To implement four additional components for the performance ratings now that the necessary data are available, and this will finalize the implementation of the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) accountability rating system. An appeals process is ...

 

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 implement four additional components for the performance ratings now that the necessary data are available, and this will finalize the implementation of the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) accountability rating system. An appeals process is being implemented to align the DJJ accountability rating system with other school accountability system processes. Now that data for all required components are available, the current classification cut scores will be replaced by overall cut scores, and this change will make the DJJ accountability rating system results easier to interpret and consistent with other state education accountability systems. Lastly, this amendment will add a definition for “Employment” for clarification purposes.

SUMMARY: The proposed rule will implement four additional components to the DJJ accountability rating system, making a total of 12 components. Three of the proposed components are based on Common Assessment data and one proposed component is a measure of grade advancement. The proposed rule also adds an appeals process for districts, and it revises the calculation from using classification cut scores for each component to using overall cut scores based on the overall percent of points earned out of the percent of points possible. The term “Employment” is defined to clarify the source of employment data for this accountability system.

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 not been prepared by the Agency.

The Agency has determined that the proposed rule is not expected to require legislative ratification based on the statement of estimated regulatory costs or if no SERC is required, the information expressly relied upon and described herein: In summary, the agency intends to implement the proposed rule within its current workload, with existing staff, and the proposed rule does not increase the reporting requirements or any other requirements on districts and it is not likely to increase regulatory costs. Based upon past agency experiences with the DJJ Accountability system, no adverse impact or regulatory cost is expected as a result of these rule amendments and certainly not one that will exceed any one of the economic analysis criteria set forth in section 120.541(2)(a), F.S. and will not 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 23, 2020, 9:00 a.m.

PLACE: Florida Holocaust Museum, 55 5th St S., St.Petersburg, FL 33701.

THE PERSON TO BE CONTACTED REGARDING THE PROPOSED RULE IS: Tracy Halley, Bureau Chief, Bureau of Accountability Reporting, 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) through (d) No change.

(e) “Employment” means that a student with a valid social security number was employed in the quarter of release, or during any of the subsequent four reporting quarters after release, from a DJJ education program as reflected by the unemployment insurance quarterly wage (U/I) data found in the Florida Education and Training Placement Information Program (FETPIP) data collection system established under section 1008.39, F.S.

(f)(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.

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

(h)(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 subsection 985.03(44), F.S.

(i)(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.

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

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

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

(3) No change.

(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. The DJJ Accountability Rating shall be based only on the components for which the DJJ education program has sufficient data. 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. through 8. No change.

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

10. through 11. No change.

12. Grade Advancement. The percentage of eligible students who returned to a Florida public school and improved their grade level following attendance in a DJJ education program, or who earned a standard high school diploma or equivalent, in the cohort year or the subsequent year.

(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%

(a)(c) A program’s accountability rating shall be calculated based on the percentage of possible points earned by each DJJ education program for the components for which the program has sufficient data. In the calculation of the DJJ Accountability Rating, 100 points are available for each component with sufficient data, with one (1) point earned for each percentage of students meeting the criteria for the component. The points earned for each component shall be expressed as whole numbers by rounding the percentages. Percentages with a value of .5 or greater will be rounded up to the nearest whole number, and percentages with a value of less than .5 will be rounded down to the nearest whole number. The DJJ Accountability Rating is determined by summing the earned points for each component and dividing this sum by the total number of available points for all components with sufficient data. The percentage resulting from this calculation shall be expressed as a whole number using the rounding convention described in this subparagraph. 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.

(b)(d) Accountability ratings shall be assigned to programs based on the percentage of possible points average classification score earned by program type as follows:

 

Program Type	Commendable		Acceptable		Unsatisfactory
	Max	Min	Max	Min	Max	Min
Prevention	100%	62%	61%	51%	50%	0%
Intervention	100%	60%	59%	51%	50%	0%
Nonsecure Residential	100%	70%	69%	60%	59%	0%
Secure Residential	100%	65%	64%	54%	53%	0%

 

(c)(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 Florida Department of Education’s (FDOE) Student, Staff, and Workforce Development databases, via the data reporting processes as defined in Rrule 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 section 1008.39, F.S.; data reported to the Florida College System and State University System; and data reported to the FDOE 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 reported to the Comprehensive Management Information Systems used in the DJJ accountability system is reported to the FDOE 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 Rrule 6A-1.0016, F.A.C.

2. through 3. No change.

(c) Annually, before the calculation of DJJ Accountability Ratings, the FDOE 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.

(7) School District Review Process.

(a) The FDOE shall provide preliminary DJJ Accountability Ratings for the DJJ education programs in the district.

(b) Subsequent to the ratings described in paragraph (7)(a), the FDOE shall create data files based upon the data provided by school districts from which ratings have been calculated and provide districts the opportunity to review and correct these files.

(c) Districts shall be afforded an opportunity to contest or appeal a preliminary DJJ Accountability Rating within thirty (30) days of the release of the DJJ Accountability Rating.

(d) A successful appeal requires that a district clearly demonstrate that due to the omission of student data, a data miscalculation, or a special circumstance beyond the control of the district, a different rating would be assigned to the DJJ education program.

(e) Appropriate documentation of all elements and data to be reviewed by the FDOE must be submitted by the superintendent of the school district in which the DJJ education program is located within the time limits specified by the Commissioner of Education.

(f) An appeal shall not be granted under the following circumstances:

1. It was not timely received;

2. It was not submitted by the district superintendent;

3. It would not result in a different rating, if granted; or

4. It relies on changes made that could have been corrected prior to the calculation of the DJJ Accountability Ratings.

Rulemaking Authority 1001.02(2)(n), 1003.52(16), (21) FS. Law Implemented 1003.52 FS. History–New 10-18-18,___.

 

NAME OF PERSON ORIGINATING PROPOSED RULE: Tracy Halley, Bureau Chief, Bureau of Accountability Reporting, Florida Department of Education.

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

DATE PROPOSED RULE APPROVED BY AGENCY HEAD: August 11, 2020

DATE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE DEVELOPMENT PUBLISHED IN FAR: July 2, 2020