Commission on Teacher Credentialing
Biennial Report
Academic Years 2009-10 and 2010-11
Institution: Michael D. Eisner College of Education, CSU Northridge
Date report is submitted: ______October 11,_2012_ Date of last Site Visit __November 7-11, 2009
Program documented in this report: Educational Leadership and Policy Studies (ELPS)
Name of Program: Preliminary Administrative Services Credential and
Professional Administrative Services Credential
Credential awarded Preliminary Administrative Services Credential and Professional Administrative Services Credential
Is this program offered at more than one site?
Yes
If yes, list all sites at which the program is offered: See Appendix A
Program Contact: Dr. William Delatorre, Department Chair
Phone # 818/677-2591
E-Mail wdelatorre@csun.edu
Report prepared by: Dr. Susan Auerbach Department phone – 818/677 2557 or 677-2591 susan.auerbach@csun.edu
1|Page
SECTION A – CREDENTIAL PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION
Contextual Information
The Preliminary and Professional Administrative Services Credential Programs are housed within the department of Educational Leadership and
Policy Studies (ELPS). ELPS is one of six departments within the Michael D. Eisner College of Education. The ELPS credential programs are
offered in multiple locations within the Los Angeles Unified School District, as well as other districts in the Los Angeles metropolitan area (see
Appendix A for list, or http://www.csun.edu/educ/elps/locations/off-campus.html ). The entire Tier 1 program is also offered online through
CSUN’s College of Extended Learning (see http://exlweb.csun.edu/elps ). The Tier 1 program is combined with a Masters program for virtually all
students; only a small number opt to do the credential only with 30 credits instead of 33.
Demographics at entry to the Tier 1 program are shown in the tables below. The total number of candidates who entered the traditional program in
2009-10 and 2010-11 was 423. The program was predominantly female (68-78%) with Whites (33-57%) and Hispanics (30-49%) the largest
ethnic/racial groups. The ethnic/racial breakdown fluctuated, with African American students from 2 to 15% and Asian American students from 1 to
9%. The mean percentage of traditionally underserved students (46%) in 2009-11 was up from the 13-29% range in the 1990s but down from 54% at
the peak of enrollment in the program in 2006.The largest age category was consistently students in their 30s (36-45%), with a marked increase in
students under age 25 (from 2-7% in 2009-10 to 24% in 2010-11), while the proportion of students over 40 fell from a high of 38% in 2010 to 20% in
2011. The majority of candidates entered the Tier 1 program with an undergraduate GPA of 3.5 to 4.0 (about 82% on average, though somewhat
lower in 2011). Demographics of the much smaller Distance Learning Tier 1 cohorts (spring 2010 and spring 2011, with a total of 37 new students)
were similar in terms of gender (69-81% female) and age in terms of students in their 30s being the largest group (44-52%) and somewhat larger
proportions of students over 40 (31-33%); race/ethnicity data cannot be compared because the majority of Distance Learning students (66-75%) did
not provide this information.
Candidate Demographics at Entry to Program
Preliminary Administrative Credential – Tier 1
Fall 2009 and Spring 2010
Fall 2009
Spring 2010
(N=152)
(N=87)
Female
69.1%
78.2%
Male
30.9%
21.8%
Demographic
GENDER
2|Page
ETHNICITY
African American
2.2%
14.7%
Asian
9.4%
7.4%
Hispanic
31.9%
36.8%
White
54.3%
38.2%
0%
0%
Under 25
2.0%
6.9%
26-29
22.4%
10.3%
30-39
44.1%
44.8%
40 and over
31.6%
37.9%
3.50 – 4.00
84.0%
81.2%
3.00 – 3.49
12.7%
14.1%
2.50 – 2.99
2.7%
3.5%
2.00 – 2.49
.7%
1.2%
Native American
AGE
GPA
Candidate Demographics at Entry to Program
Preliminary Administrative Credential
Fall 2010 and Spring 2011
Fall 2010
Spring 2011
(N=86)
(N=98)
Demographic
3|Page
GENDER
Female
68.6%
72.4%
Male
31.4%
27.6%
African American
9.9%
9.4%
Asian
1.4%
8.2%
Hispanic
29.6%
49.4%
White
57.7%
32.9%
Native American
1.4%
0%
Under 25
24.4%
24.5%
26-29
16.3%
16.3%
30-39
36.0%
38.8%
40 and over
23.3%
20.4%
3.50 – 4.00
84.5%
77.6%
3.00 – 3.49
14.3%
21.4%
2.50 – 2.99
1.2%
0%
2.00 – 2.49
0%
1.0%
ETHNICITY
AGE
GPA
4|Page
Candidate Demographics at Entry to Program
Preliminary Administrative Credential – Tier 1 – Distance Learning
Spring 2010 and Spring 2011
Spring 2010
Spring 2011
(N= 21)
(N= 16)
Female
81.0%
69.0%
Male
19.0%
25.0%
African American
0%
0%
Asian
0%
0%
Hispanic
19.0%
6.0%
White
14.0%
13.0%
0%
6.0%
66.0%
75.0%
Under 25
2.0%
6.9%
26-29
22.4%
10.3%
30-39
44.1%
44.8%
40 and over
31.6%
37.9%
Demographic
GENDER
ETHNICITY
Native American
Declined to state
AGE
5|Page
Demographics in Tier 2 (a much smaller one-semester program) are shown in the tables below. The total number of candidates who entered the
program from fall 2009 through fall 2010 was 58. Like Tier 1, candidates in Tier 2 were predominantly female (59 – 67%) with Whites (31 – 42%)
and Hispanics (25 – 44%) the two largest racial/ethnic groups represented. Tier 2 students, who are more advanced in their careers, are not
surprisingly older than Tier 1 students, with 65 – 75% age 40 or older. Tier 2 students entered the program with somewhat lower undergraduate
GPA’s then candidates in Tier 1, with most Tier 2 students in the 3.0 – 3.49 range.
Candidate Demographics at Entry to Program
Professional Clear Credential – Tier 2
Fall 2009 and Spring 2010
Fall 2009
Spring 2010
(N=26)
(N=17)
Female
65.4%
58.8%
Male
34.6%
41.2%
African American
8.3%
25.0%
Asian
25.0%
.0%
Hispanic
25.0%
43.8%
White
41.7%
31.3%
.0%
.0%
Under 25
.0%
.0%
26-29
.0%
.0%
30-39
30.8%
35.3%
40 and over
69.2%
64.7%
Demographic
GENDER
ETHNICITY
Native American
AGE
6|Page
GPA
3.50 – 4.00
37.5%
41.2%
3.00 – 3.49
58.3%
58.8%
2.50 – 2.99
4.2%
.0%
Candidate Demographics at Entry to Program
Professional Clear Credential
Fall 2010
Fall 2010
Demographic
(N=15)
GENDER
Female
66.7%
Male
33.3%
ETHNICITY
African American
21.4%
Asian
14.3%
Hispanic
28.6%
White
35.7%
Native American
0%
AGE
Under 25
26-29
6.7%
0%
7|Page
30-39
20.0%
40 and over
73.3%
GPA
3.50 – 4.00
46.7%
3.00 – 3.49
53.3%
2.50 – 2.99
0%
A major contextual factor in both programs, as well as the CSUN College of Education as a whole, from 2009-2011 was declining enrollment. This
was due largely to external factors, such as the economic downturn and budget cuts to districts affecting the stability of teachers’ jobs and availability
of administrative positions. The drop can be seen in ELPS Dept. Tier 1/Masters graduate numbers, which dropped from a peak of 531 in 2007 to 242
in 2011. To address this problem, the department has instituted a coordinated outreach and recruitment effort in LAUSD and surrounding districts, as
well as with potential new cohorts among charter school and/or private school educators. Enrollment in spring, 2012 was about 66 over target so it
appears that these efforts are having an effect. An additional factor affecting enrollment in the Tier 2 program was the rise of competing programs
elsewhere that were shorter and easier for candidates to complete. In part in response to these conditions, a proposed revamping of the Tier 2 program
is currently undergoing review.
Other changes since the last Biennial Report in the ELPS Department include changes in staff and new program development. A new interim
department chair began in fall, 2010; three professors left the department, two retired, and one was newly hired, leaving the department with 12 fulltime faculty. This is down from a high of 17 faculty a few years ago. At the same time, the number of active part-time faculty has decreased as a
result of fewer class sections due to declining enrollment. Over the past 1-2 years, the department has also begun developing a Masters in
Educational Administration for higher education and a partnership for a Masters program with Shanghai Normal University in China.
Candidate Performance
Integration with the Curriculum and Assessment System: The Tier 1 Preliminary Administrative Services Credential Program requires 33
credits over five semesters, and the Tier 2 program requires four courses in one semester. The leadership programs in the ELPS Department provide
graduates with the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to meet CTC, NCATE and institutional standards. In addition to the six CTC standards for
administrative candidates, the ELPS Dept. has developed seven dispositions we expect of our candidates. These include ethical and professional
practice; collaboration; effective communication; proactive and visionary leadership; life-long learning; responsibility and time management; and
8|Page
responsiveness to diversity. At any of the transition points in the Tier 1 Preliminary Administrative Services Program, where a candidate is not
meeting these standards and dispositions, the candidate is subject to conferencing with faculty and a review of eligibility for continued participation.
Applicants for the Tier 1 Preliminary Administrative Services Credential and Master’s in Educational Administration are assessed at four transition
points over the course of five semesters: 1) upon entry to the program with admission requirements and completion of their first course (ELPD 650);
2) when they enter fieldwork (ELPS 688); 3) when they exit fieldwork (ELPS 688); and 4) when they complete ELPS 675 and exit the program.
Instructors evaluate candidates on dispositions in the introductory 650 course; fieldwork site supervisors (usually principals) evaluate dispositions
and standards as students enter fieldwork and when they complete fieldwork; and ELPS 675 instructors evaluate candidates on standards when they
exit the program. In addition, Transition Points 3 and 4 are assessed using scores on a Portfolio Rubric and on the Comprehensive Exam. At the
program level for the Tier 1 program, the Department also conducts an exit survey of students at Transition Point 4 (ELPS 675) and the College
conducts follow-up surveys at Transition Point 5 with alumni and employers. However, there was only one Tier 1 follow-up survey available for this
report (2008-9 graduates) due to changes in leadership and problems with data collection procedures. The Department and College will be reviewing
the follow-up survey procedures shortly to ensure that we close this data gap for future reports.
In Tier 1, as part of the Fieldwork Portfolio at the end of ELPS 688, students provide evidence of meeting the CTC standards for administrative
candidates by 1) compiling exemplary “signature assignments” from courses with explanation of the standard(s) addressed; 2) describing, reflecting
on, and providing documentation of three administrative activities for each of the six standards; and 3) writing up and providing documentation for
an Action Research Leadership Project (ARLP) with potential for improving student achievement. Student progress is indicated in their Portfolio
Rubric score (Transition Point 3). The Action Research Leadership Project in the portfolio is linked to the Action Research Proposal done in the
ELPS 600 research course, with the plans made in ELPS 600 directing the implementation of action research in ELPS 688. ELPS 675: DecisionMaking Simulation, in which students respond to real-life scenarios involving common administrative tasks and problems, provides instructors
further opportunity to observe candidates and assess their progress in meeting standards.
The Tier 2 Professional Administrative Services Credential includes three transition points within the one semester program. Students are assessed on
knowledge skills and dispositions at entry to the program, mid-semester, and when they exit. There are also follow-up surveys for the program
graduates and their employers at Transition Point 4, however these were most recently done with 2007-8 graduates for the same reasons noted above
for Tier 1; only two students responded to the follow-up survey in fall, 2010. The Department and College will also be reviewing data collection
procedures for these assessments to close this data gap in the future.
Department members regularly review data from the Tier 1 and Tier 2 programs as a basis for ongoing program improvement. Data from all
assessments are entered into the College of Education Data Warehouse and reported out each semester. The Department reviews candidate progress
on the standards and dispositions and meets regularly to discuss program needs, modifications in course content, and recommendations for changes in
policy.
The Assessment Plans for Tier 1 and Tier 2 Programs are summarized in the two grids below.
9|Page
Tier 1 Preliminary Administrative Credential Assessment Matrix
Transition Point 1
Entry to Program
Knowledge
Skills
(1) Undergrad GPA
of 3.00 overall or
score at or above 50th
percentile on: (a) one
of the three GRE
sections or (b) raw
score of 50 or higher
on the Millers
Analogies Test.
(1) Upper Division
Writing Proficiency
Exam score of 8 or
higher.
Transition Point 2
Entry to Clinical
Practice
(1) Overall GPA of
3.00 or higher in
program courses
Transition Point 3
Exit from Clinical
Practice
(1) ELPS 688
Fieldwork Form at
Exit
(2) ELPS 688
Fieldwork Form at
Entry
(2) Portfolio Rubric
(3) “B" or better in
the first 6 units of
program courses
(1) ELPS 688
Fieldwork Form at
Entry
(1) ELPS 688
Fieldwork Form at
Exit
(2) Portfolio Rubric
(2) CBEST passed
Dispositions
(1) ELPS 650
Dispositions Form
(1) ELPS 688
Fieldwork Form at
Entry
(1) ELPS 688
Fieldwork Form at
Exit
(2) Portfolio Rubric
Transition Point 4
Exit from Program
Transition Point 5
Follow-Up
(1) Overall GPA of
3.00 or higher in
program courses
(2) Comprehensive
Exam
(3) ELPS 675
Standards Form
(4) ELPS 675 Exit
Survey
(5) Candidate
Fieldwork Experience
Evaluation
(1) Program FollowUp Survey
(Graduate
Perceptions)
(1) Comprehensive
Exam
(2) ELPS 675
Standards Form
(3) ELPS 675 Exit
Survey
(4) Candidate
Fieldwork Experience
Evaluation
(1) Program FollowUp Survey
(Graduate
Perceptions)
(2) Program FollowUp Survey
(Employers
Perceptions)
(2) Program FollowUp Survey
(Employers
Perceptions)
(1) Program FollowUp Survey
(Graduate
Perceptions)
(2) Program FollowUp Survey
(Employers
Perceptions)
10 | P a g e
Tier 2 Professional Clear Credential Assessment Matrix
Knowledge
Transition Point 1
Entry to Program
(1) ELPS 685
Induction Entry Rubric and
Dispositions
(2) ELPS 685 California
Professional Standards for
Educational Leaders
(CPSELS) Self-Assessment
Transition Point 2
Mid-semester Review
(1) ELPS 689 Portfolio Rubric
– Mid-semester Review of
Action Research Study
Proposal
(2) ELPS 695 Reflective
Journal -- Midterm
Transition Point 3
Exit from Program
(1) ELPS 686 Exit
Assessment (Supervisor)
(2) ELPS 686 Exit SelfAssessment
(3) ELPS Portfolio Rubric
Transition Point 4
Follow-Up
(1) Program Follow-Up
Survey
(Graduate Perceptions)
(2) Program Follow-Up
Survey (Employers
Perceptions)
(4) ELPS 695
Reflective Journal -- Final
Skills
(1) ELPS 685
Induction Entry Rubric and
Dispositions
(2) ELPS 685 California
Professional Standards for
Educational Leaders
(CPSELS) Self-Assessment
(1) ELPS 689 Portfolio Rubric
– Mid-semester Review of
Action Research Study
Proposal
(2) ELPS 695 Reflective
Journal -- Midterm
(5) Overall GPA of 3.00+
(1) ELPS 686 Exit
Assessment (Supervisor)
(2) ELPS 686 Exit SelfAssessment
(3) ELPS Portfolio Rubric
(1) Program Follow-Up
Survey (Graduate
Perceptions)
(2) Program Follow-Up
Survey (Employers
Perceptions)
(4) ELPS 695
Reflective Journal – Final
Dispositions
(1) ELPS 685
Induction Entry Rubric and
Dispositions
(2) ELPS 685 California
Professional Standards for
Educational Leaders
(CPSELS) Self-Assessment
(1) ELPS 689 Portfolio Rubric
– Mid-semester Review of
Action Research Study
Proposal
(2) ELPS 695 Reflective
Journal -- Midterm
(1) ELPS 686 Exit
Assessment (Supervisor)
(2) ELPS 686 Exit SelfAssessment
(3) ELPS Portfolio Rubric
(4) ELPS 695
Reflective Journal – Final
11 | P a g e
Multiple Assessments: Candidates for the Tier 1 Preliminary Administrative Services Credential/Masters in Educational Administration and the
Tier 2 Professional Administrative Services Credential are assessed with multiple measures upon entering the program; during clinical practice
(fieldwork); when exiting the program; and post-graduation. They are assessed as follows:
Admission and Entry to Tier 1 Program



Admission requirements: 1) Undergraduate grade point average (GPA) of 3.0 or above, or 50th percentile or above on one of three sections of
Graduate Record Examination (GRE) or raw score of 50 or above on Miller Analogies Test (MAT); 2) passing score on Basic Skills
Requirement [California Basic Educational Skills Test (CBEST)] or CSET Multiple Subject plus Writing
Score of 8 or more on CSUN Upper Division Writing Proficiency Exam (UDWPE)
ELPS 650 Dispositions Form (instructor of 1st course)
Admission and Entry to Tier 2 Program
Students are required to have a Tier 1 credential and three years of experience in a position that requires the Tier 1 credential before being admitted to
the Tier 2 program. They are assessed at entry with the 685 Dispositions assessment by the supervisor and the 685 self-assessment of CTC standards.
Retention in the Tier 1 and Tier 2 Programs
In addition to meeting individual course requirements in the Tier 1 program, candidates are required to maintain a 3.0 GPA in the program. Candidate
assessments include course grades and field-based projects that are documented in ELPS 688: Fieldwork and ELPS 675: Decision-Making
Simulation, as well as five comprehensive examinations (three essays and two multiple-choice exams). Faculty members use the CTC Category 3
Standards and the department dispositions (see Contextual Factors) to assess candidate progress in ELPS 650 (Transition Point 1) and ELPS 675
(Transition Point 4), while site-based fieldwork supervisors rate students on standards and dispositions in ELPS 688 (Transition Points 2 and 3).
In the one-semester Tier 2 Program, students must complete an action research proposal, maintain a reflective journal, and submit a portfolio for
evaluation. There is an exit assessment of standards and dispositions conducted by the supervisor, another candidate self-assessment after
implementing the proposal, and an assessment of the candidate’s portfolio by an ELPS instructor.
Exit from Tier 1 and Tier 2 Programs
Candidates in both credential programs must meet the following exit criteria:
 A cumulative 3.0 GPA in the program
 Successfully passing all coursework
 Successfully completing fieldwork
12 | P a g e

Passing the Comprehensive Exams (Tier 1/Masters only)
After completing the Tier 1 Program, candidates must be promoted and assigned to a position requiring the Preliminary Administrative Services
Credential, prior to being admitted to the Tier 2 Program. These candidates must then complete the three courses with a 3.0 GPA and have met
program standards and dispositions in order to exit from Tier 2.
Feedback Loops for Candidates and Programs: Tier 1 candidates are provided feedback on coursework by instructors and on their Fieldwork
Portfolio by both ELPS 688 faculty and the assigned site supervisor (principal). Students who are unable to complete portfolios by the end of the
semester in which they are enrolled, or who fail to submit revisions in time, are issued grades of Incomplete and have one year to complete their
portfolio requirement unless an approved extension has been submitted. Tier 2 candidates are provided ongoing feedback from their supervisor
throughout the program. The ELPS Program elicits feedback from students on instructors in formal student evaluation surveys every semester and
general feedback on the Tier 1 and Tier 2 programs in exit surveys in ELPS 688 and 675 (Tier 1) and after graduation (both programs). ELPS faculty
review the results of program surveys at their annual retreat and/or at regular faculty meetings as a basis for decisions on ongoing program
improvement.
Program Assessment Results:
Tier 1 Preliminary Administrative Services Credential/Masters Program
Results on CTC standards are reported by transition point below for both the traditional and Distance Learning Tier 1 program. Although ELPS
candidates are cohorted within each program, the results per semester do not necessarily reflect exactly the same population from fall to spring
semester within the same academic year as a small number of students elect to take a course with another cohort or delay enrollment in a course
scheduled for the rest of the cohort.
Candidates admitted to the ELPS Tier 1 Preliminary Administrative Services Credential Program must demonstrate knowledge of their content field
with an undergraduate grade point average of 3.0. Students with an undergraduate GPA less than 3.0 must take the GRE and earn a raw score of 50
or score at the 50th percentile in one of the three areas tested. In addition, students must take the CSU Upper Division Writing Proficiency Exam and
score 8 or above out of 12 points. Finally, candidates must have two letters of recommendation from school administrators that demonstrate their
potential for meeting professional standards required of school site administrators. Faculty assess students with respect to ELPS dispositions during
the first course, ELPS 650, in the Tier 1 Program.
Transition Point 1-1.e
At Transition Point 1, ELPS faculty in ELPS 650: Contemporary Administrative Leadership, provide students with exercises, assignments and
discussions involving situations where professional roles require facilitation of a vision of learning, ethical behavior, two -way communication, and
13 | P a g e
sensitivity to diverse populations. Based upon candidate responses and observed behaviors in class, ELPS 650 instructors assess candidates on
dispositions related to these leadership behaviors. These scores represent a baseline from which students begin the program, with an overall mean of
4.04 on scores from the traditional program across the two years (somewhat lower than disposition ratings done by site supervisors later in the
program). There are no consistent patterns in which dispositions were rated highest at entry, however proactive and visionary leadership was rated
lowest by instructors for three of the four entering cohorts. This is not surprising in that candidates are in the program expressly to develop their
leadership qualities. Ratings of dispositions in the Distance Learning program were somewhat lower, perhaps due to individual differences among
instructors’ sense of a baseline at the start of the program; the ratings of N=314 candidates by several instructors from multiple sections in the
traditional program are more representative than the ratings of the smaller N=32 (two classes) in the Distance Learning program.
The tables below present the mean of instructors’ rating of candidates’ dispositions in ELPS 650 (traditional and online) at TP1.
1e Knowledge and Skills for Other School Professionals
ELPS 650 Dispositions Assessment
Preliminary Administrative Credential
Fall 2009 and Spring 2010
Disposition
NCATE
Standard(s)
Fall 2009
Spring 2010
Mean
N
Mean
N
1. Ethical and professional practice
1.g
3.75
126
4.19
84
2. Collaboration
1.g
3.60
126
4.06
84
3. Effective communication
1.g
3.59
126
4.00
84
4. Proactive and visionary leadership
1.g
3.56
126
3.87
84
5. Life-long learning
1.g
3.77
126
4.05
84
6. Responsibility and time management
1.g
3.48
126
4.06
84
14 | P a g e
7. Diversity
1.g
3.74
126
4.19
84
Notes: 1=Low, 2=Below Average, 3=Average, 4=Above Average, 5=High
ELPS 650 Dispositions Assessment
Preliminary Administrative Credential
Fall 2010 and Spring 2011
Disposition
NCATE
Standard(s)
Fall 2010
Spring 2011
Mean
N
Mean
N
1. Ethical and professional practice
1.g
4.11
56
4.60
48
2. Collaboration
1.g
3.98
56
4.43
49
3. Effective communication
1.g
3.88
56
4.37
49
4. Proactive and visionary leadership
1.g
3.80
56
4.37
49
5. Life-long learning
1.g
4.07
56
4.51
49
6. Responsibility and time management
1.g
3.93
56
4.59
49
7. Diversity
1.g
3.98
56
4.65
49
Notes: 1=Low, 2=Below Average, 3=Average, 4=Above Average, 5=High
15 | P a g e
ELPS 650 Dispositions Assessment
Preliminary Administrative Credential – Distance Learning
Spring 2010
Disposition
NCATE
Standard(s)
Spring 2010
Mean
N
1. Ethical and professional practice
1.g
3.00
22
2. Collaboration
1.g
3.14
22
3. Effective communication
1.g
3.18
22
4. Proactive and visionary leadership
1.g
3.05
22
5. Life-long learning
1.g
3.00
22
6. Responsibility and time management
1.g
2.91
22
7. Diversity
1.g
3.00
22
Notes: 1=Low, 2=Below Average, 3=Average, 4=Above Average, 5=High
ELPS 650 Dispositions Assessment
Preliminary Administrative Credential – Distance Learning
Spring 2011
Disposition
NCATE
Standard(s)
Spring 2011
16 | P a g e
Mean
N
1. Ethical and professional practice
1.g
3.60
10
2. Collaboration
1.g
3.60
10
3. Effective communication
1.g
3.60
10
4. Proactive and visionary leadership
1.g
3.50
10
5. Life-long learning
1.g
3.60
10
6. Responsibility and time management
1.g
3.50
10
7. Diversity
1.g
3.60
10
Notes: 1=Low, 2=Below Average, 3=Average, 4=Above Average, 5=High
Transition Point 2-1e and 3-1e: Before and After Fieldwork (ELPS 688)
At Transition Points 2 and 3, candidates are assessed prior to entry into clinical practice (fieldwork) and upon exit from clinical practice by the site
supervisor. The site supervisor is most often the principal of the school where the candidate is assigned who will help supervise the fieldwork
activities. Occasionally, an assistant principal familiar with the candidate completes the assessment. Central office candidates are assessed and
supervised by the director of the school district unit in which the candidate is working. Candidates must obtain the signature of the site supervisor on
the Fieldwork Application the semester prior to enrolling. The signature confirms that the site supervisor will evaluate the candidate on standards and
dispositions in performing leadership roles prior to beginning fieldwork and at the completion of fieldwork. The ELPS instructor arranges a meeting
to discuss the site supervisor responsibilities in person, by teleconference, or web conference. The site supervisor bases their first assessment (“before
fieldwork” on the table) on prior experience observing and working with candidates before their engagement in fieldwork. In order to assess
candidates, the site supervisor is provided a description of the CTC standards and meets with the candidate to discuss the candidate’s experience with
the standards and the candidate’s degree of confidence in meeting the standards.
17 | P a g e
“After Fieldwork” on the tables below represents assessment of the candidates by the site supervisor and reflects what the candidate has
demonstrated during fieldwork. Fieldwork consists of 1) shadowing two administrators at different K12 levels; 2) experience with three
administrative activities for each of the 6 CTC standards; and 3) the Action Research Leadership Project, which consists of an intervention and sitebased action research aimed at improving some aspect of student achievement. The candidate leads a team of teachers and professionals in
implementing the project, analyzing data, reflecting on evidence, and making modifications as needed during implementation. A report on research
findings with recommendations for further action is required as part of the fieldwork portfolio, which is shared with the site supervisor and scored by
the fieldwork instructor (ELPS faculty member).
The data in the tables below, ELPS 688 Fieldwork Evaluation, represents the same students before fieldwork and after fieldwork, and growth of the
mean between these transition points can be interpreted as improved performance on the specified CTC standards and ELPS program dispositions.
Ratings are consistently higher after fieldwork for candidates on both the standards and dispositions, as demonstrated in the tables. The tables reveal
that for each of the semesters of data, there is an increase in mean scores ranging from .14 to .77 on a 5-point scale, with slightly higher gains on
standards (from .40 to .77) than on dispositions (from .25 to .56). In spring semester, when the numbers of students in fieldwork are much larger, the
overall mean score on the standards increased from 3.99 before fieldwork to 4.55 after fieldwork in 2010 and from 3.72 to 4.38 in 2011. In both years
in spring, when enrollment was higher, scores after fieldwork were highest on Standards 2 and 5 (student learning/professional growth and personal
ethics and leadership capacity) and lowest on Standards 1 and 6 (vision of learning and political/social/economic/legal/ cultural understanding). This
may suggest different perspectives or priorities on the part of the school-based supervisors scoring the students as well as areas where the program
should consider strengthening the fieldwork experience. For example, some site supervisors have expressed confusion about the link between the
broad contextual issues of standard 6 and site-based administrative experiences; the department plans to address this proactively with additional
orientation information on standard 6 for both site supervisors and students. In any case, the differences between means on ratings for each standard
are not large and may not be of practical significance. There are no major differences between the traditional and online programs on these measures,
with supervisors in both program types rating candidates at exit from fieldwork in the mid-4’s on a five-point scale.
Transition Point 2-1e and 3-1e
ELPS 688 Fieldwork Evaluation - Dispositions
Preliminary Administrative Credential
Fall 2009 and Spring 2010
Fall 2009
Disposition
NCATE
Standard
Before
Fieldwork
After
Fieldwork
Spring 2010
Before
Fieldwork
After
Fieldwork
18 | P a g e
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
1. Ethical and
professional practice
1.g
4.67
24
4.88
24
4.53
195
4.79
197
2. Collaboration
1.g
4.42
24
4.71
24
4.33
196
4.76
197
3. Effective
communication
1.g
4.13
24
4.71
24
4.27
195
4.67
197
4. Proactive and
visionary leadership
1.g
4.42
24
4.67
24
4.02
195
4.58
196
5. Life-long learning
1.g
4.54
24
4.88
24
4.52
195
4.79
196
6. Responsibility and
time management
1.g
4.58
24
4.75
24
4.31
195
4.66
196
7. Diversity
1.g
4.63
24
4.88
24
4.41
193
4.71
193
Notes: 1=Low, 2=Below Average, 3=Average, 4=Above Average, 5=High
ELPS 688 Fieldwork Evaluation - Dispositions
Preliminary Administrative Credential – Distance Learning
Fall 2009
Disposition
NCATE
Standard
Fall 2009
19 | P a g e
Before Fieldwork
After
Fieldwork
Mean
N
Mean
N
1. Ethical and
professional practice
1.g
4.79
14
4.93
14
2. Collaboration
1.g
4.36
14
4.86
14
3. Effective communication
1.g
4.14
14
4.86
14
4. Proactive and
visionary leadership
1.g
4.36
14
4.79
14
5. Life-long learning
1.g
4.43
14
5.00
14
6. Responsibility and
time management
1.g
4.64
14
4.93
14
7. Diversity
1.g
4.64
14
4.93
14
Notes: 1=Low, 2=Below Average, 3=Average, 4=Above Average, 5=High
ELPS 688 Fieldwork Evaluation - Dispositions
Preliminary Administrative Credential
Fall 2010 (Distance Learning) and Spring 2011 (Traditional)
20 | P a g e
Fall 2010 – Distance Learning
Disposition
NCATE
Standard
Before
Fieldwork
After
Fieldwork
Spring 2011
Before
Fieldwork
After
Fieldwork
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
1. Ethical and
professional practice
1.g
4.70
10
5.00
10
4.29
111
4.62
111
2. Collaboration
1.g
4.50
10
5.00
10
4.07
111
4.61
111
3. Effective
communication
1.g
4.60
10
4.80
10
4.10
111
4.58
111
4. Proactive and
visionary leadership
1.g
4.40
10
4.80
10
3.79
111
4.34
111
5. Life-long learning
1.g
4.50
10
5.00
10
4.16
111
4.67
111
6. Responsibility and
time management
1.g
4.60
10
5.00
10
4.09
111
4.55
111
7. Diversity
1.g
4.20
10
4.90
10
4.01
111
4.55
111
Notes: 1=Low, 2=Below Average, 3=Average, 4=Above Average, 5=High
21 | P a g e
ELPS 688 Fieldwork Evaluation – CTC Standards
Preliminary Administrative Credential
Fall 2009 and Spring 2010
Fall 2009
CTC Standard
NCATE
Standard(s)
Before
Fieldwork
Spring 2010
After
Fieldwork
Before
Fieldwork
After
Fieldwork
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
1. Vision of Learning
1.e
3.96
24
4.67
24
3.83
192
4.47
197
2. Student Learning and
Professional Growth
1.f
4.21
24
4.58
24
4.02
194
4.59
196
3. Organizational
Management for Student
Learning
1.f
4.22
23
4.75
24
3.91
191
4.55
197
4. Working with Diverse
Families and Communities
1.e
4.04
24
4.71
24
4.03
194
4.58
197
5. Personal Ethics and
Leadership Capacity
1.e
4.42
24
4.75
24
4.32
195
4.72
197
6. Political, Social,
Economic, Legal, and
Cultural Understanding
1.e
3.83
23
4.50
24
3.81
180
4.40
188
Notes: 1=Below Standard, 2=Approaching the Standard, 3=Satisfactory, 4=Exceeds the Standard, 5=Mastery
22 | P a g e
ELPS 688 Fieldwork Evaluation – CTC Standards
Preliminary Administrative Credential – Distance Learning
Fall 2009
Fall 2009
CTC Standard
NCATE
Standard(s)
Before Fieldwork
After
Fieldwork
Mean
N
Mean
N
1. Vision of Learning
1.e
4.00
14
4.64
14
2. Student Learning and
Professional Growth
1.f
4.07
14
4.64
14
3. Organizational Management for
Student Learning
1.f
4.43
14
4.79
14
4. Working with Diverse Families
and Communities
1.e
4.00
14
4.71
14
5. Personal Ethics and Leadership
Capacity
1.e
4.43
14
4.86
14
6. Political, Social, Economic,
Legal, and Cultural Understanding
1.e
3.71
14
4.43
14
Notes: 1=Below Standard, 2=Approaching the Standard, 3=Satisfactory, 4=Exceeds the Standard, 5=Mastery .
23 | P a g e
ELPS 688 Fieldwork Evaluation – CTC Standards
Preliminary Administrative Credential
Fall 2010 (Distance Learning) and Spring 2011 (Traditional)
Fall 2010
Distance Learning
CTC Standard
NCATE
Standard(s)
Before
Fieldwork
Spring 2011
After
Fieldwork
Before
Fieldwork
After
Fieldwork
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
1. Vision of Learning
1.e
4.10
10
4.50
10
3.61
111
4.32
111
2. Student Learning and
Professional Growth
1.f
4.10
10
4.80
10
3.88
111
4.47
111
3. Organizational
Management for Student
Learning
1.f
4.10
10
4.60
10
3.68
111
4.44
111
4. Working with Diverse
Families and Communities
1.e
4.00
10
4.70
10
3.90
111
4.45
111
5. Personal Ethics and
Leadership Capacity
1.e
4.60
10
4.90
10
3.95
111
4.52
111
6. Political, Social,
Economic, Legal, and
Cultural Understanding
1.e
4.10
10
4.60
10
3.33
111
4.10
111
Notes: 1=Below Standard, 2=Approaching the Standard, 3=Satisfactory, 4=Exceeds the Standard, 5=Mastery
24 | P a g e
Transition Point 3-1.e, 1.g: Exit from Fieldwork
At Transition Point 3, exit from clinical practice, in addition to the ELPS 688 Fieldwork Form at Exit (described above as “after fieldwork”), the
candidate is also evaluated by assessment of their ELPS 688 portfolio using a rubric. ELPS faculty assess the candidate’s Action Research
Leadership Project (ARLP) report, description and reflection on the 18 administrative activities (three for each CTC standard), and description and
reflection on shadowing experiences. In order to score a 4 or 5 on each item, candidates must present “strong and consistent evidence” of the
attributes, while a 3 is “satisfactory and consistent” and less than 3 indicates “inconsistent evidence” of meeting the standard and “articulating the
knowledge, skills, and dispositions” of the program. Students do not pass ELPS 688 if they score below 3 on any of the four required elements of the
portfolio or if they have an overall score below 12 out of a possible portfolio score of 20. Scores of 4.5 and above in each category, as seen in the
tables, represent strong evidence of the attributes measured; an overall portfolio score of 18.55 to 19.24 out of a possible 20 points is likewise an
excellent indicator of demonstrating the required knowledge, skills, and dispositions (and an improvement over the total portfolio score of 17.2 in the
previous Biennial Report). The exception to this pattern is a small Distance Learning cohort in fall, 2010 (N=22), in which 2 mean scores were
between 4.10 and 4.40 and the total portfolio mean score was 13.23; these differences may have been attributable to stricter grading by individual
faculty or to a weaker set of candidates. The higher mean scores in the 18.55 to 19.24 range in the traditional program are more representative for the
Tier 1 program in that they represent much larger N’s. Each item in the table reflects an assessment of candidates’ knowledge and skills that
undergird a professional role as administrator, as well as the professional dispositions identified by the ELPS Department based upon state and
institutional standards.
Given the performance of candidates in relation to CTC standards and ELPS dispositions as rated by site supervisors after ELPS 688 fieldwork
(means above 4.55 on most standards and none below 4.4) and the portfolio ratings by ELPS faculty (means of 4.5 or above on all portfolio criteria
except two criteria in one small cohort), the ELPS Department is confident that candidates are developing the knowledge, skills, and dispositions
required of school administrators.
25 | P a g e
ELPS 688 Portfolio Rubric
Preliminary Administrative Credential
Fall 2009 and Spring 2010
Criteria
1. Does description indicate candidate's
ability to reflect on and articulate
knowledge, skills, and dispositions
observed?
2. Does ARLP indicate candidate's
development of KSD's across some of the
Six Standards? Is there evidence of
potential of project to increase student
achievement?
3. Has student identified the CCTC
standard(s) that each assignment
represents?
4. Six Standards Activities Log
5. Portfolio (Total) Score
Fall 2009
NCATE
Standard(s)
Spring 2010
Mean
N
Mean
N
1.e, 1.g
4.76
49
4.57
180
1.e, 1.f, 1.g
4.94
49
4.59
180
1.e
4.76
49
4.77
180
1.e, 1.g
4.80
49
4.62
180
1.e, 1.f, 1.g
19.24
49
18.55
180
Notes: 1=Low, 2=Below Average, 3=Average, 4=Above Average, 5=High
26 | P a g e
ELPS 688 Portfolio Rubric
Preliminary Administrative Credential
Fall 2010 (Distance Learning) and Spring 2011 (Traditional)
Criteria
1. Does description indicate candidate's
ability to reflect on and articulate
knowledge, skills, and dispositions
observed?
2. Does ARLP indicate candidate's
development of KSD's across some of the
Six Standards? Is there evidence of
potential of project to increase student
achievement?
3. Has student identified the CCTC
standard(s) that each assignment
represents?
4. Six Standards Activities Log
5. Portfolio (Total) Score
NCATE
Standard(s)
Fall 2010
(Distance Learning)
Spring 2011
Mean
N
Mean
N
1.e, 1.g
4.36
22
4.63
152
1.e, 1.f, 1.g
4.45
22
4.54
152
1.e
4.45
22
4.61
152
1.e, 1.g
4.14
22
4.78
152
1.e, 1.f, 1.g
13.23
22
18.68
149
Notes: 1=Low, 2=Below Average, 3=Average, 4=Above Average, 5=High
27 | P a g e
ELPS 688 Portfolio Rubric
Preliminary Administrative Credential – Distance Learning
Fall 2009
Criteria
1. Does description indicate candidate's
ability to reflect on and articulate
knowledge, skills, and dispositions
observed?
2. Does ARLP indicate candidate's
development of KSD's across some of the
Six Standards? Is there evidence of
potential of project to increase student
achievement?
3. Has student identified the CCTC
standard(s) that each assignment
represents?
4. Six Standards Activities Log
5. Portfolio (Total) Score
Fall 2009
NCATE
Standard(s)
Mean
N
1.e, 1.g
4.68
25
1.e, 1.f, 1.g
5.00
25
1.e
4.88
25
1.e, 1.g
4.64
25
1.e, 1.f, 1.g
19.20
25
Notes: 1=Low, 2=Below Average, 3=Average, 4=Above Average, 5=High
28 | P a g e
Transition Point 4-1.e,1.f
At Transition Point 4, exit from the Tier 1 program, there are two key assessments: the faculty rating of the student on CTC standards at the end of
ELPS 675 and the Comprehensive Exams. Faculty ratings of candidates on standards in ELPS 675 ranged from overall means of 4.18 to 4.71, with
3.95 in the online program. These are slightly lower than the overall means of 4.38 – 4.68 at the exit from fieldwork in ELPS 688 in an assessment on
the same standards, likely due to the tendency of university faculty in ELPS 675 to be more rigorous than site supervisors (principals) in ELPS 688 in
their evaluations. Again, however, the differences between ELPS 688 and ELPS 675 ratings are relatively small, lending validity to the relatively
strong evaluations of ELPS candidates at both Transition Points 3 and 4. The highest ratings at Transition Point 4 (ELPS 675) appear on CTC
standard 5 (personal ethnics and leadership capacity) while the lowest ratings were consistently on standards 3 and 6 (organizational management and
political/social/economic/legal/cultural understanding), similar to differences in student ratings in ELPS 688 at Transition Point 3 (see above).
However, as before, the differences in ratings between the items are small. The same pattern in which students are rated highest for CTC standard 5
and lowest for standard 6 was noted on the previous Biennial Report for this assessment. ELPS faculty discussions of this finding suggest that while
candidates may feel more confident about their own professional growth and application of ethics to class scenarios, they may be intimidated by the
broad scope of standard 6. In addition, candidates may not be “connecting the dots” to see the connections between standard 6 and activities in ELPS
675. The department plans to reinforce the importance of understanding the school context (standard 6) from the beginning of the Tier 1 program and
direct all instructors, including part-timers, to better integrate links to the standards in class discussions and activities. (Please note that ELPS 675 is
given in summer term only for Distance Learning; data is only available for Distance Learning ELPS 675 CTC Standards for summer, 2010.)
ELPS 675 CTC Standards Assessment
Preliminary Administrative Credential
Fall 2009 to Summer 2010
CTC Standard
NCATE
Standard(s)
Fall 2009
Spring 2010
Summer 2010
Mean
Mean
N
N
Mean
N
1. Vision of Learning
1.e
4.34
96
4.37
79
4.07
57
2. Student Learning and Professional
Growth
1.f
4.39
98
4.59
59
4.22
58
29 | P a g e
3. Organizational Management for
Student Learning
1.f
4.34
98
4.23
78
3.93
58
4. Working with Diverse Families
and Communities
1.e
4.49
98
4.54
76
4.40
58
5. Personal Ethics and Leadership
Capacity
1.e
4.59
98
4.54
79
4.60
58
6. Political, Social, Economic, Legal,
and Cultural Understanding
1.e
4.32
98
4.03
78
3.86
58
Notes: 1=Below Standard, 2=Approaching the Standard, 3=Satisfactory, 4=Exceeds the Standard, 5=Mastery
ELPS 675 CTC Standards Assessment
Preliminary Administrative Credential
Fall 2010 to Spring 2011
CTC Standard
NCATE
Standard(s)
Fall 2010
Spring 2011
Mean
Mean
N
N
1. Vision of Learning
1.e
4.27
82
4.67
46
2. Student Learning and Professional
Growth
1.f
4.40
82
4.70
46
30 | P a g e
3. Organizational Management for
Student Learning
1.f
4.27
82
4.74
46
4. Working with Diverse Families
and Communities
1.e
4.49
82
4.72
46
5. Personal Ethics and Leadership
Capacity
1.e
4.51
82
4.76
46
6. Political, Social, Economic, Legal,
and Cultural Understanding
1.e
4.32
82
4.67
46
Notes: 1=Below Standard, 2=Approaching the Standard, 3=Satisfactory, 4=Exceeds the Standard, 5=Mastery
ELPS 675 CTC Standards Assessment
Preliminary Administrative Credential – Distance Learning
Summer 2010
Summer 2010
CTC Standard
NCATE Standard(s)
Mean
N
1. Vision of Learning
1.e
3.85
27
2. Student Learning and Professional Growth
1.f
4.11
27
31 | P a g e
3. Organizational Management for Student
Learning
1.f
3.63
27
4. Working with Diverse Families and
Communities
1.e
4.07
27
5. Personal Ethics and Leadership Capacity
1.e
4.33
27
6. Political, Social, Economic, Legal, and
Cultural Understanding
1.e
3.74
27
Notes: 1=Below Standard, 2=Approaching the Standard, 3=Satisfactory, 4=Exceeds the Standard, 5=Mastery
Prior to exiting the program, at Transition Point 4, all ELPS Tier 1 Preliminary Services Credential and Master’s candidates are administered a
Comprehensive Exam. The five subject areas on the exam are general administration (includes human resources); curriculum, instruction, and
supervision; organization and administration of elementary and secondary education (includes special education); school finance; and school law.
The first three subject areas are assessed by an essay question, in which the candidate must respond to a realistic scenario by applying the knowledge
and skills expected of school administrators. The two objective multiple-choice exams in finance and law assess candidate knowledge required for
successful performance as a school site administrator in California. The department offers an orientation/review session with examples of strong
student essays, as well as online materials, such as study guides and practice questions, to help students prepare for the exam. The essay exams are
graded by a team of faculty on a pass/fail basis; the multiple choice exams are graded electronically (Scantron). Students must pass all five subjects
of the Comprehensive Exam and are allowed one retake for a specific subject not passed on the first administration of the exam. Candidates who do
not pass a subject area are provided individualized remediation and practice in applying the program standards and demonstrating proficiency with
the standards before retaking the exam for that area. In addition, all candidates needing to take one or more exams for the second time are invited
back to the Saturday orientation for the Comprehensive Exams, where the material to be assessed is identified, the rubrics for the exams are
distributed, and additional resources are provided. Faculty volunteer to assess and give candidates feedback on their responses to the practice essay
questions before candidates retake sections of the exam.
Pass rates on the exam in 2009-10 and 2010-11 are roughly consistent with previous patterns. In recent years, the first time pass rate fluctuates
32 | P a g e
between an occasional low of 82%-88% and an occasional high of 95-100%, with most semesters’ pass rate around 90%. The pass rates for the
traditional Tier 1 program were somewhat lower in 2009-2010 (88.9%, 88.1%, and 90.2%) than in 2010-11 (93%, 100%), but still on average at 92%
higher than the average of recent years; Distance Learning candidates had generally higher pass rates (96.4%, 95.8%) in 2009-2011. The subject
areas with the highest failure rates (3% or higher) on the Comprehensive Exam in 2009-11 were Curriculum, followed by Law and General
Administration; however, the highest failure rate during this time period for any subject was 7%, representing only a very small number of students
(4 out of 50 in fall, 2009). Candidates who did not pass were offered remedial instruction, practice in applying knowledge and skills in instructional
leadership, as well as writing tips on essay composition. The pass rate for those retaking the exam is generally close to 100%. Discussions of Comps
results are an ongoing feature of department meetings, leading to expanded student services and supports to ensure higher pass rates.
Comprehensive Exam
Preliminary Administrative Credential
Fall 2009 to Summer 2010
Section
NCATE
Standard(s)
General Administration
1.e
Pass
Fail
Curriculum, Instruction & Supervision
1.e, 1.f
Pass
Fail
Finance
1.e
Pass
Fail
Law
1.e
Pass
Fail
Fall 2009
Spring 2010
Summer 2010
92.6%
100.0%
98.0%
50
151
100
7.4%
.0%
2.0%
4
0
2
96.3%
94.0%
96.1%
52
142
98
3.7%
6.0%
3.9%
2
9
4
98.1%
97.4%
97.1%
53
147
99
1.9%
2.6%
2.9%
1
4
3
98.1%
96.7%
95.1%
53
146
97
1.9%
3.3%
4.9%
1
5
5
33 | P a g e
Organization and Administration
1.e
Pass
Fail
Comprehensive Exam (Overall)
1.e, 1.f
Pass
Fail
100.0%
99.3%
98.0%
54
150
100
.0%
.7%
2.0%
0
1
2
88.9%
88.1%
90.2%
48
133
92
11.1%
11.9%
9.8%
6
18
10
Comprehensive Exam
Preliminary Administrative Credential
Fall 2010 and Spring 2011
Section
NCATE
Standard(s)
General Administration
1.e
Curriculum, Instruction & Supervision
Finance
Law
1.e, 1.f
1.e
1.e
Fall 2010
Spring 2011
Pass
100.0%
100.0%
n
57
142
Fail
0%
0%
n
0
0
Pass
96.5%
100.0%
n
55
142
Fail
3.5%
0%
n
2
0
Pass
98.2%
100.0%
n
56
142
Fail
1.8%
0%
n
2
0
Pass
94.7%
100.0%
34 | P a g e
Organization and Administration
Comprehensive Exam (Overall)
1.e
1.e, 1.f
n
54
142
Fail
5.3%
0%
n
3
0
Pass
100.0%
100.0%
n
57
142
Fail
0%
0%
n
0
0
Pass
93.0%
100.0%
n
53
142
Fail
7.0%
0%
n
4
0
Comprehensive Exam
Preliminary Administrative Credential – Distance Learning
Fall 2009
Section
NCATE Standard(s)
General Administration
1.e
Fall 2009
Pass
Fail
96.4%
27
3.6%
1
Curriculum, Instruction & Supervision
1.e, 1.f
Pass
100%
28
Fail
0%
0
Finance
1.e
Pass
100%
28
35 | P a g e
Fail
0%
0
Law
1.e
Pass
100%
28
Fail
0%
0
Organization and Administration
1.e
Pass
100%
28
Fail
Comprehensive Exam (Overall)
1.e, 1.f
Pass
Fail
0%
0
96.4%
27
3.6%
1
Comprehensive Exam
Preliminary Administrative Credential – Distance Learning
Fall 2010
Section
NCATE Standard(s)
General Administration
1.e
Curriculum, Instruction & Supervision
1.e, 1.f
Fall 2010
Pass
100%
n
24
Fail
0%
n
0
Pass
100%
n
24
Fail
0%
36 | P a g e
Finance
Law
Organization and Administration
Comprehensive Exam (Overall)
1.e
1.e
1.e
1.e, 1.f
n
0
Pass
95.8%
n
23
Fail
4.2%
n
1
Pass
95.8%
n
23
Fail
4.2%
n
1
Pass
100%
n
24
Fail
0%
n
0
Pass
95.8%
n
23
Fail
4.2%
n
1
1f Student Learning for Other School Professionals
Candidates in both the Tier 1 and Tier 2 programs learn to measure K12 student learning as part of their coursework. For example, in ELPS 682:
Supervision of Curriculum and Instruction, Tier 1 candidates critically examine student achievement data from their respective districts and discuss
what types of decisions and actions might be indicated by the data; in ELPS 688: Fieldwork, candidates typically conduct interventions to improve
student achievement and then measure their impact as part of their action research projects; and in ELPS 600: Research in Educational Leadership,
candidates learn how to further disaggregate and analyze student data. While the ELPS Department does not have a specific assessment to gauge
candidate learning in this area, we will be reviewing our curriculum’s coverage of the understanding and use of various forms of K12 student data.
Transition Point 4 – 2c
At Transition Point 4, the end of ELPS 675, candidates are asked to respond to a Likert scale survey that asks them to evaluate what they learned in each course
37 | P a g e
relative to their perceived value of the course to a future school administrator. Courses with less than a 4.0 rating on a 5.0 Likert scale, or those with declining
ratings are reviewed by the department and by the Course Coordinator in collaboration with the other course instructors. Revisions in content, assignments, and
activities are provided along with professional development for faculty. Overall, seven of the ten Tier 1 courses were rated 4 or higher with the highest ratings for
ELPS 663(law) and ELPS 664 (business). ELPS 600, the research course, has long been rated the least valuable of courses in the Tier 1 program, perhaps due to a
widespread suspicion of the value of research for practitioners. ELPS 600 was redesigned in 2008 in order to help students prepare an action research proposal for
implementation in fieldwork (ELPS 688), but this change has not affected student ratings of the research course value. Faculty expressed the need for better
articulation between the linked 600 and 688 courses, and the department plans to review the effectiveness of the linkage in upcoming meetings. The other courses
with ratings below 4.0 both years were ELPS 681 and 682. Faculty feel that candidates “may not know what they don’t know” and will not realize the relevance of
some course material until they are actually in administrative jobs; meanwhile, faculty continue to review the place of each course in the curriculum and the
elimination of potential redundancies. (Please note that no data is available from this exit survey for Distance Learning candidates from summer, 2010 or
summer, 2011.)
ELPS 675 Exit Survey – Course Value
Preliminary Administrative Credential
Fall 2009 to Summer 2010
Rate the content of each course in terms of its perceived value to you as
a future administrator
NCATE
Standard
Fall 2009
Spring 2010
Summer 2010
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
1. ELPS 600 - Research in Education
2.c
2.93
109
3.65
20
2.43
37
2. ELPS 650 - Contemporary Administrative Leadership
2.c
4.32
108
4.00
20
4.46
37
3. ELPS 663 - Legal Aspects of Educational Administration
2.c
4.42
111
4.20
20
4.64
36
4. ELPS 664 - Business and Financial Aspects of Educational
Administration
2.c
4.47
109
4.35
20
4.65
37
5. ELPS 672 - Management of Human Resources
2.c
4.12
109
4.58
19
4.41
37
6. ELPS 675 - Decision Making Simulation
2.c
3.95
111
3.84
19
4.43
37
7. ELPS 676 - School and Community Relations
2.c
3.65
108
4.00
19
4.08
37
8. ELPS 688 - Fieldwork
2.c
4.06
31
3.65
20
3.78
36
38 | P a g e
9. ELPS 681 - Organization and Administration of Elementary,
Secondary, and Special Education
2.c
3.75
103
3.26
19
4.19
37
10. ELPS 682 - Supervision of Curriculum and Instruction
2.c
3.70
104
4.15
20
3.64
36
Notes: 1=Lowest Value, 2=Low Value, 3=Moderate Value, 4=High Value, 5=Highest Value
ELPS 675 Exit Survey – Course Value
Preliminary Administrative Credential
Fall 2010 and Spring 2011
Rate the content of each course in terms of its perceived value to you as
a future administrator
NCATE
Standard
Fall 2010
Spring 2011
Mean
N
Mean
N
1. ELPS 600 - Research in Education
2.c
3.16
69
3.88
32
2. ELPS 650 - Contemporary Administrative Leadership
2.c
3.97
67
4.09
33
3. ELPS 663 - Legal Aspects of Educational Administration
2.c
4.65
68
4.59
34
4. ELPS 664 - Business and Financial Aspects of Educational
Administration
2.c
4.38
66
4.56
34
5. ELPS 672 - Management of Human Resources
2.c
3.73
66
4.29
34
6. ELPS 675 - Decision Making Simulation
2.c
4.20
69
4.44
34
7. ELPS 676 - School and Community Relations
2.c
4.05
65
4.03
34
8. ELPS 688 - Fieldwork
2.c
4.29
17
3.91
33
9. ELPS 681 - Organization and Administration of Elementary,
Secondary, and Special Education
2.c
3.58
67
3.85
33
10. ELPS 682 - Supervision of Curriculum and Instruction
2.c
3.45
66
4.26
34
39 | P a g e
Notes: 1=Lowest Value, 2=Low Value, 3=Moderate Value, 4=High Value, 5=Highest Value
Transition Point 4 – 2c
At transition point 4, the end of ELPS 675, the Decision-Making Simulation in Educational Administration, candidates are also asked to respond to a survey
regarding their experiences in the five areas identified in the table below. A 2 on the 3-point scale represents an adequate number of experiences. The results
show that students seem satisfied in general with a possible need for more technology applications and hands-on experiences. The program’s access to technology
during classes is limited by the availability of technology at the off-site K12 locations where classes are held; however, an increasing number of faculty are using
Moodle for online class activities and assignments. This may be reflected in the slightly higher ratings for technology experiences in 2010-11.
ELPS 675 Exit Survey – Experiences
Preliminary Administrative Credential
Fall 2009 to Summer 2010
Have your courses included adequate
experiences in the following areas?
NCATE
Standard
Fall 2009
Spring 2010
Summer 2010
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Research
2.c
2.09
111
2.10
20
1.92
36
Writing
2.c
2.09
111
2.16
19
2.16
37
Student Presentations
2.c
2.32
111
2.16
19
2.24
37
Technology
2.c
1.74
111
1.74
19
1.76
37
Application / Hands-on Experiences
2.c
1.71
109
1.85
20
1.84
37
Notes: 1=Lacking, 2=Adequate, 3=Too much
40 | P a g e
ELPS 675 Exit Survey – Experiences
Preliminary Administrative Credential
Fall 2010 and Spring 2011
Have your courses included adequate
experiences in the following areas?
NCATE
Standard
Fall 2010
Spring 2011
Mean
N
Mean
N
Research
2.c
2.01
68
2.00
34
Writing
2.c
2.10
68
2.03
34
Student Presentations
2.c
2.15
67
2.09
34
Technology
2.c
1.84
68
1.88
34
Application / Hands-on Experiences
2.c
1.68
68
1.85
34
Notes: 1=Lacking, 2=Adequate, 3=Too much
At transition point 4, the end of ELPS 675, the Decision-Making Simulation in Educational Administration, candidates are asked to respond “yes” or “no” on a
survey to determine whether they received adequate advisement while ELPS students. Each cohort of students is assigned an ELPS faculty advisor, who is
expected to meet with the cohort students once per semester and remind them of responsibilities, upcoming program events and requirements, credential
application procedures, as well as policies of the university and College of Education. The Department Chair monitors these surveys along with the Graduate
Advisor and together they make assignments for advisement to address concerns. This attention to advisement appears to be bearing fruit, as satisfaction with
advisement rose from 66% in fall 2009 to more than 90% in spring, 2011.
41 | P a g e
ELPS 675 Exit Survey – Advisement
Preliminary Administrative Credential
Fall 2009 to Summer 2010
Advisement
Have you received adequate advisement to assist you
in completing the program?
NCATE
Standard
2.c
Fall 2009
Yes
No
Total
Spring 2010 Summer 2010
68
15
32
66.0%
83.3%
86.5%
35
3
5
34.0%
16.7%
13.5%
103
18
37
42 | P a g e
ELPS 675 Exit Survey – Advisement
Preliminary Administrative Credential
Fall 2010 and Spring 2011
NCATE
Standard
Advisement
Have you received adequate advisement to assist you
in completing the program?
2.c
Yes
No
Total
Fall 2010
Spring 2011
Total
54
30
84
85.7%
90.9%
87.5%
9
3
12
14.3%
9.1%
12.5%
63
33
96
ELPS Candidate Fieldwork Experience Evaluation
At transition point 4, the end of ELPS 675, candidates are asked to rate their field experiences/clinical practice in relation to skills and knowledge expected of
school administrators and the CTC standards. Mean responses from candidates in the traditional program are all above 4 on a 5 point scale with the highest ratings
for field experiences helping students to exhibit caring and ethical behavior; collaborate with peers; reflect on their own practice; and demonstrate knowledge,
skills, and dispositions in their professional role. It is notable that although candidates rated application/hands-on experience as somewhat lacking in the program
in the ELPS 675 Exit Survey – Experiences, when asked about the value of specific fieldwork experiences on this measure, they rated all above 4.
43 | P a g e
Candidate Fieldwork Experience Evaluation
Preliminary Administrative Credential
Fall 2009 (Distance Learning) and Spring 2010 (Traditional)
Please rate how well your field experience/clinical practice this
semester helped you to:
NCATE
Standard(s)
Fall 2009
Distance Learning
Spring 2010
Mean
N
Mean
N
1.1 Deepen knowledge in my discipline
3.b
4.27
22
4.23
83
1.2 Create an environment where students will achieve stateadopted academic standards
3.b
4.27
22
4.15
82
1.3 Employ inclusive practices
3.b
4.18
22
4.13
82
1.4 Reflect on my own practice
3.b
4.59
22
4.43
83
1.5 Exhibit ethical and caring behavior
3.b
4.59
22
4.45
83
1.6 Collaborate with peers, colleagues, and/or other professionals
3.b
4.45
22
4.49
83
2.1 Clarity of expectations for fieldwork responsibilities
3.c
4.14
22
4.10
83
2.2 The opportunity to apply what I learned in my program
coursework.
3.c
4.09
22
4.11
83
2.3 The opportunity to use technology.
3.c
4.18
22
4.04
83
2.4 The opportunity to implement and assess strategies for
improving student learning.
3.c
4.14
22
4.14
83
2.5 The opportunity to reflect on my practice.
3.c
4.64
22
4.48
83
2.6 The opportunity to demonstrate the knowledge, skills and
dispositions in the professional role for which I am preparing.
3.c
4.59
22
4.25
83
Please rate the following aspects of your field experience:
44 | P a g e
2.7 Feedback to help me improve my practice.
3.c
4.18
22
4.18
83
Notes: 1=Unsatisfactory, 2=Marginal, 3=Satisfactory, 4=Strong, 5=Outstanding
Candidate Fieldwork Experience Evaluation
Preliminary Administrative Credential
Fall 2010 (Distance Learning) and Spring 2011 (Traditional)
Please rate how well your field experience/clinical practice this
semester helped you to:
NCATE
Standard(s)
Fall 2010
Distance Learning
Spring 2011
Mean
N
Mean
N
1.1 Deepen knowledge in my discipline
3.b
4.55
11
4.33
99
1.2 Create an environment where students will achieve stateadopted academic standards
3.b
4.36
11
4.34
99
1.3 Employ inclusive practices
3.b
4.09
11
4.30
99
1.4 Reflect on my own practice
3.b
4.82
11
4.57
99
1.5 Exhibit ethical and caring behavior
3.b
4.73
11
4.52
98
1.6 Collaborate with peers, colleagues, and/or other professionals
3.b
4.91
11
4.69
98
2.1 Clarity of expectations for fieldwork responsibilities
3.c
4.45
11
4.35
99
2.2 The opportunity to apply what I learned in my program
coursework.
3.c
4.55
11
4.34
99
2.3 The opportunity to use technology.
3.c
4.64
11
4.15
99
Please rate the following aspects of your field experience:
45 | P a g e
2.4 The opportunity to implement and assess strategies for
improving student learning.
3.c
4.55
11
4.34
99
2.5 The opportunity to reflect on my practice.
3.c
4.82
11
4.64
98
2.6 The opportunity to demonstrate the knowledge, skills and
dispositions in the professional role for which I am preparing.
3.c
4.73
11
4.51
99
2.7 Feedback to help me improve my practice.
3.c
4.27
11
4.29
98
Notes: 1=Unsatisfactory, 2=Marginal, 3=Satisfactory, 4=Strong, 5=Outstanding
Transition Point 5 – 1.e, 1.f,1.g, 2.c
At Transition Point 5, after candidates have graduated, the College sends a follow-up survey to graduates and they are asked to respond to elements
of the program. These tabulated ratings are used by the ELPS Department in regular department meetings and our fall retreat to make adjustments in
course content, pedagogy, advisement, and fieldwork. During 2009-2011, the Graduate Follow-up Survey was only sent to one set of graduates; the
department and College are reviewing procedures for data collection to prevent this data gap in the future. There was a low response rate for
graduates from 2008-9, with only 19 completing the survey. Given the small N, interpretations of these data should be made with caution.
As the table below indicates, graduates from 2008-9 were generally positive about the impact of the program on their knowledge, skills, and
dispositions, with an overall above average mean of 3.97 on a 5 point scale. The lowest mean ratings were for use of multiple assessments and data to
enhance pupil social and emotional growth (3.72), promoting continuous improvement through program evaluation (3.71), infusing diverse
perspectives throughout programs and practices (3.76), and encouraging reflective practice (3.79). The highest ratings were in the 4.1 – 4.2 range for
acquiring in-depth knowledge, applying knowledge and skills, impacting pupil learning, and examining practice in light of standards. Again, due to
the very low response rate, these results must be considered with caution.
Graduate Follow-Up Survey 1.e, 1.f, 1.g
Preliminary Administrative Credential
Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions
2008-2009 Graduates
NCATE
Standard
Summer 2010
Entry to Program
Exit from Program
46 | P a g e
1. Acquire in-depth knowledge in subject matter
2. Apply knowledge and skills in your field
3. Use technology proficiently in your field
4. Use multiple assessments & data to inform & improve practice
5. Use multiple assessments & data to enhance pupil academic learning
6. Use multiple assessment & data to enhance pupil social and emotional growth
7. Promote continuous improvement through program evaluation
8. Align practice with national, state, and institutional standards
9. Ability to impact the academic learning of pupils.
10. Ability to impact the social and emotional growth of pupils
11. Develop positive and caring interpersonal relationships among faculty,
school and community partners, pre-K and their families
12. Develop collaborative relationships among faculty, school and community
partners, preK-12 pupils and their families
13. Infuse pluralistic (diverse) perspectives throughout programs and practices
14. Work with people who are diverse in a variety of ways (culturally,
linguistically, ability, socioeconomic, gender, etc)
15. Analyze, synthesize and evaluate evidence (data) to inform practice
16. Encourage reflective practice by modeling professional competence,
collegial interaction and reflection on programs and practices
17. Encourage personal responsibility for refining the values and ethics that
guide your professional practice
18. Develop attitudes and behavior of caring professionals, principally by
demonstrating a personal commitment to learning and growth
19. Examine your professional practice in light of professional standards.
1.e
1.e
1.e
1.f
1.f
1.f
1.g
1.e
1.f
1.f
Mean
3.21
3.11
3.63
3.17
3.22
3.18
3.00
3.28
3.56
3.61
N
19
19
19
18
18
17
17
18
18
18
Mean
4.21
4.16
3.89
4.00
3.94
3.72
3.71
3.94
4.17
3.94
N
19
19
19
17
18
18
17
18
18
17
1.g
3.32
19
3.95
19
1.g
3.26
19
3.89
19
1.g
3.25
16
3.76
17
1.g
3.89
19
4.05
19
1.f
3.47
19
4.11
19
1.g
3.61
18
3.79
19
1.g
3.44
18
4.05
19
1.g
3.42
19
4.05
19
1.g
3.42
19
4.16
19
Notes: 1=Not Competent, 2=Less than Competent, 3=Somewhat Competent, 4=Competent, 5=Very Competent
In the portion of the survey rating the quality of student services, responses (N=16-20) were somewhat lower with an overall mean of 3.56 for 2008-9 graduates, as
the table below indicates. The areas of service rated the lowest by graduates were related to the Credential Office on campus, which is not the direct responsibility
of the ELPS Department. Nevertheless, our Department has invited representatives of the Credential Office to departmental meetings and engaged in dialogue to
address candidate concerns. Faculty have noted improved communications between students and the Credential Office in 2009-11, which may be reflected in
future follow-up surveys with graduates.
47 | P a g e
Graduate Follow-Up Survey
Preliminary Administrative Credential
Quality of Student Services
2008-2009 Graduates
NCATE
Standard
Summer 2010
Mean
N
Responses to your attempts to get program information from your department
office
2.c
3.81
16
Responses to your attempts to get program information from the credential office
2.c
3.65
17
Responses to your attempts to get program advisement from the credential office
2.c
3.37
19
Responses to your attempts to get program advisement from graduate
advisor/coordinator
2.c
3.78
18
Websites available to you to explain your department or program
2.c
3.59
17
Websites available to you explain the credential office
2.c
2.77
13
Written materials available to you explain your department or program
2.c
3.63
16
Written materials available to you explain the credential office
2.c
3.20
15
The processing of your applications and documents by Admissions and Records
2.c
3.55
20
The processing of your application and documents by graduate studies
2.c
3.58
19
The processing of your applications and documents by department offices
2.c
3.79
19
The processing of your applications and documents by the credential office
2.c
3.37
19
Overall quality of service you received by staff in admissions and records
2.c
3.65
20
Overall quality of service you received by staff in graduate studies
2.c
3.94
18
Overall quality of service you received by staff in department offices
2.c
3.82
17
Overall quality of service you received by staff in the credential office
2.c
3.50
18
Notes: 5 point scale (1=Low, 5=High)
48 | P a g e
The portion of the graduate follow-up survey about general perceptions of the program (N=20) showed above average responses, with a mean of 4.0
on a 5-point scale of overall satisfaction with the program, as the table below indicates. The highest ratings were for the quality of the fieldwork
experience (4.15) and the program’s coverage of CTC standard 5 (4.3), with the latter result in keeping with generally high ratings for standard 5 on
measures throughout the Tier 1 program. The lowest ratings were for program coverage of CTC standards 1, 2, and 3 (3.8, 3.95, and 3.95,
respectively), but again due to the low response rate, results must be viewed with caution. Exemplar assignments and signature assignments for
courses continue to be identified that are relevant and oriented toward candidates’ roles as future educational leaders and school administrators.
Graduate Follow-Up Survey
Preliminary Administrative Credential
Perceptions of the Program
2008-2009 Graduates
Rate your CSUN program in terms of :
NCATE
Standard
Summer 2010
Mean
N
1. Quality of instruction
2.c
4.00
20
2. Relevance and quality of course content
2.c
4.00
20
3. Quality of fieldwork experience
2.c
4.15
20
4. Culminating experience (portfolio, comprehensive examination, thesis or graduate
project) in your master's/credential program
2.c
3.90
20
5. Facilitating the development, articulation and stewardship of a vision of learning that is
shared and supported by the school community
2.c
3.80
20
6. Advocating, nurturing and sustaining a school culture and instructional program
conducive to student learning and staff professional growth
2.c
3.95
20
7. Ensuring management of the organization, operations and resources for a safe, efficient
and effective learning environment
2.c
3.95
20
49 | P a g e
8. Collaborating with families and community members, responding to diverse
community interests and needs, and mobilizing community resources
2.c
4.00
20
9. Modeling a personal code of ethics and developing professional leadership capacity
2.c
4.30
20
10. Understanding, responding to, and influencing the larger political, social, economic,
legal and cultural context
2.c
4.05
20
11. Overall satisfaction with the program
2.c
4.10
20
Notes: 1=Low, 2=Below Average, 3=Average, 4=Above Average, 5=High
50 | P a g e
TIER 2
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RESULTS:
PROFESSIONAL CLEAR CREDENTIAL
Tier 2, the Professional Clear Credential Program, is a one-semester, 12-unit program of 4 courses leading to the Professional Clear Credential. It is
designed for administrators who are either school-based or central office-based who are working directly with schools, administrators and teachers.
The Tier 2 program is a hybrid model program that requires use of technology for submission of assignments, attendance at seminars and at regularly
scheduled class meetings. Students are grouped into cohorts for Tier 2. In 2009-10, there were 2 cohorts of 26 and 17 candidates; in 2010-11, there
was one cohort of 15. As noted above, the program is affected by competition from shorter programs available elsewhere in the region; a proposal for
entirely revamping the program is currently under consideration.
Due to the short duration of the program, Transition Points 1 – 3 are compressed into one semester. At the beginning of the semester all candidates
are required to complete the California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (CPSELS) Self-Assessment as part of ELPS 685 (Induction
Plan). Additionally, the candidate’s on-site supervisor/administrator completes an Induction Entry Rubric for both CTC standards and ELPS
dispositions as part of ELPS 685 (Assessment Action Plan). At the end of the semester, as part of ELPS 686, the rubrics are again completed by the
candidate (self-assessment) and the site supervisor/administrator (ELPS 686 Exit Assessment) to determine professional growth in the specific areas
indicated during the semester.
Candidate self-assessment data are shown in the tables below, however, due to the very small N for each measure, results should be considered
with great caution. Candidate self-assessments on CTC standards on a 10-point scale ranged from 6.78 to 9.0 at entry and 7.13 to 9.17 at exit. On
average across the 3 semesters measured, five out of the six standards were rated 8.0 or above, with the highest rated standard at exit being Standard
5 (ethics and professional leadership) and the lowest Standards 4 (collaboration with families) and 6 (contexts of education), much as in the Tier 1
program. Growth from entry to exit from the program ranged from a low of no change to a high of 1.1. In fall 2009 and spring 2010, there was a drop
in the exit ratings in four standards, as well as the same entry-exit ratings on two standards in fall, 2009. These results may be due to candidates
coming to realize the limits of their knowledge due to their experience in the program, thus rating themselves lower, or it may be an arbitrary
difference. The ELPS Department is currently reviewing the results in order to determine what changes need to occur within the course itself or
within the evaluation procedures. Self-assessments of candidate dispositions were more positive, with most results at 4.5 or above on a five-point
scale. Ratings at exit went down slightly for two cohorts on two standards and two remained the same. Overall, there was relatively low growth
between entry and exit (ranging from none to .55), as might be expected regarding the dispositions of experienced administrators.
51 | P a g e
Transition Point 1-1.e,1.f,1.g
Candidate Self Assessment – CTC Standards
Professional Clear Credential
Fall 2009 and Spring 2010
Fall 2009
CTC
Standard
NCATE
Standard
Spring 2010
Entry (ELPS 685)
Exit (ELPS 686)
Entry (ELPS 685)
Exit (ELPS 686)
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Vision of learning
1.e
8.18
11
7.82
11
8.33
6
8.71
7
Student learning and
staff professional
growth
1.f
8.09
11
8.27
11
8.17
6
8.71
7
Management of the
organization
1.f
8.30
10
8.30
10
8.50
6
8.71
7
Collaborates with
families and
community
1.e
8.18
11
7.91
11
8.50
6
8.00
6
Ethics and
professional
leadership
1.e
8.64
11
8.27
11
9.00
6
9.17
6
Political, social,
economic, legal,
cultural context.
1.e
7.64
11
7.64
11
8.33
6
8.00
7
Notes: 10 point scale (1=Low, 10=High)
52 | P a g e
Candidate Self Assessment – Dispositions
Professional Clear Credential
Fall 2009 and Spring 2010
Fall 2009
Disposition
NCATE Standard
Spring 2010
Entry (ELPS 685)
Exit (ELPS 686)
Entry (ELPS 685)
Exit (ELPS 686)
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Ethical and
professional practice
1.g
4.64
11
4.64
11
4.67
6
4.83
6
Collaboration
1.g
4.45
11
4.45
11
4.67
6
4.71
7
Effective
communication
1.g
4.27
11
4.20
10
4.67
6
4.43
7
Proactive and
visionary leadership
1.g
4.36
11
4.82
11
4.50
6
4.57
7
Life-long learning
1.g
4.27
11
4.82
11
4.67
6
4.57
7
Responsibility and
Time management
1.g
4.45
11
4.55
11
4.67
6
4.83
6
Diversity
1.g
4.36
11
4.45
11
4.67
6
4.83
6
Notes: 1=Low, 2=Below Average, 3=Average, 4=Above Average, 5=High
Candidate Self Assessment – CTC Standards
Professional Clear Credential
Fall 2010
53 | P a g e
Fall 2010
CTC
Standard
NCATE
Standard
Entry (ELPS 685)
Exit (ELPS 686)
Mean
N
Mean
N
Vision of learning
1.e
8.33
9
9.00
8
Student learning and
staff professional
growth
1.f
7.89
9
9.00
8
Management of the
organization
1.f
8.11
9
8.88
8
Collaborates with
families and
community
1.e
6.78
9
7.13
8
Ethics and
professional
leadership
1.e
9.11
9
9.38
8
Political, social,
economic, legal,
cultural context.
1.e
7.89
9
8.63
8
Notes: 10 point scale (1=Low, 10=High)
54 | P a g e
Candidate Self Assessment – Dispositions
Professional Clear Credential
Fall 2010
Fall 2010
Disposition
NCATE Standard
Entry (ELPS 685)
Exit (ELPS 686)
Mean
N
Mean
N
Ethical and
professional practice
1.g
4.89
9
5.00
8
Collaboration
1.g
4.56
9
4.86
7
Effective
communication
1.g
4.78
9
4.88
8
Proactive and
visionary leadership
1.g
4.78
9
4.88
8
Life-long learning
1.g
5.00
9
5.00
8
Responsibility and
Time management
1.g
4.56
9
4.88
8
Diversity
1.g
4.78
9
5.00
8
Notes: 1=Low, 2=Below Average, 3=Average, 4=Above Average, 5=High
55 | P a g e
Results for supervisor assessments of the candidates are somewhat more robust with larger N’s compared to the self-assessments. Supervisor
ratings on CTC standards were stronger than some self-assessments and showed greater growth from entry to exit, often a change of 1.0 or higher on
a 10-point scale. On average, supervisors rated candidates 8 or higher on a 10-point scale on five of the six CTC standards. The lowest average
ratings were for Standard 6 (7.5) and the highest for Standard 5 (9.1), as we have seen elsewhere in this report. Supervisor assessments of the
candidates on the ELPS dispositions were likewise favorable, on average at least 4.0 on a five-point scale. The highest average rating was for
sensitivity to diversity (4.8) and the lowest for responsibility and time management (3.96). The range of ratings at exit was from 3.71 – 4.91, and the
range of growth from entry to exit was from .11 to .88.
Supervisor Assessment – CTC Standards
Professional Clear Credential
Fall 2009 and Spring 2010
Fall 2009
CTC
Standard
NCATE
Standard
Entry (ELPS 685)
Spring 2010
Exit (ELPS 686)
Entry (ELPS 685)
Exit (ELPS 686)
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Vision of learning
1.e
7.96
23
8.96
24
6.80
15
8.24
17
Student learning
and staff
professional
growth
1.f
7.96
24
9.08
24
7.13
15
8.59
17
Management of
the organization
1.f
6.77
13
7.50
12
6.93
15
8.27
15
Collaborates with
families and
community
1.e
6.44
9
7.33
9
7.40
10
8.80
10
56 | P a g e
Ethics and
professional
leadership
1.e
8.70
23
9.46
24
7.71
17
8.65
17
Political, social,
economic, legal,
cultural context.
1.e
7.40
5
8.20
5
6.59
17
7.24
17
Notes: 10 point scale (1=Low, 10=High)
Supervisor Assessment – Dispositions
Professional Clear Credential
Fall 2009 and Spring 2010
Fall 2009
Disposition
NCATE
Standard
Spring 2010
Entry (ELPS 685)
Exit (ELPS 686)
Entry (ELPS 685)
Exit (ELPS 686)
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Ethical and
professional practice
1.g
4.04
24
4.21
24
3.88
17
4.41
17
Collaboration
1.g
3.83
24
4.46
24
3.29
17
4.12
17
Effective
communication
1.g
3.79
24
4.30
23
3.25
16
4.06
17
Proactive and
visionary leadership
1.g
3.71
24
4.46
24
3.24
17
4.12
17
Life-long learning
1.g
3.96
24
4.42
24
3.18
17
4.06
17
57 | P a g e
Responsibility and
Time management
1.g
3.63
24
4.25
24
3.06
16
3.71
17
Diversity
1.g
4.68
22
4.91
22
4.71
17
4.82
17
Notes: 1=Low, 2=Below Average, 3=Average, 4=Above Average, 5=High
Supervisor Assessment – CTC Standards
Professional Clear Credential
Fall 2010
Fall 2010
CTC
Standard
NCATE
Standard
Entry (ELPS 685)
Exit (ELPS 686)
Mean
N
Mean
N
Vision of learning
1.e
6.21
14
7.93
15
Student learning
and staff
professional
growth
1.f
6.80
15
7.93
15
Management of
the organization
1.f
6.47
15
8.20
15
Collaborates with
families and
community
1.e
7.13
15
8.33
15
58 | P a g e
Ethics and
professional
leadership
1.e
8.13
15
9.27
15
Political, social,
economic, legal,
cultural context.
1.e
5.73
15
7.13
15
Notes: 10 point scale (1=Low, 10=High)
59 | P a g e
Supervisor Assessment – Dispositions
Professional Clear Credential
Fall 2010
Fall 2010
Disposition
NCATE
Standard
Entry (ELPS 685)
Exit (ELPS 686)
Mean
N
Mean
N
Ethical and
professional practice
1.g
4.00
14
4.80
15
Collaboration
1.g
3.53
15
4.20
15
Effective
communication
1.g
3.40
15
4.07
15
Proactive and
visionary leadership
1.g
3.20
15
4.00
15
Life-long learning
1.g
3.20
15
4.20
15
Responsibility and
Time management
1.g
3.07
15
3.93
15
Diversity
1.g
4.47
15
4.73
15
Notes: 1=Low, 2=Below Average, 3=Average, 4=Above Average, 5=High
60 | P a g e
At Transition Point 2 in the third week of the semester, candidates submit their Action Research Study Proposal for ELPS 689 Educational
Administration Practicum based on both the CPSELS Self-Evaluation that they completed at the beginning of the semester and also based on findings
of the ELPS 686 Assessment Action Plan completed collaboratively by the candidate and the on-site supervisor/administrator. As a requirement of
ELPS 684 (formerly 695) Field Based Leadership, candidates are to maintain a Reflective Journal wherein they respond in writing to articles and/or
selected topics. Additionally, weekly Case Studies are assigned to candidates as part of this course and candidates respond to the Case Study based
on assigned readings, textbook discussion and/or personal experiences employing an ELPS Department template. At the midterm the Reflective
Journals are evaluated as is the Research Study Proposal and approved by the instructor for inclusion, when completed, into the Portfolio as a
requirement of ELPS 689 Practicum in Educational Administration.
As the table below shows, mean scores for the Reflective Journals and Case Studies were between 7.8 and 8.25 on a 10-point scale at the midterm
(Transition Point 2); by the final version at TP3, they were rated high, between 9.06 and 9.35. Thus, both the Reflective Journals and the Case
Studies showed significant growth, ranging from 1.06 to 2.35 on the 10-point scale. However, data is missing for most of the 17 spring, 2010
candidates on this measure, therefore results should be treated with caution.
Transition Points 2- 3-1.e,1.g
Reflective Journals and Case Studies
Professional Clear Credential
Fall 2009 and Spring 2010
Fall 2009
NCATE
Standard
Midterm
Spring 2010
Final
Midterm
Final
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Reflective
Journals
1.e
7.87
23
9.00
22
6.80
5
8.60
5
Case
Studies
1.e
8.00
23
9.35
23
7.00
5
9.00
5
Notes: 10 point scale (1=Low, 10=High)
61 | P a g e
Reflective Journals and Case Studies
Professional Clear Credential
Fall 2010
Fall 2010
NCATE
Standard
Midterm
Final
Mean
N
Mean
N
Reflective
Journals
1.e
8.00
16
9.06
16
Case
Studies
1.e
8.25
16
9.13
16
Notes: 10 point scale (1=Low, 10=High)
At Transition Point 3, the end of the semester, the instructor evaluates the submitted candidate portfolio using the ELPS Department Portfolio Rubric
for Tier 2. The candidate’s portfolio contains the completed Action Research Project (ELPS 689), Reflective Journal (ELPS 684) and Case Studies
(ELPS 684). The rubric used to assess the Portfolio addresses the following three areas: 1) Project was Clearly Articulated; 2) Response to Student
Learning Outcomes; and 3) Portfolio Organization. While the fall, 2009 cohort met the department’s goal of having all final portfolio scores at 9 or
above, the spring and fall, 2010 cohorts fell short of this goal. The final mean scores for fall, 2009 and spring, 2010, ratings for each area of the
portfolio for the fall 2009 and fall 2010 cohorts were all above 8.7 on a 10-point scale, thus considerably higher than the spring 2010 cohort ratings of
8.24, 8.35, and 8. However, all portfolio area scores indicate strong growth from midterm to final (ranging from .59 to 1.6), with the spring 2010
cohort starting from a lower baseline and not surprisingly having lower final scores. In an attempt to raise the mean score in this area for all
candidates the ELPS Department will consider revising Portfolio procedures and requirements.
Transition Point 2-3 1.e,1.f, 1.g Portfolio Rubric Scores Professional Clear Credential
62 | P a g e
Portfolio Rubric Scores
Professional Clear Credential
Fall 2009 and Spring 2010
Fall 2009
NCATE
Standard
Midterm
Spring 2010
Final
Midterm
Final
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Project was Clearly
Articulated
1.e
8.10
21
9.18
22
6.59
17
8.24
17
Response to Student
Learning Outcomes
1.f
7.91
22
9.32
22
6.71
17
8.35
17
Portfolio
Organization
1.e
8.27
22
8.86
22
6.76
17
8.00
16
Total
1.e
23.86
22
27.36
22
19.88
17
24.50
16
Notes: 10 point scale (1=Low, 10=High)
63 | P a g e
Portfolio Rubric Scores
Professional Clear Credential
Fall 2010
Fall 2010
NCATE
Standard
Midterm
Final
Mean
N
Mean
N
Project was Clearly
Articulated
1.e
8.00
16
9.00
16
Response to Student
Learning Outcomes
1.f
7.63
16
8.75
16
Portfolio
Organization
1.e
8.31
16
9.25
16
Total
1.e
23.94
16
27.00
16
Notes: 10 point scale (1=Low, 10=High)
At Transition Point 4, after graduation from the Tier 2 program, the College of Education sends out a Graduate Follow-up Survey to all graduates,
just as for the Tier 1 program. This was done in summer 2010, targeting graduates of the Tier 2 program from 2007-2008. As with Tier 1, response
rate was extremely low (N= 6 or 7), so results should be used with great caution and will be only briefly reviewed here. The small number of
respondents rated their growth in knowledge, skills, and dispositions at 4 or above on a five-point scale, with the lowest mean ratings related to
technology, using data to inform practice, and acquiring in-depth subject matter knowledge and the highest ratings (4.83) for working with diverse
people, demonstrating a commitment to learning, and examining practice in light of standards. Mean ratings for student services in the Tier 2
program ranged from 3.0 to 4.75 on a five point scale, with most 4 or higher; lowest ratings had to do with web sites for the program and credential
office and processing of applications by Admissions and Records, while the highest ratings were for help from the graduate advisor and processing of
64 | P a g e
applications by the credential office. Mean ratings on general characteristics of the program were more variable, with the lowest having to do with
fieldwork, relevance of course content, overall satisfaction, and quality of instruction (ranging from 3.43 to 3.86) and the highest related to the
program’s effectiveness with CTC Standards 1 (vision of learning), 4 (collaboration with families), and 5 (ethics and leadership), all above 4.5. The
College plans to revisit the content and procedures for this survey in the coming year to ensure higher response in the future.
Transition Point 4-1.e,1.f,1.g,2.c
Graduate Follow-Up Survey
Professional Clear Credential
Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions
2007-2008 Graduates
Summer 2010
NCATE
Standard
1. Acquire in-depth knowledge in subject matter
2. Apply knowledge and skills in your field
3. Use technology proficiently in your field
4. Use multiple assessments & data to inform & improve practice
5. Use multiple assessments & data to enhance pupil academic learning
6. Use multiple assessment & data to enhance pupil social and emotional growth
7. Promote continuous improvement through program evaluation
8. Align practice with national, state, and institutional standards
9. Ability to impact the academic learning of pupils.
10. Ability to impact the social and emotional growth of pupils
11. Develop positive and caring interpersonal relationships among faculty,
school and community partners, pre-K and their families
12. Develop collaborative relationships among faculty, school and community
partners, preK-12 pupils and their families
13. Infuse pluralistic (diverse) perspectives throughout programs and practices
14. Work with people who are diverse in a variety of ways (culturally,
linguistically, ability, socioeconomic, gender, etc)
Entry to Program
Exit from Program
Mean
N
Mean
N
1.e
1.e
1.e
1.f
1.f
1.f
1.g
1.e
1.f
1.f
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.14
4.00
4.00
3.86
7
7
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
4.17
4.33
4.00
4.17
4.33
4.33
4.33
4.33
4.50
4.33
6
6
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
1.g
4.43
7
4.67
6
1.g
4.14
7
4.50
6
1.g
4.14
7
4.50
6
1.g
4.57
7
4.83
6
65 | P a g e
15. Analyze, synthesize and evaluate evidence (data) to inform practice
16. Encourage reflective practice by modeling professional competence,
collegial interaction and reflection on programs and practices
17. Encourage personal responsibility for refining the values and ethics that
guide your professional practice
18. Develop attitudes and behavior of caring professionals, principally by
demonstrating a personal commitment to learning and growth
19. Examine your professional practice in light of professional standards.
1.f
4.00
7
4.33
6
1.g
4.29
7
4.67
6
1.g
4.29
7
4.67
6
1.g
4.57
7
4.83
6
1.g
4.43
7
4.83
6
Notes: 1=Not Competent, 2=Less than Competent, 3=Somewhat Competent, 4=Competent, 5=Very Competent
Graduate Follow-Up Survey
Professional Clear Credential
Quality of Student Services
2007-2008 Graduates
NCATE
Standard
Summer 2010
Mean
N
Responses to your attempts to get program information from your department office
2.c
4.14
7
Responses to your attempts to get program information from the credential office
2.c
4.00
7
Responses to your attempts to get program advisement from the credential office
2.c
4.00
5
Responses to your attempts to get program advisement from your graduate
advisor/coordinator
2.c
4.75
4
Websites available to you explain your department or program
2.c
3.20
5
Websites available to you explain the credential office
2.c
3.00
4
Written materials available to you explain your department or program
2.c
4.29
7
Written materials available to you explain the credential office
2.c
4.29
7
66 | P a g e
The processing of your applications and documents by Admissions and Records
2.c
3.86
7
The processing of your application and documents by credential office
2.c
4.43
7
The processing of your applications and documents by department offices
2.c
4.14
7
Overall quality of service you received by staff in admissions and records
2.c
4.14
7
Overall quality of service you received by staff in graduate studies
2.c
4.29
7
Overall quality of service you received by staff in department offices
2.c
4.29
7
Notes: 5 point scale (1=Low, 5=High)
Graduate Follow-Up Survey
Professional Clear Credential
Perceptions of the Program
2007-2008 Graduates
Rate your CSUN program in terms of :
NCATE
Standard
Summer 2010
Mean
N
Quality of instruction.
2.c
3.86
7
Relevance and quality of course content.
2.c
3.57
7
Quality of fieldwork experience.
2.c
3.43
7
Facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a
vision of learning that is shared and supported by the school community
2.c
4.57
7
Advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional program
conducive to student learning and staff professional growth
2.c
4.43
7
67 | P a g e
Ensuring management of the organization, operations, and resources for a safe,
efficient, and effective learning environment
Collaborating with families and community members, responding to diverse
community interests and needs, and mobilizing community resources
Modeling a personal code of ethics and developing professional leadership
capacity
Understanding, responding to, and influencing the larger political, social,
economic, legal, and cultural context
Overall satisfaction with the program.
2.c
4.43
7
2.c
4.57
7
2.c
4.71
7
2.c
4.29
7
2.c
3.71
7
Notes: 1=Low, 2=Below Average, 3=Average, 4=Above Average, 5=High
III. Analysis of Candidate Assessment Data
Tier 1 Preliminary Administrative Services Credential
Candidate Competence
Strengths: Data from several assessments (ELPS 688 Fieldwork Evaluations, Portfolio Rubric ratings, ELPS 675 CTC Standards Assessment) show that
the ratings of candidate competence and dispositions are generally above average (above 4 on a 5 point scale). These are ratings of large N’s across several
classes by multiple professors and field site supervisors. Candidates are rated as particularly skilled in CTC Standard 5, Personal Ethics and Leadership
Capacity, as in the previous report. Candidates made notable gains on all standards and dispositions when comparing ratings before and after fieldwork in
ELPS 688, with all mean ratings after fieldwork at 4.4 or above. Most Fieldwork Portfolios were in the 18.5-19.2 range on a 20 point scale. In addition, on
average, the overall pass rate on the Comprehensive Exams was 92% in 2009-2011 in the traditional program and 96% in the online program, which
represents an improvement on previous years. Results on ratings and Comprehensive Exams were generally consistent between the traditional and online
programs, with a few exceptions noted in the report.
Areas for Improvement: In both ELPS 688 and ELPS 675 at TP3 and TP4, candidates tend to receive the lowest ratings on CTC Standard 6, regarding the
many contexts of education, as in the previous report; though the relative differences between ratings on each standard are small, this ongoing low point
merits further consideration. The pass rate on components of the Comprehensive Exam has improved compared to our earlier report of 2007-2009 rates;
however, the two highest failure rates were for General Administration (7.4% in fall 2009) and Curriculum, Instruction and Supervision (6% in spring 2010),
reflecting continuing challenges assimilating curriculum-related knowledge and skills.
Program Effectiveness
68 | P a g e
Strengths: The Candidate Fieldwork Experience Evaluation yielded higher than average ratings (4.0 – 5.0) on all items, attesting to the value of the
fieldwork experience from the perspective of the candidates. On the ELPS 675 Exit Survey, candidates rated seven out of ten required ELPS courses 4.0 or
higher, with the law and business courses receiving the highest ratings. On the same survey, student satisfaction with advisement—a concern on the previous
report—made strong gains with 88% finding advisement adequate in 2010-11. Candidates were also more satisfied with the program’s use of technology
than in the past. Responses to questions about the program on the Graduate Follow-up Survey indicated both strengths and weaknesses but since the
response rate was very low, results are not trustworthy.
Areas for Improvement: As in previous years, candidates rating the value of ELPS courses gave the lowest ratings to ELPS 600 (research), yet
interestingly, on the same ELPS 675 Exit Survey, they rated experiences with research in the program as adequate rather than too much. The next lowest
ratings for the value of courses were for ELPS 681 (Organization/Administration of Elementary, Secondary, and Special Education) and 682 (Curriculum).
The two experiences rated as “lacking” on the ELPS 675 exit survey were technology and application/hands-on experiences, whereas in the previous report
technology and writing were rated as lacking. Clearly, the use of technology remains an area for improvement. Since candidates’ ratings of all aspects of the
Candidate Fieldwork Experience survey were 4.2 or higher on a 5-point scale, perhaps in rating hands-on experiences as lacking on the ELPS 675 survey
candidates are expressing concern about courses other than ELPS 688 (Fieldwork).
Tier 2 Professional Administrative Services Credential
Candidate Competence
Strengths: The Supervisor Assessment of CTC Standards, Portfolio Rubric Scores, and Reflective Journals and Case Studies scores all yielded high final
means generally above 8 on a 10-point scale. Candidates were particularly strong in CTC Standard 5 (ethics and leadership). In addition, ratings of candidate
dispositions by both supervisors and the candidates themselves were high, at 4.0 or above on a five-point scale.
Areas for Improvement: As noted in the report, there were a number of data points on Candidate Self-Assessments of standards and dispositions where
ratings dropped from program entry to exit; these results are ambiguous and merit further study. Also, supervisors rated Tier 2 candidates lowest on CTC
Standards 4 (collaboration with families) and 6 (contexts of education). In addition, some portfolios were below the department goal of 9 on a 10-point scale.
Program Effectiveness
Data was collected for the Graduate Program Follow-up Survey only for one group of graduates (2007-8), of whom only 7 responded. The small N makes
the results of this survey inconclusive. No Program Follow-up Survey was sent to employers.
IV. Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate and Program Performance
Candidate Performance
69 | P a g e
Tier 1: The report noted consistently lower ratings by instructors and site supervisors of candidates’ knowledge and skills in CTC Standard 6 (context
of education), although the relative differences between ratings of standards are small. In response, the Department will consider some faculty
professional development to strengthen instructors’ understanding of the social, political, cultural, and economic context of education and its
relevance to the ELPS curriculum. We will look at ways to more explicitly incorporate learning about the context of education into course activities
and reinforce the need for all instructors to ensure that students are aware of the links between CTC standards and their coursework. We will also
seek ways to improve communication on these issues with site supervisors (principals), who rate candidates on fieldwork. In addition, we will
continue to analyze failure rates on portions of the Comprehensive Exam, such as Curriculum, and add to our existing options for support for
remediation where necessary.
Tier 2: Regarding somewhat lower ratings of candidates in CTC Standards 4 and 6, issues may be similar to those in the Tier 1 program; the
department will take steps in Tier 2 coursework to reinforce links between the standards and course activities, particularly regarding Standard 6.
Regarding drops in ratings from entry to exit on some standards and dispositions by candidates, the department will review this data and data
collection procedures to determine whether this is an arbitrary occurrence or could be prevented with clearer guidelines for candidates. We will also
continue to clarify and streamline guidelines for the content and organization of the Tier 2 Portfolio to ensure high quality.
Program Effectiveness
Tier 1 Courses: The ELPS faculty will revisit the articulation between the ELPS 600 research course and the ELPS 688 fieldwork course in terms of
candidates’ action research projects (which are planned in 600 and implemented in 688). Specifically, we will discuss the connections of these action
research projects to K12 student achievement and to principles of leadership, and the extent to which the action research experiences are relevant to
candidates’ learning and future careers. This may be having an impact on how candidates perceive the value of the research course. Similarly, we will
continue to look for ways to eliminate redundancies between courses which can also lead to lower candidate evaluation of the value of certain
courses.
Tier 1 Technology: The Department will continue its efforts of the past few years to bring more technology training to faculty and to encourage more
faculty to use the online Moodle platform in hybrid course delivery, while continuing to purchase more laptops and projectors for use in off-campus
courses. In addition, when possible, we will work with our off-campus school site partners to attempt to situate more of our classes in facilities with
Internet access to allow for more access to technology during class. We have recently updated our department web site and added social media
features, which we hope will be useful to students. We will also seek ways to enhance candidates’ opportunities to participate in hands-on experiences across
the curriculum, not just in the fieldwork course, in part by linking coursework to the 6 standards activities earlier in the program..
In Tier 2, data on program effectiveness is too minimal to guide program improvement at this time. The Tier 2 program is undergoing a complete
review in response to competition from other Tier 2 programs in the area. Pending department decisions about the future viability of the program, we
will revisit the data.
70 | P a g e
Finally, data gaps in this year’s report point to the need to both review and more closely monitor the assessment data collection process, particularly
for the online (Distance Learning) Tier 1 program and the Tier 2 program. The department’s Assessment Committee will review existing measures,
make adjustments if necessary (such as revising the content and length of the Graduate Follow-up Survey), and ensure that there is a dependable
system in place to remind all faculty and staff about assessment data collection needs in a timely manner. We will also consider how to better assess
the training of Tier 1 candidates in the measurement of K12 student achievement and the use of data-based decision-making.
71 | P a g e