**State of Florida**

**Consolidated State Application**

**Accountability Workbook**

**for State Grants under Title IX, Part C, Section 9302 of the
Elementary and**

> **Secondary Education Act (Public Law 107-110)**

Original Submission Due Date: JANUARY 31, 2003

REVISED:

March 26, 2003

May 25, 2005

May 24, 2006

May 18, 2007

June 25, 2007

February 15, 2008

June 08, 2008

![](media/image1.png)

### 

**U. S. Department of Education**

**Office of Elementary and Secondary Education**

**Washington, D.C. 20202**

# Intentionally blank 

# Table of Contents

+--------------+----------------------------------------------+-------+
| # SECTION    | # DESCRIPTION                                | #     |
|              |                                              |  PAGE |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------+-------+
| # PART I     | # Summary of Requir                          | # 1   |
|              | ed Elements for State Accountability Systems |       |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------+-------+
| PART II      | State Response and Activities for Meeting    | 4     |
|              | State Accountability System Requirements     |       |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------+-------+
| > PRINCIPLE  | A single statewide Accountability System     | 5     |
| > 1          | applied to all public schools and LEAs.      |       |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------+-------+
| > PRINCIPLE  | All students are included in the State       | 15    |
| > 2          | Accountability System.                       |       |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------+-------+
| > PRINCIPLE  | State definition of AYP is based on          | 20    |
| > 3          | expectations for growth in student           |       |
|              | achievement that is continuous and           |       |
|              | substantial, such that all students are      |       |
|              | proficient in reading/language arts and      |       |
|              | mathematics no later than 2013-2014.         |       |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------+-------+
| > PRINCIPLE  | State makes annual decisions about the       | 29    |
| > 4          | achievement of all public schools and LEAs.  |       |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------+-------+
| > PRINCIPLE  | All public schools and LEAs are held         | 30    |
| > 5          | accountable for the achievement of           |       |
|              | individual subgroups.                        |       |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------+-------+
| > PRINCIPLE  | State definition of AYP is based primarily   | 40    |
| > 6          | on the State's academic assessments.         |       |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------+-------+
| > PRINCIPLE  | State definition of AYP includes graduation  | 41    |
| > 7          | rates for public High schools and an         |       |
|              | additional indicator selected by the State   |       |
|              | for public Middle and public Elementary      |       |
|              | schools (such as attendance rates).          |       |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------+-------+
| > PRINCIPLE  | AYP is based on reading/language arts and    | 46    |
| > 8          | mathematics achievement objectives.          |       |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------+-------+
| > PRINCIPLE  | State Accountability System is statistically | 47    |
| > 9          | valid and reliable.                          |       |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------+-------+
| > PRINCIPLE  | In order for a public school or LEA to make  | 51    |
| > 10         | AYP, the State ensures that it assessed at   |       |
|              | least 95% of the students enrolled in each   |       |
|              | subgroup.                                    |       |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------+-------+
| APPENDIX     |                                              | 53    |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------+-------+
| A            | Required Data Elements for State Report Card | 53    |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------+-------+
| B            | Description of Florida's Assessment System   | 57    |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------+-------+
| C            | Description of AYP Starting Points           | 93    |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------+-------+
| D            | Annual Progress Objectives                   | 95    |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------+-------+
| E            | Florida's AYP Plan                           | 97    |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------+-------+
| F            | A+ School Grading System                     | 105   |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------+-------+
| G            | Annual Learning Gain Targets to Proficiency  | 109   |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------+-------+
| H            | The Florida Department of Education Return   | 111   |
|              | on Investment (ROI)                          |       |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------+-------+
| I            | Florida's High School Graduation and         | 113   |
|              | Completion Options                           |       |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------+-------+
| J            | Florida's Approved Growth Model: Text of     | 115   |
|              | USED Approval Letter, and Calculation        |       |
|              | Overview                                     |       |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------+-------+
| K            | USED Letter Approving Florida's Assessment   | 121   |
|              | System                                       |       |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------+-------+

# Intentionally blank 

# PART I: Summary of Required Elements for State Accountability Systems

# Instructions 

# 

# The following chart is an overview of States\' implementation of the critical elements required for approval of their State accountability systems. States must provide detailed implementation information for each of these elements in Part II of this Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook. 

# 

# For each of the elements listed in the following chart, States should indicate the current implementation status in their State using the following legend:

# 

# F: State has a final policy, approved by all the required entities in the State (e.g., State Board of Education, State Legislature), for implementing this element in its accountability system. 

# 

# P: State has a proposed policy for implementing this element in its accountability system, but must still receive approval by required entities in the State (e.g., State Board of Education, State Legislature). 

# 

# W: State is still working on formulating a policy to implement this element in its accountability system. 

# 

#  

# Summary of Implementation Status for Required Elements of

# State Accountability Systems

+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| * |    | **State Accountability System Element**                      |
| * |    |                                                              |
| S |    |                                                              |
| t |    |                                                              |
| a |    |                                                              |
| t |    |                                                              |
| u |    |                                                              |
| s |    |                                                              |
| * |    |                                                              |
| * |    |                                                              |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| * |    |                                                              |
| * |    |                                                              |
| [ |    |                                                              |
| P |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| c |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| p |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| 1 |    |                                                              |
| : |    |                                                              |
| A |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| S |    |                                                              |
| c |    |                                                              |
| h |    |                                                              |
| o |    |                                                              |
| o |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| s |    |                                                              |
| ] |    |                                                              |
| { |    |                                                              |
| . |    |                                                              |
| u |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| d |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| } |    |                                                              |
| * |    |                                                              |
| * |    |                                                              |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 1  | Accountability system includes *all schools and districts in |
|   | .1 | the state*.                                                  |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 1  | Accountability system holds *all schools to the same         |
|   | .2 | criteria*.                                                   |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 1  | Accountability system incorporates the *academic achievement |
|   | .3 | standards*.                                                  |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 1  | Accountability system provides *information in a timely      |
|   | .4 | manner*.                                                     |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 1  | Accountability system includes *report cards*.               |
|   | .5 |                                                              |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 1  | Accountability system includes *rewards and sanctions*.      |
|   | .6 |                                                              |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| # |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| [ |    |                                                              |
| P |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| c |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| p |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| 2 |    |                                                              |
| : |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| A |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| S |    |                                                              |
| t |    |                                                              |
| u |    |                                                              |
| d |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| t |    |                                                              |
| s |    |                                                              |
| ] |    |                                                              |
| { |    |                                                              |
| . |    |                                                              |
| u |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| d |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| } |    |                                                              |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 2  | The accountability system includes *all students*            |
|   | .1 |                                                              |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 2  | The accountability system has a consistent definition of     |
|   | .2 | *full academic year*.                                        |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 2  | The accountability system properly includes *mobile          |
|   | .3 | students*.                                                   |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| # |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| [ |    |                                                              |
| P |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| c |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| p |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| 3 |    |                                                              |
| : |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| M |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| t |    |                                                              |
| h |    |                                                              |
| o |    |                                                              |
| d |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| o |    |                                                              |
| f |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| A |    |                                                              |
| Y |    |                                                              |
| P |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| D |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| t |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
| m |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| a |    |                                                              |
| t |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| o |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| s |    |                                                              |
| ] |    |                                                              |
| { |    |                                                              |
| . |    |                                                              |
| u |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| d |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| } |    |                                                              |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 3  | Accountability system expects *all student subgroups, public |
|   | .1 | schools, and LEAs to reach proficiency by 2013-14*.          |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 3  | Accountability system has a method for determining whether   |
|   | .2 | *student subgroups, public schools, and LEAs made adequate   |
|   |    | yearly progress.*                                            |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 3. | Accountability system establishes a *starting point*.        |
|   | 2a |                                                              |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 3. | Accountability system establishes *statewide annual          |
|   | 2b | measurable objectives*.                                      |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 3. | Accountability system establishes *intermediate goals*.      |
|   | 2c |                                                              |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| # |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| [ |    |                                                              |
| P |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| c |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| p |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| 4 |    |                                                              |
| : |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| A |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| u |    |                                                              |
| a |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| D |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| c |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| s |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| o |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| s |    |                                                              |
| ] |    |                                                              |
| { |    |                                                              |
| . |    |                                                              |
| u |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| d |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| } |    |                                                              |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 4  | The accountability system *determines annually the progress* |
|   | .1 | of schools and districts.                                    |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+

**STATUS Legend:**

**F** -- Final state policy

**P** -- Proposed policy, awaiting State approval

**W** -- Working to formulate policy

+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| # |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| [ |    |                                                              |
| P |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| c |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| p |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| 5 |    |                                                              |
| : |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| S |    |                                                              |
| u |    |                                                              |
| b |    |                                                              |
| g |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
| o |    |                                                              |
| u |    |                                                              |
| p |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| A |    |                                                              |
| c |    |                                                              |
| c |    |                                                              |
| o |    |                                                              |
| u |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| t |    |                                                              |
| a |    |                                                              |
| b |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| t |    |                                                              |
| y |    |                                                              |
| ] |    |                                                              |
| { |    |                                                              |
| . |    |                                                              |
| u |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| d |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| } |    |                                                              |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 5  | The accountability system *includes all the required student |
|   | .1 | subgroups*.                                                  |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 5  | The accountability system holds *schools and LEAs            |
|   | .2 | accountable for the progress of* *student subgroups*.        |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 5  | The accountability system includes *students with            |
|   | .3 | disabilities*.                                               |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 5  | The accountability system includes *limited English          |
|   | .4 | proficient students*.                                        |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 5  | The State has determined the minimum number of students      |
|   | .5 | sufficient to yield statistically reliable information for   |
|   |    | each purpose for which disaggregated data are used.          |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 5  | The State has strategies to protect the privacy of           |
|   | .6 | individual students in reporting achievement results and in  |
|   |    | determining whether schools and LEAs are making adequate     |
|   |    | yearly progress on the basis of disaggregated subgroups.     |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| # |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| [ |    |                                                              |
| P |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| c |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| p |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| 6 |    |                                                              |
| : |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| B |    |                                                              |
| a |    |                                                              |
| s |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| d |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| o |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| A |    |                                                              |
| c |    |                                                              |
| a |    |                                                              |
| d |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| m |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| c |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| A |    |                                                              |
| s |    |                                                              |
| s |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| s |    |                                                              |
| s |    |                                                              |
| m |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| t |    |                                                              |
| s |    |                                                              |
| ] |    |                                                              |
| { |    |                                                              |
| . |    |                                                              |
| u |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| d |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| } |    |                                                              |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 6  | Accountability system is based *primarily on academic        |
|   | .1 | assessments*.                                                |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| # |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| [ |    |                                                              |
| P |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| c |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| p |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| 7 |    |                                                              |
| : |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| A |    |                                                              |
| d |    |                                                              |
| d |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| t |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| o |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| a |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| I |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| d |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| c |    |                                                              |
| a |    |                                                              |
| t |    |                                                              |
| o |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
| s |    |                                                              |
| ] |    |                                                              |
| { |    |                                                              |
| . |    |                                                              |
| u |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| d |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| } |    |                                                              |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 7  | Accountability system includes *graduation rate for high     |
|   | .1 | school*s.                                                    |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 7  | Accountability system includes an *additional academic       |
|   | .2 | indicator for elementary and middle school*s.                |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 7  | Additional indicators are valid and reliable.                |
|   | .3 |                                                              |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| # |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| [ |    |                                                              |
| P |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| c |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| p |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| 8 |    |                                                              |
| : |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| S |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| p |    |                                                              |
| a |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
| a |    |                                                              |
| t |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| D |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| c |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| s |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| o |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| s |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| f |    |                                                              |
| o |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| R |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| a |    |                                                              |
| d |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| g |    |                                                              |
| / |    |                                                              |
| L |    |                                                              |
| a |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| g |    |                                                              |
| u |    |                                                              |
| a |    |                                                              |
| g |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| A |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
| t |    |                                                              |
| s |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| a |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| d |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| M |    |                                                              |
| a |    |                                                              |
| t |    |                                                              |
| h |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| m |    |                                                              |
| a |    |                                                              |
| t |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| c |    |                                                              |
| s |    |                                                              |
| ] |    |                                                              |
| { |    |                                                              |
| . |    |                                                              |
| u |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| d |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| } |    |                                                              |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 8  | Accountability system holds students, schools and districts  |
|   | .1 | separately accountable for *reading/language arts* and       |
|   |    | *mathematics*.                                               |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| # |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| [ |    |                                                              |
| P |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| c |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| p |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| 9 |    |                                                              |
| : |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| S |    |                                                              |
| y |    |                                                              |
| s |    |                                                              |
| t |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| m |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| V |    |                                                              |
| a |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| d |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| t |    |                                                              |
| y |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| a |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| d |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| R |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| a |    |                                                              |
| b |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| t |    |                                                              |
| y |    |                                                              |
| ] |    |                                                              |
| { |    |                                                              |
| . |    |                                                              |
| u |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| d |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| } |    |                                                              |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 9  | Accountability system produces *reliable decisions*.         |
|   | .1 |                                                              |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 9  | Accountability system produces *valid decisions*.            |
|   | .2 |                                                              |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 9  | State has a plan for addressing *changes in assessment and   |
|   | .3 | student population*.                                         |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| # |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| [ |    |                                                              |
| P |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| c |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| p |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| 1 |    |                                                              |
| 0 |    |                                                              |
| : |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| P |    |                                                              |
| a |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
| t |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| c |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| p |    |                                                              |
| a |    |                                                              |
| t |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| o |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
|   |    |                                                              |
| R |    |                                                              |
| a |    |                                                              |
| t |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| ] |    |                                                              |
| { |    |                                                              |
| . |    |                                                              |
| u |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| d |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| r |    |                                                              |
| l |    |                                                              |
| i |    |                                                              |
| n |    |                                                              |
| e |    |                                                              |
| } |    |                                                              |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 10 | Accountability system has a means for calculating the *rate  |
|   | .1 | of participation* in the statewide assessment.               |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| F | 10 | Accountability system has a means for *applying the 95%      |
|   | .2 | assessment criteria to student subgroups* *and small         |
|   |    | schools.*                                                    |
+---+----+--------------------------------------------------------------+

**STATUS Legend:**

F -- Final policy

P -- Proposed Policy, awaiting State approval

W-- Working to formulate policy

**PART II: State Response and Activities for Meeting State
Accountability System Requirements**

Instructions

In Part II of this Workbook, States are to provide detailed information
for each of the critical elements required for State accountability
systems. States should answer the questions asked about each of the
critical elements in the State\'s accountability system. States that do
not have final approval for any of these elements or that have not
finalized a decision on these elements by January 31, 2003, should, when
completing this section of the Workbook, indicate the status of each
element that is not yet official State policy and provide the
anticipated date by which the proposed policy will become effective. In
each of these cases, States must include a timeline of steps to complete
to ensure that such elements are in place by May 1, 2003, and
implemented during the 2002-2003 school year. By no later than May 1,
2003, States must submit to the Department final information for all
sections of the Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook.

**PRINCIPLE 1. A single statewide Accountability System applied to all
public schools and LEAs.**

+-----------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
| **CRITICAL ELEMENT**  | **EXAMPLES FOR**     | **EXAMPLES OF**      |
|                       |                      |                      |
|                       | **MEETING STATUTORY  | ***NOT* MEETING      |
|                       | REQUIREMENTS**       | REQUIREMENTS**       |
+-----------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
| 1.  How does the      | Every public school  | A public school or   |
|     State             | and LEA is required  | LEA is not required  |
|     Accountability    | to make adequate     | to make adequate     |
|     System include    | yearly progress and  | yearly progress and  |
|     every public      | is included in the   | is not included in   |
|     school and LEA in | State Accountability | the State            |
|     the State?        | System.              | Accountability       |
|                       |                      | System.              |
|                       | State has a          |                      |
|                       | definition of        | State policy         |
|                       | "public school" and  | systematically       |
|                       | "LEA" for AYP        | excludes certain     |
|                       | accountability       | public schools       |
|                       | purposes.            | and/or LEAs.         |
|                       |                      |                      |
|                       | -   The State        |                      |
|                       |     Accountability   |                      |
|                       |     System produces  |                      |
|                       |     AYP decisions    |                      |
|                       |     for all public   |                      |
|                       |     schools,         |                      |
|                       |     including public |                      |
|                       |     schools with     |                      |
|                       |     variant grade    |                      |
|                       |     configurations   |                      |
|                       |     (e.g., K-12),    |                      |
|                       |     public schools   |                      |
|                       |     that serve       |                      |
|                       |     special          |                      |
|                       |     populations      |                      |
|                       |     (e.g.,           |                      |
|                       |     alternative      |                      |
|                       |     public schools,  |                      |
|                       |     juvenile         |                      |
|                       |     institutions,    |                      |
|                       |     state public     |                      |
|                       |     schools for the  |                      |
|                       |     blind) and       |                      |
|                       |     public charter   |                      |
|                       |     schools. It also |                      |
|                       |     holds            |                      |
|                       |     accountable      |                      |
|                       |     public schools   |                      |
|                       |     with no grades   |                      |
|                       |     assessed (e.g.,  |                      |
|                       |     K-2).            |                      |
+-----------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
| **STATE RESPONSE AND  |                      |                      |
| STATE ACTIVITIES FOR  |                      |                      |
| MEETING               |                      |                      |
| REQUIREMENTS**        |                      |                      |
+-----------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
| The State of Florida  |                      |                      |
| is submitting a       |                      |                      |
| comprehensive and     |                      |                      |
| unified plan for      |                      |                      |
| accountability that   |                      |                      |
| includes all required |                      |                      |
| aspects of NCLB and   |                      |                      |
| that relies on and    |                      |                      |
| compliments current   |                      |                      |
| state assessment and  |                      |                      |
| accountability        |                      |                      |
| provisions initiated  |                      |                      |
| by Governor Jeb Bush  |                      |                      |
| and the Florida       |                      |                      |
| Legislature. All      |                      |                      |
| public schools in the |                      |                      |
| state will be         |                      |                      |
| included in the NCLB  |                      |                      |
| accountability        |                      |                      |
| program. Florida      |                      |                      |
| statutes do not       |                      |                      |
| differentiate between |                      |                      |
| public schools for    |                      |                      |
| purposes of           |                      |                      |
| accountability.       |                      |                      |
|                       |                      |                      |
| Florida will adopt a  |                      |                      |
| single statewide      |                      |                      |
| accountability system |                      |                      |
| for all public        |                      |                      |
| schools that includes |                      |                      |
| multiple measures.    |                      |                      |
| These are: adequate   |                      |                      |
| yearly progress as    |                      |                      |
| defined by federal    |                      |                      |
| law, school grades as |                      |                      |
| defined by state law, |                      |                      |
| individual student    |                      |                      |
| progress towards      |                      |                      |
| annual learning       |                      |                      |
| targets to reach      |                      |                      |
| proficiency, and a    |                      |                      |
| return on investment  |                      |                      |
| measure that links    |                      |                      |
| dollars spent to      |                      |                      |
| student achievement.  |                      |                      |
| All schools will be   |                      |                      |
| rated on each of      |                      |                      |
| these measures.       |                      |                      |
| Schools meeting all   |                      |                      |
| standards will be     |                      |                      |
| designated as highly  |                      |                      |
| effective and         |                      |                      |
| efficient.            |                      |                      |
|                       |                      |                      |
| Each of these         |                      |                      |
| elements informs      |                      |                      |
| parents, educators,   |                      |                      |
| and the community     |                      |                      |
| about different       |                      |                      |
| facets of a school's  |                      |                      |
| performance. No one   |                      |                      |
| element, on its own,  |                      |                      |
| can provide a         |                      |                      |
| complete picture. If  |                      |                      |
| all four elements     |                      |                      |
| measured the same     |                      |                      |
| performance           |                      |                      |
| indicators in the     |                      |                      |
| same way, there would |                      |                      |
| be no need for these  |                      |                      |
| unique elements.      |                      |                      |
| Florida's             |                      |                      |
| accountability system |                      |                      |
| has been carefully    |                      |                      |
| constructed to ensure |                      |                      |
| that we consider all  |                      |                      |
| aspects of a school's |                      |                      |
| performance and       |                      |                      |
| therefore, there may  |                      |                      |
| be situations in      |                      |                      |
| which a school        |                      |                      |
| performs poorly in    |                      |                      |
| one or more of the    |                      |                      |
| elements but          |                      |                      |
| demonstrates higher   |                      |                      |
| performance in the    |                      |                      |
| others. We are        |                      |                      |
| designing a           |                      |                      |
| comprehensive public  |                      |                      |
| information campaign  |                      |                      |
| to ensure that all    |                      |                      |
| constituents,         |                      |                      |
| including parents,    |                      |                      |
| understand the four   |                      |                      |
| elements of Florida's |                      |                      |
| accountability system |                      |                      |
| and what the data     |                      |                      |
| derived from each     |                      |                      |
| element represent.    |                      |                      |
|                       |                      |                      |
| Some schools do not   |                      |                      |
| contain grade levels  |                      |                      |
| presently assessed by |                      |                      |
| the existing          |                      |                      |
| statewide assessment  |                      |                      |
| program, such as a    |                      |                      |
| K-2 school. In these  |                      |                      |
| cases, the school     |                      |                      |
| will be assigned the  |                      |                      |
| AYP classification of |                      |                      |
| the school to which   |                      |                      |
| it sends students.    |                      |                      |
|                       |                      |                      |
| Of Florida's 3,309    |                      |                      |
| schools, 210 or 6.3%  |                      |                      |
| have less than 30     |                      |                      |
| students. Schools     |                      |                      |
| with highly mobile    |                      |                      |
| populations such as   |                      |                      |
| juvenile justice      |                      |                      |
| facilities, teen      |                      |                      |
| parent programs, and  |                      |                      |
| hospital/homebound    |                      |                      |
| programs will not     |                      |                      |
| receive an AYP status |                      |                      |
| designation.          |                      |                      |
| Students' performance |                      |                      |
| and participation     |                      |                      |
| rates will be rolled  |                      |                      |
| up to the district    |                      |                      |
| and/or state level.   |                      |                      |
| This accounts for     |                      |                      |
| approximately 98 of   |                      |                      |
| the 210 schools with  |                      |                      |
| a population of less  |                      |                      |
| than 30 students. The |                      |                      |
| remaining 112 schools |                      |                      |
| including all         |                      |                      |
| elementary, middle,   |                      |                      |
| high schools, charter |                      |                      |
| schools, exceptional  |                      |                      |
| student education,    |                      |                      |
| and vocational        |                      |                      |
| schools will receive  |                      |                      |
| an AYP designation so |                      |                      |
| long as their student |                      |                      |
+-----------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
| population is larger  |                      |                      |
| than 10. While there  |                      |                      |
| are a few "schools"   |                      |                      |
| with student          |                      |                      |
| populations of less   |                      |                      |
| than 10 in the        |                      |                      |
| testing age range,    |                      |                      |
| these consist         |                      |                      |
| primarily of special  |                      |                      |
| situations in which   |                      |                      |
| one or more students  |                      |                      |
| have unique           |                      |                      |
| placements based on   |                      |                      |
| individual            |                      |                      |
| circumstances, e.g.,  |                      |                      |
| an adult education    |                      |                      |
| center or a county    |                      |                      |
| jail. Again, these    |                      |                      |
| students' performance |                      |                      |
| and participation     |                      |                      |
| rates will roll up to |                      |                      |
| the district and/or   |                      |                      |
| state levels. The SEA |                      |                      |
| regularly monitors    |                      |                      |
| the existence of      |                      |                      |
| separate schools with |                      |                      |
| exceptionally small   |                      |                      |
| numbers of students   |                      |                      |
| to ensure that it is  |                      |                      |
| necessary for such    |                      |                      |
| small schools to      |                      |                      |
| exist as separate     |                      |                      |
| entities.             |                      |                      |
|                       |                      |                      |
| Links to Supporting   |                      |                      |
| Evidence: See         |                      |                      |
| Sections              |                      |                      |
| [1000.03](http://www. |                      |                      |
| flsenate.gov/statutes |                      |                      |
| /index.cfm?App_mode=D |                      |                      |
| isplay_Statute&Search |                      |                      |
| _String=&URL=Ch1000/S |                      |                      |
| EC03.HTM&Title=->2002 |                      |                      |
| ->Ch1000->Section 03) |                      |                      |
| and                   |                      |                      |
| [                     |                      |                      |
| 1000.04](http://www.f |                      |                      |
| lsenate.gov/statutes/ |                      |                      |
| index.cfm?App_mode=Di |                      |                      |
| splay_Statute&Search_ |                      |                      |
| String=&URL=Ch1000/SE |                      |                      |
| C04.HTM&Title=->2002- |                      |                      |
| >Ch1000->Section 04), |                      |                      |
| F.S. for definitions  |                      |                      |
| of public education,  |                      |                      |
| public schools, and   |                      |                      |
| governance thereof.   |                      |                      |
+-----------------------+----------------------+----------------------+

+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **CRITICAL ELEMENT** | **EXAMPLES FOR**      | **EXAMPLES OF**       |
|                      |                       |                       |
|                      | **MEETING STATUTORY   | ***NOT* MEETING       |
|                      | REQUIREMENTS**        | REQUIREMENTS**        |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 1.  How are all      | All public schools    | Some public schools   |
|     public schools   | and LEAs are          | and LEAs are          |
|     and LEAs held to | systematically judged | systematically judged |
|     the same         | on the basis of the   | on the basis of       |
|     criteria when    | same criteria when    | alternate criteria    |
|     making an AYP    | making an AYP         | when making an AYP    |
|     determination?   | determination.        | determination.        |
|                      |                       |                       |
|                      | If applicable, the    |                       |
|                      | AYP definition is     |                       |
|                      | integrated into the   |                       |
|                      | State Accountability  |                       |
|                      | System.               |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **STATE RESPONSE AND |                       |                       |
| STATE ACTIVITIES FOR |                       |                       |
| MEETING              |                       |                       |
| REQUIREMENTS**       |                       |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| All public schools   |                       |                       |
| will be judged       |                       |                       |
| according to the     |                       |                       |
| requirements of NCLB |                       |                       |
| when making AYP      |                       |                       |
| decisions, subject   |                       |                       |
| to limitations of    |                       |                       |
| cell size discussed  |                       |                       |
| elsewhere. The AYP   |                       |                       |
| decisions will be    |                       |                       |
| made on the basis of |                       |                       |
| "status comparisons" |                       |                       |
| required in law.     |                       |                       |
|                      |                       |                       |
| Links to Supporting  |                       |                       |
| Evidence: See        |                       |                       |
| Appendices A and E   |                       |                       |
| attached hereto.     |                       |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **CRITICAL ELEMENT** | **EXAMPLES FOR**      | **EXAMPLES OF**       |
|                      |                       |                       |
|                      | **MEETING STATUTORY   | ***NOT* MEETING       |
|                      | REQUIREMENTS**        | REQUIREMENTS**        |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 2.  Does the State   | State has defined     | Standards do not meet |
|     have, at a       | three levels of       | the legislated        |
|     minimum, a       | student achievement:  | requirements.         |
|     definition of    | *basic*, *proficient* |                       |
|     *basic*,         | and *advanced*.[^1]   |                       |
|     *proficient* and |                       |                       |
|     *advanced*       | Student achievement   |                       |
|     student          | levels of             |                       |
|     achievement      | *proficient* and      |                       |
|     levels in        | *advanced* determine  |                       |
|     reading/language | how well students are |                       |
|     arts and         | mastering the         |                       |
|     mathematics?     | materials in the      |                       |
|                      | State's academic      |                       |
|                      | content standards;    |                       |
|                      | and the *basic* level |                       |
|                      | of achievement        |                       |
|                      | provides complete     |                       |
|                      | information about the |                       |
|                      | progress of           |                       |
|                      | lower-achieving       |                       |
|                      | students toward       |                       |
|                      | mastering the         |                       |
|                      | *proficient* and      |                       |
|                      | *advanced* levels.    |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS**      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| According to Florida law, the Commissioner of Education must          |
| designate an FCAT achievement level that represents inadequate        |
| performance. This has been done, and Level 1 was so designated. For   |
| purposes of implementing *No Child Left Behind*, we designate the     |
| following relationships between Florida's achievement levels and the  |
| labels specified by NCLB:                                             |
|                                                                       |
| **Specification of *NCLB* Achievement Standards**                     |
|                                                                       |
| +------------------------------+----------------------------------+   |
| | **FCAT Achievement Levels**  | **No Child Left Behind**         |   |
| |                              |                                  |   |
| |                              | **Achievement Standards**        |   |
| +------------------------------+----------------------------------+   |
| | 4-5                          | Above Proficient                 |   |
| +------------------------------+----------------------------------+   |
| | 3                            | Proficient                       |   |
| +------------------------------+----------------------------------+   |
| | 1-2                          | Below Proficient                 |   |
| +------------------------------+----------------------------------+   |
|                                                                       |
| Policy definitions of FCAT achievement levels are as follows:         |
|                                                                       |
| -   [Level 5]{.underline}: Performance at this level indicates that   |
|     the student has success with the most challenging content of the  |
|     Sunshine State Standards. A Level 5 student answers most of the   |
|     test questions correctly, including the most challenging          |
|     questions.                                                        |
|                                                                       |
| -   [Level 4]{.underline}: Performance at this level indicates that   |
|     the student has success with the challenging content of the       |
|     Sunshine State Standards. A Level 4 student answers most of the   |
|     questions correctly but may have only some success with questions |
|     that reflect the most challenging content.                        |
|                                                                       |
| -   [Level 3]{.underline}: Performance at this level indicates that   |
|     the student has partial success with the challenging content of   |
|     the Sunshine State Standards but performance is inconsistent. A   |
|     Level 3 student answers many of the questions correctly but is    |
|     generally less successful with questions that are most            |
|     challenging.                                                      |
|                                                                       |
| -   [Level 2]{.underline}: Performance at this level indicates that   |
|     the student has limited success with the challenging content of   |
|     the Sunshine State Standards.                                     |
|                                                                       |
| -   [Level 1]{.underline}: Performance at this level indicates that   |
|     the student has little success with the challenging content of    |
|     the Sunshine State Standards.                                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **CRITICAL ELEMENT** | **EXAMPLES FOR**      | **EXAMPLES OF**       |
|                      |                       |                       |
|                      | **MEETING STATUTORY   | ***NOT* MEETING       |
|                      | REQUIREMENTS**        | REQUIREMENTS**        |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 4.  How does the     | > State provides      | Timeline does not     |
|     State provide    | > decisions about     | provide sufficient    |
|     accountability   | > adequate yearly     | time for LEAs to      |
|     and adequate     | > progress in time    | fulfill their         |
|     yearly progress  | > for LEAs to         | responsibilities      |
|     decisions and    | > implement the       | before the beginning  |
|     information in a | > required provisions | of the next academic  |
|     timely manner?   | > before the          | year.                 |
|                      | > beginning of the    |                       |
|                      | > next academic year. |                       |
|                      |                       |                       |
|                      | State allows enough   |                       |
|                      | time to notify        |                       |
|                      | parents about public  |                       |
|                      | school choice or      |                       |
|                      | supplemental          |                       |
|                      | educational service   |                       |
|                      | options, time for     |                       |
|                      | parents to make an    |                       |
|                      | informed decision,    |                       |
|                      | and time to implement |                       |
|                      | public school choice  |                       |
|                      | and supplemental      |                       |
|                      | educational services. |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **STATE RESPONSE AND |                       |                       |
| STATE ACTIVITIES FOR |                       |                       |
| MEETING              |                       |                       |
| REQUIREMENTS**       |                       |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| The FCAT is          |                       |                       |
| administered in late |                       |                       |
| February and early   |                       |                       |
| March with test      |                       |                       |
| results available to |                       |                       |
| schools prior to the |                       |                       |
| end of the school    |                       |                       |
| term in May. The     |                       |                       |
| data are released in |                       |                       |
| waves with the first |                       |                       |
| release describing   |                       |                       |
| district and state   |                       |                       |
| summary data and the |                       |                       |
| second wave          |                       |                       |
| providing            |                       |                       |
| student-by-student   |                       |                       |
| test results. To     |                       |                       |
| expedite the release |                       |                       |
| of student level     |                       |                       |
| data, the            |                       |                       |
| Department's test    |                       |                       |
| support contractor   |                       |                       |
| provides the means   |                       |                       |
| whereby districts    |                       |                       |
| can access their     |                       |                       |
| data electronically  |                       |                       |
| from a secure server |                       |                       |
| prior to shipment of |                       |                       |
| the printed reports. |                       |                       |
| State summary data   |                       |                       |
| are available in     |                       |                       |
| early May and can be |                       |                       |
| used to determine if |                       |                       |
| the state objective  |                       |                       |
| targets have been    |                       |                       |
| met.                 |                       |                       |
|                      |                       |                       |
| As soon as the final |                       |                       |
| data files have been |                       |                       |
| produced in early    |                       |                       |
| May, work can begin  |                       |                       |
| on assembling the    |                       |                       |
| information with     |                       |                       |
| which to determine   |                       |                       |
| school and district  |                       |                       |
| AYP. The reports     |                       |                       |
| will be available in |                       |                       |
| time for parents to  |                       |                       |
| make informed        |                       |                       |
| "school choice"      |                       |                       |
| decisions prior to   |                       |                       |
| the beginning of the |                       |                       |
| following school     |                       |                       |
| year in August.      |                       |                       |
|                      |                       |                       |
| Links to Supporting  |                       |                       |
| Evidence: See        |                       |                       |
| Appendix B attached  |                       |                       |
| hereto. Also, see    |                       |                       |
| Section              |                       |                       |
| [1008.22             |                       |                       |
| ](http://www.flsenat |                       |                       |
| e.gov/statutes/index |                       |                       |
| .cfm?App_mode=Displa |                       |                       |
| y_Statute&Search_Str |                       |                       |
| ing=&URL=Ch1008/SEC2 |                       |                       |
| 2.HTM&Title=->2002-> |                       |                       |
| Ch1008->Section 22), |                       |                       |
| F.S.                 |                       |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

+----------------------+------------------------+---------------------+
| **CRITICAL ELEMENT** | **EXAMPLES FOR**       | **EXAMPLES OF**     |
|                      |                        |                     |
|                      | **MEETING STATUTORY    | ***NOT* MEETING     |
|                      | REQUIREMENTS**         | REQUIREMENTS**      |
+----------------------+------------------------+---------------------+
| 5.  Does the State   | The State Report Card  | The State Report    |
|     Accountability   | includes all the       | Card does not       |
|     System produce   | required data elements | include all the     |
|     an annual State  | \[see Appendix A for   | required data       |
|     Report Card?     | the list of required   | elements.           |
|                      | data elements\].       |                     |
|                      |                        | The State Report    |
|                      | The State Report Card  | Card is not         |
|                      | is available to the    | available to the    |
|                      | public at the          | public.             |
|                      | beginning of the       |                     |
|                      | academic year.         |                     |
|                      |                        |                     |
|                      | The State Report Card  |                     |
|                      | is accessible in       |                     |
|                      | languages of major     |                     |
|                      | populations in the     |                     |
|                      | State, to the extent   |                     |
|                      | possible.              |                     |
|                      |                        |                     |
|                      | Assessment results and |                     |
|                      | other academic         |                     |
|                      | indicators (including  |                     |
|                      | graduation rates) are  |                     |
|                      | reported by student    |                     |
|                      | subgroups              |                     |
+----------------------+------------------------+---------------------+
| **STATE RESPONSE AND |                        |                     |
| STATE ACTIVITIES FOR |                        |                     |
| MEETING              |                        |                     |
| REQUIREMENTS**       |                        |                     |
+----------------------+------------------------+---------------------+
| For many years,      |                        |                     |
| Florida has released |                        |                     |
| school, district,    |                        |                     |
| and state level      |                        |                     |
| student assessment   |                        |                     |
| results. Each        |                        |                     |
| district is required |                        |                     |
| to prepare an annual |                        |                     |
| report that must     |                        |                     |
| include information  |                        |                     |
| about student        |                        |                     |
| achievement and      |                        |                     |
| other relevant       |                        |                     |
| information. State,  |                        |                     |
| district, and school |                        |                     |
| reports provide data |                        |                     |
| similar to those     |                        |                     |
| required by NCLB.    |                        |                     |
| Additional required  |                        |                     |
| elements will be     |                        |                     |
| included to become   |                        |                     |
| fully compliant. The |                        |                     |
| Department is        |                        |                     |
| committed to the     |                        |                     |
| release of a State   |                        |                     |
| Report Card that     |                        |                     |
| meets the            |                        |                     |
| requirements of      |                        |                     |
| NCLB. The data       |                        |                     |
| elements found in    |                        |                     |
| Appendix A of this   |                        |                     |
| document will be     |                        |                     |
| included, and the    |                        |                     |
| report will be       |                        |                     |
| available by the     |                        |                     |
| beginning of the     |                        |                     |
| school academic      |                        |                     |
| year.                |                        |                     |
|                      |                        |                     |
| The state reports    |                        |                     |
| will be available    |                        |                     |
| through the          |                        |                     |
| Department's         |                        |                     |
| Internet web site.   |                        |                     |
| Districts with       |                        |                     |
| substantial          |                        |                     |
| Spanish-speaking     |                        |                     |
| populations will     |                        |                     |
| produce              |                        |                     |
| Spanish-language     |                        |                     |
| versions of these    |                        |                     |
| reports for          |                        |                     |
| distribution to      |                        |                     |
| parents and/or       |                        |                     |
| posting on district  |                        |                     |
| web sites.           |                        |                     |
|                      |                        |                     |
| Links to Supporting  |                        |                     |
| Evidence: See chart  |                        |                     |
| in Appendix A        |                        |                     |
| attached here to.    |                        |                     |
| Also, see Section    |                        |                     |
| [1008.385](          |                        |                     |
| http://www.flsenate. |                        |                     |
| gov/statutes/index.c |                        |                     |
| fm?App_mode=Display_ |                        |                     |
| Statute&Search_Strin |                        |                     |
| g=&URL=Ch1008/SEC385 |                        |                     |
| .HTM&Title=->2002->C |                        |                     |
| h1008->Section 385), |                        |                     |
| F.S. and the         |                        |                     |
| following web site:  |                        |                     |
| <http://doeweb-prd.  |                        |                     |
| doe.state.fl.us/eds/ |                        |                     |
| nclbspar/index.cfm>. |                        |                     |
+----------------------+------------------------+---------------------+

+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **CRITICAL ELEMENT** | **EXAMPLES FOR**      | **EXAMPLES OF**       |
|                      |                       |                       |
|                      | **MEETING STATUTORY   | ***NOT* MEETING       |
|                      | REQUIREMENTS**        | REQUIREMENTS**        |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 6.  How does the     | State uses one or     | State does not        |
|     State            | more types of rewards | implement rewards or  |
|     Accountability   | and sanctions, where  | sanctions for public  |
|     System include   | the criteria are:     | schools and LEAs      |
|     rewards and      |                       | based on adequate     |
|     sanctions for    | -   Set by the State; | yearly progress.      |
|     public schools   |                       |                       |
|     and LEAs?[^2]    | -   Based on adequate |                       |
|                      |     yearly progress   |                       |
|                      |     decisions; and,   |                       |
|                      |                       |                       |
|                      | -   Applied uniformly |                       |
|                      |     across public     |                       |
|                      |     schools and LEAs. |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS**      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Florida law provides for various rewards and sanctions, depending on  |
| performance results. Section 1002.31, F.S., mandates a "school        |
| choice" program for each district. Section 1002.38, F.S., provides    |
| "opportunity scholarships" for students attending a school rated      |
| "failing" for two years in any four-year period. Parents may choose   |
| to enroll these children in other public schools. Section 1008.32,    |
| F.S., gives the State Board of Education the authority to monitor     |
| educational quality and take firm steps to intervene in any school    |
| district, if needed. See also Rule 6A-1.09981, FAC, for a description |
| of actions that can be taken for schools that do not perform well     |
| within the A+ Plan.                                                   |
|                                                                       |
| The School Recognition Program recognizes the high quality of many of |
| Florida\'s public schools. As authorized, the program provides        |
| greater autonomy and financial awards to schools that demonstrate     |
| sustained or significantly improved student performance. Schools that |
| receive an \"A\" or schools that improve at least one performance     |
| grade category are eligible for school recognition.                   |
|                                                                       |
| The 2002 Legislature appropriated funds for the District Lottery and  |
| School Recognition Program in Item 4 of the General Appropriations    |
| Act. Of the \$306,925,000 appropriated for this purpose,              |
| \$122,770,000 or 40% can be used to fund financial awards for the     |
| Florida School Recognition Program. Each eligible school receives     |
| \$100 per student.                                                    |
|                                                                       |
| Florida will implement the requirements found in Sections 200.32 --   |
| 200.34 of the NCLB rules mandating school classifications of "school  |
| improvement, corrective action, and restructuring." Title I schools   |
| not meeting AYP will be subject to interventions and sanctions        |
| defined by federal law. These will not be applied to schools or       |
| districts not receiving Title I funds; however, schools not meeting   |
| standards for individual student progress toward proficiency and      |
| schools falling below the return on investment standard shall be      |
| designated as in need of assistance in these areas.                   |
|                                                                       |
| Links to Supporting Evidence: See the following web site address:     |
| [www.bsi.fsu.edu](http://www.bsi.fsu.edu/). Also, see Sections        |
| [1002.31](                                                            |
| http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&S |
| earch_String=&URL=Ch1002/SEC31.HTM&Title=->2002->Ch1002->Section 31), |
| [1002.38](                                                            |
| http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&S |
| earch_String=&URL=Ch1002/SEC38.HTM&Title=->2002->Ch1002->Section 38), |
| [1008.32](                                                            |
| http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&S |
| earch_String=&URL=Ch1008/SEC32.HTM&Title=->2002->Ch1008->Section 32), |
| [1008.345](h                                                          |
| ttp://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Se |
| arch_String=&URL=Ch1008/SEC345.HTM&Title=->2002->Ch1008->Section 345) |
| and                                                                   |
| [1008.36](                                                            |
| http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&S |
| earch_String=&URL=Ch1008/SEC36.HTM&Title=->2002->Ch1008->Section 36), |
| F.S; and [Rule                                                        |
| 6                                                                     |
| A-1.09981](https://www.flrules.org/gateway/ruleNo.asp?ID=6A-1.09981), |
| FAC, available at <https://www.flrules.org/Default.asp>. Florida      |
| Statutes may be accessed at                                           |
| [www.leg.state.fl.us](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/).                   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**PRINCIPLE 2. All students are included in the State Accountability
System.**

+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **CRITICAL ELEMENT** | **EXAMPLES FOR**      | **EXAMPLES OF**       |
|                      |                       |                       |
|                      | **MEETING STATUTORY   | ***NOT* MEETING       |
|                      | REQUIREMENTS**        | REQUIREMENTS**        |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 1.  How does the     | All students in the   | Public school         |
|     State            | State are included in | students exist in the |
|     Accountability   | the State             | State for whom the    |
|     System include   | Accountability        | State Accountability  |
|     all students in  | System.               | System makes no       |
|     the State?       |                       | provision.            |
|                      | The definitions of    |                       |
|                      | "public school" and   |                       |
|                      | "LEA" account for all |                       |
|                      | students enrolled in  |                       |
|                      | the public school     |                       |
|                      | district, regardless  |                       |
|                      | of program or type of |                       |
|                      | public school.        |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS**      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| All students are included in the NCLB accountability system. The vast |
| majority of students take the FCAT in grades 3-10. English language   |
| learners (ELLs) who have been enrolled in an approved English for     |
| Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) program for 12 months or less for  |
| whom it is determined on an individual basis (based on majority       |
| decision of the ELL Committee) that the FCAT is not an appropriate    |
| measure of academic proficiency are assessed using other measures of  |
| academic performance. The Department has implemented a system of      |
| locally-developed alternate assessments for those students with       |
| disabilities for whom the Sunshine State Standards and participation  |
| in the FCAT are not appropriate. Districts report the results of      |
| these assessments to the state in terms of students who are at        |
| different levels of proficiency. This allows the state to aggregate   |
| information about how many students are "Proficient or Above" in      |
| terms of the assessments they took.                                   |
|                                                                       |
| Florida statute requires that school districts operate educational    |
| programs for students in juvenile justice centers and programs. Each  |
| such program has a unique school number and will be treated as a      |
| school. All students shall be assessed and included in the state      |
| accountability system.                                                |
|                                                                       |
| All students who are "mobile," meaning they attend more than one      |
| school during the year, shall be included in the statewide assessment |
| system and included within the district and/or state AYP calculation. |
|                                                                       |
| Of Florida's 3,309 schools, 210 or 6.3% have less than 30 students.   |
| Schools with highly mobile populations such as juvenile justice       |
| facilities, teen parent programs, and hospital/homebound programs     |
| will not receive an AYP status designation. Students' performance and |
| participation rates will be rolled up to the district and/or state    |
| level. This accounts for approximately 98 of the 210 schools with a   |
| population of less than 30 students. The remaining 112 schools        |
| including all elementary, middle, high schools, charter schools,      |
| exceptional student education, and vocational schools will receive an |
| AYP designation so long as their student population is larger than    |
| 10. While there are a few "schools" with student populations of less  |
| than 10 in the testing age range, these consist primarily of special  |
| situations in which one or more students have unique placements based |
| on individual circumstances, e.g., an adult education center or a     |
| county jail. Again, these students' performance and participation     |
| rates will roll up to the district and/or state levels.               |
|                                                                       |
| The SEA has implemented a process for monitoring more closely the     |
| existence of separate schools with exceptionally small numbers of     |
| students to ensure that it is necessary for such small schools to     |
| exist as separate entities. An advisory group convenes weekly to      |
| review school district applications for the assignment of official    |
| school numbers in the state system in order to ensure that entities   |
| applying for separate school numbers perform the functions of actual  |
| schools and meet accountability criteria.                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **CRITICAL ELEMENT** | **EXAMPLES FOR**      | **EXAMPLES OF**       |
|                      |                       |                       |
|                      | **MEETING STATUTORY   | ***NOT* MEETING       |
|                      | REQUIREMENTS**        | REQUIREMENTS**        |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 2.  How does the     | The State has a       | LEAs have varying     |
|     State define     | definition of "full   | definitions of "full  |
|     "full academic   | academic year" for    | academic year."       |
|     year" for        | determining which     |                       |
|     identifying      | students are to be    | The State's           |
|     students in AYP  | included in decisions | definition excludes   |
|     decisions?       | about AYP.            | students who must     |
|                      |                       | transfer from one     |
|                      | The definition of     | district to another   |
|                      | full academic year is | as they advance to    |
|                      | consistent and        | the next grade.       |
|                      | applied statewide.    |                       |
|                      |                       | The definition of     |
|                      |                       | full academic year is |
|                      |                       | not applied           |
|                      |                       | consistently.         |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **STATE RESPONSE AND |                       |                       |
| STATE ACTIVITIES FOR |                       |                       |
| MEETING              |                       |                       |
| REQUIREMENTS**       |                       |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| For the purposes of  |                       |                       |
| calculating school   |                       |                       |
| accountability under |                       |                       |
| NCLB, students who   |                       |                       |
| are enrolled and in  |                       |                       |
| attendance by the    |                       |                       |
| fall term as         |                       |                       |
| documented in Survey |                       |                       |
| 2 conducted the      |                       |                       |
| second week of       |                       |                       |
| October and Survey 3 |                       |                       |
| conducted the second |                       |                       |
| week of February     |                       |                       |
| will be included in  |                       |                       |
| the analyses.        |                       |                       |
|                      |                       |                       |
| Links to Supporting  |                       |                       |
| Evidence: See        |                       |                       |
| Appendix E attached  |                       |                       |
| hereto.              |                       |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **CRITICAL ELEMENT** | **EXAMPLES FOR**      | **EXAMPLES OF**       |
|                      |                       |                       |
|                      | **MEETING STATUTORY   | ***NOT* MEETING       |
|                      | REQUIREMENTS**        | REQUIREMENTS**        |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 3.  How does the     | State holds public    | State definition      |
|     State            | schools accountable   | requires students to  |
|     Accountability   | for students who were | attend the same       |
|     System determine | enrolled at the same  | public school for     |
|     which students   | public school for a   | more than a full      |
|     have attended    | full academic year.   | academic year to be   |
|     the same public  |                       | included in public    |
|     school and/or    | State holds LEAs      | school                |
|     LEA for a full   | accountable for       | accountability.       |
|     academic year?   | students who transfer |                       |
|                      | during the full       | State definition      |
|                      | academic year from    | requires students to  |
|                      | one public school     | attend school in the  |
|                      | within the district   | same district for     |
|                      | to another public     | more than a full      |
|                      | school within the     | academic year to be   |
|                      | district.             | included in district  |
|                      |                       | accountability.       |
|                      |                       |                       |
|                      |                       | State holds public    |
|                      |                       | schools accountable   |
|                      |                       | for students who have |
|                      |                       | not attended the same |
|                      |                       | public school for a   |
|                      |                       | full academic year.   |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS**      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| For many years, Florida has had a student identification system that  |
| assigns a unique number to each student upon initial enrollment.      |
| Because the number follows the student throughout his/her academic    |
| career, an opportunity is available to analyze achievement data in    |
| terms of community demographic variables, school characteristics,     |
| staff characteristics, and the enacted curriculum.                    |
|                                                                       |
| An individual student often enrolls in one school and then transfers  |
| to another school during the school year. These students' data will   |
| be used for district AYP but will not be assigned to a given school   |
| for school-level AYP unless the student transferred after the March   |
| testing window has concluded.                                         |
|                                                                       |
| Students enrolled in the district during that period, but not at the  |
| same school, will be assessed and included in the district            |
| calculation of AYP. Students enrolled in the state during that        |
| period, but not in the same district will be assessed and included in |
| the state calculation of AYP.                                         |
|                                                                       |
| Links to Supporting Evidence: See Section                             |
| [1008.386](ht                                                         |
| tp://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Sea |
| rch_String=&URL=Ch1008/SEC386.HTM&Title=->2002->Ch1008->Section 386), |
| F.S., for information about the student identification numbering      |
| system.                                                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**PRINCIPLE 3. State definition of AYP is based on expectations for
growth in student achievement that is continuous and substantial, such
that all students are proficient in reading/language arts and
mathematics no later than 2013-2014.**

+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| ## CRITICAL ELEMENT  | **EXAMPLES FOR\       | **EXAMPLES OF**       |
|                      | MEETING               |                       |
|                      | REQUIREMENTS**        | ***NOT* MEETING       |
|                      |                       | REQUIREMENTS**        |
+======================+=======================+=======================+
| 1.  How does the     | The State has a       | State definition does |
|     State's          | timeline for ensuring | not require all       |
|     definition of    | that all students     | students to achieve   |
|     adequate yearly  | will meet or exceed   | proficiency by        |
|     progress require | the State's           | 2013-2014.            |
|     all students to  | proficient level of   |                       |
|     be proficient in | academic achievement  | State extends the     |
|     reading/language | in reading/language   | timeline past the     |
|     arts and         | arts[^3] and          | 2013-2014 academic    |
|     mathematics by   | mathematics, not      | year.                 |
|     the 2013-2014    | later than 2013-2014. |                       |
|     academic year?   |                       |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **STATE RESPONSE AND |                       |                       |
| STATE ACTIVITIES FOR |                       |                       |
| MEETING              |                       |                       |
| REQUIREMENTS**       |                       |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The Department has prepared a schedule for improvements in academic   |
| achievement in reading/language arts and mathematics that begins with |
| the "starting point" and concludes with 100% of the students being    |
| "Proficient or Above" at the end of the 2013-14 academic year. See    |
| also the response to question 3.2a.                                   |
|                                                                       |
| The graphs and source data on the following pages illustrate the      |
| starting points and annual objectives.                                |
|                                                                       |
| Links to Supporting Evidence: See Appendices C and D attached hereto. |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

![](media/image2.wmf){width="6.888194444444444in"
height="5.2965277777777775in"}

![](media/image3.wmf){width="6.839583333333334in" height="4.78125in"}

+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| ## CRITICAL ELEMENT  | **EXAMPLES FOR\       | **EXAMPLES OF**       |
|                      | MEETING               |                       |
|                      | REQUIREMENTS**        | ***NOT* MEETING       |
|                      |                       | REQUIREMENTS**        |
+======================+=======================+=======================+
| 2.  How does the     | For a public school   | State uses different  |
|     State            | and LEA to make       | method for            |
|     Accountability   | adequate yearly       | calculating how       |
|     System determine | progress, each        | public schools and    |
|     whether each     | student subgroup must | LEAs make AYP.        |
|     student          | meet or exceed the    |                       |
|     subgroup, public | State annual          |                       |
|     school and LEA   | measurable            |                       |
|     makes AYP?       | objectives, each      |                       |
|                      | student subgroup must |                       |
|                      | have at least a 95%   |                       |
|                      | participation rate in |                       |
|                      | the statewide         |                       |
|                      | assessments, and the  |                       |
|                      | school must meet the  |                       |
|                      | State's requirement   |                       |
|                      | for other academic    |                       |
|                      | indicators.           |                       |
|                      |                       |                       |
|                      | However, if in any    |                       |
|                      | particular year the   |                       |
|                      | student subgroup does |                       |
|                      | not meet those annual |                       |
|                      | measurable            |                       |
|                      | objectives, the       |                       |
|                      | public school or LEA  |                       |
|                      | may be considered to  |                       |
|                      | have made AYP, if the |                       |
|                      | percentage of         |                       |
|                      | students in that      |                       |
|                      | group who did not     |                       |
|                      | meet or exceed the    |                       |
|                      | proficient level of   |                       |
|                      | academic achievement  |                       |
|                      | on the State          |                       |
|                      | assessments for that  |                       |
|                      | year decreased by 10% |                       |
|                      | of that percentage    |                       |
|                      | from the preceding    |                       |
|                      | public school year;   |                       |
|                      | that group made       |                       |
|                      | progress on one or    |                       |
|                      | more of the State's   |                       |
|                      | academic indicators;  |                       |
|                      | and that group had at |                       |
|                      | least 95%             |                       |
|                      | participation rate on |                       |
|                      | the statewide         |                       |
|                      | assessment.           |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS**      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The state plan includes the criteria that are part of the NCLB        |
| authorization. A school will meet AYP if all of its subgroups meet    |
| the state targets in reading and mathematics and attain at least 95%  |
| participation in the assessment (FCAT and alternate assessments) and  |
| if the school shows an increase in the other indicator(s) of at least |
| 1%. If one or more subgroups do not meet the state measurable         |
| objectives in reading or mathematics, the "safe harbor" criteria will |
| be applied. This requires that the school demonstrate that, for each  |
| of the subgroups that did not meet the state objectives, the percent  |
| of "non proficient" students decreased by 10%. In addition, the       |
| subgroup(s) must have made progress of at least one percent increase  |
| on the state's "other indicators" and each subgroup must have         |
| attained at least 95% participation in the assessment. The            |
| participation rate will be calculated by dividing the number of       |
| students actually taking the FCAT or alternate assessment by the      |
| number of students in membership at the time of the assessment.       |
|                                                                       |
| For example, if School A did not meet the state objectives in reading |
| and if, for example, the percentage of its Hispanic minority students |
| not reaching proficiency decreased from 50% to 45% and if the         |
| Hispanic subgroup made improvement of at least 1% in the "other"      |
| indicator, it would be classified as meeting AYP. Note: the school    |
| would be expected to decrease the percentage of the Hispanic subgroup |
| not reaching proficiency by 5% (10% of the base of 50%), which        |
| results in 45% of the students not reaching proficiency (55% reaching |
| proficiency).                                                         |
|                                                                       |
| However, the Florida unified approach includes an additional          |
| criterion for a school to meet AYP. Under the terms of the Florida A+ |
| Plan for Education, each school is given a grade ranging from "A" to  |
| "F." No school rated within this system as either "D" or "F" will be  |
| determined to be meeting AYP. This feature enhances the               |
| accountability of the overall program since the Florida A+ Plan       |
| includes a measurement of academic growth for students in the lowest  |
| 25%. Even the most capable school must show growth of its lowest      |
| achieving students within the A+ system. See Appendix F.              |
|                                                                       |
| Under flexibility granted through the growth model pilot programs,    |
| schools and districts may also meet annual measurable objectives      |
| through a growth model trajectory, in addition to the status model    |
| and safe harbor. The growth model is a new AYP calculation where each |
| student within a subgroup with at least two years of assessment data  |
| will be included in the denominator for the growth calculation. The   |
| numerator will include any student in the subgroup who is proficient  |
| or "on track to be proficient" in three years. A school or district   |
| will meet AYP for that subgroup if the percentage of students who are |
| proficient or "on track to be proficient" using this calculation      |
| meets or exceeds the current state annual measurable objectives (51   |
| percent in reading and 56 percent in mathematics in 2006-07). See     |
| Appendix J.                                                           |
|                                                                       |
| Links to Supporting Evidence: See Appendices E, F, and J attached     |
| hereto.                                                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| ## CRITICAL ELEMENT  | **EXAMPLES FOR\       | **EXAMPLES OF**       |
|                      | MEETING               |                       |
|                      | REQUIREMENTS**        | ***NOT* MEETING       |
|                      |                       | REQUIREMENTS**        |
+======================+=======================+=======================+
| 3.2a What is the     | Using data from the   | The State             |
| State's starting     | 2001-2002 school      | Accountability System |
| point for            | year, the State       | uses a different      |
| calculating Adequate | established separate  | method for            |
| Yearly Progress?     | starting points in    | calculating the       |
|                      | reading/language arts | starting point (or    |
|                      | and mathematics for   | baseline data).       |
|                      | measuring the         |                       |
|                      | percentage of         |                       |
|                      | students meeting or   |                       |
|                      | exceeding the State's |                       |
|                      | proficient level of   |                       |
|                      | academic achievement. |                       |
|                      |                       |                       |
|                      | Each starting point   |                       |
|                      | is based, at a        |                       |
|                      | minimum, on the       |                       |
|                      | higher of the         |                       |
|                      | following percentages |                       |
|                      | of students at the    |                       |
|                      | proficient level: (1) |                       |
|                      | the percentage in the |                       |
|                      | State of proficient   |                       |
|                      | students in the       |                       |
|                      | lowest-achieving      |                       |
|                      | student subgroup; or, |                       |
|                      | (2) the percentage of |                       |
|                      | proficient students   |                       |
|                      | in a public school at |                       |
|                      | the 20^th^ percentile |                       |
|                      | of the State's total  |                       |
|                      | enrollment among all  |                       |
|                      | schools ranked by the |                       |
|                      | percentage of         |                       |
|                      | students at the       |                       |
|                      | proficient level.     |                       |
|                      |                       |                       |
|                      | A State may use these |                       |
|                      | procedures to         |                       |
|                      | establish separate    |                       |
|                      | starting points by    |                       |
|                      | grade span; however,  |                       |
|                      | the starting point    |                       |
|                      | must be the same for  |                       |
|                      | all like schools      |                       |
|                      | (e.g., one same       |                       |
|                      | starting point for    |                       |
|                      | all elementary        |                       |
|                      | schools, one same     |                       |
|                      | starting point for    |                       |
|                      | all middle            |                       |
|                      | schools...).          |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS**      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The Department analyzed the FCAT results from the academic year       |
| 2001-02 according to the requirements of NCLB.                        |
|                                                                       |
| Section 1111(b)(2)(E) provides that the starting point shall be, at a |
| minimum, based on the higher of the percentage of students at the     |
| proficient level who are in --                                        |
|                                                                       |
| "(i) the State's lowest achieving group of students described in      |
| subparagraph (C)(v)(II); or                                           |
|                                                                       |
| \(ii\) the school at the 20^th^ percentile in the State, based on     |
| enrollment, among all schools ranked by the percentage of students at |
| the proficient level."                                                |
|                                                                       |
| Florida's data were analyzed both ways, separately by grade level and |
| subject area (reading and mathematics). The FCAT nationally-normed    |
| test (the SAT-9) was not used in this analysis since it is not part   |
| of the State's school accountability program. Instead, only the       |
| portion of FCAT that is constructed around the Sunshine State         |
| Standards was used. (This is commonly identified as the FCAT-SSS.)    |
|                                                                       |
| The following table presents the results of the analysis method       |
| specified in (ii) for reading and mathematics. The percent of         |
| students scoring Level 3 and above was calculated for each school,    |
| and the schools were ranked. Counting upward from the lowest scoring  |
| school, a school containing the 20%-tile of student enrollment was    |
| located. This analysis depends on counting the student population     |
| within each school without regard to how many grade levels are        |
| present in each school. Thus, the population being counted is not the |
| population of students in the tested grade level who earned ratings   |
| of "Proficient or Above" but is, instead, the total enrollment of the |
| school itself.                                                        |
|                                                                       |
| **Identification of Starting Points Based on Achievement**            |
|                                                                       |
| **and School Enrollment\                                              |
| **                                                                    |
|                                                                       |
|   ----------------------------------- ------------------------------  |
|   **Reading**                         **Mathematics**                 |
|                                                                       |
|   30.68%                              37.54%                          |
|   ----------------------------------- ------------------------------  |
|                                                                       |
| NCLB specifies that the starting points will be the HIGHER of the     |
| results of the two analyses. Since these starting points are higher   |
| than those derived from the first analysis, the starting points will  |
| be 31% for reading and 38% for mathematics.                           |
|                                                                       |
| Links to Supporting Evidence: See Appendix C attached hereto.         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| ## CRITICAL ELEMENT  | **EXAMPLES FOR\       | **EXAMPLES OF**       |
|                      | MEETING               |                       |
|                      | REQUIREMENTS**        | ***NOT* MEETING       |
|                      |                       | REQUIREMENTS**        |
+======================+=======================+=======================+
| 2.  What are the     | State has annual      | The State             |
|     State's annual   | measurable objectives | Accountability System |
|     measurable       | that are consistent   | uses another method   |
|     objectives for   | with a state's        | for calculating       |
|     determining      | intermediate goals    | annual measurable     |
|     adequate yearly  | and that identify for | objectives.           |
|     progress?        | each year a minimum   |                       |
|                      | percentage of         | The State             |
|                      | students who must     | Accountability System |
|                      | meet or exceed the    | does not include      |
|                      | proficient level of   | annual measurable     |
|                      | academic achievement  | objectives.           |
|                      | on the State's        |                       |
|                      | academic assessments. |                       |
|                      |                       |                       |
|                      | The State's annual    |                       |
|                      | measurable objectives |                       |
|                      | ensure that all       |                       |
|                      | students meet or      |                       |
|                      | exceed the State's    |                       |
|                      | proficient level of   |                       |
|                      | academic achievement  |                       |
|                      | within the timeline.  |                       |
|                      |                       |                       |
|                      | The State's annual    |                       |
|                      | measurable objectives |                       |
|                      | are the same          |                       |
|                      | throughout the State  |                       |
|                      | for each public       |                       |
|                      | school, each LEA, and |                       |
|                      | each subgroup of      |                       |
|                      | students.             |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **STATE RESPONSE AND |                       |                       |
| STATE ACTIVITIES FOR |                       |                       |
| MEETING              |                       |                       |
| REQUIREMENTS**       |                       |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| The State's annual   |                       |                       |
| objectives for       |                       |                       |
| improvement in       |                       |                       |
| reading and          |                       |                       |
| mathematics are      |                       |                       |
| shown in Appendix D. |                       |                       |
| Florida has          |                       |                       |
| developed and is     |                       |                       |
| implementing a       |                       |                       |
| science assessment   |                       |                       |
| but the performance  |                       |                       |
| standards have not   |                       |                       |
| yet been             |                       |                       |
| established. Science |                       |                       |
| has not yet been     |                       |                       |
| included in the      |                       |                       |
| analysis of          |                       |                       |
| measurable           |                       |                       |
| objectives.          |                       |                       |
|                      |                       |                       |
| In the event that    |                       |                       |
| the Florida Board of |                       |                       |
| Education chooses to |                       |                       |
| adopt higher         |                       |                       |
| expectations for the |                       |                       |
| FCAT at one or more  |                       |                       |
| grade levels, this   |                       |                       |
| schedule may be      |                       |                       |
| changed.             |                       |                       |
|                      |                       |                       |
| Links to Supporting  |                       |                       |
| Evidence: See        |                       |                       |
| Appendix D attached  |                       |                       |
| hereto.              |                       |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| ## CRITICAL ELEMENT  | **EXAMPLES FOR\       | **EXAMPLES OF**       |
|                      | MEETING               |                       |
|                      | REQUIREMENTS**        | ***NOT* MEETING       |
|                      |                       | REQUIREMENTS**        |
+======================+=======================+=======================+
| 3.2c What are the    | State has established | The State uses        |
| State's intermediate | intermediate goals    | another method for    |
| goals for            | that increase in      | calculating           |
| determining adequate | equal increments over | intermediate goals.   |
| yearly progress?     | the period covered by |                       |
|                      | the State timeline.   | The State does not    |
|                      |                       | include intermediate  |
|                      | -   The first         | goals in its          |
|                      |     incremental       | definition of         |
|                      |     increase takes    | adequate yearly       |
|                      |     effect not later  | progress.             |
|                      |     than the          |                       |
|                      |     2004-2005         |                       |
|                      |     academic year.    |                       |
|                      |                       |                       |
|                      | -   Each following    |                       |
|                      |     incremental       |                       |
|                      |     increase occurs   |                       |
|                      |     within three      |                       |
|                      |     years.            |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **STATE RESPONSE AND |                       |                       |
| STATE ACTIVITIES FOR |                       |                       |
| MEETING              |                       |                       |
| REQUIREMENTS**       |                       |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| The state plan       |                       |                       |
| provides             |                       |                       |
| intermediate goals   |                       |                       |
| as shown in Critical |                       |                       |
| Element 3.1. These   |                       |                       |
| have been designed   |                       |                       |
| to permit increases  |                       |                       |
| every three years    |                       |                       |
| using 2001-02 as the |                       |                       |
| base year. This      |                       |                       |
| system provides      |                       |                       |
| annual increases     |                       |                       |
| leading to the final |                       |                       |
| expectation of 100%  |                       |                       |
| proficiency.         |                       |                       |
|                      |                       |                       |
| Links to Supporting  |                       |                       |
| Evidence: See        |                       |                       |
| Appendix D attached  |                       |                       |
| hereto.              |                       |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

**PRINCIPLE 4. State makes annual decisions about the achievement of all
public schools and LEAs.**

+---------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| ## CRITICAL ELEMENT | ## EXAMPLES FOR       | **EXAMPLES OF**       |
|                     |                       |                       |
|                     | **MEETING             | ***NOT* MEETING       |
|                     | REQUIREMENTS**        | REQUIREMENTS**        |
+=====================+=======================+=======================+
| 1.  How does the    | AYP decisions for     | AYP decisions for     |
|     State           | each public school    | public schools and    |
|     Accountability  | and LEA are made      | LEAs are not made     |
|     System make an  | annually.[^4]         | annually.             |
|     annual          |                       |                       |
|     determination   |                       |                       |
|     of whether each |                       |                       |
|     public school   |                       |                       |
|     and LEA in the  |                       |                       |
|     State made AYP? |                       |                       |
+---------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **STATE RESPONSE    |                       |                       |
| AND STATE           |                       |                       |
| ACTIVITIES FOR      |                       |                       |
| MEETING             |                       |                       |
| REQUIREMENTS**      |                       |                       |
+---------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| AYP decisions for   |                       |                       |
| each public school  |                       |                       |
| and school district |                       |                       |
| will be made        |                       |                       |
| annually using the  |                       |                       |
| system described in |                       |                       |
| Appendix E and the  |                       |                       |
| schedule shown in   |                       |                       |
| the response to     |                       |                       |
| Critical Element    |                       |                       |
| 3.2c.               |                       |                       |
|                     |                       |                       |
| Data will be        |                       |                       |
| collected from the  |                       |                       |
| FCAT and the        |                       |                       |
| alternate           |                       |                       |
| assessment systems, |                       |                       |
| combined, and       |                       |                       |
| disaggregated.      |                       |                       |
| State level,        |                       |                       |
| district, and       |                       |                       |
| school data will be |                       |                       |
| available. For each |                       |                       |
| school and each     |                       |                       |
| school district,    |                       |                       |
| the results will be |                       |                       |
| compiled and        |                       |                       |
| analyzed in         |                       |                       |
| accordance with the |                       |                       |
| AYP plan.           |                       |                       |
|                     |                       |                       |
| Links to Supporting |                       |                       |
| Evidence: See       |                       |                       |
| Appendix E attached |                       |                       |
| hereto.             |                       |                       |
+---------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

**PRINCIPLE 5. All public schools and LEAs are held accountable for the
achievement of individual subgroups.**

+---------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| ## CRITICAL ELEMENT | **EXAMPLES FOR**      | **EXAMPLES OF**       |
|                     |                       |                       |
|                     | **MEETING             | ***NOT* MEETING       |
|                     | REQUIREMENTS**        | REQUIREMENTS**        |
+=====================+=======================+=======================+
| 1.  How does the    | Identifies subgroups  | State does not        |
|     definition of   | for defining adequate | disaggregate data by  |
|     adequate yearly | yearly progress:      | each required student |
|     progress        | economically          | subgroup.             |
|     include all the | disadvantaged, major  |                       |
|     required        | racial and ethnic     |                       |
|     student         | groups, students with |                       |
|     subgroups?      | disabilities, and     |                       |
|                     | students with limited |                       |
|                     | English proficiency.  |                       |
|                     |                       |                       |
|                     | Provides definition   |                       |
|                     | and data source of    |                       |
|                     | subgroups for         |                       |
|                     | adequate yearly       |                       |
|                     | progress.             |                       |
+---------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS**      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The two-dimensional matrices provided below illustrate how the        |
| definition of adequate yearly progress includes all of the required   |
| student subgroups.                                                    |
|                                                                       |
| ####### Elementary and Middle Schools                                 |
|                                                                       |
| +-------------+--------+-----------+-------+-----------+--------+     |
| |             | R      | Reading   | Math  | Math      | Other  |     |
| |             | eading | Part      |       | Part      |        |     |
| |             |        | icipation |       | icipation | (Writ  |     |
| |             |        | Rate      |       | Rate      | ing)\* |     |
| +-------------+--------+-----------+-------+-----------+--------+     |
| | All         |        |           |       |           |        |     |
| | students    |        |           |       |           |        |     |
| +-------------+--------+-----------+-------+-----------+--------+     |
| | Econ.       |        |           |       |           |        |     |
| | Di          |        |           |       |           |        |     |
| | sadvantaged |        |           |       |           |        |     |
| +-------------+--------+-----------+-------+-----------+--------+     |
| | White       |        |           |       |           |        |     |
| +-------------+--------+-----------+-------+-----------+--------+     |
| | Black       |        |           |       |           |        |     |
| +-------------+--------+-----------+-------+-----------+--------+     |
| | Hispanic    |        |           |       |           |        |     |
| +-------------+--------+-----------+-------+-----------+--------+     |
| | Asian       |        |           |       |           |        |     |
| +-------------+--------+-----------+-------+-----------+--------+     |
| | Am. Indian  |        |           |       |           |        |     |
| +-------------+--------+-----------+-------+-----------+--------+     |
| | SWD         |        |           |       |           |        |     |
| +-------------+--------+-----------+-------+-----------+--------+     |
| | ELL         |        |           |       |           |        |     |
| +-------------+--------+-----------+-------+-----------+--------+     |
| |             |        |           |       |           |        |     |
| +-------------+--------+-----------+-------+-----------+--------+     |
|                                                                       |
| **\* In accordance with Section 200.19 of the final regulations, the  |
| "Other Academic Indicators" will be disaggregated by subgroup for     |
| reporting purposes but will not be used for determining AYP.**        |
|                                                                       |
| ####### Senior High Schools                                           |
|                                                                       |
| +-------------+-------+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+      |
| |             | Re    | R      | Math | Math   | Other | Other |      |
| |             | ading | eading |      | Pa     |       | (     |      |
| |             |       | Pa     |      | rtici- | (G    | Writi |      |
| |             |       | rtici- |      | pation | radu- | ng)\* |      |
| |             |       |        |      | Rate   | ation |       |      |
| |             |       | pation |      |        | Ra    |       |      |
| |             |       | Rate   |      |        | te)\* |       |      |
| +-------------+-------+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+      |
| | All         |       |        |      |        |       |       |      |
| | students    |       |        |      |        |       |       |      |
| +-------------+-------+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+      |
| | Econ.       |       |        |      |        |       |       |      |
| | Di          |       |        |      |        |       |       |      |
| | sadvantaged |       |        |      |        |       |       |      |
| +-------------+-------+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+      |
| | White       |       |        |      |        |       |       |      |
| +-------------+-------+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+      |
| | Black       |       |        |      |        |       |       |      |
| +-------------+-------+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+      |
| | Hispanic    |       |        |      |        |       |       |      |
| +-------------+-------+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+      |
| | Asian       |       |        |      |        |       |       |      |
| +-------------+-------+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+      |
| | Am. Indian  |       |        |      |        |       |       |      |
| +-------------+-------+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+      |
| | SWD         |       |        |      |        |       |       |      |
| +-------------+-------+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+      |
| | ELL         |       |        |      |        |       |       |      |
| +-------------+-------+--------+------+--------+-------+-------+      |
|                                                                       |
| \* In accordance with Section 200.19 of the final regulations, the    |
| "Other Academic Indicators" will be disaggregated by subgroup for     |
| reporting purposes but will not be used for determining AYP.          |
|                                                                       |
| Links to Supporting Evidence: See Appendix E attached hereto.         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+---------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| ## CRITICAL ELEMENT | **EXAMPLES FOR**      | **EXAMPLES OF**       |
|                     |                       |                       |
|                     | **MEETING             | ***NOT* MEETING       |
|                     | REQUIREMENTS**        | REQUIREMENTS**        |
+=====================+=======================+=======================+
| 2.  How are public  | Public schools and    | State does not        |
|     schools and     | LEAs are held         | include student       |
|     LEAs held       | accountable for       | subgroups in its      |
|     accountable for | student subgroup      | State Accountability  |
|     the progress of | achievement:          | System.               |
|     student         | economically          |                       |
|     subgroups in    | disadvantaged, major  |                       |
|     the             | ethnic and racial     |                       |
|     determination   | groups, students with |                       |
|     of adequate     | disabilities, and     |                       |
|     yearly          | limited English       |                       |
|     progress?       | proficient students.  |                       |
+---------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **STATE RESPONSE    |                       |                       |
| AND STATE           |                       |                       |
| ACTIVITIES FOR      |                       |                       |
| MEETING             |                       |                       |
| REQUIREMENTS**      |                       |                       |
+---------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| The Department's    |                       |                       |
| system for          |                       |                       |
| determining AYP     |                       |                       |
| requires that       |                       |                       |
| progress be made    |                       |                       |
| within the          |                       |                       |
| specified subgroups |                       |                       |
| for AYP to be       |                       |                       |
| achieved at the     |                       |                       |
| school and district |                       |                       |
| level. These        |                       |                       |
| include:            |                       |                       |
|                     |                       |                       |
| 1.  All students    |                       |                       |
|                     |                       |                       |
| 2.  Economically    |                       |                       |
|     disadvantaged   |                       |                       |
|     students        |                       |                       |
|                     |                       |                       |
| 3.  Students with   |                       |                       |
|     disabilities    |                       |                       |
|     (SWDs)          |                       |                       |
|                     |                       |                       |
| 4.  English         |                       |                       |
|     language        |                       |                       |
|     learners (ELLs) |                       |                       |
|                     |                       |                       |
| 5.  White, Black,   |                       |                       |
|     Hispanic,       |                       |                       |
|     Asian, and      |                       |                       |
|     American Indian |                       |                       |
|     students        |                       |                       |
|     (separately)    |                       |                       |
|                     |                       |                       |
| Data for the above  |                       |                       |
| subgroups will be   |                       |                       |
| reported contingent |                       |                       |
| upon group size     |                       |                       |
| limitations         |                       |                       |
| discussed in        |                       |                       |
| Critical Element    |                       |                       |
| 5.5.                |                       |                       |
|                     |                       |                       |
| Students who        |                       |                       |
| initially are       |                       |                       |
| classified as SWD   |                       |                       |
| and who             |                       |                       |
| subsequently leave  |                       |                       |
| that official       |                       |                       |
| classification will |                       |                       |
| no longer be        |                       |                       |
| considered as SWD   |                       |                       |
| for accountability  |                       |                       |
| purposes and will   |                       |                       |
| be considered in    |                       |                       |
| the total group as  |                       |                       |
| well as in their    |                       |                       |
| race/ethnic or      |                       |                       |
| economically        |                       |                       |
| disadvantaged       |                       |                       |
| group, if           |                       |                       |
| applicable.         |                       |                       |
|                     |                       |                       |
| A Florida student   |                       |                       |
| is classified as an |                       |                       |
| English language    |                       |                       |
| learner for AYP     |                       |                       |
| purposes if he or   |                       |                       |
| she meets one of    |                       |                       |
| the following       |                       |                       |
| criteria:           |                       |                       |
|                     |                       |                       |
| -   (Code LY) \--   |                       |                       |
|     The student is  |                       |                       |
|     classified as   |                       |                       |
|     limited English |                       |                       |
|     proficient and  |                       |                       |
|     is enrolled in  |                       |                       |
|     a program or    |                       |                       |
|     receiving       |                       |                       |
|     services that   |                       |                       |
|     are             |                       |                       |
|     specifically    |                       |                       |
|     designed to     |                       |                       |
|     meet the        |                       |                       |
|     instructional   |                       |                       |
|     needs of ELL    |                       |                       |
|     students,       |                       |                       |
|     regardless of   |                       |                       |
|     instructional   |                       |                       |
|     model/approach. |                       |                       |
|                     |                       |                       |
| -   (Code LF) \--   |                       |                       |
|     The student is  |                       |                       |
|     being followed  |                       |                       |
|     up for a        |                       |                       |
|     two-year period |                       |                       |
|     after having    |                       |                       |
|     exited from the |                       |                       |
|     ESOL program.   |                       |                       |
+---------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

+-----------------------+-------------------------+-------------------+
| ## CRITICAL ELEMENT   | **EXAMPLES FOR**        | **EXAMPLES OF**   |
|                       |                         |                   |
|                       | **MEETING               | ***NOT* MEETING   |
|                       | REQUIREMENTS**          | REQUIREMENTS**    |
+=======================+=========================+===================+
| 1.  How are students  | All students with       | The State         |
|     with disabilities | disabilities            | Accountability    |
|     included in the   | participate in          | System or State   |
|     State's           | statewide assessments:  | policy excludes   |
|     definition of     | general assessments     | students with     |
|     adequate yearly   | with or without         | disabilities from |
|     progress?         | accommodations or an    | participating in  |
|                       | alternate assessment    | the statewide     |
|                       | based on grade level    | assessments.      |
|                       | standards for the grade |                   |
|                       | in which students are   | State cannot      |
|                       | enrolled.               | demonstrate that  |
|                       |                         | alternate         |
|                       | State demonstrates that | assessments       |
|                       | students with           | measure           |
|                       | disabilities are fully  | grade-level       |
|                       | included in the State   | standards for the |
|                       | Accountability System.  | grade in which    |
|                       |                         | students are      |
|                       |                         | enrolled.         |
+-----------------------+-------------------------+-------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS**      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The Florida assessment program, FCAT, emphasizes the participation of |
| ALL students. Students with disabilities are provided a wide variety  |
| of accommodations. Students with disabilities who do not participate  |
| in FCAT are assessed using the Florida Alternate Assessment, the      |
| results of which are merged with the FCAT proficiency ratings.        |
|                                                                       |
| Florida's program expects schools to provide the opportunity to learn |
| for students with disabilities and for ELLs with the intent of        |
| preparing them for graduation with a regular diploma.                 |
|                                                                       |
| For the 2007-08 school year, Florida will be utilizing the short term |
| flexibility afforded by the United States Department of Education     |
| regarding the students with disabilities subgroup. Florida will apply |
| the Mathematical Adjustment to the Students with Disabilities         |
| subgroup in reporting that subgroup's reading performance. We         |
| understand that this option is short term and applies only to         |
| schools/districts that did not make AYP based solely on the SWD       |
| subgroup. This option allows us to make a mathematical adjustment to  |
| the SWD proficiency rate in order to provide additional credit to     |
| schools/districts that missed AYP solely based on the achievement of  |
| SWD subgroup; in Florida this would be 14% based on model calculation |
| in USDE document.                                                     |
|                                                                       |
| Sample Calculation:                                                   |
|                                                                       |
| 234,693 students with disabilities assessed in Florida divided by     |
| 1,596,083 students assessed Florida = 14.70%. The 14.70 is divided    |
| into 2.0 (2.0 is prescribed by USDE) = 14%, which is the mathematical |
| adjustment.                                                           |
|                                                                       |
| For this year only, this proxy will then be added to the percent of   |
| students with disabilities who are proficient in reading.\* This      |
| adjusted percent proficient is what a State may use to reexamine if   |
| the school made AYP for the 2006-07 school year.                      |
|                                                                       |
| +-----------+------------+-------------+-------------+----------+     |
| | Example   | Actual SWD | FL          | Adjusted    | Adjusted |     |
| | Schools   | Proficient | M           | Proficiency | AYP      |     |
| |           |            | athematical |             | Decision |     |
| | 2008      | Reading    |             | Actual +    |          |     |
| |           |            | Adjustment  | 14%         |          |     |
| +-----------+------------+-------------+-------------+----------+     |
| | Roosevelt | **13%**    | **14%**     | **26%**     | **No**   |     |
| +-----------+------------+-------------+-------------+----------+     |
| | W         | **25%**    | **14%**     | **38%**     | **No**   |     |
| | ashington |            |             |             |          |     |
| +-----------+------------+-------------+-------------+----------+     |
| | Lincoln   | **15%**    | **14%**     | **28%**     | **No**   |     |
| +-----------+------------+-------------+-------------+----------+     |
| | Adams     | **45%**    | **14%**     | **59%**     | **Yes**  |     |
| +-----------+------------+-------------+-------------+----------+     |
| | Coolidge  | **4%**     | **14%**     | **17%**     | **No**   |     |
| +-----------+------------+-------------+-------------+----------+     |
|                                                                       |
| \* For Florida in 2007-08, the adjustment is not available for        |
| application to SWD proficiency in math.                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+---------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| ## CRITICAL ELEMENT | **EXAMPLES FOR**      | **EXAMPLES OF**       |
|                     |                       |                       |
|                     | **MEETING             | ***NOT* MEETING       |
|                     | REQUIREMENTS**        | REQUIREMENTS**        |
+=====================+=======================+=======================+
| 2.  How are         | All LEP students      | LEP students are not  |
|     students with   | participate in        | fully included in the |
|     limited English | statewide             | State Accountability  |
|     proficiency     | assessments: general  | System.               |
|     included in the | assessments with or   |                       |
|     State's         | without               |                       |
|     definition of   | accommodations or a   |                       |
|     adequate yearly | native language       |                       |
|     progress?       | version of the        |                       |
|                     | general assessment    |                       |
|                     | based on grade level  |                       |
|                     | standards.            |                       |
|                     |                       |                       |
|                     | State demonstrates    |                       |
|                     | that LEP students are |                       |
|                     | fully included in the |                       |
|                     | State Accountability  |                       |
|                     | System.               |                       |
+---------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS**      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| See also the response to Critical Element 5.3.                        |
|                                                                       |
| The academic achievement of all students classified as English        |
| language learners will be measured and reported. ELLs are required to |
| participate in the FCAT assessment program. The scores of ELLs        |
| participating in the FCAT are included in the accountability system   |
| and affect the calculation of AYP.                                    |
|                                                                       |
| A Florida student is classified as an English language learner for    |
| AYP purposes if he or she meets one of the following criteria:        |
|                                                                       |
| -   (Code LY) \-- The student is classified as limited English        |
|     proficient and is enrolled in a program or receiving services     |
|     that are specifically designed to meet the instructional needs of |
|     ELL students, regardless of instructional model/approach.         |
|                                                                       |
| -   (Code LF) \-- The student is being followed up for a two-year     |
|     period after having exited from the ESOL program.                 |
|                                                                       |
| On an individual basis, it may be determined that the FCAT is not an  |
| appropriate measure of academic performance for ELLs who have been    |
| enrolled in an approved English for Speakers of Other Languages       |
| (ESOL) program for 12 months or less. However, the academic           |
| achievement of these students is measured and reported using          |
| locally-determined alternate assessments which are required to be     |
| aligned to the benchmarks assessed on the FCAT. This represents a     |
| very small percentage of LEP students. The scores of the students     |
| taking alternate assessments are cross-walked to the established      |
| proficiency designations and included in the calculation of AYP. See  |
| Appendix B for a complete description of Florida's process and for a  |
| discussion of the test accommodations provided to ELLs on the FCAT.   |
|                                                                       |
| Links to Supporting Evidence:                                         |
|                                                                       |
| The following web site includes a listing of tests that may be used   |
| for locally determined alternate assessments:                         |
| <http://www.fldoe.org/eias/dataweb/database_0607/appendi.pdf>.        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+---------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| ## CRITICAL ELEMENT | **EXAMPLES FOR**      | **EXAMPLES OF**       |
|                     |                       |                       |
|                     | **MEETING             | ***NOT* MEETING       |
|                     | REQUIREMENTS**        | REQUIREMENTS**        |
+---------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 1.  What is the     | State defines the     | State does not define |
|     State\'s        | number of students    | the required number   |
|     definition of   | required in a         | of students in a      |
|     the minimum     | subgroup for          | subgroup for          |
|     number of       | reporting and         | reporting and         |
|     students in a   | accountability        | accountability        |
|     subgroup        | purposes, and applies | purposes.             |
|     required for    | this definition       |                       |
|     reporting       | consistently across   | Definition is not     |
|     purposes? For   | the State.[^5]        | applied consistently  |
|     accountability  |                       | across the State.     |
|     purposes?       | Definition of         |                       |
|                     | subgroup will result  | Definition does not   |
|                     | in data that are      | result in data that   |
|                     | statistically         | are statistically     |
|                     | reliable.             | reliable.             |
+---------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

+---------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **STATE RESPONSE    |                       |                       |
| AND STATE           |                       |                       |
| ACTIVITIES FOR      |                       |                       |
| MEETING             |                       |                       |
| REQUIREMENTS**      |                       |                       |
+---------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| The Department will |                       |                       |
| utilize the         |                       |                       |
| following minimum   |                       |                       |
| group sizes.        |                       |                       |
|                     |                       |                       |
| 1.  For public      |                       |                       |
|     reporting       |                       |                       |
|     purposes, there |                       |                       |
|     shall be no     |                       |                       |
|     fewer than 10   |                       |                       |
|     students in a   |                       |                       |
|     cell.           |                       |                       |
|                     |                       |                       |
| 2.  For             |                       |                       |
|     accountability  |                       |                       |
|     purposes, the   |                       |                       |
|     minimum group   |                       |                       |
|     size shall be   |                       |                       |
|     at least 30     |                       |                       |
|     students and    |                       |                       |
|     more than15     |                       |                       |
|     percent of the  |                       |                       |
|     total school    |                       |                       |
|     population or   |                       |                       |
|     100 students    |                       |                       |
|     for the         |                       |                       |
|     subgroups for   |                       |                       |
|     performance     |                       |                       |
|     criteria (not   |                       |                       |
|     participation). |                       |                       |
|                     |                       |                       |
| These values have   |                       |                       |
| been in use for     |                       |                       |
| many years in       |                       |                       |
| reporting           |                       |                       |
| statistical data    |                       |                       |
| collected by the    |                       |                       |
| Department. The     |                       |                       |
| value of 30 for     |                       |                       |
| group reporting has |                       |                       |
| been incorporated   |                       |                       |
| in State Board of   |                       |                       |
| Education Rule. See |                       |                       |
| Rule 6A-1.09981,    |                       |                       |
| FAC.                |                       |                       |
|                     |                       |                       |
| Analysis of data    |                       |                       |
| indicate that       |                       |                       |
| Florida has the     |                       |                       |
| largest schools in  |                       |                       |
| the nation:         |                       |                       |
|                     |                       |                       |
|   ---------         |                       |                       |
|  ------------- ---- |                       |                       |
| -------- ---------- |                       |                       |
|                     |                       |                       |
|    **Primary**   ** |                       |                       |
| Middle**   **High** |                       |                       |
|                     |                       |                       |
|   U.                |                       |                       |
| S.      446         |                       |                       |
|    595          752 |                       |                       |
|                     |                       |                       |
|  Average            |                       |                       |
|                     |                       |                       |
|                     |                       |                       |
|   Flor              |                       |                       |
| ida   694           |                       |                       |
|  1,030        4,460 |                       |                       |
|   ---------         |                       |                       |
|  ------------- ---- |                       |                       |
| -------- ---------- |                       |                       |
|                     |                       |                       |
| \*NCES Statistical  |                       |                       |
| Report, September   |                       |                       |
| 2001                |                       |                       |
|                     |                       |                       |
| Florida's student   |                       |                       |
| population is very  |                       |                       |
| diverse. Of the     |                       |                       |
| 2,662,701 students  |                       |                       |
| in the              |                       |                       |
| prekindergarten     |                       |                       |
| through 12^th^      |                       |                       |
| grade membership    |                       |                       |
| (Survey 2 Data,     |                       |                       |
| October 9-13,       |                       |                       |
| 2006), 46.71% were  |                       |                       |
| White, 23.15% were  |                       |                       |
| Black, 24.24% were  |                       |                       |
| Hispanic, 2.31%     |                       |                       |
| were Asian/Pacific  |                       |                       |
| Islander, 3.29%     |                       |                       |
| were Multiracial,   |                       |                       |
| and .30% were       |                       |                       |
| American            |                       |                       |
| Indian/Alaskan      |                       |                       |
| Native (source:     |                       |                       |
| Florida statistical |                       |                       |
| brief on student    |                       |                       |
| membership at       |                       |                       |
| <h                  |                       |                       |
| ttp://www.fldoe.org |                       |                       |
| /eias/eiaspubs/pdf/ |                       |                       |
| pk-12mbrship.pdf>). |                       |                       |
| Students with       |                       |                       |
| disabilities        |                       |                       |
| represented 14.7%   |                       |                       |
| of the population   |                       |                       |
| while English       |                       |                       |
| language learners   |                       |                       |
| (ELLs) represented  |                       |                       |
| 11.8% of the        |                       |                       |
| population (source: |                       |                       |
| Florida NCLB School |                       |                       |
| Public              |                       |                       |
| Accountability      |                       |                       |
| Reports at          |                       |                       |
| <ht                 |                       |                       |
| tp://doeweb-prd.doe |                       |                       |
| .state.fl.us/eds/nc |                       |                       |
| lbspar/index.cfm>). |                       |                       |
|                     |                       |                       |
| These data support  |                       |                       |
| the use of a        |                       |                       |
| minimum group size  |                       |                       |
| of at least 30      |                       |                       |
| students and more   |                       |                       |
| than 15 percent of  |                       |                       |
| the total school    |                       |                       |
| population or 100   |                       |                       |
| students. When one  |                       |                       |
| considers the       |                       |                       |
| general size of the |                       |                       |
| schools and of the  |                       |                       |
| subgroups it would  |                       |                       |
| appear that Florida |                       |                       |
| is better           |                       |                       |
| positioned than     |                       |                       |
| most states to have |                       |                       |
| subgroups of        |                       |                       |
| sufficient size to  |                       |                       |
| fairly judge        |                       |                       |
| performance         |                       |                       |
| consistent with the |                       |                       |
| requirements of No  |                       |                       |
| Child Left Behind.  |                       |                       |
|                     |                       |                       |
| Links to Supporting |                       |                       |
| Evidence: See Rule  |                       |                       |
| 6A-1.09981, FAC,    |                       |                       |
| available at        |                       |                       |
| [www.               |                       |                       |
| flrules.org](http:/ |                       |                       |
| /www.flrules.org/). |                       |                       |
+---------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| ## CRITICAL ELEMENT | **EXAMPLES FOR**      | **EXAMPLES OF**       |
|                     |                       |                       |
|                     | **MEETING             | ***NOT* MEETING       |
|                     | REQUIREMENTS**        | REQUIREMENTS**        |
+---------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 1.  How does the    | Definition does not   | Definition reveals    |
|     State           | reveal personally     | personally            |
|     Accountability  | identifiable          | identifiable          |
|     System protect  | information.[^6]      | information.          |
|     the privacy of  |                       |                       |
|     students when   |                       |                       |
|     reporting       |                       |                       |
|     results and     |                       |                       |
|     when            |                       |                       |
|     determining     |                       |                       |
|     AYP?            |                       |                       |
+---------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **STATE RESPONSE    |                       |                       |
| AND STATE           |                       |                       |
| ACTIVITIES FOR      |                       |                       |
| MEETING             |                       |                       |
| REQUIREMENTS**      |                       |                       |
+---------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| The Florida         |                       |                       |
| educational data    |                       |                       |
| system protects the |                       |                       |
| identity of all     |                       |                       |
| student             |                       |                       |
| information. See    |                       |                       |
| Rule 6A-1.0014,     |                       |                       |
| FAC, language       |                       |                       |
| below:              |                       |                       |
|                     |                       |                       |
| > [**6A-1.0014**    |                       |                       |
| ](http://www.flrule |                       |                       |
| s.com/gateway/ruleN |                       |                       |
| o.asp?id=6A-1.0014) |                       |                       |
| > **Comprehensive   |                       |                       |
| > Management        |                       |                       |
| > Information       |                       |                       |
| > System.**         |                       |                       |
| >                   |                       |                       |
| > \(1\) Each school |                       |                       |
| > district and the  |                       |                       |
| > Department shall  |                       |                       |
| > develop and       |                       |                       |
| > implement an      |                       |                       |
| > automated         |                       |                       |
| > information       |                       |                       |
| > system component  |                       |                       |
| > which shall be    |                       |                       |
| > part of, and      |                       |                       |
| > compatible with,  |                       |                       |
| > the statewide     |                       |                       |
| > comprehensive     |                       |                       |
| > management        |                       |                       |
| > information       |                       |                       |
| > system. Each      |                       |                       |
| > information       |                       |                       |
| > system component  |                       |                       |
| > shall contain     |                       |                       |
| > automated         |                       |                       |
| > student, staff    |                       |                       |
| > and finance       |                       |                       |
| > information       |                       |                       |
| > systems and shall |                       |                       |
| > include           |                       |                       |
| > procedures for    |                       |                       |
| > the security,     |                       |                       |
| > privacy and       |                       |                       |
| > retention of      |                       |                       |
| > automated         |                       |                       |
| > records. The      |                       |                       |
| > procedures for    |                       |                       |
| > the security,     |                       |                       |
| > privacy and       |                       |                       |
| > retention of      |                       |                       |
| > automated student |                       |                       |
| > records shall be  |                       |                       |
| > in accordance     |                       |                       |
| > with the          |                       |                       |
| > requirements of   |                       |                       |
| > 20 U.S.C.         |                       |                       |
| > 1232g(b)(3), 34   |                       |                       |
| > C.F.R. Part 99    |                       |                       |
| > and [Section      |                       |                       |
| > 1002.22,          |                       |                       |
| > F.                |                       |                       |
| S.](http://www.leg. |                       |                       |
| state.fl.us/Statute |                       |                       |
| s/index.cfm?App_mod |                       |                       |
| e=Display_Statute&S |                       |                       |
| earch_String=&URL=C |                       |                       |
| h1002/SEC22.HTM&Tit |                       |                       |
| le=->2007->Ch1002-> |                       |                       |
| Section 22#1002.22) |                       |                       |
|                     |                       |                       |
| FCAT test results   |                       |                       |
| likewise are        |                       |                       |
| protected from      |                       |                       |
| disclosure to       |                       |                       |
| unauthorized        |                       |                       |
| persons. Any        |                       |                       |
| individual wishing  |                       |                       |
| to use Florida      |                       |                       |
| student data for    |                       |                       |
| research or         |                       |                       |
| contract purposes   |                       |                       |
| must adhere to the  |                       |                       |
| provisions of       |                       |                       |
| Florida's statutes  |                       |                       |
| and rules related   |                       |                       |
| to disclosure of    |                       |                       |
| sensitive           |                       |                       |
| information.        |                       |                       |
|                     |                       |                       |
| In addition,        |                       |                       |
| performance levels  |                       |                       |
| within a reporting  |                       |                       |
| cell will be        |                       |                       |
| reported only if    |                       |                       |
| the performance is  |                       |                       |
| greater than 5% and |                       |                       |
| less than 95%. By   |                       |                       |
| not specifically    |                       |                       |
| reporting very      |                       |                       |
| small or very large |                       |                       |
| percentages,        |                       |                       |
| student identity is |                       |                       |
| further protected.  |                       |                       |
|                     |                       |                       |
| Links to Supporting |                       |                       |
| Evidence: See Rule  |                       |                       |
| 6A-1.0014, FAC,     |                       |                       |
| available at        |                       |                       |
| [www.               |                       |                       |
| flrules.org](http:/ |                       |                       |
| /www.flrules.org/). |                       |                       |
+---------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

**PRINCIPLE 6. State definition of AYP is based primarily on the State's
academic assessments.**

+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| ## CRITICAL ELEMENT  | ## EXAMPLES FOR       | ## EXAMPLES OF        |
|                      |                       |                       |
|                      | **MEETING             | ***NOT* MEETING       |
|                      | REQUIREMENTS**        | REQUIREMENTS**        |
+======================+=======================+=======================+
| 1.  How is the       | Formula for AYP shows | Formula for AYP shows |
|     State's          | that decisions are    | that decisions are    |
|     definition of    | based primarily on    | based primarily on    |
|     adequate yearly  | assessments.[^7]      | non-academic          |
|     progress based   |                       | indicators or         |
|     primarily on     | Plan clearly          | indicators other than |
|     academic         | identifies which      | the State             |
|     assessments?     | assessments are       | assessments.          |
|                      | included in           |                       |
|                      | accountability.       |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **STATE RESPONSE AND |                       |                       |
| STATE ACTIVITIES FOR |                       |                       |
| MEETING              |                       |                       |
| REQUIREMENTS**       |                       |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| The Florida          |                       |                       |
| accountability       |                       |                       |
| program for NCLB     |                       |                       |
| will be based        |                       |                       |
| primarily on the     |                       |                       |
| results of student   |                       |                       |
| academic             |                       |                       |
| assessments. Other   |                       |                       |
| indicators will be   |                       |                       |
| used in accordance   |                       |                       |
| with the             |                       |                       |
| requirements of      |                       |                       |
| NCLB.                |                       |                       |
|                      |                       |                       |
| See also Appendix E  |                       |                       |
| for a discussion of  |                       |                       |
| Florida's AYP plan,  |                       |                       |
| including assessment |                       |                       |
| results used in the  |                       |                       |
| state's AYP          |                       |                       |
| calculation as well  |                       |                       |
| as the "other        |                       |                       |
| indicators." For     |                       |                       |
| elementary and       |                       |                       |
| middle schools, the  |                       |                       |
| results of the       |                       |                       |
| statewide writing    |                       |                       |
| assessment will be   |                       |                       |
| used. For high       |                       |                       |
| schools, the grade   |                       |                       |
| 10 writing           |                       |                       |
| assessment and the   |                       |                       |
| high school          |                       |                       |
| graduation rate will |                       |                       |
| be used.             |                       |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

PRINCIPLE 7. State definition of AYP includes graduation rates for
public High schools and an additional indicator selected by the State
for public Middle and public Elementary schools (such as attendance
rates).

+---------------------+------------------------+-----------------------+
| ## CRITICAL ELEMENT | **EXAMPLES FOR**       | **EXAMPLES OF**       |
|                     |                        |                       |
|                     | **MEETING              | ***NOT* MEETING       |
|                     | REQUIREMENTS**         | REQUIREMENTS**        |
+=====================+========================+=======================+
+---------------------+------------------------+-----------------------+

+---------------------+------------------------+-----------------------+
| 1.  What is the     | State definition of    | State definition of   |
|     State           | graduation rate:       | public high school    |
|     definition for  |                        | graduation rate does  |
|     the public high | -   Calculates the     | not meet these        |
|     school          |     percentage of      | criteria.             |
|     graduation      |     students, measured |                       |
|     rate?           |     from the beginning |                       |
|                     |     of the school      |                       |
|                     |     year, who graduate |                       |
|                     |     from public high   |                       |
|                     |     school with a      |                       |
|                     |     regular diploma    |                       |
|                     |     (not including a   |                       |
|                     |     GED or any other   |                       |
|                     |     diploma not fully  |                       |
|                     |     aligned with the   |                       |
|                     |     state's academic   |                       |
|                     |     standards) in the  |                       |
|                     |     standard number of |                       |
|                     |     years; or,         |                       |
|                     |                        |                       |
|                     | -   Uses another more  |                       |
|                     |     accurate           |                       |
|                     |     definition that    |                       |
|                     |     has been approved  |                       |
|                     |     by the Secretary;  |                       |
|                     |     and                |                       |
|                     |                        |                       |
|                     | -   Must avoid         |                       |
|                     |     counting a dropout |                       |
|                     |     as a transfer.     |                       |
|                     |                        |                       |
|                     | Graduation rate is     |                       |
|                     | included (in the       |                       |
|                     | aggregate) for AYP,    |                       |
|                     | and disaggregated (as  |                       |
|                     | necessary) for use     |                       |
|                     | when applying the      |                       |
|                     | exception clause[^8]   |                       |
|                     | to make AYP.           |                       |
+---------------------+------------------------+-----------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS**      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| In Florida, the number of graduates from a four-year adjusted cohort  |
| is divided by the total number of students in the adjusted cohort.    |
| The adjusted cohort (denominator) is determined through a multi-step  |
| process in which we subtract from the 9^th^ grade cohort the students |
| who transfer out of the school or are deceased and add the students   |
| transferring into the school who, at the time of their enrollment,    |
| are on the same schedule to graduate as students from the first       |
| group. This definition is more accurate than the definition created   |
| by the National Center for Education Statistics.                      |
|                                                                       |
| For NCLB, we propose to use the prior year graduation rate for the    |
| calculation of AYP and the state report card. This is necessary       |
| because many districts graduate students during summer school, and    |
| the deadline for AYP calculations and public reporting can occur      |
| prior to summer school conclusion for some districts.                 |
|                                                                       |
| The NCLB graduation rate will vary slightly from the graduation rate  |
| that Florida publishes annually for other state-based reporting       |
| purposes because the state's NCLB rate excludes special diploma       |
| recipients from the numerator and adult-education GED recipients from |
| the numerator and denominator. At this time, all Florida high school  |
| students receiving a GED from the Florida Department of Education as  |
| well as special diploma recipients are included in our regular        |
| graduation rate calculation.                                          |
|                                                                       |
| For the purposes of calculating the graduation rate, the              |
| classification of students in grade 9 will follow them throughout     |
| their high school career. For example, if a student is classified as  |
| SWD in grade 9 but then by grade 11 is no longer considered to be     |
| SWD, he/she will still be counted as if the classification had not    |
| changed. This classification methodology will apply only for the      |
| purposes of calculating the graduation rate as stated above, and will |
| not be used for any other NCLB purpose.                               |
|                                                                       |
| Florida has five high school graduation and completion options:       |
|                                                                       |
| -   Standard Diploma                                                  |
|                                                                       |
| -   Certificate of Completion                                         |
|                                                                       |
| -   State of Florida/High School Equivalency Diploma                  |
|                                                                       |
| -   Special Diploma                                                   |
|                                                                       |
| -   Special Certificate of Completion.                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Only those students receiving a standard diploma or a State of        |
| Florida/High School Equivalency Diploma will be counted in the NCLB   |
| graduation rate. The State of Florida/High School Equivalency Diploma |
| differs significantly from the typical adult-education GED program.   |
| This exit option is based on an agreement with the                    |
|                                                                       |
| American Council on Education and s. 1003.435(4), Florida Statutes.   |
| The participants in this program must meet performance standards      |
| established by rules of the State Board [and]{.underline} pass the    |
| GED. All State of Florida diplomas issued under this option have      |
| equal status with other high school diplomas for all state purposes   |
| including admission to any state university or community college. The |
| performance standards are aligned with the Sunshine State Standards   |
| and students achieving this diploma are considered to be as           |
| proficient as any student receiving a standard diploma.               |
|                                                                       |
| For Florida high schools to meet the AYP requirement for the          |
| graduation rate, the four-year NCLB graduation rate for the school    |
| must be 85% or higher, or, if lower than 85%, the school must show    |
| annual improvement in the rate of at least 1%. The graduation rate    |
| applies only to schools serving students in the grade 9-12 range.     |
|                                                                       |
| A complete description of Florida's high school graduation and        |
| completion options is included as Appendix I.                         |
|                                                                       |
| Links to Supporting Evidence: [Section                                |
| 1003.435](http://www.leg.st                                           |
| ate.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=& |
| URL=Ch1003/SEC435.HTM&Title=->2007->Ch1003->Section 435#1003.435)(2), |
| (4), and (6), Florida Statutes.                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+---------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| ## CRITICAL ELEMENT | **EXAMPLES FOR**      | **EXAMPLES OF**       |
|                     |                       |                       |
|                     | **MEETING             | ***NOT* MEETING       |
|                     | REQUIREMENTS**        | REQUIREMENTS**        |
+=====================+=======================+=======================+
| 1.  What is the     | State defines the     | State has not defined |
|     State's         | additional academic   | an additional         |
|     additional      | indicators, e.g.,     | academic indicator    |
|     academic        | additional State or   | for elementary and    |
|     indicator for   | locally administered  | middle schools.       |
|     public          | assessments not       |                       |
|     elementary      | included in the State |                       |
|     schools for the | assessment system,    |                       |
|     definition of   | grade-to-grade        |                       |
|     AYP? For public | retention rates or    |                       |
|     middle schools  | attendance rates.[^9] |                       |
|     for the         |                       |                       |
|     definition of   | An additional         |                       |
|     AYP?            | academic indicator is |                       |
|                     | included (in the      |                       |
|                     | aggregate) for AYP,   |                       |
|                     | and disaggregated (as |                       |
|                     | necessary) for use    |                       |
|                     | when applying the     |                       |
|                     | exception clause to   |                       |
|                     | make AYP.             |                       |
+---------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **STATE RESPONSE    |                       |                       |
| AND STATE           |                       |                       |
| ACTIVITIES FOR      |                       |                       |
| MEETING             |                       |                       |
| REQUIREMENTS**      |                       |                       |
+---------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| The Florida plan    |                       |                       |
| will utilize the    |                       |                       |
| results of the FCAT |                       |                       |
| writing assessment  |                       |                       |
| in grades 4, 8, and |                       |                       |
| 10 as "other        |                       |                       |
| indicator." In      |                       |                       |
| addition, for grade |                       |                       |
| 10, the high school |                       |                       |
| graduation rate     |                       |                       |
| will be an "other   |                       |                       |
| indicator."         |                       |                       |
|                     |                       |                       |
| The FCAT writing    |                       |                       |
| assessment is       |                       |                       |
| described in        |                       |                       |
| Appendix B.         |                       |                       |
|                     |                       |                       |
| For schools to meet |                       |                       |
| the FCAT writing    |                       |                       |
| requirement for     |                       |                       |
| AYP, at least 90%   |                       |                       |
| of examinees must   |                       |                       |
| attain a proficient |                       |                       |
| score of 3.0 or     |                       |                       |
| higher on the essay |                       |                       |
| part of the         |                       |                       |
| examination, or, if |                       |                       |
| the school falls    |                       |                       |
| below 90% scoring   |                       |                       |
| at or above 3.0,    |                       |                       |
| the school may      |                       |                       |
| still meet the      |                       |                       |
| writing requirement |                       |                       |
| by showing annual   |                       |                       |
| improvement of 1%   |                       |                       |
| or more in the      |                       |                       |
| percentage of       |                       |                       |
| students scoring    |                       |                       |
| 3.0 or higher. The  |                       |                       |
| essay is scored on  |                       |                       |
| a six-point scale.  |                       |                       |
|                     |                       |                       |
| The AYP graduation  |                       |                       |
| rate requirement    |                       |                       |
| for Florida's high  |                       |                       |
| schools is          |                       |                       |
| addressed on the    |                       |                       |
| previous page.      |                       |                       |
|                     |                       |                       |
| Links to Supporting |                       |                       |
| Evidence: See       |                       |                       |
| Appendix B attached |                       |                       |
| hereto.             |                       |                       |
+---------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 2.  Are the State's | State has defined     | State has an academic |
|     academic        | academic indicators   | indicator that is not |
|     indicators      | that are valid and    | valid and reliable.   |
|     valid and       | reliable.             |                       |
|     reliable?       |                       | State has an academic |
|                     | State has defined     | indicator that is not |
|                     | academic indicators   | consistent with       |
|                     | that are consistent   | nationally recognized |
|                     | with nationally       | standards.            |
|                     | recognized standards, |                       |
|                     | if any.               | State has an academic |
|                     |                       | indicator that is not |
|                     |                       | consistent within     |
|                     |                       | grade levels.         |
+---------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **STATE RESPONSE    |                       |                       |
| AND STATE           |                       |                       |
| ACTIVITIES FOR      |                       |                       |
| MEETING             |                       |                       |
| REQUIREMENTS**      |                       |                       |
+---------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| The statewide       |                       |                       |
| assessment tests    |                       |                       |
| (FCAT) in reading,  |                       |                       |
| writing, and        |                       |                       |
| mathematics are     |                       |                       |
| reliable and valid  |                       |                       |
| instruments. See    |                       |                       |
| the web site        |                       |                       |
| address shown below |                       |                       |
| for information on  |                       |                       |
| test design,        |                       |                       |
| scoring, and        |                       |                       |
| development of the  |                       |                       |
| FCAT for reading,   |                       |                       |
| writing, and        |                       |                       |
| mathematics.        |                       |                       |
|                     |                       |                       |
| Test item           |                       |                       |
| specification for   |                       |                       |
| FCAT subtests in    |                       |                       |
| reading, writing,   |                       |                       |
| and mathematics are |                       |                       |
| provided in detail  |                       |                       |
| at                  |                       |                       |
| <http://fcat.fldoe  |                       |                       |
| .org/fcatis01.asp>. |                       |                       |
| (This site also     |                       |                       |
| includes            |                       |                       |
| specifications for  |                       |                       |
| FCAT science, which |                       |                       |
| is not currently    |                       |                       |
| used in Florida's   |                       |                       |
| AYP calculation but |                       |                       |
| is included in the  |                       |                       |
| state's school      |                       |                       |
| grading formula.)   |                       |                       |
| In addition,        |                       |                       |
| information on      |                       |                       |
| classification      |                       |                       |
| accuracy may be     |                       |                       |
| found in the FCAT   |                       |                       |
| Technical Reports   |                       |                       |
| at                  |                       |                       |
| http://fcat.fldo    |                       |                       |
| e.org/fcatpub2.asp. |                       |                       |
|                     |                       |                       |
| Links to Supporting |                       |                       |
| Evidence: FCAT      |                       |                       |
| information for     |                       |                       |
| educators and       |                       |                       |
| researchers is      |                       |                       |
| available at        |                       |                       |
| <http://fcat.fldoe  |                       |                       |
| .org/fcatpub2.asp>. |                       |                       |
| The FCAT Handbook   |                       |                       |
| is also available   |                       |                       |
| online at           |                       |                       |
| <http://fc          |                       |                       |
| at.fldoe.org/handbk |                       |                       |
| /fcathandbook.asp>. |                       |                       |
+---------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

**PRINCIPLE 8. AYP is based on reading/language arts and mathematics
achievement objectives.**

+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| ## CRITICAL ELEMENT  | **EXAMPLES FOR\       | **EXAMPLES OF**       |
|                      | MEETING               |                       |
|                      | REQUIREMENTS**        | ***NOT* MEETING       |
|                      |                       | REQUIREMENTS**        |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 1.  Does the state   | State AYP             | State AYP             |
|     measure          | determination for     | determination for     |
|     achievement in   | student subgroups,    | student subgroups,    |
|     reading/language | public schools and    | public schools and    |
|     arts and         | LEAs separately       | LEAs averages or      |
|     mathematics      | measures              | combines achievement  |
|     separately for   | reading/language arts | across                |
|     determining AYP? | and mathematics.      | reading/language arts |
|                      | [^10]                 | and mathematics.      |
|                      |                       |                       |
|                      | AYP is a separate     |                       |
|                      | calculation for       |                       |
|                      | reading/language arts |                       |
|                      | and mathematics for   |                       |
|                      | each group, public    |                       |
|                      | school, and LEA.      |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **STATE RESPONSE AND |                       |                       |
| STATE ACTIVITIES FOR |                       |                       |
| MEETING              |                       |                       |
| REQUIREMENTS**       |                       |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Reading, writing,    |                       |                       |
| and mathematics are  |                       |                       |
| separately measured  |                       |                       |
| and reported as part |                       |                       |
| of the FCAT system.  |                       |                       |
| The data from each   |                       |                       |
| of these is used in  |                       |                       |
| the AYP              |                       |                       |
| calculations. See    |                       |                       |
| Appendix E.          |                       |                       |
|                      |                       |                       |
| Florida also is      |                       |                       |
| using its A+ Plan    |                       |                       |
| for Education        |                       |                       |
| "school grades" as   |                       |                       |
| an additional        |                       |                       |
| criterion for the    |                       |                       |
| "safe harbor." See   |                       |                       |
| Critical Element     |                       |                       |
| 3.2. The A+ school   |                       |                       |
| grading system is    |                       |                       |
| described in         |                       |                       |
| Appendix F. In the   |                       |                       |
| calculation of       |                       |                       |
| school grades, a     |                       |                       |
| school earns points  |                       |                       |
| according to the     |                       |                       |
| degree to which      |                       |                       |
| students are         |                       |                       |
| Proficient or Above  |                       |                       |
| in reading, writing, |                       |                       |
| and mathematics in a |                       |                       |
| [compe               |                       |                       |
| nsatory]{.underline} |                       |                       |
| fashion. That is,    |                       |                       |
| the points are       |                       |                       |
| merged and a school  |                       |                       |
| can be relatively    |                       |                       |
| high or low across   |                       |                       |
| the various          |                       |                       |
| measures. The        |                       |                       |
| results of the A+    |                       |                       |
| Plan are used only   |                       |                       |
| as described in      |                       |                       |
| Critical Element     |                       |                       |
| 3.2.                 |                       |                       |
|                      |                       |                       |
| Links to Supporting  |                       |                       |
| Evidence: See        |                       |                       |
| Appendices E and F.  |                       |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

**PRINCIPLE 9. State Accountability System is statistically valid and
reliable.**

+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| ## CRITICAL ELEMENT  | **EXAMPLES FOR\       | **EXAMPLES OF**       |
|                      | MEETING               |                       |
|                      | REQUIREMENTS**        | ***NOT* MEETING       |
|                      |                       | REQUIREMENTS**        |
+======================+=======================+=======================+
| 1.  How do AYP       | State has defined a   | State does not have   |
|     determinations   | method for            | an acceptable method  |
|     meet the State's | determining an        | for determining       |
|     standard for     | acceptable level of   | reliability (decision |
|     acceptable       | reliability (decision | consistency) of       |
|     reliability?     | consistency) for AYP  | accountability        |
|                      | decisions.            | decisions, e.g., it   |
|                      |                       | reports only          |
|                      | State provides        | reliability           |
|                      | evidence that         | coefficients for its  |
|                      | decision consistency  | assessments.          |
|                      | is (1) within the     |                       |
|                      | range deemed          | State has parameters  |
|                      | acceptable to the     | for acceptable        |
|                      | State, and (2) meets  | reliability; however, |
|                      | professional          | the actual            |
|                      | standards and         | reliability (decision |
|                      | practice.             | consistency) falls    |
|                      |                       | outside those         |
|                      | State publicly        | parameters.           |
|                      | reports the estimate  |                       |
|                      | of decision           | State's evidence      |
|                      | consistency, and      | regarding             |
|                      | incorporates it       | accountability        |
|                      | appropriately into    | reliability (decision |
|                      | accountability        | consistency) is not   |
|                      | decisions.            | updated.              |
|                      |                       |                       |
|                      | State updates         |                       |
|                      | analysis and          |                       |
|                      | reporting of decision |                       |
|                      | consistency at        |                       |
|                      | appropriate           |                       |
|                      | intervals.            |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS**      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The Florida assessment and accountability programs take great pains   |
| to provide reliable results. The FCAT student tests are annually      |
| evaluated for reliability using several different methods. The        |
| Department triangulates data quality control so that no data are      |
| released unless three independent parties agree on the accuracy of    |
| the processing, analysis, and reporting. The A+ school grading system |
| includes various quality control steps as well as a formal appeal     |
| process available to each school.                                     |
|                                                                       |
| Data are not reported for low n-count data cells, and the individual  |
| student results are maintained in a secure manner, not subject to     |
| inappropriate release. Each student's test score is reported using    |
| confidence intervals based on the standard error of measurement. Test |
| answer sheets for grade 12 students who are just a few points from    |
| earning passing scores are routinely hand scored in addition to being |
| computer scored. If there are any questions about missing or          |
| inaccurate data, the agency immediately investigates the situation    |
| and takes corrective action as may be appropriate.                    |
|                                                                       |
| Use of the "safe harbor" further provides a safeguard for schools and |
| districts that are making good progress with their students.          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| ## CRITICAL ELEMENT  | **EXAMPLES FOR\       | **EXAMPLES OF**       |
|                      | MEETING               |                       |
|                      | REQUIREMENTS**        | ***NOT* MEETING       |
|                      |                       | REQUIREMENTS**        |
+======================+=======================+=======================+
| 2.  What is the      | State has established | State does not have a |
|     State\'s process | a process for public  | system for handling   |
|     for making valid | schools and LEAs to   | appeals of            |
|     AYP              | appeal an             | accountability        |
|     determinations?  | accountability        | decisions.            |
|                      | decision.             |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **STATE RESPONSE AND |                       |                       |
| STATE ACTIVITIES FOR |                       |                       |
| MEETING              |                       |                       |
| REQUIREMENTS**       |                       |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Schools and          |                       |                       |
| districts will be    |                       |                       |
| evaluated separately |                       |                       |
| for reading and      |                       |                       |
| mathematics          |                       |                       |
| performance. A       |                       |                       |
| school or district   |                       |                       |
| could fail to meet   |                       |                       |
| its AYP requirements |                       |                       |
| in reading one year, |                       |                       |
| improve in reading   |                       |                       |
| the second year, and |                       |                       |
| become deficient in  |                       |                       |
| mathematics the      |                       |                       |
| second year. If this |                       |                       |
| occurs, the school   |                       |                       |
| or district will not |                       |                       |
| be subjected to the  |                       |                       |
| requirements of      |                       |                       |
| Sections             |                       |                       |
| 200.32-200.34 of the |                       |                       |
| NCLB rules because   |                       |                       |
| it has not had two   |                       |                       |
| consecutive years of |                       |                       |
| poor performance in  |                       |                       |
| the [same content    |                       |                       |
| area]{.underline}.   |                       |                       |
| If a school or       |                       |                       |
| district fails to    |                       |                       |
| meet its AYP         |                       |                       |
| requirements in the  |                       |                       |
| same content area    |                       |                       |
| (e.g., reading) for  |                       |                       |
| two consecutive      |                       |                       |
| years, it will be    |                       |                       |
| subjected to the     |                       |                       |
| requirements of      |                       |                       |
| Sections             |                       |                       |
| 200.3-200.34.        |                       |                       |
|                      |                       |                       |
| According to the     |                       |                       |
| requirements of      |                       |                       |
| NCLB, before a       |                       |                       |
| school can be        |                       |                       |
| identified for       |                       |                       |
| school improvement,  |                       |                       |
| corrective action,   |                       |                       |
| or restructuring,    |                       |                       |
| the school district  |                       |                       |
| must provide the     |                       |                       |
| school with the      |                       |                       |
| opportunity to       |                       |                       |
| review the data on   |                       |                       |
| which such a         |                       |                       |
| decision will be     |                       |                       |
| made. Under the law, |                       |                       |
| this responsibility  |                       |                       |
| is assigned to       |                       |                       |
| districts, not the   |                       |                       |
| state agency. The    |                       |                       |
| state agency will    |                       |                       |
| provide leadership   |                       |                       |
| and technical        |                       |                       |
| assistance to        |                       |                       |
| districts in the     |                       |                       |
| creation of          |                       |                       |
| appropriate          |                       |                       |
| processes whereby    |                       |                       |
| schools can appeal   |                       |                       |
| decisions about      |                       |                       |
| their AYP status.    |                       |                       |
|                      |                       |                       |
| With regard to its   |                       |                       |
| A+ school grading    |                       |                       |
| system, the state    |                       |                       |
| agency has a process |                       |                       |
| whereby schools and  |                       |                       |
| districts can appeal |                       |                       |
| their accountability |                       |                       |
| results. The appeals |                       |                       |
| process is initiated |                       |                       |
| immediately upon     |                       |                       |
| receipt of the       |                       |                       |
| accountability       |                       |                       |
| findings, and the    |                       |                       |
| school or district   |                       |                       |
| must submit its      |                       |                       |
| counter evidence     |                       |                       |
| within thirty days.  |                       |                       |
| The agency reviews   |                       |                       |
| the data, clarifies  |                       |                       |
| anything that is not |                       |                       |
| clear, and issues a  |                       |                       |
| final finding.       |                       |                       |
| Previous experience  |                       |                       |
| has shown that       |                       |                       |
| appeals are often    |                       |                       |
| based on (1)         |                       |                       |
| incorrect student    |                       |                       |
| identification, (2)  |                       |                       |
| inaccurate student   |                       |                       |
| classifications, and |                       |                       |
| (3) missing student  |                       |                       |
| answer documents.    |                       |                       |
|                      |                       |                       |
| Links to Supporting  |                       |                       |
| Evidence: See Rule   |                       |                       |
| [6A-1.09981          |                       |                       |
| ](https://www.flrule |                       |                       |
| s.org/gateway/RuleNo |                       |                       |
| .asp?id=6A-1.09981), |                       |                       |
| FAC, located at:     |                       |                       |
| [www.flrules.or      |                       |                       |
| g](https://www.flrul |                       |                       |
| es.org/default.asp), |                       |                       |
| for information      |                       |                       |
| about the A+ school  |                       |                       |
| grading system.      |                       |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

+---------------------+----------------------+------------------------+
| ## CRITICAL ELEMENT | **EXAMPLES FOR\      | **EXAMPLES OF**        |
|                     | MEETING              |                        |
|                     | REQUIREMENTS**       | ***NOT* MEETING        |
|                     |                      | REQUIREMENTS**         |
+=====================+======================+========================+
| 9.3 **How** has the | State has a plan to  | State's transition     |
| State planned for   | maintain continuity  | plan interrupts annual |
| incorporating into  | in AYP decisions     | determination of AYP.  |
| its definition of   | necessary for        |                        |
| AYP anticipated     | validity through     | State does not have a  |
| changes in          | planned assessment   | plan for handling      |
| assessments?        | changes, and other   | changes: e.g., to its  |
|                     | changes necessary to | assessment system, or  |
|                     | comply fully with    | the addition of new    |
|                     | NCLB.[^11]           | public schools.        |
|                     |                      |                        |
|                     | State has a plan for |                        |
|                     | including new public |                        |
|                     | schools in the State |                        |
|                     | Accountability       |                        |
|                     | System.              |                        |
|                     |                      |                        |
|                     | State has a plan for |                        |
|                     | periodically         |                        |
|                     | reviewing its State  |                        |
|                     | Accountability       |                        |
|                     | System, so that      |                        |
|                     | unforeseen changes   |                        |
|                     | can be quickly       |                        |
|                     | addressed.           |                        |
+---------------------+----------------------+------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **STATE RESPONSE AND STATE ACTIVITIES FOR MEETING REQUIREMENTS**      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| As changes to the statewide assessment program are made, the new      |
| assessments will be incorporated into the NCLB system in accordance   |
| with law, including the identification of cut-scores and              |
| documentation of the assessment reliability and score validity. There |
| would be no gap in the annual determination of AYP when the state     |
| transitions to new assessments.                                       |
|                                                                       |
| New public schools are opened annually, and their inclusion will      |
| present no difficulties for the overall system. Each school district  |
| will be responsible for the performance of students in any new        |
| schools, and each individual school will be included in the AYP       |
| system as soon as its student assessment data are available. Status   |
| information will be available as a result of the first administration |
| of FCAT, and gain information will be available after the second      |
| administration.                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**PRINCIPLE 10. In order for a public school or LEA to make AYP, the
State ensures that it assessed at least 95% of the students enrolled in
each subgroup.**

+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| ## CRITICAL ELEMENT  | **EXAMPLES FOR\       | **EXAMPLES OF\        |
|                      | MEETING               | *NOT* MEETING         |
|                      | REQUIREMENTS**        | REQUIREMENTS**        |
+======================+=======================+=======================+
| 1.  What is the      | State has a procedure | The state does not    |
|     State\'s method  | to determine the      | have a procedure for  |
|     for calculating  | number of absent or   | determining the rate  |
|     participation    | untested students (by | of students           |
|     rates in the     | subgroup and          | participating in      |
|     State            | aggregate).           | statewide             |
|     assessments for  |                       | assessments.          |
|     use in AYP       | State has a procedure |                       |
|     determinations?  | to determine the      | Public schools and    |
|                      | denominator (total    | LEAs are not held     |
|                      | enrollment) for the   | accountable for       |
|                      | 95% calculation (by   | testing at least 95%  |
|                      | subgroup and          | of their students.    |
|                      | aggregate).           |                       |
|                      |                       |                       |
|                      | Public schools and    |                       |
|                      | LEAs are held         |                       |
|                      | accountable for       |                       |
|                      | reaching the 95%      |                       |
|                      | assessed goal.        |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **STATE RESPONSE AND |                       |                       |
| STATE ACTIVITIES FOR |                       |                       |
| MEETING              |                       |                       |
| REQUIREMENTS**       |                       |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| In the school year   |                       |                       |
| 2001-02, Florida     |                       |                       |
| implemented a new    |                       |                       |
| procedure whereby    |                       |                       |
| each student is      |                       |                       |
| accounted for at the |                       |                       |
| time the FCAT was    |                       |                       |
| administered. With   |                       |                       |
| the student          |                       |                       |
| identification       |                       |                       |
| number and the other |                       |                       |
| information about    |                       |                       |
| the subgroup to      |                       |                       |
| which an individual  |                       |                       |
| student belongs, it  |                       |                       |
| will not be          |                       |                       |
| difficult to         |                       |                       |
| determine the        |                       |                       |
| participation rates  |                       |                       |
| for each school and  |                       |                       |
| district. The State  |                       |                       |
| is committed to the  |                       |                       |
| goal of assessing    |                       |                       |
| all eligible         |                       |                       |
| students.            |                       |                       |
|                      |                       |                       |
| The participation    |                       |                       |
| rate will be         |                       |                       |
| calculated by        |                       |                       |
| dividing the number  |                       |                       |
| of students actually |                       |                       |
| taking the FCAT or   |                       |                       |
| alternate assessment |                       |                       |
| by the number of     |                       |                       |
| students in          |                       |                       |
| membership at the    |                       |                       |
| time of the          |                       |                       |
| assessment.          |                       |                       |
|                      |                       |                       |
| In accordance with   |                       |                       |
| flexibility granted  |                       |                       |
| to states by USED,   |                       |                       |
| Florida plans to     |                       |                       |
| calculate            |                       |                       |
| participation rates  |                       |                       |
| for NCLB purposes by |                       |                       |
| using two methods:   |                       |                       |
| (1) current-year     |                       |                       |
| counts for the       |                       |                       |
| number of students   |                       |                       |
| tested (numerator)   |                       |                       |
| and for the number   |                       |                       |
| of students in       |                       |                       |
| membership           |                       |                       |
| (denominator), and   |                       |                       |
| (2) current year     |                       |                       |
| counts combined with |                       |                       |
| prior year counts    |                       |                       |
| for both the         |                       |                       |
| numerator and the    |                       |                       |
| denominator for a    |                       |                       |
| "two-year averaged   |                       |                       |
| participation rate." |                       |                       |
| The school's         |                       |                       |
| participation rate   |                       |                       |
| applied in the AYP   |                       |                       |
| calculation would    |                       |                       |
| reflect the higher   |                       |                       |
| of the two           |                       |                       |
| percentages derived  |                       |                       |
| from the             |                       |                       |
| calculations         |                       |                       |
| described above.     |                       |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| ## CRITICAL ELEMENT  | **EXAMPLES FOR\       | **EXAMPLES OF\        |
|                      | MEETING               | *NOT* MEETING         |
|                      | REQUIREMENTS**        | REQUIREMENTS**        |
+======================+=======================+=======================+
| 2.  What is the      | State has a policy    | State does not have a |
|     State\'s policy  | that implements the   | procedure for making  |
|     for determining  | regulation regarding  | this determination.   |
|     when the 95%     | the use of 95%        |                       |
|     assessed         | allowance when the    |                       |
|     requirement      | group is              |                       |
|     should be        | statistically         |                       |
|     applied?         | significant according |                       |
|                      | to State rules.       |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **STATE RESPONSE AND |                       |                       |
| STATE ACTIVITIES FOR |                       |                       |
| MEETING              |                       |                       |
| REQUIREMENTS**       |                       |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| The Department's     |                       |                       |
| policy is that 95%   |                       |                       |
| participation is     |                       |                       |
| required and         |                       |                       |
| reported as long as  |                       |                       |
| the group size is 30 |                       |                       |
| or more eligible     |                       |                       |
| students. For 30     |                       |                       |
| students, 95% is 29, |                       |                       |
| so only one student  |                       |                       |
| could miss the       |                       |                       |
| assessment activity. |                       |                       |
| For small schools    |                       |                       |
| with stable          |                       |                       |
| populations of less  |                       |                       |
| than 30 but more     |                       |                       |
| than 10, the 95%     |                       |                       |
| participation rate   |                       |                       |
| will be applied to   |                       |                       |
| the total school     |                       |                       |
| population and any   |                       |                       |
| subgroups with more  |                       |                       |
| than 10 members.     |                       |                       |
|                      |                       |                       |
| The participation    |                       |                       |
| rate will be         |                       |                       |
| calculated by        |                       |                       |
| dividing the number  |                       |                       |
| of students actually |                       |                       |
| taking the FCAT or   |                       |                       |
| alternate assessment |                       |                       |
| by the number of     |                       |                       |
| students in          |                       |                       |
| membership at the    |                       |                       |
| time of the          |                       |                       |
| assessment.          |                       |                       |
|                      |                       |                       |
| The n = 30 policy is |                       |                       |
| in current State     |                       |                       |
| Board of Education   |                       |                       |
| policy in Rule       |                       |                       |
| 6A-1.09881, FAC.     |                       |                       |
|                      |                       |                       |
| Links to Supporting  |                       |                       |
| Evidence: See Rule   |                       |                       |
| 6A-1.09981, FAC, at  |                       |                       |
| [ww                  |                       |                       |
| w.flrules.org](http: |                       |                       |
| //www.flrules.org/). |                       |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

**Appendix A**

#### Required Data Elements for State Report Card

Section 1111(h)(1)(C) of No Child Left Behind requires the following
information in the State Report Card.

1\. Information, in the aggregate, on student achievement at each
proficiency level on the State academic assessments (disaggregated by
race, ethnicity, gender, disability status, migrant status, English
proficiency, and status as economically disadvantaged) except that such
disaggregation shall not be required in a case in which the number of
students in a category is insufficient to yield statistically reliable
information or the results would reveal personally identifiable
information about an individual student.

2\. Information that provides a comparison between the actual
achievement levels of each student subgroup and the State's annual
measurable objectives for each such group of students on each of the
academic assessments.

3\. The percentage of students not tested (disaggregated by the student
subgroups), except that such disaggregation shall not be required in a
case in which the number of students in a category is insufficient to
yield statistically reliable information or the results would reveal
personally identifiable information about an individual student.

4\. The most recent 2-year trend in student achievement in each subject
area, and for each grade level, for the required assessments.

5\. Aggregate information on any other indicators used by the State to
determine the adequate yearly progress of students in achieving State
academic achievement standards disaggregated by student subgroups.

6\. Graduation rates for secondary school students disaggregated by
student subgroups.

7\. Information on the performance of local educational agencies in the
State regarding making adequate yearly progress, including the number
and name of each school identified for school improvement under section
1116.

8\. The professional qualifications of teachers in the State, the
percentage of such teachers teaching with emergency or provisional
credentials, and the percentage of classes in the State not taught by
highly qualified teachers, in the aggregate and disaggregated by
high-poverty compared to low-poverty schools which (for this purpose)
means schools in the top quartile of poverty and the bottom quartile of
poverty in the State.

**No Child Left Behind State Report Card Indicators**

+--------------------------+--------+---------------------------------+
| **Indicator**            | ### ** | **Included on Florida's NCLB    |
|                          | NCLB** | School Public Accountability    |
|                          |        | Reports**                       |
|                          | **Requ |                                 |
|                          | ired** | (<http://doeweb-prd.doe.state   |
|                          |        | .fl.us/eds/nclbspar/index.cfm>) |
+--------------------------+--------+---------------------------------+
| Assessment Results by    |        | Yes                             |
| proficiency level        |        |                                 |
| (disaggregated).         |        |                                 |
+--------------------------+--------+---------------------------------+
| Assessment results       |        | Yes                             |
| compared to Florida\'s   |        |                                 |
| annual objectives by     |        |                                 |
| (disaggregated).         |        |                                 |
+--------------------------+--------+---------------------------------+
| Percentage of students   |        | Yes                             |
| not tested               |        |                                 |
| (disaggregated).         |        |                                 |
+--------------------------+--------+---------------------------------+
| Assessment results       |        | Yes. Prior-year comparison is   |
| compared to the most     |        | currently reported; 2-year      |
| recent 2-year trend in   |        | trend data is available.        |
| each subject, for each   |        |                                 |
| grade.                   |        |                                 |
+--------------------------+--------+---------------------------------+
| Results of Writing       |        | Yes                             |
| Assessments              |        |                                 |
| (disaggregated).         |        |                                 |
+--------------------------+--------+---------------------------------+
| Graduation rates         |        | Yes                             |
| (disaggregated).         |        |                                 |
+--------------------------+--------+---------------------------------+
| AYP, including schools   |        | Yes                             |
| designated for           |        |                                 |
| improvement.             |        |                                 |
+--------------------------+--------+---------------------------------+
| The professional         |        | Yes                             |
| qualifications of        |        |                                 |
| teachers in the State,   |        | Reports include information on  |
| the percentage of such   |        | the professional qualifications |
| teachers teaching with   |        | of teachers (teachers by degree |
| emergency or provisional |        | level), information on the      |
| credentials, and the     |        | percentage of teachers teaching |
| percentage of classes in |        | with emergency or provisional   |
| the State not taught by  |        | credentials, the percentage of  |
| highly qualified         |        | classes taught by teachers who  |
| teachers, in the         |        | are in-field teachers, the      |
| aggregate and            |        | percentage of classes taught by |
| disaggregated by         |        | teachers who are out-of-field   |
| high-poverty compared to |        | teachers, and the percentage of |
| low-poverty schools      |        | classes not taught by highly    |
| which (for this purpose) |        | qualified teachers in the       |
| means schools in the top |        | aggregate (for all schools),    |
| quartile of poverty and  |        | for high poverty schools, and   |
| the bottom quartile of   |        | for low poverty schools.        |
| poverty in the State.    |        |                                 |
+--------------------------+--------+---------------------------------+
| High school dropout rate |        | Provided as additional state,   |
| (annual rate for grades  |        | district, and school-level      |
| 9-12)                    |        | information, disaggregated by   |
|                          |        | race/ethnicity and gender.      |
+--------------------------+--------+---------------------------------+
| Number and percentage of |        | Provided as additional state,   |
| teachers and staff new   |        | district, and school-level      |
| to the school            |        | information.                    |
+--------------------------+--------+---------------------------------+
| Results of Kindergarten  |        | Provided as additional school,  |
| Readiness screening      |        | district, and state-level       |
|                          |        | information.                    |
+--------------------------+--------+---------------------------------+
| October membership       |        | Provided as additional school,  |
|                          |        | district, and state demographic |
|                          |        | information -- disaggregated    |
|                          |        | for all NCLB subgroups.         |
+--------------------------+--------+---------------------------------+

***[NCLB Report Card]{.underline}***

Not later than the beginning of the 2002-03 school year and each year
thereafter, school districts must disseminate the NCLB State and LEA
Report Cards (via the NCLB School Public Accountability Reports) to all
schools in the school district and parents in the reported school. To
the extent practicable, the information should be made widely available
through public means such as the Internet and reported in a language
that the parents can understand.

The NCLB School Public Accountability Reports are posted on the Florida
Department of Education's website at
<http://doeweb-prd.doe.state.fl.us/eds/nclbspar/index.cfm>.

\[intentionally blank\]

**Appendix B**

**Description of Florida's Assessment System**

Section 1111 of H.R.-1 (NCLB) outlines the Congressional requirements
for academic standards, assessments, and accountability system. These
requirements will not be repeated herein but will be identified by
Section numbers throughout the description of Florida's programs for the
reader's cross-reference. \[Note: As provided in Appendix K, Florida has
received Full Approval with Recommendations of its standards and
assessment system under the Standards and Assessments Peer Review.\]

[Challenging Academic Standards (s. 1111(b)(1))\
]{.underline}

Section 1008.22(3)(a), F.S. (available at
[www.leg.state.fl.us/Welcome/index.cfm](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Welcome/index.cfm))
requires the Commissioner of Education to bring to the State Board of
Education sets of skills and competencies that will guide instruction in
all of the public schools. The specific requirement is stated as
follows:

> Submit to the State Board of Education a list that specifies student
> skills and competencies to which the goals for education specified in
> the state plan apply, including, but not limited to, reading, writing,
> science, and mathematics. The skills and competencies must include
> problem-solving and higher-order skills as appropriate and shall be
> known as the Sunshine State Standards as defined in Section 1000.21,
> F.S. The commissioner shall select such skills and competencies after
> receiving recommendations from educators, citizens, and members of the
> business community. The commissioner shall submit to the State Board
> of Education revisions to the list of student skills and competencies
> in order to maintain continuous progress toward improvements in
> student proficiency.

The development of Florida's content standards began with creation of
curriculum frameworks as a resource and a guide for school districts.
The frameworks included the Sunshine State Standards (Standards) that
specify the challenging content expected of Florida students.

The development of Florida's Sunshine State Standards was discussed in
the Title I Plan for 2001-02 and will not be repeated herein. Of
importance, the Standards were developed with the involvement of
practicing educators from across Florida, reviewed by various interested
parties, including the Mid-Continent Regional Educational Laboratory
(McREL), reviewed by all school districts, and adopted by the State
Board of Education in 1996.

######### Grade Level Expectations

The original design of the Standards did not include grade-by-grade
expectations for all grade levels. As decisions were made to expand the
statewide assessment program to include all grades 3-10 (see following
discussion), it became necessary to create "grade level expectations."

######### Evaluation and Review of the Sunshine State Standards

In addition to the review of the emerging standards by McREL as
previously described, the Sunshine State Standards were reviewed by the
American Federation of Teachers (AFT). AFT concluded that Florida's
Standards are "clear, specific, and grounded in content." Here are
selected statements descriptive of the mathematics, language arts, and
science Standards:

*Language Arts*

> "The **English** standards are clear across all three levels, and the
> content at the elementary and middle levels is strengthened by the
> addition of the new *Expectations.* ... In addition, the *Florida
> Writes!* assessment booklets clarify the writing forms at all three
> levels and include examples of student work that illustrate the
> quality and complexity of writing expected of students at each of the
> levels.

######## Mathematics

> "With the addition of the new *Grade Level Expectations,* the
> elementary and middle level **mathematics** standards are quite clear
> and specific. ... At the high school level the standards are generally
> clear and specific, but at times, they are broad."

######## Science

> "The **science** standards are also clear, specific, and grounded in
> content. ... The *Expectations* help clarify the standards for grades
> K-8 and illustrate how the standards might look in a classroom."

[As recently as 2007, Education Week]{.underline} also conducted a
review of the standards and accountability programs across the 50
states. Florida's program was rated "A" in the special publication
*Quality Counts*.

The Standards represent what all students should know and be able to do
as designated by the State Board of Education. The adoption of the
Standards sets policy direction for instruction in Florida's schools.
However, the Standards do not limit schools or school districts in what
should be taught. Local school systems are completely free to supplement
the instructional program with content and objectives beyond those
included in the Standards.

[Academic Assessments (Section 1111(b)(3))]{.underline}

As early as 1973, Florida showed an understanding of the importance of
measuring student achievement, measuring other educational indicators,
and reporting to the public. In 1971, Governor Reubin Askew appointed a
Citizens' Committee on Education to study education and recommend ways
to improve our schools. The report of this committee, *Improving
Education in Florida*, included such concepts as citizen participation
in the educational process, public reporting of information, state- and
district-level assessment programs, and participation in the fledgling
National Assessment of Educational Progress (The Governor's Citizens'
Committee on Education, Tallahassee, FL, March 15, 1973).

In 1976, the Florida Legislature enacted an Educational Accountability
Act that expanded the statewide assessment program to grades 3, 5, 8,
and 11 and introduced the nation's first requirement that students pass
a high school competency test to qualify for a regular diploma. The
State developed and implemented these tests and subsequently faced two
legal challenges. The high school competency test was challenged in
*Debra P. v. Turlington* (474 F. Supp. 244 , MD Fla. 1979), and the
basic skills tests were challenged in *Love v. Turlington* (1980). The
State position prevailed in both situations with the courts ruling that
competency tests can be required although the State must assure that the
students are afforded due process. These landmark rulings established
the precedent for court rulings in other states, including, most
recently, a challenge to the TAAS system in Texas (*GI Forum et al v.
TEA et al,* 2000).

The Legislature continued to modify and improve the statewide assessment
requirements during the 1980s and even extended the concepts to the
postsecondary level with creation of certain statewide testing
requirements for community college and university students. However, it
became apparent that the emphasis on minimum competencies for all
students had its limitations. Average and above average students were
not being challenged, and the general focus on "minimums" was not
producing graduates who could perform in today's employment marketplace.

In the early 1990's, the Florida Legislature created the *Florida
Commission on Education Reform and Accountability* and revised the
structure of the state assessment program. Their work contributed to
discussions about the importance of challenging educational standards
and the need to move away from minimum competency tests and the
traditional reliance on multiple-choice test questions. Growing out of
the work of the Commission and the Department, a comprehensive
assessment plan was adopted for 1996-97 and revised for 1997-98.

By 1992, the statewide assessment program developed and implemented a
writing assessment program in grades 4, 8, and 10. In the mid-1990s, the
State moved rapidly toward creation and adoption of challenging academic
standards, the Sunshine State Standards, as previously described. The
Standards and the associated curriculum frameworks defined challenging
content in seven subject areas. In 1995, the state began the process of
building a statewide assessment program to measure the Sunshine State
Standards. Contracts for development of the new assessment were issued
in mid-1996, and the state began the creation of tests that would look
much different from the older minimum competency tests.

In 1999, under Governor Jeb Bush, the program was expanded to all grades
3 -- 10. The new assessment program would contain both
criterion-referenced tests measuring state content and nationally
norm-referenced tests. Performance items were to be included to the
extent that was practical. Student, school, district, and statewide
results would be reported and used as the basis for a school
accountability program. See s. 1008.22, F.S., available at
[http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Welcome/index.cfm](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Welcome/index.cfm>).

Under the terms of the new statute, the existing High School Competency
Test (HSCT), a minimum competency test required for graduation, would be
phased out and students graduating in 2003 would have to earn a passing
score on the new grade 10 Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT)
to graduate. Students who were enrolled in 9th grade in the Fall of 1999
thus were given advance notification of their graduation requirement
vis-à-vis the state test.

The current testing structure is shown in Figure 1 on the following
page. Reading and mathematics are tested with both criterion-referenced
and norm-referenced tests at eight grade levels, while writing and
science are measured at three grade levels each. This combination
permits the achievement of students to be measured against two different
dimensions -- the State's own challenging content as well as national
norms. Although Figure 1 does not show it, Florida also voluntarily
participated in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
at both the national and state levels since 1969.

The Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test exceeds the minimum
requirements of NCLB. Because the FCAT measures student achievement in
reading and mathematics in all grades 3-10 and uses a coordinated
vertical score scale, Florida has been able to track student achievement
over time from one grade level to another since 2001. This generates
powerful information with which to monitor progress as is required by
NCLB.

For additional information, the reader may refer to the Department of
Education's Assessment and Accountability Briefing Book at
<http://fcat.fldoe.org/pdf/BriefingBook07web.pdf>, which contains a
chronology of the development of the state assessment and accountability
program from 1963 to the present.

######### Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) Design

The statewide assessment test, known as the Florida Comprehensive
Assessment Test or FCAT, measures the Sunshine State Standards and
directly assesses specific benchmarks that are part of the Standards.
Local school districts, of course, may have instructional objectives
that supplement or go beyond the Sunshine State Standards, but the FCAT
is not intended to measure such content.

**Figure 1**

# Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test Design

+------+------------+-------------------+------------+-----------------+
|      | Sunshine   |                   |            | Norm-Referenced |
|      | State      |                   |            | Testing         |
|      | Standards  |                   |            | Component       |
|      | Assessment |                   |            |                 |
|      | Component  |                   |            |                 |
+------+------------+-------------------+------------+-----------------+
| G    | FCAT with  | FCAT without      | FCAT       |                 |
| rade |            | Performance Tasks | Writing+   |                 |
|      | P          |                   | Test       |                 |
|      | erformance |                   |            |                 |
|      | Tasks      |                   |            |                 |
+------+------------+-------------------+------------+-----------------+
| 3    |            | Reading           |            | Reading,        |
|      |            |                   |            | Mathematics     |
|      |            | Mathematics       |            |                 |
+------+------------+-------------------+------------+-----------------+
| 4    | Reading    | Mathematics       | Writing    | Reading,        |
|      |            |                   |            | Mathematics     |
+------+------------+-------------------+------------+-----------------+
| 5    | Ma         | Reading           |            | Reading,        |
|      | thematics, |                   |            | Mathematics     |
|      | Science    |                   |            |                 |
+------+------------+-------------------+------------+-----------------+
| 6    |            | Reading           |            | Reading,        |
|      |            |                   |            | Mathematics     |
|      |            | Mathematics       |            |                 |
+------+------------+-------------------+------------+-----------------+
| 7    |            | Reading           |            | Reading,        |
|      |            |                   |            | Mathematics     |
|      |            | Mathematics       |            |                 |
+------+------------+-------------------+------------+-----------------+
| 8    | Reading,   |                   | Writing    | Reading,        |
|      | Ma         |                   |            | Mathematics     |
|      | thematics, |                   |            |                 |
|      |            |                   |            |                 |
|      | Science    |                   |            |                 |
+------+------------+-------------------+------------+-----------------+
| 9    |            | Reading           |            | Reading,        |
|      |            |                   |            | Mathematics     |
|      |            | Mathematics       |            |                 |
+------+------------+-------------------+------------+-----------------+
| 10   | Reading,   |                   | Writing    | Reading,        |
|      | M          |                   |            | Mathematics     |
|      | athematics |                   |            |                 |
+------+------------+-------------------+------------+-----------------+
| 11   | Science    |                   |            |                 |
+------+------------+-------------------+------------+-----------------+

The FCAT does not measure everything that is found in the Sunshine State
Standards and was not designed to do so. Consider, for example, that
students are expected to be able to write a research paper, conduct a
scientific experiment, or perform certain physical activities. Measuring
such content in a standardized assessment program would be impractical
and, therefore, must be omitted. Local schools and districts must
determine the extent to which local assessments or classroom evaluation
activities will be used to measure these areas.

The FCAT program design identifies those benchmarks that are candidates
for inclusion on the test, but because of the practical limits of time,
it is not possible to include all content on any given test form. From
year to year, adjustments are made in the content to cycle through the
benchmarks while maintaining a core of content needed for stability and
equating purposes.

Sample FCAT materials can be found on the Internet at the following
location: <http://fcat.fldoe.org/fcatsmpl.asp>. These documents include
a count of the benchmarks that exist in the Sunshine State Standards and
how they are measured with the FCAT.

FCAT Writing+ assesses the writing elements of focus, organization,
support, and conventions, which are integral to the Sunshine State
Standards writing benchmarks. It includes both multiple-choice questions
and an essay to assess these elements.

FCAT Reading assesses content from two areas of the Reading and Language
Arts Standards: (a) Constructs Meaning from Information Text and (b)
Constructs Meaning from Literature.

FCAT Mathematics assesses content from five areas: (a) Number Sense,
Concepts and Operations, (b) Measurement, (c) Geometry and Spatial
Sense, (d) Algebraic Thinking, and (e) Data Analysis and Probability.

FCAT Science assesses content from eight content strands: (a) Nature of
Matter, (b) Energy, (c) Force and Motion, (d) Processes that Shape the
Earth, (e) Earth and Space, (f) Processes of Life, (g) How Living Things
Interact with Their Environment, and (h) Nature of Science.

######### Scoring and Scaling

The FCAT assessment instruments include both multiple-choice items and
performance items. The performance items are of three types: (1)
extended response; (2) short response; and (3) gridded response items
used only in mathematics and science. The tests are scored and scaled
using 2- and 3-parameter IRT analyses. For more complete detail, refer
to the FCAT Technical Reports available at
<http://fcat.fldoe.org/fcatpub2.asp> and the FCAT Handbook at
<http://fcat.fldoe.org/handbk/fcathandbook.asp>.

The student scores for the reading and mathematics tests are reported on
a score scale from 100 to 500 with additional information that indicates
his/her achievement level.

The FCAT norm-referenced component, the Stanford Achievement Test
Version 10 (SAT-10), generates a national percentile rank based on
multiple-choice questions in reading comprehension and mathematics
problem-solving.

When the FCAT was administered in March 2001, items were imbedded across
grade levels to provide the basis for calculation of a developmental
score scale linking all eight grade level tests together. During
June-August 2001, Harcourt Educational Measurement, with its
subcontractor HumRRO, performed the analysis needed for the
developmental scale. The developmental scale ranges from 0 to 3000
across grades 3 through 10.

The analysis was successful, and the developmental scale was used in the
process of creating the FCAT achievement levels for the "new" grade
levels that had been added to the FCAT system. The State Board of
Education subsequently adopted an administrative rule incorporating the
performance standards that defined the FCAT achievement levels in
reading and mathematics, coordinated across the existing grade levels
and the newly added grade levels. The achievement levels for the FCAT in
grades 3-10 are discussed below.

Beginning with the test results from the March 2002 assessment, it is
possible to measure a student's growth (gain) across years. Students
received an Individual Student Report in May 2002 that revealed whether
they gained, stayed the same, or declined in their academic proficiency
in terms of the achievement levels. For example, if a student was in
Level 3 in 4^th^ grade in 2001 and is in Level 4 in 5^th^ grade in 2002,
he would receive a computer printed message stating that he had improved
from one year to the next. Florida's A+ school grading system, described
elsewhere, uses growth information as one factor in calculating a
school's grade.

The Department prepared an Internet web site that permits parents and
teachers to key enter a student's scores and generate a graph showing
how the student progressed compared to the other students in the state.
This analysis is done on the basis of the actual developmental scale
score rather than on changes in the Achievement Level. Gain scores
provide the educational system with a powerful tool to understand
student progress.

######### Multiple Measures

The FCAT system is a multi-dimensional program and includes separately
scored tests in reading, writing, mathematics, and science. It utilizes
machine-scorable items as well as performance items. The grade ten test
is used as a high school graduation requirement. The FCAT system also
incorporates a national norm-referenced test in reading comprehension
and mathematics problem-solving.

######### 

######### Higher-Order Thinking Skills

To understand how the new FCAT measures higher order thinking skills and
understanding, reviewers should inspect the Sunshine State Standards,
the benchmarks being measured, the item specifications, and the sample
exercises. One will immediately see that students are not being asked
simple, one-step, minimal skills items. They must think, analyze, and
explain, answering questions that require original thought and multiple
steps, cast in a framework that crosses all subject areas. In other
words, the stimulus material in the mathematics test or the reading test
can come from any appropriate material from any content area (e.g.,
science). Reading skills and mathematics skills are thereby applied in
other content domains.

######### Alignment of Assessment and Standards

The FCAT is not an off-the-shelf test product; it has been built to
measure Florida's content standards and expectations from the first day.

In all cases, the FCAT items and performance exercises are written to
match the Department's approved item specifications, which match the
designated benchmarks. This linkage has been built into the system and
is verified at every stage of the test development process. Both the
specifications validation committee and the item validation committees
reviewed the given materials in terms of the degree of match to the
benchmarks.

The FCAT is developed with the assistance of subject area committees of
Florida educators who teach or supervise mathematics, reading, writing,
and science. Multiple groups of these practicing classroom teachers and
curriculum supervisors assist in approving the overall test design, the
benchmarks to be assessed, the test specifications, and the test items
annually. Their work guarantees that the tests are aligned with the
Standards. It also guarantees that consideration is given to the
measurement of content areas not currently included in the test so that
changes can be made in future editions of the tests.

The task of alignment is built into the test development system rather
than determined by some outside source. In effect, since the initial
materials are developed by the test contractor, the Florida-based
committees are the outside reviewers and validators. Periodically,
external alignment studies are conducted to confirm the judgments of
Florida educators.

The FCAT is not a basic skills test, and the items include a range of
difficulty. The test measures more complex skills and requires the
students to think, solve, and explain.

Information about the Sunshine State Standards, the test specifications,
sample items, and the FCAT are available on the Internet and through
various printed publications. (See the assessment program's web site at
<http://www.fldoe.org/asp>.) The FCAT item specifications are public
documents and are available for use by all school districts, schools,
and classroom teachers.

*No Child Left Behind* requires that the statewide assessment program:

-   Specify what children are expected to know and be able to do;

-   Contain coherent and rigorous content; and

-   Encourage the teaching of advanced skills.

The Florida system meets each of these three criteria. As provided in
Appendix K, Florida has received Full Approval with Recommendations of
its standards and assessment system under the Standards and Assessment
Peer Review.

[Individual Student Assessment Reports]{.underline}

The FCAT program is a census-based assessment, although sampling
procedures are used for some statistical analyses and for field-testing
new items. This design provides complete data reports for each student,
school, and district.

A publication titled [Understanding FCAT Reports]{.underline} at
(<http://fcat.fldoe.org/fcatUnderstandReports.asp>) includes a
description of various report forms. The FCAT Individual Student Report
provides the usual identification information about the student and then
describes the student's performance. The data show the student's total
score for each subject area, compare the student against the established
performance criteria, compare the student against statewide averages,
show how the student performed in each subcontent area, and provide a
measure of growth over a two-year period. Beginning with the 2000
assessment, a separate report includes how well the student performed on
the national norm-referenced component (the SAT-9, which was supplanted
by the SAT-10 in 2005). The individual reports include descriptive
information for the parent written in English, Spanish, and Haitian
Creole.

[Disaggregated Reports]{.underline}

Florida's student assessment program has a long history of providing
disaggregated reports of student data. The current FCAT provides a
variety of reports of data for subpopulations.

*NCLB* requires that assessment results be provided by school district,
school, racial and ethnic group, English proficiency status, migrant
status, gender, students with disabilities compared to non-disabled
students, and economically disadvantaged compared to those not
economically disadvantaged. Florida is committed to reporting these
categories of data. However, it is not possible to produce them in the
initial reports of FCAT data because several data files must be merged
to generate some of the reports (e.g., economically disadvantaged).
These reports are published after the initial releases of data. All
required reporting subgroups and reporting specifications are provided.
Disaggregated reports are generated for ALL schools, not just Title 1
schools.

Disaggregated data reports from the FCAT are provided directly to each
school district as well as administrators within the Department of
Education. Each school district provides further dissemination to school
administrators, teachers and parents as appropriate. State and district
school improvement personnel regularly utilize disaggregated data for
planning and achievement monitoring purposes. The Department also
maintains an FCAT results website to assist researchers and others
interested in disaggregated student achievement results at
<http://www.fcatresults.com/demog>.

[Technical Quality of the FCAT]{.underline}

The FCAT is designed to be reliable, valid, and free from bias.
Considerable effort was devoted to and is being devoted to ensuring the
technical quality of the assessment program. Ongoing efforts continue to
ensure the technical quality annually.

Validity has many dimensions, but in its most fundamental sense, a test
is not said to be valid but, instead, one speaks about whether an
interpretation of an examinee's score is valid. This is, perhaps, a
subtle distinction and not one that the average consumer clearly
understands. This is why many people ask, "Is this test valid?"

Validity is not a single judgment but is a conclusion reached by looking
at different pieces of evidence. At the same time, the developing
agency, in this case the Florida Department of Education, bears a
responsibility for stating the intent of the test and how the scores are
to be used. The FCAT was designed to be used to measure whether or not
students have demonstrated skills and proficiency to meet the State's
academic standards. This does not preclude use of FCAT scores in some
other ways such as to predict a future performance, but any such uses
would have to be individually validated, as they were not part of the
original test design.

With the above principle in mind, the development of FCAT is founded on
content validity as indicated by the match between the test and the
benchmarks the items purport to measure. In other words, the question
is, "Do the items match the content that the State desires to measure?"

The content validity of FCAT was built into the developmental process
from the very first steps. The item specifications were created by the
test development contractor and reviewed, revised, and validated by
committees of Florida classroom teachers and curriculum specialists. The
overall test blueprint was likewise reviewed, revised, and validated by
subject area content committees in Florida. During these reviews, the
materials provided by the contractors were heavily edited; items are
rejected or modified to make certain they meet the test item
specifications. Reviewers use worksheets that track their acceptance or
rejection of each item.

Items are pilot-tested on small groups of students and the students are
interviewed after each sitting. This permits the test administrator to
learn first-hand what difficulties the examinee has with the
instructions, the items, or the materials. All test items are
field-tested with large random samples of Florida students, accomplished
by administering statewide field tests or by imbedding items within
operational forms. All items in such field tests are subjected to
statistical item analyses and further review by staff of the Department
and the contractor. Such analyses routinely include 2- and 3-parameter
IRT approaches, calculation of classic psychometric indices,
dimensionality studies, and DIF analyses. Content validity thus is
established by a thorough and professional quality control process.

As the FCAT was initially developed in grades 4, 5, 8, and 10, data were
gathered to compare student performance on the test with their
performance on district norm-referenced tests and grades earned in
courses. The data collected in 1998 from a sample of districts revealed
a reasonably strong correlation between the Stanford 8 and FCAT scores.
In 2000, the FCAT included use of the Stanford 9 (SAT-9) and, thus, the
comparisons could be done by the Department as soon as the results were
available. These studies generally show that the FCAT-SSS and the
FCAT-NRT are correlated at about the 0.83 level. See the Assessment and
Accountability Briefing Book at
<http://fcat.fldoe.org/pdf/BriefingBook07web.pdf> for more information.

Comparing grades earned in courses is more problematic since teachers
are known to assign grades for reasons other than academic proficiency.
Furthermore, students have many different course selection possibilities
and a simple correlation between FCAT and grade point average is often
indistinct. In a few studies of the relationship between grades and FCAT
scores conducted by the Department, the results generally show that low
scores on the FCAT are associated with poor performance in courses and
vice versa.

Another important dimension of interest is that of "instructional
validity," the degree to which the content measured by the test is being
taught. The State is obligated to consider instructional validity as one
important dimension of the provision of due process to students. (See
the findings of the *Debra P. v. Turlington* case.)

Florida districts and schools have been on notice for many years about
the development and, later, the adoption of the Sunshine State
Standards. The Standards were adopted by the State Board of Education
after public hearings and much discussion and review. Various memoranda
were sent to district superintendents and other educators about the
importance of teaching the content defined by the Standards.
Publications and other informational and educational tools have been
developed to assist districts in adopting the Standards.

The State conducted an instructional validity study in the 2000-01
school year to guarantee that all students are having the opportunity to
learn the desired content. This was particularly important because the
10^th^ grade students of 2000-01 were the first class to be required to
pass the FCAT for graduation. The results showed that Florida school
districts have implemented the Sunshine State Standards into the
instructional program.

The consequential aspects of validity require long-term review and
consideration. Certain impressions are available at this time. First,
the test results are improving over time. This may be interpreted as
schools spending more time emphasizing the benchmarks being measured by
FCAT. Since the test is secure and is not released and since the tested
content is broad, rather than narrow as in older minimum competency
days, it may be reasonably concluded that students are making good
progress toward the challenging standards adopted by the State Board of
Education. Second, comments from instructional leaders and supervisors
across the state articulate their beliefs that the FCAT, with its reach
into higher content and its use of performance items, is moving the
instructional program in the directions they desire. Third, there are
always those who complain that the state assessment tests are
unnecessary and are an undesirable intrusion into the daily classroom
life. Teachers object that they have to "cease their normal activities
and teach FCAT." The response to this is that "FCAT-prep" activities are
not needed and are not desirable since the Sunshine State Standards are
to be woven into the curriculum and instructional program in a seamless
manner. In summary, based on immediate information, the program appears
to be working as designed and results are being obtained.

Reliability of the FCAT is also a matter of psychometric concern and
interest annually. The technical data describing the FCAT are shown in
the FCAT Technical Reports at <http://fcat.fldoe.org/fcatpub2.asp>.
These reports include a description of the standard errors of
measurement and the rater consistency for the performance items. In
regard to the latter, while the performance scoring is being conducted,
the Department receives daily statistical reports showing rater
consistency for each performance item. Other data show the consistency
of each individual rater. If a rater is not performing up to the
established standards, the individual is retrained or discharged.

Florida places great emphasis on good test administration procedures,
test security, and ethical behavior of students and test administrators.
Readers should pay particular attention to the extracted pages from the
2007 [FCAT Test Administrator's Manual]{.underline}, provided as an
Attachment, which includes copies of test security statutes and
description of accommodations. It is expected and demanded that
Department staff, contractor staff, advisory committees, content
committees, and district educators follow instructions relative to
maintenance of test security. Procedures are in place to investigate any
allegation of a breach in test security. This includes criminal
prosecution and referrals to the Professional Practices Commission for
action against the professional license. In addition, a paper on ethical
behavior in the administration of assessment tests has been prepared and
given wide circulation. See the Department's web site at
<http://www.fldoe.org/asp/pdf/ethics.pdf>.

The Department's Office of Assessment convenes a committee of district
test administrators each year to debrief following each annual
assessment cycle. At the same time, feedback is gathered from
participants concerning the program and problems occurring during test
administration. Each test administrator with every school completes a
feedback form to describe any difficulties with test administration and
suggestions for improvement. This feedback is analyzed by the test
support contractor and given to the Department.

In addition, the Office of Assessment statistical analysis staff
provides intense quality control over the processing of test answer
sheets by the test support contractor. There is an independent audit of
each step of the contractor's work and approximately 40 separate
computer programs are run against the various computer files provided by
the contractor to identify errors of various types.

Equating and calibration analyses are separately run by two and
sometimes three or four groups to triangulate results and confirm
accuracy. No test results can be reported by the contractor until the
quality control staff agrees that there are absolutely no errors
present. This process requires about ten calendar days to complete. In
addition, staff members are present at each site where answer documents
are processed and performance items are being scored. They monitor
activities, provide guidance, participate in training, and solve
problems as they occur. This requires that staff members be on-site from
four to six weeks in out-of-state locations.

The State has a formal and regular operation to maintain a high quality
assessment program through analyses and input from various external
sources. There are technical advisory committees, curriculum content
committees, and external *ad hoc* committees of advisors. These groups
either are convened to review and update the assessment instruments or
they are convened to solve a particular problem or critique some aspect
of the assessment. Between 500 and 700 Florida educators are involved in
these processes annually. The test support and development contracts
include thousands of dollars in resource money to provide travel and
consultant fees where needed. Research projects are routinely
commissioned with state universities to explore issues related to
scaling, dimensionality, IRT questions, plans for vertical scaling, etc.
The program and its tests are reviewed and evaluated every year and are
in a constant process of improvement.

We believe that Florida's extensive quality control process excels among
the various state assessment programs.

Additional explanatory information about the FCAT program including a
chronology of development, sample items, test specifications, and other
documents can be found on the web at the following address:
[http://fcat.fldoe.org](http://fcat.fldoe.org/). See also
<http://fcat.fldoe.org/fcatpub2.asp> and
<http://fcat.fldoe.org/handbk/fcathandbook.asp>.

######### National Assessment of Educational Progress 

Historically, Florida has voluntarily participated in the state-level
administrations of the NAEP tests, with one exception, 2000, when the
first version of FCAT was being implemented. In fact, Florida has
statutes in place requiring participation of schools in this program (s.
1008.22\[2\], Florida Statutes).

######### Challenging Student Academic Achievement Standards

*No Child Left Behind* requires all states to adopt challenging academic
achievement standards for the tests in mathematics, reading/language
arts, and science. This has been accomplished in Florida for all state
assessments, although, in Florida, such standards are referred to as
FCAT achievement levels. Their development and current status is
described in the section below.

The Department of Education created policy definitions for five
achievement levels that would be the basis for describing student
performance on the FCAT. The definitions are shown below in Figure 2.
Florida deliberately did not use value-laden words to describe its
achievement levels because of the lessons learned in the *Debra P. v.
Turlington* case. The original high school competency test was called a
"functional literacy test," and so it was easy for someone to mistakenly
assume that a failing score labeled a student as being "functionally
illiterate." It has, therefore, been decided to use only numbers to
identify the five different levels describing performance on the FCAT.

**Figure 2**

**Definitions of the FCAT Achievement Levels**

[Level 5]{.underline}: Performance at this level indicates that the
student has success with the most challenging content of the Sunshine
State Standards. A Level 5 student answers most of the test questions
correctly, including the most challenging questions.

[Level 4]{.underline}: Performance at this level indicates that the
student has success with the challenging content of the Sunshine State
Standards. A Level 4 student answers most of the questions correctly but
may have only some success with questions that reflect the most
challenging content.

[Level 3]{.underline}: Performance at this level indicates that the
student has partial success with the challenging content of the Sunshine
State Standards but performance is inconsistent. A Level 3 student
answers many of the questions correctly but is generally less successful
with questions that are most challenging.

[Level 2]{.underline}: Performance at this level indicates that the
student has limited success with the challenging content of the Sunshine
State Standards.

[Level 1]{.underline}: Performance at this level indicates that the
student has little success with the challenging content of the Sunshine
State Standards.

To operationalize the five definitions, it was necessary to select
performance standards or "cut-scores" for each level and have them
adopted by the State Board of Education as administrative rule. The
Department has, at this time, engaged in two separate standard-setting
operations in reading, mathematics, writing, and science. The standards
are included in State Board of Education Rule 6A-1.09422, FCAT
Requirements (see
<https://www.flrules.org/gateway/ruleNo.asp?ID=6A-1.09422>).

The first standard setting exercise was implemented for the initial
tests in reading (grades 4, 8, and 10) and mathematics (grades 5, 8, and
11). In the fall of 1998, a statewide committee of practicing teachers
and curriculum leaders was designated for the purpose of advising the
State on the selection of achievement levels (i.e., performance
standards). This committee of about 80 people was divided into
elementary, middle, and senior high working groups. They were convened
at a location near Tampa, Florida, for a four-day working session.

The participants engaged in a five-step process built around the
"bookmark" standard-setting procedure suggested by CTB/McGraw-Hill, the
first FCAT development contractor. Participants were given workbooks
containing over 100 items that represented the range of difficulty of
FCAT items. At the earliest stage, each person reviewed the items and
selected the location where a "bookmark" or standard was to be defined.
At each subsequent stage, the participant was provided more information
and opportunity for discussion. Five votes were taken before the
conclusion of the meeting.

Department staff then took the proposals for achievement levels to other
groups for review. Three committees were convened -- one of business
leaders, one of citizens, and one of educators other than classroom
teachers and curriculum specialists. Further reviews were conducted
within the agency, and in December 1998, the State Board of Education
adopted cut-scores for tested grades and subjects.

In the fall of 2001, it was necessary for the Department to initiate
development of recommendations for achievement levels for the new grades
in 3-10 that had been added to the assessment program. With the
assistance of the new test development contractor, Harcourt Educational
Measurement, the Department again implemented a process involving
committees of teachers, curriculum leaders, business leaders, parents,
and citizens. The "bookmark procedure" was used as in 1998; however, it
was possible to add a new dimension to the standard-setting procedure
since the Department had successfully completed a vertical scaling
analysis for the assessment tests. Since the 100-500 FCAT scale could be
converted to a continuous developmental scale spanning grades 3-10, it
was possible for corrections to be made in the specification of the
cut-scores to smooth out the achievement levels and make them more
consistent across the grades.

In December 2001, the State Board of Education considered the issue of
passing standards for the new grade levels. The Board adopted the
recommended cut-scores. Tables 1-2 display FCAT developmental scale
scores and regular FCAT scale scores defining FCAT achievement levels as
adopted by the Board.

**Table 1**

## FCAT Reading , Grades 3-10

![](media/image4.wmf){width="5.995833333333334in"
height="3.904166666666667in"}

**Table 2**

**FCAT Mathematics, Grades 3-10**

![](media/image5.wmf){width="5.996527777777778in"
height="3.8319444444444444in"}

> The grade 10 FCAT passing scores adopted by the State Board of
> Education in December 2001 specified two levels. For students tested
> in March and October 2001, the passing scores would be 287 in reading
> and 295 in mathematics. Beginning in March 2002, all 10^th^ graders
> who are initially taking the FCAT for graduation were required to earn
> scores of 300 in reading and mathematics to meet requirements for high
> school graduation with a standard diploma. The Commissioner of
> Education is required to review FCAT performance data after each test
> administration and make a recommendation about any adjustments in the
> passing scores.
>
> The Department began work on the FCAT Science achievement levels for
> grades 5, 8, and 11, in late 2004. Again, the Department implemented
> the "bookmark procedure" with the involvement of teachers, curriculum
> leaders, business leaders, parents, and citizens. Meetings with
> stakeholder groups were held in 2005, with the recommendations
> presented to the State Board of Education for final approval in
> February 2006. Table 3 provides the scale scores defining the FCAT
> achievement levels in Science adopted by the Board. The Spring 2006
> FCAT administration marked the first time FCAT SSS Science scores were
> reported by achievement levels.

**Table 3**

**FCAT Science, Grades 5, 8, and 11**
![](media/image6.wmf){width="6.310416666666667in"
height="1.2416666666666667in"}

In the fall of 2006, the Department began work on setting the FCAT
Writing+ achievement levels for grades 4, 8, and 10, as well as the
graduation standard. Committees of teachers, curriculum leaders,
business leaders, parents, and citizens used the "body of work"
procedure to provide recommended cut points for the achievement levels
and for the graduation standard. After receiving public input from
Florida's stakeholder groups, the State Board of Education approved the
achievement levels on January 16, 2007. The approved achievement levels
are provided in Table 4 below. The Spring 2007 FCAT administration
marked the first time FCAT SSS Writing+ performance was reported by
achievement levels based on scale scores.

**Table 4**

**FCAT Writing+, Grades 4, 8, and 10**

![](media/image7.wmf){width="6.253472222222222in"
height="1.2166666666666666in"}

> For FCAT Writing+, students receive a whole-test score between 100 and
> 500 as well as a sub-score on a rubric of one to six for the essay.
>
> The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) utilizes the
> labels of "Advanced," "Proficient," and "Basic." There has been
> considerable discussion about these labels and whether another
> category of "Below Basic" should be added. In these discussions,
> Florida has reviewed both the percentage of students attaining various
> achievement levels for grades 4 and 8 in reading and mathematics (see
> <http://www.fldoe.org/asp/naep/naep2007.asp> for the most recent
> results) and the percentage of students in each of the five
> achievement levels of FCAT (see <http://fcat.fldoe.org/fcatscor.asp>
> for the most recent results).
>
> Based on this research, and in accordance with Florida statutes, the
> Commissioner of Education must designate an FCAT achievement level
> that represents inadequate performance. This has been done, and Level
> 1 was so designated. For purposes of implementing *No Child Left
> Behind*, we designate the following relationships shown in Table 5
> between Florida's Achievement levels and the labels specified by
> *NCLB*:
>
> **Table 5**
>
> **Specification of *NCLB* Achievement Standards**

+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| > **FCAT Achievement Levels**  | > **No Child Left Behind**          |
|                                | >                                   |
|                                | > **Achievement Standards**         |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| > 4-5                          | > Above Proficient                  |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| > 3                            | > Proficient                        |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| > 1-2                          | > Below Proficient                  |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+

> Levels 1 and 2 will be considered to be "Below Proficient." FCAT Level
> 3 will be considered "Proficient," and Levels 4 and 5 will be "Above
> Proficient." However, the labels used in *No Child Left Behind* **will
> not be used** in Florida's FCAT reports and publications in order to
> avoid inadvertent misinterpretations of the labels.
>
> [FCAT Inclusion Policies and Procedures]{.underline}
>
> Federal requirements in NCLB clearly expect states to develop ways to
> include all students in the academic assessment program. Florida
> accepts this philosophic orientation and has taken steps to foster
> such inclusion. Indeed, this orientation can be seen in several
> Department publications. Our emphasis is one of inclusion both in the
> instructional programs and the student assessment programs.
>
> The [FCAT Test Administrator's Manual]{.underline} reinforces this
> theme by stating, "In general, all students enrolled in the grade
> levels being tested should participate in the FCAT administration.
> Students must be administered the test for the grade level in which
> they are enrolled." The [Manual]{.underline} also says that English
> language learners are expected to be tested, as are students with
> disabilities. Pages from the 2007 manual have been extracted and
> provided as an attachment.
>
> The following information describes Florida's policies with regard to
> the testing of students with disabilities and English language
> learners.

######### Students with Disabilities

> Some students need accommodations to enable them to adequately access
> the assessment tests. The [FCAT Test Administrator's
> Manual]{.underline} contains specific instructions on determining the
> allowable accommodations for ESE students. Each such decision must be
> made on an individual basis. The student's Individual Education Plan
> (IEP) is the beginning point for such decisions, although the
> Department of Education provides school officials with guidelines and
> parameters for making these decisions. The Department's current policy
> would not allow an accommodation that threatened the security of the
> test (e.g., student taking the test at home without supervision) or
> changed the construct being measured (e.g., reading the reading test).
>
> In certain circumstances, a student may be excluded from taking the
> FCAT. If a student is excluded, the IEP must document why the
> assessment is not appropriate and what alternate assessment procedure
> will be used.

State Board of Education rule 6A-1.09431 specifies policies and
procedures for special exemption from the required high school
graduation test. This rule describes the conditions under which a
student can be given an exemption from the test as the vehicle for
demonstration of proficiency in reading and mathematics required for
award of a diploma and may be seen at
<https://www.flrules.org/default.asp>.

> To make certain the Department's policies and procedures relative to
> accommodations for test administration are current and appropriate,
> Governor Jeb Bush issued Executive Order #02-108 on April 3, 2002, to
> convene a special committee to study the matter and make
> recommendations for changes and improvements. The committee's
> recommendations were available in the fall of 2002 and were addressed
> by the Department. For current information on the participation rates
> for students with disabilities, see the Databook at
> <http://www.fldoe.org/ese/datapage.asp>.

######### 

######### English Language Learners

> In Florida, there are 215,777 students classified as English language
> learners and being served. These students speak 207 different
> languages and come from 257 different countries. The four largest
> language groups are Spanish, Haitian-Creole, French and Portuguese.
> See 2000-2001 ESOL Annual Report, State Synopsis for a listing of all
> native languages represented in Florida's K-12 educational system in
> 2000-01, available via the Internet at
> <http://www.fldoe.org/aala/0001esol/default.asp>.
>
> As described in Principle 5.4, all ELLs are to be assessed. An ELL may
> be exempted only when he/she has been receiving services in a program
> operated in accordance with an approved ESOL program for 12 months or
> less and a majority decision is made by an ELL committee, on an
> individual student basis, to exempt him/her.
>
> In this context, the term "ELL committee" is defined in Rule
> 6A-6.0902, F.A.C., as follows:
>
> "\...LEP \[ELL\] committee means a group composed of ESOL teachers and
> home language teachers, and an administrator or designee plus guidance
> counselors, social workers, school psychologists or other educators as
> appropriate for the situation. The parent(s) would also be invited to
> attend any committee meetings."
>
> The ELL committee, in making its decision, shall consider the
> following factors: (1) level of mastery of basic competencies and
> skills in English and home language according to appropriate local,
> state and national criterion-referenced standards; (2) grades from the
> current or previous years; or (3) other test results. (See Rule
> 6A-1.09432, FAC, available via the Internet at
> [https://www.flrules.org](https://www.flrules.org/default.asp).)
>
> Rule 6A-6.09091, F.A.C., Accommodations of the Statewide Assessment
> Program Instruments and Procedures for Limited English Proficient
> Students, ensures accommodations in the administration of the FCAT to
> LEP students. (See Rule 6A-6.09091, FAC, available via the Internet at
> [https://www.flrules.org](https://www.flrules.org/default.asp).) The
> FCAT Administration Manual contains the complete description of the
> accommodations for ELLs.
>
> For school year 2002-2003, assessment results for all ELLs will be
> collected, analyzed and reported. The scores of ELLs participating in
> FCAT and those assessed by other methods shall be used in the
> calculation of AYP. The scores for ELLs who did not participate in the
> FCAT will be collected and reported by the number scoring proficient
> and those not scoring proficient.
>
> A comprehensive plan has been developed for both assessment of
> academic progress and English language proficiency. The June 2002 FDOE
> submission of the NCLB Consolidated Application describes in detail
> the process and reporting of results for English language proficiency
> and for academic achievement of all ELLs.
>
> [Test Accommodations]{.underline}
>
> Test accommodations for ELLs and students with disabilities, as well
> as procedures relating to test security, are described in detail on
> the following pages excerpted from the FCAT Sunshine State Standards
> Test Administration Manual.

(intentionally blank)

![](media/image8.wmf){width="6.8284722222222225in"
height="8.803472222222222in"}

![](media/image9.wmf){width="6.569444444444445in"
height="8.484722222222222in"}

![](media/image10.wmf){width="6.361111111111111in"
height="8.246527777777779in"}

![](media/image11.wmf){width="6.725in" height="8.754861111111111in"}

![](media/image12.wmf){width="6.023611111111111in"
height="8.752083333333333in"}

![](media/image13.wmf){width="6.384027777777778in"
height="8.747916666666667in"}
![](media/image14.wmf){width="6.384027777777778in"
height="8.869444444444444in"}

![](media/image15.wmf){width="6.385416666666667in"
height="8.683333333333334in"}

![](media/image16.wmf){width="6.575694444444444in"
height="4.3590277777777775in"}

(continued)

![](media/image17.wmf){width="6.081944444444445in"
height="8.997916666666667in"}

![](media/image18.wmf){width="6.384027777777778in"
height="8.656944444444445in"}

![](media/image19.wmf){width="6.383333333333334in"
height="8.984722222222222in"}

![](media/image20.wmf){width="6.935416666666667in"
height="4.899305555555555in"}

(intentionally blank)

####### Appendix C

**Discussion of NCLB "Starting Point"**

Section 1111(b)(2)(B) of NCLB requires each state to create an
accountability program to ensure that all schools are making adequate
yearly progress (AYP). Each state has the flexibility to define how it
will approach this task and hold schools responsible for the progress of
the students.

The law sets forth various requirements that will not be quoted herein.
Instead, the discussion that follows will provide Florida's solutions
and will include a discussion of all relevant points.

Florida's student assessment tests measure the same high standards for
all students, are valid and reliable instruments, seek continuous
improvement of students' educational attainments, measure all schools
against the established standards, and report disaggregated test results
for all groups required by NCLB. The discussion that follows will
address (1) the starting point for measuring progress, (2) the timelines
for improvement, (3) other indicators that will be used, (4) annual
measurable objectives, and intermediate goals for improvement.

Since the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test has been in place for
several years, the Department of Education has complete information on
the current status of student achievement in reading and mathematics in
grades 3-10 and writing achievement in grades 4, 8, and 10. Information
on student achievement in science will not be available until after the
spring 2003 assessment has been conducted.

Because Florida has not established different levels of performance for
the writing assessment as is required by NCLB, this test will not be
used to meet the requirements of Section 1111(b)(3)(C)(v)(I) or (II).
The writing assessment results will be used as an additional indicator
as required by Section 1111(b)(2)(C)(vii). See the discussion in the
following pages about "other indicators."

The Department analyzed the results of the FCAT administered in the
spring 2002 and the results are presented in the following discussion.
In considering what should be the starting point for AYP, the FCAT data
could be presented in several ways: (1) as mean scale scores on the FCAT
100-500 scale, (2) as mean scale scores on the FCAT 0-3000 vertical
scale, or (3) as percents of students in the "Proficient and Above"
category. Since the latter is considered to be the easiest to understand
and is consistent with the overall objective of getting students to be
Proficient or better, the "starting point" data were analyzed and are
presented as percentages. This does not preclude the Department from
using the student performance in terms of the vertical scale for the
purpose of tracking progress over time.

Section 1111(b)(2)(E) provides that the starting point shall be, at a
minimum, based on the higher of the percentage of students at the
proficient level who are in --

"(i) the State's lowest achieving group of students described in
subparagraph (C)(v)(II); or

\(ii\) the school at the 20^th^ percentile in the State, based on
enrollment, among all schools ranked by the percentage of students at
the proficient level."

Florida's data were analyzed both ways, separately by grade level and
subject area (reading and mathematics). The FCAT nationally-normed test
(the SAT-9) was not used in this analysis since it is not part of the
State's school accountability program. Instead, only the portion of FCAT
that is constructed around the Sunshine State Standards was used. (This
is commonly identified as the FCAT-SSS.)

Table 7 presents the results of the analysis method specified in (ii)
for reading and mathematics. The percent of students scoring Level 3 and
above was calculated for each school, and the schools were ranked.
Counting upward from the lowest scoring school, a school containing the
20%-tile of student enrollment was located. This analysis depends on
counting the student population within each school without regard to how
many grade levels are present in each school. Thus, the population being
counted is not the population of students in the tested grade level who
earned ratings of "Proficient or Above" but is, instead, the total
enrollment of the school itself.

**Table 7**

**Identification of Starting Points Based on Achievement**

**and School Enrollment\
**

  -------------------------------------- --------------------------------
  **Reading**                            **Mathematics**

                                         

  30.68%                                 37.54%
  -------------------------------------- --------------------------------

NCLB specifies that the starting points will be the HIGHER of the
results of the two analyses. Since these starting points are higher than
those derived from the first analysis, the starting points will be those
shown in Table 7: 31% for reading and 38% for mathematics.

**Appendix D**

**Annual Progress Objectives**

![](media/image21.wmf){width="6.888194444444444in"
height="5.2965277777777775in"}

NOTE: Year 1 = 2001-02 base year.

![](media/image22.wmf){width="6.819444444444445in"
height="4.766666666666667in"}

NOTE: Year 1 = 2001-02 base year.

#### Appendix E

#### Florida's AYP Plan

As an introduction to Florida's AYP proposal, first consider how the
NCLB requirements for accountability are structured. As Congress and the
President planned for NCLB, they faced a dilemma in that the 50 states
and territories have different academic standards and student assessment
programs which are not equivalent, interchangeable, measure the same
content, administered at the same grade levels, given to students at the
same time of year, generate the same kind of information, or have the
same impact. Indeed, some states prefer not to emphasize centralized
testing programs and assign that responsibility to each district. This
is a direct result of the provisions in the Constitution that give
states the responsibility of implementing a public education system.

Congress sought an effective way to measure the success of the Title I
provisions in NCLB given the realities of such a diverse national
system. A good evaluation system would try to accumulate information
across all of the states, districts, and schools to provide the means of
making sensible comparisons among the various delivery agents. For
years, however, Congress has had little success in gathering such common
information.

To illustrate the approaches used by Congress in its attempts to gather
meaningful common data, consider the "anchor test study" and the "NCE"
units approach. In the former, an attempt was made to link together
several different commercially available norm-referenced tests in
reading. The attempt proved to be extremely difficult and was abandoned
by the mid-1970's. The latter approach tried to create a type of single
scale that could be used in place of a single test administered in all
schools. The Normal Curve Equivalent scores were useful but did not
solve the problems associated with different instructional programs,
different curriculum expectations, and differences in content being
assessed.

As Congress created the language for NCLB, it was faced with the task of
requiring improvement in student achievement while not imposing a
national testing program or a national student identification number to
track progress over time. The model that evolved, therefore, is
basically the same approach as has been used in the past---a "status"
model rather than a "growth" model. Student achievement within a school,
district, or state is to be measured during the current academic year
and the results compared to the achievement in the following year. In
other words, fifth grade students in 2002-03 will be compared to fifth
grade students in 2003-04 even though the students are not the same! The
assumption is that one year's group of students is not significantly
different than the next year's group of students, an idea that is
extremely tenuous in these days of high family mobility. It is further
exacerbated in a state like Florida where there is tremendous
in-migration of students every year, making each year's class different
in many ways than the one last year.

Now consider what NCLB requires each state to do in measuring AYP. The
following five concepts summarize the important steps.

1.  Starting points are determined based on 2001-02 reading/language
    arts and mathematics achievement data. With the goal of 100%
    "Proficient or Above" in 12 years, each state stipulates annual
    measurable objectives (growth targets). One or more "other
    indicators" are selected for measurement.

2.  Each state gathers assessment information (including other
    indicators) and reports the % "Proficient and Above" for: all
    students, economically disadvantaged, students with disabilities,
    limited English proficient students, and five categories of
    race/ethnicity (white, African-American, Hispanic, Asian, American
    Indian/Alaskan). This is a status measurement at a point in time in
    which current performance is compared to the growth targets.

3.  Each [school's]{.underline} performance is compared to the state
    measurable objectives. Each subgroup in #2 above must meet or exceed
    the objectives. However, if one or more subgroups do not meet the
    objectives, the school will meet AYP if the percentage of students
    in those subgroups not reaching proficiency decreases by 10%
    compared to the previous year and if those subgroups made progress
    on one or more of the other indicators and if not less than 95% of
    each subgroup of students participated in the assessment. While the
    first comparison is one of status, the second [could]{.underline} be
    either a status measurement comparison or a growth comparison for a
    cohort of students because the law does not prescribe which it will
    be.

4.  Each [district's]{.underline} performance is compared to the state
    measurable objectives. Each subgroup in #2 above must meet or exceed
    the objectives.\
    \
    However, if one or more subgroups does not meet the objectives, the
    district will meet AYP if the percentage of students in those
    subgroups not reaching proficiency decreases by 10% compared to the
    previous year and if those subgroups made progress on one or more of
    the other indicators and if not less than 95% of each subgroup of
    students participated in the assessment. While the first comparison
    is one of status, the second can be either a status measurement
    comparison or a growth comparison for a cohort of students.

5.  Compare the [state's]{.underline} performance to the measurable
    objectives. Each subgroup in #2 above must meet or exceed the
    objectives.\
    \
    In addition, the state must meet its objectives relating to the
    development and attainment of English proficiency for LEP students.

Assuming that these steps have been completed, the results of the
assessments will be displayed for the public and the educational
community. The conditions for meeting AYP under NCLB are challenging in
that the school and district must meet the state targets in each of
several separate comparisons. This can be illustrated by the following
table.

The data display would appear as shown below for elementary, middle, and
senior high schools.

####### Elementary and Middle Schools

+--------------+---------+-----------+--------+-----------+---------+
|              | Reading | Reading   | Math   | Math      | Other   |
|              |         | Part      |        | Part      |         |
|              |         | icipation |        | icipation | (Wri    |
|              |         | Rate      |        | Rate      | ting)\* |
+--------------+---------+-----------+--------+-----------+---------+
| All students |         |           |        |           |         |
+--------------+---------+-----------+--------+-----------+---------+
| Econ.        |         |           |        |           |         |
| D            |         |           |        |           |         |
| isadvantaged |         |           |        |           |         |
+--------------+---------+-----------+--------+-----------+---------+
| White        |         |           |        |           |         |
+--------------+---------+-----------+--------+-----------+---------+
| Black        |         |           |        |           |         |
+--------------+---------+-----------+--------+-----------+---------+
| Hispanic     |         |           |        |           |         |
+--------------+---------+-----------+--------+-----------+---------+
| Asian        |         |           |        |           |         |
+--------------+---------+-----------+--------+-----------+---------+
| Am. Indian   |         |           |        |           |         |
+--------------+---------+-----------+--------+-----------+---------+
| SWD          |         |           |        |           |         |
+--------------+---------+-----------+--------+-----------+---------+
| LEP          |         |           |        |           |         |
+--------------+---------+-----------+--------+-----------+---------+

####### \* In accordance with Section 200.19 of the final regulations, the "Other Academic Indicators" will be disaggregated by subgroup for reporting purposes but will not be used for determining AYP. 

####### Senior High Schools

+--------------+--------+---------+------+---------+--------+--------+
|              | R      | Reading | Math | Math    | Other  | Other  |
|              | eading | P       |      | Partici |        | (Writ  |
|              |        | artici- |      | -pation | (Gradu | ing)\* |
|              |        |         |      | Rate    | -ation |        |
|              |        | pation  |      |         | R      |        |
|              |        | Rate    |      |         | ate)\* |        |
+--------------+--------+---------+------+---------+--------+--------+
| All students |        |         |      |         |        |        |
+--------------+--------+---------+------+---------+--------+--------+
| Econ.        |        |         |      |         |        |        |
| D            |        |         |      |         |        |        |
| isadvantaged |        |         |      |         |        |        |
+--------------+--------+---------+------+---------+--------+--------+
| White        |        |         |      |         |        |        |
+--------------+--------+---------+------+---------+--------+--------+
| Black        |        |         |      |         |        |        |
+--------------+--------+---------+------+---------+--------+--------+
| Hispanic     |        |         |      |         |        |        |
+--------------+--------+---------+------+---------+--------+--------+
| Asian        |        |         |      |         |        |        |
+--------------+--------+---------+------+---------+--------+--------+
| Am. Indian   |        |         |      |         |        |        |
+--------------+--------+---------+------+---------+--------+--------+
| SWD          |        |         |      |         |        |        |
+--------------+--------+---------+------+---------+--------+--------+
| LEP          |        |         |      |         |        |        |
+--------------+--------+---------+------+---------+--------+--------+

\* In accordance with Section 200.19 of the final regulations, the
"Other Academic Indicators" will be disaggregated by subgroup for
reporting purposes but will not be used for determining AYP.

For a senior high school to meet all of its targets requires a number of
separate Yes/No [conjunctive]{.underline} decisions. Scoring relatively
higher in reading will not compensate for low scores in mathematics as
would happen in a compensatory model.

The reporting of assessment information in the previous tables is
subject to the following conditions:

1.  The cells in the above table will be reported subject to the
    limitations on cell sizes previously described.

2.  The school's values in each cell of the above table will be the
    current year's performance.

3.  Students who take an alternate assessment will have their results
    reported in categorical classifications that include the designation
    of "Proficient," thereby making it possible for their performance to
    be counted with those of other students.

4.  Any school that is in its first year of operation will be included
    in the system but with only one year of data to report. Schools that
    include K-2 and do not take the statewide assessment (FCAT) will be
    assigned the proficiency ratings earned by the school their students
    attend in grade 3.

5.  In the event that a school district selects additional indicators
    with which to determine a school's AYP, as is authorized in Section
    1116 of HR-1 (NCLB authorization), the district shall provide these
    data to the Department of Education for use with the State Report
    Cards required by law.

6.  The required NCLB data analyses and reports will be prepared for
    each school regardless of the grade level configurations. That is, a
    K-5 school will generate data displayed as shown on the previous
    page as well as a grades 9-12 high school or a K-12 school. Each can
    be reported in terms of the percent of students who are "Proficient
    or Above" in reading and in mathematics. At the district level, the
    data will be reported for all students in the district who are
    "Proficient or Above" in reading and mathematics without regard for
    school-by-school distinctions.

NCLB includes several important concepts such as the following.

(1) All students must be held to the same, challenging standards;

(2) All students are to be assessed;

(3) The progress of students is to be consistent and forward-looking
    with the goal of moving all students to at least the Proficient
    level within 12 years;

(4) Assessment results are to be aggregated and reported to parents
    annually;

(5) Assessment and accountability results are to be disaggregated by
    seven major subgroups and

(6) Student progress is monitored annually and improvement is noted when
    performance improves with a specific grade level(s) over time. This
    is a "status system" on a very large scale.

While these principles are admirable, the NCLB model can be improved in
those states that have launched an effort to implement "value-added
achievement monitoring" in which the progress of individual students is
monitored across time. If Johnny's reading achievement is measured in
fourth grade and he is measured again in fifth grade with a test that
has been vertically linked across the grade levels, his absolute growth,
or lack thereof, can be measured and reported. The keys to such a system
are: (1) a student testing program in all grade levels, (2) test content
keyed to an established set of curriculum expectations, (3) a vertical
measurement scale that allows student scores to be reported from the
least grade to the highest, and (4) a student identification system that
assigns a unique number to a student through his/her lifetime within the
public school system. All of these elements are found in the existing
Florida public school assessment and accountability system.

The existing Florida school accountability program produces school
grades based on student performance in reading, writing, and
mathematics. Special attention is paid to students who are in the lowest
25% of students in FCAT Levels 1, 2, and 3 in each school. Further, the
program features the measurement of academic growth of individual
students through the FCAT vertical score scale in reading and
mathematics.

[Florida proposes to fully implement NCLB in all schools and deliver
analyses and results exactly as the law specifies.]{.underline} However,
in order to link the NCLB status system to Florida's existing status and
gain system, it is proposed that no school will be allowed to be
designated as meeting AYP if it has been graded "D" or "F" under the A+
school grading system.

[Under the terms of the system Florida is proposing, all of these
objectives will be met with a system that is more challenging than the
NCLB requirements.]{.underline} Congress enacted a law that meets the
constraints posed by the vast majority of states who [do
not]{.underline} have the student assessment and accountability
traditions found in Florida. If Florida changes its A+ system to serve
as the NCLB accountability system, it actually will cause our system to
regress, not move forward with its measurement of individual student
learning gains.

Florida already has a tremendous investment in its A+ Plan for
Education, and educators and citizens are familiar with it. To make
changes would require amendments to existing statutes, administrative
rules, computer programs, administrative infrastructure, and information
dissemination to all public schools.

The Florida school grading system is illustrated in Appendix F of this
Plan. Close inspection demonstrates how the program holds schools
accountable for scoring high on the FCAT, specifically, having
increasing numbers of students earning FCAT Achievement Level scores
previously identified as being the equivalent of "Proficient or Above"
as required by NCLB.

The program requires students to make learning gains in reading and
mathematics if they presently are earning less than "Proficient." If
they already are achieving at the "Proficient or Above" levels, the
school earns points to the degree that the students do not regress.

Specific attention is paid to the achievement of those students who are
demonstrating the least achievement, below "Proficient." Schools earn
points for all students in the lowest 25%-tile who make "adequate
progress," defined as gaining in achievement as much as the norm group
for the State.

The existing system already incorporates the results of the writing
assessment that we have proposed be the "other indicator" for grades 4,
8, and 10.

If a school does not meet its annual growth targets, it can meet AYP
under the "safe harbor" provisions of NCLB for improving the performance
of students in various subgroups:

1.  The percentage of students in that group below the State's
    proficiency achievement level "decreased by \[at least\] 10 percent
    of that percentage from the preceding school year"; and

2.  That group made progress on the other indicator of writing or, for
    high schools, writing and the graduation rate; and

3.  Not less than 95% of the students enrolled in each group takes the
    statewide assessment. The participation rate will be calculated by
    dividing the number of students actually taking the FCAT or
    alternate assessment by the number of students in membership at the
    time of the assessment.

> In accordance with flexibility granted to states by USED, Florida
> plans to calculate participation rates for NCLB purposes by using two
> methods: (1) current-year counts for the number of students tested
> (numerator) and for the number of students in membership
> (denominator), and (2) current year counts combined with prior year
> counts for both the numerator and the denominator for a "two-year
> averaged participation rate." The school's participation rate applied
> in the AYP calculation would reflect the higher of the two percentages
> derived from the calculations described above.

Beginning in 2007, under flexibility granted by USED through Florida's
approved growth model pilot program, schools and districts may also meet
annual measurable objectives through a growth model trajectory, in
addition to the status model and safe harbor. The growth model is a new
AYP calculation where each student within a subgroup with at least two
years of assessment data will be included in the denominator for the
growth calculation. The numerator will include any student in the
subgroup who is proficient or "on track to be proficient" in three
years. A school or district will meet AYP for that subgroup if the
percentage of students who are proficient or "on track to be proficient"
using this calculation meets or exceeds the current state annual
measurable objectives (51 percent in reading and 56 percent in
mathematics in 2006-07). See Appendix J.

[However, if a school does not meet the State's annual objective growth
target for two years in a row or if the school otherwise earns a grade
of "D" or "F," it will be designated a school in need of targeted
assistance and additional services or sanctions will be
identified.]{.underline}

Schools and districts will be evaluated separately for reading and
mathematics performance. A school or district could fail to meet its AYP
requirements in reading one year, improve in reading the second year,
and become deficient in mathematics the second year. If this occurs, the
school or district will not be subjected to the requirements of Sections
200.32-200.34 of the NCLB rules because it has not had two consecutive
years of poor performance in the [same content area]{.underline}. If a
school or district fails to meet its AYP requirements in the same
content area (e.g., reading) for two consecutive years, it will be
subjected to the requirements of Sections 200.3-200.34.

[Additional Indicators]{.underline}

In addition to evaluating the participation rate and percent proficient
for each of the nine subgroups in reading and math, Florida's AYP
calculation includes the school grade criterion as noted above, plus two
other schoolwide measures: the graduation rate, which is applicable to
schools from which students would be expected to graduate with a
standard diploma, and writing proficiency. As noted earlier in this
document, the AYP criterion for meeting the graduation rate is a rate of
85% or more, or demonstrated annual improvement in the rate; and the AYP
criterion for writing is 90% or more of examinees scoring at 3.0 or
higher on the essay component's six-point scale, or demonstrated annual
improvement in writing proficiency of at least 1%.

[AYP Summary of Components]{.underline}

Under the current AYP system, a school's final AYP status is either
"yes" or "no." The school has either made AYP, or it hasn't. If a school
fails to meet any one of the 39 component criteria of AYP, then the
school's overall AYP status is "No."

**The 39 Components of Florida's AYP Calculation**

*36 Components by Subgroup . . .*

  ----------------- ------------ ------------- ------------- --------------
                    \% Tested,   \% Tested,    \%            \% Proficient,
                    Reading      Math          Proficient,   Math
                                               Reading       

  Subgroup          ≥ 95%?       ≥ 95%?        ≥ Annual      ≥ Annual
                                               Objective?    Objective\*?

  White             Y/N          Y/N           Y/N           Y/N

  Black             Y/N          Y/N           Y/N           Y/N

  Hispanic          Y/N          Y/N           Y/N           Y/N

  Asian             Y/N          Y/N           Y/N           Y/N

  Am. Indian        Y/N          Y/N           Y/N           Y/N

  Economically      Y/N          Y/N           Y/N           Y/N
  Disadvantaged                                              

  Students with     Y/N          Y/N           Y/N           Y/N
  Disabilities                                               

  English Language  Y/N          Y/N           Y/N           Y/N
  Learners                                                   

  **Total**         Y/N          Y/N           Y/N           Y/N
  ----------------- ------------ ------------- ------------- --------------

\* Florida's annual measurable objectives (AMOs) are adjusted upward
annually.

*+ 3 School-wide Measures:*

-   Graduation Rate (for high schools) = ≥ 85% or shows an increase of
    at least 1% (rounded) vs. prior year

-   Writing Proficiency = ≥ 90% or an increase of at least 1% vs. prior
    year

-   School Grade ≠ D or F

**Appendix F**

**A+ School Grading System**

The following charts explain how school grades are calculated for the A+
school grading system.

![](media/image23.wmf){width="7.805555555555555in" height="5.99375in"}

![](media/image24.wmf){width="7.781944444444444in"
height="5.995138888888889in"}

(Intentionally blank)

**Appendix G**

**Annual Learning Gain Targets to Proficiency**

The FCAT was originally developed to test reading in grades 4, 8, and
10, and mathematics in grades 5, 8, and 10. The test results were
reported in terms of a succession of annual "status reports" that
revealed the performance of Florida students who were in different
cohorts. The data were reported for each subject using a score scale
that ranged from 100-500, and each scale was separately computed for
each grade level. Progress over time was reported as changes in the
performance of each grade level group -- i.e., this year's fourth grade
students were compared to last year's fourth graders to see if the
average score changed or, for example, if more students were earning
"Level 3" scores.

In 2001, the FCAT program was expanded so that the tests now are being
administered in all grades 3-10. This offers the opportunity to make use
of a new score scale that links adjacent grades together and permits
progress to be tracked over time, based on what is commonly called a
"developmental scale." The effect of this improvement is that student
performance across the grades can be tracked across this scale. As a
student moves from grade to grade, his/her performance can be monitored
and compared to the performance of other students in Florida. Most
importantly, the yearly progress of each student can be reported by the
change in the developmental scale scores.

Florida will use this new developmental scale to develop a plan with
annual learning gain targets for all students below proficiency.

**Four-Year Plans**

By using the developmental scale, districts and schools can chart their
students' growth as they move across the grade levels. Such charts, or
data plots, make it possible to answer the question, "Is this student
making adequate progress for each year in school?" and, "If this student
keeps making the same amount of progress, is he/she going to be ready
for the grade ten graduation testing requirement?" For those students
achieving below proficiency, we are able to set annual targets for
growth that will set the student on a trajectory to proficiency.

For example, a third-grade student with a FCAT Reading score of 150
would be designated as scoring in Level 1, clearly below proficiency.
The Developmental Scale Score (DSS) for this student would be 389 in the
conversion to the vertical scale. To bring this student to a level of
proficiency by the end of 7^th^ grade, the student would need to have a
DSS score of at least 1719 and his/her plan would map out the growth
needed each year to reach the goal of proficiency, with identified
annual benchmarks. Instructional plans would tie to the content scores
on the FCAT Reading test, so that specific strategies link to content
areas needing attention.

**Example Developmental Scale for Reading**

The following chart illustrates the relationship between the
developmental scores and the FCAT achievement levels.

![](media/image25.wmf)

**Appendix H**

**The Florida Department of Education**

**Return on Investment (ROI)**

Currently the Department of Education has available a multitude of
reports which provide information using student, staff and finance data.
For the purpose of assessing the quality and efficiency of the various
education delivery systems, the Department is in the process of using
the available information to develop a comprehensive set of measures for
the purpose of comparisons and trend analysis of schools, districts, and
postsecondary institutions. By integrating the goals of highest student
achievement and quality and efficient services, this effort will
establish an accountability system for the use of public education
resources for all delivery systems.

A comprehensive system for calculating "return on investment" based on
indicators of institutional efficiency and effectiveness is under
development. The system will have many benefits, including:

-   The use of data to influence decision-making -- Good decisions are
    based on inquiry and analysis. Information technologies are
    available to make this possible for school-based administrators, as
    well as external users of education information such as legislators
    and researchers.

-   The use of data to target specific areas for improvement -- Timely
    and accurate data can assist decision makers at all levels in
    focusing on improvement strategies.

-   The use of disaggregated data to examine wide-ranging goals --
    Disaggregating data for analysis allows for identification of
    programmatic and/or fiscal inequities and assists in the
    establishment of baselines for improvement.

-   The use of data in rapid program evaluation -- In order to have an
    impact, program evaluation must be timely as well as complete. By
    compiling and linking program and other data in an accurate and
    well-designed retrieval system, program evaluation can be
    effectively and efficiently accomplished.

-   The use of data to examine the relationship between cost and program
    effectiveness.

(Intentionally blank)

**Appendix I**

**Florida's High School Graduation and Completion Options**

**Standard Diploma**

Students who have 2.0 GPA, pass FCAT, earn the required 24 credits and
meet any other local graduation requirements receive a standard diploma
(s. 1003.43(9) and 1008.22(3)(c)5, F.S.).

**Certificate of Completion**

Students who have a 2.0 GPA, earn the required credits but do not pass
the FCAT receive a "certificate of completion" (s. 1003.43(9), F.S.).
These students are counted as high school completers but not as
graduates.

**State of Florida/High School Equivalency Diploma**

Students who are at-risk for not graduating, participate in a General
Education Development (GED) Exit program and pass the GED receive a
State of Florida diploma (DOE agreement with the American Council on
Education and s. 1003.435(4), F.S.).

Candidates, who are at least 18 years of age, unless extraordinary
circumstances exist, and who meet performance standards established by
rules of the State Board (including passing the GED) receive a high
school equivalency diploma 1003.435(2)&(4), F.S.).

All high school equivalency diplomas issued under this law have equal
status with other high school diplomas for all state purposes, including
admission to any state university or community college (s.
1003.435(6)(a), F.S.).

The State Board is to adopt rules for the award of a standard high
school diploma to holders of high school equivalency diplomas who are
assessed as meeting designated criteria (s. 1003.435(6)(b), F.S.).

**Special Diploma**

Certain students with disabilities are eligible to receive a special
diploma upon completion of specified standards, which include the
Sunshine State Standards for Special Diploma (see Section 1003.438,
Florida Statutes).

**Special Certificate of Completion**

Certain students with disabilities who do not complete the requirements
for a special diploma may be awarded a special certificate of completion
(see Section 1003.438, Florida Statutes). These students are counted as
completers but not as graduates.

\[intentionally blank\]

**Appendix J**

**Florida's Approved Growth Model:**

**Text of USED Approval Letter, and Calculation Overview**

**I. Text of Approval Letter from USED**

(URL:
<http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/growthmodel/fl/flgmdecltr3.doc>)

June 26, 2007

Honorable Jeanine Blomberg

Commissioner

Florida Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1614

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Dear Commissioner Blomberg:

With great pleasure, I am accepting Florida's growth model proposal to
be part of the U.S. Department of Education's (Department's) pilot
project. In my November 9, 2006, letter, I noted that Florida must
receive approval of its standards and assessment system by the end of
the 2006-07 school year in order to become part of the Department's
growth model pilot project. Florida has recently met this condition,
receiving Full Approval with Recommendations of its standards and
assessment system.

Congratulations for submitting a successful proposal and for receiving
approval of the Florida standards and assessment system. We believe that
Florida's participation in the pilot will help us consider different
ways to measure school accountability, while giving schools credit for
improvement over time and measuring individual student progress.

To enable Florida to implement its growth model as part of determining
adequate yearly progress (AYP) for the 2006--07 school year, I am
entering into this flexibility agreement with Florida under section 9401
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended. This
agreement permits Florida to include its growth model as a part of
calculating AYP under section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA. As part of this
flexibility agreement, Florida must agree to the following:

-   Florida must provide data comparing the results of determining AYP
    on the basis of its growth model with the results obtained when AYP
    is determined under the statutory model;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Florida must participate in an evaluation of its growth model
    conducted by the Department; and

-   Florida must report information on student growth to parents.

After the first year of implementation, we will discuss with you any
modifications that may need to be made to your growth model to continue
participating in the pilot.

As required by section 9401(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the ESEA, within 30 days of
the date of this letter, Florida must provide notice and information to
the public regarding this flexibility agreement in the manner in which
it customarily provides similar notice to the public.

Again, I congratulate you on Florida's successful growth model proposal.
I look forward to working with you to evaluate the impact of Florida's
growth model on ensuring school accountability and measuring student
progress.

> Sincerely,
>
> /s/
>
> Margaret Spellings

cc: Honorable Charlie Crist

Mr. Jay Pfeiffer, Director, Accountability Research and Measurement

> Mr. Juan Coppa, Director, Office of Evaluation and Reporting

**II. Florida Growth Model Calculation Overview**

A school that has met the requirements for participation as well as the
state's other indicators (writing, graduation rate, and school grade)
but has not met the reading and/or mathematics proficiency targets
through the AYP status model or safe harbor can still make AYP through a
provision in NCLB called the Growth Model. The Growth Model applies only
to those subgroups that did not meet the reading or mathematics targets
through the status model or safe harbor. The state has also set annual
objectives for the reading and math proficiency based on the ultimate
goal to have 100% of all students proficient in both reading and
mathematics by 2013-14. For 2006-07, the state objective for reading is
to have at least 51% of all students and each subgroup "on track to be
proficient". For 2006-07, the state objective for math is to have at
least 56% of all students and each subgroup "on track to be proficient".
These criteria reflect the same percentages as those applied to the AYP
status model AMOs for reading and for math.

For Florida students in the AYP calculation, the growth model is applied
to individuals to determine whether, for the applicable year, the
student is "on track" to be proficient by the final year of a three-year
projected growth trajectory. For a subgroup to meet the AYP performance
criteria under the growth model, the subgroup must have a sufficient
percentage of students who are on track to be proficient to meet the
applicable annual objectives by subject area.

For most students included in the state's growth model (those with at
least two years of assessment data), determining whether the student is
on track to be proficient involves the following steps:

a\. Identify the student's prior year Florida Comprehensive Assessment
Test (FCAT) Developmental Scale Score (DSS). The DSS is a continuous
scale used from grade 3 through grade 10.

b\. Locate the student's baseline score based on the grade levels found
in Table Set A (on the next page).

c\. Calculate the difference between the student's baseline score and
the target year's proficiency found in Table Set B (shown after Table
Set A).

d\. Determine whether the difference between the baseline and target
year has been closed by 33.3% (one third) between the prior year and
current year. If so, the student will be included as "on track to be
proficient."

Grades and tests used for trajectory growth and the percent of closing
needed per year can be found in Table Set A. The annual measurable DSS
scores can be found in Table Set B.

[Example of Growth Model Application]{.underline}

The following table provides an example of Florida's growth model as
applied to a sample fourth-grader in 2007 for whom a three-year
projected growth trajectory is established for reading. (The trajectory
for math is calculated separately.) Hypothetical scores for the student
as a fifth-grader in 2008 and as a sixth-grader in 2009 are included
only for purposes of illustration.

Since the student is a fourth grader in 2007, and 2007 is the year in
which the student's three-year trajectory is established, the student's
2006 grade 3 FCAT DSS score in reading (1205) is the baseline that
anchors his three-year projected trajectory toward proficiency. The DSS
reading score required for proficiency in year 3 of the trajectory (for
this student, the grade 6 DSS score required for proficiency in reading)
is 1622. The gap between the targeted Year 3 DSS proficiency score and
the student's actual baseline score is 417:

1622 -- 1205 = 417

The resulting "gap" value is important, because it is the value that is
divided by 3 (for each year in the trajectory) to determine the amount
added to the student's baseline DSS score to establish the DSS target
score for Year 1 and to establish the target score for Year 2 in the
trajectory. Thus, 417 ÷ 3 = 139. The value of 139 (or 1/3 of 417) is
added to the baseline score of 1205 to establish the target score of
1344 in Year 1. In turn, 139 is added to Year 1's target score of 1344
to establish Year 2's target score of 1483. By Year 3, the target score
is the actual DSS score required for proficiency.

Growth Model Trajectory and Results Established for a Sample Fourth
Grader in 2007

+------------------------+------+------------+------------+----------+
| Year in Trajectory \>  | **Ba | **Year 1** | **Year 2** | **Year   |
|                        | seli |            |            | 3**      |
|                        | ne** |            |            |          |
+------------------------+------+------------+------------+----------+
| Grade Tested \>        | 3    | 4          | 5          | 6        |
+------------------------+------+------------+------------+----------+
| Year of Testing \>     | 2006 | 2007       | 2008       | 2009     |
+------------------------+------+------------+------------+----------+
| Student's Actual       | **12 | 1475       | **1480**   | **1675** |
| Reading Developmental  | 05** |            |            |          |
| Score                  |      |            |            |          |
+------------------------+------+------------+------------+----------+
| DSS Score for          | 1198 | 1456       | 1510       | 1622     |
| Proficiency            |      |            |            |          |
+------------------------+------+------------+------------+----------+
| Cut score needed to be | NA   | 1344       | 1483       | **1622** |
| "on track to be        |      |            |            |          |
| proficient" \--        |      | (1205 +    | (1205 +    | (1205 +  |
| **Target score** \>    |      | 1/3 of     | 2/3 of     | 417\*)   |
|                        |      | 417\*)     | 417\*)     |          |
|                        |      |            |            |          |
|                        |      | \~         | \~         |          |
|                        |      |            |            |          |
|                        |      | (1205 +    | (1344 +    |          |
|                        |      | 139)       | 139)       |          |
+------------------------+------+------------+------------+----------+
| Is student "on track   | Yes  | Yes        | No         | Yes      |
| to be proficient" ?    |      |            |            |          |
+------------------------+------+------------+------------+----------+

\* 417 = gap between baseline score (1205) and Year 3 proficiency score
(1622).

The target scores for this trajectory would remain in place for the
student through Year 3 of the trajectory, contingent on continued
enrollment.

**Table Set A -- Calculation of Growth Model Trajectory Benchmarks**

Table A1. Grades and Tests Used for Trajectory Growth and the Percent of
Closing Needed Per Year

  ------------ --------------- --------------- ------------ ---------------
  Grade Of     Test Used As    Test Used As    Years In     Percent Of
  Enrollment   The Basis For   Target For      Trajectory   Difference
               Trajectory      Proficiency                  Closed Per Year

  3            3               6               3            33.3%

  4            3               6               3            33.3%

  5            4               7               3            33.3%

  6            5               8               3            33.3%

  7            6               9               3            33.3%

  8            7               10              3            33.3%

  9            8               10              3            33.3%

  10           9               10              2            50%
  ------------ --------------- --------------- ------------ ---------------

The trajectory benchmarks are built individually for students and
separately for reading and for mathematics. Therefore, a student will
have a trajectory based on his/her baseline mathematics score and a
proficiency cut score for mathematics which is separate from the
student's trajectory, baseline score, and proficiency cut score for
reading.

The following table displays the performance expected of students to be
counted as "on track to be proficient" in the growth model calculation.

Table A2. The Amount of Required Improvement in Terms of Decrease in the
Distance Between Baseline Performance and Proficiency Benchmark in the
Target Grade

  -------------------------------- --------------------------------------
  Trajectory Year In Consecutive   Decrease From Baseline Assessment In
  State-Tested Grades              Performance Discrepancy

  1                                33.3% of original gap

  2                                66.6% of original gap

  3                                Student must be proficient
  -------------------------------- --------------------------------------

**Table Set B -- Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT)
Developmental Scale Scores**

The FCAT vertical developmental scale score accounts for an increased
score for the "same" performance level cut point at every higher grade,
as shown on the following charts.

Reading developmental scale scores (86 to 3008) for each achievement
level on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test:

  -------- ----------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
  Grade    Level 1     Level 2      Level 3      Level 4      Level 5

  3        86-1045     1046-1197    1198-1488    1489-1865    1866-2514

  4        295-1314    1315-1455    1456-1689    1690-1964    1965-2638

  5        474-1341    1342-1509    1510-1761    1762-2058    2059-2713

  6        539-1449    1450-1621    1622-1859    1860-2125    2126-2758

  7        671-1541    1542-1714    1715-1944    1945-2180    2181-2767

  8        886-1695    1696-1881    1882-2072    2073-2281    2282-2790

  9        772-1771    1772-1971    1972-2145    2146-2297    2298-2943

  10       844-1851    1852-2067    2068-2218    2219-2310    2311-3008
  -------- ----------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------

Mathematics developmental scale scores (375 to 2709) for each
achievement level on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test:

  -------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
  Grade    Level 1      Level 2      Level 3      Level 4      Level 5

  3        375-1078     1079-1268    1269-1508    1509-1749    1750-2225

  4        581-1276     1277-1443    1444-1657    1658-1862    1863-2330

  5        569-1451     1452-1631    1632-1768    1769-1956    1957-2456

  6        770-1553     1554-1691    1692-1859    1860-2018    2019-2492

  7        958-1660     1661-1785    1786-1938    1939-2079    2080-2572

  8        1025-1732    1733-1850    1851-1997    1998-2091    2092-2605

  9        1238-1781    1782-1900    1901-2022    2023-2141    2142-2596

  10       1068-1831    1832-1946    1947-2049    2050-2192    2193-2709
  -------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------

[Growth Model Application for Students without Two Years of FCAT DSS
Scores]{.underline}

*Third-Graders*

*"O*n track to be proficient" for third grade students who do not have a
prior year data will be determined by proficiency (i.e., if the student
scores at a proficient level, he/she is included in the growth model
numerator). All third grade students without prior year data will be
included in the growth model and considered "on track to be proficient"
if they are currently proficient in third grade. If the third grade
student is not proficient and does not have prior year data, then the
student would be included in the growth model as NOT "on track to be
proficient."

*Students Administered Alternate Assessments (in lieu of FCAT)*

Students who use alternate assessments are not on the FCAT developmental
scale and will have growth calculated based on improving achievement
levels or maintaining a proficient level. Student may not decrease
achievement levels in order to be considered "on track to be
proficient."

**Additional Information on Florida's growth model for AYP** can be
found in the AYP technical assistance paper via a link at the bottom of
this web page: <http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/> (see "Adequate Year
Progress Technical Assistance Paper . . . ").

\[intentionally blank\]

**Appendix K**

USED Letter Approving Florida's Assessment System

**ELEMENTARY & SECONDARY EDUCATION**\
**Florida Assessment Letter**

(URL: <http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/nclbfinalassess/fl3.html>)

June 27, 2007

Honorable Jeanine Blomberg\
Florida Department of Education\
325 West Gaines Street\
Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Dear Commissioner Blomberg:

I am pleased to approve Florida\'s assessment system under Title I of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by
the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). I congratulate you on
meeting this important NCLB requirement.

My decision is based on input from peer reviewers external to the U.S.
Department of Education (the Department) and Department staff who
reviewed and carefully considered the evidence submitted by Florida. I
have concluded that the evidence demonstrates that Florida\'s standards
and assessment system satisfies the NCLB requirements. Specifically,
Florida\'s system includes academic content standards in
reading/language arts, mathematics, and science; student achievement
standards in reading/language arts and mathematics; alternate
achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities in reading/language arts and mathematics; grade-level
assessments in each of grades 3-8 and high school in reading/language
arts and mathematics; and alternate assessments in each of grades 3-8
and high school in reading/language arts and mathematics for students
with the most significant cognitive disabilities on the Independent and
Supported levels. As such, the status of Florida\'s system is Full
Approval with Recommendations. This status means that Florida\'s
standards and assessment system meets all statutory and regulatory
requirements; however, some elements of the system could be improved.
The Florida Alternate Assessment Report (FAAR) on the Independent and
Supported levels meet the essential requirements of NCLB, but we
recommend Florida strengthen the alignment of its alternate assessment
to the related academic content standards.

Please be aware that approval of Florida\'s assessment system under NCLB
is not a determination that the system complies with Federal civil
rights requirements, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities
Act, and requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act.

Finally, please remember that, if Florida makes significant changes in
its assessment system, the State must submit information about those
changes to the Department for review and approval. For its reading and
mathematics assessment system components, Florida has agreed to count
students who took the FAAR on the Participatory leveling in the 2006-07
school year, in reading and mathematics, as non-participants in the
assessment process for NCLB accountability due to the fact that this
level is not linked to grade-level content. I understand Florida is
planning to implement a new alternate assessment based on alternate
academic achievement standards to replace the FAAR, which will no longer
be used after the 2006-07 school year. Please note that this approval
does not include this new assessment. Florida will need to submit
additional evidence to the Department for review and approval when
Florida implements this assessment in the 2007-08 school year.

We have found it a pleasure working with your staff on this review.
Please accept my congratulations for your State\'s approved standards
and assessment system under NCLB. I wish you well in your continued
efforts to improve student achievement in Florida.

Sincerely,

Kerri L. Briggs, Ph.D.

cc: Governor Charlie Crist\
Jay Pfeiffer, Director, Accountability Research & Measurement

\[intentionally blank\]

Prepared by

The Division of Accountability, Research, and Measurement

![](media/image26.png){width="1.8756944444444446in"
height="1.8479166666666667in"}

Florida Department of Education

Dr. Eric J. Smith, Commissioner

[www.fldoe.org](http://www.fldoe.org/)

[^1]: System of State achievement standards will be reviewed by the
    Standards and Assessments Peer Review. The Accountability Peer
    Review will determine that achievement levels are used in
    determining AYP.

[^2]: The state must provide rewards and sanctions for all public
    schools and LEAs for making adequate yearly progress, except that
    the State is not required to hold schools and LEAs not receiving
    Title I funds to the requirements of section 1116 of NCLB
    \[§200.12(b)(40)\].

[^3]: If the state has separate assessments to cover its language arts
    standards (e.g., reading and writing), the State must create a
    method to include scores from all the relevant assessments.

[^4]: Decisions may be based upon several years of data and data may be
    averaged across grades within a public school \[§1111(b)(2)(J)\].

[^5]: The minimum number is not required to be the same for reporting
    and accountability.

[^6]: The Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) prohibits an
    LEA that receives Federal funds from releasing, without the prior
    written consent of a student's parents, any personally identifiable
    information contained in a student's education record.

[^7]: State Assessment System will be reviewed by the Standards and
    Assessments Peer Review Team.

[^8]: See USC 6311(b)(2)(I)(i), and 34 C.F.R. 200.20(b)

[^9]: NCLB only lists these indicators as examples.

[^10]: If the state has more than one assessment to cover its language
    arts standards, the State must create a method for including scores
    from all the relevant assessments.

[^11]: Several events may occur which necessitate such a plan. For
    example, (1) the State may need to include additional assessments in
    grades 3-8 by 2005-2006; (2) the State may revise content and/or
    academic achievement standards; (3) the State may need to
    recalculate the starting point with the addition of new assessments;
    or (4) the State may need to incorporate the graduation rate or
    other indicators into its State Accountability System. These events
    may require new calculations of validity and reliability.