This docum ent does not reflect the intent or official position of the bill sponsor or House of Representatives.
STORAGE NAME: h1193d.EEC
DATE: 2/21/2022
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STAFF ANALYSIS
BILL #: CS/HB 1193 K-12 Assessments and Accountability
SPONSOR(S): Early Learning & Elementary Education Subcommittee, Plasencia and others
TIED BILLS: None IDEN./SIM. BILLS: CS/HB 1048
REFERENCE ACTION ANALYST STAFF DIRECTOR or
BUDGET/POLICY CHIEF
1) Early Learning & Elementary Education
Subcommittee
12 Y, 4 N, As CS Wolff Brink
2) PreK-12 Appropriations Subcommittee 15 Y, 0 N Bailey Potvin
3) Education & Employment Committee Wolff Hassell
SUMMARY ANALYSIS
In 2021, the Legislature passed HB 7011 which requires the Department of Education to implement a
statewide English language arts (ELA) and mathematics progress monitoring system for students in Voluntary
Prekindergarten (VPK) through grade 8. The bill enhances the VPK through grade 8 progress monitoring
system by expanding it to cover ELA in grades 9 and 10 and replacing the statewide, standardized ELA and
mathematics assessments with the end-of-year administration of the progress monitoring system (PM system).
The bill improves communication with parents regarding their student’s performance by requiring that district
assessment data be provided within 1 week of test administration; requiring that statewide assessment data be
provided to parents in an individual student report; and, beginning with the 2023-2024 school year, moving the
deadline for providing ELA and mathematics assessment results from June 30 to May 31. The bill requires that
individual student reports be provided electronically and contain resources to support informed parent
involvement.
The bill provides for the transition to the new PM system by holding schools harmless for the 2022-2023 school
year. Once learning gains can be calculated following the 2023-2024 school year, the State Board of Education
(SBE) must evaluate the school grading scale to determine if the scale should be adjusted.
The bill requires the SBE to annually review the school grading scale and to adjust the grading scale for a
school type (i.e. elementary, middle, high, or combination) when more than 75 percent of schools of that type
receive a grade of “A” or “B” for a given year. The first adjustment would occur no earlier than the 2023-2024
school year.
Additionally, the bill updates Florida’s school improvement system. The bill codifies the existing requirement
that a school implement intervention and support strategies upon initially receiving a grade of “D” and allows a
school to submit a turnaround plan prior to earning a second consecutive grade of “D.” The bill provides school
districts flexibility in implementing an external operator turnaround plan. However, the bill limits the turnaround
options for a school that earns a grade below a “C” within 2 years of exiting turnaround status.
The bill requires the Commissioner of Education, based on a third-party review, to report on and make
recommendations related to the implementation of the PM system by January 31, 2025.
The bill does not appear to have a fiscal impact. See Fiscal Comments.
The bill has an effective date of July 1, 2022. STORAGE NAME: h1193d.EEC PAGE: 2
DATE: 2/21/2022
FULL ANALYSIS
I. SUBSTANTIVE ANALYSIS
A. EFFECT OF PROPOSED CHANGES:
Present Situation
Florida’s Statewide Public School Accountability System
Background
School accountability generally refers to the actions taken by states and school districts to improve
academic outcomes for all students by measuring and providing public information on student success
and school and educator quality. Florida’s K-12 Accountability System was created to provide for a
uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality system of free public schools that allows students to
obtain a high-quality education in accordance with s. 1, Art. IX of the Florida Constitution.
1
Federal Requirements
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was signed into law in 1965
2
and was
reauthorized by the No Child Left behind (NCLB) act in 2002 and the Every Student Succeeds Act
(ESSA) in 2015.
3
The ESSA, like its predecessors NCLB and ESEA, aims to improve elementary and secondary
education in public schools by conditioning the receipt of federal funds on the implementation of federal
requirements. In order to receive Title I funds under ESSA, states must implement a statewide
accountability system for K-12 public schools. ESSA also offers competitive and noncompetitive grant
funds for teacher and school leader development, family engagement, student support, weighted per-
pupil funding, and the development of innovative student progression systems and assessment
formats.
4
The ESSA requires each state receiving Title I funds to submit a plan that includes:
challenging academic standards for reading or English language arts (ELA) and mathematics;
5
high quality assessments in ELA, mathematics, and science;
6
long-term goals for all students and student subgroups
7
in the state, including measurements of
interim progress toward meeting the goals;
8
multiple indicators of student success and school quality,
9
including:
o academic achievement as measured by statewide assessments in ELA and mathematics;
o a 4-year graduation rate for high schools;
o for elementary and middle schools, student growth or another academic indicator;
o progress of English learners
10
(EL) toward English proficiency; and
o an additional indicator of school quality or student success;
1
See s. 1008.345(1), F.S. The Commissioner of Education is responsible for implementing and maintaining a system of intensive
school improvement and stringent education accountability. See id.
2
Pub. L. No. 89-10 (April 11, 1965).
3
U.S. Department of Education, Every Student Succeeds Act, https://www.ed.gov/essa?src=rn (last visited Feb. 21, 2022).
4
20 U.S.C. s. 6311(a)(1).
5
20 U.S.C. s. 6311(b)(1).
6
20 U.S.C. s. 6311(b)(2).
7
For purposes of statewide accountability systems, student subgroups include economically disadvantaged students, students from
major racial and ethnic groups, children with disabilities, and English learners. 20 U.S.C. s. 6311(c)(2).
8
20 U.S.C. s. 6311(c)(4)(A).
9
20 U.S.C. s. 6311(c)(4)(B).
10
An English learner is between 3 to 21 years old; is enrolled or preparing to enroll in an elementary or secondary school; was not
born in the U.S. or has a native language other than English; and has difficulties in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the
English language such that the student cannot meet the state’s academic standards, cannot achieve in a classroom with instruction in
English, or does not have the opportunity to participate fully in society. See 20 U.S.C. s. 7801(20). STORAGE NAME: h1193d.EEC PAGE: 3
DATE: 2/21/2022
annual meaningful differentiation (i.e., levels of performance) based on the system’s
indicators;
11
and
identification of schools, based on annual meaningful differentiation, that require comprehensive
support and improvement or targeted support and improvement for specific student
subgroups.
12
The ESSA also requires each state and each local school district to annually publish a report card that
provides information on student success, school quality, per-pupil funding, the progress of ELs toward
English language proficiency, and, for the state, progress toward its long-term goals.
13
The U.S. Department of Education approved Florida’s ESSA State Plan in 2018.
14
Overview of Florida’s Accountability system
Florida’s statewide accountability system, as amended by the Legislature in 2017,
15
comprises the
following:
Rigorous academic standards that establish what knowledge and skills students in kindergarten
through grade 12 need to learn.
16
Statewide, standardized assessments to measure student achievement of the standards in
specified subject areas and grade levels.
17
School and district grades based on student achievement of the standards and other indicators
of school and district quality as well as school improvement ratings based on student learning
growth.
18
School recognition funds that award schools for improving or achieving high levels of
performance.
19
Performance evaluation criteria for teachers and administrators based in part on student
achievement of the standards.
20
Public reporting of school, district, and teacher performance.
21
School improvement requirements to help struggling schools incorporate best practices and,
when needed, to fundamentally restructure schools that continue to fail.
22
Florida’s Academic Standards
Together, all of Florida’s academic standards compose the Next Generation Sunshine State Standards
(NGSSS), which establish the core content of the curricula to be taught and specify the core content
knowledge and skills that K-12 public school students are expected to acquire in ELA, science,
mathematics, social studies, visual and performing arts, physical education, health, and foreign
languages.
23
The SBE is responsible for adopting the NGSSS in rule based upon review and
recommendations by the Commissioner of Education (commissioner) in consultation with Florida
educators, school administrators, and state colleges and universities.
24
11
20 U.S.C. s. 6311(c)(4)(C).
12
20 U.S.C. s. 6311(c)(4)(D).
13
See 20 U.S.C. s. 6311(h)(1) and (2).
14
Florida Department of Education, Approval Letter from the U.S. Department of Education, (Sept. 26, 2018), available at
https://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/14196/urlt/ESSA-ApprovalLetter.pdf.
15
Chapter 2017-116, L.O.F.
16
Section 1003.41, F.S.; rule 6A-1.09401, F.A.C.
17
Section 1008.22(3), F.S.
18
Section 1008.34, F.S. Alternative schools may receive a school improvement rating pursuant to s. 1008.341, F.S. Exceptional
student education centers may receive a school improvement rating pursuant to s. 1008.3415, F.S.
19
Section 1008.36, F.S. Funding for School Recognition was vetoed in 2020 and was not included in the 2021 General Appropriations
Act. See Specific Appropriation 10, ch. 2020-111, L.O.F. (vetoed by the Governor) and Chapter 2021-36, L.O.F.
20
Section 1012.34, F.S.
21
See ss. 1001.42(18), 1002.20(16), 1008.22(12), 1008.341(1), and 1012.34(1)(c), F.S.
22
Section 1008.33, F.S.; rule 6A-1.099811, F.A.C.
23
Section 1003.41(1) and (2), F.S.
24
See s. 1003.41(3), F.S.; Rule 6A-1.09401, F.A.C. STORAGE NAME: h1193d.EEC PAGE: 4
DATE: 2/21/2022
The NGSSS must provide for the logical, sequential progression of core curricular content that
incrementally increases a student’s knowledge and skills over time.
25
Accordingly, the standards must
include distinct grade-level expectations as follows:
Subject Areas Organization of Grade-Level Expectations
ELA
Science
Mathematics
Social Studies
Grade-by-grade expectations for each individual
K-8 grade level; standards for grades 9-12 may
be organized by grade clusters of more than one
grade level, e.g., courses such as Algebra I or
U.S. History
26
Visual and Performing Arts
Physical Education
Health Education
Foreign Languages
Grade-by-grade expectations for each individual
K-5 grade level; standards for grades 6-12 may
be organized by grade clusters of more than one
grade level, e.g., courses such as Latin I,
Physical Education
27
Florida first established minimum student performance expectations and standards in 1977.
28
In 1996,
the SBE adopted the Sunshine State Standards, predecessors to the NGSSS, based on the goals
established under Blueprint 2000.
29
Adoption and integration of the NGSSS began in 2008 and
included the adoption of Common Core standards for ELA and mathematics in 2010.
30
Amidst concerns
over federal involvement in the selection and implementation of the standards and statewide,
standardized assessments, Governor Rick Scott signed Executive Order No. 13-276 (2013),
establishing the Florida Plan for Education Accountability.
31
As a result of the executive order and
subsequent statewide public input,
32
the SBE amended the ELA and mathematics standards, now
called the “Florida Standards,”
33
and
the commissioner selected new statewide, standardized ELA and
mathematics assessments aligned to the standards.
34
On January 31, 2019, Governor Ron DeSantis issued an executive order directing the commissioner to
comprehensively review and collect public input on Florida’s academic standards for kindergarten
25
Section 1003.41(1), F.S.
26
Id.
27
Section 1003.41(2)(e), F.S.
28
See Florida Department of Education, Florida’s Adoption of State Standards Background, at 2 (2013), available at
http://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/5390/urlt/0081025-floridasadoptionofstatestandards.ppt.
29
See Florida Department of Education, FCAT Handbook, at 9 (2005), available at
http://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/7478/urlt/background.pdf.
30
See rule 6A-1.09401, F.A.C. For a progression of changes to Florida’s academic standards since 1999, see Florida Department of
State, Rule Title: Student Performance Standards,
https://www.flrules.org/gateway/RuleNo.asp?title=FINANCE%20A ND%20ADMINISTRATION&ID=6A-1.09401 (last visited Feb.
21, 2022) (providing a sequence of links to proposed and adopted amendments to rule 6A-1.09401, F.A.C.).
31
Office of the Governor, Executive Order13-276: Florida Plan for Educational Accountability, (September 23, 2013), available at
https://www.flgov.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/EO-13-276.pdf. The order directed the commissioner to take certain actions with
respect to four aspects of the education system in Florida: procurement of the next statewide, standardized assessments; student data
security; the school accountability system; and teacher evaluations.
32
Curva & Associates, LLC, Analysis of the Florida Common Core Standards Public Input Period, (Dec. 2013), available at
http://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/5390/urlt/0081021-floridastandardspublicreview.pdf (summarizing public comments and
recommendations concerning changes to Florida’s ELA and math standards).
33
See rule 6A-1.09401(1)(l) and (m), F.A.C. See also Florida State Board of Education, Minutes for February 18, 2014 State Board of
Education Meeting, available at http://fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/5444/urlt/0074998-minutes.pdf.
34
Florida Department of Education Press Office, With Students as Top Priority, Florida Chooses Replacement for FCAT, Press
Release (Mar. 17, 2014), available at http://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/5390/urlt/0081008-floridachoosesreplacementfcat.pdf. STORAGE NAME: h1193d.EEC PAGE: 5
DATE: 2/21/2022
through grade 12 students and provide recommended revisions to the Governor by January 1, 2020.
35
The commissioner’s recommendations included replacing the Florida Standards for ELA and
mathematics with the Benchmarks for Excellent Student Thinking (B.E.S.T.) Standards.
36
On February
12, 2020, the SBE adopted the B.E.S.T. Standards in rule.
37
Implementation of the ELA standards
began with the 2021-2022 school year, and implementation of the mathematics standards will begin
with the 2022-2023 school year.
38
On July 14, 2021, the SBE adopted updated standards for B.E.S.T.
ELA, social studies, and health education as well as Access Points
39
for the B.E.S.T. ELA and
mathematics standards.
40
Florida’s Statewide Student Assessment Program
Federal Requirements
The ESSA provides flexibility in state accountability systems, but maintains the assessment
requirements of NCLB. Under ESSA, states receiving Title I funding are still required to administer the
mathematics and reading or ELA assessments annually to students in grades 3 through 8 and once in
high school.
41
In addition, states are required to measure student proficiency in science at least once in
grades 3 through 5; grades 6 through 9; and grades 10 through 12.
42
However, ESSA amended NCLB
to allow for a state or a consortia of states to use multiple statewide interim assessments
43
that result in
a single summative score,
44
or a state can use a single summative assessment.
45
In addition, ESSA
amended NCLB to allow states to administer computer adaptive assessments for the purposes of
meeting federal requirements.
46
Florida Standards Assessment and the Next Generation Sunshine State Standards Assessment
The primary purpose of the student assessment program is to provide student academic achievement
and learning gains data to students, parents, teachers, school administrators, and school district staff.
47
The Florida Standards Assessments (FSA) and NGSSS assessments measure student achievement of
the standards contained in the Florida Standards and the NGSSS, respectively. Florida’s educational
standards were developed with the goal of providing all students with an education based on high
expectations. The statewide assessments program also provides feedback and accountability
indicators to Florida educators, policy makers, students, and other citizens.
48
35
Office of the Governor, Executive Order 19-32: Commitment to Eliminating Common Core, Ensuring High-Quality Academic
Standards and Raising the Bar for Civic Literacy, (January 31, 2019), available at https://www.flgov.com/wp-
content/uploads/orders/2019/EO_19-32.pdf.
36
Florida Department of Education, February 12, 2020 – Meeting Agenda, http://www.fldoe.org/policy/state-board-of-
edu/meetings/2020/2020-02-12 (last visited Feb. 21, 2022). See rule 6A-1.09401, F.A.C.
37
Id.
38
Florida Department of Education, Adoption and Implementation Memo to School Districts, (February 13, 2020),
https://info.fldoe.org/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-8838/dps-2020-26.pdf.
39
Beginning in 2006, access points became the means through which students with a significant cognitive disability have accessed the
general education content found in the NGSSS. Access points were developed for all standards with three complexity levels that
represented a continuum of understanding (participatory, supported and independent). Courses containing these standards, also known
as access courses, were developed to support access for all students to the general education standards. Florida Department of
Education, Access Points to Next Generation Sunshine State Standards (Florida Standards) – Mathematics 2014, at 2, (Spring 2014),
available at https://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/5444/urlt/0074988-math.pdf.
40
Florida Department of Education, July 14, 2021 – Meeting Agenda, https://www.fldoe.org/policy/state-board-of-
edu/meetings/2021/2021-07-14/ (last visited Feb. 21, 2022).
41
34 C.F.R. s. 200.5(a)(1)(i).
42
34 C.F.R. s. 200.5(a)(1)(ii).
43
An interim assessment is used to evaluate students’ knowledge and skills relative to a specific set of academic goals.
44
34 C.F.R. s. 200.2(b)(10)(i)-(ii).
45
A summative assessment is generally administered once, typically at the end of the school year to evaluate performance against a set
of content standards.
46
34 C.F.R. s. 200.2(c)(1).
47
Section 1008.22(1), F.S.
48
Florida Department of Education, Florida Statewide Assessments: Statewide Assessments Guide 2020-2021, at 1 (2021), available at
https://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/5663/urlt/swapig.pdf. STORAGE NAME: h1193d.EEC PAGE: 6
DATE: 2/21/2022
The commissioner is required to design and implement a statewide standardized assessment program
aligned to the core curricular content established in the NGSSS.
49
The statewide standardized
assessment program for students in grades 3 through 10 is as follows:
50
Florida Standards Assessments:
o ELA: grades 3-10.
51
o Mathematics: grades 3–8.
o End-of-Course (EOC) assessments for students who are enrolled in the corresponding
course:
Algebra 1.
52
Geometry.
NGSSS Assessments:
o Grade 5 and grade 8 science.
o EOC assessments for students who are enrolled in the corresponding courses:
Biology I.
United States History.
Civics.
Standardized Test Administration and Testing Schedule
The ELA and mathematics FSA for grades 3 through 6 is currently administered in a paper-based
format.
53
Statewide EOC assessments,
54
the grade 7 and 8 mathematics FSA, and grades 7 through 10
ELA FSA are administered in a computer-based format.
55
The grade 3 ELA FSA and the writing portion of the ELA FSA must be administered no earlier than
April 1 each year.
56
The spring administration of the ELA FSA in grades 4 through 10, mathematics
FSA in grades 3 through 8, and EOC assessments must be administered no earlier than May 1 of each
year.
57
The commissioner is required to establish schedules for the administration of statewide,
standardized assessments and the reporting of student assessment results.
58
The 2021-2022 school
year FSA and EOC administration schedule is below.
59
49
Section 1008.22(3), F.S.
50
Section 1008.22(3)(a) and (b), F.S.
51
Section 1008.22(3)(a), F.S. provides for Grade 10 ELA retakes for students who have not achieved the passing score needed for
graduation requirements. Students can earn a concordant score on an ACT or SAT to satisfy the graduation requirement. Section
1008.22(9), F.S.
52
Required for high school graduation under s. 1003.4282(3)(b), F.S. Students can earn a comparative score on an assessment
identified by the Commissioner of Education. Section 1008.22 (10), F.S.
53
Section 1008.22(3)(a), F.S.
54
Section 1008.22(3)(b)5., F.S.
55
Florida Department of Education, Florida Statewide Assessments: Statewide Assessments Guide 2020-2021, at 35 (2021), available
at https://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/5663/urlt/swapig.pdf.
56
Section 1008.22(7)(c)1. F.S. The test administration window can’t exceed 2 weeks.
57
Section 1008.22(7)(c)2.-3., F.S. The test administration window for paper-based assessments may not exceed 2 weeks. The test
administration for computer-based assessments may not exceed 4 weeks.
58
Section 1008.22(7)(a), F.S.
59
Florida Department of Education, Florida Statewide Assessment Program 2021-22 Schedule,
https://info.fldoe.org/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-8789/dps-2019-197a.pdf (last visited Feb. 21, 2022). STORAGE NAME: h1193d.EEC PAGE: 7
DATE: 2/21/2022
The commissioner must also publish on the Department of Education’s (DOE) website a uniform testing
calendar that is provided to school districts,
60
so that school districts can populate the calendar with the
state- and district-required assessments.
61
School districts are required to publish the uniform testing
calendar on their website each school year.
62
A school district may not schedule more than 5 percent of
a student’s total school hours in a school year to administer statewide, standardized assessments and
district-required local assessments.
63
Reporting of Results and Achievement Levels
Results for the FSA and EOC assessments must be made available no later than June 30, except for
the results for the grade 3 ELA FSA, which must be available no later than May 31.
64
The results for the
FSA and EOC assessments must be reported in an easy-to-read and understandable format and
delivered in time to provide useful, actionable information to students, parents, and each student’s
current teacher of record and teacher of record for the subsequent school year. The school district must
provide the assessment results within 1 week after receiving the results from the DOE.
65
All statewide, standardized EOC assessments and ELA, mathematics, and science assessments must
use scaled scores and achievement levels.
66
Achievement levels range from 1 through 5, with level 1
being the lowest achievement level, level 5 being the highest achievement level, and level 3 indicating
60
Section 1008.22(7)(b), F.S.
61
Section 1008.22(7)(d), F.S.
62
Id.
63
Section 1008.22(7)(e), F.S.
64
Section 1008.22(7)(a), F.S.
65
Section 1008.22(7)(h), F.S.
66
Section 1008.22(3)(e)1., F.S. STORAGE NAME: h1193d.EEC PAGE: 8
DATE: 2/21/2022
satisfactory performance on an assessment.
67
Passing scores for each statewide, standardized
assessment are designated by the SBE in rule.
68
If the commissioner seeks to modify performance
level scores on a statewide, standardized assessment, the commissioner must provide a copy of the
proposed scores and implementation plan to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President of the Senate at least 90 days before submission to the SBE for review.
69
Student Progress Monitoring in Florida
Progress monitoring tools (PM tool) are types of formative assessments that allow teachers to
continuously evaluate student learning and monitor the effectiveness of their instruction.
70
PM tools
assist in the selection of appropriate interventions, and can help inform supports for student with
disabilities.
71
Voluntary Prekindergarten through Grade 8 Progress Monitoring Tool
Children who enrolled in a private or public Voluntary Prekindergarten Program (VPK), for the 2021-
2022 program year and prior years, are assessed with the Florida VPK assessment.
72
The Florida VPK
assessment is a PM tool, aligned with the Early Learning and Developmental standards: 4 Years old to
Kindergarten, that measures a child’s abilities in print knowledge, phonological awareness,
mathematics, and oral language/vocabulary.
73
The Florida VPK assessment includes a pre- and post-
assessment:
74
The Pre-assessment or Assessment Period 1 is administered within the first thirty calendar days
of the VPK class schedule.
The Post-assessment or Assessment Period 3 is administered within the last thirty calendar
days of the VPK class schedule.
Students who enrolled in kindergarten in a public school for the 2021-2022 school year, and prior
school years, were assessed with the Florida Kindergarten Readiness Screener within the first 30
school days of the school year.
75
The Florida Kindergarten Readiness Screener is a computer adaptive
assessment, which is completed by students in less than 20 minutes and measures student proficiency
in three broad domains:
76
Word knowledge and skills.
Comprehension strategies and constructing meaning.
Numbers and operations.
There is no federal requirement for states to administer assessments in kindergarten through grade 2.
As of 2019, Florida was one of 12 states that did not offer a statewide kindergarten through grade 2
assessment system or a list of approved kindergarten through grade 2 assessment systems for school
districts.
77
In 2021, the Legislature created a new statewide VPK through grade 8 coordinated
screening and progress monitoring program that includes grades kindergarten through grade 2.
78
67
Id.
68
Section 1008.22(3)(e)2., F.S.
69
Section 1008.22(3)(e)3., F.S.
70
The Iris Center, Peabody College Vanderbilt University, How can teachers systematically identify when to adjust instruction for
struggling students?, https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/pmr/cresource/q1/p02/ (last visited Feb. 21, 2022).
71
Wrightslaw, Progress Monitoring, (Oct. 13, 2014), https://www.wrightslaw.com/info/progress.index.htm (last visited Feb. 21,
2022).
72
Rule 6A-1.09433, F.A.C.
73
Office of Early Learning, About Assessments in VPK and Kindergarten Screening, http://www.floridaearlylearning.com/vpk/vpk-
providers/assessments-flkrs (last visited Feb. 21, 2022).
74
Rule 6M-8.620, F.A.C.
75
Section 1002.68(3)(a), F.S.
76
Florida Department of Education, Assessment for reading, language and vocabulary, and numeracy, (2020), available at
https://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/18494/urlt/StarEarlyLiteracy.pdf.
77
Council of Chief State School Officers, K-2 Assessments: An Update on State Adoption and Implementation, at 6 (2019), available
at https://ccsso.org/sites/default/files/2019-06/K-2%20Assessments%20Paper%20FINA L.pdf.
78
Section 15, ch. 2021-9, L.O.F. STORAGE NAME: h1193d.EEC PAGE: 9
DATE: 2/21/2022
Beginning with the 2022-2023 school year, private and public VPK providers and public schools in
Florida must participate in a coordinated screening and progress monitoring system (CSPM) for
students in VPK through grade 8. The CSPM tool must be administered three times during the school
or program year and must:
79
Measure student progress in VPK
80
through grade 8 in meeting the appropriate expectations in
early literacy and mathematics skills and in ELA and mathematics standards.
Measure student performance in oral language development, phonological and phonemic
awareness, knowledge of print and letters, decoding, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension,
as applicable by grade level.
Be a valid, reliable, and developmentally appropriate computer-adaptive assessment that
identifies students who have a substantial deficiency in reading, including identifying students
with characteristics of dyslexia.
Provide data that can be used for VPK Program accountability requirements.
Provide VPK Program providers, school districts, schools and teachers with data and resources
that enhance instruction and parental communication.
Provide information to the DOE to aid in the development of educational programs, policies and
supports for VPK providers and school districts.
Beginning with the 2022-2023 program year, each private prekindergarten provider and public school in
the VPK Program must participate in a program assessment of each VPK classroom based on teacher-
child interactions.
81
The DOE must adopt a methodology for calculating each private prekindergarten
provider’s and public school provider’s performance metric, which includes program assessment scores
and learning growth and outcomes based on CSPM results.
82
Optional Progress Monitoring
The DOE allocated $20 million from the CARES Act
83
funds for progress monitoring and data-informed
supports.
84
From October 1, 2020, through February 19, 2021, the DOE made available to all public
schools on a voluntary basis a new PM tool to serve as a connective support between the foundational
skills that students seek to acquire and their progress through early education years and drive informed
teaching practices and curriculum decisions.
85
The PM tool was computer adaptive, made available for
multiple administrations, and was aligned to the state standards for grades 3 through 10 reading and
grades 3 through 8 mathematics.
86
Public schools participating in the optional PM tool were
recommended to provide students between 45 and 60 minutes to complete each assessment.
87
In school year 2020-2021, 59 school districts administered the PM tool.
88
The 59 school districts that
accessed the PM Tool, administered 322,030 reading assessments and 226,122 mathematics
79
Section 1008.25(8)(a), F.S.
80
Section 1008.2125(2)(a), F.S., requires that students in VPK and kindergarten be assessed with the coordinated screening and
progress monitoring system within the first 30 days after enrollment, midyear, and within the last 30 days of the program or school
year.
81
Section 1002.68(2), F.S.
82
Section 1002.68(4)(a), F.S.
83
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was passed by Congress March 27, 2020. The CARES Act
provided funding in four education related categories: Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund, Governor’s
Emergency Education Relief Fund, Higher Education Emergency Relief fund, Child Care Development Block Grant.
84
Florida Department of Education, Reopening Florida’s Schools and the CARES Act, at 102, available at
http://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/19861/urlt/FLDOEReopeningCARESAct.pdf.
85
Florida Department of Education, Free Optional Progress Monitoring Tool Available to Public Schools, (Sept. 2, 2020), available
at http://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/19861/urlt/CambiumProgressMonitoring2020-21.pdf.
86
Id.
87
Florida Department of Education, Adaptive Progress Monitoring (APM) Administration Manual, 2021-22, at 3 (2021), available at
https://fsassessments.org/-/media/project/client-portals/florida/pdf/apm/apm-administration-manual-081921-final.pdf.
88
Email, Jessica Fowler, Deputy Legislative Affairs Director, Florida Department of Education, (Jan. 28, 2022), on file with the Early
Learning & Elementary Education Subcommittee. STORAGE NAME: h1193d.EEC PAGE: 10
DATE: 2/21/2022
assessments. For the 2021-2022 school year, as of Dec. 13, 2021, 54 school districts have accessed
the PM Tool and administered 110,787 Reading assessments and 56,237 mathematics assessments.
89
School District Assessment Program
The measurement of student performance is the responsibility of school districts, except in those
subjects and grade levels measured under the statewide, standardized assessment program.
90
School
districts are required to annually, by October 1, post the uniform assessment calendars that delineate
which assessments are statewide, standardized assessments and which are district-required
assessments.
91
For the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 school years, the DOE required that school districts
submit progress monitoring results to the DOE for assessments that were administered during the
school year.
92
For the 2020-2021 school year, only two school districts reported using no PM tool. Other school
districts reported the following:
93
22 school districts reported use of one PM tool.
29 school districts reported use of two PM tools.
18 school districts reported use of three PM tools.
2 school districts reported use of four PM tools.
For school year 2021-22, school districts reported the following to the DOE:
94
15 school districts have no PM data reported through the platform.
38 school districts reported use of one PM tool.
17 school districts reported use of two PM tools.
3 school districts reported use of three PM tools.
School and School District Accountability
School Grades
School grades are used to explain a school’s performance in a familiar, easy-to-understand manner for
parents and the public.
95
School grades are also used to determine whether a school must select or
implement a turnaround option
96
or whether a school is eligible for school recognition funds as
appropriated by the Legislature.
97
The annual reports must identify schools as having one of the following grades:
98
“A,” for schools making excellent progress – 62% or higher of total points
“B,” for schools making above average progress – 54% to 61% of total points
“C,” for schools making satisfactory progress – 41% to 53% of total points
“D,” for schools making less than satisfactory progress – 32% to 40% of total points
“F,” for schools failing to make adequate progress – 31% or less of total points
89
Id.
90
Section 1008.22(6), F.S.
91
Section 1008.22(7)(d), F.S.
92
Florida Department of Education Emergency Order 2020-EO-06.
93
Email, Jessica Fowler, Deputy Legislative Affairs Director, Florida Department of Education, (Jan. 28, 2022), on file with the Early
Learning & Elementary Education Subcommittee. Some school districts use different progress monitoring tools for different grade
bands, i.e. K-5, 6-8, and 9-12. Examples of progress monitoring tools that are used by Florida’s school districts include: I-Ready,
STAR assessments, MAP assessments, Cambium Progress Monitoring tool, and Achieve 3000.
94
Id. An analysis of the 2021-2022 district assessment calendars that were submitted to the Department of Education showed that 61
school districts intended to use a progress monitoring tool for the 2021-2022 school year.
95
Section 1008.34(1), F.S.
96
See s. 1008.33(4), F.S.
97
See s. 1008.36, F.S.
98
Section 1008.34(2), F.S.; rule 6A-1.09981(4)(d), F.A.C. STORAGE NAME: h1193d.EEC PAGE: 11
DATE: 2/21/2022
The SBE must periodically review the school grading scale to determine if the scale should be adjusted
upward to meet raised expectations and encourage increased student performance. The SBE must
notify the public of any adjustments and explain the reasons for the adjustment and the impact it will
have on school grades.
99
Elementary, middle and high schools each share a basic model for determining school grades, based
on the percentage of total points earned by a school for each component in the model. Middle and high
school models include additional components beyond the basic model.
100
Combination school models
include the additional components for the grades served (e.g., a school serving grades K through 12
would include the additional components for the middle and high school models).
School Grades Models
Basic/Elementary (700 Points)
Middle School (Basic +200
Points)
High School (Basic+300 Points)
English
Language Arts
Mathematics Science Civics
EOC
Assessment
Acceleration
Success
U.S. History
EOC
Assessment
Graduation
Rate
Acceleration
Success
Achievement
(0% to 100%)
Achievement
(0% to 100%)
Achievement
(0% to 100%)
Achievement
(0% to 100%)
Percentage of
students who
pass high school
EOC
assessments &
industry
certifications
(0% to 100%)
Achievement
(0% to 100%)
Overall, 4-
year
graduation
rate
(0% to 100%)
Percent of
students eligible
to earn: college
credit through
AP, IB, AICE,
dual enrollment,
or earned an
industry
certification
101
(0% to 100%)
Learning Gains
(0% to 100%)
Learning Gains
(0% to 100%)
Learning Gains
of Low 25%
(0% to 100%)
Learning Gains
of Low 25%
(0% to 100%)
A school’s grade must include only those components for which at least 10 students have complete
data. If a school does not meet the 10-student threshold for a component, it will receive a school grade
based only on the remaining components.
102
In addition, a high school’s graduation rate must include
students who transfer to a private school with which the school district has a contractual relationship.
103
Student achievement is determined by the percentage of full-year enrolled students who scored at
Level 3 or above on statewide, standardized assessments and EOC assessments in ELA,
mathematics, Civics, U.S. History, science, Biology I, Algebra I, and Geometry.
104
English language
learners are included in achievement calculations after enrollment in a school in the U.S. for more than
2 years and gains calculations after 1 year.
105
The learning gains component measures the growth demonstrated by a student from one year to the
next in one of four ways:
106
Increasing at least one achievement level on the statewide, standardized assessment in the
same subject area.
99
Section 1008.34(3)(c)1., F.S.
100
See s. 1008.34(3)(b), F.S.; rule 6A-1.09981(4)(a)-(c), F.A.C.
101
See s. 1008.34(3)(b)2.b., F.S. (2020). In 2020, the Legislature revised the acceleration success component to include the percentage
of students who complete at least 300 clock hours of qualifying coursework through career dual enrollment. The 2021 graduating class
will be the first graduating class that can participate in career dual enrollment to be counted toward their school’s grade. The first time
career dual enrollment will be included in the school grades calculation will be the summer of 2022. In the 2022-2023 school year, the
school grades calculation will also include the percentage of students who earn a qualifying score on the Armed Services Vocational
Aptitude Battery and two credits in Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps. From the same U.S. Armed Forces Branch.
102
See s. 1008.34(3)(a), F.S.
103
Section 1008.22(3)(d)3., F.S.
104
See s. 1008.34(3)(b)1., F.S.
105
See s. 1008.34(3)(b)1., F.S. (flush left provisions at the end of the subparagraph).
106
See rule 6A-1.09981(2)(b), F.A.C. STORAGE NAME: h1193d.EEC PAGE: 12
DATE: 2/21/2022
For students who score below level 3, improving by at least one “subcategory” within level 1 or
level 2, based on the student’s scale score, on the next year’s assessment for that subject area.
For students who score a level 3 or a level 4, improving the scale score on the next year’s
assessment for that subject area.
For students who score a level 5, scoring a level 5 on the next year’s assessment for that
subject area.
A separate learning gains component is included for current-year, full-year-enrolled students whose
prior-year assessment scores are in the school’s lowest performing 25 percent on the statewide,
standardized ELA and math assessments.
107
School Improvement Ratings
An alternative school or exceptional student education (ESE) center may opt for a school improvement
rating instead of a school grade.
108
The school improvement rating is calculated using student learning
gains on statewide, standardized ELA and mathematics assessments for all eligible students who are
enrolled in the school and who have assessment scores, concordant scores, or comparable scores for
the preceding school year.
109
Schools that improve their ratings by at least one level or maintain a
“commendable” rating are eligible for school recognition awards.
110
The school improvement rating
identifies an alternative school as having one of the following ratings:
111
Commendable: a significant percentage of the students attending the school are making
learning gains.
Maintaining: a sufficient percentage of the students attending the school are making learning
gains.
Unsatisfactory: an insufficient percentage of the students attending the school are making
learning gains.
An alternative school that does not meet the requirements for issuance of a school improvement rating
and has not received a rating for the past two consecutive years must receive a rating for the current
year based on all student learning gains for all grades levels at the school for those 3 years.
112
If an
alternative school does not have at least 10 students with complete data for a school improvement
rating component, that component may not be used in calculating the school’s improvement rating. To
make certain that the school still receives a rating, the rating must be calculated based on the
percentage of points earned from the ELA and mathematics learning gains components for those 3
years.
113
School District Grades
Each school district must annually receive a district grade (A through F) as part of a district report
card.
114
The grade is calculated based on the same components used to grade the district’s schools
107
Section 1008.34(3)(b)1.g.-h., F.S.; rule 6A-1.09981(4)(a)5.-8., F.A.C.
108
School improvement ratings, which do not include an academic achievement component but instead focus on learning gains, are
offered to alternative schools because the students at these schools are often enrolled in more than one school within the school year.
All alternative students' learning gains scores are included in either the alternative school or home school accountability report.
Section 1008.341(1), F.S.
109
Section 1008.341(3), F.S.
110
Section 1008.341(2), F.S. (flush left provisions at the end of the subsection).
111
Section 1008.341(2)(a)-(c), F.S. Concordant and comparative scores may be used to demonstrate learning gains for students in
grades 9 through 12 who scored a Level 1 or 2 in the prior year in the same subject area. See rule 6A-1.099822(2)(c), F.A.C.
112
Section 1008.341(2), F.S.
113
Id. A school must assess 80 percent of students to receive a rating. A school that assesses less than 90 percent of its students is not
eligible to receive a rating of “Commendable.” See id.
114
Section 1008.34(4)-(5), F.S. STORAGE NAME: h1193d.EEC PAGE: 13
DATE: 2/21/2022
using data from each eligible student in the district, including students enrolled in charter schools.
115
In
addition to the district’s grade, the district report card must also include:
116
measures of the district’s progress in closing the achievement gap between higher- and lower-
performing subgroups;
measures of the district’s progress in demonstrating learning gains of its highest-performing
students;
measures of the district’s success in improving student attendance;
the district’s grade-level promotion of students scoring achievement levels 1 and 2 on statewide,
standardized ELA and mathematics assessments; and
measures of the district’s performance in preparing students for the transition from elementary
to middle school, middle to high school, and high school to postsecondary institutions and
careers.
School Improvement
Overview
Florida’s system of improving low-performing schools is referred to as “school improvement” (SI). Under
SI, the lowest-performing schools receive more comprehensive, state-provided intervention and support
than schools that are closer to meeting student achievement goals.
117
Intervention and support is
required for traditional public schools earning a letter grade of “D,” or “F.”
118
Upon receipt of its first
grade of “D,” a school is considered a Tier I SI school in need of support and intervention from the
school district and the DOE.
119
Intensive intervention and support strategies must be applied through
turnaround plans to schools earning two consecutive grades of “D” or a grade of “F”.
120
In addition, Florida’s approved statewide accountability plan pursuant to ESSA
121
describes
circumstances in which schools will be identified for either targeted or comprehensive support and
improvement as required by ESSA. Under the plan, a school will be identified for comprehensive
support and improvement if it has a federal percent of points index (school grades model plus English
language acquisition progress for English language learners) below 41%, a grade of D or F, a 4-year
adjusted cohort graduation rate at or below 67 percent, or has a “chronically low-performing subgroup
of students.”
122
A school will be identified for targeted support and improvement if it has one or more
subgroups whose federal percent of points is 31% or lower over the last 3 years or one or more
subgroups whose federal percent of points is 40% or lower in the current year.
123
115
See rule 6A-1.09981(5), F.A.C. The calculation includes students who transfer between schools in the district or who are enrolled
in a school that does not receive a grade. Section 1008.34(5), F.S. However, students who are enrolled in a school of hope pursuant to
s. 1002.333, F.S., are not included in a district’s grade. See s. 1002.333(6)(a), F.S.
116
Section 1008.34(4)-(5), F.S.
117
Section 1008.33(2)(b) and (4), F.S.; see rule 6A-1.099811, F.A.C. School improvement requirements were originally established
under the 2002 reauthorization of ESEA, otherwise known as the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. Pub. L. No. 107-110,
115 Stat. 1425 (Jan. 8, 2002).
118
Section 1008.33(3)(b), F.S.
119
Rule 6A-1.099811(3)(a), F.A.C.
120
Section 1008.33(4)(a), F.S.
121
See 20 U.S.C. s. 6301 et seq. ESSA requires state educational agencies, such as the DOE, to provide comprehensive or targeted
supports to certain low performing schools in order to receive federal Title I funds. See 20 U.S.C. s. 6311(d).
122
The recognized subgroups for a statewide accountability plan under ESSA are: 1) economically disadvantaged students; 2) students
from major ethnic and ethnic groups; 3) children with disabilities; 4) and English learners. 20 U.S.C. s. 6311(c)(2). A “chronically
low-performing subgroup of students” is a subgroup of students at a Title I school identified for targeted support and improvement
whose performance does not improve after implementing the supports over a state-determined number of years. See 20 U.S.C. s.
6311(c)(4).
123
See Florida Department of Education, ESSA State Plan, (September 24, 2018), available at
http://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/14196/urlt/FL-ESSA-StatePlan.pdf; see also United States Department of Education,
Education Department Releases Final Regulations to Promote a High-Quality, Well-Rounded Education and Support All Students,
(Nov. 28, 2016), https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USED/bulletins/1759bf0 (last visited Feb. 21, 2022). STORAGE NAME: h1193d.EEC PAGE: 14
DATE: 2/21/2022
All Florida public schools that earn a “D” or “F” must have a SI plan, which is developed and
implemented by the school’s advisory council.
124
For non-charter schools, development and
implementation of the plan is based on a form developed by the DOE.
125
In such cases, the plan must
be submitted through the Continuous Improvement Management System (CIMS).
126
The DOE reviews,
approves, and also monitors implementation of the plan.
127
In addition, the law provides that an educational emergency exists if one or more schools in a school
district earns a grade of “D” or “F.”
128
Once an educational emergency exists, the district must negotiate
a memorandum of understanding with its teachers union to provide students at the school with effective
teachers and administrators. The district must submit the memorandum to the DOE by September 1.
129
The memorandum must address the selection, placement, and expectations of instructional personnel
and provides principals with the autonomy under the Principal Autonomy Project Initiative relating to
certain personnel and budgetary decisions.
130
Initiation of School Improvement Process
If a school earns two consecutive grades of “D” or a grade of “F,” it must immediately implement a
differentiated matrix of intervention and support strategies. Districts with a SI school must coordinate
with the DOE, the regional executive director or designee, and the school to identify and implement
tailored support and improvement strategies designed to address low performance at the school.
131
Florida law specifies seven general types of intervention and support strategies for traditional public
schools. These strategies include SI planning; leadership and educator quality improvement;
professional development; curriculum review, pacing, and alignment across grade levels to improve
background knowledge in social studies, science, and the arts; and the use of continuous improvement
and monitoring plans and processes.
132
The DOE implements SI using regional teams of school improvement specialists, each led by an
executive director, in four offices across the state. The teams provide on-the-ground support to district
administrators, instructional coaches, and school leadership teams of low-performing schools.
133
Each
team supports the districts and schools that are annually designated for SI within its region. The teams
are used to help districts effectively use data and align available supports and resources to each SI
school’s needs.
134
The SI supports are intended to build capacity by focusing on systems and
structures needed to accelerate and sustain school improvement and by employing a gradual release
model.
135
Supports are offered in consultation with the district to determine local needs, and typically
124
Sections 1001.42(18)(a) and 1001.452(2), F.S; rule 6A-1.099811(3)(a), F.A.C. School advisory councils are composed of
principals, teachers, educational support personnel, parents, students, local business representatives, and community members. Section
1001.452(1)(a), F.S. School advisory councils are responsible for developing and implementing the school’s improvement plan,
assisting in the development of the school’s budget, and assisting in determinations regarding the use of school improvement funds
and school recognition awards. Sections 1001.452(2) and 1008.36(4), F.S. See also s. 1002.33(9)(n), F.S. (requiring a charter school
earning a “D” or “F” to submit a school improvement plan to the sponsor).
125
See Florida Department of Education, Form DA-2 Checklist for Focus and Priority Schools, (Dec. 2014), available at
https://www.flrules.org/gateway/reference.asp?No=Ref-04620 (incorporated by reference in rule 6A-1.099811, F.A.C.).
126
CIMS is a web application developed by the FDOE’s Bureau of School Improvement to provide district and school teams with an
online platform for collaborative planning and problem solving as well as a public site for stakeholders to access approved plans.
Florida Department of Education, Bureau of School Improvement, Welcome to CIMS, https://www.floridacims.org/ (last visited Feb.
21, 2022).
127
Rule 6A-1.099811(1), F.A.C.
128
Section 1001.42(21), F.S.; rule 6A-1.099811(2)(j), F.A.C.
129
See s. 41, ch. 2017-116, L.O.F., codified at s. 1008.33(4)(a), F.S. School grades are typically released no later than the second week
of July each year.
130
See id. See also s. 1012.28(8), F.S. (providing qualifying principals autonomy over certain budgetary and personnel decisions).
131
Rule 6A-1.099811(5)(a), F.A.C.
132
Section 1008.33(3)(c), F.S.; rule 6A-1.099811(5)(b)1.-9., F.A.C.
133
See Florida Department of Education, Bureau of School Improvement, Regional Support to School Districts,
http://www.fldoe.org/schools/k-12-public-schools/school-improvement/reg-support.stml (last visited Feb. 21, 2022).
134
Id.
135
See id. STORAGE NAME: h1193d.EEC PAGE: 15
DATE: 2/21/2022
include facilitation of collaborative processes such as data and risk analysis, needs assessment,
strategic planning and problem solving, performance management, professional development, and
cross-district networking.
136
The regional teams also review, provide feedback, and monitor progress on the implementation of SI
plans, turnaround option plans, and SI grants.
137
Turnaround Options
Schools that earn two consecutive grades of “D” or a grade of “F” must also implement a district-
managed turnaround plan through which the school district manages the 2-year turnaround plan at the
school.
138
The school district must submit a district-managed turnaround plan to the SBE for approval
by October 1.
139
Once the district-managed turnaround plan is approved by the SBE, the school district must implement
the plan for the remainder of the year and continue implementation for the next full school year. If the
school’s grade does not improve to a “C” or higher after the second year, the school must select from
the following turnaround options:
140
Reassign students to another school and monitor the progress of each student.
Close the school and reopen as one or more charter schools with a governing board that has a
demonstrated record of effectiveness.
Contract with an external operator that has a demonstrated record of effectiveness to operate
the school.
The external operator may include a district-managed charter school in which all instructional personnel
are not employees of the school district, but are employees of an independent governing board
composed of members who did not participate in the review or approval of the charter.
The SBE may allow a school an additional year of implementation before the school must implement a
different turnaround option if it determines that the school is likely to improve to a grade of “C” or higher
after the first full school year of implementation.
141
Outcomes from Florida’s Accountability System
The chart below provides an historical perspective on school grades.
142
The percentage of schools
earning a grade of “A” or “B” increased by 7 percentage points, and the percentage of school earning a
grade of “D” or “F” fell 3 percentage points, after the turnaround process was expedited under HB 7069
(2017).
143
136
See id.
137
See id.
138
Section 1008.33(4)(a), F.S.; Rule 6A-1.099811(6)(a)-(b), F.A.C.
139
Section 1008.33(4)(a), F.S.
140
Section 1008.33(4)(b)1.-3., F.S.; rule 6-A 1.099811(6)(b), F.A.C
141
Section 1008.33(4)(a), F.S.
142
Florida Department of Education, 2019 Annual Assessment and Accountability Meeting, August 2019, at 111, available at
https://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/5637/urlt/AnnualAssmtAcctMtg2019.pdf.
143
Chapter 2017-116, L.O.F. STORAGE NAME: h1193d.EEC PAGE: 16
DATE: 2/21/2022
The number of schools receiving a grade of “D” or “F” fell from 573 in the 2015-16 school year to 172 in
the 2019-20 school year.
144
Additionally, the number of schools receiving the most intensive supports
from the DOE fell from 498 in 2015-16 school year to 142 during the 2019-20 school year.
145
Based on traditional public schools that received grades in 2018 and 2019:
146
70 percent of schools graded “D” or “F” improved their grade in 2019;
77 percent of schools graded “F” in 2018 improved their grade in 2019; and
85 percent of first year turnaround schools in 2018 improved their grade to a “C” or higher and
exited turnaround in 2019.
Effect of Proposed Changes
The bill extends the CSPM system to include ELA for grades 9 and 10. The bill also reduces the
assessment footprint by replacing the ELA FSA for students in grades 3 through 10 and the
mathematics FSA for students in grades 3 through 8 with the end-of-year administration of the CSPM
system.
The bill requires that the CSPM system:
Be included in the uniform assessment calendar.
Be included in the limitation on assessment taking up no more than 5 percent of school hours.
Provide results to teachers within 1 week of each progress monitoring assessment, and to
parents within 2 weeks.
The bill establishes the following schedule for CSPM system assessments:
For students in VPK through grade 2, three assessments must occur as follows:
o The first assessment occurs within 30 days of enrollment or the start of the program year;
o The second assessment occurs midyear; and
o The third assessment occurs within the last 30 days program year or school year.
144
Id. at 113.
145
Florida Department of Education, School Improvement Presentation to the House PreK-12 Innovation Subcommittee, at 9 (October
16, 2019), available at
https://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?PublicationType=Committees&CommitteeId=3017&Session=20
20&DocumentType=Meeting+Packets&FileName=pki+10-16-19.pdf.
146
Id. STORAGE NAME: h1193d.EEC PAGE: 17
DATE: 2/21/2022
For students in grades 3 through 10 ELA and grades 3 through 8 mathematics, three
assessments must occur at the beginning, middle, and end of the year as set forth in state
board rule.
The bill requires school districts to work with the Florida Virtual School, approved virtual instruction
providers, and virtual charter schools to provide students access to testing facilities so they are able to
participate in the PM system.
The bill requires the commissioner, by January 31, 2025, to report on and make recommendations
related to the CSPM system in the following areas, based on a third-party review:
Validity of using CSPM assessments 1 and/or 2 to in place of using the comprehensive end-of-
year progress monitoring assessment for accountability purposes.
Options to reduce assessment footprint and maintain valid and reliable data including use of
computer-adaptive assessments.
Improving remote administration of assessments.
Accelerating student progression.
Incorporation of state-adopted ELA instructional materials into the PM system.
Impact of CSPM system on student learning growth data.
The bill clarifies that school districts remain responsible for measuring student performance outside of
the statewide, standardized assessments and the CSPM system.
The bill improves communication with parents regarding their student’s performance by requiring that
district assessment data be provided within 1 week of test administration; requiring that statewide
assessment data be provided to parents in an individual student report; and moving the deadline for the
publication of statewide, standardized ELA and mathematics assessment results (i.e., the end-of-year
administration of the CSPM) from June 30 to May 31, starting with the 2023-2024 school year. The bill
requires that individual student reports be provided electronically and contain resources for parents to
better understand the progress monitoring assessment and support informed parent involvement.
The bill provides for the transition to the new CSPM system based assessment and accountability
processes in the following manner:
School grades for the 2022-2023 school year will be assigned so that the same percentage of
schools achieve each grade as they did in the 2021-2022 school grades results. Once learning
gains data becomes available following the 2023-2024 school year, the DOE must review the
school grading scale to determine if it needs to be adjusted.
Schools and providers must be held harmless, based on 2022-2023 school grades, for SI
purposes. While a school or provider cannot be forced to enter a turnaround plan based on its
2022-2023 school grade, a school may exit a turnaround plan based on its grade.
For promotion to grade 4 and high school graduation, satisfaction of assessment requirements
must be based on a comparison of the student’s end-of-year 2022-2023 CSPM system results
to 2021-2022 expectations on the FSA. A school district may promote a student to grade 4
based on a good cause exemption or if it has other reliable evidence of the student’s
performance.
The bill requires the SBE to annually review the school grading scale and to adjust the grading scale
when more than 75 percent of schools of a school type (i.e. elementary, middle, high, or combination
schools) receive a grade of “A” or “B.” The adjustment must raise the minimum number of percentage
points required for each grade to the next closest number ending in 5 or 0. This may result in each
school type having a different grading scale, depending on the performance of schools of that type. The
first adjustment to the grading scale would occur no earlier than the 2023-2024 school year. The bill
suspends adjustments once an “A” requires 90 percent or more of the points; a “B” requires 80 to 89
percent of the points; a “C” requires 70 to 79 percent of the points; and a “D” requires 60 to 69 percent
of the points.
Additionally, the bill updates Florida’s SI system. The bill codifies the existing requirements that when a
school initially receives a grade of “D” it must begin implementing intervention and support strategies. STORAGE NAME: h1193d.EEC PAGE: 18
DATE: 2/21/2022
Any school receiving an initial grade of “F” or two consecutive grades of “D” must still initiate the school
improvement turnaround process, but may submit a turnaround plan prior to earning a second
consecutive grade of “D.” The bill provides school districts flexibility in implementing an external
operator turnaround option by specifying services that may be contracted, including the option to
contract with a charter school network as the external turnaround contractor, and the bill specifies that a
school district and the outside entity enter into 2 year performance-based contract.
The bill provides that, beginning in the 2023-2024 school year, a school that receives a grade of “D” or
“F” within the next 2 years after existing turnaround status may not implement a turnaround option it
has already completed.
The bill aligns Florida law to ESSA terminology by changing all references to “Next Generation
Sunshine State Standards” to “state academic standards.”
B. SECTION DIRECTORY:
Section 1. Amends s. 411.227, F.S.; conforming provisions to changes made by the act.
Section 2. Amends s. 1000.21, F.S.; renaming the "Next Generation Sunshine State Standards" as
the "state academic standards."
Section 3. Amends s. 1002.37, F.S.; conforming provisions to changes made by the act.
Section 4. Amends s. 1002.45, F.S.; conforming provisions to changes made by the act.
Section 5. Amends s. 1002.53, F.S.; conforming provisions to changes made by the act.
Section 6. Amends s. 1002.67, F.S.; conforming provisions to changes made by the act.
Section 7. Amends s. 1002.68, F.S.; conforming provisions to changes made by the act.
Section 8. Amends s. 1003.41, F.S.; conforming provisions to changes made by the act.
Section 9. Amends s. 1003.53, F.S.; conforming provisions to changes made by the act.
Section 10. Provides a directive to the Division of Law Revision.
Section 11. Amends s. 1008.2125, F.S.; deleting provisions relating to the coordinated screening
and progress monitoring program; conforming cross-references to changes made by the
act.
Section 12. Amends s. 1008.22, F.S.; conforming provisions to changes made by the act; providing
that certain end-of-year comprehensive progress monitoring assessments are the
statewide, standardized ELA and mathematics assessments for certain students;
providing that achievement levels on specified assessments shall measure grade-level
performance, rather than satisfactory performance; requiring certain assessment results
to be provided by a specified date beginning with a certain school year; including the
coordinated screening and progress monitoring system in the limitation on the school
hours authorized for testing; revising the timeframe results for district-required local
assessments must be provided to a student's parent; requiring such results to be
provided in specified formats; requiring specified information to be included on individual
student reports; requiring the commissioner to provide specified recommendations from
an independent review of the coordinated screening and progress monitoring system to
the Governor and Legislature by a specified date; providing requirements for the review
and recommendations; providing for the future repeal of such requirements.
Section 13. Amends s. 1008.25, F.S.; conforming provisions to changes made by the act; requiring
the coordinated screening and progress monitoring system to identify the educational STORAGE NAME: h1193d.EEC PAGE: 19
DATE: 2/21/2022
strengths and needs of students; revising requirements for such system; providing
requirements for the administration of the coordinated screenings and progress
monitoring and the reporting of results; requiring a specified annual report to be
accessible through certain web-based options; deleting a requirement that district school
boards print specified information in a local newspaper.
Section 14. Amends s. 1008.33, F.S.; making editorial changes; requiring a school district to take
specified actions for a school that earns an initial school grade of "D"; revising the
options available to a school district that must implement a turnaround plan for a school;
authorizing a school district to submit a turnaround plan for a school that has earned an
initial school grade of "D"; revising the options available to a school district with a school
that implemented a turnaround plan and did not improve its school grade; requiring
certain schools that exit turnaround status and earn a specified school grade within a
certain time period to select and implement a turnaround option; providing requirements
for the selection of such turnaround option.
Section 15. Amends s. 1008.34, F.S.; requiring the SBE to annually review the percentage of
schools earning certain school grades and determine if the school grading scale must be
adjusted; providing requirements for such adjustments; requiring the state board to
provide specified information to the public; providing a transition for the calculation of
school and district grades for the 2022-2023 school year; providing requirements for the
calculation of such grades and exemption schools from specified provisions; providing
requirements for determining grade 3 retention and high school graduation requirements
for such school year; providing for the future repeal of specified provisions.
Section 16. Amends s. 1008.341, F.S.; providing that school improvements rating will not be
calculated for the 2022-2023 school year; providing for the future repeal of specified
provisions.
Section 17. Provides an effective date.
II. FISCAL ANALYSIS & ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT
A. FISCAL IMPACT ON STATE GOVERNMENT:
1. Revenues:
None.
2. Expenditures:
None.
B. FISCAL IMPACT ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:
1. Revenues:
None.
2. Expenditures:
None.
C. DIRECT ECONOMIC IMPACT ON PRIVATE SECTOR:
None.
D. FISCAL COMMENTS: STORAGE NAME: h1193d.EEC PAGE: 20
DATE: 2/21/2022
For Fiscal Year 2021-2022, there is a total of $134,702,019 appropriated in the DOE’s Assessment and
Evaluation appropriation category in the General Appropriations Act (GAA); this funds, in part, the
DOE’s costs associated with the implementation of statewide assessments. A total of $8.0 million was
appropriated in Specific Appropriation 135 of the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 GAA to implement the VPK
through grade 8 CSPM system established by HB 7011 (2021). As a result of this bill, it is anticipated
that the total amount needed in the DOE’s Assessment and Evaluation appropriation category could be
reduced to reflect the replacement of the current statewide, standardized ELA and mathematics
assessments with the end-of-year administration of the CSPM system.
III. COMMENTS
A. CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES:
1. Applicability of Municipality/County Mandates Provision:
None.
2. Other:
None.
B. RULE-MAKING AUTHORITY:
The SBE is requires to adopt rules to implement the PM System and to accommodate provisions
relating to the transition to the PM System.
C. DRAFTING ISSUES OR OTHER COMMENTS:
None.
IV. AMENDMENTS/COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE CHANGES
On February 2, 2022, the Early Learning & Elementary Education Subcommittee adopted four amendments
and reported the bill favorably as a committee substitute. The amendments:
Direct to the Division of Law Revision to draft a reviser’s bill for the 2023 Legislative session to change
the term “Next Generation Sunshine State Standards” to “state academic standards” throughout the
Florida statutes.
Clarify that beginning with the 2023-2024 school year any school that receives a grade of “D” or “F”
within 2 years of exiting turnaround must implement a turnaround option it has not yet completed.
Require the State Board of Education to annually review the school grading scale and to adjust the
grading scale upward each time more than 75 percent of schools in any school type (i.e. elementary,
middle, high, or combination schools) receive a grade of “A” of “B.”
Provide for an effective date of July 1, 2022.
The analysis is drafted to the committee substitute adopted by the Early Learning & Elementary Education
subcommittee.