Skip to contentSkip to navigation

Standard 2 Aspect E

Standard 2e: 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. Establish goals for their own professional growth and engage in self-assessment, goal setting, and reflection


Data Sources & Analysis:

Data Source 1 CalAPA Leadership Cycle 2 (Rubric 2.2)
Data Source 2 CalAPA Leadership Cycle 1 (Rubric 1.8)
Data Source 3 P12 PASC Program AAQEP Candidate Self-Assessment

Data Source 1

CalAPA Leadership Cycle 2 (Rubric 2.2)
After the first semester of the PASC program, candidates exhibit the ability to reflect on learning experiences in different contexts through their fieldwork and coursework experiences that culminate with the submission of CalAPA Leadership Cycle 2.  Rubric 2.6 evaluates first semester program completers’ ability to consider how they selected an area of educational focus based on student data and choose a group of educators to participate in a community of practice about student learning and/or well-being that corresponds to the school’s vision, mission, and/or goals. Candidates also work towards describing the  community of practice group members by demographic characteristics, current job titles, assignments, and positional relationships, and provides clear consideration for inclusion in the group for each member in relation to the selected area of educational focus. In addition, candidates consider how the leader facilitated work of the group is likely to advance conditions for student learning and/or well-being.

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 2.2 is aligned to summative assessment of candidate performance (completers of first semester program content and skills) of the following AAQEP 2b aligned CAPEs: 1C.2) Using goals in developing and implementing a plan aligned with the school’s shared vision of equitable learning opportunities for all students, and; 2C.2) Using state-adopted professional standards (e.g. CAPE, CPSEL, CSTP) with self, staff, and the community as a foundation to guide professional learning. Thus, Rubric 2.2 has been chosen as one appropriate measure for program completer demonstration of establishing goals for their own professional growth and engage in self-assessment, goal setting, and reflection.

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

Submission Year Program State-wide Program Comparison
2018-2019

2.3
>2 yes

(n=72) 

 2.4

+.1
+ yes

2019-2020

3.0
>2 yes

(n=24)

2.4

+.4
+ yes

2020-Year to Date 

2.8
>2 yes

(n=16)

2.3

+.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 2.2 highlights that first semester program completers are overall meeting the current program expectation of score 2 and above. Semester one completers are also consistently performing above the State-wide average.  Overall, responses show candidates establish goals for their own professional growth and engage in self-assessment, goal setting, and reflection through data analysis, the selection of a group of educators to devise a problem of practice and then identify possible solutions. Candidates are also somewhat demonstrating the ability to  jointly determine next steps with the group.

Faculty’s focus for supporting first semester program completers at higher levels includes how to more apparently describe the group members by demographic characteristics, current job titles, assignments, and positional relationships, and provide clear consideration for inclusion in the group for each member in relation to the selected area of educational focus. In addition, candidates must more deeply consider how their facilitation of the group’s work is likely to advance conditions for student learning and/or well-being. Faculty should also collaborate regarding how to assist candidates in providing a rationale for including the specific range of members in their community of practice to ensure diverse viewpoints are represented and respected. 

Data Source 2

CalAPA Leadership Cycle 1 (Rubric 1.8)
After the second semester of the PASC program, candidates exhibit the ability to reflect on learning experiences in different contexts through their fieldwork and coursework experiences that culminate with the submission of CalAPA Leadership Cycle 1.  Rubric 1.8 evaluates the candidates’, as second semester completers, to reflect on, summarize, and analyze what they have learned about equity-driven leadership, and, then, use this learning to identify strengths and areas for leadership growth. Candidates also work towards reflection on how the school context—including social, economic, or cultural contexts—impacts their approach to providing equity-driven leadership, as well as, on how to develop steps to address their identified area(s) of professional growth as an equity-driven leader to improve learning and/or well-being at this school site. Candidates at the highest level also demonstrate a level of reflection that demonstrates how the school context—including social, economic, or cultural contexts—impacts their approach to providing equity-driven leadership, and develops steps to address their identified area(s) of professional growth as an equity-driven leader to improve learning and/or well-being at this school site.

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 1.8 is aligned to summative assessment of candidate performance (completers of second semester program content and skills) of the following AAQEP 2b aligned CAPEs: 5A) Regularly reviewing and reflecting on their performance and considering how their actions affect others and influence progress toward school goals; 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, and; 6A) considering the important role education policy plays in shaping the learning experiences of students, staff, families, and the larger school community.  Thus, Rubric 1.8 has been chosen as one appropriate measure for the demonstration of program completer ability to establish goals for their own professional growth and engage in self-assessment, goal setting, and reflection.

Although Rubric 1.8 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 1.8 for program level and state-wide mean scores by submission year

Submission Year Program State-wide Program Comparison
2018-2019

2.5
>2 yes

(n=63)

2.5

 --
no change

2019-2020

3.4
>2 yes

(n=27)

2.3

+1.1
+ yes

2020-Year to Date 

2.5
>2 yes

(n=10)

2.4

+.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 1.8 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 the past two years. Overall, responses show candidates can provide some reflection of the role of an equity-driven leader to address institutional and structural factors that influence equity gaps.

Faculty focus for supporting second semester program completers at higher levels includes how to more clearly articulate their understanding of the contribution of institutional and/or structural factors to a single equity gap for a group of students at the school and describe the responsibility and role of an equity-driven leader to address these factors. Faculty should also collaborate regarding instructional strategies and resources to better assist second semester completers consider how to develop steps to address their identified area(s) of professional growth as an equity-driven leader to improve learning and/or well-being at this school site.

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:
Item 2e: I establish goals for my own professional growth and regularly engage in self-assessment, goal setting, and reflection.

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 2e 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 2E) I establish goals for my own professional growth and regularly engage in self-assessment, goal setting, and reflection.

4.86

>yes

5.00

>yes

5.00

>yes

+.14

>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 2e currently shows some growth from initial to end of program data points. Hence, evidence demonstrates that PASC program completers overall feel they establish goals for my own professional growth and regularly engage in self-assessment, goal setting, and reflection at a high level (5).

Next Steps for 2e

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

Next steps 2e
1. Faculty collectively review and analyze student responses for these rubrics to identify model response components included in high scoring submissions.  2. Provide students opportunities to reflect together on model submissions.  3. Faculty will calibrate student responses among faculty that teach the same content to standardize expectations and grading.

Data from CalAPA measures show that, in each of our three leadership cycle rubrics addressing the candidates’ ability to establish goals for their own professional growth and engage in self-assessment, goal setting, and reflection, our candidates perform at or above the state average with a target score of a level 2 or level 3 on each individual rubric. 

In order to address data findings, faculty will collectively review and analyze student responses for these rubrics to identify model response components included in high scoring submissions.  Based on this analysis, the identified components will be utilized to help students master these areas. 

To evaluate our efforts in this area, each semester after CalAPA results are posted, faculty will calibrate student responses among faculty that teach the same content to standardize expectations and grading.

Aspect F →