2.3.a unit assessment system - usc rossier school of education … · 2020. 12. 4. · ! 3!...

1

AEGIS (ˈējis)

Assessment and Evaluation Guide for Improvement System

ˈējis

2

Introduction and Overview The USC Rossier School of Education implements an assessment system called AEGIS (Assessment and Evaluation Guide for Improvement System) for ongoing program and unit evaluation and improvement. The modern concept of aegis (Greek: Αιγίς) is doing something under the protection or authority of a powerful and knowledgeable source. The purpose of AEGIS is to provide the USC Rossier School of Education with a continuous improvement system derived from its Conceptual Framework and grounded in its Mission, Strategic Plan, and Guiding Principles. Evaluation, primarily through key assessments, occurs throughout five phases of an annual assessment cycle and at critical transition points within every program to ensure a strong fit with the School’s mission, CTC and NCATE standards, the Conceptual Framework (CF) and Strategic Plan (SP). Similar efforts are conducted in the School of Social Work (SSW) for the Pupil Personnel Credential (PPS) and the Thornton School of Music (MUED) for the single-subject Music Education credential program. The alignment of the missions among the three schools is found in the CF (1.5.c).

The CTC and NCATE Standards along with the CF and Guiding Principles are the foundation of the assessment system. The unit developed the Guiding Principles during the “Futures Conference” in 2000 (1.5.c) as Leadership, Learning, Accountability and Diversity and incorporated them in the newly designed Doctorate in Educational Leadership program in 2003 in four required core courses. (Dembo & Marsh, 2007, Developing a New Ed.D. Program in the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California, p.23 (1.5.c). The four Guiding Principles are also represented in the MAT program, which was redesigned in 2008 for both on-ground and online delivery. In June 2011, faculty from each credential program held a retreat to begin the work of conducting an in-depth review of their programs. This retreat served as an interactive forum where all faculty members participated in a shared dialogue focused on understanding and proposing future outcomes for each program. The outcomes of this retreat became the foundation for the CF, based upon the philosophies, missions, visions, and goals common to all unit programs. The final outcomes of this effort are the proficiencies aligned with knowledge, skills, and dispositions in all programs. (2.3.a). AEGIS is designed to (a) provide data-oriented evaluative linkages between professional standards and program generated proficiencies to produce teachers and other school personnel who can help all students learn; (b) establish an annual cycle of data collection, interpretation and meaning-making for program review and revision; and (c) use this combination of data and evaluation activities to maintain a dynamic and developing picture of candidate progress through programs and into practice over time.

3

Guiding Principles: Beliefs and Knowledge Base The Guiding Principles, Leadership, Learning, Accountability and Diversity are the connecting values, which contextualize all programs in the unit. They are the underpinnings of curricula and the foundation for assessment, and interpret the expectations of the vision and mission statements of both institution and unit. They have remained constant and have consistently framed each program’s structure and course content. They serve as a referent for the Strategic Planning of unit purpose and goals and Candidate Proficiencies, and Unit and Faculty Expectations.

Leadership Unit beliefs are anchored by the idea that learners’ knowledge, skills and dispositions are enhanced when educational leaders create a common culture of high expectations, foster productive relationships within the organization, and hold the organization accountable (Fullan & Scott, 2009). The educational leader is able to advance the key objective of social justice when that leader engages in the practice of reflective discourse and a process of critical assessment of all prior assumptions. To become a transformative, translational, and transnational educational leader, that leader must demonstrate a high level of creativity and a strong degree of entrepreneurialism. By thinking “outside the box” and becoming a tempered radical (Meyerson, 2001), the true educational leader is innovative and considers diverse pathways and multiple perspectives embedded in diverse cultural contexts (Bensimon & Neuman, 1993). A strong educational leader must possess the ability to advocate for each and every learner. Through this advocacy, the educational leader advances social justice by effectively communicating with individuals who hold positions in critical interest groups (Kezar, 2009). Leaders engage in adaptive flexibility and are accessible to multiple constituencies (Heifitz & Linsky, 2002) and develop high educational expectations for all members of the learning community.

Learning At the Rossier School of Education, we believe that learning and motivation involve a complex reciprocal relationship between individual, contextual and cultural influences (Bandura, 1986, 1997). We believe that in addition to content knowledge, learning includes the acquisition of metacognitive and self-regulatory skills related to goal setting, problem solving, critical thinking and self-reflection (Flavell, Miller & Miller, 2002; Locke & Latham, 1990; Zimmerman, 2008). We believe that knowledge is constructed through our interactions with others, and that effective learning environments are social and collaborative in nature (Vygotsky, 1978). Our instructional practices model and advocate student-centered and meaningfully contextualized learning environments that foster student mastery of both domain content and skills in socio-emotional development (Mayer, 2008; Midgley et al., 1998). Our curriculum draws from a theoretically grounded framework that culminates in our candidates being able to flexibly address common problems of practice related to learning and motivation, especially those found in urban settings (Clark & Estes, 2008).

4

Accountability Accountability addresses indictors of success such as system coherence and support, evidence-based practices, processes of continual improvement and organizational learning. Heim (1996) defines accountability as “the responsibility that goes with the authority to do something…to use authority justifiably and credibly.” First and foremost, we are accountable to our students. Education is improved by professional and personal accountability to learners, parents, peers, and high standards of practice, which are responsive to the individual differences and needs of all learners. Through adherence to the principles of ethics and ethical professional practice, we strive to educate our candidates in an environment that promises them equity and justice (Sockett, 1993; Darling-Hammond, 1989). Proficient in data-driven decision-making and goal-directed professional practice, we respond to the needs of our students in a manner that is consistent in practice and effective in outcome (Gregory & Kuzmich, 2004). Accountability demands the application of authentic assessment, involving both formative and summative assessments that are both valid and reliable (Darling-Hammond, Ancess, & Falk, 1995). We believe in organizational accountability responsive to both internal and external accountability demands. While demonstrating our professional and personal accountability to our peers, parents and the community with transparent and verifiable practice and research, we strive to exceed established state and national standards (Ladson-Billings, 1995).

Diversity The USC Rossier School of Education strives to promote the understanding of the specific strengths and needs of learners who differ in race, culture, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, age, physical or intellectual abilities, religious, personal, and political beliefs. This focus includes an analysis of the distribution of power and how it impacts equity and access to educational and other forms of opportunity; the policies, practices, and beliefs that create barriers for learners and the ways in which these barriers may be personally and collectively navigated (Reynolds and Pope, 1991). Our concept of diversity encompasses acceptance and respect, and fosters the understanding that each individual is unique and that differences and similarities within and between groups are important factors to consider when addressing issues in education (Bennett, 2001). The USC Rossier School of Education’s curriculum reflects our deliberate efforts to model, foster, and develop the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to move beyond tolerance toward embracing and celebrating the rich dimensions of diversity and in creating equitable learning environments for all students (Gallagher, et al., 2012). Our goal is to provide USC Rossier School of Education students with the conceptual foundation and analytic skills needed to apply various competing and complimentary theories, propositions, variables, definitions, research evidence, assumptions, and application to educational practice. Understanding diversity empowers educators to recognize that ideas surrounding difference are socially constructed and that cultural biases can be overcome through the development of appropriate professional dispositions. Our academic programs aim to help USC Rossier School of Education students explore, develop and apply useful strategies for assertively addressing educational issues related to diverse populations and to reconstruct learning environments to meet the needs of all learners.

5

Goals: Strategic Plan 2012-‐2017 Summary Although the Conceptual Framework has remained constant since 2001, every five years it is supported by a new Strategic Plan. While the Conceptual Framework contains the theoretical framework ascribed to and the Guiding Principles of the unit, the Strategic Plan is the vehicle for meeting new unit goals within the Conceptual Framework’s context. The Strategic Plan of the USC Rossier School of Education, developed through a collective by faculty, staff and community stakeholders effort in fall, 2012 presents the three following major goals: GOAL 1: To be the dominant urban education resource because of our high-quality field-focused translational research. GOAL 2: 100% of USC Rossier School of Education graduates will enter their profession fully prepared and able to improve learning in urban education – through their research, program or curriculum development, teaching, policy development or counseling and intervention. GOAL 3: Identify and create key field based partnerships that are integrated with our degree program and research efforts. Figure: The Relationship between Guiding Principles, Goals, and the Knowledge Base

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

GOALS

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

6

Linkages Faculty course coordinators create explicit linkages in the course syllabi that demonstrate the relevance of the course goals with the

goal of the program and ultimately to the unit’s mission (1.5.b). Although currently not all syllabi contain these linkages, with the start of each new semester course coordinators increase the number of syllabi that include specific linkages, with the goal of having these linkages in all syllabi by the beginning of the fall 2013. In addition, the course coordinators include linkages to the Proficiencies that are relevant to the course content. Because they are embedded in the courses, Proficiencies are reflected in course specific assessments as well as program key assessments. Moreover, each key assessment refers back to specific criteria within each category of the Proficiencies, as well as aligning with specific CTC and NCATE Standards (1.5.c). Therefore, a hierarchy, derived from the USC Mission à USC Rossier School of Education Mission à Conceptual Framework/Strategic Plan à Guiding Principles à Candidate Proficiencies à Key Assessments à Criteria, forms the underlying construct of the assessment system. In sum, the faculty have created proficiencies based on the unit’s conceptual framework and state and professional standards as well as key assessments, embedded in coursework and fieldwork, that integrate proficiencies and course content. Each program has four to six key assessments that measure candidates’ achievement of these program proficiencies across the program. A table that demonstrates this alignment for each program can be found in the CF.

USC Mission

Rossier Mission

Conceptual Framework and Strategic Plan

Guiding Principles

Candidate Proficiencies

Key Assessments

Criteria

7

What We Measure: Candidate Proficiencies, Faculty and Unit Expectations The tables that follow show the alignment of the Candidate Proficiencies with the Guiding Principles, Leadership, Learning, Accountability and Diversity. The candidate proficiencies are designated by the knowledge (K), skills (S), and dispositions (D), and are embedded in coursework across all programs.

Candidate Proficiencies by Guiding Principle

Guiding Principle

Candidate Proficiencies

Leadership • Apply leadership strategies to create the structural, human relations, political and symbolic/cultural dimensions

critical for high performance learning organizations. (K/S) • Demonstrate initiative in creating solutions to barriers to learning that are identified within the organization and

community. (D) • Demonstrate an ability to create and sustain partnerships (i.e., groups, teams, organizations) that effectively

improve learning. (S) • Demonstrate a valuing of integrating multiple perspectives by building a community of stakeholders who advocate

for high academic achievement for all learners in any educational setting. (K/D) Learning • Apply evidence-based theories and principles of learning, motivation, and cultural competence to optimize practice in

educational settings locally, nationally, and globally. (K/D) • Demonstrate the belief that effective instruction is learner-centered, theoretically and content grounded, and

contextually responsive to the individual differences of all learners. (D) • Demonstrates new media literacy and the ability to use media in educational settings. (K) • Demonstrates competency in academic writing. (S)

Accountability • Establish measurable goals and strategies that support improved learning within the organization. (S) • Apply data-driven decision making to generate consistent and measureable outcomes that are responsive to established

standards and the needs of students, community and society. (K) • Demonstrate the belief that accountability and communication to all stakeholder groups leads to transparent and

equitable educational outcomes that are responsive to all learners. (D) Diversity • Develop an unshakeable commitment to a diversity of thought and experience in their practice (e.g. diversity of

socioeconomic status, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, language proficiency and disability). (D) • Identify practices, structures and policies that create barriers to learning. (K) • Develop the skill and political savvy to negotiate, if not eliminate, those barriers for themselves and on behalf of

others. (S) • Demonstrate a valuing of using individual and cultural differences to inform practice related to accountability,

leadership, and instruction that result in equal opportunity and access for all learners. (D)

8

Candidate Proficiencies by Knowledge, Skills and Dispositions

Candidate Proficiencies Guiding Principle Leadership Learning Accountability Diversity

Knowledge Apply leadership strategies to create the structural, human relations, political and symbolic/cultural dimensions critical for high performance learning organizations.

Apply evidence-based theories and principles of learning, motivation, and cultural competence to optimize practice in educational settings locally, nationally, and globally.

Apply data-driven decision making to generate consistent and measureable outcomes that are responsive to established standards and the needs of students, community and society.

Identify practices, structures and policies that create barriers to learning.

Demonstrate a valuing of integrating multiple perspectives by building a community of stakeholders who advocate for high academic achievement for all learners in any educational setting.

Demonstrates new media literacy and the ability to use media in educational settings.

Skills Apply leadership strategies to create the structural, human relations, political and symbolic/cultural dimensions critical for high performance learning organizations.

Demonstrates competency in academic writing.

Establish measurable goals and strategies that support improved learning within the organization.

Develop the skill and political savvy to negotiate, if not eliminate, those barriers for themselves and on behalf of others.

Demonstrate an ability to create and sustain partnerships (i.e., groups, teams, organizations) that effectively improve learning.

9

Disposition Demonstrate initiative in creating solutions to barriers to learning that are identified within the organization and community.

Apply evidence-based theories and principles of learning, motivation, and cultural competence to optimize practice in educational settings locally, nationally, and globally.

Demonstrate the belief that accountability and communication to all stakeholder groups leads to transparent and equitable educational outcomes that are responsive to all learners.

Develop an unshakeable commitment to a diversity of thought and experience in their practice (e.g. diversity of socioeconomic status, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, language proficiency and disability).

Demonstrate a valuing of integrating multiple perspectives by building a community of stakeholders who advocate for high academic achievement for all learners in any educational setting.

Demonstrate the belief that effective instruction is learner-centered, theoretically and content grounded, and contextually responsive to the individual differences of all learners.

Demonstrate a valuing of using individual and cultural differences to inform practice related to accountability, leadership, and instruction that result in equal opportunity and access for all learners.

10

Faculty Expectations derived from the Guiding Principles.

Guiding Principle Faculty Expectations Accountability • Models accountable behavior in practice for teaching, scholarship, and service

• Practices transparency and fairness in assessment • Includes theory and principles of accountability in courses • Participates in internal and external evaluations

Diversity • Provides scholarship and service that addresses the needs of diverse populations locally and nationally • Includes concepts and strategies for enhancing educational practice in diverse urban settings in the

curriculum Learning • Participates in academic conferences and associations to further professional development

• Contributes to academic publications and other knowledge bases within their fields • Reflects on and updates courses to reflect current research • Develops capacity to incorporate technology and new media in instruction • Provides opportunities for candidates to use technology skills in courses • Teaches new media literacy in courses • Reflects on feedback from course evaluations to adjust practice

Leadership • Models leadership behavior in their teaching, scholarship, and service • Participates the development of new courses and curriculum • Provides service to the Unit, the University and the community • Participates in associations relevant to their field

11

Unit Expectations derived from the Guiding Principles.

Guiding Principle Unit Expectations Accountability • Supports internal and external accountability efforts

• Maintains relationships with professional organizations. • Provides the human and financial resources to support accountability efforts.

Diversity • Communicates with various professional networks to recruit a diverse faculty and staff.

Learning • Creates the conditions and support for research • Hires qualified faculty and support staff • Provides resources to faculty and staff to incorporate technology and media for instruction and

assessment. Leadership • Models accountable leadership strategies that create a high performance learning organization.

The USC Rossier School of Education involves program participants, graduates, faculty and local practitioners in the review and improvement of academic programs. In examining programs, it is necessary to understand the academic context in which they are implemented. As a result, a wide variety of data is analyzed, and information framed in the context in which the program operates. Accordingly, the School uses multiple methods to collect information about the strengths and weaknesses of its programs.

12

How We Measure

Data Collection, Analysis, And Evaluation

Office of Program Accreditation and Evaluation The USC Rossier School of Education (the “unit”) established the Office of Program Accreditation and Evaluation (OPAE), reporting to the Vice Dean of Academic Affairs, to coordinate accreditation and evaluation activities with faculty, staff and leadership for all programs within the unit. The OPAE also coordinates the accreditation activities of The Thornton School of Music and the School of Social Work in that the unit represents these schools for the purposes of state accreditation. The OPAE consists of a full time faculty member who primarily teaches in the Master in Arts of Teaching program with a half time appointment as Director of Accreditation and a full time faculty member who teaches in the Doctor of Education program with a half time appointment as Director of Evaluation. Three staff consisting of a Senior Research Associate, Project Specialist, and Administrative Assistant support the OPAE. Although the OPAE functions as a team, the Project Specialist’s primary role is to analyze unit and program data throughout the annual assessment and evaluation cycle, while the Senior Research Associate’s primary focus is to assist program faculty and staff with data analysis and interpretation for continuous improvement. The OPAE is charged with the responsibility to coordinate and support the activities of program faculty and staff to create candidate proficiencies specific to each program based on the unit’s conceptual framework and state and professional standards, as well as supporting faculty to create key assessments to measure candidates’ achievement of these program proficiencies.

The USC Rossier School of Education Annual Program Report OPAE collaborates with each program to collect and analyze data through completion of the internal USC Rossier School of Education Annual Program Report (APR) to measure current progress toward each program’s objectives, and to determine gaps, diagnose causes, and identify solutions related to the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational issues that Program stakeholders must address to meet and exceed the program and unit’s objectives. The APR collects data in areas related to program goals, proficiencies, and assessment measures; program accomplishments related to the program’s goals, program response to the Dean’s Charge; Key Assessment and Additional Assessment data to determine candidate performance trends; and program strengths and weaknesses. The APR serves as the foundation for ongoing program improvement and unit evaluation. Data from the APR and other sources inform the CTC Biennial Report, CTC Program Assessment, CTC Preconditions and the NCATE Institutional and Annual Reports. Using Key Assessment and additional assessment results collected in the APR and the CTC Biennial Report, faculty and staff are able to track the progress of candidates during the program and provide these data for analysis to program administration to identify which candidates require additional assistance to succeed in the program.

13

The OPAE is charged with the responsibility to coordinate and support the activities of program faculty and staff to create candidate proficiencies specific to each program based on the unit’s conceptual framework and state and professional standards, as well as supporting faculty to create key assessments to measure candidates’ achievement of these program proficiencies. The unit appoints a Faculty Governance Committee for each program that assumes the leadership role in connection with collecting information on candidate proficiencies and other program governance activities. The unit further supports this effort by appointing and compensating faculty members as Course Coordinators for each program course. Course Coordinators work with other faculty and, when appropriate, external stakeholders in a shared and collective manner to generate key assessments for the courses they teach, reflect on student achievement data, and recommend changes in the curriculum for continuous improvement. Faculty review and revise key assessments annually to maintain currency and alignment with the conceptual framework, state and professional standards. At the end of each semester, the OPAE Project Specialist works with each Course Coordinator to collect key assessment data for all programs. In addition to the design and implementation efforts, the unit, through the OPAE, has a complexity and diversity of internal operations that provide multiple opportunities to document and interrogate the impact of its programs. Some of these opportunities include candidate performance on key assessments triangulated with faculty judgment of candidate performance, curriculum design and syllabus review, and candidate performance. Within course candidate feedback and end of course evaluations coupled with exit surveys provide additional candidate perspectives. The extent to which internal data collection sources present different and triangulated perspectives on candidate learning and program operation means that multiple sources will be included in various periodic deliberations among faculty, staff and unit leadership.

14

Key Assessments Each of the programs at the USC Rossier School of Education are guided by a specific set of Candidate Proficiencies that are measured by Key Assessments that align with NCATE and CTC standards. The Key Assessments are as follows.

Initial Teacher Preparation Programs Master of Arts in Teaching (MAT) Program Preliminary Multiple Subject Credential*/ Preliminary Single Subject Credential (Mathematics, English/Language Arts, Science, Social Science)*

§ Framing the Social Context of Schooling § Ped A “combo” assignment § E-Portfolio Formative Assessment § E-Portfolio Summative Assessment § TPA-PACT

Certificate in Gifted Studies (Added to any of the MST/SST programs)

§ Problems of Practice Project: Teacher Misinterpretations, Identifications, Teacher Preparation, Student Advocacy

Preliminary Multiple or Single Subject Credential – Bilingual Authorization* (Added onto any of the MST/SST programs) § Bilingual Authorization Fieldwork Competencies

Education Specialist Credential-Mild to Moderate Disabilities (2012)* (Added onto any of the MST/SST programs) § Family Interview § Guided Practice Case Study

Music Education* § Framing the Social Context of Schooling § MUED 510 Mock Teaching Practicum § MUED 534 Choral or Instrumental Portfolio § MUED 549 a/b Reflections § TPA-PACT § * Indicates a credential program

15

Advanced Teacher Preparation Programs Doctor of Education (Ed.D) in Educational Leadership (Educational Psychology, Higher Education Administration,1 Teacher Education in Multicultural Societies (TEMS), K-12 Leadership in Urban Settings).

§ Core Course Grades § Preliminary Review § Qualifying Exam § Capstone (Dissertation)

Tier II Administrative Services Credential (offered through the K-12 Leadership in Urban Settings concentration)*

§ Induction Plan § Portfolio & Presentation

Master of Arts in Teaching

Education Specialist Credential- Mild to Moderate Disabilities (2013)*

§ Framing the Social Context of Schooling § Ped A “combo” assignment § E-Portfolio Formative Assessment § E-Portfolio Summative Assessment § Family Interview § Guided Practice Case Study § TPA-PACT

MAT Capstone § Framing the Social Context of Schooling § Ped A “combo” assignment § Capstone A: Action Research Project § Capstone B: Teacher as Leader Project

Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL)

§ EDUC 510 Foundations of Learning in the TESOL Classroom § EDUC 501 Instruction for English as a New Language- Case Study Project § EDUC 562 TESOL Pedagogy Lesson Plan § EDUC 521 Assessment and Instruction for Diverse English Learners- Evaluation Material Design and Rationale

16

§ EDUC 526b Capstone in TESOL- Final Portfolios § EDUC 540b Practicum in TESOL- Final Portfolio

Master of Education, Advanced Instruction o Teaching Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) in Elementary Schools o Teaching Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) in Secondary Schools o Differing Abilities o The Secondary Curriculum

§ Framing the Social Context of Schooling § Pedagogy Portfolio § Capstone A: Action Research Project § Capstone B: Teacher as Leader Project

*Indicates a credential program

Other School Professionals Master of Social Work, Child Welfare and Attendance Pupil Personnel Services Credential*

§ Concentration Year Learning Agreement § Child Welfare and Attendance Log § Mid-Year Concentration Evaluation § Final Concentration Year Evaluation § Pupil Personnel Services Credential Evaluation

Reading Certificate

§ Literacy Profile § Diagnostic Teaching Video and Diagnostic Teaching Analysis § Final Diagnostic Profile § Reading Strategy Research Paper § Content Area Writing Plan § Literacy Leadership Plan § Professional Dossier

17

Master of Education, School Counseling Pupil Personnel Services Credential*

§ EDCO 506 Development, Administration, and Evaluation of Pupil Personnel Services: Final Exam § EDCO 505 Counseling and Collaborative Consultation in the School Setting: Final Case Consultation § School Counseling Practicum-Log § Field Experience –Log § Final Assessment of Candidate Competence § Mid-semester Evaluation § Final Evaluation

*Indicates a credential program

Alignment of Candidate Proficiencies with Key Assessments, NCATE Standards and CTC Common Standards The Key Assessments are aligned with the Candidate Proficiencies, NCATE Standards, and CTC Common Standards. The tables in the Appendix show this alignment organized by Guiding Principles for the Initial Preparation, Advance Preparation and Other School Professional programs. Faculty use these tables to evaluate the coherence of practices in individual courses and assessments.

18

When We Measure

Data Collection Schedule The following section describes when the unit assesses Candidate Proficiencies, Unit Expectations and Faculty Expectations. Data analysis and collection occurs in five phases: 1) Data Collection, 2) Annual Review and Reporting, 3) Data Analysis and Needs Assessment, 4) Improvement Planning and 5) Implementation and Formative Assessment. In each phase of this assessment system, the Office of Program Accreditation and Evaluation collaborates with faculty, staff, and administration to ensure that data is collected throughout the year to inform unit and programmatic decision-making.

Five Phases of AEGIS: Assessment and Evaluation Guide for Improvement System

19

Overview of the Five Phases of the Assessment System

Assessment System for Candidate Proficiencies

Assessment System for Faculty Expectations

Assessment System for Unit Expectations

Phase 1 – Data Collection (August –June) Qualitative and quantitative data

collection on key assessments and other indicators of candidate

performance

Individual faculty collection of data on course evaluations, scholarship, and

service.

Internal and external evaluations and reports that are responsive to the unit’s operationalization of the Mission and

Strategic Plan Phase 2- Annual Review and Reporting (January-June)

Collection of Key Assessment and other indicators of candidate

performance

Faculty completion of Annual Performance Review (FAPR)

Unit’s reports to the University, Board of Councilors; Accreditation reports; Federal Reports; Reports to other external organizations (national

rankings)

Phase 3 – Data Analysis & Needs Assessment (June-July) Reflection by faculty and staff on Key

Assessment results and other indicators and trends from the previous

academic year

Analysis of FAPRs by faculty subcommittees. Faculty reflection on

individual performance in previous year

Unit Leadership review of internal and external reporting data regarding

resources, faculty, staff, and operational needs to meet the Mission

and Strategic Plan Phase 4 – Improvement Planning (July-August)

Faculty and staff meetings with the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs to design responsive measures based on

candidate achievement on Key Assessments and other indicators

Review of individual FAPRs by Associate Dean of Faculty Affairs. Individual meetings with faculty to

highlight areas of strength and identify areas for improvement

Unit Leadership design responsive actions to facilitate the unit

achievement of the Mission and Strategic Plan

Phase 5 – Implementation of Data and Formative Assessment (August-June) Programmatic implementation of the

Dean’s Charge and continuous monitoring of candidate proficiencies

on Key Assessments and other indicators

Office of the Vice-Dean for Faculty Affairs monitors performance through course evaluations, scholarship, and

service

Unit Leadership implements and formatively monitors progress on

internal and external evaluations and reports

20

Detailed Description of the Five Phases of AEGIS Phase 1 At the conclusion of the fall, spring, and summer terms, OPAE collects candidate key assessment (KA) data in three ways: 1) using an online assessment and management system (Taskstream), 2) using Excel spreadsheets, and 3) using online survey software (Qualtrics). Currently, the MAT and MAT-TESOL programs are using Taskstream. The remaining programs are using Excel and Qualtrics to collect data, although the unit is currently investigating moving all key assessments to Taskstream. Qualtrics and Taskstream have the ability to export qualitative and quantitative data to Word, Excel, or SPSS for further analysis. Other candidate data, such as enrollment, field experiences, and content knowledge are collected at various times throughout the cycle. The unit disaggregates candidate enrollment data by location or program delivery type. Through nationwide “HUB Visits” to central locations that have a high concentration of students, and reports from guided practice teachers and instructors, each credential/certificate program also evaluates students’ field experience placement or district mentorship to ensure that relevant and beneficial professional activities and guidance are being provided. During this phase, faculty data are also collected including demographics, ranking, course evaluations, and publications. Unit data collected include candidate enrollment, retention and completion rates, data measuring the unit’s progress toward reaching the goals of the SP, achievement of the Dean’s charge, and data from external evaluations. Phase 2 Summary and analysis of data begins in the Annual Review and Reporting phase. All programs compile an APR that includes the following sections:

Program Information Overview and context Program Goals and Measures Program Accomplishments Program Changes Dean’s Charge Pending Accomplishments National, State, and Local Trends Impacting the Program Stakeholder Input Demographics for Clinical Practice Sites

21

Clinical Practice and Hour Requirements Candidates and Clinical Practice Clinical Practice Entry and Exit Requirements Full Time and Adjunct Faculty Information Staff Demographics Staff Achievements Student Enrollment Student Enrollment by Ethnicity Student Enrollment by Gender Student enrollment by on-campus and on-line programs Degrees Awarded Over Time Credentials Awarded Over Time Graduation, Enrollment, and Withdrawn Data Key Assessment Overview Key Assessment Descriptions Key Assessment Data Key Assessment disaggregated by on-campus and on-line programs Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions Key Assessment Transition Points Key Assessment Samples Key Assessment Rubrics Key Assessment Data Collection Schedule Key Assessment Data Analysis Schedule Assessment Trends Program Strengths as evidenced in the data Program Weaknesses as evidenced in the data Alumni Survey Results Employer Survey Results

During the Annual Review and Report phase, faculty complete the Faculty Annual Performance Review (FAPR), which is peer reviewed within academic ranks and used in “one-on-one” meetings with unit leadership to review past achievement and to identify future performance goals. The FAPR aggregates the following data types:

Teaching and curricular activities Research (if applicable) Publications End of course evaluations

22

Dissertation committees and thematic groups Supervision (research assistants, doctoral student advising, and field placements) Presentations at professional conferences Teaching awards and honors Curriculum development Leadership and service activities Professional service (University, School, local, national, international) Creative and scholarly activities Contracts and grants Contributions to strategic plan, mission, and university priorities

Additionally, formal candidate complaints are reviewed in stages and the data ultimately collected in the Office of Enrollment Management and Student Services.

Phase 3 Although the OPAE analyzes data on a continuous basis, in the Data Analysis and Needs Assessment phase, the focus of the analysis is to identify performance gaps between programs’ annual goals and the current achievement of those goals. The OPAE then meets with various stakeholders to seek a variety of perspectives and interpretations of the data. This includes faculty, staff, school partners, Site Supervisors, Guiding Teachers, advisory board members, external evaluation firms (e.g., WestEd), and unit administration. The outcomes from this phase are then incorporated into improvement planning. Phase 4 Improvement planning revolves around three activities framed by the Organizational Chart of Governance: (1) Discussions with each program’s Faculty Governance Committee led by the Governance Chair; (2) Dialog between each Program’s Director and Faculty Chair and the unit’s Senior Leadership Team; and (3) Discussions and decisions made by the unit’s Senior Leadership Team. OPAE facilitates these activities by providing analysis and interpretation to all parties, as requested. At the end of each academic year, the Governance Committee for each program prepares a Response to the Dean’s Charge, issued at the beginning of the academic year, in which the Committee details the progress made on each item in the Charge. This Response, along with each program’s APR provides the primary data for improvement planning meetings with Senior Leadership. Phase 5 Prior to the beginning of the academic year, the unit’s Senior Leadership Team enters into focused discussions regarding the unit’s strategies toward achieving the goals of the Strategic Plan during the next academic year. With respect to the academic programs, the

23

outcome of these discussions is the Dean’s Charge for each program for the academic year. In this document, the Dean sets forth her specific goals for each program and guidelines and recommendations for achieving the goals. Course coordinators and/or field placement coordinators who meet periodically with candidates to discuss placements, issues and concerns monitor candidate progress through programs. Coordinators also meet with mentors and site administrators to ensure that candidates are being fully prepared to enter the work force with sufficient field experiences to develop and support emerging requisite skills. In addition, students are assigned an Academic Advisor who tracks student progress and provides assistance for underperforming students based on course assignment and key assessment data. Course Coordinators conduct semi-monthly meetings with faculty to ensure alignment of instruction with program and credential standards, including evaluations of recordings of part-time instructors’ synchronous online instruction. Faculty meetings are recorded for later reference and to maintain instructional consistency among instructors.

Transition Points The following tables show when Key Assessments occur at specific transition points within a program and show the relationship between the program’s Key Assessments and admissions, clinical practice, program completion, and after program completion. Program Admissions Entry to Clinical

Practice Exit from Clinical Practice

Program Completion

After Program Completion

Master of Arts in Teaching (MAT) Multiple and Single Subject Credential and TESOL certificate

Essays, professional experience, recommendation letters, writing sample, academic record (undergraduate GPA, and university transcripts are evaluated regarding specific coursework relevant for the MAT Program)

KA2 Ped A “Combo” assignment

E-portfolio formative assessment2 E-portfolio summative assessment2

TPA (PACT) Alumni Survey

Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) in Educational Leadership

Essays, professional experience, recommendation letters, writing sample, academic record (GRE scores, undergraduate and graduate GPA, university transcripts are evaluated

N/A N/A Dissertation Defense Alumni Survey Employment Data Survey

24

Program Admissions Entry to Clinical Practice

Exit from Clinical Practice

Program Completion


regarding specific coursework relevant for the Ed.D. program)

Administrative Credential Program

Essays, professional experience, recommendation letters, writing sample, academic record (GRE scores, undergraduate and graduate GPA, university transcripts are evaluated regarding specific coursework relevant for the Ed.D. and Administrative Credential program

Induction Plan Portfolio Presentation Alumni Survey

Master of Social Work, Child Welfare and Attendance (and Pupil Personnel Services Credential)

Essays, professional experience, recommendation letters, writing sample, academic record (undergraduate GPA, and university transcripts are evaluated regarding specific coursework relevant for the MSW Program)

Foundation Year Learning Agreement and Evaluation

Mid-Year Concentration Evaluation Child Welfare and Attendance Log Pupil Personnel Services Credential Evaluation Final Concentration Year Evaluation

Mid-Year Concentration Evaluation Child Welfare and Attendance Log Pupil Personnel Services Credential Evaluation Final Concentration Year Evaluation

Alumni Survey

Reading Certificate Program Essays, professional experience, recommendation letters, writing samples, and academic records (undergraduate GPA and university transcripts) are evaluated regarding specific coursework relevant for the Reading Certificate Program.

Reading Strategy Research Paper Literacy Profile

Diagnostic Teaching Video and Diagnostic Teaching Analysis

Content Area Writing Plan Final Diagnostic Profile Literacy Leadership Plan Professional Dossier

Employment Data Survey

Master of Education, School Counseling (and Pupil Personnel Services Credential)

Essays, professional experience, recommendation letters, writing samples, and

EDCO 506 Final Exam

Practicum Evaluation School Counseling Practicum-Log

EDCO 505 Final Case Consultation Final Assessment of Candidate

Alumni Survey

25

Program Admissions Entry to Clinical Practice

Exit from Clinical Practice

Program Completion


academic records (GRE scores, undergraduate GPA, and university transcripts) are evaluated regarding specific coursework relevant for the School Counseling Program

Field Experience Evaluation Field Experience –Log

Assessment Of Dispositions Every degree and credential program offered by the USC Rossier School of Education assesses the knowledge, skills, and dispositions of its candidates. Each of these assessments align with CTC and NCATE standards and our goals and proficiencies. Dispositions are assessed using one or more of the following methods:

• Coursework Assessments: Assessment of candidate dispositions is an integral part of monitoring candidate development during the course of study. These assessments may take the form of selected course assignments or the Key Assessments identified in this document.

• Clinical Practicums: Programs that include clinical practicum have fieldwork supervisors assess candidate dispositions to identify needs for assistance and intervention.

26

Faculty Expectations and Assessments The USC Rossier School of Education has defined Faculty Expectations that support the development of Candidate Proficiencies. The following table describes the assessment measures that align with the Faculty Expectations. Each of these assessments is incorporated into each phase of the USC Rossier School of Education’s assessment system.

Faculty Expectations aligned to Guiding Principles Assessments

Accountability

• Models accountable behavior within their practice, school, and community in teaching, scholarship, and service

• Practices transparency and fairness in assessments and evaluation of candidates • Includes theory and principles of accountability in courses • Participates in internal and external evaluations

• Faculty Annual Performance Review (faculty goal setting)

• Course evaluations • Internal and External

Evaluations • Syllabi

Diversity

• Provides scholarship and service that addresses the needs of diverse populations locally and nationally

• Includes concepts and strategies for enhancing educational practice in diverse urban settings in the curriculum

• Promotion Document • Contributions to the field locally

and nationally • Collaboration across disciplines • Syllabi

Learning

• Participates in academic conferences and associations to further professional development

• Contributes to academic publications and other knowledge bases within their fields

• Reflects on and updates courses to reflect current research • Develops capacity to incorporate technology and new media in instruction • Provides opportunities for candidates to use technology skills in courses • Teaches new media literacy in courses • Reflects on feedback from course evaluations to adjust practice

• FAPR (conferences and publications)

• Syllabi • Course Evaluations

Leadership

• Models leadership behavior in their teaching, scholarship, and service • Participates the development of new courses and curriculum • Provides service to the Unit, the University and the community • Participates in associations relevant to their field

• FAPR (course evaluations) • FAPR (Faculty vitae) • FAPR (service) • Syllabi

27

Assessment Of Unit Operations Unit Expectations support Faculty Expectations and the development of Candidate Proficiencies. The following table illustrates the assessment measures that align with the Unit Expectations. These assessments are incorporated into each phase of the USC Rossier School of Education’s assessment system. Unit Operations aligned to Guiding Principles Assessments

Accountability

• Supports internal and external accountability efforts • Maintains relationships with professional organizations. • Provides the human and financial resources to support accountability

efforts.

• Annual Program Report • Internal and External Evaluations • Title II Report • CTC and NCATE Accreditation • Board of Councilors • Promotion Requirements • School Budget

Diversity

• Communicates with various professional networks to recruit a diverse faculty and staff.

• Candidate exit interviews and surveys • Percentage of diverse Faculty and Staff • Records on field experience

placements • Board of Councilors • Clinical Faculty advisory board • University Policy

Learning

• Creates the conditions and support for research • Hires qualified faculty and support staff • Provides resources to faculty and stuff to incorporate technology and

media for instruction and assessment.

• Key Assessments • Annual Program Report • Annual Review • USC Rossier School of Education

Strategic Plan • National Rankings • Accreditation • UCAR

Leadership

• Models and uses accountable leadership strategies that create a high performance leaning organization.

•

• USC Rossier School of Education Strategic Plan

• Leadership and affiliations with national organizations (CEPD, AAU, Hong Kong Global Conference, AERA, CTC, etc.)

• National Rankings

28

Fairness and Equity in the Assessment System The integrity of the academic process is paramount to the USC Rossier School of Education. To this end, every effort is made to ensure a fair, just and equitable assessment process, free from bias. In compliance with the academic policies outlined in the University of Southern California’s Scampus Student Guidebook (p.126; http://scampus.usc.edu/1200-conduct-review-system/), the USC Rossier School of Education is listed among the professional schools that have separate procedures for disputed academic evaluations. The link to the document that differentiates the USC Rossier School of Education document from the USC document can accessed by visiting this link: Scampus Student Guidebook Understanding the complexity and gravity of this process, the USC Rossier School of Education has charged the Office of Academic Support Services to inform candidates of their rights and responsibilities and assist them in these matters. The Executive Director of Academic Support Services conducts meetings with candidates to provide information and clarification on the academic appeals process, and conducts administrative hearings or convenes panel hearings at the candidate’s request if the criteria for appeal are met. A full description of the USC Appeals Process can be accessed by visiting: http://scampus.usc.edu/1500-appeals-process-academic-and-nonacademic/

System for Candidates Who Have Not Met Expectations Remediation Procedures Master’s Programs In each admissions cycle, the master’s programs may admit candidates who do not meet the baseline academic qualifications set for by the Graduate School, based on other compelling factors in their application (e.g., work experience, leadership capacity, extenuating background circumstances, etc.). These candidates are admitted on a conditional basis, with a designated number of units (6, 9, or 12) they will be expected to complete upon enrollment in their program, with an average grade of “B” or better. In being “flagged” as conditionally admitted, candidates are closely monitored by the Master’s Programs Office, until they have satisfied the conditions of their admission and gained regular candidate status. Conditionally admitted candidates are afforded support services through the Master’s Programs Office (namely through their academic advisor, and, if applicable, the writing advisor), above and beyond the general resources available at the University (e.g., Kortschak Center for Learning & Creativity, American Language Institute, Counseling Services). On an ongoing basis, the Master’s Programs Office activates its mid-semester Early Academic Warning system, designed to identify candidates who may be struggling with the academic and professional expectations within their degree programs. Candidates captured through this process (i.e., by faculty who provide feedback directly to the Program Office) are notified of their status and encouraged to meet with their academic advisors to discuss potential remediation strategies. Depending on the nature of the concern, these strategies may include seeking academic support services (e.g., writing advisor), reducing their course load, devising an individualized program of study in consultation with program faculty, or taking a leave of absence, among other options. At the end of each academic term, the Program Office also conducts a review of candidate grades and follows up with those who have not met the USC Rossier School of Education’s minimum academic performance standards for graduate candidates (i.e., maintaining a GPA of 3.0 or higher at all times). Candidates in this category will be placed on academic probation and given up to two semesters to regain satisfactory academic progress.

29

Doctoral Programs Carefully designed and relevant assessment tools have been developed to monitor the doctoral programs’ effectiveness in achieving each candidate’s goals. Procedures are in place to insure that feedback on candidate progress at every stage in the program is clear and constructive. Evaluation criteria are presented to the candidates well in advance of each review process, including: doctoral screening, teaching and research portfolio review, qualifying examination, dissertation proposal, and defense. Throughout the candidate’s tenure, data is also collected through anonymous surveys, focus groups, and individual meetings. The first assessment point occurs at the conclusion of the first semester. The program director meets with all Ph.D. candidates who received less than an A- on any of their fall courses (2 – core and 1 – research methodology). A meeting is then scheduled with the program chair, the candidate’s advisor, and the program director. The purpose of the meeting is to share feedback and discuss possible remediation for areas of concern. The first “official” assessment is the Doctoral Screening Process, which occurs at the end of the Ed.D. candidate’s first year in the program. This process is required for all doctoral candidates at USC with the primary purpose of this review being an assessment of the candidate’s academic progress and program fit. The USC Rossier School of Education’s current doctoral screening procedures were first implemented in 2005. In instances where candidates need extra support, additional resources are made available, including: individual tutoring, group workshops, and writing assistance. Most of this is provided by the EdD Doctoral Support Center. The Doctoral Screening has also identified 5 candidates as having interests that were not a good fit for the program. Following the review and after additional faculty counseling, these candidates agreed that they were better suited to work in the education field primarily as practitioners and all voluntarily withdrew from the program. Their departure was not seen as a disgrace or failure, but rather as an opportunity to pursue career paths better matched to their skills and interests.

30

Appendix

Alignment of Candidate Proficiencies with Key Assessments, NCATE Standards and CTC Common Standards

MAT Multiple and Single Subject Credential Programs Initial Preparation Program

Candidate Proficiencies Key Assessments NCATE Standards

CTC Common Standards

Leadership • Apply leadership strategies to create the structural, human relations, political and symbolic/cultural dimensions critical for high performance learning organizations. (K/S)

• Demonstrate initiative in creating

solutions to barriers to learning that are identified within the organization and community. (D)

• Demonstrate an ability to create

and sustain partnerships (i.e., groups, teams, organizations) that effectively improve learning. (S)

• Demonstrate a valuing of

integrating multiple perspectives by building a community of stakeholders who advocate for high academic achievement for all learners in any educational setting. (K/D)

Key Assessment 1, Criterion 3 Key Assessment 3/4, Criteria 3,4,5 Key Assessment 5, Criterion 2,9,10,11,12

Standard 1: Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Professional Dispositions

Standard 9: Assessment of Candidate Competencies

Learning • Apply evidence-based theories and principles of learning, motivation, and cultural competence to optimize practice in educational settings locally, nationally, and globally. (K/D)

• Demonstrate the belief that

Key Assessment 2, Criterion 1 Key Assessment 2, Criterion 5 Key Assessments ¾, Criterion 1 Key Assessment 1, Criterion 1 Key Assessment 2, Criterion 2

Standard 1: Candidates Knowledge, Skills and Professional Dispositions


31

effective instruction is learner-centered, theoretically grounded, and contextually responsive to the individual differences of all learners. (S/D)

• Demonstrates new media literacy

and the ability to use media in educational settings. (K)

• Demonstrates competency in

academic writing. (S)

Key Assessment 2, Criterion 4 Key Assessments ¾, Criterion 3 Key Assessment 5, Criterion 1,4 Key Assessments 3/4, Criterion 5 Key Assessment 1, Criterion 4

Accountability

• Establish measurable goals and strategies that support improved learning within the organization. (S)

• Apply data-driven decision making

to generate consistent and measureable outcomes that are responsive to established standards and the needs of students, community and society. (K)


accountability and communication to all stakeholder groups leads to transparent and equitable educational outcomes that are responsive to all learners. (D)

Key Assessment 1,Criteria 2 Key Assessment 2 – Criterion 3 Key Assessment ¾, Criteria 2 Key Assessment 5 – Criterion 3,5,6,7,8



Diversity • Develop an unshakeable commitment to a diversity of thought and experience in their practice (e.g. diversity of socioeconomic status, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, language proficiency and disability). (D)

• Identify practices, structures and

policies that create barriers to learning. (K)

Key Assessment 1, Criteria 2 Key Assessment 2, Criteria 1,2

Key Assessment 1, Criteria1, 2,3 Key Assessment 2, Criteria 4


Standard 5: Admissions Standard 9: Assessment of Candidate Competencies

32

MAT Multiple and Single Subject Credential Program- Bilingual Authorization Initial Preparation Program





effective instruction is learner-centered, theoretically grounded, and contextually responsive to the individual differences of all learners. (S/D)

Key Assessment Additional, Criteria 1 Key Assessment 1, Criteria 2,5,6

Standard 1: Candidates

Knowledge, Skills and Professional

Disposition


Accountability



to generate consistent and

Key Assessment 1, Criterion 3 Key Assessment 1, Criterion 1



Dispositions


• Develop the skill and political savvy to negotiate, if not eliminate, those barriers for themselves and on behalf of others. (S)

• Demonstrate a valuing of using

individual and cultural differences to inform practice related to accountability, leadership, and instruction that result in equal opportunity and access for all learners. (D)

Key Assessment 2, Criterion 2 Key Assessment 3/4, Criteria 1,3,4,5 Key Assessment 5, Criterion 2,6,10,11,12 Key Assessment 2, Criterion 2 Key Assessment 3/4, Criteria 1, 3,4,5 Key Assessment 5, Criterion 2,7,10,11,12

33

MAT Multiple and Single Subject Credential Program- Bilingual Authorization Initial Preparation Program

measureable outcomes that are responsive to established standards and the needs of students, community and society. (K)


• Develop the skill and political

savvy to negotiate, if not eliminate, those barriers for themselves and on behalf of others. (S)



Key Assessment 1, Criterion 2,3,4,5

Key Assessment 1, Criteria 5,6 Key Assessment 1, Criteria 3,4,5,6



Dispositions


The Education Specialist Credential- Mild to Moderate Disabilities aligns the following additional Key Assessments with selected proficiencies:

Education Specialist Credential- Mild to Moderate Disabilities Initial and Advanced Preparation Programs



34


Leadership • Demonstrate an ability to create and sustain partnerships (i.e., groups, teams, organizations) that effectively improve learning. (S)

• Demonstrate a valuing of integrating

multiple perspectives by building a community of stakeholders who advocate for high academic achievement for all learners in any educational setting. (K/D)

Key Assessment 2, Criterion 1,2 Key Assessment 1, Criterion 1,2




• Demonstrate the belief that effective

instruction is learner-centered, theoretically grounded, and contextually responsive to the individual differences of all learners. (D)

Key Assessment 2, Criteria 3 Key Assessment 2, Criteria 3



Dispositions


Accountability



to generate consistent and measureable outcomes that are responsive to established standards and the needs of students, community and society. (K)


accountability and communication to all stakeholder groups leads to transparent and equitable educational outcomes that are

Key Assessment 2, Criteria 1,2,3,4

Key Assessment 2, Criteria 2 Key Assessment 1, Criteria 1,2



Dispositions


35


responsive to all learners. (D)

Diversity • Identify practices, structures and policies that create barriers to learning. (K)

• Develop the skill and political savvy

to negotiate, if not eliminate, those barriers for themselves and on behalf of others. (S)



Key Assessment 1, Criteria 1 Key Assessment 2, 1,2,3,4 Key Assessment 2, 1,2,3,4



Dispositions


The Gifted Certificate aligns the following additional Key Assessments with selected proficiencies:

Gifted Certificate Initial Preparation Program




• Demonstrate initiative in creating

solutions to barriers to learning that are identified within the organization and community. (D)

• Demonstrate an ability to create and

sustain partnerships (i.e., groups, teams, organizations) that effectively

Key Assessment 1, Criterion 3 Key Assessment 1, Criterion 3 Key Assessment 1, Criterion 3



36


improve learning. (S)







Dispositions


Accountability


• Apply data-driven decision making to

generate consistent and measureable outcomes that are responsive to established standards and the needs of students, community and society. (K)

Key Assessment 1, Criterion 4 Key Assessment 1, Criterion1, 2



Dispositions



• Identify practices, structures and

policies that create barriers to learning. (K)

• Develop the skill and political savvy

to negotiate, if not eliminate, those barriers for themselves and on behalf of others. (S)

Key Assessment 1, Criteria 1.2,3,4 Key Assessment 1, Criterion 1, 4 Key Assessment 1, Criterion 4



Dispositions


37


• Demonstrate a valuing of using individual and cultural differences to inform practice related to accountability, leadership, and instruction that result in equal opportunity and access for all learners. (D)

Key Assessment 1, Criterion 4

Alignment of Candidate Proficiency and Key Assessments Organized by Guided Principles: Advanced Preparation Programs

Doctorate in Educational Leadership (EdD) Advanced Preparation Program




• Demonstrate initiative in creating solutions

to barriers to learning that are identified within the organization and community. (D)


sustain partnerships (i.e., groups, teams, organizations) that effectively improve learning. (S)



Key Assessment 1, Criterion 1 Key Assessment 2, Criterion 1 Key Assessment 3, Criterion 1 Key Assessment 4, Criterion 1 Key Assessment 1, Criterion 1 Key Assessment 2, Criterion 1 Key Assessment 1, Criterion 1 Key Assessment 1, Criterion 1 Key Assessment 2, Criterion 1 Key Assessment 3, Criterion 1 Key Assessment 4, Criterion 1



Learning • Apply evidence-based theories and principles of learning, motivation, and



Standard 5: Admissions

38


cultural competence to optimize practice in educational settings locally, nationally, and globally. (K/D)



• Demonstrates competency in academic

writing. (S)

Key Assessment 3, Criterion 2,3 Key Assessment 4, Criteria 1,2,5 Key Assessment 1, Criterion 2 Key Assessment 2, Criterion 3 Key Assessment 4, Criteria 1,3,5 Key Assessment 2, Criterion 2 Key Assessment 4, Criterion 5


Dispositions


Accountability • Establish measurable goals and strategies that support improved learning within the organization. (S)



• Demonstrate the belief that accountability

and communication to all stakeholder groups leads to transparent and equitable educational outcomes that are responsive to all learners. (D)

Key Assessment 1, Criterion 3 Key Assessment 2, Criteria 1,2,3 Key Assessment 1, Criterion 3 Key Assessment 3, Criterion 3 Key Assessment 4, Criterion 3,5 Key Assessment 1, Criterion 3 Key Assessment 2, Criterion 1 Key Assessment 3, Criterion 1 Key Assessment 4, Criteria 1,3,4,5



Dispositions



• Identify practices, structures and policies

that create barriers to learning. (K) • Develop the skill and political savvy to

negotiate, if not eliminate, those barriers

Key Assessment 1, Criteria 4 Key Assessment 3, Criterion 1 Key Assessment 4, Criteria1,5 Key Assessment 1, Criterion 4 Key Assessment 3, Criterion 1 Key Assessment 4, Criteria 1,4,5 Key Assessment 1, Criterion 4 Key Assessment 4, Criterion 5



Dispositions


39


for themselves and on behalf of others. (S) • Demonstrate a valuing of using individual

and cultural differences to inform practice related to accountability, leadership, and instruction that result in equal opportunity and access for all learners. (D)

Key Assessment 1, Criterion 1 Key Assessment 3, Criterion 1 Key Assessment 4, Criteria 1,3,4,5

Alignment of Candidate Proficiency and Key Assessments Organized by Guided Principles: Other School Professionals

Master of Social Work - Pupil Personnel Services: Child Welfare and Attendance

Candidate Proficiencies Key Assessments NCATE Standards CTC Common

Standards Leadership • Apply leadership strategies to create the

structural, human relations, political and symbolic/cultural dimensions critical for high performance learning organizations. (K/S)







Key Assessment 3 Key Assessment 3 Key Assessments 3,4,6 Key Assessment 3,4,5,6



Learning • Apply evidence-based theories and Key Assessments 1,2,4,5 Standard 1: Standard 5:

40


principles of learning, motivation, and cultural competence to optimize practice in educational settings locally, nationally, and globally. (K/D)



• Demonstrates new media literacy and the

ability to use media in educational settings. (K)


writing. (S)

Key Assessments 1,3,4

Candidates Knowledge, Skills and Professional

Dispositions

Admissions Standard 9: Assessment of Candidate Competencies





and communication to all stakeholder groups leads to transparent and equitable educational outcomes that are responsive to all learners. (D

Key Assessments 1,3,4,5,6 Key Assessments 1,3,4,5,6 Key Assessment 3



Dispositions



Key Assessments 1,3



Dispositions


41




negotiate, if not eliminate, those barriers for themselves and on behalf of others. (S)

• Demonstrate a valuing of using individual


Key Assessments 1,2,3 Key Assessments 1,2,3,4 Key Assessments 1,2

Masters of Education, Pupil Personnel Services Credential: School Counseling

Candidate Proficiencies Key Assessments NCATE Standards CTC Common Standards







multiple perspectives by building a community of stakeholders who advocate for high academic achievement for all

Key Assessments 1,4 Key Assessment 1 Key Assessment 3 Key Assessment 2



42


learners in any educational setting. (K/D)







writing. (S)

Key Assessments 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 Key Assessment 2 Key Assessments 1,4



Dispositions







Key Assessment 2,5,7 Key Assessment 1,2,7 Key Assessments 3,7



Dispositions


Diversity • Develop an unshakeable commitment to a diversity of thought and experience in their practice (e.g. diversity of socioeconomic status, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, language proficiency and

Key Assessments 1,2,3,4,7



Dispositions

Standard 5: Admissions Standard 9: Assessment of Candidate

43


disability). (D)






Key Assessment 1,4 Key Assessment 1,4 Key Assessment 1,4

Competencies

Reading Certificate

Candidate Proficiencies Key Assessments NCATE Standards CTC Common Standards






Key Assessment 6 Key Assessments 5,6 Key Assessment 6



44

Reading Certificate

• Demonstrate a valuing of integrating multiple perspectives by building a community of stakeholders who advocate for high academic achievement for all learners in any educational setting. (K/D)

Key Assessments 5,6







writing. (S)

Key Assessment 1,3 Key Assessment 6 Key Assessment 4 Key Assessments 1,2,3,6



Dispositions







Key Assessment 5 Key Assessments 2,4 Key Assessments 2,5,6,7



Dispositions


Diversity • Develop an unshakeable commitment to a diversity of thought and experience in their

Key Assessments 2,4,5,6


Standard 5: Admissions

45

Reading Certificate

practice (e.g. diversity of socioeconomic status, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, language proficiency and disability). (D)






Key Assessment 4 Key Assessment 6 Key Assessment 4,5,6


Dispositions


46

Descriptions of Key Assessments and Criteria

Initial Teacher Preparation Programs

MAT Key Assessments and Criteria

Term 1 Term 2 Term 3 Term 4 Key Assessment 1

Teacher, Student, Content Interaction

Key Assessment 2 Planning a Unit of Study

Key Assessment 3 ePortfolio assessment

Key Assessment 4 ePortfolio assessment

Criteria 1. Description of

classroom lesson 2. Analysis of

teacher:student:content interaction

3. Reflection on implications and impact on future professional practice

4. Technical aspects of paper

5. Commentary

Criteria 1. Establishing a balanced

instructional focus 2. Making content

accessible 3. Designing assessments 4. Developing students’

academic language repertoire

5. Use of research/theory on plans for teaching and learning

Criteria 1. Instruction:Engaging

students in learning 2. Instruction: Monitoring

student learning during instruction

3. Demonstrating knowledge of content and pedagogy

4. Developing academic language

5. Stated description of analysis of instruction

6. Stated reflections

Criteria 1. Instruction:Engaging

students in learning 2. Instruction: Monitoring

student learning during instruction

3. Demonstrating knowledge of content and pedagogy

4. Developing academic language

5. Stated description of analysis of instruction

6. Stated reflections

Key Assessment 5 Completed in Term 4, drawing on work from all previous terms PACT / TPA

1. Planning: Establishing a balanced instructional focus

2. Planning: Making content accessible 3. Planning: Designing assessments Instruction: Engaging students in learning 5. Instruction: Monitoring student learning during

instruction

6. Assessment: Analyzing student work from an assessment

7. Assessment: Using assessment to inform teaching

8. Assessment: Using feedback to promote student learning

9. Reflection: Monitoring student progress 10. Reflection: Reflecting on learning 11. Academic Language: Understanding language

demands and resources 12. Academic Language: Developing students’

academic language repertoire

47

Advanced Teacher Preparation Programs

EdD Key Assessments and Criteria

Terms 1 and 2 Term 3 Term 4 Terms 5 and 6 Key Assessment 1

Completion of Foundation Courses

Key Assessment 2 Preliminary Review

Key Assessment 3 Qualifying Exam

Key Assessment 4 Dissertation/ Capstone

Criteria Foundational Core Courses: Learning Accountability Diversity Leadership

Criteria 6. Alignment of Goals 7. Writing Ability 8. Student Engagement

Criteria 7. Overview of Study 8. Literature Review 9. Methodology

Criteria 7. Problem of Practice 8. Literature/ Gap Analysis 9. Method 10. Data 11. Educational Product

EdD Tier II Administrative Credential Assessments and Criteria

Term Term Key Assessment 1 Induction Plan

Key Assessment 2 Assessment Portfolio and Exit Interview

Criteria 6. Shared vision of learning for school community 7. School Culture and Instructional Program Conducive to

Student Learning and Professional Learning 8. Management of a Safe, Efficient and Effective Learning

Environment 9. Collaborating with Families, Community 10. Personal code of Ethics and Leadership 11. Understanding and responding to Larger Context

Criteria 1. Artifacts 2. Self assessment of

a. leadership b. accomplishments and c. future goals

48

ME Advanced Instruction Key Assessments and Criteria

Term 1 Term 2 Term 3 Term 4 Key Assessment 1 Framing the Social Context of Schooling: Teacher Student Interactions

Key Assessment 2 Subject Matter Pedagogy Class Assignments

Key Assessment 2 Capstone Project A: problem of practice

Key Assessment 4 Capstone B: Teracher as Leader Presentation

Criteria • Classroom climate • Teacher’s ideology • Knowing students

Criteria a. Secondary Humanities

552 Discourse Project or

b. Secondary STEM –EDU 555 Presentation of a Project Based Learning Activity

or

c. Elementary STEM – EDUC 584: Facilitating Creativity and Innovation in STEM Classrooms

Criteria 1. Fidelity of design and

problem 2. Integrity and clarity 3. Project impact on

teaching and learning 4. Executive summary 5. Teacher/researcher 6. Reflections

Criteria 1. Teacher Ldrshp

PowerPoint 2. Video, samples,

graphics 3. Small group

presentation 4. Observer feedback 5. Outcomes,

dynamics, learning

49

Other School Professionals

Child Welfare and Attendance and School Social Work Key Assessments and Criteria

Terms 1 and 2 Term 3 Term 3 Term 4 Term 4 Term 4 Term 4 Basic Social Work Assessments

Key Assessment 1a Concentration Year Field Practicum Evaluation: Learning Agreement

Key Assessment 1b Concentration Year Field: Mid-Year Concentration Evaluation

Key Assessment 1c Concentration Year Field: Final Concentration Year Evaluation

Key Assessment 2 Pupil Personnel Services Credential Evalaution

Key Assessment 3 Child Welfare and Attendance Log

Key Assessment 4 School Site Visit Log

Criteria • Professional

identity • Ethical practice • Critical thinking • Diversity in

practice • Human rights

and justice • Research based

practice • Human

behavior • Policy practice • Practice

contexts • Engage, assess,

intervene, evaluate





practice • Human



intervene, evaluate





practice • Human



intervene, evaluate





practice • Human



intervene, evaluate


identity • Ethical practice • Critical

thinking • Diversity in



practice • Human



intervene, evaluate





practice • Human behavior • Policy practice • Practice contexts • Engage, assess,

intervene, evaluate





practice • Human



intervene, evaluate

50

Reading Certificate Program Key Assessments and Criteria

Term Term Term Term Term Terms Key Assessment 1 Reading Strategy Research Paper

Key Assessment 2 Literacy Profile

Key Assessment 3 Content Area Writing Plan

Key Assessment 4 Diagnostic Tchg video and analysis

Key Assessment 5 Final Diagnostic Profile

Key Assessment 6 Literacy Leadership Plan

Key Assessment 4 Professional Dossier

Criteria 1. Read aloud

sample with unaided retelling of information

2. Assess reader strategies to create meaning

Criteria 9. With student,

use diagnostic assessments to create literacy profile

10. Use of appropriate strategies

11. Use of appropriate interventions

Criteria 1. Develop

instructional plan for a content area writing task

2. Create rubric

3. Graphic organizer

Criteria 1. Diagnostic

data on literacy need gathered throughout course

2. Videotaped lesson analyzing needs

3. Rubric-based self evaluation 4.

Criteria Analyze assessments for: 1. Miscue

analysis 2. Instructional

recommendations

3. Diagnostic lesson plans

Summary of instruction

Criteria 10. Analysis of need

data 11. Research based

instruction 12. Stakeholder

involvement 13. Implementation

proposal and plan

Criteria 12. Assignmen

ts from coursework

13. Analysis and self evaluation

14. Professional directions

51

School Counseling Program Key Assessments and Criteria

Term 1 Term 2 Term Term Term Terms Key Assessment 1 Development, Administration and Evaluation of Pupil Personnel Services

Key Assessment 2 Practicum Evaluation

Key Assessment 3 School Counseling Practicum- Log

Key Assessment 4 Counseling and Collaborative Consultation in the School Setting) Final Case Consultation

Key Assessment 5 Field Experience Evaluation of Candidate Competence

Key Assessment 6 School Counseling Fieldwork Evaluation

Key Assessment 7 Final Assessment of Candidate Competence

Criteria in Revision

2.3.a unit assessment system - usc rossier school of education … · 2020. 12. 4. · ! 3!...

Documents