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 F

Standard 2f: 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. Collaborate with colleagues to support professional learning


Data Sources & Analysis:

Data Source 1 CalAPA Leadership Cycle 2 (Rubric 2.7)
Data Source 2 CalAPA Leadership Cycle 1 (Rubric 1.7)
Data Source 3 CalAPA Leadership Cycle 3 (Rubric 3.5)
Data Source 4 CCTC Completer Survey (Q15) 
Data Source 5 P12 PASC Program AAQEP Candidate Self-Assessment

Data Source 1

CalAPA Leadership Cycle 2 (Rubric 2.7)
After the first semester of the PASC program, candidates exhibit the ability to collaborate with colleagues to support professional learning through educational experiences in different contexts through their fieldwork and coursework that culminate with the submission of CalAPA Leadership Cycle 2.  The focus of Rubric 2.7 is on the candidates’ ability to analyze their leadership skills and practices based on feedback from those in their community of practice (COP) after the collaborative process of analyzing student data as a COP or professional learning community.  Candidates take the feedback from the stakeholders, consider their own actions during the COP, and then identify next steps for equitably co-facilitating professional learning in a COP.  The entire process for Leadership Cycle 2 is in cooperation with colleagues to support professional learning for improved outcomes for students.

Perspective Captured from Data Source:
Assessment of candidate performance is evaluated by CCTC 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 2.7 is aligned to summative assessment of candidate performance (completers of first semester program content and skills) of the following AAQEP 2f aligned CAPEs elements: 2C.1) Using adult learning theory to design, facilitate, and implement various strategies that guide and support staff members in improving their practice; 5A.4) Maintaining a high standard of professionalism, ethics, integrity, justice, and equity and expect the same behavior of others, 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 2.7 has been chosen as an appropriate measure for the demonstration of program completer skills and abilities to collaborate with colleagues to support professional learning.

Although Rubric 2.7 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:
Semester one program completer success would be measured at Level 2 or Level 3 as proficiency with the CCTC 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) 

 2.7

--
no change

2019-2020

3.2
>2 yes

(n=24)

2.3

+.9
+ yes

2020-Year to Date 

2.4
>2 yes

(n=16)

1.9

+.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 2.7 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 the past two years.  Overall, responses show candidates ability to use some initial implementation results and feedback from the group—citing evidence from any of the four steps—to somewhat analyze their leadership skills and practices in order to identify areas for growth and identify next steps for equitably co-facilitating a community of practice.

Faculty’s focus for supporting first semester program completers at higher levels includes an analysis that illustrates how they maintained professionalism and integrity as well as employed an equitable leadership approach consistently throughout the community of practice inquiry process and in response to the school’s culture and context. Faculty should also collaborate regarding instructional strategies and resources to better assist first semester completers ability to draw on and cite evidence-based practices and/or research related to equitable leadership development, adult learning, and/or group co-facilitation as they analyze their own leadership practices and set goals for future practice as an equitable leader, describing challenges encountered.

Data Source 2

CalAPA Leadership Cycle 1 (Rubric 1.7)
After the second semester of the PASC program, candidates exhibit the ability  to collaborate with colleagues to support professional learning through educational experiences in different contexts through their fieldwork and coursework that culminate 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 evaluates the candidates’ ability to apply the feedback received from key stakeholders, including colleagues, familiar with the school culture and context and describe next steps for creating stakeholder buy-in and potential implications for the adjusted set of strategies. Candidates also work to 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. Candidates strategically plan to communicate and share the plan with a diverse range of key stakeholder groups.

Perspective Captured from Data Source:
Assessment of candidate performance is evaluated by CCTC 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 1.7 is aligned to summative assessment of candidate performance (completers of second semester program content and skills) of the following AAQEP 2b aligned CAPEs elements: 1B.1) Engaging 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.1) Engaging staff and other stakeholders in sharing data to assess program/instructional strengths and needs that lead to student, staff, and community goals; 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; 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; 6A.3) Facilitating discussions among staff and the community about aligning mandates and policies with staff and student goals for continuously improving instruction, learning, and well-being, and; 6B.4) Involving stakeholders in helping address the school’s challenges as well as sharing in its successes. Thus, Rubric 1.7 has been chosen as an appropriate measure for the demonstration of program completer skills and abilities to collaborate with colleagues to support professional learning.

Although Rubric 1.7 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:
Semester two program completer success would be measured at Level 2 or Level 3 as proficiency with the CCTC 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 1.2 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:
Three years of data in relation to Rubric 1.7 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 somewhat apply the feedback received from key stakeholders, including colleagues, familiar with the school culture and context and briefly describe next steps for creating stakeholder buy-in and potential implications for the adjusted set of strategies. 

Although candidates are performing at current expectations, further focus is needed to support completers on how to develop relevant and appropriate next steps for creating buy-in and communicating with stakeholders to address the equity gap and learning needs, as well as, consider anticipated and realistic implications that may be encountered at the school related to the implementation of the proposed strategies. 

Candidates could also benefit from increased faculty support on how to strategically plan to communicate and share the plan with a diverse range of key stakeholder groups and demonstrate plans to coach these stakeholders to examine and address potential biases that could impact student learning and/or well-being due to identified equity gaps.

Data Source 3

CalAPA Leadership Cycle 3 (Rubric 3.5)
After the last semester of the PASC program candidates exhibit skills and abilities to collaborate with colleagues to support professional learning through educational experiences in different contexts through their fieldwork and coursework that culminate with the submission of CalAPA Leadership Cycle 3.  Rubric 3.5 measures candidates’ ability to foster a learning conversation in a post-observation meeting using the California State Teacher Profession (CSTP) focused observation evidence, lesson observation video, and student work to assess a volunteer teacher's strengths and area(s) for growth. Together the candidate and volunteer teacher chart next steps for the teaching and learning process in the classroom based on the evidence collected, thus demonstrating a collaborative exchange for professional learning.

Perspective Captured from Data Source:
Assessment of candidate performance is evaluated by CCTC 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 3.5 is aligned to assessment of candidate performance of the following AAQEP 2b aligned CAPEs elements: 2A.3) Assisting staff in developing personalized professional growth plans, based on state adopted standards that identify differentiated activities and outcomes for individual and collaborative learning based on the CSTP, CAPE, and CPSEL; 2B.1) Using a range of communication approaches to assist staff and stakeholders in understanding state standards, student assessment processes, and how these relate to accomplishing the school’s vision and goals; 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; 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 3.5 has been chosen as an appropriate measure of the skills and abilities used to collaborate with colleagues to support professional learning. 

Although Rubric 3.5 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 CCTC 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) 

2.6

+.3
+ yes

2019-2020

2.3
>2 yes

(n=37)

2.5

-.2
+ no

2020-Year to Date 

2.8
>2 yes

(n=23)

2.4

+.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 3.5 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, in some partnership with the volunteer teacher, determine next steps for professional development, resources, and coaching support through coaching during the post-observation meeting.

Current student mean scores also demonstrate an area of need in the program completers ability to more collaboratively identify resources with specific attention to addressing differentiated student learning needs for CSTP-related professional learning. Candidates also need further faculty support on when and how to partner with the teacher to pay specific attention to addressing differentiated student learning needs for CSTP-related professional learning and provide specific evidenced-based resources to support the volunteer teacher’s professional growth and engage the teacher in developing detailed next steps for professional learning and growth.

Data Source 4

CCTC Completer Survey (Question 15)
After completion of the PASC program, the CCTC initiates a 35-item demographic and Likert-type self-report survey to all program completers to assess new administrator knowledge, skills, and abilities in the framework of the CAPEs based on their program fieldwork and coursework experiences.  

Perspective Captured from Data Source:
Recent (3 months) program completers.

Rationale for using Data Source:
The CCTC Completer Survey is administered to all program completers within 3 to 6 months of finishing the program to gather information about their perceptions of the PASC program, including those which relate to AAQEP standard 2f, how prepared they are to collaborate with colleagues to support professional learning. Specifically, Question 15 asks program completers the following on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very well): How well did your administrator preparation program prepare you to do the following as an administrator: Identify and facilitate a variety of professional and personal growth opportunities for faculty, staff, parents, and other members of the school community in support of the educational program?

Specific Elements of Data Source Using:
Q15 is a self-report item scaled from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very well) self-report founded in CAPEs 2A: Personal and Professional Learning and Growth Leadership. Students rate how well prepared they are to identify and facilitate a variety of professional and personal growth opportunities for faculty, staff, parents, and other members of the school community in support of the educational program by the completion of the PASC program.

Definition of Success for Each Element:
Candidate success would be measured by 1) mean rating of 3 (adequately) or higher, and; 2) maintaining mean ratings above the State-wide average.

Displays of Analyzed Data:

Table 4

Table of CCTC Completer Survey program and state-wide self-report scale means for Q15 by academic year 

Academic Year Program State-wide Program Comparison
2017-2018

4.55
>3 yes

(n=91)

 4.54

 (n=2426)

+.1
+ yes

2018-2019

4.53
>3 yes

(n=73)

4.49

(n=2024)

+.4
+ yes

2019-2020

4.36
>3 yes

(n=64)

4.45

(n=1776)

-.9
+ no

Link to Full Dataset:California Commission on Teacher (CCTC) Credentialing Completer Survey, Q15

Interpretation of Data:
Based on three years of data, evidence highlights that PASC completers consistently feel the program prepared them overall well to very well for this construct. While this exceeds our success criteria of a mean score 3 and above, the program has yet to realize a consistent mean score above the State-wide level.

Data Source 5

P12 PASC Program AAQEP Candidate Self-Assessment 

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

Specific Elements of Data Source:
Item 2F: As an aspiring leader, I collaborate with colleagues to support professional learning. 

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 5

Table of AAQEP Standard 2f 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 2F) As an aspiring leader, I collaborate with colleagues to support professional learning.

4.71

>yes

4.86

>yes

4.86

>yes

+.15

+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 2f currently shows some growth from initial to end of program data points. Evidence also demonstrates that PASC program completers overall feel they can collaborate with colleagues to support professional learning at high levels (between a 4 and 5) which exceeds our success criteria of level 3. 

Next Steps for 2f

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

Next steps 2f
1. Attend CCTC sponsored Webinars designed to improve program teaching and learning processes in relationship to the skills and knowledge taught in each Leadership Cycle.  2. Ask for student feedback on which learning activities were most beneficial in the completion of their CalAPA learning experiences. 3. Continue to review the most current CCTC feedback on how to improve each of the CalAPA Leadership Cycle rubrics.

Analysis of candidate results across multiple data points suggest that most candidates meet or exceed the state average on all CalAPA rubrics and have achieved a target score of a Level 2 or Level 3 on each individual rubric.

Through the analysis process the rubric provides clues of area for improvement for PASC program candidates. Although our students are seeking feedback from site stakeholders, additional instruction on how to apply that feedback and the cycles of improvement leaders may have to engage and refine in an improvement plan will be helpful.  

CCTC Completer data provide clarity that 90% of Fresno State completers rate their preparation program as effective or very effective over a three-year span. Lastly, local partnership school districts have provided feedback that Fresno State completers exhibit high levels of leadership dispositions such as: collaboration, system’s understanding, and the skills and attitude needed for an effective administrator.

To address rubric averages faculty will reflect each semester on the following:

  1. Continue to review the most current CCTC feedback on how to improve each of the CalAPA Leadership Cycle rubrics,
  2. Attend CCTC sponsored Webinars designed to improve program teaching and learning processes in relationship to the skills and knowledge taught in each Leadership Cycle, 
  3. Discuss best practices to help students reflect within the P12 department, and 
  4. Ask for student feedback on which learning activities were most beneficial in the completion of their CalAPA learning experiences. 

To address findings through analysis of the CCTC Completer Survey, faculty have already designed and launched an additional candidate survey that will be deployed at the end of each semester to determine skills and knowledge that the candidates need additional assistance on as per their self-reported responses.

To evaluate faculty efforts in the above addressed items we will review CalAPA Rubric scores by individual student and cohort each semester. Faculty that teach common courses for each leadership cycle will review best practices and identify student exemplars to deconstruct knowledge and next instructional steps. Faculty will also review candidate end of semester survey data to discuss and chart next steps to address their needs according to the survey.

Lastly, additional data from candidates and local employers will be collected. Candidate feedback will be discussed for next step actions each semester. Additional feedback from partner districts will be collected in the form of an annual survey as well as from fieldwork mentors who will provide evidence of candidate knowledge and skills during fieldwork experiences.

Top of Page