Academic Report

2017 K12
ACADEMIC
REPORT
3 | 2017 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Letter from Nate Davis, Executive Chairman;

A
and Stuart Udell, Chief Executive Officer 2
AO Foreword: Changes in State Testing and
C
School Accountability 4
12 Public School Programs: Performance Analysis
K
and Innovation 7
The “State” of State Testing in 2015–2016 8
Market Demand for Online Learning 28
K12 Driving Innovation: Accountability Dashboards 40
Appendices 47
Appendix A: School Comparisons to the States (2015–2016) 48
Appendix B: F
ree and Reduced Price Lunch and Special Education
Eligibility by School Compared to State 99
Appendix C: K12 Private School Profiles (2015–2016) 102
Appendix D: A
lphabetical Guide to Schools Included in 2017 103
K12 Academic Report
This report contains certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. We have tried, whenever possible, to identify
these forward-looking statements using words such as “anticipates,” “believes,” “estimates,” “continues,” “likely,” “may,” “opportunity,” “potential,” “projects,” “will,” “expects,”
“plans,” “intends,” and similar expressions to identify forward-looking statements, whether in the negative or the affirmative. These statements reflect our current beliefs and are
based upon information currently available to us. Accordingly, such forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors that could
cause actual academic performance to differ materially from those expressed in, or implied by, such statements. These risks, uncertainties, factors, and contingencies include, but
are not limited to: test result presentations and data interpretations; descriptions of testing and academic outcomes; individual school, grade, and subject performance reporting;
educational achievements; the potential inability to further develop, maintain, and enhance our curriculum products, instructional services, and teacher training; the reduction
of per pupil funding amounts at the schools we serve; reputation harm resulting from poor academic performance in the managed schools with whom we contract; challenges
from online public school or hybrid school opponents; failure of the schools we serve to comply with applicable education requirements, student privacy, and other applicable
regulations; inability to recruit, train, and retain quality teachers and employees; and other risks and uncertainties associated with our business described in the Company’s
filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Although the Company believes the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements are based upon reasonable
assumptions, it can give no assurance that the expectations will be attained or that any deviation will not be material.
A Letter from Nate Davis, Executive Chairman;
and Stuart Udell, Chief Executive Officer
The fifth annual K12 Academic Report continues our commitment to accountability and
transparency. It includes all K12 online and blended public school programs with publicly
available state test results for 2015–2016 in grades 3–8 English Language Arts and/
or Reading and Mathematics as well as in high school for assessments in English and
Mathematics/Algebra 1.
This report provides test results for 2015–2016 comparing who are not eligible for subsidized meals. Again, this is a
school performance to state performance and shows the common reality in brick and mortar public schools as well.
difference between school and state performance for All schools need to meet the nonacademic needs of
representative schools. We are encouraged to see certain students who suffer from the broader impact of poverty.
exams and grades in some schools that have exceeded K12 has taken and continues to take this challenge seriously.
the state proficiency percentages, and we have instituted We expanded our Family Academic Support Team (FAST)
programs to improve academic performance across all the initiative to mitigate many of the nonacademic challenges
schools we serve. facing students. While supporting the individual needs
of students, in 2015–2016, we also initiated a national
The focus on improving instruction in 2015–2016 was (1) instructional coaching program for both new and returning
reporting critical data to schools in a timely manner so that teachers to increase their abilities to support every student.
midyear adjustments could be made, and (2) expanding and And we sustained our ongoing research initiatives to
refining the Instructional Coaching program to strengthen determine the efficacy of instructional programs.
teacher effectiveness in English Language Arts/Reading
and in Mathematics. Teachers routinely received coaching Leveraging the research findings and best practices within
support from experienced teachers in the online and our schools and in the industry, we developed a new
blended environment. Although this transformation across Academic Excellence Framework as a guide and a set of
all the schools we serve will likely take more than one year, criteria to improve instructional effectiveness in the online
we know that this investment in teachers is an investment in learning environment. This new plan was launched in 2016–
helping students learn and achieve. 2017 across all our managed public school programs and we
will be reporting on its efficacy in future academic reports.
Our analyses indicates that many K12 school1 programs
continue to underperform their states in Mathematics, which We have extended our view of persistence—students
is not uncommon in public schools with high proportions of who remain continuously enrolled for three or more years
economically disadvantaged students.2, 3 We are still seeing continue to outperform students who are enrolled one
the impact of poverty as students who are eligible for free year or less. Again, this is a reminder that the impact of
and reduced price lunch continue to underperform students mobility occurs in brick and mortar schools as well as in
1
T his report sometimes refers to “K12 schools” or “our schools” or “K12 students” as a shorthand way to describe the online and blended public schools we serve pursuant to a
contract with an independent not-for-profit board or school district governing board. We do not mean to suggest or imply that K12 Inc. has any ownership or control over those
schools. Because the independent boards seek a managed contractual arrangement, the references to “K12 schools” and similar language are simply for ease and do not describe a
legal relationship. We are honored to be selected as a vendor to the public boards we serve.
2
J. Isaacs, & K. Magnuson, Income and Education as Predictors of Children’s School Readiness, (Washington, DC: Center on Children and Families, Brookings Institute, 2011).
3
The Impact of Poverty on Student Outcomes (Hanover Institute, 2015, January).

online and blended schools. Students need stability in their students who struggle in traditional school environments and
educational environment through graduation to be able to will enhance the learning for the many advanced learners in
succeed. Our Students First initiative this year also included online and blended schools.
the introduction of a customizable graduation planning tool
to keep students on-track for commencement. The tool In 2015–2016, K12 served more than 100,000 students in
features a centralized repository with complete course credit grades kindergarten through grade 12 and graduated more
history to help schools thoughtfully manage each student’s than 5,800 high school seniors. We are proud of the families
personalized graduation roadmap. Characterized by a handy who choose K12 managed public schools as well as those
dashboard and data analytics capabilities, the tool identifies who use our course offerings at their local traditional brick
credit gaps so that educators can step in and provide and mortar districts/schools. These families are searching for
assistance exactly when it is needed, as opposed to after it the best solutions for their students, and our goal is to meet
is too late. and exceed their expectations.
One of the distinct advantages of online and blended Online and blended schools and programs face many of the
learning environments is that many more data points are same challenges of brick and mortar schools. We continue
readily available to heads of school than in traditional brick to share what we have learned through blogs, white papers
and mortar schools. While we protect individual student data published throughout each year, and presentations at
consistent with state and federal privacy laws, aggregated educator and policy meetings. We look for partnerships
student engagement information in the online and blended across the online and blended learning environment.
environment helps us to understand learning patterns and
how students choose to use their instructional time. Our goal We will extend our research to cover new initiatives in future
is to identify the different ways we can motivate students to reports as well as in research briefs, white papers, and blogs.
learn rigorous content while stimulating their engagement. All of us at K12 are committed and dedicated to supporting
the academic success of students and families who choose
The K12 Academic Report is part of our broad research the online learning environment. We know that we can only
efforts at K12. We are committed to continuing to research succeed when our students succeed—so we begin and end
the relationship between student achievement and variables each day with “Students First.”
such as school structure, teacher effectiveness, learner
preferences for synchronous or asynchronous instructional
sessions, as well as any other engagement behaviors that
will help us better meet the needs of every student. We
regularly collect and examine data at the classroom, school,
regional, and national levels to ensure that we are doing
everything possible to support student learning. These data Nate Davis Stuart Udell
hold promise for enhancing the learning outcomes of many Executive Chairman Chief Executive Officer
3
CAO FOREWORD:
Changes in State Testing and School Accountability
The 2017 K12 Academic Report continues our commitment to effective practices and innovation
designed to improve the learning experience for students. The main body of this Academic
Report is structured to focus on three areas of interest. First, we present a description of the
continuing changes in state testing programs with examples of results for grades 3–8 and
high school. Second, we provide an update on market demand for new approaches to online
learning. Third, we preview an innovative approach to school accountability that focuses on
students. In the Appendices, we report the 2015–2016 assessment results and demographics
for the online and blended public school programs that K12 managed during that year.
The “State” of State Testing in 2015–2016 2016.5 This continued the challenges in interpreting school
performance year over year.
States have historically wanted autonomy in establishing
curricula and testing programs. While the consortia, K12 works diligently to improve the learning experience
established through grants from the federal government in and the learning outcomes for students who choose to
2010, appeared to have caused states to agree on common participate in online and blended schools. In order to
assessments (PARCC and SBAC),4 states began withdrawing ensure that we are making the right decisions about teacher
from these collaborative ventures in 2014–2015. The state and administrator training, curriculum structure, interim
testing environment continued to change in the 2015–2016 assessments, etc., we have developed several different ways
school year. More states chose to depart from the consortia, to support credible and valid interpretation of academic
leading to more and more states having their own state performance year-over-year in such a changing testing
assessment programs. environment. In this report, the reader will see examples of
one approach—that is comparing school performance to
The number of states using PARCC shrank from 11 states plus state performance by subject and grade to understand the
the District of Columbia in 2014–2015 to eight states plus extent to which schools are performing on par with the state
the District of Columbia in 2015–2016 and in SBAC from 18 aggregate percentage of students at or above proficiency.
in 2014–2015 to 15 in 2015–2016. These shifts resulted in six In other documents produced through our rigorous research
states moving to their own new state assessment systems in program, we also report out on school comparisons using a
2015–2016. Only 23 states used the same assessments in methodology which normalizes scores around proficiency
2015–2016 that they had administered in prior years. Of the cut-scores. All of our research is focused on improving
33 states plus the District of Columbia in which K12 managed teaching, the curriculum, and learning in the environment for
public school programs, the number of states with new students who choose to attend an online or blended school
state testing programs was 11 in 2014–2015 and 11 in 2015– managed by K12.
4
Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Career (PARCC) and the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC).
5
C alculated from data found in the following articles representing grades 3–8 and high school: L. Jurkowitz & S. Decker, “The National Testing Landscape,” Education Week (2015),
http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/map-the-national-k-12-testing-landscape.html, and S. Bannerjee, “State Testing: An Interactive Breakdown of 2015-16 Plans. (2016),
http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/state-testing-an-interactive-breakdown-of-2015-16.html

Due to the discontinuity of 11 states withdrawing from the K12 Driving Innovation:
testing consortia, establishing their own state-specific testing
Accountability Dashboards
programs in 2015–2016, it becomes challenging to fully
understand whether schools are becoming more or less We continue to study the relationship between student mobility
effective—since the measures are changing. At the same and poverty on academic performance. Because both mobility
time, we continue to see school and state results reported (movement from school-to-school) and poverty have long
between the end of the school year and the beginning of been recognized as having a negative effect on student
the second quarter of the next school year. This lag between learning, it makes sense to recognize that “success” in a
testing and reporting makes it impossible to intervene school with high mobility and high levels of family poverty
in a timely manner so that students who need additional may not be the same as “success” in a school without those
academic support can be ready for the following school year. external pressures. It is time to use these findings to innovate
Stability of state testing programs and more timely delivery school accountability systems to recognize that all students
of results back to the schools are important to helping each are not the same and that measures of success should
student learn at grade level. reflect the student and family populations that each school
serves along with the unique mission of each school. We
K12 continues to report school results from 2015–2016
believe that measures of school effectiveness need to take
in terms of the percent proficient by grade for English
these differences into account through a student-centered
Language Arts or Reading, and Mathematics in grades 3–8,
accountability model.
and their equivalent content areas in high school. And,
because some of the managed public schools are still part The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) gives individual
of PARCC, some are part of SBAC, some have used the states more flexibility in shaping their accountability
same state-specific testing programs for several years, and systems and assessments. We anticipate that states will
others have launched a new testing program in 2015–2016, make varying use of summative and interim assessments to
we compare school results with either the consortium measure within-year growth along with movement toward
aggregate or with the state aggregate. standards mastery. We hope that many states may revise
their growth models to incorporate interim results as well as
factoring in both mobility and poverty. Finally, we anticipate
Market Demand for Online Learning
that schools and states will choose to report information
that their stakeholders (families) are interested in, such as
K12 continues to innovate in response to market demands.
teacher turnover, student attendance, etc. In the section
Our partnership with urban school districts provides
on K12 Driving Innovation: Accountability Dashboards,
opportunities for delivering a blended learning model for
we offer a dashboard approach that supports a new and
students. The Chicago Virtual Charter School, founded
more transparent reporting approach in order to recognize
in 2006, was one of the earliest comprehensive blended
additional measures that contribute to student success.
models in the country. Public districts and schools want to
incorporate technology into teaching and learning and K12 is
Everything we examine and research in our online and
eager to support them to best meet and exceed their needs.
blended school programs is focused on improving the
Additionally, K12 understands the necessity of preparing
learning experience and outcomes for the students and
students both academically and technically for college and
families who choose this option for public education.
career opportunities in their future. Over the course of the
We remain committed to this goal.
2016–2017 school year, K12 expanded career technical
education (CTE) programs across six schools and up to eight
different CTE areas of focus.
Margaret Jorgensen, Chief Academic Officer
5
K12 Public School Programs:
Performance Analysis
and Innovation
7
The “State” of State Testing in 2015–2016
State testing programs have long had both great potential as well as caused great frustration.
From educators' perspectives, these programs improve teaching and learning. From the
perspectives of students and families, they take too much time away from learning and add too
much stress on students to demonstrate "on demand" what they have learned. In 2015–2016,
these same potential benefits and costs remained. The tension between these two positions
points to important information that both educators and families need to know: (a) What do
students know and what do they not know? and (b) How do we reduce the length (and stress)
of the testing experience while still capturing valid and reliable information about each student’s
learning? The assessment results provide, after all, an important, reliable, and valid source of
information about what students know and can do.
In addition to these foundational tensions, states have Many educators, families, and state leaders pushed back
historically wanted autonomy in setting content standards, on these efforts from the beginning and by 2015–2016, the
selecting testing vendors, specifying specific content to be depth of discontent with the common content standards
assessed, and setting the cut scores that determine student and especially with the testing consortia (Partnership for
proficiency. Adding complexity to this is the process of states Readiness for College and Career [PARCC] and Smarter
periodically updating learning standards, leading to new Balanced Assessment Consortium [SBAC]) was evident.
state assessments, shifts in professional development for Indicators of discontent included families opting out for
teachers, and new learning goals for students. These factors their students, refusing to have their children participate in
have resulted in state assessment results that are not directly PARCC, or SBAC testing; administrators noting that the lag
comparable across states, nor even across years within a time between test administration and score reporting was
state. The National Assessment of Educational Progress the same or longer than state-specific testing programs;
(NAEP) does provide state-by-state comparable information educators complaining about how early in the school year
but the assessment used is administered to samples of the assessments were administered (February, March, April);
students, not entire populations; it is administered to only and virtually everyone complaining about the extended time
certain grade levels and in certain content areas—and it is spent in testing as opposed to learning.
not administered on an annual basis. While NAEP provides
a valid and reliable longitudinal view of education in the For states adopting new state assessments, there are
United States, it does not provide information to drive either additional delays resulting from the processes of setting
instruction or school improvement. proficiency standards on those new assessments.
The political process alone can take months beginning
The introduction of the Common Core State Standards with convening standard setting committees, reviewing
(CCSS) and the creation of two multistate testing consortia data against the proposed proficiency standards, and,
were the recent attempts of the federal government to finally, obtaining state board of education approval of
bring commonality across the states with respect to both those standards.
content standards and assessment rigor and experience.

Federal intervention in education vis-à-vis the Race to the through the grade levels, delays of weeks or months make
Top funding of both adoption of CCSS and membership in that information less valuable. While this delayed data can
the testing consortia was an opportunity to at least allow help when making decisions about the health of a whole
direct comparisons of state academic performance in school or district, but the irony is that these aggregate
grades K–12. But the notable dropouts from each of the two data come from students and those students are not being
testing consortia has essentially limited comparing school helped to improve their learning in a timely manner.
performance year-over-year across states.
Figure 1 shows the lag between the first day of student
The reality of 2015–2016 and going forward will be that testing and the date those scores were available to the
more states are likely to drop out of the consortia seeking schools for state assessment administered in grades 3–8.
less expensive assessment alternatives. Families will The 21 schedules reported in Figure 1 are for those states
continue to push back on multiple days of testing in vocal, that have either a large school (enrollment > 3,000) or
if not large numbers. Scoring and reporting will continue to multiple schools managed by K12 in 2015–2016. Note that
take months, not weeks, complicated periodically by new only two states (Florida and Texas) reported results before
proficiency standards adopted through a lengthy political the end of the school year in which the assessments were
review process. administered. Three states delivered results after October
1, 2016, and 16 states delivered reports during the summer.
But the most important issue not being addressed is the This suggests that, for most students, the opportunity to
quality and timeliness of the assessment results to help intervene and remediate before the 2015–2016 school year
teachers better meet the needs of families. In a survey ended was not available, and in too many states, data were
conducted with teachers in Tennessee, 65 percent of not available to customize instruction before schools and
educators said that assessments do not help redefine teachers developed plans for the next school year.
teaching practices.6 In response to this deficiency, K12 is
innovating around using interim assessments and predictive The initial purpose of the standards-based assessment
data so that teachers know whether students have mastered movement was to define and measure student performance
the content needed to reach proficiency and are trending on the specific content standards for each subject and grade
positively toward goals. We are developing methodologies that students need to have mastered in order to be successful
to allow for valid direct comparisons across different in the subsequent grade. Unfortunately, the long period of
assessments (interim and summative) and to ensure that time between test administration and the receipt of student
teachers have the information they need, when they need score reports makes it very difficult for teachers to intervene
it, to ensure that students are on track to proficiency and and provide the appropriate remediation for students before
higher achievement. While we recognize the need for state they begin the next school year. This lag between test
boards of education and other regulatory entities to hold administration and report availability is caused by different
public schools to specific performance standards, the core reasons. Some of the delays are caused by scoring of open-
of school performance and improvement is student learning, ended questions in addition to multiple-choice questions.
and student learning is best informed by timely, reliable, and Some of the delays are caused by equating processes to
valid assessment information. ensure comparability year-over-year. Some of the delays are
because of the standard-setting process when state testing
programs change. The standard-setting process is political
Length of Time Between Testing and requires the adoption of proficiency category cut scores
by state boards of education. Some of the delays are caused
and Reporting by vendor errors and technology issues. Regardless of the
reasons, the use of assessment results to intervene in a
In the 21st century, current information is available in real timely manner for students who need additional instruction is
time in banking, entertainment, news, etc., it is concerning delayed until the next school year when these students likely
that testing information takes weeks, or even months, to be have different teachers and are beginning the new school
available for families and educators. If the primary purpose year—already behind.
of assessment is to tell teachers and families what students
know and can do and what they need to learn to progress
6
J . Gonzales, “Many Tennessee Teachers Find State’s Standardized Assessments Unhelpful, Survey Says,” Tennessean.com (August 9, 2017),
http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/education/2017/08/09/tennessee-educator-survey-find-states-standardized-assessments-unhelpful-tnready/551736001/
9
FIGURE 1: State Testing Time Between Testing and Reporting (Grades 3–8, 2015–2016 School Year)
DATE
9/1/15 12/10/15 3/19/16 6/27/16 10/5/16 1/13/17
AL
AR
AZ
CA
CO
DC
FL
GA
ID
IL
STATE
IN
MA
MN
NC
NM
OH
PA
SC
TX
UT
WI
Days Without Testing
Figure 2 shows the same pattern for high school assessments.
FIGURE 2: State Testing Time Between Testing and Reporting (High School, 2015–2016 School Year)
DATE
9/1/15 12/10/15 3/19/16 6/27/16 10/5/16 1/13/17
AL
AR
AZ
CA
CO
DC
FL
GA
ID
IL
STATE
IN
MA
MN
NC
NM
OH
PA
SC
TX
UT
WI
Days Without Testing
Note: District of Columbia school only served students in grades 3–8; therefore, data is reported in Figure 1.
The opportunity cost of this lag is dramatic. While there are satisfied with this lag between seeing a doctor for a diagnosis
many differences across industries, an analogous industry is and receiving the diagnosis and treatment plan months later.
healthcare. It is difficult to imagine that customers would be

K12 Public School Programs FIGURE 3: The Shifting Landscape of State Testing
Performance Analysis THE SHIFTING LANDSCAPE OF STATE TESTING
2015–2016: Introduction SBAC
NUMBER OF STATES PARTICIPATING

50
45 PARCC
In the 2015–2016 school year, the landscape of 40

Both SBAC & PARCC
35
state testing continued to shift. As shown in Figure 30 SBAC, PARCC, or Both
3, in 2010, 19 states had joined SBAC; 13 states had 25
20
joined PARCC; and 13 states had joined both SBAC
15
and PARCC. By May of school year 2015–2016, the 10
total number of states still in one or both consortia 5
0
was down to 20. Many states switched to new 2010 2016
state-specific assessments. Most states using a
consortia assessment followed the consortia’s 2010 TESTING 2016 TESTING
recommendations for cut scores to determine LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE
proficiency, but some set their own cut scores.
There were other challenges as well. For example, 2010 2016
Tennessee invalidated all state assessment results
due to assessment scoring issues. Additionally some
states suspended school accountability ratings.7
One can hypothesize that the driver leading to

withdrawal from the consortia was funding since
SBAC PARCC Both SBAC & PARCC State-Designed
the Race to the Top funds were no longer available
and states had to pay the full price for development, Nearly half of all states have dropped SBAC and PARCC tests
deployment, scoring, and reporting. Another
hypothesis is that the market response, especially LENGTH OF TIME:
TEST TAKEN TO RESULTS RETURNED
to PARCC, was that the tests were too difficult and
required too many days of testing. From a policy GRADES 3–8 WEEKS WITHOUT DATA
perspective, education has always been a state
37.6
right. Without a significant benefit to each state from 40
the consortia and without continued strong support 30

22.7%
for the CCSS, it is not a surprise to see states 20
11.1%
reverting to their historical practice of building their 10
own state assessments. This movement has been 0
driven by strong grass roots initiatives of parents Weeks Without Data
and families to take back control over their children’s Min Max Mean
education.8 Families have opted out in large HIGH SCHOOL WEEKS WITHOUT DATA
numbers in some states.9 One source reported that,
in 2014–2015, more than 675,000 students refused 37.6
40
to participate in state testing across the United 30
22.0%
States.10 In addition, the “so-called Mommy Lobby” 20
has been vocal about CCSS, and this has sparked
10 4.6%
a strong political backlash across a range of voter
0
constituencies. Weeks Without Data
Min Max Mean
It takes, on average, 22 weeks from the time the student takes

the test until the results are released to the student and school.
7
A . Jochim & P. McGuinn, “The Politics of the Common Core Assessments: Why States Are Quitting the PARCC and Smarter Balanced Testing Consortia,” Education
Next (Fall 2016), http://educationnext.org/files/ednext_xvi_4_jochim_mcguinn.pdf
8
Arizonans Against Common Core, http://www.arizonansagainstcommoncore.com/news.html
9
J. Schweig, “The Opt-Out Reckoning: An Ever-Growing Call to Opt Out of Standardized Tests Is Prompting Serious Questions in Education,” USNews (2016), https://www.
usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-05-09/who-does-the-movement-to-opt-out-of-standardized-testing-help
10
FairTest: The National Center for Fair and Open Testing, “More Than 670,000 Refused Tests in 2015,” December 12, 2015, updated August 29, 2916, to “More Than 675,000
Students Refused State Tests Across U.S. in 2015,” http://www.fairtest.org/more-500000-refused-tests-2015
11
The disruption of changing testing programs brings various sections of the 2016 K12 Academic Report, they are reported
delay issues, from timing of test administration to anticipating in the 2017 K12 Academic Report in the section titled Group
delays in reporting and acting on data. Educators and 4: K12 Public School Programs Administering New State Tests
families must get prepared for different test blueprints, in 2015–2016.
often new question types and question formats, and often
different testing times. Issues involving transitions to and
from participation in one of the two primary testing consortia Persistence and Free
highlight these disruptions. Movement into the testing and Reduced Price Lunch
consortia was a major adjustment for many families and
educators. Then, movement out of the consortia back to state- We report overall results from K12 public school programs
specific testing programs caused another wave of disruption. from which publicly available test results were available in
two specific cases:
These continued changes add to the complication in
• By persistence, that is, the relationship between length of
analyzing the year-over-year trends in the performance of
enrollment and performance on state assessments
K12 managed public school programs. In previous Academic
Reports, our practice has been, when possible, to compare • By eligibility for free or reduced price lunch (FRL)
data across multiple consecutive school years. But when
states change to new tests based on the same or new For the 2015–2016 school year, we continue to see a positive
standards, and use different definitions of proficiency, the relationship between length of a student’s continuous
results of the new tests cannot be directly compared to enrollment in a K12 managed public school and their
results from previous tests. proficiency on state assessments. (See Figure 4.)
Because test types and categories continued to shift in • In grades 3–8, in English Language Arts and Mathematics,
2015–2016, we have retained the analytic framework we the longer students remain enrolled, the better they
introduced in the 2016 K12 Academic Report (which reported perform. Compared to students enrolled in K12 public
data from the 2014–2015 school year), organizing our school programs less than 1 year, students enrolled 3
performance analysis in ways that we hope will help readers years or more achieved higher percentages at or above
navigate the sometimes confusing landscape of state testing. proficiency: 17 percentage points higher in English
We are retaining the same structure (PARCC, SBAC, Same Language Arts, 12 percentage points higher in Reading,
State Tests Year-Over-Year, and New State Tests). But, as and 14 percentage points higher in Mathematics.
mentioned above, some states departed the consortia in (See Table 1.)
2015–2016—so while they were in either the PARCC or SBAC
FIGURE 4: 2015–2016 Proficiency Percentages by Subject and Persistence (Grades 3–8)
100%
PERCENTAGE AT OR ABOVE PROFICIENCY
90%
80%
73%
70%
70% 65%
61%
60%
49%
50%
39% 39%
40%
32%
30% 38%
30% 32%
20%
24%
10%
0%
Less than 1 year 1 year but less 2 years but less 3 years or more
than two years than three years
PERSISTENCE BY SUBJECT
English Language Arts Reading Mathematics

TABLE 1: 2015–2016 Proficiency Percentages by Subject and Persistence (Grades 3–8)
ENGLISH
READING MATHEMATICS
LANGUAGE ARTS
%AAP Total Count %AAP Total Count %AAP Total Count
Less than 1 year 32% 10,843 61% 2,814 24% 13,481
1 year but less than 2 years 39% 9,695 65% 2,522 30% 12,121
2 years but less than 3 years 39% 4,904 70% 801 32% 5,682
3 years or more 49% 7,090 73% 845 38% 7,959
%AAP Increase or Decrease* +17 +12 +14
*%A AP = percentage at or above proficiency. Calculation represents students enrolled 3 years or more compared to students enrolled less than 1 year in percentage points.
Our analysis of the effects of persistence in high school is less than 1 year, achieved higher percentages at or above
organized by test type: either high school graduation tests proficiency: 18 percentage points higher in English Language
(HSGTs) or end-of-course assessments (EOCs). Arts, 3 percentage points higher in Mathematics, 7 percentage
points higher in English 1, and 10 percentage points in Algebra 1.
For HSGTs and EOCs, students enrolled in K12 public school
(See Table 2)
programs 3 or more years, compared to students enrolled
FIGURE 5: 2015–2016 Proficiency Percentages by Subject (High School)

100%
90%
80%
70% 65%
60% 54%
50%
50% 47%
53%
50%
40% 46% 45%
30% 25% 35%
34%
20% 29%
10% 20% 21%

18% 17%
0%
English Language Arts Mathematics English 1 Algebra 1
TABLE 2: 2015–2016 Proficiency Percentages by Subject (High School)
HSGT EOC
ENGLISH
MATHEMATICS ENGLISH 1 ALGEBRA 1
LANGUAGE ARTS
%AAP Total Count %AAP Total Count %AAP Total Count %AAP Total Count
Less than 1 year 47% 856 18% 1,255 46% 1,156 25% 1,223
1 year but less than 2 years 50% 1,036 17% 1,252 45% 1,304 29% 1,410
2 years but less than 3 years 54% 532 20% 620 50% 524 34% 659
3 years or more 65% 678 21% 808 53% 902 35% 1,033
%AAP Increase or Decrease* +18 +3 +7 +10
*%A AP = percentage at or above proficiency. Calculation represents students enrolled 3 years or more compared to students enrolled less than 1 year in percentage points.
13
According to the National Center for Education Statistics for STUDENTS ELIGIBLE FOR FREE
the most recent school year available (2014–2015), nationally, AND REDUCED PRICE LUNCH
51.65% of students were eligible for free or reduced price
Nationwide All K12 Public School Programs
lunch. In comparison, for all students in grades 3–8 and high
school in K12 public school programs, 60.82% (rounded to 52% 61%
the nearest whole number in the table to the right) were
eligible for free or reduced price lunch in 2015–2016. (NCES
has not released data for the 2015–2016 school year, but the
data released for the 2014–2015 school year was 59% at K12
schools.) See appendix B for more information on free and
reduced price lunch status by school.
In 2015–2016, for K12 students across all grades and subjects • Students identified as eligible for free lunch had lower
tested eligible for free or reduced price lunch, performance percentages at or above proficiency than students eligible
trends consistent with prior years are reported in Figures 6 for reduced price lunch.
and 7 and Tables 3 and 4.
• Both free and reduced price lunch eligible
underperformed students who were not eligible for
subsidized meals.
FIGURE 6: 2015–2016 Proficiency Percentages by Subject and FRL Eligibility (Grades 3–8)
100% Free Lunch Eligible

90% Reduced Price Lunch Eligible
80% 75% N ot Eligible
70% 65%
60%
60% 51%
50% 42% 41%
40% 33% 32%
30% 23%
20%
10%
0%
%AAP %AAP %AAP
English Language Arts Reading Mathematics
SUBJECT AND FRL STATUS
TABLE 3: 2015–2016 Proficiency Percentages by Subject and FRL Eligibility (Grades 3–8)
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS READING MATHEMATICS
Difference Difference Difference

Relative Total Relative Total Relative Total
%AAP %AAP %AAP
to Not Eligible Count to Not Eligible Count to Not Eligible Count
in percentage points in percentage points in percentage points
Free Lunch Eligible 33% -18 11,968 60% -15 2,253 23% -18 14,136
Reduced Price Eligible 42% -9 3,795 65% -10 879 32% -9 4,635
Not Eligible 51% NA 10,064 75% NA 2,038 41% NA 11,996
%A AP = percentage at or above proficiency. “Difference” columns repor t the gap (in percentage points) between students eligible for subsidized meals and those not
eligible. NA: Not applicable because the numbers in this column repor t the gap relative to Not Eligible students.

The same pattern reported for grades 3–8 is evident in high %AAP suggest equivalency between reduced price lunch
school (see Figure 7 and Table 4) with the single exception and not eligible students.
of Mathematics where reduced price eligible and not eligible
FIGURE 7: 2015–2016 Proficiency Percentages by Subject and FRL Eligibility (High School)
100% Free Lunch Eligible

90% Reduced Price Lunch Eligible

80% N ot Eligible
70%
60% 59%
60% 51% 52%
50% 45%
41% 40%
40% 32%
30% 25%
22% 21%
20% 15%
10%
0%
English Language Arts Mathematics English 1 Algebra 1
SUBJECT AND FRL STATUS
TABLE 4: 2015–2016 Proficiency Percentages by Subject and FRL Eligibility (High School)
HSGT EOC
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS READING ENGLISH 1 ALGEBRA 1
Difference Difference Difference Difference

Relative Total Relative Total Relative Total Relative Total
%AAP to Not Eligible %AAP to Not Eligible %AAP to Not Eligible %AAP to Not Eligible
Count Count Count Count
in percentage in percentage in percentage in percentage
points points points points
Free
Lunch 45% -15 1,098 15% -6 1,288 41% -18 1,353 25% -15 1,660
Eligible
Reduced
Price 51% -9 414 22% +1 471 52% -7 474 32% -8 586
Eligible
Not
60% NA 1,304 21% NA 1,463 59% NA 1,164 40% NA 1,370
Eligible
%A AP = percentage at or above proficiency. “Difference” columns repor t the gap (in percentage points) between students eligible for subsidized meals and those not eligible.
NA: Not applicable because the numbers in this column repor t the gap relative to Not Eligible students.
15
How Performance Analyses Are Organized
Further complicating the interpretation scenario across

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

Analyses of student performance data are organized into
four groups as follows:
Group 1: K12 Public School Programs Administering

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

•
in 2015–2016
Group 3: K12 Public school Programs Using the Same

•
State Testing Program from 2014–2015 to 2015–2016
Group 4: K12 Public School Programs Administering New

•
State Testing Programs in 2015–2016
Results from K12 public school programs include Full

Academic Year (FAY) students who enroll by each state’s
unique FAY state date and remain continuously enrolled.

Group 1: K12 Public School Programs Administering PARCC in 2015–2016
FRIENDSHIP PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL ONLINE (FPCSO)
GRADES 3–8
English Language Arts

• In 2015–2016 English Language Arts, FPCSO outperformed the District of Columbia schools in grades 6, 7, and 8 by 4 to 38
percentage points.
• In 2015–2016 English Language Arts/Literacy, FPCSO students outperformed the PARCC consortium in grades 6, 7, and 8 by
2 to 31 percentage points.
FIGURE 8: 2015–2016 FPCSO Comparison to District and PARCC Consortium: English Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 3–8)
100% 2015–2016 FPCSO

90% 2015–2016 District

80% 2015–2016
70% 64% Overall PARCC
Consortium
60%
50% 41% 42% 42% 42%

39%
40% 31%
29% 27% 29%
26%
30%
20%
20%
10%
0%
5th 6th 7th 8th
GRADE LEVEL
TABLE 5: 2015–2016 FPCSO Comparison to District and PARCC Consortium: English Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 3–8)
2015–2016 ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY
FPCSO FPCSO District Difference Between FPCSO Overall PARCC Difference Between FPCSO
Grade and the District of Columbia and the PARCC Consortium
%AAP Total Count %AAP in percentage points
Consortium %AAP in percentage points
3rd * * 26% * 38% *

4th * * 29% * 42% *
5th 20% 10 29% -9 41% -16
6th 64% 11 26% +38 39% +31
7th 31% 13 27% +4 42% +2
8th 42% 12 29% +13 42% +16
%A AP = percentage at or above proficiency. *Results not repor ted because the number of students was not sufficient (n<10) to suppor t meaningful analysis.
Sources: S tate data: http://results.osse.dc.gov/state/DC

PARCC consor tium data: http://w w w.politico.com/states/f/?id=00000158-73e6 -dc8a-a15c-fffe6d460000
School data: K12 Academic Performance Database.
17
Mathematics
• In 2015–2016 Mathematics, FPCSO outperformed the District of Columbia schools in grades 6 and 8 by 15 and 19 percentage
points, respectively, and equaled district performance in grade 7.
• In 2015–2016 Mathematics, FPCSO students outperformed the PARCC consortium in grades 6 and 8 by 3 and 7 percentage
points, respectively.
FIGURE 9: 2015–2016 FPCSO Comparison to District and PARCC Consortium: Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
100% 2015–2016 FPCSO

90% 2015–2016 District

80% 2015–2016
Overall PARCC
70%
Consortium
60%
50%
36% 35%
40% 33% 33%
30% 29%
26%
30% 21%
20%
17% 17%
20% 14%
10%
0%
5th 6th 7th 8th
GRADE LEVEL
TABLE 6: 2015–2016 FPCSO Comparison to District and PARCC Consortium: Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
2015–2016 MATHEMATICS
FPCSO FPCSO District Difference Between FPCSO Overall PARCC Difference Between FPCSO
Grade and the District of Columbia and the PARCC Consortium
Consortium %AAP in percentage points
3rd * * 37% * 43% *

4th * * 32% * 35% *
5th 20% 10 30% -10 36% -16
6th 36% 11 21% +15 33% +3
7th 17% 12 17% = 29% -12
8th 33% 12 14% +19 26% +7
%A AP = percentage at or above proficiency. *Results not repor ted because the number of students was not sufficient (n<10) to suppor t meaningful analysis.


CHICAGO VIRTUAL CHARTER SCHOOL (CVCS)
HIGH SCHOOL
• In 2015–2016 English Language Arts/Literacy, CVCS students outperformed the state by 3 percentage points.
• In 2015–2016 Algebra 1, CVCS students outperformed the state by 4 percentage points.
FIGURE 10: 2015–2016 CVCS Comparison to District and PARCC Consortium: By Subject (High School)
100% 2015–2016 CVCS

90% 2015–2016 State
80% 2015–2016
Overall PARCC
70% Consortium
60%
50%
37% 39%
40% 34% 33%
26%
30% 22%
20%
10%
0%
English Language Arts/Literacy (grade 9) Algebra 1 (grade 9)
SUBJECT
TABLE 7: 2015–2016 CVCS Comparison to District and PARCC Consortium: By Subjects (High School)
2015–2016 SCHOOL YEAR
CVCS Difference Between

CVCS State Difference Between Overall PARCC
Subject (grade) Total CVCS and PARCC
%AAP %AAP CVCS and State Consortium %AAP
Count in percentage points Consortium
in percentage points
English Language Arts/Literacy (grade 9) 37% 27 34% +3 39% -2

Algebra 1 (grade 9) 26% 31 22% +4 33% -7
%A AP = percentage at or above proficiency.

19
Group 2: K12 Public School Programs Administering SBAC in 2015–2016
CALIFORNIA VIRTUAL ACADEMY AT SAN MATEO (CAVA-SAN MATEO)
GRADES 3–8
English Language Arts/Literacy

• In 2015–2016 English Language Arts/Literacy, CAVA-San Mateo students outperformed the state in grades 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 by
1 to 25 percentage points.
FIGURE 11: 2015–2016 CAVA-San Mateo Comparison to State: English Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 3–8)
100% 2
015–2016
CAVA-San Mateo
90%
80% 2015–2016 State (CA)

68%
70%
60% 53% 54%

49% 51%
48% 48% 48%
50% 43% 45% 44%
40%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th
GRADE LEVEL
TABLE 8: 2015–2016 CAVA-San Mateo Comparison to State: English Language Arts/Literacy (Grades 3–8)
2015–2016 ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY
CAVA-San Mateo CAVA-San Mateo State Difference Between

Grade CAVA-San Mateo and the State
3rd 68% 38 43% +25

4th 45% 42 44% +1
5th 53% 30 49% +4
6th 40% 52 48% -8
7th 51% 72 48% +3
8th 54% 79 48% +6
Sources: S tate data: http://caaspp.cde.ca.gov


Mathematics
• In 2015–2016 Mathematics, CAVA-San Mateo students outperformed the state in grades 4 and 5 by 5 to 14 percentage
points and equaled the state in grades 6 and 7.
FIGURE 12: 2015–2016 CAVA-San Mateo Comparison to State: Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
100% 015–2016
2
CAVA-San Mateo
90%
2015–2016 State (CA)
80%
70%
60%
47% 46% 47%
50% 43%
38% 35% 36% 36% 36%
40% 33% 35%
30% 23%
20%
10%
0%
GRADE LEVEL
TABLE 9: 2015–2016 CAVA-San Mateo Comparison to State: Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
CAVA-San Mateo CAVA-San Mateo State Difference Between

Grade CAVA-San Mateo and the State
3rd 47% 38 46% -1

4th 43% 42 38% +5
5th 47% 30 33% +14
6th 35% 52 35% =
7th 36% 72 36% =
8th 23% 78 36% -13
Sources: S tate data: http://caaspp.cde.ca.gov

21
WASHINGTON VIRTUAL ACADEMY AT OMAK (WAVA-OMAK)
HIGH SCHOOL
• In 2015–2016 English Language Arts/Literacy, WAVA-Omak students outperformed the state by 41 percentage points.
• In 2015–2016 Mathematics, WAVA-Omak scored within 6 percentage points of the state.
FIGURE 13: 2015–2016 WAVA-Omak Comparison to State: By Subject (High School)
100% 2015–2016 WAVA-Omak

90% 2015–2016 State (WA)

80% 74%
70%
60%
50%
40% 33% 35%
29%
30%
20%
10%
0%
English Language Arts/Literacy (grade 11) Mathematics (grade 11)
SUBJECT
TABLE 10: WAVA-Omak Comparison to State: By Subject (High School)
WAVA-Omak WAVA-Omak State Difference Between

Subject (grade) WAVA-Omak and State
English Language Arts/Literacy (grade 11) 74% 177 33% +41

Mathematics (grade 11) 29% 164 35% -6
Sources: State data: http://w w w.k12.wa.us/


Group 3: K12 Public School Programs Using the Same State Testing Program
from 2014–2015 to 2015–2016
TEXAS ONLINE PREPARATORY SCHOOL (TOPS)
GRADES 3–8
Reading
• In 2015–2016 Reading, TOPS students outperformed the state in grades 3–8 by 10 to 31 percentage points.
FIGURE 14: 2015–2016 TOPS Comparison to State: Reading (Grades 3–8)
100%
97% 97%
100% 93% 94% 2
015–2016 TOPS
88% 87%
90% 81% 2015–2016 State (TX)
80% 73% 75%
69% 71%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
GRADE LEVEL
TABLE 11: 2015–2016 TOPS Comparison to State: Reading (Grades 3–8)
2015–2016 READING
TOPS TOPS State Difference Between TOPS and the State

Grade
3rd 93% 15 73% +20

4th 94% 34 75% +19
5th 97% 35 81% +16
6th 100% 47 69% +31
7th 88% 60 71% +17
8th 97% 65 87% +10
Sources: S tate data: https://rptsvr1.tea.texas.gov/perfrepor t /tprs/2016/srch.html?srch=C

23
Mathematics
• In 2015–2016 Mathematics, TOPS students outperformed the state in grades 3–8 by 6 to 22 percentage points.
FIGURE 15: 2015–2016 TOPS Comparison to State: Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
100% 94% 94% 2

015–2016 TOPS
87% 86% 88%

90% 82% 82% 82% 2015–2016 State (TX)
80% 75% 73% 72%

69%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
GRADE LEVEL
TABLE 12: 2015–2016 TOPS Comparison to State: Mathematics (Grades 3–8)
TOPS TOPS State Difference Between TOPS and the State

Grade
3rd 87% 15 75% +12

4th 82% 34 73% +9
5th 94% 35 86% +8
6th 94% 48 72% +22
7th 82% 60 69% +13
8th 88% 58 82% +6


HIGH SCHOOL
• In 2015–2016 English 1, TOPS students outperformed the state by 33 percentage points.
• In 2015–2016 Algebra 1, TOPS students outperformed the state by 17 percentage points.
FIGURE 16: 2015–2016 TOPS Comparison to State: By Subject (High School)

98%
100% 95% 2
015–2016 TOPS
90% 2015–2016 State (TX)

78%
80%
70% 65%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
English 1 (grade 9) Algebra 1 (grade 9)
SUBJECT
TABLE 13: 2015–2016 TOPS Comparison to State: By Subject (High School)
TOPS TOPS State Difference Between TOPS and State

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

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

25
Group 4: K12 Public School Programs Administering New State Testing
Programs in 2015–2016
OHIO VIRTUAL ACADEMY (OHVA)
HIGH SCHOOL
• In 2015–2016 English 1, OHVA students outperformed the state by 9 percentage points.
• In 2015–2016 Algebra 1, OHVA students outperformed the state by 8 percentage points.
FIGURE 17: 2015–2016 OHVA Comparison to State: By Subject (High School)

100% 2015–2016 OHVA
90% 2015–2016 State (OH)

80%
70% 64%
55% 56%
60%
48%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
English 1 (grade 9) Algebra 1 (grade 9)
SUBJECT
TABLE 14: 2015–2016 OHVA Comparison to State: By Subject (High School)
OHVA OHVA State Difference Between OHVA and State

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

Algebra 1 (grade 9) 56% 245 48% +8
Sources: S tate data: http://repor tcard.education.ohio.gov/Pages/default.aspx


MICHIGAN VIRTUAL CHARTER ACADEMY (MVCA)
HIGH SCHOOL
• In 2015–2016 Evidence-Based Reading and Writing,11 MVCA students outperformed the state by 14 percentage points.
• In 2015–2016 Mathematics, MVCA students outperformed the state by 13 percentage points.
FIGURE 18: 2015–2016 MVCA Comparison to State: By Subject (High School)
100% 2015–2016 MVCA

90% 2015–2016 State (MI)

80% 74%
70%
60%
60%
50%
50%
37%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
SAT-Evidence-Based Reading and Writing (grade 11) SAT-Mathematics (grade 11)
SUBJECT
TABLE 15: 2015–2016 MVCA Comparison to State: By Subject (High School)
MVCA MVCA State Difference Between

Subject (grade) MVCA and State
SAT-Evidence-Based Reading and Writing (grade 11) 74% 137 60% +14
SAT-Mathematics (grade 11) 50% 137 37% +13
Sources: S tate data: https://w w w.mischooldata.org/

11
Evidence-Based Reading and Writing is the name of the state's English Language Arts assessment. 27
Market Demand for Online Learning
Blended Learning Programs

For many educators, the beauty of technology is that it provides the ability to truly customize
students’ learning experiences. Does a child learn best with the structure of a brick and
mortar school or the flexibility of pace and place that a fully online experience allows? What
about those students who require a little bit of both—brick and mortar structure and in-person
instruction with the flexibility of an online environment? For these students, blended learning
can be the bridge between the two approaches.
What Is Blended Learning? counseling, and other key aspects of the model may also be
provided during face-to-face sessions. The extent to which
Blended learning has been defined as a formal education students are required to be onsite and/or allowed to work
program in which a student learns in an environment that remotely is also determined by state and district policy.
integrates online and face-to-face learning. Students in
blended learning programs learn at least in part through: Benefits of Blending Learning
• online learning, with some element of student control over
time, place, path, and/or pace; and Individualized Learning: Students work at their own
•
pace and can often pursue their own paths to knowledge.
• face-to-face learning in a supervised brick and mortar Teachers use assessment data to drive instruction to meet
location away from home. student needs.
In most blended models, the modalities along each student’s • Flexible Schedules: With a mixture of synchronous
learning path within a course or subject are connected to instruction (student and teacher online together) and
provide an integrated learning experience. While there asynchronous instruction13 (student working more
are a number of different blended learning models being independently off-line), students and teachers can
implemented in school districts, the K12 Blended Services develop schedules that meet the specific needs of each
team supports district and nonprofit partners in implementing student or family. This is important for high school students
what is typically referred to as the Enriched Virtual Model.12 who must work or who are engaged in internships,
In this model, students attend required face-to-face learning students with medical conditions, high-achieving student
sessions with their teachers and then are free to complete athletes and performers, and many others.
their remaining coursework remotely. The amount of required • Student Engagement: Technology engages today’s
face-to-face learning is determined by student needs. For generation. The online component allows students to
example, those struggling or not engaging may be required explore concepts on their own and focus on their interests.
to attend onsite instruction more often. Social services,
12
. B. Horn & H. Staker, Blended: Using Disruptive Innovation to Improve Schools. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2014), as referenced by the Clayton Christensen Institute, a nonprofit,
M
nonpartisan think tank, at http://www.christenseninstitute.org/blended-learning-definitions-and-models/
13
A synchronous learning is a general term used to describe forms of education, instruction, and learning that do not occur in the same place or at the same time as stated by
http://edglossary.org/asynchronous-learning/

Targeted Instruction: Online learning software
• FIGURE 19: 2016–2017 Student Count Omaha Public Schools
Blended Education Program by Grade Level
continuously collects academic data and performance
17
for every student, which allows teachers to tailor each 16 16
NUMBER OF STUDENTS
class to best suit the needs of their students.
13 13
• Student Preparedness: Students in a blended 11

10 10
9
environment are better prepared for higher education and
the workplace as these environments have increasingly
become far more technology-enriched than in the past.
Blended learning also requires young people to learn
the skills and habits of self-motivation and self-discipline
K 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th
which have lifelong benefits.
GRADE LEVEL
• One-on-One Student to Teacher Interactions: Source: Omaha Virtual School Student Course Report, May 31, 2017
Blended learning opens doors to multiple methods of

communication, including face-to-face, email, telephone,
and web-based classroom sessions, and allows students Benefits to a District
to interact with teachers and peers in the mediums in
which they are most confident. • K12 provides curriculum, instruction, technology, and
administrative services as well as local, regional, and
K12’s Partnership with national resources and support.
Omaha Public Schools as a Model • The program attracts new students and appeals to
students who do not currently attend the district, including
In June 2016, Omaha Public Schools (OPS) issued a Request homeschoolers, private school students, and students
for Proposal (RFP) to develop a K–8 blended educational attending other districts. This also helps the district
program. By providing an innovative, flexible program, OPS increase their enrollment counts.
hoped to reclaim and retain district students opting to enroll
• The district creates new innovate job opportunities for
elsewhere and simultaneously engage homeschool students
teachers, administrators, and support staff.
and others choosing nonpublic school options.
• The district is also able to utilize underused facilities or
K12 responded to this request and a contract was executed help resolve overcrowding concerns.
on August 24, 2016. OPS chose to engage K12 to provide
• Blended programs provide students an innovative,
curriculum, the learning management system, marketing and
flexible, and individualized learning model.
enrollment services, academic professional development
and training, operations, and a dedicated relationship • Blended programs establish the district as a leader in
manager. Omaha Public Schools provides state certified innovation and offers opportunities to partner with districts
teachers, a program director, and all special education and throughout the state.
direct services to its students. Omaha Public Schools served
• Blended programs typically allow for lower facility and
115 students in school year 2016–2017, all of whom were
staffing costs, along with the ability to attract and retain
previously unserved by OPS.
students who might otherwise pursue schooling options
outside of the district.
Under OPS’s blended model, enrolled students take most
of their coursework online, but each student attends a
district-provided facility one day per week for a minimum of
three hours.14 During the first year, the OPS program served
a total of 115 students enrolled in kindergarten through
eighth grade. In school year 2017–2018, OPS will expand its
offerings to ninth grade with the goal of adding one more
grade per year going forward.
14
Dr. Loewenstein, Omaha Virtual School Student Handbook, http://www.ovs.k12.com/content/dam/schools/ovs/files/OVS-StudentHandbook-031417.pdf, page 25
29
Omaha Virtual School: Student Outcomes
School districts that operate blended learning models logged into his computer while the teacher meets the class
often field questions from parents and traditional educators in an online classroom for live, synchronous instruction.
such as, “How does that work for the student?” Parents Some of the coursework is completed asynchronously
and educators will need to know that the student spends through the blended program’s learning management
some of the time in a physical classroom, just as he would system. While this can look very different between blended
at a traditional school, but then he spends another portion learning programs and school types, the OPS program’s
of time in an online classroom. The student is at home, breakdown is as follows:
TABLE 16: Omaha Virtual School Percentage of Time Online versus In Person (2016–2017 School Year)
PERCENTAGE OF TIME ONLINE VS. IN PERSON
Coursework %
Number of Weekly Hour Face to face Tutoring Hours
Online Session % (Online/Offline -
Enrolled Courses Requirement (F2F) % Online or F2F
Session Dependent)
3 15 20% 13% 54% 13%
4–5 20–25 12–15% 8–10% 65–72% 8–10%
6–7 30–40 8–10% 5–7% 67–82% 5–7%
During the inaugural year, the FIGURE 20: Omaha Virtual School Course Passing Rates in Four Subject Areas for
Kindergarten Through Fifth Grade (2016–2017 School Year)
students in kindergarten through fifth
grade achieved a course passing 100%
88%
percentage higher than 80 percent in 90% 83% 84% 86%
all four of the core courses—English 80%

Language Arts (ELA), Mathematics, 70%
History, and Science. 60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
K–5 ELA K–5 MATHEMATICS K–5 HISTORY K-5 SCIENCE
GRADE BAND AND SUBJECT
TABLE 17: Omaha Virtual School Course Passing Rates in Four Subject Areas for Kindergarten
Through Fifth Grade (2016–2017 School Year)
COURSE PASSING RATES

(Grades Kindergarten Through Fifth)
Grade Course Passing Rate Student Count
K–5 ELA 88% 48
K–5 MATHEMATICS 83% 58
K–5 HISTORY 84% 44
K–5 SCIENCE 86% 44
Note: Based on the students who were enrolled in a course.

Middle school students performed FIGURE 21: Omaha Virtual School Course Passing Rates in Four Subject Areas for Sixth
Through Eighth Grade (2016–2017 School Year)
slightly lower than elementary students.
These passing rates include the 100%

second-semester course grade for ELA, 90% 84%
78%
Mathematics, History, and Science. 80% 70%
67%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
6–8 ELA 6–8 HISTORY 6–8 MATHEMATICS 6–8 SCIENCE
GRADE BAND AND SUBJECT
TABLE 18: Omaha Virtual School Course Passing Rates in Four Subject Areas for Sixth
Through Eighth Grade (2016–2017 School Year)
COURSE PASSING RATES

(Grades Sixth Through Eighth)
Grade Course Passing Rate Student Count
6–8 ELA 84% 31
6–8 HISTORY 67% 21
6–8 MATHEMATICS 70% 33
6–8 SCIENCE 78% 36
Note: Subjects represent ELA Semester 2, Mathematics Semester 2, Science Semester 2, and History Semester 1 and 2.
When taking into account all grade levels and courses the OPS The blended approach allows school districts to attract
program achieved an overall passing rate of 75.2 percent. new students and the program can be self-funding from
its inception. Additionally, as a blended learning program
Student performance can be measured in many different is launched in one district, schools, teachers, and staff can
ways. Another avenue of student success can be measured more easily study and explore how innovative blended
through interim assessments. To determine growth, a options can be implemented within their other schools.
student is tested upon enrolling at the school. A similar test
is provided at the end of the school year. The difference In the first couple of years, the blended learning program
in these scores shows student growth during the time of may grow in enrollment garnering interest from partnerships
enrollment at the school. At the OPS program, during the with other districts. It may make sense for a district to
first year, all grades showed positive movement, on average, specialize in providing the core online aspects of the model
in both Mathematics and Reading on the NWEA MAP (which are not dependent on location) and allow each
assessment between fall and spring administrations. At the participating district to focus on the delivery of the onsite
time of this publication, the state test scores for the 2016– aspects of the model.
2017 school year were not available.
Additionally, there is much more potential in partnership
Not only was there positive movement in student growth, that could be realized over the course of time. K12 has been
but 70 percent of students met, or exceeded, their growth working to develop programs that many school districts have
goal in reading. not had the time, the number of students, or the resources
31
to establish. Once participating districts have an established • Schools or programs designed to serve students with
relationship via a full-time blended learning program, K12 long-term suspensions.
and the partner school/district have the opportunity to study,
• Schools or programs for students who need medical care
consider, and potentially launch additional programs that
on a regular basis, for a specific period of time, and for
could include:
those who require long-term care.
• Programs designed for dropouts or for students at risk of
dropping out. In this way, blended learning programs not only address
a specific need for a district but can serve as an incubator
• Blended or online programs to provide dual credit options
wherein districts can explore a variety of other innovative
which can save families thousands of dollars in tuition.
options on behalf of their current and potential students.
• Programs focused on Career Technical Education (CTE) for
high school students.
Blended Models in an Urban Setting
Implementing a Blended Model instruction from a teacher. It was important for CVCS to
create a work area in which the students could work toward
in an Urban Setting
achieving their college and career goals. The CVCS/Merit
Chicago Virtual Charter School (CVCS) was founded to meet partnership offered an opportunity to rent out space in the
the needs of students who were seeking a more flexible music school building that was not being utilized during
and supportive school. CVCS is one example of a fully daytime hours. For CVCS, the music lesson rooms became
accredited15 school designed specifically to meet the needs safe classrooms for small groups of students to work on
of urban Chicago students who are seeking an alternative to academic materials during the day. And for students, the
the school(s) in their home attendance zone. central location of CVCS to residents of Chicago made the
commute to the school easily doable either through walking
In 2006, CVCS was founded through a partnership between or public transportation. CVCS was one of the earliest
the leadership of Chicago Public Schools (CPS), Arne blended learning environments supported by K12.
Duncan the CEO of the CPS district, community leaders, the
parents in the community, and K12. CVCS is a full-time public In the CVCS blended model, students work remotely
charter school that serves students from across the CPS throughout the year on appropriate materials to be on
district in grades K–12. From its establishment, the school track for meeting grade level and, eventually, high school
was designed to be different. It was, and remains, housed in graduation requirements in Illinois. The curriculum is delivered
the middle of downtown Chicago—near public rail and bus online through course modules tied to semesters and to grade
lines—making it accessible to students across the city.16 levels in required core content areas. In addition, students
are required to be onsite for at least one half-day per week
Merit School of Music is a music school located in downtown at the Merit School of Music facility. During these face-to-
Chicago that had underutilized classrooms during the day. face interactions with certified teachers, students receive
CVCS wanted to provide students from all across the district instruction, remediation, and enrichment (as applicable) to
the opportunity to learn in a safe environment at all times and supplement or augment what each student has learned
to work independently, yet also be monitored and receive online in each required course.
15
Illinois At-A-Glance Report Card 2015–2016, Chicago Virtual Charter School, https://iirc.niu.edu/ataglancepdf/printtopdf.aspx?rcdts=15016299025225C&ver=3.0
16
The CVCS/Merit School of Music is located at the Joy Faith Knapp Music Center, 38 South Peoria Street, Chicago, IL 60607

Students also use the center to interact with peers on Chicago Virtual Charter School:
projects and to discuss what they are learning. CVCS always
Student Outcomes
has enough certified staff on site to support the demand. The
majority of teachers work from the school two days per week More recently, in the 2015–2016 school year, high school
and three days remotely online to best meet the needs of students at CVCS taking the ACT in grade 11 outperformed
their students. 44 percent of other schools nationally.17 For the most recently
available data comparing ACT composite scores from CVCS
with the CPS District, CVCS outperformed CPS from 2009–
2010 through 2015–2016 school years18 (see Figure 22).
FIGURE 22: Comparison of the ACT Composite Score for CVCS and CPS Charters
25
20
ACT COMPOSITE SCORE
15
10
0
2009–2010
2009–2010 2010–2011
2010–2011 2011–2012
2011–2012 2012–2013
2012–2013 2013–2014
2013–2014 2014–2015
2014–2015 2015–2016
2015–2016
CVCS 19.30 18.70 17.80 18.30 18.60 20.00 18.80
CPS District 16.80 16.85 17.09 16.59 16.74 18.20 18.40
Source: CVCS ACT Profile Report, received by CVCS on August 10, 2017.
Earning ACT scores indicating readiness for college is just Students who are credit deficient are at risk of not graduating
the beginning. Students must also navigate the college on time.18 In the school year ending in June 2016 44.7 percent
application process, be admitted, and attend. For CPS, 57.9 of freshman were on-track relative to credits earned for
percent of the 2015 graduating seniors enrolled in college graduation in four years. Data indicate that CVCS serves
year following graduation. Sixty-eight percent of 2015 high a higher percentage of at-risk students than the state as a
school graduates at CVCS enrolled in college within two whole, making the school’s academic success even more
years of graduating from high school. For the students noteworthy. When comparing CVCS relative to other Chicago
enrolling in college the year after graduation, 53 percent Public Schools, CVCS ranked in the 86th percentile in
of the CVCS graduates persisted and remained enrolled in English and Reading (see Figure 23).
college for a second year.19
17
Illinois At-A-Glance Report Card 2015–2016, Chicago Virtual Charter School, https://iirc.niu.edu/ataglancepdf/printtopdf.aspx?rcdts=15016299025225C&ver=3.0 /
18
D ata was analyzed using School Report Card data from each year, from the Illinois State Board of Education, “Data Analysis Illinois State Report Card Data,” https://www.isbe.net/
Pages/Illinois-State-Report-Card-Data.aspx
19
Illinois At-A-Glance Report Card 2015–2016, Chicago Virtual Charter School, https://iirc.niu.edu/ataglancepdf/printtopdf.aspx?rcdts=15016299025225C&ver=3.0 /
33
TABLE 19: CVCS ACT Reading Average Scores—2010 to 2016
CVCS Mean All CPS Schools

School Year Year over Year % Growth Year over Year % Growth
(Absolute) Score Average Scores
2010 20.50 17.3
2011 19.30 -5.9% 17.0 -1.7%
2012 18.60 -3.6% 16.9 -0.6%
2013 19.30 3.8% 17.6 4.1%
2014 20.10 4.1% 17.9 1.7%
2015 21.60 7.5% 18.1 1.1%
2016 19.40 -10.2% 18.3 1.1%
Source: CVCS ACT Profile Report, received by CVCS on August 24, 2016.
FIGURE 23: Relative Percentile Rank of CVCS Compared to CPS Schools
100%
86% 86%
90%
80%
80% 72%
70%
70%
PERCENTILE RANK
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
CVCS CVCS
CVCS English CVCS Reading CVCS Science
Composite Mathematics
Score Average Score Average Score Average
Score Average Score Average
(Mean) (Mean) (Mean)
(Mean) (Mean)
Percentile 80% 86% 86% 70% 72%
Source: CVCS Board administration report, Absolute and Relative Scores 2013.
Note: K12 internal calculation using excel in July 2017. Percentile Ranks were determined using average school ACT score distribution from CPS district schools.
When comparing CVCS students to students from the In Mathematics, CVCS students outperformed the district
Chicago Public School District (#299), CVCS students in Mathematics at every grade except grade 5 where it was
outperformed students in the district in ELA at every grade within one percentage point of the district. And, in grades 3,
level 3 through 8 and in grades 3, 7, and 8 by double digits. 6, and 7, CVCS outperformed CPS by double digits.

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

CVCS District Between School CVCS District Between School CVCS District Between School
Grade (All) and (All) and (All) and
%AAP (All) %AAP (All) %AAP (All) %AAP (All) %AAP (All) %AAP (All)
District (All) District (All) District (All)
in Percentage Points in Percentage Points in Percentage Points
3rd 47% 43% +5 46% 30% +16 37% 32% +5

4th 56% 45% +11 41% 35% +6 45% 30% +15
5th 55% 45% +10 38% 35% +3 33% 24% +9
6th 58% 47% +11 31% 23% +8 24% 26% -2
7th 63% 53% +10 39% 28% +11 29% 29% =
8th 49% 46% +3 38% 27% +11 36% 30% +6
Note: In 2013–2014, Illinois administered the Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT). In 2014–2015, the state switched to the Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness of College and
Careers (PARCC).
TABLE 21: 2013–2014 Through 2015–2016 Mathematics Comparison of CVCS to the Chicago Public Schools District
2013–2014 2014–2015 2015–2016
MATHEMATICS MATHEMATICS MATHEMATICS

CVCS District Between School CVCS District Between School CVCS District Between School
Grade (All) and (All) and (All) and
%AAP (All) %AAP (All) %AAP (All) %AAP (All) %AAP (All) %AAP (All)
District (All) District (All) District (All)
in Percentage Points in Percentage Points in Percentage Points
3rd 49% 48% +2 41% 26% +15 35% 33% +2

4th 53% 55% -2 22% 21% +1 39% 22% +17
5th 57% 58% -1 19% 20% -1 29% 24% +5
6th 62% 52% +10 31% 19% +12 19% 21% -2
7th 55% 51% +4 36% 20% +16 19% 21% -2
8th 47% 54% -7 27% 23% +4 32% 23% +9
Note: In 2013–2014, Illinois administered the Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT). In 2014–2015, the state switched to the Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness of College and
Careers (PARCC).
Extending Persistence Matters
For CVCS, as for many schools in urban school districts, typically, by the time a student has remained continuously
mobility presents a challenge for students and for teachers. enrolled for three or more years, their accountability
assessment performance rises.
For any student, a move from one school to another can
introduce adjustment and assimilation issues. Whatever As reported in Figure 24 and Table 22, at CVCS the
these adjustments are, they insert complication into number of students reaching proficiency or above after
instruction and learning that takes some period of time three years of continuous enrollment increased by 16
to abate. For many online and blended schools, this percentage points in English Language Arts and 20
adjustment period can be considerable. However, what percentage points in Mathematics.
is consistent across these learning environments is that,
Sources: D istrict data from https://w w w.illinoisrepor tcard.com/Default.aspx

School data from K12 Academic Performance Database
35
FIGURE 24: 2015–2016 CVCS Proficiency Percentages by Subject and Persistence (Grades 3–8)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50% 46%
40%
30% 27%
30% 38%
22%
20%
23%
10% 18% 20%
0%
English Language Arts Mathematics
TABLE 22: 2015–2016 CVCS Proficiency Percentages by Subject and Persistence (Grades 3–8)
ENGLISH
MATHEMATICS
LANGUAGE ARTS
%AAP Total Count %AAP Total Count
Less than 1 year 30% 57 18% 57
1 year but less than 2 years 20% 99 22% 101
2 years but less than 3 years 27% 48 23% 48
3 years or more 46% 150 38% 150
TABLE 23: 2015–2016 Persistence Grades 3–8: 3 Years or More Compared to Less than 1 Year
STUDENTS ENROLLED THREE YEARS OR MORE COMPARED

TO STUDENTS ENROLLED LESS THAN ONE YEAR
Subject %AAP: Increase or Decrease

in Percentage Points
English Language Arts +16
Mathematics +20

Source for persistence data: K12 Academic Performance Database
Blended schools in an urban district can successfully support of in-person teachers and staff. The story of Chicago
educate and prepare students for future success. For families Virtual Charter School proves that students can flourish
who want to be involved in their children’s education and within this learning environment despite socioeconomic
foster independent learning, blended learning is a solution factors that so often challenge inner-city families and urban
that provides this opportunity along with accountability and district schools.

Career Technical Education
K12 is most well-known for its innovative online and blended academies and public school
partnerships. Consistent with that spirit of innovation, during the 2015–2016 school year, K12
expanded the ability of middle and high school students to explore Career Technical Education
(CTE) pathways. In addition to offering more courses, K12 also helped launch a CTE-focused school
in Idaho in 2015. During the 2016–2017 school year, the program was expanded into more states
through both the offering of exploratory courses in some schools and the opportunity to pursue
pathways in others and was rolled out to represent K12’s forward-looking view of a robust, flexible
CTE program. Career Technical Education provides middle and high school students with the
academic and technical skills, knowledge, and training necessary to succeed in future careers.19
During the 2016–2017 school year, there were six K12 full- career readiness through several course options. Online and
time online schools that offered CTE programs with a wide blended models are less impacted by the very real constraints
range of CTE courses. Career Technical Education schools of scheduling in traditional models, therefore, these models
may include one, multiple, or all of the CTE pathways offered, can create opportunities for students, especially in the areas
but most of these schools focus the pathways meeting the of internships and apprenticeships, that are often difficult to
regional needs of their cities and states. These courses replicate in traditional high schools.
have been specifically designed to prepare students for
FIGURE 25: Eight Career Clusters Offered Through K12’s CTE Programs
CTE Clusters
HEALTH SCIENCE BUSINESS MANAGEMENT MANUFACTURING INFORMATION

AND ADMINISTRATION TECHNOLOGY
AGRICULTURE STEM CONSTRUCTION HOSPITALITY AND

TOURISM
19
“Career Technical Education,” Advance CTE: State Leaders Connecting Learning to Work, https://careertech.org/cte
37
K12 currently offers eight different career clusters for its Technology (IT) where more than 70 percent of posted jobs
CTE schools from which students can choose. The clusters are left unfilled. 24
include occupational preparation in:
• Health Science
K12 CTE School Options
• Business Management and Administration
School-Within-a-School Model
• Manufacturing
In 2016–2017, six different K12 schools offered full-time CTE
• Information Technology programs in two different formats. One format is the school-
within-a-school model. These schools are existing full-time
• Agriculture
online schools that added the CTE pathways and courses to
• Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) their course catalogs. These schools include:
• Construction • Cyber Academy of South Carolina (CASC)
• Hospitality and Tourism20 • Utah Virtual Academy (UTVA)
The goal of these varied clusters is to help close the skills Stand-Alone Schools
gap and reduce the worker shortage in each individual The other CTE school model is the stand-alone model.
category. It is estimated that 22 percent of all skilled K12 and our partners call these schools Destinations Career
manufacturing workers will be retiring over the next ten Academies (DCA). In 2016–2017, there were four K12 CTE
years. The industry is slated to fall approximately two stand-alone models including:
million workers short of required workers needed for the
• Colorado Destinations Career Academy (CODCA)
jobs available. 21 These predicted shortages are being
recognized across the nation, as evidenced by 18 governors • Idaho Technical Career Academy (ITCA)
citing CTE initiatives in their state-of-the state addresses for • Nevada Destinations Career Academy (NVDCA)
the 2016–2017 year. 22 • Wisconsin Destinations Career Academy (WIDCA)
The K12 CTE clusters are built in such a way that the
pathways within each are customizable and can be adapted CTE Student Overview
to meet the unique the offering school's local of local and
regional industries. The services offered are delivered In the 2016–2017 school year, CTE students were enrolled
through online or blended school formats and during from grades 9–12 across the six different schools with the
continued enrollment in the program. highest enrollments coming from the sophomores. The
majority of CTE students in these schools were enrolled
as first-time students in a K12 school. The CTE program
CTE Pathways is designed to assist students in career exploration and
to support the learner in determining areas of interest for
To better meet the growing concern that not enough high future careers. Four of the top five courses taken by CTE
school and college graduates have the training and skills students demonstrate that students are searching for
needed to compete in the quickly changing environment, personalized career advice and individual fit.
K12 offer several pathways within each available cluster
from which a student can choose depending on career The most popular CTE-specialized course during the 2016–
preparation interests. The Department of Labor estimates 2017 school year was Business Healthcare Explorations.
that there are currently more than five million job vacancies About 20 percent of all K12 CTE students showed interest in
in the United States. 23 Shortages are seen more abundantly this pathway. Every student has a different reason to enroll
in high growth technical fields, such as Information in a CTE program and because of this, not all students take
20
The Hospitality and Tourism career cluster was only available for Fuel Education schools during the 2016–2017 school year.
21
. Josephs, “U.S. Manufacturing Labor Shortage: How to Make Your Company a Happy Exception,” Forbes (2017, March 15), https://www.forbes.com/sites/maryjosephs/2017/03/15/
M
u-s-manufacturing-labor-shortage-how-to-make-your-company-a-happy-exception/#72ab5a587e13
22
E . Williamson, “CTE Month Special: What Do the State of the States Mean for CTE,” Advance CTE, http://blog.careertech.org/?p=9990 when counting the number of states between
part 1 and part 2 of the blog series.
23
“Job Openings and Labor Turnover Summary,” Economic News Release, issued December 7, 2016, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, https://www.bls.gov/news.
release/jolts.nr0.htm
24
J . McKendrick, “Seven in 10 Openings for Key IT Jobs Going Unfilled, Study Reveals,” ZDNet (2015, December 6), http://www.zdnet.com/article/software-jobs-top-list-of-2016s-
hottest-occupations/

the same number of CTE courses, nor are they similar in the CTE courses may be purchased by schools and school
degree to which they focus on specific pathways. districts through the Fuel Education arm of K12. Fuel
Education works with more than 2,000 school districts
There are some major differences between the K12 CTE
in all 50 states offering the full suite of CTE courses and
programs in place at K12 schools and the CTE courses
pathways to interested school districts. The courses may
provided by K12 to traditional and charter schools. A
be purchased to include the use of a certified content
K12 CTE program may include both the full complement
teacher from K12, or the school/district can use one of its
of courses, but also includes CTE specific teachers,
own teachers and only purchase the content for its student
administrators, counselors, and an advisory council
body. A school or district can elect to purchase only
to create opportunities for work-based experience
specific CTE course(s) or the full suite of CTE options.
partnerships. All CTE programs at K12 schools includes a
SkillsUSA 25 chapter for additional work-based opportunities.
THE DESTINATIONS CAREER ACADEMY OF WISCONSIN
Students in the state of Wisconsin have a unique opportunity to enroll in the state’s
first-ever CTE-focused online high school. The partnerships and school format have
created a truly ground-breaking opportunity. The school has formed distinctive
partnerships with the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 139 (heavy
equipment operators) and Fox Valley Technical College. Students who enroll early in
their high school career have college credits while still in grades 9–12. The skills they
learn while in high school will position them for industry certification opportunities
and possibly apprenticeships as well as job opportunities right out of high school.
25
S killsUSA is a partnership of students, teachers, and industries working together to ensure America has a skilled workforce. SkillsUSA helps each student excel. They provide
educational programs, events, and competitions that support career technical education (CTE) in the nation’s classrooms. See http://www.skillsusa.org
39
K12 Driving Innovation: Accountability Dashboards
K12 Inc. prides itself as a catalyst for innovation within the understanding to parents about the performance of their
education space. As the national landscape for school children’s schools in a consistent manner. This consistency
accountability has shifted in the last few years, K12 has allowed schools to be comparable with other schools for
dedicated itself to advocating for innovative student- the first time. In the 18 years since those first letter grades,
centered accountability policies. Because we operate in a more than a dozen states have adopted A–F school rating
large number of states, we have a unique perspective to see systems in an effort to provide similar measurements for all
how schools are evaluated. In looking across this landscape, schools. However, each school is unique and serves a diverse
we think the best accountability models understand that population of students while focusing on its specific mission
there are multiple consumers of school and student data. and vision. In the same way, every stakeholder is unique,
The topics that are most important to each can vary greatly. valuing a wide range of distinctive metrics as evidence of the
Our work on student-centered accountability comes from best school option for specific students. Expecting a single
working across so many state-specific models and gathering summative letter-grade system to equitably and completely
some of the best from each. While certainly not exhaustive, measure thousands of unique schools and meaningfully
what follows is intended to be illustrative of an approach differentiate quality on behalf of hundreds of thousands of
that may yield better information for each stakeholder. One stakeholders is unreasonable. For this reason, dashboards
of the cornerstones of those policies is the idea that school that capture multiple and customizable measurements are
data should be available to all stakeholders in a manner that K12’s preferred approach.
is transparent and answers questions that may be of unique
As states are beginning to rework annual report cards in order
interest to them. What is most important to a school board
to comply with the new Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA),26
president may be substantively different from the primary
now is a perfect time for transitioning to a dashboard. High-
concern of a parent. In that spirit, we believe dashboards
quality dashboards should be easily accessible from state
should highlight a wide array of topics and questions.
websites and should include charts and infographics that are
From parents: When considering multiple factors like
• visually appealing and easy to understand. All educational
academic success, teacher qualifications, success after jargon should be avoided (or at least clearly defined) and a
graduation, and safety, is my student better suited to attend user should be able to choose schools or districts to make
our assigned school or a school of choice? comparisons on various, relevant data points. The dashboard
should be 100% mobile-friendly and intuitive to users.
From school boards: Which of our high schools are most
•
effectively progressing students toward graduation and More than just accessible and user-friendly, a dashboard
what do our schools contribute to student performance? should include school metrics that may be of importance to an
array of stakeholders. Some metrics that we believe are vitally
From community members: How much are students in my
•
important include:
local school growing when compared to schools with similar
missions and demographics? Multiple Years of Academic Data: If stakeholders are
•
provided with two to three years of assessment, growth,
From regulators and policymakers: Are schools
•
and graduation rate data, it gives context to the metrics
appropriately resourced to meet the needs of enrolled
and allows them to better understand the trajectory of the
students and do policies provide opportunities for students
students within the school.
to excel in multiple ways through a range of school options?
School Mobility Rate and Details: This should include
•
the percentage of students who enroll after the first day
Dashboards for Accountability
of school; the percentage of new high school students
In 1999, when Florida first adopted A–F school ratings, enrolling who are behind, or off track, for graduation; and
the push was a significant step forward as it provided the percentage of new students with prior failing state
assessment scores. Mobility matters and schools with large
26
U.S. Department of Education, Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), https://www.ed.gov/esea

numbers of late-enrolling students or new students have FIGURE 26: An Example of a Data Dashboard from K12 Developers
different challenges than schools with a stable population.
SCHOOL DEMOGRAPHICS
Mission-Specific Goals: Because different schools serve
•
different purposes and populations of students, part of RACE/ETHNICITY FREE AND REDUCED
the ESSA-required School Quality and Student Success PRICE LUNCH (FRL)
indicator should be dedicated to the reporting of goals

specific to the mission of the school. For example, a 24%
traditional high school may be measured on average ACT
47% 4%
scores and annual progress toward graduation, where a 5% 57%
3%
Career Technical Education (CTE) high school might be 17%
measured on the percentage of students earning CTE
credentials while progressing toward graduation.
African American Hispanic
Teacher Quality Metrics: Teachers are key to school and
• American Indian Pacific Islander FRL
Asian White Not FRL
student success, and stakeholders should be able to easily
locate teacher demographics including the percentage with STUDENTS ACCESS TO SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
an advanced degree, the percentage who are effective and OF CHOICE OPTIONS (<20 MILES) (SWD)
ineffective, and the school’s teacher retention rate.
• S
chool Environment Metrics: Because not all
27%
stakeholders value the same things in a quality school, 12%
a wide range of school environment metrics should be
reported on dashboards including student engagement
levels, school safety/bullying information, parent and
student satisfaction, reasons families choose the school,
and college entrance rates. No Access to Choice
SWD
Access to Choice
Not SWD
Dashboard Sample ENROLLMENT STATUS ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS

AND MOBILITY (ELL)
In the spirit of leading the charge for dashboard accountability,

K12 is working with our partner schools across the country
35%
to build an internal dashboard to track some of the above 2%
49%
metrics. Following, you will find a sample dashboard 51% MOBILITY
RATE
developed by K12.27 along with an explanation of some of the
key metrics contained within.
14%
SCHOOL DEMOGRAPHICS New ELL

Not ELL
New: Late-Start
Returning
In the School Demographics section of the dashboard,
there are multiple metrics that paint a picture of the school
PARENTAL INTENT: EXPECTED PARENT AND STUDENT
population. These include the typical rates for Race/Ethnicity, LENGTH OF ENROLLMENT SATISFACTION
Free and Reduced Price Lunch, Students with Disabilities, and
English Language Learners, and for each, a comparison to
the state rates in order to provide proper perspective. Those 27%
metrics alone provide only a surface-level understanding of
32%
the school population; therefore it is important that additional
Satisfaction
metrics are considered. While not an exhaustive list, the Rate
41%
sample dashboard displays a few options for additional
elements, including mobility rate, parental intent for length of
1 year or less
student enrollment, parent and student satisfaction rate, and 2 years
student access to other school choice options within 20 miles 3+ years
of the student’s zip code. SOLID COLOR = SCHOOL PATTERN = STATE
27
The sample dashboard includes sample data and is not representative of a single K12-powered school or summative data for all K12-powered schools.
41
ASSESSMENTS
Two sections of the sample dashboard summarize Local level of new students is necessary in order to fairly
Assessments and State Assessments. Displaying both interpret state test results for the current year.
emphasizes the importance of using ongoing local
Growth Rates—Growth rates provide a view that goes
•
assessment as a tool to improve individual student learning
beyond simple proficiency rates and highlights the
outcomes in a timely manner, in addition to the once-a-
school’s impact on the learning of every single student,
year state assessments used for accountability purposes.
from the struggling learner to the advanced learner.
Because participation and proficiency rates offer a limited
view of school success without a proper perspective, the Proficiency Rates by Length of Enrollment—Looking at
•
dashboard displays a few additional details including: proficiency rates by length of enrollment is an effective
way to flip the negative impact of mobility into the positive
Prior Year Proficiency Rate for New Students—In highly
•
impact of student persistence. In short, students typically
mobile schools, understanding the incoming achievement
perform better the longer they are enrolled.
FIGURE 27: An Example of Local Assessment Data on the Dashboard
LOCAL ASSESSMENTS
% PROFICIENT LOCAL ASSESSMENTS LOCAL ASSESSMENTS

68% PARTICIPATION
46%
38%
47%
22%
31% 78%
Fall Winter Spring
ELA Mathematics

FIGURE 28: An Example of State Assessment Data on the Dashboard
STATE ASSESSMENTS
% PROFICIENT PRIOR YEAR CURRENT YEAR STATE % MEETING GROWTH TARGET

STATE ASSESSMENTS: ASSESSMENTS PARTICIPATION CURRENT YEAR STATE ASSESSMENTS
NEW STUDENTS
41%
ELA 79%
59%
96%
Mathematics 46%
ELA
Mathematics
Not Proficient
% PROFICIENT CURRENT YEAR STATE ASSESSMENTS
English Language Arts (ELA) Mathematics
School 73% School 47%
Similar Schools 64% Similar Schools 54%
State 71% State 59%
% PROFICIENT CURRENT YEAR STATE ASSESSMENTS: BY LENGTH OF ENROLLMENT
54% 55%
51%
39%
37% 35%
31%
20%
ELA Mathematics
43
CREDITS AND GRADUATION
While a four-year cohort graduation rate is an indicator Inclusion of a metric tracking annual progress toward
included in every state’s accountability report card, there is graduation, for example the percentage of students
a shortage of detailed data in this area at the state level. The earning the credits required within a single year, provides
Credits and Graduation section of the sample dashboard transparency into the success of the school in moving
displays additional metrics such as the percentage of every student toward graduation, regardless of current
new students who enroll in the school credit-deficient and credit status. This metric levels the playing field for a more
the graduation rate for continuously enrolled students. accurate comparison between both low-mobility and highly
Understanding metrics like these provides for a deeper mobile schools.
understanding of the cohort graduation rate, especially in
highly mobile schools.
FIGURE 29: An Example Showing Inclusion of Annual Progress Toward Graduation, and Other Credits and Graduation Data, on the Dashboard
CREDITS AND GRADUATION
CREDIT-DEFICIENT NEW STUDENTS GRADUATION RATES
10th Grade 37%

85%
82% 81%
11th Grade 45%
67% 67% 67%
12th Grade 59%

56% 57%
ANNUAL PROGRESS TOWARD GRADUATION
19%
17%
64% 2014 2015 2016
Continuously Enrolled Graduation Rate

ESSA Required Graduation Rate
Adequate Annual Progress State Reported Cohort Graduation Rate
Inadequate: Slightly Behind
Inadequate: Significantly Behind

STATE ACCOUNTABILITY
The State Accountability section of the dashboard displays for those years. By providing this view over a period of three
historical ratings for the school, but also provides a detailed years, it allows for comparisons of the school’s trend to both
look at the points earned under the accountability system similar schools and the state as a whole.
FIGURE 30: An Example of State Accountability Ratings and Historical Trend Data on the Dashboard
STATE ACCOUNTABILITY
CURRENT YEAR RATING: 2017 HISTORICAL RATINGS
LETTER GRADE POINTS YEAR LETTER GRADE POINTS
2015 D 61
C 71 2016 D 68
HISTORICAL COMPARISON: ACCOUNTABILITY POINTS EARNED
74
68 68 71
65 67
63 65
61
School
Similar Schools’ Average
State Average
2015 2016 2017
Looking to the Future
While this is only a small glimpse of the work happening at providing transparency and accountability for schools. It is a
K12, the dashboard points to the company’s commitment work in progress and will continue to improve as additional
to advancing student-centered accountability policies and metrics become available.
45
Appendices
47
Appendix A:
SCHOOL COMPARISONS TO THE STATE (2015–2016)
In this section, we report overall results from K12 public • Group 4: K12 Public School Programs Administering New
school programs in four categories: State Testing Programs in 2015–2016
• Group 1: K12 Public School Programs Administering

PARCC in 2015–2016 Results from K12 public school programs include Full Academic
Year (FAY) students who enroll by each state’s unique FAY state
• Group 2: K12 Public School Programs Administering
date and remain continuously enrolled.
SBAC in 2015–2016
• Group 3: K12 Public School Programs Using the Same

State Testing Program from 2014–2015 to 2015–2016
K12 Public School Programs

GROUP 1 Administering PARCC
PARCC offers assessments in English Language Arts (ELA)/Literacy and Mathematics for grades 3–8 and 11.
TABLE A1: Demographics of K12 Public School Programs Administering PARCC
FRL ELIGIBLE SPECIAL EDUCATION
SCHOOL NAME K12 State K12 State
Chicago Virtual Charter School 89% 54% -- --
Colorado Preparatory Academy 57% 42% 11% 11%
Friendship Public Charter School Online 65% 92% 15% 15%
Insight School of Colorado 53% 42% -- --
Massachusetts Virtual Academy at Greenfield Commonwealth Virtual School 59% 40% -- --
New Mexico Virtual Academy 55% 63% -- --
Newark Preparatory Charter School 88% 37% 19% 16%
Pikes Peak Online School 52% 42% 14% 11%
Note: FRL = Free and Reduced Price Lunch. See Appendix B for data sources. Special education eligibility percentages are repor ted only for schools in which K12 is
responsible for special education ser vices.

C OLOR ADO
COLORADO PREPARATORY ACADEMY (CPA)
GRADES 3–8 HIGH SCHOOL
TABLE A2: CPA Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8) TABLE A3: CPA Comparison to the State (High School)
2015–2016 2015–2016
2015–2016
ENGLISH LANGUAGE SCHOOL YEAR
MATHEMATICS
ARTS/LITERACY
CPA CPA State
Subject (grade)
%AAP Total Count %AAP
CPA CPA State CPA CPA State
Grade
%AAP Total Count %AAP %AAP Total Count %AAP
English Language
39% 64 37%
Arts/Literacy (grade 9)
3rd 17% 46 37% 29% 45 39%
4th 6% 49 44% 6% 49 33%
Algebra 1 (grade 9) 19% 47 32%
5th 11% 61 41% 10% 60 34%
6th 22% 58 38% 23% 56 31%
7th 24% 88 41% 14% 88 26%
8th 23% 92 42% 18% 92 20%
Sources: State data: http://www.cde.state.co.us/assessment

School data: K12 Academic Performance Database
INSIGHT SCHOOL OF COLORADO (ISCO)
NOTE: Insight School of Colorado serves students in grades 6–12. 28
TABLE A4: ISCO Comparison to the State (Grades 6–8) TABLE A5: ISCO Comparison to the State (High School)
2015–2016 2015–2016
2015–2016
MATHEMATICS
ARTS/LITERACY
ISCO ISCO State
Subject (grade)
ISCO ISCO State ISCO ISCO State
Grade
English Language
28% 18 37%
6th * * 38% * * 31%
7th 13% 23 41% 4% 24 26%
8th 9% 22 42% 5% 22 20%
%A AP = percentage at or above proficiency. %A AP = percentage at or above proficiency.

*Results not repor ted because the number of students was not sufficient (n<10) to suppor t
meaningful analysis.

28
A mong 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.
49
PIKES PEAK ONLINE SCHOOL (PPOS)
NOTE: Pike Peak Online School serves students in high school (grades 9–12).
HIGH SCHOOL
TABLE A6: PPOS Comparison to the State (High School)
2015–2016
SCHOOL YEAR
PPOS PPOS State
Subject (grade)
English Language
25% 32 37%

DI STRICT OF C OLUM BIA
FRIENDSHIP PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL ONLINE (FPCSO)
NOTE: Friendship Public Charter School Online serves students in grades 3–8.
GRADES 3–8
TABLE A7: FPCSO Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)
2015–2016
2015–2016
ENGLISH LANGUAGE
MATHEMATICS
ARTS/LITERACY
FPCSO FPCSO State FPCSO FPCSO State

Grade
3rd * * 26% * * 37%

4th * * 29% * * 32%
5th 20% 10 29% 20% 10 30%
6th 64% 11 26% 36% 11 21%
7th 31% 13 27% 17% 12 17%
8th 42% 12 29% 33% 12 14%

*Results not repor ted because the number of students was not sufficient (n<10) to suppor t meaningful analysis.
Sources: State data: http://results.osse.dc.gov/state/DC


ILLINOI S
CHICAGO VIRTUAL CHARTER SCHOOL (CVCS)

T
TABLE A8: CVCS Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8) TABLE A9: CVCS Comparison to the State (High School)
S
2015–2016 2015–2016
2015–2016
MATHEMATICS
ARTS/LITERACY
CVCS CVCS State
Subject (grade)
CVCS CVCS State CVCS CVCS State
Grade
English Language
37% 27 34%
3rd 37% 30 35% 40% 30 40%
4th 43% 37 37% 32% 37 31%
5th 28% 29 35% 20% 30 32%
6th 30% 40 35% 25% 40 29% %A AP = percentage at or above proficiency.
7th 35% 43 38% 26% 43 27%
8th 40% 57 40% 35% 57 32%
Sources: State data: https://www.illinoisreportcard.com/Default.aspx

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

VIRTUAL SCHOOL (MAVA)
GRADES 3–8
TABLE A10: MAVA Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)
2015–2016
2015–2016
ENGLISH LANGUAGE
MATHEMATICS
ARTS/LITERACY
MAVA MAVA State MAVA MAVA State

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

4th 33% 33 56% 33% 33 53%
5th 41% 32 59% 19% 31 51%
6th 39% 51 58% 33% 52 48%
7th 49% 51 61% 35% 51 48%
8th 45% 66 60% 36% 66 50%
Sources: State data: http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/mcas/achievement_level.aspx?linkid = 32&orgcode = 00000000&orgtypecode = 0&

School data: K12 Academic Performance Database 51
N EW M E XIC O
NEW MEXICO VIRTUAL ACADEMY (NMVA)
NOTE: New Mexico Virtual Academy serves students in grades 6–12.
HIGH SCHOOL
GRADES 6–8
TABLE A12: NMVA Comparison to the State (High School)
TABLE A11: NMVA Comparison to the State (Grades 6–8)
2015–2016
2015–2016
ENGLISH LANGUAGE
MATHEMATICS
ARTS/LITERACY NMVA NMVA State
Subject (grade)
NMVA NMVA State NMVA NMVA State
Grade English Language
%AAP Total Count %AAP %AAP Total Count %AAP 31% 78 27%
6th 20% 30 24% 10% 30 20%
7th 23% 53 23% 15% 52 17% Algebra 1 (grade 9) 13% 62 18%
8th 23% 87 26% 16% 76 20%
Sources: State data: http://ped.state.nm.us/AssessmentAccountability/AcademicGrowth/NMSBA.html

N EW JE RSEY
NEWARK PREPARATORY CHARTER SCHOOL (NEWARK PREP)
NOTE: Newark Preparatory Charter School serves students in high school (grades 9–12). Newark has too few tested in grade 9; therefore,
results for both school and state are reported for grade 10.
HIGH SCHOOL
TABLE A13: Newark Prep Comparison to the State (High School)
2015–2016
SCHOOL YEAR
Newark Prep Newark Prep State
Subject (grade)
English Language Arts/

4% 67 44%
Literacy (grade 10)
Algebra 1 (grade 10) * * *

Sources: State data: http://www.state.nj.us/education/schools/achievement/15/parcc/


GROUP 2 Administering SBAC
SBAC offers assessments in English Language Arts (ELA)/Literacy and Mathematics for grades 3–8 and grade 11.
Several SBAC states used other assessments in high school instead of the SBAC grade 11 assessment.
TABLE A14: Demographics of K12 Public School Programs Administering SBAC
California Virtual Academy at Fresno 62%
California Virtual Academy at Jamestown 59%
California Virtual Academy at Kings 48%
California Virtual Academy at Los Angeles 56%
California Virtual Academy at Maricopa 62%
California Virtual Academy at Maricopa High School 58% 59% 12%* 11%
California Virtual Academy at San Diego 53%
California Virtual Academy at San Joaquin 53%
California Virtual Academy at San Mateo 43%
California Virtual Academy at Sonoma 54%
California Virtual Academy at Sutter 57%
Idaho College and Career Readiness Academy** 54% 49% 6% 10%
Idaho Virtual Academy 57% 49% 12% 10%
Insight School of California at Los Angeles 67% 59% 17% 11%
Insight School of California at San Diego 58% 59% 13% 11%
Insight School of California at San Joaquin 61% 59% 20% 11%
Insight School of Oregon** 67% 51% -- 15%
Insight School of Oregon at Painted Hills 65% 51% 15% 15%
Insight School of Washington 57% 46% 13% 12%
iQ Academy California at Los Angeles 61% 59% 7% 11%
Nevada Virtual Academy 56% 52% 11% 12%
Oregon Virtual Academy 59% 51% 15% 15%
Silicon Valley Flex Academy** 33% 59% 25% 11%
Washington Virtual Academy at Omak 49% 46% 11% 12%
Note: FRL = Free and Reduced Price Lunch. See Appendix B for data sources. *The special education eligibility percentage is an aggregate figure encompassing the specified
separate K12 California Vir tual Academy schools. **The following schools are not included in analysis:
• Idaho College and Career Readiness Academy (IDCCRA) ser ves students in grades 9 –12 only. IDCCRA high school results are repor ted in group 3.
• Insight School of Oregon is not included in the analyses because the school did not provide data to K12 at the time of this repor t.
• Silicon Valley Flex Academy is not included in the analyses because the school did not provide data to K12 at the time of this repor t.
53
CALIFORN IA
CALIFORNIA VIRTUAL ACADEMY AT FRESNO (CAVA-FRESNO)
NOTE: California Virtual Academy at Fresno serves students in grades 3–8.
GRADES 3–8
TABLE A15: CAVA-Fresno Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)
2015–2016
2015–2016
ENGLISH LANGUAGE
MATHEMATICS
ARTS/LITERACY
CAVA- CAVA- CAVA- CAVA-
State State
Grade Fresno Fresno Fresno Fresno
%AAP %AAP
3rd 36% 36 43% 31% 36 46%
4th 36% 50 44% 24% 50 38%
5th 30% 44 49% 20% 44 33%
6th 24% 50 48% 16% 50 35%
7th 42% 62 48% 18% 62 36%
8th 41% 66 48% 20% 66 36%
Sources: State data: http://caaspp.cde.ca.gov

CALIFORNIA VIRTUAL ACADEMY AT JAMESTOWN (CAVA-JAMESTOWN)
NOTE: California Virtual Academy at Jamestown serves students in high school (grades 9–12).
HIGH SCHOOL
TABLE A16: CAVA-Jamestown Comparison to the State (High School)
2015–2016
SCHOOL YEAR
CAVA- CAVA-
State
Subject (grade) Jamestown Jamestown
%AAP
%AAP Total Count
English Language
38% 24 59%
Mathematics (grade 11) 13% 23 33%


CALIFORNIA VIRTUAL ACADEMY AT KINGS (CAVA-KINGS)
TABLE A17: CAVA-Kings Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8) TABLE A18: CAVA-Kings Comparison to the State
(High School)
2015–2016 2015–2016
2015–2016
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/ SCHOOL YEAR
MATHEMATICS
LITERACY
CAVA- CAVA-
State
CAVA- CAVA- Subject (grade) Kings Kings
CAVA-Kings State CAVA-Kings State %AAP
Grade Kings Kings %AAP Total Count
Total Count %AAP Total Count %AAP
%AAP %AAP
English Language
3rd 62% 13 43% 31% 13 46% 64% 67 59%
4th * * 44% * * 38%
5th 18% 22 49% 14% 22 33% Mathematics (grade 11) 16% 68 33%
6th 24% 21 48% 19% 21 35%
8th 36% 39 48% 18% 39 36%


CALIFORNIA VIRTUAL ACADEMY AT LOS ANGELES (CAVA-LOS ANGELES)
TABLE A19: CAVA-Los Angeles Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8) TABLE A20: CAVA-Los Angeles Comparison to the State
(High School)
2015–2016 2015–2016
2015–2016
MATHEMATICS
ARTS/LITERACY
CAVA- CAVA-
CAVA- CAVA- Los Los State
CAVA-Los CAVA-Los Subject (grade)
Los State Los State Angeles Angeles %AAP
Grade Angeles Angeles
Angeles %AAP Angeles %AAP %AAP Total Count
Total Count Total Count
%AAP %AAP
English Language
3rd 39% 128 43% 25% 128 46% 64% 299 59%
4th 32% 179 44% 23% 179 38%
6th 33% 243 48% 22% 243 35%
8th 45% 314 48% 21% 314 36%

55
CALIFORNIA VIRTUAL ACADEMY AT MARICOPA (CAVA-MARICOPA)
NOTE: California Virtual Academy at Maricopa serves students in grades 3–8.
GRADES 3–8
TABLE A21: CAVA-Maricopa Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)
2015–2016
2015–2016
ENGLISH LANGUAGE
MATHEMATICS
ARTS/LITERACY
CAVA- CAVA- CAVA- CAVA-
State State
Grade Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa
%AAP %AAP
3rd 34% 109 43% 21% 108 46%
4th 27% 109 44% 17% 109 38%
5th 27% 112 49% 15% 112 33%
6th 24% 135 48% 15% 135 35%
7th 32% 119 48% 19% 118 36%
8th 42% 174 48% 15% 173 36%

CALIFORNIA VIRTUAL ACADEMY AT MARICOPA HIGH SCHOOL (CAVA-MARICOPA-HS)
NOTE: California Virtual Academy at Maricopa-HS serves students in high school (grades 9–12).
HIGH SCHOOL
TABLE A22: CAVA-Maricopa-HS Comparison to the State (High School)
2015–2016
SCHOOL YEAR
CAVA- CAVA-
State
Subject (grade) Maricopa-HS Maricopa-HS
%AAP
%AAP Total Count
English Language
51% 146 59%


CALIFORNIA VIRTUAL ACADEMY AT SAN DIEGO (CAVA-SAN DIEGO)
TABLE A23: CAVA-San Diego Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8) TABLE A24: CAVA-San Diego Comparison to the State
(High School)
2015–2016 2015–2016
2015–2016
MATHEMATICS
ARTS/LITERACY
CAVA-
CAVA-
CAVA- CAVA- CAVA- CAVA- San State
State State Subject (grade) San Diego
Grade San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego Diego %AAP
%AAP %AAP Total Count
%AAP Total Count %AAP Total Count %AAP
3rd 40% 124 43% 34% 123 46% English Language
61% 239 59%
4th 34% 143 44% 25% 143 38% Arts/Literacy (grade 11)
5th 38% 143 49% 17% 143 33%

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

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

CALIFORNIA VIRTUAL ACADEMY AT SAN JOAQUIN (CAVA-SAN JOAQUIN)
TABLE A25: CAVA-San Joaquin Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8) TABLE A26: CAVA-San Joaquin Comparison to the State
(High School)
2015–2016 2015–2016
2015–2016
MATHEMATICS
ARTS/LITERACY
CAVA- CAVA-
CAVA- CAVA- CAVA- CAVA- San San State
State State Subject (grade)
Grade San Joaquin San Joaquin San Joaquin San Joaquin Joaquin Joaquin %AAP
%AAP %AAP
3rd 36% 66 43% 26% 66 46%
English Language
52% 142 59%
4th 30% 76 44% 29% 76 38% Arts/Literacy (grade 11)
5th 42% 78 49% 27% 78 33%
7th 37% 134 48% 17% 133 36%


57
CALIFORNIA VIRTUAL ACADEMY AT SAN MATEO (CAVA-SAN MATEO)
TABLE A27: CAVA-San Mateo Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8) TABLE A28: CAVA-San Mateo Comparison to the State
(High School)
2015–2016 2015–2016
2015–2016
MATHEMATICS
ARTS/LITERACY
CAVA- CAVA-
CAVA- CAVA- CAVA- CAVA- San San State
State State Subject (grade)
Grade San Mateo San Mateo San Mateo San Mateo Mateo Mateo %AAP
%AAP %AAP
3rd 68% 38 43% 47% 38 46%
English Language
4th 45% 42 44% 43% 42 38% 71% 83 59%
5th 53% 30 49% 47% 30 33%
7th 51% 72 48% 36% 72 36%

CALIFORNIA VIRTUAL ACADEMY AT SONOMA (CAVA-SONOMA)
TABLE A29: CAVA-Sonoma Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8) TABLE A30: CAVA-Sonoma Comparison to the State
(High School)
2015–2016 2015–2016
2015–2016
MATHEMATICS
ARTS/LITERACY
CAVA- CAVA-
CAVA- CAVA- CAVA- CAVA- State
State State Subject (grade) Sonoma Sonoma
Grade Sonoma Sonoma Sonoma Sonoma %AAP
%AAP %AAP %AAP Total Count
3rd 35% 37 43% 30% 37 46% English Language
65% 62 59%
4th 42% 24 44% 38% 24 38%
5th 51% 37 49% 19% 37 33%
6th 32% 34 48% 15% 34 35%
7th 28% 53 48% 17% 53 36%
8th 38% 65 48% 20% 65 36%


CALIFORNIA VIRTUAL ACADEMY AT SUTTER (CAVA-SUTTER)
TABLE A31: CAVA-Sutter Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8) TABLE A32: CAVA-Sutter Comparison to the State
(High School)
2015–2016 2015–2016
2015–2016
MATHEMATICS
ARTS/LITERACY
CAVA- CAVA-
State
CAVA- CAVA- CAVA- CAVA- Subject (grade) Sutter Sutter
State State %AAP
Grade Sutter Sutter Sutter Sutter %AAP Total Count
%AAP %AAP
English Language
3rd 34% 38 43% 18% 38 46% 58% 78 59%
4th 38% 39 44% 26% 39 38%
6th 36% 66 48% 29% 66 35%
8th 40% 81 48% 17% 81 36%

INSIGHT SCHOOL OF CALIFORNIA AT LOS ANGELES (ISCA-LA)
NOTE: Insight School of California at Los Angeles serves students in high school (grades 9–12). 29
HIGH SCHOOL
TABLE A33: ISCA-LA Comparison to the State (High School)
2015–2016
SCHOOL YEAR
ISCA-LA ISCA-LA State
Subject (grade)
English Language
21% 81 59%

29
A mong K12 public school programs, most of those designated as Insight Schools focus on serving academically struggling students in grades 6–12, with a few serving only high school
students. While these schools accept students of all ability levels, most focus on providing programs specifically designed to meet the needs of the struggling student. Some K12 Insight
Schools are officially designated as “alternative” or “at-risk” schools based on state criteria, but most states do not have official criteria for these types of schools.
59
INSIGHT SCHOOL OF CALIFORNIA AT SAN DIEGO (ISCA-SD)
NOTE: Insight School of California at San Diego serves students in high school (grades 9–12). 30
HIGH SCHOOL
TABLE A34: ISCA-SD Comparison to the State (High School)
2015–2016
SCHOOL YEAR
ISCA-SD ISCA-SD State
Subject (grade)
English Language
10% 40 59%

INSIGHT SCHOOL OF CALIFORNIA AT SAN JOAQUIN (ISCA-SJ)
NOTE: Insight School of California at San Joaquin serves students in high school (grades 9–12). 31
HIGH SCHOOL
TABLE A35: ISCA-SJ Comparison to the State (High School)
2015–2016
SCHOOL YEAR
ISCA-SJ ISCA-SJ State
Subject (grade)
English Language
38% 26 59%

30, 31

iQ ACADEMY OF CALIFORNIA AT LOS ANGELES (iQCA-LA)
TABLE A36: iQCA-LA Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8) TABLE A37: iQCA-LA Comparison to the State
(High School)
2015–2016 2015–2016
2015–2016
MATHEMATICS
ARTS/LITERACY
iQCA-LA iQCA-LA State
Subject (grade)
iQCA-LA iQCA-LA State iQCA-LA iQCA-LA State
Grade
English Language
70% 37 59%
3rd 31% 26 43% 23% 26 46%
4th 37% 27 44% 30% 27 38%
5th 50% 22 49% 23% 22 33%
6th 43% 44 48% 32% 44 35%
7th 49% 85 48% 21% 85 36%
8th 46% 52 48% 17% 52 36%

SILICON VALLEY FLEX ACADEMY (SV-FLEX)
NOTE: Silicon Valley Flex Academy was not analyzed because the school did not provide data to K12 at the time of this report.
61
IDAHO
NOTES:
In 2015–2016, the state of Idaho administered SBAC to students in grade 3–8 only; therefore, results for Idaho high students are reported
in group 3.
Idaho College and Career Readiness Academy (IDCCRA) serves students in grades 9–12 only. IDCCRA high school results are reported
in group 3.
The Idaho High School assessment results came from Idaho Standards Achievement Test and those results are reported within group 3.
IDAHO VIRTUAL ACADEMY (IDVA)
GRADES 3–8
TABLE A38: IDVA Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)
2015–2016
2015–2016
ENGLISH LANGUAGE
MATHEMATICS
ARTS/LITERACY
IDVA IDVA State IDVA IDVA State

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

4th 42% 102 50% 42% 102 47%
5th 46% 96 54% 29% 94 40%
6th 43% 86 51% 34% 86 40%
7th 60% 131 53% 43% 130 42%
8th 56% 127 54% 35% 127 39%
Sources: State data: http://apps.sde.idaho.gov/ReportCard/


N EVADA
NOTE: In 2015–2016, the state of Nevada administered SBAC to students in grade 3–8 only; therefore, results for Nevada high students are
reported in group 3.
NEVADA VIRTUAL ACADEMY (NVVA)
GRADES 3–8
TABLE A39: NVVA Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)
2015–2016 2015–2016
READING MATHEMATICS
NVVA* NVVA State NVVA NVVA State

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

4th 30% 93 47% 20% 92 38%
5th 43% 111 51% 20% 111 32%
6th 46% 138 42% 22% 138 30%
7th 48% 162 47% 28% 162 29%
8th 55% 182 47% 31% 182 18%

*The state of Nevada calls English Language Ar ts Reading
Sources: State data: http://www.nevadareportcard.com/di/

ORE GON
OREGON VIRTUAL ACADEMY (ORVA)
TABLE A40: ORVA Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8) TABLE A41: ORVA Comparison to the State (High School)
2015–2016 2015–2016
2015–2016
MATHEMATICS
ARTS/LITERACY
ORVA ORVA State
Subject (grade)
ORVA ORVA State ORVA ORVA State
Grade
English Language
70% 116 69%
3rd 45% 75 47% 42% 73 48%
4th 49% 74 50% 37% 68 44%
5th 47% 89 57% 34% 82 40%
6th 40% 109 53% 25% 104 39%
7th 43% 121 56% 32% 117 44%
8th 42% 165 57% 22% 161 42%
Sources: State data: http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/results/?id = 116 63

INSIGHT SCHOOL OF OREGON (ISOR)
NOTE: Insight School of Oregon was not analyzed because the school did not provide data to K12 at the time of this report.
INSIGHT SCHOOL OF OREGON AT PAINTED HILLS (ISOR-PH)
NOTES: Insight School of Oregon at Painted Hills serves students in high school (grades 9–12). Results for ISOR-PH grades 7–8 are not
reported because the numbers of students were not sufficient (n<10) to support meaningful analysis. 32
HIGH SCHOOL
TABLE A42: ISOR-PH Comparison to the State (High School)
2015–2016
SCHOOL YEAR
ISOR-PH ISOR-PH State
Subject (grade)
English Language
50% 34 69%
Sources: State data: http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/results/?id = 116

32

WASH INGTON
WASHINGTON VIRTUAL ACADEMY AT OMAK (WAVA-OMAK)
TABLE A43: WAVA-Omak Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8) TABLE A44: WAVA-Omak Comparison to the State
(High School)
2015–2016 2015–2016
2015–2016
MATHEMATICS
ARTS/LITERACY
WAVA- WAVA-
State
WAVA- WAVA- Subject (grade) Omak Omak
WAVA-Omak State WAVA-Omak State %AAP
Grade Omak Omak %AAP Total Count
Total Count %AAP Total Count %AAP
%AAP %AAP
English Language
3rd 46% 149 55% 40% 149 60% 74% 177 33%
4th 53% 160 58% 46% 160 57%
6th 49% 217 58% 39% 217 49%
8th 55% 363 62% 24% 359 49%
Sources: State data: http://www.k12.wa.us/

INSIGHT SCHOOL OF WASHINGTON (ISWA)
NOTE: Insight School of Washington serves students in high school (grades 9–12). 33
HIGH SCHOOL
TABLE A45: ISWA Comparison to the State (High School)
2015–2016
SCHOOL YEAR
ISWA ISWA State
Subject (grade)
English Language
64% 246 33%
Sources: State data: http://www.k12.wa.us/

33
mong 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
A
65
K12 Public School Programs Using
GROUP 3 the Same State Testing Program
From 2014–2015 to 2015–2016
Comparisons to State Proficiency Percentages: Following the overall analysis, for each K12 public school program
in states that did not change their state-specific assessment program in 2015–2016, we compare the 2015–2016
proficiency percentages of the K12 public school program to the state’s proficiency percentages.
TABLE A46: Demographics of K12 Public School Programs Using the Same State Testing Programs from 2014–2015 to 2015–2016
Alabama Virtual Academy at Eufaula** 78% 52% 13% 11%
Arizona Virtual Academy 62% 39% 11% 12%
Cyber Academy of South Carolina 75% 56% 18% 13%
Florida Cyber Charter Academy at Broward 67% 58%
Florida Cyber Charter Academy at Clay** 77% 58%
Florida Cyber Charter Academy at Duval 70% 58%
Florida Cyber Charter Academy at Hillsborough 66% 58%

10%* 13%
Florida Cyber Charter Academy at Osceola 74% 58%
Florida Cyber Charter Academy at Palm Beach 66% 58%
Florida Cyber Charter Academy at Pasco 64% 58%
Florida Cyber Charter Academy at Pinellas 69% 58%
Georgia Cyber Academy 66% 62% 12% 11%
Hill House Passport Academy Charter School** 84% 46% 19% 17%
Hoosier Academy Indianapolis 63% 49%

15%* 16%
Hoosier Academy Virtual School 68% 49%
Idaho College and Career Readiness Academy** 54% 49% 6% 10%
Insight Academy of Arizona 64% 39% 15% 12%
Insight School of Colorado 53% 42% -- 11%
Insight School of Kansas 58% 50% -- 14%
Insight School of Michigan 62% 47% 18% 13%
Insight School of Minnesota 55% 38% 29% 15%
Insight School of Oklahoma 64% 60% 22% 15%
Iowa Virtual Academy 64% 41% 8% 13%
iQ Academy Minnesota 54% 38% -- 15%

K12 State K12 State
Kansas Virtual Academy 67% 50% -- 14%
Louisiana Virtual Charter Academy 67% 64% 12% 11%
Massachusetts Virtual Academy at Greenfield Commonwealth Virtual School 59% 40% -- 18%
Michigan Great Lakes Virtual Academy 65% 47% 15% 13%
Michigan Virtual Charter Academy 66% 47% 17% 13%
Minnesota Flex Academy 63% 38% 21% 15%
Minnesota Virtual Academy 60% 38% -- 15%
North Carolina Virtual Academy 61% 57% 14% 13%
Oklahoma Virtual Charter Academy 65% 60% 14% 15%
South Carolina Virtual Charter School 62% 56% -- 13%
Tennessee Virtual Academy** 74% 56% 16% 13%
Texas Online Preparatory School 45% 59% 4% 9%
Texas Virtual Academy 60% 59% -- 9%
Utah Virtual Academy 56% 37% 15% 12%
Virginia Virtual Academy-King and Queen 45% 40%

5%* 13%
Virginia Virtual Academy-Patrick 45% 40%
Wisconsin Virtual Academy 57% 41% 16% 14%
Wyoming Virtual Academy 51% 38% -- 14%
FRL = Free and Reduced Price Lunch. See Appendix B for data sources. Special education eligibility percentages are reported only for schools in which K12 is responsible for special
education services.
During the 2015–2016 School Year, the Florida Cyber Charter Academy schools were known as Florida Virtual Academy.
*For Florida, Indiana, and Virginia, the special education percentages are aggregate figures encompassing the specified individual K12 public school programs in each state.
**The following schools are not included in analysis:
• Alabama Virtual Academy at Eufaula because the school did not provide data to K12 at the time of this report.
• Florida Cyber Charter Academy at Clay is not reported because the number of students was not sufficient (n<10) to support meaningful analysis.
• Hill House Passport Academy Charter School because the school did not provide data to K12 at the time of this report.
• Idaho College and Career Readiness Academy is not reported because the number of high school students was not sufficient (n<10) to support meaningful analysis.
• Tennessee Virtual Academy results are not reported because Tennessee invalidated all state assessment results due to vendor scoring issues.
67
AL ABAMA
ALABAMA VIRTUAL ACADEMY AT EUFAULA (ALVA)
NOTE: Alabama Virtual Academy at Eufaula was not analyzed because the school did not provide data to K12 at the time of this report.
ARIZONA
ARIZONA VIRTUAL ACADEMY (AZVA)
TABLE A47: AZVA Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8) TABLE A48: AZVA Comparison to the State (High School)
2015–2016 2015–2016 2015–2016

ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS MATHEMATICS SCHOOL YEAR
AZVA AZVA State
AZVA AZVA State AZVA AZVA State Subject (grade)
Grade %AAP Total Count %AAP
English Language Arts 9
3rd 46% 152 41% 33% 153 46% 42% 146 34%
(grade 9)
4th 41% 174 46% 28% 173 45%
5th 40% 190 46% 20% 195 46% Algebra 1 (grade 9) 35% 97 37%
6th 34% 208 38% 25% 209 39%
8th 35% 273 33% 20% 261 26%
Sources: State data: https://azreportcards.com/ReportCard


INSIGHT ACADEMY OF ARIZONA (ISAZ)
NOTE: Insight School of Arizona serves students in grades 7–12. 34
TABLE A49: ISAZ Comparison to the State (Grades 7–8) TABLE A50: ISAZ Comparison to the State (High School)
2015–2016 2015–2016 2015–2016

ISAZ ISAZ State
ISAZ ISAZ State ISAZ ISAZ State Subject (grade)
English Language Arts 9
7th 18% 11 41% 9% 11 31% * * 34%
(grade 9)
8th 8% 38 33% 3% 38 26%

Sources: State data: https://azreportcards.com/ReportCard

*Results not repor ted because the number of students was not sufficient
(n<10) to suppor t meaningful analysis.
C OLOR ADO
NOTE: In 2015–2016, the state of Colorado administered PARCC to students in grades 3–9; therefore, those data are reported in group 1.
COLORADO PREPARATORY ACADEMY (CPA)
HIGH SCHOOL
TABLE A51: CPA Comparison to the State (High School)
2015–2016
SCHOOL YEAR
CPA CPA State
Subject (grade)
%AAP Total Count %AAP*
ACT English (grade 11) 56% 18 61%
ACT Mathematics
28% 18 39%
(grade 11)

*State repor ts percent ACT College Readiness Benchmark
Sources: State data: https://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/state06_Colorado_Web_Secured.pdf

34
69
INSIGHT SCHOOL OF COLORADO (ISCO)
NOTE: Insight School of Colorado serves students in high school (grades 9–12). 35
HIGH SCHOOL
TABLE A52: ISCO Comparison to the State (High School)
2015–2016
SCHOOL YEAR
ISCO ISCO State
Subject (grade)
ACT Mathematics
23% 26 39%
(grade 11)


PIKES PEAK ONLINE SCHOOL (PPOS)
NOTES: Pikes Peak Online School serves students in high school (grades 9–12).
HIGH SCHOOL
TABLE A53: PPOS Comparison to the State (High School)
2015–2016
SCHOOL YEAR
PPOS PPOS State
Subject (grade)
%AAP Total Count %AAP*
ACT Mathematics
8% 25 39%
(grade 11)


35

FLORIDA
FLORIDA CYBER CHARTER ACADEMY AT BROWARD (FLCCA-BROWARD)
TABLE A54: FLCCA-Broward Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8) TABLE A55: FLCCA-Broward Comparison to the State
(High School)
2015–2016 2015–2016 2015–2016
FLCCA- FLCCA- FLCCA- FLCCA- FLCCA- FLCCA-
State State State
Grade Broward Broward Broward Broward Subject (grade) Broward Broward
%AAP %AAP %AAP
3rd 57% 14 54% 50% 14 61% English Language Arts 9
36% 11 51%
4th 56% 16 52% 53% 19 59% (grade 9)
5th 63% 19 52% 52% 21 55%

6th 59% 17 52% 26% 19 50% Algebra 1 (grade 9) 18% 11 37%
7th 64% 11 49% 50% 12 52%

8th 75% 12 57% 67% 12 48%
Sources: State data: http://www.fldoe.org/accountability/assessments/k-12-student-assessment/results/

FLORIDA CYBER CHARTER ACADEMY AT CLAY (FLCCA-CLAY)
NOTE: Florida Cyber Charter Academy at Clay was not because the number of students was not sufficient (n<10) to support meaningful analysis.
FLORIDA CYBER CHARTER ACADEMY AT DUVAL (FLCCA-DUVAL)
NOTE: The analysis for FLCCA-Duval includes grades 3–8 only because the number of high school students was not sufficient (n<10) to
support meaningful analysis.
GRADES 3–8
TABLE A56: FLCCA-Duval Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)
2015–2016 2015–2016
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS MATHEMATICS
FLCCA- FLCCA- FLCCA- FLCCA-
State State
Grade Duval Duval Duval Duval
%AAP %AAP
3rd 67% 12 54% 58% 12 61%
4th * * * * * *
5th 30% 10 52% 20% 10 55%
6th 55% 11 52% 27% 11 50%
7th 62% 13 49% 33% 15 52%
8th 65% 20 57% 37% 19 48%

* Results not repor ted because the number of students was not sufficient (n<10) to suppor t meaningful analysis.

71
FLORIDA CYBER CHARTER ACADEMY AT HILLSBOROUGH (FLCCA-HILLSBOROUGH)
NOTE: The analysis for FLCCA-Hillsborough includes grades 3–8 only because the number of high school students was not sufficient
(n<10) to support meaningful analysis.
GRADES 3–8
TABLE A57: FLCCA-Hillsborough Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)
2015–2016 2015–2016
State State
Grade Hillsborough Hillsborough Hillsborough Hillsborough
%AAP %AAP
3rd 50% 12 54% 42% 12 61%
4th 30% 10 52% 18% 11 59%
5th 54% 13 52% 21% 14 55%
6th 44% 18 52% 13% 16 50%
7th 50% 12 49% 62% 13 52%
8th 62% 13 57% 42% 12 48%

FLORIDA CYBER CHARTER ACADEMY AT OSCEOLA (FLCCA-OSCEOLA)
NOTE: The analysis for FLCCA-Osceola includes grades 3–8 only because the number of high school students was not (n<10) to support
GRADES 3–8
TABLE A58: FLCCA-Osceola Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)
2015–2016 2015–2016
State State
Grade Osceola Osceola Osceola Osceola
%AAP %AAP
3rd * * * * * *
4th * * * * * *
5th * * * * * *
6th 60% 10 52% 50% 10 50%
7th * * * 60% 10 52%
8th * * * * * *



FLORIDA CYBER CHARTER ACADEMY AT PALM BEACH (FLCCA-PALM BEACH)
NOTE: The analysis for FLCCA-Palm Beach includes grades 3–8 only because the number of high school students was not sufficient (n<10)
to support meaningful analysis.
GRADES 3–8
TABLE A59: FLCCA-Palm Beach Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8
2015–2016 2015–2016
State State
Grade Palm Beach Palm Beach Palm Beach Palm Beach
%AAP %AAP
3rd * * * * * *
4th * * * * * *
5th * * * * * *
6th 19% 16 52% 0% 16 50%
7th 57% 14 49% 31% 13 52%
8th 47% 19 57% 35% 20 48%


FLORIDA CYBER CHARTER ACADEMY AT PASCO (FLCCA-PASCO)
NOTES: The analysis for FLCCA-Pasco English Language Arts grades 3–8 is not reported because the number of students was not
sufficient (n<10) to support meaningful analysis. The analysis for FLCCA-Pasco includes grades 3–8 only because numbers of high school
students were not sufficient to support meaningful analysis.
GRADES 3–8
TABLE A60: FLCCA-Pasco Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)
2015–2016
MATHEMATICS
FLCCA-
FLCCA-Pasco State
Grade Pasco
%AAP %AAP
Total Count
3rd * * *
4th 20% 10 59%
5th * * *
6th * * *
7th 20% 10 52%
8th 20% 10 48%


73
FLORIDA CYBER CHARTER ACADEMY AT PINELLAS (FLCCA-PINELLAS)
NOTE: The analysis for FLCCA-Pinellas includes grades 3–8 only because the number of high school students was not sufficient (n<10) to
support meaningful analysis.
GRADES 3–8
TABLE A61: FLCCA-Pinellas Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)
2015–2016 2015–2016
State State
Grade Pinellas Pinellas Pinellas Pinellas
%AAP %AAP
3rd * * * * * *
4th 18% 11 52% 20% 10 59%
5th * * * * * *
6th * * * * * *
7th * * * * * *
8th * * * * * *


GE ORGIA
GEORGIA CYBER ACADEMY (GCA)
TABLE A62: GCA Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8) TABLE A63: GCA Comparison to the State (High School)
2015–2016 2015–2016 2015–2016

GCA GCA State
GCA GCA State GCA GCA State Subject (grade)
Literature &
3rd 31% 560 35% 28% 560 40% 38% 1,000 41%
Composition (grade 9)
4th 28% 678 35% 28% 681 40%
5th 35% 707 41% 21% 712 38% Coordinate Algebra
17% 18 31%
(grade 9)
6th 36% 916 39% 27% 915 38%
8th 40% 1212 44% 20% 1157 33%
Sources: State data: http://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Assessment/Pages/Georgia-Milestones-Statewide-Scores.aspx


IDAHO
NOTE: In 2015–2016, the state of Idaho administered SBAC to students in grades 3–8; therefore, those data are reported in group 2.
IDAHO COLLEGE AND CAREER READINESS ACADEMY (IDCCRA)
NOTE: Idaho College and Career Readiness Academy serves students in grades 9–12 only. Results for IDCCRA is not reported because
the number of high school students was not sufficient (n<10) to support meaningful analysis.
IDAHO VIRTUAL ACADEMY (IDVA)
NOTE: Students enrolled in the IDVA-Alt campus were removed from the following analysis.
HIGH SCHOOL
TABLE A64: IDVA Comparison to the State (High School)
2015–2016
SCHOOL YEAR
IDVA IDVA State
Subject (grade)

71% 138 62%
(grade 10)
Sources: State data: http://apps.sde.idaho.gov/ReportCard

75
IN DIANA
NOTE: In 2015–2016, the state of Indiana administered a different assessment than was used in 2014–2015 for students in grades 9–12;
therefore, those results are reported in group 4.
HOOSIER ACADEMY INDIANAPOLIS (HOOSIER-INDY)
GRADES 3–8
TABLE A65: Hoosier-Indy Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)
2015–2016 2015–2016
Hoosier- Hoosier- Hoosier- Hoosier-
State State
Grade Indy Indy Indy Indy
%AAP %AAP
3rd 58% 19 69% 47% 19 60%
4th 65% 23 68% 74% 23 62%
5th 15% 13 63% 62% 13 66%
6th 50% 12 66% 42% 12 60%
7th 71% 17 68% 35% 17 52%
8th 63% 19 62% 42% 19 53%
Sources: State data: http://compass.doe.in.gov/dashboard/istep.aspx?type = state

HOOSIER ACADEMY VIRTUAL CHARTER SCHOOL (HAVS)
GRADES 3–8
TABLE A66: HAVS Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)
2015–2016 2015–2016
HAVS HAVS State HAVS HAVS State

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

4th 45% 105 68% 30% 105 62%
5th 33% 123 63% 21% 124 66%
6th 41% 161 66% 28% 167 60%
7th 44% 207 68% 16% 211 52%
8th 40% 210 62% 21% 217 53%


IOWA
IOWA VIRTUAL ACADEMY (IAVA)
TABLE A67: IAVA Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8) TABLE A68: IAVA Comparison to the State (High School)
2015–2016 2015–2016 2015–2016

READING MATHEMATICS SCHOOL YEAR
IAVA IAVA State
IAVA IAVA State IAVA IAVA State Subject (grade)
3rd 67% 12 77% 33% 12 80% Reading (grade 11) 100% 11 78%
4th * * * * * *
5th * * * * * * Mathematics (grade 11) 82% 11 82%
6th * * * * * *
8th 77% 13 76% 46% 13 76%

Sources: State data: http://reports.educateiowa.gov/

K AN SAS
KANSAS VIRTUAL ACADEMY (KSVA)
NOTE: Kansas Virtual Academy serves students in grades 3–6.
GRADES 3–6
TABLE A69: KSVA Comparison to the State (Grades 3–6)
2015–2016 2015–2016
KSVA KSVA State KSVA KSVA State

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

4th 30% 30 52% 13% 31 36%
5th 26% 23 45% 21% 24 34%
6th 43% 35 40% 14% 35 32%
Sources: State data: http://ksreportcard.ksde.org/assessment_results.aspx?org_no = State&rptType = 3

77
INSIGHT SCHOOL OF KANSAS (ISKS)
NOTE: Insight School of Kansas serves students in grades 7–12. 36
TABLE A70: ISKS Comparison to the State (Grades 7–8) TABLE A71: ISKS Comparison to the State (High School)
2015–2016 2015–2016 2015–2016

ISKS ISKS State
ISKS ISKS State ISKS ISKS State Subject (grade)
7th 32% 41 38% 17% 41 30% 15% 111 30%
(grade 10)
8th 26% 54 30% 7% 54 25%
%A AP = percentage at or above proficiency. Mathematics (grade 10) 2% 111 23%
Sources: State data: http://ksreportcard.ksde.org/assessment_results.aspx?org_no = State&rptType = 3

School data: K12 Academic Performance Database %A AP = percentage at or above proficiency.
LOUI SIANA
NOTE: In 2015–2016, the state of Louisiana administered a new assessment compared to what was administered in 2014–2015 in grades
3–8; therefore, those data are reported in group 4.
LOUISIANA VIRTUAL CHARTER ACADEMY (LAVCA)
HIGH SCHOOL
TABLE A72: LAVCA Comparison to the State (High School)
2015–2016
SCHOOL YEAR
LAVCA LAVCA State
Subject (grade)
English 2 (grade 10) 94% 65 91%
Sources: State data:https://www.louisianabelieves.com/resources/library/test-results

36

MAS SAC HUSETTS
NOTE: In 2015–2016, the state of Massachusetts administered PARCC to students in grades 3–8; therefore, those data are reported in
group 1.
MASSACHUSETTS VIRTUAL ACADEMY AT GREENFIELD

COMMONWEALTH VIRTUAL SCHOOL (MAVA)
HIGH SCHOOL
TABLE A73: MAVA Comparison to the State (High School)
2015–2016
SCHOOL YEAR
MAVA MAVA State
Subject (grade)

100% 28 91%
(grade 10)
Mathematics
61% 28 78%
(grade 10)
Sources: State data: http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/mcas/achievement_level.aspx?linkid = 32&orgcode = 00000000&orgtypecode = 0&

M IC H IGAN
NOTE: In 2015–2016, the state of Michigan administered a different assessment for high school students than was used in 2014–2015;
therefore, those figures are reported in group 4.
MICHIGAN GREAT LAKES VIRTUAL ACADEMY (MGLVA)
GRADES 3–8
TABLE A74: MGLVA Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)
2015–2016 2015–2016
MGLVA MGLVA State MGLVA MGLVA State

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

4th 46% 83 46% 30% 82 44%
5th 41% 90 51% 30% 90 34%
6th 55% 110 45% 32% 110 33%
7th 59% 146 47% 34% 146 35%
8th 55% 200 49% 30% 200 33%
Sources: State data: https://www.mischooldata.org/

GRADES 3–8
TABLE A75: MVCA Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)
2015–2016 2015–2016
MVCA MVCA State MVCA MVCA State

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

4th 48% 130 46% 49% 129 44%
5th 50% 120 51% 26% 121 34%
6th 61% 175 45% 37% 175 33%
7th 54% 214 47% 35% 214 35%
8th 63% 226 49% 35% 226 33%


INSIGHT SCHOOL OF MICHIGAN (ISMI)
NOTE: Insight School of Michigan serves students in grades 7–12. 37
GRADES 6–8
TABLE A76: ISMI Comparison to the State (Grades 6–8)
2015–2016 2015–2016
ISMI ISMI State ISMI ISMI State

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

7th 45% 40 47% 18% 40 35%
8th 43% 47 49% 17% 47 33%

37
A

M IN N E SOTA
MINNESOTA VIRTUAL ACADEMY (MNVA)
TABLE A77: MNVA Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8) TABLE A78: MNVA Comparison to the State (High School)
2015–2016 2015–2016 2015–2016

MNVA MNVA State
MNVA MNVA State MNVA MNVA State Subject (grade)
3rd 56% 55 58% 51% 55 70% Reading (grade 10) 61% 139 59%
4th 55% 53 58% 62% 53 69%
6th 69% 72 62% 42% 72 56%
8th 47% 113 57% 23% 112 58%
Sources: State data: http://rc.education.state.mn.us/#testResults/orgId--999999000000__groupType--state__test--allAccount__subject--R__year--trend__grade--all__p--1

INSIGHT SCHOOL OF MINNESOTA (ISMN)
NOTE: Insight School of Minnesota serves students in grades 6–12. 38
TABLE A79: ISMN Comparison to the State (Grades 6–8) TABLE A80: ISMN Comparison to the State (High School)
2015–2016 2015–2016 2015–2016

ISMN ISMN State
ISMN ISMN State ISMN ISMN State Subject (grade)
6th * * 62% * * 56% Reading (grade 10) 52% 44 59%

7th * * 57% * * 56%

* Results not repor ted because the number of students was not sufficient (n<10) to suppor t %A AP = percentage at or above proficiency.

38
81
iQ ACADEMY MINNESOTA (iQMN)
TABLE A81: iQMN Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8) TABLE A82: iQMN Comparison to the State (High School)
2015–2016 2015–2016 2015–2016

iQMN iQMN State
iQMN iQMN State iQMN iQMN State Subject (grade)
3rd * * 58% * * 70% Reading (grade 10) 48% 29 59%

4th * * 58% * * 69%
6th 73% 11 62% 45% 11 56%
8th 45% 20 57% 30% 20 58%

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

MINNESOTA FLEX ACADEMY (MN FLEX)
NOTE: Minnesota Flex Academy serves students in grades 5–7.
GRADES 5–7
TABLE A83: MN Flex Comparison to the State (Grades 5–7)
2015–2016 2015–2016
READING MATHEMATICS
MN Flex MN Flex State MN Flex MN Flex State

Grade
5th * * 68% * * 59%

6th 63% 24 62% 29% 24 56%
7th 29% 14 57% 23% 13 56%



NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA VIRTUAL ACADEMY (NCVA)
TABLE A84: NCVA Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8) TABLE A85: NCVA Comparison to the State (High School)
2015–2016 2015–2016 2015–2016

NCVA NCVA State
NCVA NCVA State NCVA NCVA State Subject (grade)
3rd 55% 101 58% 42% 101 65% English 2 (grade 10) 74% 27 59%
4th 47% 90 58% 23% 90 57%
5th 52% 96 55% 26% 96 60% Mathematics 1 (grade 9) 27% 56 61%
6th 57% 128 59% 26% 128 52%
8th 62% 120 53% 29% 120 45%
Sources: State data: http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/accountability/reporting/acctsumm16.xlsx

OKL AHOMA
OKLAHOMA VIRTUAL CHARTER ACADEMY (OVCA)
TABLE A86: OVCA Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8) TABLE A87: OVCA Comparison to the State (High School)
2015–2016 2015–2016 2015–2016

OVCA OVCA State
OVCA OVCA State OVCA OVCA State Subject (grade)
3rd 44% 84 72% 24% 84 66% English 2 (grade 10) 80% 140 76%
4th 53% 98 68% 44% 97 69%
5th 62% 91 72% 48% 91 70% Algebra 1 (grade 9) 49% 116 74%
6th 52% 143 63% 48% 143 66%
8th 67% 157 75% 48% 143 53%
Sources: State data: http://sde.ok.gov/sde/assessment-administrator-resources-administrators

83
INSIGHT SCHOOL OF OKLAHOMA (ISOK)
NOTE: Insight School of Oklahoma serves students in grades 7–12. 39
TABLE A88: ISOK Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8) TABLE A89: ISOK Comparison to the State (High School)
2015–2016 2015–2016 2015–2016

ISOK ISOK State
ISOK ISOK State ISOK ISOK State Subject (grade)
7th 38% 13 71% 0% 13 66% English 2 (grade 10) 60% 43 76%

8th 46% 24 75% 4% 24 53%
%A AP = percentage at or above proficiency. Algebra 1 (grade 9) 27% 51 74%
Sources: State data: http://sde.ok.gov/sde/assessment-administrator-resources-administrators

School data: K12 Academic Performance Database %A AP = percentage at or above proficiency.
PE N N SYLVAN IA
HILL HOUSE PASSPORT ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL (HHPACS)
NOTE: Hill House Passport Academy Charter School was not analyzed because the school did not provide data to K12 at the time of this report.
39
A

SOUTH CAROLINA
NOTE: The state of South Carolina administered a different assessment in 2014–2015 and 2015–2016 to high school students; therefore, those
data are reported in group 4.
CYBER ACADEMY OF SOUTH CAROLINA (CASC)
HIGH SCHOOL
TABLE A90: CASC Comparison to the State (High School)
2015–2016
SCHOOL YEAR
CASC CASC State
Subject (grade)
English 1 (grade 9) 82% 61 79%
Algebra 1 / Mathematics
for the Technologies 57% 28 82%
(grades 9)
Sources: State data: http://ed.sc.gov/data/test-scores/

SOUTH CAROLINA VIRTUAL CHARTER SCHOOL (SCVCS)
HIGH SCHOOL
TABLE A91: SCVCS Comparison to the State (High School)
2015–2016
SCHOOL YEAR
SCVCS SCVCS State
Subject (grade)
English 1 (grade 9) 79% 140 79%
Algebra 1 / Mathematics
for the Technologies 72% 109 82%
(grades 9)

85
TE N N E S SE E
TENNESSEE VIRTUAL ACADEMY (TNVA)
NOTE: Tennessee Virtual Academy was not analyzed because Tennessee invalidated all state assessment results due to vendor scoring issues.
TE X AS
NOTE: Texas changed the proficiency cut scores in 2015–2016 as outlined in the phase-in plan introduced with STAAR. The proficiency cut
scores changed as part of Phase-In II in spring 2016. For more information see Understanding the Different Scores on STAAR_Aug21.pdf,
published August 29, 2014.
TEXAS VIRTUAL ACADEMY (TXVA)
TABLE A92: TXVA Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8) TABLE A93: TXVA Comparison to the State (High School)
2015–2016 2015–2016 2015–2016

TXVA TXVA State
TXVA TXVA State TXVA TXVA State Subject (grade)
3rd 59% 138 73% 42% 139 75% English 1 (grade 9) 65% 376 65%
4th 60% 251 75% 37% 250 73%
5th 69% 288 81% 54% 289 86% Algebra 1 (grade 9) 64% 397 78%
6th 62% 437 69% 53% 439 72%
8th 84% 683 87% 51% 675 82%
Sources: State data: https://rptsvr1.tea.texas.gov/perfreport//tprs/2015/srch.html?srch = D


TEXAS ONLINE PREPARATORY SCHOOL (TOPS)
TABLE A94: TOPS Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8) TABLE A95: TOPS Comparison to the State (High School)
2015–2016 2015–2016 2015–2016

TOPS TOPS State
TOPS TOPS State TOPS TOPS State Subject (grade)
3rd 93% 15 73% 87% 15 75% English 1 (grade 9) 98% 57 65%

4th 94% 34 75% 82% 34 73%
5th 97% 35 81% 94% 35 86% Algebra 1 (grade 9) 95% 38 78%
6th 100% 47 69% 94% 48 72%
8th 97% 65 87% 88% 58 82%
Sources: State data: https://rptsvr1.tea.texas.gov/perfreport/tprs/2016/srch.html?srch=C

UTAH
UTAH VIRTUAL ACADEMY (UTVA)
NOTE: UTVA-PT students have been removed from this analysis.
TABLE A96: UTVA Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8) TABLE A97: UTVA Comparison to the State (High School)
2015–2016 2015–2016 2015–2016

LANGUAGE ARTS MATHEMATICS SCHOOL YEAR
UTVA UTVA State
UTVA UTVA State UTVA UTVA State Subject (grade)
3rd 39% 38 48% 30% 40 53% Language Arts (grade 9) 34% 110 41%
4th 36% 50 43% 39% 51 52%
5th 20% 49 47% 22% 49 50% Secondary Mathematics 1
28% 108 42%
(grade 9)
6th 12% 57 48% 9% 57 41%
8th 23% 91 42% 20% 94 45%
Sources: State data: http://www.schools.utah.gov/data/Reports/Assessment.aspx

87
VIRGIN IA
VIRGINIA VIRTUAL ACADEMY-KING AND QUEEN (VAVA-KING AND QUEEN)
NOTE: Virginia Virtual Academy-King and Queen serves students in grades 3–6.
GRADES 3–6
TABLE A98: VAVA-King and Queen Comparison to the State (Grades 3–6)
2015–2016 2015–2016
READING MATHEMATICS
VAVA- VAVA-
VAVA-King VAVA-King
King and State King and State
Grade and Queen and Queen
Queen %AAP Queen %AAP
Total Count Total Count
%AAP %AAP
3rd 76% 17 76% 65% 17 77%
4th 68% 25 77% 86% 22 83%
5th * * * * * *
6th * * * * * *

Sources: State data: https://p1pe.doe.virginia.gov/reportcard/report.do?division = All&schoolName = All

VIRGINIA VIRTUAL ACADEMY-PATRICK (VAVA-PATRICK)
NOTE: Virginia Virtual Academy-Patrick serves students in grades 3–7.
GRADES 3–7
TABLE A99: VAVA-Patrick Comparison to the State (Grades 3–7)
2015–2016 2015–2016
READING MATHEMATICS
VAVA- VAVA- VAVA- VAVA-
State State
Grade Patrick Patrick Patrick Patrick
%AAP %AAP
3rd 70% 27 76% 63% 27 77%
4th 81% 32 77% 90% 31 83%
5th 93% 44 81% 91% 43 79%
6th 94% 32 77% 97% 31 82%
7th 94% 34 82% 79% 34 72%

Sources: State data: https://p1pe.doe.virginia.gov/reportcard/report.do?division = All&schoolName = All


WI SC ON SIN
NOTE: In 2015–2016, the state of Wisconsin administered a different assessment to high school students than was administered in 2014–2015;
therefore, additional data are reported in group 4.
WISCONSIN VIRTUAL ACADEMY (WIVA)
HIGH SCHOOL
TABLE A100: WIVA Comparison to the State (High School)
2015–2016
SCHOOL YEAR
WIVA WIVA State
Subject (grade)
ACT English Language Arts*

24% 195 41%
(grade 11)
ACT Mathematics (grade 11) 12% 203 35%

*ACT English Language Ar ts is a composite of English Language Ar ts, Reading and Writing.
Sources: State data: http://wisedash.dpi.wi.gov/Dashboard/portalHome.jsp

W YOM ING
WYOMING VIRTUAL ACADEMY (WYVA)
TABLE A101: WYVA Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8) TABLE A102: WYVA Comparison to the State (High School)
2015–2016 2015–2016 2015–2016

WYVA WYVA State
WYVA WYVA State WYVA WYVA State Subject (grade)
3rd 46% 26 58% 23% 26 53% ACT Reading (grade 11) 49% 37 36%
4th 80% 25 65% 48% 25 55%
5th 55% 29 61% 31% 29 56% ACT Mathematics
30% 37 40%
(grade 11)
6th 66% 35 58% 54% 35 50%
8th 51% 45 54% 13% 45 48%
Sources: State data: https://portals.edu.wyoming.gov/Reports/Public/wde-reports-2012/public-reports/assessment/pawsresultsstatelevelaggregated

89
GROUP 4 Administering New State Testing
Programs in 2015–2016
In this section, we report results from K12 public school programs in states that, while in general not members of
PARCC or SBAC, changed to new assessment programs in 2015–2016.
TABLE A103: Demographics of K12 Public School Programs Administering New State Testing Programs in 2015–2016
Arkansas Virtual Academy 65% 62% 13% 14%

15%* 16%
Hoosier Academy Virtual School 68% 49%
Insight School of Ohio 67% 45% 20% 15%
Maine Virtual Academy 60% 47% 17% 17%
Ohio Virtual Academy 59% 45% 14% 15%
South Carolina Virtual Charter School 62% 56% -- --
FRL = Free and Reduced Price Lunch. See Appendix B for data sources.
Special education eligibility percentages are reported only for schools in which K12 is responsible for special education services.
* The special education eligibility percentage is an aggregate figure encompassing the specified individual Indiana K12 public school programs.

ARK AN SAS
ARKANSAS VIRTUAL ACADEMY (ARVA)
TABLE A104: ARVA Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8) TABLE A105: ARVA Comparison to the State (High School)
2015–2016 2015–2016
2015–2016
ACT ASPIRE ENGLISH SCHOOL YEAR
MATHEMATICS
LANGUAGE ARTS*
ARVA ARVA State
Subject (grade)
ARVA ARVA State ARVA ARVA State
Grade
%AAP Total Count %AAP %AAP Total Count %AAP ACT Aspire English
Language Arts 53% 124 48%
3rd 39% 93 40% 39% 114 56% (grade 9)*
4th 35% 101 41% 44% 109 54% ACT Aspire Mathematics
26% 128 28%
5th 49% 116 51% 35% 121 48% (grade 9)
6th 55% 129 58% 44% 135 55%

7th 43% 180 50% 26% 183 44%
8th 54% 181 53% 27% 181 38%

*English Language Ar ts is a composite (arithmetic average) of English, Reading, and Writing. State level data represents an average score of the district data.
Sources: State data: http://www.arkansased.gov/divisions/learning-services/student-assessment/test-scores

GE ORGIA
NOTES:
The state of Georgia administered the same assessment in 2014–2015 and 2015–2016 for grades 3–8; therefore, those results are reported in
group 3.
Georgia administered Algebra 1 for the first time in 2015–2016 to high school students; therefore, those results are reported in this section.
GEORGIA CYBER ACADEMY (GCA)
HIGH SCHOOL
TABLE A106: GCA Comparison to the State (High School)
2015–2016
SCHOOL YEAR
GCA GCA State
Subject (grade)
Algebra I (grade 9) 17% 903 36%
Sources: State data: http://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Assessment/Pages/Georgia-Milestones-Statewide-Scores.aspx

IN DIANA
NOTE: The state of Indiana administered the same assessment in 2014–2015 and 2015–2016 for grades 3–8; therefore, those results are
HOOSIER ACADEMY INDIANAPOLIS (HOOSIER-INDY)
HIGH SCHOOL
TABLE A107: Hoosier-Indy Comparison to the State (High School)
2015–2016
SCHOOL YEAR
Hoosier- Hoosier-
State
Subject (grade) Indy Indy
%AAP
%AAP Total Count

37% 19 59%
(grade 10)

HOOSIER ACADEMY VIRTUAL CHARTER SCHOOL (HAVS)
HIGH SCHOOL
TABLE A108: HAVS Comparison to the State (High School)
2015–2016
SCHOOL YEAR
HAVS HAVS State
Subject (grade)

33% 301 59%
(grade 10)


LOUI SIANA
NOTE: The state of Louisiana administered the same assessment in 2014–2015 and 2015–2016 for high students; therefore, those results
are reported in group 3.
LOUISIANA VIRTUAL CHARTER ACADEMY (LAVCA)
GRADES 3–8
TABLE A109: LAVCA Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)
2015–2016 2015–2016
LAVCA LAVCA State LAVCA LAVCA State

Grade
3rd 46% 103 62% 47% 102 74%

4th 50% 101 70% 35% 101 69%
5th 51% 110 69% 34% 110 64%
6th 65% 146 74% 42% 146 60%
7th 66% 158 70% 47% 158 60%
8th 78% 138 77% 57% 138 56%
Sources: State data: https://www.louisianabelieves.com/resources/library/test-results

MAIN E
MAINE VIRTUAL ACADEMY (MEVA)
NOTE: Maine Virtual Academy serves students in grades 7–12.
TABLE A110: MEVA Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8) TABLE A111: MEVA Comparison to the State (High School)
2015–2016 2015–2016
2015–2016
MATHEMATICS
ARTS/LITERACY
MEVA MEVA State
Subject (grade)
MEVA MEVA State MEVA MEVA State
Grade
English Language Arts/
63% 32 60%
Literacy (grade 11)
7th 59% 27 48% 19% 27 40%
8th 50% 18 48% 22% 18 35% Secondary Mathematics 1
19% 32 35%
(grade 9)
Sources: State data: http://www.maine.gov/doe/assessment/index.html %A AP = percentage at or above proficiency.

93
M IC H IGAN
NOTE: The state of Michigan administered the same assessment in 2014–2015 and 2015–2016 for grades 3–8; therefore, those results are
MICHIGAN GREAT LAKES VIRTUAL ACADEMY (MGLVA)
HIGH SCHOOL
TABLE A112: MGLVA Comparison to the State (High School)
2015–2016
SCHOOL YEAR
MGLVA MGLVA State
Subject (grade)
SAT Evidence-Based
Reading and Writing 73% 98 60%
(grade 11)
SAT Mathematics (grade 11) 40% 98 37%
Sources: State data: https://www.mischooldata.org/DistrictSchoolProfiles/AssessmentResults/AssessmentGradesPerformance.aspx

HIGH SCHOOL
TABLE A113: MVCA Comparison to the State (High School)
2015–2016
SCHOOL YEAR
MVCA MVCA State
Subject (grade)
SAT Evidence-Based
(grade 11)


INSIGHT SCHOOL OF MICHIGAN (ISMI)
NOTE: Insight School of Michigan serves students in high school (grades 9–12).40
HIGH SCHOOL
TABLE A114: ISMI Comparison to the State (High School)
2015–2016
SCHOOL YEAR
ISMI ISMI State
Subject (grade)
SAT Evidence-Based
(grade 11)

N EVADA
NOTE: In 2015–2016, the state of Nevada administered SBAC to students in grades 3–9; therefore, those results are reported in group 3.
NEVADA VIRTUAL ACADEMY (NVVA)
HIGH SCHOOL
TABLE A115: NVVA Comparison to the State (High School)
2015–2016
SCHOOL YEAR
NVVA NVVA State
Subject (grade)
English 2 (grade 10) 48% 63 70%
Mathematics 2 (grade 10) 6% 142 33%
Sources: State data: http://www.nevadareportcard.com/di/

40
95
OH IO
OHIO VIRTUAL ACADEMY (OHVA)
TABLE A116: OHVA Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8) TABLE A117: OHVA Comparison to the State (High School)
2015–2016 2015–2016 2015–2016

OHVA OHVA State
OHVA OHVA State OHVA OHVA State Subject (grade)
3rd 49% 534 55% 47% 530 66% English 1 (grade 9) 64% 457 55%
4th 52% 486 58% 49% 485 69%
5th 57% 515 60% 39% 515 62% Algebra 1 (grade 9) 56% 245 48%
6th 51% 576 54% 34% 578 57%
8th 36% 591 48% 32% 605 65%
Sources: State data: http://reportcard.education.ohio.gov/Pages/default.aspx

INSIGHT SCHOOL OF OHIO (ISOH)
NOTE: Insight School of Ohio serves students in grades 6–12.41
TABLE A118: ISOH Comparison to the State (Grades 6–8) TABLE A119: ISOH Comparison to the State (High School)
2015–2016 2015–2016 2015–2016

ISOH ISOH State
ISOH ISOH State ISOH ISOH State Subject (grade)
6th 23% 13 54% 8% 13 57% English 1 (grade 9) 25% 63 55%

7th 20% 69 54% 14% 69 55%
8th 18% 101 48% 7% 101 65% Algebra 1 (grade 9) 11% 55 48%

Sources: State data: http://reportcard.education.ohio.gov/Pages/default.aspx
41

SOUTH CAROLINA
NOTE: The state of South Carolina administered the same assessment in 2014–2015 and 2015–2016 to high school students; therefore,
those results are reported in group 3.
CYBER ACADEMY OF SOUTH CAROLINA (CASC)
GRADES 3–8
TABLE A120: CASC Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)
2015–2016 2015–2016
CASC CASC State CASC CASC State

Grade
3rd 27% 44 44% 28% 43 54%

4th 32% 50 43% 32% 50 47%
5th 33% 58 41% 28% 58 44%
6th 29% 56 41% 23% 56 40%
7th 47% 59 41% 24% 59 35%
8th 30% 101 45% 12% 101 32%

SOUTH CAROLINA VIRTUAL CHARTER SCHOOL (SCVCS)
GRADES 3–8
TABLE A121: SCVCS Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)
2015–2016 2015–2016
SCVCS SCVCS State SCVCS SCVCS State

Grade
3rd 42% 103 44% 37% 103 54%

4th 36% 109 43% 29% 109 47%
5th 32% 105 41% 36% 105 44%
6th 36% 156 41% 29% 156 40%
7th 38% 224 41% 27% 224 35%
8th 47% 281 45% 23% 283 32%

97
WI SC ON SIN
NOTE: The state of Wisconsin administered the same assessment in 2014–2015 and 2015–2016 to high school students; therefore, those
results are reported in group 3.
WISCONSIN VIRTUAL ACADEMY (WIVA)
GRADES 3–8
TABLE A122: WIVA Comparison to the State (Grades 3–8)
2015–2016 2015–2016
WIVA WIVA State WIVA WIVA State

Grade
3rd 34% 67 43% 30% 67 48%

4th 39% 51 44% 27% 51 45%
5th 31% 80 43% 24% 80 44%
6th 48% 85 43% 33% 84 43%
7th 45% 93 42% 31% 93 39%
8th 43% 123 41% 21% 123 34%
Sources: State data: http://wisedash.dpi.wi.gov/Dashboard/portalHome.jsp


Appendix B:
FREE AND REDUCED PRICE LUNCH AND SPECIAL EDUCATION
ELIGIBILITY BY SCHOOL COMPARED TO STATE
In this appendix, we present Free and Reduced Price Lunch In Table B1, state percentages are based on the 2014–2015
(FRL) and Special Education (SPED) eligibility data by school school year, which is the most recent data available from the
compared to state data. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) at the time of
the analysis reported in this document.
Table B1 below compares the percentage of students in
K12 public school programs to the percentage among the The cells highlighted in the table indicate a higher
total school population in each school’s state with regard to percentage of K12 students42 qualifying for FRL or SPED
eligibility for free and reduced price lunch (FRL) and eligibility services compared to the state.
for special education services (SPED).
Special education eligibility percentages are reported
• We identified 61 K12 public school programs that serve only for schools in which K12 is responsible for special
higher percentages of students eligible for free and education services.
reduced price lunch than their states serve.
For California, Florida, Indiana, and Virginia, the
• We identified 36 K12 public school programs that serve
special education percentages are aggregate figures
higher percentages of students eligible for special
encompassing the specified individual K12 public school
education services than their states serve.
programs in each state.
TABLE B1: K12 Public School Programs Compared to State Percentage Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch (FRL) and Special Education (SPED)
PERCENT FRL PERCENT SPED
SCHOOL NAME School State School State
Alabama Virtual Academy at Eufaula 78% 52% 13% 11%
Arizona Virtual Academy 62% 39% 11% 12%
Arkansas Virtual Academy 65% 62% 13% 14%
California Virtual Academy at Fresno 62% 59%
California Virtual Academy at Jamestown 59% 59%
California Virtual Academy at Kings 48% 59%
California Virtual Academy at Los Angeles 56% 59%
California Virtual Academy at Maricopa 62% 59%
California Virtual Academy at Maricopa High School 58% 59% 12%* 11%
California Virtual Academy at San Diego 53% 59%
California Virtual Academy at San Joaquin 53% 59%
California Virtual Academy at San Mateo 43% 59%
California Virtual Academy at Sonoma 54% 59%
California Virtual Academy at Sutter 57% 59%
42
This report sometimes refers to “K12 schools” or “our schools” or “K12 students” as a shorthand way to describe the online public schools we serve pursuant to a contract with an
independent not-for-profit board or school district governing board. We do not mean to suggest or imply that K12 Inc. has any ownership or control over those schools. Because the
independent boards seek a managed contractual arrangement, the references to “K12 schools” and similar language are simply for ease and do not describe a legal relationship.
99
Chicago Virtual Charter School 89% 54% -- 14%
Florida Cyber Charter Academy at Broward 67% 58%
Florida Cyber Charter Academy at Clay 77% 58%
Florida Cyber Charter Academy at Duval 70% 58%
Florida Cyber Charter Academy at Hillsborough 66% 58%

10%* 13%
Florida Cyber Charter Academy at Osceola 74% 58%
Florida Cyber Charter Academy at Palm Beach 66% 58%
Florida Cyber Charter Academy at Pasco 64% 58%
Florida Cyber Charter Academy at Pinellas 69% 58%
Friendship Public Charter School Online 65% 92% 15% 15%
Hill House Passport Academy Charter School 84% 46% 19% 17%
Hoosier Academy Virtual Charter School 68% 49%

15%* 16%
Idaho College and Career Readiness Academy 54% 49% 6% 10%
Insight Academy of Arizona 64% 39% 15% 12%
Insight School of California at Los Angeles 67% 59% 17% 11%
Insight School of California at San Diego 58% 59% 13% 11%
Insight School of California at San Joaquin 61% 59% 20% 11%
Insight School of Colorado 53% 42% -- 11%
Insight School of Kansas 58% 50% -- 14%
Insight School of Minnesota 55% 38% 29% 15%
Insight School of Ohio 67% 45% 20% 15%
Insight School of Oklahoma 64% 60% 22% 15%
Insight School of Oregon 67% 51% -- 15%
Insight School of Oregon at Painted Hills 65% 51% 15% 15%
Insight School of Washington 57% 46% 13% 12%
Iowa Virtual Academy 64% 41% 8% 13%
iQ Academy California at Los Angeles 61% 59% 7% 11%
iQ Academy Minnesota 54% 38% -- 15%
Kansas Virtual Academy 67% 50% -- 14%

Maine Virtual Academy 60% 47% 17% 17%
Massachusetts Virtual Academy at Greenfield Commonwealth Virtual School 59% 40% -- 18%
Minnesota Flex Academy 63% 38% 21% 15%
Minnesota Virtual Academy 60% 38% -- 15%
New Mexico Virtual Academy 55% 63% -- 14%
Newark Preparatory Charter School 88% 37% 19% 16%
North Carolina Virtual Academy 61% 57% 14% 13%
Ohio Virtual Academy 59% 45% 14% 15%
Oklahoma Virtual Charter Academy 65% 60% 14% 15%
Oregon Virtual Academy 59% 51% 15% 15%
Silicon Valley Flex Academy 33% 59% 25% 11%
South Carolina Virtual Charter School 62% 56% -- 13%
Tennessee Virtual Academy 74% 56% 16% 13%
Texas Online Preparatory School 45% 59% 4% 9%
Texas Virtual Academy 60% 59% -- 9%
Utah Virtual Academy 56% 37% 15% 12%
Virginia Virtual Academy-King and Queen 45% 40%

5%* 13%
Virginia Virtual Academy-Patrick 45% 40%
Washington Virtual Academy at Omak 49% 46% 11% 12%
Wyoming Virtual Academy 51% 38% -- 14%
K12 FRL source: Academic Performance Database, FRL as of 04/2016. K12 SPED source: Internal Student Database as of 12/2015.
The percentage of students overall and by school determined to qualify for free or reduced price lunch within K12-managed public schools reflects analysis by K12’s Academic Policy
Team. Information was provided to K12 by families during the enrollment process, and was augmented by data submitted to individual schools. During the enrollment process, K12 requests
that each family complete a family income form (FIF) in order to provide information corresponding to the eligibility standards prescribed by the National School Lunch Program (NSLP)—
including information related to income amount, frequency of income, and number of people in the family’s household. To the extent a family volunteers the requested information, K12
stores that data in its database, a secure information repository used to manage student enrollment and monitor student performance. Separately, the respective public schools may
give enrolled families the option each fall of submitting the same information called for by the FIF, which the schools in turn provide to the districts and states in which they are located, in
accordance with state-specific requirements. Schools may update family information in the database as they receive such additional data following enrollment. K12 understands that this
data serves as the basis for the statistics reported by the NSLP and NCES.
K12 calculates its own FRL eligibility statistics utilizing the same methodology that NCES uses on a national scale, as follows. First, once per year, usually in the first two weeks of May, K12
retrieves two reports generated from its internal database: one containing the income, frequency of income, number of household members, and related data available for all families; and
another report identifying all enrolled students at the time of the report generation. K12 then compares the full universe of family income and household member information in its database
against the list of enrolled students in order to generate a data set limited to enrolled students. Second, K12 consults the corresponding year’s NSLP table from the Food and Nutrition
Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which sets forth standards dictating FRL eligibility. See http://www.fns.usda.gov/school-meals/income-eligibility-guidelines; see also Income
Eligibility Guidelines (effective July 1, 2014, to June 30, 2015), available at http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/ default/files/2014-04788.pdf. With reference to the NSLP rubric, K12 determines the
qualification levels of its enrolled families for FRL status. Finally, K12 calculates the percentage of enrolled students at the public schools it serves who qualify as FRL eligible.
State Source for FRL and Special Education data (2014–2015): http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/elsi/
*For California, Florida, Indiana, and Virginia, the special education percentages are aggregate figures encompassing the specified individual K12 public school program in each state.
101
Appendix C:
K12 PRIVATE SCHOOL PROFILES (2015–2016)
K12 operates three online private schools: The George Online High School. Outcomes remain strong across
Washington University Online High School, K12 International all three schools, with college entrance and Advanced
Academy, and The Keystone School. Each of the three Placement (AP®) test scores demonstrating the readiness of
accredited private schools offers a distinctly different school our graduates for success at the postsecondary level. We
model, meeting student needs that range from the highest are especially proud of the level of scholarships awarded
degree of independence and flexibility in The Keystone to our graduates, recognizing not only student academic
School, to a more teacher-led and supported model in K12 excellence, but also the effective support and guidance
International Academy, and the premium college preparatory available through the college counseling programs at all
experience available at The George Washington University three schools.
TABLE C1: 2015–2016 K12 Private School Profiles
GWUOHS K12 INT’L ACADEMY KEYSTONE

(6–12) (K–12) (6–12)
Credits Required to Graduate 24 24 21
AdvancED and Middle States

Middle States Commission on
Accreditation AdvancED43 Commission on Secondary
Secondary Schools
Schools44
National Collegiate Athletic
Yes Yes No
Association (NCAA) Approved
Total Enrolled
120 1,727 8,632
Full-Time Students
Number of Graduates 28 179 731
College Acceptances
100% 100% 80%
to 1 or more Colleges
$2.8M $1.5M $4.4M
Scholarships Awarded45
($100K/graduate average) ($8K/graduate average) ($6K/graduate average)
GPA of Graduates 3.5 (non-weighted) 3.16 (weighted)46 3.4 (non-weighted)
1,772 (up to March 2016) 1,581 (up to March 2016) 1,555 (up to March 2016)
SAT Average – Total
1,144 (after March 2016) 1,135 (after March 2016) 1,114 (after March 2016)
ACT Composite Average 25.29 24.3 23.3
Percent of Students Scoring
72% 74% 74%
3 or above on AP® tests taken47
43
dvancED is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that conducts rigorous, onsite external reviews of Pre-K-12 schools and school systems to ensure that all learners
A
realize their full potential. AdvancED was created through a 2006 merger of the Pre-K–12 divisions of the North Central Association Commission on Accreditation
and School Improvement (NCA CASI) and the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Council on Accreditation and School Improvement (SACS CASI)—and
expanded through the addition of the Northwest Accreditation Commission (NWAC) in 2012. Source: http://www.advanc-ed.org/about-us
44
rom Middle States Commission on Secondary Schools. The Commissions on Elementary and Secondary Schools accredit early childhood through postsecondary,
F
nondegree granting public, private, faith-based educational institutions including special purpose schools, supplementary education centers, learning services
providers, and distance education institutions. Source: http://www.msa-cess.org/default.aspx?RelID=606486
45
Scholarship data is based upon student-reported data.
46
PA of Course weights: Weighted grades are number or letter grades that are assigned a numerical advantage when calculating a grade point average, or GPA. In K12
G
International Academy, Honors and AP® courses are weighted more heavily than credits for standard courses. While some high schools traditionally weight grades for
more advanced courses, many colleges will unweight the grades when reviewing applications to compare all students on a standard scale, and look at a student’s
transcript along with their GPA to account for advanced courses taken.
47
P ercent of students who score 3 or above on AP® tests taken: A score of 3, 4, or 5 on an AP® test is normally required for a college to issue higher level course
placement or credit for the AP® subject area. Acceptance of AP® courses for credit or placement is at the discretion of each college.

Appendix D:
ALPHABETICAL GUIDE TO SCHOOLS
INCLUDED IN 2017 ACADEMIC REPORT
Alabama Virtual Academy at Eufaula 66, 68, 99 Insight School of Michigan 66, 80, 90, 95, 100
Arizona Virtual Academy 66, 68, 99 Insight School of Minnesota 66, 81, 100
Arkansas Virtual Academy 90, 91, 99 Insight School of Ohio 90, 96, 100
California Virtual Academy at Fresno 53, 54, 99 Insight School of Oklahoma 66, 84, 100
California Virtual Academy at Jamestown 53, 54, 99 Insight School of Oregon 53, 64, 100
California Virtual Academy at Kings 53, 55, 99 Insight School of Oregon at Painted Hills 53, 64, 100
California Virtual Academy at Los Angeles 53, 55, 99 Insight School of Washington 53, 65, 100
California Virtual Academy at Maricopa 53, 56, 99 Iowa Virtual Academy 66, 77, 100
California Virtual Academy iQ Academy California at Los Angeles 53, 61, 100
at Maricopa High School 53, 56, 99 iQ Academy Minnesota 66, 82, 100
California Virtual Academy at San Diego 53, 57, 99 Kansas Virtual Academy 67, 77, 100
California Virtual Academy at San Joaquin 53, 57, 99 Louisiana Virtual Charter Academy 67, 78, 90, 93, 100
California Virtual Academy at San Mateo 20-21, 53, 58, 99 Maine Virtual Academy 90, 93, 101
California Virtual Academy at Sonoma 53, 58, 99 Massachusetts Virtual Academy at Greenfield
California Virtual Academy at Sutter 53, 59, 99 Commonwealth Virtual School 48, 51, 66, 79, 101
Chicago Virtual Charter School 19, 32-36, 48, 51, 100 Michigan Great Lakes Virtual Academy 67, 79, 90, 94, 101
Colorado Preparatory Academy 48, 49, 66, 69, 100 Michigan Virtual Charter Academy 27, 67, 80, 90, 94, 101
Cyber Academy of South Carolina 38, 66, 85, 90, 97, 100 Minnesota Flex Academy 67, 82, 101
Florida Cyber Charter Academy at Broward 66, 71, 100 Minnesota Virtual Academy 67, 81, 101
Florida Cyber Charter Academy at Clay 66, 67, 71, 100 Nevada Virtual Academy 53, 63, 90, 95, 101
Florida Cyber Charter Academy at Duval 66, 71, 100 New Mexico Virtual Academy 48, 52, 101
Florida Cyber Charter Academy at Hillsborough 66, 72, 100 Newark Preparatory Charter School 48, 52, 101
Florida Cyber Charter Academy at Osceola 66, 72, 100 North Carolina Virtual Academy 67, 83, 101
Florida Cyber Charter Academy at Palm Beach 66, 73, 100 Ohio Virtual Academy 26, 90, 96, 101
Florida Cyber Charter Academy at Pasco 66, 73, 100 Oklahoma Virtual Charter Academy 67, 83, 101
Florida Cyber Charter Academy at Pinellas 66, 74, 100 Oregon Virtual Academy 53, 63, 101
Friendship Public Charter School Online 17-18, 48, 50, 100 Pikes Peak Online School 48, 50, 67, 70, 101
Georgia Cyber Academy 66, 74, 90, 91, 100 Silicon Valley Flex Academy 53, 61, 101
Hill House Passport Academy Charter School 66, 67, 84, 100 South Carolina Virtual Charter School 67, 85, 90, 97, 101
Hoosier Academy Indianapolis 66, 76, 90, 92, 100 Tennessee Virtual Academy 67, 86, 101
Hoosier Academy Virtual Charter School 66, 76, 90, 92, 100 Texas Online Preparatory School 23-25, 67, 87, 101
Idaho College and Career Texas Virtual Academy 67, 86, 101
Readiness Academy 53, 62, 66, 75, 100 Utah Virtual Academy 38, 67, 87, 101
Idaho Virtual Academy 53, 62, 66, 75, 100 Virginia Virtual Academy-King and Queen 67, 88, 101
Insight Academy of Arizona 66, 69, 100 Virginia Virtual Academy-Patrick 67, 88, 101
Insight School of California at Los Angeles 53, 59, 100 Washington Virtual Academy at Omak 22, 53, 65, 101
Insight School of California at San Diego 53, 60, 100 Wisconsin Virtual Academy 67, 89, 90, 98, 101
Insight School of California at San Joaquin 49, 56, 96 Wyoming Virtual Academy 67, 89, 101
Insight School of Colorado 48, 49, 66, 70, 100
Insight School of Kansas 66, 78, 100
103
105
VISIT US: K12.com
TALK WITH US: 866.968.7512
Copyright © 2017 K12 Inc. All rights reserved. K12 is a registered trademark of K12 Inc. The K12 logo and other marks referenced herein are trademarks of
K12 Inc. and its subsidiaries, and other marks are owned by third parties.

Academic Report

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Academic Report

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

2017 K12

 Letter from Nate Davis, Executive Chairman;

2 | 2017 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT

4 | 2017 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT

Margaret Jorgensen, Chief Academic Officer

8 | 2017 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT

Figure 2 shows the same pattern for high school assessments.

Days Without Testing

10 | 2017 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT

Performance Analysis THE SHIFTING LANDSCAPE OF STATE TESTING

2015–2016: Introduction SBAC

NUMBER OF STATES PARTICIPATING

In the 2015–2016 school year, the landscape of 40

One can hypothesize that the driver leading to

the consortia and without continued strong support 30

It takes, on average, 22 weeks from the time the student takes

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

12 | 2017 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT

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

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

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

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

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

10% 20% 21%

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

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

100% Free Lunch Eligible

90% Reduced Price Lunch Eligible

80% 75% N ot Eligible

SUBJECT AND FRL STATUS

ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS READING MATHEMATICS

Difference Difference Difference

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

14 | 2017 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT

100% Free Lunch Eligible

90% Reduced Price Lunch Eligible

SUBJECT AND FRL STATUS

ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS READING ENGLISH 1 ALGEBRA 1

Difference Difference Difference Difference

Further complicating the interpretation scenario across

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS GROUPINGS

Group 1: K12 Public School Programs Administering

Group 2: K12 Public School Programs Administering SBAC

Group 3: K12 Public school Programs Using the Same

Group 4: K12 Public School Programs Administering New

Results from K12 public school programs include Full

16 | 2017 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT

FRIENDSHIP PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL ONLINE (FPCSO)

English Language Arts

100% 2015–2016 FPCSO

90% 2015–2016 District

50% 41% 42% 42% 42%

2015–2016 ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY

3rd * * 26% * 38% *

Sources: S tate data: http://results.osse.dc.gov/state/DC

100% 2015–2016 FPCSO

90% 2015–2016 District

3rd * * 37% * 43% *

Sources: S tate data: http://results.osse.dc.gov/state/DC

18 | 2017 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT

100% 2015–2016 CVCS

90% 2015–2016 State

2015–2016 SCHOOL YEAR

CVCS Difference Between

Letter from Nate Davis, Executive Chairman;

2 | 2017 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT

4 | 2017 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT

8 | 2017 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT

10 | 2017 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT

12 | 2017 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT

80% 75% N ot Eligible

14 | 2017 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT

16 | 2017 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT

Sources: S tate data: http://results.osse.dc.gov/state/DC

Sources: S tate data: http://results.osse.dc.gov/state/DC

18 | 2017 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT

Sources: S tate data: http://results.osse.dc.gov/state/DC

Sources: S tate data: http://caaspp.cde.ca.gov

20 | 2017 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT

Sources: S tate data: http://caaspp.cde.ca.gov

22 | 2017 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT

Sources: S tate data: https://rptsvr1.tea.texas.gov/perfrepor t /tprs/2016/srch.html?srch=C

Sources: S tate data: https://rptsvr1.tea.texas.gov/perfrepor t /tprs/2016/srch.html?srch=C

24 | 2017 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT

Sources: S tate data: https://rptsvr1.tea.texas.gov/perfrepor t /tprs/2016/srch.html?srch=C

Sources: S tate data: http://repor tcard.education.ohio.gov/Pages/default.aspx

26 | 2017 K12 ACADEMIC REPORT