Common Performance Task Data 2012-201
Standard.1-Visionary Leadership Common Performance Task: Written articulation of candidate s vision of an effective school, including a) The beliefs and values upon which the vision is based. b) The attributes and outcomes of the envisioned school. c) Supporting knowledge sources 3 2 1 0 CPT.1: Vision Paper 2012-13 & 2013-1 EdAdmin Candidate.86.33.71 3.6 3.79.0.1.33 Values & Beliefs Vision Attributes & Outcomes Performance Supporting Sources Assessment Criteria Comparison with Existent Vision 2013-1 2012-13 Comments: The performance of the first two cohorts on CPT.1 is very similar. This assignment includes a highly personalized component (Values and Beliefs) and the first cohort was able to better articulate and connect their values and beliefs to a vision of desired organizational outcomes. The second cohort evidenced a greater reliance upon external knowledge sources to define their visions. Overall scores are high and it is recommended that we wait for a third year of data before making any changes.
Standard.2.2A-Instructional Improvement Common Performance Task: School-wide assessment project that includes the collection, analysis and presentation of demographic, climate, and achievement data. The candidate identifies 3 SMART goals for improving student achievement and provides a rationale based on the data and research. CPT.2A School-wide Assessment Project 2012-13 & 2013-1 EdAdmin Candidate Performance.60.0.20.00 3.80 3.60 3.0 3.20.8.1.36.0.19.1 3.7.00.8 3.89 3.88.26 2013-201 2012-2013 Assessment Criteria Comments: Scores for the 2013-1 cohort are consistently, and in some cases significantly higher than for the 2012-13 cohort. In the 2012-13 cohort, two candidates failed to complete the School-wide Assessment Project and received a 1 on the rubric for each criterion. These two students scores negatively impacted the overall averages of the cohort on each criterion except English Conventions. In following up with these two students it was determined that time management and not intellectual capacity was at the root of their failure. Both students successfully repeated the School-wide Assessment course in 2013-1 contributing to the higher scores of 2013-1 cohort. It is recommended that we wait for a third year of data before making any changes.
.2B- Instructional Improvement Common Performance Task: Teacher Observation and Reflection: Analysis of classroom observation skills using language from the Washington State criteria and your district s instructional framework and rubrics. CPT.2B Teacher Observation and Reflection 2013-201 EdAdmin Cohort Performance.00.0.00 3.0 3.00 2.0 2.00 1.0 1.00 0.0 0.00.28..38..66 Required Components Evidence & Practice Depth of Reflection Structure Knowledge Common Performance Task 2A Comments: 2013-201 was the first year that CPT.2B was required. As a result there is only one year of data available. The instructor of the course was pleased overall with candidates performance on all criteria, and there was little overall variation of scores between criteria. No adjustment to the assessment prompt and rubric are recommended at this time.
Standard.3-Effective Management Common Performance Task: Analysis, reflection, and recommendations for a safe, efficient and effective learning environment. CPT.3: Learning Enviroment Paper 2012-13 & 2013-1 EdAdmin Candidate Performance.33.6.0.03.89 3.89.11.26 3 2 1 2013-201 2012-2013 0 Climate Attributes Climate Outcomes Leadership Behaviors Knowledge Sources Comments: Differences in scores between the two cohorts is slight. The 2013-1 cohort did score higher in the area of providing more and higher quality sources from the research/literature. The instructor believes this to be the direct result of his adding more emphasis to this criterion in his presentation of the task. However, based on the lower scores in 2013-201 on Criteria 1 and 3, the prompt for next year s assessment will be modified to strengthen the focus on safe and orderly environment even beyond than that in the current prompt.
Standard.-Inclusive Practice Common Performance Task: Community action plan (CAP) that describes student and community demographics, identifies school-community communication and partnerships currently in place, and recommends means to strengthen school-community communication and partnerships based upon analysis of student and community data. CPT.: Inclusive Practice 2013-201 EdAdmin Cohort Performance 3.29 3.71 3.71 3.71 2 1 0 School/ Community Demographics Analysis of Collaboration/ Partnerships Recommendations PowerPoint Reflective Analysis Comments: This common performance task was implemented for the first time in the 2013-1 academic year. The task that preceded it was found to be inadequate and was abandoned for a number of reasons, including that only a simple two-tiered (met/unmet) rubric was employed. Analysis of 2013-1 ratings indicates improvements that could be made to strengthen future candidates performance. Directions for the project and/or the scoring rubric can be strengthened to reinforce project parameters. For criteria 1 candidates presented comprehensive demographic data but scores fell when insufficient narrative was devoted to identifying the implications of that data as it affected the school and/or community groups. Criterion 2 required not only a listing of current family and community communication and partnership systems and structures with the school but an analysis of the effectiveness of those systems and structures. Scores fell due to lack of sufficient attention to the analysis requirement so this must receive greater intentionality in the directions. Criterion 3 involved developing narrative identifying how current systems and structures could be strengthened. Scores fell here if supportive rationale was insufficient so this will be a focus for future cohorts.
Standard.-Ethical Leadership Common Performance Task: Written description of the critical elements of leadership as related to authenticity, courage, and integrity..8.6..2 3.8 3.6 CPT.: Critical Elements of Effective Leadership Paper 2012-13 & 2013-1 EdAdmin Candidate Performance.71.8 Identification Critical Elements--Ethical Behavior.78.0 Elaboration Critical Elements--Ethical Behavior.71.33 Supporting Sources 2013-1 2012-13 Comments: Cohort 2013-1 scored significantly higher than Cohort 2012-13 on all criteria. This is believed to be the result of a slight modification of the assessment s prompt to guide the candidate to more singularly focus on authentic, ethical leadership. It was purposeful to have candidates include authenticity and integrity as the most essential elements of effective leadership, but not the only essential elements of effective leadership. It was intended that candidates exhibit a holistic, integrated conceptualization of effective leadership. However, before the modification of the prompt some candidates went too far afield away from providing a thorough treatment of leadership as related to authenticity, courage, and integrity. While we are pleased with the improved results we await next year s data to see if it represents the beginning of a trend.
Standard.6-Socio-Political Context Common Performance Task: Written description of social justice in the context of public school leadership. Provides examples to support social justice definition. Description of 3 leadership practices to promote social justice in the school.. 3. 3 2. 2 1. 1 0. 0 CPT.6: Social Justice Paper Rubric Scores 2012-13 & 2013-1 EdAdmin Candidate Performance.86.71.29.07 3.6 3.79 Soc. Just. Definition Soc. Just. Examples Soc. Just.Practices 2013-201 2012-2013 Comments: While scoring reasonably high on all three criteria, the 2013-1 cohort scored noticeably lower on the first two criteria than the 2012-13 cohort. The 2013-1 cohort was certainly were more successful in identifying practices that they would implement to promote social justice than they were in providing clear and concise definitions and examples of social justice. At this time the only adjustment that is recommended is that provided exemplars be reviewed and, if need be, replaced to insure that they model the balanced attention to all three components of the assigned task.