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 2 Aspect C

Standard 2c: Program completers engage in professional practice in educational settings and show that they have the skills and abilities to do so in a variety of additional settings and community/cultural contexts. For example, candidates must have broad and general knowledge of the impact of culture and language on learning, yet they cannot, within the context of any given program, experience working with the entire diversity of student identities, or in all types of school environments. Candidate preparation includes first-hand professional experience accompanied by reflection that prepares candidates to engage effectively in different contexts they may encounter throughout their careers. Create productive learning environments and use strategies to develop productive learning environments in a variety of school contexts


Data Sources & Analysis:

Data Source 1 CalAPA Leadership Cycle 2 (Rubric 1.6)
Data Source 2 CalAPA Leadership Cycle 1 (Rubric 3.3)
Data Source 3 P12 PASC Program AAQEP Candidate Self-Assessment

Data Source 1

CalAPA Leadership Cycle 1 (Rubric 1.6)
After the second 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. Rubric 1.6 evaluates the candidates’, as second semester completers, ability to develop strategies for equitable school improvement for a student group well informed by the findings of the equity gap analysis, including contributing factors, and responsive to the problem statement and aligned to the school’s vision, mission, and/or goals. Candidates also work towards proposing relevant strategies with a strategic focus to represent a contextually responsive approach to addressing equity issues and educational 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 1.6 is aligned to summative assessment of candidate performance (completers of second semester program content and skills) of the following AAQEP 2b aligned CAPEs elements: 1A.1) Developing a student-centered vision of teaching and learning based on the understanding that the school’s purpose is to increase student learning and wellbeing; 3C.1) Using principles of positive behavior interventions, conflict resolution, and restorative justice and explain to staff and community members how these approaches support academic achievement, safety, and well-being for all students, and; 5B.2) Guiding staff in examining issues that may affect accomplishment of the school’s vision, mission, and goals, including issues that may be related to race, diversity, and access.  Thus, Rubric 1.6 has been chosen as one appropriate measure for the demonstration of program completer skills and abilities to create productive learning environments and use strategies to develop productive learning environments in a variety of school contexts.

Although Rubric 1.6 evaluates candidates’ knowledge and skills while they are still in the program, our hope is that they will be able to draw on the knowledge and skills they develop once they have completed the program and are employed as administrators. 

Definition of Success for Each Element:
Semester two program completer 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 1, Rubric 1.6 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=63)

2.9

+ .1
+ yes

2019-2020

3.6
>2 yes

(n=27)

3.0

+.6
+ yes

2020-Year to Date 

2.8
>2 yes

(n=10)

3.1

-.3
+ 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 1.6 highlights that program candidates are overall meeting the current program expectation of 2 and above, but are not yet performing consistently above the State-wide average, as based on initial data reporting. Based on the previous trend and once the entire data set is available, the program believes semester two completer mean scores will be above the State-wide scores.

Evidence shows that candidates' overall meeting proficiency in demonstrating the ability to propose strategies for equitable school improvement for the student group that is mostly informed by the findings of the equity gap analysis, including contributing factors, andsomewhat  responsive to the problem statement. In addition, candidates propose strategies which are aligned to the school’s vision, mission, and/or goals. 

Although candidates are performing at current expectations, further focus is needed to support completers on how to develop more relevant strategies with a strategic focus to represent a contextually responsive approach to addressing equity issues and educational need. Candidates could also benefit from increased faculty support on how to support strategies and implementation plans with research-based evidence for improving student learning and/or well-being with the specific student group and school context. 

Data Source 2

CalAPA Leadership Cycle 3 (Rubric 3.3)
After the last semester of the PASC program candidates exhibit knowledge, skills, and abilities of professional educators through their fieldwork and coursework experiences culminating with the submission of CalAPA Leadership Cycle 3.  The focus of Rubric 3.3 is to evaluate the candidates’ ability to create productive learning environments through a coaching process during the teaching and learning environment with a voluntary teacher in which they recognize and document qualities of teaching practice related to the selected CSTP element(s) and learning goals of the lesson. 

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 3.3 is aligned to assessment of candidate performance of the following AAQEP 2b 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.1) Designing, facilitating, and implementing various strategies that guide and support staff members in improving their practice, and; 2D.1) Using knowledge of PK-12 student academic content standards and appropriate instructional practices to observe classroom planning and instruction in accordance with Local Education Agency (LEA)  policy and practices. Thus, Rubric 3.3 has been chosen as an appropriate measure for the demonstration of program completer skills and abilities to to create productive learning environments and use strategies to develop productive learning environments in a variety of school contexts.

Although Rubric 3.3 evaluates candidates’ knowledge and skills while they are still in the program, our hope is that they will be able to draw on the knowledge and skills they develop once they have completed the program and are employed as administrators. 

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 3, Rubric 3.3 for program level and state-wide mean scores by submission year

Submission Year Program State-wide Program Comparison
2018-2019

3.1
>2 yes

(n=35)

2.8

+.3
+ yes

2019-2020

2.2
>2 yes

(n=37)

2.6

-.4
+ no

2020-Year to Date 

2.7
>2 yes

(n=23)

2.6

+.1
+ 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 3.3 highlights that program completers are overall meeting the current program expectation of 2 and above and are overall performing just above the State-wide average, with the exception of year two.

Current evaluation of performance based on mean scores highlights the ability of program completers to mostly recognize and document qualities of teaching practice related to the selected California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP) element(s) and learning goals of a lesson. 

Current student mean scores also demonstrate an area of need in the program completer’s ability to document missed teaching opportunities that would have supported students to meet the content-specific learning goals or successful CSTP-related practices that the volunteer teacher did implement that positively impacted student learning during the lesson. Candidates also need further faculty support to document how the volunteer teacher addresses the whole class, small groups, and individual student learning needs during the lesson and how they adapted or did not adapt their instruction to meet student needs as aligned to the learning goals of the lesson and the selected CSTP element(s).

Data Source 3

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:
It is a scaled 1 (low) to 5 (high) self-report on each of the AAQEP standards based on the completion of each semester using Qualtrics. 

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 3

Table of AAQEP Standard 2c 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 2C) As an aspiring school leader, I create productive learning environments and use strategies to develop productive learning environments in a variety of school contexts.

4.57

>yes

4.57

>yes

4.57

>yes

--

No change

Link to Full Dataset:P12 PASC Program AAQEP Candidate Self-Assessment Descriptives Data for Standard 2 by Semester 

Interpretation of Data:  Overall, student reported mean scale scores for Standard 2c currently no perceived growth from initial to end of program data points. However, evidence also demonstrates that PASC program completers overall feel they can create productive learning environments and use strategies to develop productive learning environments in a variety of school contexts at high levels (between a 4 and 5) which exceeds our success criteria of level 3, upon program entry. 

Next Steps for 2c

Based on the analysis of the four data point interpretation sections, the following next steps are recommended: 

Next steps 2c
1. Faculty will continue to collectively work to deconstruct and define best practices the data points. 2. Faculty will identify student exemplars that demonstrate a Level 3 or 4 on each of the rubrics and then discuss instructional practices used to move students beyond current state expectations. 3. Faculty will allow students opportunity to reflect on identified exemplars. 

To address the areas of need in relationship to a continuous improvement cycle, faculty will continue to collectively work to deconstruct and define best practices for each rubric area analyzed and determine exemplar student examples to deconstruct and discuss for best instructional practices.

To evaluate our efforts in this area, we will identify student exemplars that demonstrate a Level 3 or 4 on each of the rubrics and then discuss instructional practices used to move students beyond current state expectations.

Aspect D →