Georgia Cyber Academy
ANNUAL REPORT
December 2019
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
Enrollment & Attendance................................................................................................................................................. 1 School Enrollment ........................................................................................................................................... 2 Student Attendance......................................................................................................................................... 6 Attrition ............................................................................................................................................................. 7 Student Persistence ........................................................................................................................................ 9 Course Segment Completion Rate...........................................................................................................11 Student Engagement.....................................................................................................................................12
Academic Achievement, 2018-19 School Year ......................................................................................................14 College and Career Ready Performance Index ..................................................................................15 School-Specific Academic Goals...............................................................................................................19 Alternative Academic Options..................................................................................................................19
Academic Achievement, 2017-18 School Year ......................................................................................................23 Beating the Odds Analysis..........................................................................................................................24 Comprehensive Performance Framework Academic Measures ................................................25 Comparison of Academic Growth Prior to Placement....................................................................27 Comparison of Academic Achievement Prior to Placement ........................................................30
Management & Staffing ...................................................................................................................................................35 Agreements for Corporate Management Services ...........................................................................36 Governance and Management ..................................................................................................................38 Staffing and Teacher Qualifications .......................................................................................................41 Development Plans for Leadership without Certification ............................................................44
Operations & Planning.....................................................................................................................................................45 School Finances ..............................................................................................................................................46 Academic Performance as a Ratio of Per-Student Expenditures (2017-18 Results).........49 Innovative Practices .....................................................................................................................................49 Future Goals and Plans ................................................................................................................................50
APPENDIX A: Georgia Cyber Academy's Educational Products and Services Agreement ..................51
i

ii

Enrollment & Attendance
Georgia public schools are responsible for tracking and reporting data for student enrollment and attendance. This section contains enrollment, attendance, and various statistics which indicate the level of student participation at Georgia Cyber Academy (Cyber). Key points in this section include:

14,319

14,286

11,173

2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

Cyber's enrollment was over 14,000 students in 2016-17 and 2017-18, however it dropped to approximately 11,000 in school year 2018-19. The school's student demographics are similar to Georgia's public school students, with exceptions being a lower portion of Hispanic students, Asian students, English language learners, and economically disadvantaged students in the 2018-19 school year.

Statewide Avg Cyber

52% 98%

0 to 5 Absences 6 to 15 16+

Student attendance at Cyber is higher than most schools, with 98% of students missing five or fewer days in 2018-19. The variance may be partially attributed to the methodology Cyber uses to calculate attendance, which is necessarily different than a traditional brickand-mortar school. This variance can also be attributed to the ease of access to education associated with virtual schools.

27%

28%

26%

2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

Like many virtual charter schools, Cyber has relatively high withdrawal and student mobility rates. Approximately onequarter of students withdrew before the end of the 2018-19 school year, with many transferring to another Georgia public school or to home schooling. The school's student mobility rate, which captures enrollments and withdrawals between October and May, was 26%, higher than the statewide median rate of 16%.

100%
50% 0 2 4 6 8 10

Of students who completed the 2017-18 school year at Cyber, approximately 76% returned the following year. The retention rates were lowest in 8th grade and highest in 11th grade in 2018-19.

Successful Unsuccessful Incomplete

66%

12% 22%

In the 2018-2019 school year, the overall course segment completion rate was 78%, with completion rates generally higher as the grade level increased. The rate of students completing courses with a passing grade was 66% across all grade levels.

Noncompliant
Somewhat Compliant

Fully Compliant

Cyber measures student engagement by tracking factors such as attendance, frequency of assignment submissions, frequency of teacher contact, and others. As of April 2019, approximately 40% of students were deemed either somewhat or noncompliant with these measures.

1

School Enrollment
Cyber had 11,173 students across grades kindergarten through 12 in the 2018-19 school year. This was approximately 22% lower than the previous year.1 As shown in Exhibit 1, the number of students in most of the subgroups tracked by the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) was similar over the 2016-17 and 2017-18 years, and significantly lower in the following year. Most subgroups decreased by approximately 20% as well. Cyber's populations of English language learners and Pacific Islanders slightly increased in 2018-19.

Exhibit 1 Cyber enrollment, 2016-17 to 2018-19 school years

Total Students

2016-17
14,319

2017-18
14,286

2018-19
11,173

Gender Male Female

6,883 7,436

6,890 7,396

5,437 5,736

Race Hispanic American Indian Asian Black Pacific Islander White Two or More Races

1,091 46
277 4,966
22 7,086
831

1,158 47
273 5,088
24 6,799
897

914 35
226 4,212
26 4,999
761

Other Subgroups

Student With Disabilities

1,824

1,902

1,524

English Language Learners

80

132

144

Economically Disadvantaged1

9,161

9,626

8,0312

1 GaDOE defines economically disadvantaged as the number of students eligible to receive free

or reduced-price meals. However, Cyber does not serve lunch.

2 For the 2018-19 school year, the United States Department of Education approved the Charter

School Poverty Rate Formula, which GaDOE used to calculate the poverty level for Cyber. This

formula allows poverty to be calculated from direct certified numbers that can be verified.

Source: GaDOE student enrollment records

Cyber has a racially diverse student population, somewhat similar to the demographics of Georgia's public school students. As shown in Exhibit 2, Cyber's student body has a greater portion of white students than the statewide enrollment and a smaller portion of Hispanic and Asian students in 2018-19.

1 For school funding purposes, student enrollment is captured during October and March full-time equivalent (FTE) counts. GaDOE uses the October count when reporting enrollment for a school year.
2

Exhibit 2 White students represent a greater portion of Cyber enrollment, 2018-19 school year1
Cyber Statewide

45% 39%

38% 37%

16% 8%

2% 4%

7% 4%

White

Black

Hispanic

Asian

Two or More Races

1Total enrollment for American Indian and Pacific Islander students was less than 1% each. Source: GaDOE student enrollment records

When looking at the other subgroups identified in federal law, Cyber had a similar portion of students with a disability as the statewide public school population (see Exhibit 3). The population of economically disadvantaged students and English language learners are lower than the statewide population. Only 1% of Cyber students were English language learners in 2018-19, compared to 8% statewide. Almost half of Cyber students (45%) were economically disadvantaged, compared to the statewide average of 60%.
Exhibit 3 Cyber has a lower percentage of economically disadvantaged students enrolled, 2018-19 school year
Cyber Statewide
60%
45%

14% 12%

8% 1%

Students with Disabilities

English Language Learners

Source: GaDOE student enrollment records

Economically Disadvantaged

3

Cyber had a smaller percentage of students in elementary school and higher percentages of students in high school than statewide public school enrollment (see Exhibit 4). Nearly half of all Georgia public school students were in elementary school during the 2017-18 school year, but the percentage was just 36% for Cyber. Nearly 40% of Cyber's students were in high school, nine percentage points higher than the statewide number. Cyber's middle school percentage of 25% was similar to the statewide middle school percentage of 23%.
Exhibit 4 Cyber had a smaller portion of elementary school students and a larger portion of high school students than statewide averages, 2018-19 school year
Cyber Statewide
47%
39% 36%
30% 25% 23%

Elementary Source: GaDOE student enrollment records

Middle

High

As shown in Exhibit 5 on the next page, most Cyber students are from metropolitan Atlanta, with more than 500 enrolled students residing in the Cobb, Clayton, DeKalb, Fulton, and Gwinnett school districts. There are between 251 and 500 students from seven districts. Fifty school districts have 10 or fewer residents enrolled at Cyber, and three have zero students enrolled.

4

Exhibit 5 Students enrolled at Cyber are primarily located in the Atlanta metropolitan area, 2018-19 school year1
1In addition to the state's 180 public school districts, the map shows Fort Benning and Fort Stewart as separate school districts. Some students were removed because they did not have a complete physical address on file.
5

Student Attendance
Student attendance is one predictor of academic performance in school. Low attendance rates are associated with decreased achievement in school and higher high school dropout rates. Measuring attendance in a traditional, brick-and-mortar school is relatively straightforward: a student is present if they are present in the classroom. Attendance in a virtual environment is less obvious. Because students may attend live lessons, view recorded lessons, or work offline, virtual schools may use a variety of methods to gauge attendance. Typical considerations include assignments submitted, teacher interactions, login data, and self-reported records provided by students or their learning coach (i.e., adult monitoring the student at home).

Cyber measures attendance based on how frequently the student or learning coach (typically a parent/guardian) logs attendance hours in the school's online system. In 2018-19 Cyber also calculated student duration in online courses and time spent in Class Connect, the online classroom where live instruction is provided to students. Cyber students are required to follow the school calendar which includes 180 school days, and therefore must log in each school day to be considered present. GaDOE's attendance policy requires students in grades K-5 to complete between 22.5 and 25 hours per week. Students in the 6th 12th grades are expected to complete 28 hours of school per week.

Exhibit 6 Cyber's student absences remain low in 2018-19 school year and were lower than the statewide average, 2016-17 and 2017-181

CYBER

STATEWIDE2

0 to 5 Absences 6 to 15 16+

0.5%

0.2%

0.6%

0.8%

1.2%

1.4%

0 to 5 Absences 6 to 15 16+

11.2%

11.9%

35.8%

36.6%

98.8%

98.5%

98.0%

53.1%

51.6%

2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019

2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019

1 The percentages GOSA reports are rounded, and therefore may not total exactly 100.0% for each school in each year. 2 Statewide data for the 2018-19 school year is not available as of publication. Source: Governor's Office of Student Achievement (GOSA) Attendance Data and GaDOE student enrollment records

For each school's annual report card, the Governor's Office of Student Achievement (GOSA) calculates the percentage of students who missed five or fewer days, 6 to 15 days, and more than 15 days. Because GOSA's calculation for 2018-19 will not be available until after publication, we used GaDOE student records data to calculate

6

Cyber's attendance rate for the 2018-19 school year. In the 2018-19 school year, 98% of Cyber students missed five or fewer days, 1.4% missed 6 to 15 days, and 0.6% missed 16 or more days. Attendance has remained relatively stable over the three most recent school years and has been higher than the statewide rates in 2016-17 and 2017-18 (see Exhibit 6). While not yet available for the 2018-19 school year, statewide attendance rates for each year are relatively stable.
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 7, the percentage of students that withdrew from Cyber before the end of the school year has remained relatively stable in the last three school years. In the 2018-19 school year, Cyber recorded a total of 12,302 enrollments and 3,175 withdrawals.
Exhibit 7 Approximately one-quarter of students enrolled at Cyber withdrew during each school year from 2016-17 to 2018-19

27%

28%

26%

2016-17 Source: GaDOE student enrollment records

2017-18

2018-19

As shown in Exhibit 8, 42% of withdrawals from Cyber during the 2018-19 school year were students transferring to another state public school. This was the most common reason for withdrawals in each of the last three years, with annual withdrawals of 1,300 to 2,100 students. At 27% in 2018-19, an increasing proportion of withdrawals are due to students opting for homeschooling (shown as "attend home

7

study" in Exhibit 8). The percentage of students Cyber removed for lack of attendance dropped from 9% in 2016-17 to 3% in 2018-19.
Exhibit 8 Reported reasons for student withdrawal from Cyber 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19 school years

Transfer to GA Public School

Attend Home Study

27% 17% 17%

Unknown

13% 16%
12%

7%

Transfer Out of State

6%

7%

Adult Education/Post Secondary

5% 3% 3%

Lack of Attendance

3% 8% 9%

3% Transfer to GA Private School 2%
3%

Other

0.5% 0.7% 1%

42% 47% 48%

2018-19 Source: GaDOE student enrollment records

2017-18

2016-17

GOSA also calculates a student mobility rate based on entries and withdrawals during the school year. GOSA determines this student mobility rate, also known as a "churn" rate, for all Georgia schools. The rate measures the percentage of a school's students who entered or withdrew from a school between the October FTE count date and May 1st. Because the churn rate also includes students who entered school in its calculation, it is slightly different from the withdrawal rate. Because GOSA's calculation will not be available until after the publication of this report, we used GaDOE student records data along with GOSA's formula to calculate Cyber's mobility rate for 2018-19.

As shown in Exhibit 9, Cyber had a student mobility rate of 26% during the 2018-19 school year. The rate is slightly lower than the previous school year. The statewide average mobility rate for 2018-19 is not yet available, but was 16% in the previous

8

two school years. Research indicates that virtual schools generally have higher turnover rates than brick-and-mortar schools.

Exhibit 9 Cyber's student mobility rate decreased in 2018-19 school year, remains above the statewide median1

Cyber

Statewide Median

32%

27%

26%

16%

16%

2016-17

2017-18

2018-19

1 As of publication, GOSA statewide results are not available for the 2018-19 school year. Source: GaDOE student enrollment records and GOSA mobility analysis

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.

We found that 76% of students who completed kindergarten through 11th grade in the 2017-18 school year returned the following year. As shown in Exhibit 10, there was little variation across grade levels. The highest retention is for 11th graders at 83%, while 8th graders' retention rate of 66% was the lowest by several percentage points.

Exhibit 10 Between 66% - 83% of students in each grade level returned to Cyber in 2018-19

Elementary

Middle

High

77% 73% 75% 74% 77% 75% 76% 79%

79% 79% 83%

66%

KK 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11

Source: GaDOE student enrollment records

9

We also examined the persistence of students who are likely old enough to discontinue their education non-graduating seniors. In the 2017-18 school year there were 889 Cyber students in 12th grade. While the majority (80%) graduated and another 7% withdrew in 2017-18, 13% of students did not graduate or withdraw. Of those non-graduating seniors, 7% (61) re-enrolled at Cyber in 2018-19, and 6% (50) did not re-enroll (see Exhibit 11)
Exhibit 11 7% of Non-Graduating Seniors re-enrolled in 2018-19, 6% did not re-enroll

6% 7% 7%
80%

Graduated Withdrew Other: Re-enrolled in 18-19 Other: Did not Re-enroll in 18-19

Source: GaDOE student enrollment records
We found that an additional 3% (28) of 2017-18 seniors graduated in 2018-19, bringing the graduation rate to 83% over two years (see Exhibit 12). Another 2.4% (21) of seniors withdrew in 2018-19, bringing the withdrawal rate to 9.4%.
Exhibit 12 83% of the 2017-18 senior cohort graduated from Cyber and 9% withdrew

Graduated

80%

3%

Withdrew 7% 2.4%

2017-18 Source: GaDOE student enrollment records

2018-19

10

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.
In the 2018-19 school year, the overall course segment completion rate was 78% (see Exhibit 13), with rates for grade levels ranging from 57% to 88%. The rate of students completing courses with a passing grade (i.e., successful completions) was 66% across all grade levels, ranging from 51% in 3rd grade to 80% in 12th grade. The percentage of students who completed the course with a failing grade (i.e., unsuccessful completions) was highest in grade nine at 20%.
Exhibit 13 Course segment completion rates at Cyber increase as grade levels increase, 201819 school year
Successful Unsuccessful Incomplete

12%

13% 12% 13% 20% 17% 12% 8%

9% 3% 4% 5% 7% 9%

66% 56% 54% 52% 51% 53% 60% 69% 71% 71% 63% 68% 75% 80%

All K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Source: GaDOE course records
The rates of completion and success for Cyber students for school year 2018-19 are similar to those for school year 2017-18 (see Exhibit 14). However, shifts in these rates for individual grade levels vary. Rates decreased for Kindergarten through 4th grade, 6-7th grade, and 12th grade. Rates increased for remaining grades: 5th and 8th11th.

11

Exhibit 14 Percent of completed and successful course segments decreased for nine grade levels in 2018-19

COMPLETE

SUCCESSFUL

2017-18 2018-19

2017-18 2018-19

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

25% 50% 75% 100%

0%

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

25% 50% 75% 100%

Source: 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 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.
Cyber designates a student as "Noncompliant," "Somewhat Compliant," or "Fully Compliant" based on the flexibility requirements with which each is complying. A
12

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 shows the change from January 2019, when the policy was first implemented, to April 2019. As shown in Exhibit 15, approximately one-third of Cyber students fell into each compliance category in January. By April, most students (59%) were designated as fully compliant.
Exhibit 15 Students became more likely to meet their flexibility requirements over the course of the spring semester, January April 2019

Jan

32%

33%

Feb

27%

22%

Mar

24%

20%

Apr

22%

19%

34% 50% 56% 59%

Noncompliant Source: Cyber engagement data report

Somewhat Compliant

Fully Compliant

13

Academic Achievement, 2018-19 School Year
Charter schools are expected to use their flexibility from certain state and local rules to raise student achievement. Numerous methods are used to measure academic achievement in Georgia's public schools. Some academic performance data for the 2018-19 school year was not available in time for inclusion in this report. For those measures, we report 2017-18 data in a subsequent section on page 23.
Key points in this section include:

Cyber Statewide Avg Single E Overall M Overall H Overall

Cyber's 2018-19 College and Career Ready Performance Index (CCRPI) scores were below the state average for the single score, elementary school overall score, and the high school overall score. However, Cyber's middle school overall score was higher than the statewide average.

Single Score Content Mastery
Progress Closing Gaps
Readiness Graduation Rate
Elementary Middle High

In addition to the single score and overall scores, CCRPI contains several sub-scores for each grade band (elementary, middle, and high), including: content mastery, progress, closing gaps, and readiness. When looking at the change in sub-scores from 2017-18 CCRPI to 2018-19 CCRPI, we found that Cyber improved in all but one sub-score in the 2018-19 year.

67% 68% 74% E & K12 Middle High

Local School CCRPI is Higher

Alternate options for students enrolled at Cyber include attending a local district school, private school or home school. Most students enrolled in 2018-19 live close to a traditional, brick-and-mortar public school with a CCRPI score higher than Cyber.

5 33%
4 44%

The majority of Cyber students enrolled in 2018-19 live near a local district school with a climate rating of 4 or 5; the climate rating scale is from 1 (low) to 5 (high).

Public Home Private

Over 60% of Cyber's new student enrollments for 2018-19 previously attended another Georgia public school. Some new students transferred from home school (17%) and private school (5%).

14

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 fourthand fifth- year high school students. Exhibit 16 shows each of the CCRPI indicators and the measures used to score each indicator.

Exhibit 16

CCRPI indicators and measures, 2017-18 and 2018-19 school years

Indicator

Description

Weights (E, M, H)

Content Mastery

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

30% 30% 30%

Progress

Amount of growth a student has demonstrated

relative to academically-similar students in ELA and mathematics, as well as English learners' progress

35%

35%

30%

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

15%

15%

10%

students continue to make improvements.

Percent of students that show readiness in the

certain areas:

Elementary & Middle: literacy, attendance, and

Readiness

Beyond the Core (earning a passing score in fine

20% 20% 15%

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.

n/a

n/a

15%

Source: GaDOE Accountability Division

GaDOE calculates a score for each CCRPI indicator and an overall score for each school. Cyber's overall CCRPI score for 2018-19 (68.1) is lower than the state average (75.9); the state average is Cyber's "comparison district" for charter purposes because it is a statewide school. Cyber's overall CCRPI score is higher than the statewide average in middle school, and lower in elementary and high school, as shown in Exhibit 17.

15

Exhibit 17 Cyber's CCRPI scores compared to the state average, 2018-19 school year
Cyber Statewide Average

75.9 68.1

77.1 68.2

74.7 72.1

77 63.7

Single Score

Elementary Overall Score Middle Overall Score

Source: GaDOE Accountability Division

High Overall Score

Elementary School Students' scores are lower than the state average for each CCRPI component with the exception of closing gaps (see Exhibit 18). Compared to the statewide scores, students scored lowest in content mastery and progress, as student scores fell short of target measures set for assessment scores. Cyber students scored lower than the state in all subjects for content mastery but scored closest to the state in science. For progress, Cyber was below in both ELA and math but was closer to the state in ELA.

Exhibit 18 2019 Elementary School CCRPI Scores Cyber vs Statewide
Cyber Statewide Average

77.1 68.2

67.6 53.4

84.4 68.3

85.9 73.8

76.9 81

Overall Score Content Mastery Progress
CONTENT MASTERY

Closing Gaps Readiness
PROGRESS

ELA

Math

Source: GaDOE CCRPI data

Science Social Studies
16

ELA

Math

Middle School Students' scores are higher than the state average in the overall score, closing gaps, and readiness as shown in Exhibit 19. Scores for content mastery and progress are below the state average. For content mastery, middle school students slightly above the state average in ELA and science, slightly below in social studies, and well below in math. For the progress indicator, students were above the state average in the amount of growth shown in ELA when compared to the growth of academically-similar students, and lower in the amount of growth shown in math.
Exhibit 19 2019 Middle School CCRPI Scores - Cyber vs Statewide
Cyber Statewide Average

74.7 72.1

60.1 66.3

75 80.3

85.3 50

88 82.9

Overall Score Content Mastery Progress
CONTENT MASTERY

Closing Gaps Readiness
PROGRESS

ELA

Math

Science Social Studies

ELA

Math

High School Students' scores are lower than the statewide scores in all CCRPI components except closing the gaps (see Exhibit 20). For content mastery, Cyber's scores were close to the state average in ELA and science, and well below in math and social studies. In progress, students were slightly above the state average in the amount of growth shown in ELA when compared to the growth of academically-similar students, and below in math.

17

Exhibit 20 2019 High School CCRPI Scores Cyber vs Statewide
Cyber Statewide Average

77 63.7

69.4 56.1

82.1 72.6

87.1 80

82.6 74.5

55.7

53.5

Overall Score Content Mastery

Progress Closing Gaps Readiness Graduation Rate

CONTENT MASTERY

PROGRESS

ELA

Math

Science Social Studies

ELA

Math

When comparing 2017-18 scores to 2018-19 scores, we found that Cyber's scores improved in all indicators, with the exception of high school progress scores. As shown in Exhibit 21, Cyber showed greater improvement than the statewide average scores. Statewide scores improved in eight of 16 indicators, remained the same in one, and declined in the remaining seven.

18

Exhibit 21 All except one of Cyber's CCRPI scores improved in 2018-19, while only half of statewide scores improved

-10

-5

0

5

10

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

HIGH

Cyber Statewide Average

Source: GaDOE Accountability Division

School-Specific Academic Goals
In addition to academic measures listed above, 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 and 2018-19 school years.

Alternative Academic Options
Students enrolled at Cyber have several alternatives for obtaining an education, including attending a local district school, private school, or home school. The availability of these options may vary for some students.

19

Local District School Students enrolled at Cyber have the option of attending one of 2,200 public schools throughout the state. These schools are operated by the 180 school districts (159 county, 21 city) and are available to students who live within the school's attendance zone. These schools are publicly funded and available to all students.
We found that most students live close to a traditional, brick-and-mortar public school with a CCRPI score higher than Cyber.2 As shown in Exhibit 22, this is true for elementary, middle, and high school students. We found that 28% of elementary students' local schools had a CCRPI at least 10 points higher. The number was 28% for middle school students and 31% for high school students. It should be noted that the CCRPI is only one measure of a school and there can be other reasons that a student chooses not to attend a local district school.
Exhibit 22 Most Cyber students live close to a local school district public school with a higher CCRPI score, 2018-19 scores

0-10 Higher 10+ Higher Equal 0-10 Lower 10+ Lower

23%

21%

21%

9% 1.3%

12% 0.7%

4% 0.5%

28% 39%
Elementary & K12 Source: DOAA analysis

28% 38% Middle

31%
43% High

GaDOE also uses survey information obtained from students, parents, and school employees to assign each local school district school a climate rating. The climate rating is based on the following:
Attendance Frequency of students' unexcused absences and frequency of employee leave

2 The student's zoned school is not reported; therefore, we determined the local school district school that is closest to the home address of approximately 12,000 Cyber students. We excluded schools that are not open to all students in a specific zone (e.g., magnet schools) and other special schools (e.g., alternative schools, residential treatment facilities).
20

Discipline In-school and out-of-school suspensions, as well as alternative school assignments and expulsions
Safe and Substance Free Frequency of physical, bullying/harassment, and drug-related incidents
Climate Perception Survey of students, parents, and employees about the school

As shown in Exhibit 23, 77% of Cyber students live close to a school with a school climate rating of four or five. The ratings range from one (lowest) to five (highest).

Exhibit 23 Most Cyber students live close to a local school district public school with a school climate rating of 4 or 5, 2018-19 school year

3%

5%

1

2

33%

15%

3

4

5

44%
Source: GaDOE data
Availability of Private Schools Some students enrolled at Cyber may have the option to attend one of more than 600 private schools. Private schools are available in 110 Georgia counties. Fulton and DeKalb counties have a combined 135 private schools, 21% of all private schools in the state. Forty-five counties have a single private school.
Private schools charge tuition and may have various attendance restrictions, limiting the option for many students. The cost of attending a private school in Georgia ranges from approximately $1,250 to $32,000 per year, though scholarships may be available for qualifying students. In addition, the private schools in Georgia may restrict attendance eligibility based on grade level (e.g., K-5), religious affiliation, gender, or any other criteria that fits their mission.
Home School Some students enrolled at Cyber may have the option to be home schooled. As shown in Exhibit 24, at least 17% of students entering and exiting Cyber are transitioning between home school and virtual school.

21

In order for a student to be home schooled in Georgia, state law requires parents or guardians who wish to teach their children at home to have a high school diploma or GED at minimum and annually declare their intent to homeschool to GaDOE. At least 180 days instruction (a minimum of 4.5 hours of per day) must be completed annually unless the child is physically unable to comply with this requirement. Home study programs are to include a minimum of the following five content areas: mathematics, English language arts, science, social studies, and reading. Students are required to participate in a nationally standardized testing program administered by a person trained in the administration and interpretation of such tests; the student must be evaluated at least every three years beginning at the end of third grade.
The costs of home schooling vary depending on a variety of factors, such as the method (e.g. being taught by a parent only or participating in a cooperative home school with other students), curriculum purchased, and number of children in the home being home schooled (the more students, the lower the cost per student). Students may also require textbooks, school supplies, extracurricular activity fees and/or computer equipment. The National Home Education Research Institute estimates homeschool families spend an average of $600 per student annually for their education.
Students' Previous School Locations Using student enrollment records, we also identified where new Cyber' students in the 2018-19 school year had previously received their education. Of 4,150 new student enrollments, 62% (2,589) transferred from another Georgia public school (see Exhibit 24). Approximately 17% (724) transferred from home schools, while another 5% (191) transferred from a private school. Almost half of students leaving Cyber in the 2018-19 school year transferred to a public school. Over 25% of withdrawals transferred to home school, and 3% transferred to private school.3
Exhibit 24 Most students that transferred to Cyber were from another public school, 2018-19

62%

42%
27% 17%

5% 3%

GA Public School

Home School

Private School

Entered From Transferred To

Source: GaDOE student enrollment records

3 The remaining students withdrew transferred out of state, pursued post-secondary education, were removed for lack of attendance, or withdrew for other reasons.
22

Academic Achievement, 2017-18 School Year
Charter schools are expected to use their flexibility from certain state and local rules to raise student achievement. Numerous methods are used to measure academic achievement in Georgia's public schools. For the academic measures below, 2018-19 school year data was not available in time for inclusion in this report. Therefore, we reported results from the 2017-18 academic year.
Key points in this section include:

-0.1948 Elementary

-0.0826 Middle

-0.0514 High

The 2017-18 value added impact score for Cyber is lower than its comparison district (the statewide average) for elementary, middle, and high schools. Cyber's impact scores in 9th grade Literature and American Literature exceed the statewide average.

70

Predicted

66

Score

62

Actual

Score

58

0/100 =
Does Not Meet Academic Standards

Change in Growth Scores 31% 35% 25% 29%

40% 33% 42% 41% ELA 1 ELA 2 Math 1 Math 2 Declined Remained Stable Improved

In comparison to similar schools during the 2017-18 school year, Cyber's performance was lower than the statewide average in all grade bands. Therefore, the school was not designated as Beating the Odds.
Cyber scored 0 out of 100 points in the State Charter School Commission's Comprehensive Performance Framework review of its academic performance in the 2017-18 school year. Cyber did, however, met its school-specific goal in 2017-18 and 2018-19.
Change in students' growth scores after one or two years at Cyber varied by subject. English Language Arts (ELA) growth scores declined after one year at Cyber, but a higher percentage improved after two years. Math scores primarily declined in each cohort, but the second-year group showed more improvement than the first-year group.

Change in Achievement Scores 60% 59% 60% 55% 59% 60% 54% 54%

Improvement and decline in students' achievement scores after one or two years at Cyber varied by subject. However, across all subjects and cohorts at least 54% of students' scores remained stable after time at Cyber. English Language Arts (ELA) and science scores showed more improvement than math and social studies scores.

23

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 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 25, Cyber's value-added impact score was lower than the statewide average for elementary and middle schools and lower in two of four high school subjects. Cyber's value-added score exceeded the state average in 9th grade Literature and American Literature. It was lower in Algebra 1 and Geometry.

Exhibit 25

Cyber's Value-Added impact scores are lower than the comparison

district in most grades and subjects, 2017-18 school year

Grade Band

Value-Added

Impact Relative to

Subject or Course

Impact Score

Statewide Average

Elementary

-0.1948

Lower

English Language Arts

-0.1165

Lower

Math

-0.3347

Lower

Middle

-0.0826

Lower

English Language Arts

-0.0397

Lower

Math

-0.1813

Lower

High

-0.0514

Lower

9th Grade Literature

0.1064

Higher

American Literature

0.1162

Higher

Algebra 1

-0.1456

Lower

Geometry

-0.1934

Lower

Source: GSU report for the State Charter Schools Commission

Beating the Odds Analysis
The Beating the Odds (BTO), established by GOSA, is an outcome measure that compares charter schools' performance on the CCRPI with the performance of similar
24

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 2017-18 comparison include the following: 4
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 CCRPI score is below the predicted range, "Within Expectations" if the CCRPI 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.
For the 2017-18 school year, Cyber was classified as Below Expected Range. Cyber's CCRPI score for this year was 60.2, which was lower than the predicted range of 61.84 to 68.09. In the previous school year, Cyber was found to not be Beating the Odds.
Comprehensive Performance Framework Academic Measures
The State Charter Schools Commission (SCSC) conducts annual performance reviews of all state charter schools. The Comprehensive Performance Framework 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.
Cyber's academic performance results for the 2017-18 school year are shown in Exhibit 26. The first indicator looks at whether the school is meeting state improvement targets, and if the school is on a targeted improvement list. Cyber earned 0 of 4 points because it failed to meet 100% of those targets and was on an improvement list. The second indicator looks at different CCRPI sub-scores. To earn the full 96 points the school must perform above the level of the comparison district (in Cyber's case the comparison district is the statewide average) in one of the listed measures. To earn partial (60) points for any measure, the school must be performing
25

the same as or above its comparison district in at least one of the grade bands served. Cyber did not earn any points for the second indicator.

The CPF also provides "second look criteria" as another way for schools to earn the full 96 student achievement and growth points. Cyber did not earn any points in the second look criteria either. As a result, Cyber was categorized as "falling far below" SCSC academic standards in the 2017-18 school year.

Exhibit 26

SCSC determined that Cyber did not meet academic standards in the 2017-18

school year

CPF Academic Performance Indicators and Measures

Available Points

Points Earned

First Look Criteria

Indicator 1: State and Federal Accountability Systems

4

0

Measure 1a: the school did not receive any points because it did not meet 100% of School Improvement Targets.

2

0

Measure 1b: the school did not receive any points because it

was designated as TSI, CSI or Turnaround Eligible by GaDOE or

2

0

GOSA.

Indicator 2: Student Achievement and Student Growth

96

60

CCRPI Content Mastery Sub-Score was lower than that of its comparison district(s) in all grade bands served.

96

0

CCRPI Progress Sub-Score was lower than that of its comparison district(s) in all grade bands served.

96

0

CCRPI Grade Band Score was lower than that of its comparison district(s) in all grade bands served.

96

0

Second Look Criteria

Indicator 2: Student Achievement and Student Growth

CCRPI Single Score was lower than that of its comparison district(s).

96

0

Value-Added Impact Score was not statistically higher than that of its comparison district(s) in all grade bands served.

96

0

Was not designated as Beating the Odds by GaDOE.

96

0

Total Points
Source: State Charter Schools Commission 2017-18 CPF results

100

0

26

Student growth percentile levels
Low 1-34 Typical 35-65 High 66-99

Comparison of Academic Growth Prior to Placement
Academic growth indicates how a student has progressed academically over a period of time. GaDOE uses the student growth percentile (SGP) to describe student academic growth relative to academically-similar students across the state. Using state assessment scores, GaDOE compares the change in a student's performance from one year to the next in relation to other students who had a similar score in the initial year. Regardless of their initial assessment score, all students are able to demonstrate growth or decline in relation to other students who started with a similar initial score. Student growth levels range from 1 to 99, with higher percentiles representing more academic growth. Beginning in 2016-17, SGP scores were calculated for English Language Arts (ELA) and math only.
We analyzed cohorts of students to determine the extent to which scores improved after the students attended Cyber (see methodology text box). A decrease in the percentage of "low growth" level and/or an increase in the percentage of "high growth" level indicates improvement, while the opposite indicates decline. Comparing the cohorts also allows us to see if more time at Cyber has an effect on SGP levels.
Cohort Analysis Methodology
To compare academic growth prior to entering Cyber and after time at Cyber, we conducted cohort analyses for two subsets of Cyber students.
First Year: The first group includes students that entered Cyber in 2016-17. We compared their SGP results for 2015-16 (labeled "Brick & Mortar" in exhibits) to their SGP results in 2016-17 (labeled "Cyber" in exhibits).
Second Year: The second group also includes students that entered Cyber in 2016-17. We compared their SGP results for 2015-16 ("Brick & Mortar") to scores in 2017-18, or their second year at Cyber.
For each subject and cohort, we analyzed results two ways: Student-level change: First, we looked at the change in each student's SGP level over the period to determine if their SGP level declined, remained stable, or improved. Distribution change: Then, we looked at the distribution of the entire sample's SGP levels between low, typical, and high growth before and after time at Cyber.
Note: The sample sizes for each subject area and cohort are slightly different because we matched on the SGP results. Students may not have SGP results in each subject for each school year. In addition, some Cyber students in the first-year cohort are not enrolled in year two.
Academic Growth: English Language Arts First-year students' performance declined in English Language Arts (ELA) SGP levels when comparing Cyber results to brick-and-mortar results. Second-year students performed similarly when comparing pre- and post-Cyber results.
First Year: As shown in Exhibit 27, 40% of students' ELA SGP levels declined in their first year at Cyber, while 30.5% improved, and 30% remained stable. The distributions of low, typical, and high growth pre- and post-Cyber also show a decrease in high growth and an increase in low growth. At their brickand-mortar schools, 36% of students' SGP was "low," 28.5% "typical," and 35% "high." At Cyber, the percentage in high range decreased to 26.5%, and
27

the percentage in the low and typical ranges increased to 41.5% and 32%, respectively.
Exhibit 27 40% of students' ELA growth levels declined after first year at Cyber while 30.5% improved
Declined Remained Stable Improved

39.9%

29.6%

30.5%

BRICK & MORTAR CYBER

Low Typical High

36.3%

28.5%

41.5%

32%

35.2% 26.5%

Source: GaDOE Assessment Data
Second Year: Exhibit 28 shows that 35% of students' ELA SGP levels improved in their second year at Cyber, 31% remained stable, and 33% declined. The distribution of SGP levels remained similar after the second year at Cyber. The percentage of students in low growth and high growth percentiles increased approximately 1%, and typical SGPs decreased by 2%.
Exhibit 28 35% of students' ELA growth levels improved after second year at Cyber
Declined Remained Stable Improved

33.4%

31.3%

35.3%

Low Typical High

BRICK & MORTAR

39.3%

30.5%

30.2%

CYBER

39.8%

28.8%

31.4%

Source: GaDOE Assessment Data

Academic Growth: Math Students in the first-year and second-year groups were more likely to have lower academic growth at Cyber than they had in their brick-and-mortar schools.

First Year: Exhibit 29 shows that 42% of students' math SGP levels declined after their first year at Cyber, while only 25% improved. The distribution of low, typical, and high SGP at Cyber also shows lower performance than brickand-mortar performance. The proportion of low SGP increased from 40% at the brick-and-mortar schools to 56% at Cyber. The percentage of typical

28

growth decreased from 28% to 25%, and the proportion of high growth SGP decreased from 32% to 19.5% after year one at Cyber.

Exhibit 29 42% of students' math growth levels declined after first year at Cyber
Declined Remained Stable Improved

41.8%

33.1%

25.1%

Low Typical High

BRICK & MORTAR

40.1%

CYBER Source: GaDOE Assessment Data

55.6%

28.2%

31.7%

24.9%

19.5%

Second Year: As shown in Exhibit 30, 41% of students' math SGP levels declined after their second year at Cyber, while 30% remained stable, and 29% improved. The distribution of low, typical, and high growth SGP also indicates declining performance. The proportion of low growth SGP increased from 41% at the brick-and-mortar schools to 52% at Cyber. The high growth group decreased from 29% at brick-and-mortar schools to 20% at Cyber.

Exhibit 30 41% of students' math growth levels declined after two years at Cyber
Declined Remained Stable Improved

41.1%

30.2%

28.7%

Low Typical High

BRICK & MORTAR CYBER

41.1% 51.6%

Source: GaDOE Assessment Data

30.1% 28.3%

28.8% 20.1%

29

Milestones Assessment System Achievement Levels
Beginning learner does not yet demonstrate proficiency; needs substantial academic support.
Developing learner demonstrates partial proficiency; needs additional academic support.
Proficient learner demonstrates proficiency; is prepared for the next grade level/course.
Distinguished learner demonstrates advanced proficiency; is well prepared for the next grade level/course.

Comparison of Academic Achievement Prior to Placement
The state uses the Georgia Milestones Assessment System to measure student achievement in grades 3 through 12. The Milestones tests measure how well students have learned the knowledge and skills outlined in the state content standards for core content areas. Students in grades 3 through 8 take an end-of-grade assessment in English language arts (ELA) and mathematics, and students in grades 5 through 8 also take an end-of-grade assessment in science and social studies. High school students take an end-of-course assessment for each of the ten courses designated by the State Board of Education.5
Based on Milestones tests, students may be placed into one of four achievement levels: beginning learner, developing learner, proficient learner, or distinguished learner. Student assessment scores are reported by grade and subject for the state, school system, and school. We analyzed cohorts of students to determine the extent to which scores improved after the students attended Cyber (see methodology text box). A decrease in the percentage of beginning and developing learner achievement levels and/or an increase in the percentage of proficient and distinguished learners indicates improvement, while the opposite indicates decline. Comparing the two cohorts also allows us to see if more time at Cyber has an effect on achievement levels.
Cohort Analysis Methodology
In order to compare academic achievement prior to entering Cyber and after time at Cyber, we conducted cohort analyses for two subsets of Cyber students.
First Year: The first group includes students that entered Cyber in 2016-17. We compared their milestone assessment results for 2015-16 (labeled "Brick & Mortar" in exhibits) to their SGP results in 2016-17 (labeled "Cyber" in exhibits).
Second Year: The second group also includes students that entered Cyber in 2016-17. We compared their milestone assessment results for 2015-16 ("Brick & Mortar") to scores in 201718, or their second year at Cyber.
For each subject and cohort, we analyzed results two ways. Student-level change: first we looked at the change in each student's achievement levels over the period of time to determine if their level declined, remained stable, or improved. Distribution change: Then, we looked at the distribution of the entire sample's achievement levels between beginning, developing, proficient, and distinguished learners before and after time at Cyber.
Note: The sample sizes for each subject area and cohort are slightly different because we matched on the milestone assessment results. Students may not have these results in each subject for each school year. In addition, some Cyber students in the first-year cohort are not enrolled in year two.

5 The ten courses include: ninth grade literature and composition, American literature and composition, algebra I/coordinate algebra, geometry/analytic geometry, biology, physical science, United States history, and economics/business/free enterprise. These tests serve as a final exam for the course and contribute 20% to the final grade for the course.
30

Academic Achievement: English Language Arts Students had similar performance in their first year at Cyber compared to their brickand-mortar schools, while the second-year cohort performed slightly better at Cyber.
First Year: The majority of students' achievement levels remained stable after one year at Cyber, and an almost equal amount had an improved level or a declining level. As shown in Exhibit 31, the combined percentage of beginning and developing learners increased by 1% after the first year at Cyber.
Exhibit 31 60% of ELA achievement levels remained stable after one year at Cyber
Declined Remained Stable Improved

20.4%

60.4%

19.2%

Beginning Developing Proficient Distinguished

BRICK & MORTAR

26.3%

CYBER

25.4%

Source: GaDOE Assessment Data

34.6% 36.2%

33.1%

6%

33.4%

5%

Second Year: Exhibit 32 shows that the majority of students' achievement levels remained stable after two years at Cyber; however, 24% improved and only 17% declined. The combined percentage of proficient and distinguished learners increased from 37% at brick-and-mortar schools to 40% at Cyber.

Exhibit 32 58.5% of ELA achievement levels remained stable after two years at Cyber and 24% improved
Declined Remained Stable Improved

17.2%

58.5%

24.3%

Beginning Developing Proficient Distinguished

BRICK & MORTAR

28.6%

CYBER

24%

Source: GaDOE Assessment Data

34.5% 36%

30.7% 34.3%

6.2% 5.7%

31

Academic Achievement: Math Students had lower math achievement levels at Cyber than they did in their brickand-mortar schools. The second-year students performed slightly worse than the first-year group.
First Year: The majority of students' math achievement levels remained stable after one year at Cyber, but almost 30% declined and only 11% improved (see Exhibit 33). The combined percentage of beginning and developing learners increased from 70% at the brick-and-mortar schools to 78% at Cyber.
Exhibit 33 60% of math achievement levels remained stable after one year at Cyber; 29% declined
Declined Remained Stable Improved

29%

60.2%

10.8%

Beginning Developing Proficient Distinguished

BRICK & MORTAR CYBER

27% 37.2%

43% 40.7%

23.7% 6.3% 18.1% 4%

Source: GaDOE Assessment Data
Second Year: Exhibit 34 shows that the majority of students' math achievement levels remained stable after two years at Cyber, but 34% declined and only 11% improved. The combined percentage of beginning and developing learners increased from 69% at the brick-and-mortar schools to 80% at Cyber.

Exhibit 34 55% of math achievement levels remained stable after two years at Cyber; 34% declined
Declined Remained Stable Improved

33.8%

55.3%

10.9%

Beginning Developing Proficient Distinguished

BRICK & MORTAR CYBER

28.9% 40.6%

Source: GaDOE Assessment Data

40.1% 38.8%

24.2% 6.8% 16.8% 3.8%

32

Academic Achievement: Science Students' academic achievement in science was lower in Cyber than the brick-andmortar schools for both the first-year and second-year groups. While the first-year group had a higher percentage of students with improved achievement than the second-year group, one-quarter of students had lower achievement levels in both years.
First Year: As shown in Exhibit 35, almost 60% of students' achievement levels remained stable after one year at Cyber, while 25% declined and 17% improved. In addition, the combined percentage of beginning and developing learners increased from 70% prior to entering Cyber to 72% after one year at Cyber.

Exhibit 35 59% of science achievement levels remained stable in student's first year at Cyber, while 25% declined
Declined Remained Stable Improved

24.6%

58.8%

16.6%

Beginning Developing Proficient Distinguished

BRICK & MORTAR CYBER

35.5% 42.6%

Source: GaDOE Assessment Data

34.5% 29.2%

24.2% 5.8% 23% 5.2%

Second Year: 60% of students' science achievement levels remained stable after two years at Cyber, 26% declined, and only 14% improved (see Exhibit 36). The combined percentage of beginning and developing learners increased from 72% at brick-and-mortar schools to 76% at Cyber.

Exhibit 36 60% of science achievement levels remained stable in students' second year at Cyber, while 26% declined
Declined Remained Stable Improved

25.6%

60.2%

14.2%

Beginning Developing Proficient Distinguished

BRICK & MORTAR CYBER

36.8% 45%

Source: GaDOE Assessment Data

35.2% 31.1%

23.2% 4.8% 19.1% 4.8%

33

Academic Achievement: Social Studies Performance in social studies declined in the first and second year at Cyber. The second-year group had a higher percentage of students with improved achievement levels, but both groups had an equal portion of students in the beginning and developing learners categories.

First Year: As shown in Exhibit 37, over half of students' social studies achievement levels remained stable after one year at Cyber while 35% declined and only 12% improved. The combined percentage of beginning and developing learners increased from 66% at brick-and-mortar schools to 79% at Cyber.
Exhibit 37 53.5% of social studies achievement levels remained stable after one year at Cyber, while 35% declined
Declined Remained Stable Improved

34.8%

53.5%

11.7%

Beginning Developing Proficient Distinguished

BRICK & MORTAR CYBER

29.7% 37.4%

35.8% 42.3%

25.9% 8.6% 15.6% 4.7%

Source: GaDOE Assessment Data

Second Year: Half of students' achievement levels remained stable after two years at Cyber, and 31% declined while only 15% improved. The combined percentage of beginning and developing learners increased from 72% at brick-and-mortar schools to 79% at Cyber. See Exhibit 38.

Exhibit 38 54% of social studies achievement levels remained stable after two years at Cyber, and 31% declined
Declined Remained Stable Improved

31.4%

53.6%

15%

Beginning Developing Proficient Distinguished

BRICK & MORTAR CYBER

32% 39.9%

Source: GaDOE Assessment Data

39.6% 39.1%

18.9% 9.5% 15.6% 5.4%

34

Management & Staffing
Charter schools, unlike traditional public schools, operate under the terms of a charter and are governed by an autonomous non-profit board of directors. This section provides information about Georgia Cyber Academy's agreements, governance, staffing, and certification. Key points in this section include:
Cyber had an educational services agreement with K12 Virtual Schools, LLC (K12) in the 2018-19 school year for educational materials, an online platform, staffing, purchasing, and other services. However, Cyber is currently in legal dispute with its education service provider. Though Cyber's contract with K12 includes an end date of June 30, 2021, K12 is not currently providing services to Cyber in the 2019-20 school year.
The agreement in effect between Cyber and K12 Virtual Schools during the 2018-19 school year contained some key provisions necessary for the school's governing board to hold contractors accountable for their performance.
Cyber had a five-member governing board in the 2018-19 school year, but membership fluctuated throughout the year with three members added in the fall and three members departing over the course of the year. Cyber officials indicated a goal to increase board membership to nine members.
During its 2017-18 review (the most recent available), the State Charter Schools Commission (SCSC) concluded that Cyber's governing board met all SCSC standards pertaining to governance.
Cyber had 652 employees during the 2018-19 school year--a 10% increase from the prior year. While the teaching staff employed by Cyber increased 7% between 2017-18 and 2018-19, the level of education and experience of the teaching body remained constant. The average teaching experience across instructors was 12 years, and all instructors have a bachelor's degree or higher (61% have a master's degree or higher).
While Cyber does not require those in leadership positions, such as superintendents, principals and assistant principals, to obtain state certification, 12 of its 15 staff in leadership positions were certified and three had a leadership certification. Teachers at Cyber are required to have certification, but Cyber does not require Georgia certification specifically. In 2018-19, the school reported to GaDOE that two instructors were teaching under a charter waiver certificate.
35

Agreements for Corporate Management Services
Charter school governing boards may contract with education management organizations to assist with the school's operation. These corporate entities provide a variety of operational services to public school districts and charter schools. They can provide either comprehensive management or selective services. The scope of services may include educational and administrative services such as accounting, procurement, and reporting.
During the 2018-19 school year, the school board contracted with K12 Virtual Schools, LLC (K12) for a broad range of educational products and services, as well as management and administrative services (see Exhibit 39 and Appendix A)6.
Exhibit 39 Products and services obtained through agreement with K12, 2018-19 school year Learning Products & Services
License to use online curriculum and technology platform Curriculum, instructional tools, supplies, and support Computer hardware and software for students and staff
Management & Administrative Services
Employment, supervision, and discipline of teachers, teaching support staff, and administrative personnel Student recruitment, admissions, enrollment, orientation, discipline, and other support services Maintenance of student records Professional development and other training for teachers Public relations and liaison to government agencies Monitoring and oversight of state reporting systems Website development and maintenance IT services and support for student account management system and online learning platform Budgeting, financial management, compliance reporting, and other business administration services Facility management
Source: Georgia Cyber Academy
Several aspects of the contracted services changed over the course of the year as the school decreased the level of services acquired from K12. Substantial changes in contracted services over the course of the 2018-19 school year were as follows:
Management and administrative services In the 2017-18 school year, the head of school, teachers, and support staff were employees of the contractor; however, this incrementally changed over the course of the 2018-19 school year (see Exhibit 36). The head of school became an employee of the school
6 Cyber and K12 are currently in legal dispute about their contract. Arbitration began at the end of the 2018-19 school year. Though Cyber's contract with K12 Virtual Schools has an end date of June 30, 2021, K12 is not currently providing services to Cyber in the current 2019-20 school year.
36

in July 2018, no longer reporting to the educational services provider, but directly to Cyber Academy's board of directors. Teachers and other instructional staff, faculty, and support staff became school employees in January 2019 and the Chief Financial Officer in February 2019. K12 ceased providing remaining administrative staff in the summer of 2019, and Cyber and K12 entered arbitration.
Exhibit 36 Timeline of Employment Transfer from K12 Virtual Schools to Cyber Academy, 201819 school year

July 2018 Head of School

January 2019
Teachers, other instructional staff, faculty, support
staff

February 2019
Chief Financial Officer

August 2019
Administrative Staff

Learning products and services Cyber phased out use of the K12 curriculum over the course of the school year. A review commissioned by Cyber's board of directors identified a need for improved alignment of Cyber's curriculum to Georgia's educational performance standards. In response, substantial curriculum and educational supports were introduced in early 2019 and many of these supplements replaced the former curriculum entirely by the end of the school year.
Significant Changes in Cyber Academy Operations during 2018-19
In the 2018-19 school year, Georgia Cyber Academy began to move from its use of a comprehensive management model where the education management company handles virtually all aspects of the school's operation to one where the school hires its own employees and contracts for selected services. During the year, Cyber's board of directors also revised certain policies and organizational practices including:
Limiting enrollment of new students for all grades Establishing an enrollment cut-off date Creating new attendance engagement policies that require students lacking
proficiency in course content to attend live sessions of classroom instruction Integrating supplemental curriculum with the intention of achieving improved
curriculum alignment to Georgia educational standards
Cyber is in legal dispute with K12 about aspects related to certain changes. Mediation began at the end of the 2018-19 school year and the parties are currently in arbitration. Though the contract between the parties includes an end date of June 30, 2021, K12 is not currently providing services to Cyber in the 2019-20 school year.
37

Financial Aspects of Cyber's Agreement with K12 Virtual Schools
During fiscal year 2019, the school paid K12 more than $68 million for educational management, products, and services. Curriculum and instruction material-related fees totaled approximately $44 million. These fees were based on a flat rate and a monthly fee per student per course for the curriculum and materials (digital and physical) based on each student's grade band and a per teacher fee for access to the online learning system. The amount also included payments made related to technology platform and support services (7% of program revenues) and management services (6% of program revenues).7 K12 was also reimbursed approximately $24 million for items such as teacher salaries, teacher training, and insurance that are not covered as part of contracted fees.8
It should be noted that the contract contains a provision protecting the school against an annual deficit. If the school has an annual deficit and no positive net assets, the contractor provides a credit or cash payment to the school. In fiscal year 2019, K12 provided a credit of approximately $7 million.
Governance and Management
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 Board of Education guidelines establish qualifications for governing board membership and member training requirements. O.C.G.A. 20-22084 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 Board guidelines require board members to receive 15 hours of training in their first year and nine hours each subsequent year. 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 five-member governing board in the 2018-19 school year, but membership fluctuated throughout the year with three members added in the fall and three members
7 Program revenues include all income and funding generated or appropriated for and received by the school attributed to any student in the school. 8 Cyber teachers were employed by K12 through December 2018 but were employed by Cyber beginning in January 2019.
38

departing over the course of the year. Cyber officials indicated a goal to increase board membership to nine members once litigation with K12 is settled.

The board elects its members and officers at its annual meeting. Members are elected to serve three-year 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 held 13 meetings during the 2018-19 school year.

Comprehensive Performance Framework Governance Measures (2017-18)9
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 201718 school year (see Exhibit 37).

Exhibit 37 SCSC Comprehensive Performance Framework Results for Governance, 2017-18

CPF Governance Performance Indicators

Available Points Points Earned

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

5

5

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

5

5

Governance Training The school ensures that all governing board

5

5

members participate in required trainings.

Holding Management Accountable The school has adequate

5

5

oversight of school management and contractors, including

implementation of the Teacher and Leader Keys Effectiveness

Systems, monitoring employee performance, and enforcing

contractual provisions or terminating the contract of noncompliant

contractors.

Total Points
Source: State Charter Schools Commission report

20

20

9 We used 2017-18 school year results because SCSC will not report the 2018-19 school year CPF results until after publication.
39

Accountability
When contracting for education management services, the governing board is responsible for preserving its ability to exercise complete oversight of the school. This requires that agreements include provisions that enable the board to hold the company accountable for performance related to these services. It also requires that the board have the expertise and resources to assess the contractor's performance.
Based on our research of best practices for contracting with education management organizations, we compiled a list of provisions that are necessary for governing boards to hold management companies accountable for performance. For example, the agreement should outline the services the school receives in exchange for its fee and give the governing board authority to terminate the agreement if it is not in the best interest of the school. As shown in Exhibit 38, the agreement Cyber had in place during the 2018-19 school year contained some key provisions necessary for the board to hold contractors accountable for their performance; however, the agreement lacked performance criteria and extended beyond the school's charter term. A requirement for curriculum alignment with Georgia standards is not explicitly stated in the agreement; however, other contract provisions may require alignment.

Exhibit 38

Agreement for management & other services contain key provisions, 2018-19 school year

Financial

Key Contract Provisions

Complies with Best Practice?

Explanation

Defines the fee structure, including an explanation of

key components used in the calculation of the fee

Yes

amount

Outlines the services the school receives in exchange for its fee
Agreement Period Gives the board authority to terminate the agreement if it is not in the best interest of the school

Contractor is required to provide a detailed

Yes

monthly invoice for the educational

products and services delivered.

Yes

Does not renew automatically with a new charter term or continue for a specified time period into a new charter term10
Services
Requires the academic program implemented to align with Georgia's standards and allows for modifications to address changes in state standards

No Unknown

Agreement extends through June 2021, two years beyond the charter period, which covers July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2019.
Not explicitly stated but other provisions may require alignment with Georgia standards.

Oversight & Monitoring

Includes an effective contract monitoring system with clearly defined evaluation criteria, performance rewards, and penalties

No

Agreement gives Cyber responsibility for monitoring contractor's compliance with agreement; but does not clarify the criteria, rewards, or penalties.

Source: DOAA Analysis

10 The State Charter Schools Commission adopted a rule in January 2019 that prohibits state charter schools from entering multi-year contracts that extend beyond the length of their charter.
40

While contract provisions provide a mechanism for governing boards to hold companies accountable, contracting for the management services presents unique challenges for a part-time board. Staff independent of the contractor are necessary to sufficiently monitor a contractor providing a broad range of services. Prior to the 2018-19 school year, the board had virtually no staff independent of K12. However, school leadership was brought in-house during year, providing the board with individuals in the position to provide independent assessments of contractor performance.
Staffing and Teacher Qualifications
Both GaDOE and the Georgia Professional Standards Commission (GaPSC) have roles in assessing the qualifications of public school staff. GaDOE requires public school teachers to hold a teaching certificate and a clearance certificate issued by GaPSC. A clearance certificate is issued after completion of a criminal background check, while a teaching certificate has additional educational and testing requirements. All public school teachers--including those in charter schools--are required to have a clearance certificate. Charter schools are permitted to employ instructors without a teaching certificate. As shown in Exhibit 39, Cyber had 652 employees during the 2018-19 school year, 60 more than the previous year (a 10% increase). Of the staff, 536 were in certified positions11 and 116 in classified positions. Though the majority of certified staff are instructors, certain staff in leadership, special education, and student or instructional support roles have certification as well12. The increase in staffing reflects modifications to curriculum and instruction practices during the 2018-19 school year aimed at improving student achievement, including decreasing class sizes and removing administrative tasks from teachers by expanding support staff.
11 With limited exceptions, certified positions are occupied by individuals with state certification. Charter schools may employ those without a certificate. 12 While instructors are typically required to be certified, certification for other positions is not uniformly required.
41

Exhibit 39 Staffing Composition at Cyber Academy, 2017-18 and 2018-19 school years

Personnel Type (Total)
Superintendent or Assistant Superintendent
Principal or Assistant Principal Curriculum or Instructional
Manager/Supervisor Elementary Instructor Middle School Instructor Secondary Instructor Special Education Instructor Other Instructor Other Special Education Instructional Support Student Support Services Administration/IT

2017-18

Certified Classified

(510)

(82)

2 11

52

90

84

151

60

1

5

2

6

6

6

42

52

11

17

2018-19

Certified Classified

(536)

(116)

1

3

11

48 109 98 147 51

13

4

7

1

41

80

11

28

Note: Certain staff have multiple assignments that cross categories, therefore a staff member may be counted in more than one category. As a result, the sum of numbers within a column may exceed the column total. Source: GaDOE CPI data

Cyber does not require those in leadership positions, such as superintendents, principals and assistant principals, to hold Standard Professional Leadership (SRL) certification. Cyber had 15 staff in leadership positions in the 2018-19 school year. Of those, 12 were certified and three of those held a leadership certification.
School officials generally require teachers to be certified in Georgia, but the school's policy allows for exceptions for those with certification in another state or for those teaching electives. In 2018-19, the school reported to GaDOE that two instructors were teaching under a charter waiver certificate. One was certified but not in the subject taught and another did not submit paperwork for renewal in time to be reflected as certified in the GaDOE data.

As shown in Exhibit 40, GaDOE data shows that all of Cyber's instructors have a bachelor's degree or higher. Over half (61%) have a master's degree or higher.

42

Exhibit 40 Instructor education level, 2018-19 school year
Doctorate 1%
Education Specialist
10%
Bachelor's 39%
Master's 50%
Source: GaDOE CPI data
Though the teaching staff employed by Cyber increased by 7% between 2017-18 and 2018-19, the level of experience of the teaching body remained relatively constant (see Exhibit 41). Less than 15% of Cyber instructors had under five years of experience and 25% had more than 15 years of experience in the 2018-19 school year. The average teaching experience across instructors was 12 years.
Exhibit 41 Majority of instructors have between 6-15 years of experience, 2017-18 and 201819 school years
2017-18 2018-19 62% 61%

13% 14%
0-5 years Source: GaDOE CPI data

23% 22%

6-15 years

16-24 years

2% 3% 25+ years

43

Development Plans for Leadership without Certification
Cyber does not require those in leadership positions, such as superintendents, principals and assistant principals, to obtain state certification. Of the 15 staff in leadership positions at Cyber in the 2018-19 school year, twelve were certified employees and three had Standard Professional Leadership (SRL) certification specifically. According to Cyber officials, professional development opportunities are provided to staff in leadership positions; however, the school does not have a specific professional development plan tailored to leaders who do not hold an administrative license. Training opportunities are available to all staff in a variety of configurations: districtwide, subject-specific, grade-band specific, as well individualized training and mentoring. Cyber schedules district leadership professional development and asks that those in leadership positions attend state-mandated and recommended trainings and conferences. Cyber officials state that training offered to all staff is needs-based and data driven.
44

Operations & Planning
Charter schools can use their funding to implement innovative or unique programs that are not typically available in traditional public schools. This section discusses Georgia Cyber Academy's funding, innovative practices, and future plans. Key points in this section include:
Cyber received 92% of its funding from state funds, which is approximately 40 percentage points higher than the state average. Like all state charter schools, Cyber does not receive any local funds.
Compared to the state average, Cyber spent a higher percentage of funds on instruction and general administration. Cyber spent a lower percentage of funds in school administration, staff services, and pupil services.
Cyber's per student full-time equivalent (FTE) expenditure of $6,755 is approximately 66% of the statewide average. Additionally, when comparing Cyber's per-student expenditures and test scores, GOSA rates the school a 3.5. That is higher than 60% of the state's schools.
Cyber identified innovative methods that it uses to provide additional support to low achieving students, provide flexibility to advanced learners, and ensure teachers receive instructional support. Additionally, a Family and Academy Support team has been created to assist with integration into Cyber's virtual environment, monitor student progress, and intervene if students are getting off-track.
Cyber reported future plans to expand on organizational development efforts already underway since discontinuation of services from its education management organization. The school will invite increased participation of programmatic area directors in guiding programmatic changes. Additionally, Cyber intends to increase staffing for instruction and support services, lower class sizes, promote teacher retention, and make improvements to its gifted screening process.
45

School Finances
During the 2017, 2018, and 2019 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 SCSCchartered schools are not eligible for local funds. Virtual charter schools received two-thirds of the supplemental funding provided to brick-and-mortar schools, did not receive capital funding until fiscal year 2019, and generally received no transportation or nutrition funding.13

Cyber's annual financial reports show that revenue increased from $90 million in fiscal year 2018 to $94 million in fiscal year 2019 (see Exhibit 42). 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 provides 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.14 These adjustments are made to result in expenditures exactly equal to revenue.

Exhibit 42

Cyber's Revenue and Expenditures, Fiscal Years 2017 - 2019

Description

Fiscal Year

Revenue

2017

2018

2019

State

$78,316,134 $82,728,184 $86,437,251

Federal

$6,648,407 $7,166,871 $7,573,721

Other Income

$17,332

$18,464

$53,013

Local

$0

$0

$0

Total Revenue

$84,981,873 $89,913,519 $94,063,985

Expenditures

Instruction

$62,496,763 $71,582,812 $70,859,097

School Administration

$14,151,631 $11,412,682 $15,901,532

Pupil Services Improvement of Instructional Services General Administration

$4,427,746 $271,507 N/A

$5,557,166 $443,224 $370,644

$5,250,903 $595,851 $501,904

Operation of School

$945,215

$337,196

$348,065

Support Services Business

N/A

$209,795

$606,633

Total Expenditures

$82,292,862 $89,913,519 $94,063,985

Revenues Less Expenditures $2,689,011

$0

$0

Percent Change 2018-19 4% 6% 187% N/A 5%
(1%) 39% (6%)
34%
35% 3%
189% 5% 0%

Source: Georgia Cyber Academy, Inc. audited financial statements

13 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. 14 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.
46

We used GaDOE's fiscal year 2019 revenue and expenditure reports to compare Cyber's revenue and spending patterns to other public schools.15 As shown in Exhibit 43, Cyber relies on state funding much 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.
Exhibit 43 State funds are nearly twice the revenue source for Cyber than the statewide average, Fiscal Year 2019

State

92% 53%

Federal

8% 6%

Local 0%

41%

Cyber Statewide
Source: Statewide GaDOE financial report and DE46 financials
As shown in Exhibit 44, Cyber reported spending a higher proportion of funds on instruction and general administration than the state average. However, it reported spending very little on school administration and staff services, and no expenditures on maintenance and operations, pupil services, and transportation. These category totals look significantly different than Exhibit 42 because, according to Cyber officials, the school's vendor categorizes expenditures differently than GaDOE. Certain expenditures classified as "pupil services" by K12 (as shown in Exhibit 42) are classified as "instruction" using GaDOE methods (as shown in Exhibit 44).

15 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.
47

Exhibit 44 Cyber spent more on instruction, general administration and less on all other categories than the statewide average, Fiscal Year 2019

Instruction

General Administration

11% 5%

School Administration

2% 7%

Staff Services

1% 5%

Maintenance & Operations

0% 6%

Pupil Services

0% 5%

Transportation

0% 8%

86% 65%

Cyber Statewide
Source: Statewide GaDOE financial report and DE46 financials
Cyber's expenditures per FTE were significantly lower than the statewide average. As shown in Exhibit 45, Cyber spent $6,755 per FTE in the 2018-19 school year. This was approximately 66% of the statewide average of $10,237.
Exhibit 45 Per-pupil expenditures at Cyber are approximately 66% of per-pupil expenditures statewide, Fiscal Year 2019
$10,237

$6,755

Cyber Source: Statewide GaDOE financial report

Statewide
48

Academic Performance as a Ratio of Per-Student Expenditures (201718 Results)16
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 2017-18 FESR 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.
Cyber received 3.5 stars as part of GOSA's 2017-18 FESR. More than 1,200 schools (60%) received a lower rating, and 334 other schools (15%) received the same rating as Cyber.
Innovative Practices
Charter schools operate with freedom from certain regulations applied to traditional public schools. This freedom can allow the charter schools to adopt innovative practices or new approaches that may lead to better student outcomes. Innovation can be implemented in various areas of education, including instruction, governance and accountability. While student outcomes are generally the ultimate goal of innovative practices, intermediate goals may include increasing the learning opportunities for students or adopting the use of creative teaching methods.
Examples of Goals for Innovation in Charter Schools
1. Increase learning opportunities for all students 2. Encourage the use of different and innovative teaching methods 3. Create different innovative forms of measuring outcomes 4. Establish new forms of school accountability 5. Create new professional opportunities for teachers
Source: Minnesota Association of Charter Schools
Cyber has incorporated a variety of practices intended to improve academic outcomes for students of all levels and flexibility for advanced learners. Cyber uses individual and small group learner conferences to provide additional academic support to students. For students performing below standards, the school has added educational interventions such as an engagement policy requiring these students to attend all live class sessions. Cyber also has the capability to provide cross-curricular support for students based on assessment data (e.g. targeted math support to promote achievement in economics). Finally, Cyber uses video-monitoring of students during testing and assessment to promote data validity (i.e., it is the student of record taking the test, no prohibited resources or tools are used, etc.).
16 We used the 2017-18 FESR because GOSA will not report the 2018-19 results until after this report is published.
49

Systemic supports have also been put in place to improve student outcomes. Cyber has created a Family and Academic Support Team that meets with each family prior to the start of school and then monitors student progress. The team intervenes if students are getting off-track. In addition, instructional coaches are used to mentor, support, and guide teachers in improving their instruction.
Future Goals and Plans
Cyber intends to expand organizational development efforts already underway in light of its transfer of staff and decision-making from K12. A new head of school was put in place in 2018-19 and has since led a restructuring of the organization. Additionally, the school has made changes in its attendance and engagement policies and created mechanisms to promote transparency and accountability in its operations. For example, a Family Compliance Team and Academic Review Boards now exist that work together to ensure compliance and fidelity to board and school policies. Cyber officials indicate organizational changes will continue in 2019-20 with directors becoming responsible for increasing student results within their supervisory areas. The Head of School's vision for the future includes: 1) increasing staff for instruction, support services, and counseling, 2) lowering class sizes, and 3) promoting teacher retention by increasing staff salaries and paying for teachers to pursue endorsements and certifications. Cyber also intends to evaluate and refine the new curriculum introduced in 2018-19, make improvements in the gifted screening process, and create increased academic opportunities for students at all levels regardless of career goals.
50

APPENDIX A Georgia Cyber Academy's Educational Products and Services Agreement
Effective July 1, 2014 Contract Amendments: First Amendment: Effective April 20, 2016 Second Amendment: Effective September 29, 2016 Third Amendment: Effective August 25, 2017 Fourth Amendment: Effective January 4, 2019
51

0123456797
1 0009

6789
9

012345

3

The Performance Audit Division was established in 1971 to conduct in-depth reviews of state-funded programs. Our reviews determine if programs are meeting goals and objectives; measure program results and effectiveness; identify alternate methods to meet goals; evaluate efficiency of resource allocation; assess compliance with laws and regulations; and provide credible management information to decision makers. For more information, contact
us at (404)656-2180 or visit our website at www.audits.ga.gov.