1. Fall 2017 Policy Committee Updates

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

3. 6A-5.066 Rule Development Workshop: 09/29/17
Scheduled to be brought before State Board of Education: 11/28/17
Input to:
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

4. 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

5. 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.

6. 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

7. 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
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

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

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

14. FTCE – GKT ELS Subtest

15. FTCE – GKT Essay Subtest

16. FTCE – GKT Math Subtest

17. FTCE – GKT Reading Subtest

18. FTCE – Elem Ed SAE

19. FTCE – Elem Ed SAE

20. FTCE – Elem Ed SAE

21. FTCE – Elem Ed SAE

22. 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.