Teacher and Leader Preparation Implementation Committee
May 8, 2013

Primary Goal of TLPIC
Provide input, feedback and recommendations to the state on the development and implementation of performance standards and targets for continued approval of state-approved teacher and school leadership preparation programs.

TLPIC Timeline
•	Fall/Winter 2012/2013
–	Analyze requested teacher preparation data and recommend performance targets for pilot annual report
–	DOE produces pilot annual report

•	Summer 2013 
–	Program data released via report card for feedback purposes 
–	Consider recommendations for continued approval standards for teacher preparation 
–	Rule revision workshops (6A-5.066) 
Note : March-May 2013 
Legislation will likely affect teacher preparation statutes 

Focus for Today
	Update on legislation

Discussion on revision of Initial and Continued Approval Teacher Preparation Guidelines

Sample Annual Program Performance Report

	Teacher Evaluation Data

Legislation Update
•	SB 1664 passed on 5/1/2013; awaiting consideration by Governor
Includes TLPIC input for:
Uniform Core Curriculum
Performance metrics for continued approval of teacher preparation programs
Preservice Field Experiences

By January 1 of each year, the Department of Education shall report the results of each approved program’s annual progress on the performance measures

Revision of Initial and Continued Approval Teacher Preparation Guidelines
The University of Florida will:
Solicit feedback from the TLPIC
Solicit feedback from Institutions of Higher Education
Provide recommendations regarding the Initial and Continued Approval Standard Guidelines for Initial Teacher Preparation (ITP) programs
Develop training materials to be used to explain the revised guidelines to all representatives from state-approved initial teacher preparation programs

Sample Annual Program Performance Report
•	RTTT requires public reporting of teacher preparation performance ratings by June 30, 2013
	Areas not included this year:
Institution Overview and Highlights
Program Highlights
FTCE/FELE Data

Sample Report – Continued Approval Period
•	Initial Approval
–	Year the program was initially given state-approval.
•	Latest Approval
–	Year the program was last evaluated by folio, site visit, or program approval board and approved or given an approval status (i.e. conditionally approved).
•	Approval Expires
–	Year the program is up for a continued approval review.

Sample Report – Continued Approval Period

•	Institution X: Continued Approval Period

Initial Approval – 1969
Latest Approval – 2007
Approval Expires - 2014

Sample Report – Number of Completers
•	2008-2009
•	2009-2010
•	2010-2011
•	Total (over 3 years)

Sample Report – Number of Completers

•Institution X: Number of Completers 

2008-2009= 29 completers
2009-2010 = 50 completers
2010-2011 = 41
Total(over 3 years) = 120

Sample Report – Placement
•	Placement: Include the percentage of completers who become employed in an instructional position in a Florida public school district their first or second year after completion of a Florida state-approved program.

Sample Report – Placement

Level 4 – 1 Standard Deviation 					above the Mean and higher 
Level 3- 1 SD below the Mean up 				  to 1 SD above the Mean 
Level 2 – 2 SD below the Mean up 				to 1 SD below the Mean 
Level 1 – Below 2 SD below the 					Mean 
Level 3:
Program Placement Data – 94.00%
Aggregate State Wide Results for Placement Data – 85.16%

Sample Report – Retention
•	Retention: Include the percentage of completers continuously employed in an instructional position in a Florida public school district at the third and fifth year marks after completion of a Florida state-approved program.

Sample Report – Retention

Level 4 – 1 Standard Deviation 					above the Mean and higher 
Level 3- 1 SD below the Mean up 				  to 1 SD above the Mean 
Level 2 – 2 SD below the Mean up 				to 1 SD below the Mean 
Level 1 – Below 2 SD below the 					Mean 
Level 3:
Program Retention Data – 72.41%
Aggregate State Wide Results for Retention Data – 71.76%

Sample Report – Value-Added Model (VAM)
•	Average VAM score of completers one year following program completion
•	Aggregated across three years (i.e., three cohorts of completers)
•	Use in-program/in-field data, when possible, in evaluating programs

Sample Report – Value-Added Model (VAM)

Level 4 – Score falls above the standard for evaluation, with a high degree of confidence – 95% 
Level 3- Score falls above or below the standard for evaluation, but one cannot conclude that the score exceeds or misses the bar with any degree of statistical confidence  
Level 2 – Score falls below the standard for evaluation, with some degree of statistical confidence – 68% 
Level 1 – Score falls below the standard for evaluation, with a high degree of statistical confidence – 95% 
Level TBD:
Program VAM Data – TBD
Aggregate State Wide Results for VAM Data – TBD

Sample Report – Evaluation

•	Evaluation – TBD

Sample Report – Student Performance by Subgroups
•	Program has at least 10 completers, trained in program, and teaching in-field
•	Use the same eight subgroups identified for federal school performance reporting
•	Minimum number of subgroups for consideration is three

Sample Report – Student Performance by Subgroups

Level 4 – At least 75% of subgroups (e.g., 6 out of 8, 3 out 4, etc.) must exceed the state standard for performance 
Level 3- At least 50%, but no more than 74% of subgroups, must exceed the state standards for performance 
Level 2 – At least 25%, but no more than 50% of the subgroups, must exceed the state standards for performance
Level 1 – Fewer than 25% of the subgroups exceed the state standard for performance  

Sample Report – Student Performance by Subgroups
•	Institution X’s Student Performance by Subgroups

Level 4: 
Student Subgroup 	Reading Statewide Average 	Reading Actual 	Y/N 	Math Statewide Average 	Math Actual 	Y/N 	
White 	49.44% 	49.3% 	N 	46.77% 	NA 	NA 	
African American 	46.69% 	48.48% 	Y 	43.96% 	NA 	NA 	
Hispanic 	50.18% 	51.14% 	Y 	46.73% 	NA 	NA 	
Asian 	52.99% 	65.63% 	Y 	52.55% 	NA 	NA 	
Native American 	46.04% 	50% 	Y 	47.45% 	NA 	NA 	
Free/Reduced Lunch 	47.21% 	50.75% 	Y 	45.6% 	NA 	NA 	
Students with Disabilities 	48.29% 	52.24% 	Y 	45.19% 	NA 	NA 	
English Language Learners 	48.76% 	51.47% 	Y 	46.75% 	NA 	NA 	

•	7 out of 8 = Level 4

Sample Report – Critical Teacher Shortage
•	0.25 of a point will be added to a program’s total score if the program increases the development of teachers in critical shortage areas from one year to the next by 20%.
•	Critical Teacher Shortage Areas:
–	Middle and High School Science
–	Foreign Languages
–	English/Language Arts
–	Middle and High School Reading
–	Exceptional Education
–	Middle and High School Math
–	English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL)
Sample Report – Critical Teacher Shortage

Program Critical Teacher Shortage Data = -36.59%

Aggregate State Wide Results for Critical Teacher Shortage Data = - 12.30%

No Bonus Awarded 

Evaluation Data

Evaluation Data – 2008-09 Completers
Statewide (All Teachers in Florida)
Statewide
Total Evaluated 160,386
Highly Effective – Number Evaluated 36,240
				Percent of those Evaluated 22.6%
Effective – Number Evaluated 119,627
		  Percent of those Evaluated 74.6%
Needs Improvement - Number Evaluated 3,364
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 2.1%
3 Years – Developing - Number Evaluated 841
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 0.5%
Unsatisfactory - Number Evaluated 314
		  	  Percent of those Evaluated 0.2%

State Approved Programs
Total Evaluated 5,991
Highly Effective – Number Evaluated 1306
				Percent of those Evaluated 21.8%
Effective – Number Evaluated 4482
		  Percent of those Evaluated 74.8%
Needs Improvement - Number Evaluated 132
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 2.2%
3 Years – Developing - Number Evaluated 57
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 1.0%
Unsatisfactory - Number Evaluated 14
		  	  Percent of those Evaluated 0.2%

ITPs
Total Evaluated 3,193
Highly Effective – Number Evaluated 646
				Percent of those Evaluated 20.2%
Effective – Number Evaluated 2430
		  Percent of those Evaluated 76.1%
Needs Improvement - Number Evaluated 63
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 02.0%
3 Years – Developing - Number Evaluated 49
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 1.5%
Unsatisfactory - Number Evaluated 5
		  	  Percent of those Evaluated 0.2%

EPIs
Total Evaluated 882
Highly Effective – Number Evaluated 233
				Percent of those Evaluated 26.4%
Effective – Number Evaluated 631
		  Percent of those Evaluated 71.5%
Needs Improvement - Number Evaluated 12
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 1.4%
3 Years – Developing - Number Evaluated 4
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 0.5%
Unsatisfactory - Number Evaluated 2
		  	  Percent of those Evaluated 0.2%

DACPs
Total Evaluated 1229
Highly Effective – Number Evaluated 247
				Percent of those Evaluated 20.1%
Effective – Number Evaluated 930
		  Percent of those Evaluated 75.7%
Needs Improvement - Number Evaluated 44
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 3.6%
3 Years – Developing - Number Evaluated 2
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 0.2%
Unsatisfactory - Number Evaluated 6
		  	  Percent of those Evaluated 0.5%

Ed Leadership
Total Evaluated 677
Highly Effective – Number Evaluated 178
				Percent of those Evaluated 26.3%
Effective – Number Evaluated 484
		  Percent of those Evaluated 71.5%
Needs Improvement - Number Evaluated 13
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 1.9%
3 Years – Developing - Number Evaluated 1
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 0.1%
Unsatisfactory - Number Evaluated 1
		  	  Percent of those Evaluated 0.1%

PTOs
Total Evaluated 10
Highly Effective – Number Evaluated 2
				Percent of those Evaluated 20.0%
Effective – Number Evaluated 7
		  Percent of those Evaluated 70.0%
Needs Improvement - Number Evaluated 0
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 0.0%
3 Years – Developing - Number Evaluated 1
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 10.0%
Unsatisfactory - Number Evaluated 0
		  	  Percent of those Evaluated 0.0%

ITP Breakout
SUS 
Total Evaluated 2,477
Highly Effective – Number Evaluated 504
				Percent of those Evaluated 78.0%
Effective – Number Evaluated 1895
		  Percent of those Evaluated 78.0%
Needs Improvement - Number Evaluated 44
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 69.8%
3 Years – Developing - Number Evaluated 31
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 63.3%
Unsatisfactory - Number Evaluated 3
		  	  Percent of those Evaluated 60%
SC
Total Evaluated 161
Highly Effective – Number Evaluated 22
				Percent of those Evaluated 3.4%
Effective – Number Evaluated 120
		  Percent of those Evaluated 4.9%
Needs Improvement - Number Evaluated 10
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 15.9%
3 Years – Developing - Number Evaluated 9
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 18.4%
Unsatisfactory - Number Evaluated 0
		  	  Percent of those Evaluated 0.0%
Private
Total Evaluated 555
Highly Effective – Number Evaluated 120
				Percent of those Evaluated 18.6%
Effective – Number Evaluated 415
		  Percent of those Evaluated 17.1%
Needs Improvement - Number Evaluated 9
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 14.3%
3 Years – Developing - Number Evaluated 9
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 18.4%
Unsatisfactory - Number Evaluated 2
		  	  Percent of those Evaluated 40.0%

Evaluation Data – 2009-10 Completers
Statewide (All Teachers in Florida)
Statewide
Total Evaluated 160,386
Highly Effective – Number Evaluated 36,240
				Percent of those Evaluated 22.6%
Effective – Number Evaluated 119,627
		  Percent of those Evaluated 74.6%
Needs Improvement - Number Evaluated 3,364
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 2.1%
3 Years – Developing - Number Evaluated 841
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 0.5%
Unsatisfactory - Number Evaluated 314
		  	  Percent of those Evaluated 0.2%

State Approved Programs
Total Evaluated 5,333
Highly Effective – Number Evaluated 1102
				Percent of those Evaluated 20.7%
Effective – Number Evaluated 4088
		  Percent of those Evaluated 76.7%
Needs Improvement - Number Evaluated 66
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 1.2%
3 Years – Developing - Number Evaluated 73
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 1.4%
Unsatisfactory - Number Evaluated 4
		  	  Percent of those Evaluated 0.1%

ITPs
Total Evaluated 3,024
Highly Effective – Number Evaluated 605
				Percent of those Evaluated 20.0%
Effective – Number Evaluated 2337
		  Percent of those Evaluated 77.3%
Needs Improvement - Number Evaluated 20
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 0.7%
3 Years – Developing - Number Evaluated 60
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 2.0%
Unsatisfactory - Number Evaluated 2
		  	  Percent of those Evaluated 0.1%

EPIs
Total Evaluated 816
Highly Effective – Number Evaluated 176
				Percent of those Evaluated 21.6%
Effective – Number Evaluated 619
		  Percent of those Evaluated 75.9%
Needs Improvement - Number Evaluated 13
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 1.6%
3 Years – Developing - Number Evaluated 7
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 0.9%
Unsatisfactory - Number Evaluated 1
		  	  Percent of those Evaluated 0.1%

DACPs
Total Evaluated 943
Highly Effective – Number Evaluated 181
				Percent of those Evaluated 19.2%
Effective – Number Evaluated 730
		  Percent of those Evaluated 77.4%
Needs Improvement - Number Evaluated 26
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 2.8%
3 Years – Developing - Number Evaluated 5
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 0.5%
Unsatisfactory - Number Evaluated 1
		  	  Percent of those Evaluated 0.1%

Ed Leadership
Total Evaluated 527
Highly Effective – Number Evaluated 138
				Percent of those Evaluated 26.2%
Effective – Number Evaluated 382
		  Percent of those Evaluated 72.5%
Needs Improvement - Number Evaluated 7
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 1.3%
3 Years – Developing - Number Evaluated 0
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 0.0%
Unsatisfactory - Number Evaluated 0
		  	  Percent of those Evaluated 0.0%

PTOs
Total Evaluated 23
Highly Effective – Number Evaluated 2
				Percent of those Evaluated 8.7%
Effective – Number Evaluated 20
		  Percent of those Evaluated 87.0%
Needs Improvement - Number Evaluated 0
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 0.0%
3 Years – Developing - Number Evaluated 1
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 4.3%
Unsatisfactory - Number Evaluated 0
		  	  Percent of those Evaluated 0.0%

ITP Breakout
SUS 
Total Evaluated 2,442
Highly Effective – Number Evaluated 504
				Percent of those Evaluated 83.3%
Effective – Number Evaluated 1886
		  Percent of those Evaluated 80.7%
Needs Improvement - Number Evaluated 12
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 60.0%
3 Years – Developing - Number Evaluated 38
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 63.3%
Unsatisfactory - Number Evaluated 2
		  	  Percent of those Evaluated 100%
SC
Total Evaluated 205
Highly Effective – Number Evaluated 25
				Percent of those Evaluated 4.1%
Effective – Number Evaluated 163
		  Percent of those Evaluated 7.0%
Needs Improvement - Number Evaluated 4
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 20.0%
3 Years – Developing - Number Evaluated 13
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 21.7%
Unsatisfactory - Number Evaluated 0
		  	  Percent of those Evaluated 0.0%
Private
Total Evaluated 377
Highly Effective – Number Evaluated 76
				Percent of those Evaluated 12.6%
Effective – Number Evaluated 288
		  Percent of those Evaluated 12.3%
Needs Improvement - Number Evaluated 4
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 20.0%
3 Years – Developing - Number Evaluated 9
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 15.0%
Unsatisfactory - Number Evaluated 0
		  	  Percent of those Evaluated 0.0%

Evaluation Data – 2010-11 Completers
Statewide (All Teachers in Florida)
Statewide
Total Evaluated 160,386
Highly Effective – Number Evaluated 36,240
				Percent of those Evaluated 22.6%
Effective – Number Evaluated 119,627
		  Percent of those Evaluated 74.6%
Needs Improvement - Number Evaluated 3,364
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 2.1%
3 Years – Developing - Number Evaluated 841
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 0.5%
Unsatisfactory - Number Evaluated 314
		  	  Percent of those Evaluated 0.2%

State Approved Programs
Total Evaluated 4,957
Highly Effective – Number Evaluated 875
				Percent of those Evaluated 17.7%
Effective – Number Evaluated 3886
		  Percent of those Evaluated 78.4%
Needs Improvement - Number Evaluated 59
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 1.2%
3 Years – Developing - Number Evaluated 119
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 2.4%
Unsatisfactory - Number Evaluated 18
		  	  Percent of those Evaluated 0.4%

ITPs
Total Evaluated 3,092
Highly Effective – Number Evaluated 477
				Percent of those Evaluated 15.4%
Effective – Number Evaluated 2487
		  Percent of those Evaluated 80.4%
Needs Improvement - Number Evaluated 24
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 0.8%
3 Years – Developing - Number Evaluated 92
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 3.0%
Unsatisfactory - Number Evaluated 12
		  	  Percent of those Evaluated 0.4%

EPIs
Total Evaluated 728
Highly Effective – Number Evaluated 131
				Percent of those Evaluated 18.0%
Effective – Number Evaluated 559
		  Percent of those Evaluated 76.8%
Needs Improvement - Number Evaluated 17
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 2.3%
3 Years – Developing - Number Evaluated 16
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 2.2%
Unsatisfactory - Number Evaluated 5
		  	  Percent of those Evaluated 0.7%

DACPs
Total Evaluated 528
Highly Effective – Number Evaluated 90
				Percent of those Evaluated 17.0%
Effective – Number Evaluated 412
		  Percent of those Evaluated 78.0%
Needs Improvement - Number Evaluated 15
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 2.8%
3 Years – Developing - Number Evaluated 10
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 1.9%
Unsatisfactory - Number Evaluated 1
		  	  Percent of those Evaluated 0.2%

Ed Leadership
Total Evaluated 590
Highly Effective – Number Evaluated 175
				Percent of those Evaluated 29.7%
Effective – Number Evaluated 411
		  Percent of those Evaluated 69.7%
Needs Improvement - Number Evaluated 3
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 0.5%
3 Years – Developing - Number Evaluated 1
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 0.2%
Unsatisfactory - Number Evaluated 0
		  	  Percent of those Evaluated 0.0%

PTOs
Total Evaluated 19
Highly Effective – Number Evaluated 2
				Percent of those Evaluated 10.5%
Effective – Number Evaluated 17
		  Percent of those Evaluated 89.5%
Needs Improvement - Number Evaluated 0
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 0.0%
3 Years – Developing - Number Evaluated 0
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 0.0%
Unsatisfactory - Number Evaluated 0
		  	  Percent of those Evaluated 0.0%

ITP Breakout
SUS 
Total Evaluated 2,271
Highly Effective – Number Evaluated 352
				Percent of those Evaluated 73.8%
Effective – Number Evaluated 1842
		  Percent of those Evaluated 74.1%
Needs Improvement - Number Evaluated 15
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 62.5%
3 Years – Developing - Number Evaluated 57
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 62.0%
Unsatisfactory - Number Evaluated 5
		  	  Percent of those Evaluated 41.7%
SC
Total Evaluated 257
Highly Effective – Number Evaluated 24
				Percent of those Evaluated 5.0%
Effective – Number Evaluated 204
		  Percent of those Evaluated 8.2%
Needs Improvement - Number Evaluated 2
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 8.3%
3 Years – Developing - Number Evaluated 23
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 25.0%
Unsatisfactory - Number Evaluated 4
		  	  Percent of those Evaluated 33.3%
Private
Total Evaluated 564
Highly Effective – Number Evaluated 101
				Percent of those Evaluated 21.2%
Effective – Number Evaluated 441
		  Percent of those Evaluated 17.7%
Needs Improvement - Number Evaluated 7
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 29.2%
3 Years – Developing - Number Evaluated 12
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 13.0%
Unsatisfactory - Number Evaluated 3
		  	  Percent of those Evaluated 25.0%

Evaluation Data – 3 years Completer Aggregate
Statewide (All Teachers in Florida)
Statewide
Total Evaluated 160,386
Highly Effective – Number Evaluated 36,240
				Percent of those Evaluated 22.6%
Effective – Number Evaluated 119,627
		  Percent of those Evaluated 74.6%
Needs Improvement - Number Evaluated 3,364
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 2.1%
3 Years – Developing - Number Evaluated 841
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 0.5%
Unsatisfactory - Number Evaluated 314
		  	  Percent of those Evaluated 0.2%

State Approved Programs
Total Evaluated 16,281
Highly Effective – Number Evaluated 3,283
				Percent of those Evaluated 20.0%
Effective – Number Evaluated 12,456
		  Percent of those Evaluated 76.5%
Needs Improvement - Number Evaluated 257
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 1.6%
3 Years – Developing - Number Evaluated 249
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 1.5%
Unsatisfactory - Number Evaluated 36
		  	  Percent of those Evaluated 0.2%

ITPs
Total Evaluated 9,309
Highly Effective – Number Evaluated 1,728
				Percent of those Evaluated 18.6%
Effective – Number Evaluated 7,254
		  Percent of those Evaluated 77.9%
Needs Improvement - Number Evaluated 107
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 1.1%
3 Years – Developing - Number Evaluated 201
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 2.2%
Unsatisfactory - Number Evaluated 19
		  	  Percent of those Evaluated 0.2%

EPIs
Total Evaluated 2,426
Highly Effective – Number Evaluated 540
				Percent of those Evaluated 22.3%
Effective – Number Evaluated 1,809
		  Percent of those Evaluated 74.6%
Needs Improvement - Number Evaluated 42
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 1.7%
3 Years – Developing - Number Evaluated 27
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 1.1%
Unsatisfactory - Number Evaluated 8
		  	  Percent of those Evaluated 0.3%

DACPs
Total Evaluated 2,700
Highly Effective – Number Evaluated 518
				Percent of those Evaluated 19.2%
Effective – Number Evaluated 2,072
		  Percent of those Evaluated 76.7%
Needs Improvement - Number Evaluated 85
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 3.1%
3 Years – Developing - Number Evaluated 17
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 0.6%
Unsatisfactory - Number Evaluated 8
		  	  Percent of those Evaluated 0.3%

Ed Leadership
Total Evaluated 1,794
Highly Effective – Number Evaluated 491
				Percent of those Evaluated 27.4%
Effective – Number Evaluated 1,277
		  Percent of those Evaluated 71.2%
Needs Improvement - Number Evaluated 23
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 1.3%
3 Years – Developing - Number Evaluated 2
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 0.1%
Unsatisfactory - Number Evaluated 1
		  	  Percent of those Evaluated 0.1%

PTOs
Total Evaluated 52
Highly Effective – Number Evaluated 6
				Percent of those Evaluated 11.5%
Effective – Number Evaluated 44
		  Percent of those Evaluated 84.6%
Needs Improvement - Number Evaluated 0
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 0.0%
3 Years – Developing - Number Evaluated 2
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 3.8%
Unsatisfactory - Number Evaluated 0
		  	  Percent of those Evaluated 0.0%

ITP Breakout
SUS 
Total Evaluated 7,190
Highly Effective – Number Evaluated 1,360
				Percent of those Evaluated 78.7%
Effective – Number Evaluated 5,623
		  Percent of those Evaluated 77.5%
Needs Improvement - Number Evaluated 71
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 66.4%
3 Years – Developing - Number Evaluated 126
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 62.7%
Unsatisfactory - Number Evaluated 10
		  	  Percent of those Evaluated 52.6%
SC
Total Evaluated 623
Highly Effective – Number Evaluated 71
				Percent of those Evaluated 4.1%
Effective – Number Evaluated 487
		  Percent of those Evaluated 6.7%
Needs Improvement - Number Evaluated 16
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 15.0%
3 Years – Developing - Number Evaluated 45
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 22.4%
Unsatisfactory - Number Evaluated 4
		  	  Percent of those Evaluated 21.1%
Private
Total Evaluated 1,496
Highly Effective – Number Evaluated 297
				Percent of those Evaluated 17.2%
Effective – Number Evaluated 1144
		  Percent of those Evaluated 15.8%
Needs Improvement - Number Evaluated 20
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 18.7%
3 Years – Developing - Number Evaluated 30
		  			Percent of those Evaluated 14%
Unsatisfactory - Number Evaluated 3
		  	  Percent of those Evaluated 25.0%

Next Steps
•	June- Program data released via sample performance report for purposes of feedback on the report
•	July/August- Consider recommendations for continued approval standards for teacher preparation
•	Summer/Fall 
Rule revision workshops (6A-5.066, F.A.C.) 
(Public input process for finalizing the standards)