Florida reports year‑over‑year gains under new FAST progress‑monitoring system; review recommends PM3 remain accountability anchor

Chair Simon convened the Committee on Pre K–12 Education to hear a presentation on Florida’s statewide assessments and the state’s new progress‑monitoring system, FAST.

Deputy Commissioner Juan Copa of the Florida Department of Education told the committee the coordinated system—administered three times a year as PM1, PM2 and PM3—has delivered more timely data to teachers and parents and produced measurable year‑over‑year gains. “The real game changer of this new system is that immediacy of data,” Copa said, adding that state law requires those results “must be communicated with parents within 2 weeks of the administration” of the assessment.

The department reported that, comparing beginning‑of‑year to end‑of‑year administrations, statewide percentages of students scoring at or above grade level rose in 2023–24. Copa summarized the results the department provided to the committee: roughly 53% of students scored at or above grade level in English language arts at the end of the year and mid‑year to end‑of‑year mathematics growth was larger, with district and statewide increases reflected across grades. For K–2 and VPK participants the department reported similar end‑of‑year percentages (K–2: about 54% ELA; VPK participants: about 70% kindergarten‑readiness among participants), while noting VPK participants are a subset of kindergarten entrants.

Copa outlined the statutory context and the independent review required by Senate Bill 1048 (the 2022 law that codified the new progress‑monitoring system). The review examined six areas, including whether PM1 or PM2 could substitute for PM3 for accountability uses, options to reduce testing footprint, feasibility of remote testing, mid‑year acceleration based on PM results, alignment of test passages with adopted instructional materials, and the use of progress‑monitoring data in value‑added (teacher growth) models. The independent review concluded PM3—the end‑of‑year, full‑content administration—remains the strongest single indicator for accountability, retention and graduation decisions because most students perform best on PM3. The review also noted PM1/PM2 can serve as corroborating evidence in a multi‑factor decision process and found roughly 5% of students performed better on PM1 or PM2 than on PM3.

On testing load, Copa noted progress monitoring reduced testing time relative to the old FSA regime and cautioned against further shortening the end‑of‑year test while the item bank is still early in development. On remote testing the study found limited use (roughly 1% of administrations) and some performance differences that counselled caution before expanding remote administrations due to security and validity concerns.

During committee questions, Senior Chancellor (Dr.) Burns focused on supports to help teachers use FAST data: aligning classrooms to the state’s “best standards,” providing high‑quality instructional materials, strengthening coaching and feedback systems, expanding professional learning and building collaborative implementation systems in schools and districts. “Our teachers need to continue to implement those best standards,” Burns said, and he cited coaching, professional learning and implementation supports as priorities.

Committee members pressed for comparisons beyond Florida. Copa discussed recent NAEP releases, noting nationwide declines and saying, in summary, that many states saw decreases and that “no state in the entire union improved statistically speaking in 3 of those 4 subjects” in the most recent NAEP round. Copa and Burns acknowledged cross‑state comparisons are complicated because standards and assessments differ, and both emphasized Florida’s focus on using the FAST system to drive classroom practice.

Members also asked about related topics the department tracks or will provide: the independent review report (to be circulated to the committee when available), district use of alternative assessment tools and calendars, the extent to which districts use SAT/ACT/CLT as concordant scores for high‑school graduation requirements, and how VPK provider performance will be reported under the new VPK Provider Accountability System. Copa said district‑level calendars are required and some district data (for example, counts of students using concordant scores) can be provided, but more granular crosswalks (for example, CLT vs SAT vs ACT by student) were not available in his presentation.

The presentation and questions produced several policy‑relevant takeaways for the committee: (1) FAST provides immediate, actionable data for teachers and parents and the department reported measurable year‑over‑year growth; (2) the independent review recommended retaining PM3 as the accountability anchor while permitting PM1/PM2 to serve as alternative evidence in multi‑factor decisions; (3) district implementation, teacher supports and instructional materials remain critical to converting data into improved outcomes; and (4) the department will follow up with the independent review report and other requested breakdowns (for example, VPK provider results and district assessment‑calendar details).

The committee did not consider or vote on legislation during the hearing; members requested follow‑up data and the meeting adjourned after members emphasized the department should share the independent review and additional disaggregated information with the committee.

Ending: Committee Chair Simon thanked department staff and members for the discussion and closed the hearing with a request that the department provide the independent review and the additional data requested to the committee.