accountability review report – tecca january 2019 · web viewnov 27, 2018 · this document was...

Accountability Review Report for TEC Connections Academy Virtual SchoolJanuary 2019Virtual 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: November 27, 2018Date of this report: January 11, 2019

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

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

Jeffrey C. RileyCommissioner

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 theHuman Resources Director, 75 Pleasant St., Malden, MA 02148-4906. Phone: 781-338-6105.

© 2019 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary EducationPermission is hereby granted to copy any or all parts of this document for non-commercial educational purposes. Please credit

the “Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.”

This document printed on recycled paper

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

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

http://www.doe.mass.edu/

Table of Contents

School profile.......................................................................................................................................1

Description of the accountability review..............................................................................................1

Faithfulness to certificate.....................................................................................................................4

1. Mission and key design elements.......................................................................................................................4

Academic and program success............................................................................................................7

4. Student performance..........................................................................................................................................75. Program delivery...............................................................................................................................................12Instruction................................................................................................................................................................. 12Assessment and program evaluation........................................................................................................................15Diverse learners........................................................................................................................................................ 166. School culture and family engagement.............................................................................................................18

Organizational viability.......................................................................................................................19

Capacity..................................................................................................................................................................... 197a. School leadership................................................................................................................................................197b. Professional climate............................................................................................................................................207c. Contractual relationships....................................................................................................................................21

Appendix A: Expected practices..........................................................................................................24

Appendix B: School’s Response to Accountability Review Report........................................................26

TECCA Renewal Review Date of Review: November 27, 2018

School profileThe Education Cooperative (TEC) as “founder entity” submitted an application for a virtual certificate to the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (ESE) in the spring of 2013; on February 25, 2014, the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education approved a 3-year operating certificate for TEC Connections Academy Commonwealth Virtual School (TECCA) under the state's virtual school legislation (Chapter 379 of the Acts of 2012). TECCA opened in 2014 as a virtual public school serving students in grades K-12. TECCA’s certificate was renewed, with conditions, for a five year term in 2017. TECCA’s current certificate expires on June 30, 2022.

On August 1, 2018, ESE approved a maximum enrollment of 2,300 students. As of November 27, 2018, enrollment was reported as 2,300 students.

The school has made various amendments during its certificate term. On June 25, 2014, two new board members were approved. On August 27, 2014, one new board member was approved. In November 2015, the school amended their financial and operational arrangement between TECCA and CE. On April 18, 2016, the school amended its bylaws. On September 28, 2016, the school amended its contract with CE in regards to human resources management. On August 1, 2018, ESE approved five amendments requests: (1) amend TECCA’s contract with CE, increase maximum enrollment to 2,300 students, amend TECCA’s mission statement, add two additional pathways (i.e., accelerated, extended programs), and add a new board member to TECCA’s board.

The organizational structure has undergone some significant changes over the course of five years. In April 2015, the founding lead school administrator (equivalent to the position of superintendent/principal) announced his retirement at the end of the SY1415. A new lead school administrator was hired in July 2015. The school’s leadership team was fully staffed during FY17 with the hire of a permanent director of special education in Summer 2016 (as noted in the December 24, 2016 report). The district leadership is now comprised of the superintendent (formerly known as the lead school administrator, in his fourth year in the role); K12 principal; director of pupil services; director and assistant directors of special education; ELL coordinator; and chief administrative officer. The school leadership is now comprised of the principal; four core subject department heads; dean of students; assistant principal (grades K-5); K12 curriculum director; and K12 Response-to-Intervention (RT) Director.

ESE has conducted five site visits over the course of five years, including: (1) December 2014 Accountability Review site visit (report dated January 13, 2015); (2) FY2015 Accountability Review site visit (completed on May 20, 2015); (3) FY2016 Accountability site visit (completed on February 24, 2016); (4) Renewal Inspection site visit on November 3, 2016 (report dated December 24, 2016); and (5) Year 5 Site Visit on November 27, 2018.

Description of the accountability reviewOn November 27, 2018, the following members of the renewal inspection review team (“team”) visited TECCA at its administrative offices, located at 141 Mansion Drive, East Walpole, MA 02032.

Alison Bagg, ESE Kara Dunn, SchoolWorks, LLC John Englander, VHS Learning

Joanna Laghetto, ESE Erin Obey, Pembroke District Schools

The team reviewed the following information:

Application for certificate renewal Annual report, FY17 (December 2017) Audit, FY17 (June 2017) Accountability reports from January 2017-

December 2017 AdvancEd Performance Accreditation and

Engagement Review

Teacher training documents Sample teacher evaluation documents, including the

TECCA-developed Massachusetts Virtual Public School Model for Educator Evaluation teacher rubric

CE resource documents for families and learning coaches, including learning coach resource sessions links and recordings,

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Page 1 of 27

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2012/Chapter379

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2012/Chapter379


Certificate of Inspection including building and fire certificates, emergency evaluation procedure

Personnel policies, including the TECCA employee handbook

Board meeting agendas and minutes Organizational chart and staff assignments Annual Goals Parent Satisfaction Survey 2017-2018 and trend

data from FY1215-FY1617 Documentation of Professional Development

Activities Stakeholders surveys, including Student surveys

SY1617, Culture and Superintendent Survey Fall 2017

Community Event documentation, including newsletters, event flyer, drop-in center

Operational documents, including the state testing action plan, school calendar

TECCA District Improvement Plan Oral Exit Review Report RTI Brochure Leadership team agendas and meeting minutes

Special education program statement Special Education Procedural Manuals, including

504 Manual, special education department handbook

Special education and 504 plan tally 2015-16 course completion data

Documentation of school-sponsored events and outings

Weekly newsletters Student handbook supplement English as a second language (ESL) program

statement and associated English language learner (ELL) documents, including the CE ELL handbook,

Student demographic information

The team collectively observed 27 online lessons in real-time over a 2-month window in October and December 2018.

On site, the team conducted focus group interviews with representatives from the following groups: school leaders (10); board of trustees (5); special education (6); “specialists”1 (6); K-5 teachers (3); middle school teachers (5); high school teachers (5); learning coaches2 of early elementary school students (5); learning coaches of middle school students (5); high school learning coaches (4); elementary school students (4); middle school students (2); and high school students (1).3

1 Consisting of the school counseling director, three counselors, the advisory coordinator, the individualized education program coordinator, the student support team leader for grades K-12, and the teacher who oversees truancy. 2 The person who supports the student’s education in the home is called a learning coach, typically the student’s parent/guardian. Learning coaches are responsible for their student’s day-to-day activities. See also the description of the learning coach role on the TECCA website.3 Membership in focus groups was not mutually exclusive. Members were solicited by school leadership. Learning coach and student focus groups were largely conducted via telephone.


http://www.connectionsacademy.com/massachusetts-virtual-school/about/parents/responsibilities

http://www.connectionsacademy.com/massachusetts-virtual-school/about/parents/responsibilities


Ratings

Faithfulness to certificate

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

Partially Meets

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

Partially Meets

Academic and program success

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

Not rated

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

a. Instruction Partially Meets

b. Assessment and program evaluation Meets

c. Diverse learners

6. School culture and family engagement

Partially Meets

Meets

Organizational viability

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

a. School leadership Meets

b. Professional climatec. Contractual relationships

MeetsMeets

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

Partially Meets

Rating Scale:

Exceeds Fully and consistently meets the criterion; potential exemplar

Meets Generally, meets the criterion; minor concerns are noted

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

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



Faithfulness to certificate

1. Mission and key design elementsRating: Partially Meets

In its fifth year, TECCA is working toward providing a program that fully meets its mission to “provide Massachusetts students a quality virtual public school experience.” The site visit team collected ample evidence that TECCA is implementing eight of its eleven key design elements and that three additional key design elements are not as well implemented. The school is not yet meeting the academic goals it set for itself in its accountability plan.

TECCA stakeholders share a common and consistent understanding of the school’s mission. TECCA’s mission, “to provide Massachusetts students a quality virtual public school experience,” was adopted on August 1, 2018, as indicated in the school’s profile. When asked, all stakeholders were able to provide a consistent summary of the mission. More specifically, school leaders, special education and general education teachers, and board members paraphrased the school’s mission “to provide a quality virtual experience.” Stakeholders also were able to convey its meaning. Board members added that the school’s mission is for students to reach their maximum potential by meeting them where they are [in their development] while having full access to a quality education. Parents interpreted the mission as providing a technologically-advanced educational experience to students in which the school meets children where they are by providing a variety of learning modalities and options. The team noted that school leaders, some teachers, and staff reported that the school met the needs of “disenfranchised students” who were not successful in traditional settings. Other stakeholders noted that students who engage in advanced sports and other external arts and science programs also benefitted from the school’s nontraditional setting.

The school has implemented most of its key design elements in the approved certificate. According to the terms of the certificate, the school has 11 key design elements: personalized learning plans; learning coaches; continuous computer and Internet connections; education management system; real-time web conferences; regular teacher contact; asynchronous interactive tutorials; online and offline assessment; threaded discussions; a multi-tiered intervention approach; and online student orientation opportunities.

Among the 11 key design elements, the following eight were strongly evident.

Personalized learning plans: All of the stakeholders reported that the school provides a personalized, flexible learning plan for its students. According to the 2017-2018 Parent Satisfaction Survey, 90 percent of parents (n=635) agreed that their child was able to learn at his/her own pace. School leaders, parents, and teachers reported that students are able to attend specialized events/programs (such as intensive athletic or artistic programs or medical treatments) in addition to completing their classes asynchronously via their Personalized Learning Plan (PLP). The school’s website and 2018 school marketing presentation indicated that each PLP is determined by reviewing student background, student learning styles, testing performance, and student goals. Parents and teachers reported that the homeroom teacher monitors PLPs by communicating regularly with students and families. Additionally, school leaders and the school’s website indicated that the school now provides a 9-month and will soon provide a 12-month learning pathway option to allow students to work through requirements. School leaders stated that the 12-monthpathway will be available in 2019. The 2017-2018 Parent Satisfaction Survey indicated that 76 percent of parents agreed that they are able to personalize the curriculum to fit the learning demands and interests of



their child. Staff reported (and parents and students confirmed) that on Mondays (during whole staff professional development [PD] and meetings), students work on assignments, catch up on work, participate in extracurricular or arts classes, and attend school-based or family-scheduled field trips.

Learning coaches (LC): Teachers, students, and families reported that each student has a caretaker who monitors his/her progress, as well as communicates with teachers each day and throughout the week. School leaders indicated (and the AdvancEd 2017 report confirmed) that learning coaches record attendance, review lessons, provide supervision, and help to implement each student’s PLP. Parents confirmed their input on daily attendance and their role in ensuring students are on task and completing their work. For instance, LCs submit periodic logs for physical education and art activities completed in the field. According to the 2018 Orientation Completion Rates Memorandum, 86.6 percent of K-12 learning coaches have completed the school’s LC orientation course. Also, the school has established a monthly support group for learning coaches to ensure a conducive, consistent learning environment.

Continuous computer and Internet connections: According to the 2017-2018 Parent Satisfaction Survey, 93 percent of parents (n=635) agreed that the use of computers is improving the learning experience. School leaders and the school’s website indicated that families are supposed to provide computer and Internet access for continued connection to the school’s learning management system. Parents noted (and the school’s website confirmed) that the school has provided computers and Internet subsidies for students who demonstrated financial hardship. According to the FY19 budget, the school has budgeted $20,000 for Internet subsidies. School leaders reported (and the school’s website confirmed) that the school initiated a pilot program during SY1718, distributing Chromebooks to grade 3-8 to ensure that Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS)-related activities are available to students.

Education management system: The school uses the Connections Academy’s Connexus system to manage the curriculum, schedules, assignments, and student data (and functions as the learning management system [LMS]). Parents and students confirmed that the school uses the system to provide all functions of the school. School leaders characterized their use of the platform as consistent, yet a “work in progress.” School leaders recognized that the Connections curriculum is not completely aligned with MA State frameworks, so teachers supplement curriculum and instruction to meet the frameworks. School leaders and teachers indicated that the LMS does not allow for ease of supplementation and teacher autonomy. According to the 2017-2018 Parent Satisfaction Survey, 93 percent of parents (n=635) agreed that the use of the Connexus is improving the learning experience.

Teacher contact: Parents and students reported that teachers are available through email, webmail, and during office hours. All stakeholders referenced utilizing a third-party scheduling software called “YouCanBookMe.org”. Students and learning coaches reported that students can schedule time with teachers through this medium to ensure contact. Students reported weekly contact with course teachers at a minimum. Additionally, students added that homeroom teachers hold calls with students and their families/LCs every other week to monitor student’s progress, confirm attendance, monitor social-emotional well-being, and communicate with LCs. According to the 2017-2018 Parent Survey, 86 percent of parents characterized teacher contact as satisfactory.

Online and offline assessment: Board members, school leaders, and teachers reported that the school administers State assessments, ongoing informal assessments, and portfolio assessments. While the certificate indicated the use of technology-based curriculum assessments, stakeholders, when asked, did not reference them. According to the TECCA 2018-2019 District Plan, the school



indicated that requisite exit tickets will include MCAS-type questions. During observed instruction, teachers checked for student understanding in 15 out of 27 lessons. In these classrooms, teachers gave an activator and a culminating exit ticket. In four instances, teachers also used formative assessments throughout the lesson.

Asynchronous interactive tutorials: According to the TECCA 2018 Online Session Presentation, the LMS provides “…a rich mix of online and offline resources; interactive multimedia tools bring concepts to life.” In addition to attending live lessons, TECCA students engage in a number of lesson activities each week or watch any recorded live lessons they may have missed. During classroom observations, some teachers referenced videos, graphics, and audio that were available to students for the recorded lessons. According to the 2017-2018 Parent Survey, 93 percent of parents expressed satisfaction with the variety of the learning activities provided by the Connexus program.

Online student orientation opportunities. School leaders and staff reported that students and LCs are provided an orientation during their intake process. According to the 2018 Orientation Completion Memorandum,83 percent of K-12 students completed the student orientation course. The memorandum indicated that middle and high school students had higher occurrences of non-compliance. Specifically, ninth-grade students had the highest numbers of incomplete orientation rates.

The following three key design elements are not well implemented.

Real-time web conferences: According to the terms of the certificate, individual students are expected to use telephone, video, chat, whiteboards, and web-surfing. The team observed variability among grade bands of how these features were used. Most of the time, in the majority (18) of the 27 observed classes, teachers used video to project their images and PowerPoint presentations. Few teachers used the whiteboard and chat functions for students’ engagement.

Threaded discussions (online chat function): The team observed that few high school teachers used threaded discussions to provide opportunities for collaboration and interactions. Most access was limited and occurred for short periods (2-to-5 minutes of a 60-minute observation) during the lesson.

Multi-tiered intervention approach: School leaders and staff did not provide a robust explanation for its tiered support for struggling students. The AdvancEd 2017 report (an external accreditation review) noted that this was an area of improvement for the school. When asked about tiered supports, school leaders provided the clearest understanding of tiered supports, including a Student Support Team (SST) that meets to discuss students who are struggling or at risk. Other stakeholders primarily cited individual tutoring as the primary support for struggling students.

The school does not make available to the public its accountability goals and specific strategies for reaching these goals through various means, including (but not limited to) posting on the school’s website. A review of the school’s website revealed that the school has outdated annual reports from 2015 posted on its website.

The school did not meet 3 out of 4 academic success accountability goals but did meet 3 out of 3 organizational viability and 6 out of 6 faithfulness to mission accountability goals. A review of the school’s improvement plan has strategies to improve academic outcomes. For instance, actions steps include: working with department heads to embed MCAS practice; establish a partnership among stakeholders to increase MCAS growth; and create and embed MCAS Preparatory courses for students.

2. Access and equity



Rating: Partially MeetsFinding: TECCA provides program access and equity for most, but not all students, eligible to attend the school. Similar to prior years, there is little evidence of active recruitment, informational materials, or guidance for families who may want to enroll English learners at the school. TECCA provides information regarding enrollment practices on its website. The enrollment section of the website includes a non-discrimination policy statement. Multiple pages indicate that enrollment eligibility is based on student residency in Massachusetts and appropriate age for grade levels offered (K-12).

TECCA provides information on its website about providing an accessible educational program, particularly for students with disabilities. The website also provides a statement that TECCA provides students with a continuum of virtual special education services. There is a section of the website, devoted to curriculum, which outlines the services and programs available for students with disabilities. The student handbook also includes a description of these services. The student handbook is posted on TECCA’s website.

There is minimal information on the school’s website related to English learners. The only mention of programming for English language learners is found on the special education section of the curriculum website. English learners are mentioned once in TECCA’s student handbook, in a section explaining ACCESS testing. TECCA has created a parent and student handbook to the school’s English learning program, but it is not found on the website. While the school’s website has a google translate feature, all the school’s recruitment and enrollment materials are presented in English.

As of October 1, 2018, according Student Information Management System (SIMS) data collected by the Department, TECCA enrolled 2,143 students, approximately 9.2 percent of whom received accommodations through Section 504 of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and 19.4 percent of whom were on Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). 4 According to October 1, 2018 SIMS data, 1.4 percent of TECCA’s student population are identified as English learners (ELs).

School leaders reported improved attrition rates in recent years. Attrition rates for all students have declined in the last three school years, but remain high: 36.5 percent in summer of 2015, 34.3 in 2016, and 23.3 in 2017. Board members reported that they expect some attrition, but would still like the rates to decrease further. Board members review student enrollment and attrition data in monthly board packages. School leaders reported that changes to the academic program this year (additional live lessons this week and additional staff) have the goal of improving student retention and decreasing attrition rates.

Academic and program success

4. Student performance2018 Overall Classification: Requiring Assistance or Intervention2018 Accountability Percentile: 42018 Progress Toward Meeting Targets: 44 percent

4 As reported by TECCA. These numbers are mutually exclusive.



Finding: During the past three years, TECCA was in Level 3 in 2016 and 2017 for very low participation. In 2018, TECCA is classified as requiring assistance or intervention due to its low academic performance: TECCA is currently performing in the fourth percentile of K-12/Middle and High schools statewide. TECCA’s graduation rates are significantly below state averages and dropout rates are significantly above state averages.

The purpose of the statewide accountability system is to provide clear, actionable information about school performance. The accountability indicators used for each school depend on the grades served and the assessments administered. Following is summary information for TECCA over the past four years, with any areas of significant concern described in further detail. More detailed information related to student performance across the charter term is included on the Department’s website (http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/accountability/report/school.aspx?linkid=31&orgcode=39020900&orgtypecode=6&). As a result of significant changes to the state’s accountability system in 2018, comparisons between 2018 accountability results and historical accountability data should not be made.

Accountability and Assistance Level/Overall Classification

Prior to 2018, all Massachusetts schools and districts with sufficient data were classified into one of five accountability and assistance levels (1-5), with the highest performing in Level 1 and lowest performing in Level 5. Beginning in 2018, all Massachusetts districts and schools with sufficient data were classified into one of two accountability categories: districts and schools requiring assistance or intervention, and districts and schools without required assistance or intervention.

Accountability and Assistance Level Overall Classification

2015 2016 2017 2018

Insufficient Data Level 3: Very Low Assessment Participation

Level 3: Very Low Assessment Participation

Requiring Assistance or Intervention:

Among the Lowest Performing 10% of

Schools

Progress Toward Improvement

Targets: 44 percent

School Percentile/Accountability PercentilePrior to 2018, a school percentile between 1 and 99 was reported for schools with at least four years of data. This number is an indication of the school's overall performance relative to other schools that serve the same or similar grades.


http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/accountability/report/school.aspx?linkid=31&orgcode=39020900&orgtypecode=6&

http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/accountability/report/school.aspx?linkid=31&orgcode=39020900&orgtypecode=6&


School Percentile

2015 2016 2017

Insufficient Data Insufficient Data --

Beginning in 2018, an accountability percentile between 1 and 99 is reported for most schools. This number is an indication of the school's overall performance relative to other schools that serve similar grades, and is calculated using data for all accountability indicators. The 2018 accountability percentile should not be compared to school percentiles calculated in 2015-2017 because they represent different calculations.

Accountability Percentile

2018

4

Next-Generation MCAS TestsNext-Generation MCAS tests were given in English language arts and mathematics in grades 3 through 8 starting in 2017. Scaled scores range from 440 to 560. Students meet expectations in the scaled score range of 500 to 529 and exceed expectations in the scaled score range of 530-560.

Next-Generation MCAS Tests

Grade and Subject

2017 2018

Percent of Students Meeting

or Exceeding Expectations

Avg. Scaled Score

Percent of Students Meeting

or Exceeding Expectations

Avg. Scaled Score

School State School State School State School State

Grades 3-8 English Language Arts

29 49 489.7 499.0 28 51 489.6 500.5

Grades 3-8 Mathematics

20 48 482.9 498.8 21 48 483.3 498.4

Composite Performance IndexThe Composite Performance Index is a 100-point index that serves as a measure of the extent to which all students are progressing toward proficiency. When all students score Proficient or Advanced on the legacy MCAS assessment, the CPI will be 100.



Composite Performance Index

Grade and Subject

2015 2016 2017 2018

School State School State School State School State

Grade 5 Science and Tech/Eng

66.3 78.2 77.9 76.4 58.5 75.3 69.4 76.5

Grade 8 Science and Tech/ Eng

65.8 72.4 64.7 71.3 59.3 70.6 58.1 68.3

Grade 10 English Language Arts

97.0 96.7 97.4 96.7 97.0 96.5 97.0 96.2

Grade 10 Mathematics 83.5 89.9 82.8 89.7 81.8 89.9 84.5 89.5

Grade 10 Science #-----! 88.2 87.5 89.0 86.5 89.4 81.9 89.3

Student Growth PercentileThe Department uses Student Growth Percentiles (SGPs) to demonstrate progress in student achievement each year. SGPs are generated based on student performance on statewide assessments, including MCAS and/or PARCC in 2015 and 2016 and the Next-Generation MCAS in 2017 and 2018. In 2015 and 2016, transitional SGP was calculated based on PARCC and prior MCAS scores. In 2018, DESE began including average SGP in all assessment and accountability reports instead of median SGP. In general, SGPs in the range of 1-39 are associated with lower growth, SGPs in the range of 40-60 are associated with moderate growth, and SGPs in the range of 61-99 are associated with higher growth.

Student Growth Percentile

Grade and Subject

PARCC Next-Generation MCAS

Transitional SGP Median SGP Average SGP

2015 2016 2017 2018

Grades 3-8 English Language Arts 34.5 41.5 34.0 39.2

Grades 3-8 Mathematics 19.0 29.0 19.0 34.9

Grade and Subject

MCAS

Median SGP Average SGP

2015 2016 2017 2018

Grade 10 English Language Arts 34.0 42.0 33.0 26.5



Grade 10 Mathematics 21.0 24.5 20.5 36.1

Graduation and Dropout RatesThe 4-year graduation rate is the percentage of students in an annual cohort who graduate with a regular high school diploma within 4 years.

4-Year Graduation Rate (Percent Graduated)

2014 cohort

2015 cohort

2016 cohort

2017 cohort

TECCA #N/A 23.9 31.2 32.6

Statewide 86.1 87.3 87.5 88.3

The 5-year graduation rate is the percentage of students in an annual cohort who graduate with a regular high school diploma within 5 years. Data for the 2016 cohort is the most recent available because it includes students in that cohort who graduated as late as 2017.

5-Year Graduation Rate (Percent Graduated)

2014 cohort

2015 cohort

2016 cohort

TECCA #N/A 37.0 40.6

Statewide 88.5 89.4 89.8

Dropout rates are reported for high school students who drop out of high school.

Dropout Rate (Percent Dropout)

2014 2015 2016 2017

TECCA #N-/A 25.2 23.6 28.5

Statewide 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.8

School Student Attendance and Retention

Student Attendance and Retention: 2016-17 and 2017-18

2017 2018

Attendance rate 89.4% 87.7%



Average # of days absent 13.2 16.9

Absent 10 or more days 32.1% 37.3%

Chronically absent (10% or more) 36.3% 35.1%

Unexcused absences > 9 30.2% 24.3%

Retention rate 20.1% 21.8%

5. Program delivery

InstructionRating: Partially MeetsFinding: While school staff may report a common understanding of TECCA’s expectations for instructional practice, instruction observed by the team did not reflect the common understanding. A majority of observed instruction did not develop higher order thinking skills. Approximately half of observed lessons fostered engagement and included checking for student understanding. A majority of instruction provided an environment conducive to learning.

School staff reported a common understanding of high-quality instruction. During focus groups, all teachers referenced the TECCA rubric when defining high-quality instruction; these are the same areas used by ESE to review online lessons. School leaders reported that the school created a rubric to delineate best practices, adapted and modified from DESE’s rubric. Teachers reported that peers use the rubric to conduct peer observations, noting that peers from across departments observe each other. Staff and teachers indicated that staff share best practices and teaching strategies during weekly department meetings. However, the team observed a disconnect between classroom observations and what staff reported. For instance, teachers and school leaders often reported using differentiation and student engagement techniques, yet observations demonstrated that 13 out of 27 classes reflected limited evidence of differentiation and student engagement. The team observed that instruction was very teacher-driven and did not reflect instructional shifts represented in the Massachusetts frameworks.

Observed instructional practices were not consistently aligned with the expectation set by school leaders. Before conducting observations of online lessons, ESE asked TECCA to give descriptions of expected practices aligned to ESE’s criteria for lesson observations (See Appendix B). Expected practices for these classrooms included: teachers used scaffolding techniques such as the gradual release of responsibility; incorporate relevant content jargon; introduce real-life applications of content; prepare an opening activity (may be a warm-up MCAS question; opening/general question) for students to answer while they wait for class to begin; implement strategic questioning that encourages students’ higher-order thinking using DOK strategies; and provide clear learning objectives/standard for the lesson. However, in 15 out of 27 lessons, sufficient evidence of expected instructional practices was observed. For instance, in one classroom, most of the expected practices were observed, but gradual release of responsibility or higher-order thinking was not evident. In 10 out of 27 lessons, limited evidence of expected instructional practices was evident. In these classrooms, opening activities were only observed. In 2 out of 27 lessons, no evidence of the expected instructional practices were observed.

Observed instruction seldom developed higher-order thinking skills. In 1 out of 27 lessons, consistent evidence of higher-order thinking was observed. In this instance, the teacher clearly



defined expectations by using examples and rubrics. For instance, the teacher presented a rubric for an exemplary answer when introducing the exercise. This lesson was also characterized by requiring the students to analyze and reflect their efforts verbally. For instance, most students shared their strategies and, at times, gave each other feedback on their efforts. In 8 out of 27 lessons, sufficient evidence of higher-order thinking was observed. In these classrooms, the teacher modeled and allowed students to model good problem-solving techniques; the teacher provided timely, targeted feedback. One example included the teacher asking students to share their strategies on how students constructed plural nouns using particular suffix rules. Students shared their strategies upon which the teacher gave feedback; students revised their work. In 18 out of 27 lessons, limited or no evidence of higher-order thinking skills was observed. In these classes, teachers were the primary voice and asked questions that required closed, short phrases. One classroom example included a teacher asking for the answer to the problem, only requiring the result in chat without asking students to explain their strategy. In another example, the teacher noticed that answers were incorrect, but did not allow most students to revise their answers based on class discussion.

Observed instruction partially fostered student engagement. The team observed that elementary classrooms used the web and microphone features, but the high school only used chat functions – no microphone or camera was used to engage high school students (see TECCA’s response to this report). In 3 out of 27 lessons, consistent evidence of student engagement was observed. In these classrooms, teachers strategically used the higher level engagement tools to consistently foster student participation and interactions among their peers. For instance, in one classroom, the students used whiteboards, the microphone feature, and document camera to demonstrate their efforts. The teacher also used manipulatives on the document camera to guide student practice and develop conceptual understanding of word construction. In 11 out of 27 lessons, sufficient evidence of student engagement was observed. In these lessons, teachers used some of the engagement tools, such as music, to engage students, along with breakout rooms and whiteboards. For instance, in one classroom, the teacher played music while the students completed the Do Now. Also, students read aloud and participated in some discussions via the chat function. In another instance, the teacher structured the lesson that resulted in high student participation. During most of the lesson, the teacher actively solicited many student responses, resulting in the participation of two-thirds of the class. The teacher also used breakout rooms; however, few-to-some students participated in the collaborative task. In 13 out of 27 lessons, limited evidence of student engagement was observed. In these classrooms, the teacher used some of the low-level LiveLesson tools such as the chat pod, student microphones, but did not use tools that encouraged peer-to-peer engagement (such as breakout rooms, whiteboards, poll pod). For instance, in one classroom, the teacher lectured for most of the lesson while the same 3-4 students responded to the teacher’s infrequent questions in the chat pod. In another classroom, few students responded to cold calls from teachers.

During observed instruction, teachers partially checked for student understanding. In 4 out of 27 lessons, consistent evidence of checks for understanding was observed. In these classrooms, teachers gave a Do Now, a culminating exit ticket, along with formative assessments throughout the lesson. For instance, in one classroom, the teacher gave a Do Now and exit ticket, allowing students to provide answers in chat pod. The teacher provided feedback on answers before the students left the class. In another instance, the teacher used the Q and A pod, poll pod, and reviewed student answers via the whiteboard pod. After reviewing the student responses, the teacher provided frequent and specific feedback on student work and their questions. In 11 out of 27 lessons, sufficient evidence of checks for understanding was observed. For instance, the teacher utilized both an activator and an exit ticket to gauge student understanding. The teacher asked frequent questions to the group to make sure they were following along, students entered their answers in



the chat pod. Also, the teacher took notice of the answers and engaged those who had inaccurate answers or did not answer the questions. In another instance, the teacher reviewed the chat responses or asked students to place a checkmark next to their names to indicate their understanding level. At times, it might seem like the students are understanding, but they may have simply given a checkmark without fully processing the work. In 10 out of 27 lessons, limited evidence of checks for understanding were observed. For instance, the teacher used the chat for student responses for most of lesson; however, all students were not participating and the teacher did not follow up with those students. At the end of the lesson, the teacher assigned an exit ticket to students and waited for students to complete the tickets before they left class. In another instance, the teacher used the Q&A pod throughout the lesson, but only 3 of the 22 students responded. The teacher did not follow-up with students to ensure their completion. The teacher did not give a Do Now but did assign an exit ticket at the end of the lesson.

Observed instructional environments were mostly conducive to learning. In 12 out of 27 lessons, consistent evidence was observed. In these lessons, students and teachers used respectful and kind tones. Students adhered and internalized teacher expectations. For instance, expectations were not posted, but students were on task and respectfully used the chat, microphone, and video functions. In 11 out of 27 lessons, sufficient evidence was observed. In these classrooms, most students observed teacher expectations; however, few students misused chat or video functions. In one instance, a teacher called out students who were misusing the chat, and the behavior ceased. In another instance, the second teacher worked with students who were not behaving. In 4 out of 27 lessons, limited evidence was observed. In one instance, the teacher asked students to increase their participation but students did not readily respond. Subsequently, the teacher admonished the class, more emphatically, to increase their participation. Then students began to observe the teacher’s request and increase their participation. Additionally, most classrooms maximized learning time. In 17 out of 27 lessons, consistent or sufficient evidence of learning time was observed. In one instance, the teacher noted that they were working on giving sufficient wait time, giving 30 seconds for students to answer the questions using a timer. The teacher also gave adequate time for lesson activities, such as 7-to-10 minutes in breakout rooms, and 2 minutes for students to complete poll pod questions. In 10 out of 27 lessons, limited evidence of the maximization of learning time was observed. For instance, in one classroom, students took 10 minutes to enter the class, while the teacher socially interacted with students. The agenda was posted but was vague and did not align with the lesson activities. The teacher activities were ill-timed, often leaving students to sit and listen for most of the lesson.

Assessment and program evaluationRating: Meets

Finding: TECCA administers a variety of assessments to track student progress. The school uses data to address student outcomes and to evaluate the quality of the program.

The school uses various types of assessments to measure student progress. School leaders and teachers reported that teachers are expected to use exit tickets to assess students’ mastery of skills at the end of a lesson. School leaders explained that elementary teachers use the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) and running records to monitor students’ literacy progress. Teachers reported that students have an oral exam once per course per semester to demonstrate their mastery of the content. School leaders also indicated (and 2017 Annual Report confirmed) that the school uses quizzes, unit tests, and three benchmark assessments from CE (i.e., Longitudinal Evaluation of Academic Progress [LEAP] and Scantron Performance Series [SPS]). The



LEAP is administered K-8 for math and grades 2-8 for reading. The SPS is used in grades 9-12 for math and reading. School leaders indicated that they use the Assessing Comprehension and Communication in English State-to-State assessment (ACCESS) to identify services for English language learner (ELL) students. Moreover, the school uses a range of assessments, including portfolio assessments, oral assessments, and the MCAS test to assess student performance and mastery of skills.

Some stakeholders use qualitative and quantitative data to address some student outcomes. School leaders, TECCA board members, and staff characterized the school as data rich with easy access to student’s progress individually and among sub-groups. TECCA board members indicated that they use both types of data to monitor student performance. For instance, the board stated that they review regular monthly reports and data packets, indicating live lesson and asynchronous lesson attendance, student participation, and enrollment data (including exit data for withdrawn students). 2018 board minutes did indicate data packets that included this information, in addition to special populations enrollment and staffing updates. Board members added they use the data to understand the short-term and long-term needs of the school, in addition to improving student and family intake and adding positions such as a curriculum director to the leadership team. Similarly, school leaders were able to give many examples of both types of data, including stakeholder surveys (e.g., parent, student, staff surveys), testimonials from stakeholders, withdrawal rates, grade distribution data, various assessment data (i.e., LEAP, DIBELS, SPS, oral assessment). Teachers reported limited use of data, citing the use of MCAS data to revise curriculum as a primary example. Few teachers reported use of data to personalize student learning but could not give specific examples. While parents and students reported they have access to student progress through grade book, they did not mention goal-setting efforts or assessments aligned to their PLPs as mentioned on the school’s website. Students added that grades are not always current in the gradebook portal.

The school uses qualitative and quantitative data to evaluate the quality and effectiveness of the program in serving all students and modifies the program accordingly. School leaders reported that district and school leaders review the participation of live lessons and mini-lessons, which has resulted in more MCAS-type questions during classes, revision of curriculum and standards, and an effort this year to provide additional Live Lessons to improve student engagement. Also, teachers indicated that they are using MCAS data to improve writing strategies (i.e., high-school science open response and elementary open response) and create a writer’s handbook. TECCA board members reported (and board minutes confirmed) that the addition of the curriculum director has improved math curriculum alignment and has created post-graduate plans based on the graduation rate. However, they are not tracking alumni yet.

Diverse learnersRating: Partially MeetsFinding: The site visit team found evidence of inconsistent procedures for the identification, assessment, and placement for students who may require English language development. The site visit team observed use of supports for diverse learners (students with disabilities and English learners) in approximately half of all observed lessons. TECCA provides limited supports and resources to meet the needs of its English learner students.

The school has inconsistent procedures for the identification, assessment, and placement for the diverse needs of students (i.e., struggling students, students with disabilities, and English learner (EL) students); also, results from intake processes are not reliable for EL students. Teachers reported that students who are struggling can be flagged in the LMS by teachers, via homeroom teachers’ interactions, and by LCs. School leaders and teachers reported (and the 2018-2019 Student



Handbook confirmed) that the SST identifies and monitors students who need intervention support during weekly meetings. A review of the 2018-2019 Student Handbook revealed that the SST includes the Response-to-Intervention (RtI) Director, K12 504 Director, Director of Special Education, Dean of Students, Director of Pupil Services, ELL coordinator, the school psychologist, guidance counselor, department heads, SST teacher representatives, and principal. School leaders and teachers explained that the SST reviews multiple sources of data to create intervention plans, make placement decisions, and leverage external supports. A review of the 2018-2019 Student Handbook revealed that if the intervention plans are not successful, the group can then refer the student to the 504 committee or special education director for further testing. Additionally, support staff and teachers reported that students are assigned to a testing location based on their location in Massachusetts. Support staff reported that students are given a Home Language Survey (HLS) during the intake process. The WIDA Screener is administered at a central location and if a student is unable to attend that testing location, the WIDA Screener is administered at a neutral location near the students’ residence. School leaders reported that two hundred and forty-five students were initially flagged as potential EL students by the HLS. Of those 245 students, school leaders reported that 193 were determined to not require ESL services. Also, support staff reported that the computerized WIDA screener did not properly at an off-site event, but the students still participated in the paper version of the WIDA screener.

Instruction partially uses a variety of strategies and aids to support students’ diverse learning needs. In 13 out of 27 lessons, consistent and sufficient evidence of differentiation was observed. In these classrooms, teachers used multiple modes of processing and used a variety of strategies. For instance, in one classroom, teachers used manipulatives to demonstrate an addition concept. Subsequently, students used manipulatives and demonstrated their understanding of the video. The teacher followed up with visual representations to provide feedback to students. In another class, the teacher utilized breakout reading rooms, configuring groups according to reading level and varying instruction according to student needs. For instance, the lower level reading groups had tools to help define some of the vocabulary as well as prompts on how to complete the graphic organizer. In 13 out of 27 lessons, limited evidence of differentiation was observed. In these classrooms, teachers did not vary strategies or modes according to student needs. For example, in one class, the lesson presentation was mostly text-based with some images in lecture form. In another example, the material was presented in one mode, though students were able to demonstrate their understanding through their short written responses during teacher checks.

The school is working to develop supports and resources to meet the academic needs of students with disabilities. Teachers and staff reported that some teachers use Khan Academy, brain pop, graphic organizers, LiveLesson tools, message board hints and tips (some teachers use these as anchor charts), and other technology add-ons, such as number lines and timers, among others. However, the team infrequently observed these practices during classroom observations. The Expected Instructional Practices document defined supports and instructional practices for students with disabilities, such as: use of scaffolding techniques to address language and content; make content more relatable to students; provide real-world examples; and differentiation. However, the team seldom observed these practices during LiveLessons. In 7 out of 27 lessons, consistent or sufficient evidence of supportive practices were observed. In 2 of these 7 lessons, teachers used scaffolds and differentiation to facilitate instruction such as graphic organizers and modeling, provided students with real-world examples throughout the lesson or used brief videos, pictures, and strategic probing questions to make the lessons accessible to students. In 5 out of 27 lessons, limited evidence of supportive practices was observed. For instance, in one classroom, the teachers used relatable content and real-world examples to communicate concepts. In another example, the teacher posted a set of reminders (serving as an anchor chart) throughout the lesson. The anchor



chart listed reminders about where to find tips and how to watch videos but did not chunk or model the concept that the class was reviewing. In 15 out of 27 lessons, there was no evidence of the school’s expected practices to support diverse learners. Additionally, the school has some resources to support students. School leaders reported (and the TECCA special education policy handbook confirmed) that the special education department includes a director, an administrative assistant, and a psychologist. The staff roster indicated that the school has 13 special education teachers, most of whom co-teach with core teachers. Special education staff reported that special education teachers meet with core teachers each week to ensure that accommodations and modifications are integrated into core lessons. The team also observed some lessons in which two instructors supported students during lessons. The team noted that there was good rapport and high participation of the second co-teacher via the chat function. The team observed co-teachers providing strategies that could support students who were struggling with concepts.

The school provides limited supports and resources to meet the academic needs of ELL students. A review of the Expected instructional practices document (see Appendix B) revealed that instructional expectations for Sheltered English Immersion (SEI) included posted learning and language objectives and word walls. School leaders noted that the LMS uses Google translate to support students. School leaders also added that the school provides MAPA Translation Services and an interpreter when appropriate. School leaders added that staff are expected to be category-trained and expected to incorporate these strategies (e.g., vocabulary development, multiple mediums, use of language goals) within classrooms. However, the school expanded its faculty this year, adding 50 teachers to the roster. Staff acknowledged that all staff are not yet category-trained. When asked about SEI and ELL supports, staff primarily referenced word walls as the main support during instruction. Similarly, the team observed rare evidence of SEI and ELL strategies. For instance, in 4 out of 27 of lessons, consistent and sufficient evidence of SEI was observed. In these 4 lessons, word walls were used, visual representation of vocabulary words was presented to students, and language objectives were posted and referred to during the lesson. In 6 out of 27 lessons, limited evidence of SEI was observed. In these classrooms, vocabulary might have been posted, but the teacher did not review it. For instance, in one classroom, a teacher did not attempt to pronounce a difficult Latin word and skipped over it during the lecture. In 17 out of 27 lessons, there was no evidence of SEI practices or strategies. Additionally, the school has limited resources to support ELL students. School leaders and staff reported that the school has one ELL coordinator who is acting as coordinator and ELL teacher for 33 identified ELL students. School leaders and support staff noted, at the time of the visit, the school was in the process of hiring an ELL teacher. Support staff, school leaders, and teachers reported that the English as a Second Language (ESL) Department has been developing a curriculum that includes Achieve 3000 and National Geographic Edge to support ESL instruction, in addition to targeted LiveLesson Lab supports. Support staff noted that ELL students receive a 1-hour of lab instruction, in addition to 2 hours of Achieve 3000 instruction each week. Support staff reported that students who earn three consecutive quiz scores of 75 percent or greater in Achieve 3000 move up in their Lexile Level, where their future work in the Achieve 3000 program will be based on their new Lexile level. School leaders and staff indicated that the ESL coordinator monitors students’ progress, daily and weekly. Staff acknowledged that the absence of the ESL teacher contributes to the limited components of an effective program, such as the curriculum and instruction.

6. School culture and family engagementSocial, emotional, and health needs; family and community engagementRating: Meets



Finding: TECCA creates a safe learning environment and addresses the physical, social, emotional, and health needs of its students. TECCA has systems and structures to engage families and communicate student progress.

Social, emotional, and health needs: The school creates a safe learning environment and addresses the physical, social, emotional, and health needs of its students by provisioning school guidance counselors and other professionals to work with students and families. School leaders reported (and parents confirmed) that the school requires 30 minutes of physical activity per day. Parents and students indicated that students log activity through extracurricular sports, dance, and other family scheduled field trips. Students reported that they hardly ever participated in the online-offered physical education option. LCs are required to submit activity logs to the schools weekly. Parents also reported (and TECCA event flyers and TECCA Happenings newsletters confirmed) that the school offers regular field trips for students to meet in person. For instance, Fall field trips included Arnold Arboretum, Springfield Museum, MA State House Tour, and Ward’s Berry Farm. Students indicated that the school established an array of clubs to foster social interaction among students and staff, including the equestrian club, the baking/cooking club, student council, and photography club. Students noted their desire for more geographic events to ensure more participation. Additionally, school leaders reported (and staff roster confirmed) that the school has hired additional counselors and social-emotional support staff to support students’ emotional needs. Parents and students indicated that homeroom teachers, who call their students each week, are watching for students’ emotional stability and needs. Support staff and parents explained that homeroom teachers will flag students and notify counselors if they notice a change in students’ behavior or affect. Teachers and students also reported that teachers are sensitive to students’ needs during instruction. For instance, teachers may use the chat function to support students who are suffering from anxious conditions.

Family and community engagement: The school is working to develop strong working partnerships with families in order to support students’ academic progress and social-emotional well-being. The school website indicated (and school leaders confirmed) that one of the hallmarks of the program is parental involvement and engagement. School leaders noted that they have increased communication in order to ensure increased parent involvement. Parents and teachers reported phone call check-ins. Teachers also reported the school experienced the most engagement they have ever had with families and parents this year. Parents reported (and TECCA flyers confirmed) that the school promotes partnerships by engaging with families through back-to-school events, events at local bookstores and drop-in centers around the State. However, according to the 2017-2018 Parent Survey, 35 percent of parents attended a school-sponsored event (equal to the Connections Education national average score). A review of sample TECCA Happenings newsletter revealed that the PTO sponsors fundraisers, establishes student clubs (e.g., chess club, community service club, gay-straight alliance club), and liaises with the Family and Community Engagement Team (FCET) who sponsor the monthly parent success support groups. Moreover, parents confirmed that Parent Teacher Organization (PTO) is active. According to The PTO in the MCAS Memorandum, the PTO supports MCAS testing sites by setting up testing spaces, signing in students per the TECCA protocol, escorting students to and from restrooms, providing supervised lunch breaks, and supporting sign-up and clean-up protocols.

Families are engaged with teachers and administrators for supporting online learning. School leaders and staff reported that LCs act as active liaisons to the school by monitoring students’ progress and PLPs, submitting student attendance, maintaining weekly communications with homeroom teachers, and facilitating student’s participation in MCAS and other school-based



assessments. According to Orientation Completion Rates Memorandum, 86.6 percent of K-12 learning coaches have completed the school’s LC orientation course. Also, the school has established a monthly support group for learning coaches in order to ensure a conducive, consistent learning environment.

Faculty and staff communicate to families’ critical information about student progress. Parents reported full knowledge of how students are progressing through the parent portal. A review of January 28, 2018 Special Education Parent Action Council (SEPAC) presentation announced Drop-In Center occurring on Wednesday around the State. Drop-In Centers are events that allow families to receive hands-on support and get their questions answered. A review of several sample SEPAC presentations revealed that during these meetings, parents receive announcements, tips for supporting student learning environment, and communication tips for parents.

Organizational viability

Capacity

7a. School leadershipRating: Meets

Finding: TECCA’s leadership team is dedicated to implementing its mission and set of goals. The school has added staff this year and has systems to delineate roles and responsibilities.

The school is developing a school leadership team that aims to obtain staff commitment to improving student learning and is working to implement a clearly-defined mission and set of goals. School leaders reported (and review of TECCA board minutes confirmed) that the TECCA board rendered a five-year contract to the executive director on June 1, 2017. TECCA board members reported that the TECCA board chair and executive director have forged a productive relationship characterized by regular communication and support. School leaders and teachers indicated (and August 23, 2018 board minutes confirmed) that school leaders implemented a shared leadership model this year consisting of four tiers: district leaders; school leaders; program leaders; and teacher leaders. School leaders reported that the superintendent has doubled the size of the district and school leadership teams to ensure that the team can work effectively in supporting the expanding needs in the school. Teachers expressed their appreciation for the continuity and stability of the current senior leadership team and its effect on the staff and families.

The school is working to define and delineate clear roles and responsibilities among management, leaders, and staff, to reflect a culture of shared accountability. School leaders explained that the superintendent and board have taken over management responsibility, once held by Connections, to ensure that the school can properly respond to the expanding needs of students and staff. School leaders and staff reported that the school has improved its structure and organization over the past few years. The August 23, 2018 board minutes delineated four levels of TECCA leadership (district leaders; school leaders; program leaders; and teacher leaders), enumerating leadership positions within each tier. For instance, the school leadership team includes the dean of students, four department heads, curriculum director, RtI director, a principal, and an assistant principal. According to teacher roster, teachers have roles such as department heads, curriculum coordinator, and grade-level facilitator. School leaders reported (and the Employee Handbook confirmed) that the leadership has created job descriptions for school leaders and teachers level tier. School leaders, staff, and teachers noted that they work cooperatively and support each other in their respective roles.



School staff are developing shared decision making and communication processes among all members of the school community. School leaders reported that the TECCA board provides oversight and renders high-level decisions, such as budget, policy, evaluation of the executive director, and bylaws development. When asked, stakeholders could not identify decisions that parent, staff, and student contributions have made. Also, school leaders reported (and the staff confirmed) that they are in constant communication with staff through the Google Hangouts, allowing teachers to ask for administrative support. School leaders reported leadership meetings help ensure regular communication around action steps. Teachers explained that faculty meets regularly on Mondays to ensure collaboration and clear communication among staff.

7b. Professional climateRating: Meets

Finding: TECCA teachers engage in regular collaboration and professional development. TECCA implements a system to monitor instructional practice that aligns to the Massachusetts Model Evaluation Rubric.

The school has structures for regular, frequent collaboration and professional development (PD) to improve implementation of the curriculum and instructional practice. Teachers also noted that informal collaboration occurs frequently, including communication over the Google hangouts and IA (student progress alert system) via Google Hangouts. Teachers explained that formal meetings occur three Mondays per month and include whole-staff meetings, grade-level team meetings, co-teaching collaboration meetings and department meetings. Teachers added that specialist teachers conduct classes on Mondays, so they miss some staff meetings. School leaders and teachers also reported (and the 2018-2019 school calendar confirmed) that staff meets during whole-school PD monthly on Mondays. Staff reported that PD has begun to focus on pedagogical matters, in addition to aligning curricula to the MA framework. A review of PD presentations indicated that sessions have included: interactive notebooks; special education procedures; enhancing student engagement; and other technical sessions. School leaders indicated (and teachers confirmed) that teachers can also seek external PD; the school provides stipends to teachers for external opportunities. Staff indicated that few teachers have individually attended external PD to improve their instruction.

There is a system for monitoring instructional practice for consistency, which includes a formal process of teacher evaluation. School leaders reported (and teachers confirmed) that the school uses the MA Educator Evaluation system to monitor practice. School leaders and teachers adequately described the components of the system, including creating an educator plan, creating professional and student learning goals, and conducting announced and unannounced observation visits. School leaders added that department heads conduct formal evaluations that occur annually or biannually. School leaders have conducted general walkthroughs of instruction, watching recorded classrooms to troubleshoot technical problems. Teachers added that peer observations occur informally, but frequently. However, while school leaders described the instructional expectations as the criteria listed in the performance observation criteria, teachers provided vague, unrelated responses when asked about the instructional expectations (See Appendix B).

The organizational structure indicates appropriate staffing levels including student to teacher ratios that are critical to the success of the online program and ensures that all staff is qualified and trained to deliver online instruction.



7c. Contractual relationshipsRating: MeetsFinding: School stakeholders report an effective working relationship with Connections Education. The board of trustees and school leadership establishes effective working relationships with their vendor (partner). Since opening, TECCA has amended its contract with Connection Education (CE) and changed the nature of the relationship to be one of partnership. As stipulated by recent contracts, CE provides far fewer services then it did when the school opened. Although the school leaders and TECCA board members characterized their relationship with CE as dynamic, both stakeholders described outcomes that continue to benefit the school. For instance, consultants from Connections have provided professional development and strategic planning assistance to the TECCA board. Additionally, CE representatives attend board meetings to reflect on the school’s progress, evaluate the effectiveness of their services, and work on cooperative solutions. Moreover, consultants from CE are supporting the TECCA board members to develop a strategic plan. Lastly, stakeholders referenced changes in the school’s relationship with its vendor (partner) comply with required certificate amendment procedures, such as additional amendments to the contract last year. (See the School profile for details). TECCA board members reported that the CE fees pay for use of technology and curriculum.

8. Governance

Rating: Partially Meets Finding: Members of TECCA’s board of trustees act as public agents authorized by the state and provides governance of the school. Board members reported areas of growth as including strategic planning and continuous improvement as well as succession planning.

TECCA board members are active and engaged. Board members (and board minutes confirmed) that board members regularly attend monthly meetings and meet more often as needed. Adhering to its bylaws, TECCA board members reported that the TECCA board has five official members, who have served since the school’s founding. At the time of the visit, two new member candidates were awaiting approval. TECCA board members described their role as fiduciary in nature, in compliance with the bylaws. Also, TECCA board members indicated that they do not have committees, preferring instead to work on issues of finance, personnel, policy, and recruitment as a full TECCA board. Board members reported that there are no official committees of the board, the treasurer, however, reported meeting with school business staff to go over budget and actuals each month. During the focus group, the team noted that TECCA board members communicated well with each other and seemed to cooperate effectively. TECCA board members noted (and board minutes confirmed) that the board follows Open Meeting Laws and fulfills their legal responsibilities and obligations, per the bylaws.

The board is working to recruit, select, orient and train members with skills and expertise that enable them to sustain an excellent school. The board’s recruitment encourages diversity in its applicants. TECCA board members reported a continued effort toward recruitment by conducting outreach in their own personal and professional networks. TECCA board members, primarily comprised of veteran superintendents and educators, are seeking business and technology expertise to strengthen the expertise on the board. Also, TECCA board members noted that candidates attend several meetings before officially joining the TECCA board. The board did not describe a detailed process of training for a candidate. TECCA board members added (and school leaders confirmed)



that CE provides training to board members on governance requirements to ensure that board members are developing their skill sets in oversight and governance.

The board is in the early stages of strategic and continuous improvement planning by setting and regularly monitoring progress relative to priorities and goals that are aligned with the school’s mission, vision, and educational philosophy. TECCA board members indicated that the role of the TECCA board is to set and follow the school’s mission, provide direction to provide the best quality for students, monitor/ensure the financial health of the organization, and set and advise school leaders on strategic plans and issues. TECCA board members reported (and a review of 2017-2018 TECCA board minutes confirmed) that the TECCA board meets monthly to review the financial health, progress toward the academic program, enrollment, attrition and withdrawal updates, and other policy matters. TECCA board members stated that they receive reports about enrollment, assessment data, as well as financial, retention, and the academic program. TECCA board members also identified current areas of improvement, such as increasing curricular alignment to MA State framework to support MCAS achievement, improving student performance, and increasing math alignment. Also, TECCA board members reported that they review and evaluate goals annually. However, the TECCA board is in the early stages of establishing a strategic plan. School leaders and the TECCA board members reported that they began to plan the existing strategic plan with their Connections consultant during their last annual retreat. The team noted that the draft plan does not have action steps, estimated benchmarks, or deliverables.

The TECCA board partially demonstrates alignment with the mission and other terms of the certificate, as well as oversight of the virtual school administration, without managing the day-to-day operations of the school. TECCA board members indicated that the role of the TECCA board is to provide general oversight of the school and the superintendent, as well as hold the superintendent accountable to the school’s mission and accountability plan. TECCA board members explained that while they are not involved in day-to-day oversight, they are in regular contact with the superintendent to provide support and offer advice. TECCA board members noted that the superintendent and principal manage all human resource needs of the school, including supervision and evaluation. TECCA board members reported that they have awarded a five-year contract to the superintendent and have defined an evaluation process. TECCA board members reported that the superintendent is formally evaluated once a year (or every two years based on performance), based on a rubric of superintendent guidelines and behaviors. TECCA board members indicated that each board member completes his/her evaluation and the board constructs a board evaluation during a scheduled executive session. The team noted that TECCA board did not specifically mention input from the community or the measurement of student achievement as components of the executive director’s evaluation. The team noted that this was not reflected in the TECCA board minutes.

It is unclear how the board is overseeing the school’s financial health, beyond the monthly meetings between the board treasurer and school staff. After the site visit was performed, the school submitted its fiscal year 2018 (FY18) audited financial statements that contained a significant deficiency regarding internal controls. Prior to FY18, the contracted finance company was replaced by in-house employees. The FY18 audit found that proper accounting standards and policies were not followed. Further, board members reported approving a budget for FY19 based on enrollment of 2220, despite the fact that the Commissioner had not yet approved an increase in enrollment.

The board reflects on its own performance, and the performance of its partner organization (CE). TECCA board members gave examples of how their reflection has led to recent changes, such as identifying needed board member skills and the strategic planning process (currently in progress). Additionally, TECCA board members refined the relationship with CE over the past five years. CE



now manages the LMS and provides other services (such as strategic planning assistance). The school’s management, human resources and other operational tasks are the responsibility of TECCA.

The board has not yet established clear processes for board and school leadership succession. The TECCA board members lack a well-defined succession plan for the board and the superintendent. According to TECCA bylaws, board members have three-year staggering terms without term limits, allowing longevity for board members. TECCA board members acknowledged that because of the absence of term limits and the commitment of current board members, board succession planning had been less of a priority. TECCA board members stated that a succession plan will occur when this superintendent announces his resignation, stating that this has not been a focus for the board. TECCA board members described becoming aware of the succession planning and beginning general conversations among themselves. They recognize this as an area of growth.



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

Classroom culture and management

Description (ESE) Expected practice (CMVS)

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

Acknowledges and greets students as they enter the classroom State and review expectations and routines Use LiveLesson ® Technology to effectively manage class activities (granting

entry, clearing chat pod, properly closing meeting, etc.) Predictable end of class routines

Learning time is maximized for all students

Keep students on task throughout the lesson Respond to student comments and questions completely and

appropriately

Classroom practices foster student engagement

Music in the classroom for engagement Use incentives to encourage participation Use Google forms to allow students to keep track of involvement in Live

Lessons Encourage students’ active participation in their own learning through the

entire lesson Encourage student collaboration Utilize tools within LiveLesson (Breakout Rooms for student discussion or

use of whiteboards; Chat pod, Poll Pod, Student Microphone, Share Pod, etc.)

Provide participation incentives for active participation in LiveLesson (sharing ideas, leading collaborative breakout groups, active participation in pods)

Quality Instruction

Instructional practices are consistent with the school’s expected practice

Use scaffolding techniques such as gradual release of responsibility Incorporate relevant content jargon Introduce real-life applications of content Prepare an opening activity (may be a warm-up MCAS question;

opening/general question), for students to answer while they wait for class to begin.

Implement strategic questioning that encourages students’ higher order thinking using DOK strategies

Provide clear learning objectives/standard for the lesson

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

Model good, problem-solving techniques Encourage growth mindset with dialogue Provide timely, positive, targeted feedback Encourage the revision process on different types of student work Clearly identify the expectations for student work by using examples,



Classroom culture and management

Description (ESE) Expected practice (CMVS)

rubrics, or models with guided practice; Clear explanation of expectations for student effort either verbally, in

writing, or with a visual representation Respond to student comments and questions completely and

appropriately

Teacher uses various checks for understanding throughout the lesson

Use entry activities; exit tickets Use frequent checks for understanding; Provide timely and specific feedback on student progress toward

standards; Collect data from LiveLesson, including formative assessments to plan for

follow-up lessons; Provide content rich oral assessments Livelesson has key/answer question that students enter in LL Attendance

DV Collect data during the lesson (poll pods, Q & A, etc.) to determine if all

students are achieving lesson objective(s) Review students’ prior knowledge related to the lesson’s objectives

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

Learning objectives (agendas) and language objectives will be provided within the lesson

Introduce lesson to focus students’ attention with Agenda

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

Ensure that all students are able to access all learning supports by embedding multiple scaffolding strategies

Model how students with diverse learning preferences, interests, and needs can master challenging material

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

Learning objectives (agendas) and language objectives will be provided within the lesson

Word walls may be used to support vocabulary usage and key words

Students with disabilities: To extent observable, students with disabilities are provided with the appropriate assistive technologies, accommodations, supports, adaptations and related services

Use of scaffolding techniques to address language and content Make content more relatable to students, providing real world examples; Use of breakout rooms; Use of Q & A pod; Promote a growth mindset in students; Model expectations of learning outcome, often using exemplars Employ a variety of learning resources such as video, manipulatives, and

visual to differentiate instruction Use of private messaging to prompt students and provide support (this

would not be observable to a participant) Use of small group break out rooms.


TEC Connections Academy141 Mansion Drive East Walpole, MA 02032 (774) 315-5123

http://www.connectionsacademy.com/massachusetts-virtual-school


Appendix B: School’s Response to Accountability Review Report

TE

Adam N. Goldberg, Superintendent

Adam N. Goldberg, Superintendent TEC Connections Academy141 Mansion Drive, Suite 300 East Walpole, MA [email protected]

Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 75 Pleasant StreetMalden, MA 02148

RE: Response to November, 2018 Accountability Report

Date: April 25, 2019

On behalf of TEC Connections Academy Commonwealth Virtual School “TECCA,” I wish to thank the members of the Accountability Review Team, both for their on-site visit and report from November, 2018, as well as the previous three annual accountability review visits.

TECCA is committed to providing ALL students of the Commonwealth “a quality online alternative to the traditional classroom.” Since our opening in September, 2014, the steady increase in student enrollment has demonstrated the wide range of our student needs, and the challenges that come with meeting those needs in the virtual learning environment. We embrace the Team’s report as it depicts TECCA’s growth and improvement areas, and will incorporate its recommendations into school and district improvement plans. Evolving our thinking, and adapting our practices, to personalize learning for all students are hallmark skills of our faculty. They are the backbone behind our growth, and the collective engine that will drive us to achieve our mutual goals. TECCA was proud to continue to demonstrate marked areas of success and celebration that showcased TECCA’s five-plus years as a CMVS, while acknowledging self-identified areas that fuel our internal improvement plans: student withdrawal rates have declined; course completion rates have increased; parent satisfaction survey responses showed improvements; the staff culture is extremely strong with a 100% faculty retention rate for the second consecutive year.

In addition to the overarching metrics described above, TECCA’s enrollment has steadily increased to the point of being at capacity-plus-waitlist. With the support of our Board of Directors, we attribute this growth to TECCA’s ability to work with each student to personalize their learning experience to meet their social, emotional, and learning needs. The experience TECCA has gained in its five years has yielded powerful insights into the connection between students who experience social-emotional struggles and the way growth and engagement is measured and valued in our observations and accountability systems. For example, as the Visiting Team noted, high school students did not engage with video technology in the their LiveLessons yet the nature of the virtual environment provides for


TEC Connections Academy141 Mansion Drive East Walpole, MA 02032 (774) 315-5123

http://www.connectionsacademy.com/massachusetts-virtual-school

Adam N. Goldberg, Superintendent

this option to be mechanism to remove an engagement barrier and support the student’s access to thematerial. TECCA appreciates the volume of students that this represents, and notes that such behavior is not uncommon in this age group, is supported individual by our Pupil Services and Special Education Department, and do not necessarily reflect a lack of engagement in the live classroom.

Similarly, TECCA makes every aspect of MCAS implementation a top priority. Significant district resources are allocated to ensure students are prepared, informed, and ready to participate. Testing centers are reserved, and students assigned given geographic proximity. The many students described above with social-emotional impairments are the same students who struggle to attend MCAS, and give full effort. The unfamiliar MCAS testing environment, combined with immersion in a crowd of new peers, diminishes the capacity for the student to authentically demonstrate a year’s worth of learning. Further, to strive to meet participation requirements, TECCA must administer MCAS a month earlier than most public schools to provide TECCA the greatest ability to support students’ efforts to attend makeup sessions. TECCA is proud of the value we place on utilizing MCAS data to further personalize instruction, and the learning plan and experience for students. As we work tireless towards growth-measured outcomes depicted through MCAS scores, TECCA is also focused on the myriad of other measures of growth, not shown through MCAS, that form the success stories behind TECCA’s student growth.

This is TECCA’s Mission – to provide the students of Massachusetts a quality virtual public education. TECCA’s Board of Directors has provided leadership, appropriate oversight, and vision and direction in helping to navigate TECCA’s journey. The rapid growth and incorporation of innovative practices has challenged long-term planning, making monthly meetings the regular forum for checking, forecasting, directing, and consulting. Together, our partnerships have expanded and our vision of supporting every student with a quality virtual public education.

I reiterate my thanks to the Accountability Review Team for their thorough review of TEC Connections Academy in our fourth on-site visit. We appreciate the work that we collaboratively undertake with DESE, Pearson Online and Blended Learning, and most importantly, the students and families of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to achieve our Mission and support every student.

If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Adam N. GoldbergSuperintendent, TEC Connections Academy

Cc: Peter Sanchioni, TECCA Board President


accountability review report – tecca january 2019 · web viewnov 27, 2018 · this document was...

Documents