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 D

Standard 2d: 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. Support students’ growth in international and global perspectives


Data Sources & Analysis:

Data Source 1 CalAPA Leadership Cycle 2 (Rubric 2.6)
Data Source 2 CalAPA Leadership Cycle 1 (Rubric 1.4)
Data Source 3 CalAPA Leadership Cycle 3 (Rubric 3.7)
Data Source 4 P12 PASC Program AAQEP Candidate Self-Assessment

Data Source 1

CalAPA Leadership Cycle 2 (Rubric 2.6)
After the completion first semester of the PASC program, candidates begin to grow international and global perspectives on educational leadership and school improvement through their fieldwork and coursework experiences that culminate with the submission of CalAPA Leadership Cycle 2. Rubric 2.6 evaluates the candidate’s skills and ability to co-facilitate 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. 

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 2.6 is aligned to summative assessment of candidate performance (completers of first semester program content and skills) of the following AAQEP 2b aligned CAPEs: 2C) [perspectives on] knowing and applying research-based principles of adult learning theory and understanding how teachers develop across the phases of their careers, from initial preparation and entry, through induction, ongoing learning, and accomplished practice; 3C.) [perspectives on] understanding the leader’s role in establishing a positive, productive school climate, supportive of staff, students and families, and; 5B) [perspectives on]  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. Thus, Rubric 2.6 has been chosen as one appropriate measure for the demonstration of program completer growth in perspectives of educational leadership and school improvement.

Although Rubric 2.6 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 one 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 2, Rubric 2.6 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

2.9
>2 yes

(n=24)

2.2

+.7
+ yes

2020-Year to Date 

2.5
>2 yes

(n=16)

2.1

+.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 2.6 highlights that first semester program completers are overall meeting the current program expectation of 2 and above. Semester one completers are also consistently performing above the State-wide average.  Overall, responses show candidates skills and abilities to co-facilitate in a ways which supports group learning, including establishing or reviewing norms, using norms, documenting group decisions, facilitating a collaborative process, respecting diverse viewpoints, and maintaining group focus and energy. Candidates are also somewhat demonstrating the ability to  jointly determine next steps with the group.

The faculty focus for supporting first semester program completers at higher levels includes how to more apparently demonstrate a responsive approach to both individuals and the group, resulting in stronger evidence for a climate of trust, mutual respect, and honest communication. Faculty should also collaborate regarding instructional strategies and resources to better assist first semester completers ability to purposefully seek diverse perspectives and clearly encourage all members of the community to speak and share ideas during meetings.

Data Source 2

CalAPA Leadership Cycle 1 (Rubric 1.4)
After the second semester of the PASC program, candidates exhibit growth in perspectives on educational leadership and school improvement through their fieldwork and coursework experiences culminating with the submission of CalAPA Leadership Cycle 1. Rubric 1.4 evaluates the candidates’, as second semester completers, ability to determine contributing factors, including institutional and/or structural factors, that created or added to the identified equity gap affecting a student group and cite the research supporting their determination. Candidates also work towards explaining, in detail with supporting evidence, how contributing factors can create or add to equity differences or disparities for a student group. Candidates at the highest level also demonstrate a sophisticated, research-based understanding of the systemic, institutional, or structural causes of the identified single equity gap.

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:
Specifically, Rubric 1.4 is aligned to summative assessment of candidate performance (completers of second semester program content and skills) of the following AAQEP 2b aligned CAPEs: 1A) [Perspectives on] developing a collective vision that uses multiple measures of data and focuses on equitable access, opportunities, and outcomes for all students; 2A)  [Perspectives on] 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, safety, and well-being for all students, and; 3C)  [Perspectives on] understand the leader’s role in establishing a positive, productive school climate, supportive of staff, students and families.  Thus, Rubric 1.4 has been chosen as one appropriate measure for the demonstration of program completer growth in perspectives on educational leadership and school improvement. 

Although Rubric 1.4 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 2

CalAPA Leadership Cycle 1, Rubric 1.4 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)

3.0

 + .3
+ yes

2019-2020

3.7
>2 yes

(n=27)

3.0

+.7
+ yes

2020-Year to Date 

3.2
>2 yes

(n=10)

3.1

+.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 1.4 highlights that second semester program completers are overall meeting the current program expectation of 2 and above. Semester two completers are also consistently performing above the State-wide average.  Overall, responses show candidates know and use various perspectives to identify potential solutions to problems of practice. Candidates are also somewhat demonstrating the ability to  jointly determine next steps with the group.

Faculty focus for supporting second semester program completers at higher levels includes how to more apparently explain, in detail with supporting evidence, how contributing factors can create or add to equity differences or disparities for a student group.  Faculty should also collaborate regarding instructional strategies and resources to better assist second semester completers’ ability to provide a more sophisticated, research-based understanding of the systemic, institutional, or structural causes of the identified single equity gap to incorporate increased understanding of more global perspectives.

Data Source 3

CalAPA Leadership Cycle 3 (Rubric 3.7)
After the last semester of the PASC program candidates exhibit knowledge and skills that support students’ growth in international and global perspectives through their fieldwork and coursework experiences culminating with the submission of CalAPA Leadership Cycle 3.  The focus of Rubric 3.7 is on the candidate’s ability to reflect on a continuous improvement cycle conducted with a voluntary teacher to improve the teaching and learning process to benefit all students.

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:
Specifically, Rubric 3.7 is aligned to assessment of candidate performance of the following AAQEP 2b aligned CAPEs: 2A) [Perspectives on] how professional growth is an essential part of the shared vision to continuously improve the school, staff, student learning, and student safety and well-being; and 2D) [Perspectives on] knowing and understanding PK–12 student content standards and frameworks, PK–12 performance expectations, and aligned instructional and support practices focused on providing equitable learning opportunities so that all students graduate ready for college and careers. Thus, Rubric 3.7 has been chosen as an appropriate measure for the demonstration of program completers’ growth in various perspectives.

Although Rubric 3.7 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.

Table 3

CalAPA Leadership Cycle 3, Rubric 3.7 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) 

2.6

+.3
+ yes

2019-2020

2.1
>2 yes

(n=37)

2.5

-.4
+ no

2020-Year to Date 

2.9
>2 yes

(n=23)

2.4

+.5
+ 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 3.7 highlight that second semester program completers are overall meeting the current program expectation of 2 and above. Semester two completers are also consistently performing above the State-wide average.  Overall, responses show candidates know and use various perspectives to reflect on and describe an understanding of how instructional coaching and equitable leadership inform a continuous improvement mindset, leading to teacher growth or benefits for students. 

Faculty focus for supporting second semester program completers at higher levels includes how to more apparently reflect on their role as a school leader acting as an instructional coach framed by a continuous improvement mindset and focus on equitable leadership. Faculty should also collaborate regarding instructional strategies and resources to better assist third semester completers ability to cite specific evidence from the cycle, drawing on the volunteer teacher’s feedback and/or other collected evidence, to support their reflection and analysis of their capacity to be an equitable leader and an instructional coach.

Data Source 4

P12 PASC Program AAQEP Candidate Self-Assessment 

Perspective Captured from Data Source:
Candidate retrospective self-report of AAQEP Standard 2d at each semester end interval. 

Specific Elements of Data Source:
Item 2D: As an aspiring school leader working with teachers and staff, I have grown in international and global perspectives.

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 2d 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 2D) As an aspiring school leader working with teachers and staff, I have grown in international and global perspectives.

4.21

>yes

4.50

>yes

4.50

>yes

+.29

>yes

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 2d currently shows some growth from initial to end of program data points. Hence, evidence demonstrates that PASC program completers overall feel they have grown in international and global perspectives at high levels (between a 4 and 5) which exceeds our success criteria of level 3, upon program entry. 

Next Steps for 2d

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

Next steps 2d
1. Faculty ensure students are providing research inclusive of global perspectives in their MA project sections (i.e., literature reviews). 2. Work as a faculty to organize a body of research inclusive of global perspectives  to share with students that can be integrated into the appropriate course(s).  3. Develop a competency task designed to provide students with a guide to ensure application of global perspective(s) on critical topics. 

Although data presented provides examples of candidates using multiple perspectives to identify problems of practice or systems of inequity to be addressed, it does not specify the term global or international perspective, although it is implied. To address the lack of global/international specificity, through the program redesign process faculty will include this standard aspect into the development of a competency task and student outcome.

To evaluate our efforts in this area, as a collaborative team the faculty will develop a competency task to address specificity in the development of candidates’ global and international perspective.  This measurement will be field tested for a semester, revisited for analysis based on student proficiency and feedback, and then continued to be implemented with a post semester review.

Aspect E →