Georgia Cyber Academy
COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
July 2022 Prepared by the Georgia Department of Audits and AccountsJanuary 2022
Prepared by the Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts Greg S. Griffin, State Auditor

This page intentionally left blank

This page intentionally left blank

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................................... 1 ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE .................................................................................................................................... 2
ATTRITION ....................................................................................................................................................................2 STUDENT PERSISTENCE....................................................................................................................................................5 COURSE SEGMENT COMPLETION RATE ...............................................................................................................................7 STUDENT ENGAGEMENT ..................................................................................................................................................9 BEATING THE ODDS ......................................................................................................................................................14 COLLEGE AND CAREER READY PERFORMANCE INDEX ...........................................................................................................15 FINANCIAL DATA.................................................................................................................................................. 29 SCHOOL FINANCES........................................................................................................................................................29 GOVERNANCE ...................................................................................................................................................... 35 SCHOOL-SPECIFIC ACADEMIC GOALS ................................................................................................................... 37

Introduction
O.C.G.A. 20-2-2093 requires the Department of Audits and Accounts to produce an annual report for each virtual charter school. The annual reports include information related to school enrollment and attendance, academic achievement, academic performance, governance, operations, staffing, finances, and future plans. In addition, O.C.G.A. 20-2-2093 requires the Department of Audits to create a comprehensive report approximately every three years from prior annual reports that compiles the following elements and to identify any long-term trends regarding:
Academic performance, Financial data, Governance data, and The school's actual performance compared to the goals outlined in its charter This report includes information from the three prior annual reports (2018, 2019, 2020), covering school years 2016-17 through 2019-20; however, some data was not available because of the COVID19 pandemic. In the 2019-20 school year, Georgia Milestones tests were not administered and College and Career Ready Performance Index (CCRPI) was not produced, both of which serve as the basis for a number of data points that we typically include in the annual report.
1

Academic Performance
There are eight measures that we reported in our prior annual reports that are included in this comprehensive report as academic measures. These measures are:
attrition, student persistence, course segment completion rate, student engagement, the Value Added Model (VAM), Beating the Odds (BTO), College and Career Ready Performance Index (CCRPI), and the Comprehensive Performance Framework Academic Measures (CPF). This comprehensive report generally covers school years 2016-2017 through 2019-2020. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, some data was not collected, impacting some of the analyses that can be conducted. The VAM, BTO, CCRPI, and CPF Academic Measures were not produced for the 201920 school year.
Attrition
Virtual charter schools normally experience a high amount of student mobility, or attrition through withdrawals. Withdrawals serve as the basis to calculate school attrition, which refers to students who are enrolled in school but withdraw prior to the end of the school year. In a virtual school, some students withdraw because they determine that they are not well-suited for a virtual education, lacking the discipline or educational support at home. Others may have enrolled to satisfy temporary needs (e.g., health issues, extracurricular activities, family issues) without an intention to remain in the school throughout the year. Regardless of the reason for withdrawals, changing schools can negatively impact student performance. Curriculum can vary among school districts and different teachers and classrooms move at different paces. As shown in Exhibit 1, the percentage of students that withdrew from Cyber before the end of the school year has remained steadily between 26% and 28% from 2016-17 to 2019-20. In the 2019-20 school year, Cyber recorded a total of 10,589 enrollments and 2,905 withdrawals.
2

Exhibit 1 Approximately one-quarter of students enrolled at Cyber withdrew during each school year (school years 2016-17 to 2019-20)

27%

28%

26%

27%

2016-17

2017-18

Source: GaDOE student enrollment records

2018-19

2019-20

As shown in Exhibit 2, 40% of withdrawals from Cyber during the 2019-20 school year were students transferring to another state public school. This was the most common reason for withdrawals in each of the years reviewed, with annual withdrawals of 1,200 to 2,200 students. Between 17% and 30% of withdrawals are due to those opting for homeschooling (shown as "attend home study" in Exhibit 2). Home study increased from 771 students in 2016-17 to 860 students in 2019-20. While the percentage of students Cyber removed for lack of attendance is reported as 0% in 2019-20, Cyber officials indicated that this is the result of a change in the way that withdrawals are captured. Students who were removed for lack of attendance will be included in the "Unknown" category initially and subsequently will be recategorized after the school obtains documentation related to why the student left Cyber, which could include lack of attendance.

3

Exhibit 2 Reported reasons for student withdrawal from Cyber, (school years 2016-17 to 2019-201)

Transfer to GA Public School

Attend Home Study

17%

17%

Unknown

12% 13%
16% 12%

Transfer Out of State

9% 7% 6% 7%

Adult Education/Post Secondary

5% 5% 3% 3%

Lack of Attendance

0% 3% 8% 9%

Transfer to GA Private School

4% 3% 2% 3%

Other

0.8% 0.5% 0.7% 1%

30% 27%

40% 42%

47% 48%

2019-20 2018-19 2017-18 2016-17
1 Beginning with the 2019-20 school year, Cyber changed the way that it reports withdrawal codes and the "Unknown" category may include students whose withdrawal reasons are determined at a later date, including those withdrawn for "Lack of Attendance". Source: GaDOE student enrollment records

4

Student Persistence
Student persistence is the act of continuing towards an educational goal. It is a measure generally used in the postsecondary education environment when students can more easily discontinue their education. Student persistence can be measured by a year-to-year retention rate for a school and can provide a proxy measure for students' satisfaction with the learning environment at their school.
As shown in Exhibit 3, we found that the overall percentage of students who completed grades Kindergarten through 11 and returned the following year is approximately 76% between the 201617 school year and 2018-19 school year.
Exhibit 3 Around 76% of students returned each year (school years 2016-17 to 2018-19)

76%

76%

75%

2016-17 Source: GaDOE student enrollment records

2017-18

2018-19

In general, when reviewing student persistence by grade, high school grades experience the highest percentage of returning students. In each of the three years reviewed, eighth grade had the lowest percentage of returning students. Exhibit 4 shows the percentage of students by grade by year that returned to Cyber the next year.

5

Exhibit 4 Student retention is lowest in 8th grade and higher in high school grades across all three years (school years 2016-17 to 2018-19)

87%

11

83%

84%

83%

10

79%

79%

78%

9

79%

76%

68%

8

66%

66%

75%

7

79%

76%

72%

6

76%

76%

74%

5

75%

74%

74%

4

77%

73%

73%

3

74%

74%

68%

2

75%

77%

73%

1

73%

73%

76%

K

77%

74%

Source: GaDOE student enrollment records

2019-20 2018-19 2017-18

We also examined the persistence related to graduation. Exhibit 5 shows the percentage of seniors graduating in the first year as a senior is around 80%. In the 2017 and 2018 senior cohorts, a small number of students continued for up to three years and graduated. The 2017 senior cohort covers a four year period but had no students who graduated after year three. Data is more limited for the 2019 and 2020 senior cohorts and students in these senior cohorts who did not graduate in 2020 may re-enroll and graduate in a later year.

6

Exhibit 5 The majority of a senior cohort graduates in the first year, but a small percentage continues to years two and three (school years 2016-17 to 2019-20)

2017 2018

80% 82%

4% 16% 0.2%
3% 14%

2019

80%

3% 17%

2020

81%

19%

0%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

First Year Second Year Third Year Did Not Graduate

Source: GaDOE student enrollment records

90% 100%

Course Segment Completion Rate
Given student mobility and attrition, not all students will complete their enrolled courses. GaDOE data does not permit a determination of the percentage of students who complete a course, but we were able to determine the portion that complete a course segment. A yearlong course will often have two segments (first and second semester). Completing a single segment in a multi-segment course does not result in academic credit; a passing grade in the final segment is required.
The rates of completion and success for Cyber students for school year 2019-20 declined from school years 2017-18 and 2018-19 (see Exhibit 6).

7

Exhibit 6 The rates of course completion and successful completion decreased (school years 2017-18 to 2019-20)

Complete, 78%

78%

74%

Successful, 66%

66%

57%

Unsuccessful, 12%
2017-18 Source: Cyber and GaDOE course records

12% 2018-19

17% 2019-20

The rates of completion for Cyber students decreased from the 2017-18 to the 2019-20 school year for most grades (see Exhibit 7). However, shifts in these rates for individual grade levels vary. Completion rates decreased for kindergarten, 4th, 5th, and 8th through 12th grades. Rates increased for remaining grades: 1st-3rd and 6th -7th. Only 1st-3rd grades had increases in successful completion from the 2017-18 to the 2019-20.

8

Exhibit 7 Percent of completed course segments and successful course segments decreased (school year 2019-20)

Complete

Successful

0%
All K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2017-18 2018-19 2019-20
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
All K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Source: Cyber and GaDOE course records

Student Engagement
Student engagement is the degree to which students are attentive and interested in their coursework, and engaged students are more likely to perform well in school. Common measures of engagement, such as students raising their hands to pose or answer questions, participating in class discussion, or interacting with teachers in the classroom, are not available in an online environment. As such, virtual schools must develop systems to define and capture student engagement.
Cyber implemented a school-wide engagement policy and method for measuring student engagement during the 2018-19 school year. The engagement policy awards a student a certain level of flexibility for each subject or course. Students who meet criteria related to performance and participation are granted the most flexibility, required to check in with the teacher for short time each week with optional participation in many other sessions. Students with the lowest grades and performance are granted the least flexibility. They are required to attend all live and other types of sessions and to have a formal class participation agreement. If a student's performance declines, the flexibility level will change to a more restrictive level. A student can only move up in level at the end of each semester.
9

Cyber designates a student as "Noncompliant," "Somewhat Compliant," or "Fully Compliant" based on the flexibility requirements with which each is complying. A fully compliant student is on track regarding attendance, assignments and performance. A somewhat compliant student is meeting some requirements, but not others, while a noncompliant student is not meeting requirements.
Cyber's engagement data covers seven months during the 2019-20 school year. As shown in Exhibit 8, while 66% of students were fully compliant in December 2019, less than half students were fully compliant for the remaining six months. It should be noted that Cyber personnel reported that in December, Cyber administers a number of assessments and December's engagement is based on attendance.
Exhibit 8 Student engagement is consistent, with few significant changes, October 2019 April 2020

Apr-20 Mar-20 Feb-20 Jan-20 Dec-19 Nov-19 Oct-19

37%

17%

39%

15%

48%

14%

48%

14%

66%

36%

14%

39%

17%

45%

46%

37%

39%

18%

16%

50%

45%

Fully Compliant Source: Cyber engagement data report

Somewhat Compliant

Noncompliant

Value Added Model
The Value-Added Model (VAM) established by the Governor's Office of Student Achievement (GOSA) measures the ability of state charter schools to positively impact student performance. The VAM controls for demographic, academic, and socioeconomic factors so that student achievement can be attributed to the school. After controlling for certain factors, the VAM calculates a predicted score for each student. The difference between the predicted and actual score is the school's impact on the student's achievement.
The analysis consists of a two-step process to get the final value-added measurement. The first step is to find the difference between a student's actual score and their predicted score. For each student, a predicted score is calculated based on the student's characteristics, the student's previous test
10

scores, and the student's school characteristics. For each school, the difference between the predicted and actual scores for all students is averaged. In the second step, the scores are weighted to account for the unique populations that each school serves. The model has separate estimates by grade level and subject. A negative value-added measurement denotes that the actual scores for the students were lower than the predicted scores and a positive score denotes the opposite. The state average value-added effect is zero and it is used as the comparison district for virtual schools since they serve students across the state.
As shown in Exhibit 9, although Cyber's VAM elementary impact score showed improvement in the Elementary Overall and Math in the 2017-2018 and 2018-19 years when compared to the 2016-2017 year, its performance is lower than the state's performance when the VAM is calculated. Cyber's elementary students English Language Arts scores decreased in the 2018-19 school year after increasing in the 2017-18 school year; however, the VAM impact was lower than the state's performance.
Exhibit 9 While Cyber's scores are trending up in elementary, it continues to perform lower than the statewide average (school years 2017-18 to 2018-19)

English Language Arts, -0.1621
Elementary Overall, 0.2759
Math, -0.3842
2016-17
Relative to Statewide Average Elementary Overall English Language Arts Math
Source: SCSC Value-Added Model

-0.1165 -0.1948
-0.3347

-0.1126 -0.116
-0.1841

2017-18
2016-17 Lower Lower Lower

2018-19

2017-18 Lower Lower Lower

2018-19 Lower Lower Lower

11

As shown in Exhibit 10, Cyber's middle school overall and math Value-Added impact scores are lower than the state's, although Cyber's middle school overall and math scores improved in the 20172018 and 2018-2019 school years. Additionally, the school was not statistically higher or lower than the statewide average in Middle School ELA in the 2016-2017 and 2018-2019 school years.

Exhibit 10

Cyber's middle school scores are generally lower than the statewide average (school years 2017-

18 to 2018-19)

English Language Arts, -0.0168

-0.0056

-0.0397

-0.0826

-0.0664

Middle School Overall, -0.1303

-0.1398

-0.1813

Math, -0.2392

2016-17
Relative to Statewide Average Middle School Overall English Language Arts Math
Source: SCSC Value-Added Model

2017-18
2016-17 Lower No Stat. Difference Lower

2017-18 Lower Lower Lower

2018-19
2018-19 Lower No Stat. Difference Lower

As shown in Exhibit 11, Cyber's value-added impact score for high school overall was lower than the statewide average in the 2017-2018 school year (the first year that it was calculated) and the 20182019 school year. For the individual subjects, the school was typically lower in Geometry and Algebra I and higher in the 9th grade literature and American Literature categories. When the value-added
12

impact scores are compared over time, the scores increased from the 2016-2017 school year to the 2017-2018 school year before declining in the 2018-2019 school year.

Exhibit 11 Cyber's high school scores are mixed compared to the statewide average (school years 2016 - 17 to 2018-19)

9th Grade Literature, 0.15

American Literature, 0.0917

0.1162 0.1064

0.0686 0.0728

Geometry, -0.1382

High School Overall, -0.0514 -0.1456

-0.0979

Algebra 1 , -0.174
2016-17
Relative to Statewide Average High School Overall 9th Grade Literature American Literature Algebra 1 Geometry
Source: SCSC Value-Added Model

-0.1934
2017-18
2016-17 N/A
Higher Higher Lower Lower

-0.1936

-0.2584 2018-19

2017-18 Lower Higher Higher Lower Lower

2018-19 Lower Higher Higher Lower Lower

13

Beating the Odds
The Beating the Odds (BTO) analysis established by GOSA is an outcome measure that compares charter schools' performance on the CCRPI1with the performance of similar schools. The BTO model also calculates a predicted score and range (confidence interval) for each school based on demographic characteristics. The characteristics used in the 2018-19 comparison include the following:
Percentage of female students Percentage of students in certain races/ethnicities (including Asian, Black,
Hispanic, and Multi-racial) Percentage of students with disabilities Percentage of English language learners Percentage of economically disadvantaged students Student mobility rates School grade cluster Whether the school is traditional or non-traditional School size: the model splits schools into three size groups for small (0 to 500
students), medium (501 to 1,000 students), and large (over 1,000 students) schools because there was a large difference in variability between small and large schools. The BTO analysis includes only those students counted in the October full-time equivalent (FTE) count. The school will receive a score of "Below Expected Range" if the score is below the predicted range, "Within Expected Range" if the score falls within the predicted range, or "Beating the Odds" if the score is above the predicted range. Given that the analysis controls for certain characteristics, a school with a relatively low CCRPI could be Beating the Odds. As shown in Exhibit 12, Cyber has never been distinguished as Beating the Odds across the periods studied. In the 2018-2019 school year, Cyber was classified as Within Expected Range. Cyber's CCRPI score was 68.1 which was within the predicted score range of 65.88 to 72.41.
1 The College and Career Ready Performance Index (CCRPI) is an accountability tool the state uses to measure performance and hold schools accountable for student achievement. The CCRPI provides multiple measures of student performance.
14

Exhibit 12 Cyber has not obtained the CCRPI score needed to qualify as BTO (school years 2017-18 to 201819)

2017-18

2018-19

64.97 60.2
Predicted Score Actual Score Source: Beating the Odds Analysis, 2017-18 2018-19

6698..114
Predicted Score Actual Score

College and Career Ready Performance Index
The College and Career Ready Performance Index (CCRPI) is an accountability tool the state uses to measure performance and hold schools accountable for student achievement. The CCRPI provides multiple measures of student performance. GaDOE redesigned the framework for measuring and reporting CCRPI and implemented the new methodology beginning in 2017-18.
CCRPI is comprised of four main indicators used to assess students in multiple areas. All students are assessed based on content mastery, progress, closing gaps, and readiness. An additional assessment, a graduation rate, is also included for fourth- and fifth- year high school students. Exhibit 13 shows each of the CCRPI indicators and the measures used to score each indicator. In the prior annual reports, we included the 2017-18 and 2018-19 CCRPI; however, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the GaDOE did not publish a CCRPI for the 2019-20 school year.

15

Exhibit 13 CCRPI indicators and measures (school years 2017-18 and 2018-19)

Indicator

Description

Content Mastery

Performance on the Georgia Milestones Assessment and the Georgia Alternate Assessment in ELA, mathematics, science, and social studies.

Weights (E, M, H) 30% 30% 30%

Progress

Amount of growth a student has demonstrated relative to academically-similar students in ELA and mathematics, as well 35% 35% 30% as English learners' progress toward language proficiency.

Closing Gaps

Based on CCRPI improvement targets for academic

achievement, represented by improvement flags, in order to show that all students and all subgroups of students continue

15%

15% 10%

to make improvements.

Readiness

Percent of students that show readiness in the certain areas: Elementary & Middle: literacy, attendance, and Beyond the Core (earning a passing score in fine arts or world language); High: literacy, attendance, accelerated enrollment, pathway completion, and college/career readiness.

Graduation Rate

Percent of 12th grade students that graduate in four or five years.

Source: GaDOE Accountability Division

20% 20% 15%

n/a

n/a 15%

GaDOE calculates a score for each CCRPI indicator and an overall score for each school. Cyber's overall CCRPI score for both the 2017-18 (60.2) and 2018-19 (68.1) school years are lower than the state (76.6 in 2017-18 and 78.8 in 2018-19); the state is Cyber's "comparison district" for charter purposes because it is a statewide school. Cyber's overall CCRPI score is lower than the state in elementary, middle school, and high school in both the 2017-18 and 2018-19 school years as shown in Exhibit 14.

16

Exhibit 14 Cyber's CCRPI scores increased in school year 2018-19 although students scored lower than the state

School Overall

Elementary Overall

76.6

78.8

77.8

79.9

68.1

68.2

60.2

57.3

2018

Cyber

2019 State

Middle Overall

76.2

7774.7

66.4

2018

Cyber

2019 State

High Overall

75.3

78.8

57.9

63.7

2018

Cyber

State

2019

Source: GaDOE Accountability Division

2018

Cyber

State

2019

Elementary School While Cyber scores are lower than the state for each CCRPI component in both the 2017-18 and the 2018-19 school years, Cyber students and the state showed improvements in each of the component sub scores (see Exhibit 15). The overall score for elementary school increased for Cyber and the state from 2018 to 2019. Cyber's score increased from 57.3 to 68.2, while the state's score increased from 77.8 to 79.9. Cyber improved in content mastery from the 2018 score to 2019 (4.4 point increase or 9%), while the state's improvement was lower (3 point increase or 4.6%). While Cyber had an increase in progress (6.7 points or 10.9%), the state score did not change. Cyber's most improved component is closing gaps (increase of 45.35 points or 111.6%) while the state had an increase of 5 points in closing gaps (5.9%). Cyber had a 2.1 (2.8%) point increase in its readiness score, while the state had a 1.9 (2.4%) increase.

17

Exhibit 15 Cyber and state elementary school CCRPI progress scores improved in the 2018 19 school year
Elementary Overall

77.8

79.9

68.2

57.3

2018

Cyber

State

2019

Content Mastery

65.7

68.7

49.0

53.4

Progress

84.4

84.4

61.6

68.3

2018

Cyber

State

2019

Closing Gaps

90.0

85.0

85.9

40.6

2018

Cyber

State

2019

Source: GaDOE Accountability Division

2018

Cyber

State

2019

Readiness

79.1 74.8

81 76.9

2018

Cyber

State

2019

As shown in Exhibit 16, Cyber had more significant changes in its elementary school content mastery by subject scores than the state. Cyber's elementary school students increased in all subjects with the largest increases in social studies (11 points or 26.3%) and science (8.3 points or 16.3%). In contrast, the state elementary school content mastery scores increased only 3.2% in social studies and 4% in science. Cyber's ELA remained below the state's scores in both years, but had an 7.8% increase, while the state had a 6.6% increase. Cyber's math remained below the state score but increased 2% (.9 points).
18

Exhibit 16 Cyber's elementary school CCRPI content mastery scores showed significant improvement in the 2018-19 school year

English Language Arts

Math

64.1

68.3

53.8

58.0

70.6

72.7

46.2

47.1

2018

Cyber

2019 State

Science

61.9

64.3 58.9

50.6

2018

Cyber

2019 State

Source: GaDOE Accountability Division

2018

Cyber

2019 State

Social Studies

60.0

61.9

52.7

41.7

2018

Cyber

2019 State

Exhibit 17 shows that Cyber's elementary school students made improvements in their progress indicator scores for ELA and math, while the state score increased by 0.1 point in ELA and remained the same for math. However, Cyber scored below the state in both the 2017-2018 and the 2018-2019 school years in ELA and math.

Exhibit 17 Cyber's elementary school CCRPI progress scores for ELA and math improved in the 2018-19 school year

ELA

Math

82.6

82.7

82.7

82.7

68.0

74.3

65.3

47.3

2018

Cyber

2019 State

Source: GaDOE Accountability Division

2018

Cyber

State

2019

19

Middle School Cyber had increases in all of its component sub scores, while the state had decreases in three components and increases in two components. The overall score for middle school increased for Cyber by 12.5% (8.3 points) and increased for the state by 1% (.8 points) from 2018 to 2019 (see Exhibit 18). Cyber's most improved component is closing gaps (increase of 38.2 points or 81.1%) while the state had an increase of 1.2 points in closing gaps (1.5%). Cyber improved in content mastery from the 2018 score to 2019 (5.9 point increase or 10.9%), while the state's improvement was lower (2.5 point increase or 3.8%). The state had a decrease in progress (-.7 or -.9%) while Cyber had an increase of 1.8 points (2.5%). Cyber had a 1% increase in its readiness score, while the state had a .6% increase, and Cyber had a score of 88 compared to a score of 82.9 for the state.

Exhibit 18 Cyber had increases in all middle school component sub scores in the 2018-19 school year
Middle Overall

76.2

77

66.4

74.7

2018
Content Mastery

Cyber

2019 State

Progress

81

80.3

65.1 54.2

67.6

73.2

60.1

75

2018

Cyber

State

2019

Closing Gaps

85.3

78.8

80

47.1

2018

Cyber

State

2019

Source: GaDOE Accountability Division

20

2018
87.1 82.4

Cyber

2019 State

Readiness

88 82.9

2018

Cyber

State

2019

As shown in Exhibit 19, Cyber had more significant changes in its middle school content mastery by subject scores than the state. Cyber's middle school students increased in all subjects with the largest increases in social studies (8.8 points or 16.8%) and science (11.2 points or 22%). The state middle school content mastery scores also increased in all four areas. Cyber's ELA remained below the state's scores in both years, despite increasing 12.5% (7.4 points). Cyber's math also remained below the state score, despite increasing 3.4% (1.7 points).

Exhibit 19 Cyber's middle school content mastery scores improved in all subjects (school years 2017-18 to 2018-19)

ELA

Math

62.8 59.4

67.6

68.0

66.8

50.8

69.1 52.5

2018

Cyber

2019 State

Science

60.9 51.1

62.6 62.3

2018

Cyber

2019 State

Social Studies

67.2

6680..28

52.0

2018

Cyber

2019 State

Source: GaDOE Accountability Division

2018

Cyber

2019 State

Exhibit 20 shows that Cyber's middle school students made improvements in their progress indicator scores for ELA and math. In ELA, Cyber scored higher than the state in 2018-19, but scored lower in math despite an increase of 8.7% (5.8 points).

21

Exhibit 20 Cyber's middle school progress increased from (school years 2017-18 to 2018-19)

ELA

Math

82.6 79.6

8842..87

82.9

66.9

82.8 72.7

2018

Cyber

2019 State

Source: GaDOE Accountability Division

2018

Cyber

State

2019

High School All of the school's CCRPI high school component scores increased from the 2017-2018 to the 2018-2019 school year except progress, which decreased by 2.3 points (3.1%), as shown in Exhibit 21. Similar to Cyber, the state's high school scores increased in all components except progress, which decreased by .9 points (-1.1%). The school's overall CCRPI score increased by 5.8 points (10%) from 2017-2018 to 2018-2019, while the state's overall score increased 3.5 points (4.6%). The school's largest increase is in closing gaps, which had an increase of 46.2 points (113%).

22

Exhibit 21 All of Cyber's high school CCRPI scores increased (school years 2017-18 to 2018-19)
High Overall

75.3

78.8

57.9

63.7

2018

Cyber

State

2019

Content Mastery

66.9

70

50.8

56.1

Progress

83

82.1

74.9

72.6

2018

Cyber

State

2019

Closing Gaps
96.3 87.1 70

40.9

2018

Cyber

State

2019

Source: GaDOE Accountability Division

2018

Cyber

State

2019

Readiness

73.4

74.5

53.9

55.7

2018

Cyber

State

2019

As shown in Exhibit 22, both Cyber's high school content mastery scores and the state's high school content mastery scores increased from the 2017-2018 school year to the 2018-2019 school year in all subjects. Cyber scored below the state in all subjects for both years.
23

Exhibit 22 Cyber's high school CCRPI Content Mastery scores increased (school years 2017-18 to 2018-19)

English Language Arts

Math

75.8

73.8

61.8

64.0

70.4

67.4

33.4

34.0

2018

Cyber

2019 State

Science

2018

Cyber

2019 State

Social Studies

65.3

6670..18

70.2 54.9

73.0 55.9

47.6

2018

Cyber

2019 State

Source: GaDOE Accountability Division

2018

Cyber

2019 State

Exhibit 23 shows Cyber's high school progress scores for ELA and math. Cyber's high school students scored higher in ELA in both the 2017-2018 and the 2018-2019 school years, although their score decreased slightly in the 2018-2019 school year. Cyber's high school students scored lower than the state in math in the 2017-2018 and the 2018-2019 school years. Cyber's math score decreased by 3.3 points (-5.1%) in the 2018-2019 school year while the state had a decrease of .3 points (-.4%).

24

Exhibit 23 Cyber's high school CCRPI progress score for math had a significant decrease when compared to the state (school years 2017-18 to 2018-19)

ELA

Math

85.7 83.7

84.4 83.6

83.4

83.1

64.1

60.8

2018

Cyber

State

2019

Source: GaDOE Accountability Division

2018

Cyber

State

2019

Exhibit 24 below shows the change in Cyber's CCRPI scores from the 2017-18 school year to 201819. In one of the seventeen scores shown, high school progress, Cyber's performance decreased. The remaining 16 scores increased in 2018-19. The state's changes were similar with all but two scores increasing.

25

Exhibit 24 Most CCRPI scores improved in the 2018-19 school year
Cyber State

ELEMENTARY

MIDDLE

SINGLE SCORE OVERALL SCORE CONTENT MASTERY
PROGRESS CLOSING GAPS
READINESS OVERALL SCORE CONTENT MASTERY

PROGRESS CLOSING GAPS
READINESS OVERALL SCORE CONTENT MASTERY
PROGRESS CLOSING GAPS
READINESS GRADUATION RATE

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

HIGH

Source: GaDOE Accountability Division

5

10

15

20

26

Comprehensive Performance Framework Academic Measures
The State Charter Schools Commission (SCSC) conducts annual performance reviews of all state charter schools. The Comprehensive Performance Framework (CPF) contains the performance standards each charter school is evaluated against in three sections operational performance, financial performance, and academic performance. The SCSC uses each year's CPF results to inform charter renewal. In the 2018-19 school year, the SCSC revised the method used to report performance. In general, the measures reviewed in the performance framework remain similar; however, points are no longer assigned in the Academic Performance section. Schools receive a score of "meets standards", "approaches standards," or "does not meet standards." In order to receive a "meets the standard" designation, the school must outperform the district it serves (i.e., the State for virtual schools) in one of the 6 academic metrics evaluated. Cyber's academic performance results for the 2018-2019 school year are shown in Exhibit 25. The first measure looks at the CCRPI single score. Cyber received a "does not meet standards" score, meaning the school earned a lower CCRPI single score than the attendance zone2. The second through fourth measures look at different CCRPI sub-scores. To earn the "meets the standards" designation, the school must earn a higher "student progress" score on the CCRPI than the attendance zone. To earn the "approaches standard" score on any measure, the school must be performing the same as or above its comparison district in at least one of the grade bands served. Cyber earned an "approaches standard" score for measure 2, student achievement, based on Cyber's "content mastery" CCRPI scores. Cyber earned a "does not meet standards" score for measure 3, student growth, based on Cyber's CCRPI progress scores. Cyber earned an "approaches standard" score for measure 4, grade band score, based on Cyber's CCRPI grade band scores. The CPF also provides "Value-Added Model Impact Scores" and "Beating the Odds" scores as another way for schools to approach or meet the academic performance standards. Cyber earned a "does not meet standards" score for both measure 5, Value-Added Model (VAM) Impact and measure 6, Beating the Odds, based on GaDOE's determination in all three years. As part of the 2018-2019 CPF comparison score calculation methods, Cyber was categorized with the school designation of "approaches standards," meaning that Cyber Academy performed as well as the district it serves. This was an improvement over the prior two years.
2 The attendance zone is the comparison district. Because Cyber is a statewide school, the comparison district is the state.
27

Exhibit 25 SCSC determined that Cyber approaches CPF academic standards in the 2018-19 school year under the revised method

Cyber Academy: CPF Academic Performance Measures
Measure 1 - CCRPI Single Score: Is the school annually outperforming the attendance zone (as measured by CCRPI single score)? Measure 2 - Student Achievement: Is the school annually outperforming the attendance zone (as measured by grade-band CCRPI content mastery scores)? Measure 3 - Student Growth: Is the school annually outperforming the attendance zone (as measured by grade-band CCRPI progress scores)? Measure 4 - Grade Band Score: Is the school annually outperforming the attendance zone (as measured by grade-band CCRPI grade band scores)? Measure 5 - Value-Added Model (VAM) Impact Scores: Is the school annually outperforming the attendance zone (as measured by value-added impact scores)?

Designation
Does Not meet Approaches Does Not Meet Approaches Does Not Meet

Measure 6 - Beating the Odds: Is the School "beating the odds" as determined by the Georgia Department of Education? School Designation
Source: State Charter Schools Commission 2018-19 CPF results amended version

Does Not Meet Approaches

In 2018-19, the SCSC also used the prior method to evaluate Cyber's academic performance which allows comparison to the 2017-18 school year. Cyber did not meet academic performance standards in either the 2017-18 or 2018-19 school years.

28

Financial Data
There are several financial data points that we reported in prior annual reports that describe the financial performance of the virtual charter school. These points include the Financial Star Efficiency Rating (FESR) revenues and expenditures, per pupil expenditures, and expenditure categories compared to the state average.
Financial Star Efficiency Rating
The Governor's Office of Student Achievement (GOSA) calculates a Financial Efficiency Star Rating (FESR) for each school in the state. The FESR compares a school district's spending per student with its overall academic performance. The FESR for 2017, 2018, and 20193 compared each school's spending per student to its CCRPI score and assigned between 0.5 and 5 stars to each school. Schools in the highest spending category with low CCRPI scores received only 0.5 stars, while those in the lowest spending category with CCRPI scores at 90 or above could receive 5 stars. In each of the three years, Cyber received a FESR of 3.5 stars, as shown in Exhibit 26.

Exhibit 26 Cyber generally scores higher than most schools (school years 2016-17 to 2018-19)

School Year

Star Rating

% of Schools with % of Schools with a lower Star Rating the same Star Rating

2016-17

38%

16%

2017-18

60%

15%

2018-19

59%

17%

Source: Governor s Office of Student Achievement

School Finances
During the 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 fiscal years, state charter schools received Quality Basic Education (QBE) funding and supplemental state funding from the State Charter Schools Commission (SCSC). The supplemental funds were provided because SCSC-chartered schools are not eligible for local funds. Virtual charter schools received two-thirds of the supplemental funding provided to

3 No FESR was available for school year 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
29

brick-and-mortar schools, did not receive capital funding until fiscal year 2019, and generally received no transportation or nutrition funding.4 Cyber's annual financial reports show that revenue decreased from $94.1 million in fiscal year 2019 to $88.6 million in fiscal year 2020 (see Exhibit 27). State funds provide the majority of Cyber's funding, with federal and other funds providing the remainder. Revenue in 2017 was approximately $2.7 million more than expenditures, while in 2018 and 2019 revenue equaled school expenditures. According to Cyber officials, the revenue and expenditure amounts match in fiscal years 2018 and 2019 because of adjustments made to expenditures after the end of the fiscal year. K12 provided a balanced budget credit, applied as a discount on the management fee/school administration costs charged to Cyber each year. Those reductions are made to the expenditure categories listed below.5 These adjustments are made to result in expenditures exactly equal to revenue. In fiscal year 2020, Cyber's revenue was approximately $18 million more than expenditures, which Cyber officials indicated is a result of its separation with K12.
6
4 With passage of HB 787 during the 2018 legislative session, funding for all state charter schools increased in the 2018-19 school year and virtual schools began receiving capital funding. As part HB 787, virtual charter schools were, for the first time, provided with capital outlay funding equal to 25% of the capital funding provided to Commission brick and mortar charter schools in order to pay for the computer hardware and software their students require in order to attend classes. 5 The contract states that K12 will provide the school balanced budget credits to ensure that it does not end the fiscal year in a negative net asset position. Cyber received balanced budget credits of $13.7 million in fiscal year 2017, $9.9 million in fiscal year 2018, and $6.9 million in fiscal year 2019. 6 During the 2019-20 school year, the school board was under contract with K12 Virtual Schools, LLC (K12) for a broad range of educational products and services, as well as management and administrative services; however, K12 did not provide services to Cyber in the 2019-20 school year. Cyber and K12 were in arbitration to end the contract during the 2019-20 school year and a final settlement was reached in July 2020. Cyber manages all services previously provided by K12 in-house. The only exception is a contract for computer support which includes the provision of laptops and computer support services/maintenance for those laptops.
30

Exhibit 27 Cyber's revenue primarily state funds, Fiscal Years 2017-2020

Revenue State Federal Other income Local Total Revenue

2017 $78,316,134 $6,648,407 $17,332 $ $84,981,873

2018

$82,728,184

$7,166,871

$18,464

$

-

$89,913,519

2019

$86,437,251

$7,573,721

$53,013

$

-

$ 94,063,985

20201

$82,231,707

$6,379,906

$8,075

$

-

$88,619,688

Percent Change 2017-20
5% -4% -53%
N/A
4%

Expenditures

Instruction School Administration Pupil Services Improvement of Instructional Services

$62,496,763 $14,151,631
$4,427,746 $271,507

$71,582,812 $11,412,682
$5,557,166 $443,224

$70,859,097 $15,901,532
$5,250,903 $595,851

$50,593,209 $7,245,754 $8,174,648 $1,260,299

-19% -49% 85% 364%

General Administration Operation of School

N/A $945,215

$370,644 $337,196

$501,904 $348,065

$67,126 $367,507

N/A
-61%

Support Services Business

N/A

$209,795

$606,633 $2,062,589

N/A

Federal Grant Administration

N/A

N/A

N/A

$309,391

N/A

Instructional Staff Training

N/A

N/A

N/A

$471,254

N/A

Total Expenditures

$82,292,862 $89,913,519 $94,063,985 $70,551,777

-14%

Revenues Less Expenditures

$2,689,011

$ -

$ - $18,067,911

572%

1 Beginning in FY2020, Cyber began using the state chart of accounts. In prior years, Cyber used its EMO chart of accounts. This change

contributes to some of the changes in categories from FY2019 to FY2020.

Source: Georgia Cyber Academy, Inc. audited financial statements

We used GaDOE's fiscal year 2017 - 2020 revenue and expenditure reports to compare Cyber's revenue and spending patterns to other public schools.7 As shown in Exhibit 28, Cyber relies on state funding more than typical public schools. This is true of all state charter schools that do not qualify for local funding. State charter schools receive QBE funding and a state charter commission supplement to offset a portion of the local funding that they do not receive.

7 The amounts in GaDOE's financial reports are slightly different than those in the school's financial statements due to the exclusion of certain revenue sources (e.g., in-kind contributions) and expenditure categories. However, GaDOE's reports allow a comparison to other Georgia public schools.
31

Exhibit 28 State funds are nearly twice the revenue source for Cyber than the statewide average, Fiscal Years 2017-2020

Cyber 8%

8%

8%

7%

92% 2017

92% 2018

92% 2019

93% 2020

State 7%

6%

6%

6%

53% 2017 40% 57% 2018 37% 53% 2019 41% 54% 2020 40%

Source: Statewide & Cyber GaDOE financial report

Federal

State

Local

Compared to statewide averages for expenditures, in fiscal years 2017-2019, Cyber spent more on instruction, and less on school administration, general administration, pupil services, and staff services (see Exhibit 29). School administration includes funding for leadership positions such as principals and assistant principals, while general administration covers positions such as Title I director and homeless liaison, as well as maintenance and technology related services not covered under school administration. Pupil services includes the purchase of materials such as e-books and periodicals, communication and coordination with parents, and additional educational offerings, such as summer school. As expected, Cyber spends less on maintenance and operations (typically associated with buildings) and transportation than the statewide averages.

As shown in Exhibit 29, Cyber's spending shifted in fiscal year 2020 (as noted on page X, Cyber ended its contract with its education management organization in FY2020). In fiscal year 2020, Cyber reported spending approximately the same proportion of funds on instruction compared to the state average and a higher proportion on school administration and pupil services than the state average. However, it reported spending little on general administration, staff services, and no expenditures on transportation.

32

Exhibit 29 Instruction saw the biggest decrease in share of Cyber's expenditures, Fiscal Years 2017-2020

Cyber

State

Instruction, 89.5% Pupil Services, 0% School Administration, 7.8% General Administration, .5% Staff Services, 2% Maintenance & Operations, .2% Transportation, 0%

2017

Instruction, 65.6% Pupil Services, 4.1% School Administration, 6.8% General Administration, 4.4% Staff Services, 5.4% Maintenance & Operations, 8% Transportation, 5%
2017

Instruction, 83% Pupil Services, 0% School Administration, .5% General Administration, 11.6% Staff Services, 5% Maintenance & Operations, 0% Transportation, .2%

2018

Instruction, 65.4% Pupil Services, 4.3% School Administration, 6.8% General Administration, 4.5% Staff Services, 5.4% Maintenance & Operations, 5.4% Transportation, 8.1%
2018

Instruction, 85.9% Pupil Services, 0% School Administration, 2.1% General Administration, 10.7% Staff Services, 1.1% Maintenance & Operations, .2% Transportation, 0%

2019

Instruction, 64.8% Pupil Services, 4.6% School Administration, 6.8% General Administration, 4.6% Staff Services, 5.5% Maintenance & Operations, 5.6% Transportation, 8.2%
2019

Instruction, 65.5% Pupil Services, 10.5% School Administration, 19.2% General Administration, 2.2% Staff Services, 2.3% Maintenance & Operations, .4% Transportation, 0%

2020

Source: Statewide GaDOE financial report and DE46 financials

Instruction, 65% Pupil Services, 4.7% School Administration, 7% General Administration, 4.5% Staff Services, 5.4% Maintenance & Operations, 8.3% Transportation, 5.1%
2020

33

Cyber's expenditures per FTE were lower than the statewide average for fiscal year 2017 through fiscal year 2020, as shown in Exhibit 30. Cyber spent the most per FTE in FY2020 ($9,000) which was 83.7% of the statewide average of $10,759.

Exhibit 30 Comparing Per Pupil Expenditures, Fiscal Years 2017-2020

$9,417

$9,817

$10,237

$5,804

$6,448

$6,755

$10,759 $9,000

FY 2016-17

FY 2017-18 Cyber

FY 2018-19 Statewide

Source: Statewide GaDOE financial report

FY 2019-20

34

Governance
Charter schools operate under the leadership of a board that serves as the governing authority of the school. The primary responsibilities of the governing board relate to strategic planning and policymaking, budgeting and fiscal stability, hiring and providing oversight for the school leader, and ensuring accountability. The governing board is also responsible for ensuring compliance with laws and regulations, maintaining records of meetings, committees and policies, and monitoring school achievement. Board members with diverse backgrounds and skills in areas such as education, finance, human resources, and legal affairs can contribute to a board successfully performing its duties.
State law and State Charter School Commission guidelines establish qualifications for governing board membership and member training requirements. O.C.G.A. 20-2-2084 requires board members to be a U.S. citizen and Georgia resident, and it prohibits members from being an employee of the school. The law also prohibits board members from being an officer or board member of any organization that sells goods or services to the school. State Charter School Commission guidelines require board members to receive 12 hours of training annually. The required training must consist of charter school finance and budgeting, best practices for charter school governance, requirements relating to public records and meetings, and other applicable laws, rules, and regulations.
Cyber's by-laws authorize between five and thirteen board members. Cyber had a seven-member governing board in the 2017-18 school year and a five-member governing board in the 2018-19 and 2019-20 school years.
The board elects its members and officers at its annual meeting. Members are elected to serve threeyear terms and may serve up to four successive terms. They are not paid but may be compensated for expenses incurred in connection with their duties. A majority of board members are required to transact business at meetings. The board met 11 times in 2017-18, 13 times in 2018-19, and 14 times during the 2019-20 school year.
The Operational Performance section of SCSC's Comprehensive Performance Framework (CPF) covers several aspects of charter school operations, including governance. The CPF states that a governing board must provide adequate oversight of school management and operations to ensure that the school is fulfilling its duties to students, employees, parents, and the general public. Given that CPF indicators and measures are incorporated into all charter contracts, a school's CPF standing is a reflection of whether the school has met the requirements and goals set forth in its charter contract, as well as applicable law, and SCSC rules and policies.
The framework consists of four standards for charter school governance as part of its expectations for operational performance. The State Charter Schools Commission (SCSC) concluded that Cyber met all standards pertaining to governance in the 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 school years (see Exhibit 31).
35

Exhibit 31 Cyber Met All Standards in each year reviewed (school years 2016-17 to 2019-20)

CPF Governance Performance Indicators

2016-17 2017-18

General Governance The school complies with applicable laws rules, regulations, charter contract provisions and school policies relating to board governance.

Met

Met

2019-20 Met

Open Governance The school complies with the Georgia Open Meetings Act and open records requirements.

Met

Met

Met

Governance Training The school ensures that all governing board members participate in required trainings.

Met

Met

Met

Transparent Governance and Communication with Stakeholders

The school complies with all applicable laws, rules, regulations, provisions of its charter contract or its policies relating to operating

Met

Met

Met

transparently and effectively communicating with stakeholders.

Source: State Charter Schools Commission report

36

School-Specific Academic Goals
Virtual charter schools operate under the terms of a charter which is basically a performance- based contract that spells out the services that the charter school will provide and performance that will be achieved. According to SCSC staff, in the early years of charter schools, the schools set whatever goals they desired, but the SCSC found that monitoring and evaluating charter school performance with a lot of school specific goals proved to be difficult, and it was to determine if students were receiving a quality education. In the 2015 2016 school year, the SCSC implemented the comprehensive performance framework (CPF) to evaluate state charter schools The CPF specifically sets expectations for performance and ensures that schools meet those expectations. The mission specific goals that are included in the CPF (and included in the school's charter) are to acknowledge the school's particular model and their internal goals; however, the goals are not weighted as much as other parts of the CPF. Cyber has established an academic goal in its charter to develop an individualized learning plan (ILP) for at least 95% of enrolled students each year of the charter term. The ILP will specify individualized service and plans for student success. The State Charter Schools Commission found that Cyber met this goal in the 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 school years.
37