Accountability Review of the
Massachusetts Virtual Academy at
Greenfield Commonwealth Virtual
School
March 2015
Virtual school accountability reviews are conducted in accordance with CMR 52.08(2):
“(2) Accountability Reviews. The Department may send evaluation teams to visit each
Commonwealth of Massachusetts virtual school on an annual or as-needed basis to
corroborate and augment the information provided in the annual report. The
Department may conduct other accountability reviews as necessary. Accountability
review teams will gather any other evidence relevant to the virtual school's performance.
The written reports from these reviews shall become part of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts virtual school's record, along with any written comments that the school
wishes to submit.”
Date of visit: March 2, 2015
Date of this report: May 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..................................................................................................................................... 1
Description of the accountability review ............................................................................................. 1
Findings ............................................................................................................................................. 3
Faithfulness to certificate ................................................................................................................... 4
1.
2.
3.
Mission and key design elements....................................................................................................................... 4
Access and equity ............................................................................................................................................... 5
Compliance ......................................................................................................................................................... 6
Academic and program success .......................................................................................................... 6
4.
5.
5.
5.
5.
6.
Student performance ......................................................................................................................................... 6
Program delivery - Curriculum ........................................................................................................................... 7
Program delivery - Instruction............................................................................................................................ 7
Program delivery - Assessment and program evaluation .................................................................................. 9
Program delivery - Diverse learners ................................................................................................................. 10
School culture and family engagement ............................................................................................................ 12
Organizational viability .................................................................................................................... 13
7.
7.
7.
8.
9.
Capacity – School leadership ............................................................................................................................ 13
Capacity – Professional climate ........................................................................................................................ 14
Capacity – Contractual relationships ................................................................................................................ 15
Governance ...................................................................................................................................................... 15
Finance ............................................................................................................................................................. 16
Appendix A: GCVS Annual goals, 2014-17.......................................................................................... 17
Appendix B: GCVS Guide to Achieving Rigor ...................................................................................... 21
Appendix C: Expected practices ........................................................................................................ 22
Appendix D: Current status of probationary conditions ..................................................................... 24
GCVS Accountability Review
Date of Review: March 2, 2015
School profile
The Massachusetts Virtual Academy of Greenfield (MAVA) opened in 2010 under the innovation school law (G.L. c. 71, §
92). On June 25, 2013, the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education granted a three-year certificate to operate the
Massachusetts Virtual Academy at Greenfield Commonwealth Virtual School (GCVS) to a board of trustees 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 were provided by K12, Inc., a virtual school
provider based in Herndon, Virginia.
On June 5, 2014, the 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 CMVS regulations at 603 CMR
52.12(2) and at the recommendation of the Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education, the Board acted to
place GCVS on probation for the remainder of the school's certificate term, which expires on June 30, 2016. The specific
probationary conditions placed on GCVS, and the current status of those conditions are provided in Appendix D.
Description of the accountability review
On March 2, 2015 the following members of the accountability review team (“team”) visited GCVS at its administrative
offices, located at 289 Main Street in Greenfield, Massachusetts:

Kenneth Klau, ESE




Jane Haltiwanger, ESE
Jennifer Gwatkin, ESE
Melissa Gordon, ESE

Jeff Elliott, The Virtual High School and member of the Digital
Learning Advisory Council
Sam Johnston, Center for Applied Special Technology and member
of the Digital Learning Advisory Council
In addition, the following individuals from the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (“Department”)
contributed to the review:



Joanna Laghetto, ESE
Chris Hieber, ESE
Kristin McKinnon, ESE
Prior to the onsite portion of the visit, the team reviewed the following information:













Application for certificate
Annual goals (2014-15)
Assessment data
K12 employee handbook
Personnel policies
Bylaws
Board minutes
Organizational chart
Student demographic
information
Bullying prevention and
intervention plan (2014-15)
Independent review of online
instructional quality by Ignite
Learning (December 2014)
Action plan (January 2015)
Annual report (2013-14)













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
Teacher training documents
Miscellaneous teacher evaluation documents, including “Expected
Practices for ClassConnect Sessions”
End-of-year parent surveys (2013 and 2014)
Parent/student handbook
Documentation of professional development activities
Learning Coach community meeting recordings (2014-15)
Miscellaneous communications regarding school-sponsored events
and outings
Financial audit (FY2014)
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Page 1 of 27
GCVS Accountability Review
Date of Review: March 2, 2015
The review team collectively observed 26 online lessons, either in real-time or as recordings. On site, the team reviewed
additional 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 (5), board of trustees (3),
special education (7), Title I and English language learner (ELL) staff (4), student intervention (6), and family engagement
(4). The team conducted virtual focus groups of elementary and middle school teachers (8), high school teachers (5),
learning coaches of early elementary school students (3), learning coaches of elementary and middle school students (8),
high school learning coaches (4), elementary and middle school students (8), and high school students (9).1 On the date
of the visit, GCVS enrolled a total of 632 students.
1
Membership in focus groups was not mutually exclusive.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Page 2 of 27
GCVS Accountability Review
Date of Review: March 2, 2015
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
2
Criteria
Rating
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.
 Partially meets
2.
Access and equity: The school ensures program access and equity for all
students eligible to attend the school.
 Partially meets
3.
Compliance: The school compiles a record of compliance with the terms of
its certificate and applicable state and federal laws and regulations.
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.
6.
7.
 Meets
 Falls far below2
Curriculum
 Partially meets
Instruction
 Partially meets
Assessment and program
evaluation
 Partially meets
Diverse learners
 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.
 Meets
9.
Finance: The school maintains a sound and stable financial condition that
operates in a fiscally responsible and publicly accountable manner.
 Meets
Based on 2013-2014. Data for 2014-2015 was not available at the time of the review.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Page 3 of 27
GCVS Accountability Review
Date of Review: March 2, 2015
Faithfulness to certificate
1.
Mission and key design elements
Rating: Partially meets 
Board members and school leaders were in the process of shifting the school’s approach to instruction from a
model that emphasized curriculum delivery to one that emphasized interactions between educators and students.
On November 17, 2014 the school’s board of trustees voted to adopt a revised mission statement:
“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 board of trustees and school leadership, there was a collective belief among the school’s
stakeholders that no one currently involved with GCVS felt an affiliation with the school’s original mission
statement, written when GCVS was under the auspices of the Greenfield Public Schools:
“The mission of the Massachusetts Virtual Academy at Greenfield Commonwealth Virtual School is to
provide a standards-based, Massachusetts public education to students statewide who cannot or do
not attend a brick-and-mortar school. The school will serve primarily students in selected target
groups, as indicated in the enrollment preferences.”
This belief was validated through evidence obtained from focus groups and surveys of teachers, parents, students,
and educators conducted by GCVS during the 2013-14 school year. During summer 2014, GCVS hired a consultant
with planning expertise to guide the board of trustees in developing a new mission statement, which placed less
emphasis on technology, greater emphasis interactions between educators and students, and the more purposeful
engagement of “learning coaches” (typically students’ parents/guardians) in student learning.
Pursuant to the school’s probationary status, GCVS contracted with Ignite Learning Partners, Inc. in the fall of 2014
to perform an independent review of the school’s online instruction. Members of the board of trustees cited the
findings of that report as central to its work in the 2014-15 school year. For example, board meetings featured
representatives from different groups at GCVS (e.g., teachers, family engagement coordinators, etc.) to discuss what
they are doing to improve instruction in their respective roles. The board reported future plans to increase
interaction among teachers, students, and learning coaches, which may include expanding the school’s physical
footprint by adding a second floor to its Greenfield office and opening an office in eastern Massachusetts. The board
also noted that it sought to expand coordination with other schools and with colleges and universities.
When asked about the new mission statement3, the majority of the focus groups convened by the review team cited
the school’s “flexibility” in meeting the learning needs of diverse students as a key aspect of the school’s design. The
high school teachers said that the mission provides guidance on preparing students for life after high school;
teaching them critical thinking skills; and helping students become more self-directed learners. School leadership
said that GCVS was still in a “turnaround phase” while they redefined the school’s approach to instruction from a
model that focused on remediating deficits in student learning to one that perceived student learning challenges as
opportunities. This was consistent with the review team’s observations of online lessons in which teachers were
generally observed to be doing more to reach different learners than had been the case in the June 5, 2014
accountability review.
GCVS operated under a certificate that gave enrollment preferences to, among other groups, “students in training
for competitive arts or sports.” The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), a private organization, required
all prospective student-athletes to complete approved course work in order to qualify for NCAA programs. In order
to be an NCAA-approved program, virtual schools and other schools defined by the NCAA as “nontraditional” must
submit for review all high school courses offered by the school. On October 8, 2014 the Department became aware
of a student enrolled in GCVS from 2011-13 who was unable to play a Division 1 sport in college because the
school’s courses were not approved by the NCAA. The Department promptly notified the board of trustees;
3
Consistent with 603 CMR 52.10(2), GCVS submitted a request in writing to amend its certificate. This request was
approved by the Commissioner on November 26, 2014.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Page 4 of 27
GCVS Accountability Review
Date of Review: March 2, 2015
subsequent to that, GCVS notified the Department that it submitted an application to the NCAA for review on
October 29, 2014. At the time of this writing, GCVS had yet to receive approval from the NCAA.
2.
Access and equity
Rating: Partially meets 
Although GCVS completed several compliance steps required by the terms of its probationary status, GCVS lacked
a formal curriculum for English language learners and a formal inclusion model for students with disabilities. The
school’s Internet access policy may discourage families from enrolling their child in GCVS, a public school.
As a condition of the school’s probationary status, GCVS was required to show to the Department evidence that it
had “fully implemented a system to identify and serve English language learners and special education students that
is consistent with all applicable federal and state laws and regulations.”
The school took several compliance steps to meet this requirement, including: posting an overview of its program
for ELL students to the GCVS website; distributing a home language survey to the parents/guardians of all students
enrolled in GCVS; and hiring a full-time English as a Second Language (ESL)-licensed teacher and an ELL coordinator.
In addition, the school reported that it followed WIDA (World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment) standards
and was provided supplemental resources for ELL instruction by K12.
GCVS did not have a formal ELL curriculum at the time of the visit. The school reported serving no ELL students in its
October 2014 student information management system (SIMS) submission; however, at the time of the visit GCVS
indicated that 3 ELL students were being served by a licensed ELL teacher who reported to the Title I director/ELL
coordinator. The school reported that the small number of ELLs enabled instructional staff to work closely with
learning coaches. Teachers reported that they worked with ELL students in small groups or individually, outside of
whole group instruction. They reported using strategies such as using pictures for vocabulary words or breaking
down problems and information step-by-step in one-on-one online sessions. At the time of the visit, 4 educators
had earned the Sheltered English Immersion (SEI) Endorsement and 3 teachers and3 administrators were currently
taking the course. An additional 2 teachers were on the waiting list.
With respect to special education programming and delivery, school leadership stressed its commitment to
inclusion; moreover, the parent focus groups and the special education focus group indicated that the school
increased the number of interventions for students with diverse learning needs. However, it was not clear to the
review team what specific practices GCVS followed to support inclusion; moreover, many activities were expressed
as plans for the future. For example, teachers and school leaders expressed their intentions to update the school’s
special education instructional practices in a number of ways, but had not yet implemented these. Members of
these focus groups expressed awareness of the need to make changes to the program. They stated that they were
in the midst of developing the plans to implement many needed changes. According to members of the student
intervention team, the K12 curriculum “is being mapped” so that GCVS teachers will “know how to support students
with disabilities.” At the time of the visit, school leadership indicated that special education teachers are working
with general education teachers to adapt lessons for students based on their needs and provide accommodations as
appropriate. According to the student intervention and special education focus groups, when a student logs into the
school’s online platform, that student’s daily lesson plan can be adjusted based on the student’s disability and “for
what will motivate the student and what the student needs.”
The review team consulted the GCVS special education program planning statement that was provided to the
Department in December 2014 pursuant to the school’s probationary status. At the time of the visit the school
employed 4 special education teachers, and school leadership expressed plans to add more in the 2015-16 school
year. At the time of the visit, members of the special education focus group reported serving 80 students in a “fullinclusion setting” and 2 in a “partial-inclusion setting.” Disability types served included specific learning disabilities,
neurological, Autism, emotional, communication, health, sensory/hard of hearing, developmental delay, and
Intellectual. In addition, 53 students received accommodations through Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 (29 U.S.C. § 701). GCVS used eStar IEP, a secure, web-based platform to manage and share each student’s
Individual Education Program (IEP) with teachers. Accommodation plans were also reviewed.
School leadership reported that between 20 and 30 students received related services such as speech, physical and
occupational therapy, and counseling, either through the home district or through Presence Learning, a contracted
provider of online therapy services. According to school leadership, fewer than 10 sending districts opted to
continue delivering related services for students who enrolled in GCVS rather than utilize these contracted services.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Page 5 of 27
GCVS Accountability Review
Date of Review: March 2, 2015
At the time of this writing, two statements about Internet access appeared on the GCVS website about Internet
access that were problematic:
“Each family will need to secure their own Internet service provider. In certain cases, we may provide
a stipend to offset the cost of the Internet service. This determination will take place during the
enrollment process.”
“If you live in an area served by Comcast and your children are eligible for free/reduced lunch, you
may qualify for Internet Essentials, a new Internet service which costs just $9.95/month.”
These statements gave the appearance that families will be required to pay for their own Internet service provider
and/or be eligible for a stipend based on unspecified criteria. As a consequence, these statements may discourage
or limit enrollment in GCVS, a public school. In a September 5, 2014 communication with GCVS, the Department
indicated that any student whose family does not have access to the Internet must have that access provided to
them, at no cost, and of sufficient bandwidth to access their public education. Moreover, GCVS cannot subject
families to a means test in order for them to be provided with a computer or an Internet connection from GCVS. 4
3.
Compliance
Rating: Meets 
Evidence suggested that GCVS complied with state and federal laws and regulations.
Areas of noncompliance identified in the June 2014 accountability review of GCVS were corrected, including:




A plan to address bullying prevention and intervention (603 CMR 49.00).
Training for administrators, faculty, and other mandatory reporters on recognizing and reporting
suspected child abuse and neglect (M.G.L. ch.119 §51A).
An educator evaluation system for all teachers all grades (603 CMR 35.00).
A Special Education Parent Advisory Council (603 CMR 28.07).
Academic and program success
4.
Student performance
Rating: Falls far below 
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 White subgroup
placed among the lowest 20 percent of subgroups statewide. In 2014 the school’s high needs subgroup did not
meet the 95 percent threshold required for assessment participation in either mathematics (94 percent) or science
(94 percent). The school’s 2014 cumulative progress and performance index (PPI) of 63 indicated GCVS did not
make sufficient progress toward closing proficiency gaps.5
In accordance with the terms of its probation, in January 2015 GCVS submitted an action plan to the Department to
improve mathematics and English language arts performance. The school’s 2015 accountability results will be
available in the fall of 2015. By December 31, 2015, GCVS is required to demonstrate academic success by providing
evidence that it demonstrated significant academic improvement in mathematics and English language arts.
In addition to the state’s formal performance measures (school percentile, progress and performance index) the
Department encouraged GCVS to develop accountability goals of its own that the school believes accounts for the
virtual school context. These additional goals are presented as Academic Goals 6-9 in the school’s Annual Goals for
2014-17 provided in Appendix A. The goals were approved by the GCVS board of trustees on April 6, 2015 and were
subject to approval by the Commissioner.
4
The statements were removed as of May 29, 2014.
These are the same data (from 2013-14) that were the basis for the imposition of probation as data for 2014-15 were
not available at the time of the review.
5
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Page 6 of 27
GCVS Accountability Review
5.
Date of Review: March 2, 2015
Program delivery - Curriculum
Rating: Partially meets 
To align the GCVS curriculum with state standards, teachers supplemented the curriculum with teacher-created
materials; the extent to which was unclear. Observations of online lessons indicated some misalignment between
stated learning objectives and student performance tasks.
In accordance with the terms of its probation, in November 2014 GCVS submitted documents to the Department
that were meant to show alignment between the GCVS curriculum and the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks.
Prepared by K12, Inc., the documents indicate full alignment with the frameworks; however, in multiple instances
the “comments” field on these documents stated:
“Class Connect Sessions are live virtual meetings with students. Lessons identified from other K12
courses are used by teachers to develop lesson plans for these sessions.”
In other instances the document stated that teachers are expected to supplement the curriculum with their own
content. As the review team was unable to review these supplements, the extent to which alignment of the school’s
curriculum depends on teacher-created content was unclear.6 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. Members of
the school leadership focus group were generally satisfied with the curriculum provided by K12, but some expressed
that the K12 scope and sequence did not fully align with the knowledge and skills students were expected to
demonstrate on Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) assessments.
As explained in more detail in the next section, observations of online lessons indicated potential disconnections
between stated learning objectives and tasks expected of students. As such, it was difficult in several instances for
review team members to determine the degree to which students were working on grade level.
According to the school’s ESL policy provided to the Department on December 17, 2014, GCVS “provides instruction
based on district-level ESL curriculum that is aligned to the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks and integrates
components of the WIDA ELD7 standards frameworks.” However, implementation of WIDA standards was not found
in lessons observed by the team; and, as stated previously, GCVS did not have a formal ELL curriculum.
5.
Program delivery - Instruction
Rating: Partially meets 
Online lessons exhibited variability in the execution of the school’s expectations for teaching students higher
order thinking skills, although the majority of lessons observed were characterized by a positive classroom climate
and exhibited teacher-student engagement.
Between January 28, 2014 and March 5, 2015, the review team observed 26 online lessons comprised of over 887
minutes of instruction and that featured 237 students and 28 teachers.8 Team members recorded their observations
on a common observation form. The average lesson was 47 minutes long and the average class size was 9 students
(5 of the 26 lessons observed were 1-to-1 lessons). Prior to conducting these observations, the school leadership
team provided the review team with the Guide to Achieving Rigor (Appendix B), a document developed by GCVS
leadership to codify the school’s expectations for instruction in online lessons. 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 (Appendix C). The percentage
of lessons observed that exhibited these practices are provided in the graph below.
6
Members of the review team noted that of the subjects reviewed, the alignment document for kindergarten history
and social studies was observed to be the most thorough as it pointed to specific lessons teachers would draw from the
standard and specified resources the teacher would use to teach the standard.
7 ELD stands for “English Development Standards.”
8 All virtual lessons were observed from beginning to end.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Page 7 of 27
GCVS Accountability Review
Date of Review: March 2, 2015
Observed practices - online lessons
No evidence
Climate
13%
Alignment
12%
Engagement
5%
Time
5%
Model
Complexity
Sufficient evidence
39%
16%
48%
14%
50%
14%
45%
18%
32%
41%
14%
24%
62%
27%
10%
Consistent evidence
48%
19%
Differentiation
Understanding
Limited evidence
9%
36%
20%
30%
29%
23%
40%
33%
24%
In 41% of online lessons observed, instructional practices exhibited sufficient or consistent evidence of the school’s
expected practices (“model” in the graph above); 45% of lessons exhibited limited evidence of expected
instructional practices and 14% of lessons exhibited no evidence (57% of lessons exhibited sufficient or consistent
evidence of the school’s expected practices in the June 5, 2014 accountability review). These findings are discussed
in the next paragraph.
The review team observed that 57% of lessons challenged all students to develop and use skills such as analyzing,
creating, and evaluating (“complexity” above; 19% of lessons exhibited sufficient or consistent evidence of higher
order thinking in the June 5, 2014 accountability review). The review team cited issues in the execution of the
expectations for rigor as stated in the school’s Guide to Achieving Rigor. For example, the guide promoted teacher
behaviors such as asking “higher order questions”, expecting “higher level responses”, and guiding students “to be
able to answer at a higher level.” The guide required teachers to “hold students accountable for his or her
understanding” and required students to “make and defend claims with evidence.” The techniques for checking for
student understanding most frequently observed by the review team were prompts by teachers to ensure students
participated or technical checks to ensure students viewed, heard, and participated in lessons. In larger classes,
checks for understanding by the teacher did not appear to account all students in the class, and while the majority
of teachers employed the “exit ticket” strategy as required by GCVS leadership, the observed rigor of these
summary checks was variable. In addition, while standards to be addressed by lessons were routinely posted, in
some cases the review team had difficulty understanding the specific learning objective of lessons. In several
lessons, the teacher supplied responses meant for students or did most of the talking. In one instance, limited
microphone use hampered the teacher’s ability to engage with students. In another lesson, the teacher used
multiple prompts to engage students and check for understanding, but it was not clear to the observer that students
understood the concepts before the teacher moved on to a new concept; in yet another lesson, students provided
superficial responses to questions.
In 59% of lessons, activities, materials, and strategies were differentiated to support the needs of diverse learners
(“differentiation” above; 30% of lessons met this criterion in the June 5, 2014 accountability review). In many
lessons, all students were engaged in the same activity. In the lessons where differentiation was observed,
techniques included using manipulatives (e.g., addition and subtraction in a mathematics class); providing students
with a choice of using the chat function to respond or writing out their responses; and using breakout rooms to
engage students in chat sessions with a small group of peers. In some lessons, a second adult was present during the
lesson to support students, or the teacher referenced a second adult (not visible to the review team) with whom
students could interact.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Page 8 of 27
GCVS Accountability Review
Date of Review: March 2, 2015
In 68% of lessons, the available learning time (“time” above) was maximized for all students in the class (50% of
lessons met this criterion in the June 5, 2014 accountability review), although the review team noted instances in
which the pace of the lesson did not allow for all of the stated topics to be covered. For example, one lesson
exceeded the time limit; approximately 50% of the students subsequently logged out of the class and not all of the
topics were covered in the extended portion. In general, while practices and activities related to and supported the
learning goals of lessons, the amount of time spent on individual activities was lengthy. In one lesson, students drew
instead of following the teacher’s direction to answer a question. In another lesson, students appeared to be at
different placed in the course from a sequential standpoint, and the teacher continually referred them back to a K12
textbook. In another lesson, the teacher reviewed a list of test-taking strategies with students and no instruction
occurred. While the discourse was usually respectful, the review team observed that technological problems
consumed a significant portion of the available time in some sessions. In one instance, the first half of a 60-minute
session was spent addressing technical difficulties. Once the issue was resolved, only one of the three stated lesson
objectives were achieved in the 30 minutes that remained. In another lesson, which was otherwise well-planned,
intermittent technology problems distracted from the overall quality of the lesson. In addition, members of the
review team noted that it was unclear when class sessions were required and when they were optional. The team
could not locate any clearly articulated policies regarding student participation or observe evidence of consistent
expectations about where, when, or for how long student participation was required or optional. In general, a
review of class schedules confirmed that the proportion of time students spent receiving direct instruction from or
interacting with their teachers was significantly outweighed by the learning that was intended to occur offline,
which raised potential concerns for students with disabilities.
In 72% of lessons, instruction featured content and skills aligned to grade level standards and/or students’
educational needs (“alignment” above; 64% of lessons met this criterion in the June 5, 2014 accountability review).
For example, most lessons featured the posting of the standard(s) to be addressed in the lesson, and in those
lessons, teachers called students’ attention to the standard. In one lesson, the posted standard was not aligned to
the student performance task that was the focus of the lesson. In another lesson, the posted standard was 7 grade
levels below the grade level of the students. In other lessons, student work aligned with the standards, but students’
demonstration of conceptual understanding was minimal because the focus of the instruction was the
memorization of rules and procedures.
In 76% of lessons, classroom practices fostered student engagement (“engagement”; about 53% of lessons met this
criterion in the June 5, 2014 accountability review), although in the larger classes, the review team had difficulty
determining the extent to which all students fully participated. Engagement was enhanced through breakout rooms;
the assignment of microphone, chat, and whiteboard privileges; and questioning techniques such as “cold calling.”
In one lesson, the teacher facilitated small group discussions; in another lesson, the teacher required students to
respond individually to at least 4 prompts.
Across lessons, the majority (87%) exhibited sufficient and/or consistent evidence that the climate was
characterized by clear routines, respectful relationships, behaviors, tones, and discourse (“climate” above; 97% of
lessons met this criterion in the June 5, 2014 accountability review). In general, students understood the rules for
using the various online tools for interacting with one another and with the teacher, such as communicating via
chat, and audio, and taking advantage of tools and techniques such as highlighting, underlining, note-taking, and
responding to polls within the system. In a few isolated cases, teachers disabled tools when they were misused by
students.
5.
Program delivery - Assessment and program evaluation
Rating: Partially meets 
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.
The GCVS strategic plan articulated specific categories of instructional priorities by which student and program
success were monitored: climate, alignment, engagement, time, model, differentiation, understanding, and
complexity. In addition, the leadership team developed a rubric to monitor the delivery of online lessons, with an
emphasis on gauging student understanding, critical thinking, and engagement.
At the beginning of the 2014-15 school year, GCVS, selected several reading and mathematics intervention
programs. To implement the program, the school hired a reading specialist and a math interventionist. These
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Page 9 of 27
GCVS Accountability Review
Date of Review: March 2, 2015
individuals and the Title I/ELL coordinator, hired in July 2014, belonged to the student intervention team, or SIT. The
SIT held weekly “data driven instruction” meetings for teachers to examine progress, particularly for students who
may be below grade level.
Members of the SIT likened their model to “Response to Intervention” (RTI).9 Within the general curriculum,
teachers were trained to use whole group, small group and one to one instruction, and members of the student
focus group reported the ability to have one-on-one sessions with teachers. Students whose learning needs could
not be addressed by the general curriculum, as indicated by a range of screening instruments and other data,
received interventions to accelerate their learning. According to the SIT, the primary tools used to screen students
were 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.
A student’s prior MCAS data, if extant, were also consulted during the screening process. According to the staff, K-8
Students were referred to SIT by their classroom teacher based on a number of factors, including scores on
benchmark assessments, grade level meetings, learning coach recommendations and input from teachers. When
asked how students were selected for intervention in the high school grades, the members of the SIT said that a
student qualifies for intervention if they failed 2 or more courses. The school reported that approximately 75% of
the high school students passed all of their courses as of the second quarter.
Once a student was identified as needing an intervention, the SIT selected from among a range of intervention
programs based on the grade level of the student and the specific skills and knowledge that needed to be
addressed. Interventions used by the school included Symphony Math (K-5), Catchup Math (6-12), Lexia Reading (K9), and Study Island (K-12). GCVS also used FEV Tutor in grades 4-10, a web-based tutoring services company that
provided live, synchronous online tutoring and asynchronous activities. Participation in FEV Tutor was voluntary. At
the time of the visit, 110 students in grades 4-8 and 17 high school students participated in the FEV program. GCVS
teachers received a report on the performance of their students every Monday. To gauge students’ progress in
writing, GCVS administered student writing prompts three times per year in grades 3-8. The school leadership team
reported that every online lesson featured at least one assessment in addition to an “exit ticket” students complete
at the end of the lesson. The school’s learning management system (LMS) automatically generated student progress
reports, and students and learning coaches accessed student grades in real time. Furthermore, the family
engagement coordinators reported that the ability to track students’ lesson progress in the LMS, including
performance on assessments and how many times each student had to take an assessment. In addition to
monitoring student activity, the family engagement coordinators noted the ability to see how often the learning
coach used the system, for example, to record student attendance. GCVS staff can monitor page views and received
weekly reports that documented which online lessons students are attending, how long they attended, and whether
students were late to the lessons.
When asked to describe their general approach to acceleration, a member of the school leadership team said, “If
students are strong in specific areas, we spend less time (on those areas) but use their strengths to leverage their
weaknesses.” For example, a student may be taken out of the regular program and receive targeted instruction in a
specific set of standards. In a typical week, the SIT reviewed the progress of 4-6 students, and the SIT evaluated the
efficacy and impact of interventions every 4-6 weeks. The interventionist supplemented lessons with remediation
for 4-6 weeks after which; student performance was reassessed and reviewed by the SIT for progress. The SIT noted
that at GCVS, the concept of grade levels “ceases to exist” because course assignments are based on each student’s
incoming level; however, students continued to use Study Island on a student’s grade level even if the student was
working below grade level.
The review team had difficulty understanding how the different interventions fit together, particularly from a
technical standpoint. All were software-based, but only Study Island was integrated into the school’s LMS. As a
follow-up to the visit, the review team requested copies of meeting minutes of the SIT. The documentation
confirmed the statements provided to the team during the onsite review, but they did not provide a clear picture of
the full range of data consulted on the performance of individual students, nor the rationale for targeting high
school students for intervention based on 2 or more course failures in a semester.
5.
Program delivery - Diverse learners
Rating: Partially meets 
9
The core structure of the RTI model was developed by the National Center for Learning Disabilities.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Page 10 of 27
GCVS Accountability Review
Date of Review: March 2, 2015
GCVS formed a school intervention team and hired family engagement coordinator, to significantly increase its
capacity to support the diverse learning needs of students; although learning coaches continue to share
significant responsibility with their child’s teachers for pedagogy and content knowledge.
The school leadership team reported that the SIT brought a clearer, more cohesive approach to program delivery for
diverse learners. The SIT comprised the Title I director/ELL coordinator, the head program administrator for K12,
Inc., the special education director, the school psychologist, the K-8 and high school family engagement
coordinators (1 family engagement coordinator also served as the 504 coordinator), and the high school guidance
counselor. As stated previously, the SIT reviewed data from screening instruments and interventions to make
placement decisions.
Assistive technologies were determined by reviewing each student’s IEP. For example, GCVS decided to provide a
student with a laptop instead of the standard desktop because it had a built-in microphone. The school also used
Dragon voice recognition software; other accommodations were built into the word processor by default. Because
many of the accommodations provided by GCVS would only be visible to the students who needed them, the team
was unable to confirm via lesson observations that students with disabilities were provided the appropriate assistive
technologies, accommodations, supports, adaptations and related services. However, the school reported the
following types of assistive technologies in use: Read&Write GOLD (text-to-speech software), capture pens and
touch tablets, microphones (both standard and adapted), headsets, a feature within the LMS called Chatbox, video
cameras, magnifying tools, and place markers. For students with disabilities who received therapeutic services, the
special education director and the child’s teacher can view a log of therapy sessions.
A member of the school leadership team said, “In the virtual space you have to find different and creative ways to
check for student understanding.” The school leadership team reported that teachers use polls (e.g., check “yes” or
“no”, multiple choice, Likert scales, and open-ended questions), breakout rooms, and collaborative exercises, to
same several techniques. For example, a teacher prompted the class with a question and require students to
respond to the question by collaborating on the virtual whiteboard, visible to all. The expectation for all of the
virtual lessons was an “exit ticket” activity that required students to perform a short task prior to the end of the
lesson. Teachers reported utilizing them in different ways—to conclude the class, for example, or for homework.
As noted in the instruction finding, the review team noted that the proportion of time students spent receiving
direct instruction from or interacting with their teachers was significantly outweighed by the learning that was
intended to occur offline, which raised potential concerns for students with disabilities and other diverse learners
who may require more support.
The family engagement coordinators reported spending about 50% of their time working with learning coaches.
Members of the teacher focus groups reported that the family engagement coordinators are the first people they
consulted when they had difficulty connecting with students. They said that communication can be a challenge
because they did not physically interact with students on a daily basis. The teachers acknowledged that it was easy
for some students to “disappear” and that it was often difficult to reach out to parents. Some teachers perceived
that students are good at “avoidance strategies” when they prefer not to interact with their teachers.
The level of engagement of the learning coaches with GCVS varied; the family engagement coordinators had close
relationships with some while others “do not want to hear from the school unless there is a problem.” Although
K12, Inc. provided an introductory course for learning coaches in using the LMS, the level of proficiency was varied.
In some cases, teachers provided technical assistance to the learning coaches themselves beyond the introductory
training. In general the learning coaches felt that the LMS orientation was good, but differences emerged in the
focus groups on the middle school system as compared to the high school system. The learning coaches compared
logging into the middle school system to “logging into the regular K12 system” and therefore relatively
straightforward. Learning coaches of high school students, however, reported navigating “layered” system and
noted that accessing their child’s courses required going into a separate environment where courses, calendars, and
gradebooks are located. In some cases, learning coaches reported that their children were more proficient than they
in navigating the LMS.
Despite the challenges associated with virtual education, learning coaches reported that feedback occurred more
quickly in the virtual environment that it did in brick and mortar schools. Some reported that teachers responded to
their concerns within a day. Most of the learning coaches interviewed reported having the phone numbers of their
child’s teachers and believed their child’s teachers could be reached any time.
The learning coaches said that to be an effective coach, one must be organized and establish a fixed schedule for
their child inclusive of schoolwork, chores, and activities. Several learning coaches said they enjoyed their role
because it increased their level of “investment” in their child’s education. Learning coaches acknowledged sharing
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Page 11 of 27
GCVS Accountability Review
Date of Review: March 2, 2015
responsibility for instruction with their child’s teacher, especially in the early grades, and some added that they
delivered more instruction than do the teachers. One learning coach said she leveraged the content knowledge she
had with her child, and received support in other subjects from the teacher. Another learning coach reported sitting
next to their child in lessons and clarifying misconceptions.
The learning coaches reported that the online environment was secure and well-monitored. One noted that
“teachers monitor everything that’s being typed and done in all platforms.” Another said that “If someone types
something inappropriate, the teacher intervenes immediately and has the ability to remove the thread.”
6.
School culture and family engagement
Social, emotional, and health needs; family and community engagement
Rating for both indicators: Meets 
GCVS significantly expanded its family engagement efforts and employed 3 family engagement coordinators in
addition to a high school guidance counselor and a part-time school psychologist. These and other personnel
regularly engaged families and helped provide a culture of community and support.
GCVS hired 3 family engagement coordinators for the 2014-15 school year: 1 for Kindergarten through grade 8, 1 for
grades 9-12, and 1 who worked exclusively with the Greenfield school system and community. In addition, GCVS
employed a high school guidance counselor and a part-time school psychologist.
Members of the student intervention team reported that the school’s contracted therapists were in regular contact
with teachers and often attended faculty and IEP meetings. In addition, GCVS hosted biweekly “socio-emotional
meetings” with students in which questions were used to prompt student discussion and interaction. The family
engagement coordinators said they were constantly monitoring student attendance and grades, and proactively
communicated with families through various means, primarily via Kmail (the school’s LMS-based email system) and
telephone. They added that they are not restricted to the school day and regularly make home visits. The family
engagement coordinators reported that they see themselves as agents for easing the cultural transition from brick
and mortar schools to the more “flexible” learning environment provided by GCVS, namely assisting with structuring
students’ time and managing behavior. They conducted bimonthly meetings for learning coaches, using them as
forums for sharing information and addressing questions. Recordings of these meetings and associated materials
were available to families throughout the year. Topics included “Study Island and Title I,” “Lexia and Symphony
Math (Grades 1-2),” “Time Management & Writing Prompts,” “Follow-Up on Lexia & Symphony Math with Brief
Time Management Discussion,” “Learning Coach Contingency Plan: What to do when K12 goes down?”, and “Best
Practices and Special Education.”
Members of the teacher focus groups reported that the addition of the family engagement coordinators was a
positive change, citing that it was helpful to have someone to refer students to for engagement or emotional issues,
which enabled them to focus on their teaching responsibilities. Family engagement coordinators reached out to
teachers regarding behavior plans. These groups communicated regularly, exchanged email on a daily basis, and
most primary teachers had one-on-one meetings with the coordinators. When asked about their relationship with
families and learning coaches, teachers reported being “close” with them, communicating frequently via Kmail and
telephone, and working “hand-in-hand” to provide the best educational experience they could for students.
Members of the student groups reported that teachers were generally responsive, supportive, and encouraging, and
drew a sharp contrast between their experiences in brick and mortar schools and GCVS. They cited the ability to
have one-on-one sessions with teachers if they were having trouble in a subject and also noted the ability to
connect with teachers individually by email or on the phone. 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.” The students
described several instances of interactions with their teacher and learning coach, including times when the teacher
called the parent to check on how the student is doing and teachers supporting learning coaches with 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. One student also noted that the school’s new block
scheduling concept, in which a course was delivered over a single semester as opposed to the whole year, made it
difficult for them to make up work if they fell behind in a subject.
As a member of the SIT at GCVS, the high school guidance counselor monitored student progress toward being on
track for graduation, served as the coordinator of the FEV Tutoring service, analyzed MCAS data, and coordinated
the administration of the SAT standardized test. This person used a program called Pathfinder to match students’
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Page 12 of 27
GCVS Accountability Review
Date of Review: March 2, 2015
interests and skills with potential jobs, and met with all GCVS seniors in October and November 2014 to review their
skills profiles and discuss graduation requirements and post-graduation plans.
Many of the students in the focus groups reported active lives outside of school, engaging in activities such as
dance, work, and athletics, and therefore appreciated the flexible schedule GCVS affords them. They reported a mix
of mandatory and voluntary class meetings (“office hours”) in which they can receive help. The students reported
that each course had a “technical support tab” they use to get help with technical issues, noting they “get solved
really quickly” and that they are able to continue working while a technical issue was being resolved because they
had “offline books.” Students reported positive online interactions with peers. One noted that “no one says
anything rude” and that there are “no bullies like you would have in a brick and mortar school.”
School leadership reported that students are required to complete logs documenting the physical activities they
engaged in, such as taking walks, playing for town sports teams, swimming, horseback riding, dancing, bicycle
motocross (BMX), figure skating, and the Nintendo Wii Fit Plus exercise video game.
It was clear from conversations with learning coaches that they were pleased with the efforts GCVS made to create
a community, and said that the atmosphere at GCVS is “warmer than brick and mortar.” Documentation provided
by GCVS and conversations with each focus group supported that the school sponsored regular “learning coach
community meetings”; hosted in the LMS. Each meeting had a particular focus, for example: “Time Management
and Writing Prompts” and “MAVA Takes the PARCC” held on October 8, 2014 and January 14, 2015, respectively.
Members of the school leadership and special education and ELL focus groups also reported conducting home visits
for some students.
GCVS sponsored family outings and other face-to-face activities, including: back-to-school picnics in locations across
the state (fall 2014); a “bringing the curriculum to life” event in celebration of Native American Heritage Month
(November 2014); “Gingerbread Extravaganza- A Title I Sponsored Event focusing on Math” at the Charlton Public
Library (December 2014); and field trips to the Boston Museum of Science and the Connecticut Science Center
(January 30, 2015). In February 2015 GCVS hosted motivational speaker, author, and activist Travis Roy, and made a
recording of his presentation available to students who were unable to attend in person.
Organizational viability
7.
Capacity – School leadership
Rating: Partially meets 
While GCVS leadership took affirmative steps to improve instruction and professional learning, instructional
quality remained uneven.
The school leadership team was comprised of the executive director (equivalent to the position of
superintendent/principal); the head program administrator for K12, Inc., and chief liaison between K12, Inc. and
GCVS; the special education director; and the Title I/ELL coordinator. They reported that GCVS was guided by 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 first
section of 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, Inc.; the provision of evidence
to the Department that GCVS aligned its curriculum to the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks; and the
submission of a comprehensive evaluation of the school’s mathematics and English language arts 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.
As stated previously, while the Department approved the contract between GCVS and K12, Inc., there remained
problematic statements on the school’s website about the provision of Internet access to families. Also stated
previously, although GCVS submitted prima facie evidence of alignment of its curriculum to the Massachusetts
Curriculum Frameworks, the documentation indicated that teachers were responsible for supplementing the core
curriculum provided by K12 with their own content and materials. Because the review team was unable to view all
of the supplemental materials developed by teachers to ensure alignment of the GCVS curriculum to the
Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks, the extent of this alignment remained unclear.
The independent evaluation of the school’s mathematics and English language arts programs and instructional
priorities, dated December 31, 2014, provided 8 recommendations for improving instruction in the online lessons
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Page 13 of 27
GCVS Accountability Review
Date of Review: March 2, 2015
and 3 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—although the quality of instruction remains uneven.
Of note, and described in more detail in the following section, were the steps taken by the GCVS leadership team to
improve professional learning. According to the school’s strategic plan, subsequently confirmed in the focus groups,
teachers received professional development in a variety of areas including: mandated reporter training; writing
standards and mathematics open response questions (learning coaches also received training in these areas);
mathematics power standards; the evaluation process (self-evaluation, SMART goals, evidence collection, and
formative and summative assessment); and techniques for student engagement.
7.
Capacity – Professional climate
Rating: Meets 
GCVS took specific steps to foster a professional climate and evidence from document reviews and focus
groups substantiated that staff members perceived supporting teachers and improving instructional
practices as priorities.
The board of trustees noted that a key focus area of GCVS this year was teacher development, orientation, and
mentoring. GCVS introduced a “Teacher Induction and Mentor Program” in the 2014-15 school year to support
beginning teachers. The program was inclusive of new teacher orientation, the development of mentor/coach
relationships, support teams, workshops and training for beginning teachers and mentors, and the state’s educator
evaluation system. Members of the teacher focus groups cited formal avenues by which they could receive support
from school leadership and colleagues, including the guidance counselor, the Title I/ELL coordinator, and the family
engagement coordinators. Teachers said they attend weekly or biweekly meetings with their mentors, citing them
as “a great addition to our program this year” and noted opportunities to shadow other teachers online. In addition,
teachers referenced ongoing professional development focused on teaching skills based on the book Teach Like a
Champion,10 led by an instructional specialist from K12, Inc. Techniques include giving polls to students that collect
data that refer back to the lesson objective, “accountable talk”, and strategies for determining prior knowledge.
Other professional learning focused on topics such as “thoughtful teaching”, “how to teach rigor”, “active reading
strategies”, and training in how to “unpack the curriculum” for diverse learners. School leadership cited
collaboration between general and special education teachers and a collaboration between the second and third
grade teachers on implementing the Collins Writing Program.
Members of the special education and ELL focus group reported working extensively with teachers on making
accommodations while ensuring that students with disabilities receive instruction that covers all standards.1112
Special education teachers have the ability to join regular education lessons online and provide targeted support to
students who are struggling. In addition, they can send private chat messages to students who seem to be not
participating. One beginning general teacher described working with a special education teacher to set up a full
inclusion classroom, a process that involved engaging in planning sessions based on looking at the standards to be
taught in the lesson; developing differentiated exit tickets; determining structures for grouping students; and
supporting social interaction. Staff who served in mentor roles reported working with beginning teachers on
checking for student understanding during online lessons, and encouraging them to observe student behaviors in
prior (recorded) lessons to examine student work and detect cues in social interactions.
Members of the teacher focus groups reported participating in a variety of groups to further their professional
learning, including meetings with special education teachers and family engagement coordinators, SIT meetings,
grade level meetings, and faculty meetings of the whole school. They reported frequent collaboration with their
peers in which they shared topics for graded assignments, invited one another to observe online lessons, and asked
10
Lemov, D. (2010). Teach Like a Champion: 49 Techniques that Put Students on the Path to College (K-12). John Wiley &
Sons.
11 At the time of the review, the special education director reported that GCVS served 82 students with disabilities, about
13% of enrolled students.
12 The focus group also reported providing professional development targeted to serving ELLs.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Page 14 of 27
GCVS Accountability Review
Date of Review: March 2, 2015
for feedback. Teachers reported meeting by content area as well as by grade level, something that the middle
school teachers appreciated because they often teach just one subject.
At the time of the visit, school leadership recently completed the first round of evaluations as set forth in the state’s
educator evaluation system, co-managed by the executive director and the head program administrator for K12.
Teachers in grades K-8 reported being at various stages of the evaluation process, with most beyond the selfassessment stage. High school teachers received assistance in the process during weekly mentoring meetings.
7.
Capacity – Contractual relationships
Rating: Meets 
The contract between GCVS and K12 is performance-based and gives the board of trustees leverage to
support student and school success.
Members of the board of trustees focus group said they exercised vigilance over every line item in the contract
between GCVS and K12, Inc. They indicated supplementing the resources provided by K12 with other resources. For
example, GCVS augmented the technical training provided by K12, with additional professional development
focused on instructional practice. In addition, the board has found the need to supplement the K12 curriculum with
a range of interventions (described elsewhere in this report).
The approved contract between GCVS and K12 included a section that authorized the board to establish
“measurable annual goals” in terms of the “operations, academic performance, and financial performance” of K12
[4.1(k)(iv)(5)]. The contract provided for the implementation of “corrective action” in the event goals are not met,
which may include the provision of “products, services, training of teachers, tutors or other corrective action
measures” by K12 (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. Furthermore,
section 5.14 of the contract authorized the board of trustees 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.”
8.
Governance
Rating: Meets 
The board of trustees took steps to align the school’s improvement initiatives with the school’s probationary
terms and demonstrated a commitment to evaluating the efficacy and impact of programs, policies, and
partnerships.
Participants in the board of trustees focus group voiced a strong commitment toward reviewing all aspects of the
school’s operations, including its relationship with K12. The board reported conducting retreats with a consulting
firm that specialized in long-range planning. As stated previously, one outcome of those retreats was the
development of a new mission statement with input from a variety of stakeholders. Board members emphasized the
desire to position GCVS as a school that is more than just an alternative to a brick and mortar school or as a place for
students who, for whatever reason, cannot succeed in a brick and mortar school. The board spoke to the “unique
strengths and flexibility” of the virtual delivery model and its association with twenty-first century work and life.
The board indicated teacher development as an area of focus; in the words of one member, “the curriculum doesn’t
teach, the teachers teach.” Board members indicated that they used the mandated audit of the school’s program by
Ignite Learning Partners, Inc., as a “guidepost” for planning. The board used the state’s model rubric for
superintendent evaluation with the executive director and signaled the intention to use progress against the
school’s terms of probation as the principal evaluation indicator. The executive director, in turn, used
MyLearningPlan OASYS, a web-based teacher observation and evaluation system, to manage all components of the
evaluation process for teachers.
Although recommendations with regard to the role of the learning coach were not explicitly referenced in the
evaluation, board members cited the development of learning opportunities for the coaches, including, for example,
the convening of meetings to help them understand the role of state tests. Board members saw learning coaches as
“stakeholders who are directly involved in the success of the school” and cited the “Strong Start” program, designed
to help learning coaches understand the commitment they will be making in their child’s education.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Page 15 of 27
GCVS Accountability Review
9.
Date of Review: March 2, 2015
Finance
Rating: Meets 
GCVS operates in a financially sound and publicly accountable manner and has maintained a sound and stable
financial condition.
As required by statute, the school submitted its FY2014 financial audit, conducted by Moriarty & Primack, P.C., and
accepted by the GCVS board on December 10, 2014. In sum, the audit found that GCVS operated in accordance with
the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). The audit did not identify any deficiencies in internal control
that it considered to be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies. It did, however, identify an instance of
noncompliance related to the school’s MTRS payments and recommend that GCVS establish controls around the
submission of employee contributions to ensure they are made in a timely manner. The report indicated that as of
December 2014, GCVS implemented a system to make the required contribution payments by the tenth day of the
following month.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Page 16 of 27
GCVS Accountability Review
Date of Review: March 2, 2015
Appendix A: GCVS Annual goals, 2014-17
Consistent with 603 CMR 52.02, GCVS submitted an accountability plan that articulated the goals it has set to measure
success. As of the visit, the below-listed goals, as provided by school leadership, were under revision. On April 6, 2015,
the school’s board of trustees voted to approve revised annual goals through the 2016-17 school year. The second
column indicates the location in this report where the goals are addressed, based on data collected by the review team.
Provided by the school:
Addressed in:
Satisfaction goal 1
Mission and key design
elements; access and
equity; program
delivery - diverse
learners; program
delivery - school culture
and family engagement
With a starting benchmark of 80%, and incrementally growing, 82% in 2014-15; 85% in
2014-15, and by School Year 2016-17, 87% or greater of families surveyed will respond as
being overall satisfied within the areas of instruction, communication and support, as
measured by the K-8 and High School Parent Survey.
1.
Learning Coaches play a crucial role in our school. Ensuring that they feel that the
curriculum of instruction is comprehensive, and the communication and support from
teachers and administrators lays the foundations for student success in our program
2.
Focus on 3 questions that address the overall satisfaction each year. Questions will focus
on instruction, communication and support.
3.
Use in-house survey and automated survey for anonymity and easy tabulation; provide
parent testimonials in between survey sessions.
4.
3 focus questions will assist staff at the beginning of the year to identify strategies for
improving family satisfaction. The staff will use these results of the second survey (to
take place in late January) and share with staff to evaluate the efficacy and impact of
those strategies.
5.
Survey twice a year (Late January and Late June)
Satisfaction goal 2
Student performance
Student Retention Goal: With a starting benchmark of 80%, and incrementally growing 82%
in 2014-15; 86% in 2014-15, and by School Year 2016-17, 85% of students who transfer out
of the school into other setting will express satisfaction with their experience at MAVA.
1.
Develop a process to collect reasons and follow up with families not re-registering. This
goal excludes dropouts.
2.
We will use End of Year (EOY) SIMS data as a basis for calculating this goal – the previous
number of transfers out plus dropouts from the previous year will be the marker for this
goal. We will also pull a withdrawal report and consolidate withdrawal reasons. WD
Reasons will be included.
3.
As before, tie into school goals and actions to meet parent satisfaction goals.
4.
Review in early fall after withdrawals complete around Oct. 1.
Satisfaction goal 3
Student performance
With a starting benchmark of 80%, and incrementally growing 82% in 2014-15; 85% in 201415, and by School Year 2016-17, 87% -- when surveyed parents/learning coaches will report
satisfaction with the school support from teachers and administration provided for their
child's program.
1.
Focus on 3 questions that address the student support satisfaction each year.
2.
Use the in-house survey and automated survey for anonymity and easy tabulation;
provide parent testaments in between survey sessions.
3.
Develop 3 focus questions at the beginning of the year and share with staff.
4.
Survey twice a year
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Page 17 of 27
GCVS Accountability Review
Date of Review: March 2, 2015
Provided by the school:
Addressed in:
Operational goal 1
Student performance;
program delivery curriculum
GCVS will follow the MassCore Recommended Program of Studies for High School
Graduation.
1.
http://www.doe.mass.edu/ccr/masscore/
2.
Use transcript, Individual Learning Plan (ILP), credit audits, MCAS scores required for
graduation and other counselor documented items.
3.
Clearly defined in ILP meeting, student handbook and other student expectations set at
the beginning of the year.
4.
Goal will be reviewed at least twice a year.
Operational goal 2
Community Building: Student/Family attendance at GCVS community building events will
be established at 50% at two events or more and incrementally grow to 55% in 2014-15;
60% in 2014-15, and 65% by School Year 2016-17.
1.
At least 7 community building events and activities planned yearly for students/families
to attend: Parent Learning Coach community, monthly outings, use HR model with all
teachers.
2.
Attendance will be taken at events. Students and parents will be expected to attend at
least two community building events per year.
3.
Numerous events and activities planned monthly for students/families to attend.
4.
The goal will be set to ensure strong communication surrounding these goals and events.
5.
Monthly
Academic goal 1
Mission and key design
elements; access and
equity; program
delivery - diverse
learners; program
delivery - school culture
and family engagement
Student performance
The ELA and Math CPI of students in their first year at MAVA will be higher than the ELA
and Math CPI of students who were in their first year at MAVA in the prior year.
It is known to the administrators of the school that many students go through a transition
upon coming to MAVA. The educational model is very different than anything they’ve seen
before, and many students experience a score drop on the MCAS in their first year at MAVA
(though students who stay at MAVA for more time generally experience gains in subsequent
years). It is a goal of the school to improve this transition. This indicator, over time, will
demonstrate whether or not the school is meeting this goal, until such time as there is no
score drop for first-year students.
Academic goal 2
Student performance
The ELA and Math CPI of students in their 2nd year or beyond at MAVA will be higher than
50% of the schools in districts from which MAVA draws 10 or more students.
MAVA exists to provide an alternative educational model for students who have struggled in
traditional environments. It draws students from all over the state, with some concentrated
pockets from certain towns, cities and/or regions. The school must demonstrate value by
helping previously unsuccessful students perform to a level that is at least on par with their
peers.
Academic goal 3
Student performance
90% of the seniors at MAVA will have passed all required MCAS/PARCC exams for
graduation or will have satisfied and of the state’s alternate paths to graduation (IE EPP).
The ultimate goal of the school is to produce students who are college/career ready, which, in
part, means those students achieving diplomas. Given that the on-time graduation rate in
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Page 18 of 27
GCVS Accountability Review
Date of Review: March 2, 2015
Provided by the school:
Addressed in:
Massachusetts is around 85%, this is a good target.
Academic goal 4
Student performance
MCAS/PARCC Participation: Within each sub-group at least 95% of students will be assessed
in ELA, Math, and Science MCAS test each year.
1.
Student attendance will be measured by state reporting statistics.
2.
Each year MAVA has attained 95% or higher participation in MCAS testing.
3.
School contacts to parents, Kmails, and Robo calls to families
4.
Goal is set and defined by the state and/or K12.
5.
Yearly
Academic goal 5
Student performance
The ELA and Math CPI of students in their 3rd year or beyond at MAVA will be higher than
65% of the schools in districts from which MAVA draws 10 or more students.
MAVA exists to provide an alternative educational model for students who have struggled in
traditional environments. It draws students from all over the state, with some concentrated
pockets from certain towns, cities and/or regions. The school must demonstrate value by
helping previously unsuccessful students perform to a level that is at least on par with their
peers.
Academic goal 6
Student performance
The ELA and Math SGP of students in their
2nd
year or beyond at MAVA will be at least 40.
According to DESE’s 2009 report on SGP, “as a rule of thumb, differences in medians of less
than 10 are not likely to be educationally meaningful at the school or district level, except in
rare cases when those differences occur among particularly large numbers of students (i.e.
1,000 students or more).” and “medians above 60 or below 40 are relatively unusual.” Having
an SGP of 40 or higher indicates that the school is functioning at levels equivalent to most
schools, statewide.
Academic goal 7
Student performance
2nd
The ELA and Math CPI and SGP for students in their
year or beyond at MAVA will be
higher than the ELA and Math CPI for a fictional “district” made up of demographic and
grade level representations of students from the home districts of said students.
This measure takes each student at MAVA and assigns him or her a representative CPI and
SGP for ELA and Math, based on the home district of residence, special education status, and
poverty status. It then aggregates these measures and compares the actual results at MAVA
to these results. This is the purest measure of the value that MAVA adds to its student
population.
Academic goal 8
Student performance
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.
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.
Academic goal 9
Student performance
7th,
8th
10th
MAVA-assigned final grades in
and
grade ELA and Math classes will correlate
with MCAS/PARCC scores at 0.5 or higher (using a straight Pearson Rho).
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Page 19 of 27
GCVS Accountability Review
Date of Review: March 2, 2015
Provided by the school:
Addressed in:
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 teacherassigned 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).
Academic goal 10
Student performance
Using the school's identified District Determined Measures aligned to the Common Core
67% of students will demonstrate at least one grade level of growth in Reading Literacy the
first year, 70% in 2016-17 and 73% 2017-18.
Academic goal 11
Student performance
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.
School growth goal 1
Through Professional Development, cooperation and communication, the Head Program
Administrator and Executive Director ensure a yearly teacher retention rate of 80%.
1.
Biweekly faculty meetings, one-on –one meetings as well as guest speakers and
conferences in which Best Practices of MAVA @ GCVS as well as other virtual schools is
discussed, shared, and initiated in developing Professional Learning Communities (PLC)
that foster a culture of collaboration ensuring school improvement and results focusing
on student success.
2.
Faculty will participate in bi-weekly faculty meetings in which a designated time will be
allotted to focus on Virtual School best practices. Faculty will attend a conference
approved by the school that focuses in their subject area or in virtual schools.
3.
As part of the Teacher Evaluation process the school, along with collaboration from the
teacher, will assist in creating personal and professional goals in subject area and in
virtual schooling.
4.
MA Teacher Evaluation will be adopted in 2014-15
School growth goal 2
Teachers play an integral role in the academics, family and community engagement, and
professional culture of the school by attending at least two outing per year.
1.
Participation in school events and outings; participation with PLC groups, book studies or
other professional activities outside of the school PD sessions.
2.
Attendance and collaborative time; MA Teacher evaluation.
3.
Many events and activities currently built into school model.
4.
Attendance will be taken at all events to ensure that faculty are present in at least two
community building events per year.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Capacity – school
leadership; capacity –
professional climate;
governance
Mission and key design
elements; access and
equity; program
delivery – instruction;
program delivery diverse learners;
program delivery school culture and
family engagement;
capacity – professional
climate
Page 20 of 27
GCVS Accountability Review
Date of Review: March 2, 2015
Appendix B: GCVS Guide to Achieving Rigor
The Guide to Achieving Rigor lists the school’s expectations for instruction in online lessons.
Create an environment in which students are expected to learn at high levels
Ask higher order questions-open ended
Expect higher level responses
Don’t move on: extend, probe, guide students to be able to answer at a higher level
Student centered- students are dong the heavy lifting
Support Students
Standards and objectives are visible- age appropriate
Standards are written as essential questions
Scaffold content from basic to complex- work through the taxonomy
Ask guiding questions
Real world application- problem solving with different settings, structures, and tools
Integrate learning
Chunk information
Provide step sheets
Use technical vocabulary
Students read challenging text
Differentiate- create leveled questions and assignments
Ongoing assessment- exit ticket, assessment questions align to the standard/objective
Students demonstrate learning at high levels
Hold students accountable for his or his understanding
Students make and defend claims with evidence
Students demonstrate the standards independent of help
Ensure all students have the opportunity to demonstrate knowledge and skills in an authentic way- written
answers on whiteboard, pair share, exit ticket, etc.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Page 21 of 27
GCVS Accountability Review
Date of Review: March 2, 2015
Appendix C: 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
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Page 22 of 27
GCVS Accountability Review
Date of Review: March 2, 2015
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.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Page 23 of 27
GCVS Accountability Review
Date of Review: March 2, 2015
Appendix D: 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.
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.
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.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Page 24 of 27