Graduate Program Data Analysis Report
Program Name: Ed Leadership - Building
Date: April 12, 2013
Contact Person: Dr. Andrew Pushchak
Directions:
1. Review the program assessment data located in D2L.
2. List the 6 to 8 assessments for each program in the box provided for Program
Assessments. Examine the data collection for each program. Be sure to review both the
fall and spring data collection. Answer the following questions for each program
assessment placing the information in the appropriate column:
o What does the data indicate for your program?
o What areas of concern if any do you have regarding this assessment?
o What recommendations do you have regarding any revisions for this assessment?
o What program changes if any does this data suggest?
3. Save the template as a Word document and submit it to the NCATE Assessment
Committee via a D2L dropbox provided in the Accreditation-NCATE link by April 9th.
Graduate Unit Data
Program
Assessment
PRAXIS Test
Code 0411
Data Analysis
Data for this assessment
from the 2011 ELCC
Building Final Report
were analyzed. The
Educational
institution summary
Leadership:
Administration report indicates that
100% of candidates meet
and
the PDE established cutSupervision
off score of 580 for
Principal K-12
certification. The
institution summary
report indicates that the
institutional average
percent of correct
questions exceeds the
national average percent
of correct questions for
each category listed
above.
Recommendations
The PRAXIS exam has
changed to the School
Leaders Licensure
Assessment (SLLA)
effective April 2, 2012.
Similar to the previous
PRAXIS analysis,
program faculty will
monitor and analyze
results from the SLLA.
2013 Updates
The institution summary
report indicates that 100%
of candidates meet or
exceed the PDE
established cut-off score
for Principal K-12
certification in
Pennsylvania. Program
faculty continues to
adequately prepare
candidates well versed in
the ELCC standards.
Personal
Leadership
Vision Essay
Data for this assessment
from the 2011 ELCC
Building Final Report
were analyzed. The data
reveal that all education
leadership graduate
students pursuing the
Pennsylvania Principal
K–12 certificates are
meeting the standards
established by ELCC.
There exists an area in
the data that shows two
students performing at
the ‘does not meet
expectations level’ for
ELCC 1.1 and 1.2
Standards.
Program faculty will
discuss possible
interventions to address
these lower scores for
these two particular
students.
Curriculum
Needs
Assessment
Data for this assessment
from the 2011 ELCC
Building Final Report
were analyzed. The data
reveal that all education
leadership graduate
students pursuing the
Pennsylvania Principal
K–12 certificates are
meeting the standards
established by ELCC.
There exists an area in
the data that shows 1%
of the students
Program faculty will
discuss possible
interventions to address
these lower scores for
this one particular
student.
Program faculty closely
monitored two particular
students from into the
next course in the
sequence. Students
exhibited improved
performance. Data for this
assessment from fall 2012
were analyzed. The data
reveal that there were no
students that received
‘does not meet
expectations’ for any
standards in this
assessment.
Program faculty discussed
the recommendations
listed in the third column.
The instructor of the
course highlighted and
encouraged students to
pursue opportunities for
students to facilitate the
development, articulation,
implementation, and
stewardship of a district
vision form the beginning
of the course. This
resulted in more students
being rated at the ‘target’
level.
Program faculty closely
monitored two particular
students from into the
next course in the
sequence. Students
exhibited improved
performance. Data for this
assessment from fall 2012
were analyzed. The data
reveal that there were no
students that received
‘does not meet
expectations’ for any
standards in this
performing at the ‘does
not meet expectations’
level for three standards.
For standards 2.1, 3.3,
and 4.1, the percentage
involves just one student
thus changes to the
course are not deemed
necessary.
Internship
Final
Assessment
Focus Project
on Student
Achievement
Data for this assessment
from the 2011 ELCC
Building Final Report
were analyzed. The data
for Standard 5 reflecting
acting with integrity,
fairness, and in an ethical
manner received the
highest scores for all
Principal K-12 interns.
The data for Standard 6
reflecting understanding,
responding to, and
influencing the larger
political, social,
economic, legal, and
cultural context received
lower scores for this
assessment.
Data for this new
assessment from the
2011 ELCC Building
Final Report were
analyzed. 100% of the
interns scored target or
meets expectations.
There were no interns
that received a score
‘does not meet
Building upon the high
scores reflected in
Standard 5 program
faculty will discuss
possible opportunity for
interns to exercise
ethical behaviors in new
or unfamiliar settings.
As indicated in the
report (to address lower
scores for Standard 6),
program faculty will
continue to monitor the
success of interns
conducting Focus
Projects on Student
Achievement.
Participation in regional
showcases continues to
address the larger
context and provides
opportunities for interns
to report out to a broader
audience.
Building upon the high
scores achieved by all
interns, program faculty
will discuss possible
opportunities for interns
to analyze data in
greater depth and to
have an increased
impact on student
achievement. Program
assessment.
Program faculty discussed
the recommendations
listed in the third column
and addressed the
standards and content to
reflect activities that
encourage opportunities
for collaboration, current
methodologies, and
redirection when
necessary.
Program faculty has
challenged students to
identify an unfamiliar or
new setting to engage
constituents in discussions
in which the intern can
exercise and model
ethical behaviors.
Program faculty continues
to provide internship
opportunities to learn,
practice, and apply
essential skills. Faculty
further mmonitor the
success of interns
conducting Focus Projects
on Student Achievement,
participation in regional
showcases, and
discussions of authentic
expectations.
Data for this assessment
from fall 2012 were
analyzed. Data reveal all
students during this
particular semester scored
at the target expectations
level. Program faculty
supervising clinical
experiences where the
focus project is conducted
expectations’ for any
standards for this
assessment.
Data for this assessment
from the 2011 ELCC
Building Final Report
were analyzed. The data
reveal that all education
leadership graduate
students pursuing the
Pennsylvania Principal
K–12 certificates are
meeting the standards
established by ELCC.
There exists an area in
the data that shows 1%
of the students
performing at the does
not meet expectations
level for three standards.
For standards 2.4, 3.1,
and 4.1, the percentage
involves just one student
thus changes to the
course are not deemed
necessary.
Building Level Data for this assessment
Strategic Plan from the 2011 ELCC
Building Final Report
were analyzed.
There exists an area in
Leadership
Capacity
Project
faculty will continue to
discuss possible ways to
move more students
from ‘meets
expectations’ to ‘target.’
Program faculty will
discuss possible
interventions to address
these lower scores for
this one particular
student.
These data do not
concern the program,
but efforts have been
made to share the
information with
have made a concentrated
not only to clearly discuss
the projected
requirements in an
ongoing manner
throughout the project.
Program faculty’s effort
in this regard is reflected
in all students scoring at
the target level.
Program faculty has
incorporated the
American Education
Research Association
(AERA) guidelines into
the student’s presentation
of their Focus Project for
Student Achievement.
Program faculty closely
monitored this one
student into the next
course in the sequence.
The student exhibited
improved performance.
Data analyzed from
spring 2012 were
reviewed. Looking at the
three particular standards
noted in column 2,
Standards 2.4 and 4.1
showed one student at the
“does not meet
expectations” level.
Standard 3.1 had zero
students performing at the
“does not meet
expectations” level.
Program faculty closely
monitored this one
student into the next
course during this second
course in the sequence.
the data that shows 2%
to 9% of the students
performing at the ‘does
not meet expectations’
level for various
standards. For all
standards except 4.1, the
percentage involves just
one or two students thus
changes to the course are
not deemed necessary.
As this is the first course
in the sequence, students
may be monitored
closely and provided
with the necessary
support to succeed.
instructors in the next
course in sequence so
that appropriate support
can be provided for
those students who need
remediation. Program
faculty will discuss
possible interventions to
address these lower
scores for these one or
two particular students.
Data for this assessment
from fall 2012 were
analyzed. The data reveal
that there were no
students that received
‘does not meet
expectations’ for any
standards in this
assessment.