<=
b>Department of Educational Pol=
icy
Studies
Social Foundations Program
Research
Program
Leadership Program
Assessments and Related Data
In this section, list the 6-8 assessments that are being
submitted as evidence for meeting the relevant program content standards.
1. The assessment, including the instructions to candid=
ates
about the assigned task;
2. Scoring guides or criteria used to score candidate
responses on the assessment; and
3. A table (or tables) with the aggregated results of t=
he
assessment providing, where possible, data for each of the most recent three
years. Data should be organiz=
ed
according to the categories used in the scoring guide/criteria. Provide the percentage of candidat=
es
achieving at each category.
|
Name of Assessment |
Type or Form of Assessment |
Transition Point When Assessment is
Administered |
Attachments (insert hyperlinks or give page
numbers) |
|||
|
Assessment |
Scoring Guides/Criteria |
Data Table |
||||
|
1 |
Content Knowledge (Praxis II in
Educational Leadership) |
State Content Knowledge Assessment |
Post Exit |
N/A |
N/A |
|
|
2 |
Content-based asse=
ssment |
Course Performance |
Continuation, Exit |
N/A |
||
|
3 |
Content-based assessment-application=
of
content |
Faculty STARS Survey |
Exit |
|||
|
4 |
Assessment of ability to develop sup=
ervisory
plan for classroom –based instruction |
Student STARS Survey |
Entry, Exit |
|||
|
5 |
Assessment of internship |
Portfolio Tasks |
Exit |
|||
|
6 |
Assessment of abilities in organizat=
ional
management and community relations |
Action Research Project (a) |
Exit |
|
||
|
7 |
Assessment of ability to support stu=
dent
learning and development |
Action Research Project (b) |
Exit |
|||
|
8 |
Initial Qualifications |
Admissions Process |
Exit |
SECTION 3 – STANDARDS ASSESS=
MENT
CHART
|
=
(ELCC
- Educational Leadership Constituent Council, 2001) Educational Leade=
rship |
C=
ontent
Knowledge |
P=
edagogical/Professional
Knowledge, Skills and Dispositions |
<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Effect on Student Learning |
A=
pplicable
Assessments (=
list
by name and assessment number from Section II) |
|
1. Candidates who complete the program are educational
leaders who have the knowledge and ability to promote the success of all =
students
by facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and
stewardship of a school vision of learning supported by the school commun=
ity. |
X |
X |
|
1. Praxis II 2. Course Performance 3. Faculty STARS 4. Student STARS 5. Portfolio 6. Research Project (a) 7. Research Project (b) |
|
2. Candidates who complete the program are educational
leaders who have the knowledge and ability to promote the success of all
students by promoting a positive school culture, providing an effective i=
nstructional
program, applying best practice to student learning, and designing
comprehensive professional growth plans for staff. |
X |
X |
X |
2. Course Performance 3. Faculty STARS 4. Student STARS 5. Portfolio |
|
3. Candidates who complete the program are educational
leaders who have the knowledge and ability to promote the success of all
students by managing the organization, operations, and resources in a way
that promotes a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment. |
X |
X |
X |
1. Praxis II 2. Course Performance 3. Faculty STARS 4. Student STARS 5. Portfolio 6. Research Project (a) 7. Research Project (b) |
|
4. Candidates who complete the program are educational=
leaders
who have the knowledge and ability to promote the success of all students=
by
collaborating with families and other community members, responding to
diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing community resources=
. |
X |
X |
X |
2. Course Performance 3. Faculty STARS 4. Student STARS 5. Portfolio |
|
5. Candidates who complete the program are educational
leaders who have the knowledge and ability to promote the success of all
students by acting with integrity, fairly, and in an ethical manner. |
X |
X |
X |
2. Course Performance 3. Faculty STARS 4. Student STARS 5. Portfolio |
|
6. Candidates who complete the program are educational
leaders who have the knowledge and ability to promote the success of all =
students
by understanding, responding to, and influencing the larger political,
social, economic, legal, and cultural context. |
X |
X |
X |
1. Praxis II 2. Course Performance 3. Faculty STARS 4. Student STARS 6. Research Project (a) 7. Research Project (b) |
|
7. Internship:
The internship provides significant opportunities for candidates to
synthesize and apply the knowledge and practice and develop the skills
identified in standards 1-6 through substantial, sustained, standards-bas=
ed
work in real settings, planned and guided cooperatively by the institution
and school district personnel for graduate credit. |
X |
X |
X |
5. Portfolio 6. Research Project (a) 7. Research Project (b) |
SECTION
4 –EVIDENCE FOR MEETING STANDARD
Provide the analyses requested below for each of the
assessments listed in Section 2.
Assessment #1 – Content Knowledge: Data from Prax=
is
II Test in Educational Leadership
A. List the standards addressed by this assessment.
B. Summarize the data presented in the table(s) related=
to
the assessment submitted in Section 2.
C. Interpret the data in terms of the standards
addressed. Explain how the
assessment data show that candidates meet these standards.
A. The ELCC Standards assesse=
d by
this assessment include:
1.1=
, Develop a School Vision of
Learning.
1.4,
Steward a School Vision for Learning.
2.3,
Apply Best Practices to Student Learning.
3.2,
Manage the Operations.
4.1,
Collaborate with Families and Other Community Members.
4.2,
Respond to Community Interests and Needs.
4.3,
Mobilize Community Resources.
6.1,
Understand the Larger Educational Context.
B. Over the past two years,
C. These data from the passage rates =
for
the Praxis II Test provide program faculty with a broad measure of overall
program quality and success.
Although the program does not have access to individual candidate sc=
ores
or disaggregated performance data on the content categories, we view the
passage rate and the mean scores over the past three years as medium-high.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Specifically, we interpret these d=
ata to
mean that candidates in the EL Program have strong content knowledge at the
conclusion of the program. The
Praxis II in Educational Leadership results provides a measure of
candidates’ content knowledge in the following categories (ELCC Stand=
ard
Assessed):
(1)
Determining educational needs (ELCC 4.1, 4.2)
(2)
Curriculum design and instructional improvement (ELCC 2.3)
(3)
Development of staff and program evaluation (ELCC 2.3) (4)
School management (ELCC 3.2) (5)
Individual and group leadership skills (ELCC 1.1, 1.4, 4.3) (Source,
ETS “Educational Leadership: Administration and Supervision Test at a
Glance”). Thus, we rate the ability of =
the
program to prepare educational leaders with the appropriate content knowled=
ge
in the above standards as medium-high.&nbs=
p;
The goal of the program is a 100% passage rate and a mean score above
the average performance range (740).
Assessment #2 (Required) – Content Knowledge: GPA in Core Courses
A. List the standards addressed by this assessment.
B. Summarize the data presented in the table(s) related=
to
the assessment submitted in Section 2.
C. Interpret the data in terms of the standards
addressed. Explain how the
assessment data show that candidates meet these standards.
A. The ELCC Standards (Broad
Standards) assessed by GPA’s in core courses include:
Sta=
ndard
1, Vision (EPEL =
7000,
EPEL 7510)
Standard 2, Culture (EPEL 700= 0, EPEL 7410, EPSF 7450, EPEL 7500)<= o:p>
Sta=
ndard
3, Organizational Management (EPEL 7000, EPEL 7510)
Sta=
ndard
4, Community Relations (EPEL 7510, EPEL 7000, EPEL 7410)
Sta=
ndard
5, Moral Leadership (EPEL 7500, EPEL 7330)
Sta=
ndard
6, Social Foundations (EPEL 7000, EPEL 7510, EPEL 7330)
B. Candidates’ grade data was
collected from the six of the seven required courses (excluding EPEL 7680,
Practicum) for a recommendation from GSU for Georgia Leadership
Certification. The data were
analyzed for the following:
1.
Mean GPA’s in all courses per year and total for the past three years=
.
2.
Grade distribution by academic year for the past three years.
3.
Grade distribution for each course by academic year for the past three year=
s.
4.
Number of students and mean GPA by gender and race
These data indicate that
candidate content knowledge as assessed by course grades is high (mean GPA =
of
3.87) across all cohorts, years, and courses. Ninety percent of all students rec=
eived
“A’s” across the 6 core courses in the two certification
programs (M.Ed. and ND). Mean
GPA’s also remained consistent across the three years and across five=
of
the courses. Mean GPA’s=
for
the three-year period (2002-2005) in five courses ranged from 3.85 in EPEL =
7000
to 3.93 in EPEL 7410. The one
outlier course is EPSF 7450 (Curriculum Foundations for the Educational Lea=
der)
with a mean GPA of 3.73 over the past three years; a difference of .12 below
the mean for EPEL 7000.
There was also a difference in
mean GPA’s based on gender and ethnicity. Women, 75.2% of all candidates ove=
r the
past three years, had a mean GPA of 3.91 while men, 24.8% of candidates over
the past three years, had a mean GPA of 3.77, a difference of .14 in the
means. A similar difference e=
merged
for GPA data disaggregated by ethnicity.&n=
bsp;
The mean GPA’s of White candidates (56% of all candidates over=
the
past three years) was 3.94 while the mean GPA for African American candidat=
es
(36.4% of all candidates over the past three years) was 3.76, a difference =
of
.18. The number of Asians (2),
Hispanics (4), mixed (5), non-reported (9), and other (4) were not high eno=
ugh
to provided meaningful data for average GPA’s.
The same data were collected =
from
four required courses in the Ed.S. program (EPEL
8020, EPEL 8260, EPEL 8690, EPEL 8910) and three required courses from the
Ph.D. program (EPEL 9000, EPEL 9970 and EPS 8360). The value of these data is limited=
by
the small number of students in these two programs. Overall, students in these programs
performed extremely well. The=
mean
GPA in the Ed.S. program for the past three yea=
rs is
3.82. The mean GPA in the Ph.=
D.
program for the past three years is 3.83.&=
nbsp;
There is little difference in grades based on gender or ethnicity in
either program.
C. The program provides thorough cove=
rage
of the content knowledge contained within the ELCC Standards through the six
core courses in the M.Ed. and ND (L-5 Add-On) programs. Candidate grades in these courses =
are
derived through a combination of class participation, written work, case
studies, group projects, presentations, and other activities and
assignments. We recognize tha=
t the
meaning of faculty assessment of student work for purposes of assigning cou=
rse
grades may be somewhat relative.
Thus, we have attempted to improve the consistency (inter-rater
reliability) of grading through conversations regarding grading criteria and
standards, and standardization of course goals and objectives. The success of this effort is evid=
ent in
the consistency of grade distributions across courses (faculty members) and
years. Given this, we feel th=
at the
high GPA’s accurately indicate a high level of candidate mastery of
content knowledge in all six of the ELCC standards.
Assessment #3 (Required) – Content-based assessment- application of
content: STARS Faculty Survey* (response limited to two pages)
A. List the standards addressed by this assessment.
B. Summarize the data presented in the table(s) related=
to
the assessment submitted in Section 2.
C. Interpret the data in terms of the standards
addressed. Explain how the
assessment data show that candidates meet these standards.
A. The STARS Faculty Survey (Attac=
hment 2-3a and 2-3b) was devel=
oped
with 12 questions specifically designed to assess candidate content knowled=
ge
in specific ELCC Standards:
Question
1.1 (ELCC standard 1, all)
Question
1.2 (ELCC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4)
Question
2.2 (ELCC 2.1)
Question
2.2 (ELCC 2.2, 2.3)
Question
3.1 (ELCC standard 3, all)
Question
3.2 (ELCC 3.3)
Question
4.1 (ELCC 4.1)
Question
4.2 (ELCC 4.3)
Question
5.1 (ELCC standard 5, all)
Question
5.2 (ELCC standard 5, all)
Question
6.1 (ELCC standard 6, all)
Question
6.2 (ELCC standard 6, all)
B. Faculty members filled out the STA=
RS
Faculty Survey for M.Ed. and ND (L-5 Add-On) candidates completing the prog=
ram
in the summer of 2005 (n=3D28) for cohorts A, C, and D. These data from the STARS Faculty =
Survey
revealed specific areas of strengths and weaknesses in the content knowledge
faculty members believe candidates’ possessed at the completion of the
program. Using 1-5 scale with=
1
representing “not demonstrated” and 5 representing
“advanced”, the following questions rated high (average of
3.75-4.00):
&nbs=
p; 1.1
(average of 3.93)—Candidate knowle=
dge of
the relevant knowledge and theory related to educational leadership.=
1.2
(average of 3.93)—Candidate knowledge of the leadership proces=
ses
necessary to implement and support a school-wide vision. 5.1
(average of 4.00)—Candidate knowledge of ethical principles of
school leadership. 5.2
(average of 3.82)—Candidate knowledge of the legal principles =
of
school leadership. Using the same scale, the
following questions rated low (average of 2.71-3.00): 3.2
(average of 2.71)—Candidate knowledge of how to deploy financi=
al and
human resources in ways that promote student achievement. 4.1
(average of 2.96)—Candidate knowledge of how to bring together=
the
resources of family members and the community to positively effect student
learning.
C. The STARS Faculty Survey is an exc=
ellent
instrument to provide evidence for meeting the standards. Because faculty members are rating
candidates’ content knowledge based on their personal perceptions, the
results provide valuable data on what faculty members believe we effectively
teach candidates. Thus, we as=
sume
that our candidates are knowledgeable in areas of theory, vision, ethics, a=
nd
legal principles. On the other
hand, the results indicate some concern in areas of finance, community
relations, and issues of poverty and other social justice issues. It should be noted that
candidates’ self-reported responses did not score relatively as high
(candidate responses averaged about one point higher across all questions) =
on
theoretical knowledge or on legal principles. Contrary to faculty member,
candidates rated themselves high in content knowledge on issues of
poverty. In agreement with fa=
culty,
candidates rated themselves low in knowledge of community collaboration.
*The program views content
knowledge as assessed by the STARS Faculty Survey as inextricable from
professional knowledge in the area of Educational Leadership.
Assessment #4 (Required) – Assessment of ability to develop a supervi=
sory
plan for classroom-based instruction: STARS Student Survey (response limited to two page=
s)
A. List the standards addressed by this assessment.
B. Summarize the data presented in the table(s) related=
to
the assessment submitted in Section 2.
C. Interpret the data in terms of the standards
addressed. Explain how the
assessment data show that candidates meet these standards.
A. The STARS Student Survey (See
Attachment 2-4a =
and 2-4b) was devel=
oped
to assess candidates’ professional knowledge, skills and dispositions=
in
all six ELCC Standards. The survey contains five questions for each of the =
six
standards; two are designed to measure professional knowledge and three are
designed to measure professional skills. There are ten questions designed to
measure student professional dispositions.=
Professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to develo=
p and
implement a supervisory plan for classroom-based instruction are broadly
covered in the six ELCC standards; specifically, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 2.1, 2=
.2,
2.4, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3.
B. Candidates completing the M.E=
d.,
and ND (L-5 Add-On) program in the summer of 2005 from cohorts A, C, D, and=
1.4
(average of 4.3)—Candidate skill in implementing a strategic
planning process that focuses on student learning.
1.5
(average of 4.3)—Candidate skill in communicating a school-wide
vision to staff, parents, students, and community members.
2.2
(average of 4.3)—Candidate knowledge of providing an effective
instructional program by applying best practices to student learning.
5.1
(average of 4.35)—Candidate knowledge of ethical principles of
school leadership.
5.3
(average of 4.76)—Candidate skill in acting with integrity in
respecting the rights of others with regard to confidentiality.
5.5
(average of 4.81)—Candidate skill in exhibiting personal and
professional values that reflect a code of ethics.
Using the same rating scale, =
the
following questions rated low (average of 3.11-3.75):
The STARS Student Survey also=
included
ten questions for students to self-asses on their dispositions based on the
ELCC standards. Using 1-5 sca=
le
with 1 representing “not demonstrated” and 5 representing
“advanced”, the averages for each question ranged from 4.52-=
4.85. Although the range is limited, the
self-reported data for dispositions makes any difference more meaningful.
D10
(average of 4.76)—Candidate values relationships with school
colleagues, parents, agencies, and the community.
The
following questions rated at the low end, but still relatively high, for di=
spositions
(4.32-4.48):
=
=
D4 (average of 4.32)—Candidate values the need to organi=
ze
school-based indicators of equity, effectiveness, and efficiency.
&=
nbsp; D8
(average of 4.48)—Candidate values the use of data-based resea=
rch
strategies and strategic planning processes to improve student learning.
C. The STARS Student Survey was devel=
oped
to the measure professional knowledge, skills and dispositions of candidate=
s in
the M.Ed. and ND (L-5 Add-On) programs in educational leadership. This survey will also be used to a=
ssess
candidates’ performance in their professional administrative practice
following the conclusion of the program.&n=
bsp;
While candidates tended to rate themselves higher than faculty, the =
fact
that these data are self-reported makes it especially meaningful. These data
indicate that leadership and vision (ELCC standard 1), culture (ELCC standa=
rd
2), moral leadership (ELCC standard 5) and social foundations (ELCC standar=
d 6)
are strengths of the program and areas in which the program meets the stand=
ards. These data also identify organizat=
ional
management (ELCC standard 3) and community relations (ELCC standard 4) as a=
reas
of concern and areas in need of improvement. The high and medium high averages =
from
questions assessing candidates’ knowledge and skills to develop a
supervisory plan for classroom-based instruction (questions 1.2=
, 1.3,
1.4, 1.5, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3.) provide evidence that the program
effectively meets the required standards for this assessment.
The results =
from
the disposition questions are less conclusive. The candidates rated themselves hi=
gh in
all of the disposition questions.
Candidates did seem to place a higher value on accommodating individ=
ual
differences and relationships, and a lower value on school-based indicators=
and
data-based research strategies.
Assessment #5 (Required) – Assessment of Internship: clinical practic=
e:
Portfolio Assessment response
limited to two pages)
A. List the standards addressed by this assessment.
B. Summarize the data presented in the table(s) related=
to
the assessment submitted in Section 2.
C. Interpret the data in terms of the standards
addressed. Explain how the
assessment data show that candidates meet these standards.
A. A primary
assessment for the year-long practicum in the M.Ed. and ND (L-5 Add-On)
programs in educational leadership is the portfolio. The practicum is designed to provi=
de
opportunities for candidates to apply their knowledge and skills in all six=
of
the ELCC standards. A strengt=
h of
the practicum is that it allows candidates a high degree of flexibility in
structuring their own activities and assessments based on the needs of their
internship site, the needs of the on-site mentor, and the needs of the
candidates. Candidates are re=
quired
to complete a range of tasks and assessments that demonstrate knowledge and
skills in each of the GLISI’s 8 Roles of
Effective Leadership. The 8 R=
oles
are consistent with the ELCC standards.&nb=
sp;
For purposes of program assessment, faculty members rated each candi=
date
on each of six indicators within the final portfolio each candidate
submitted. Following is a lis=
t of
items assessed and the appropriate ELCC standards:
1.
Learning Module on Building
Professional Learning Communities—ELCC 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 4.1, 5.1, =
5.3,
5.4.
2.
Log of Internship
Activities—Performance of all ELCC standards
3.
Weekly Reflection
Journals—Performance and disposition of all ELCC standards
4.
Career Development Plan—N=
A to
ELCC Standards
5.
Personal Leadership
Profile—Dispositions on all ELCC standards; especially 5.5
6.
Presentation of Action
Research/Leadership Project—NA to ELCC Standards
B. Portfolios
from a total 70 candidates completing the M.Ed. and ND (L-5 Add-On) program=
s in
educational leadership in the fall of 2004 and summer of 2005 were assessed=
by
faculty members. Most candida=
tes
were rated acceptable or target in all categories. Ten percent of candidates
were rated unacceptable in the Log of Internship Activities, and 11% rated
unacceptable in the Weekly Reflection Journal. A majority of candidates (51%) ach=
ieved
a target rating in Building Professional Learning Communities Module. A majority (54%) also rated target=
in
Personal Leadership Profile. A
roughly equal numbers of candidates were rated acceptable and target in the=
Log
of Internship Activities, and the Weekly Reflection Journal. A majority (59%) of candidates were
rated acceptable on the Career Development Plan.
C. While the=
se
results meet the standards for acceptability for meeting the required ELCC
program standards, they do not rise to our highest standards. The program desires to have all of=
its
candidates achieve target performance in the practicum. In short, these data indicate that=
many
candidates in the program are not provided the opportunity to apply
professional knowledge and skills in all the necessary standards; or, that
candidates’ do not have the ability to apply professional knowledge a=
nd
skills in the necessary standards. The failure of nearly one in ten student=
s to
successfully or appropriately log their internship hours and successfully
complete the required Weekly Reflections is especially troublesome. In addition, we find the low numbe=
rs of
candidates achieving target ratings in their Log of Internship Activities,
Weekly Reflections, and the Career Development Plan to be unacceptable. These data indicate the need for m=
ajor
changes and improvement in the practicum. =
(See Attachment 4-1 for a
one-page description of how the practicum experiences have been designed to
meet ELCC standards 7.1, 7.2, 7.4, 7.5, and 7.6)
Assessment #6 (Required) – Assessment of in organizational management=
and
community relations: Action research project (response limited to two pages)
A. List the standards addressed by this assessment.
B. Summarize the data presented in the table(s) related=
to
the assessment submitted in Section 2.
C. Interpret the data in terms of the standards
addressed. Explain how the
assessment data show that candidates meet these standards.
A. The action
research school-based problem solving project is the culminating assessment=
for
candidates in the M.Ed. and ND (L-5 Add-On) programs. The project is designed to provide
opportunities for candidates to apply their knowledge and skills in an auth=
entic
administrative process. Candi=
dates
are allowed to develop their own projects based on the needs of their pract=
icum
school, the needs of the on-site mentor, and the needs of the candidate.
1.
Statement of the problem (ELCC
standard 1.1)
2.
Review of literature (ELCC stan=
dard
6.1)
3.
Data sources (ELCC standard 3, =
all)
4.
Data analysis (ELCC standard 3,
all)
5.
Data interpretations, conclusio=
ns,
implications (ELCC standard 3 all) <=
/span>
6.
Quality of writing and presenta=
tion
&=
nbsp; Entire
project (ELCC Standards 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5)
B. Final
projects from a total 73 candidates completing the M.Ed. and ND (L-5 Add-On)
programs in educational leadership were assessed by faculty members. The nu=
mber
of candidates rated unacceptable was high in many categories. Eleven percent of candidates were =
rated
unacceptable in the Review of Literature, 15% rated unacceptable in Data
Sources, 17% rated unacceptable in Data Analysis, and Data Interpretation.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> A majority of candidates (63%) ach=
ieved
a target rating in the Statement of the Problem, the Review of Literature
(59%), and the Quality of Writing (60%).&n=
bsp;
A majority (54%) also rated target in the Personal Leadership Profil=
e. The number of candidates rated tar=
get
was higher than the number rated acceptable in every category.
C. The resul=
ts
of this assessment support an acceptable meeting of the required ELCC progr=
am
standards. Nonetheless, the n=
umber
of candidates who were rated unacceptable or acceptable in one or more areas
identifies many target areas for programmatic improvement. The program desires to have all of=
its
candidates achieve target performance in the action research project. The leadership project is the clos=
est
simulation the program has to actual leadership practice and it is the most
realistic opportunity for candidates to apply their knowledge and skills in=
an
actual setting. These data in=
dicate
that many candidates in the program are not on target for leading a school
organization through a problems solving process or successfully implementin=
g an
improvement program. Particul=
arly
troubling is the number of candidates who are unacceptable in areas vital to
successful organizational change (conducting action research and analyzing
data). These data indicate the need for major changes and improvement in ho=
w we
prepare students to collect and use data, and how we guide them through the
action research project process.
Assessment #7 (Required) – Effect on Student Learning: Assessment of ability to support s=
tudent
learning and development: Action Research project (response limited to two
pages)
A. List the standards addressed by this assessment.
B. Summarize the data presented in the table(s) related=
to
the assessment submitted in Section 2.
C. Interpret the data in terms of the standards
addressed. Explain how the
assessment data show that candidates meet these standards.
A. We used t=
he
action research project as the best measure of student learning currently
available (we have developed a STARS Survey for Graduates, and have begun a
longitudinal tracking study of program graduates to use for this assessment=
in
the future). Candidates are
required to link the action research project to student learning. Thus, it is an appropriate method =
to
assess effect on student learning (See standards assessed from Assessment #=
6).
B. See
Assessment #6
C. The resul=
ts
of this assessment also support acceptable meeting of the required ELCC pro=
gram
standards. We believe that ta=
rget
scores on the action research project are an indication that candidates have
the knowledge, skills and dispositions to support student learning and
development. We also believe,
however, that the range of target scores (45%-63%) in all areas assessed is
much too low. The program des=
ires
to have all of its candidates achieve target performance in the action rese=
arch
project. This requires that
candidates implement an action plan designed to support student learning and
development. Evidence of stud=
ent
learning is not required because there is simply not enough time and there =
are
too many extraneous variables to provide candidates a reasonable chance of
success. Nonetheless, we inte=
rpret
these results as an indication of the need for significant improvement in o=
ur
ability to prepare candidates to analyze data, conduct action research, and=
use
data for improved student achievement.
Assessment #8 (Optional) – Other
Assessment: Admissions Rubrics (response limited to two pages)
A. List the standards addressed by this assessment.
B. Summarize the data presented in the table(s) related=
to
the assessment submitted in Section 2.
C. Interpret the data in terms of the standards
addressed. Explain how the
assessment data show that candidates meet these standards.
A. The
admissions process is an assessment we use to collect meaningful data on the
candidates in the educational leadership programs. These data are not, however, easily
linked to ELCC standards. It =
is,
however, ideally suited to measuring incoming candidates’ knowledge, =
skills,
and dispositions. Thus, we us=
e our
admissions process data to asses the following:
1. =
Evidence of Academic Performa=
nce
(Knowledge)
2. =
Quality of Goals Statement (S=
kills)
3. =
Personal Goals (Dispositions)=
4. =
Resume (Skills)
5. =
Letters of Recommendation (Sk=
ills
and Disposition)
6. =
Writing Mechanics (Skills)
7. =
Experience (Knowledge and Ski=
lls)
B. The ratings for Evidence of Academic Performance are=
low
and spread fairly evenly across unacceptable (31.9%), acceptable (31.9%), a=
nd
target (36%). The ratings in =
all other
areas are high and range from 71% target (letters of recommendation) to 94%
target (personal goals and response to goals statement).
C. We view our candidate selection process as rigorous =
and
depending on the year and cohort, the acceptance rate is between 60-85%.
SECTION
5 – USE PF ASSESSMENT RESULTS TO IMPROVE CANDIDATE AND PROGRAM
PERFORMANCE (response limited=
to
two pages)
In this section, discuss evidence that assessment resul=
ts
have been analyzed and have been or will be used to improve candidate
performance and strengthen the preparation program. The description should not list
improvements to individual assessments but, rather, it should summarize the
principal findings from the evidence, the faculty’s interpretation of
those findings, and changes made in (or planned for) the preparation progra=
m as
a result. Describe the steps =
the
preparation program faculty has taken to use information from assessments f=
or
improvement of both candidate performance and the preparation program. This information should be organiz=
ed
around (1) content knowledge, (2) professional and pedagogical knowledge,
skills and dispositions, and (3) effects on student learning and on creating
environments that support learning.
1. Content Knowledge (Professional
Knowledge)
These data indicate this to be a strong area of the program. The high passage rat= e on the Praxis II in Educational Leadership, the high mean GPA’s, and the STARS Faculty and Student Surveys provide evidence of successful compliance with ELCC Content Knowledge Standards. The results from the Action Research Project data (Assessments 6 and 7) identify some gaps in professional knowledge. These data consist= ently indicate three areas in need of some improvement. The first area is associated with = ELCC Standard 3 (managing organization, operations, and resources). In reviewing our course curriculum= , we found that coverage of the Standard 3 is spread over a wide range of course= s. For example, principles of organizational theory are covered in EPEL 7000, the selection, induction, evaluation and development of instructional personnel is covered in EPEL 75= 00 and EPEL 7410, but the preparation of a budget and the allocation of scarce resources are inconsistently covered in EPEL 7000 (some faculty members inc= lude coverage and others do not). = Other than some coverage in the practicum, we do not currently focus much attenti= on on developing operational procedures and policies to maintain school safety, monitoring and evaluating operational systems, or seeking additional resour= ces. The second area of concern is associated with ELCC Standard 4 (Community collaboration). Community rel= ations are covered in EPEL 7510; however, the practicum does not currently require specific community relations activities.&n= bsp; Third, our candidates clearly need more knowledge in areas of analyz= ing and using data for decision making and conducting action research for organizational improvement. <= o:p>
Beginning in the spring of 2004, program faculty began a
comprehensive review of course content and curriculum based on the ELCC
standards and the Georgia Board of Regents Principles for the Preparation of
Educational Leadership. This
process resulted in the attached course curriculum matrix (see Attachmen=
t 1-3)
developed in the fall of 2004.=
In the fall of 2004, a need was
identified to revise the curriculum for each course, and perhaps rework the
course structure and requirements for the program. We recognized at the time a defici=
ency
in areas of school budgeting and operations. Unfortunately, we had little speci=
fic
data to base changes on; therefore, we decided to focus on improving and
revising our practicum program and complete the PSC and NCATE/ELCC processes
prior to substantive course curriculum changes. Through the process of program data
collection and interpretation, we have identified target areas of operations
and budgeting, community relations, and data analyses and action research f=
or
programmatic revisions. Curri=
culum
revision is scheduled for the fall of 2005.
2. Professional skills and dispositio=
ns
The program has already taken steps to improve the
opportunity for candidates to develop, demonstrate and be assessed on their
professional skills. Beginnin=
g in
the fall of 2004, several changes were made to the practicum: (1) the GLISI’s Eight Roles of Effective Leadership* we=
re
adopted as a model for practicum activities and assessments, (2) a student
handbook (advising guide) was developed to assist students through the prog=
ram,
(3) cohort meetings were combined to improve consistency, (4) a series of
learning modules (data analyses, action research, team building) was provid=
ed
to all students, (5) candidates were placed in teams of 4-5 to work through=
the
practicum. Further changes be=
ing
implemented in the fall of 2005 include (1) electronic portfolios, (2)
additional preparation and support for data analyses and action research, (=
3)
provide experiences at multiple sites, and (4) more specific requirements f=
or
internship activities in each of the GLISI 8 Roles.
These data indicate that candidates have the dispositio=
ns
necessary to effectively lead schools to improved student learning. Nonetheless, we feel as we continu=
e to
improve the practicum experience, the program’s ability to develop and
assess candidates’ dispositions will increase. We reason that as the practicum be=
comes
more able to simulate actual administrative practice, the complexity, stres=
s,
and rigors of the role will challenge candidates to reflect on their fit wi=
th
the profession.
*The GLISI Eight Roles specifically focus on all of the
areas of weakness identified by these data. The following Eight Roles are dire=
ctly
linked to our improvement needs: (1) “data analyses leader,” (2)
“curriculum, assessment and instruction leader,” (3)
“performance management leader,” (4) “operational
leader,” (5) “relationship leader,” and (6) “process
improvement leader.”
3. Effects on student learning and cr=
eating
environments that support learning
The most important change we desire to implement is the
length and scope of the practicum.
Specifically, we feel that in order for our program to fully meet the
ELCC standards, we must provide a full-time, year-long practicum supervised=
by
a trained and supportive in-school mentor.=
This will allow candidates to fully implement an action plan, collect
data on the action plan, and measure the effect of the action plan on stude=
nt
learning. This change is ulti=
mately
out of the program’s control; however, we are supportive of efforts to
change state legislation and policy.
Specifically, a full-time internship would be made possible through =
the
availability of “Provisional Certification” in educational
leadership. Under this type of
certification, school districts could identify promising aspiring leaders a=
nd
move them into entry level administrative positions while they complete a
certification program. Thus, =
the
candidate could work full-time as a paid administrator while fulfilling the
requirements of the practicum. We
also plan to develop and utilize a mentor training program through the
GSU Educational Leadership M.=
Ed., Ed.S., Ph.D