Fall 2017 Policy Committee Updates

Agenda 6A-5.006 Rule Development FTCE Process APPR Site Visit Continuous Improvement Plan Continued Approval Summative Score FTCE Updates Data request Committee collaboration

6A-5.066 Rule Development Workshop: 09/29/17 Scheduled to be brought before State Board of Education: 11/28/17 Input to: https://app1.fldoe.org/rules/Default.aspx Stakeholder Committee: Gina Almerico, University of Tampa Amy Guerette, Florida State University Gloria Pelaez, St. Thomas University Amy Ringue, Daytona State University Darran Town, University of South Florida

6A-5.066 Rule Development Annual Program Performance Reports Aggregated program reporting will include sciences and span school levels (e.g., biology, chemistry, earth/space, middle grades general, and physics will be treated as one program for APPR metrics). Provider shall have 30 (was 45) business days from the date the Department transmitted the APPR data to review the data on its program completers and summative rating scores, and provide documentation supporting an error or omission. Metrics are not being opened for changes at this time

6A-5.066 Rule Development Continued Approval Site Visit Only largest state-approved program will be observed (elementary education in nearly all institutions). If an institution has ITP and EPI, both will be observed. At least 6 months prior, notification of visit will be provided. At least 2 months prior, self-assessment of strengths, areas for improvement and programmatic improvement efforts must be submitted. No peer review included in rule.

6A-5.066 Rule Development Continued Approval Site Visit (continued) The site visit shall review the Quality of: Selection Content Knowledge and Teaching Methods Clinical Placement, Feedback and Candidate Performance Program Performance Management Florida Site Visit Framework, Form FSVF-2017 Not yet available October 11th Workshop will present and discuss

6A-5.066 Rule Development Continued Approval Site Visit (continued) No more than a month after visit will receive scores for each area. Rating nomenclature being discussed, e.g., Department is seeking feedback https://app1.fldoe.org/rules/Default.aspx Rank Current Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 1 Inadequate Poor Weak Needs Development 2 Needs Improvement Weakness Fair Limited Somewhat Effective 3 Good Effective 4 Strong Excellent Role Model

6A-5.066 Rule Development Continuous Improvement Plan Any areas with a score less than 4 must submit a Plan within 21 days containing: improvement goals addressing areas cited strategies for achieving these goals, and qualitative or quantitative evidence measuring progress towards these goals. Evidence of progress is due June 1st for fall visits or December 1st for spring visits. Rated 4 for evidence of improvement or 1 for no evidence.

6A-5.066 Rule Development Continued Approval Summative Score (CASS) Three elements: APPR (50%) averaged across all programs and weighted by number of completers Site Visit (30%) averaged across all four quality areas Evidence of Improvement (20%) evidence or no evidence Approval Rating Full Approval with Distinction: above 3.5 Full Approval: 2.4 to 3.5 Denial of Approval: below 2.4. A program [read: institution] that receives a denial of approval rating may reapply for initial approval.

6A-5.066 Rule Development Continued Approval Summative Score (CASS) Estimated Impact* *based on 2013, 2014, and 2015 APPR data and all evidenced improvement ratings = 4.0   Site Visit Score Institution 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 Institution 01 2.63 2.78 2.93 3.08 3.23 3.38 3.53 Institution 02 2.30 2.45 2.60 2.75 2.90 3.05 3.20 Institution 03 2.23 2.38 2.53 2.68 2.83 2.98 3.13 Institution 04 2.39 2.54 2.69 2.84 2.99 3.14 3.29 Institution 05 1.60 1.75 1.90 2.05 2.20 2.35 2.50 Institution 06 Institution 07 3.28 3.43 3.58 Institution 08 2.52 2.67 2.82 2.97 3.12 3.27 3.42 Institution 09 2.32 2.47 2.62 2.77 2.92 3.07 3.22 Institution 10 2.59 2.74 2.89 3.04 3.19 3.34 3.49 Institution 11 1.82 1.97 2.12 2.27 2.42 2.57 2.72 Institution 12 2.44 Institution 13 3.57 Institution 14 2.13 2.28 2.43 2.58 2.73 2.88 3.03 Institution 15 2.36 2.51 2.66 2.81 2.96 3.11 3.26 Institution 16 2.29 Institution 17 2.18 2.33 2.48 Institution 18 2.24 Institution 19 Institution 20 3.37 3.52 Institution 21 2.56 2.71 2.86 3.01 3.16 3.31 3.46   Site Visit Score Institution 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 Institution 22 2.25 2.40 2.55 2.70 2.85 3.00 3.15 Institution 23 2.30 2.45 2.60 2.75 2.90 3.05 3.20 Institution 24 2.63 2.78 2.93 3.08 3.23 3.38 3.53 Institution 25 2.36 2.51 2.66 2.81 2.96 3.11 3.26 Institution 26 3.35 3.50 3.65 Institution 27 2.44 2.59 2.74 2.89 3.04 3.19 3.34 Institution 28 Institution 29 1.60 1.75 1.90 2.05 2.20 2.35 2.50 Institution 30 2.52 2.67 2.82 2.97 3.12 3.27 3.42 Institution 31 Institution 32 2.04 2.19 2.34 2.49 2.64 2.79 2.94 Institution 33 3.09 3.24 3.39 3.54 Institution 34 2.39 2.54 2.69 2.84 2.99 3.14 3.29 Institution 35 2.77 2.92 3.07 3.22 3.37 3.52 3.67 Institution 36 Institution 37 2.37 Institution 38 2.33 2.48 Institution 39 2.43 2.58 2.73 2.88 3.03 3.18 3.33 Institution 40 2.12 2.27 2.42 2.57 2.72 2.87 3.02 Institution 41 3.44 All Institutions

6A-5.066 Rule Development Activity Input/Feedback for Revised Rule Form Groups APPR Site Visit Continuous Improvement Plan Continued Approval Summative Score Share Out You needn’t limit feedback to revised sections

6A-5.066 Rule Development Discussion Institutional approval or program approval? APPR metrics revision Treatment of missing data Placement and retention verification Student performance (VAM) attached to subject but not level (e.g., elementary program completer teaching secondary math has math VAM attached to elementary program preparation) Impact of an unsatisfactory teacher evaluation

FTCE Update Results Analyzer this fall: greater detail in requested reports!

FTCE – GKT ELS Subtest

FTCE – GKT Essay Subtest

FTCE – GKT Math Subtest

FTCE – GKT Reading Subtest

FTCE – Elem Ed SAE

FTCE – Elem Ed SAE

FTCE – Elem Ed SAE

FTCE – Elem Ed SAE

FTCE – Inter-committee Efforts GKT Study Cost to candidates, factoring in how many times they have to take the exams to pass (testing costs) as well as how many fail to gain/continue employment based upon non-completion rates in programs due to failure to pass all required exams (salary loss), Relationship between test performance and measures of success in preparation programs (e.g., completion rates, GPA, etc.) and as practicing teachers (e.g., VAM, evaluations, etc.), Delay to timely graduation and impact on performance based funding metrics, and Extent to which declines in enrollment and/or excess credit hour charges are linked to delayed admissions/completion due to GKT retakes.