the Diversity Council Organization and a member of the History Club, Amnesty International, Muslim Student Association, and the Cultural Connections Club.
Noalani believes her Keystone education truly helped prepare her for college. Keystone’s flexibility allowed her to finish many of her courses early. Noalani feels as though she has an edge over her current peers because of her Keystone experience. She knows how to work independently, but when she needs help, she is not afraid to go to her professors with questions.
Upon graduation, Noalani wants to join the Peace Corps and then attend graduate school to earn a degree in international history. She hopes one day to work for the United Nations or in government.
149
Meeting the Diverse Needs of High School Students: Dual Credit and Credit Recovery Programs in K12 Schools
In K12 public school programs, when students enroll in high school, they arrive with highly diverse instructional needs and goals, based on varying academic backgrounds and levels of preparation. Some students seek opportunities to earn college credit before graduation from high school. Others need efficient programs that give them an opportunity to earn credit for courses they have taken before but failed. To meet these varied needs, many K12 high school programs offer dual credit programs as well as an extensive array of credit recovery courses.
Early College Dual Credit Programs
Among K12 public school programs that include high school (grades 9–12), more than 95 percent offer programs that allow students to earn college credit before graduation. These programs, collectively referred to as Early College, help meet the needs of students seeking traditional four-year degrees as well as those seeking associate degrees or certification from community college and technical education programs.
In the 2014–2015 school year, more than 1,000 students enrolled in 3,760 courses that qualified for college credit. These Early College courses earned students more than 11,000 postsecondary credit hours, which amounted to an estimated aggregate savings of more than $4,900,000 in college tuition costs.1
Early College programs are implemented within the framework of the legislation for the state in which the school is chartered. States are becoming increasingly friendly to these types of programs, and are expanding access to these programs to include more at-risk students, students at lower grade levels, and students who want to work directly to earn credentials such as associate degrees.
Across all K12 public school programs, high schools enrolling the most students in Early College courses include Georgia Cyber Academy, Ohio Virtual Academy, and Idaho Virtual Academy (IDVA). At IDVA, the number of students taking dual credit courses adds up to more than a quarter of the school’s high school population. (See Table 1.)
SchoolNumber of students enrolled in dual credit courses*
Percentage of total HS population enrolled in dual credit courses
Postsecondary institutions at which K12 students take dual credit courses**
Idaho Virtual Academy 247 27%
Boise State University, College of Southern Idaho, College of Western Idaho, Idaho State University, Northern Idaho College, Northwest Nazarene University
Ohio Virtual Academy 221 6%University of Toledo, Cuyahoga Community College, Columbus State Community College, Sinclair Community College
Georgia Cyber Academy 198 4%University of Georgia, Gwinnett Technical College, Georgia State
TABLE 1: EARLY COLLEGE DUAL CREDIT ENROLLMENTS: THREE LEADING K12 HIGH SCHOOLS
*Fall semester of 2016**A representative sampling, not a complete listing
1 Cost savings are the result of the difference between the average credit cost for the student if he was paying the full, average postsecondary tuition in the U. S. and the amount the student actually paid for the credit. The difference is paid by one or more of the following: the state in which the student resides, the postsecondary institution, and/or the school.
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
CREDIT RECOVERY PROGRAMS: FOCUS ON HOOSIER ACADEMIES
Credit recovery courses are for students who have previously taken a course but did not pass it, and thus did not earn academic credit toward graduation. Because students taking these courses are revisiting subject matter, students can quickly review what they already understand and have retained while devoting more time to topics not yet mastered. With focused effort, many students can proceed relatively quickly to earn credit by demonstrating mastery of the content.
Many K12 public school programs are working hard to serve a growing body of high school students who need credit recovery courses to put them back on track for graduation. As a case in point, consider Hoosier Academies Indianapolis and Hoosier Academies Virtual School, two affiliated K12 school programs in Indiana collectively referred to as Hoosier Academies. (For information on these schools, see Table 2.)
The number of credit deficient students turning to
Hoosier Academies has grown steadily in recent years. The most recent available figures (from the 2015–2016 school year) show a significant percentage of high school students who, upon enrollment, are deficient in three or more credits:
• 9th: 75%1
• 10th: 73%
• 11th: 68%
• 12th: 55%
Hoosier Academies
Indianapolis
Hoosier Academies
Virtual School
Year Founded 2008 --
Instructional Model Blended* 100% Virtual
Enrollment 255 3,690
Percentage Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price Lunch
28% 50%
Percentage with IEPs** 18% 14%
TABLE 2: INFORMATION ON HOOSIER ACADEMIES (AS OF 2014–2015 SCHOOL YEAR)
*At least 51% of instruction in brick-and-mortar setting**IEP = Individualized Education Program
1 Credit-deficient students in grade 9 enter with no transfer grades or first semester credits earned.
At the time of the collection of the above data, 70 percent of Hoosier Academies Virtual School students in grades 9–12 were credit deficient. Of those students, 81 percent were six or more credits deficient. Of the overall population of credit-deficient high school students, 49 percent were new to Hoosier Academies Virtual School in the fall of 2015.
According to head of school Byron Ernest, “In many cases, families select Hoosier Academies as a short-term solution for students with health issues, bullying, differentiated learning needs, academic deficiencies, credit deficiencies, or other special circumstances. Our targeted credit recovery program enables us to provide a path for students to get caught up quickly on credit requirements.”
In the 2014–2015 school year, out of a population of 1,628 high school students at Hoosier Academies, 236 students (approximately 14.5 percent of the overall high school student population) earned 474 credits through credit recovery courses. (See Table 3.)
“After seeing success during the 2013–2014 school year,” says Hoosier’s Byron Ernest, “we decided it was in our school’s best interest to dramatically expand the program and course offerings for the 2014–2015 school year.” Hoosier’s efforts are representative of the hard work going on in many K12 schools to help struggling students make progress and get back on track for graduation.
Number of Credits Recovered* Number of Students
1 129
2 72
3 35
4 7
5 4
6 or more 6
TABLE 3: HOOSIER ACADEMIES CREDIT RECOVERY: DISTRIBUTION OF CREDITS EARNED IN 2014–2015 SCHOOL YEAR
* At Hoosier, a single recovered credit is achieved by earning a passing grade for the course.
151
Effective Teaching in the K12 Online Learning Environment: Developing a Research-Based Rubric and Implementing an Instructional Coaching Program
At K12 Inc., we know that teachers have a powerful influence on student learning and engagement. As our instructional model has matured, the roles and responsibilities of teachers have expanded. As part of multiple efforts focused on ensuring and improving teacher effectiveness, K12 partnered with the National Institute for Excellence in Teaching (NIET) to develop a researched-based rubric that can serve as the basis for evaluation, coaching, and teacher development in virtual learning environments. Building on this solid foundation of research, K12 has implemented a teacher effectiveness initiative that features, as a central component, a non-evaluative Instructional Coaching program piloted at 18 K12 partner schools in the 2014–2015 school year.
The following pages present a detailed overview of K12’s collaborative efforts with NIET, followed by a report on the Instructional Coaching pilot program and its preliminary results.
In many ways, the growth of virtual academies has outpaced traditional teacher education programs. Not only do teachers in virtual academies, and to some extent in blended brick-and-mortar schools, have to navigate digital tools and help their students do the same, but they also need to be able to build and sustain long-distance relationships while encouraging their students to do the hard work of learning. Most teachers begin their work in virtual academies without having previously taught in an online environment. This challenge shapes the experiences of teachers in the schools we serve, and makes it even more important that we clearly define and articulate criteria that specifically apply to effective teaching in a virtual learning environment. To this end, K12 Inc. partnered with the National Institute for Excellence in Teaching (NIET) to develop a researched-based teacher evaluation rubric that can also be used in coaching and teacher development.
WHY DID K12 PARTNER WITH NIET?
Because of K12’s commitment to increasing teacher effectiveness in the virtual learning environment, we chose to partner with NIET, renowned for its work in building evaluation rubrics and comprehensive evaluation systems.
Founded in 1999, NIET is credited with developing TAP™: The System for Teacher and Student Advancement. TAP has become one of the nation’s largest multi-year, multi-state systems focused on advancing performance-based evaluation. NIET reports that TAP initiatives affect more than 200,000 educators and 2.5 million students.
HOW WAS THE RUBRIC DEVELOPED?
Most K12 public school programs use state-mandated teacher evaluation rubrics designed for brick-and-mortar classrooms. Early on, both K12 Inc. and NIET recognized the need to develop an evaluation rubric applicable to the virtual learning environment, whether in a purely online or blended model.
To get a clear understanding of the practices specific to the virtual learning environment, NIET researchers observed many K12 teachers at work. The researchers also held focus groups with teachers and followed up with discussions with school administrators.
In the early phases of the research, NIET representatives visited K12 teachers in Arizona and Tennessee to observe them at work in their “classroom environment”—a term that takes on a new meaning for the online teacher who has no brick-and-mortar classroom and works with students at a distance rather than face to face. The researchers observed how teachers set up their workspace, how they organized their school day, how they planned online lessons, and how they used technology, including a range of online tools for communication and tracking of student performance data.
A second phase of research involved observations and interviews with a group of teachers selected to ensure representation from across many different K12 public school programs, which vary in enrollment, grades served, student demographics, and instructional models.
Collaborating to Develop a Research-Based Evaluation Rubric
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
– Teacher sometimes manages
OLS alerts by pulling from the
student management tracker
and demonstrating analysis
of the information.
– Teacher sometimes uses
alerts to inform student
support actions, contact
students and coaches, and
inform team members.
– Teacher sometimes provides
adequate notes in Total View
of each point of contact
related to the OLS alerts.
K12 Asynchronous Environment — OLS Alerts
– Teacher rarely manages
OLS alerts by pulling from
the student management
tracker and demonstrating
analysis of the information.
– Teacher rarely uses alerts
to inform student support
actions, contact students
and coaches, and inform
team members.
– Teacher rarely provides
adequate notes in Total View
of each point of contact
related to the OLS alerts.
– Teacher consistently
manages OLS alerts by
pulling information from the
student management tracker
and demonstrating analysis
of the information.
– Teacher consistently uses
alerts to inform student
support actions, contact
students and coaches, and
inform team members.
– Teacher consistently provides
adequate notes in Total View
of each point of contact
related to OLS alerts.
Performance
definitions are
provided at levels 5,
3, and 1. Raters can
score performance at
levels 2 or 4 based on
their judgment.
At Expectations Significantly Above Expectations
Significantly Below Expectations
In February 2014, teachers from 20 K12 public school programs traveled to the offices of Texas Virtual Academy for two days of meetings. The researchers observed the teachers interacting with students during online instructional sessions, followed by focus groups with lively discussion of best practices and behaviors for online teachers.
The researchers paid special attention to teacher practices and behavior during synchronous sessions, in which teachers and students use an online platform to meet virtually in whole-class or group sessions. In a synchronous session, a teacher might work with students on, for example, strategies for solving word problems in mathematics. K12’s online platform offers tools that allow the teacher to divide students into groups. Teachers and students can write in an online whiteboard, and the teacher can deploy a quick online survey to elicit student responses. Speaking into microphones, teachers and students can hold conversations, while messaging tools allow for individualized written communications. Clearly, the adept and fluent use of these online tools would need to be seriously considered in developing a rubric for teacher effectiveness in the virtual classroom.
From the many observations, interviews, and focus group discussions, NIET worked with K12 to develop a draft rubric that was then field-tested and revised.
WHAT’S IN THE K12 RUBRIC?
The K12 Rubric is organized into four domains:
1. Professionalism: Reflecting on Teaching
2. Synchronous Instruction
3. Planning
4. Environment
The K12 Rubric provides specific indicators of effective performance in each domain. For each indicator, a teacher may earn a score from 1 (Significantly Below Expectations) to 5 (Significantly Above Expectations). Some of the indicators apply to effective teaching practices in general, whether online or in a brick-and-mortar classroom, for example, “Teacher Content Knowledge” and “Instructional Plans.” Other indicators focus on practices and behaviors specific to online teaching, for example, “Asynchronous Environment OLS [Online School] Alerts.” (See Figure 1.)
The K12 Rubric is presented in the K12 Rubric Instructional Handbook, which provides detailed explanations and examples for each of the indicators. The handbook serves as a guide for both teachers and leadership team members in implementing the K12 teaching standards. The handbook gives teachers many descriptive scenarios of best practices in action. For administrators, school leaders, and instructional coaches, the handbook provides question prompts that can guide dialogue during post-observation feedback conversations.
FIGURE 1: A SAMPLE FROM THE K12 RUBRIC
153
Instructional Coaching to Improve Teacher Effectiveness
In working with NIET to develop a teacher evaluation rubric and handbook, our goal was to ground K12 teacher effectiveness initiatives in a strong foundation based on research and experience. The research has resulted not only in a comprehensive guide for evaluation but also a broad-based support system for teachers.
In 2015–2016, 18 schools, spanning all four regions of K12’s public school programs (Northern, Southern, Central, and Western), implemented a pilot program for non-evaluative Instructional Coaching. Each of the 18 pilot schools has one or more Instructional Coaches to provide observation and feedback to help teachers, both new and returning, become more effective. The pilot program provided support and coaching to help more than a thousand teachers improve their craft and deepen their expertise in online instruction.
PROGRAM DESIGN
Instructional Coaches were selected from the 2014–2015 teacher population across all K12 public school programs. Coaches were selected based on empirical evidence of successful teaching in a virtual learning environment, including measures of student mastery levels and academic growth, or evidence of successful mentoring of other teachers within the virtual school environment. The teachers represented a mix of strengths in English Language Arts and Mathematics.
Instructional Coaches are not evaluators but instead work to provide monitoring and feedback on specific behaviors associated with student learning and growth. The coaching cycle ensures that each teacher receives feedback every two weeks and has an opportunity to reflect on the feedback experience every four weeks.
In the first quarter, 44 Instructional Coaches observed 1,299 teachers across K–8 and high school, and conducted 3,980 conferences in which teachers were provided systematic feedback and guidance. The observations and conferences are supportive and non-evaluative.
To provide Instructional Coaches with a shared vocabulary and frame of reference for what constitutes effective teaching, and to ensure the consistent and systematic capture of behaviors indicative of teacher effectiveness, K12 leadership staff drew from the Instructional Rubric developed with NIET. Of the 29 indicators in the K12 Instructional Rubric, 11 were identified as most directly descriptive of teacher behaviors in the instructional process in the virtual learning environment. Of these 11, two indicators (Engaging Students, and Standards and Objectives) were identified as critically important to merit observation in each observational session. The other nine indicators are observed in rotating order throughout the school year.
All Instructional Coaches participate in training as part of an ongoing quality control process to ensure comparability of the rubric score information and improve the validity of each teacher indicator. The team will also continue to collect examples of specific behaviors associated with each rubric score in order to help teachers better understand how they can modify their practice to become more effective.
PRELIMINARY RESULTS
K12 researchers are gathering data on whether the Instructional Coaching program affects student academic growth. Preliminary information indicates a positive relationship between teacher rubric scores and student academic achievement. Further research is ongoing to test the hypothesis that more effective teachers (as identified by higher rubric scores) produce better academic outcomes among their students.
Based on these promising preliminary results, K12 is planning to expand the Instructional Coaching program in the 2016–2017 school year to serve approximately half of K12 public school programs across all regions.
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
Understanding Student Progress toward Graduationin K12 Public School Programs
In the past decade, prompted by regulations growing out of No Child Left Behind, both states and schools have been reporting data on graduation rate. For such data to be meaningful, some consensus on the definition of “graduation rate” was needed because, as noted by the National Center on Secondary Education and Transition (NCSET), “Multiple methods and definitions can result in what appears to be conflicting information.”1
The following discussion summarizes recent regulatory considerations regarding graduation rate and proposes the need to see the bigger picture, that is, to understand an abstract statistic in the context of student progress toward graduation. Many students who enroll in online high schools, including K12 public school programs, are struggling to make up credits or meet other significant challenges to on-time graduation, including the difficulties of mobility (moving from one school to another). When one examines how students who start out behind make progress toward graduation, then the data show that K12 public school programs can effectively get and keep high school students on track to graduation when the school has sufficient time to meet the students’ needs.
The Recent Regulatory Background
In 2005, the National Governors Association (NGA) convened the Task Force on State High School Graduation Data. The task force discussed the need for comparable high school graduation data and recommended measuring the four-year graduation cohort rate, that is, the percentage of students who graduate from high school within four years of their entry into ninth grade.2 A compact endorsed by the 50 state governors embraced the concept of the four-year graduation cohort rate. In 2008, the United States Department of Education incorporated the four-year graduation cohort rate into regulations as part of the accountability provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act. The USDOE issued the first four-year graduation cohort rate report in October 2012.
While the four-year graduation cohort rate became integrated into school accountability systems across the states, it is important to note that early discussions of the NGA task force included a commitment to consider the “treatment of students whose graduation is delayed due to issues beyond a state’s or school’s control.” The task force also stressed the need for improvement targets for high schools that serve many struggling students. Specifically, the task force chairs said, “In short, the use of a high school graduation rate in any accountability framework must serve as an incentive to promote state and local innovation to better engage and educate every student. . . .”3
While the NGA task force emphasized student improvement and engagement, federal regulations focused more on reporting “a graduation rate that provides . . . better information on school’s progress while allowing for meaningful comparisons of graduation rates across states and school districts.”4 These regulations focused entirely on school performance, not individual student progress toward graduation. States were required to incorporate the four-year graduation cohort rate into school accountability frameworks. To meet the expectations in the regulations, students have to graduate within four years from the time they enter ninth grade. During those four years, students might transfer from school to school but from the regulatory perspective, the school enrolling the student in the fourth year is responsible for graduating the student.
1 Lehr, C. A., Johnson, D. R., Bremer, C. D., Cosio, A., & Thompson, M. (2004). Essential tools: Increasing rates of school completion: Moving from policy and research to practice. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration, National Center on Secondary Education and Transition. Retrieved from http://www.ncset.org/publications/essentialtools/dropout/part1.2.asp
2 National Governors Association (2005). Graduation Counts: A Compact on State High School Graduation Data. Retrieved from http://www.nga.org/cms/home/nga-center-for-best-practices/center-publications/page-edu-publications/col2-content/main-content-list/graduation-counts-a-compact-on-s.html
3 National Governors Association (2008). No Child Left Behind/Graduation Rate: Letter (June 11, 2008) from Govs. Carcieri and Henry to U.S. Dept. of Education. Retrieved from http://www.nga.org/cms/home/federal-relations/nga-letters/archived-letters--2008/col2-content/main-content-list/title_june-11-2008-l.html
4 U.S. Dept. of Education (2012). States Report New High School Graduation Rates Using More Accurate, Common Measure. USDOE Press Release (November 26, 2012). Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/states-report-new-high-school-graduation-rates-using-more-accurate-common-measur
155
A Closer Look at One K12 School Program
The federal regulations assume that students generally remain enrolled in the same school for four years. Given such stability of continuous enrollment in one school, it might seems reasonable to hold a school accountable if a student does not graduate in four years. But this assumption neglects the effects of student mobility, of moving between schools. Many students who change high schools are often economically disadvantaged, under-credited, over-aged, and academically at risk. A recent Evergreen Education Group report looked at enrollment data for 24 full-time online schools. In these schools, the report found that on average 35 percent of students who entered the schools in grades 10, 11, and 12 were not on track for graduation based on the four-year cohort rate.5
The trends referenced in the Evergreen Education Group are evident in the experience of Insight School of Oregon-Charter Option (Insight Oregon), a K12 public school program. The school was established in part to serve struggling students. Of students who should have graduated in spring 2014, only approximately 30 percent of newly-enrolled juniors and seniors entered the school on track for on-time graduation.
At Insight Oregon, of students who first enrolled in the fall 2014 semester as seniors, as many as 32 percent were six or more credits behind their cohort group. Later in the school year, the likelihood of a newly enrolled twelfth-grader getting on track for graduation shrinks. Of seniors newly enrolled in the spring semester, 62 percent were 3 or more credits behind the expected number of credits earned by the four-year cohort group. It is highly unlikely that students who enter as seniors and already behind in credits will graduate “on time.” The trend is only slightly better for juniors, indicating that students who are significantly behind in 11th grade are already off-track for graduation with the four-year cohort group. (See Table 1.)
Students (upon enrollment) on track for on-time graduation
Students (upon enrollment) 6 or more credits behind
Seniors newly enrolled in spring 23% 54%
Seniors newly enrolled in fall 32% 32%
Juniors newly enrolled in spring 30% 24%
Juniors newly enrolled in fall 41% 20%
TABLE 1: INSIGHT OREGON SPRING 2014 FOUR-YEAR GRADUATION COHORT: STUDENTS NEWLY ENROLLED AS SENIORS OR JUNIORS
The data from Insight Oregon are consistent with what we find in a cross-section of K12 public school programs. Across ten of these schools, of 1,800 students newly enrolled in high school for the 2014–2015 school year, 48 percent enrolled off-track for graduation.
For example, at Arizona Virtual Academy (AZVA), a large K12 public school program enrolling approximately 2,000 students, nearly 40 percent of students who enroll as seniors are more than one year behind compared to less than 10 percent of seniors who have attended the school for three or more years. At AZVA, data from the 2013 graduation cohort show that students who have been enrolled three or more years are on track for graduation at a rate more than two-and-a-half-times that of students who initially enroll as seniors. (See Figure 1 below.)
5 Watson, John, & Pape, L. (2015). School Accountability in the Digital Age (Feb. 2015 Policy Brief). Evergreen Education Group. Retrieved from http://www.kpk12.com/wp-content/uploads/KP-AccountabilityInTheDigitalAge.pdf
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
Enrolling credit-deficient students negatively impacts many virtual academies’ ratings on state accountability frameworks. This impact is more pronounced in states in which graduation rate counts for 50 percent or more of a school’s overall rating such as Idaho, Illinois, and Wisconsin. In many cases, full-time virtual schools have received lower ratings on state accountability frameworks exclusively because of the negative impact of the high weighting placed on graduation rate. (See Table 2.6)
Colorado Preparatory Academy “performance” instead of “improvement”
Idaho Virtual Academy 4 stars instead of 3 stars
Insight School of Colorado “improvement” instead of “priority improvement”
Louisiana Virtual Academy C instead of D
Nevada Virtual Academy 3 stars instead of 2 stars
Texas Virtual Academy “met standard” instead of “did not meet standard”
Wisconsin Virtual Academy “exceeds expectations” instead of “meets expectations”
TABLE 2: K12 PUBLIC SCHOOL PROGRAMS EARNING LOWER RATINGS DUE TO GRADUATION RATE
FIGURE 1: AZVA STUDENTS ON TRACK FOR GRADUATION BY YEARS OF ENROLLMENTP
erce
nta
ge
of S
tud
ents
On
Trac
k fo
r G
rad
uati
on
Grade Level
On track > 1 year behind
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
3 or more years enrolled2–3 years enrolledNew as seniorsAll
6 Because many states suspended accountability ratings for 2014–2015, all ratings are from the 2013–2014 school year, except LAVCA, which is from 2014–2015.
157
Mobility and Accountability
The Evergreen Education Group report (see footnote 5 on page 155) notes that the United States Government Accountability Office characterizes high mobility schools as those in which more than 10 percent of the student population leaves before the end of the school year. Many online schools have mobility rates three times this threshold. According to a study completed by the Colorado Department of Education, online schools in that state had a mobility rate twice as high as the statewide average.9
Of the more than 180,000 online students included in the Evergreen Education Group report’s analysis, 52 percent enrolled after the start of the 2013–2014 school year. Thirty-three percent enrolled four weeks or more after the start of the school year.
These national findings are supported by data from Arizona Virtual Academy. At AZVA, in the 2013–2014 school year,
• 78% of high school students were enrolled for two years or less.
• More than half of those students (58%) were enrolled for one year or less.
• Of the students who were enrolled for one year or less, 75% were enrolled for six months or less.
• 79% who were enrolled for one year or less also withdrew during the same academic year.
Even after these students leave AZVA or some other virtual school, they may still negatively impact the school’s graduation rate. If it happens that the virtual school cannot provide documentation that the student enrolled in another public school, the student remains on the online school’s four-year cohort roster. Most state tracking systems do not provide real-time information regarding student enrollment. In only a few states, such as Texas, is a school counselor or registrar able to verify that a student has enrolled in another school by looking up the student’s ID number within a state system. Not only must the state’s system have the capacity to track this information, schools must be required to submit information to the state throughout the year to capture data on mobile students. If schools are not required to routinely upload student-level information to a state data management system, there is no way to easily determine where students are enrolled or what credits have been awarded. If a state has no system that accurately and promptly tracks student enrollment, school registrars must become amateur detectives and work to accumulate evidence regarding a student’s whereabouts.
High numbers of credit-deficient students and high mobility rates adversely impact the four-year graduation cohort rate for online schools. As the previously cited research demonstrates, these factors disproportionately impact online schools when compared with the mobility rates of even highly mobile traditional schools.
Just as credit status is one significant factor that impacts graduation rates in virtual schools, so is student mobility. The Evergreen Education Group report cites well-known research regarding the impacts of mobility: “Students who change schools often face challenges due to differences in what is taught and how it is taught. Students may arrive without records or with incomplete records, making it difficult for teachers to make placement decisions and identify special education needs.”7 Similarly, a meta-analysis found that “mobility was consistently associated with lower achievement and higher rates of high school dropout. Findings were larger, more consistent, and of greater practical significance for school dropout than for achievement.”8
7 United States Government Accountability Office. (2010). Many Challenges Arise in Educating Students Who Change Schools Frequently. GAO-11-40. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/312480.pdf
8 Reynolds, Arthur J., Chen, C., and Herbers, J. (2009). School Mobility and Educational Success: A Research Synthesis and Evidence on Prevention. University of Minnesota. Retrieved from http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/Children/ChildMobility/Reynolds%20Chen%20and%20Herbers.pdf
9 Heiney, A., Lefly, D., and Anderson, A. (2012). Characteristics of Colorado’s Online Students. Colorado Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.cde.state.co.us/sites/default/files/documents/onlinelearning/download/ol_research_final.pdf
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
Student Progress toward Graduation in K12 Public School Programs
In spite of regulations that fail to account for student mobility, as well as state student tracking systems that have not kept up with regulatory expectations, K12 public school programs are making enormous strides in improving progress toward graduation.
High school students in K12 public school programs can earn their diplomas if the school has sufficient time with the student or the student is enrolled in the same school for all four years, as presumed in the assumptions underlying federal regulations about four-year graduation cohort rates. Among K12 public school programs, for students who enrolled in ninth grade and remained enrolled until twelfth grade, the following virtual academies have four-year cohort graduation rates of at least 90 percent:
• Idaho Virtual Academy (IDVA): 90%
• Nevada Virtual Academy (NVVA): 100%
• Ohio Virtual Academy (OHVA): 92%
• Oklahoma Virtual Charter Academy (OVCA): 91%
• Texas Virtual Academy (TXVA): 96%
• Utah Virtual Academy (UTVA): 96%
• Wisconsin Virtual Academy (WIVA): 96%
Some schools, such as Nevada Virtual Academy (NVVA), demonstrate as much as a 70 percent improvement in the four-year cohort graduation rate. NVVA credits its improvement to carefully tracking students who withdraw and actively engaging students upon enrollment. Regarding the new students, NVVA has developed ways to customize a student’s path toward graduation with course selection, blended options, counseling, and support services.
K12 public school programs are implementing innovative initiatives focused on increasing student engagement, which will result in improved student progress toward graduation. As described by the NGA task force more than a decade ago, the inclusion of high school graduation rate in any accountability framework must serve as an incentive to promote state and local innovation to better engage and educate every student.
K12 public school programs are implementing processes to collect credit information upon enrollment and track students after withdrawing, as permitted by state systems and consistent with state regulations. The company has also undertaken a public policy effort to work with state regulators and legislators to change regulations and laws to more closely measure individual student progress toward graduation for each of the high school years, not just at the end of the fourth year. This approach is consistent with the original intent of the National Governors Association’s compact, which focused not only on measuring graduation rate but also on developing improvement targets based on individual student progress.
The December 2015 passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act provides promise. Specifically, S. 1177-37 provides states some flexibility in school accountability frameworks to factor out students who did not attend at least one-half of a school year and instead assign this student’s status to the school in which the student was enrolled for the greatest proportion of high school days.
159
Appendices
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
The table below compares the percentage of students in K12 public school programs to the percentage among the total school population in each school’s state with regard to eligibility for free and reduced-price lunch (FRL) and eligibility for special education services.
• With regard to eligibility for free and reduced-price lunch, 51 K12 public school programs served a higher percentage of students than the state.
• With regard to students eligible for special education services, 20 K12 public school programs served a higher percentage of students than the state.
IN THE FOLLOWING TABLE:
• State percentages are based on 2013–2014 school year, the most recent data available from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) at this time of this analysis.
• Cells highlighted light blue in the table indicate a higher percentage of K12 students qualifying for FRL or special education services compared to the state.
• Special education eligibility percentages are reported only for schools in which K12 is responsible for special education services.
• For California, Florida, and Virginia, the special education percentages are aggregate figures encompassing the specified individual K12 public school programs in each state.
K12 PUBLIC SCHOOL PROGRAM COMPARED TO STATE: PERCENTAGE ELIGIBLE FOR FREE AND REDUCED-PRICE LUNCH (FRL) AND SPECIAL EDUCATION
Appendix 1:FRL and Special Education Eligibility by School Compared to State
FRL Special Education
K12 State K12 State
Alaska Virtual Academy 44% 43% 12% 14%
Arizona Virtual Academy 60% 52%* 13% 12%
Arkansas Virtual Academy 65% 61% 15% 13%
California Virtual Academy at Fresno 61% 58%
11%** 11%
California Virtual Academy at Jamestown 65% 58%
California Virtual Academy at Kings 53% 58%
California Virtual Academy at Los Angeles 54% 58%
California Virtual Academy at Maricopa 61% 58%
California Virtual Academy at Maricopa High School 55% 58%
California Virtual Academy at San Diego 51% 58%
California Virtual Academy at San Joaquin 51% 58%
California Virtual Academy at San Mateo 42% 58%
California Virtual Academy at Sonoma 52% 58%
California Virtual Academy at Sutter 55% 58%
Chicago Virtual Charter School 76% 54% -- --
161
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%
9%** 13%
Florida Virtual Academy at Clay 75% 58%
Florida Virtual Academy at Duval 66% 58%
Florida Virtual Academy at Hillsborough 63% 58%
Florida Virtual Academy at Osceola 72% 58%
Florida Virtual Academy at Palm Beach 65% 58%
Florida Virtual Academy at Pasco 71% 58%
Florida Virtual Academy at Pinellas 66% 58%
Georgia Cyber Academy 65% 62% 13% 11%
Hill House Passport Academy Charter School 61% 43% 21% 17%
Hoosier Academies Indianapolis 27% 49% 18% 16%
Hoosier Academies Virtual School 50% 49% 15% 16%
Idaho College and Career Readiness Academy 59% 47% 9% 9%
Idaho Virtual Academy 58% 47% 9% 9%
Insight Academy of Arizona 65% 52%* 16% 12%
Insight School of California-Los Angeles 66% 58% 14% 11%
Insight School of California-San Diego 56% 58% 17% 11%
Insight School of Colorado 48% 42% -- --
Insight School of Kansas 55% 50% -- --
Insight School of Michigan 62% 48% 20% 13%
Insight School of Minnesota 54% 38% 26% 15%
Insight School of Ohio 62% 44% 20% 15%
Insight School of Oklahoma 68% 61% 13% 15%
Insight School of Oregon-Charter Option 52% 51% -- --
Insight School of Oregon-Alternative Option 68% 51% -- --
Insight School of Washington 58% 46% 12% 12%
Iowa Virtual Academy 60% 41% 6% 13%
K12 source: Academic Performance Database: FRL as of 04/2015, K12 Special Education source: Internal Student Database: as of 12/2014 (except Newark Preparatory Academy, Hoosier Academies Virtual School, Hoosier Academies Indianapolis, and Hill House Passport Academy Charter School as of 02/2016). San Francisco Flex Academy not reported because data not available at the time of this report. Illinois school and state FRL data pulled from 2015 state report card: https://www.illinoisreportcard.com/Default.aspx, Silicon Valley Flex Academy: Silicon Valley Student Information System. The percentage of students overall and by school determined to qualify for free or reduced-price lunch within K12-managed public schools reflects analysis by K12’s Academic Policy Team of information provided to K12 by families during the enrollment process, and as augmented by data submitted to individual schools. During the enrollment process, K12 requests that each family complete a family income form (FIF) in order to provide information corresponding to the eligibility standards prescribed by the National School Lunch Program (NSLP)—including information related to income amount, frequency of income, and number of people in the family’s household. To the extent a family volunteers the requested information, K12 stores that data in its database, a secure information repository used to manage student enrollment and monitor student performance. Separately, the respective public schools may give enrolled families the option each fall of submitting the same information called for by the FIF, which the schools in turn provide to the districts and states in which they are located, in accordance with state-specific requirements. Schools may update family information in the database as they receive such additional data following enrollment. K12 understands that this data serves as the basis for the statistics reported by the NSLP and NCES.
K12 calculates its own FRL eligibility statistics utilizing the same methodology that NCES uses on a national scale, as follows. First, once per year, usually in the first two weeks of May, K12 retrieves two reports generated from its internal database: one containing the income, frequency of income, number of household members, and related data available for all families, and another report identifying all enrolled students at the time of the report generation. K12 then compares the full universe of family income and household member information in its database against the list of enrolled students in order to generate a data set limited to enrolled students.
Second, K12 consults the corresponding year’s NSLP table from the Food and Nutrition Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which sets forth standards dictating FRL eligibility. See http://www.fns.usda.gov/school-meals/income-eligibility-guidelines; see also Income Eligibility Guidelines (effective July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2015), available at http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2014-04788.pdf. With reference to the NSLP rubric, K12 determines the qualification levels of its enrolled families for FRL status.
Finally, K12 calculates the percentage of enrolled students at the public schools it serves who qualify as FRL eligible.
State Source for FRL and Special Education data (2013–2014): http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/elsi/ * Arizona FRL data (2014) from state website: https://azreportcards.com/** For California, Florida, Virginia, and Washington, the special education percentages are aggregate figures encompassing the specified individual K12 public school programs in each state.
Agora Cyber Charter School and Maurice J. Moyer Academic Institute were not included because management contracts concluded on June 30, 2015, and the schools did not provide K12 with student-level data from the 2014–2015 school year.
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
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 66% 66% 16% 11%Massachusetts Virtual Academy at Greenfield Commonwealth Virtual School
56% 38% -- --
Michigan Great Lakes Virtual Academy 63% 48% 12% 13%
Michigan Virtual Charter Academy 67% 48% 16% 13%
Minnesota Virtual Academy 49% 38% -- --
Nevada Virtual Academy 57% 53% 12% 12%
New Mexico Virtual Academy 50% 67% -- --
Newark Preparatory Charter School 70% 38% 16% 15%
Ohio Virtual Academy 59% 44% 14% 15%
Oklahoma Virtual Charter Academy 61% 61% 14% 15%
Oregon Virtual Academy 62% 51% 13% 15%
San Francisco Flex Academy 20% 58% -- --
Silicon Valley Flex Academy 10% 58% 16% 11%
South Carolina Virtual Charter School 64% 57% -- --
Tennessee Virtual Academy 71% 58% 15% 13%
Texas Online Preparatory School 43% 60% 4% 9%
Texas Virtual Academy 56% 60% -- --
Utah Virtual Academy 57% 37% 16% 12%
Virginia Virtual Academy-King and Queen 50% 40%5%** 13%
Virginia Virtual Academy-Patrick 47% 40%
Washington Virtual Academy-Monroe 38% 46%11%
12%
Washington Virtual Academy-Omak 48% 46% 12%
Wisconsin Virtual Academy 56% 42% 15% 14%
Wyoming Virtual Academy 47% 38% 11% 14%
Youth Connection Charter Virtual High School 98% 51% -- --
K12 source: Academic Performance Database: FRL as of 04/2015, K12 Special Education source: Internal Student Database: as of 12/2014 (except Newark Preparatory Academy, Hoosier Academies Virtual School, Hoosier Academies Indianapolis, and Hill House Passport Academy Charter School as of 02/2016). San Francisco Flex Academy not reported because data not available at the time of this report. Illinois school and state FRL data pulled from 2015 state report card: https://www.illinoisreportcard.com/Default.aspx, Silicon Valley Flex Academy: Silicon Valley Student Information System. The percentage of students overall and by school determined to qualify for free or reduced-price lunch within K12-managed public schools reflects analysis by K12’s Academic Policy Team of information provided to K12 by families during the enrollment process, and as augmented by data submitted to individual schools. During the enrollment process, K12 requests that each family complete a family income form (FIF) in order to provide information corresponding to the eligibility standards prescribed by the National School Lunch Program (NSLP)—including information related to income amount, frequency of income, and number of people in the family’s household. To the extent a family volunteers the requested information, K12 stores that data in its database, a secure information repository used to manage student enrollment and monitor student performance. Separately, the respective public schools may give enrolled families the option each fall of submitting the same information called for by the FIF, which the schools in turn provide to the districts and states in which they are located, in accordance with state-specific requirements. Schools may update family information in the database as they receive such additional data following enrollment. K12 understands that this data serves as the basis for the statistics reported by the NSLP and NCES.
K12 calculates its own FRL eligibility statistics utilizing the same methodology that NCES uses on a national scale, as follows. First, once per year, usually in the first two weeks of May, K12 retrieves two reports generated from its internal database: one containing the income, frequency of income, number of household members, and related data available for all families, and another report identifying all enrolled students at the time of the report generation. K12 then compares the full universe of family income and household member information in its database against the list of enrolled students in order to generate a data set limited to enrolled students.
Second, K12 consults the corresponding year’s NSLP table from the Food and Nutrition Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which sets forth standards dictating FRL eligibility. See http://www.fns.usda.gov/school-meals/income-eligibility-guidelines; see also Income Eligibility Guidelines (effective July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2015), available at http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2014-04788.pdf. With reference to the NSLP rubric, K12 determines the qualification levels of its enrolled families for FRL status.
Finally, K12 calculates the percentage of enrolled students at the public schools it serves who qualify as FRL eligible.
State Source for FRL and Special Education data (2013–2014): http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/elsi/ * Arizona FRL data (2014) from state website: https://azreportcards.com/** For California, Florida, Virginia, and Washington, the special education percentages are aggregate figures encompassing the specified individual K12 public school programs in each state.
Agora Cyber Charter School and Maurice J. Moyer Academic Institute were not included because management contracts concluded on June 30, 2015, and the schools did not provide K12 with student-level data from the 2014–2015 school year.
163
The table below identifies state assessment programs by subject area and grade band (grades 3–8 and high school) for the 2013–2014 and 2014–2015 school years.
State2013–2014 Grades 3–8 Reading, ELA,
& Mathematics
2013–2014 HS Reading, ELA, & Mathematics
2013–2014 Science 2013–2014 Social Studies, History
2013–2014 Writing
Alaska Standards Based Assessment (SBA)
Standards Based Assessment (SBA)
Science Standard Based Assessment (Science SBA)
-- --
ArizonaArizona's Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS)
Arizona's Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS)
Arizona's Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS)
-- --
Arkansas
Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program (ACTAAP)
Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program (ACTAAP) EOCs
Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program (ACTAAP), grades 5, 7, HS
-- --
CaliforniaSmarter Balanced Consortium (SBAC) field test
Smarter Balanced Consortium (SBAC) field test / California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE)
California Standard Tests (CST), grades 5, 8, 10
-- --
ColoradoTransitional Colorado Assessment Program (TCAP)
Transitional Colorado Assessment Program (TCAP)
ACT, grade 11
Colorado Measures of Academic Success (CMAS), grades 5, 8, 10
--Transitional Colorado Assessment Program (TCAP), grades 3–10
District of Columbia
Comprehensive Assessment System Results (DC CAS)
Comprehensive Assessment System Results (DC CAS)
Comprehensive Assessment System Results (DC CAS), grades 5, 8, 10
--Comprehensive Assessment System Results (DC CAS)
Florida
Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT)
Florida End-of-Course (EOC) Exams
Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT), grades 5, 8, Biology EOC
Florida End-of-Course (EOC) Exams, Civics and U.S. History
Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT)
GeorgiaCriterion-Referenced Competency Tests (CRCT)
End of Course Tests (EOCT)
Georgia High School Graduation Test (GHSGT)
Criterion-Referenced Competency Tests (CRCT),
End of Course Tests (ECOT), HS
Criterion-Referenced Competency Tests (CRCT),
End of Course Tests (ECOT), HS
Georgia Writing Assessments, grades 3, 5, 8
Georgia High School Writing Test (GHSWT)
IdahoSmarter Balanced Consortium (SBAC) field test
Smarter Balanced Consortium (SBAC) field test, SAT, grade 11
Idaho Standard Achievement Test (ISAT), grades 5, 7, 10
-- --
Appendix 2:State Assessment Programs: 2013–2014 and 2014–2015
2013–2014
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
State2013–2014 Grades 3–8 Reading, ELA,
& Mathematics
2013–2014 HS Reading, ELA, & Mathematics
2013–2014 Science 2013–2014 Social Studies, History
2013–2014 Writing
IllinoisIllinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT)
Prairie State Achievement Examination (PSAE), grade 11
"Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT), grades 4 and 7
Prairie State Achievement Examination (PSAE), grade 11
-- --
Indiana
Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational Progress (ISTEP), IREAD, grade 3 Reading
ISTEP End of Course Assessments (ECA)
-- -- --
Iowa Iowa AssessmentIowa Assessment, grade 11
Iowa Assessment -- --
Kansas Kansas Assessment Program (KAP)
Kansas Assessment Program (KAP), grade 11
Kansas Assessment Program (KAP), grades 4, 7, 11
Kansas Assessment Program (KAP), grades 6, 8, 9–12
--
Louisiana
Integrated Louisiana Educational Assessment Program (iLEAP-Grades 3, 5, 6, 7)/LEAP (Grades 4 and 8)
End of Course End of Course End of Course --
Massachusetts
Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS)
Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS)
Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS)
-- --
Michigan Michigan Educational Assessment Program
Michigan Educational Assessment Program, grade 11
Michigan Educational Assessment Program, grades 5, 8
Michigan Educational Assessment Program, grades 6, 9
Michigan Educational Assessment Program, grades 4, 7, 11
MinnesotaMinnesota Comprehensive Assessments (MCA)
Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments (MCA)
Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments (MCA), grades 5, 8, HS
--GRAD Writing Assessment, grade 9
Nevada Criterion-Referenced Tests (CRT)
High School Proficiency Exam (HSPE)
Science Criterion-Referenced Tests (CRT), grades 5, 8
High School Proficiency Exam (HSPE)
-- --
New Jersey --High School Proficiency Assessment (HSPA)
-- -- --
New Mexico Standards-Based Assessment
Standards-Based Assessment
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
--
165
State2013–2014 Grades 3–8 Reading, ELA,
& Mathematics
2013–2014 HS Reading, ELA, & Mathematics
2013–2014 Science 2013–2014 Social Studies, History
2013–2014 Writing
Oklahoma Oklahoma Core Curriculum Tests (OCCT)
End-of-Instruction (EOI)
Oklahoma Core Curriculum Tests (OCCT), grades 5, 8
End-of-Instruction (EOI), HS
Oklahoma Core Curriculum Tests (OCCT), grades 5, 8
End-of-Instruction (EOI), HS
Oklahoma Core Curriculum Tests (OCCT), grades 5, 8
End-of-Instruction (EOI), HS
OregonOregon Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (OAKS)
Oregon Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (OAKS)
Oregon Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (OAKS)
Oregon Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (OAKS)
Oregon Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (OAKS)
South CarolinaPalmetto Assessment of State Standards (PASS)
Palmetto Assessment of State Standards (PASS)
Palmetto Assessment of State Standards (PASS)
Palmetto Assessment of State Standards (PASS)
Palmetto Assessment of State Standards (PASS)
PennsylvaniaPennsylvania System School Assessment (PSSA)
Keystone Exams
“Pennsylvania System School Assessment (PSSA), grades 4, 8
Keystone Exams (HS)”
Keystone Exams (HS) Keystone Exams (HS)
Tennessee
Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program (TCAP)
--
Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program (TCAP), grades 3–8
--
Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program (TCAP) Writing Assessment, grades 3–8
Texas
State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR)
State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR)
State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR), grades 5, 8, HS
State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR), grade 8
State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR), grades 4, 7
UtahStudent Assessment of Growth and Excellence (SAGE)
Student Assessment of Growth and Excellence (SAGE)
ACT (11)
Student Assessment of Growth and Excellence (SAGE), grades 4–11
-- --
Virginia Standards of Learning (SOL)
Standards of Learning (SOL)
Standards of Learning (SOL), grades 5, 8, HS
Standards of Learning (SOL), grade 4 Virginia Studies, grade 7 Civics, grade 8 End-of-Course (EOC)
Standards of Learning (SOL), grades 5 and 8
End-of-Course (EOC)
Washington Measurement of Student Progress (MSP)
Measurement of Student Progress (MSP)
High School Proficiency Exam (HSPE), grade 10
Measurement of Student Progress (MSP)
-- --
Wisconsin
The Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examination (WKCE)
The Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examination (WKCE)
The Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examination (WKCE)
The Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examination (WKCE)
--
Wyoming
Proficiency Assessments for Wyoming Students (PAWS)
ACT Explore, grade 9
ACT Plan, grade 10
ACT Plus Writing, grade 11
Proficiency Assessments for Wyoming Students (PAWS), grades 4, 8
ACT Explore, grade 9
ACT Plan, grade 10
ACT Plus Writing, grade 11
--ACT Plus Writing, grade 11
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
State2014–2015 Grades 3–8 Reading, ELA,
& Mathematics
2014–2015 HS Reading, ELA, & Mathematics
2014–2015 Science 2014–2015 Social Studies, History
2014–2015 Writing
Alaska Alaska Measures of Progress (AMP)
Alaska Measures of Progress (AMP), grade 10
ACT, grade 11
-- -- --
Arizona
Arizona’s Measurement of Educational Readiness to Inform Teaching (AzMERIT)
Arizona's Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS) or Arizona’s Measurement of Educational Readiness to Inform Teaching (AzMERIT)
Arizona's Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS) grades 4, 8, HS
--AzMERIT (grades 3–8)
AIMS (HS)
Arkansas
Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC)
Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC)
Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program (ACTAAP), grades 5, 7, HS
-- --
California Smarter Balanced Consortium (SBAC)
Smarter Balanced Consortium (SBAC), grade 11 CAHSEE (HS)
California Standard Tests (CST) grades 5, 8, 10
-- --
ColoradoColorado Measures of Academic Success (CMAS) - PARCC
Colorado Measures of Academic Success (CMAS) - PARCC, grades 9–11
ACT (HS), grade 11
Colorado Measures of Academic Success (CMAS), grades 5, 8, 12
Colorado Measures of Academic Success (CMAS), grades 4, 7
--
District of Columbia
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
Florida Standards Assessments (FSA), grades 4–10
Georgia Georgia Milestones End-Of-Grade (EOG)
Georgia Milestones End-Of-Course (EOC)
Georgia High School Graduation Test (GHSGT)
Georgia Milestones End-Of-Grade (EOG), grades 3–8
Georgia Milestone End-Of-Course (EOC), Biology and Physical Science
Georgia Milestones End-Of-Grade (EOG), grades 3–8
Georgia Milestones End-Of-Course (EOC), U.S. History and Economics
--
Idaho
Smarter Balanced Consortium (SBAC) Idaho Standards Achievement Test (ISAT)
Smarter Balanced Consortium (SBAC) Idaho Standards Achievement Test (ISAT)
SAT, grade 11
Idaho Standards Achievement Test (ISAT), grades 5, 7, 10
SAT, grade 11
-- --
Georgia Georgia Milestones End-Of-Grade (EOG)
Georgia Milestones End-Of-Course (EOC)
Georgia High School Graduation Test (GHSGT)
Georgia Milestones End-Of-Grade (EOG), grades 3–8
Georgia Milestone End-Of-Course (EOC), Biology and Physical Science
Georgia Milestones End-Of-Grade (EOG), grades 3–8
Georgia Milestones End-Of-Course (EOC), U.S. History and Economics
Georgia High School Writing Test (GHSWT)
Illinois
Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC)
Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC)
ACT Plus Writing, grade 11
Illinois Science Assessment (ISA), grades 5, 8, HS
-- --
2014–2015
167
State2014–2015 Grades 3–8 Reading, ELA,
& Mathematics
2014–2015 HS Reading, ELA, & Mathematics
2014–2015 Science 2014–2015 Social Studies, History
2014–2015 Writing
Indiana
Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational Progress-Plus (ISTEP+)
IREAD, grade 3 Reading
ISTEP+ End-of-Course (ECA) tests in English 10, Algebra 1 and Biology 1
Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational Progress-Plus (ISTEP+) in grades 4 and 6
Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational Progress-Plus (ISTEP+) in grades 5 and 7
--
Iowa Iowa Assessment Iowa Assessment, grade 11 Iowa Assessment -- --
Kansas Kansas Assessment Program (KAP)
Kansas Assessment Program (KAP), grade 11
"Kansas Assessment Program (KAP), grades 4, 7, 11
Kansas Assessment Program (KAP), grades 6, 8, 11
Kansas Assessment Program (KAP), grades 3–8
Multidisciplinary Performance Task, (MDPT), grades 10–11
Louisiana
Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC)
ACT Plan, grade 10
ACT, grade 11
End-of-Course
Integrated Louisiana Educational Assessment Program (iLEAP) grades 5, 7
ACT, ACT-Plan (HS)
End-of-Course (HS)
Integrated Louisiana Educational Assessment Program (iLEAP) grades 5, 7
ACT, ACT-Plan (HS)
End-of-Course (HS)
--
Massachusetts
Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) or Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS)
Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS)
Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS)
-- --
Michigan Michigan Merit Examination (MME)
Michigan Merit Examination (MME)
ACT Plus Writing, grade 11
Michigan Student Test of Educational Progress (M-STEP), grades 5, 8, 11
-- ACT Plus Writing, grade 11
MinnesotaMinnesota Comprehensive Assessments (MCA)
Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments (MCA)
Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments (MCA), grades 5, 8, HS
-- --
Nevada
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)
Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) and NMHSCE
Standards-Based Assessment (SBA), grades 4, 7, 11
End-of-Course (EOC), HS
Partnership for Assessment Readiness for College and Career (PARCC)
New Mexico High School Competency Examination (NMHSCE)
Ohio
Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) grades 4–8
Ohio Achievement Test (OAA) for grade 3
Ohio Graduation Test (OGT)
Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC)
Ohio State Tests, grades 5, 8
Ohio Graduation Test (HS)
Ohio State Tests grades 4,6, HS
Ohio Graduation Test (HS)
Ohio Graduation Test (HS)
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
State2014–2015 Grades 3–8 Reading, ELA,
& Mathematics
2014–2015 HS Reading, ELA, & Mathematics
2014–2015 Science 2014–2015 Social Studies, History
2014–2015 Writing
Oklahoma Oklahoma Core Curriculum Tests (OCCT)
End-of-Instruction (EOI)
Oklahoma Core Curriculum Tests (OCCT), grades 5, 8
End-of-Instruction (EOI), HS
Oklahoma Core Curriculum Tests (OCCT), grades 5, 8
End-of-Instruction (EOI), HS
Oklahoma Core Curriculum Tests (OCCT), grades 5, 8
End-of-Instruction (EOI), HS
Oregon Smarter Balanced Consortium (SBAC)
Smarter Balanced Consortium (SBAC)
Oregon Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (OAKS), grades 5, 8, HS
Oregon Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (OAKS), grades 5, 8, HS
Oregon Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (OAKS), grade 12
PennsylvaniaPennsylvania Systems School Assessment (PSSA)
Keystone Exams
Pennsylvania Systems School Assessment (PSSA), grades 4, 8
Keystone Exams (HS)
Keystone Exams (HS) --
South Carolina ACT Aspire®
End-of-Course Examination of Progress (EOCEP)
South Carolina Palmetto Assessment of State Standards
SCPASS, grades 4–8
South Carolina Palmetto Assessment of State Standards
SCPASS, grades 4–8
ACT Aspire®
Tennessee
Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program (TCAP)
ACT Plan, grade 8
--
Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program (TCAP), grades 3–8
--
Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program (TCAP) Writing Assessment, grades 3–8
Texas
State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR)
State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR)
State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR), 5, 8, HS
State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR), grade 8
State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR), grades 4, 7
UtahStudent Assessment of Growth and Excellence (SAGE)
Student Assessment of Growth and Excellence (SAGE)
ACT (11)
Student Assessment of Growth and Excellence (SAGE), grades 4–11
-- --
Virginia Standards of Learning (SOL)
Standards of Learning (SOL)
End-of-Course Exams (EOC)
Standards of Learning (SOL), grades 5, 8
Standards of Learning (SOL) End-of-Course Exams (EOC)
Standards of Learning (SOL), grade 4 Virginia Studies, grade 7, Civics, grade 8 End-of-Course (EOC)
Standards of Learning (SOL), grade 8
Standards of Learning (SOL) End-of-Course Exam (EOC)
Washington Smarter Balanced Consortium (SBAC)
Smarter Balanced Consortium (SBAC), grade 11
End-of-Course test in Biology
Measurements of Student Progress (MSP) Science, grades 5, 8
-- --
Wisconsin
Badger Exam 3–8, Smarter Balanced Consortium (SBAC), Math only
ACT Aspire, grades 9, 10
ACT Plus Writing, grade 11
Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examination (WKCE), grades 4, 8
ACT Plus Writing, grade 11
Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examination (WKCE), grades 4, 8, 10
ACT Plus Writing, grade 11
Wyoming
Proficiency Assessments for Wyoming Students (PAWS)
ACT Explore, grade 9
ACT Plan, grade 10
ACT Plus Writing, grade 11
Proficiency Assessments for Wyoming Students (PAWS), grades 4, 8
ACT Explore, grade 9
ACT Plan, grade 10
ACT Plus Writing, grade 11
--ACT Plus Writing, grade 11
169
Appendix 3:K12 Leaders
Nathaniel A. Davis, Executive Chairman, is a seasoned leader of transformational telecommunications, media, and software development companies, with a record of improving operations, launching innovative new products, and strengthening relationships with a wide range of customers and authorizers. Mr. Davis joined K12 after a long career in consulting for venture capital, media, and technology-based companies. He previously served as chief executive officer and president of XM Satellite Radio, and as a member of the company’s board of directors, where he strengthened operations and financial performance and led the company through its merger with Sirius Satellite Radio. Mr. Davis was also president and then CEO of XO Communications, an early innovator in telecom that bundled together Internet access, web hosting, and telephone service. Prior to that he helped build the wireless network at Nextel as the executive vice president, and was CFO at MCI Telecom. Along with his broad-based experience in business, Mr. Davis brings a background in computer science and engineering as well as a focused commitment to meeting the needs of every student who chooses to come to K12 to learn and to grow.
Stuart J. Udell, Chief Executive Officer, joined K12 in February 2016 and brings significant strategic and operational experience acquired over a 27-year career in education. Most recently, Mr. Udell served as executive chairman and chief executive officer of Catapult Learning, Inc., a privately held operator of schools and provider of instructional services and professional development. Prior to joining Catapult Learning, Mr. Udell was the president of postsecondary education at The Princeton Review. He was concurrently the chief executive officer of Penn Foster, a global leader in high school and career-focused online learning (acquired in 2009 by The Princeton Review). Mr. Udell spent 11 years at Kaplan, most recently as president of Kaplan K12 Learning Services, where he built the K–12 school division. From 1997 to 2001, Mr. Udell was president of the School Renaissance Institute, the training, publishing, and research subsidiary of Renaissance Learning. Mr. Udell has served for more than thirteen years on the board of directors of the National Dropout Prevention Center/Network (at Clemson University), where he was recently recognized for his contributions as chairman. Mr. Udell holds an MBA from Columbia University and a BS from Bucknell University.
Allison Cleveland, Executive Vice President of School Management and Services, is one of the original staff members of K12, with academic training as an engineer
and master’s degrees in both business and education. She joined K12 in 2002 and, since then, has been instrumental in building the managed public school line of business from the school level to the regional level, and now to the national level. Before holding her current position, she served as the senior vice president of school services, overseeing academic and operational services in the managed public schools. Prior to that, Ms. Cleveland was vice president of the K12 Southern Region and was responsible for schools in the southeastern portion of the United States. In her early years at K12, Ms. Cleveland worked in support of new school startup and school operations, where she was responsible for the successful launch of K12 online academies throughout the country.
Lynda Cloud, Executive Vice President, Products, joined K12 in September 2014. As the head of K12’s Curriculum and Products organization, she oversees the development and delivery of all program content and customer-facing technologies, and drives product strategy and results across all areas of the business. Prior to joining K12, she was with Pearson Publishing for more than 20 years, where she held senior leadership positions in product development, marketing, and product management. In her role as Pearson’s general manager (for science, humanities, and the online learning exchange), she drove strategy for the company’s print and digital properties in the North American educational market.
James Rhyu, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, joined K12 in June 2013, bringing more than 20 years of financial management experience in various global industries. In addition to his extensive finance background, he brings a wealth of experience across a broad range of functions, including human resources, legal, information technology, back office operations, international operations, and product development. Mr. Rhyu holds a BS from the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania and an MBA from the London Business School.
Mary Gifford, Senior Vice President of Academic Policy and External Relations, joined K12 in September 2003. Ms. Gifford leads the Office of Academic Policy, which assists specific schools on key academic challenges, provides support for the efficacy of K12 educational programs, develops new school models, and educates legislators and regulators about virtual learning. Ms. Gifford also provides training to school board partners in the areas of succession planning, governance, and
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
strategic planning. She previously served as senior vice president of the K12 Central Region, supporting more than a dozen schools in eight states. During her tenure with K12, she has integrated iQ and Insight programs and been involved in opening many new schools. She has led various innovations, including unique hybrid models such as the YMCA and military drop-in sites, and the development of an at-risk model. Ms. Gifford served on the Arizona State Board for Charter Schools (which authorizes more than 500 charter schools) for 11 years as a gubernatorial and state superintendent appointee. Prior to joining K12, Ms. Gifford served as the leadership development director at Mackinac Center for Public Policy and as the education policy director at the Goldwater Institute (during which time the state’s charter school, tax credit, ESA, and other laws were written and researched by the institute). She currently serves on the board of directors of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and as president of a non-profit charter organization in Phoenix. Ms. Gifford holds a BA in political science and economics from Arizona State University, and an MA in educational leadership from Northern Arizona University.
Margaret Jorgensen, Senior Vice President and Chief Academic Officer, is an expert in the use of educational assessments as a powerful instructional tool. She joined K12 in February 2013, bringing extensive experience in design and development work for some of the leading producers of assessment products and other psychometric measures. As chief academic officer, Dr. Jorgensen is helping to lead K12’s ongoing efforts to apply insights from data analysis to the development of state-of-the-art curriculum, technology, learning systems, and teacher support. She is also focused on designing assessments that can be used to improve learning and accountability. She holds master’s degrees in school psychology and business administration, and a doctorate in measurement, evaluation, and statistical analysis.
Jayaram “Bala” Balachander, Chief Technology Officer, joined K12 in August 2014, and is responsible for driving K12’s software development strategy, including the design and development of innovative educational solutions, programs, courses, and products as well as the systems and platforms to support product creation and delivery. Prior to joining K12, Mr. Balachander was senior vice president of product development for educational platforms at Blackboard. Prior to that, he led product development and product management as senior vice president of products for Blackboard Engage. He has also held the chief technology officer role at CTB McGraw-Hill, Pearson School Technologies, and Big Chalk. Mr. Balachander has an MS in chemical engineering from Tulane University and a BS in chemical engineering from Birla Institute of Technology and Science.
Karen Ghidotti, Senior Vice President of School Services, Southern Region, joined K12 in December 2002 as an operations manager for Arkansas Virtual School and worked with the Department of Education to transform ARVS into Arkansas Virtual Academy (ARVA), an independent statewide charter school. After successfully establishing ARVA, Ms. Ghidotti became vice president for the K12 Southern Region. Before joining K12, Ms. Ghidotti worked for the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation to establish and support strong economic and preschool education development initiatives. She spent more than five years managing state and federal grants for the Arkansas Department of Education and working with local school districts to develop after-school programs and parent education programs. Ms. Ghidotti is currently helping to develop K12 initiatives to train and develop highly effective online teachers.
Desiree Laughlin, Vice President of School Services, Western Region, is responsible for supporting K12’s managed schools in seven western states that altogether serve more than 25,000 students. Since joining K12 in 2005, she has held a number of positions, including special education director and head of school for Idaho Virtual Academy. Ms. Laughlin brings more than 25 years of experience in education, including experience in increasing student academic performance among diverse groups of learners (at risk, special needs, and gifted and talented). She holds degrees in education, including a master’s degree in educational leadership. With a background in special education, she understands the value of identifying student strengths and weaknesses in order to better meet their learning needs.
Jennifer Sims, Senior Vice President of School Services, Northern Region, has more than 30 years of experience in education, including 24 years in administrative roles in a variety of traditional and charter school settings. Previously, she served as the vice president for academic services across K12 online and hybrid schools, with a focus on special populations, assessment, accountability, and student achievement. She has served as national director of special programs for K12, with a focus on special education students, English Language Learners, and gifted and talented populations. She received her MEd in administration and supervision.
Todd Thorpe, Vice President of School Services, Central Region, assumed his current position in 2013 after filling a variety of roles at K12, including operations manager for Washington Virtual Academy, head of school for Oregon Virtual Academy, and director of operations and senior director responsible for launching and staffing new schools in the K12 Western Region. In addition to his professional experience, Mr. Thorpe brings an academic background in business and project management. He works closely with leaders across all four K12 regions to ensure consistency in accountability systems.
171
Appendix 4:Norm-Referenced Tests to Gauge Student Progress: Results for 2013–2014
Scantron Performance Series® Assessment Results (2013–2014)1
READING
Number of Students
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%
TABLE 1: 2013–2014 SCANTRON MEAN GAIN COMPARISON: READING
Source: SY 2013–2014 Gains Data; SY 2013–2014 FRL Data
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%
TABLE 2: 2013–2014 SCANTRON MEAN GAIN COMPARISON: MATHEMATICS
1 Scantron results reported in this appendix are based on the updated methodology (including the methodology for identifying and excluding outliers) we recently adopted and utilized in analyzing the Scantron results contained in this Report, as described on page 26, n. 13.
READING
TABLE 3: 2013–2014 SCANTRON MEAN GAIN COMPARISON BY FRL ELIGIBILITY: READING
MATHEMATICS
TABLE 4: 2013–2014 SCANTRON MEAN GAIN COMPARISON BY FRL ELIGIBILITY: MATHEMATICS
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
Number of Students K12 Mean Gain
Percentage of Norm Group Mean Gain
Grade 3 179.98 1,316 172.56 96% 763 204.36 114%
Grade 4 141.21 1,364 151.10 107% 819 169.79 120%
Grade 5 132.47 1,442 130.03 98% 926 155.60 117%
Grade 6 113.65 1,634 115.79 102% 1,095 160.05 141%
Grade 7 91.99 2,078 94.87 103% 1,363 117.85 128%
Grade 8 77.41 2,264 66.67 86% 1,531 84.75 109%
Grade 9 39.37 2,103 29.29 74% 1,264 59.86 152%
Grade 10 50.78 1,932 37.85 75% 1,292 44.88 88%
Overall 14,133 91% 9,053 121%
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
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 41%
Overall 13,862 101% 8,984 111%
Source: SY 2013–2014 Gains Data; SY 2013–2014 FRL Data
173
Appendix 5:Norm-Referenced Tests to Gauge Student Progress: Results for 2013–2014 2015 Academic Report Methodology, Including Certain Previously Excluded Scores
Scantron Performance Series® Assessment Results (2013–2014)1
READING
Number of Students
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 71%
Overall 51,689 109%
TABLE 1: 2013–2014 SCANTRON READING PERCENTAGE OF NORM GROUP MEAN GAIN BY GRADE
NOTE: The Scantron analysis set forth in the 2015 Academic Report reflected an N-size of 34,445 for Reading. The Scantron analysis set forth in the 2015 Academic Report reported that the percentage of Scantron Norm Group mean gain achieved was 161% for Reading.
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
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 4,619 2,326.24 2,515.08 188.83 179.98 105%
Grade 4 4,891 2,444.66 2,604.68 160.01 141.21 113%
Grade 5 5,314 2,536.90 2,674.80 137.90 132.47 104%
Grade 6 6,261 2,607.04 2,741.29 134.26 113.65 118%
Grade 7 7,812 2,682.89 2,792.62 109.72 91.99 119%
Grade 8 8,695 2,740.27 2,825.55 85.29 77.41 110%
Grade 9 7,616 2,771.77 2,829.71 57.95 39.37 147%
Grade 10 7,432 2,819.96 2,872.30 52.34 50.78 103%
Overall 52,640 104%
TABLE 2: 2013–2014 SCANTRON MATHEMATICS PERCENTAGE OF NORM GROUP MEAN GAIN BY GRADE
NOTE: The Scantron analysis set forth in the 2015 Academic Report reflected an N-size of 37,190 for Mathematics. The Scantron analysis set forth in the 2015 Academic Report reported that the percentage of Scantron Norm Group mean gain achieved was 145% for Mathematics.
Source: SY 2013–2014 Gains Data; SY 2013–2014 FRL Data; 2015 Academic Report
175
READING
TABLE 3: 2013–2014 SCANTRON READING PERCENTAGE OF NORM GROUP MEAN GAIN BY FRL ELIGIBILITY
NOTE: FRL Eligible: The Scantron analysis set forth in the 2015 Academic Report reflected an N-size of 18,560 for Reading for FRL Eligible. The Scantron analysis set forth in the 2015 Academic Report reported that the percentage of Scantron Norm Group mean gain achieved was 157% for Reading for FRL Eligible.
Not Eligible for FRL: The Scantron analysis set forth in the 2015 Academic Report reflected an N-size of 11,395 for Reading for Not Eligible for FRL. The Scantron analysis set forth in the 2015 Academic Report reported that the percentage of Scantron Norm Group mean gain achieved was 166% for Reading for Not Eligible for FRL.
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
Number of Students K12 Mean Gain
Percentage of Norm Group Mean Gain
Grade 3 202.7 2,519 185.81 92% 1,497 203.11 100%
Grade 4 146.72 2,628 163.11 111% 1,608 178.01 121%
Grade 5 108.06 2,779 138.38 128% 1,819 134.83 125%
Grade 6 80.91 3,154 126.32 156% 2,158 124.69 154%
Grade 7 66.37 4,012 107.75 162% 2,682 105.20 159%
Grade 8 61.52 4,360 71.64 116% 2,995 76.51 124%
Grade 9 42.96 4,011 49.98 116% 2,466 59.33 138%
Grade 10 48.88 3,698 33.34 68% 2,499 35.50 73%
Overall 94.77 107% 110%
1 Scantron results reported in this appendix are based on the same methodology used for calculating Scantron results in the 2015 Academic Report, with the exception that they include scores of students whose difference in scale score fell within Scantron’s standard error of measurement for that difference, which were erroneously excluded in last year’s report. To allow for consistent comparison against the SY 2013–2014 Scantron results as originally reported last year, the revised SY 2013–2014 results reflected in this table does not otherwise use the updated methodology (including the methodology for identifying and excluding outliers) we recently adopted and utilized in analyzing the Scantron results contained in this Report, as described on page 26, n. 13.
2016 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
MATHEMATICS
TABLE 4: 2013–2014 SCANTRON MATHEMATICS PERCENTAGE OF NORM GROUP MEAN GAIN BY FRL ELIGIBILITY
NOTE: FRL Eligible: The Scantron analysis set forth in the 2015 Academic Report reflected an N-size of 19,427 for Mathematics for FRL Eligible. The Scantron analysis set forth in the 2015 Academic Report reported that the percentage of Scantron Norm Group mean gain achieved was 136% for Mathematics for FRL Eligible.
Not Eligible for FRL: The Scantron analysis set forth in the 2015 Academic Report reflected an N-size of 12,810 for Mathematics for Not Eligible For FRL. The Scantron analysis set forth in the 2015 Academic Report reported that the percentage of Scantron Norm Group mean gain achieved was 157% for Mathematics for Not Eligible For FRL.
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
Number of Students K12 Mean Gain
Percentage of Norm Group Mean Gain
Grade 3 179.98 2,587 172.04 96% 1,511 209.38 116%
Grade 4 141.21 2,675 147.68 105% 1,627 173.71 123%
Grade 5 132.47 2,839 127.35 96% 1,825 148.62 112%
Grade 6 113.65 3,212 122.35 108% 2,167 149.42 131%
Grade 7 91.99 4,093 101.92 111% 2,701 120.46 131%
Grade 8 77.41 4,463 79.00 102% 3,015 92.29 119%
Grade 9 39.37 4,151 47.40 120% 2,492 70.76 180%
Grade 10 50.78 3,813 46.26 91% 2,540 60.38 119%
Overall 103.36 95% 115%
Source: SY 2013–2014 Gains Data; SY 2013–2014 FRL Data; 2015 Academic Report
VISIT US: K12.com
TALK WITH US: 866.968.7512
Copyright © 2016 K12 Inc. All rights reserved. K12 is a registered trademark of K12 Inc. The K12 logo and other marks referenced herein are trademarks of K12 Inc. and its subsidiaries, and other marks are owned by third parties.