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 E

Standard 1e: 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: Creation and development of positive learning and work environments


Data Sources & Analysis:

Data Source 1 CalAPA Leadership Cycle 2 (Rubric 2.4)
Data Source 2 CalAPA Leadership Cycle 1 (Rubric 1.3)
Data Source 3 CalAPA Leadership Cycle 3 (Rubric 3.6)
Data Source 4 P12 PASC Program AAQEP Candidate Self-Assessment

Data Source 1

CalAPA Leadership Cycle 2 (Rubric 2.4) 
After the first semester of the PASC program, candidates exhibit knowledge, skills, and abilities in the area of creation and development of positive learning and work environments through their fieldwork and coursework experiences that culminate with the submission of CalAPA Leadership Cycle 2.  The focus of Rubric 2.4 is the collaborative environment the candidate creates in a school-based community of practice to choose, learn about, and monitor implementation of an evidence-based strategy that addresses a problem of practice determined from student learning or well-being data. 

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 2.4 is aligned to assessment of candidate performance of the following AAQEP 1e aligned CAPEs: 2A) Recognizing that professional growth is an essential part of the shared vision to continuously improve the school, staff, student learning, and student safety and well-being; 3C) Understanding the leader’s role in establishing a positive, productive school climate, supportive of staff, students and families, and; 5B) Developing and knowing how to use professional influence with staff, students, and community to develop a climate of trust, mutual respect, and honest communication necessary to consistently make fair and equitable decisions on behalf of all students. 

Specific Elements of Data Source:
The CalAPA rubrics are designed as a 5-level rubric, with the lowest score of 1 through the highest of 5.  

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 2.4 for program level and state-wide mean scores by submission year

Submission Year Program State-wide Program Comparison
2018-2019

2.7
>2 yes

(n=72)

2.6

+.1
+ yes

2019-2020

3.0
>2 yes

(n=24)

2.5

+.5
+ yes

2020-Year to Date 

2.6
>2 yes

(n=16)

2.2

+.4
+ yes

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

Interpretation of Data:
Three years of data in relation to Rubric 2.4 highlights that program candidates are overall meeting the current program expectation of 2 and above and are performing just above the State-wide average.  Overall, candidate responses demonstrate the candidates’ ability to create and develop a positive learning and work environment as evidenced through the facilitation of a community of practice (CoP). Candidates must submit meeting agendas, notes, work products for data analysis, and videos which demonstrate the collaborative and positive environment.  The goal of the CoP is to identify an educational need in the field work setting after data analysis for inequities have been identified.  Candidates then engage in meetings to develop a problem of practice, identify an evidence-based practice to address the issue, and then learn about and implement the strategy to improve student outcomes.

Faculty focus for supporting candidates at higher levels includes planning instruction and finding resources to deepen the detail on how the collaboratively determined evidence-based strategy will improve student learning and/or well-being across specific student groups and more thoroughly explain potential implementation implications and challenges. 

Data Source 2

CalAPA Leadership Cycle 1 (Rubric 1.3)
After the second semester of the PASC program, candidates exhibit knowledge, skills, and abilities in the area of creation and development of positive learning and work environments through their fieldwork and coursework experiences that culminate with the submission of CalAPA Leadership Cycle 1.  Rubric 1.3 evaluates how thoroughly the candidate conducts an equity gap analysis based on the chosen California state indicator (chronic absenteeism, suspension rate, English learner progress, graduation rate, academic performance, and college/career readiness, attendance rates) to inform their understanding of the equity issues for a student group. Candidates are also expected to clearly describe patterns and trends in the equity gap analysis as well as describe the equity issue for the student group without apparent bias. Candidates also work towards a thorough analysis of the connection between the quantitative and qualitative data sets towards fostering an inclusive culture for this identified student need. 

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 1.3 is aligned to assessment of candidate performance of the following AAQEP 1e aligned CAPEs: 1A) Developing a collective vision that uses multiple measures of data and focuses on equitable access, opportunities, and outcomes for all students; 1C) Recognizing and explaining to staff and other stakeholders how the school vision guides planning, decision-making, and the change processes required to continuously improve teaching and learning; 3B) Knowing the importance of established structures, policies and practices that lead to all students graduating ready for college and career and; 3C) Understanding the leader’s role in establishing a positive, productive school climate, supportive of staff, students and families. 

Specific Elements of Data Source:
The CalAPA rubrics are designed as a 5-level rubric, with the lowest score of 1 through 5.  

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 2, Rubric 1.3 for program level and state-wide mean scores by submission year

Submission Year Program State-wide Program Comparison
2018-2019

3.3
>2 yes

(n=63)

3.1

+.2
+ yes

2019-2020

3.1
>2 yes

(n=27)

2.9

+.2
+ yes

2020-Year to Date 

2.7
>2 yes

(n=10)

2.9

-.2
+ no

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

Interpretation of Data:
Three years of data in relation to Rubric 1.3 highlights that program candidates are overall meeting the current program expectation of 2 and above and are performing just above the State-wide average, except in the current year. Based on the previous trend, however, faculty is confident that, upon receiving complete 2020-21 results, candidate mean scores will remain above the State-wide average. 

Current evaluation of performance based on mean scores shows that candidates are able conduct an equity gap analysis based on the chosen California state indicator (chronic absenteeism, suspension rate, English learner progress, graduation rate, academic performance, and college/career readiness, attendance rates) to inform their understanding of the equity issues for a student group. Candidates are also able to clearly describe patterns and trends in the equity gap analysis as well as describe the equity issue for the student group without apparent bias.

Current student mean scores also demonstrate an area of need in a candidate’s ability to more thoroughly analyze the connection between the quantitative and qualitative data sets towards fostering an inclusive school environment for this identified student need. Faculty will work together to explore ways of teaching and broaden resources to best support candidates on the aforementioned need as well as continue to work towards citing relevant research to support their analyses and explain how cited research informs their understanding of this specific student group in order to prepare for the development of a plan to to foster an inclusive school environment for the learning and well-being of the noted group of students.

Data Source 3

CalAPA Leadership Cycle 3 (Rubric 3.6)
After the last semester of the PASC program candidates exhibit knowledge, skills, and abilities  in the area of creation and development of positive learning and work environments through their fieldwork and coursework experiences culminating with the submission of CalAPA Leadership Cycle 3.  Rubric 3.6 focuses on evaluating the candidate’s skills and abilities to analyze coaching and observation strengths and identify areas for growth, clearly drawing on the volunteer teacher’s feedback and other learning gained throughout the cycle. Candidates are also expected to reflect upon and cite evidence on how they facilitated and maintained a coaching partnership with the volunteer teacher that encouraged the volunteer teacher’s voice and ownership of their strengths and areas for growth. Candidates also work towards extensive discussion regarding  how they would change their approach to coaching to address the volunteer teacher’s needs.

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 3.6 is aligned to assessment of candidate performance of the following AAQEP 1e aligned CAPEs: 5A) Regularly reviewing and reflecting on their performance and consider how their actions affect others and influence progress toward school goals, and; 5C) Understanding that how they carry out professional obligations and responsibilities affects the entire school community. These skills, related to the reflection on personal and professional actions which affect the school and community, are foundational to an aspiring leader’s ability to cultivate positive learning and work environments.

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 3.6 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)

2.7

+.2
+ yes

2019-2020

2.2
>2 yes

(n=37)

2.6

-.4
+ no

2020-Year to Date 

3.3
>2 yes

(n=23)

2.6

+.7
+ yes

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

Interpretation of Data:
Three years of data in relation to Rubric 3.6 highlights that program candidates are overall meeting the current program expectation of 2 and above and are overall performing above the State-wide average, except in year two, and close to a point above the State-wide average in year three.

Current evaluation of performance based on mean scores highlights the ability of candidates to broadly describe their strengths and areas for growth in coaching teachers through an observation cycle, drawing on the volunteer teacher’s feedback and evidence collected.  Furthermore, evidence supports candidate reflection and use of evidence to facilitate and maintain a supportive coaching partnership with a volunteer teacher during a cycle of observation that includes a pre and post conference discussion with video, CSTPs, and student outcome evidence.

Current student mean scores also demonstrate an area of need in a candidate’s ability to have a more extensive discussion regarding  how they would change their approach to coaching to address the volunteer teacher’s needs. Further faculty planning for instruction and resources is needed to assist candidates to cite evidence-based practices or research as they analyze their capacity to maintain a high standard of professional behavior, integrity, and equity and more clearly explain how these types of leadership skills and abilities support teacher development and/or adult learning. This also includes ways to better support candidate reflection on how the development of their coaching skills are aimed at fostering a collaborative and positive professional work environment to benefit student learning and well-being school-wide.

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:
Item 1e: I can create and develop positive learning and work environments.

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 AAQEP 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 1e 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 1e) I can create and develop positive learning and work environments.

4.71

>yes

4.71

>yes

4.71

>yes

+/- 0

no change

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 1e currently show no growth from initial to end of program data points. However, evidence demonstrates that overall candidates feel they can create and develop positive learning and work environments at a high level (between a 4 and 5) which exceeds our success criteria of level 3. 

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

Next steps 1e
1. Ongoing realignment of the program re-design approved for Fall 2021 start and instructional best practices and CAPEs aligned content informed by CalAPA 2. Intentional opportunities for rubric centered peer to peer feedback embedded into the courses focused on the demonstration of discrete skills respective to the CalAPA and other CAPEs aligned fieldwork experiences.  3. Faculty Learning Community focus on reflection and development of rubric analysis, instructional best practices, and resources/practices/materials for mastery.

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 aspiring school leaders creation and development of positive, collaborative, and supportive learning and work environments as outlined in CalAPA expectations within candidate’s course work and field work experiences as evidenced across data points.

In each data point evidence exists that candidates demonstrate the appropriate level of proficiency of the knowledge and skills required for aspiring administrators as per the CalAPA.  Specific outcomes point to the within Rubrics 2.4, 1.3, and 3.6. 

To support our cycle of continuous improvement for Standard 1e, 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 the following topics  to impact student learning and well-being: 1) working with stakeholders to collaboratively on data-informed planning for school improvement, 2) working with teams of teachers and other stakeholders to address a problem of practice, and 3) working with individual teachers to develop skills and abilities in classroom instruction based on the CSTPs. 

The revised course outcomes, scope and sequence, and embedded fieldwork expectations will be implemented starting with the Fall 2021 cohorts. Furthermore, candidates will be surveyed for feedback on instructional practices and experiences in each course that supports the three leadership cycles.

Aspect F →