Accountability Review of the Massachusetts Virtual Academy at Greenfield Commonwealth Virtual SchoolFebruary 2017Virtual school accountability reviews are conducted in accordance with CMR 52.08(2): “(2) Accountability Reviews. The Department may send evaluation teams to visit each Commonwealth of Massachusetts virtual school on an annual or as-needed basis to corroborate and augment the information provided in the annual report. The Department may conduct other accountability reviews as necessary. Accountability review teams will gather any other evidence relevant to the virtual school's performance. The written reports from these reviews shall become part of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts virtual school's record, along with any written comments that the school wishes to submit.”

Date of review: February 14, 2017Date of this report: May 8, 2017

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education75 Pleasant Street, Malden, MA 02148-4906Phone 781-338-3000 TTY: N.E.T. Relay 800-439-2370www.doe.mass.edu

This document was prepared by the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

Mitchell D. Chester, Ed.D.Commissioner

The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, an affirmative action employer, is committed to ensuring that all of its programs and facilities are accessible to all members of the public.

We do not discriminate on the basis of age, color, disability, national origin, race, religion, sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation.

Inquiries regarding the Department’s compliance with Title IX and other civil rights laws may be directed to the Human Resources Director, 75 Pleasant St., Malden, MA 02148-4906. Phone: 781-338-6105.

© 2017 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary EducationPermission is hereby granted to copy any or all parts of this document for non-commercial educational purposes. Please credit

the “Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.”

This document printed on recycled paper

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education75 Pleasant Street, Malden, MA 02148-4906

Phone 781-338-3000 TTY: N.E.T. Relay 800-439-2370www.doe.mass.edu

Table of Contents

School profile...................................................................................................................................................... 5

Description of the accountability review.............................................................................................................. 5

Ratings................................................................................................................................................................ 7

Faithfulness to certificate.................................................................................................................................... 8

1. Mission and key design elements.......................................................................................................................8Stakeholders are able to articulate a collective understanding of the mission and vision of the school.......8

2. Access and equity................................................................................................................................................8Although some documentation of an English language learner (ELL) program exists, the school does not have policies and procedures for students who may need to be classified as formerly ELL or that address the annual assessment of ELLs......................................................................................................................8

3. Compliance......................................................................................................................................................... 9Evidence indicates that GCVS complies with state and federal laws and regulations...................................9

Academic and program success........................................................................................................................... 9

4. Student performance..........................................................................................................................................9The school is classified into Level 3 of the state’s accountability and assistance system is at the 7th percentile of all middle/high schools and K-12 schools in the Commonwealth.............................................9

5. Program delivery - Curriculum..........................................................................................................................14The percentage of state standards wholly dependent on teacher-created materials in history and social science curricula is relatively high in certain grade levels............................................................................14

5. Program delivery - Instruction..........................................................................................................................15Observed lessons showed variability in the execution of schoolwide practices, expectations for ensuring student understanding, and demonstration of higher order thinking skills.................................................15

5. Program delivery - Assessment and program evaluation.................................................................................17While the school conducted a preliminary analysis of state assessment data, it has not applied this analysis to inform program evaluation and delivery. The school has changed several policies and programs to better prepare learning coaches to support their children and to improve student attendance...................................................................................................................................................17

5. Program delivery - Diverse learners..................................................................................................................18The school supports diverse learners through its student intervention team, the provision of assistive technology and related services, and parent/guardian outreach by family engagement coordinators. However, certain policies and procedures were lacking for English language learners (ELLs)....................18

6. School culture and family engagement.............................................................................................................19Guidance counselors and family engagement coordinators help learning coaches and students adjust to the virtual environment, support students’ nonacademic needs, and create a sense of community through face-to-face and virtual activities................................................................................................................19

Organizational viability...................................................................................................................................... 21

7. Capacity – School leadership............................................................................................................................21In the past six months, the school has experienced high turnover on the senior leadership team. Most of the activities of the senior leadership team have focused on policy and operational priorities rather than instruction, raising significant concerns for student and staff support........................................................21

7. Capacity – Professional climate........................................................................................................................22While the school has structures for supervision and professional development, staff were unable to collectively articulate a clear process for educator evaluation....................................................................22

7. Capacity – Contractual relationships................................................................................................................22The school currently has a year-to-year contract with K12 to provide a learning management system, curriculum, and enrollment and technical support services........................................................................23

8. Governance.......................................................................................................................................................23While the board has taken steps to document its practices and self-assess its performance, meeting minutes and documentation provided to the review team are not sufficiently detailed.............................23

9. Finance.............................................................................................................................................................. 23The school’s most recent financial audit and end-of-year financial report indicate that it maintains a sound and stable financial condition and operates in a financially sound, publicly accountable manner...23

Appendix A: GCVS annual goals, 2014-17........................................................................................................... 25

Appendix B: Expected practices......................................................................................................................... 37

Appendix C: Current status of probationary conditions......................................................................................40

School profileThe Massachusetts Virtual Academy of Greenfield (MAVA) opened in 2010 under the innovation school law (G.L. c. 71, § 92) as a Greenfield Public School. On June 25, 2013, the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (Board) granted a three-year certificate to operate the re-named Massachusetts Virtual Academy at Greenfield Commonwealth Virtual School (GCVS) to a board of trustees (GCVS board) formed to assume governance of MAVA from the Greenfield Public Schools. Educational courses and teaching services, including management software, learning materials, and technical support services are provided by K12, Inc. (K12), a virtual school provider based in Herndon, Virginia.

On June 5, 2014, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (ESE) conducted an accountability review of GCVS in accordance with CMR 52.08. The report documented concerns about the school’s faithfulness to its certificate, the quality of the academic program, the quality and amount of supports for diverse learners, and the school's lack of compliance with regulatory requirements and ESE guidance. Due to these concerns, on October 20, 2014, pursuant to the virtual school regulations at 603 CMR 52.12(2) and on the recommendation of the Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education, the Board placed GCVS on probation for the remainder of its certificate term, which expired on June 30, 2016.

ESE conducted a second review of GCVS on March 2, 2015. The report indicated that GCVS made progress toward meeting the terms of its probation, and noted that the GCVS board and school leadership took affirmative steps to improve instruction and professional learning. However, the review identified a dependency on teacher-developed materials to ensure curriculum alignment, the lack of a formal curriculum for English language learners (ELLs), the lack of a formal inclusion model for students with disabilities, variation in the execution of the school’s expectations for teaching higher order thinking skills, and uneven instruction. In a June 29, 2015 response to the review, GCVS described the additional steps it planned to take to address these concerns, including researching ELL curricula for the fall of 2015 and how, in the estimation of school leadership, online interventions presented a clear picture of the performance of students who were experiencing academic difficulties.

The school’s certificate expired at the end of the 2015-16 school year. Pursuant to CMR 52.11, and in accordance with ESE guidelines, on June 28, 2015, GCVS submitted an application to renew its certificate. ESE conducted a renewal inspection in November 2015; the report from this inspection was issued to the school on December 14, 2015. At its February 23, 2016 meeting, in accordance with General Laws chapter 71, section 94, and 603 CMR 52.00, the Board renewed the school’s certificate for a three-year period from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2019 with a maximum enrollment of 750 students in grades K through 12. Further, pursuant to 603 CMR 52.12(2), the Board extended the school’s probationary status and directed it to meet specified terms of probation, as recommended by the Commissioner in his memorandum to the Board dated February 12, 2016. The school’s status in complying with these terms is addressed in Appendix C.

Description of the accountability reviewOn February 14, 2017 the following members of the accountability review team (team) visited GCVS at its administrative offices, located at 289 Main Street in Greenfield, Massachusetts:

Kenneth Klau, ESE Jennifer Gwatkin, ESE Joanna Laghetto, ESE

Eleanor Rounds Bloom, ESE Wyvonne Stevens-Carter, ESE Amanda Trainor, ESE

In addition, the following ESE staff members contributed to the review:

Patrick Buckwalter Kathleen Cross Shay Edmond Jane Haltiwanger

Bridgette Kelly Julie Sinclair

Claire Smithney

Page 5 of 39

The team reviewed the following information, as provided by the school:

Annual report (FY2016) Annual goals (2015-16) and

strengths and challenges survey (2017)

Assessment data Organizational chart Executive Director job

description (revised 2016) K12 employee handbook Personnel policies Bylaws Board minutes Student demographic

information, including special education

Special education program statement English as a second language (ESL) program statement School report card and accountability report Curricular materials, including K12 scope and sequence

documents and an alignment of the school’s curriculum to the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks

Teacher training documents Parent/student handbook Miscellaneous teacher-created materials Documentation of professional development activities Learning Coach community meeting recordings (2015-16) Miscellaneous communications regarding school-sponsored

events and outings Financial audit (FY 2015 and FY2016) End of year financial report (FY2016)

Between January 24, 2017 and March 3, 2017, the team observed 21 online lessons, either synchronously or asynchronously. On site, the team reviewed information provided by GCVS and conducted focus groups1 with representatives from the following groups, coordinated by the school according to area of responsibility: the senior leadership team (4, comprised of the interim executive director and the directors of student services, curriculum and instruction, and business management); GCVS board (2 of 5 members); instructional leadership team (11, including grade team leaders, family engagement coordinators, guidance counselors, the school nurse, and the IT coordinator); elementary school teachers (8); two groups of middle and high school faculty (14 participants overall), and learning coaches2 (3, all of whom were parents/guardians of elementary and middle school students).3

As of January 26, 2017, GCVS enrolled 720 students in grades Kindergarten through 12. On February 13, 2017, GCVS reported 80 students as either waitlisted and/or pending enrollment. The largest numbers of waitlisted students in grades 7 (22 students) and 8 (27 students); there was not a waitlist for the high school grades.

1 Participation in focus groups was not mutually exclusive.2 Per GCVS, a learning coach is a responsible adult who may also be the parent of a student enrolled in the school. An individual serving in the capacity of “learning coach” is not considered to be the student’s teacher. 3 As is standard in accountability reviews, ESE requested that GCVS assemble focus groups of elementary, middle, and high school students, because students provide critical insight on their learning experiences. As just one student participated in a focus group; student perception data are not reflected in this report.

Page 6 of 39

Ratings

Faithfulness to certificate

1. Mission and key design elements: Is faithful to its mission, implements the key design elements outlined in its certificate, and substantially meets its accountability plan goals.

Meets

2. Access and equity: Ensures program access and equity for all students eligible to attend the school.

Partially meets

3. Compliance: Compiles a record of compliance with the terms of its certificate and applicable state and federal laws and regulations.

Meets

Academic and program success

4. Student performance: Consistently meets state student performance standards for academic growth, proficiency, and college and career readiness.

District level: Level 3School percentile: 7

5. Program delivery: Delivers improved academic outcomes and educational success for all students.

a. Curriculum Partially meets

b. Instruction Partially meets

c. Assessment and program evaluation Partially meets

d. Diverse learners Meets

6. Culture and family engagement: Supports students’ social and emotional health in a safe and respectful learning environment that engages families.

a. Social, emotional, and health needs; family and community engagement Meets

Organizational viability

7. Capacity: Sustains a well-functioning organizational structure and creates a professional working climate for all staff.

a. School leadership Falls far below

b. Professional climate Partially meets

c. Contractual relationships Meets

8. Governance: Board of Trustees acts as public agents authorized by the state and provide competent governance to ensure success and sustainability.

Partially meets

9. Finance: Maintains a sound and stable financial condition that operates in a fiscally responsible and publicly accountable manner.

Meets

Rating Scale:

Exceeds Fully and consistently meets the criterion; potential exemplar

Meets Generally meets the criterion; minor concerns are noted

Partially Meets Meets some aspects of the criterion but not others and/or moderate concerns are noted

Falls far below Falls far below the criterion; significant concern(s) are noted

Page 7 of 39

Faithfulness to certificate

1. Mission and key design elementsRating: Meets Stakeholders are able to articulate a collective understanding of the mission and vision of the school.

Members of the school leadership, teacher/staff, and parent/learning coach focus groups collectively expressed that GCVS provides high quality educational opportunities for diverse learners (including but not limited to gifted and talented students, students with chronic medical issues, and students with emotional disabilities) in a safe, flexible environment that encourages every student to think critically and develop a sense of independence that will enable them to be successful. GCVS staff and teachers see this work as a partnership with parents/guardians, many of whom report more frequent communication with GCVS staff than in their child’s prior brick-and-mortar school.

GCVS leadership noted that enrollment increased in the 2016-17 school year, and several grade levels are currently waitlisted. In in their estimation, this indicates that GCVS is meeting an identified need; namely, that it affords access to a public education that would not be possible in traditional, brick-and-mortar settings. They did acknowledge, however, that the virtual environment did not meet the expectations and needs of some parents/guardians and students.

In November 2016 GCVS replaced the executive director with an interim leader. Per the senior leadership team, the school’s self-determined accountability indicators, last revised by the prior administration, need to be replaced with more manageable indicators. For example, they said there are too many indicators for a single organization to manage and that they need to be written using more consistent language. Accordingly, the team reported that, subsequent to their board’s March 2017 meeting, GCVS will provide ESE with new indicators for review and approval.

2. Access and equityRating: Partially Meets Although some documentation of an English language learner (ELL) program exists, the school does not have policies and procedures for students who may need to be classified as formerly ELL or that address the annual assessment of ELLs.

GCVS employs an English language learner (ELL) teacher, now in her third year at the school. The roles of the ELL and Title I director are currently performed by the interim executive director. At the time of the review, the school reporting serving six ELL students and four formerly LEP students. The team reviewed the school’s ESL policy, which describes the mission statement, educational philosophy (including the home language survey, placement process, parent/guardian notifications, classification as ELL, and a grid describing placement and instructional decisions based on the W-APT (World Class Instructional Design and Assessment — Access Placement Test). The document did not, however, detail policies or procedures for students who may need to be classified as formerly LEP or that address the annual assessment of ELLs.

Regarding the identification of students who may need English language education (ELE) services, all parents/guardians complete a home language survey at the time of enrollment. Subsequent to that, the ELL teacher contacts parents/guardians to learn more about the student’s history, and travels to their location to administer the W-APT to establish a baseline level of English proficiency. W-APT results and other information are used to place students in the appropriate courses.

The school’s ELE curriculum is Imagine Learning, a language and literacy software program. The ELL teacher reported that the program is easy to use, complements the regular curriculum, and has functionality that enables the provision of student work in multiple languages, if needed.

The special education department is comprised of a director, an administrative assistant, a psychologist, and 5 teachers. According to data provided by the school, as of January 26, 2017, GCVS served 132 students with disabilities. The most common disability types are specific learning disabilities (28), autism (27), emotional disabilities (21), health-related disabilities (19), and communication disabilities (11).

Evidence from focus groups and online lessons (to the extent observable) indicates that GCVS supports special education students within the general education setting through inclusionary practices. For example, special education teachers can interact with students on a one-to-one basis via private chat or in smaller “breakout

Page 8 of 39

sessions” during lessons. In addition, special education teachers perform such functions as preparing word banks, pre-teaching vocabulary, and providing students with organizers and templates. Special education teachers meet with regular education teachers on a weekly basis.

As required by state law, GCVS has a Special Education Parent Advisory Council. The council is led by parents/guardians with input from the special education director, although all parents/guardians, not just those of students with disabilities, are invited to participate. Per the focus groups, the council meets monthly online. The council provides feedback to the administration and arranges information sessions and other activities for parents/guardians. Per the instructional leadership team, the council is the source of much of the anecdotal data around the effectiveness of the instructional program in retaining students with disabilities.

3. ComplianceRating: Meets Evidence indicates that GCVS complies with state and federal laws and regulations.

ESE oversees local compliance with education requirements through the Coordinated Program Review (CPR) process, which encompasses both state and federal education laws and regulations in the areas of special education, civil rights, and English learner education. In preparation for a full review in FY2020, GCVS will undergo a needs assessment process in FY2019.4 As of the date of this report, the review team was not aware of any incidents of noncompliance.

Academic and program success

4. Student performanceThe school is classified into Level 3 of the state’s accountability and assistance system is at the 7th percentile of all middle/high schools and K-12 schools in the Commonwealth.

In the 2015-16 school year GCVS administered computer-based Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) tests in English language arts/literacy (ELA/L) and mathematics to students in grades 3-8; the remainder took paper-based Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) tests in ELA and Mathematics (grade 10) and Science and Technology/Engineering (STE) tests in grades 5, 8, and 10.5

In ELA/L, the percentage of GCVS students scoring Meeting or Exceeding Expectations on 2015 PARCC tests in grades 3-8 was below state averages, except for grade 5 (see Figure 1).6 In grade 10, 82% of GCVS students scored Proficient or higher on 2015 MCAS tests, compared to 91% statewide (see Figure 3); in 2016, 100% of GCVS students in grade 10 scored Proficient or higher, compared to 91% statewide (See Figure 4).

In mathematics, the percentage of GCVS students scoring Meeting or Exceeding Expectations on 2015 PARCC tests in grades 3-8 was below state averages (see Figure 2).7 In grade 10, 64% of GCVS students scored Proficient or higher on 2015 MCAS tests, compared to 79% statewide (see Figure 3); in 2016, 58% of GCVS students in grade 10 scored Proficient or higher, compared to 78% statewide (See Figure 4).

In STE, 49% of grade 5 GCVS students scored Proficient or higher on 2015 MCAS tests compared to 51% statewide; 27% of grade 8 students scored Proficient or higher compared to 42% statewide (see Figure 3); in 2016, 73% of GCVS students in grade 10 scored Proficient or higher, compared to 73% statewide (See Figure 4).

4 http://www.doe.mass.edu/pqa/review/cpr/6yrcycle.html?district=M 5 Spring 2016 state-level achievement and growth results in grades 3-8 ELA and Mathematics are not reported because most students in Massachusetts participated in the PARCC test. Spring 2016 results in grades 3-8 ELA and Mathematics are not reported because all students in this organization participated in the PARCC test.6 Spring 2016 state-level achievement and growth results in grades 3-8 ELA are not reported because some students in Massachusetts participated in the MCAS test.7 Spring 2016 state-level achievement and growth results in grades 3-8 mathematics are not reported because some students in Massachusetts participated in the MCAS test.

Page 9 of 39

Page 10 of 39

Page 11 of 39

Massachusetts’ progress and performance index (PPI) combines information about narrowing proficiency gaps, growth, and graduation and dropout rates over multiple years into a single number. All districts, schools, and student subgroups receive an annual PPI based on improvement over a two-year period and a cumulative PPI between 0 and 100 based on four years of data. For a group to be making progress toward narrowing proficiency gaps, its cumulative PPI must be 75 or higher. Over the four-year period between 2011-12 and 2014-15, GCVS received an annual PPI of 90, 80, 38, and 58, respectively. In 2016 GCVS did not make sufficient progress toward closing proficiency gaps (cumulative PPI of 60). The performance of GCVS with respect to each of the indicators that make up the PPI is provided in the following table.

Page 12 of 39

Indicator (All Students) 2015 Rating 2016 RatingEnglish Language ArtsNarrowing proficiency gaps Declined Improved Below TargetGrowth Improved Below Target Below TargetExtra credit for decreasing % Warning/Failing (10% or more) No

No

Extra credit for increasing % Advanced (10% or more) Yes YesMathematicsNarrowing proficiency gaps Improved Below Target No ChangeGrowth On Target Below TargetExtra credit for decreasing % Warning/Failing (10% or more) No

No

Extra credit for increasing % Advanced (10% or more) Yes NoScienceNarrowing proficiency gaps Improved Below Target DeclinedExtra credit for decreasing % Warning/Failing (10% or more) No

No

Extra credit for increasing % Advanced (10% or more) Yes NoHigh school indicatorsAnnual dropout rate Improved Below Target *Cohort graduation rate Insufficient Data **English language acquisitionExtra credit for high growth on ACCESS for ELLs assessment Insufficient Data Insufficient DataAssessment participationEnglish Language Arts 95% 97%Mathematics 95% 97%Science 92% 96%*While not included in the 2016 rating, the 2015-16 dropout rate was 28.7% (51 students) and the 2014-15 dropout rate was 9.5% (13 students).** While not included in the 2016 rating, the 2015-16 four-year graduation rate was 40% (45 students); in 2015 it was 22.2% (27 students).

Massachusetts calculates school percentiles, an indication of the school's overall performance relative to other schools that serve the same or similar grades. In 2016 GCVS placed at the 7th percentile (on a 1-99 scale) of all middle/high schools and K-12 schools in the Commonwealth. The school’s White and high needs subgroups were among the lowest 20% of schools statewide. In addition, in 2016 the following subgroups did not meet the 95% threshold required for assessment participation8:

ELA: Students with disabilities (92%); African American/Black (94%); Hispanic/Latino (94%) Mathematics: Students with disabilities (92%) Science: High needs (93%)

Despite the school’s poor performance in mathematics, the senior leadership team said that while GCVS had conducted a preliminary analysis of MCAS and PARCC data from the spring 2016 testing cycle, the school had yet to use the data to inform curriculum or instruction.9

8 In 2016, assessment participation was calculated two ways: First, the 2016 participation rate for each subgroup in each subject area test was calculated. If the actual 2016 participation rate was lower than 95% for any group in any subject, that rate was compared to the average of the most recent two years of assessment participation data for that group and subject. The higher of the two resulting rates was factored into the assignment of the school or district's 2016 accountability and assistance level.9 On the 2016 PARCC tests in mathematics, 29% of GCVS students in grades 3-8 scored Meeting or Exceeding Expectations.

Page 13 of 39

5. Program delivery - CurriculumRating: Partially meets The percentage of state standards wholly dependent on teacher-created materials in history and social science curricula is relatively high in certain grade levels.

The school leadership focus groups signaled that there have not been many academic changes in 2016-17, qualifying that in the current school year they are continuing to review the K12 curriculum against the Massachusetts curriculum frameworks and identifying teacher-developed materials of the curriculum to address gaps. 10 According to the focus groups, one of the reasons a director of curriculum and digital learning was hired was to ensure stronger alignment of the school's curriculum to the frameworks. Based on files provided to the review team, documentation of alignment between the ELA curriculum and the frameworks was last modified on September 10, 2015; mathematics on October 13, 2016; history and social science on May 5, 2016; and science and technology/engineering on November 11, 2014.

The documentation listed all of the standards in the frameworks and the corresponding course, unit, and lesson from the K12 curriculum. Of 2,996 documented standards, approximately 191 standards, or 6%, appeared to be wholly dependent on teacher-developed materials.11 History and social science was highest (16%); the other subjects were 2% or less.

As noted in the access and equity section of this report, GCVS utilizes Imagine Learning for use with its ELL students in fall 2015. The school provided a copy of the Imagine Learning “Lesson Guide by Curriculum Area: A Scope and Sequence” (Version 14.0, June 2014). While staff reported that the school “provides instruction based on district-level ESL curriculum that is aligned to the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks and integrates components of the WIDA ELD standards frameworks,” implementation of the WIDA ELD standards was not observed in lessons observed by the team.12

10 GCVS can bill K12 any work it has to do to address gaps in the K12 curriculum.11 Like most public schools, GCVS encourages its teachers to supplement and enhance the core curriculum with teacher-developed materials. The purpose of the review was to identify the extent to which instruction in particular subjects, standards, or grade levels appeared to be entirely dependent on teacher-developed materials, which potentially increases variability of instructional quality.12 “ELD” stands for “English Development Standards.”

Page 14 of 39

5. Program delivery - InstructionRating: Partially meets Observed lessons showed variability in the execution of schoolwide practices, expectations for ensuring student understanding, and demonstration of higher order thinking skills.

In response to the probationary conditions imposed by the Board in October 2014, GCVS developed a strategic plan for improving instruction in the core academic subjects. The plan articulated the school’s instructional priorities in the following areas: climate, alignment, engagement, time, model, differentiation, understanding, and complexity.13 The leadership teams developed a rubric to monitor the delivery of online lessons, with an emphasis on gauging student understanding, critical thinking, and engagement. In the fall of 2015, GCVS doubled the amount of synchronous lessons taught each week and required students to attend them. Beginning in 2016-17, all online lessons are recorded for students, learning coaches, and teachers to review later, as needed.

Between January 24, 2017 and March 3, 2017, the review team observed 21 online lessons comprising over 1,100 minutes of instruction. The average lesson was 56 minutes long; the average class size was 16 students, ranging from 2 to 29 student participants. All lessons, apart from two, featured one instructor. Team members recorded their observations on a common observation form. Prior to conducting observations of online lessons, ESE asked GCVS to give descriptions of expected practices aligned to ESE’s criteria for lesson observations (Appendix B). The percentage of lessons observed that exhibited these practices are provided in the graph below.

In 57% of online lessons observed, instructional practices exhibited sufficient or consistent evidence of the school’s overall model (“model” in the graph above; in the November 2015 renewal inspection review it was 30% and in the March 2015 review it was 41%). As the elements of the model match ESE’s lesson observation indicators, the team’s findings with respect to each are provided below.

In 67% of lessons observed, students were challenged to develop and use skills such as analyzing, creating, and evaluating (“complexity” above; in the November 2015 review it was 39%; in the March 2015 review it was 57%). In one lesson students were asked to analyze a primary text document. The teacher's questions required analytical thinking, and there were no "yes/no" questions. Questions included "What hidden reasons for his position can we find in the text?" and activities, such as evaluating song lyrics to understand a historical argument, helped students develop their own interpretations of the text. However, it was not clear whether all students were demonstrating complex knowledge and skills, because not all students actively participated in the lesson. This was also true of a

13 The priority areas align with the Department’s online observation protocol.

Page 15 of 39

lesson that featured students’ analysis of narratives and using evidence to support their reasoning. In several lessons, teachers did not use discipline-specific vocabulary that are typical for a content area, or posed questions that elicited literal responses or basic recall of information. In one lesson, while completing the problems described and assigned during the lesson required higher order thinking, there was no evidence that the students actually engaged in solving the problems.

Of the lessons observed, 76% of lessons demonstrated consistent or sufficient evidence of teachers checking for student understanding (“understanding” above; in the December 2015 review it was 58%; in the March 2015 review it was 70%). In most lessons, the teacher utilized one of more of the following checks for understanding techniques: cold calling, participation reminders, do-now, chat feature, whiteboard privileges, breakout rooms, microphone, polling, pair work, active reading techniques, and exit tickets. In one lesson the teacher used a "do now" that required students to listen to and offer analysis of a song about the lesson topic. There were multiple uses of the "thumbs up/thumbs down" emoticon to check for student understanding and readiness, and the teacher placed all students into think-pair-share groups and was thus able to assess conversations among small teams. In one case, the teacher explicitly praised a student’s ability to draw connections between the current discussion and prior learning. In another lesson, all students expressed what they knew or to apply it to the polling problems given. The chat box and polling tool were utilized to help the teacher gauge student understanding. In some instances, teacher feedback was provided in the form of a “yes” or “now” answer to let students know if their responses were correct, but in other cases teachers provided more detailed feedback. Although more than half of lessons exhibited checks for understanding, the degree to which these checks demonstrated “rigor” as defined in the school’s Guide to Achieving Rigor varied.14

In 81% of lessons, instruction featured content and skills aligned to grade level standards and students’ educational needs (“alignment” above; in the November 2015 review it was 55%, and in the March 2015 review it was 72%). In most instances the state standard and learning objectives were posted. However, the degree to which they were reviewed in student-friendly language or explained varied; as such, it was challenging at times for the observer to know the objective or learning outcomes of the lesson.

In 81% of lessons, the delivery of activities, materials, and strategies were varied to support the needs of diverse learners (“differentiation” above; in the November 2015 review it was 50%, and in the March 2015 review it was 59%). The tools utilized, including the whiteboard in the main room and the breakout rooms, enabled students to work individually and the teacher to check for understanding. In general, however, students all demonstrated their learning in about the same way; the majority of lessons were teacher-directed and led, and all students appeared to be doing the same activities. In classes where differentiation was observed, multiple learning modalities were offered. In one lesson, students used songs, videos, primary source texts, and large-and small-group discussion to engage with the material. Students could make contributions aloud via the microphone, type using that chat function, or offer comments via the whiteboard. One teacher shared aloud the original text of Hamilton's remarks on the Louisiana Purchase, and asked students to listen for the main themes, despite the complexity of the language. The teacher then shared a simplified, modernized version of the same text for students to discuss.

In 90% of lessons, available learning time was maximized for all students (“time” above; in the November 2015 review it was 50%, and in the March 2015 review it was 68%). Lessons that met this criterion began and ended on time, and featured most or all of the school’s instructional practices. Teachers demonstrated dexterity with transitions and managed technology issues, such as microphone glitches. Students also appeared to be comfortable using the technology. In one lesson the teacher followed the model closely, with the addition of a short break time activity halfway through the lesson. The timing matched up with what was expected, and the lesson concluded exactly 5 minutes prior to the stated end time for students to complete the exit ticket. The teacher closed her video several minutes early, but remained online via the chat box to respond to questions from students. A lesson that did not maximize learning time featured an “ice breaker” that lasted most of the lesson. Another lesson, intended as a review of material covered previously, featured many students who did not appear to understand the material. As the teacher noted that many students had missed the prior lesson, this was a potential indication that the lesson was not a review for many.

In 95% of lessons, classroom practices fostered student engagement (“engagement” above; in the November 2015 review it was 62 and in the March 2015 review it was about 76%). Sessions demonstrating high levels of student engagement featured activities throughout that were varied and engaging. For example, one lesson featured a

14 The GCVS Guide to Achieving Rigor expects instruction to feature “higher order questions,” “higher level responses,” students “to be able to answer at a higher level,” students “held accountable for his or her understanding,” and students demonstrating the ability to “make and defend claims with evidence.”

Page 16 of 39

warm-up activity that involved watching a video and answering a question via Google Form; at several points the teacher asked open-ended questions to check for understanding, employed active reading techniques, enabled video sharing, and engaged in thoughtful questioning. Of note, however, while there were 22 students in the class, only about 7 actively participated in discussion. In another lesson, breakout rooms let students familiarize themselves with the reading before they came together as a group. Icebreaker activities were often effectively used to engage students at the outset of the lesson, while also serving as a means of checking for understanding of content addressed in earlier lessons. Other engagement strategies including asking students to give the teacher a thumbs up or post a green check. However, in some cases this was the only strategy used to elicit engagement. In these and other lessons where students did not appear to be actively participating, the review team was unable to gauge the level of true engagement in the lesson.

Across lessons, the majority (95%) exhibited sufficient or consistent evidence that the climate was characterized by clear routines, respectful relationships, behaviors, tones, and discourse (“climate” above; in the November 2015 review it was 81%, and in the March 2015 review it was 87%). In most lessons, teachers were visible in the video pod and warmly greeted students as they entered, sometimes by name. In general, students were courteous. A few instances of distracted behavior were observed, such as students engaging in side conversations during lessons or using social media. For the most part, however, teachers interceded to address off-topic chatter and reminded students to stay on task.

5. Program delivery - Assessment and program evaluationRating: Partially meets While the school conducted a preliminary analysis of state assessment data, it has not applied this analysis to inform program evaluation and delivery. The school has changed several policies and programs to better prepare learning coaches to support their children and to improve student attendance.

According to the senior leadership team, GCVS performed a preliminary analysis of state assessment data from the spring 2016 testing cycle, the results of which were shared with staff in mid-December 2016. Although at least one individual teacher reported focusing on long composition and open response questions because of state assessment results, the team found no evidence of systematic application of the analysis of state assessment data by teachers or administrators.

Focus groups reported that GCVS is bringing a more academic focus to face-to-face activities with students and parents/guardians, as well as differentiating them by grade level. For example, students visited a museum for Black History Month in grade level teams and engaged in “structured” learning experiences organized and led by teachers.

GCVS is continuing its focus on building the capacity of learning coaches to support students through orientations and trainings. Focus groups reported that because parents/guardians often enroll their children based solely on what they learned from advertisements and marketing materials, they often make “uninformed choices” – either they did not anticipate the workload expected of learning coaches and students, or they underestimated the rigor of the curriculum. At present, the first point of contact for most parents/guardians are K12 staff. The leadership and board focus groups indicated that they are working with K12 to “put the school at the forefront of the process.”

GCVS indicated that analysis of exit data found that many parents/guardians thought that the virtual school was an extension of homeschooling, not subject to all of the requirements of public schools, including student attendance. According to the focus groups, many parents/guardians are not aware of the requirement that students must be online during prescribed times, a policy instituted at the beginning of the 2016-17 school year. Elementary teachers reported that attendance in online lessons has improved over the prior school year, while middle school teachers reported varying levels of attendance. The school has formed an “attendance task force” that uses login data to target parents/guardians and students who appear to be disengaged in the program. In addition to direct outreach, teachers are using Google Forms to track student attendance and participation (versus login data). The focus groups report that the task force is using this data to examine how students’ grades are impacted by their attendance.

GCVS reports, and data from School and District Profiles supports that the school’s retention rate for students with disabilities has improved.15 The school attributes this positive trend in part to the school's revamped student intervention team process, which tries to be more proactive in the process for identifying students who may need extra support.

15 The percentage of students with disabilities enrolled as of October 1 who stayed for the full year: 68.9% stable in 2015-16; 45.8% stable in 2014-15; and 20.9% stable in 2013-14. Mobility rates are available on ESE’s website.

Page 17 of 39

Teachers are trained to assess the learning needs of students in their classes in small group and one-on-one settings. At the team level, the school’s student intervention team (SIT), composed of the reading specialist, math interventionist, and Title I/ELL coordinator, conduct weekly “data driven instruction” meetings for teachers to examine progress, particularly for students who may be below grade level. In addition to developing district curriculum accommodation plans (DCAPs) 16 that point students to specific resources, teacher teams use the school’s online learning system tracker to flag for intervention students who are 20% behind their work as of the first quarter and 40% behind as of the second quarter. The leadership focus groups reported that because of this strategy, the percentage of students at these levels has been reduced.

5. Program delivery - Diverse learnersRating: Partially meets The school supports diverse learners through its student intervention team, the provision of assistive technology and related services, and parent/guardian outreach by family engagement coordinators. However, certain policies and procedures were lacking for English language learners (ELLs).

The focus groups reported that GCVS serves a student population with diverse needs, including students who receive special education services in partial inclusion and separate settings. In addition, the school serves a large number of students with emotional or other disabilities that make it difficult for them to engage or interact with others. The school has developed “progression plans” for students with anxiety to help them log in to the program consistently. In addition, special education teachers provide a variety of supports for learning coaches such as coping strategies and role plays. In the last four years, the percentage of students enrolled at GCVS who receive special education services has steadily increased.

For incoming students with existing individualized education programs (IEPs), GCVS reported using Fountas and Pinell to determine students’ reading levels and observing students in inclusion settings. If a student has an IEP evaluation in process, GCVS works with the sending district to complete the process. They will also make arrangements to retain counselors from the brick and mortar schools if the student has an especially strong connection to them.

When asked about the procedures for students who are newly identified as in need of special education services, the school indicated that it "reinvigorated" the student intervention team (SIT), mainly by including more staff in the process.17 For example, the high school guidance counselor is invited to participate in all IEP meetings. The SIT, which meets on a weekly basis, established a tiered system of support followed by a referral process, if needed. The

16 A DCAP is meant to assist principals in ensuring that all efforts have been made to meet students’ needs in regular education programming.17 The SIT includes the Title I director/ELL coordinator, the head program administrator for K12, the special education director, the school psychologist, three family engagement coordinators, and the high school guidance counselor. As stated previously, the SIT reviews multiple sources of data to make placement decisions.

Page 18 of 39

referral committee consists of guidance counselors, the interim director of curriculum and digital learning, and teachers.

The school uses information from each student’s IEP to determine when to provide assistive technology. GCVS indicated that it utilizes Read&Write GOLD, text-to-speech software that simultaneously reads to students while highlighting text; Dragon Speech recognition software for read-aloud; and BookShare, read-aloud software for students with print disabilities. Writing pads are available for students with fine motor disabilities. GCVS provides training for learning coaches in supporting students' use of assistive technologies. As many assistive technologies and accommodations are only visible to the students who use them, the team was unable to verify their use during online observations.

Though a January 27, 2017 contract with Presence Learning, GCVS provides speech-language pathology, occupational therapy (OT), and behavioral and mental health services via secure, live online video sessions. As of the date of the review, a total of 35 students were receiving such services; one learning coach said that OT improved her son’s handwriting and typing skills.

GCVS encourages all students to continue to attend classes, even if they are hospitalized. For example, if a student is hospitalized for mental health issues, the school will obtain a release to maintain contact with the student, their parent/guardian and the hospital. The student’s teachers can then adjust goals, content coverage and assignments within the LMS. Students with chronic medical issues can access the curriculum on evenings, weekends and during vacation when they are able.

As indicated in the access and equity section, the review team was unable to find documentation describing the classification of or services for students who are formerly LEP, or potentially eligible to be reclassified as formerly LEP. In addition, while documentation clarified the initial screening process for identifying students who may require ELL services and supports, there was no information that described the annual assessment of ELLs- how, when, and related decision-making processes.

6. School culture and family engagementSocial, emotional, and health needs; family and community engagementRating for both indicators: Meets Guidance counselors and family engagement coordinators help learning coaches and students adjust to the virtual environment, support students’ nonacademic needs, and create a sense of community through face-to-face and virtual activities.

GCVS employs two guidance counselors and two family engagement coordinators (in 2015-16 there were three staff responsible for working with students and parents/guardians in specific grade spans (elementary, middle, and high school). As members of the SIT, the counselors monitor student progress toward being on track for graduation, coordinate FEV Tutoring18 services and SAT administration, and analyze MCAS data.

The counselors reported emphasizing a culture of college and career readiness starting in kindergarten. A monthly guidance curriculum, delivered to students by grade level, is built around developing career readiness skills, career exploration, and college knowledge. For high school students, a freshman “boot camp” covers YourPlanForTheFuture, a free, online tool designed to help Massachusetts students manage their educational and career pathways. GCVS also sponsors biweekly, “hands-on” tutorials. Topics include MCAS participation, course selection decisions, registering for the SAT and ACT (for juniors), and understanding the Common Application (for seniors). Weekly guidance tips for seniors are disseminated via Kmail, and include such topics as college readiness, job shadowing and internships19, and a midyear senior questionnaire gathered information on postsecondary planning. Counselors are available to meet with students individually upon request.

The family engagement coordinators reported that they conduct biweekly meetings with high school students in order to give them a voice in the affairs of GCVS. They encourage student membership in the National Honor Society, student government day, and a peer tutoring program.

Focus group members said that students are developing closer relationships with staff, as observed by interactions at outings and the formation of study groups.

18 FEV Tutoring provides virtual one-to-one tutoring services.19 GCVS reported difficulty forming relationships with area organizations for job-shadow or internship opportunities; however, the school does help students navigate local opportunities, if initiated by the student.

Page 19 of 39

Teachers indicated they communicate with learning coaches/families on a daily basis, predominantly through K-Mail, which functions as the school's documenting and communication system. Members of the K-5 teacher focus group cited learning coach/parent/guardian engagement as one of the greatest challenges to teaching in the online context. They indicated the need for parents/guardians to have the “capacity” to support and sustain student learning at home, including their presence in the virtual classroom.

Learning coaches said they were pleased with the efforts GCVS is making to create a community and encourage contact with other learning coaches. They cited face-to-face meetings in addition to committee opportunities such as serving on the Special Education Parent Advisory Council (SEPAC). They talked about students forming friendships through the face-to-face outings. According to the focus groups, face-to-face meetings have included:

Back-to-school picnics in Hadley, Cambridge, Bourne, and Shrewsbury (early September 2016) Title I Strong Start program in Springfield, Worcester, New Bedford, and Lowell (late September/early

October 2016) Zoo outings in Mendon, Boston, and Ludlow (October 2016) High school bowling in Auburn and Chicopee (October 2016) Historically-themed visits to Old Sturbridge Village and Plimouth Plantation (November 2016) Gingerbread Mathematics Extravaganza at the Charlton Public Library (mid-December 2016) Museum/science outing at the Boston Museum of Science and Ecotarium in Worcester (January 2017) Events at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston and the Springfield for Black History Month (February 2017)

Learning coaches of students in grades K through 5 reported that their students communicate with one another online using LMS tools such as the microphone and the chat function. They referenced collaborative projects that have been helpful for students with anxiety due to peer support, and said that teachers try to pair more talkative with less talkative students to encourage dialogue. Across learning coaches, there was a consistent theme of coaching students to become more independent as they get older. They expressed appreciation for the flexibility of the program, the access they have to school administration and the family engagement coordinator function.

GCVS sponsors monthly web-based “learning coach community meetings.” In addition, the interim executive director reported initiating a blog as a means of outreach to families. A review of the blog indicates three posts between December 9, 2016 and February 14, 2017.

GCVS administered a 17-question parent/guardian survey in fall 2016 on a wide range of topics. Of the 139 respondents, the majority were parents of students in grades 7 and 8 (42) and grades 9-12 (55). The percentage of parents/guardians responding “frequently: or “always” to the prompts is provided below:

61% - “My son/daughter is able to complete his/her assignments with limited assistance.” 83% - “Teachers express clear expectations in communicating what the student is expected to learn.” 57% - “There are opportunities for students to learn from each other.” 68% - “Students and parents are kept aware of how well the student is doing in school.” 93% - My student has had clear guidelines on safe online behavior.” 81% - “The school and parents work together to achieve school goals.” 85% - “I feel like I understand my role as my son/daughter’s Learning Coach.” 75% - “I feel effective with what I am doing as a Learning Coach.” 73% - “Overall, I am satisfied with academic progress my child is making.” 79% - “Overall, I am satisfied with the teacher support provided in my child's program.”

When asked about areas in which they might like additional instruction for their children:20

39% cited more small math group instruction during the day 37% did not prefer additional instruction 28% cited more social/emotional support programs 22% cited more mentoring 19% cited more small group reading during the day 18% cited summer school instruction (in reading, mathematics, or science)

When asked about the extent to which their children participated in specialized programs over the last 12 months:

55% cited small group mathematics instruction 54% cited tutoring through FEV Tutoring 42% cited small group reading instruction

20 Selected findings; all percentages are rounded.

Page 20 of 39

Organizational viability

7. Capacity – School leadershipRating: Falls far below In the past six months, the school has experienced high turnover on the senior leadership team. Most of the activities of the senior leadership team have focused on policy and operational priorities rather than instruction, raising significant concerns for student and staff support.

GCVS has two leadership structures. The first is the senior leadership team, comprised of the executive director and all other directors (student services; curriculum and instruction; business management) within the school, which is focused on operations and structures to enable instruction.

The second leadership structure is the instructional leadership team (ILT). The ILT is comprised of the members of the senior leadership team, plus the team leaders, family engagement coordinators, guidance counselors, school nurse, IT coordinator, and K12 operations manager. This group has focused much of its energy on the SIT process and the development of a DCAP to strengthen the school’s ability to provide a coherent system of tiered instructional supports that are clearly understood by faculty and used appropriately to support struggling learners.

Except for the director of special education, who has been with GCVS for four years, the entire senior leadership team is new to GCVS in 2016-17. In mid-September 2016, the executive director left GCVS, an event that is not reflected in the minutes of the board meetings, and the board hired an interim leader within 10 days. Between September 2016 and February 2017, the position of business manager turned over once and the position of director of curriculum and digital learning turned over once. At the time of the visit, a key priority of the interim executive director was hiring a permanent executive director; the board’s hiring committee was engaged in identifying finalists among the 36 applicants for the position.

Much of the work of the two leadership teams have been at the policy and operational levels rather than instructional. For example, although GCVS successfully administered computer-based PARCC tests over the last two testing cycles, it applied for a waiver of the computer-based MCAS for spring 2017 and was identifying testing sites for the paper-based MCAS. In the meantime, the team was identifying locations where computer-based testing could be administered securely and without interruption. Although members of the teams said they were exploring tools like BKLSchoolVision to create a data dashboard that will help teachers use data to guide instruction, GCVS has not used MCAS data to inform curricular or instructional systems.

According to the interim executive director, the school’s current ESE-approved accountability plan has too many goals for a single organization, and many goals are written as objectives, not measurable goals. The team is undergoing an analysis of “strengths, challenges, opportunities, and threats” to identify new accountability goals for GCVS that purportedly will involve teachers and staff.

Members of the focus groups said that the recent administrative changes have been “scary” and that the administration’s leadership style is very different. Although focus group members provided evidence of their dedication to the school’s mission and genuine caring for the welfare of students, morale within the school is driven by their own perception of collective efficacy rather than explicit direction from school leadership.

7. Capacity – Professional climateRating: Partially meets While the school has structures for supervision and professional development, staff were unable to collectively articulate a clear process for educator evaluation.

Teachers and staff reported that the GCVS does not have a clearly-defined teacher evaluation process, although focus group members were able to articulate certain elements of a process. However, it was unclear to the review team which elements were carried over from the previous executive director and which were elements of the new administration. Teacher focus group members attributed the lack of a clearly-defined educator evaluation system to the turnover in the senior leadership team. They did indicate that they understood their expectations as teachers and that lines of communication exist between teachers and the administration, and they said that “individual learning plans” exist for all teachers, derived from mylearningplan.com, an online platform. This is also the platform purportedly used by school leadership to exchange feedback with teachers.

Page 21 of 39

At the time of the review, GCVS employed 5 elementary, 5 middle school, and 7 high school teachers. In a change from 2015-16, all teachers are now employees of GCVS rather than K12. As was the case last year, teachers are organized into teams by these grade spans. In addition to general education teachers, each team has a team leader, a special education teacher, mathematics and reading specialists, and a family engagement coordinator. The team leaders (who are also members of the ILT) meet twice monthly, on the second and fourth Tuesdays of the month, to convey key priorities to the teams and identify issues to raise with senior leadership team. The teams meet in the afternoons, from 1:00-4:00 pm, to not interfere with live class instruction. While in-person meetings were once required at least once per month, all meetings now take place virtually, using either Google video chat or by opening a classroom within the K12 platform. The interim curriculum director sits in on these meetings on a regular basis to check in with teachers and to address issues and concerns. Teachers also said they have weekly conversations with administrators and that, in general, they receive more “hands-on support and feedback” from their supervisors at GCVS than they did in the brick and mortar setting. For example, the interim director of curriculum and digital learning has been supporting them in setting “SMART” goals.

The special education teachers and guidance counselors are supervised by the special education director; general education teachers are supervised by the interim director of curriculum and digital learning. GCVS models their teacher observations on ESE’s online observation indicators (described in the instruction section of this report). According to the senior leadership team, all teachers are supposed to be observed formally three times, either in real-time or as recordings. They share the findings of teacher observations in a debrief that occurs directly after the lesson and in written form within a week of the lesson. Based on the varied responses from teachers, it was unclear to the review team the extent to which all teachers were consistently observed, however.

The review team was provided with a calendar that indicated GCVS teachers received three weeks of professional development in the summer before the school year. In addition, the calendar provides for three “work days” in November, January, and April. For November, topics included the educator evaluation system, curriculum mapping and work time for report cards. The January 2017 agenda referenced the evaluation process; members of the teacher focus groups also said this work day concentrated on the evidence they needed for their digital portfolios. Other documents provided by GCVS included a December 2016 presentation titled “2016 state test data overview,” a March 3, 2016 presentation titled “Accommodations for MCAS” and a draft document titled “MAVA Teacher Best Practices Guide 2016-2017.”

Members of the teacher focus groups described a teacher mentoring initiative in which new teachers, or teachers new to GCVS, receive support via monthly meetings with a mentor during their first year. While some topics are predetermined, mentees can also raise their own topics. Mentors track mentee participation on a spreadsheet in a shared drive.

7. Capacity – Contractual relationshipsRating: Meets The school currently has a year-to-year contract with K12 to provide a learning management system, curriculum, and enrollment and technical support services.

GCVS has a year-to-year contract with K12, a virtual school provider based in Herndon, Virginia. The most recent version of the contract, approved by the Commissioner on February 1, 2017, addressed a concern the GCVS board had with customer service and clarified the process for tracking parent/guardian requests for computers.

Teachers reported that K12 provides both live and asynchronous trainings on content in the beginning of the school year; most of these trainings are self-directed, and teachers reported that they are self-explanatory and simple to navigate. As teachers complete certain trainings, they move on to new trainings, which are accessible any time.

A manager of operations, an employee of K12, is on site and assists GCVS staff with LMS issues. K12 staff also assist GCVS in generating statistical reports for ESE.

8. GovernanceRating: Partially meets

Page 22 of 39

While the board has taken steps to document its practices and self-assess its performance, meeting minutes and documentation provided to the review team are not sufficiently detailed.

The five-member GCVS board includes two former members of the Greenfield School Committee, a parent of two children enrolled in the school, and individuals with backgrounds in virtual and higher education.21 At the time of the review, the board was conducting a search for a permanent executive director; as of this writing, the GCVS board had voted unanimously to extend a full-time offer to the interim executive director.

Members of the board focus group indicated that it conducted a facilitated retreat in spring 2016 to create a set of documents, inclusive of norms and an outline of general responsibilities, to serve as orientation materials for new board members (with respect to recruiting new members, individual board members have communicated with prospective members but have not proposed the addition of any new members to ESE). A second retreat is planned for spring 2017 to continue this work and address other priorities.

Following the review, the board provided a copy of its strategic plan to ESE. Goals included improving student achievement, recruiting and training individuals interested in careers as virtual school teachers, developing partnerships with area school districts to serve students with unique needs that could benefit from the virtual experience, and hiring a strong and stable administrative team. Board members noted, for example, that it tracks its graduates as evidence of the efficacy of a virtual education, and is seeking multiple measures of student success to see how GCVS is meeting the needs of diverse learners.

In the past, the board used the state’s superintendent evaluation rubric to evaluate the executive director, but was unsure how to evaluate the interim executive director (and requested assistance from ESE to that end).

The review team examined the minutes of the board meetings conducted in June, July, August, November, and December 2016, and found they lacked sufficient detail regarding items discussed and decisions made. In addition, they could not find information about the departure of the prior executive director.

9. FinanceRating: Meets The school’s most recent financial audit and end-of-year financial report indicate that it maintains a sound and stable financial condition and operates in a financially sound, publicly accountable manner.

A review of the school’s most recent financial audit (for the period ending June 30, 2016), conducted by Moriarty & Primack, P.C. and accepted by the GCVS board on December 12, 2016, found that the school operates in accordance with the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) and did not identify any deficiencies in internal controls that it considered to be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies. The audit did note that GCVS “incurred $4,854,821 in actual expenditures compared to budgeted expenditures of $4,832,152” and explained that the major reason for the difference ($22,669) “is related to unanticipated special education expenditures and increases in rental fees for testing." Financial statements reflect that, per conditions imposed by the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, GCVS had established a restricted escrow account in the amount of $100,000 to pay for any potential closing, legal, and audit expenses associated with closure, should that occur.

The instructional management fee and contractual arrangement with K12 is represented in the audit as follows:

“The School has an agreement with K12 Virtual Schools LLC to provide educational services to the School. This agreement is for a two year period ending on June 30, 2016. Educational services are provided and charged by K12 according to an approved price list. The agreement also includes an administrative services fee equal to 7.5% of the per pupil net tuition revenue and a technology services fee equal to 7.0% of per pupil net tuition revenue. All fees are paid monthly. The School paid $2,830,463 in 2016 and $2,607,161 in 2015 for these services. As of July 1, 2016, K12 is still providing services to the School and a new contract is in negotiations.”

In accordance with ESE guidelines, GCVS submitted its FY16 end of year financial report by January 23, 2017.

21 The GCVS board focus group consisted of 2 members, including the board chair and former board chair.

Page 23 of 39

Appendix A: GCVS annual goals, 2014-17Consistent with 603 CMR 52.02, GCVS submitted an accountability plan to ESE that articulated the goals it has set to measure success. On April 6, 2015, the GCVS board voted to approve revised annual goals through the 2016-17 school year. Provided below is the school’s assessment of whether each goal was met, not met, or no data was available, and evidence provided by the school to support this assessment. The school’s findings do not necessarily reflect those of ESE and will be subject to review as part of the certificate renewal process.

Annual Goals 2015-16 Evidence

Satisfaction goal 1

With a starting benchmark of 80%, and incrementally growing, 82% in 2014-15; 85% in 2014-15, and by School Year 2016-17, 87% or greater of families surveyed will respond as being overall satisfied within the areas of instruction, communication and support, as measured by the K-8 and High School Parent Survey.

1. Learning Coaches play a crucial role in our school. Ensuring that they feel that the curriculum of instruction is comprehensive, and the communication and support from teachers and administrators lays the foundations for student success in our program

2. Focus on 3 questions that address the overall satisfaction each year. Questions will focus on instruction, communication and support.

3. Use in-house survey and automated survey for anonymity and easy tabulation; provide parent testimonials in between survey sessions.

4. 3 focus questions will assist staff at the beginning of the year to identify strategies for improving family satisfaction. The staff will use these results of the second survey (to take place in late January) and share with staff to evaluate the efficacy and impact of those strategies.

5. Survey twice a year (Late January and Late June)

☒ Met□ Not Met□ No Data Available

Three questions from the Parent Survey were used to measure this goal. A total of 139 participants participated in the survey from which these data were compiled.

Question 4. Communication – 89.13% Parents were Sometimes Satisfied or better.

Question 6 Support – 95.59% Parents were Sometimes Satisfied or better.

Question 9 Instruction – 93.48% Parents were Sometimes Satisfied or better.

Page 24 of 39

Annual Goals 2015-16 Evidence

Satisfaction goal 2

Student Retention Goal: With a starting benchmark of 80%, and incrementally growing 82% in 2014-15; 86% in 2014-15, and by School Year 2016-17, 85% of students who transfer out of the school into other setting will express satisfaction with their experience at MAVA.

1. Develop a process to collect reasons and follow up with families not re- registering. This goal excludes dropouts.

2. We will use End of Year (EOY) SIMS data as a basis for calculating this goal – the previous number of transfers out plus dropouts from the previous year will be the marker for this goal. We will also pull a withdrawal report and consolidate withdrawal reasons. WD Reasons will be included.

3. As before, tie into school goals and actions to meet parent satisfaction goals.

4. Review in early fall after withdrawals complete around Oct. 1.

□ Met☒Not Met□ No Data Available

End of the year enrollment: 600 (per June 2016 SIMS report)

During the course of the year, 195 students withdrew from the school. Of that number, the following are reasons tied to parent satisfaction:

Family moved = 10 Family transferred to another state with a K12 offering = 10Graduated =2Learning Coach unavailable = 12Family situation changed =35Total tied to satisfaction: 69, 35.38%

In addition, the following reasons were cited as ones for withdrawal:Lack of student motivation = 3Insufficient socialization = 13Unable to manage daily education process = 25Accepted into preferred option = 3Student wants to get GED = 13Schedule not flexible enough = 12Don’t like offline model = 14Issue with teacher =1Insufficient support from school = 1Curriculum too easy =1Daily courseload too much = 1No show/Never attended = 21Truancy/Unknown = 22School attendance policy = 4

CONCLUSION: These data show the increased need for family engagement focus/opportunities.

Page 25 of 39

Annual Goals 2015-16 Evidence

Satisfaction goal 3

With a starting benchmark of 80%, and incrementally growing 82% in 2014-15; 85% in 2014-15, and by School Year 2016-17, 87% -- when surveyed parents/learning coaches will report satisfaction with the school support from teachers and administration provided for their child's program.

1. Focus on 3 questions that address the student support satisfaction each year.

2. Use the in-house survey and automated survey for anonymity and easy tabulation; provide parent testaments in between survey sessions.

3. Develop 3 focus questions at the beginning of the year and share with staff.

4. Survey twice a year

☒ Met□ Not Met□ No Data Available

Three questions from the Parent Survey were used to measure this goal (N=139). Question 6 – 95.59% of Parents were Sometimes Satisfied or better.Question 8 – 95.68% of Parents were Sometimes Satisfied or better. Question 10 Instruction – 94.96% Parents were Sometimes Satisfied or better.

Operational goal 1

GCVS will follow the MassCore Recommended Program of Studies for High School Graduation.

1. http://www.doe.mass.edu/ccr/masscore/

2. Use transcript, Individual Learning Plan (ILP), credit audits, MCAS scores required for graduation and other counselor documented items.

3. Clearly defined in ILP meeting, student handbook and other student expectations set at the beginning of the year.

4. Goal will be reviewed at least twice a year.

☒ Met□ Not Met□ No Data Available

GCVS uses the MassCore Recommended Program of Studies for High School Graduation.GCVS Graduated 28 seniors in 2015-2016.

Operational goal 2

Community Building: Student/Family attendance at GCVS community building events will be established at 50% at two events or more and incrementally grow to 55% in 2014-15; 60% in 2014-15, and 65% by School Year 2016-17.

1. At least 7 community building events and activities planned yearly for students/families to attend: Parent Learning Coach community, monthly outings, use HR model with all teachers.

2. Attendance will be taken at events. Students and parents will be expected to attend at least two community building events per year.

3. Numerous events and activities planned monthly for students/families to attend.

4. The goal will be set to ensure strong

□ Met☒Partially Met□ Not Met□ No Data Available

Family Engagement Coordinators held monthly online meetings with Learning Coaches that covered a variety of topics: structuring the day for learning at home, navigating the learning platform, strategies for student success, etc.

Our Director of Student Services also offers monthly online SEPAC meetings for the purposes of bringing parents of students with special needs together.

Outings during the 2015-16 school year included: start of the year picnics, trips to the zoo, visits to Sturbridge Village and Plimouth Plantation, a Gingerbread Extravaganza, trips to science museums, trips to recreational facilities for socialization and end of the year picnics, for a total of 15 events over the course of 8 school months (exceptions were due to MCAS/PARCC testing). There are

Page 26 of 39

Annual Goals 2015-16 Evidencecommunication surrounding these goals and events.

5. Monthly

insufficient data to determine if the attendance targets were met.

CONCLUSION: We are working to more closely tie events to academic content, focus them by grade cluster to make them more relevant, and are looking at starting a Learning Coach mentor program, where seasoned LCs will partner with new LCs to help them better engage with the school.

Page 27 of 39

Annual Goals 2015-16 Evidence

Academic goal 1

The ELA and Math CPI of students in their first year at MAVA will be higher than the ELA and Math CPI of students who were in their first year at MAVA in the prior year.

It is known to the administrators of the school that many students go through a transition upon coming to MAVA. The educational model is very different than anything they’ve seen before, and many students experience a score drop on the MCAS in their first year at MAVA (though students who stay at MAVA for more time generally experience gains in subsequent years). It is a goal of the school to improve this transition. This indicator, over time, will demonstrate whether or not the school is meeting this goal, until such time as there is no score drop for first-year students.

□ Met☒ Partially Met□ Not Met□ No Data Available

2015Results

1st

Years 2015

N 1st

Years 2016

N

ELA CPI

78.3 155 80.5 78

Math CPI

62.5 155 62.0 76

Conclusion: While we met our target in ELA, we did not in mathematics. The data show that, across the board, students performed at lower levels in math, regardless of the grade or test. Only 4 students in the sample performed better in math than ELA. The data have also consistently pointed toward lower scores in math over ELA over time. Since these are first-year students, the data suggest that this is a curriculum issue as there was nothing statistically significant in the data to show an instructional issue at any one grade level.

Moving forward, MAVA will be using curriculum resources that will better align with state frameworks and should result in better achievement rates. We will be using a data tool to better examine test results across multiple assessments, starting in the 2017-18 school year, and using those data to inform both curricular and instructional decisions.

Page 28 of 39

Annual Goals 2015-16 Evidence

Academic goal 2

The ELA and Math CPI of students in their 2nd year or beyond at MAVA will be higher than 50% of the schools in districts from which MAVA draws 10 or more students.

MAVA exists to provide an alternative educational model for students who have struggled in traditional environments. It draws students from all over the state, with some concentrated pockets from certain towns, cities and/or regions. The school must demonstrate value by helping previously unsuccessful students perform to a level that is at least on par with their peers.

□ Met□ Not Met☒No Data Available

The goal articulated here does not have enough clarity to be able to determine, from a statistical point of view, what the actual goal is and how to compare data sets. If we are looking at second year students only, there is no way to compare that to the sending districts as MAVA does not have that kind of access to the data. To compare a small sample size of second year students to the publicly available data for the sending districts is, by its very nature, skewed.

Conclusion: This goal needs to be revisited to ensure that it can be written in some way that can be measured with consistent samples from all data sets, so the data make some sense.

Academic goal 3

90% of the seniors at MAVA will have passed all required MCAS/PARCC exams for graduation or will have satisfied and of the state’s alternate paths to graduation (IE EPP).

The ultimate goal of the school is to produce students who are college/career ready, which, in part, means those students achieving diplomas. Given that the on-time graduation rate in Massachusetts is around 85%, this is a good target.

☒ Met□ Not Met□ No Data Available

Total N of seniors: 32Total n graduating: 30 (93.75%)Total n not meeting ELA MCAS requirement: 0Total n not meeting Math MCAS requirement: 1 (3.125%)Total n not meeting Science MCAS requirement: 2 (6.25%)Total n meeting EPP requirements: 10 (34%)

Page 29 of 39

Annual Goals 2015-16 Evidence

Academic goal 4

MCAS/PARCC Participation: Within each sub-group at least 95% of students will be assessed in ELA, Math, and Science MCAS test each year.

1. Student attendance will be measured by state reporting statistics.

2. Each year MAVA has attained 95% or higher participation in MCAS testing.

3. School contacts to parents, Kmails, and Robo calls to families

4. Goal is set and defined by the state and/or K12.

5. Yearly

□ Met☒Partially Met□ Not Met□ No Data Available

School-wide averages show participation rates were met, with the exception of the high needs sub-group in science (grades 5 & 8 met the target, grade 10 = 90%):

ELAAll = 97%, High Needs = 96%, Economically Disadvantaged = 96%, White = 97%

MathAll = 97%, High Needs = 96%, Economically Disadvantaged = 95%, White = 9%7%

ScienceAll = 96%, High Needs = 93%, Economically Disadvantaged = 95%, White = 96%

Academic goal 5

The ELA and Math CPI of students in their 3rd year or beyond at MAVA will be higher than 65% of the schools in districts from which MAVA draws 10 or more students.

MAVA exists to provide an alternative educational model for students who have struggled in traditional environments. It draws students from all over the state, with some concentrated pockets from certain towns, cities and/or regions. The school must demonstrate value by helping previously unsuccessful students perform to a level that is at least on par with their peers.

□ Met□ Not Met

☒ No Data Available

The goal articulated here does not have enough clarity to be able to determine, from a statistical point of view, what the actual goal is and how to compare data sets. If we are looking at second year students only, there is no way to compare that to the sending districts as MAVA does not have that kind of access to the data. To compare a small sample size of second year students to the publicly available data for the sending districts is, by its very nature, skewed.

Conclusion: This goal needs to be revisited to ensure that it can be written in some way that can be measured with consistent samples from all data sets, so the data make some sense.

Page 30 of 39

Annual Goals 2015-16 Evidence

Academic goal 6

The ELA and Math SGP of students in their 2nd year or beyond at MAVA will be at least 40.

According to DESE’s 2009 report on SGP, “as a rule of thumb, differences in medians of less than 10 are not likely to be educationally meaningful at the school or district level, except in rare cases when those differences occur among particularly large numbers of students (i.e. 1,000 students or more).” and “medians above 60 or below 40 are relatively unusual.” Having an SGP of 40 or higher indicates that the school is functioning at levels equivalent to most schools, statewide.

☒ Met□ Not Met□ No Data Available

2016Results

SGP N

ELA 47.4 50Math 42.7 50

Conclusion: This is a decrease in the SGP over 2015, while meeting the target. These decreases were consistent across grade levels and reflected two trends: (1) students who are at Levels 1 and 2 of achievement remained there, with little student growth noted due to their high levels of achievement over time, and (2) math was consistently lower for all students, across grade levels, confirming concerns about the current curriculum delivery system.

Academic goal 7

The ELA and Math CPI and SGP for students in their 2nd year or beyond at MAVA will be higher than the ELA and Math CPI for a fictional “district” made up of demographic and grade level representations of students from the home districts of said students.

This measure takes each student at MAVA and assigns him or her a representative CPI and SGP for ELA and Math, based on the home district of residence, special education status, and poverty status. It then aggregates these measures and compares the actual results at MAVA to these results. This is the purest measure of the value that MAVA adds to its student population.

□ Met□ Not Met☒No Data Available

This goal is not measurable. There is no definition for a “fictional district” upon which to draw comparisons.

Conclusion: This goal needs to be revisited, clarified, and grounded in a data set that is drawn from a reliable source.

Page 31 of 39

Annual Goals 2015-16 Evidence

Academic goal 8 □ Met A review of the data prompted an analysis that we believe is more meaningful than comparing us to the state overall, which is to see how we did in terms of meeting targets set for the school regarding narrowing the gap. The date below show how we fared in this area based on 2016 scores: ELA CPI for students with disabilities:

2016 Target = 60.4, 2016 Actual = 61.7, Rating = Above Target

Math CPI for students with disabilities: 2016 Target = 49.0, 2016 Actual = 45.4, Rating = Improved Below Target

Science CPI for students with disabilities: 2016 Target = 69.5, 2016 Actual = 55.0, Rating = Declined

Conclusion: our efforts to narrow the gap in ELA are paying off with us having gone beyond the target. Our math CPI is encouraging, but further indicates that there is curriculum work to be done. Science scores show better growth in grade 10 than in grades 5 and 8. There is nothing that is statistically significant between those grades, leading us to the conclusion that the current curriculum is not designed to be consistent with standards and expected outcomes in state assessments.

The CPI and SGP gaps between MAVA’s special education population and its

☒Partially Met

aggregate population will be no larger than the equivalent gaps for the State ofMassachusetts.

□ Not Met

Most schools have a special education achievement gap. To demonstrate that MAVA’s special education students are receiving services on a par with state

□ No DataAvailable

standards, the gap at the school will be no larger than the gap statewide.

Academic goal 9 □ Met

MAVA-assigned final grades in 7th, 8th and 10th grade ELA and Math classes will

□ Partially Met

correlate with MCAS/PARCC scores at 0.5 or higher (using a straight Pearson Rho).

This statistic demonstrates the variability in grading that is attributable to variability

□ Not Met

in scoring on standardized exams. As such, it acts as an indicator of the degree towhich teacher-assigned grades reflect teaching of the standards and priorities that are assessed on the exams. The 0.5 standard is considered a positive relationship

☒No Data Available

Using a Pearson Rho to compare report card grades not tied to standards is not an appropriate methodology in this context. Currently, report card grades are tied to curriculum provider assessments that are automatically graded, with teacher grades for open-ended responses and then pulled together. Teachers in the school are not fully aligning their assessment practices with each other and tying them to a common set of standards, adding complexity to that variable that cannot be fully captured using this methodology. A switch of curriculum providers will allow teachers to attach standards to assessments and measure them using common guidelines. A long-term goal for the school is to move toward a

(Bolek, 2011).

Page 32 of 39

Annual Goals 2015-16 Evidencecompetency-based model, using a standards-based grading system.

Page 33 of 39

Annual Goals 2015-16 Evidence

Academic goal 10

Using the school's identified District Determined Measures aligned to the Common Core 67% of students will demonstrate at least one grade level of growth in Reading Literacy the first year, 70% in 2016-17 and 73% 2017-18.

□ Met□ Not Met

☒ No Data Available

The school is in the process of purchasing a data dashboard system that will allow us to bring all these data together in a single warehouse. We will then be able to fully analyze the data in order to answer the question posed by this goal, as the data are not currently warehoused in a manner that allows this kind of analysis.

Academic goal 11

Using the school's identified District Determined Measures aligned to the Common Core 67% of students will demonstrate at least one grade level of growth in mathematics the first year, 70% in 2016-17 and 73% 2017-18.

□ Met□ Not Met

☒ No Data Available

The school is in the process of purchasing a data dashboard system that will allow us to bring all these data together in a single warehouse. We will then be able to fully analyze the data in order to answer the question posed by this goal, as the data are not currently warehoused in a manner that allows this kind of analysis.

School growth goal 1

Through Professional Development, cooperation and communication, the Head Program Administrator and Executive Director ensure a yearly teacher retention rate of 80%.

1. Biweekly faculty meetings, one-on –one meetings as well as guest speakers and conferences in which Best Practices of MAVA @ GCVS as well as other virtual schools is discussed, shared, and initiated in developing Professional Learning Communities (PLC) that foster a culture of collaboration ensuring school improvement and results focusing on student success.

2. Faculty will participate in bi-weekly faculty meetings in which a designated time will be allotted to focus on Virtual School best practices. Faculty will attend a conference approved by the school that focuses in their subject area or in virtual schools.

3. As part of the Teacher Evaluation process the school, along with collaboration from the teacher, will assist in creating personal and professional goals in subject area and in virtual schooling.

4. MA Teacher Evaluation will be adopted in 2014-15.

□ Met Partially ☒

met□ Not Met□ No Data Available

MAVA had a total of 29 teachers that would be considered in the denominator for this data. The school retained 26 out of 29 teachers for a retention rate of 89.7%.

Faculty participated in meetings as specified in items 1 and 2.

An analysis of the implementation of the MA Educator Evaluation System in the fall of 2016 uncovered that a client to manage the system had been purchased and used, but staff were unclear about the process and nothing had been articulated as a guidance document and approved by the Board of Trustees.

During the course of the 2016-17 school year, clarity has been brought to parts of the process, with more work needing to be done. The goal is to ensure that this process is clarified in writing and approved by the Board of Trustees in time for the 2017-18 school year with support from supervisors.

Page 34 of 39

Annual Goals 2015-16 Evidence

School growth goal 2

Teachers play an integral role in the academics, family and community engagement, and professional culture of the school by attending at least two outing per year.

1. Participation in school events and outings; participation with PLC groups, book studies or other professional activities outside of the school PD sessions.

2. Attendance and collaborative time; MA Teacher evaluation.

3. Many events and activities currently built into school model.

4. Attendance will be taken at all events to ensure that faculty are present in at least two community building events per year.

☒ Met□ Not Met□ No Data Available

Attendance was taken to ensure teacher participation. All teachers participated in at least two school outings.

All teachers participated in faculty meetings, team meetings, and professional development activites.

Page 35 of 39

Appendix B: Expected practicesPrior to conducting observations of online lessons, ESE requested and received descriptions of expected practices aligned to ESE’s criteria for classroom culture and management and quality instruction.

Classroom culture and management

Description (ESE) Expected practice (CMVS)

Classroom climate is characterized by clear routines, respectful relationships, behaviors, tones, and discourse

Icebreaker activity (previously learned material and/or housekeeping tasks). Teachers must use video to interact with students and show their face in all online lessons. The title of the lesson is presented and learning objectives posted and reviewed. Students follow classroom etiquette and rules.

Learning time is maximized for all students

Teachers are given the following framework within which to operate their lessons:

1. Provide a Title for your lesson/Post the Learning Objective or Goal of the lesson (2 minutes)

2. Ice Breaker Activity (5-10 minutes)

3. Lesson: Follow the “I do,” “We do,” You do” format (25-30 minutes)

4. Restate Objective/Talk about Goals for Next Time (5-Minutes)

5. Exit Ticket (5 minutes)

6. Stay on for Questions as Needed (5-7 minutes)

Classroom practices foster student engagement

The 4 M’s; post it; break it down; ratio; check for understanding; breakout rooms; microphone, chat, and whiteboard privileges; activators (“do nows”); exit tickets; thoughtful teaching techniques; active reading techniques; metacognitive strategies; file and video sharing; web tour, web push polling, and emoticons in use; cold calling; no opt out; thoughtful questioning; stretching it.

Quality Instruction

Instructional practices are consistent with the school’s expected practice

Icebreaker activity (previously learned material and/or housekeeping tasks). Teachers must use video to interact with students and show their face in all online lessons. The title of the lesson must be presented and state standards and objectives posted and reviewed. Vocabulary or skills needed to participate in the lesson are presented. Lesson content consists of active, lively, and engaging activities and feature tools such as Study Island; K12, Inc., curriculum; Kahn Academy; or any other innovative learning content (e.g., Google Apps for teachers). Lessons should feature a variety of tools from Blackboard (e.g., WB tools, creative names for breakout rooms, polling, video, timer, emoticons, web tour, and application sharing). Teachers continuously check for understanding. Lessons are closed by revisiting state standards and objectives and reviewing the lesson (e.g., MCAS/PARCC previously released questions, writing exercise, exit ticket, quiz, etc.).

Instruction/activities challenge all students to develop and use higher order thinking (analyzing, creating, evaluating)

Lessons feature thoughtful teaching techniques, active reading techniques, metacognitive strategies, achieving rigor techniques, and Using Higher Order Thinking Strategies (H.O.T.S.).

Teacher uses various checks for understanding throughout the lesson

Lessons feature cold calling; no opt out; metacognitive strategies; activators (“do nows”); exit tickets; post it; break it down; ratio; thoughtful teaching techniques; active reading techniques; breakout rooms; microphone, chat, and whiteboard

Page 36 of 39

Classroom culture and management

Description (ESE) Expected practice (CMVS)

privileges; file and video sharing; web tour; web push; polling; and emoticons.

Instruction provides skill/content that are aligned to grade-level standards and/or students’ educational needs

Learning objectives posted and reviewed in grade level student friendly language. Unpacking grade level expectations.

Activities/materials/strategies are differentiated to provide support for all learners

Live Lessons may take many different forms and looks. MAVA stresses that teachers should be creative and innovation with their virtual classrooms. Teachers should reach out to their Mentors, take risks, and use a variety of sensory initiatives to create an engaging classroom. As a general rule it is important to follow the format provided

Ice breaker activity- Previously learned material and/ or Introduction to lesson

Post and review learning objectives Introduce vocabulary or skills needed to participate in the lesson Lesson content- Active, lively and engaging activities. Implement the tools such

as Study Island, K12

Curriculum, Kahn Academy or any other innovative learning content (Google Aps for Teachers). Also, utilize a variety of tools from BlackBoard. (WB Tools, Creative Names for Breakout Rooms, Polling, Video, Timer, Emoticons, Web Tour, Application Sharing, and teachers should show their faces in live lessons).

Mnemonic Devices:

KNSAU Method for Math Problems (What do I Know, What do I Need to Know, What are the Steps to get there, Answer the question Put in the Units

TPEEE for ELA Open Response questions (Topic Sentence, Answer the question and put in two Points, Evidence from text, direct quote or paraphrase, Explain the evidence in your own words, Evidence from the text, Explain the evidence in your own words)

Collins Writing Techniques including Type 1 Writing- TTQA (Turn the Question Around)

Check Continuously for Understanding (follow “Check For Understanding Tools”) Use Higher Order Thinking Strategies and Achieving Rigor strategies.

Exit Ticket must reflect the Standards being covered in the lesson. (MCAS/PARCC previously released questions, writing exercise, Google form, etc.)

Sheltered English immersion: Instructional content in the English language is sheltered

Make it visual (e.g., instructions, vocabulary words, challenging concepts, procedures or steps); scaffold (e.g., model tasks, provide information early, look out for culturally unique vocabulary, use sentence frames for academic language); honor the “silent period”; beware of “wait time” (7-second rule); walk ELL students through the K12, Inc., curriculum; scaffolding academic language; developing listening, reading, writing, and speaking skills.

Students with disabilities: To extent observable, students with disabilities are provided with the appropriate assistive

Inclusion Classrooms: Special Education teacher will be able to support the students with special needs in the general education classroom by taking them aside with a private chat, or meeting with them and others in an individual or small group – in a “breakout session” - to supplement the lesson. In addition, the Special Education

Page 37 of 39

Classroom culture and management

Description (ESE) Expected practice (CMVS)

technologies, accommodations, supports, adaptations and related services

teacher may have prepared the student for the lesson with a word bank, pre-teaching vocabulary or assisting the student with templates or organizers for reading comprehension, math, or writing problems. The Special Education teacher meets weekly with Grade Level Teams to collaborate and share advance preparation.

Assistive Technology: Read&Write Gold text-to-speech software; microphones and headsets; writing pads; speak-to-text software; students have the ability to enlarge text. Audio books are available through Bookshare for qualified disabilities.

Related Services are covered by Presence Learning, our online provider or by arrangement with the home district.

Page 38 of 39

Appendix C: Current status of probationary conditionsOn February 23, 2016 the Board voted to renew the certificate for GCVS for the three-year period from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2019, with a maximum enrollment of 750 students in grades K through 12; further, pursuant to 603 CMR 52.12(2), the Board also extended probation for GCVS and directed the school to meet specified terms of probation, as recommended by the Commissioner in his memorandum to the Board dated February 12, 2016. The current status of GCVS in complying with these conditions is specified below:

1. Reporting Requirements:

a. GCVS must continue to submit to the Department, at odl@doe.mass.edu or 75 Pleasant St., Malden, MA, 02148, board meeting agendas and materials prior to each board meeting at the same time that these items are sent to GCVS board members. Further, GCVS must submit to the Department the minutes of these proceedings as soon as the GCVS board approves them. The Department reserves the right to require the submission of additional information, such as quarterly or monthly financial statements, if board materials do not already include this information. GCVS must provide such additional information within two business days.

GCVS is providing board meeting agendas and materials and meeting minutes to ESE. However, this documentation lacks sufficient detail regarding items discussed and decisions made. For example, no reference is made to the departure of the prior executive director.

Effective immediately, GCVS must submit to the Department weekly student enrollment reports that indicate the number of students enrolled on a full-or part-time basis, including the number of students residing in Greenfield.

GCVS provides enrollment reports to ESE on an infrequent basis.

b. By May 1st of each year, GCVS must submit to the Department a budget for the following fiscal year that demonstrates how the school will provide a high quality education program while adhering to the requirement that not less than 5% of the students enrolled in GCVS are residents of Greenfield as required by G.L. c. 71, § 94(c).

The “5% provision” has been eliminated. The Board of Elementary and Secondary Education voted to cap the school’s enrollment at 750 students so that it can focus efforts on providing a high quality education program.

2. By March 1, 2016, GCVS must submit to the Department a corrective action plan for ensuring that not less than 95% of all student groups participate in state assessments.

GCVS leadership did not submit a corrective action plan to ESE. At the time of the review, the school was unable to provide documentation to support that it had engaged in a formalized series of activities to ensure that the school meet the 95% participation requirement.

3. By March 31, 2016, the school must establish an escrow account in an amount determined by the Department in consultation with the school to pay for any potential closing, legal, and audit expenses associated with closure, should that occur.

GCVS complied with this condition.

4. Effective beginning in the 2016-17 school year, the enrollment of GCVS shall be limited to a maximum of 750 students.

GCVS complied with this condition.

5. By December 31, 2017, GCVS must demonstrate significant and sustained academic improvement in mathematics, English language arts, and science. Should the school fail to do so, the Commissioner and the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education will consider revoking the school’s charter effective June 30, 2018, and not wait until the end of the certificate term on June 30, 2019.

Pending.

Page 39 of 39