Transcript for 6A-5.066 September 29, 2017, 3:00 pm EDT

Slide 1: Webex team, please start the recording.

Good day, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the Rule Development workshop and webinar, with an opportunity for public input on draft rule text for Rule 6A-5.066 – Approval of Teacher Preparation Programs. This is Kimberly Pippin, Program Director with the Office of Educator Preparation, Bureau Chief Eileen McDaniel, Greg Hand with the Division of Accountability, Research and Measurement, as well as other Department staff.
So that everyone is aware, we are conducting this workshop both as a webinar via conference call and face-to-face. I would like to go through a few instructions for all of the different groups of people joining us today. For everyone’s information, today’s webinar and conference call are being recorded and the recording, the presentation materials and the transcripts will be posted to our website within 10 days. It will be extremely helpful if you have the draft rule text available so you can follow along as we go through the rule. The draft rule language was sent to all teacher preparation program listservs, and any members of the public who requested copies on Thursday, September 28. For anyone who has not received the documents, please email Eileen McDaniel at Eileen.McDaniel@fldoe.org. She will send the documents within 2 business days. For those of you in the room, a copy of the rule and supporting documents are located at the back of the  room.
Slide 2: We are going to conduct our workshop in three sections.

The first part will be an overview presentation of the authorizing statutes that are the underpinnings to this rule and form the basis for this draft rule language. Within this part we will then provide to you the basic rule text itself.
After we have reviewed the statutes and more specifically the rule language being discussed today, there will be two parts that will be interactive.
The interactive portions of today’s workshop include Part Two where everyone who is participating, whether it is via the webinar or conference call OR in-person, can ask clarifying questions. This provides an opportunity for someone to make sure he or she understands properly what was said during the presentation, whether it was in the statute or in the draft rule text. These questions – and also the comments that follow – will help the Department to improve the draft rule text.
After the question and answer session has ended, we will go to Part Three, which is the actual public comments’ section for this rule development workshop.
During this time, audience participants, whether physically participating, or participating by conference call or webinar, who wish to make a comment about the rule, will have an opportunity to do so. During this time there will be no responses, or questions, or debate.

1

Slide 3: A few more details about input and participation.

When you are asking a question or making a comment, please state your name and your affiliation, which can be just your institution, your school district, your association, or anything else you want us to know about where you are from.
Persons in the room who wish to ask questions or make comments, we ask that you fill out a speaker’s card where you will write your name and your affiliation down so that we have the spelling correct for the record. Please give your Speaker’s Card to one of the Department staff prior to the question and comment time.
If you are participating by conference call, please follow the instructions that the operator will provide during part two and three.
If you are participating via the webinar, you can type your question into the text box.

When we get to Part Three, which is the Comment Section, depending on how many people are in the queue to make comments and depending on how much meeting time we have left, we may limit those comments to a certain amount of time that allows everyone the opportunity to speak who wishes to do so.
If you prefer to submit your questions or comments in writing, you can do this at any time.

•	You can mail them to us; you can leave them here if you are in the room.
•	You can provide input to the State Board of Education’s website as noted on this slide, or
•	You can submit questions or comments via email..

Slide 4: One last thing about input and participation.

This rule is being advertised for public comment.  It is draft rule text.

It is extremely important to us that we have your comments and suggestions for change. This can be things like “Please keep this text.”
“Please delete this section.” “Please add this language.”
Or “I like where you are going on this except that I think that you need to change it to – or clarify it to say – such and such.”
In order to improve the rule text, we also ask that you be as specific as possible.

So let’s go ahead into Part One, which is the part of the presentation regarding what’s in the law and an overview of what is in the draft rule text.
2

Slide 5: The first item we should discuss and share is the rule adoption timeline.

As I mentioned, we are currently in rule development. We advertised on July 28, 2017, that we were seeking revisions to the rule.
On September 14 we advertised that we would conduct a Rule Development Workshop – and that is where we are today.
Note that throughout August and September we have been gathering comments and recommended revisions for consideration for rule changes.
We have also advertised that we will have a second Rule Workshop on October 11. We will share later in our presentation the specific focus of that workshop.
Public input and feedback will remain open up until this rule goes to the State Board of Education for possible adoption. Throughout this time the public comment avenues are open to you and changes to the proposed language being presented to you today for your consideration will continue. Later in October, after reviewing any additional public input or comment we have received as a result of today’s workshop and the one on October 11, we anticipate that we will publish a final version which the Commissioner will present to the State Board of Education for consideration at its November 28 Board meeting.
Slide 6: Before discussing Rule 6A-5.066, Approval of Teacher Preparation Programs.

Let’s first begin with a brief discussion of rule authority and what the law says is the content of this rule.
Slide 7: The laws that authorize the State Board of Education to adopt rules for the initial and continued approval of ALL state-approved teacher preparation programs permits the State Board to describe the program review process; the continued approval timelines; and the criteria for continued approval. As a reminder, it is the Commissioner of Education that determines the continued approval of all Florida state-approved teacher preparation programs.
The authority comes through statutes – and specifically the following:

•	For our Initial Teacher Preparation Programs – often termed our “traditional teacher preparation programs” that usually terminate in a degree – the authorizing statute is Section 1004.04, Florida Statutes, entitled Public Accountability and State Approval for Teacher Preparation Programs. We refer to these programs as ITPs.
•	Second, for our Educator Preparation Institutes or EPIs – these are post-baccalaureate programs that also prepare teachers and are offered by institutions and private providers – the authorizing statute is Section 1004.85, Florida Statutes, Postsecondary Educator Preparation Institutes.

3

•	And third, we have Professional Development Certification Programs, formerly called District Alternative Certification Programs, in which school districts and now charter schools and charter management organizations may offer these post-baccalaureate programs – the authorizing statute is Section 1012.56 paragraph 8.
Slide 8: Section 1012.56 paragraph 8 had the most significant changes to its law – and has significantly impacted both the initial and continued approval of these programs. This statute authorized the following:
•	In addition to school districts offering alternative certification programs – now called PDCPs –each charter school and charter management organization may also apply to offer a PDCP as well.
•	A requirement for state-approved PDCP’s to include a teacher mentorship and induction component

.I	ndividuals selected to serve as mentors of this component must:

•	Complete specialized training in clinical supervision and participate in ongoing mentor training provided through the district’s professional development system;
•	Minimum requirements for the teacher mentorship and induction component that provides weekly opportunities for mentoring and induction activities, including planning time, ongoing professional development targeted to a teacher’s needs, opportunities for a teacher to observe other teachers, co-teaching experiences, and reflection and follow-up discussions. These activities must be provided to applicants during their first year in the program.
•	Provides flexibility to highly effective principals in selecting professional development activities for PDCP participants, as approved by the department.
•	Requires the department to revise State Board Rule by December 31, 2017, to include requirements for the teacher mentorship and induction component in the initial and continued approval standards for PDCPs
Slide 9: So now, let’s turn to the draft rule language itself for your review and consideration.

Slide 10: Before we actually embark on a description of draft rule language, we wanted to share with you that we reached out to stakeholders from current state-approved teacher preparation programs to take a look at potential draft rule language and gain their input and feedback on the draft language. We are eternally grateful to the following individuals from these esteemed institutions:
•	Dr. Gina Almerico, University of Tampa
•	Dr. Amy Guerette, Florida State University

4

•	Dr. Gloria Pelaez , St. Thomas University, FACTE President-Elect
•	Dr. Amy Ringue, Daytona State College
•	Mr. Darran Town, University of South Florida

The draft rule language being proposed for your consideration has been heavily contributed to and influenced by these individuals and others who have sent feedback to us since July. Again, a huge thank you to all of you for taking the time to review draft rule language and provide considerable feedback and input.
Slide 11: We wish to note that we have only proposed rule revisions to a few specific sections of the rule. As we stated, the changes in Section 1012.56, Florida Statutes, required changes in this rule for our Professional Development Certification Programs or PDCPs – with a deadline, per statute, of December 31, 2017. Since there was no State Board Meeting scheduled for December, it was necessary to propose rule revisions that would be presented to the State Board at its November meeting. This has presented significant time challenges. But while we had the rule open for revisions, we also took an opportunity to propose revisions and draft rule language to address site visit reviews and a change to how the final Continued Approval Summative Score is calculated.
This slide depicts the sections of the rule where we are proposing rule revisions.

Let’s review each of these sections together.

Slide 12: Annual Program Performance Report (APPR) Section We will now review the Annual Program Performance Report (APPR) Section which is located in section (3)(b)2 of the draft rule.
This section revises the rule to include science programs; and all middle grades and secondary level certification programs as single programs for the purpose of the APPR. For instance, if an institution is approved to offer a Biology program and a Physics program, the institution will receive one APPR with both of the programs’ completer data contributing to the results displayed in this APPR. Similarly, in terms of the Middle Grades and Secondary Level certification programs, if an institution is state-approved to offer a Middle Grades Mathematics program and a Grades 6-12 Mathematics program, the institution will receive a single APPR containing data results from both programs.
Slide 13: Annual Program Performance Report (APPR) Section (3)(b)6

•	Let’s now review the Annual Program Performance Report (APPR) Section - (3)(b)6 with a specific focus on the timeline for the review of APPR data.

5

In this section, the proposed revision provides a period of 30 days, rather than 45 business days, for providers of state-approved teacher preparation programs to review, and report to the department, any errors or omissions to their program’s APPR data.
Slide 14: Continued Approval Site Visit Section – (3)(c)

In reviewing the Continued Approval Site Visit Section, specifically section (3)(c). This section revises the site visit process to include:
•	A site visit of the state-approved program with the largest enrollment.
•	In the case of institutions with both a state-approved ITP and EPI program, the ITP program with the largest enrollment and the EPI program will both receive a site visit.
•	Specifies that programs with no completers in the last 3 years of the continued approval period will not receive a site visit, nor a continued approval summative score, with the exception of critical teacher shortage program areas;
•	Identifies that the department will notify a provider of its upcoming visit at least six months prior to the visit; and
•	Specifies the requirements for the self-assessment report, including when the submission of the self-assessment report is due to the department prior to the site visit.

Slide 15: Continued Approval Site Visit Section – (3)(c)

Continuing with the Continued Approval Site Visit Section, the proposed revisions include:

The four areas that the site visit will focus on and references a site visit framework which is the rubric that will be used for the review of the program in the following areas:
a.	Quality of Selection
b.	Quality of Content Knowledge and Teaching Methods
c.	Quality of Clinical Placement, Feedback and Candidate Performance; and
d.	Quality of Program Performance Management

The framework will not be reviewed during today’s Rule Development Workshop. It is currently undergoing revisions to ensure alignment with Florida’s statutes and requirements. We have scheduled another Rule Development Workshop for October 11, at 3:00 pm to review and gain your input on the framework itself. The advertisement for this workshop has already been posted on the Florida Administrative Register as required by law, and we will send a formal announcement of this workshop through our listservs after today’s workshop.
Slide 16: Continued Approval Site Visit Section – (3)(c)

Moving on to additional changes to the Continued Approval Site Visit Section.

6

This area of the draft rule explains that a site visit report will be provided to the provider subsequent to the visit. This report will describe the findings for each area reviewed during the visit. Each area will receive a finding ranging from 1 to 4, with a corresponding descriptor.
As a result of feedback, we are proposing an alternative option of the term weakness (as shown in red font), rather than the term needs improvement. We ask that you review both options and submit comments, including recommending other options.
Slide 17: Continuous Improvement Plan Section - (3)(d)

Now let’s take a look at the continuous improvement plan section of the draft rule, specifically section (3)(d).
In this section, it explains the process and requirements for the continuous improvement plan. The draft language presented to you yesterday stated that a continuous improvement plan is required if the site visit report includes findings of needs improvement or inadequate. Today we are proposing that a plan is required when the findings include recommendations other than strong in one or more of the four areas reviewed during the site visit.

The continuous improvement plan must specify the goals, and strategies that the provider will use to enhance the program, as well as identifying the qualitative or quantitative evidence that will be used to measure progress towards the goals. We are proposing that continuous improvement plans are due to the department within 21 days of receipt of the site visit report.
Slide 18:  Continuous Improvement Plan Section - (3)(d) (continued)

This section proposes that the qualitative and quantitative evidence is due to the department by June 1st for fall site visits, or December 1st for those with spring site visits.
Slide 19: Continued Approval Summative Score – (3)(e)

The proposed revisions to the continued approval summative score section, which is located under section (3)(e) of the draft rule, identifies and describes the basis and determination of a program’s continued approval.
The continued approval summative score or CASS includes up to three components. These components are:
•	APPR Average Summative Rating;
•	Continued Approval Site Visit Rating ; and
•	Evidence of Programmatic Improvement Rating.

At least two of the three components are necessary to receive a CASS. When all three components are available, the components are weighted as:
o	50% for the APPR Average Summative Rating;
7

o	30% for the Continued Approval Site Visit Rating; and
o	20% for Evidence of Programmatic Improvement Rating.

The APPR Average Summative Rating and Continued Approval Site Visit Rating both receive a score between 1.0 – 4.0, with the last component - Evidence of Programmatic Improvement - only receiving a score of 1 or 4. This is because an institution that provides qualitative or quantitative evidence will receive a score of 4. If no evidence is provided this area receives a score of 1.
If there are only two components available, the components are evenly weighted at 50% each. For instance, if an institution received an APPR Average Summative Rating and a Continued Approval Site Visit Rating, because all areas from the site visit were determined as strong, then the CASS would only constitute these two components - 50% for the APPR Average Summative Rating, and 50% for the Continued Approval Site Visit Rating.
Slide 20: APPR Average Summative Rating Example

This is an example of how the APPR Average Summative Rating is calculated.

Slide 21: Example of CASS computation

An illustration of the three components included in the continued approval summative score computation.
Slide 22: CASS components

Let’s put all of this information together .Now that we have discussed all components that will lead to a Continued Approval Decision, let’s examine this more closely. This chart illustrates the three components that factor into the Continued Approval Summative Score also referred to as CASS.
As illustrated, the first component - APPR Average Summative Rating -constitutes 50% of the Continued Approval Summative Score. The next component - Continued Approval Site Visit Rating - is 30% of the score; and the last component - evidence of programmatic improvement rating – contributes 20% to the Continued Approval Summative Score.
It is important to emphasize that the calculation of these three components form the basis of a program’s continued approval decision and will yield a rating of Full Approval with Distinction, Full Approval or Denial of Approval.
Slide 23: Example of CASS computation

This chart illustrates an example two components forming the basis of the continued approval decision. As shown:

8

•	50% of the continued approval summative score is based on the APPR Average Summative Rating, and
•	50% is based on the Continued Approval Site Visit Rating.

This calculation will form the continued approval summative score and yield a rating of Full Approval with Distinction, Full Approval or Denial of Approval.
Slide 24: Next – and for your consideration and comment, changes have been made to all seven incorporated forms as noted on this slide as a result of the changes to the initial and continued approval standards
We ask that you review them as well – and submit comments on them too.

Slide 25: For your consideration and comment, please review the Initial Approval Standards/Guidelines for all three state-approved teacher preparation programs: ITPs, EPIs and PDCPs.
Revisions to this section include:

•	Submitting the electronic folio using the electronic Institutional Program Evaluation Plan (eIPEP) platform; and

•	Revising the standards for all program types to align with the four areas reviewed during the site visit which are:
a.	Quality of Selection
b.	Quality of Content Knowledge and Teaching Methods
c.	Quality of Clinical Placement, Feedback and Candidate Performance
d.	Quality of Program Performance Management

The standards are the same for each of the program types.

Slide 26:  Also for your consideration and comment, please review the Continued Approval Standards for all three state-approved teacher preparation programs: ITPs, EPIs and PDCPs.
Although the criteria may differ, the standards are consistent with initial approval standards and the site visit areas.

Slide 27:  That concludes the overview of what the laws state and the draft rule language for 6A-
5.066 – which was Part One of today’s workshop. Now we will move to Part Two, which is to provide you an opportunity to ask clarifying questions.

9

As a reminder, you may ask questions to clarify anything in the presentation or the draft text. If we are unable to provide an answer today, we will take your questions and get back with you for a response.
Slide 28: As a reminder, you may ask questions to clarify anything in the presentation or the draft text. Again, this is the clarifying question section. If you have comments regarding the rule, we will take them a little later.
When we do get to the comment section, if there are many individuals who wish to comment, we may need to limit the time to allow as many as possible to comment before we run out of time.
Remember that input may be provided at any time online at the address noted on this slide.

Slide 29: As you think about the input you might provide, please keep these guidelines in mind:

We are seeking input from you on how to improve the rule, such as:

o	Suggestions for changes or agreement with specific text in the rule (for example., keep this…, delete this…, add this…, change this to read…, etc.).

o	To the extent that you can provide why you believe the change is needed, please provide a reason. This this will help us with context and help us track that same issue in other parts of the rule.
o	Comments on whether the rule text actually accomplishes what the law and/or presentation indicates is intended.

Slide 30: So let’s begin with those who are on the conference call line and then go to those who are in the room. For those who are in the room, we have a microphone so that our recording of today’s workshop will capture your question.
Operator, will you please compile the queue for questions and answers at this time.

Let’s turn to our audience present today in this room. Does anyone wish to ask a clarifying question?
We will also check the chat area on the webinar for clarifying questions.

Slide 31:  (Check time to determine how much time is left – before proceeding.)

With the time remaining, let’s turn to comments. We will begin with those on the conference call line and then we will go to those in the audience today. If there are comments in the chat room,

10

we will read those aloud as well. Please remember, if time is limited, we will limit the amount of time for your comments to no more than 2 minutes to ensure that all comments are heard.
Remember, you can also add comments to the website we indicated earlier. Operator, please compile the queue for comments.
Comments from the audience?

Comments from the chat feature on the webinar?

Slide 32: This concludes our Rule Development Workshop for today.  Thank you for your participation throughout – and have a good day.

11