Rule 6A-1.09422, F.A.C.: Establishing Achievement Level Cut Scores for
Assessments Aligned to the B.E.S.T. Standards
Rule Development Workshop Transcript
August 11, 2023

Slide 1
Good afternoon and welcome to the Rule Development Workshop for Rule 6A-1.09422: Establishing Achievement Level Cut Scores for Assessments Aligned to the B.E.S.T. Standards.

I’m Vince Verges, Assistant Deputy Commissioner for the Division of Accountability, Research, and Measurement. Our office has overall responsibility for the development, administration, scoring, and reporting of all of Florida's K-12 statewide assessments, as well as teacher certification and educational leadership exams.

Slide 2
The purpose of this workshop is to share the Department’s intent to present a proposed rule amendment for consideration by the State Board of Education that establishes Achievement Level cut scores for assessments aligned to the Benchmarks for Excellent Student Thinking, or B.E.S.T. Standards; and to gather input from interested audiences to be considered by the Commissioner in determining recommended cut scores that will be presented to the Florida Legislature for review, and then to the State Board of Education for adoption.

Public comments are being collected via a survey that will be included in a link in the chat for this workshop, and that link will also be included in the Workshop materials to be posted in the coming days. [Now available at https://www.fldoe.org/accountability/assessments/k-12-student-assessment/stard-setting.stml.] If you need assistance finding this link, email us at assessment@fldoe.org and someone will provide you with the link.

There will also be an opportunity at the end of this presentation for attendees to ask questions that are specifically related to this rule development. If you have an assessment question that is not directly related to this rule development workshop, you may email us at assessment@fldoe.org, and if you have any question about how these scores may be used in school accountability, email accountability@fldoe.org. 

A copy of this presentation, a recording of the workshop, and a transcript will be available on the Department's website in the coming days.

Slide 3
Today I will provide you with information about the assessments aligned to the B.E.S.T. Standards, review the Standard Setting process, review the recommendations from the Educator Panel and the Reactor Panel. and request feedback from you.

Slide 4 – No Transcript Needed

Slide 5
This Rule development workshop is specifically related to our assessments aligned to the B.E.S.T. Standards in English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics measure student achievement of the B.E.S.T. Standards. 

Information about the B.E.S.T. Standards may be accessed at the https://www.cpalms.org/ website.

These assessments were first administered during the 2022–2023 school year in what is referred to as a baseline administration.

Slide 6
The assessments we’ll be discussing today are the FAST progress monitoring assessments, which include Kindergarten through Grade 10 ELA Reading and Kindergarten through Grade 8 mathematics. 

We will also discuss Grades 4 through 10 ELA Writing and the B.E.S.T.-aligned end-of-course (EOC) assessments in Algebra 1 and Geometry.

Slide 7
The following slides are intended to provide you with additional information about the nature of the assessments.

FAST progress monitoring assessments are computer-adaptive tests that are administered three times per year:
•	PM1 – occurs in the beginning of the school year and serves as a baseline
•	PM2 – occurs mid-year and produces a mid-year score to compare against the baseline
•	PM3 – occurs at the end of the school year and produces a summative score

Pursuant to state law, PM3 in grades 3–10 ELA and in grades 3–8 Mathematics is the statewide, standardized assessment and used for accountability purposes. 

Slide 8
The Algebra 1 and Geometry end-of-course assessments aligned to the B.E.S.T. Standards are not part of the FAST progress monitoring program and were first administered as computer-adaptive tests beginning Winter 2022.

Slide 9
B.E.S.T. ELA Writing is administered on computer in grades 4–10 and will include paper-based accommodations available for eligible students.

B.E.S.T. ELA Writing was first administered in Spring 2023 as a standalone field test to a representative sample of Florida students and will be administered each spring beginning with the 2023–2024 school year.

ELA Writing scores will be reported separately from ELA Reading; they will not contribute to an overall ELA assessment score. And the grade 10 ELA Writing score will not be a component included in determining whether students meet the assessment graduation requirement.
Slide 10
The next portion of this presentation will provide information regarding the standard setting process.

Slide 11
Standards, both as they relate to content standards as well as to achievement standards, are necessary to define what students should know and be able to do; to identify clear expectations for students, parents, and teachers; to improve teaching and learning; and to develop a society able to compete in a global economy.

Slide 12
•	Standard Setting is a process of deriving levels of performance on educational or professional assessments, by which decisions or classifications of students will be made.
•	Test scores can then be used to group students into meaningful Achievement Levels.
•	Standard setting is the process whereby we “draw the lines” that separate the test scores into various Achievement Levels.
•	Standard Setting is a process that is required when implementing new standards and new assessments.

Slide 13
•	Standard setting is all about what students should know and be able to do, not about what they currently know and are able to do. 
•	The goal is to set standards for all applicable students across the state.

Slide 14
For ELA Reading and Mathematics assessments, including the Algebra 1 and Geometry EOC assessments, there are five Achievement Levels, which requires the setting of four Achievement Level cuts. 

The diagram shows the placement of the four cut points separating the five achievement levels.

These five achievement levels are required by state law, and law also stipulates that Level 3 shall be considered “on grade level.”

Slide 15
This diagram illustrates that Standard Setting is a multi-stage process, beginning with the creation of the achievement level descriptions based on the B.E.S.T. standards. These are then used by the Educator Panel to make their recommendations, which are in turn reviewed by a Reactor Panel, and then presented at today's public input workshop. Following this workshop, the Commissioner will make his recommendations in the proposed rule that will undergo legislative review before being presented to the State Board of Education for adoption at the October 18th meeting. I’ll discuss each of these steps in more detail in the following slides.

Slide 16
We've conducted standard setting activities a number of times over the years, dating back to 1998, including statewide assessments in reading, mathematics, science, and social studies.

Slide 17
This process has unfolded over the last two years, beginning with the Achievement Level Descriptor (ALD) Panels conducted virtually in April and October of 2021, and culminating up to this point in the Educator Panel meetings held July 24–28 in Orlando, as well as the Reactor Panel held last Thursday and Friday, also in Orlando. 

Slide 18
ELA Reading and Mathematics ALD Panels for Kindergarten through Grade 2 were conducted in person this past March, with six Florida educator panelists for each subject in K through 2. 

In April 2021, ALD panels were convened virtually for grades 3–10 ELA Reading

In October 2021, ALD panels were convened virtually for grades 3–8 Mathematics, Algebra 1 and Geometry EOCs.

In total, there were approximately 30 panelists of Florida educators participating in these virtual meetings. 

The ALDs describe achievement levels for content standards by grade and subject and specify what students in each achievement level are expected to know and be able to do.

ALDs are the link between content and achievement standards.

Slide 19
The educator panels were conducted as described here.

Grades 3–10 ELA Reading, grades 3–8 Mathematics, B.E.S.T. EOC assessments panels convened July 24–28 in Orlando for the five-day Standard Setting workshop.

We conducted four rounds of standard setting with 340 panelists spread across 16 rooms setting standards concurrently. These panels recommended achievement standards after four rounds of evaluation.

Kindergarten–grade 2 ELA Reading and Mathematics panels convened July 25–27 in Orlando for that three-day Standard Setting workshop. We conducted three rounds of standard setting with 88 panelists across 6 rooms setting standards concurrently. These panels recommended achievement standards after three rounds of evaluation.

I'll note here that panels did not need to come to consensus. The recommendations that you will see throughout this presentation represent the median recommendation of each panel. The average recommendation was not used to avoid the impact of any recommendations that were extreme outliers.

Slide 20
Grades 4–10 ELA Writing panels convened July 25–27 in Orlando for a three-day Standard Setting workshop. We conducted four rounds of standard setting with 92 panelists across seven rooms setting standards concurrently. These panels were charged with recommending one achievement standard for “On Grade Level” performance after four rounds.

Slide 21
This slide shows the number of educators and number of districts represented for each of the groups of panels, as well as the total number of educators and districts represented. In November 2022, each district Superintendent received an invitation to nominate educators from their district to participate in the educator panels. Additionally, each district assessment coordinator also received the invitation in November 2022, calling attention to the email that superintendents received. Every effort was made to engage educators to ensure representation from across the state.

This was the largest standard setting activity ever conducted in the nation, given the number of separate panels and the total number of educator panelists. The efforts were supported by approximately 100 staff from the Department and our assessment contractors, Cambium, Renaissance Learning, and Pearson.

Slide 22
A 14-member Reactor Panel was convened last week in Orlando for a two-day meeting composed of Community/education organization leaders, state university leaders, business leaders, school board members, and Superintendents for two rounds of review.

Slide 23
This slide shows the names and affiliations of the 14 Reactor Panelists representing a wide variety of interests, as described on the previous slide. As I mentioned at the beginning of this presentation, you may review this slide more closely, as well as any others, once the presentation, webinar recording, and transcript are made available on the Department's website.

Slide 24
It is important to point out the differences between the Educator Panel and the Reactor Panel.

The Educator Panel is comprised of individuals with content expertise who best understand expectations for Florida students. They focus mostly on content when making their recommendations.

The Reactor Panel represents various business, community, and educational groups, and these panelists were asked to consider policy when making recommendations, and to also consider impact when making recommendations.

As I noted regarding Educator Panels, the Reactor Panel also did not need to come to consensus. Their recommendations also represent the median recommendation of the entire Reactor Panel. Again, the median recommendation is used, rather than an average, to avoid the impact of outliers.

Slide 25 – No Transcript Needed

Slide 26
Achievement Level Descriptors, or ALDs, specify what students in each achievement level are expected to know and be able to do. 

They are the link between content and achievement standards; and can be used to develop a mental representation of students at each achievement level.

Slide 27
This table shows the current labels of each Achievement Levels and the labels that were proposed to the Reactor Panel for their consideration and discussion. 

As previously noted, law requires five Achievement Levels and also requires that Level 3 be designated as On Grade Level performance.

The current name for Level 1 is a legacy label from when statute required ‘Inadequate’ to be the designation for Level 1. The requirement for that label name is no longer in law. 

Slide 28
This slide includes narrative that provides more context for the proposed names. Some Educator Panelists felt that Proficient was still an appropriate label for Level 4, given that the B.E.S.T. Standards were written with the intention of Level 4 performance, even though law stipulates that Level 3 is On Grade Level.

Some Reactor Panelists felt that the proposed labels for Level 1 and Level 2 were not clear enough and suggested that the Commissioner consider alternatives, including Well Below Grade Level for Level 1 and Below Grade Level for Level 2. 

The Commissioner will review all feedback, including that resulting from this workshop, to make his recommendations regarding the names of the levels that will be proposed to the State Board of Education.

Slide 29 – No Transcript Needed

Slide 30
The Educator Panels’ work began with training for pre-identified Table Leaders, followed by a large group orientation, then grade/subject-specific training.

Panelists took the online test in assigned subjects/grades, reviewed the content standards, reviewed achievement level descriptions, created “just barely” summary ALDs that describe skills that a student must demonstrate to “just barely” meet the criteria for reaching an Achievement Level. Panelists reviewed Ordered Item Booklets, or OIBs, which will be described shortly. The panels recommended achievement standards in multiple rounds and provided their evaluations of the workshop throughout the process to ensure understanding of the task. 

Slide 31
Our Standard Setting was done using something referred to as the Bookmark Method of standard setting. It is a research-based procedure, used in many state assessment programs including Florida in the past. Throughout its widespread use in many settings and over time, this method has proved to be technically sound and legally defensible. 

Test items are ordered in the Ordered Item/Response Booklet (OIB) by difficulty, from easiest to most difficult, and each page of the ordered item booklet represents a score point on an item.

The number of pages in the book is equal to the number of points in the ordered item booklet (not the number of items).
Slide 32
Our Bookmark Method followed a process that included sharing a progression of information as panelists made their judgments in each round.

Panelists’ initial judgment was based solely on test content of the Ordered Item/Response Booklet (round 1). For Round 2, panelists saw how cut scores appeared across grades in kindergarten through grade 10 ELA Reading, grades 4 through 10 ELA Writing, and kindergarten through grade 8 Mathematics.

For Round 3, panelists saw impact data, or how many students would be in each achievement level and how subgroups would perform based on recommended cut scores.

Finally, for Round 4, panelists were shown benchmarking information, or how student performance on B.E.S.T.-aligned assessments compares to international assessments for Reading and Mathematics.

Slide 33 – No Transcript Needed

Slide 34
•	The slides that follow show the final cut score recommendations made by the Educator Panel. 
•	Benchmark data was also shown to help inform judgments.
•	Remember that educator panelist feedback is primarily based on content. 
•	Consider the Educator Panel’s content-based recommendations and compare them to the Reactor Panel’s recommendations, which take into consideration impact and benchmark data. 

Slide 35
This graph is a visual representation of the Educator Panels’ K-10 ELA Reading recommendations. 

The vertical portion of graph is labeled Scaled Score, and these are the scores that represent the new FAST assessment scale, which is a different scale from any that we’ve used previously. The horizontal portion of the graph is labeled with the respective grade level tests. The orange line labeled ‘Approaching’ shows where Level 1 ends and Level 2 begins. The green line labeled On Grade Level shows where Level 2 ends and Level 3 begins. The light blue line labeled Proficient shows where Level 3 ends and Level 4 begins, and the dark blue line labeled Exemplary shows where Level 4 ends and Level 5 begins.

I’ll use R5, which is Grade 5 Reading in the center of the graph, to illustrate what the numbers mean in each grade. The scaled score of 206 represents the lowest proposed scale score in Achievement Level 2. Any score below that is in Level 1. The scaled score of 219 is the lowest proposed scale score in Level 3 for Grade 5 Reading. The scaled score of 232 would be the lowest scale score in Level 5, while 256 would be the lowest scale score in Level 5 for Grade 5 Reading.

I want to point out the pattern that you see in the overall shape of the graph, which is very similar to the one you will see in mathematics. There is an expected growth curve that arcs up more sharply in Grades K-2, then gradually flattens out as you move to the upper grades. This reflects the widely recognized pattern in which students learn the greatest amount in the shortest time during their earlier years in school.

I will also point out that these are the educator recommendations after Round 4, and a very smooth articulation is apparent as a result of their judgments and subsequent adjustments as panelists considered additional information in each round, even though panelists made their recommendations at the room or grade level. 

It should be noted where the current K Readiness score of 690 falls on this graph if we were to translate it to the FAST scale. A score of 690 on the Unified scale used by Renaissance for their STAR assessments translates to a FAST scaled score of 100. The score of 100 falls within Level 1 of Kindergarten, but it is important to recognize that these recommended cut scores are with respect to end-of-year expectations for all students.   

Lastly, note that the Unified score of 852 that is used to identify Probable Readers translates to a FAST scaled score of 155, which is near the proposed cut score of 158 for Level 5 Kindergarten, and is in Level 3 for Grade 1 Reading. These are also end-of-year expectations. This comparison of the Probable Reader score to their placement within the graph can be used as a reasonableness check for educator judgments. 

Slide 36
This table and graph shows the percentage of students in Florida that would have fallen into each Achievement Level in each grade K through 10 on the FAST ELA Reading assessment in Spring 2023 if the cut scores recommended by the Educator Panel were to be adopted by the state Board of Education. Once again, I’ll use R5, or Grade 5 Reading as an example. According to the table 10% of those students would be in Level 5, 21% in Level 4, 25% in Level 3, 20% in Level 2, and 24% in Level 1. Overall, 55% of students would be on-grade-level and above (Level 3 and above).

Slide 37
This line graph shows the same kind of information for K-8 mathematics as was shown in the K-10 Reading line graph. This is also showing information after the last round of judgment.

Slide 38
This table and graph shows the same kind of information for K-8 mathematics as was described in the corresponding K-10 Reading Achievement Level graphic. Again, you will have the opportunity to review all material at your convenience once it is published in the coming days. 

Please note that the impact data is based on students who took the assessment and who were in the same grade as tested. This has a significant impact for grade 8 Mathematics and to a lesser degree for grade 7 Math. These grades are where students are more likely to test above their grade or be enrolled in Algebra or Geometry courses and thus do not take the grade level test associated with their enrolled grade.

Slide 39
This line graph shows the recommended Writing On Grade Level scores for grades 4-10 after the final round of judgment. Recall that panelists were only asked to determine an On Grade Level recommendation, since it is not possible to determine 5 Achievement Levels for a one-item test such as Writing.

Slide 40
This slide shows the impacts of the Writing panelists’ final round of judgments and illustrates the especially challenging task that this outstanding panel of educators undertook in recommending cut scores for a one-item test. Panelists had deep and meaningful discussions regarding what On Grade Level Writing should look like versus what should be expected of students who write well, and what place the Writing rubrics might have in the discussions. Panelists discussed how Writing prompts perform differently, both across grades within a year, as well as across years within a grade.

The difficult and thoughtful discussions among the Writing Educator Panelists, along with their resulting recommendations, will be considered carefully by the Commissioner, and will inform his own recommendations and next steps, as with all other recommendations.

Slide 41
This slide shows a side-by-side comparison of the Educator Panel recommendations for Algebra 1 and Geometry. The scores for these EOCs will be reported on a new scale that is different from the FAST assessments and is different from other scales previously used for EOCs. 

Since the EOCs assess different courses and content, and students take the courses and assessments in various sequences and grades, there is no expectation of any articulation between the two EOCs in the same way we would expect of K-8 Mathematics.

The scores in each column represent panelists recommendations, from bottom to top, the Level 1-2 cut, the Level 2-3 cut, the Level 3-4 cut, and the Level 4-5 cut.

Slide 42
This table and graph shows the percentage of students in Florida that would have fallen into each Achievement Level in each EOC in Spring 2023 if the cut scores recommended by the Educator Panel were to be adopted by the state Board of Education.

Slide 43
Benchmarking provided the panelists with external referents so they could see how their recommendations compared with national and international standards and helps determine whether achievement standards are nationally and internationally competitive.

Benchmark data was introduced during Round 4 of Standard Setting.

Slide 44
Panelists were shown the following Florida NAEP results:
•	Grades 3–10 ELA Reading, Grades 3–8 Mathematics, and Algebra 1 EOCs as compared to the results of the NAEP 2022 administration
•	Grades 4–10 ELA Writing as compared to Florida’s NAEP results for ELA Writing from 2017

NAEP is Administered by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) in a two-year assessment cycle.
•	NAEP has four achievement levels (Below Basic, Basic, Proficient and Advanced), while Florida’s statewide assessments, by state law, have five achievement levels.

Slide 45
This table compares the Educator Panelists’ recommendations impact on the percentages of students that would score Level 3 and above on FAST, as well as the percentages of Florida students that would score Level 4 and above on FAST as compared to percent at and above Proficient on 2022 NAEP, and percent at and above NAEP Basic on 2022 NAEP.

In each comparison shown for percent Proficient and above, Educator Panelists’ recommendations for FAST are a more rigorous expectation than shown for attaining NAEP Percent at or Above Proficient. 

Slide 46 – No Transcript Needed

Slide 47
When reviewing impact data, the Reactor Panel considered the following questions:
•	Given the description of what students should know and be able to do at each Achievement Level, are the recommendations from the Educator Panel consistent with your expectations of student achievement?
•	Given the results that you see from other Florida assessments, are the impact data based on the Educator Panel’s recommendations reasonable?

Slide 48
The Reactor Panel reviewed the Educator Panel recommendations with the following guidelines in mind:
•	Like the Educator Panel, the Reactor Panel did not have to reach consensus.
•	If the Reactor Panel suggested modifications, the facilitator provided new impact data using the proposed modifications.
•	If the Reactor Panel suggested any modifications, panelists were asked to provide written rationales for suggested changes.
•	Reactor Panelists were informed their recommendations would be published and considered by the general public, the Commissioner, and the State Board of Education in determining achievement level cut scores for B.E.S.T.-aligned assessments.

Slide 49
For all cut scores across all grades and subjects considered as part of this Standard Setting activity, the Reactor Panel recommendations as a whole were identical to those of the Educator Panel.

Some Reactor Panelists recommended adjustments to some of the Educator Panel recommendations. In each case, when adjustments were recommended, the relatively small number of adjustments and the relative direction of adjustments (i.e., panelists making less rigorous vs more rigorous recommendations) resulted in medians that were unchanged from the Educator Panel.

This graph for the Reactor Panel recommendations for K through 10 ELA reading is therefore identical to the corresponding Educator Panel slide.

Slide 50
The Reactor Panel K through 10 ELA Reading impact slide is the same as the corresponding Educator Panel slide.

Slide 51
This table and graph presents the Reactor Panel recommendations in a different way than was shown for Educator Panels. For each grade K through 10, the percent of students at or above each achievement level is given in each column. Using the R5, or Grade 5 ELA Reading, data, we see that 76% of students would score at or above Level 2, 55% would score at or above Level 3, 31% would score at or above Level 4, and 10% would have scored at or above Level 5 in Spring 2023 if the Reactor Panel recommendations were adopted by the State Board of Education. 

Slide 52
The Reactor Panel K through 8 Mathematics graph is the same as the corresponding Educator Panel slide.

Slide 53
The Reactor Panel K through 8 Mathematics impact slide is the same as the corresponding Educator Panel slide.

Slide 54
This table and graph shows grades K through 8 mathematics Reactor Panel recommendations as the percent of students at or above each achievement level, similar to the corresponding ELA Reading table and graph introduced on Slide 51.

As I noted previously, the nature of course enrollment and test-taking patterns in grades 7 and 8 Mathematics result in different impacts as compared to most other grades. If the State Board were to adopt the Reactor Panel recommendations, we would expect to see statewide performance similar to what we have seen in recent years because the aggregate data would include above-grade testers as well as on grade level testers, whereas this data only includes on-grade expectations and on-grade testers.

Slide 55
The Reactor Panel EOC slide is the same as the corresponding Educator Panel slide.

Slide 56
The Reactor Panel EOC impact data slide is the same as the corresponding Educator Panel slide.

Slide 57
This table and graph shows EOC Reactor Panel recommendations as the percentage of students at or above each achievement level, similar to the slides introduced for Reading and mathematics. 

We see that the Reactor Panel recommendations would result in 56% of students passing the Algebra 1 EOC and 46% of students passing the Geometry EOC in Spring 2023 if the State Board were to adopt the recommendations.

Slides 58 & 59
The Reactor Panel recommendations for Writing are the same as the Educator Panel.

Slide 60
The NAEP comparisons shown for the Reactor Panel recommendations are the same as the Educator Panel recommendations.

Slide 61 – No Transcript Needed

Slide 62
This table shows comparisons of ELA Reading assessment impact data in grades 3-10 across years. We’ve included columns showing percent of students scoring Level 3 and above in 2015, which was the first year of FSA; in 2019 for FSA, which was the last year of assessments prior to the pandemic; in 2022, which was the last year of FSA; as well as the Educator Panel and Reactor Panel recommendations. 

Again, since the median Reactor Panel recommendations did not differ from the Educator Panel medians, those impact columns are identical to each other.

Slide 63
This table shows comparisons of Mathematics grades 3-8, Algebra 1, and Geometry across years in the same as in the preceding slide for ELA. 

Slide 64 – No Transcript Needed

Slide 65
The Commissioner will consider the recommendations of the Educator Panel, the Reactor Panel, and the public before making his recommendations. His recommendations will be provided to the Legislature for the statutorily required 45-day review period, in accordance with section 1008.22(3)(e) of Florida statute. 

Slide 66
A proposed amendment to Rule 6A-1.09422, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), including the new Achievement Level cut scores for assessments aligned to the B.E.S.T. Standards, will be presented to the State Board of Education on October 18th.

The State Board of Education will adopt new Achievement Level cut scores for assessments aligned to the B.E.S.T. Standards.

Slide 67
At this time, we will begin taking questions. As a reminder, questions should be specifically related to this rule development. If you have an assessment question that is not directly related to this rule development workshop, you may email us at assessment@fldoe.org, and if you have any question about how these scores may be used in school accountability, email accountability@fldoe.org. 

If you do have a question related to this rule development, please enter it in the Teams chat feature. There is not an option to open the lines for attendees to ask questions or comment verbally. Catherine Altmaier, the Process/Contractor Support Manager for the Office of Assessment, who is here with me, will read your question, and we will provide answers where appropriate. Follow-up questions can be entered in the Teams chat or can be emailed to assessment@fldoe.org.

Questions and Answers (responses edited for clarity)
(Question) At what point will we get a crosswalk to the FSA scale used last year for FAST and B.E.S.T. EOCs to look at local impact?
(Answer) The most important thing we need to do is, once the State Board adopts the new cut scores, we'll have to retrofit, as we've done previously, rescore the test on the new scale. And so we'll provide those revised files to districts for you to make your comparisons at that time.

(Question) Have the equations used to transform the theta values to scale scores changed from what was used for FSA?
(Answer) The process will be only slightly different, but there will be a linear transformation to change those data values to the new scale.

(Question) Do you have a comparison of the 2023 FSA scale results and the 2023 BEST scale?
(Answer) The information provided within this presentation offers the best public comparison we can provide you. When we can, we’ll provide some kind of a look up table or conversion chart. We’ll have ways for you to do that across the entire scale.

(Question) For FAST K through 2, will the proposed scale scores be linked to the Unified Scale Score from Renaissance?
(Answer) Our intention is to provide both the new FAST scale score as well as the Unified score on reports; that will not begin until after we have the standards approved by the State Board.

(Question) What was the grade 10 passing score for graduation reactor vs educator?
(Answer) That would be the lowest score, but there's no difference between the Educator Panel and the Reactor Panel. That'll be the lowest score in Level 3, which you can refer to on the slides once you can access the materials.

(Question) Can the equations for the K-10 theta transforms be shared with this presentation?
(Answer) Please email that question to assessment@fldoe.org.

(Question) Will sublevels still be calculated for Levels 1 and 2?
(Answer) Please email that question to accountability@fldoe.org.

(Question) Will the K-2 scores replace current scale scores provided for Star assessments?
(Answer) Again, our intention is to report both the FAST scale as well as the Unified scores that appear on the STAR assessments. The earliest you would see those is for PM2. I will say there's not a one-to-one correspondence between the FAST scale and the Unified scale, so there will be more than one Unified scale score point that would correspond to a single FAST scale score point.

(Question) What was the rationale to relabel the levels again?
(Answer) That’s a good question; this is the first opportunity we’ve had to revisit. We've heard concerns in the field about Level 1 continuing to be called inadequate, although state law does not require that anymore. Statute does specify that there be five achievement levels and that Level 3 is called On Grade Level. We were looking to further distinguish between FSA labels and our new FAST and B.E.S.T. assessments. We would not relabel the assessments for Science and Social Studies at this time because we're not adopting new cut scores or new labels for those assessments yet.

(Question) Is there an intention to set PreK for the VPK program on this same scale?
(Answer) That’s a good question. We will a have a meeting with the Council for Early Grades Success next week to let them weigh in on that K Ready score. That’s a 690, which is the score of most interest to determine if we are going to continue to use that as our K Ready score. There is a floor with the FAST scale. While it’s not really germane to this discussion of the propose rule language itself, but there is a floor at some point. You won’t have negative FAST scale to reach down into Star Early Literacy. Certain scale scores would be a negative FAST value, which of course we won’t have. So we’ll have a lower end cap only to be concerned with the scale scores that translate to a FAST scale score.

(Question) Would these changes have any impact on percentile calculations?
(Answer) That’s a good question. I assume you’re talking about 3 through 10 statewide percentiles. Though none of these would have an impact on that because the percentile is a simple ordering of the students. Percentile ranks may vary in PM1, PM2, PM3 from year to year based on the student populations’ performance.

(Question) Were the Star Early Literacy and Star Reading scores both used for grades where students could take either/both?
(Answer) Standard setting considered Star Reading and Star Math only if that’s your question.

(Question) So Kindergarten was set using Star Reading, not Star Early Literacy?
(Answer) For Kindergarten, we set our cuts on Star Reading. We can translate that, however. Since Star Reading and Star Early Literacy are on the same scale, we can make the same inferences about the meaning of that 690 as a K Readiness score, although the panels did not consider content on Star Early Literacy.

That K Ready score was a topic of discussion within the Educator Panel and Reactor Panel. We did not ask them to judge whether 690 was K-Ready, but that we be something that we will cover through this rulemaking process and through the Council for Early Grades Success discussions next week.

(Question) Were there sufficient numbers of K students to set cuts, given most students took SEL?
(Answer) Yes.

(Question) Will percentile ranks be reported out at the time of testing beginning in PM1 this year?
(Answer) You can email us that one at assessment@fldoe.org.