Principal Leadership Programs

Principal Leadership Programs Educational Leadership LU School of Education 2015 2016 Handbook Lindenwood University

Table of Contents 1 Table of Contents 1. Program Coordinators 2 2. Program Description... 3 a. Applying to the Program... 3 3. Individual Program Descriptions and Course Requirements. 4 a. Master of Arts in School Administration..... 4 b. Educational Specialist (EdS)... 6 c. Educational Specialist in School Administration... 7 d. Educational Specialist in Educational Administration... 6 e. Program Planning Worksheets.. 11 4. EdS Application 15 5. Internship and Field Experience Requirements.. 16 a. Task #1.. 17 b. Task #2.. 30 c. Task #3.. 43 1

Program Coordinators Program Coordinators Dr. Cynthia Bice, Dean of the School of Education cbice@lindenwood.edu For more information about the Lindenwood University School Administration Master s Program, contact: St. Charles Campus Dr. Dean Vazis dvazis@lindenwood.edu Extended Sites Christine Lindquist clindquist@lindenwood.edu Belleville Campus Dr. Steve Suess ssuess@lindenwood.edu For more information about the Lindenwood University Specialist Programs, contact: St. Charles Campus Dr. Graham Weir gweir@lindenwood.edu Extended Sites Christine Lindquist clindquist@lindenwood.edu Belleville Campus Dr. Steve Suess ssuess@lindenwood.edu Southwest Campus Dr. Terry Reid treid@lindenwood.edu Waynesville Campus Dr. Terry Wolfe twolfe@lindenwood.edu For more information about the Lindenwood University Doctorate Programs, contact: St. Charles Campus Dr. John Long jlong@lindenwood.edu Extended Sites Christine Lindquist clindquist@lindenwood.edu Southwest Campus Dr. Terry Reid treid@lindenwood.edu 2

Program Description Applying to the Program Admission Standards Lindenwood University consciously seeks a diverse student body and welcomes applicants from all socioeconomic, religious, and ethnic backgrounds. The University also values geographic diversity and welcomes international students. Admission to graduate programs is granted to students who demonstrate academic preparedness and the potential for academic excellence. Applications for admission to Lindenwood University graduate programs will reviewed by the Dean of Admissions and Dr. Graham Weir. Application Procedures General Requirements To be considered for admission to the University, an applicant s file must include each of the following documents: Electronic or paper application, along with a non-refundable $30 application fee. Current resume. Personal statement indicating why the applicant wishes to further his/her education or describing the applicant s long-term goals or a specific life experience. An official undergraduate transcript as well as official transcript(s) from any graduate school(s) attended if transfer credit is desired. Additional documents depending on your selected program s requirements for admission (see below). Program Specific Requirements To be admitted to the Master of Arts in School Administration Program, all students must meet the following criteria: Possess a baccalaureate degree from an accredited college or university with a minimum GPA of 3.0 on a 4.0 scale. Complete 36 hours of the required graduate coursework. 3

Program Description Program Specific Requirements, continued Maintain a GPA of 3.0 or higher. Have passing credit for Education of the Exceptional Child. To be admitted to the Educational Specialist Program, all students must meet the following criteria: Complete a Master of Arts or Master of Science degree from an accredited college or university with a minimum GPA of 3.0 on a 4.0 scale. Complete the Lindenwood EdS Application: http://www.lindenwood.edu/education/edleadership/docs/eds/edsapplication.pdf If you did not receive a Master of Arts degree from Lindenwood University, you must provide: o Resume showing complete employment/academic experiences o Letter of recommendation from colleague (superintendent, principal, or supervisor) supporting your application to the Specialist in Education degree program. o Transcript(s) of graduate course work. Program Descriptions and Course Requirements Master of Arts in School Administration Initial Certification, School Principal The Lindenwood University school principal preparation program is accredited by the Commission on Institutions of Higher Education of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (info@hlcommission.org) and the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (http://dese.mo.gov/). The School of Education is also a member in good standing of the Teacher Education Accreditation Council (www.teac.org/). The Master of Arts in School Administration meets the needs of those students seeking initial certification as a school principal. The program stresses reflective leadership to foster effective schools. Skills taught prepare students to assume leadership roles in instruction, management, supervision, and problem solving in a creative and effective manner. To receive the initial 4

Program Description principal administration certificate in Missouri, students must hold a valid professional initial teaching certificate and have had two years teaching experience. Core Curriculum The following core courses are required for all students completing a master of arts in education: EDU 50500 EDU 51000 or EDU 51010 EDU 57000 EDU 52000 Analysis of Teaching and Learning Behavior Conceptualization of Education Conceptualization of Education for Beginning Teachers Educational Research Curriculum Design Content Curriculum In addition to the core courses listed previously, all master s level students in the MA in School Administration must complete the following courses: EDA 50000 EDA 50500 EDA 51000 or EDA51200 EDA 51500 EDA 52000 EDA 52500 EDA 53000 EDA 55300 EDA 53500 Foliotek/Missouri Educator Profile Foundations of Educational Administration Elementary School Administration and Organization Secondary School Administration and Organization School Supervision School Business Management School Law Public and Community Relations Field Experience School Facilities Those students seeking middle school administration certification must hold a current elementary or secondary teaching certificate. Those seeking elementary school administration must hold a current elementary teaching certificate, and those students seeking secondary school administration certification must hold a current secondary certificate. 5

Program Description Internship Requirements Students must complete 300 internship clock hours during their program of study. EDA 50000 EDA 51000/51200 EDA 51500 EDA 52000 EDA 55300 Foliotek/Missouri Educator Profile Seminar... 15 hours Elemen./Secondary School Admin. and Organization 45 hours School Supervision.. 45 hours School Business Management. 45 hours Field Experience. 150 hours Special Education Administration Certification, Add on Certification Students pursuing a Master of Arts in School Administration may also pursue special education administration certification. To do so, the student must complete all requirements for the degree and meet the following additional criteria: hold a valid special education teaching certificate, have a minimum of two years of teaching experience in an approved program, and complete the following courses: EDA 51400 EDA 54500 EDA 58598 Foundations and Administration of Special Education Special Education Law Special Education Field Experience Educational Specialist (EdS) The educational specialist program consists of a minimum of 28-30 credit hours beyond the requirements for Master of Arts in School Administration or Master of Arts in Education. Evidence of proficiency in educational statistics and research methodology must be provided before the candidate s enrollment in the research project. This evidence will normally be the satisfactory completion of EDA 64500 Statistics in Educational Administration. If not completed as part of the Master of Arts, the education specialist program must include a course in the behavioral, social, philosophical, or historical foundations of education. The program may consist entirely of courses in education or, in part, of courses selected from other disciplines. A specialist project that researches significant issues related to the field of education is required. 6

Program Description A minimum of 24 credit hours of coursework is required at the 60000 level for the Educational Specialist in Educational Administration. Twenty-two credit hours of course work at the 60000 level is required for the Educational Specialist in School Administration, and 21 credit hours at the 60000 level is required for the Educational Specialist in Instructional Leadership. Note: Six credit hours of course work taken for completion of the Master of Arts in School Administration may be applied toward the Education Specialist in Educational Administration. Nine credit hours may be applied toward the Education Specialist in Instructional Leadership and School Administration programs. Program Requirements Requirements for an Educational Specialist degree include the following: A minimum of 28-30 graduate education credit hours earned after completion of the Master of Arts. Satisfactory completion of an educational research course. A minimum of 22 credit hours of course work taken at Lindenwood University. A minimum residency requirement of two consecutive terms approved by the student s advisor. Successful completion of a Specialist Project. (Prerequisites include EDU 57000 Educational Research and EDU 52000 Curriculum Design). Educational Specialist in School Administration The School of Education also offers the Educational Specialist in School Administration. The EdS in School Administration is designed for those with a MA in a field other than School Administration. To receive the initial principal administration certificate in Missouri, students must hold a valid professional initial teaching certificate and have had two years teaching experience. This EdS program leads to initial principal certification. This program leads to eligibility for initial principal certification and requires 22 credit hours of course work at the 60000 level. Core Curriculum The following core courses are required for all students completing a master of arts in education: EDU 50500 Analysis of Teaching and Learning Behavior 7

Program Description EDU 51000 or EDU 51010 Conceptualization of Education Conceptualization of Education for Beginning Teachers Core Curriculum, cont. EDU 57000 EDU 52000 Educational Research Curriculum Design Content Curriculum EDA 53000* EDA 53500* Public and Community Relations School Facilities EDA 60800 Foundation of Elementary School Administration (4) or EDA 60900 Foundation of Secondary School Administration (4) EDA 61600 EDA 61800 EDA 62600 EDA 64500 EDA 65000 EDA 65300 EDA 68000* School Supervision School Business Management School Law Statistics in Education Administration Specialist Project Closure Course/Field Experience Specialist Experience (0). Required if the Specialist Project is not completed during the semester enrolled in EDA 65000. *Students who have not completed their Educational Specialist Project during the semester enrolled must enroll in EDA 68000 Specialist Experience each fall and spring semester until the project is completed. *Up to six credit hours of starred course work completed in the Lindenwood University MA in School Administration program may be applied toward the Specialist Program in School Administration. Note: Courses are three credit hours unless otherwise indicated. 8

Program Description Internship Requirements Students must complete 300 internship clock hours during their program of study. EDA 50000 EDA 60800/60900 EDA 61600 EDA 61800 EDA 65300 Foliotek/Missouri Educator Profile Seminar... 15 hours Foundation of Elementary School Administration/Foundation of Secondary School Administration... 45 hours School Supervision.. 45 hours School Business Management. 45 hours Field Experience. 150 hours Educational Specialist in Educational Administration The Educational Specialist in Educational Administration is intended to lead to certification at the superintendent level. The proposed coursework will be designed to meet the competencies and specific course requirements established by the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education for certification for those positions. This program requires a minimum of 24 credit hours at the 60000 level. Core Curriculum EDA 60000 Program Description EDA 60500 EDA 61000 EDA 61500 EDA 62000 EDA 53000* EDA 35300* Instructional Program Leadership & Assessment Advanced School Law Human Resource Administration Advanced School Finance School District Administration Public and Community Relations School Facilities Note: Courses are three credit hours unless otherwise indicated. 9

Course Requirements *Up to 6 credit hours of starred course work completed in the Lindenwood University MA in School Administration may be applied toward the Education Specialist in Educational Administration. Research Requirement Students must also complete six research project credit hours. EDA 64500 EDA 65000 EDA 68000* Statistics in Educational Administration Specialist Project Specialist Experience (0). Required if the Specialist Project is not completed during the semester enrolled in EDA 65000. Note: Courses are three credit hours unless otherwise indicated. *Students who have not completed their Educational Specialist Project during the semester enrolled must enroll in EDA 68000 Specialist Experience each fall and spring semester until the project is completed. 10

Program Worksheets Name: Phone: Certification Area: Degree Area Verified: Advisor: Teaching and Leading as an Art and a Science Lindenwood University School of Education Program Planning Worksheet MASTER OF ARTS in SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION (Initial Principal Certification) (w/ Special Education Administration Add-On Option) ID: Lionmail: Sem Start at LU: Emphasis Verified: Advisor: For maximum program success, all students must initial to demonstrate he/she understands each item: To complete the Master of Arts in School Administration all students must: 1. Possess a baccalaureate degree from an accredited college or university with a minimum GPA of 3.0 on a 4.0 scale and be admitted to the university, pay required fees and be approved by the Dean. 2. Already hold a valid professional teaching certificate in Missouri in order to be certified as school administrator in Missouri. DESE will not certify anyone for principal certification unless they have an initial Missouri teacher certification and two years teaching experience. DESE does not currently recognize SLP or Counselor certificates as initial teacher certificate. 3. Complete 36 hours of Administrative graduate course work. Optional: 9 hours of Special Education Administrative course work 4. Maintain a GPA of 3.0 or higher. 5. Have completed Education of the Exceptional Child as a prerequisite for the Master of Arts in School Administration degree. 6. Take Curriculum Analysis and Design (EDU 52000) to fulfill final degree requirements. 7. Complete the degree requirements within five calendar years from the first day of the first term in which program commenced. 8. Submit degree application by deadlines. 9. Take the Pearson Test 058 for Missouri Certification. * Transfer and Workshop Credit: 10. No more than 9 semester hours from other accredited institutions approved by the Dean and Registrar. 11. All transfer credits must carry a letter grade of B or higher from official transcript. 12. No Pass/Fail or Credit courses accepted. 13. All transfer credit must be relevant to proposed program and completed within last 7 years. 14. Once admitted, prior permission from Dean and Registrar must be obtained to apply credit from other college or university towards degree. 15. Up to 6 credit hours may be accepted from approved workshops. Core Courses Required for Degree Hours Semester Completed EDU 50500 Analysis of Teaching & Learning 3 Transferred Grade Notes EDU 51000 Conceptualization of Education 3 EDU 57000 Educational Research 3 EDU 52000 Curriculum Analysis and Design 3 Required to fulfill degree requirements Administration Courses Hours Semester Completed EDA 50000 Foliotek/ MEP Seminar 0 EDA 50500 Foundations of Ed. Administration 3 EDA 51000 Elementary Admin. & Organization 3 EDA 51200 or Secondary Admin. & Organization EDA 51500 School Supervision 3 Transferred Grade Notes 11

Program Worksheets EDA 52000 School Business Management 3 EDA 52500 School Law 3 EDA 53000 Public & Community Relations 3 Course Requirements EDA 53500 School Facilities 3 EDA 55300 Closure Course/Field Experience 3 Total Program Hours 36 Special Education Admin. Certificate Option DESE requires SPED teaching certification and completion of all of the above requirements add-on: EDA 51400 Foundations of Special Ed. Admin. 3 EDA 54500 Special Ed. Law 3 EDA 58598 Special Ed. Field Experience 3 Students adding SPED Admin Cert should speak to EDA 55300 instructor Total Additional Special Education add-on Hours 9 Revised 7/2010, format 12/12/11, 12/29/12, 3/14/13, 11/2013 Name: Phone: Certification Area: Degree Area Verified: Advisor: Teaching and Leading as an Art and a Science Lindenwood University School of Education Program Planning Worksheet EDUCATIONAL SPECIALIST in EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION (Advanced Administration Certificate Superintendent) ID: Lionmail: Sem Start at LU: Emphasis Verified: For maximum program success, all students must initial to demonstrate he/she understands each item: To complete the Educational Specialist in Educational Administration all students must: 16. Possess a Master of Arts degree from an accredited college or university with a minimum GPA of 3.0 on a 4.0 scale. 17. Complete application procedures for admission to the university, pay required fees and be approved by the Dean. 18. To obtain the Advanced Superintendent Certificate the student must hold a initial principal certificate. 19. Complete 30 hours of graduate course work. 20. Maintain a GPA of 3.0 or higher. 21. Complete 24 semester hours at the 60000 level of coursework. 22. Have completed Education of the Exceptional Child, Educational Research, and Curriculum Analysis and Design as prerequisites for the EdS. 23. Complete the degree requirements within five calendar years from the first day of the first term in which program commenced. 24. Submit graduation application by deadlines. 25. Take the PearsonTest 059 for Superintendent Certification in Missouri. * Transfer and Workshop Credit: 26. No more than 9 semester hours from other accredited institutions approved by the Dean and Registrar. 27. All transfer credits must carry a letter grade of B or higher from official transcript. 28. No Pass/Fail or Credit courses accepted. 29. All transfer credit must be relevant to proposed program and completed within last 7 years. 30. Once admitted, prior permission from Dean and Registrar must be obtained to apply credit from other college or university towards degree. 31. Upon completion of the EdS in Educational Administration (Advanced Certification), no more than 24 hours may be transferred to the EdD Program workshops. Prerequisite Requirements for Hours Certification EDU 34100 or 54100 Exceptional Child 3 EDU 57000 Educational Research 3 EDU 52000 Curriculum Analysis and Design 3 Semester Completed Transferred Grade Notes 12

Program Worksheets Educational Administration Degree Courses Hours Transferred Grade Notes EDA 53000* Public & Community Relations 3 EDA 53500* School Facilities 3 EDA 60000 Instructional Program Leadership & Assessment 3 EDA 60500 Advanced School Law 3 EDA 61000 Human Resources Administration 3 EDA 61500 Advanced School Finance 3 Course Requirements EDA 62000 School District Administration 3 EDA 64100 Superintendent Internship 3 Can take EDA 64000 Advanced Prin. Intern if lieu of EDA 64100 EDA 64500 Statistical Research in Ed Admin 3 EDA 65000 Specialist Project 3 Total Program Hours 30 Revised 2/2010, 11/2010, 3/2012, 3/2013 Teaching and Leading as an Art and a Science Lindenwood University School of Education Program Planning Worksheet EDUCATIONAL SPECIALIST in SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION (Initial Principal Certification) Name: ID: Phone: Certification Area: Degree Area Verified: Advisor: Lionmail: Sem Start at LU: Emphasis Verified: Advisor: For maximum program success, all students must initial to demonstrate he/she understands each item: To complete the Educational Specialist in School Administration all students must: 32. Possess a Master of Arts degree from an accredited college or university with a minimum GPA of 3.0 on a 4.0 scale. 33. Complete application procedures for admission to the university, pay required fees and be approved by the Dean. 34. Hold a valid teaching certificate. 35. Complete 34 hours of graduate course work. 36. Complete 22 semester hours at the 60000 level. 37. Maintain a GPA of 3.0 or higher. 38. Have completed Education of the Exceptional Child, Educational Research, and Curriculum Analysis and Design as prerequisites for the EdS. 39. Complete the degree requirements within five calendar years from the first day of the first term in which program commenced. 40. Submit graduation application by deadline. 41. Take the Pearson Test 058 for Missouri certification. * Transfer and Workshop Credit: 42. No more than 9 semester hours from other accredited institutions approved by the Dean and Registrar. 43. All transfer credits must carry a letter grade of B or higher from official transcript. 44. No Pass/Fail or Credit courses accepted. 45. All transfer credit must be relevant to proposed program and completed within last 7 years. 46. Once admitted, prior permission from Dean and Registrar must be obtained to apply credit from other college or university towards degree. 47. Upon completion of the EdS in School Administration, no more than 9 hours are eligible to transfer to the EdD degree program. Prerequisite Courses Required for Degree Hours Semester Completed Transferred Grade Notes EDU 34100 or 54100 Exceptional Child 3 EDU 57000 Educational Research 3 EDU 52000 Curriculum Analysis and Design 3 13

Course Requirements Administration Courses Hours Semester Completed EDA 50000 Foliotek/ MEP Seminar 0 EDA 53000 Public & Community Relations 3** EDA 53500 School Facilities 3** EDA 60800 Foundations of Ele. Admin. & Org. or EDA 60900 Sec. Admin. & Organization 4 Transferred Grade Notes EDA 61600 School Supervision 3 EDA 61800 School Business Management 3 EDA 62600 School Law 3 EDA 65300 Closure Course/Field Experience 3 EDA 64500 Statistical Research in Ed Admin 3** EDA 65000 Specialist Project 3** Total Program Hours 28 Revised 11/2010, 3/2012, 3/2013, 11/2013 14

EdS Application Link to application PDF online: http://www.lindenwood.edu/education/edleadership/docs/eds/edsapplication.pdf 15

Program Internship and Field Experience Requirements Based upon the Missouri School Leaders Performance Assessment (MoSLPA) The Principal Preparation program is designed to include the MoSLPA components of the three Tasks based upon the Missouri Leader Standards and Quality Indicators that are required by the Missouri Standards-Based Performance Assessment. All three Tasks are attached in their entirety including a description of each Task, what needs to be done to complete the Task, and the steps to be taken to complete the Task. The evaluation rubric is also included. Principal candidates should familiarize themselves with this entire document. Some components of each Task will begin in the internship hours component of various courses in the program (EDA 50000 15 hours, EDA 51000/51200, 60800/60900 45 hours, EDA 51500, 61600 45 hours, and EDA 52000, 61800 45 hours). All of the Tasks will have culminating activities hours to be completed during the Field Experience 150 hours. Thus it is important that the principal candidate appreciates all of the components of all of the Tasks so that they may understand how foundational work begun in one course is completed in the Field Experience. A summary of each Task that includes which course the Task will be started follows: EDA 50000 School Administration Foliotek and Seminar (15 internship hours) 1.0/2.0/3.0 Contextual Information: a) Describe your school district. Include relevant information about ethnic, social, economic, cultural, and geographic factors impacting the district environment. b) Describe your school. Include relevant information about ethnic, social, economic, cultural, and geographic factors impacting the school environment that may be different from your response in a. c) Provide an overview of your faculty. Include relevant information such as the career stages of the staff, teaching styles, diversity of the students and staff, and leadership opportunities. Enter your response via the appropriate Foliotek link. 16

Task # 1 Problem Solving in the Field To be completed in EDA 51000/60800 Foundations of Elementary Administration & Organization and EDA 51200/60900 Foundations of Secondary Administration & Organization (45 internship hours) Task Overview: In this task, you will demonstrate your ability to address and resolve a significant problem/challenge in your school that influences instructional practice and student learning. Standards and Indicators Measured in This Task The following Missouri School Leader Standards represent the focus of this task. The evidence you submit must address and will be scored according to the following. Standard 1, Quality Indicator 2, Standard 2, Quality Indicators 1 and 2 Standard 3, Quality Indicator 3 Standard 4, Quality Indicator 1 Standard 5, Quality Indicator 1 What Do You Have to Do for This Task? For this task, you must submit the following evidence. 1. Written Commentary of a maximum of 25,500 characters (approximately eight typed pages) that responds to all guiding prompts references your artifacts to support your written evidence describes, analyzes, and reflects on the evidence 2. Seven different artifacts (a maximum of eight pages), including one representative page of longitudinal data one representative page of the research materials and resources you used to inform the development of the plan representative pages of the plan (maximum of two). A sample template is provided, but candidates can submit a form of their own. one representative page of a timeline 17

one representative page of communication with stakeholders one representative page of student work one representative page of an artifact of your choice that reflects any adjustments related to the plan (e.g., meeting notes or e mails to stakeholders) How to Submit Your Evidence (Refer to the Submission System User Guide for details.) Upload your artifacts into your Library of Artifacts. Refer to the artifacts in your Written Commentary. Link the artifacts to your Written Commentary. How to Compose Your Written Commentary This task has four steps, each with guiding prompts to help you provide evidence that supports your response. Your response needs to address all parts of each of the guiding prompts. Step 1: Identifying a Problem/Challenge Step 2: Researching and Developing a Plan Step 3: Implementing the Plan Step 4: Reflecting on the Plan and Resolution Please read the entire task before responding to any guiding prompts. Use the textboxes under the guiding prompts to compose your responses and link your artifacts. Contextual Information Overview: Many factors can affect teaching and learning; these include the community, the school district, and/or individual school/classroom/student factors. The information you gather about your learning environment will help provide perspective to the rater who will be scoring your submission. This part of your submission will not be scored, but the information you include could have implications regarding your professional choices. Your response must be limited to 1,500 characters (approximately one half page typed). No artifacts can be attached to the Contextual Information textbox. a) Describe your school district. Include relevant information about the ethnic, social, economic, cultural, and geographic factors affecting the district environment. b) Describe your school. Include relevant information about the ethnic, social, economic, cultural, and geographic factors affecting the school environment that are different from those described in your response to Guiding Prompt A. c) Provide an overview of your school s faculty. Include relevant information such as career stages, teaching styles, and diversity of the staff and describe leadership opportunities. 18

Enter your response in the textbox below. Type your response here. Step 1: Identifying a Problem/Challenge This step allows you to demonstrate your ability to identify a significant problem/challenge. Activity In collaboration with your supervising building administrator, identify one significant problem/challenge connected to the school and/or school community and describe the impact that the problem/challenge has on instructional practice and student learning; use and explain how longitudinal data supports your choice of the problem/challenge; and describe the expected result if the problem/challenge is addressed and how the change will affect instructional practice and student learning. Then respond to the guiding prompts below. Textbox 1.1.1: Identifying the Problem. Guiding Prompts a) Describe the significant problem/challenge you selected. What is the impact that the problem/challenge has on instructional practice and student learning? Provide examples to demonstrate the impact of the problem/challenge. b) How did the longitudinal data you collected support your choice of a significant problem/challenge? c) What result do you anticipate if the problem/challenge is addressed? How will the change affect instructional practice and student learning? Enter your response in the textbox below. Link a representative page of longitudinal data (maximum of one page) from your Library of Artifacts to the first sentence in your response. Type your response here. 19

Step 2: Researching and Developing a Plan This step allows you to demonstrate your ability to develop a plan to address a significant problem/challenge. Activity Develop a plan that identifies research, school/district resources, and community/cultural influences to support the identification of a problem/challenge; includes specific goals and a timeline with specific steps that delineate critical colleagues involvement in the development of the plan; describes communication strategies to reach various audiences; and identifies an assessment to measure the plan s effect on instructional practice and student learning. Then respond to the guiding prompts below. Textbox 1.2.1: Researching the Plan Guiding Prompts a) What research did you conduct and how did it influence the development of the plan? b) What school and/or district resources did you use? Explain how the resources affected the development of the plan. c) What school/community/cultural influences affected the development of the plan? Explain. Enter your response in the textbox below. Link a representative page of the research materials and resources you used to inform the development of the plan (maximum of one page) from your Library of Artifacts to the first sentence in your response. Type your response here. Textbox 1.2.2: Developing the Plan Guiding Prompts a) Describe the plan you developed and identify the goals you hope to achieve as a result of the plan. b) What is the timeline for each step of the plan? Provide a rationale for your choices regarding the timeline and steps. 20

c) Whom did you include to help develop the plan? Why were they selected and what roles did they play in the development of the plan? d) What strategies did you use to communicate the plan to various audiences? Provide a rationale for your choice of strategies. e) How do you intend to assess the results of your plan and its impact on instructional practice and student learning? Identify examples of student work that will demonstrate the impact on student learning as a result of the plan. Provide a rationale for the choice of student work. Enter your response in the textbox below. Link representative pages of the plan (maximum of two pages) from your Library of Artifacts to the first sentence that discusses the plan. Link a representative page of your timeline and steps (maximum of one page) from your Library of Artifacts to the first sentence that describes the timeline and steps. Type your response here. Step 3: Implementing the Plan This step allows you to demonstrate your ability to implement and then analyze the effectiveness of the plan. Activity Describe and analyze the plan by describing the actions taken to support the plan, the colleagues, and the communication strategies used to implement the plan; explaining the monitoring process used to assess the plan including any adjustments made to the plan; and illustrating how the plan addressed the problem/challenge and how it specifically improved instructional practice and student learning. Then respond to the guiding prompts below. Textbox 1.3.1: Strategies Guiding Prompts: a) What actions did you take to support the plan? Provide examples. b) Whom did you include in the implementation? Why and how did you include them? c) What communication strategies did you use with these individuals and why? What impact did these strategies have on the plan? 21

Enter your response in the textbox below. Link a representative page of your communication with stakeholders (maximum of one page) from your Library of Artifacts to the first sentence in your response. Type your response here. Textbox 1.3.2: Analysis Guiding Prompts a) What criteria and methods did you use to monitor the plan? Why did you choose them? b) What adjustments did you make during the plan? Provide a rationale for your adjustments. c) How did the plan address the problem/challenge? Provide examples to support your conclusion. d) How did the plan improve instructional practice and student learning? Provide examples from the student work sample to support your conclusion. Enter your response in the textbox below. Link a representative page of an artifact that reflects adjustments and/or results (maximum of one page) from your Library of Artifacts to the first sentence discussing the adjustments. Link a representative page of student work (maximum of one page) from your Library of Artifacts to the first sentence discussing the student work. Type your response here. Step 4: Reflecting on the Plan and Resolution This step allows you to demonstrate your ability to reflect on the effectiveness of the plan. Activity Reflect on the effectiveness of the plan by describing any changes you would make to the plan itself; and explaining how this process influenced your approach to future problem-solving situations. Then respond to the guiding prompts below. Textbox: 1.4.1: Reflection on the Plan and Resolution Guiding Prompts 22

a) If you had the opportunity to implement your plan again, what changes would you make to the implementation process? Provide examples to support your conclusion. b) How has what you have learned from the entire process of developing and implementing the plan influenced the way you will approach future problem solving tasks? Enter your response in the textbox below. Type your response here. 23

A response at the 1 level provides minimal evidence that demonstrates the school leader candidate s ability to identify a significant problem/challenge and its impact on instructional practice and student learning; to collect longitudinal data that supports the choice of a problem/challenge; and to anticipate results once the problem/challenge is addressed, including anticipating the impact on instructional practice and student learning. evidence for the 1-level criteria is minimal and/or ineffective throughout the response for Step 1. Evidence may also be missing. TASK 1: Problem Solving in the Field Rubric Step 1: Identifying a Problem/Challenge (textbox 1.1.1) Score of 1 Score of 2 Score of 3 Score of 4 A response at the 2 level A response at the 3 level provides partial evidence provides effective that demonstrates the evidence that school leader demonstrates the school candidate s ability to leader candidate s ability identify a significant to identify a significant problem/challenge and problem/challenge and its impact on its impact on instructional practice instructional practice and student learning; to and student learning; to collect longitudinal data collect longitudinal data that supports the choice that supports the choice of a problem/challenge; of a problem/challenge; and to anticipate results and to anticipate results once the once the problem/challenge is problem/challenge is addressed, including addressed, including anticipating the impact anticipating the impact on instructional practice on instructional practice and student learning. and student learning. evidence for the 2-level criteria is limited and/or vague throughout the response for Step 1. evidence for the 3-level criteria is appropriate and connected throughout the response for Step 1. A response at the 4 level provides extensive evidence that demonstrates the school leader candidate s ability to identify a significant problem/challenge and its impact on instructional practice and student learning; to collect longitudinal data that supports the choice of a problem/challenge; and to anticipate results once the problem/challenge is addressed, including anticipating the impact on instructional practice and student learning. evidence for the 4-level criteria is insightful and thoroughly connected throughout the response for Step 1. Step 1: Identifying a Problem/Challenge (textbox 1.1.1) Score of 1 Score of 2 Score of 3 Score of 4 an inaccurate identification of a significant problem/challenge, with a minimal identification of the impact of the problem/challenge on instructional practice and student learning and examples that are inaccurately linked to the impact a cursory identification of a significant problem/challenge, with a limited identification of the impact of the problem/challenge on instructional practice and student learning and examples that are loosely connected to the impact an appropriate identification of a significant problem/challenge, with an appropriate identification of the impact of the problem/challenge on instructional practice and student learning and examples that are effectively linked to the impact an insightful identification of a significant problem/challenge, with a well-defined identification of the impact of the problem/challenge on instructional practice and student learning and examples that are thoroughly linked to the impact little or no use of longitudinal data collected to support the limited use of longitudinal data collected to support the appropriate use of longitudinal data collected to support the extensive use of longitudinal data collected to support the 24

choice of the significant problem/challenge an inappropriate description of the anticipated results of resolving the problem/challenge, with an incomplete description of the anticipated impact on instructional practice and student learning choice of the significant problem/challenge a partial description of the anticipated results of resolving the problem/challenge, with a confusing description of the anticipated impact on instructional practice and student learning choice of the significant problem/challenge a targeted description of the anticipated results of resolving the problem/challenge, with an appropriate description of the anticipated impact on instructional practice and student learning choice of the significant problem/challenge an insightful description of the anticipated results of resolving the problem/challenge, with a well-defined description of the anticipated impact on instructional practice and student learning Step 2: Researching and Developing a Plan (textboxes 1.2.1 and 1.2.2) Score of 1 Score of 2 Score of 3 Score of 4 A response at the 2 level A response at the 3 level provides partial evidence provides effective that demonstrates the evidence that school leader candidate s demonstrates the school ability to conduct research leader candidate s ability that directly influences to conduct research that the development of a plan directly influences the connected to the building development of a plan or community; to identify connected to the building school and/or district or community; to identify resources that affect the school and/or district development of the plan; resources that affect the to demonstrate how development of the plan; school/community/cultura to demonstrate how l influences affect the school/community/cultura development of the plan; l influences affect the to develop a plan and development of the plan; identify achievable goals; to develop a plan and to develop a timeline for identify achievable goals; each step of the plan; to to develop a timeline for identify colleagues and each step of the plan; to their roles in the identify colleagues and development of the plan; their roles in the to develop strategies to development of the plan; communicate the plan to to develop strategies to various audiences; and to communicate the plan to determine how the results various audiences; and to of the plan will be determine how the results assessed, including the of the plan will be plan s impact on assessed, including the instructional practice and plan s impact on student learning, as instructional practice and demonstrated by student student learning, as work. demonstrated by student work. A response at the 1 level provides minimal evidence that demonstrates the school leader candidate s ability to conduct research that directly influences the development of a plan connected to the building or community; to identify school and/or district resources that affect the development of the plan; to demonstrate how school/community/cultura l influences affect the development of the plan; to develop a plan and identify achievable goals; to develop a timeline for each step of the plan; to identify colleagues and their roles in the development of the plan; to develop strategies to communicate the plan to various audiences; and to determine how the results of the plan will be assessed, including the plan s impact on instructional practice and student learning, as demonstrated by student work. evidence for the 1-level criteria is minimal and/or ineffective throughout the evidence for the 2-level criteria is limited and/or vague throughout the response for Step 2. evidence for the 3-level criteria is appropriate and A response at the 4 level provides thorough evidence that demonstrates the school leader candidate s ability to conduct research that directly influences the development of a plan connected to the building or community; to identify school and/or district resources that affect the development of the plan; to demonstrate how school/community/cultura l influences affect the development of the plan; to develop a plan and identify achievable goals; to develop a timeline for each step of the plan; to identify colleagues and their roles in the development of the plan; to develop strategies to communicate the plan to various audiences; and to determine how the results of the plan will be assessed, including the plan s impact on instructional practice and student learning, as demonstrated by student work. evidence for the 4-level criteria is insightful and thoroughly connected 25

response for Step 2. Evidence may also be missing. connected throughout the response for Step 2. throughout the response for Step 2. Step 2: Researching and Developing a Plan (textboxes 1.2.1 and 1.2.2) Score of 1 Score of 2 Score of 3 Score of 4 1.2.1 incomplete influence of the research on the development of the plan trivial influence of school and/or district resources on the development of the plan minimal influence of school/community/cultura l influences on the development of the plan 1.2.2 a disjointed plan that includes goals to be achieved as a result of the plan little or no timeline for each step within the plan and a disjointed rationale for the timeline incomplete identification of colleagues to help develop the plan, the reasons for their selection, and the roles they will play incomplete strategies for communicating the plan to various audiences, with a limited rationale for the strategies a disjointed plan to assess the results, including the impact of the plan on instructional practice and student learning, as demonstrated by student work, with an incomplete rationale for the choice of student work inconsistent influence of the research on the development of the plan uneven influence of school and/or district resources on the development of the plan limited influence of school/community/cultura l influences on the development of the plan a partial plan that includes goals to be achieved as a result of the plan a vague timeline for each step within the plan and an irrelevant rationale for the timeline limited identification of colleagues to help develop the plan, the reasons for their selection, and the roles they will play weak strategies for communicating the plan to various audiences, with a loosely connected rationale for the strategies a limited plan to assess the results, including the impact of the plan on instructional practice and student learning, as demonstrated by student work, with a loosely connected rationale for the choice of student work appropriate influence of the research on the development of the plan targeted influence of school and/or district resources on the development of the plan appropriate influence of school/community/cultura l influences on the development of the plan a detailed plan that includes goals to be achieved as a result of the plan an appropriate timeline for each step within the plan and an informed rationale for the timeline targeted identification of colleagues to help develop the plan, the reasons for their selection, and the roles they will play relevant strategies for communicating the plan to various audiences, with an effective rationale for the strategies an effective plan to assess the results, including the impact of the plan on instructional practice and student learning, as demonstrated by student work, with a detailed rationale for the choice of student work significant influence of the research on the development of the plan extensive influence of school and/or district resources on the development of the plan significant influence of school/community/cultura l influences on the development of the plan an extensive plan that includes goals to be achieved as a result of the plan a substantive timeline for each step within the plan and an insightful rationale for the timeline well-defined identification of colleagues to help develop the plan, the reasons for their selection, and the roles they will play in-depth strategies for communicating the plan to various audiences, with a thoroughly connected rationale for the strategies a well-defined plan to assess the results, including the impact of the plan on instructional practice and student learning, as demonstrated by student work, with an extensive rationale for the choice of student work 26

Step 3: Implementing the Plan (textboxes 1.3.1 and 1.3.2) Score of 1 Score of 2 Score of 3 Score of 4 A response at the 2 level A response at the 3 level provides partial evidence provides effective that demonstrates the evidence that school leader candidate s demonstrates the school ability to support the leader candidate s ability to support the plan; to identify and justify the choice of plan; to identify and colleagues who were justify the choice of included in the plan s colleagues who were implementation; to included in the plan s communicate with team implementation; to members and to identify communicate with team their impact on the members and to identify their impact on the plan; to explain how the plan; to explain how the plan addressed the problem/challenge; to plan addressed the determine criteria and a problem/challenge; to method to monitor the determine criteria and a method to monitor the plan; to explain any adjustments made during plan; to make any the adjustments during the plan; to explain the impact of the plan; to identify the impact of the plan on the problem/challenge; and to plan on the explain the plan s impact problem/challenge; and to on instructional practice explain the plan s impact and student learning. on instructional practice and student learning. A response at the 1 level provides minimal evidence that demonstrates the school leader candidate s ability to support the plan; to identify and justify the choice of colleagues who were included in the plan s implementation; to communicate with team members and identify their impact on the plan; to explain the impact of the plan on the problem/challenge; to determine criteria and a method to monitor the plan; to explain any adjustments made during the plan; to explain the impact of the plan on the problem/challenge; and to explain the plan s impact on instructional practice and student learning. evidence for the 1-level criteria is minimal and/or ineffective throughout the response for Step 3. Evidence may also be missing. evidence for the 2-level criteria is limited and/or vague throughout the response for Step 3. evidence for the 3-level criteria is appropriate and connected throughout the response for Step 3. A response at the 4 level provides consistent evidence that demonstrates the school leader candidate s ability to support the plan; to identify and justify the choice of colleagues who were included in the plan s implementation; to communicate with team members and to identify their impact on the plan; to explain how the plan addressed the problem/challenge; to determine criteria and a method to monitor the plan; to explain any adjustments made during the plan; to explain the impact of the plan on the problem/challenge; and to explain the plan s impact on instructional practice and student learning. evidence for the 4-level criteria is insightful and thoroughly connected throughout the response for Step 3. 27

Step 3: Implementing the Plan (textboxes 1.3.1 and 1.3.2) Score of 1 Score of 2 Score of 3 Score of 4 1.3.1 minimal actions taken to support the plan, with examples that are ineffectively connected with the identified actions an simplistic process used to select members to implement the plan and an ineffective rationale for including these members ineffectual strategies used to communicate with team members and an incomplete rationale for selecting these strategies and for identifying their impact on the plan 1.3.2 an illogical choice of criteria and methods used to monitor the plan ineffective adjustments made during the plan, with a disjointed rationale for these adjustments minimal evidence of the impact of the plan on the problem/challenge, with minimal examples little or no evidence of the impact of the plan on instructional practice and student learning, with minimal examples limited actions taken to support the plan with examples that are loosely connected with the identified actions a confusing process used to select members to implement the plan and a confusing rationale for including these members partial strategies used to communicate with team members and an ineffective rationale for selecting these strategies and for identifying their impact on the plan a confusing choice of criteria and methods used to monitor the plan weak adjustments made during the implementation of the plan, with an inconclusive rationale for these adjustments limited evidence of the impact of the plan on the problem/challenge, with limited examples partial evidence of the impact of the plan on instructional practice and student learning, with limited examples detailed actions taken to support the plan, with examples that are aligned with the identified actions an integrated process used to select members to implement the plan and an integrated rationale for including these members effective strategies used to communicate with team members and a coherent rationale for selecting these strategies and for identifying their impact on the implementation of the plan a relevant choice of criteria and methods used to monitor the plan logical adjustments made during the plan, with a detailed rationale for these adjustments targeted evidence of the impact of the plan on the problem/challenge, with specific examples appropriate evidence of the impact of the plan on instructional practice and student learning, with specific examples significant actions taken to support the plan, with examples that are thoroughly connected to the identified actions an in-depth process used to select members to implement the plan and an in-depth rationale for including these members substantive strategies used to communicate with team members and a detailed rationale for selecting these strategies and for identifying their impact on the plan an well-detailed choice of criteria and methods used to monitor the plan insightful adjustments made during the plan, with a thoroughly explained rationale for these adjustments well-defined evidence of the impact of the plan on the problem/challenge, with thoroughly aligned examples significant evidence of the impact of the plan on instructional practice and student learning, with extensive examples 28

Step 4: Reflecting on the Plan and Resolution (textbox 1.4.1) Score of 1 Score of 2 Score of 3 Score of 4 A response at the 2 level A response at the 3 level provides partial evidence provides effective that demonstrates the evidence that school leader candidate s demonstrates the school ability to reflect on the leader candidate s ability effectiveness of the entire to reflect on the process of the plan; to effectiveness of the entire project changes that could process of the plan; to be made in similar project changes that could situations; and to explain be made in similar lessons learned from the situations; and to explain lessons learned from the plan and explain the impact that those lessons plan and explain the will have on future impact that those lessons problem-solving tasks. will have on future problem-solving tasks. A response at the 1 level provides minimal evidence that demonstrates the school leader candidate s ability to reflect on the effectiveness of the entire process of the plan; to project changes that could be made in similar situations; and to explain lessons learned from the plan and explain the impact that those lessons will have on future problem-solving tasks. evidence for the 1-level criteria is minimal and/or ineffective throughout the response for Step 4. Evidence may also be missing. evidence for the 2-level criteria is limited and/or vague throughout the response for Step 4. evidence for the 3-level criteria is appropriate and connected throughout the response for Step 4. A response at the 4 level provides consistent evidence that demonstrates the school leader candidate s ability to reflect on the effectiveness of the entire process of the plan; to project changes that could be made in similar situations; and to explain lessons learned from the plan and explain the impact that those lessons will have on future problem-solving tasks. evidence for the 4-level criteria is insightful and thoroughly connected throughout the response for Step 4. Step 4: Reflecting on the Plan and Resolution (textbox 1.4.1) Score of 1 Score of 2 Score of 3 Score of 4 limited changes that could coherent changes that substantive changes that be made to the could be made to the could be made to the implementation process implementation process implementation process used for the plan, with used for the plan, with used for the plan, with loosely connected relevant examples thoroughly connected examples examples ineffective changes that could be made to the implementation process used for the plan, with ineffectively connected examples minimal identification of the impact that the process of developing and implementing will have on future problem-solving tasks an uneven identification of the impact that the process of developing and implementing will have on future problem-solving tasks a thoughtful identification of the impact that the process of developing and implementing will have on future problem-solving tasks a significant identification of the impact that the process of developing and implementing will have on future problem-solving tasks 29

Task # 2 Supporting Continuous Professional Development To be completed in EDA 515 School Supervision and EDA 616 School Supervision (45 internship hours) Task Overview In this task you will demonstrate your skills in establishing and supporting effective and continuous with staff. Standards and Indicators Measured in This Task The following Missouri School Leader Standards represent the focus of this task. The evidence you submit must address and will be scored according to the following. Standard 1, Quality Indicators 1 and 2 Standard 2, Quality Indicators 2 and 3 Standard 3, Quality Indicator 2 Standard 6, Quality Indicator 1 What do you have to do for this task? For this task, you must submit the following evidence. 1. Written Commentary of a maximum of 28,500 characters (approximately nine typed pages) that responds to all guiding prompts references your artifacts to support your written evidence describes, analyzes, and reflects on the evidence 2. Seven different artifacts (a maximum of eight pages), including one representative page from the prioritized list representative pages from the plan (maximum of two pages) (A sample template is provided, but candidates can submit a form of their own.) one representative page from the research (e.g., a bibliography, a specific online resource, or a district source) one representative page of an assignment given to teachers and/or students one representative page from a walkthrough observation form completed for one teacher (A sample template is provided, but candidates can submit a form of their own.) 30

one representative page of a student work sample from one student one representative page from a feedback survey completed after the professional development (A sample template is provided, but candidates can submit a form of their own.) 3. For this task, you will also select three teachers with different levels of experience, observe them teaching, and determine the impact that the had on their teaching and their students learning. How to Submit Your Evidence (Refer to the Submission System User Guide for details.) Upload your artifacts into your Library of Artifacts. Refer to the artifacts in your Written Commentary. Link the artifacts to your Written Commentary. How to Compose Your Written Commentary This task has four steps, each with guiding prompts to help you provide evidence that supports ddour response. Your response needs to address all parts of each of the guiding prompts. Step 1: Designing Building Level Professional Development Step 2: Implementing Building Level Professional Development Step 3: Analyzing Three Teachers Responses Step 4: Reflecting on Building Level Professional Development Please read the entire task before responding to any guiding prompts. Use the textboxes under the guiding prompts to compose your responses and link your artifacts. Contextual Information Overview: Many factors can affect teaching and learning; these include the community, the school district, and/or individual school/classroom/student factors. The information you gather about your learning environment will help provide perspective to the rater who will be scoring your submission. This part of your submission will not be scored, but the information you include could have implications regarding your professional choices. Your response must be limited to 1,500 characters (approximately one half page typed). No artifacts can be attached to the Contextual Information textbox. a) Describe your school district. Include relevant information about the ethnic, social, economic, cultural, and geographic factors affecting the district environment. 31

b) Describe your school. Include relevant information about the ethnic, social, economic, cultural, and geographic factors affecting the school environment that are different from those described in your response to Guiding Prompt A. c) Provide an overview of your school s faculty. Include relevant information such as the career stages, teaching styles, and diversity of the staff and describe leadership opportunities. Enter your response in the textbox below. Type your response here. Step 1: Designing Building Level Professional Development This step allows you to demonstrate your ability to work with colleagues to develop a prioritized list of significant needs. Activity Develop a prioritized list of the needs of your building level teachers that are aligned to building or district and/or Comprehensive School Improvement Plan (CSIP) goals. Then respond to the guiding prompts below. Textbox: 2.1.1: The Prioritized List Guiding Prompts a) What process and data sources were used to prioritize the list of significant professional development needs that are aligned to building or district and/or Comprehensive School Improvement Plan (CSIP) goals? b) Who was involved in developing the prioritized list (e.g., staff, department chairs, building leadership teams, students, parents, community members, district personnel, etc.)? Why were these individuals selected? c) How do the prioritized needs address the goals of the building or district and/or a CSIP? Enter your response in the textbox below. Link a representative page of the prioritized list (maximum of one page) from your Library of Artifacts to the first sentence in your response. Type your response here. Activity Design a research based plan that addresses the most significant need(s) of your building level teachers. Then respond to the guiding prompts below. 32

Textbox 2.1.2: Planning Guiding Prompts a) What need(s) from the prioritized list did you identify as the focus for the professional development plan? Why did you make this selection? b) What is (are) the goal(s) of the plan? How will you determine if the goal(s) is (are) achieved? c) How will the impact student learning? d) What research supported the identified focus for the (e.g., studies, strategies, information from experts in the field, or primary sources)? Explain the connection between the research and the identified focus for the. e) What other factors contributed to the development of the building level professional development plan (e.g., budget, schedules, staff, facilities, time, or the CSIP)? f) Whom did you involve in the planning of the plan (e.g., staff, department members, building level leadership teams, students, parents, community members, or district personnel)? Why did you involve these individuals? Enter your response in the textbox below. Link representative pages of the plan (maximum of two pages) from your Library of Artifacts to the first sentence discussing the plan. Link a representative page of the research you reviewed (maximum of one page) from your Library of Artifacts to the first sentence discussing the research. Type your response here. Step 2: Implementing Building Level Professional Development This step allows you to demonstrate your ability to facilitate to address your building level teachers needs. Activity Facilitate building level that will improve teacher effectiveness and student learning. Then respond to the guiding prompts below. Textbox 2.2.1: Workshop Sessions Guiding Prompts a) What strategies/techniques were used to communicate the importance of the professional development? Provide a rationale for your choice of strategies/techniques. b) What individuals did you select to participate in the (e.g., professional staff, grade level teachers, department members)? Why did you select them? c) What approaches were used to facilitate the (e.g., a structured program, informal discussions, hands on learning, or a book study)? Provide a rationale for your choices. 33

d) What strategies were used to actively engage the teachers? Provide a rationale for your selected strategies. e) What assignment(s) was (were) given to teachers and/or students to demonstrate the impact of the on student learning? What is the connection between the assignment(s) and the? Enter your response in the textbox below. Link a representative page of the assignment given to teachers and/or students (maximum of one page) from your Library of Artifacts to the first sentence discussing the assignment. Type your response here. Step 3: Analyzing Three Teachers Responses This step allows you to demonstrate your ability to analyze the effectiveness of professional development on colleagues. Activity For this step you will conduct classroom visits, complete walkthrough observation forms, and conduct individual follow-up sessions with three teachers with different levels of experience to determine the effect of the and have each teacher bring to the follow-up session a student work sample to facilitate a discussion about student learning. Then respond to the guiding prompts below. Textbox 2.3.1: Impact of Professional Development on Three Teachers Guiding Prompts a) Select three teachers with different levels of experience to determine the effect of the. Provide a rationale for the selection of each teacher. b) What method of follow up did you provide for each teacher? Provide a rationale. c) In what ways did the influence the instructional practices of each teacher? Provide specific examples of the influence. d) What was the impact of each teacher s on student learning? Provide examples from the student work to support your conclusions. Enter your response in the textbox below. Link a representative page of a completed walkthrough observation form for one teacher (maximum of one page) from your Library of Artifacts to the first sentence discussing the walkthrough. Link a representative page of a student work sample (maximum of one page) from your Library of Artifacts to the first sentence discussing the impact on student learning. 34

Internship Type your response here. Step 4: Reflecting on Building Level Professional Development This step allows you to demonstrate an ability to reflect on the effectiveness of the implementation of building level. Activity Develop and conduct a follow up survey for all teacher participants to provide feedback on the effectiveness of the. Then respond to the guiding prompts below. Textbox 2.4.1: Reflecting on Building Level Professional Development Guiding Prompts a) Based on the results of the feedback survey, what conclusions can you draw about the effectiveness of the for teachers? Cite examples from the survey to support your conclusion. b) What modifications would you make to the current process? Provide a rationale for your analysis based on all aspects of the experience. c) Considering all aspects of this experience, what are the implications of the experience that will support continuous? Enter your response in the textbox below. Link a representative page of the feedback survey you developed that was completed by a teacher participant (maximum of one page) from your Library of Artifacts to the first sentence discussing the survey. Type your response here. 35

TASK 2: Supporting Continuous Professional Development Rubric Step 1: Designing Building-Level Professional Development (textboxes 2.1.1 and 2.1.2) Score of 1 Score of 2 Score of 3 Score of 4 A response at the 1 level provides minimal evidence that demonstrates the school leader candidate s ability to design a process for developing a prioritized list of significant professional development needs aligned with district and/or building goals using data sources; to involve individuals in developing the prioritized list; to connect the prioritized needs to the goals of the building or district and/or to a Comprehensive School Improvement Plan (CSIP); to select a professional development need from the prioritized list; to develop goals for professional development activities/ sessions and a plan for determining whether the goals are achieved; to determine how the professional development will impact student learning; to identify research that supports the professional development to determine what other factors influence the planning of the building-level professional development activities/ A response at the 2 level provides partial evidence that demonstrates the school leader candidate s ability to design a process for developing a prioritized list of significant professional development needs aligned with district and/or building goals using data sources; to involve individuals in developing the prioritized list; to connect the prioritized needs to the goals of the building or district and/or to a Comprehensive School Improvement Plan (CSIP); to select a professional development need from the prioritized list; to develop goals for professional development activities/ sessions and a plan for determining whether the goals are achieved; to determine how the professional development will impact student learning; to identify research that supports the professional development to determine what other factors influence the planning of the building-level professional development activities/ A response at the 3 level provides effective evidence that demonstrates the school leader candidate s ability to design a process for developing a prioritized list of significant professional development needs aligned with district and/or building goals using data sources; to involve individuals in developing the prioritized list; to connect the prioritized needs to the goals of the building or district and/or to a Comprehensive School Improvement Plan (CSIP); to select a professional development need from the prioritized list; to develop goals for professional development activities/ sessions and a plan for determining whether the goals are achieved; to determine how the professional development will impact student learning; to identify research that supports the professional development to determine what other factors influence the planning of the building-level professional development activities/ A response at the 4 level provides consistent evidence that demonstrates the school leader candidate s to design a process for developing a prioritized list of significant professional development needs aligned with district and/or building goals using data sources; to involve individuals in developing the prioritized list; to connect the prioritized needs to the goals of the building or district and/or to a Comprehensive School Improvement Plan (CSIP); to select a professional development need from the prioritized list; to develop goals for professional development activities/ sessions and a plan for determining whether the goals are achieved; to determine how the professional development will impact student learning; to identify research that supports the professional development to determine what other factors influence the planning of the building-level professional development activities/ sessions; and to 36

sessions; and to involve stakeholders in the planning of the professional development. evidence for the 1-level criteria is minimal and/or ineffective throughout the response for Step 1. Evidence may also be missing. sessions; and to involve stakeholders in the planning of the professional development. evidence for the 2-level criteria is limited and/or vague throughout the response for Step 1. sessions; and to involve stakeholders in the planning of the professional development. evidence for the 3-level criteria is appropriate and connected throughout the response for Step 1. involve stakeholders in the planning of the professional development. evidence for the 4-level criteria is insightful and thoroughly connected throughout the response for Step 1. Step 1: Designing Building-Level Professional Development (textboxes 2.1.1 and 2.1.2) Score of 1 Score of 2 Score of 3 Score of 4 2.1.1 an ineffective process used to develop a prioritized list of significant professional development needs aligned with district and/or building goals, with irrelevant data sources the involvement of inappropriate individuals in the development of the prioritized list and minimal reasons for their selection little or no connection between the prioritized needs and the goals of the building and/or district and/or CSIP 2.1.2 the selection of an inappropriate need from the prioritized list with an illogical rationale the development of inappropriate goals for activities/sessions and the identification of an illogical process for determining whether the goals are achieved a weak process used to develop a prioritized list of significant professional development needs aligned with district and/or building goals, with limited data sources the limited involvement of individuals in the development of the prioritized list and weak reasons for their selection a weak connection between the prioritized needs and the goals of the building and/or district and/or CSIP the selection of an ambiguous professional development need from the prioritized list with a confusing rationale the weak development of goals for professional development activities/sessions and the identification of a vague process for determining whether the goals are achieved an effective process used to develop a prioritized list of significant needs aligned with district and/or building goals, with relevant data sources the appropriate involvement of individuals in the development of the prioritized list and detailed reasons for their selection an effective connection between the prioritized needs and the goals of the building and/or district and/or CSIP the appropriate selection of a professional development need from the prioritized list with a logical rationale the appropriate development of goals for activities/sessions and the identification of a logical process for determining whether the goals are achieved a well-defined process used to develop a prioritized list of significant professional development needs aligned with building and/or district goals, with substantive data sources the significant involvement of individuals in the development of the prioritized list and extensive reasons for their selection a thorough connection between the prioritized needs and the goals of the building and/or district and/or CSIP the significant selection of a professional development need from the prioritized list with a well-defined rationale the insightful development of goals for activities/sessions and the identification of a welldefined process for determining whether the goals are achieved 37

ineffective identification of the impact of the on student learning the incomplete identification of research to support the with minimal connection between the research and the identified focus partial identification of the impact of the on student learning the limited identification of research to support the with an uneven connection between the research and the identified focus effective identification of the impact of the on student learning the effective identification of research to support the with an appropriate connection between the research and the identified focus highly effective identification of the impact of the professional development on student learning the substantive identification of research to support the with a thorough connection between the research and the identified focus Step 2: Implementing Building-Level Professional Development (textbox 2.2.1) Score of 1 Score of 2 Score of 3 Score of 4 A response at the 2 level A response at the 3 level provides partial evidence provides effective that demonstrates the evidence that school leader candidate s demonstrates the school ability to identify the leader candidate s ability strategies/techniques used to identify the to communicate the strategies/techniques used importance of the to communicate the ; importance of the to identify individuals to ; participate in the to identify individuals to ; participate in the to identify approaches ; used to facilitate the to identify approaches used to facilitate the sessions; to identify the strategies used to engage sessions; to identify the the teachers; to identify strategies used to engage student assignments that the teachers; to identify demonstrate the impact of student assignments that the professional demonstrate the impact of development on student the professional learning; and to identify development on student the connection between learning; and to identify the assignment(s) and the the connection between. the assignment(s) and the. A response at the 1 level provides minimal evidence that demonstrates the school leader candidate s ability to identify the strategies/techniques used to communicate the importance of the ; to identify individuals to participate in the ; to identify approaches used to facilitate the sessions; to identify the strategies used to engage the teachers; to identify student assignments that demonstrate the impact of the professional development on student learning; and to identify the connection between the assignment(s) and the. evidence for the 1-level criteria is minimal and/or ineffective throughout the response for Step 2. Evidence may also be missing. evidence for the 2-level criteria is limited and/or vague throughout the response for Step 2. evidence for the 3-level criteria is appropriate and connected throughout the response for Step 2. A response at the 4 level provides consistent evidence that demonstrates the school leader candidate s ability to identify the strategies/techniques used to communicate the importance of the ; to identify individuals to participate in the ; to identify approaches used to facilitate the sessions; to identify the strategies used to engage the teachers; to identify student assignments that demonstrate the impact of the professional development on student learning; and to identify the connection between the assignment(s) and the. evidence for the 4-level criteria is insightful and thoroughly connected throughout the response for Step 2. 38

Step 2: Implementing Building-Level Professional Development (textbox 2.2.1) Score of 1 Score of 2 Score of 3 Score of 4 a vague identification of an appropriate the strategies/techniques identification of the used to communicate the strategies/techniques used importance of the to communicate the, importance of the with a weak rationale for, the choices with a thoughtful rationale an inappropriate identification of the strategies/techniques used to communicate the importance of the, with minimal rationale for the choices ineffective selection of individuals to participate in the professional development with minimal rationales an inappropriate identification of the approaches used to facilitate the professional development, with minimal rationale for the choices an inappropriate identification of the strategies used to engage the teachers, with minimal rationale for the selected strategies an ineffective identification of student assignments that demonstrate that the had minimal impact on student learning, with little or no connection between the assignment(s) and the professional development limited selection of individuals to participate in the professional development with partial rationales a vague identification of the approaches used to facilitate the professional development, with a weak rationale for the choices a vague identification of the strategies used to engage the teachers, with a weak rationale for the selected strategies a minimal identification of student assignments that demonstrate that the had a limited impact on student learning, with a cursory connection between the assignment(s) and the professional development for the choices effective selection of individuals to participate in the professional development with targeted rationales an appropriate identification of the approaches used to facilitate the professional development, with a logical rationale for the choices an appropriate identification of the strategies used to engage the teachers, with an effective rationale for the selected strategies an effective identification of student assignments that demonstrate that the had a positive impact on student learning, with an informed connection between the assignment(s) and the a thorough identification of the strategies/techniques used to communicate the importance of the, with an in-depth rationale for the choices significant selection of individuals to participate in the professional development with thorough rationales a thorough identification of the approaches used to facilitate the professional development, with an indepth rationale for the choices a thorough identification of the strategies used to engage the teachers, with an in-depth rationale for the selected strategies a well-defined identification of student assignments that demonstrate that the had a significant impact on student learning, with a significant connection between the assignment(s) and the Step 3: Analyzing Three Teachers Responses (textbox 2.3.1) Score of 1 Score of 2 Score of 3 Score of 4 A response at the 2 level A response at the 3 level provides partial evidence provides effective that demonstrates the evidence that school leader candidate s demonstrates the school ability to select three leader candidate s ability teachers with different to select three teachers levels of experience to with different levels of determine the effect of the experience to determine ; the effect of the to identify the method of ; follow-up provided for to identify the method of A response at the 1 level provides minimal evidence that demonstrates the school leader candidate s ability to select three teachers with different levels of experience to determine the effect of the ; to identify the method of A response at the 4 level provides consistent evidence that demonstrates the school leader candidate s ability to select three teachers with different levels of experience to determine the effect of the ; to identify the method of 39

follow-up provided for each teacher; to identify how the professional development influenced the instructional practices of each teacher; and to identify the impact of each teacher s on student learning. evidence for the 1-level criteria is minimal and/or ineffective throughout the response for Step 3. Evidence may also be missing. each teacher; to identify how the professional development influenced the instructional practices of each teacher; and to identify the impact of each teacher s on student learning. evidence for the 2-level criteria is limited and/or vague throughout the response for Step 3. follow-up provided for each teacher; to identify how the professional development influenced the instructional practices of each teacher; and to identify the impact of each teacher s on student learning. evidence for the 3-level criteria is appropriate and connected throughout the response for Step 3. follow-up provided for each teacher; to identify how the professional development influenced the instructional practices of each teacher; and to identify the impact of each teacher s on student learning. evidence for the 4-level criteria is insightful and thoroughly connected throughout the response for Step 3. Step 3: Analyzing Three Teachers Responses (textbox 2.3.1) Score of 1 Score of 2 Score of 3 Score of 4 the illogical selection of the logical selection of three teachers with three teachers with different levels of different levels of experience to determine experience to determine the effect of the the effect of the,, with limited rationales for with appropriate the choice of each teacher rationales for the choice the incomplete selection of three teachers with different levels of experience to determine the effect of the, with inappropriate rationales for the choice of each teacher minimal identification of the method of follow-up provided for each teacher, with an inappropriate rationale minimal identification of how the professional development influenced the instructional practices of each teacher, with irrelevant examples of the influence minimal identification of the impact of each teacher s professional development on student learning, with incomplete examples from the student work sample to support the conclusions cursory identification of the method of follow-up provided for each teacher, with a vague rationale confusing identification of how the professional development influenced the instructional practices of each teacher, with weak examples of the influence cursory identification of the impact of each teacher s professional development on student learning, with limited examples from the student work sample to support the conclusions of each teacher detailed identification of the method of follow-up provided for each teacher, with an appropriate rationale appropriate identification of how the professional development influenced the instructional practices of each teacher, with relevant examples of the influence complete identification of the impact of each teacher s professional development on student learning, with specific examples from the student work sample to support the conclusions the informed selection of three teachers with different levels of experience to determine the effect of the, with thorough rationales for the choice of each teacher well-defined identification of the method of followup provided for each teacher, with an extensive rationale insightful identification of how the professional development influenced the instructional practices of each teacher, with significant examples of the influence thorough identification of the impact of each teacher s professional development on student learning, with significant examples from the student work sample to support the conclusions 40

Step 4: Reflecting on Building-Level Professional Development (textbox 2.4.1) Score of 1 Score of 2 Score of 3 Score of 4 A response at the 2 level A response at the 3 level provides partial evidence provides effective that demonstrates the evidence that school leader candidate s demonstrates the school ability to use the results of leader candidate s ability the survey to determine to use the results of the the effectiveness of the survey to determine the ; effectiveness of the to identify modifications ; to the current professional to identify modifications development process; and to the current professional to consider all aspects of development process; and the professional to consider all aspects of development experience the professional in order to identify the development experience impact the experience will in order to identify the have on future impact the experience will have on future work. work. A response at the 1 level provides minimal evidence that demonstrates the school leader candidate s ability to use the results of the survey to determine the effectiveness of the ; to identify modifications to the current professional development process; and to consider all aspects of the professional development experience in order to identify the impact the experience will have on future work. evidence for the 1-level criteria is minimal and/or ineffective throughout the response for Step 4. Evidence may also be missing. evidence for the 2-level criteria is limited and/or vague throughout the response for Step 4. evidence for the 3-level criteria is appropriate and connected throughout the response for Step 4. A response at the 4 level provides consistent evidence that demonstrates the school leader candidate s ability to use the results of the survey to determine the effectiveness of the ; to identify modifications to the current professional development process; and to consider all aspects of the professional development experience in order to identify the impact the experience will have on future work. evidence for the 4-level criteria is insightful and thoroughly connected throughout the response for Step 4. Step 4: Reflecting on Building-Level Professional Development (textbox 2.4.1) Score of 1 Score of 2 Score of 3 Score of 4 limited reflection about thoughtful reflection the results of the feedback about the results of the survey to determine the feedback survey to effectiveness of the determine the, effectiveness of the with weak supporting, examples with effective supporting disjointed reflection about the results of the feedback survey to determine the effectiveness of the, with minimal supporting examples minimal identification of modifications that could be made to the current process, with a minimal rationale minimal identification of the impact that the experience will have on the candidate s future work based on all aspects partial identification of modifications to the current professional development process, with a partial rationale partial identification of the impact that the experience will have on the candidate s future work based on all aspects examples the complete identification of modifications to be made to the current professional development process, with an effective rationale thoughtful identification of the impact that the experience will have on the candidate s future work based on all aspects insightful reflection about the results of the feedback survey to determine the effectiveness of the, with substantive supporting examples well-defined identification of modifications to be made to the current process, with an extensive rationale insightful identification of the impact that the experience will have on the candidate s future work based on all aspects 41

of the professional development of the professional development of the professional development of the professional development 42

Task # 3 Creating a Collaborative Team To be completed in EDA 520/618 School Business Management and EDA 553/653 Closure Course/Field Experience (45 internship hours) Task Overview In this task, you will demonstrate your ability to facilitate stakeholders efforts to build a collaborative team within the school to improve student achievement. Standards and Indicators Measured in This Task The following Missouri School Leader Standards represent the focus of this task. The evidence you submit must address and will be scored according to the following. Standard 1, Quality Indicator 2 Standard 2, Quality Indicators 2 and 3 Standard 3, Quality Indicators 1 and 3 Standard 5, Quality Indicator 1 Standard 6, Quality Indicator 1 What do you have to do for this task? For this task, you must submit the following evidence. 1. Written Commentary of a maximum of 28,500 characters (approximately nine typed pages) that responds to all guiding prompts references your artifacts to support your written evidence describes, analyzes, and reflects on the evidence 2. Six different artifacts (a maximum of six pages), including one representative page of the spreadsheet, table, or chart describing the team members one representative page from the data collecting tool representative pages from the plan (maximum of two pages). (A sample template is provided, but candidates can submit a form of their own.) one representative page that provides feedback from the targeted audience of colleagues 43

one representative page of evidence that reflects student learning one fifteen minute video (Unedited segments are required.) o One segment must focus on your work with colleagues during either the planning discussed in textbox 3.2.2 or the implementing discussed in textbox 3.3.1. o One segment must focus on the self reflection/feedback discussed in textbox 3.4.1. How to Submit Your Evidence (Refer to the Submission System User Guide for details.) Upload your artifacts into your Library of Artifacts. (See Step 5 for how to upload the video file.) Refer to the artifacts in your Written Commentary. Link the artifacts to your Written Commentary. How to Compose Your Written Commentary This task has five steps, each with guiding prompts to help you provide evidence that supports your response. Your response needs to address all parts of each of the guiding prompts. Step 1: Identifying the Collaborative Team Step 2: Developing a Plan to Improve Instruction Step 3: Implementing the Plan Step 4: Reflecting on the Collaborative Team Step 5: Uploading the Video Please read the entire task before responding to any guiding prompts. Use the textboxes under the guiding prompts to compose your responses and link your artifacts. Contextual Information Overview Many factors can affect teaching and learning; these include the community, the school district, and/or individual school/classroom/student factors. The information you gather about your learning environment will help provide perspective to the rater who will be scoring your submission. This part of your submission will not be scored, but the information you include could have implications regarding your professional choices. Your response must be limited to 1,500 characters (approximately one half page typed). No artifacts can be attached to the Contextual Information textbox. a) Describe your school district. Include relevant information about the ethnic, social, economic, cultural, and geographic factors affecting the district environment. b) Describe your school. Include relevant information about the ethnic, social, economic, cultural, and geographic factors affecting the school environment that are different from those described in your response to Guiding Prompt A. 44

c) Provide an overview of your school s faculty. Include relevant information such as the career stages, teaching styles, and diversity of the staff and describe leadership opportunities. Enter your response in the textbox below. Type your response here. Step 1: Identifying the Collaborative Team This step allows you to demonstrate your ability to identify a team of teachers with varying experience to develop a collaborative team. Activity As the team facilitator, you will identify three to five colleagues with different levels and kinds of experience who will be integral in helping build a collaborative team for the purpose of improving student achievement in the building; develop a spreadsheet, table, or chart that describes/lists the certification, experiences, and qualifications of each of the colleagues; establish steps to encourage colleagues involvement; and develop a structure that will support and sustain the collaborative team. Then respond to the guiding prompts below. (When writing about your colleagues, refer to them as Colleague 1, Colleague 2, and Colleague 3.) Textbox 3.1.1: Team Members Guiding Prompts a) Select three to five colleagues with varying levels of experience who will effectively serve with you as collaborative team members. Provide a rationale for your choice of each colleague. b) What steps did you take to elicit/encourage each colleague s involvement with the team? Why did you choose the steps? c) What structure did you put in place to support and sustain the team during collaborative work? Provide a rationale. Enter your response in the textbox below. Link a representative page of a spreadsheet, table, or chart that describes/lists the certification, experiences, and qualifications of Colleague 1, Colleague 2, and Colleague 3 (maximum of one page) to the first sentence in your response. Type your response here. 45

Step 2: Developing a Plan to Improve Instruction This step allows you to demonstrate your ability to facilitate colleagues work during the course of developing a plan to improve instruction. Activity As a team, identify an area of research-based instructional practice that is in need of improvement within the school; select a group of colleagues to involve in to improve instructional practice and impact student learning; meet with your team to develop the plan; identify colleagues to be the focus of the team s plan; identify strategies to use with team members to involve them in the planning; implement strategies to ensure all team members can provide meaningful input; resolve challenges encountered during the planning; and determine steps to reach consensus among the members of the team. At some point during the planning sessions, you may record a five minute video that shows you facilitating a team meeting and dealing with the opportunities/challenges presented by the process of developing the plan. Then respond to the guiding prompts below. Textbox 3.2.1: The Plan Guiding Prompts a) What tool(s) did you and your team use to collect data to identify a research based instructional practice in need of improvement? Why did your team choose the selected tool(s)? What data did the tool(s) provide? b) What specific area of research based instructional practice will you and the team target? What is the intended impact that an improvement in the targeted area will have on student learning? What steps will you take to measure the impact? Provide a rationale. c) What was the plan your team developed as a result of the data you collected and analyzed? Describe the goals, steps, timeline, and resources your team decided to use as part of the plan. Provide a rationale for each. d) Which colleagues were targeted to be the focus of the team s plan? Why did the collaborative team select them? Enter your response in the textbox below. Link a representative page of the data collecting tool (maximum of one page) from your Library of Artifacts to the first sentence discussing the data collecting tool. Link a representative page of the plan (maximum of one page) from your Library of Artifacts to the first sentence discussing your plan. Type your response here. 46

Textbox 3.2.2: Working with the Team During Planning Guiding Prompts a) What responsibility did each team member assume during the planning stage? b) What strategies did you use with the team members, individually and as a group, to involve them in the planning process? Provide examples to support your explanation. c) As the team s facilitator, what strategies did you implement to ensure that all members were allowed a voice so that each could provide meaningful input related to the goal(s)? Provide examples to support your explanation. d) What challenge(s) were encountered during the planning? How, as a team, did you resolve the challenge(s)? Provide a rationale for your actions. e) What steps did you take to reach consensus among the members of the team while creating the plan? Provide examples to support your analysis. One five minute segment of the video may be used as an artifact in your response to this textbox. Enter your response in the textbox below. Type your response here. Step 3: Implementing the Plan This step allows you to demonstrate your ability to facilitate colleagues work as they implement the plan. Activity As you continue to work with your team, analyze your role as facilitator during the plan for improving instructional practice; provide encouragement to the team members; elicit feedback as a team from the targeted audience; determine what evidence you will collect to reflect student learning as a result of the plan; and take steps to address any challenges. At some point during the plan, you may record a five minute video that demonstrates your skills in facilitating a meeting with your team and with those who are the focus of the plan. Then respond to the guiding prompts below. 47

Textbox 3.3.1: Working with the Team During Implementation Guiding Prompts a) What steps did you and your collaborative team take to implement the plan? Provide a rationale for each step. b) What responsibility did each collaborative team member assume while implementing the plan? What encouragement did you offer, what were the circumstances in which you offered it, and why did you offer it? Provide examples to support your analysis. c) How did your collaborative team elicit feedback from the targeted audience? How did the feedback impact the plan? How did the feedback impact your team members as a whole? Provide examples to support your analysis. d) What steps did the collaborative team take to ensure that student learning was being affected as a result of the plan? What process did the team use to collect evidence of student learning? Provide examples of student learning to support your conclusion. e) What challenge(s) arose during the implementation of your plan? What steps did you and the team take to address the challenge(s)? Provide examples to support your conclusion. Enter your response in the textbox below. Link a representative page of the feedback from the targeted audience (maximum of one page) from your Library of Artifacts to the first sentence discussing the feedback. Link a representative page of evidence that reflects student learning (maximum of one page) to the first sentence discussing student learning. Type your response here. Step 4: Reflecting on the Collaborative Team This step allows you to demonstrate your ability to facilitate colleagues self reflection. Activity As a team facilitator, meet with at least one collaborative team member and create a ten minute video of a conversation that promotes self reflection on the part of the team member(s). Then respond to the guiding prompts below. Textbox 3.4.1: Self Reflection and Feedback Guiding Prompts a) To what extent were you able to foster a collaborative team? Provide examples from the plan, the artifacts, and/or the video to support your conclusions. 48

b) What did you learn about your team members concerning their professional growth as partners in the collaborative team? Evaluate their growth and contributions. Provide examples from the video to support your conclusions. c) What steps did you take before and during conversations to encourage discussion about your team members self reflection related to their involvement in a collaborative team? Provide examples from the video that support your efforts to promote self reflection. d) How will the feedback your team members provided influence your work with other colleagues when building collaborative teams in the future? Provide examples from the artifacts and/or the video to support your analysis. One ten minute segment of a video must be used as an artifact in your response to this textbox. Type your response here. Step 5: Uploading the Video Activity Upload a fifteen minute video. Only one video file may be uploaded. The video must contain one five minute segment (unedited) from either Textbox 3.2.2 or Textbox 3.3.1 and one ten minute segment (unedited) from Textbox 3.4.1; both must be combined into one file. The video upload may take several minutes. Review your video after it has been uploaded to ensure that the upload was successful. Textbox 3.5.1: The Video Upload your video here. 49

TASK 3: Creating a Collaborative Team Rubric Step 1: Identifying the Collaborative Team (textbox 3.1.1) Score of 1 Score of 2 Score of 3 Score of 4 A response at the 1 level provides minimal evidence that demonstrates the school leader candidate s ability to select colleagues with various levels of experience who will serve effectively as collaborative team members; to elicit and/or encourage each colleague s involvement with the team; and to build a structure to support and sustain the team during the collaborative work. A response at the 2 level provides partial evidence that demonstrates the school leader candidate s ability to select colleagues with various levels of experience who will serve effectively as collaborative team members; to elicit and/or encourage each colleague s involvement with the team; and to build a structure to support and sustain the team during the collaborative work. A response at the 3 level provides effective evidence that demonstrates the school leader candidate s ability to select colleagues with various levels of experience who will serve effectively as collaborative team members; to elicit and/or encourage each colleague s involvement with the team; and to build a structure to support and sustain the team during the collaborative work. A response at the 4 level provides consistent evidence that demonstrates the school leader candidate s ability to select colleagues with various levels of experience who will serve effectively as collaborative team members; to elicit and/or encourage each colleague s involvement with the team; and to build a structure to support and sustain the team during the collaborative work. evidence for the 1-level criteria is minimal and/or ineffective throughout the response for Step 1. Evidence may also be missing. evidence for the 2-level criteria is limited and/or vague throughout the response for Step 1. evidence for the 3-level criteria is appropriate and connected throughout the response for Step 1. evidence for the 4-level criteria is insightful and thoroughly connected throughout the response for Step 1. Step 1: Identifying the Collaborative Team (textbox 3.1.1) Score of 1 Score of 2 Score of 3 Score of 4 a cursory selection of an informed selection of appropriate colleagues appropriate colleagues with various levels of with various levels of experience to serve as part experience to serve as of the collaborative team, part of the collaborative with a weak rationale for team, with a logical the choice of each team rationale for the choice of member each team member each team member an inappropriate selection of colleagues with various levels of experience to serve as part of the collaborative team, with a disjointed rationale for the choice of each team member incomplete steps taken to elicit and encourage each colleague s involvement with the team, with an inconsistent rationale limited steps taken to elicit and encourage each colleague s involvement with the team, with a weak rationale effective steps taken to elicit and encourage each colleague s involvement with the team, with an appropriate rationale a significant selection of appropriate colleagues with various levels of experience to serve as part of the collaborative team, with a well-defined rationale for the choice of insightful steps taken to elicit and encourage each colleague s involvement with the team, with a thorough rationale 50

little or no structure aligned to the collaborative work and designed to support and sustain the team during the work, with an inconsistent rationale a partial structure aligned to the collaborative work and designed to support and sustain the team during the work, with a weak rationale an effective structure aligned to the collaborative work and designed to support and sustain the team during the work, with an appropriate rationale a significant structure aligned to the collaborative work and designed to support and sustain the team during the work, with a thorough rationale Step 2: Developing a Plan to Improve Instruction (textbox 3.2.1 and 3.2.2) Score of 1 Score of 2 Score of 3 Score of 4 A response at the 2 level A response at the 3 level provides partial evidence provides effective that demonstrates the evidence that school leader candidate s demonstrates the school ability to identify a tool leader candidate s ability (or tools) to collect data; to identify a tool (or tools) to identify an area of to collect data; to identify research-based an area of research-based instructional practice in instructional practice in need of improvement; to need of improvement; to identify the impact on identify the impact on student learning that the student learning that the improvement will have; to improvement will have; to identify the steps taken to identify the steps taken to measure the impact; to measure the impact; to develop a plan using develop a plan using collected data, with goals, collected data, with goals, steps, a timeline, and steps, a timeline, and resources; to identify resources; to identify colleagues to be the focus colleagues to be the focus of the team s plan; to of the team s plan; to identify the identify the responsibilities of each responsibilities of each team member during the team member during the planning; to apply planning; to apply strategies with team strategies with team members as a group and members as a group and individually to involve individually to involve them in the planning them in the planning process; to facilitate the process; to facilitate the team s work by ensuring team s work by ensuring that each team member that each team member has a meaningful voice in has a meaningful voice in the planning process; to the planning process; to resolve challenges as a resolve challenges as a team during the planning team during the planning process; and to take steps process; and to take steps to reach consensus among to reach consensus among the members of the team the members of the team while creating the plan. while creating the plan. A response at the 1 level provides minimal evidence that demonstrates the school leader candidate s ability to identify a tool (or tools) to collect data; to identify an area of research-based instructional practice in need of improvement; to identify the impact on student learning that the improvement will have and identify the steps taken to measure the impact; to develop a plan using collected data, with goals, steps, a timeline, and resources; to identify colleagues to be the focus of the team s plan; to identify the responsibilities of each team member during the planning; to apply strategies with team members as a group and individually to involve them in the planning process; to facilitate the team s work by ensuring that each team member has a meaningful voice in the planning process; to resolve challenges as a team during the planning process; and to take steps to reach consensus among the members of the team while creating the plan. A response at the 4 level provides consistent evidence that demonstrates the school leader candidate s ability to identify a tool (or tools) to collect data; to identify an area of research-based instructional practice in need of improvement; to identify the impact on student learning that the improvement will have; to identify the steps taken to measure the impact; to develop a plan using collected data, with goals, steps, a timeline, and resources; to identify colleagues to be the focus of the team s plan; to identify the responsibilities of each team member during the planning; to apply strategies with team members as a group and individually to involve them in the planning process; to facilitate the team s work by ensuring that each team member has a meaningful voice in the planning process; to resolve challenges as a team during the planning process; and to take steps to reach consensus among the members of the team while creating the plan. evidence for the 1-level criteria is minimal and/or evidence for the 2-level criteria is limited and/or evidence for the 3-level criteria is appropriate and evidence for the 4-level criteria is insightful and 51

ineffective throughout the response for Step 2. Evidence may also be missing. vague throughout the response for Step 2. connected throughout the response for Step 2. thoroughly connected throughout the response for Step 2. Step 2: Developing a Plan to Improve Instruction (textbox 3.2.1 and 3.2.2) Score of 1 Score of 2 Score of 3 Score of 4 3.2.1 the inadequate selection and use of a tool (or tools) for identifying a researchbased instructional practice in need of improvement, with little or no support from the resulting data and a minimal rationale the targeting of an inappropriate area of research-based instructional practice to improve student learning, with inappropriate steps selected to measure the intended impact and an inconsistent rationale the creation of an irrelevant plan, based on an analysis of the collected data, with disjointed goals, steps, timeline, and resources and with an inconsistent rationale an inappropriate identification of colleagues to be the focus of the team s plan, with minimal reasons for choosing them 3.2.2 an inappropriate identification of the responsibility that each team member assumed during the planning stage inadequate strategies used with team members, both individually and as a group, to involve them in the planning process, with examples that ineffectively the weak selection and use of a tool (or tools) for identifying a researchbased instructional practice in need of improvement, with uneven support from the resulting data and an uneven rationale the targeting of a narrow area of research-based instructional practice to improve student learning, with weak steps selected to measure the intended impact and a weak rationale the creation of a cursory plan, based on an analysis of the collected data, with weak goals, steps, timeline, and resources and with a weak rationale a cursory identification of colleagues to be the focus of the team s plan, with cursory reasons for choosing them a partial identification of the responsibility that each team member assumed during the planning stage limited strategies used with team members, both individually and as a group, to involve them in the planning process, with examples that partially the appropriate selection and use of a tool (or tools) for identifying a researchbased instructional practice in need of improvement, with appropriate support from the resulting data and a connected rationale the targeting of an appropriate area of research-based instructional practice to improve student learning, with appropriate steps selected to measure the intended impact and an appropriate rationale the creation of a coherent plan, based on an analysis of the collected data, with relevant goals, steps, timeline, and resources and with an appropriate rationale a targeted identification of colleagues to be the focus of the team s plan, with aligned reasons for choosing them an appropriate identification of the responsibility that each team member assumed during the planning stage targeted strategies used with team members, both individually and as a group, to involve them in the planning process, with examples that effectively the highly effective selection and use of a tool (or tools) for identifying a research-based instructional practice in need of improvement, with thorough support from the resulting data and a thoroughly connected rationale the targeting of a significant area of research-based instructional practice to improve student learning, with significant steps selected to measure the intended impact and a thorough rationale the creation of an extensive plan, based on an analysis of the collected data, with welldefined goals, steps, timeline, and resources and with a thorough rationale a knowledgeable identification of colleagues to be the focus of the team s plan, with aligned reasons for choosing them a thorough identification of the responsibility that each team member assumed during the planning stage insightful strategies used with team members, both individually and as a group, to involve them in the planning process, with examples that thoroughly 52

support the use of the identified strategies misinformed strategies used to ensure that all members of the team were allowed a voice to provide meaningful input related to the goal(s), with examples that inappropriately support the strategies incomplete resolutions of challenges encountered during the planning, with a rationale that minimally supports the actions little or no steps taken to reach consensus among members of the team while creating the plan, with examples that inadequately support the identified steps support the use of the identified strategies limited strategies used to ensure that all members of the team were allowed a voice to provide meaningful input related to the goal(s), with examples that are loosely connected to the strategies inconsistent resolutions of challenges encountered during the planning, with a rationale that vaguely supports the actions uneven steps taken to reach consensus among members of the team while creating the plan, with examples that lack detail supporting the identified steps support the use of the identified strategies knowledgeable strategies used to ensure that all members of the team were allowed a voice to provide meaningful input related to the goal(s), with examples that appropriately support the strategies thoughtful resolutions of challenges encountered during the planning, with a rationale that appropriately supports the actions detailed steps taken to reach consensus among members of the team while creating the plan, with examples that appropriately support the identified steps support the use of the identified strategies significant strategies used to ensure that all members of the team were allowed a voice to provide meaningful input related to the goal(s), with examples that consistently support the strategies in-depth resolutions of challenges encountered during the planning, with a rationale that extensively supports the actions numerous steps taken to reach consensus among members of the team while creating the plan, with examples that thoroughly support the identified steps Step 3: Implementing the Plan (textbox 3.3.1) Score of 1 Score of 2 Score of 3 Score of 4 A response at the 2 level A response at the 3 level provides partial evidence provides effective that demonstrates the evidence that school leader candidate s demonstrates the school ability to work with the leader candidate s ability team to determine the to work with the team to steps to implement the determine the steps to plan; to identify the implement the plan; to responsibilities assumed identify the by each team member responsibilities assumed while implementing the by each team member plan; to offer while implementing the encouragement to the plan; to offer team members; to work encouragement to the with a team to elicit team members; to work feedback from the with a team to elicit targeted audience and use feedback from the that feedback to impact targeted audience and use the that feedback to impact plan; to take steps with the the team to ensure that a plan; to take steps with positive impact on student the team to ensure that a learning was achieved and positive impact on student that evidence was learning was achieved and collected to show that that evidence was impact; and to take steps collected to show that with the team to address impact; and to take steps A response at the 1 level provides minimal evidence that demonstrates the school leader candidate s ability to work with the team to determine the steps to implement the plan; to identify the responsibilities assumed by each team member while implementing the plan; to offer encouragement to the team members; to work with a team to elicit feedback from the targeted audience and use that feedback to impact the plan; to take steps with the team to ensure that a positive impact on student learning was achieved and that evidence was collected to show that impact; and to take steps A response at the 4 level provides consistent evidence that demonstrates the school leader candidate s ability to work with the team to determine the steps to implement the plan; to identify the responsibilities assumed by each team member while implementing the plan; to offer encouragement to the team members; to work with a team to elicit feedback from the targeted audience and use that feedback to impact the plan; to take steps with the team to ensure that a positive impact on student learning was achieved and that evidence was collected to show that impact; and to take steps 53

with the team to address any challenges that arose during the implementation. evidence for the 1-level criteria is minimal and/or ineffective throughout the response for Step 3. Evidence may also be missing. any challenges that arose during the implementation. evidence for the 2-level criteria is limited and/or vague throughout the response for Step 3. with the team to address any challenges that arose during the implementation. evidence for the 3-level criteria is appropriate and connected throughout the response for Step 3. with the team to address any challenges that arose during the implementation. evidence for the 4-level criteria is insightful and thoroughly connected throughout the response for Step 3. Step 3: Implementing the Plan (textbox 3.3.1) Score of 1 Score of 2 Score of 3 Score of 4 partial steps taken to effective steps taken to significant steps taken to implement the plan, with implement the plan, with implement the plan, with a limited rationale for a specific rationale for a thorough rationale for each step each step each step incomplete steps taken to implement the plan, with little or no rationale for each step an inaccurate identification of the responsibilities assumed by each team member, with evidence of minimal encouragement offered at inappropriate times and for inappropriate reasons with examples that are disconnected an inadequate method used by the team to elicit feedback from the targeted audience to impact the plan and the work of the team as a whole, with examples that are minimal incomplete steps taken to ensure that the implementation had an impact on student learning, with an inappropriate evidencecollecting process used to show the impact misinformed steps taken by the team to address challenges that arose during the implementation, with a cursory identification of the responsibilities assumed by each team member, with evidence of inconsistent encouragement offered at inconsistent times and for inconsistent reasons with examples that are vague a limited method used by the team to elicit feedback from the targeted audience to impact the plan and the work of the team as a whole, with examples that are loosely connected uneven steps taken to ensure that the implementation had an impact on student learning, with a limited evidence-collecting process used to show the impact partial steps taken by the team to address challenges that arose during the an appropriate identification of the responsibilities assumed by each team member, with evidence of targeted encouragement offered at appropriate times and for appropriate reasons with examples that are connected an effective method used by the team to elicit feedback from the targeted audience to impact the plan and the work of the team as a whole, with examples that are connected targeted steps taken to ensure that the implementation had an impact on student learning, with an effective evidence-collecting process used to show the impact coherent steps taken by the team to address challenges that arose during the implementation, with a significant identification of the responsibilities assumed by each team member, with evidence of targeted encouragement offered at numerous times and for insightful reasons with examples that are well-defined an in-depth method used by the team to elicit feedback from the targeted audience to impact the plan and the work of the team as a whole, with examples that are thorough consistent steps taken to ensure that the implementation had an impact on student learning, with a thorough evidence-collecting process used to show the impact significant steps taken by the team to address challenges that arose during the implementation, with 54

examples that are disconnected implementation, with examples that are vague examples that are connected examples that are thoroughly connected Step 4: Reflecting on the Collaborative Team (textbox 3.4.1) Score of 1 Score of 2 Score of 3 Score of 4 A response at the 2 level A response at the 3 level provides partial evidence provides effective that demonstrates the evidence that school leader candidate s demonstrates the school ability to evaluate the leader candidate s ability degree to which the goal to evaluate the extent to of fostering a which the goal of collaborative team was fostering a collaborative met; to evaluate the team was met; to evaluate professional growth of the professional growth of team members as partners team members as partners in the professional team; in the professional team; to implement steps before to implement steps before and during conversations and during conversations to encourage reflective to encourage reflective conversation among team conversation among team members; and to describe members; and to describe how feedback from how feedback from colleagues will influence colleagues will influence work with other work with other colleagues when building colleagues when building collaborative teams in the collaborative teams in the future. future. A response at the 1 level provides minimal evidence that demonstrates the school leader candidate s ability to evaluate the degree to which the goal of fostering a collaborative team was met; to evaluate the professional growth of team members as partners in the professional team; to implement steps before and during conversations to encourage reflective conversation among team members; and to describe how feedback from colleagues will influence work with other colleagues when building collaborative teams in the future. A response at the 4 level provides consistent evidence that demonstrates the school leader candidate s ability to evaluate the degree to which the goal of fostering a collaborative team was met; to evaluate the professional growth of team members as partners in the professional team; to implement steps before and during conversations to encourage reflective conversation among team members; and to describe how feedback from colleagues will influence work with other colleagues when building collaborative teams in the future. evidence for the 1-level criteria is minimal and/or ineffective throughout the response for Step 4. Evidence may also be missing. evidence for the 2-level criteria is limited and/or vague throughout the response for Step 4. evidence for the 3-level criteria is appropriate and connected throughout the response for Step 4. evidence for the 4-level criteria is insightful and thoroughly connected throughout the response for Step 4. Step 4: Reflecting on the Collaborative Team (textbox 3.4.1) Score of 1 Score of 2 Score of 3 Score of 4 a cursory evaluation of an effective evaluation of a thorough evaluation of the extent to which a the extent to which a the extent to which a collaborative team was collaborative team was collaborative team was fostered, with examples fostered, with examples fostered, with examples from the plan, artifacts, from the plan, artifacts, from the plan, artifacts, and/or video that partially and/or video that and/or video that support the conclusions appropriately support the consistently support the an incomplete evaluation of the extent to which a collaborative team was fostered, with examples from the plan, artifacts, and/or video that ineffectively support the conclusions a minimal evaluation of the team members professional growth as partners in the collaborative team, with a limited evaluation of the team members professional growth as partners in the collaborative team, with conclusions an informed evaluation of the team members professional growth as partners in the collaborative team, with conclusions an insightful evaluation of the team members professional growth as partners in the collaborative team, with 55

examples from the video that ineffectively support the conclusions irrelevant steps taken before and during conversations to encourage team members self-reflection related to their involvement in a collaborative team, with examples from the video that minimally support efforts to promote selfreflection an inadequate explanation of how the feedback provided by the team members will influence the candidate s work with other colleagues when building collaborative teams in the future, with examples from the plan, the artifacts, and/or the video that are disconnected examples from the video that lack detail supporting the conclusions inconsistent steps taken before and during conversations to encourage team members self-reflection related to their involvement in a collaborative team, with examples from the video that partially support efforts to promote selfreflection a limited explanation of how the feedback provided by the team members will influence the candidate s work with other colleagues when building collaborative teams in the future, with examples from the plan, the artifacts, and/or the video that are loosely connected examples from the video that effectively support the conclusions logical steps taken before and during conversations to encourage team members self-reflection related to their involvement in a collaborative team, with examples from the video that effectively support efforts to promote selfreflection an informed explanation of how the feedback provided by the team members will influence the candidate s work with other colleagues when building collaborative teams in the future, with examples from the plan, the artifacts, and/or the video that are effectively linked examples from the video that extensively support the conclusions significant steps taken before and during conversations to encourage team members self-reflection related to their involvement in a collaborative team, with examples from the video that insightfully support efforts to promote selfreflection an in-depth explanation of how the feedback provided by the team members will influence the candidate s work with other colleagues when building collaborative teams in the future, with examples from the plan, the artifacts, and/or the video that are thoroughly connected 56

SCHOOL OF EDUCATION CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK The Lindenwood University School of Education faculty members believe that developing and enhancing an educator as a instructional leader involves an act of blending both art and science for the most effective preparation experience. The Spellmann Clock Tower reflects the relationship between the art and science similar to the education program at Lindenwood University. The aesthetics, or art of a clock, is only one component of crafting a well designed clock. The fine mechanics, or exact science involved, are essential in order to produce a timepiece that is an efficient tool. An observer appreciates a well designed clock for both its beauty and functionality. Like the art and science of a clock, candidates in the education program at Lindenwood University are able to practice and portray a similar balance in their professional and personal journey. School of Education 209 S. Kingshighway, Roemer Hall Saint Charles, MO 63301 636 949 4949 lindenwood.edu/education 57