Transcript Florida’s School Accountability System Overview and Updates Edward Croft, Florida Department of Education Bureau Chief, Accountability Reporting Accountability, Research and Measurement Florida Charter School Conference,

Florida’s School Accountability System
Overview and Updates
Edward Croft, Florida Department of Education
Bureau Chief, Accountability Reporting
Accountability, Research and Measurement
Florida Charter School Conference, November 15, 2011
Florida’s School Grading System
Purpose and Aims
• Making school performance clear to the public
• Universally understood metric (A-F)
• Performance is based upon student outcomes.
• System of rewards and supports
• Primary and lasting goals: raising student
achievement and success, bringing more
opportunities to students, opening doors
2
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
Context
• Accountability systems in transition
• FCAT cut scores increasing – raising standards
• School Grades – Changes to add new
statutorily required elements and new tests
– End of Course (EOC) assessments
– Middle school – acceleration measures
• high school EOCs and industry certifications
• Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA)
3
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
Transition in School Grades System
• Transition to new tests occurring over the next 4
years
• Designing the system now to accommodate the
changes
• Rule revision to lay out changes for 2011-12 and
beyond
• Develop a multi-year model to:
– Implement statutory changes
– Include new tests as they are available
– Review and set school grading scale
• Working closely with stakeholders
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
4
School Grade Distribution – Graded Schools
(2011 does not include high schools.)
70%
61%
60%
53%
51%
48%
50%
49%
46%
40%
30%
20%
10%
48%
52%
55%
58%
52%
45%
37%
30%
25%
13%
8%
3%
0%
1999
24%
24%
23% 23%
16%
11%
0%
2000
23% 23%
17%
13%
8%
23%
0%
3%
5%
1%
7%
2%
2001
2002
2003
2004
22%
22%
22%
21%
20%
8%
17%
8%
3%
4%
1%
3%
2005
2006
2007
23%
20%
17%
20%
14%
5%
6%
2% 2%
2008
2009
18%
19%
5%
2%
2010
18%
5%
1%
2011
-10%
A
B
C
D
F
5
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
Elementary School Grade Distribution (A-F)
2002 to 2011
80%
72%
70%
64%
60%
60%
56%
57%
59%
58%
54%
58%
50%
40%
30%
39%
28%
22%
20%
0%
20%
22%
8%
2%
2002
19%
20%
17%
23%
18%
10%
20%
16%
3%
1%
2003
4%
1%
2004
17%
18%
0% 2%
15%
3%
2%
2005
2006
2007
A
B
5%
1%
C
15%
18%
10%
3%
1%
2%
1%
2008
D
20%
2009
4%
18%
18%
5%
2%
2010
1%
2011
F
6
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
Middle School Grade Distribution (A-F)
2002 to 2011
80%
70%
67%
60%
52%
50%
64%
60%
61%
59%
48%
45%
40%
36%
40%
30%
20%
25%
26%
29%
28%
24%
24%
27%
18%
10%
0%
4%
1%
2002
24%
12%
5%
4%
0%
3%
2003
2004
19%
20%
6%
18%
8%
2%
1%
0%
2%
2005
2006
2007
A
B
C
17%
17%
4%
1%
2008
D
17%
16%
17%
2%
1%
4%
2009
19%
17%
5%
1%
2010
1%
2011
F
7
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
High School Grade Distribution (A-F)
2002 to 2010
60%
50%
48%
44%
40%
40%
42%
34%
38%
30%
30%
23%
20%
19%
16%
12%
10%
6%
23%
18%
21%
18%
3%
28%
27%
26%
26%
17%
15%
25%
24%
30%
17%
15%
10%
24%
22%
18%
15%
17%
4%
3%
4%
1%
0%
2002
2003
2004
2005
A
13%
8%
5%
4%
22%
14%
30%
2006
B
C
2007
D
2008
2009
2010
F
8
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
Charter School Grade Distribution (A-F)
by Percent, 2004 to 2011*
* Results for 2011 do not include high school grades.
70%
63%
60%
57%
50%
50%
40%
30%
39%
24%
20%
10%
13%
12%
11%
52%
48%
36%
22%
15%
21%
20%
14%
6%
12%
2005
2006
A
20%
21%
16%
19%
19%
12%
6%
8%
5%
5%
3%
0%
2004
57%
2007
B
2008
C
8% 14%
3%
4%
2009
D
F
15%
17%
15%
6%
6%
5%
2010
2011
9
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
Charter Schools, Reading Performance
Elementary School Grades
10
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
Charter Schools, Reading Performance
Middle School Grades
11
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
Charter Schools, Reading Performance
High School Grades
38.3
12
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
Reading Outcomes for
Schools Graded “A” in 2010
“A” Schools with at
“A” Schools with
Least 50% of Students
Less than 50% of
at Level 3 and Up in Students at Level 3 in
Reading
Reading
School
Type
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Elementary
950
100%
0
0%
Middle
352
100%
0
0%
High*
98
81%
23
19%
*Includes only regular high schools that received 1600-point scale high school grades.
13
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
Reading Outcomes for
Schools Graded “B” in 2010
School
Type
Elementary
Middle
High*
“B” Schools with at
Least 50% of Students “B” Schools with Less
at Level 3 and Up in
than 50% of Students
Reading
at Level 3 in Reading
Number
362
95
Percent
100%
99%
Number
1
1
Percent
0%
1%
81
50%
81
50%
*Includes only regular high schools that received 1600-point scale high school grades.
14
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
Reading Outcomes for
Schools Graded “C” in 2010
School
Type
Elementary
Middle
High*
“C” Schools with at
Least 50% of Students “C” Schools with Less
at Level 3 and Up in
than 50% of Students
Reading
at Level 3 in Reading
Number
338
64
Percent
93%
65%
Number
25
35
Percent
7%
35%
1
2%
60
98%
*Includes only regular high schools that received 1600-point scale high school grades.
15
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
Overview of School Grading:
Assessment Components
(Comprising 100% of Elementary and Middle
School Grades, and 50% of High School Grades)
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
16
Current Elementary and Middle School Grades Model
Reading
Math
Writing
Science
FCAT
(100)
12.5%
FCAT
(100)
12.5%
(100)
12.5%
(100)
12.5%
Performance
FCAT 2.0
(100)
12.5%
FCAT 2.0
(100)
12.5%
Learning Gains: All Students
FCAT 2.0
(100)
12.5%
FCAT 2.0
(100)
12.5%
Low 25% Learning Gains
FCAT 2.0
(100)
12.5%
FCAT 2.0
(100)
12.5%
(300)
37.5%
(300)
37.5%
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
17
Current High School Grades Model
Reading
Math
Writing
Science
Performance
FCAT 2.0
(100)
12.5%
FCAT 2.0
(100)
12.5%
FCAT
(100)
12.5%
FCAT
(100)
12.5%
Learning Gains: All Students
FCAT 2.0
(100)
12.5%
FCAT 2.0
(100)
12.5%
Acceleration
Grad Rate
College
Readiness
Participation
(175)
10.94%
Overall
(200)
12.5%
Reading
(100)
6.25%
Performance
(125)
7.81%
At Risk
(100)
6.25%
Math
(100)
6.25%
(300)
18.75%
(300)
18.75%
(200)
12.5%
Low 25% Learning Gains
FCAT 2.0
(100)
12.5%
FCAT 2.0
(100)
12.5%
(300)
18.75%
(300)
18.75%
(100)
6.25%
Assessment Components = 50%
(100)
6.25%
Acceleration Components = 50%
18
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
Points for Performance
(Four Components)
One point for each percent of students meeting
performance standards on the FCAT, as follows:
– FCAT reading, math, and science = score at FCAT
Level 3 or higher.
– FCAT Writing = a score of 4 or higher on the essay
component. (Increased from “3.5 or higher” in
2009-10).
19
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
Defining Learning Gains
Three Ways to Make Learning Gains:
1. Move up by one or more achievement levels.
2. Maintain a satisfactory achievement level.
3. For students who remain at FCAT Level 1 or
2, demonstrate more than one year’s worth
of growth on the FCAT vertical scale.
20
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
Additional Requirements
Adequate Progress of Lowest Performing 25% in
Reading and Mathematics
• At least 50% of the low performers in a school must
show learning gains in reading or math, or the school
must show annual improvement in that percentage.
• The school grade is lowered one letter grade if the
requirement is not met - for schools that would
otherwise be graded “C” or higher
“Percent Tested” Requirement
• 90% must be tested to receive a regular grade in lieu of
an “I”.
• 95% must be tested for a school to be eligible for an “A.”
21
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
Current Grading Scale
For Elementary and Middle Schools
800 possible points:
A = ≥ 525 points
B = 495-524 points
C = 435-494 points
D = 395-434 points
F = < 395 points
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
22
Students Included in the Calculation
Performance Components
• Students must be enrolled for the full year (present in
Survey 2 and Survey 3)
• Standard curriculum, Gifted, Speech Impaired, Hospital
Homebound, English language learners with > 2 yrs. in
ESOL
• Current-year FCAT score in content area.
Learning Gains
• Students must enrolled for the full year.
• Must have current and prior-year test scores (FCAT or
Florida Alternate Assessment) in content area.
23
Reasons Why Some Schools
Are Not Graded
Statute provides conditions under which a school may not
receive a school grade (Section 1008.34, F.S.)
• Insufficient number of students tested (cell size requirements)
• Alternative schools may elect to receive a school improvement
rating instead
• DJJ centers are not assigned school grades.
• ESE centers – not enough standard curriculum students with
FCAT scores (reading, math, writing, science).
• Certain other types of schools that serve populations outside
the tested grades.
24
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
Reasons Why Some Schools Are Not Graded,
and Cell-Size Issues
• School grades includes only standard curriculum students in
the performance components. AYP includes all students. This
reduces the number of students counted for school grades
• To receive a school grade schools must have a sufficient
number of students tested in each “cell” of the formula
• Cell sizes required for school grades are 30 for reading and
math and 10 for other areas where only 1 grade is tested
• Under AYP, minimum cell-size for the school = 11.
• Cell-size criteria for AYP reporting are established in states’
federally approved accountability plans and may vary from
state to state.
• Cell-size criteria for school grades are established in the
implementing rule (6A-1.09981).
25
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
Cell Size Issues
• Some competing factors considered when
establishing cell size are:
• sample size and reliability of measures
• the desire to have uniform criteria for inclusion
• the desire to include as many students and
schools as possible in accountability
determinations
• the appropriateness of assessments for specific
populations
• characteristics of special populations.
• Many schools do not receive a school grade because
they do not meet the cell size requirements
26
Number of Florida Schools Receiving an AYP Rating
vs. Number Receiving a School Grade
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011*
# Receiving
AYP
Designation
(Yes/No)
2,995
3,068
3,106
3,198
3,244
3,306
3,354
3,424
3,396
# Receiving a
School Grade
(A – F)
2,421
2,653
2,770
2,790
2,838
2,892
2,952
2,998
3,035
*Though complete high school grades for 2011 have not yet been issued, there is
data available to determine the number of schools that will receive a grade.
Difference
574
415
336
408
406
414
402
426
361
27
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
High School Grades
28
High School Grades
• State Assessment Based Components = 50% of the
school grade for high schools (800 points).
29
HS Components Outside State Assessments
= 50% of High School Grade (800 points)
GRADUATION
ACCELERATION
(AP, IB, AICE, DE, Ind.Cert.)
Overall Rate
Participation
200
200 (in 2009-10)
175 (in 2010-11)
150 (in 2011-12)
At-Risk Rate
Performance
100
100 (in 2009-10)
125 (in 2010-11)
150 (in 2011-12)
READINESS
(ACT, SAT, CPT,
P.E.R.T.)
GROWTH/DECLINE
Performance on
Reading
For each component, schools earn up
to 20 points for GROWTH
100
(up to 40 points for a double-weighted
component , like the graduation rate)
Performance on
Mathematics
100
For each component, schools lose
5 points for DECLINE
(up to 10 points for a double-weighted
component, like the graduation rate)
Total Graduation
Points
Total Acceleration
Points
Total Readiness
Points
Total HIGH SCHOOL Points Possible
(Non-Assessment Measures)
300
300
200
800
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
30
High School Grades:
Changes in 2010-11
• More emphasis on acceleration performance
(125 points in 2011 vs. 100 points in 2010)
• Less emphasis on acceleration participation
(175 points in 2011 vs. 200 points in 2010)
• P.E.R.T. scores (as available) now included for
Postsecondary Readiness.
31
Graduation Rate
For 2009-10 and 2010-11, Florida is using the National Governors’
Association four-year graduation rate.
Which students are included in the cohort (denominator)?
Entering 9th graders in Year 1 of the 4-year cohort plus incoming
transfers, minus exiting transfers and deceased students
Who counts as a graduate?
Standard diploma recipients and special diploma recipients
Who counts as a non-graduate?
Students in the adjusted cohort who did not receive a standard
diploma or special diploma (i.e., dropouts, certificate of
completion recipients, GED diploma recipients, other nongraduates)
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
32
Graduation Rate Summary Information
Graduation Rate
Methods
National Governors
Association (NGA) Rate
Students Not
Included in the
Calculation
Graduates
Non-Graduates
Students who transfer to:
• Other schools (public,
private, or Dept. of Juvenile
Justice facilities);
• Home-education programs;
• Adult education programs
• Standard
Diploma
recipients
• Special Diploma
recipients
•
•
•
•
• Standard
Diploma
recipients
•
•
•
•
Dropouts
Certificate of Completion recipients
GED recipients
Continuing enrollees who are not ontime graduates
Deceased students
New Federal Uniform Rate
Students who transfer to:
• Other schools (public or
private)
• Home-education programs
Deceased students
Dropouts
Certificate of Completion recipients
GED recipients
Continuing enrollees who are not ontime graduates
• Special Diplomas
• Transfers to Adult education
programs or Dept. of Juvenile
Justice facilities who are not
standard diploma recipients.
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
33
Accelerated Participation
•Based on AP, IB, AICE exams; Dual Enrollment
courses; Industry Certification programs
•Denominator = count of 11th and 12th grade
students.
•Students in grades 9 and 10 are included in the
numerator if they have successful completions
•Extra weighting for more than one
exam/course.
34
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
Accelerated Performance
• Included students = Participants from the
acceleration participation calculation.
• Performance = Successful completions (i.e., creditearning scores on AP, AICE, IB, Industry
Certification; and, grade of “C” or higher in dual
enrollment courses).
• Extra weighting for highest scores on AP, IB, AICE,
and for certain Industry Certification programs.
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
35
Postsecondary Readiness - Reading, Math
Numerator
Denominator
Number of students “ready”
on SAT, ACT, and/or
CPT/P.E.R.T. any time during
their high school careers
On-time HS graduates who
scored a Level 3+ on the
10th Grade FCAT
• Calculated separately for reading and mathematics with
max of 100 points each.
• Beginning in 2011-12, by rule, the measure will apply to
all on-time graduates.
36
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
High School Grade Scale
Grade Scale for High Schools = 1600 point scale:
•
•
•
•
•
A = At least 1,050 points,
B = 990 to 1,049 points,
C = 870 to 989 points,
D = 790 to 869 points,
F = Fewer than 790 points.
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
37
Changes Coming for School Grades
• FCAT 2.0 cut scores: increased rigor of test and
achievement expectations.
• Moving toward new assessments of reading
and mathematics in 2014-15: PARCC
• Adding new measures to the middle school
grades (HS EOCs and Industry Certifications)
• Assimilating EOCs into the school grades
model as they are implemented
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
38
Multi-year School Grades System
• Transition to new tests occurring over the next 4
years
• Designing the system now to accommodate the
changes
• Develop a multi-year model to:
– Implement statutory changes
– Include new tests as they are available
– Review and set school grading scale
39
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
Each time standards are raised, the number of lower performing
schools has decreased in the following year.
2500
2,317
2,127
2,077
Number of Schools
2000
1,809
1,802
1,844
2,221
1,952
1500
1,447
1,004
1000
500
845
677
515
307
173
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
299
308
249
401
2003
233
2004
A and B Schools
143
2005
2006
2007
200
217
2008
2009
213
2010
D and F Schools
40
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
School Grades in 2011-12 and
Beyond – Key Issues
• Changes already written in rule for 2011-12 to
increase rigor for high school grades
• Include learning gains for EOCs as required in statute
• Learning gains on the Florida Alternate Assessment
for students scoring at the lowest levels
• Learning gains: structure for FCAT 2.0 reading and
mathematics
• Balance of performance and learning gains in new
model(s); distribution/weighting of points for school
grade components
41
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
School Grades in 2011-12 and
Beyond - Key Issues (continued)
• Address the statutory requirement for greater
emphasis on reading performance
• High school science performance in 2011-12,
Biology 1 EOC in its baseline year
• Middle school grades – include high-school
level EOCs and Industry Certifications (as
available)
• Banking middle school performance on HS
level EOCs (Algebra 1 for 2011-12) for high
school grades
42
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
School Grades in 2011-12 and
Beyond - Key Issues (continued)
• Criteria for setting school grading scale
• Review cell size requirements
• Possibly include exceptional education
students in proficiency calculations
• Accountability for ESE centers
• Accountability for DJJ Centers
43
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
Impact of FCAT 2.0 Cut Scores
on School Grades
• Won’t know the impact until:
– Cut scores are finalized
– School Grades model for next year is finalized
– Working on simulations to determine the impact
of the raised scores on school grades
44
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
AAAC Recommendation
Learning Gains for FCAT 2.0
• Students who increase an achievement level
• Students who maintain a Level 3 or higher achievement
level
• Students at achievement levels 1 and 2 must:
– Demonstrate more than 1 year’s expected growth on the new
FCAT 2.0 scale.
– Under this model, Level 1 students would be expected to show
more growth than Level 2 students.
– Model still being reviewed, subject to change.
• The requirements will be included in the revised school
grades rule (6A-1.09981)
• Review value added model at the school level next summer
45
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
Scale Scores – Reading, Draft
Proposed Rule
FCAT 2.0 Reading Scale Score Cuts – Draft Proposed Rule, 10/7/11
300
275
Scale Score
250
238
227
225
230
198
175
252
237
243
221
210
200
246
258
216
208
192
200
222
207
228
213
264
268
271
249
253
256
238
243
234
218
182
222
228
Not determined
150
3
4
5
Achievement Level 2 Cut Score
Achievement Level 4 Cut Score
6
7
Grade Level
8
9
10
Achievement Level 3 Cut Score
Achievement Level 5 Cut Score
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
46
Differences in Cut Scores
(Subject to Change if Cut Scores Change.)
Grade
Level 1-2
Level 2-3
Level 3-4
Level 4-5
3 to 4
10
10
11
11
4 to 5
8
8
9
8
5 to 6
7
6
7
6
6 to 7
6
6
6
6
7 to 8
5
6
6
6
8 to 9
4
4
4
4
9 to 10
6
5
3
3
47
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
AAAC Proposed Learning Gains
Model for Florida Alternate Assessment
Scores (for Students with Disabilities)
• Students’ second-year score must increase relative to their
first year score by more than the standard error of the
difference of the two scores.
• AAAC recommends setting a fixed score differential for the
calculation to make it more understandable to stakeholders.
• The fixed score differential would be derived from analysis of
all state scores.
• This provision is supported by the Leadership Policy Advisory
Council (LPAC).
• Task - Determine whether the value of the fixed score
differential fluctuates among grade levels or achievement
levels.
48
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
AAAC Recommendation*
Learning Gains for Algebra 1
• If a student scores at level 3 or higher on Algebra 1,
the student is credited with a learning gain.
• For levels 1 and 2, compare the t-score for FCAT 2.0
Mathematics in the prior year with the t-score for
Algebra 1. The t-scores are scores set on a common
scale between the two assessments.
• Next summer, review the value added model for EOC
learning gains at the school level.
* Keep in mind that these are just recommendations and may (or
may not) be adopted by the State Board.
49
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
New Middle School Grades Component –
AAAC Recommendation
Middle School acceleration measure – 100 points
• Structured similar to the high school measure
• Participation in high school end-of-course assessments (50 points)
Denominator =
o Grade 8 students scoring at level 3 or higher on 7th grade FCAT +
o 6th and 7th graders taking HS EOCs in the current year that have matched
course records +
o Other 8th graders taking HS EOCs that have matched course records
• Performance on high school end-of-course assessments (50 points)
Denominator = participants from the participation measure
• Attainment of National Industry Certifications
– AAAC recommends including with HS EOCs in the acceleration measures,
when data become available.
50
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
Year Administered to Students (Baseline Yr. in Red)
Type of Assessment
Assessment Area
FCAT
FCAT Writing
FCAT 2.0
End-of-Course
Assessments
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
Gr 4, 8, 10
Gr 4, 8, 10
Gr 4, 8, 10
FCAT 2.0 Reading
Gr 3-10
Gr 3-10
Gr 3-10
FCAT 2.0 Mathematics
Gr 3-8
Gr 3-8
Gr 3-8
FCAT 2.0 Science
Gr 5, 8
Gr 5, 8
Gr 5, 8
Algebra 1
In Course
In Course
In Course
Geometry
In Course
In Course
In Course
Biology 1
In Course
In Course
In Course
In Course
In Course
In Course
In Course
Middle
School
Middle
School
US History
Civics
Gr 5, 8
Partnership for
Assessment of Readiness
for College and Careers
(PARCC)
English language Arts
Gr 3-11
Mathematics
High School Math EOCs
(3 subjects)
Gr 3-8
Postsecondary Education
Readiness Test (PERT)
Reading, Writing,
Mathematics
In course
Gr 11
Gr 11
Gr 11
Gr 11
51
New EOCs Added to School Grades
201112
High School
Algebra 1 (math component)
Geometry (math component)
Biology (science component)
U.S. History (50 pts)
Middle School
Civics (100 pts)
201213
201314
201415
X
?
X
X
X
X
52
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
ESEA Waiver Request
(Four Areas to Address for State Requests)
• 1: COLLEGE- AND CAREER-READY EXPECTATIONS FOR ALL
STUDENTS
• 2: STATE-DEVELOPED DIFFERENTIATED RECOGNITION,
ACCOUNTABILITY, AND SUPPORT
• 3: SUPPORTING EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION AND LEADERSHIP
• 4: Reducing Duplication and Unnecessary Burden
on Local Education Agencies
53
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
ESEA Waiver Request and
Differentiated Accountability (DA)
Request Submitted on Nov. 14, 2011
• Florida will need to revise its Annual Measurable Objectives
(AMOs) for AYP reporting to conform with options presented
by the U.S. Department of Education.
• If the waiver request is approved, the AYP performance of
subgroups and schools will be reported on annual reports
but will not be used in determining school improvement
requirements.
• If our DA system is revised as planned, schools will be
classified in DA based solely on their school grade:
• Prevent = “C” schools
• Correct = “D” schools
• Intervene = “F” schools
54
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
Timeline
• May – Feedback from Leadership Policy Advisory Council
(LPAC)
• July – Feedback from Assessment and Accountability Advisory
Committee (AAAC)
• August – Feedback from LPAC
• October – Feedback from AAAC and LPAC
• November – Feedback from AAAC, Submit ESEA Flexibility
Request
• December – FCAT rule to the State Board to set cut scores
• December – School Grades rule workshops
• January – Receive USDOE determination on ESEA Flexibility
Request
• February – School grades rule to the State Board
55
Accountability, Research, and Measurement
Department Contact Information
for School Grades
[email protected]
Or call
(850) 245-0411
56