Renewal Inspection Report for the
Massachusetts Virtual Academy at
Greenfield Commonwealth Virtual
School
December 2015
Virtual school renewal inspections are conducted in accordance with CMR 52.11:
“The decision by the Board to renew a certificate shall be based upon the presentation
of affirmative evidence regarding the faithfulness of the virtual school to the terms of its
certificate, the virtual school's academic program, and the viability of the virtual school
as an organization. The Department will gather evidence regarding these issues from the
renewal application and from other information, including but not limited to, a virtual
school's annual reports, financial audits, test results, accountability review reports, and
the renewal inspection report.”
Date of visit: November 2, 2015
Date of this report: December 14, 2015
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
75 Pleasant Street, Malden, MA 02148-4906
Phone 781-338-3000 TTY: N.E.T. Relay 800-439-2370
www.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.
© 2015 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Permission 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 Education
75 Pleasant Street, Malden, MA 02148-4906
Phone 781-338-3000 TTY: N.E.T. Relay 800-439-2370
www.doe.mass.edu
Table of Contents
School profile..................................................................................................................................... 4
Description of the renewal inspection ................................................................................................ 4
Findings ............................................................................................................................................. 6
Faithfulness to certificate ................................................................................................................... 7
1.
2.
3.
Mission and key design elements....................................................................................................................... 7
Access and equity ............................................................................................................................................... 8
Compliance ....................................................................................................................................................... 10
Academic and program success ........................................................................................................ 10
4.
5.
5.
5.
5.
6.
Student performance ....................................................................................................................................... 10
Program delivery - Curriculum ......................................................................................................................... 14
Program delivery - Instruction.......................................................................................................................... 14
Program delivery - Assessment and program evaluation ................................................................................ 17
Program delivery - Diverse learners ................................................................................................................. 18
School culture and family engagement ............................................................................................................ 19
Organizational viability .................................................................................................................... 20
7.
7.
7.
8.
9.
Capacity – School leadership ............................................................................................................................ 20
Capacity – Professional climate ........................................................................................................................ 21
Capacity – Contractual relationships ................................................................................................................ 21
Governance ...................................................................................................................................................... 22
Finance ............................................................................................................................................................. 22
Appendix A: GCVS annual goals, 2014-17 .......................................................................................... 23
Appendix B: Expected practices ........................................................................................................ 33
Appendix C: Current status of probationary conditions ..................................................................... 35
School profile
The 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 (Department) 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 Department 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 expires on June 30, 2016.
The Department 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.
The school’s certificate expires at the end of the 2015-16 school year. Pursuant to CMR 52.11, and in accordance with
guidelines published by the Department, on June 28, 2015, GCVS submitted an application to renew its certificate.
Description of the renewal inspection
On November 2, 2015 the following members of the renewal inspection team (review team) visited GCVS at its
administrative offices, located at 289 Main Street in Greenfield, Massachusetts:




Kenneth Klau, ESE
Cliff Chuang, ESE
Jennifer Gwatkin, ESE
Joanna Laghetto, ESE


Fred Haas, Hopkinton High School and member of the Digital
Learning Advisory Council
Amy Michalowski, The Virtual High School and member of the
Digital Learning Advisory Council
In addition, the following individuals from the Department contributed to the review:






Kathleen Cross, ESE
Alexis Glick, ESE
Andrea Kupps, ESE
Eleanor Rounds, ESE
Matthew Haynes, The Virtual High School
Barbara Treacy, Harvard University and member of the Digital Learning Advisory Council
The team reviewed the following information:







Application for certificate
Annual goals (2014-17)
Assessment data
K12 employee handbook
Personnel policies
Bylaws
Board minutes





Special education program statement
English as a second language (ESL) program statement
School report card and accountability report
List of students by sending district
Curricular materials, including K12 scope and sequence documents
and an alignment of the school’s curriculum to the Massachusetts
Curriculum Frameworks
Page 4 of 35


Organizational chart
 Teacher training documents
Miscellaneous teacher
 End-of-year parent surveys (2013 and 2014)
evaluation documents,
 Parent/student handbook
including “Expected Practices
 Family orientation documents
for ClassConnect Sessions”
 Documentation of professional development activities
 Student demographic
 Learning Coach community meeting recordings (2015-16)
information
 Miscellaneous communications regarding school-sponsored events
 Bullying prevention and
and outings
intervention plan (2014-15)

Financial audit (FY2014)1
 Independent review of online
 Correspondence between GCVS and K12 regarding corrective action
instructional quality by Ignite
(October and November 2015)
Learning (December 2014)

GCVS request for proposal – online service providers (October 2015)
 Action plan (January 2015)
 GCVS board evaluation of the school leader (February 2015)
 Annual report (2013-14)
 Academic evaluation plan
(November 2015)
 Title I data
Between October 10 and November 23, 2015, the team observed 25 online lessons, either synchronously or
asynchronously. On site, the team reviewed information provided by GCVS and conducted in-person focus groups with
representatives from the following groups (coordinated by the school leadership according to area of responsibility):
school leaders (7, including representatives from K12); GCVS board (4 of 5 members); special education/ELL staff (9);
team leaders (5); family engagement (5); high school teachers (6); and elementary and middle school teachers (18; 9 inperson, 9 virtually). The team conducted virtual focus groups with the learning coaches2 of early elementary (4), middle
(8), and high school students (5). The team also conducted virtual focus groups with middle (8) and high school students
(6).3
On the date of the visit, GCVS enrolled 635 students from 179 sending districts.
1
GCVS will submit its financial audit for FY15 on or before January 1, 2016, in accordance with G.L. c. 71, § 94.
According to 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 Participation in focus groups was not mutually exclusive.
2
Page 5 of 35
Findings
Rating Scale:
 Exceeds
The school fully and consistently meets the criterion and is a potential exemplar in this area.
 Meets
The school generally meets the criterion; minor concerns are noted.
 Partially meets
The school meets some aspects of the criterion but not others and/or moderate concerns are
noted.
 Falls far below
The school falls far below the criterion; significant concern(s) are noted.
Organizational viability
Academic and program success
Faithfulness to
certificate
Guiding area
Criteria
Rating
Partially meets 
1.
Mission and key design elements: The school is faithful to its mission,
implements the key design elements outlined in its certificate, and
substantially meets its accountability plan goals.
2.
Access and equity: The school ensures program access and equity for all
students eligible to attend the school.
Meets 
3.
Compliance: The school compiles a record of compliance with the terms of
its certificate and applicable state and federal laws and regulations.
Meets 
4.
Student performance: The school consistently meets state student
performance standards for academic growth, proficiency, and college and
career readiness.
5.
Program delivery: The school delivers an
academic program that delivers improved
academic outcomes and educational success
for all students.
Curriculum
Partially meets 
Instruction
Falls far below 
Assessment and program
evaluation
Diverse learners
6.
7.
Falls far below 
Meets 
Partially meets 
Culture and family engagement: The school
supports students’ social and emotional
health in a safe and respectful learning
environment that engages families.
Social, emotional, and
health needs
Meets 
Family and community
engagement
Meets 
Capacity: The school sustains a wellfunctioning organizational structure and
creates a professional working climate for all
staff.
School leadership
Professional climate
Contractual relationships
Partially meets 
Meets 
Partially meets 
8.
Governance: The Board of Trustees act as public agents authorized by the
state and provide competent governance to ensure the success and
sustainability of the school.
Partially meets 
9.
Finance: The school maintains a sound and stable financial condition that
operates in a fiscally responsible and publicly accountable manner.
To be determined
Page 6 of 35
Faithfulness to certificate
1.
Mission and key design elements
Rating: Partially meets 
While stakeholders articulated a collective understanding of the mission and vision of GCVS, as well as key design
elements they perceived as critical to its success, it was unclear the extent to which “critical thinking” or
“educational resources that cultivate curiosity, exploration and inquiry” were enacted in the school.
On November 17, 2014 the GCVS board adopted a revised mission statement4 they believed was more purposeful
and reflective of the collective beliefs among the school’s stakeholders:
“Massachusetts Virtual Academy at Greenfield, the Commonwealth’s first virtual K-12 public school,
delivers a transformative education with unique strengths and flexibility perfectly suited for the
modern world. Our approach encourages critical thinking and an independent learning style
that meets the key needs of diverse learners by providing educational resources that cultivate
curiosity, exploration and inquiry.”
According to the GCVS board, the original mission, adopted when the Greenfield Public Schools governed the school
as MAVA, was that GCVS would serve populations that fail to thrive in public schools. The revised mission statement
conveys, in the words of focus group members, an educational environment described as “flexible,” “rigorous,”
“transformative,” and “unique,” and able to serve all students effectively, regardless of their circumstances.
Focus group members perceive GCVS as a “problem-solver” for other districts statewide, citing, for example, that
the virtual model provides students access to elective courses that may not be available in their districts of
residence. Key facets of the new mission statement include an educational environment that “encourages critical
thinking” through the provision of “educational resources that cultivate curiosity, exploration and inquiry.” Although
focus group members cited these characteristics, data collected through observations of online lessons indicated
that 70 percent exhibited limited or no evidence of the school's instructional model (see the instruction section).
When asked about the key structures GCVS uses to realize its mission, leadership cited family engagement
coordinators, collaboration with learning coaches, a team leader initiative (begun in 2014-15), and fulfilling the
needs of diverse learners through Imagine Learning5 for ELL students and an inclusion model for special education
students. They also described a structure implemented in the 2015-16 school year to inform recommendations for
English Language Learner (ELL), special education, and Title I services (see the assessment and program evaluation
section).
The GCVS board said the online platform allows for “inherent differentiation” because it offers flexibility, lets
students demonstrate what they know, and enables students to proceed at their own pace based on mastery.
Saturday instruction is offered, as is daily academic support in the form of access to one-on-one instruction. The
GCVS board said that technology makes teachers come alive through the use, for example, of a two-way white
board and the dynamic presentation of content. Small groups of students can be placed into virtual “breakout
rooms” to facilitate greater collaboration and interaction with peers and teachers. While many focus group
members said the breakout rooms allow a greater degree of flexibility than brick and mortar environments, 50
percent of lessons had little to no evidence of differentiation (see the instruction section).
When asked about the school’s top priorities for the school year, the majority of focus group members cited
professional development and socio-emotional learning (see the sections on culture and family engagement and
professional climate).
Subsequent to the March 2015 accountability review, GCVS submitted revised accountability goals and progress
measures to the Department that it believes provide a better reflection of the virtual school context than the state’s
accountability goals and measures. The revised goals were approved by the GCVS board on April 6, 2015 and by the
Commissioner on June 12, 2015. Both the GCVS board and leadership reported that they refer to progress against
these accountability goals when assessing how well GCVS is fulfilling its mission (see Appendix A).
4
Consistent with 603 CMR 52.10(2), GCVS submitted a written request to amend its certificate that was approved by the
Commissioner on November 26, 2014.
5 Imagine Learning is a language and literacy software program for struggling readers.
Page 7 of 35
2.
Access and equity
Rating: Meets 
GCVS has allocated additional resources to support the enrollment process and services for special education and
ELL students.
GCVS reported a more “hands-on” approach to the enrollment process in 2015-16. While K12 continues to be the
initial point of contact for prospective parents/guardians, GCVS staff now engage with parents/guardians earlier in
the process than in previous years. After parents/guardians make initial contact with K12 staff, an account is created
for the student. Subsequently, GCVS staff make follow-up telephone calls to parents/guardians. The purpose of
these calls is to describe the role and expectations of parents/guardians as learning coaches6, and respond to any
questions they may have. GCVS staff then request students’ academic information from sending school districts,
and, for high school students, the guidance counselor contacts newly-enrolled students to make course selections.
GCVS served 5 ELL students at the time of the visit. The ELL team consists of a Massachusetts-licensed ELL teacher
and the Title I director/ELL coordinator. Evidence from documentation provided to the team by GCVS and the
special education/ELL focus group revealed the process for serving ELL students. All parents/guardians complete a
home language survey, after which the ELL team administers the W-APT (World Class Instructional Design and
Assessment— Access Placement Test) to the student to establish a baseline level of English proficiency. W-APT
results and other academic indicators are then used to place ELL students in the appropriate courses.
When asked if GCVS has a curriculum for ELL students, GCVS leadership responded that they purchased Imagine
Learning for use with its ELL students in September 2015. Aligned to Common Core and WIDA standards, this
language and literacy software program features interactive activities, videos, and games. According to school
leadership, initially the ELL teacher works with students on the technical aspects of the program. After a couple of
weeks of monitored work, students work independently while the ELL teacher checks students’ progress and time
on the site. Imagine Learning provides a progress tool that alerts the ELL teacher to areas where the student might
be struggling or needs more attention (i.e., phonological awareness, reading comprehension, decodable words,
etc.), which helps guide instruction for future classes together.
Focus group members said the school’s small population of ELLs lets them provide close support to students,
teachers, and parents/guardians, including getting to know families’ cultural backgrounds. The ELL teacher conducts
home visits to the families of ELLs four times per year, and teachers said they work with ELL students in small groups
and individually using pictures for vocabulary words or breaking down tasks into smaller steps. At the time of the
visit, all educators had either earned or were in the process of earning the state’s Sheltered English Immersion (SEI)
Endorsement.
The special education department consists of a director, four special education teachers assigned to different grade
spans (K-3, 4-5, 6-8, and 9-12), a school psychologist who sits on the school’s mental health team, and an
administrative assistant. The school psychologist also consults with the student intervention team (SIT). At the time
of the visit, GCVS reported that approximately 16 percent of enrolled students were receiving special education
services through individualized education programs (IEPs) and 16 percent of students were receiving
accommodations through Section 504.7 According to the October 4, 2015 report presented by the special education
department to the GCVS board, and in turn shared with the review team, disabilities served by the school include:
specific learning (21), emotional (17), autism (18), health (7), communication (8), sensory/hard of hearing (2),
multiple (1), intellectual (7), developmental delay (5), neurological (4), and others “not designated” (11).
Focus group members described the ways GCVS supports special education students within the general education
setting. Special education teachers are invited by general education teachers to develop lesson plans, participate in
online lessons, and discuss student concerns on an ongoing basis. The special education teachers write progress
reports based on IEP goals and objectives and also provide one-on-one instruction. Examples of inclusionary
practices provided by GCVS leadership include special education teachers “pre-teaching” vocabulary; identification
and comprehension strategies; providing supports such as word banks and modified rubrics; and using breakout
rooms. The responsibilities of general and special education teachers are detailed in the chart below, provided by
GCVS.
6
7
The majority of parents/guardians serve as learning coaches for their children.
Not mutually exclusive.
Page 8 of 35
Task
Curriculum and LMS
(Learning
Management System)
General Education Teachers





Modifications and
Accommodations


Instruction




Special Education Teachers
Align LMS courses to the state
standards
Supplement resources and
assessments as needed
Provide daily lessons both
synchronous and
asynchronous to meet state
standards
Grade and give feedback on
student work
Maintain LMS courses to
reflect student needs and
state standards

Modify curriculum and
instruction per IEP:
Read Aloud Ops
Reduced Content
Reduced Assessments
Modified Assessments
Maintain records regarding
student IEP goals and needs.

Provide large group instruction
per the CC Schedule
Provide small group and
individual CC sessions based
on data meetings
Provide asynchronous
resources and recordings as
needed
Aim for 20 hours of student
instructional time









IEPs and Evaluations


Provide requested
documentation for Special Ed
staff as needed for IEPs and Ed
Assessments Part A and B as
requested
Attend IEP meetings as
requested






Understand the state standards and
how they relate to students’ goals
Manage individual ...courses by
providing recordings and supportive
documents as needed
Update student grades based by
communicating directly with Gen Ed
teacher on individual meetings and
observed mastery of content
Support the Gen Ed teacher in creation
of documents as needed based on
team discussions
Support the Gen Ed teacher in Read
Aloud and individualized
accommodations
Manage performance criteria
modifications in LMS
Hold weekly support sessions in the
areas of:
Writing, Reading, Math
Organization, Behavior
Should be seen as an expert in the
area of differentiation, learning
process and styles and monitoring
progress
Hold 1:1/Small group sessions to
ensure Specially Designed Instruction
per IEP based on team discussions
Attend Gen Ed teachers’ large group
sessions to assist as able/needed per
team discussions
Aim for 20 hours of student
instructional time
Maintain students’ IEPs
Document all meetings/sessions on
IEPs and in ESPED
Contact families with appropriate
Team Meeting Notices
Communicate regularly with Gen Ed
teachers regarding student progress
Submit progress reports as required by
IEP guidelines
Provide a copy of the student’s IEP to
teachers in a timely manner.
Source: GCVS
Page 9 of 35
GCVS staff reported that 23 students receive therapy services from Presence Learning8, an external organization,
and that these services consisted of occupational therapy, speech language therapy and counseling. Ten students
receive related services from their home district. At the time of the visit, the source of services for an additional 8
students had yet to be determined. When asked how GCVS ensures that related services are coordinated with
instruction, special education/ELL focus group members cited collaboration with external providers through
meetings and common planning time.
According to a GCVS report, goals for the 2015-16 school year include the refinement of direct services, inclusion
practices, and policies and procedures. The team will also recommend modifications to the K12 curriculum and how
to comply with evaluation timelines.
GCVS held its first Special Education Parent Advisory Council meeting on Wednesday, October 28, 2015. Twelve
parents/guardians of elementary, middle and high school students participated online and via conference call. Also
in attendance were the special education teachers. The meeting was recorded and a link provided to all
parents/guardians of special education students. The next meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, December 2,
2015.
3.
Compliance
Rating: Meets 
Evidence indicates that GCVS complies with state and federal laws and regulations.
Academic and program success
4.
Student performance
Rating: Falls far below 
GCVS places at the 8th percentile of all middle/high schools and K-12 schools in the Commonwealth and is
classified in Level 3 of the state’s five-level accountability and assistance system. The school’s White and high
needs9 subgroups were among the lowest 20 percent statewide. GCVS did not meet the 95 percent threshold
required for assessment participation in the aggregate and for multiple subgroups. GCVS did not make sufficient
progress toward closing proficiency gaps in 2015.
In the 2014-15 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; grades 3 and 8).



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). In grade 10, 82 percent of GCVS
students scored Proficient or higher on 2015 MCAS tests, compared to 91 percent statewide (see Figure 3).
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). In grade 10, 64 percent of GCVS
students scored Proficient or higher on 2015 MCAS tests, compared to 79 percent statewide (see Figure 3).
In STE, 49 percent of grade 5 GCVS students scored Proficient or higher on 2015 MCAS tests compared to
51 percent statewide; 27 percent of grade 8 students scored Proficient or higher compared to 42 percent
statewide (see Figure 3).
8
Presence Learning is an organization that provides online therapy services for K-12 students with special needs.
The high needs group is an unduplicated count of all students in a school or district belonging to at least one of the
following individual subgroups: students with disabilities, ELL and former ELL students, and economically disadvantaged
students. The inclusion of the high needs group in accountability determinations holds more schools accountable for the
performance of students belonging to these groups.
9
Page 10 of 35
Figure 1: PARCC ELA/L Tests of Spring 2015
Percent of Students Meeting or Exceeding Expectations, GCVS
100
GCVS
State
90
80
68
70
63
60
57
54
50
64
61
60
49
48
Grade 7
Grade 8
40
40
31
30
30
20
10
0
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Page 11 of 35
Figure 2: PARCC Mathematics Tests of Spring 2015
Percent of Students Meeting or Exceeding Expectations
100
GCVS
State
90
80
70
60
55
55
53
53
48
50
45
41
40
40
38
40
Grade 6
Grade 7
34
31
30
20
10
0
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 8
Figure 3: Spring 2015 MCAS
Percent of Students Scoring Proficient or Higher
GCVS
State
100
91
90
82
79
80
70
64
60
50
49
51
42
40
27
30
20
10
0
Grade 5 STE
Grade 8 STE
Grade 10 ELA
Grade 10 Math
Page 12 of 35
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 considered 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 2015 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 table below.
Indicator (All Students)
2015 Rating
English Language Arts
Narrowing proficiency gaps
Declined
Growth
Improved Below Target
Extra credit for decreasing % Warning/Failing (10% or more)
No
Extra credit for increasing % Advanced (10% or more)
Yes
Mathematics
Narrowing proficiency gaps
Improved Below Target
Growth
On Target
Extra credit for decreasing % Warning/Failing (10% or more)
No
Extra credit for increasing % Advanced (10% or more)
Yes
Science
Narrowing proficiency gaps
Improved Below Target
Extra credit for decreasing % Warning/Failing (10% or more)
No
Extra credit for increasing % Advanced (10% or more)
Yes
High School
Annual dropout rate
Improved Below Target
Cohort graduation rate
Insufficient Data
English language acquisition
Extra credit for high growth on ACCESS for ELLs assessment
Insufficient Data
Assessment Participation
English Language Arts
95%
Mathematics
95%
Science
92%
Massachusetts calculates school percentiles, an indication of the school's overall performance relative to other
schools that serve the same or similar grades. In 2015 GCVS placed at the 8th 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 percent statewide. Furthermore, in 2015 the following subgroups did not meet the 95 percent
threshold required for assessment participation:



ELA: High Needs (93 percent); Economically Disadvantaged (94 percent); Special Education (89 percent);
African American (94 percent); White (94 percent)
Mathematics: High Needs (93 percent); Economically Disadvantaged (94 percent); Special Education (91
percent); African American (94 percent); White (94 percent)
Science: All Students (92 percent); High Needs (89 percent); Economically Disadvantaged (92 percent);
White (92 percent)
GCVS leadership acknowledged that students generally do not perform well in their first year. Postulating that
students tend to do better the longer they remain at GCVS, GCVS incorporated goals into its accountability plan that
account for trend and/or comparative data, including: Academic Goals 1 and 2, concerning the Composite
Page 13 of 35
Performance Index (CPI) of students in their second year at GCVS and as compared to peers from sending districts;
Academic Goal 5, concerning the performance of GCVS students in their third year as compared to peers from
sending districts; Academic Goal 6, concerning the Student Growth Percentile (SGP) of students in their second year
at GCVS or beyond; and Academic Goal 7, concerning the CPI and SGP of students in their second year at GCVS or
beyond as compared to a "fictional" comparison district. The full set of goals, and the school’s self-assessment of its
progress towards them, is provided in Appendix A.
5.
Program delivery - Curriculum
Rating: Partially meets 
Teachers supplement the K12 curriculum with their own materials to align the curriculum with state standards. In
the early elementary grades, learning coaches rely on print materials. The quality and alignment of these
materials to state standards is likewise unclear.
K12 documentation assert that its curriculum is aligned to the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks, and
curriculum alignment was a key condition of the school’s probation. However, in several places it was noted that
teachers supplement the K12 curriculum with materials they develop on their own. As the review team was not
provided with these supplementary materials, the extent to which alignment of the school’s curriculum depends on
the efforts of individual teachers is unclear. Also unclear is the extent to which these supplementary materials,
which may include content and activities, are reviewed or consolidated, both for quality and to ensure consistent
learning experiences for students. Teachers were unable to cite the approximate ratio of prepared materials to
teacher-developed materials; according to the high school teachers, it varied from subject to subject.
Although the school’s delivery model is premised upon virtual learning, learning coaches, especially those who
support students in the early elementary grades, reported the heavy use of print materials at home. These materials
were not provided to the team as a part of the GCVS curriculum. It was therefore unclear to the review team
whether these materials, which are neither collected nor reviewed by teachers, aligned with curricula and
instruction.
As noted in the access and equity section of this report, GCVS purchased Imagine Learning for use with its ELL
students in fall 2015. GCVS provided a copy of the Imagine Learning “Lesson Guide by Curriculum Area: A Scope and
Sequence” (Version 14.0, June 2014). While GCVS indicates that it “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 ELD10 standards was not observed in lessons observed by
the team.
According to school leadership there have been no updates to the curriculum for school year 2015-16, although
they continue to meet with K12 on a monthly basis.
5.
Program delivery - Instruction
Rating: Falls far below 
Online lessons exhibited variability in the execution of the school’s model for instruction, expectations for
ensuring student understanding, and teaching students higher order thinking skills.
As a 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.11 The leadership team developed a rubric to monitor the delivery of online lessons, with an emphasis on
gauging student understanding, critical thinking, and engagement. And in the fall of 2015, GCVS doubled the
amount of synchronous lessons taught each week and required students to attend them.
Between October 10, 2015 and November 23, 2015, the review team observed 25 online lessons comprising over
1,200 minutes of instruction and featuring 347 students and 27 teachers. The average lesson was 51 minutes long;
the average class size was 13 students. Team members recorded their observations on a common observation form.
Prior to conducting observations of online lessons, the Department asked GCVS to give descriptions of expected
10
11
“ELD” stands for “English Development Standards.”
The priority areas align with the Department’s online observation protocol.
Page 14 of 35
practices aligned to the Department’s criteria for lesson observations (Appendix B). The percentage of lessons
observed that exhibited these practices are provided in the graph below.
Observed Practices - Online Lessons
No evidence
Climate
5%
Alignment
5%
Engagement
Time
14%
Understanding
Complexity
Sufficient evidence
Consistent evidence
24%
57%
40%
45%
29%
10%
23%
35%
35%
15%
20%
20%
33%
26%
24%
27%
35%
8%
10%
38%
41%
9%
Model
Differentiation
Limited evidence
30%
29%
35%
10%
29%
22%
17%
In 30 percent of online lessons observed, instructional practices exhibited sufficient or consistent evidence of the
school’s overall model (“model” in the graph above; in the March 2015 review it was 41 percent). As the elements
of the model match the Department’s lesson observation indicators, the team’s findings with respect to each are
provided below.
In 39 percent of lessons observed, students were challenged to develop and use skills such as analyzing, creating,
and evaluating (“complexity” above; in the March 2015 review it was 57 percent). Of the lessons observed, 58
percent of lessons demonstrated consistent or sufficient evidence of teachers checking for student understanding
(“understanding” above; in the March 2015 review it was 70 percent). 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 were infrequent.12 Several lessons exhibited zero evidence of analyzing, creating, or evaluating. In
one instance, the foundation for the higher order thinking skills exercise (drawing conclusions by applying lesson
content) was confusingly presented. Students were unable to access the slide that described the assignment in their
breakout groups; and the time provided for students to discuss the problem and report their findings was
insufficient. In most lessons, the teacher did most of the talking and did most of the cognitive work for the students.
Teachers checked for student understanding by asking perfunctory questions that primarily demanded recall of
basic facts. Student accountability for performing tasks was low; the virtual environment appeared to hinder rather
than aid teachers in gauging student understanding.
According to GCVS, one strategy for ensuring rigor is the use of “exit tickets,” tasks students perform at the close of
the lesson. Exit tickets are required for all lessons; however, the team observed a few lessons that did not use exit
tickets. In other cases, exit tickets did not demand tasks of students that required rigor, or were unrelated to the
lesson objective. For example, one exit ticket did not ask students to demonstrate understanding of key vocabulary
terms or reading comprehension strategies.
In general, the discourse between teachers and students, whether via audio, the chat function, or other onscreen
tools, typically involved the recall of basic facts and one-word responses to questions. For example, one teacher
paused from time to time to ask students to give a green check mark if they were “good.” The predominant mode of
12
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 15 of 35
teaching was lecture and the most common presentation of content was through static text and, occasionally,
pictures. Across lessons, the teacher was doing the majority of the talking. As noted previously, the average length
of an online lesson was 51 minutes; in one lesson, a teacher lectured from the same slide for 49 minutes. In those
lessons that did include frequent checks for understanding, a subset of students typically provided most of the
responses.
The team’s observations stood in contrast to what teachers said in focus groups. Teachers referenced higher-order
thinking, academic language, content vocabulary, going beyond rote memorization, breaking down individual
standards into actionable lessons and tasks, and Bloom’s Taxonomy. There were clear indications that teachers
understood the goal of the lessons but this understanding did not transfer into how the lessons were conducted.
In 50 percent of lessons, activities, materials, and strategies were differentiated to support the needs of diverse
learners (“differentiation” above; in the March 2015 review it was 59 percent). The majority of lessons were
teacher-directed and led. Instruction and content presentation seldom varied beyond lecturing from static slides.
The entirety of one lesson featured a teacher lecturing from a single slide of words and definitions. In another
lesson, the teacher was not visible to the students until 43 minutes into the lesson. In the lessons that utilized
multiple strategies to meet diverse learning needs (e.g., breakout rooms, video, polling, repeating vocabulary,
referencing background knowledge, etc.), it was unclear how teachers understood whether all students were doing
what was expected of them. None of the lesson observations provided evidence of the use of alternative resources
or assistive processes for students needing accommodation. Implementation of WIDA standards was not found in
lessons observed by the team.
In 50 percent of lessons, available learning time was maximized for all students (“time” above; in the March 2015
review it was 68 percent). Lessons that met this criterion began and ended on time, and featured most or all of the
instructional practices in the model described by GCVS. In some lessons, students arrived late; one lesson did not
begin until 20 minutes after the scheduled start of the class. Another lesson exceeded its scheduled time by 10
minutes, before which students began leaving the lesson prior its conclusion. Some lessons concluded before
objectives could be met, such as a lesson in which students used breakout rooms to collaborate but then ran out of
time to report out to the larger class. Other lessons that did not maximize learning time included those with a single
modality of instruction, such as those described in the “complexity” and “differentiation” sections above, lessons in
which the discourse was unrelated to the lesson objective, and lessons with relatively narrow objectives given the
time allotted.
In 55 percent of lessons, instruction featured content and skills aligned to grade level standards and students’
educational needs (“alignment” above; in the March 2015 review it was 72 percent). Some lessons provided both
the standard and a lesson objective worded in student-friendly language, but in others, standards were not posted.
In several instances, while the standards were posted, there was no evidence of “unpacking” content to meet
students' needs as articulated in the GCVS model. In other cases, the review team had difficulty understanding the
specific learning objective of lessons. In some lessons, it was unclear whether students understood the objectives at
the outset of the lesson. One lesson gave a topic appropriate to grade level standards but the tasks students
performed were below grade level. Another lesson gave its objective as understanding what questions would be on
the (state) test and why they were important.
In 62 percent of lessons, classroom practices fostered student engagement (“engagement” above; in the March
2015 review it was about 76 percent). Lessons that fostered engagement included those in which teachers either
asked for volunteers or called on specific students to perform tasks. Examples of activities included reading selected
passages aloud to the rest of the class, performing worked examples through shared whiteboard privileges, and
providing responses via chat. Teachers were observed using a variety of tools and methods to engage students,
including polling and cold calling. Teachers frequently utilized chat and breakout rooms. One teacher reminded
students to rotate writers and take turns answering questions in breakout rooms so that all students were included.
In another lesson, the teacher assigned specific roles for students to perform during the breakout session so that
each was involved and understood what their responsibilities were in completing the activity. These observations
were consistent with what teachers said in the focus groups. Many focus group members said that the online
environment was more conducive than brick-and-mortar settings when it came to students feeling comfortable
expressing what they do not know.
Across lessons, the majority (81 percent) exhibited sufficient or consistent evidence that the climate was
characterized by clear routines, respectful relationships, behaviors, tones, and discourse (“climate” above; in the
March 2015 review it was 87 percent). Teachers frequently welcomed students by name as they entered online
lessons and praised them for completing tasks successfully. Teachers were generally responsive to students’
Page 16 of 35
questions and reminded students to stay on task if the chat suggested they were drifting off topic. In one lesson, the
teacher explained to students how they can help their peers sound out words. Another lesson featured a class
“song” that reinforced rules and routines.
5.
Program delivery - Assessment and program evaluation
Rating: Meets 
GCVS employs multiple interventions to address student needs and has systems in place to monitor the efficacy
and impact of its instructional program.
Areas of focus for GCVS in the 2015-16 school year include the use of data to inform students’ placement in
academic interventions and monitoring for and intervening with students who do not appear to be on track for
course completion.
GCVS used a range of data sources to identify students whose learning needs are not fully addressed by the general
curriculum. Consistent with the team’s findings from the March 2015 review, the school’s primary screening
instruments are Scantron tests, given across grades and administered at the beginning and the end of the year, and
the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS), given in grades K-3 and administered three times per
year. Historical MCAS data, if extant, is also consulted. For students with disabilities who received therapeutic
services, the special education director and the child’s teacher can view a log of therapy sessions.
Teachers are trained to assess the learning needs of students in their classes in small group and one-on-one settings;
some members of the student focus group members reported participating in one-one-one sessions and others
indicated that teachers made clear to them that they are available for individual instruction as needed. 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. According to focus group participants, teams of teachers
use the school’s online learning system tracker to identify students who are 20 percent behind as of the first quarter
and 40 percent behind as of the second quarter. GCVS leadership indicated a reduction of students in this situation,
particularly students with learning disabilities, since the teams began intervening with them.
Regarding work performed offline by students, the learning coaches indicated that print materials are scanned and
uploaded to GCVS, such as workbook assignments. When asked how they evaluate work that students perform
using the print materials, the elementary and middle school teachers said they review students’ “do now’s” or “type
2” writing tasks. High school students reported that they have access to live gradebook information and that
students’ cumulative grades are continually updated as assignments are completed. Students appreciated the ability
to know exactly how they were performing in their courses at any given time, in contrast to their experiences in
brick-and-mortar schools.
GCVS leadership provided several examples of decisions made to improve programming, including counting
participation as part of a students’ grade, the introduction of block scheduling (in 2014-15), and increased
monitoring of student attendance. For example, high school students said that participation constitutes 15 percent
of their grade. When asked how a student’s participation is measured, the students said they attend online lessons,
talk to teachers, and complete exit tickets, among other general indicators of engagement. GCVS is in its second
year with block scheduling at the high school level, which lets students take one course at a time as opposed to two
courses concurrently. While GCVS leadership reported that this decision was driven by data that special education
students benefitted from this format, a student commented that the change made it more difficult for them to
complete their work if they fell behind in a subject.
GCVS leadership and family engagement coordinators also reported increased scrutiny of student attendance. If a
student misses a lesson, s/he is required to watch a recording of the lesson; all students are required to log into the
school’s online platform prior to 12:00 PM; family engagement coordinators view daily reports provided by K12 and
will call a student’s learning coach if they do not log in for two consecutive days. GCVS leadership acknowledged,
however, that the new attendance policy has led to some parents/guardians unenrolling their children from GCVS
due to a perceived loss of flexibility.
Page 17 of 35
5.
Program delivery - Diverse learners
Rating: Partially meets 
GCVS supports diverse learners through its student intervention team, the provision of assistive technology, and
parent/guardian outreach by family engagement coordinators. However, the school's online platform does not
permit teachers to review recordings of student performance in small groups.
According to school leadership, teachers monitor all live lessons as well as breakout rooms. If a teacher sees the
need for interventions, the teacher will perform interventions for 4-6 weeks. After that time, if no advancement is
being made, the teacher will submit a “SIT referral.”13 SIT members do not watch live lessons. One source of data
that is not available to the SIT, or, for that matter, any staff person, are recordings of student participation in online
breakout rooms. The special education/ELL focus group cited “compatibility issues” with the school’s online
platform, including that the breakout rooms are not recorded. The omission of this data is notable given the school’s
stated use of breakout rooms as a key strategy for implementing the school’s instructional model with diverse
learners.
GCVS used information from each student’s IEP to determine when to provide assistive technology such as built-in
microphones or Dragon voice recognition software (some accommodations are incorporated into students’
computing systems by default). As many assistive technologies and other accommodations are only visible to the
students who use them, the team was unable to verify their use from online observations. GCVS indicated that it
utilizes Read&Write GOLD (text-to-speech software), capture pens and touch tablets, microphones (both standard
and adapted), headsets, cameras, magnifying tools, and place markers.
Members of the teacher focus groups reported that the family engagement coordinators are the first people they
consult when they have difficulty connecting with students, and all focus groups agree that the key to a successful
virtual learning experience is the active involvement of learning coaches, which is different for students of different
ages. As noted previously, GCVS increased the number of family engagement coordinators which had led to an
increase in communications with learning coaches. In the early grades, family engagement coordinators
communicate with learning coaches more than they do with students. For example, they help learning coaches
create a schedule and routines to help students distinguish between “school time” and “play time”, and transition
from one to the other. One strategy included the use of a timer to help learning coaches and students structure
their time. For students in the middle grades, the family engagement coordinators emphasized collaborative
problem solving with learning coaches around their relationship with students (usually their children). They help
students develop a “voice” to promote greater ownership of the learning process, but they also help learning
coaches deal with crises. The family engagement coordinators also provide an important link between learning
coaches and teachers. For example, teachers copy them on their communications with learning coaches to facilitate
cooperation and mutual understanding of issues and situations. Learning coaches agreed that both the family
engagement coordinators and teachers are “very responsive” to the needs of the coaches or their students. They
also echoed the importance of establishing strong routines for students at home. One cited a fixed schedule with
time set aside for schoolwork, chores, and activities. The learning coach of an older student expressed the
importance of being “proactive” in monitoring their child’s learning.
Learning coaches said the online environment is secure and well-monitored. Kmail14 does not allow students to go
outside the system, the online learning system controls how students interact, and all activities (save for the
breakout rooms) are recorded. When asked about how GCVS addresses discipline issues, learning coaches said that
teachers are “on top of things” and can immediately “pull students out” of a class or revoke privileges such as
microphone or chat functions.
13
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.
14 Kmail is the school’s LMS-based email system.
Page 18 of 35
6.
School culture and family engagement
Social, emotional, and health needs; family and community engagement
Rating for both indicators: Meets 
Family engagement coordinators and the high school guidance counselor help students and learning coaches
adjust to the virtual environment, address students’ nonacademic needs, and create a sense of community among
all stakeholders at GCVS.
GCVS hired a third family engagement coordinator so that each is now responsible for working with students and
parents/guardians in specific grade spans (elementary, middle, and high school). Members of all focus groups cited
the key role of the family engagement coordinators and the high school guidance counselor in creating a sense of
community among all stakeholders at GCVS.
The family engagement coordinators began the 2015-16 school year by traveling to six locations around the state to
orient incoming students to the virtual environment, explain changes to the program to returning students, and
hold orientation sessions with parents/guardians (two sessions: one for parents/guardians of K-8 students and one
for parents/guardians of high school students). Topics included attendance and participation, an overview of how
the school works (addressing the role of the learning coach as well as functions of the online learning system), and
an introduction to the family and community resources GCVS offers. Teachers said it was helpful to refer students to
the family engagement coordinators for engagement or emotional issues, and cited conferencing with them
regarding student behavior plans. Most teachers reported communicating with the family engagement coordinators
on a regular basis, and most of the early elementary teachers reported having one-on-one meetings with them.
During the year, the GCVS leadership and special education/ELL focus groups reported conducting home visits for
some students as an expansion of the school’s efforts to attend to students’ socioemotional well-being. As cited
previously, the family engagement coordinators reported working more with learning coaches than with students in
many instances.
As a member of the SIT, the high school guidance counselor monitors student progress toward being on track for
graduation, serves as the coordinator of the FEV Tutoring service, analyzes MCAS data, and coordinates
administration of the SAT. A program called Pathfinder match students’ interests and skills with potential jobs.
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, including membership in the National Honor Society, student
government day, and a peer tutoring program initiated in 2015-16. Focus group members noted that students are
developing closer relationships as observed by their interactions at outings and the formation of study groups.
Learning coaches seem pleased with the efforts GCVS is making to create a community. GCVS sponsors monthly
web-based “learning coach community meetings.” Coordinated by the family engagement coordinators, each has a
particular focus; the first session of the year was held on September 16, 2015 and addressed learning coach
“contingency plans” and the Collins Writing Program. The October meeting addressed student attendance and
participation, and the November meeting was scheduled to include time management, the parent survey, and the
school’s tutoring program. In addition, teachers produce and distribute a weekly newsletter for K-8 students.
(Several learning coaches attested to receiving them and examples were reviewed by the team.)
GCVS leadership and family engagement group focus groups also reported increasing parent/guardian engagement
in 2015-16 through in-person outings and a virtual “open forum.” Some outings target specific grade levels to help
students transition from one grade level to the next (e.g., from middle to high school). All focus groups referenced
the outings and other face-to-face activities, including back-to-school picnics and a trip to the zoo. Upcoming events
advertised on the GCVS website include an Old Sturbridge Village & Plymouth Plantation Outing and learning coach
community meetings in November and December. The executive director’s open forum is designed as a venue in
which parents/guardians and other members of the GCVS community gather online to discuss a specific issue, come
to resolution on a controversial subject, or ask questions of the executive director. At the time of the visit, an open
forum was held in September and October, with November marked as “TBA.”
Students reported that teachers were generally responsive, supportive, and encouraging, which some said
contrasted with their experiences in brick-and-mortar schools. They cited the ability to have one-on-one sessions
with teachers online or connect with them via email or phone for help with their coursework. One student said,
“Here even though teachers have a lot of students they can still get to you and can explain in a way that is easy for
you to understand.” They reported positive online interactions with peers and “understanding” teachers. High
school students said that in-class messaging happens during practically all live lessons, many of which feature group
activities. One student noted that “students are treated as people and taught as people” and that there is “no
Page 19 of 35
tolerance for bullying.” High school students noted that teachers have become “more professional” over the years
and a more “robust” school community. Students expressed that they felt more connected than in the past, and
that GCVS has helped them to “know themselves more academically” and “feel more empowered.” Students
described interactions with their teachers and learning coaches, including times when the teachers called the
learning coach to check on how the student is doing, or teachers helped learning coaches understand the subject
matter. In general, students appreciated the relative degree of autonomy and independence GCVS afforded them,
with some reporting very few interactions with teachers.
Most students reported active lives outside of school, engaging in activities such as dance, work, and athletics, but
they also reported getting to know their peers within GCVS, through interactions at school-sponsored outings as
well as electronically, including via email, social networking, and text messaging.
Organizational viability
7.
Capacity – School leadership
Rating: Partially meets 
Instructional quality remains uneven; it is unclear whether or how teacher-created materials and the K12
curriculum are evaluated to ensure alignment with the curriculum and state standards, respectively; and it is
unclear to the team whether or how GCVS evaluates the general K12 curriculum; at the time of the review, a
discrepancy in the school’s finances had not been brought to the GCVS board.
GCVS leadership is comprised of the executive director (equivalent to the position of superintendent/principal),
head program administrator for K12, special education director, Title I/ELL coordinator, and operations manager (a
K12 employee who supports GCVS remotely).
In 2014-15, GCVS leadership developed a strategic plan framed by the school’s probationary requirements and the
guiding principles of virtual school accountability articulated in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Virtual School
Performance Criteria. The plan addressed the probationary conditions placed on GCVS by the Board in October
2014, including the submission of an approvable contract to the Department between GCVS and K12; evidence that
GCVS aligned its curriculum to the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks; and the submission of a comprehensive
independent evaluation of the school’s mathematics and ELA programs and instructional priorities. With respect to
these components, an approvable contract was submitted on October 31, 2014, and documentation of compliance
with the latter two conditions was submitted on December 31, 2014. In fall 2015, and as described in the
contractual relationships and governance sections of this report, the executive director and the board published a
request for proposal (RFP) for provision of its online curriculum, services, and teachers.
The independent evaluation, dated December 31, 2014, provided eight recommendations for improving instruction
in the online lessons and three action steps for improving instruction. The report concluded that GCVS made
“positive efforts” to address the concerns identified in the June 2014 accountability review, indicating that the
school leadership team “has begun the process” of improving the quality of the school. In general, and with some
exceptions with regard to instruction noted previously in this report, evidence from focus groups and document
reviews indicated that GCVS implemented these action steps. However, the quality of instruction remains uneven; it
is unclear to the team how, if at all, teacher-created materials are evaluated to ensure alignment with standards and
the curriculum; and it is unclear to the team whether or how GCVS evaluates the general K12 curriculum.
In September 2015 Department staff noted a discrepancy in the school’s accounting of tuition receivable in FY15
and that this discrepancy had carried into the school’s FY16 budget. The Department immediately notified GCVS of
this discrepancy. According to the executive director, the need for an amended budget for school year 2015-16 was
mentioned at the October 5, 2015 GCVS board meeting. A review of the meeting minutes posted to the GCVS web
site revealed the following note: “JL, we met before board meeting. Went over several issues. Admended (sic)
budget for 15-16 SY.” The review team could not determine from the minutes what was specifically discussed,
although the GCVS board did confirm that as of the time of the visit, the executive director had not presented a
revised FY16 budget to the board. While the GCVS board indicated that it reviews the school’s finances “line-by-line”
on a monthly basis, including regularly requesting new reports of the executive director, it is unclear to the review
team why the discrepancy persisted until it was brought to the school’s attention by the Department in September
2015.
Page 20 of 35
With respect to educator evaluation, GCVS provided an observation schedule with due dates for self-assessments,
goals, formal teacher observations, and formative assessments, and an educator evaluation tracking document
indicating the status for each teacher. General education teachers are K12 employees and the special education/ELL
staff are GCVS employees. At the time of the visit, the family engagement coordinators were not subject to
evaluation.
7.
Capacity – Professional climate
Rating: Meets 
GCVS takes steps to foster a professional climate; stakeholders perceived supporting teachers and improving
instructional practices as priorities.
The GCVS board noted teacher orientation and mentoring along with professional learning as key priority areas.
Now in its second year of implementation, the school’s teacher induction and mentor program supports beginning
teachers with a full week of professional development prior to the start of school and the pairing of every teacher
with a mentee. Teachers said they receive support from school leadership, the guidance counselor, the Title I/ELL
coordinator, family engagement coordinators, and peers. Mentor-mentee meetings occur weekly or biweekly.
Teachers reported participating in a variety of meetings to further their professional learning, including meetings
with special education teachers and family engagement coordinators, SIT meetings, grade level meetings, meetings
with team leaders, and monthly school-wide faculty meetings. Presentations were provided for meetings held on
October 1, September 3, and August 27, 2015. Prior to the start of the 2015-16 school year, GCVS conducted a
week-long faculty orientation (face-to-face and online) for which an agenda was provided, along with links to the
recorded online sessions. Furthermore, early elementary teachers reported informal collaboration via Google Chat,
Google Handouts, text messaging, and email.
The school’s professional development plan was provided to the review team. It showed goals aligned to the state’s
standards for high quality professional development. Areas of professional development cited for 2015-16 include
training in WestEd, Collins WIDA, ONCOURSE (teacher lesson planning software), and DIBELS (for special education
teachers, K-3 teachers, and the reading specialist).
In 2015-16, GCVS implemented a teaming initiative (“team leaders”) in which teachers and other staff members are
organized into teams by grade span (K-5, 6-8, and high school). Each team has a team leader, a special education
teacher, math and reading specialists, general education teachers, and a family engagement coordinator. The
executive director meets with team leaders on a weekly basis in order to convey key priorities to the teams, and
collect information from the teams to raise with GCVS leadership. The teams meet weekly, either in-person or
remotely. Teams are required to work onsite at the school’s administrative offices in Greenfield once per month on
Thursdays from 8:00 AM to 12:00 PM. Team members reported participating in professional development together.
The team leader focus group said it has been a “huge help to get feedback from other teachers.” According to GCVS
leadership, GCVS is the only K12 school that uses the team leader model.
7.
Capacity – Contractual relationships
Rating: Partially meets 
Although contractually-authorized corrective actions were ordered by GCVS of K12, GCVS invited other
vendors to propose educational services to GCVS.
Educational courses and teaching services, including management software, learning materials, and technical
support services are provided by K12, a virtual school provider based in Herndon, Virginia. The contract with K12
authorizes the GCVS board to establish “measurable annual goals” with respect to the “operations, academic
performance, and financial performance” of K12 [4.1(k)(iv)(5)]. The contract authorizes GCVS to propose that K12
take “corrective action” if goals are not met, which may include “products, services, training of teachers, tutors or
other corrective action measures” (1.13). K12 has 30 days to respond to the notice of corrective action, after which
GCVS has the authority to deduct up to $150,000 of the cost of the corrective action from its remuneration to K12.
In a letter dated October 6, 2015, GCVS did not propose but rather notified K12 of corrective actions the school “is
pursuing” based on “state standardized testing data and academic annual goals (1-5 and 7-9) not being met." The
letter gave K12 30 days to respond “by providing GCVS with proposed products, services, training of teachers, tutors
or other corrective action measure at no cost to GCVS or to negotiate with GCVS a reasonable alternative.”
Page 21 of 35
In a letter dated November 9, 2015, K12 acknowledged receipt of the October 6 letter. The letter from K12
recommended the adoption of licenses for two software tools (“LiteracyTA” and “LearnBop”) and “face-to-face
standards-based training to the teachers…to enhance efficacy in the classroom.”
In a November 24, 2015 response to K12, GCVS indicated that it had reviewed K12's corrective action proposal and
determined that none of the recommendations would move GCVS toward meeting its annual goals. GCVS explained
that it had "already initiated an interactive web-based math program" at its own expense and "created and
implemented a school wide Professional Development Plan aligned with the goals of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts standards for High Quality of Professional Development." The GCVS letter stated, "the most effective
way to deal with not meeting these goals is a more in-depth and hands-on one-on-one tutoring program." Further,
the letter stated, "If you have a one-on-one tutoring program please provide us with the details of this program, so
that we may consider it. If not, we shall purchase a one-on-one tutoring program and charge the cost to K12 as
provided for in section 1.13 of the Educational Services Agreement."
Concurrent with these communications, GCVS developed and posted a Request for Proposals (RFP) inviting other
vendors to provide educational and other services to GCVS. 15 When asked to describe what GCVS seeks in a new
vendor, the GCVS board said that the engagement must be cost effective; an “exemplary curriculum” must be
aligned to the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks; the provider must be able to adapt to specific requests from
GCVS (e.g., reporting structures, governance, purchasing of specific parts of the curriculum design); the provider
must be responsive; there must be a strong offline component (attention to quality of materials and equipment);
and teacher quality and teacher development must be emphasized. As the team was not provided with
documentation of corrective action(s) ordered of K12 by the GCVS board, nor a formal evaluation of K12 by the
board, the extent to which the aforementioned characteristics reflected dissatisfaction with K12 is unclear.
8.
Governance
Rating: Partially meets 
A review of GCVS board meeting minutes and documentation provided to the review team indicates that the
board has not formally evaluated K12.
The five member GCVS board includes two former members of the Greenfield Public School board, a parent with
two children at GCVS, and individuals with backgrounds in virtual education. The newest member has expertise in
access and equity and technology as a facilitator of learning.
The board said that improving teaching and learning is a top priority, and cited efforts by GCVS leadership and staff,
such as the school’s professional development plan. The role of K12 was unclear, however. Section 5.14 of the
school’s contract with K12 requires the board to “offer an annual written evaluation of K12's performance after the
conclusion of each school year and no later than October 1 of the following school year” in areas such as “success of
academic program, organizational viability, faithfulness to Certificate, human capital and professional development,
and compliance.” A review of GCVS board meeting minutes and documentation provided to the review team
indicates that the board has not formally evaluated K12.
With respect to succession planning, board members indicated that they are engaging a consultant to conduct a
spring retreat with the goal of creating a board handbook to codify its practices. According to the board, this
handbook will give language to the role of trustee and be used as a recruitment tool. The board stressed that in
recruiting members they give thoughtful consideration to who can complement the group, fill gaps in knowledge or
skill, and who can best serve the school.
The board evaluated the school leader on February 20, 2015 using the state’s model rubric for superintendent
evaluation, and a copy of this formal evaluation was provided to the Department by GCVS.
9.
Finance
Rating: To be determined based on FY15 financial audit
15
GCVS provided the Department with a copy of the RFP and supporting materials, approved by the GCVS board on
October 19, 2015 (as reflected in board meeting minutes). The 30-day response period ends on December 15, 2015.
Page 22 of 35
Appendix A: GCVS annual goals, 2014-17
Consistent with 603 CMR 52.02, GCVS submitted an accountability plan to the Department 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
the Department and will be subject to review as part of the certificate renewal process.
Annual Goals
2014-15
Evidence
Satisfaction goal 1
☒ Met
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 K8 and High School Parent Survey.
□ Not Met
Three questions from the Parent Survey were
used to measure this goal.
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)
□ No
Data
Available
Question 4. Communication – 91% Parents
were Sometimes Satisfied or better.
Question 6 Support – 97% Parents were
Sometimes Satisfied or better.
Question 9 Instruction – 97.17% Parents were
Sometimes Satisfied or better.
Total – 95.05%
Page 23 of 35
Annual Goals
2014-15
Evidence
Satisfaction goal 2
☒ Met
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.
□ Not Met
End of year enrollment: 556
WD at some point
during the year: 195
WD due to LC or
Geography: 73
= (556 + 73)/(556+195)
= 629/751
= 84%
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.
□ No
Data
Available
The WD
breakdown
below. WD
Codes:
Here are the reasons
classified satisfied: E2 LC Unavailable
FS12-Family: LC Unavailable
OW3-Transfer: Out of State to
Another K12 Offering FS3-Family:
Geography – Moved
FS17-Family: Family Situation Stabilized/Changed
(Note: similar to LC or Geography change.)
Here are the reasons classified as “dissatisfied”:
FS11-Family: Insufficient
Socialization for Student SP10Program: Schedule Not Flexible
Enough SP12-Program: Don't like
Online Model
SP13-Program: Lack of
Extracurricular Options SP17Program: Insufficient Support
From Teacher SP18-Program:
Insufficient Support From School
SP21-Program: Issue with School
Policy
SP6-Program: Content Not
Flexible Enough SP9-Program:
Planning/Prep Work is Too
Much FS18-Family: Accepted
into Preferred Option FS10Family: Lack of Student
Motivation
FS15-Family: Unable to Manage Daily
Education Process C2 - Student Needs
Structure of B&M
K5 - Objects to public school requirements
SP20-Program: Issue with Other Public
School Requirements SP8-Program: Daily
Courseload Too Much
FS2-Family: Student Health (incl Death)
Page 24 of 35
Annual Goals
2014-15
Evidence
Satisfaction goal 3
☒ Met
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.
□ Not Met
Three questions from the Parent Survey were
used to measure this goal. Question 6 – 97%
of Parents were Sometimes Satisfied or
better.
Question 8 – 97% of Parents were Sometimes
Satisfied or better. Question 10 Instruction –
95.95% Parents were Sometimes Satisfied or
better.
Total – 96.65%
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
□ No
Data
Available
Operational goal 1
☒ Met
GCVS will follow the MassCore Recommended
Program of Studies for High School Graduation.
□ Not Met
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.
□ No
Data
Available
Operational goal 2
□ Met
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.
☒
Partially
Met
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.
□ Not Met
□ No
Data
Available
GCVS uses MassCore Recommended
Program of Studies for High School
Graduation.
GCVS Graduated 13 seniors in 20142015.
In 2014-15 MAVA strove to offer expanded
opportunities for its families to participate in
community building events. Many events
were planned to take place in several
different locations in order for more families
to participate. For example, Science Museum
trip was extended to include the Hartford
Science Museum as well as Boston, giving
families in the western part of the state the
opportunity to travel over a shorter distance.
In 2014-2015, 26 outings were planned as
opposed to 7 in 2013-14. The school
established a Learning Coach Community
(LCC) and held 10 monthly LCC meetings.
Total attendance for these outings were
1,213 participants. With the increase of
events and locations the school feel a new
goal will be need to accurately reflect the
school’s efforts to increase community
engagement.
Page 25 of 35
Annual Goals
4. The goal will be set to ensure strong
communication surrounding these goals
and events.
2014-15
Evidence
Academic goal 1
□ Met
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.
☒
Partially
Met
2015
Results
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.
□ No
Data
Available
5.
Monthly
□ Not Met
1st
Years
201314
78.9
N
(201314)
1st
Years
201415
78.3
N
(201415)
ELA
105
155
CPI
Math
57.9
105
62.5
155
CPI
Reflection: MAVA missed this indicator by 0.6 in
ELA. Please note that while this goal has only
been partially met, the State switched to a new
exam in 2014-15. PARCC scores across the State
are significantly lower than MCAS scores in the
prior year. The trending data for first year
students in virtual school across the country
demonstrates that students struggle with the
newness of the learning platform. MAVA took this
into consideration as it hired the new positions of
the Family Engagement Coordinators, Title I
interventionists and instituted a robust Learning
Coach Community.
Conclusion: That MAVA held largely steady in
ELA and went up in Math should be considered a
sign of significant improvement.
Page 26 of 35
Annual Goals
2014-15
Evidence
Academic goal 2
☒ Met
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.
□ Not Met
2015
MAVA
Results CPI
ELA
79.0
Outperform Outperform
#
%
113
72.9%
Math
82
□ No
Data
Available
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.
68.8
52.9%
Reflection: PARCC scores across the State are
significantly lower than MCAS scores from the
previous year. Although MAVA met its goal in
ELA, this might attribute the lower percentage
of school that MAVA outperformed in ELA.
However, MAVA place an emphasis on Math
and Math interventionist with our Title I
efforts and FEV tutoring. Students were placed
in Math FEV tutoring over ELA if their previous
scores warranted it.
Conclusion: MAVA “Met” this goal. MAVA lost
some ground in ELA but still outperformed
over 70% of all schools. MAVA made
substantial progress in Math. Once again,
emphasis on Math in FEV tutoring and Title I
contributed to the increase in Math results.
Academic goal 3
□ Met
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).
☒ Not Met
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.
□ No
Data
Available
2015
Results
ELA
Math
Science
N
20
20
20
Passed
MCAS
85%
60%
95%
EPP
Ready
10% 95%
35% 95%
0.0% 95%
Reflection: There were 20 seniors. Of these,
1 has not met requirements in each of the 3
disciplines (ELA, Math, Science).
Unfortunately, it's a different student for
each one, meaning that there are 3 students
who have not met requirements, which
means that 85% have. One of these students
are still with us and have passed ELA and
Math. They are retaking the MCAS Biology in
February.
Conclusion: While there are 95% of the students
who reached readiness in each category, only
85% of students reached readiness in ALL
categories.
Page 27 of 35
Annual Goals
2014-15
Evidence
Academic goal 4
□ Met
Met “All Students” ELA and Math (95%)
MCAS/PARCC Participation: Within each subgroup at least 95% of students will be assessed
in ELA, Math, and Science MCAS test each
year.
☒Partially
Met
Did not meet
Math High
Needs (93%)
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
□ Not Met
□ No
Data
Available
95% attendance 323 out of 341
accessed in Math for 95%
attendance
134 out of 145 accessed in Science for 92% attendance
Academic goal 5
☒ Met
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.
□ Not Met
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.
Total Results for all students:
322 out of 340 accessed in ELA for
□ No
Data
Available
2015
Results
ELA
Math
MAVA
CPI
83
75
Outperform
#
127
111
Outperform
%
81.9%
71.6%
Conclusion: Significant gains in Math are shown
while maintaining ELA CPI scores.
Reflection: Even though the PARCC test was
notably a more difficult test, MAVA remained
strong in ELA and outperformed other schools
by over 23% in Math.
Page 28 of 35
Annual Goals
2014-15
☒ Met
Academic goal 6
The ELA and Math SGP of students in their
or beyond at MAVA will be at least 40.
2nd year
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.
□ Not Met
□ No
Data
Available
Evidence
2015
SGP N
Results
ELA
54 130
Math
56 130
Conclusion: We feel that MAVA’s increase
emphasis in rigor as well as Higher Order
Thinking Skills, along with Title I and FEV
tutoring initiatives all led to significant
increases in Student Growth Percentile.
Reflection: State average SGP scores
range from 40 to 60. The growth from
in ELA and Math from2014 to 2015 is
substantial.
N
Results
ELA CPI 79.0
Representative
Dist
59
75.8
ELA SGP 54
44
48
Math
CPI
Math
SGP
68.8
59
66.2
56
48
47
Academic goal 7
☒ Met
2015
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.
□ Not Met
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.
□ No
Data
Available
MAVA
Conclusion: Increases can be seen in all
areas. ELA and Math SGP grew not only
significantly over the Representative
Districts, but also over MAVA’s 2014 results.
Once more, this data confirms that MAVA’s
initiatives around an emphasis in Title I Math
and FEV Tutoring are working.
(Note: Not all “home districts” participated
in PARCC. Because the MCAS and PARCC
carry different difficulty levels, I only used
the schools that took the PARCC, to create a
more fair comparison. This is also why the N
is lower than it should be.)
Page 29 of 35
Annual Goals
2014-15
Academic goal 8
The CPI and SGP gaps between MAVA’s special
education population and its
aggregate population will be no larger than the
equivalent gaps for the State of
Massachusetts.
□ Met
☒Partially
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
standards, the gap at the school will be no larger than the
gap statewide.
Evidence
2015
□ Not Met
□ No Data
Available
CPI
ELA
SGP
Math
CPI
Math
MAVA
MA
Agg
MAVA
MAVA
Sp.
MA
MA
Agg.
38
43.2
28
10.0
50
6.8
65.3
56.1
41.3
24.1
79.9
23.9
44.5
42.4
27
17.5
50
7.6
Sp.
SGP
Conclusion: 2015 CPI and SGP gaps remain
similar to 2014. These gaps continue to be
in-line with state averages. MAVA still
needs to strive to better close these gaps.
The introduction and emphasis on the
Special Education Inclusion program in the
2015-2016 school year will directly address
these gaps.
Academic goal 9
□ Met
MAVA-assigned final grades in 7th, 8th and 10th grade ELA ☒Partially
and Math classes will
correlate with MCAS/PARCC scores at 0.5 or higher (using Met
a straight Pearson Rho).
This statistic demonstrates the variability in grading that is
attributable to variability
in scoring on standardized exams. As such, it acts as an
indicator of the degree to
which 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
(Bolek, 2011).
□ Not Met
□ No
Data
Available
2015
Results
7th
ELA
Math
0.66
0.51
8th
0.51
0.25
10th
Not calculated (took
MCAS)
0.59
0.38
Average
Conclusion: We need to look closer at the
8th grade Math assessments and the
grading of those assessments to bring
about a greater degree to which teacherassigned grades reflect teaching of the
standards and priorities that are assessed
on the exams.
Reflection: This year, in anticipation of this
scores, have added 3 Math Extended
Problems (MEPs) in grades 3-8. We have
created K- 5, 6-8 and High School
Professional Learning Communities (PLCs).
These PLCs have work together to modify
the MEPs, will blind grade a few of them and
discuss consistencies or divergences and will
Page 30 of 35
gap
ga
Annual Goals
2014-15
Evidence
assist each other in grading them. We
believe this initiative will bring about a
change in this score.
Academic goal 10
□ Met
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 201617 and 73% 2017-18.
□ Not Met
Academic goal 11
□ Met
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.
□ Not Met
School growth goal 1
□ Met
Through Professional Development, cooperation
and communication, the Head Program
Administrator and Executive Director ensure a
yearly teacher retention rate of 80%.
☒ Not Met
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.
☒ No
Data
Available
☒ No
Data
Available
□ No
Data
Available
This data will be available by the week of
December 14th. We will send this data to
the Office of Digital Learning when we
finalize the numbers and also include this
data in MAVA’s Annual Report.
This data will be available by the week of
December 14th. We will send this data to
the Office of Digital Learning when we
finalize the numbers and also include this
data in MAVA’s Annual Report.
MAVA had a total of 22 teachers that would
be considered in the denominator for this
data. The school retained 15 out of 22
teachers for a retention rate of 68.18 %.
Conclusion: The majority of teachers who
were not retained left during the school year.
The schools feels this was due largely to new
school initiatives that emphasized teaching,
instruction and rigor.
Page 31 of 35
Annual Goals
4. MA Teacher Evaluation will be adopted in 2014-15
2014-15
Evidence
School growth goal 2
☒ Met
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.
□ Not Met
Attendance was taken to ensure
teacher participation. All teachers
participated in at least two school
related events.
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.
□ No
Data
Available
Page 32 of 35
Appendix B: Expected practices
Prior to conducting observations of online lessons, the Department requested and received descriptions of expected
practices aligned to the Department’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 state standards and objectives posted and
reviewed. Students follow classroom etiquette and rules.
Learning time is maximized for
all students
Lessons must be of appropriate length to keep a balance between student
engagement and delivery of curriculum, and follow a clear format.
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 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
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
State standards and objectives posted and reviewed.
Activities/materials/strategies
are differentiated to provide
support for all learners
See above.
Sheltered English immersion:
Instructional content in the
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
Page 33 of 35
Classroom culture and management
Description (ESE)
Expected practice (CMVS)
English language is sheltered
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
technologies, accommodations,
supports, adaptations and
related services
Read&Write Gold text-to-speech software; microphones and headsets; writing pads;
speak-to-text software; students have the ability to enlarge text.
Page 34 of 35
Appendix C: Current status of probationary conditions
On June 5, 2014, the Department conducted an accountability review of GCVS in accordance with CMR 52.08. The report
was completed on September 17, 2014, after the results of the Spring 2014 MCAS tests became official. The resulting site
visit report documented concerns about GCVS'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 Department guidance.
Due to these concerns, pursuant to the CMVS regulations at 603 CMR 52.12(2) the Commissioner recommended, and
the Board approved, to place GCVS on probation for the remainder of the school's certificate term, which expires on
June 30, 2016, with seven conditions. The current status of GCVS in complying with those conditions is specified below:
1.
By October 31, 2014, GCVS will submit to the Department a final draft of a contract with K12, Inc., that
addresses all issues already communicated to GCVS by the Department, for the Commissioner’s approval.
GCVS complied with this condition. However, as noted in this report, the GCVS board has not performed a
formal evaluation of K12 as stipulated in the contract, nor has the board ordered corrective actions of K12.
2.
By December 31, 2014, GCVS will provide evidence to the Department that it has completed the alignment of
its curriculum to the Massachusetts curriculum frameworks.
GCVS complied with the condition to provide alignment documents; however, the review team noted that the
extent to which alignment of the school’s curriculum depends on teacher-created content was unclear.
Moreover, although the school’s delivery model was premised upon virtual delivery of curricula, learning
coaches, especially those who supported children in the early elementary grades, reported the heavy use of
workbooks. It was unclear to the review team how these materials, which were offline and not collected or
reviewed by teachers, aligned with curricula and instruction.
3.
By December 31, 2014, GCVS will submit to the Department a comprehensive evaluation of the school's
mathematics and English language arts programs and of the school's instructional practices, such evaluation
to be conducted by one or more external consultants acceptable to the Department.
GCVS complied with this condition.
4.
By January 31, 2015, GCVS will submit an action plan to the Department for approval that specifies strategies
to improve mathematics and English language arts performance. The plan must address how the school will
utilize and will support instructional staff to implement the plan. The plan must include a timetable for the
implementation of actions, must set deadlines for the completion of key tasks, and must set clear and
specific implementation benchmarks to allow the GCVS board of trustees and the Department to monitor
implementation.
GCVS complied with this condition.
5.
By December 31, 2015, GCVS must demonstrate that it is an academic success through evidence of significant
academic improvement in mathematics and English language arts.
The Department will consider GCVS’s performance on spring 2015 assessments along with the progress GCVS
demonstrates against the indicators articulated in the accountability goals developed by GCVS.
6.
Beginning immediately and until further notice, GCVS must submit to the Department, at
jgwatkin@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, and the school must
provide such additional information within two business days.
To date, GCVS has complied with this condition.
These conditions are described in the Commissioner’s October 10, 2014 memo to the Board:
www.doe.mass.edu/boe/docs/2013-06/item3.html.
Page 35 of 35