Administrative Services Credential Clear Induction Program ... · Administrative Services...

Administrative Services Credential Clear Induction Program Standards 2014

Please note: The 2013 Preconditions must accompany the submission of your program narrative document. Directions: The column on the left presents the ASC clear induction program standards separated into sections. Respond to the standard section in the adjoining cell to the right, describing how the program design will be aligned to the standard, including hyperlinks to supportive documentation.

Program Standard One: Program Design

Induction is the support and guidance provided to novice educators in the early stages of their careers. California’s Administrator Induction is an individualized, job-embedded, two-year program, with enrollment and initiation of coaching within 120 days of starting an initial administrative position. * • Standard 4 further clarifies this timeline to be 120 days for candidate enrollment, followed by 30 days in which coaching must commence.

The Department of Educational Leadership will provide an Induction Program that offers support and guidance to novice educators in the early stages of their careers. The program design will facilitate a two-year experience, individualized, and job-embedded, with enrollment and initiation of coaching within 120 days of a candidate’s employment in an administrative position. Coaching support will be provided within 30 days of enrollment. See CSUEB Program Design document.(Appendix I)

The design of the program is based on a sound rationale informed by theory and research, is primarily coaching-based, and includes personalized learning.

Grounded in the Department of Educational Leadership’s (DEL) ongoing commitment to research-informed leadership, the induction program structure is built upon adult learning theory (andragogical) principles including the need for adults to be involved in learning activities that are: based on experience and relevance to their work, problem-centered and allow them to participate in the planning and evaluation of their learning (Knowles). The program is specifically designed around each candidate’s self-identified needs, to be integrated into their work with feedback from their district mentors, university coaches and university

http://edschool.csueastbay.edu/unitresources/ctcdocs/EDLD/appendices/CSUEB%20Tier%20II%20Program%20Design.%20Appendix%20I.pdf



instructors. The Individual Induction Plan (IIP) includes a self-assessment grounded in the CPSELs and the related Descriptions of Practice (DOP’s), as well as multiple sources of data such as previous evaluation feedback, site- and district- frameworks, professional development experiences, and Preliminary Administrative Services Assessment/Portfolio(when available). Based on this self-assessment and feedback, candidates design their (IIP) aligned with the CPSELs *Attachment: Initial Candidate Assessment, Appendix II, Individual Induction Plan form (IIP), Appendix III and CSUEB Program Design document, Appendix I.

Professional Learning may be offered through formal and informal partnerships, complements and integrates school/ or district goals, and employs competency indicators that support a recommendation for the clear credential.

The IHE formally partners with local districts. Three years ago, the leadership department began meeting with district leadership teams from 20 local districts. District and site leaders currently contribute substantively to the design, implementation, quality and effectiveness of the preliminary administrative services, induction, masters, and doctoral programs. The IHE department faculty meet with district/site leaders at least twice a year to discuss school and district goals in order to intentionally integrate school/district directions into the further preparation and development of program candidates and share the competency indicators that support recommendations for administrative credentials. Each of our partner districts provides professional learning to their administrative staff. Candidates, coaches and university faculty participate in relevant professional learning activities. For example, a district may host a series of workshops such as Habits of a System Thinker with Peter Senge, (Appendix VII) in which Tier 2 candidates, coaches and university faculty participate. The annual Leadership Institute provides an opportunity for Tier II candidates to share their leadership work with administrators throughout the Bay Area, Appendix VIII. See CSUEB Program Design document, Appendix I

The program design provides The initial candidate assessment for development of IIP is completed with their

http://edschool.csueastbay.edu/unitresources/ctcdocs/EDLD/appendices/Initial%20Cand.%20Assesof%20Dev%20of%20IIP%201-6.Append%20II.pdf

http://edschool.csueastbay.edu/unitresources/ctcdocs/EDLD/appendices/Individual%20Induction%20Plan%20Appendix%20III.pdf





multiple opportunities for candidates to demonstrate growth and competence in the California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (CPSEL) outlined in Standard 5.

coach, district mentor and seminar instructor as they begin the two-year program (see attachment: Initial Candidate Assessment for Development of IIP). This initial assessment serves as the foundation of the candidate’s work to develop their leadership skills, knowledge and capacity in relationship to the CPSEL’s. The key question addressed is what does the candidate need to know and be able to do in order to lead effectively in his/her current position. This initial assessment is used to develop the IIP by the candidate in collaboration with the coach, district mentor and university instructor(s). Monthly university seminars provide candidates with multiple opportunities to demonstrate their knowledge, skills and competence in the CPSEL’s: including class presentations, on-going professional learning journal, role plays, promising practices presentations, case study development, participation and analysis. Coaching also supports multiple opportunities for candidates to demonstrate their knowledge, skills and competence in relationship to the CPSEL’s: including face to face meetings, observation cycles, electronic conversations, role play scenarios, analysis of written documents and communications, debriefing and planning sessions. There are six critical assessment events in the two-year program:

1. Initial development of IIP 2. Mid-year candidate reflection on IIP progress 3. End of first year IIP Portfolio 4. IIP Refinement for second year 5. Mid second year reflection on IIP progress 6. Year 2 culminating IIP Portfolio

See Attachments: Individual Induction Plan, Individual Assessment Rubric, Individual Self Reflection and Coaching Protocol Document. See CSUEB Program Design document, Appendix I.




Development of IIP. The design of the program allows for enrollment within 120 days of starting an initial administrative position.

The University will modify current practice of enrollment period only in Fall Quarter to provide for admission throughout the school year. Graduate admission will allow candidates to enroll in the program at any point in the academic year.

Upon program completion, the Induction program sponsor certifies a candidate's ability to demonstrate the administrative and operational knowledge, skills and dispositions needed to effectively lead, manage, and improve educational organizations.

Upon entry in the program a meeting with the coach, mentor and candidate will be convened to develop the individual learning plan and then at end of the first year a three way meeting will again be conducted to assess progress and determine goals for the second year. A portfolio (with artifacts) is submitted at end of year 1. This portfolio includes the individual induction plan –with a description of progress and areas of growth to demonstrate the administrative and operational knowledge, skills and dispositions needed to effectively lead, manage, and improve educational organizations. In the transition from year 1 to year 2 coaches and university instructors review year 1 portfolios to insure calibration of expectations for administrators’ proficiency in the standards. Year 2 plans may be adjusted based on this calibration as well as changes in administrator positions by the candidate. The portfolio is further developed in the second year and submitted mid-year to monitor progress towards completion. At the end of the second year there is another 3-way meeting with coach, mentor, and candidate to review accomplishments and determine long-term professional learning goals. Final portfolios will be reviewed by university instructors, coaches, mentors and the Induction Program Coordinator (See Attachment Appendix VI: Individual Induction Assessment Rubric).

Assessment of candidate competence is grounded in the proficiencies expressed in Standard 5 of the Administrative Services Credential Induction Program Standards.

Grounded in the proficiencies expressed in Standard 5, self-reflections, professional learning journals, individual induction plans, promising practice presentations, professional colloquiums, individual coaching sessions, monthly seminars and critical friendship groups (job alike) are all aligned to address and assess candidates competence in relation to the CPSELs ad documented in first and second year portfolios.

http://edschool.csueastbay.edu/unitresources/ctcdocs/EDLD/appendices/Individual%20Induction%20Rubric%20Appendix%20VI.pdf



Program Standard Two: Program Collaboration, Communication, and Coordination

The induction program formally collaborates with education organizations through partnership agreements to establish a professional education community structure that facilitates and supports induction activities.

The Induction Program formally collaborates with local districts, county offices of education and Association of California Administrators (ACSA). Three years ago, the department began meeting with leadership teams from 20 local districts. Over time these district partnerships have become increasingly robust and mutually beneficial and establish a professional education community structure that will facilitate and support induction activities. District leaders currently contribute substantively to the design, implementation, quality and effectiveness of the program by: Providing consistent input on curriculum and program design to the Department Chair, Tier I Coordinator, Tier II and university cohort /seminar instructor.

Recruiting highly –qualified university program candidates

Sharing university partnership goals with administrators who provide site support for leadership development of program candidates

Agreeing to “guest lecture” on key topics in the cohort/seminar classes or at the Leadership Institute

Checking-in with university seminar instructor throughout the year to provide formal and informal feedback on district initiatives AND support district candidates

Participating in Leadership Institute, providing feedback and sharing insights on effective leadership practices


Utilizing program candidates’ IIP work to support (and inform) district initiatives.

Each partner's contributions to the design and implementation of candidate preparation and certification are outlined through mutual contract/agreement.

Through mutual agreements, partners contribute in a variety of ways. For example, new learning activities are developed as the program continues to deepen district partnerships and district leaders participate in course sessions providing on-the-ground leadership perspectives as well as individual support to our candidates. The program revisits not only course curriculum, but also community learning opportunities. For example, the Leadership Institute format is revised each year to offer multiple opportunities for aspiring and veteran administrators to learn and develop. The institute provides occasions for Administrative Services candidates to share their work and receive feedback from their own district leaders as well as leaders from other districts. New activities will continue to emerge based on partnership districts’ challenges and initiatives (i.e. linked learning, restorative justice, flipped classrooms, etc.). The program continues to develop the effective use of online teaching (i.e. video clips) to increase candidates’ learning and networking opportunities.

Induction programs maintain communication on a regular basis with their partners to ensure that each candidate builds a coherent individualized learning program.

Frequent three way meetings insure support for individual candidates and direct communication regarding their ongoing progress. In addition to district partnership meeting, coaches, university instructors, and district representatives will participate in ongoing professional learning regarding coaching, the refreshed CPSELs and calibration of assessment instruments. Each month three way meetings occur among the candidate, coach, and district mentor to design, discuss, monitor and adjust the candidates’ IIP The candidate, coach, and district mentor meet monthly to discuss job-embedded tasks and determine if there are changes at the site or district professional learning opportunities that should be incorporated into a candidate’s IIP. These


communications are included in the Coaching Protocol Document, Appendix V. The district representative participates in the initial and final seminar meetings each year to engage in the orientation, support the development of the IIP and offer feedback from the field.

The induction program identifies the individual responsible for program coordination, key personnel involved in program implementation, and the reporting relationships between the identified personnel.

The Induction Program Coordinator is responsible for the hiring and recruiting of instructor(s), coaches, and district mentors. The coordinator works in partnership with district liaisons to insure program coherence and quality. Bi-annual meetings including coaches, mentors, instructors, and district liaisons will focus on candidate assessment, program evaluation and development. The Program Coordinator monitors the work of coaches and district mentors (via Coaching Protocol Document, Appendix V and monthly meetings) and solicits program feedback from district representatives at bi-annual meetings. See CSUEB Program Design document, Appendix I.

Program coordination includes admission, advisement, participant support and assessment, coach preparation, and program evaluation.

The Department of Educational Leadership has designated a faculty position of Induction Program Coordinator. Responsibilities will include admission, advisement, participant support and assessment, coach preparation, and program evaluation. The Program Coordinator (a) reviews and recommends admission based on CTC criteria and university requirements including recommendations, GPA, and.. (b) The Program Coordinator meets with candidates and coaches monthly to provide advisement (is also available to meet whenever a concern is raised by candidate or coach) and (c) coordinate IIP plan development, candidate reflection, coaching logs, candidate assessment (6 assessment events), and collect feedback on professional learning sessions and coaching. (d) The Program Coordinator participates in the initial 3-day coaching in-service and facilitates monthly coaching support sessions. (e) The Program Coordinator conducts program evaluation based on program documents including candidate course evaluations for the professional learning and coaching as well as program feedback from district representatives at bi-annual meetings. See CSUEB Program Design document, Appendix I.

http://edschool.csueastbay.edu/unitresources/ctcdocs/EDLD/appendices/Coaching%20Protocol%20Document%20APPENDIX%20V.pdf






The induction program individualizes professional learning opportunities for each candidate and includes program, employer, partner and high quality professional learning approved by the provider, in support of Standard 5 outcomes.

Upon entry to the program, at the end of the 1st year, at the beginning of the second year and mid-second year, meetings with the coach, district mentor and candidate will be convened to develop, assess, and revise the individual learning plan (IIP). In these meetings opportunities for individualized professional learning in support of each CPSEL outcome (Standard 5) will be identified and included in the plan.

The program regularly assesses the quality of their professional learning offerings using criteria that includes participant feedback and direct observation of offerings.

Each monthly seminar session will include a written reflection assessment of candidates’ professional learning experience recorded in candidate’s professional learning journal. Candidates will be asked on a scale of 1 to 4 the degree to which the professional learning offerings contribute to their knowledge, skill and disposition in the relevant CPSEL area(s). The Program Coordinator and coaches participate in the direct observation of professional offerings at monthly seminars.

The program leaders provide formative feedback to professional learning providers on their work.

The written reflection assessment of the participants experience will be shared with the professional learning provider. Based on frequent assessments program modifications will be made. Candidates’ written reflection assessments of the professional learning will be shared with professional learning providers after each monthly seminar. The Program Coordinator will collect and analyze written reflection assessments as part of the formative and summative program evaluation process.

Program Standard 3: Selection and Training of Coaches

The induction program selects, prepares, assigns, supports, and supervises coaches, using well-defined criteria.

The defined criteria for selection of coaches include at least five years of experience in district/site administrative position and possession of a clear administrative credential. Coaches must agree to participate in additional coaching professional development to ensure support of each candidates professional growth in alignment with the CPSELs. The Program Coordinator bases coach selection on


the university application process including: a letter of intent, transcripts, credentials, letters of recommendation, resume/vita, reference check and an interview. The Program Coordinator selects and makes coaching assignments based on the experience (i.e. elementary, middle, or high school, special education, alternative education, district office, etc.) and expertise necessary to support the candidates’ development. The Program Coordinator who has already completed ACSA coaching and Mentor training, participates in the initial 3-day coaching inservice (to prepare coaches), facilitates monthly coaching sessions (to support coaches), and observes monthly coaching sessions (to supervise coaches).

Coaches receive initial training prior to being assigned to a candidate.

An initial 3-day coaching course has been scheduled for June 1, 2, 3 2015 at the IHE campus. The program will provide on-going coaching support and further development.

Initial training includes the development of knowledge and skills of: coaching, goal setting, use of appropriate coaching instruments, and processes of formative and summative assessment designed to support candidate growth in the leadership competencies outlined in Standard 5 of the Administrative Services Credential Induction Program Standards.

Dr. Delores Lindsey and Dr. Kenneth Magdaleno will offer research-based initial three-day coaching practices in-service to all interested faculty and Tier I, and Tier II fieldwork coaches. The equity-centered coaching model will provide candidates with materials, resources, and protocols to support their growth and development as school and district leaders. Coaches will be selected and trained following the criteria outlined in the Program Standards of the CCTC Administrative Services Credential Induction Program. Coaches will be trained using current research for responding to leaders in today’s current context. Cultural Proficiency will be used as a conceptual framework for examining issues of equity and access related to the leadership competencies addressed in Standard 5 (CPSELs). Coaches will fine tune their coaching skills, practice reflection and dialogue and goal setting with candidates, learn protocols for assisting leader candidates on site for observations, and provide assessment/feedback to candidates to ensure continued growth over time. Coaches will engage with one another as well as IHE faculty and the Induction Program Coordinator in planning for their own growth and professional learning. The Induction Program Coordinator will meet with coaches at least once


per quarter to provide ongoing support and professional learning opportunities.

The program provides ongoing training to refine coaching skills, engage in ongoing professional learning in current educational trends, research and policy changes.

Quarterly meetings with coaches, seminar instructor(s) and Program Coordinator include: debriefing on students’ individual induction plans and progress; identification of current educational trends, research and policy changes that need to be addressed in the next professional learning session; and support in refining coaching skills.

The program provides ongoing support for individual coaching challenges, reflection on coaching practice, and opportunities for networking with coaching peers.

The Induction Program Coordinator facilitates group and individual meetings to support each coach. Reflection on practice and networking occurs during the quarterly meetings.

The program identifies and assigns one of its coaches to each candidate within the first 30 days of days of the candidate’s admission to the program, matching the coach and candidate according to defined criteria.

Coaches are assigned to candidates based on job-alike experience (i.e. by school level, district position, and experience with student demographics within the first 30 days of a candidate’s admission to the program.

Clear procedures are in place for reassignment of coaches, if the candidate/coach pairing is not effective.

Candidates provide quarterly reflections on their coaching experience and are made aware that they may contact the Induction Program Coordinator if they feel a particular coach is not a match for them. Conversely, coaches may contact the Induction Program Coordinator any time they feel unable to provide adequate support to a candidate. Once the Program Coordinator is contacted by either the candidate or the coach, individual confidential discussions are held to determine if there is a need to reassign or restructure and support the current coaching process. The Program Coordinator the candidate’ file as well as the coaches previous evaluations as part


of the decision making process. The program regularly assesses the quality of services provided by coaches to candidates, using criteria including participant feedback, direct observation of coaching, growth of candidate on established criteria, and compliance with program requirements.

The Induction Program Coordinator monitors all coaching activities in compliance with program requirements including: candidate feedback, observation of coaching sessions, and documentation of candidate growth established in the individual induction plans. Program Coordinator reviews coaching protocol documentation on a quarterly bases to monitor and assess quality of candidate’s coaching support. *Attachment: Coaching Protocol Document, Appendix V (a)The Program Coordinator collects participant/candidate feedback on coaches through quarterly university course evaluations. (b) The Program Coordinator observes coaches meeting with candidates monthly after seminars.

Induction program leaders provide formative feedback to coaches on their work.

Induction Program Coordinator provides quarterly formative feedback to coaches based on candidate feedback, observation of coaching sessions, and documentation of candidate growth established in the individual induction plans. Upon review of coaching protocol documentation, candidate’s evaluation of the coaching course, and observations the Program Coordinator will provide formative feedback to coaches.

Program Standard 4: Professional Learning

The induction program is a composite of the key intersecting elements of individualized coaching, professional learning opportunities, and assessment of skills, dependent upon the identified needs of each candidate, and chronicled on a common document, the individual induction plan (IIP).

The IIP portfolio includes documentation of coaching activities, professional learning from the monthly seminars and external professional learning opportunities, formative journal reflections and evidence (artifacts) of leadership competencies within each CPSEL. This portfolio demonstrates the intersection of the elements of individualized coaching, professional learning activities and assessment of skills, dependent upon the identified needs of each candidate. The program bases the individualized coaching and professional learning (monthly seminars) on the identified needs of the candidate outlined and assessed through the process of building the IIP portfolio. See CSUEB Program Design document, Appendix I.





The induction experience is informed by ongoing assessment and is cyclical in nature.

The Induction Program Coordinator, seminar instructor and coaches monitor an ongoing cycle of assessment through observations in the field and of the candidate’s seminar participation and presentations and frequent individual meetings with district mentors and candidates. The ongoing cycle of assessment includes:

1. Initial development of IIP - a needs assessment is conducted identifying what the candidate needs to know to be a competent administrator. A timeline including professional learning and field related activities are included into the IIP.

2. Mid-year candidate reflection on IIP progress - a self-assessment of what the candidate has learned, identified artifacts/evidence of practice and identified needs for further growth and/or next steps are documented.

3. End of first year IIP Portfolio – the candidate submits a portfolio documenting outcomes of IIP to be reviewed by the coach, district mentor, university instructor(s) and Induction Program Coordinator using a rubric based scale to measure leadership performance, and determine candidate growth and competence.

4. IIP Refinement for second year – The collaborative refinement (candidate, district mentor, coach and university instructor(s) of the IIP is based on the summative assessment of the first year IIP portfolio

5. Mid second year reflection on IIP progress - a self-assessment of what the candidate has learned, identified artifacts/evidence of practice and identified needs for further growth and/or next steps are documented

6. Year 2 culminating IIP Portfolio - the candidate submits a portfolio documenting outcomes of IIP to be evaluated by the coach, district mentor and university instructor(s) using a rubric based scale to measure leadership performance, and determine candidate growth and competence.

* Attachment; Individual Induction Assessment Rubric, Appendix VI (utilized for all


six events) See CSUEB Program Design document, Appendix I.

Components include initial assessment, goal setting, a plan that incorporates coaching and professional learning opportunities, ongoing formative assessment and reflection, benchmark and summative assessment and reflects a minimum of 60 clock hours and a maximum of 90 clock hours annually

In the first seminar at entry into the program the seminar leader provides an overview of the CPSELs and the induction portfolio expectations for year 1 and year 2. This session will provide opportunity for coaches and candidates to meet in job like groups to begin the initial development of goals for their individualized IIP (see attached). The next step will be the three way meeting of the coach, district mentor and candidate to refine individualized goals and identify leadership activities and professional learning experiences. Candidates submit monthly reflections in their professional journal to their coaches and university instructor. Coaches provide substantive feedback and adjust coaching support, activities and or coordination with district mentor. Seminar instructor reads journal reflections in order to monitor candidates’ leadership growth and progress and to inform the refinement of seminar content. Under the supervision of the Induction Program Coordinator coaches and the seminar instructor are responsible for verifying the number of clock hours (a minimum of 60 clock hours and a maximum of 90 clock hours) completed by each candidate on an annual basis.

A. The Individual Induction Plan (IIP)

The program provides candidates and coaches opportunities to collaboratively develop professional performance goals as part of an annual Individual Induction Plan (IIP), that is grounded in the outcomes of Standard 5, considers employer priorities and individual job responsibilities.

The program provides candidates and coaches opportunities to collaboratively develop professional performance goals as part of an annual Individual Induction Plan (IIP) series of meetings. Upon entry in the program, at the end of the 1st year, at the beginning of the second year and mid-second year, meetings with the coach, district mentor and candidate will be convened to develop, assess, and revise the individual induction plan. In these meetings opportunities for individualized professional learning will be identified and included in the plan that is grounded in the outcomes of Standard 5, considers district priorities and individual job responsibilities.



The IIP serves as the blueprint for the full induction experience, outlining the components of the program that will enable the candidate to meet or exceed established performance goals.

The IIP blueprint is designed based on the California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (CPSEL’s). For each CPSEL area the candidate, district mentor and coach develop professional learning objectives and determine activities to assess obtainment of performance goals. Based on candidates’ self reflections and selected portfolio artifacts, as well as seminar instructor, district mentor and coach observations an assessment as to whether the candidate has met or exceeded established performance goals will be determined by the Program Coordinator based on Individual Induction Assessment Rubric, Appendix VI See CSUEB Program Design document, Appendix I.

In accordance with Ed.Code 44270.1(a)(3), the IIP identifies individual needs, based on the candidate’s assignment and prior professional experiences, including the assessment that occurs at the end of the preliminary program, if available.

The development of the IIP sets the course for candidates learning during this program. Based on candidates current context, assigned role, and self-assessed level of leadership development, the candidate will determine the areas that will form the basis of this plan. This model is based on adult learning theory as it assumes that the candidate is best suited for setting his/her own learning goals, the activities for reaching them, and the methods for assessing his/her progress. When available preliminary administrative program portfolios or other assessment documents are reviewed as part of the induction plan development process.

The program ensures that the IIP identifies specific performance outcomes and data to be collected to certify demonstration of candidate proficiency in the areas of leadership articulated in Standard 5 of the Administrative Services Credential Induction Program

The program ensures that the IIP identifies specific performance outcomes and data to be collected. For example under CPSEL 2, Instructional Leadership, Element 2c, Assessment and Accountability a candidate would provide documentation of their accountability system for monitoring teacher practice and student learning outcomes. For each CPSEL area the candidate, district mentor, coach, and seminar instructor develop professional learning objectives and determine activities to assess obtainment of performance goals. Based on candidates’ self reflections and selected portfolio artifacts, as well as district mentor




Standards. and coach observations an assessment as to whether the candidate has met or exceeded established performance goals will be determined.

The IIP is a working document, periodically revisited for reflection and revision.

Throughout the two-year program there are multiple opportunities to revise the IIP (see attachment Appendix I, II, and III) based on candidates progress and development as well as changing circumstances in their job responsibilities. Appropriate changes in the IIP are developed and approved by the candidate, coach, district mentor, seminar instructor and Program Coordinator.

The IIP supports both the coaching and professional learning aspects of the induction program.

As the IIP is collaboratively developed and reviewed by the candidate, coach, district mentor and seminar instructor both the coaching and professional learning needs of the candidate are consistently supported through the IIP process.

B. Coaching

The program implements a research-based coaching model, with a sound rationale, that meets the individual needs of beginning administrators.

The program will implement a research based coaching model grounded in the conceptual frames of Cognitive Coaching, Cultural Proficiency, and Mentoring. These conceptual frames provide an individualized approach to ensure the program meets the candidates needs as a beginning administrator.

Coaching is a process and service that is individualized for each candidate, with a common focus of developing leadership competency rather than completion of hours.

Candidates submit monthly reflective journal entries to their coaches and university seminar instructor. Coaches provide substantive feedback and adjust coaching support, activities and or coordination with district mentor. A Coaching Protocol to attain leadership competencies (see attached document) is completed after each coach interaction with the candidate. Seminar instructor reads journal reflections in order to monitor candidates’ leadership growth and progress and to inform the refinement of seminar content. The Coaching Protocol Document, Appendix V provides each coach with an iterative and transparent cycle to support (and serve) each candidate’s individualized learning process and develop each candidate’s leadership competency. This cyclical process enables coaches and candidates to identify when additional coaching (and professional learning) time is needed (beyond what has been calendared at the





beginning of the year). The coaches and university instructor are responsible for verifying the number of clock hours completed by each candidate on an annual basis.

The coaching based induction program provides a minimum of forty hours of job-embedded coaching each year, including site visits, face-to-face meetings, and electronic conversation (e.g. telephone, computer applications) to support the development of leadership competencies in response to the complexity of candidate's administrative position, experience, background and IIP goals.

Based on the IIP coaches and their candidates create a calendar for observations and events and activities that support the candidate in meeting his/her performance goals. This calendar provides a minimum of forty hours of job-embedded coaching each year, including site visits, face-to-face meetings, and electronic conversation (e.g. telephone, computer applications) to support the development of leadership competencies in response to the complexity of the candidate's administrative position, experience, background and IIP goals. The (individualized) Coaching Calendar is created at the beginning of the year as the IIP is developed. For example, a candidate who is evaluating a large number of teachers may wish to schedule many site- based coaching meetings around the evaluation timeline. A candidate learning the evaluation process might wish to build a coaching calendar to include emailing draft evaluation process documents to the coach and then immediately conferencing (face-to-face or virtually) to revise a draft in order to prepare a professional response to the teacher(s) evaluated.

In order to provide each candidate with the coaching service needed to attain program outcomes, additional coaching hours may be required.

Based on individual candidate needs coaches will adjust their coaching service to provide additional hours of support to ensure candidates meet performance goals This cyclical coaching process enables coaches and candidates to identify when additional coaching (and professional learning) time is needed (beyond what has been calendared at the beginning of the year). For instance if a candidate is experiencing difficulty supervising/evaluating a certificated or credentialed employee more site-based support meetings will be scheduled.

Coaching is regular, consistent, and ongoing throughout each year of

The IIP based coaching calendar ensures consistent, and ongoing support throughout each year of the two-year program. The (individualized) Coaching


the two-year program. Calendar of is created at the beginning of the year as the IIP is developed to ensure consistent individualized support and options for additional meeting time.

Coaching is enhanced with technology supports, however it should be primarily in person and at the site

Coaching calendar is based on in person visits at the candidate’s site. This support is supplemented by electronic conversations. The coaching calendar consists of dates and times scheduled for in-person visits totaling a minimum of 40 hours throughout the academic year. The options for supplemental electronic communication will be based on candidates’ preferences. For instance, a candidate may schedule a face time call to debrief an evening site council meeting as this additional, separate communication provides for professionalism as well as confidentiality and insures that participating parents or teachers don’t feel excluded from the conversation.

The coaching process is one that requires confidential coach-candidate collaboration in self-assessment;

The coaching process is initiated at the first seminar meeting in which the candidate completes a self-assessment to identify his/her experience, prior knowledge and perceived needs in each CPSEL. The coach establishes and maintains a confidential and collaborative relationship with the candidate. Confidentiality is a key component in the training and support of coaches. Candidates know that only their coach and the Program Coordinator have access to their confidential files. The confidentially of the coaching process is shared as part of the candidates’ orientation at the first seminar.

investigation and data gathering regarding the circumstances and environment in which the candidate

Coach, district mentor and candidate discuss the circumstances and environment in which the candidate is embedded and clarify candidates’ experience, prior knowledge and perceived needs in each CPSEL. This process involves an on-going


is embedded, and identification of candidate’s experience, prior knowledge, and needs;

investigation and data gathering based on the candidates administrative position requirements. The investigation and data gathering regarding the circumstances and environment in which the candidate is embedded begins with the three-way meeting at the beginning of the first year when the coach, district mentor and candidate develop the IIP. In addition to the candidate’s job description, school & district goals, the data may include the candidate’s portfolio from a preliminary administrative services program.

goal setting, that intertwines job-embedded leadership performance with Category III, Standard 5 program outcomes;

The coach and candidate conduct a confidential conversation to identify specific goals that connects job-embedded leadership actions to their performance in Category III, Standard 5 program outcomes. Job-embedded conversation begins with the three-way meeting at the beginning of the first year when the coach, district mentor and candidate develop the IIP. A sample confidential conversation might occur after the three-way meeting. For instance, the coach may have a confidential debrief with the candidate to allow the candidate to share any areas of need that the candidate might not feel comfortable sharing with a district mentor. An outcome of the confidential conversation might be that the candidate identifies that his or her conversational style is different from that of his/her district mentor thus the candidate may wish to practice providing teacher feedback with the coach before conferencing with a teacher.

action planning to guide attainment of goals but which also identifies opportunities for both candidate growth and demonstration of program outcomes;

The action planning to guide attainment of goals then involves the district mentor. In an initial three-way meeting candidate, coach and district mentor identify specific opportunities for candidate growth and demonstration of program outcomes. These goals are monitored in coaching sessions throughout the two year program. A sample of action planning with the candidate might include establishing a teacher evaluation timeline chart documenting all steps required by district contract. Goals for communication with teachers and observation protocols are identified for candidates use as a part of his/her teacher evaluation process.


Coaching sessions are calendared to support the candidate’s attainment of these goals.

Observation of data gathering regarding learning, impact, and leadership performance;

The coach and candidate collaboratively document growth and attainment of Category III, Standard 5 program outcomes. In each session the coach will discuss observations of the candidate as well as data regarding leadership performance (i.e. teacher feedback on a candidate’s professional development session with faculty.

on–going facilitated reflection, formative assessment, adaptation, anticipation, and development of leadership competence;

The coach facilitates ongoing reflection, formative assessment, adaptation, anticipation, and development of leadership competence through frequent meetings. During coach candidate meetings discussion of observation and data gathering regarding learning, impact, and leadership performance is reviewed and documented. See Attachments: Coaching Protocol Document, Initial Candidate Assessment for Development of IIP, and IIP

And documentation of growth and attainment of Category III, Standard 5 program outcomes

The Coach supports the candidate’s development of an IIP Portfolio to document growth and attainment of Category III, Standard 5 program outcomes. This Process includes, Initial Candidate Assessment for Development of IIP (Appendix II), the Individual Induction Plan (Appendix III), Individual Self Reflection (Appendix IV)

C. Professional Development

The program provides professional development offerings (a minimum of 20-30 clock hours annually) addressing needs common to all beginning educational administrators as well as provides

Monthly seminars (for a minimum total of 20-30 clock hours annually) are designed to provide both core content and differentiated learning experiences correlated to the CPSELs. Monthly seminars are part of 2 year CPSEL-based course sequence meeting once per month for 4 hours at the university campus or the county office of education for a total of 40 hours per year. The differentiated learning experiences align with




http://edschool.csueastbay.edu/unitresources/ctcdocs/EDLD/appendices/Individual%20Self%20Reflection%20Appendix%20IV.pdf


differentiated learning opportunities as outlined in the candidates' IIP.

the candidates’ job-embedded roles and responsibilities as well as identified needs. Critical leadership areas such as family involvement and student discipline require varied approaches based on school level and context. For this reason, Critical Friendship Groups are formed as part of the monthly seminar structure to allow candidates to share resources and problem solve in a job a like format. See CSUEB Tier II Program Design (Appendix I)

It includes reflection on current practice, direct instruction in research-based best practices, modeling, problem-based practice, and opportunities for planning and adaptation to current leadership responsibilities.

Professional Leadership Journals that provide a formalized reflection on candidate’s leadership practice are an important element of this program. Therefore, between each seminar (but not between quarters), candidates are expected to maintain a professional learning journal of their own reflections as learners and leaders. These reflections are designed to extend our seminar discussions and interrogate assigned readings, as well as offer an opportunity for candidates to celebrate and grapple with the day--‐to--‐day successes and challenges of their work. The degree to which candidates maintain this journal will directly impact their efficacy as reflective leaders.

Professional development provides opportunities for candidates to develop professional networks that share best practices and challenges and garner collegial support.

The role-alike Critical Friendship Groups (CFG) meet during monthly seminars to provide an ongoing opportunity for candidates to connect with colleagues in similar contexts. This structure includes processes for both practical as well as emotional support for leaders as they navigate the many tensions throughout their professional contexts. These CFGs are designed to provide participants with a consistent and confidential structure of collegial support with role-alike colleagues. As described under Standard 1 the program design provides monthly professional learning seminars. Critical leadership areas such as family involvement and student discipline require varied approaches based on school level and context. For this reason, Critical Friendship Groups are formed as part of the monthly seminar structure to allow candidates to share resources and problem solve in a job a like format. See CSUEB Tier II Program Design (Appendix I).

All professional development is designed to support the application

Based on candidate’s initial self-assessment and IIP the seminar instructor provides prompts and responses to the candidate’s Professional Learning Journals entries.





and demonstration of program competency outcomes articulated in Standard 5 of the Administrative Services Credential Induction Program Standards, and the attainment of the candidate's IIP goals.

The monthly seminar and additional professional development opportunities are designed to support the application and demonstration of program competency outcomes articulated in Standard 5 of the Administrative Services Credential Induction Program Standards, and the attainment of the candidate's IIP goals. For example, a prompt regarding family involvement might be, “ In what ways are you as leader promoting meaningful engagement of families at your school site?” “What evidence can you provide that you are addressing diverse student and community interest and mobilizing community resources?” Evidence might include a family literacy night program with the local librarian as a featured presenter. An analysis of the sign in sheet to document which families were served and which families need more outreach. See CSUEB Tier II Program Design (Appendix I).

D. Assessment

The induction program develops assessments to measure candidate competence and take into account the highly variable nature of administrative responsibilities.

In order to take into account the highly variable nature of administrative responsibilities the candidate, coach and district mentor develop the IIP based on the candidate’s administrative role and responsibilities. The candidate’s IIP serves as the basis for all six critical assessment events’ measuring candidate competency. As referenced in 4.D.2 the Descriptions of Practice (DOP’s) will be utilized to measure candidate competence. It is our understanding that the revised DOP’s will be available by June 2015.

Assessment tools such as rubric based scales, are based on outcomes from Standard 5 of the Administrative Services Credential Induction Program Standards, identified by the program to measure leadership performance, and used to determine candidate growth and competence. Initial,

There are six critical assessment events in the two-year program based on CPSEL’s and DOP’s:

1. Initial development of IIP - a needs assessment is conducted identifying what the candidate needs to know to be a competent administrator. A timeline including professional learning and field related activities are included into the IIP. 2. Mid-year candidate reflection on IIP progress - a self-assessment of what the candidate has learned, identified artifacts/evidence of practice and identified needs for further growth and/or next steps are documented.



formative, and summative assessments are collaborative, based on data gathered by the candidate, coach, and program.

3. End of first year IIP Portfolio – the candidate submits a portfolio documenting outcomes of IIP to be reviewed by the coach, district mentor, university instructor(s) and Induction Program Coordinator using a rubric based scale to measure leadership performance, and determine candidate growth and competence. 4. IIP Refinement for second year – The collaborative refinement (candidate, district mentor, coach and university instructor(s) of the IIP is based on the summative assessment of the first year IIP portfolio 5. Mid second year reflection on IIP progress - a self-assessment of what the candidate has learned, identified artifacts/evidence of practice and identified needs for further growth and/or next steps are documented 6. Year 2 culminating IIP Portfolio - the candidate submits a portfolio documenting outcomes of IIP to be evaluated by the coach, district mentor and university instructor(s) using a rubric based scale to measure leadership performance, and determine candidate growth and competence. • Attachment; Individual Induction Assessment Rubric (utilized for all six

events) The rubrics are based on Descriptions of Practice (DOP’s) and will be utilized to measure candidate competence. It is our understanding that the revised DOP’s will be available by June 2015. These DOP’s will provide the exemplars upon which the rubric is based.

The initial induction assessment is designed to measure a candidate’s entry-level competence in each of the program-selected outcomes from Standard 5 of the Administrative Services Credential Induction Program Standards as baseline information that can be

The Initial Induction Assessment is designed to capture candidate’s entry level competence in each of the Program Standard outcomes for CPSELs (Standard 5). *Attachment; Initial Candidate Assessment for Development of IIP. In reference to 4.D.2 each of the six critical assessment events is based on the candidates formative feedback on the prior assessment. For example, at the


compared in future assessments to determine the candidate’s growth over time and overall competency.

beginning of the second year the candidate, district mentor, and coach refine the IIP based on the summative assessment of the first year IIP portfolio.

The initial assessment is informed by multiple measures.

Initial Candidate Assessment is informed by multiple measures – district job description, preliminary administrative assessment/portfolio (when available), self assessment, district mentor recommendations The candidate’s initial self assessment is based on a review of his or her prior work in relation to current job description. The district mentor and university coach assist the candidate in identifying CPSEL competencies that are particularly critical to their efficacy in the first two years of their administrative service.

Formative assessment supports and informs candidates about their professional performance and growth as they reflect and improve upon their practice as part of a cycle of inquiry and continuous improvement.

Mid year candidate reflections provide formative assessment to support and inform candidates about their professional performance and growth as they reflect and improve upon their practice as part of a cycle of inquiry and continuous improvement. Both the coach and the university instructor engage in a conversation in response to the candidates self assessment in order to prepare the candidate to meet IIP outcomes. The mid-year candidate reflection facilitates a cycle of inquiry and continuous improvement. For example, a candidate might share that she or he has worked to reduce discipline referrals among primary grade students but is still struggling to keep fifth grade boys in class. Further professional learning and coaching would be targeted on his or her inquiry to continue to better support fifth grade students.

The formative assessment process engages the candidate in gathering evidence about his/her own leadership practice, promotes reflection, documents candidate learning and leadership impact, and identifies next steps in pursuit of IIP goals.

Mid year candidate reflections require the candidate to gather evidence about his/her own leadership practice, promotes reflection, documents candidate learning and leadership impact, and identifies next steps in pursuit of IIP goals. Following the example provided in 4.D.5 a candidate submits a professional learning journal reflection describing how she or he has worked to reduce discipline referrals among primary grade students but is still struggling to keep fifth grade boys in class. They include data and an analysis of discipline referrals over a two-month period in their coaching log and set a focus on identifying specific strategies


to better support fifth grade students.

It utilizes multiple measures such as self-assessment, observation, and analyses of leadership performance.

Through monthly meetings with their University seminar instructor(s), coach and district mentor, candidates regularly describe and reflect on their growth and competence in the CPSELs. Additionally, mid-year they complete a self-assessment of their progress towards their learning objectives, which are identified in their initial CPSEL assessment in their Individual Induction Plan (IIP). The Individual Self Reflection will include space to reflected upon (1) what the candidate has learned (through professional learning activities including conferences, district in-service, university seminars, professional organizations workshops and other activities), (2) what leadership practices the candidate has demonstrated and (3) candidate’s identified areas for learning and further development of his/her leadership capacity. When the revised Descriptions of Practice (DOP) becomes available it will also be incorporated in the development and self reflection of the candidate’s leadership performance. Candidates also maintain an on-going professional learning journal. Other opportunities to demonstrate growth and competence in the CPSEL”s involve a promising practice presentation, and at the end of year they participate in a professional colloquium to present their portfolios, which includes a review of their Individual Induction Plan (IIP). The coach and seminar instructor both complete the Individual Induction Assessment Rubric using the multiple measures provide by the candidate. An example of a multiple measure used in formative assessment is the promising practice presentation. A promising practice presentation is required of candidates at the monthly seminar sessions for their cohort; the purpose is to develop an interactive session as a component of a professional colloquium. Candidates are expected to demonstrate a strategy, instructional practice or competency area from


the CPSEL’s that they have found to be successful in their professional work. Part of the assignment requires candidates to obtain structured feedback on their presentation’s quality and content as it relates to their leadership in professional learning.

The program conducts a benchmark assessment midway through the program.

The third critical assessment event is the first year Portfolio submission because it serves as the benchmark assessment midway through the program.

This evaluates the candidate’s progress toward demonstration of competence.

End of first year IIP Portfolio – the candidate submits a portfolio documenting outcomes of IIP to be reviewed by the coach, district mentor and university seminar instructor(s) using a rubric based scale to measure leadership performance, and determine candidate growth and competence. The rubric based scale is aligned to the Descriptions of Practice (DOP’s) that will be utilized to measure candidate competence. It is our understanding that the revised DOP’s will be available by June 2015. These DOP’s will provide the exemplars upon which the rubric is based. See Individual Induction Assessment Rubric (Appendix VI)

The results of the benchmark assessment are reviewed with the candidate and recorded by the program, with prompt goal and/or IIP revisions, if necessary.

IIP Refinement for second year – The collaborative refinement (candidate, district mentor, coach and university instructor(s)) of the IIP is based on the summative assessment of the first year IIP portfolio. The Program Coordinator will establish and maintain a file for each candidate including; the IIP and rubric based formative assessment data for each of the six critical assessment events in the two-year program based on CPSEL’s and DOP’s.

Prior to recommending each candidate for a Clear Administrative Services Credential, the program

Year 2 culminating IIP Portfolio - the candidate submits a portfolio documenting outcomes of IIP to be evaluated by the coach, district mentor and university instructor(s) using a rubric based scale to measure leadership performance, and




determines that each candidate has reached a level of competence meriting possession of a Clear Administrative Services Credential.

determine candidate growth and competence. The rubric based scale is aligned to the Descriptions of Practice (DOP’s) that will be utilized to measure candidate competence. It is our understanding that the revised DOP’s will be available by June 2015. These DOP’s will provide the exemplars upon which the rubric is based.

This determination is based on a review of observed and documented evidence, collaboratively assembled by coach and candidate.

This determination of candidate competency is based on a review of observed and documented evidence, collaboratively assembled by coach and candidate with the involvement of the district mentor and seminar instructor. The Induction Program Coordinator provides the final recommendation. All observed and documented evidence is included in the candidates culminating IIP portfolio. Each candidate’s portfolio will receive a blind review by two university coaches who have not worked with the candidate. The scoring results will be reviewed by the Program Coordinator and will meet with the candidate to provide feedback. The Program Coordinator will make the decision as to whether a candidate will repeat portions of the program.

This summative review includes a defensible process, an appeal process, and a procedure for candidates to repeat portions of the program as needed.

At each of the assessment points listed below candidates who are identified as not meeting standards will be provided an opportunity to appeal the assessment determination. Alternately the candidate will collaboratively develop a revised IIP to address the candidate’s need to meet that standard.

1. Initial development of IIP - a needs assessment is conducted identifying what the candidate needs to know to be a competent administrator. A timeline including professional learning and field related activities are included into the IIP.

2. Mid-year candidate reflection on IIP progress - a self-assessment of what the candidate has learned, identified artifacts/evidence of practice and identified needs for further growth and/or next steps are documented.

3. End of first year IIP Portfolio – the candidate submits a portfolio


documenting outcomes of IIP to be reviewed by the coach, district mentor and university instructor(s) using a rubric based scale to measure leadership performance, and determine candidate growth and competence.

4. IIP Refinement for second year – The collaborative refinement (candidate, district mentor, coach and university instructor(s)) of the IIP is based on the summative assessment of the first year IIP portfolio

5. Mid second year reflection on IIP progress - a self-assessment of what the candidate has learned, identified artifacts/evidence of practice and identified needs for further growth and/or next steps are documented

6. Year 2 culminating IIP Portfolio - the candidate submits a portfolio documenting outcomes of IIP to be evaluated by the coach, district mentor and university instructor(s) using a rubric based scale to measure leadership performance, and determine candidate growth and competence.

• Attachment; Individual Induction Assessment Rubric (utilized for all six events)

Each candidate’s portfolio will receive a blind review by two university coaches who have not worked with the candidate. The scoring results will be reviewed by the Program Coordinator and will meet with the candidate to provide feedback. The Program Coordinator will make the decision as to whether a candidate will repeat portions of the program. The defensible process occurs throughout the program as, at each of the six critical assessment points, candidates who are identified as not meeting standards will be provided an opportunity to appeal the assessment determination. If the Program Coordinator determines that a standard has not been met, the candidate, program coordinator and coach will collaboratively develop a revised IIP to address the candidate’s need to meet that standard. This process may be repeated until candidate competency achieved.

The induction program sponsor and the coach verify that the candidate

The induction program sponsor (IHE) is represented by the Program Coordinator who’s responsibility it is to review the observed and documented evidence,


has met competency expectations for performance as outlined in Standard 5 of the Administrative Induction Program standards.

collaboratively assembled by coach and candidate with the involvement of the district mentor and seminar instructor to verify that the candidate has met competency expectations for performance as outlined in Standard 5 of the Administrative Induction Program standards. The verification of candidate competency occurs throughout the program as, at each of the six critical assessment points, candidates who are identified, as not meeting standards will be provided an opportunity to appeal the assessment determination. Alternately the candidate, program coordinator and coach will collaboratively develop a revised IIP to address the candidate’s need to meet that standard. Each candidate’s portfolio will receive a blind review by two university coaches who have not worked with the candidate. The scoring results will be reviewed by the Program Coordinator who will meet with the candidate to provide feedback. The Program Coordinator will make the final verification of candidate competency.

Program Standard 5: California Professional Standards for Education Leaders

Induction programs support candidate development and growth in the following areas of educational leadership, requiring documentation in at least one area of each subsection (e.g. A., B.,) for a minimum of six areas of competence.

The backbone of the program is WestEd’s “Moving Leadership Standards into Everyday Work.” This document forms the basis of candidates’ self-assessments as leaders, including the design and implementation of their IIP. An Induction Portfolio (with artifacts in each subsection A through F) will be consistently reviewed and assessed. This portfolio includes the Individual Induction Plan with a description of progress and areas of growth to demonstrate the administrative and operational knowledge, skills and dispositions needed to effectively lead, manage, and improve educational organizations. Induction portfolios are consistently reviewed and assessed throughout the two-year program. At each of the six critical assessment points candidates who are identified as not meeting standards will be provided an opportunity to appeal the assessment determination. Alternately the candidate, program coordinator and


coach will collaboratively develop a revised IIP to address the candidate’s need to meet that standard. Each candidate’s portfolio will receive a blind review by two university coaches who have not worked with the candidate. The scoring results will be reviewed by the Program Coordinator and will meet with the candidate to provide feedback to support candidate development and growth in the areas of educational leadership, requiring documentation in at least one area of each subsection (e.g. A., B.,) for a minimum of six areas of competence.

A. DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A SHARED VISION

Education leaders facilitate the development and implementation of a shared vision of learning and growth of all students.

Students will be engaged in A variety of activities (i.e., evaluating vision statements using Blankstein’s criteria and Ladson Billings equity lens) are used to expand students’ leadership capacity to develop and implement a shared vision of learning and growth for all students. Readings include Fullan, Blankstein, Senge, Ladson-Billings and guest speakers include Superintendents as well as other district and site leaders. See CSUEB Tier II Program Design (Appendix I).

B. INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERS

Education leaders shape a collaborative culture of teaching and learning informed by professional standards and focused on student and professional growth.

We utilize a variety of materials and approaches focused on building the instructional leadership capacity of candidates. Students will be engaged with readings and activities related to the CPSELs; activities focused on conducting pre-conferences and instructional observations; and methods for providing feedback to teachers about what they observe. These activities are bolstered by readings and materials from Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for Teaching (Observing Classroom Practice); Alexander Platt (The Skillful Leader: Confronting Mediocre Teaching); Jonathan Saphier (The Skillful Teacher); Carl Glickman (Leadership for Learning: How to Help Teachers Succeed), the Teach Plus Project, Lynda Treadway from UC Berkeley’s Principal Leadership Institute, Richard Dufor (Professional Learning Communities) and Peter Senge ( System Thinking).


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1886822077/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_1?pf_rd_p=1944687622&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=1886822573&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1NK77HR32P0T1JT8HBTY


C. MANAGEMENT AND LEARNING ENVIRONMENT.

Education leaders manage the organization to cultivate a safe and productive learning and working environment.

Students will be engaged with a variety of activities that are embedded throughout the two year program to ensure that leadership students develop the management and organizational skills to cultivate a safe and productive learning environment. For instance students deepen their capacity in this area through presentations of promising practices by colleagues. Each student shares a specific resource or tool that they have identified in helping them to more effectively meet the demands of their work. Another way is through a seminar focused on effective meeting structures and practices, the use of specific protocols and other processes for engaging in effective discourse, and examination of professional learning communities (Talbert, PLCs at the Crossroads) See CSUEB Tier II Program Design (Appendix I).

D. FAMILY AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Education leaders collaborate with families and other stakeholders to address diverse student and community interests and mobilize community resources.

Students will be engaged in conversations with invited guest speakers, panel presentations of community members and organizations to build education leaders’ repertoire of strategies for collaboration with families and other stakeholders to address diverse student and community interests and mobilize community resources. For instance, a Superintendent leads a session that explores the school review process and how this model has engaged the entire community in assessing school quality. See CSUEB Tier II Program Design (Appendix I).

E. ETHICS AND INTEGRITY

Education leaders make decisions, model, and behave in ways that demonstrate professionalism, ethics, integrity, justice, and equity

Students will be engaged in class discussions that consistently center on issues of professionalism, ethics, integrity, justice, and equity. Leadership students discuss the multiple stakeholders to whom they are responsible and how to balance the multiple needs of all. In addition, through their ongoing Professional Leadership





and hold staff to the same standard.

Journals, candidates frequently wrestle with a wide array of personal and professional dilemmas, which call into service the attributes and dispositions necessary to meet this standard. See CSUEB Tier II Program Design (Appendix I).

F. Understanding and Communicating Policy

Education leaders influence political, social, economic, legal and cultural contexts affecting education to improve education policies and practices.

Students will be engaged in conversation with invited guest speakers, and panel presentations of advocacy groups (i.e., ACSA, CSBA, Educational Alliance, CTA,) to inform leadership students of strategies to influence political, social, economic, legal and cultural contexts affecting education to improve education policies and practices. Students will be asked to attend board meetings, legislative hearings, conferences, and community/political action group meetings in order to observe and develop a deeper understanding of the political social context of educational policy. See CSUEB Tier II Program Design (Appendix I).



Date post:	28-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Administrative Services Credential Clear Induction Program ... · Administrative Services...

Documents