Take this article with a grain of salt.  It’s from K12 themselves.  Better put on your hip waders…

The three- volume Online Charter School Study (October 2015) prepared by Mathematica, the Center for Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) and the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) provides the country’s most in-depth and systemic look into full-time public virtual charter schools. The report is a starting point with respect to the need for more and better analysis of student performance in virtual charter schools. For instance, the study demonstrates a high mobility rate and the unique nature of students within this sector of public schools, however the student matching process did not take into account the length of enrollment, reason for enrollment, effect of mobility, or persistence over time. With additional relevant data, the study can inform the next round of research.

The study also makes conclusions that affirm what leaders in virtual schools have known for more than a decade. It confirms that virtual charter school students are eligible for free/reduced price lunch at a higher rate than traditional students (48 percent compared to 39 percent). The study also demonstrates that students in virtual charters had lower than average test scores prior to enrolling in the virtual school. In fact, one-third fewer virtual charter students are in the top-scoring decile than traditional students and there are 40 percent more virtual charter students in the bottom decile.

Decades of research show the effects of income on student performance, and there is an emerging body of research showing prior state assessment performance is a strong predictor of future performance. While these conclusions are sobering for those of us who got into education to positively impact student performance, they demonstrate that students are disproportionately academically at-risk prior to enrolling in virtual charter schools.  In fact, academic struggles are one of the main reasons why parents choose to transfer their children to these schools.

The policy volume of the study, written by CRPE, offers several recommendations that are somewhat disconnected from the other volumes of the report. For instance, the CREDO volume on student performance concludes that “network” virtual charter schools managed mostly by private “for-profit” providers do not perform worse, on average, than non-network schools, yet the recommendation is to further regulate these providers, absent evidence related to student outcomes.

Perhaps the biggest disconnect between the volumes of the study is on student engagement. The Mathematica volume discusses in great detail the importance and challenges of student engagement in the virtual charter school model. This is not news to teachers or leaders within these schools who have been developing instructional strategies, technological tools, and support structures to improve student engagement. We had hoped the volume would include constructive policy recommendations in this area. Instead, it proposes a more crude approach:  screening enrollments to ensure students are the right “fit” before allowing them access to public virtual charter schools.

A fundamental principle for public schools — especially for public schools of choice — is equal access and opportunity for all students. Virtual charter schools are public schools. They offer families access to a full public education option regardless of their geographic location. They bring the school to the student wherever she lives, meaning that for millions of families across the country, virtual schools represent the only public school option available. Take that away – or restrict equal access through some type of selection process – and virtual schools no longer become public schools. Further, it is hard to fathom what type of admissions criteria could both safeguard equal access and parent choice, while also “filtering out” students who are somehow pre-determined not to succeed. This would inevitably lead to the most difficult-to-educate students never having the chance to try virtual schools, even though they may have the potential to succeed. And they can succeed.  We’ve seen thousands of students deemed “at-risk” thrive and graduate from virtual charter schools.

The focus must be on student engagement. Rather than denying equal access and opportunity to students on the front end, policies should be designed to enable online and blended schools to move students out who are unable or unwilling to engage in their individualized learning program.  Currently, public virtual schools are forced to use traditional, often arcane, attendance and truancy regulations to remove students, which rely on traditional “seat time” attendance measures instead of engagement. 

While CRPE calls attention to a provision in the Arizona law that relates to student performance while enrolled in the virtual school, there is no recommendation to leverage this type of policy to include engagement. States should consider expanding the Arizona policy to include student engagement. A follow-up study examining the impact of engagement on performance for all types of students in virtual schools would be informative. While virtual charter schools are not the right fit for all, experience has shown us that any student, regardless of her circumstances, who engages in the online learning model can succeed.

Another disconnect is the recommendation to move public virtual schools out of the charter school sector entirely. Advocates have touted the increased transparency within charter schools since 1995.  These public schools are required to comply with all state reporting requirements while serving students entirely based on choice. Charter schools do not serve students zoned in by zip code. Charters must be open to all students, and parents have the freedom to make choices based on school-level information. There is no greater form of transparency in public education than within the charter sector.

On the other hand, there is a lack of transparency and information available on the performance of state-run and district-run virtual schools. In fact, several reports, including Keeping Pace with K-12 Digital Learning, have pointed out that it is difficult to get visibility into the true number of students enrolled in these school programs or their academic performance due to lax reporting requirements. Would anyone expect greater transparency for full-time public virtual schools by placing them within these structures?

A final point from the policy section at odds with the historical record is the description that education service providers have supported poor regulations, while simultaneously pointing out strong laws that were the recommendations made by these same providers.  The states CRPE cites as having good laws — Arizona, Colorado, Florida, North Carolina and Oklahoma — have benefitted from the input provided by education service providers such as K12 Inc. In fact, traditional critics of charters and school choice have criticized the role that educators and practitioners from digital education service providers played in advocating for these policies.  Across many states, K12 has worked with policymakers to inform the process to ensure responsible, effective, and transparent policies are enacted. In every state cited by CRPE as a model, K12 has supported the specific policy provisions that are deemed worthy of replication. 

K12 continues to advocate for improved policies in digital learning. For example, K12 has proposed better and more reliable student-centered accountability frameworks for schools that experience higher rates of mobility through school choice.  Here are a few:

Reform Graduation Rates – Rather than 4-year cohort, create a value added approach to graduation rate by measuring student progress toward graduation requirements for the actual time the student is enrolled in a public school.

Full Academic year – The longer a student is enrolled in a school, the more the school should be held accountable for his or her performance. State accountability frameworks should therefore be weighted to measure student proficiency and growth based on number of full academic years students are enrolled in a school.

–      Less than 1 full year = 0

–      Two full years  = 1.0

–      Three full years = 2.0

–      Four or more full years = 3.0

Student Growth – Annual individual student academic growth measurements should carry more weight within a state’s accountability framework than static proficiency scores. Growth models should also be sufficiently sensitive to growth on the high and low ends of the spectrum.

Measure Student Engagement – No student should be denied equal access and opportunity to public schools of choice.  However, states can develop a definition of engagement for students enrolled in alternative public schools of choice (including online and blended schools).  Students who do not demonstrate sufficient and ongoing engagement may be dis-enrolled.

On funding, K12 has long advocated for models that fund schools based on students enrolled on a real-time or current-year basis. Schools should not receive funding for students they are no longer educating.  Funding models based on single student count dates, predominately advocated by traditional school systems, are incompatible in states where school choice is valued and multiple education options exist.  Funding should follow the child to their school of choice at any point during the year.

It is our hope the Online Charter School Study is the first of many analyses of public virtual charter schools. This report points out the need for additional studies based on the unique nature of these schools’ students and the quickly evolving online learning instructional model. K12 will continue to be transparent, share data, and seek opportunities to collaborate on research and policy.  Our goal is to constantly improve, raise outcomes, and help every student succeed.

Mary Gifford is Senior Vice President of Education Policy and External Affairs at K12 Inc.  Jeff Kwitowski is Senior Vice President of Public Affairs and Policy Communications. 

California ‘virtual’ academies: Bill targets for-profit operator K12 Inc.

By Jessica Calefati, jcalefati@bayareanewsgroup.com

Posted:
 
06/10/2016 05:42:47 PM PDT |Updated:   about 22 hours ago

Related Stories

SACRAMENTO — Online charter schools would be prohibited from hiring for-profit firms to provide instructional services under a new bill that the author says is a direct response to this newspaper’s investigation of the company behind a profitable but low-performing network of “virtual” academies.

That company is K12 Inc., a publicly traded Virginia firm that allows students who spend as little as one minute during a school day logged onto its software to be counted as “present,” as it reaps tens of millions of dollars annually in state funding while graduating fewer than half of its high school students. Students who live almost anywhere south of Humboldt County may sign up for one of the company’s schools.

File photo:Former California Virtual Academies student Elizabeth Novak-Galloway, 12, plays a video game on her laptop in her San Francisco home on Feb. 18, 2016. (Dai Sugano/Staff archives)

Assembly Bill 1084, authored by Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla, D-Concord, would prevent charter schools that do more than 80 percent of their teaching online from being operated by for-profit companies or hiring them to facilitate instruction. If passed and signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown, the legislation would effectively put companies like K12 out of business in the Golden State.

“Our taxpayer dollars should be spent in the classroom to help our students, not used to enrich a company’s shareholders or drive up its profits,” Bonilla said in an interview.

But K12 spokesman Mike Kraft railed against the proposal, calling it “another cynical effort to take away the rights of parents to choose the way their kids are educated.”

“This bill is nothing more than a PR effort designed to appease big money special interests that hide in the shadows, harming California families,” Kraft wrote in an email, alluding to the support teachers unions have given to similar legislation in the past.

“Today, more than 14,000 California children attend virtual public charter schools, many in the Assemblymember’s own district,” Kraft added. “How many of their families has she spoken with before deciding to try to take away their choice?”

Before the newspaper’s two-part investigative series was published in April, Bonilla said, she didn’t know how wide the achievement gap was between students enrolled in K12’s California Virtual Academies and those who attend other public schools. But the more she learned about the company’s track record, the more she felt motivated to act.

The series highlighted research that shows online schools’ hands-off learning model isn’t appropriate for most children and found that accountability for student performance is sorely lacking. In fact, the districts tasked with overseeing K12’s California schools have a strong financial incentive to turn a blind eye to problems because they receive a cut of California Virtual Academies’ revenue to oversee them.

The stories also showed that the online schools are not really independent from K12, as the company claims. The academies’ contracts, tax records and other financial information suggest that K12 calls the shots, operating the schools to make money by taking advantage of laws governing charter schools and nonprofit organizations.

Earlier this month, another bipartisan group of lawmakers responded to the newspaper’s findings by calling for a wide-ranging state audit of for-profit charter schools.

“We’re already more than half way through the legislative session, so I knew we had to act quickly,” Bonilla said. “This bill is focused, targeted and designed to get through the legislative process this year.”

Because deadlines for introducing new legislation have already passed, Bonilla had to “gut and amend” another bill so that her new measure could move forward as soon as possible.

For the measure to advance, it must be approved by the Senate Education Committee before lawmakers break for the summer in early July. After they return in August, the bill would need to clear a floor vote in the Senate, a policy committee in the Assembly and an Assembly floor vote within a matter of weeks.

Assemblyman Roger Hernandez, D-West Covina, authored similar legislation last year, but Brown rejected Assembly Bill 787, writing in his veto message: “I don’t believe the case has been made to eliminate for-profit charter schools in California.”

The governor went on to state that “the somewhat ambiguous terms used in this bill could be interpreted to restrict the ability of nonprofit charter schools to continue using for-profit vendors” such as textbook publishers or transportation providers.

Bonilla said she doesn’t know if Brown will support AB1084 — he typically doesn’t reveal his views on pending legislation before squashing it or signing it into law. But Bonilla said she attempted to address the governor’s concern about ambiguity by specifying in her bill that online charter schools can’t hire for-profit companies for instructional services. So the schools could still contract with publishers and private transportation companies.

“Profit doesn’t belong in public education, and taxpayer dollars shouldn’t be spent on for-profit instruction,” said Bonilla, who will be termed out in December. “This has been going on here for years, and it has to stop.”

To reach the governor’s desk by the end of August, AB1084 will likely need support from powerful interest groups such as the California Teachers Association and the California Charter Schools Association. The CTA sponsored Hernandez’s bill, and while spokeswoman Claudia Briggs said the union would need more time to review Bonilla’s bill before taking a formal position, she said it sounded like “a bill we could get behind.”

Emily Bertelli, a California Charter Schools Association spokeswoman, has previously said the organization would support legislation that bans for-profit companies such as K12 from operating charter schools.

Asked to comment on AB1084, Colin Miller, the association’s acting senior vice president for government affairs, said the group is still evaluating the impact of the proposal’s language.

“The association has been committed to operational transparency, authorizer accountability and quality academic performance for all charter schools,” Miller said. “But we also want to ensure that optimal flexibility is maintained. We hope to work with the author to find the right solution.”

Contact Jessica Calefati at 916-441-2101. Follow her at Twitter.com/Calefati.

CCSA Calls for the Non-Renewal of 10 Charter Schools as a Result of Academic Underperformance

December 15, 2011

PRESS RELEASE
For Immediate Release

Contact: Vicky Waters, CCSA
(415) 505-7575
vwaters@calcharters.org

SACRAMENTO, California (Dec. 15, 2011).–The California Charter Schools Association (CCSA) is calling today for the non-renewal of 10 charter schools from across California that are below CCSA’s Minimum Criteria for Renewal. This public call for non-renewal represents a significant step towards advancing accountability and fulfilling our collective promise of quality education for children across the state.

“The Charter Schools Act, approved in California in 1992, opened the door to education reform and school choice, allowing charter schools to operate with autonomy and flexibility in exchange for higher accountability. California’s charter schools are serious about ensuring that the movement improves pupil learning and creates significantly better learning opportunities than are available within the traditional public school system for our students,” said Jed Wallace, president and CEO, CCSA. “To that end, CCSA is taking a lead role in ensuring appropriate academic accountability within the movement by establishing clear and transparent academic performance expectations for charter schools.”

“We cannot have an honest discussion about education reform and increasing accountability without closing the charters that have demonstrated an inability to meet the challenge of excellence–granted to us by law–and chronically underperform. Our accountability framework has been pressure tested, analyzed and deliberated thoroughly. The time to act on persistently low-performing schools is now, because our children’s education cannot be put on the back-burner,” said Myrna Castrejón, senior vice president, Achievement and Performance Management, CCSA.

In conjunction with CCSA’s Member Council (which consists of charter school leaders from across California), and in consultation with technical experts, CCSA developed an Accountability Framework that is a three-dimensional model that hones in on the value added by schools, as well as measures of academic status and growth. The Framework is the basis of CCSA’s Minimum Criteria for Renewal, a minimum performance standard that CCSA developed and uses as part of its advocacy efforts for charter schools seeking a renewal of their petition. Under California law, charter school petitions are authorized for up to a five-year term, and may be renewed by the authorizer for five more years. To inform schools, authorizers and the public on school performance, CCSA publishes Academic Accountability Report Cards every fall that show the results of each charter school on the Accountability Framework and CCSA’s Minimum Criteria for Renewal. CCSA encourages authorizers to use this data in making their decisions about whether to renew a school’s charter.

Upon the publication of the 2011 Academic Performance Index (API) results, CCSA identified thirty-one (31) charter schools from across California that are “Below CCSA’s Minimum Criteria for Renewal.” Of those 31, 11 schools’ charters expire before June 2012, and thus are in the process of petition renewal. CCSA provided all schools above and below criteria an opportunity to provide demographic data corrections and for those schools below criteria, an opportunity to submit additional student level, longitudinal data. CCSA analyzed the data provided and determined that of the 11 schools in renewal, 10 schools still do not meet CCSA’s Minimum Criteria for Renewal. CCSA has informed these schools of this circumstance, and will take steps toward informing the authorizer and encouraging it to exercise their authority not to renew the charter, and close the school.

In order to meet CCSA’s Minimum Criteria for Renewal, charter schools must have operated for a minimum of four years and meet at least one of the following:

  • Academic Performance Index (API) score of at least 700 in most recent year
  • 3-year cumulative API growth of at least 50 points (2010-11 growth + 2009-10 growth + 2008-09 growth)
  • Within range of or exceeding predicted performance based on similar student populations statewide, for at least two out of the last three years, based on CCSA’s metric, the Similar Students Measure.

In all, the 10 charter schools that do not meet CCSA’s standard for renewal represent slightly more than 1% of the 982 charter schools currently in operation in California, and represent all school types and regions of the state.

The list of schools includes:

School Name City Authorizer
Antelope View Charter Antelope Center Joint Unified
California Aerospace Academy McClellan Twin Rivers Unified
California Virtual Academy @ Kern Simi Valley Maricopa Unified
Leadership High San Francisco San Francisco Unified
Los Angeles County Online High Palmdale Antelope Valley Union High
Nubia Leadership Academy San Diego San Diego Unified
Uncharted Shores Academy Crescent City Del Norte County Office of Education
West County Community High Richmond West Contra Costa Unified
West Sacramento Early College Prep Charter West Sacramento Washington Unified
Yuba County Career Preparatory Charter Marysville Yuba County Office of Education

“It is encouraging to see the level of support the Association has received in this call for non-renewal and closure, as we believe that closure of persistently low-performing schools is a natural part of a healthy charter school movement, and will allow us to continue reinventing public education in California, and offer the best quality education possible to students everywhere. Ultimately, the intent of the Charter Schools Act cannot be fulfilled if charter schools do not improve pupil learning and increase learning opportunities for all pupils,” added Wallace.

For more information regarding CCSA’s Accountability initiative, visit www.ccsa.org/advocacy/accountability, which includes links to the reports, and an FAQ on the Public Call for Non-Renewal.

About the California Charter Schools Association

The California Charter Schools Association is the membership and professional organization serving 982 charter public schools and more than 412,000 students in the state of California. The Vision of the California Charter Schools Association is to usher in a new era in public education so all students attend independent, innovative, accountable schools of choice. The Mission of the California Charter Schools Association is to influence the legislative and policy environments, leverage collective advocacy, and provide resources to support our members in developing and operating high quality, charter schools reflective of California’s student population. For more information, please visit www.ccsa.org.

Add a comment

Attorney General Kamala D. Harris Unveils Bureau of Children’s Justice

In First Action, New Bureau Sends Letters to All California Counties Reviewing Responsibilities for Foster Care System Oversight

Contact: (415) 703-5837, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov

LOS ANGELES – Attorney General Kamala D. Harris today unveiled the Bureau of Children’s Justice within the California Department of Justice that will work to ensure all of California’s children are on track to meet their full potential. In the Bureau’s first action, Attorney General Harris sent a letter to officials in all 58 counties in California, outlining their legal responsibilities with regard to foster youth and urging each county to evaluate their current enforcement and oversight policies and practices.

The Bureau will enforce criminal and civil laws to hold those who prey on children accountable; work with a range of local, state, and national stakeholders to increase support for vulnerable children to prevent bad outcomes; and identify and pursue improvements to policies impacting children.

“We simply cannot let down our most vulnerable children today, then lock them up tomorrow and act surprised,” said Attorney General Harris.  “The Bureau of Children’s Justice will continue our smart on crime approach by addressing the root causes of crime, including our broken foster care system, and making certain that California’s children receive full protection under the law and equal opportunities to succeed.   One of the Bureau’s first orders of business will be to look at enforcement gaps in the foster care system and ensure that government agencies are held accountable to those entrusted in their care.”  

Attorney General Harris’ letter to counties lays out their responsibilities in protecting children in foster care and overseeing the agencies that provide direct services to these children. In the coming months, the Bureau will focus on identifying accountability and enforcement gaps in the foster system to ensure children have the support they need.

“We are thrilled that Attorney General Harris is making children her top priority with this new Bureau,” said Ted Lempert, president of Children Now. “Given the Attorney General’s past leadership and success with reducing chronic absence and suspensions in California, I’m confident the new Bureau will be very positive for children.”

“I’m happy to join Attorney General Harris in shining a spotlight on the importance of safeguarding our children,” said Diana S. Dooley, Secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency. “We at the California Health and Human Services Agency place a high interest and priority on addressing childhood trauma and we are committed with our county and community partners to meet the needs of all of our kids.”

The Bureau will draw on the civil and criminal law enforcement capacity of the California Department of Justice and build on CADOJ’s existing work on key issues affecting children. Core priorities for the newly formed bureau include

  • California’s foster care, adoption, and juvenile justice systems
  • Discrimination and inequities in education
  • California’s elementary school truancy crisis
  • Human trafficking of vulnerable youth
  • Childhood trauma and exposure to violence

Attorney General Harris also announced that the California Department of Justice was one of just three state agencies accepted by the U.S. Department of Justice to be part of its national Defending Childhood Initiative. Through this initiative, California will work to improve outcomes for children exposed to trauma by ensuring that at-risk children are screened for exposure to violence at school, when they visit a pediatrician, or when they become involved with child welfare and juvenile justice systems.

“I commend Attorney General Harris for taking this important step to protect the youngest and most vulnerable Californians,” said Dr. Robert K. Ross, President and CEO, The California Endowment.  “The Bureau of Children’s Justice will watch over our state’s legal system and guarantee greater protection for our children, safeguarding their physical, social and emotional health and helping to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to grow up healthy and safe.”

The Bureau will expand CADOJ’s efforts to combat the crisis of elementary school truancy, piloting programs with school districts to improve attendance and launching a new partnership with University of California, Santa Barbara to ensure these pilots can be replicated across the state.

The Bureau draws on Attorney General Harris’ expertise as a career prosecutor focusing on sexual and physical crimes against children and her commitment to defending every child in California. Attorney General Harris served two terms as District Attorney of San Francisco, where she created a child sexual assault unit. She also led the San Francisco City Attorney’s Division on Children and Families and specialized in prosecuting child sexual assault cases at the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office.

The Bureau will be staffed by attorneys and experts on legal issues impacting children, including civil rights, education, consumer protection, nonprofit charities, child welfare, privacy and identity theft, fraud, and human trafficking.

To view the letter to counties, click here: http://bit.ly/1vHdkg7




2014 Accountability Report

[District Level / School Level]

2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 |

All Massachusetts districts and schools with sufficient data are classified into one of five accountability and assistance levels, with the highest performing in Level 1 and lowest performing in Level 5. In general, a district is classified into the level of its lowest performing school, unless the district was classified into Level 4 or 5 as a result of action by the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education. Massachusetts uses the Progress and Performance Index (PPI) to assess the improvement of each district and school toward its own targets. The PPI combines information about narrowing proficiency gaps, growth, and graduation and dropout rates into a single number. All districts, schools, and student subgroups with sufficient data are assigned an annual PPI based on two years of data and a cumulative PPI between 0 and 100 based on three annual PPIs. For a district or school to be considered to be making progress toward narrowing proficiency gaps, the cumulative PPI for both the “all students” group and high needs students must be 75 or higher.
Interpretive Materials (pop-up window)
DISTRICT Accountability and Assistance Level Cumulative Progress and Performance Index
All Students High Needs Students
Abby Kelley Foster Charter Public (District) Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 77 78
Abington Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 57 51
Academy Of the Pacific Rim Charter Public (District) Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 58 51
Acton Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 93 69
Acton-Boxborough Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 99 78
Acushnet Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 55 46
Adams-Cheshire Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 45 45
Advanced Math and Science Academy Charter (District) Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 100 82
Agawam Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 50 51
Alma del Mar Charter School (District) Insufficient data
Amesbury Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 54 50
Amesbury Academy Charter Public (District) Insufficient data
Amherst Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 61 58
Amherst-Pelham Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 61 63
Andover Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 83 54
Arlington Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 75 60
Ashburnham-Westminster Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 65 63
Ashland Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 62 56
Assabet Valley Regional Vocational Technical Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 64 59
Athol-Royalston Level 4 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 4 43 41
DISTRICT Accountability and Assistance Level Cumulative Progress and Performance Index
All Students High Needs Students
Atlantis Charter (District) Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 73 75
Attleboro Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 70 54
Auburn Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 61 65
Avon Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 66 66
Ayer Shirley School District Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 61 62
Barnstable Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 47 40
Barnstable Community Horace Mann Charter Public (District) Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 74 96
Baystate Academy Charter Public School (District) Insufficient data
Bedford Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 68 56
Belchertown Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 68 61
Bellingham Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 56 55
Belmont Level 1 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 1 99 74
Benjamin Banneker Charter Public (District) Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 100 100
Benjamin Franklin Classical Charter Public (District) Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 87
Berkley Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 52 52
Berkshire Arts and Technology Charter Public (District) Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 80 70
Berkshire Hills Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 64 73
Berlin Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 50 42
Berlin-Boylston Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 76 56
Beverly Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 68 60
Billerica Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 53 52
DISTRICT Accountability and Assistance Level Cumulative Progress and Performance Index
All Students High Needs Students
Blackstone Valley Regional Vocational Technical Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 97 90
Blackstone-Millville Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 59 54
Blue Hills Regional Vocational Technical Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 81 72
Boston Level 4 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 4 48 51
Boston Collegiate Charter (District) Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 82 68
Boston Day and Evening Academy Charter (District) Level 3 Persistently low graduation rate for one or more groups 73
Boston Green Academy Horace Mann Charter School (District) Level 3 Among lowest performing 20% of schools and subgroups 75 73
Boston Preparatory Charter Public (District) Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 71 73
Boston Renaissance Charter Public (District) Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 75 76
Bourne Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 46 45
Boxborough Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 100 100
Boxford Level 1 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 1 99 79
Boylston Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 64 61
Braintree Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 80 72
Brewster Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 57 62
Bridge Boston Charter School (District) Insufficient data
Bridgewater-Raynham Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 73 58
Brimfield Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 92 63
Bristol County Agricultural Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 96 88
Bristol-Plymouth Regional Vocational Technical Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 90 88
Brockton Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 58 60
DISTRICT Accountability and Assistance Level Cumulative Progress and Performance Index
All Students High Needs Students
Brooke Charter School East Boston (District) Insufficient data
Brooke Charter School Mattapan (District) Insufficient data
Brooke Charter School Roslindale (District) Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 100 100
Brookfield Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 84 73
Brookline Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 63 58
Burlington Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 64 63
Cambridge Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 64 54
Canton Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 70 69
Cape Cod Lighthouse Charter (District) Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 51 54
Cape Cod Regional Vocational Technical Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 76 80
Carlisle Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 100 72
Carver Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 53 53
Central Berkshire Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 59 46
Chelmsford Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 65 62
Chelsea Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 37 35
Chesterfield-Goshen Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 69
Chicopee Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 56 59
Christa McAuliffe Regional Charter Public (District) Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 65 52
City On A Hill Charter Public (District) Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 73 75
City on a Hill Charter Public School II (District) Insufficient data
Clarksburg Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 60 66
DISTRICT Accountability and Assistance Level Cumulative Progress and Performance Index
All Students High Needs Students
Clinton Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 53 50
Codman Academy Charter Public (District) Level 2 Low MCAS participation (Less than 95%) 81
Cohasset Level 1 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 1 86 83
Community Charter School of Cambridge (District) Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 85 95
Community Day Charter Public School – Gateway (District) Insufficient data
Community Day Charter Public School – Prospect (District) Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 87 89
Community Day Charter Public School – R. Kingman Webster (District) Insufficient data
Concord Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 96 64
Concord-Carlisle Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 86 66
Conservatory Lab Charter (District) Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 78 76
Conway Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 55 82
Danvers Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 51 42
Dartmouth Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 74 64
Dedham Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 55 50
Deerfield Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 53 41
Dennis-Yarmouth Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 45 47
Dighton-Rehoboth Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 61 60
Dorchester Collegiate Academy Charter (District) Level 3 Among lowest performing 20% of schools 63 51
Douglas Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 59 50
Dover Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 100 86
Dover-Sherborn Level 1 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 1 100 88
DISTRICT Accountability and Assistance Level Cumulative Progress and Performance Index
All Students High Needs Students
Dracut Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 48 41
Dudley Street Neighborhood Charter School (District) Insufficient data
Dudley-Charlton Reg Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 59 48
Duxbury Level 1 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 1 96 81
East Bridgewater Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 59 57
East Longmeadow Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 66 62
Eastham Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 67 63
Easthampton Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 56 50
Easton Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 57 50
Edgartown Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 83 79
Edward M. Kennedy Academy for Health Careers (Horace Mann Charter School) Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 69 71
Erving Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 63 29
Essex Agricultural Technical Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 100 86
Everett Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 53 50
Excel Academy Charter (District) Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 96 98
Excel Academy Charter School – Boston II (District) Insufficient data
Excel Academy Charter School – Chelsea (District) Insufficient data
Fairhaven Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 68 56
Fall River Level 4 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 4 54 50
Falmouth Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 69 59
Farmington River Reg Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 73 65
DISTRICT Accountability and Assistance Level Cumulative Progress and Performance Index
All Students High Needs Students
Fitchburg Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 51 56
Florida Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 32 46
Four Rivers Charter Public (District) Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 69 79
Foxborough Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 77 70
Foxborough Regional Charter (District) Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 78 62
Framingham Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 54 51
Francis W. Parker Charter Essential (District) Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 70 66
Franklin Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 66 52
Franklin County Regional Vocational Technical Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 74 76
Freetown-Lakeville Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 68 55
Frontier Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 57 43
Gardner Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 35 29
Gateway Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 62 51
Georgetown Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 64 60
Gill-Montague Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 60 58
Global Learning Charter Public (District) Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 63 63
Gloucester Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 63 59
Gosnold Insufficient data
Grafton Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 69 53
Granby Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 68 74
Greater Fall River Regional Vocational Technical Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 79 75
DISTRICT Accountability and Assistance Level Cumulative Progress and Performance Index
All Students High Needs Students
Greater Lawrence Regional Vocational Technical Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 82 83
Greater Lowell Regional Vocational Technical Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 82 83
Greater New Bedford Regional Vocational Technical Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 72 77
Greenfield Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 51 41
Groton-Dunstable Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 91 55
Hadley Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 62 47
Halifax Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 72 76
Hamilton-Wenham Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 84 60
Hampden Charter School of Science (District) Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 92 92
Hampden-Wilbraham Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 61 52
Hampshire Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 74 66
Hancock Insufficient data
Hanover Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 68 64
Harvard Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 93 79
Hatfield Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 70 89
Haverhill Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 52 62
Hawlemont Level 3 Among lowest performing 20% of schools 48
Hill View Montessori Charter Public (District) Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 54 56
Hilltown Cooperative Charter Public (District) Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 84 72
Hingham Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 91 66
Holbrook Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 65 67
DISTRICT Accountability and Assistance Level Cumulative Progress and Performance Index
All Students High Needs Students
Holland Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 73 80
Holliston Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 89 65
Holyoke Level 5 Chronically underperforming district 45 49
Holyoke Community Charter (District) Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 70 65
Hopedale Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 78 71
Hopkinton Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 92 52
Hudson Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 50 49
Hull Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 56 49
Innovation Academy Charter (District) Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 72 70
Ipswich Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 55 49
KIPP Academy Boston Charter School (District) Insufficient data
KIPP Academy Lynn Charter (District) Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 93 95
King Philip Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 72 57
Kingston Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 61 49
Lanesborough Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 95 98
Lawrence Level 5 Chronically underperforming district 70 66
Lawrence Family Development Charter (District) Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 100 100
Lee Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 70 56
Leicester Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 45 55
Lenox Level 1 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 1 84 94
Leominster Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 61 59
DISTRICT Accountability and Assistance Level Cumulative Progress and Performance Index
All Students High Needs Students
Leverett Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 72
Lexington Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 99 80
Lincoln Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 79 70
Lincoln-Sudbury Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 85 61
Littleton Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 63 65
Longmeadow Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 83 60
Lowell Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 51 54
Lowell Collegiate Charter School (District) Insufficient data
Lowell Community Charter Public (District) Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 100 100
Lowell Middlesex Academy Charter (District) Insufficient data
Ludlow Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 57 60
Lunenburg Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 61 63
Lynn Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 51 54
Lynnfield Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 86 77
MATCH Charter Public School (District) Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 73 73
MATCH Community Day Charter Public School (District) Insufficient data
Ma Academy for Math and Science Insufficient data
Malden Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 57 58
Manchester Essex Regional Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 96 79
Mansfield Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 68 55
Marblehead Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 73 64
DISTRICT Accountability and Assistance Level Cumulative Progress and Performance Index
All Students High Needs Students
Marblehead Community Charter Public (District) Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 93 79
Marion Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 95 92
Marlborough Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 52 43
Marshfield Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 62 45
Martha’s Vineyard Charter (District) Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 71 55
Marthas Vineyard Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 70 64
Martin Luther King Jr. Charter School of Excellence (District) Level 3 Among lowest performing 20% of schools 64 64
Masconomet Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 94 66
Mashpee Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 53 56
Massachusetts Virtual Academy at Greenfield Commonwealth Virtual School Level 3 Among lowest performing 20% of schools and subgroups 63
Mattapoisett Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 93 100
Maynard Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 43 39
Medfield Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 93 66
Medford Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 57 54
Medway Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 79 56
Melrose Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 74 59
Mendon-Upton Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 66 68
Methuen Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 48 48
Middleborough Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 51 46
Middleton Level 1 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 1 89 77
Milford Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 56 51
DISTRICT Accountability and Assistance Level Cumulative Progress and Performance Index
All Students High Needs Students
Millbury Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 70 64
Millis Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 66 53
Milton Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 68 53
Minuteman Regional Vocational Technical Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 67 65
Mohawk Trail Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 70 59
Monomoy Regional School District Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 55 50
Monson Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 58 55
Montachusett Regional Vocational Technical Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 81 79
Mount Greylock Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 89 82
Mystic Valley Regional Charter (District) Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 77 65
Nahant Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 69
Nantucket Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 53 52
Narragansett Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 68 67
Nashoba Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 81 65
Nashoba Valley Regional Vocational Technical Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 79 85
Natick Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 69 52
Nauset Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 71 71
Needham Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 88 68
Neighborhood House Charter (District) Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 78 82
New Bedford Level 4 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 4 52 50
New Salem-Wendell Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 79 79
DISTRICT Accountability and Assistance Level Cumulative Progress and Performance Index
All Students High Needs Students
Newburyport Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 75 60
Newton Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 85 76
Norfolk Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 97 61
Norfolk County Agricultural Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 98
North Adams Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 49 43
North Andover Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 74 62
North Attleborough Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 63 56
North Brookfield Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 51 46
North Central Charter Essential (District) Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 73 74
North Middlesex Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 54 52
North Reading Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 71 62
North Shore Regional Vocational Technical Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 88 88
Northampton Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 60 56
Northampton-Smith Vocational Agricultural Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 75 81
Northboro-Southboro Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 99 86
Northborough Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 57 56
Northbridge Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 51 46
Northeast Metropolitan Regional Vocational Technical Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 80 75
Northern Berkshire Regional Vocational Technical Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 74 68
Norton Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 65 47
Norwell Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 85 54
DISTRICT Accountability and Assistance Level Cumulative Progress and Performance Index
All Students High Needs Students
Norwood Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 65 62
Oak Bluffs Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 100 85
Old Colony Regional Vocational Technical Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 94 86
Old Rochester Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 64 56
Orange Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 43 47
Orleans Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 89 56
Oxford Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 53 48
Palmer Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 43 46
Pathfinder Regional Vocational Technical Level 3 Among lowest performing 20% of schools 56 55
Paulo Freire Social Justice Charter School (District) Insufficient data
Peabody Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 49 46
Pelham Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 70
Pembroke Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 57 49
Pentucket Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 55 46
Petersham Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 74
Phoenix Charter Academy (District) Level 3 Persistently low graduation rate for one or more groups 59
Pioneer Charter School of Science (District) Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 85 96
Pioneer Charter School of Science II (PCSS-II) (District) Insufficient data
Pioneer Valley Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 59 58
Pioneer Valley Chinese Immersion Charter(District) Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 100
Pioneer Valley Performing Arts Charter Public (District) Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 77 79
DISTRICT Accountability and Assistance Level Cumulative Progress and Performance Index
All Students High Needs Students
Pittsfield Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 44 45
Plainville Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 86 76
Plymouth Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 53 51
Plympton Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 86 76
Prospect Hill Academy Charter (District) Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 72 73
Provincetown Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 74
Quabbin Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 61 55
Quaboag Regional Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 60 62
Quincy Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 61 56
Ralph C Mahar Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 52 60
Randolph Level 4 Underperforming district 47 46
Reading Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 60 44
Revere Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 60 61
Richmond Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 90
Rising Tide Charter Public (District) Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 79 63
River Valley Charter (District) Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 77
Rochester Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 62 66
Rockland Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 63 62
Rockport Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 59 45
Rowe Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 75
Roxbury Preparatory Charter (District) Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 56 69
DISTRICT Accountability and Assistance Level Cumulative Progress and Performance Index
All Students High Needs Students
Sabis International Charter (District) Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 54 53
Salem Level 4 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 4 54 51
Salem Academy Charter (District) Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 90 92
Salem Community Charter School (District) Insufficient data
Sandwich Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 55 60
Saugus Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 58 51
Savoy Insufficient data
Scituate Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 67 50
Seekonk Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 67 53
Seven Hills Charter Public (District) Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 95 95
Sharon Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 97 83
Shawsheen Valley Regional Vocational Technical Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 93 92
Sherborn Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 100 99
Shrewsbury Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 81 70
Shutesbury Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 56
Silver Hill Horace Mann Charter (District) Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 94 78
Silver Lake Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 78 69
Smith Leadership Academy Charter Public (District) Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 80 83
Somerset Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 55 69
Somerset Berkley Regional School District Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 87 78
Somerville Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 70 64
DISTRICT Accountability and Assistance Level Cumulative Progress and Performance Index
All Students High Needs Students
South Hadley Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 70 68
South Middlesex Regional Vocational Technical Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 71 71
South Shore Charter Public (District) Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 79 70
South Shore Regional Vocational Technical Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 84 64
Southampton Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 68 49
Southborough Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 84 72
Southbridge Level 4 Underperforming district 48 41
Southeastern Regional Vocational Technical Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 99 91
Southern Berkshire Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 69 67
Southern Worcester County Regional Vocational Technical Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 79 72
Southwick-Tolland-Granville Regional School District Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 44 50
Spencer-E Brookfield Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 60 63
Spirit of Knowledge Charter School (District)
Springfield Level 4 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 4 47 49
Stoneham Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 66 64
Stoughton Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 60 56
Sturbridge Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 77 75
Sturgis Charter Public (District) Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 100
Sudbury Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 88 45
Sunderland Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 92 69
Sutton Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 58 53
DISTRICT Accountability and Assistance Level Cumulative Progress and Performance Index
All Students High Needs Students
Swampscott Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 65 65
Swansea Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 64 62
Tantasqua Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 57 58
Taunton Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 46 45
Tewksbury Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 68 67
Tisbury Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 86 74
Topsfield Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 74 62
Tri County Regional Vocational Technical Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 89 82
Triton Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 58 51
Truro Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 63
Tyngsborough Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 67 57
UP Academy Charter School of Boston (District) Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 100 100
UP Academy Charter School of Dorchester (District) Level 3 Among lowest performing 20% of schools 86 86
Up-Island Regional Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 55 59
Upper Cape Cod Regional Vocational Technical Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 92 82
Uxbridge Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 62 53
Veritas Preparatory Charter School (District) Insufficient data
Wachusett Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 70 52
Wakefield Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 54 46
Wales Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 80 93
Walpole Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 76 75
DISTRICT Accountability and Assistance Level Cumulative Progress and Performance Index
All Students High Needs Students
Waltham Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 59 56
Ware Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 50 53
Wareham Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 43 41
Watertown Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 58 50
Wayland Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 100 85
Webster Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 41 39
Wellesley Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 97 70
Wellfleet Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 83
West Boylston Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 60 45
West Bridgewater Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 70 55
West Springfield Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 65 74
Westborough Level 1 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 1 88 73
Westfield Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 59 53
Westford Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 100 72
Westhampton Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 86
Weston Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 96 78
Westport Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 55 60
Westwood Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 95 70
Weymouth Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 53 47
Whately Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 66
Whitman-Hanson Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 55 58
DISTRICT Accountability and Assistance Level Cumulative Progress and Performance Index
All Students High Needs Students
Whittier Regional Vocational Technical Level 1 Meeting gap narrowing goals 88 79
Williamsburg Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 68
Williamstown Level 2 Not meeting gap narrowing goals 84 69
Wilmington Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 64 50
Winchendon Level 3 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 3 55 53
Winchester Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 97 83
Winthrop Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 66 60
Woburn Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 54 47
Worcester Level 4 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 4 51 51
Wrentham Level 2 One or more schools in the district classified into Level 2 80 66

3010375052_f59c5b677d_o

This week in Ohio, The Columbus Dispatch reports that “Reps. Bill Hayes and Teresa Fedor, the House Education Committee’s top Republican and Democrat, […] forwarded an anonymous whistle-blower’s email” to David Yost, the state Auditor. The whistle-blower alleges that Ohio Virtual Academy, a K12 Inc. school, failed to remove more than 400 chronically truant students from its rolls. With charter schools funded on a per-pupil basis, padding enrollment with fake or absent students would mean collecting extra state funds while spending less money in the classroom.

Fortunately, Ohio’s Auditor is already quite familiar with the issue. In January, Yost released a special audit on the findings of an investigation into discrepancies between charter school enrollment and student attendance. As he told Central Ohio NPR, what Yost discovered “shocked” him: on average, the 30 charter schools investigated were reporting two times as many students as were actually in their classrooms. In fact, at one charter school that reported an enrollment of 95 students, the auditors found none in attendance. Four of the schools were managed by the notorious White Hat Management, and it’s hardly surprising that the audit flagged all for further investigation due to the “unusually high” variance between reported and actual attendance discovered.

Kristin Stewart, the head of Ohio Virtual Academy, disputes the allegations made by the whistle-blower. However, The Toldeo Blade reports that it acquired an audio recording of a conference call held by school officials in April, in which staff members are told that truant students will no longer be removed from enrollment.

While Ohio Virtual Academy and its sponsor try to mop up the mess, Rep. Fedor is looking for answers: “My question is how long has it been going on. For years? I don’t know. This is a serious gap and it’s a serious issue if these e-schools are getting money that they shouldn’t get.”

Image by Frits Ahlefeldt-Laurvig

The post K12 Inc. School Accused of Inflating Enrollment by Over 400 Students appeared first on Cashing in on Kids.

• The Florida charter school started by Jeb Bush was shut down in 2008. The school is described by The New York Times as “an image-softening vehicle for [his] political comeback.” Suffering from financial woes and academic inconsistencies, the local school board voted to immediately terminate Bush’s Liberty City Charter School’s contract. Bush’s Foundation for Excellence in Education plays a role in for-profit charter schools’ influence on education reform, mixing politics and policy.

• Ohio’s largest online charter school, Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow (ECOT), spent $2.27 million in advertising. The private, for-profit management company’s records aren’t public, but the state audit reports that the school also paid $21 million on two for-profit companies owned by ECOT’s founder.

• The for-profit charter school operator, Imagine Schools, was ordered to pay $1 million for a real estate self-dealing scheme. Read Imagine Schools’ profile here.

• After a recent poll found that voters want greater oversight for charter schools, In The Public Interest and the Center for Popular Democracy released The Charter School Accountability Agenda: An 11-Point Program for Reform, which outlines steps for states to ensure public accountability and provide oversight to improve student learning and reduce instances of fraud.

• Charter school budgets should be transparent and open to the public. In Michigan, charter school founder Steven J. Ingersoll was found guilty of three criminal accounts regarding tax fraud. According to federal prosecutors, Ingersoll “ran a shell game in moving large sums of money between their business and personal bank accounts in an effort to hide the money for tax purposes.”

• A new report examines a California virtual school managed by the for-profit education company, K12, Inc. The study focuses on student performance, management practices, and oversight mechanisms at California Virtual Academies (CAVA), whose students are “at risk of low quality educational outcomes, and some are falling through the cracks entirely, in a poorly resources and troubled educational environment.”

#CharterScam

The post News from Cashing In On Kids appeared first on Cashing in on Kids.

• Public schools are paid for by state and federal taxes; however, corporate tax avoidance is devastating inner-city schools. An analysis of 25 of the nation’s largest corporations shows a total state tax payment of a third of the required tax. Read more here.

Jeb Bush’s Foundation for Excellence in Education promotes expanding charter schools, vouchers and most notoriously, the virtual education company, K12, Inc. New emails show the role he has played in being a “backdoor vehicle for major corporations to urge state officials to adopt policies that would enrich the companies.Read more here.

• In Michigan, a charter school operated for over ten years before fraud and fiscal mismanagement was exposed. Now, the founder is under federal indictment for seven criminal charges of bank fraud and tax evasion. Read more here.

• In 2014, fraudulent charter schools misused, lost or wasted over $100 million in taxpayer money. Here is a year-end wrap up of charter school scandals. Read more here.

• As York City, Pennsylvania considers giving Charter Schools USA complete control of the school district, the company still has limited knowledge of York students’ ESL and special education needs. Read more here.

• A for-profit college that was sued by the federal Consumer Financial Protections Bureau is moving into the charter school sector. CFPB alleges that the school “sacrificed its students’ futures by saddling them with debt on which it knew they would likely default.” Read more here.

The post Charter School News appeared first on Cashing in on Kids.

NC School Board Questions Online Charter Applicants

Credit Mike Burns / Flickr – bit.ly/14CCwbd

Two online charter schools could serve up to 3,000 students in North Carolina next year. They would be the first schools of their kind in the state. The state school board asked those groups some tough questions this week.

Listen

Listening…

Online charter schools have been trying to open in North Carolina for a few years now, but plenty of questions about public funding, withdrawal rates, and the academic quality of these schools have kept that from happening.

School board member John Tate of Charlotte worries online charters might become schools of the privileged, since they require computer and internet access.

“If I’m poor, how am I going to utilize your service?” he asked.

“So much of what we applied for was dictated to us,” replied Bryan Setser with North Carolina Connections Academy. “We advocated for a year that that was not the funding model that was successful in other states.”

In short, the school’s budget does not include money to lease computers or provide internet access to families who can’t afford them. The other group, North Carolina Virtual Academy, said that it can supply families with those things.

Under state law, the online schools would receive about $5,000 per student from the state, nearly the same as their brick-and-mortar counterparts. But they wouldn’t get as much from local districts.

The two schools applying would be operated by for-profit companies that run online charters in other states, Connections Academy and K12 Inc.

School board member Becky Taylor has concerns.

“How are you a quality school for our North Carolina families?” she asked.

Setser said Connections Academy has learned from successes and failures in other states.

“We tried to take the best instructional approaches from those different states and then we change the accountability model in North Carolina. We have a one-year contract with the EMO,” said Setser.

That means if Connections Academy isn’t getting the job done, the school isn’t stuck with the company.

A special review committee gave the two charter schools the go ahead last month. The state board of education plans to vote on them in February.

However, it’s unclear what happens if the board turns the schools down, since state law requires the school board to establish a pilot program for online charters starting in the fall.

A front-page Washington Post article today links K12 Inc. to Jeb bush’s Foundation for Excellence in Education, which Lyndsey Layton notes “has been criticized as a backdoor vehicle for major corporations to urge state officials to adopt policies that would enrich the companies.” Earlier this week, in the Jefferson (NC) Post, Matt Ellinwood reported that the state board of education granted K12 a new charter.

So, if the Post had published the article while the North Carolina State Board of Education was considering granting K12 a charter, would it have made a difference? Would knowledge of K12’s poor performance and shaky finances have affected the decision? Probably not.

Due to last-minute lobbying, a legislative lapse or dumb luck, K12 had the charter locked down. Ellinwood writes: “A provision slipped into the General Assembly’s budget this past summer directed the State Board of Education to open two virtual charter school pilot programs and at present there are only two applicants.”

Two openings, two applicants. This is how the game is played.

The post K12 Inc. Gets NC Charter Despite Headwinds appeared first on Cashing in on Kids.