278 Main Street
Suite 205
Greenfield, MA 01301
Phone: 413-475-3849
Fax: 413-475-3909
Email: info@gcvs.org
Carl S. Tillona
Massachusetts Virtual Academy at Greenfield
278 Main St. Suite 205
Greenfield, MA 01020
June 29, 2015
Kenneth Klau
Office of Digital Learning
75 Pleasant Street
Malden, MA 02148-4906
Dear Kenneth Klau:
On behalf of the Massachusetts Virtual Academy at Greenfield Commonwealth Virtual School I want to thank you for your visit o n
March 2, 2015 and your subsequent review of MAVA’s program. We feel the close working relationship we have with the Office of
Digital Learning has helped to strengthen our school as well as provide valuable evidence to the state that virtual schools do add
value to the educational landscape of Massachusetts. We are pleased that the state’s Accountability Review has validated the efforts
the school has made to improve the school. To that end, it’s my pleasure to respond to the state’s Accountability Review findings.
Access and equity: Although GCVS completed several compliance steps required by the terms of its probationary status, GCVS
lacked a formal curriculum for English language. The school’s Internet access policy may discourage families from enrolling their
child in GCVS, a public school.
School’s Response: At the time of the state’s visit the school’s ELL population was placed either at a level 5 or 6 based on student
WIDA scores. This level calls for immersion in the curriculum with support. The school’s ELL teacher was working with the students
within the curriculum and supporting the students and the teachers based upon individual student needs. A statement was made by
the visiting team that we might need a curriculum if a Level I or 2 student were to enroll, however, enrollment had been closed since
October of 2015. The school has been researching ELL curricula for the fall of 2015 in the case that the school were to enroll a
student whose need might warrant a separate curriculum. However, having a formal curriculum for the 2014-2015 school year, was
not a need for the school.
The school has taken steps, from the advice from the state, to define its Internet access policy and did remove the language from the
school’s website which gives the appearance that families will be required to pay for their own internet service.
Student Performance: In 2014 GCVS placed at the 7th percentile of all middle/high schools and K-12 schools in the Commonwealth
and was classified in Level 3 of the state’s five-level accountability and assistance system. The school’s 2014 cumulative progress
and performance index (PPI) of 63 indicated GCVS did not make sufficient progress toward closing proficiency gaps.
School’s Response: New Students
Over the last three years, on average, 48% of our students are new each year. For school years 2012-13 MAVA enrolled 222 new
students; for 2013-14, 190 new students; and for this year 2014-15, 400 new students have enrolled. Fifty-six percent of our
population are new students and are encountering an entirely new approach to learning. Our data reveals that students may face
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.
struggles their first year as they become acclimated to our program; however, MCAS scores rise for students who stay in the virtual
school program for two years. For students who stay two years or longer, their MCAS scores are on par with state averages.
Students Who Complete Two or More Years with MAVA
Using MCAS data MAVA was able to research students test scores in their second year and beyond. The school studied Composite
Score Indexes (CSI) and Student Growth Percentiles (SGP) from two districts where MAVA enrolled a concentrated pocket of students.
These districts were Boston and Springfield, respectively. Collectively, those districts had 151 public schools with CSIs reported on
ESE’s website. Of the 151 public schools MAVA outperformed 128 or 84.8% of school s, in CSI for ELA, and 63 schools or 41.7% in CPI
for Math. In their third year, MAVA students outperformed 135 schools or 89.9% in CSI for ELA, and outperformed 73 schools or 48.3%
in CSI for Math.
According to ESE’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 number s of
students (i.e. 1,000 students or more)”, and “medians above 60 or below 40 are relatively unusual.” 1 Having an SGP of 40 or higher
indicates that the school is functioning at levels equivalent to most schools, statewide. The SGP for students in MAVA for two years
or more was 41.5 in ELA and 39 in Math.
Based on this data, MAVA students who stay in our school for two or more years do show noteworthy gains in both CPI and SGP when
compared to their resident district’s scores. Upon further reflection on the students MAVA serves, David Edwards of Ignite L earning
writes in the school’s independent evaluation done in December of 2014, “while test score data may not indicate a quality instructional
model, careful consideration to more longitudinal data should be considered as the Board continues to review accountability f or
MAVA. This attention to more longitudinal data is not isolated to MAVA, but is part of a national quality assurance movement for full
time virtual schools.”2
Cohorts
Another major challenge of being the first and at the time, the only virtual school in the Commonwealth was how to compare and
classify student learning. To classify our school and compare our achievement to other Middle and High Schools not by type and school
design but simply by grade level appears to put our school in an inequitable position. Based on the 2013-14 State Report Card, MAVA
has a cohort of 73 schools to which to compare itself to. ESE’s determination of Level I through V seems to hinge on MAVA’s placement
within this cohort. Herein lies our challenge. The schools on this list could not be more different. They include schools that are
structurally very different from each other. They include high performing charter schools, regional middle/high schools, alternative
schools for students with moderate to severe disabilities, magnet schools and only one other virtual school. These schools serve very
different populations in different communities across the state. To expect the exact same level of performance from them is
unrealistic.
Even if we are to claim that all public schools, regardless of type, mission and population, should be held to the same set of
expectations, there is a simple problem of grade spans. The average CPI across the state on the MCAS varies by grade level. Comparing
a school that serves grades 7-12 to a school that serves grades K-12 is problematic. It is clear that the state tests carry very different
inherent difficulty levels. If we assume that a school has equal numbers of students at each grade level, and the school is performing
at state average, then a school that serves students in grades 7-12 would be expected to score a 91.5 on its ELA CPI, while a school
that serves students in grades 3-12 would be expected to score an 86.6, almost 5 full points lower. Holding schools to the same CPI
expectations, independent of grade level, unfairly penalizes schools that serve younger students. A more fair accountability model
should normalize institutional CPIs for the grade level of the exams and the number of students at each grade level.
Target Populations:
There are also issues related to the uniqueness of a school like MAVA. MAVA’s target population serves students who are not being
served well by “traditional” schools. It is unrealistic to expect any school to be able to meet the needs of all of the students that might
1
http://www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/growth/StateReport.pdf
2
Ignite Learning Inc. was approved by ESE to complete an independent evaluation on MAVA’s math and ELA program. This
evaluation was completed in December and was submitted to ESE in compliance with the school’s terms of probation. The full report
can be accessed by the following link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2nTO6GcGD_wd19jM2dveXpXVVk/view?usp=sharing
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.
appear in its area of service. Some of these students are bound to need academic environments that cannot be offered. MAVA is
an attempt to meet the needs of some of these students. As such, most of the students who come to MAVA do so with a long
history of academic gaps and difficulties. Many of them come to MAVA from less-traditional educational backgrounds (17% from
homeschooling, 9% from charter or private schools). Many of them have severe test anxiety, a history of opting out of
standardized exams or have never taken an MCAS (7% of MAVA’s students in grade 4 or higher were 1st time MCAS takers).
Demographics: Student Subgroups
As of May 29, 2015, 29.1% of our students are either on an IEP or 504 (14.7% on an IEP and 14.4% on a 504), 1% of students are
ELL and 47% are Title I based on their Free and Reduced Lunch eligibility. MAVA expects these percentages to increase slightly,
especially in the area of 504s, over the next few years. A more equitable accountability model would normalize student
performance for the measured effect of the demographics on achievement. As evidenced in our April 2015 Accountability
Review, MAVA is fulfilling its mission by targeting and serving students with High Needs.
Program Delivery: GCVS employed a range of interventions to address student needs and had systems in place to monitor the efficacy
and impact of its instructional program; however, students learned within several different software programs that were not
connected. Consequently, it was unclear how a clear picture of student performance was generated and how that translated into
progress or lack thereof.
School Response: The Response to Intervention (RTI) model is embedded in day to day school wide best practices. This includes a
school wide belief system that all children can learn, and that educators are responsible for creating a supportive learning
environment. This includes, but is not limited to, the cycles of planning, implementing, and assessing and re-assessing student
progress. MAVA has a team of intervention specialists and an ELL teacher who are trained in the school-wide programs of Lexia
Core5 Reading, Symphony and Catchup Math. If it is determined after appropriate interventions have been applied in the genera l
education setting, and progress monitoring has been completed that additional interventions are necessary, the general
education teacher and/or the intervention specialist must track interventions and data using the school approved RTI form. These
programs are monitored closely by the school’s Reading and Math Interventionist, are aligned to the Common Core and provide
comprehensive data of student progress. Students are flexed in and out based on their progress or lack thereof. Meetings are
scheduled to recur after the appropriate time frames (4-6 weeks) and after the initial classroom interventions. The general
education teacher and/or intervention specialist discuss student data which has been distributed to all appropriate team
members. The team reconvenes at the scheduled date/time to review progress and further recommendations. Teachers may
place students in small groups (based on skill set) and may provide additional supplemental instruction through the use of
scientifically researched based interventions including Lexia Core5 Reading, Symphony and Catchup Math. It appears, by reading
the Accountability Review that since these programs are not contained in the Online School (OLS) platform that these programs
are not connected. However, these online based programs, even though they incorporate different log-ins and passwords, have
helped to provide a clear picture of performance for those students who are experiencing academic difficulties.
MAVA is beginning to see the fruits of its labor. We wish to thank the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education,
especially the Office of Digital Learning in working with MAVA over the course of the last year. We feel that the state has validated
the significant efforts the school had made in the past nine months since the first, June 5, 2014 Accountability Review. We also
understand we need to do more. Our goal is to be the model for virtual schooling in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and to
continue to carry out our mission of providing educational experiences that cultivate curiosity, exploration and inquiry in the
children and families we serve.
Sincerely,
Carl S. Tillona
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.