Ten Steps to Writing a Successful Program Report
Audrey Church, Longwood University, Farmville, VA
1. Become thoroughly familiar with the standards.
2010 ALA/AASL Standards for Initial Preparation of School Librarians (must be used for
reports beginning Fall 2012)
http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/aasl/aasleducation/schoollibrary/2010_standards_with
_rubrics_and_statements_1-31-11.pdf
2. Examine the assignments you currently use in your courses through the lens of the
standards. Do this by looking at your syllabi, any narratives about the assignments that
you provide your candidates, and the scoring tool that you use to evaluate the
assignments. Which standards align?
3. Realize that you are working within CAEP’s framework:
a. Assessments #1 and #2 must demonstrate candidates’ content knowledge;
b. Assessment #3 must show candidates’ ability to plan to meet program needs;
c. Assessment #4 must be the assessment of the practicum or internship;
d. Assessment #5 must demonstrate candidates’ effect on student learning;
e. You must submit a sixth assessment;
f. Assessments #7 and #8 are optional.
4. Select the six to eight assessments that you feel best demonstrate that your candidates
master the standards. If your current assessments miss the mark, create new ones.
CAEP will be posting new assessment libraries soon.
5. Writing to the 2010 standards: collect data at (at least) the standard level. You may
collect it at the element level if you choose. See note below regarding “preponderance
of evidence.”
6. By current CAEP guidelines, for an initial report, you must report at least two
applications of data for each assessment
7. Familiarize yourself with the Program Report for the Preparation of School Librarians
American Library Association/American Association for School Librarians (ALA/AASL,
2010 standards)
 Cover Sheet
 Section I Context;
 Section II List of Assessments
 Section III Relationship of Assessments to Standards
 Section IV Evidence for Meeting Standards
(1) A two-page narrative that includes the following:
a. A brief description of the assessment and its use in the program (one
sentence may be sufficient);
b. A description of how this assessment specifically aligns with the
standards it is cited for in Section III. Cite SPA standards by number, title,
and/or standard wording.
c. A brief analysis of the data findings;
1

d. An interpretation of how that data provides evidence for meeting
standards, indicating the specific SPA standards by number, title, and/or
standard wording;
and
(2) Assessment documentation
e. The assessment tool itself or a rich description of the assessment
(often the directions given to candidates);
f. The scoring guide for the assessment; and
g. Charts that provide candidate data derived from the assessment;
Section V, Use of Assessment Results to Improve Program.
8. Attend as many program report writer/reviewer training sessions as possible.
9. Write a draft of your report, sections I through V, a year before your program report is
due. This will allow you to identify any gaps and have time to address them.
10. Consider becoming a program reviewer yourself!
******************************************
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Preponderance of Evidence
“Preponderance of evidence” means an overall confirmation of candidate performance
on the standards in the strength, weight, or quality of evidence.
Programs are required to submit data at the standard level, but not at the element level,
and they may disaggregate data by elements to better make their case, but that is not
required.
Program reviewers weigh the evidence presented in SPA program reports, and when
there is a greater weight of evidence in favor, they should conclude that a standard is
met or that a program is recognized.
The elements are used by programs and reviewers to help determine how standards are
met. This means that a standard could be met, even though evidence related to one or
more elements is weak.
Reviewers make judgments that “overall” there is/ is not sufficient evidence that the
standard is met.
Rubrics and guidance for reviewers developed by the SPA for use by program reviewers
must reflect this policy. Reviewers must be trained to review evidence and make
judgments based on the preponderance of evidence that standards are met. (SASB
policy on preponderance of evidence, Policies and Procedures Handbook, II.C)
Presented at ALA Midwinter NCATE Program Reviewer Training, January 7, 2011
Updated June 8, 2011, January 21, 2014, January 15, 2015 (Sherry R. Crow, UNK).
2