Skip to contentSkip to navigation

Get the latest information about Fall 2021 Repopulation and COVID-19. Before coming to campus, take the COVID-19 Daily Screening.

Standard 1 Aspect C

Standard 1c: Evidence shows that, by the time of program completion, candidates exhibit knowledge, skills, and abilities of professional educators appropriate to their target credential or degree, including: Culturally responsive practice, including intersectionality of race, ethnicity, class, gender identity and expression, sexual identity, and the impact of language acquisition and literacy development on learning


Data Sources & Analysis:

Data Source 1 CalAPA Leadership Cycle 2 (Rubric 2.5)
Data Source 2 CalAPA Leadership Cycle 1 (Rubric 1.7)
Data Source 3 CalAPA Leadership Cycle 3 (Rubric 3.2)
Data Source 4 P12 PASC Program AAQEP Candidate Self-Assessment

Data Source 1

CalAPA Leadership Cycle 2 (Rubric 2.5) 
After the first semester of the PASC program, candidates develop concepts and skills to exhibit culturally responsive practices and the impact of language acquisition and literacy development on learning through their fieldwork and coursework experiences that culminate with the submission of CalAPA Leadership Cycle 2.  Rubric 2.5 measures candidate performance on co-facilitating group learning—including establishing, reviewing, and using norms; documenting decisions; facilitating a collaborative process (group consensus, feedback, and progress); supporting diverse viewpoints; maintaining group focus and energy; and jointly determining next steps. Further, candidates work to demonstrate consistent co-facilitation skills across meetings that are responsive to both individuals and the group, resulting in a climate of trust, mutual respect, and honest communication. The expectation is that data used in the development of a problem of practice is based on the needs of all students with an eye towards equity.  

Perspective Captured from Data Source:
Assessment of candidate performance is evaluated by CTC selected, Pearson calibrated, and CA Administrative Services Credentialed faculty and school/district/county educational leaders involved in overseeing or preparing school administrators. 

Rationale for using Data Source:
Rubric 2.5 is aligned to assessment of candidate performance of the following AAQEP 1d aligned CAPEs elements: 3C.2) Recognizing personal and institutional biases and inequities within the education system and the school site that can negatively impact staff and student safety and performance and address these biases; 3C.3) Recognizing discriminatory practices, signs of trauma, manifestations of mental illness, and promote culturally responsive, positive and restorative strategies to address diverse student and school needs, and; 5B.1) Recognizing any possible institutional barriers to student and staff learning and use strategies that overcome barriers that derive from economic, social-emotional, racial, linguistic, cultural, physical, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or other sources of educational disadvantage or discrimination. Thus, Rubric 2.5 has been chosen as an appropriate measure to demonstrate a candidate’s development as related to AAQEP standard 1c.

Definition of Success for Each Element:
Candidate success would be measured at Level 2 or Level 3 as proficiency with the CTC is currently at a Level 2; however, Fresno State faculty instruct toward all 5 levels with an emphasis on Level 3 or 4. In addition, maintaining mean scores above the state average by rubric will be considered as an element of success criteria.

Displays of Analyzed Data:

Table 1

CalAPA Leadership Cycle 2, Rubric 2.5 for program level and state-wide mean scores by submission year

Submission Year Program State-wide Program Comparison
2018-2019

3.0
>2 yes

(n=72)

2.8

+.2
+ yes

2019-2020

3.4
>2 yes

(n=24)

2.5

+.9
+ yes

2020-Year to Date 

2.9
>2 yes


(n=16)

2.3

+.6
+ yes

Link to Full Dataset:  CalAPA Date AY 2018-2019, AY 2019-2020, YTD 2020-2021

Interpretation of Data:
Data from rubric 2.5 highlights that students currently perform above the state average on this rubric and are maintaining demonstration of CTC proficiency.  Overall, candidates demonstrate the ability to establish, review, and use norms; document decisions; facilitate a collaborative process (group consensus, feedback, and progress); support diverse viewpoints; maintain group focus and energy; and jointly determine next steps. This includes discussion of areas related to culturally responsive practices and the impact of language acquisition and literacy development on student learning and well-being.

Faculty continue to collaborate on strategies and resources that will strengthen aspiring administrators’ skills to demonstrate consistent co-facilitation skills across meetings that are responsive to both individuals and the group, resulting in a climate of trust, mutual respect, and honest communication, as well as, purposefully seek diverse viewpoints as they relate to possible institutional barriers barriers that derive from economic, social-emotional, racial, linguistic, cultural, physical, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or other sources of educational disadvantage or discrimination and clearly encourage all members of the community to speak and share ideas during meetings. 

Data Source 2

CalAPA Leadership Cycle 1 (Rubric 1.7)
The second data source is from the CalAPA Leadership Cycle 1, Rubric 1.7. After the 2nd semester of the PASC program candidates exhibit knowledge, skills, and abilities through their fieldwork and coursework experiences culminating with the submission of CalAPA Leadership Cycle 1.  One aspect of Leadership Cycle 1 is to collect feedback from school stakeholders regarding a plan for equitable school improvement. 

Rubric 1.7 focuses on how the candidate demonstrates collecting, analyzes, and applies feedback from the stakeholders familiar with the school culture and context to address the equity gap and potential bias and then describes next steps to create buy-in from stakeholders of the school.  Further, candidates should seek additional rounds of feedback from other stakeholders on the revised strategies to ensure they are proposing a workable/feasible approach to addressing the equity gap and learning need. As noted in the rubric, candidates should also demonstrate strategic plans to communicate and share the plan with a diverse range of key stakeholder groups and how they plan to coach stakeholders to examine and address potential biases that could impact student learning and/or well-being due to identified equity gaps, including those specifically related to sources of education disadvantage or discrimination, and is transparent about the potential underlying contributing factors.

Perspective Captured from Data Source:
Assessment of candidate performance is evaluated by CTC selected, Pearson calibrated, and CA Administrative Services Credentialed faculty and school/district/county educational leaders involved in overseeing or preparing school administrators. 

Rationale for using Data Source:
Rubric 1.7 is aligned to assessment of candidate performance of the following AAQEP 1d aligned CAPEs elements: 1B.1) Engage staff and diverse community stakeholders in a collaborative process, including consensus building and decision making, to develop a vision of teaching and learning that is shared and supported by all stakeholders; 1C.2) Using the goals in developing and implementing a plan aligned with the school’s shared vision of equitable learning opportunities for all students; 3C.2) Recognizing personal and institutional biases and inequities within the education system and the school site that can negatively impact staff and student safety and performance and address these biases; 3C.3) Recognizing discriminatory practices, signs of trauma, manifestations of mental illness, and promote culturally responsive, positive and restorative strategies to address diverse student and school needs; 5B.1) Recognizing any possible institutional barriers to student and staff learning and use strategies that overcome barriers that derive from economic, social-emotional, racial, linguistic, cultural, physical, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or other sources of educational disadvantage or discrimination; 5C.2) Acting with integrity, fairness, and justice and intervene appropriately so that all members of the school community are treated equitably and with dignity and respect, and 6A.1) Recognizing that any school is part of a larger district, state, and federal contexts that is influenced by political, social, economic, legal, and cultural factors. In this way, Rubric 1.7 has also been chosen as an appropriate measure to demonstrate a candidate’s development as related to AAQEP standard 1c.

Definition of Success for Each Element:
Candidate success would be measured at Level 2 or Level 3 as proficiency with the CTC is currently at a Level 2; however, Fresno State faculty instruct toward all 5 levels with an emphasis on Level 3 or 4. In addition, maintaining mean scores above the state average by rubric will be considered as an element of success criteria.

Displays of Analyzed Data:

Table 2

CalAPA Leadership Cycle 1, Rubric 1.7 for program level and state-wide mean scores by submission year

Submission Year Program State-wide Program Comparison
2018-2019

2.6
>2 yes

(n=63)

2.6

--
+ no change

2019-2020

2.6
>2 yes

(n=27)

2.5

+.1
+ yes

2020-Year to Date 

2.2
>2 yes

(n=10)

2.6

-.4
+ no

Link to Full Dataset: CalAPA Date AY 2018-2019, AY 2019-2020, YTD 2020-2021

Interpretation of Data:
Overall, students perform above the expectation of a Level 2, which is proficiency at the current CTC standard; however, maintaining a level above the State-wide average has not yet been realized over the last three years.  The 2020/Year-to-date data is not yet complete and we are hopeful the full data set will prove to be above the State-wide average.  Current evidence does show that candidates are able to collect data and identify patterns or that highlight student inequities and then collect stakeholder feedback based on identified gaps. Additionally, candidates demonstrate the ability to adjust a plan of section based on stakeholder feedback regarding the possible next steps after data and gap analysis.

Although candidates perform at state expectations, further focus on how to gather feedback and develop buy-in from a range of stakeholders, and how to anticipate possible barriers to implementation is necessary.  Furthermore, how to communicate and share possible school changes due to identified equity gaps specifically related to sources of education disadvantages or discrimination is necessary to bring about transparent conversations about potential underlying and contributing factors.

Data Source 3

CalAPA Leadership Cycle 3 (Rubric 3.2)
After the last semester of the PASC program candidates are expected to exhibit knowledge of culturally responsive practices, including intersectionality of race, ethnicity, class, gender identity and expression, sexual identity, and the impact of language acquisition and literacy development on learning through their fieldwork and coursework experiences culminating with the submission of CalAPA Leadership Cycle 3.  Rubric 3.2 includes ​​how the candidate listens to and talks with the volunteer teacher to understand the learning goals, classroom context, and student assets and learning needs; jointly selects with the volunteer teacher one or two CSTP elements, including evidence to be collected; and plans for the observation. In this coaching conversation, candidates at the highest levels demonstrate the ability to engage in a two-way discussion with the volunteer teacher to draw out specific areas of need based on the volunteer teacher’s context, including student assets and learning needs, in order to focus the observation. Candidates also re-direct the conversation as appropriate in order to deepen the discussion regarding equitable opportunities for all students in the class to learn, which includes topics related to culturally responsive practices and the impact of student language acquisition  and literacy development in the context of their lesson plan and upcoming teaching observation.

Perspective Captured from Data Source:
Assessment of candidate performance is evaluated by CTC selected, Pearson calibrated, and CA Administrative Services Credentialed faculty and school/district/county educational leaders involved in overseeing or preparing school administrators. 

Rationale for using Data Source:
Rubric 3.2 is aligned to assessment of candidate performance of the following AAQEP 1d aligned CAPEs elements: 2A.2) Involving staff in identifying areas of professional strength and development that link to accomplishing the school’s vision and goals to improve instruction and student learning; 2B.3) Supporting and promoting effective instruction and a range of instructional methods and supporting practices that address the diverse educational needs of all students; 2C.3) Building a comprehensive and coherent system of professional learning focused on reaching the shared vision of equitable access to learning opportunities and resources and positive outcomes for all students; 2D.3) Providing timely, constructive suggestions about instructional strategies and assessments, available resources, and technologies to refine and enhance instruction and assessment that supports student learning, safety, and well-being, and; 5C.2) Acting with integrity, fairness, and justice and intervene appropriately so that all members of the school community are treated equitably and with dignity and respect. In this way, Rubric 3.2 has also been chosen as an appropriate measure to demonstrate a candidate’s development as related to AAQEP standard 1c.

Definition of Success for Each Element:
Candidate success would be measured at Level 2 or Level 3 as proficiency with the CTC is currently at a Level 2; however, Fresno State faculty instruct toward all 5 levels with an emphasis on Level 3 or 4. In addition, maintaining mean scores above the state average by rubric will be considered as an element of success criteria.

Displays of Analyzed Data:

Table 3

CalAPA Leadership Cycle 3, Rubric 3.2 for program level and state-wide mean scores by submission year

Submission Year Program State-wide Program Comparison
2018-2019

2.9
>2 yes

(n=35)

2.9

--
+ no change

2019-2020

2.4
>2 yes

(n=37)

2.5

-.1
+ no

2020-Year to Date 

3.1
>2 yes

(n=23)

2.6

+.5
+ yes

Link to Full Dataset: CalAPA Date AY 2018-2019, AY 2019-2020, YTD 2020-2021

Interpretation of Data:
Overall, candidates are meeting program assessment expectations scoring above an average of 2. Additionally, in two of the three cycles of data, candidates perform at, close to, and, in the most recent year, above the state average for rubric 3.2.  Evidence demonstrates the ability of candidates to have detailed conversations with a volunteer teacher about the classroom context, student assets and learning needs, as well as content-specific learning goals and student work to collect as they plan for the teaching and learning observation. Faculty will continue to engage in collaborative planning on instructional practices and resources to assist students in the ability to engage in a two-way discussion with the volunteer teacher to draw out specific areas of need based on the volunteer teacher’s context, including student assets and learning needs, in order to focus the observation. For higher levels of success, faculty will also continue to support candidates in demonstrating conversation redirection as appropriate in order to deepen the discussion regarding equitable opportunities for all students in the class to learn, including topics related to culturally responsive practices and the impact of student language acquisition and literacy development in the context of their lesson plan and upcoming teaching observation.

Data Source 4

P12 PASC Program AAQEP Candidate Self-Assessment

Perspective Captured from Data Source
Candidate retrospective self-report of AAQEP Standard 1a at each semester end interval. 

Specific Elements of Data Source Using:
1c: I understand and apply culturally responsive practices (including intersectionality of race, ethnicity, class, gender identity and expression, sexual identity) and the impact of language acquisition and literacy development on learning as an aspiring leader in schools.

Rationale for using Data Source:
The P12 PASC Program AAQEP Candidate Self-Assessment was designed to capture student reflection and growth after each semester in the program in alignment with AQQEP aspects. The results capture one cohort (program graduates in May 2021) over the 3-semester program using a retrospective design to pilot the self-assessment and obtain initial data. This will now be used at the end of each semester as an additional program assessment data point used for reflection and continuous improvement.

Definition of Success for Each Element:
Candidate success would be measured by 1) average of 3 or higher for each semester and 2) evidence of mean growth from semester 1 to semester 3. 

Displays of Analyzed Data:

Table 4

Table of AAQEP Standard 1c Candidate Self-Assessment Response Means for Cohort 0 (Pilot)

Question/Standard Semester 1 (N=14)  Semester 2  (N=14) Semester 3 (N=14)  Mean Growth
(AAQEP 1c) I understand and apply culturally responsive practices (including intersectionality of race, ethnicity, class, gender identity and expression, sexual identity) and the impact of language acquisition and literacy development on learning as an aspiring leader in schools.

4.14

>yes

4.5

>yes

4.5

>yes

+.36

+yes

Link to Full Dataset: P12 PASC Program AAQEP Candidate Self-Assessment Descriptives Data for Standard 1 by Semester 

Interpretation of Data:
Overall, student reported mean scale scores for Standard 1c show some growth. Evidence demonstrates that candidates feel they understand and apply culturally responsive practices (including intersectionality of race, ethnicity, class, gender identity and expression, sexual identity) and the impact of language acquisition and literacy development on learning as an aspiring leader in schools at a high level (between a 4 and 5) which exceeds our success criteria of level 3. 

Next Steps for 1c
Based on the analysis of the four data point interpretation sections, the following next steps are recommended: 

Next steps 1a
1. Ongoing realignment of the program re-design approved for Fall 2021 start and intentional inclusion of equity-driven, culturally responsive leadership with a student learning lens focused on language and literacy 2. Intentional opportunities for rubric centered peer to peer feedback embedded into the courses based on the integration equity-driven, culturally responsive leadership with a student learning lens focused on language and literacy respective to the CalAPA and CAPEs. 3. Faculty Learning Community focus on reflection and development of equity-driven, culturally responsive leadership praxis and a focus on impacting student learning related to language and literacy.

Next Steps Narrative:
In each data point, evidence exists that candidates are able to demonstrate the current level of proficiency of the knowledge and skills required for aspiring administrators. Specifically, the Fresno State PASC program is supporting knowledge, skills, and abilities of professional educators regarding culturally responsive practice, including intersectionality of race, ethnicity, class, gender identity and expression, sexual identity, and the impact of language acquisition and literacy development on learning is evident within candidate’s course work and field work experiences as evidenced across data points. 

To support our cycle of continuous improvement for Standard 1c, the program will focus on three key areas as noted in the Table above. Over the past several years faculty have engaged in an intense realignment process to intentionally backwards map the California Administrator Performance Expectations and CalAPA skills, which includes deeper alignment to becoming equity-driven leaders who work to foster culturally responsive teaching and learning environments in schools and cultivate multilingual and literate student spaces.  The revised course outcomes, scope and sequence, and embedded fieldwork expectations will be implemented starting with the Fall 2021 cohorts. 

In order to address specificity of Standard 1c such as evidence of specific culturally responsive practices, and the impact of language acquisition and literacy development on learning, additional measures will need to be developed and analyzed within the new PASC program redesign. Additional actions faculty will take to improve mean rubric scores is to continue monthly collaboration meetings with an instructional focus on best practices, the development of instructional lessons to increase the average rubric scores for candidates. To monitor program efforts in this area, faculty will analyze CalAPA results on a quarterly basis and discuss instructional strategies that have produced results.  Furthermore, candidates will be surveyed for feedback on instructional practices and experiences in each course that supports the three leadership cycles.

Aspect D →