To fulfill requirements under s. 1003.52(16), F.S., including the development of a performance rating system to evaluate the delivery of educational services within each of the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) education programs based on data ...

 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

State Board of Education

RULE NO.:RULE TITLE:

6A-1.099812Education Accountability for Department of Juvenile Justice Education Programs

PURPOSE AND EFFECT: To fulfill requirements under s. 1003.52(16), F.S., including the development of a performance rating system to evaluate the delivery of educational services within each of the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) education programs based on data regarding student performance that include outcomes that relate to student achievement of career education goals, acquisition of employability skills, receipt of a high school diploma or its equivalent, grade advancement, and the number of CAPE industry certifications earned.

SUMMARY: This new rule provides DJJ accountability rating definitions and policies, including the components of the accountability system, the processes for calculating DJJ accountability ratings, requirements for receiving a rating of Commendable, Acceptable, or Unsatisfactory, and processes for school districts and DJJ education program providers to review and verify data used to calculate the ratings.

SUMMARY OF STATEMENT OF ESTIMATED REGULATORY COSTS AND LEGISLATIVE RATIFICATION:

The Agency has determined that this will not have an adverse impact on small business or likely increase directly or indirectly regulatory costs in excess of $200,000 in the aggregate within one year after the implementation of the rule. A SERC has been prepared by the Agency.

In summary, the agency intends to implement the proposed rule within its current workload, with existing staff and the proposal does not increase the reporting requirements or any other requirements on districts and it is not likely to increase regulatory costs or require legislative ratification.

Any person who wishes to provide information regarding a statement of estimated regulatory costs, or provide a proposal for a lower cost regulatory alternative must do so in writing within 21 days of this notice.

RULEMAKING AUTHORITY: 1001.02(2)(n), 1003.52(16), (21), FS.

LAW IMPLEMENTED: 1003.52, FS.

A HEARING WILL BE HELD AT THE DATE, TIME AND PLACE SHOWN BELOW:

DATE AND TIME: September 14, 2018, 8:00 a.m.

PLACE: Collier County School Board Office, 5775 Osceola Trail, Naples, FL 34109.

THE PERSON TO BE CONTACTED REGARDING THE PROPOSED RULE IS: Jason Gaitanis, Assistant Deputy Commissioner, Office of Accountability and Policy Research, Division of Accountability, Research, and Measurement, Florida Department of Education, 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 544, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400, [phone].

 

THE FULL TEXT OF THE PROPOSED RULE IS:

 

6A-1.099812 Education Accountability for Department of Juvenile Justice Education Programs

(1) Purpose. The purpose of this rule is to set forth the performance rating system for Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) education programs.

(2) Definitions. For the purposes of this rule, the following definitions shall apply:

(a) “Common assessment” means the assessment required by s. 1003.52(3)(b), F.S., and designed to measure student learning gains and academic progress, which is administered to students upon entry into and again prior to release from DJJ education programs.

(b) “Core-curricula courses” means courses in the subject areas defined in s. 1003.01(14), F.S.

(c) “Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) education program” means a program operated by or under contract with the Department of Juvenile Justice that provides educational services to students receiving prevention, day treatment, or residential commitment services designated within s. 985.04(44), F.S.

(d) “Eligible students” means students whose length of stay within the same DJJ education program is at least forty (40) calendar days, which can include consecutive stays. Consecutive stays in the same program will be treated as a single, continuous program enrollment if:

1. Attendance dates overlap,

2. Attendance gap between stays is thirty (30) days or less, or

3. Attendance gap reflects a summer break and the student re-enrolls in the same DJJ education program during the following term.

(e) “Learning gains on the common assessment” means a student’s score increases on the common assessment between the pre- and post-test, or a student scores one hundred (100) percent on both the pre- and post-tests.

(f) “Learning gains on the statewide standardized assessments” means learning gains calculated based on the provisions of Rule 6A-1.099822, F.A.C.

(g) “Program type” means prevention, intervention (day treatment), nonsecure residential, and secure residential (high-risk residential, maximum-risk residential) based upon the restrictiveness level of the DJJ education program as defined by s. 985.03(44), F.S.

(h) “Released students” means students who withdrew from a DJJ education program and did not return to the same program within thirty (30) days of withdrawal or after summer break.

(i) “Statewide standardized assessments” means the English language arts and mathematics assessments identified in s. 1008.22(3), F.S.

(j) “Subject areas” means the areas of English language arts and mathematics.

(k) “Sufficient data” means at least ten (10) observations are eligible for inclusion in the denominator of the component calculation.

(3) DJJ Accountability Ratings. The three (3) accountability ratings for DJJ educational programs are Commendable, Acceptable, and Unsatisfactory.

(4) DJJ Accountability Rating System.

(a) Each component with sufficient data shall be calculated as a percentage and weighted equally to determine the accountability rating. Until data for all the components listed in paragraph (4)(b) become available, a program will not receive a DJJ accountability rating; however, the Department shall provide information on a program’s performance for each component with sufficient data.

(b) DJJ Accountability Rating Components.

1. Attendance. The percentage of eligible students who returned to public school and whose attendance rate improved following their attendance in a DJJ education program, or whose attendance rate was ninety-five (95) percent or higher upon their return to a public school.

2. Graduation. The percentage of eligible students enrolled in grade 12 during their participation in the DJJ education program and who earned a standard high school diploma or its equivalent in the cohort year or the subsequent year. Eligible students who graduate in the cohort year and enrolled in grades other than grade 12 are also included.

3. Qualified Teachers. The percentage of core-curricula courses taught by in-field teachers, as outlined in Rule 6A-1.0503, F.A.C.

4. Postsecondary Enrollment. The percentage of eligible, released students who earned a standard diploma or its equivalent during the year they participated in a DJJ education program and who enrolled in a postsecondary institution in Florida during the year of their release from the DJJ education program or during the subsequent year.

5. Employment. The percentage of eligible released students who are sixteen (16) years of age or older and employed within one year following release from the DJJ education program. Students not employed but enrolled in a K-12 public school or a state of Florida postsecondary institution shall be removed from the calculation of this component.

6. English Language Arts Learning Gains. The percentage of eligible students who meet the forty-day (40-day) length-of-stay criteria set forth in paragraph (2)(d) of this rule prior to the beginning of the assessment window and demonstrate learning gains on statewide standardized assessments in English language arts.

7. Mathematics Learning Gains. The percentage of eligible students who meet the forty-day (40-day) length-of-stay criteria set for in paragraph (2)(d) of this rule prior to the beginning of the assessment window and demonstrate learning gains on statewide standardized assessments in mathematics.

8. Industry Certification. For programs with a contracted minimum length of stay of nine (9) months or longer, the percentage of eligible students who earned a Career and Professional Education (CAPE) industry certification or a CAPE acceleration industry certification identified in the Industry Certification Funding List adopted in Rule 6A-6.0573, F.A.C., during the year in which they participated in the program or in the subsequent year.

9. Common Assessment Reading. The percentage of eligible students demonstrating learning gains on the reading portion of the common assessment.

10. Common Assessment Mathematics. The percentage of eligible students demonstrating learning gains on the mathematics portion of the common assessment.

11. Data Integrity. The percentage of eligible released students who have both pre- and post-test data on the common assessment for the same program placement.

(5) Procedures for Calculating Classification Scores and DJJ Accountability Ratings.

(a) The accountability ratings of Commendable, Acceptable, and Unsatisfactory shall be calculated based on the average classification score for the components for which the program has sufficient data. The classification score for each measure shall be expressed as a whole number ranging from one (1) to three (3), with one (1 )being the lowest classification and three (3) being the highest classification.

(b) Classification scores for each component shall be assigned as shown in the tables in subparagraphs (5)(b)1.-8.

1. Attendance.

Program Type	3		2		1
	Max	Min	Max	Min	Max	Min
Prevention	100%	50%	49%	30%	29%	0%
Intervention	100%	50%	49%	30%	29%	0%
Nonsecure Residential	100%	56%	55%	39%	38%	0%
Secure Residential	100%	46%	45%	35%	34%	0%

 

2. Graduation.

Program Type	3		2		1
	Max	Min	Max	Min	Max	Min
Prevention	100%	71%	70%	30%	29%	0%
Intervention	100%	51%	50%	30%	29%	0%
Nonsecure Residential	100%	91%	90%	50%	49%	0%
Secure Residential	100%	81%	80%	55%	54%	0%

 

3. Qualified Teachers.

Program Type	3		2		1
	Max	Min	Max	Min	Max	Min
Prevention	100%	100%	99%	70%	69%	0%
Intervention	100%	100%	99%	80%	79%	0%
Nonsecure Residential	100%	100%	99%	60%	59%	0%
Secure Residential	100%	100%	99%	85%	84%	0%

 

4. Postsecondary Enrollment.

Program Type	3		2		1
	Max	Min	Max	Min	Max	Min
Prevention	100%	81%	80%	35%	34%	0%
Intervention	100%	81%	80%	35%	34%	0%
Nonsecure Residential	100%	21%	20%	15%	14%	0%
Secure Residential	100%	21%	20%	10%	9%	0%

 

5. Employment.

Program Type	3		2		1
	Max	Min	Max	Min	Max	Min
Prevention	100%	91%	90%	75%	74%	0%
Intervention	100%	81%	80%	60%	59%	0%
Nonsecure Residential	100%	76%	75%	50%	49%	0%
Secure Residential	100%	61%	60%	50%	49%	0%

 

6. English Language Arts Learning Gains.

Program Type	3		2		1
	Max	Min	Max	Min	Max	Min
Prevention	100%	50%	49%	31%	30%	0%
Intervention	100%	50%	49%	25%	24%	0%
Nonsecure Residential	100%	50%	49%	31%	30%	0%
Secure Residential	100%	60%	59%	35%	34%	0%

 

7. Mathematics Learning Gains.

Program Type	3		2		1
	Max	Min	Max	Min	Max	Min
Prevention	100%	61%	60%	31%	30%	0%
Intervention	100%	55%	54%	36%	35%	0%
Nonsecure Residential	100%	55%	54%	36%	35%	0%
Secure Residential	100%	55%	54%	36%	35%	0%

 

8. Industry Certification.

Program Type	3		2		1
	Max	Min	Max	Min	Max	Min
Prevention	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
Intervention	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
Nonsecure Residential	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
Secure Residential	100%	25%	24%	1%	0%	0%

 

(c) A program’s accountability rating is determined by summing the classification scores for each component and dividing this sum by the total number of components with sufficient data. The score resulting from this calculation shall be expressed as a decimal by rounding scores to the tenth place. Average classification scores with a value of five (5) or greater in the hundredth place will be rounded up to the nearest tenth. Average classification scores with a value of less than five (5) in the hundredth place will be rounded down to the nearest tenth.

(d) Accountability ratings shall be assigned to programs based on the average classification score earned as follows

1. A score greater than 2.4 equals a rating of Commendable;

2. A score of 1.6 to 2.4 equals a rating of Acceptable; and

3. A score less than 1.6 equals a rating of Unsatisfactory.

(e) A DJJ education program shall receive a DJJ Accountability Rating based solely on the components for which it has sufficient data. A DJJ education program that does not have sufficient data to receive a DJJ Accountability Rating for three (3) consecutive years shall receive a DJJ Accountability Rating based on the aggregate of the most recent three-year (3-year) period for components for which it has sufficient data to perform the calculation. If the three-year (3-year) aggregate does not provide sufficient data to calculate any components, the DJJ education program will not receive a DJJ Accountability Rating.

(6) Accuracy and Representativeness of Performance Data.

(a) Accountability ratings shall be based solely upon data submitted to the Department of Education’s Student, Staff, and Workforce Development databases, via the data reporting processes as defined in Rule 6A-1.0014, F.A.C., Comprehensive Management Information Systems; data reported to the Florida Education and Training Placement Information Program (FETPIP) data collection system established under s. 1008.39, F.S.; data reported to the Florida College System and State University System; and data reported to the Department of Education for the common assessment. All changes in student eligibility for inclusion in rating calculations shall be reported prior to the issuance of the ratings. Each school district shall be responsible for ensuring that all necessary information to calculate the components used in the DJJ accountability system is reported to the Department within the time limits specified by the Commissioner.

(b) Each school district superintendent shall designate a DJJ education program accountability contact person to be responsible for the following:

1. Verifying that each DJJ education program is correctly listed on the Master School Identification (MSID) file and is appropriately classified by program type, making changes as necessary pursuant to the change process described in Rule 6A-1.0016, F.A.C.

2. Verifying student-enrollment data, program entry and exit dates, and other data needed for calculating specific measures of the DJJ Accountability Rating, including student eligibility for inclusion in calculations for each component.

3. Working with DJJ education programs and other reporting entities to ensure that all data needed to calculate DJJ Accountability Ratings are reported accurately and timely.

(c) Annually, before the calculation of DJJ Accountability Ratings, the Department of Education shall provide to the Department of Juvenile Justice and the school districts a list of DJJ education programs. The Department of Juvenile Justice and school districts shall have a minimum of fourteen (14) days to review the list and provide information regarding additions to or deletions from the list.

Rulemaking Authority 1001.02(2)(n), 1003.52(16), (21), FS. Law Implemented 1003.52, FS. History–New,

 

NAME OF PERSON ORIGINATING PROPOSED RULE: Juan Copa, Deputy Commissioner, Accountability, Research and Measurement.

NAME OF AGENCY HEAD WHO APPROVED THE PROPOSED RULE: Pam Stewart, Commissioner, Department of Education.

DATE PROPOSED RULE APPROVED BY AGENCY HEAD: August 16, 2018

DATE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE DEVELOPMENT PUBLISHED IN FAR: July 10, 2018.