ELCC Program Report

Section I Context

A. State and institutional standards

Delta State University provides training for special education teacher candidates through a Master of Education degree in mild/moderate disabilities. This program is offered in the Division of Teacher Education, which is a unit of the College of Education. Historically the focus of special education training at Delta State University was through the undergraduate program, with the graduate program serving as advanced training. However, changes in teacher licensure and new interpretations of highly qualified status for special education teachers led to a decline in undergraduate enrollment, resulting in the phase out of the undergraduate program beginning Fall Semester of 2005. Simultaneously, enrollment in the graduate program began to increase dramatically as the state allowed special education licensure at the master’s level without corresponding undergraduate licensure. Ten years ago, most candidates in the special education master’s program had undergraduate licensure in special education, elementary education, or in a content area. Now most candidates enrolled in the master’s program have degrees in disciplines other than education, although several did minor in special education in their undergraduate programs.

Licensure issues for candidates in our program are complex. In Mississippi, teacher licensure is available on the A level (undergraduate degree), AA level (master’s degree), AAA level (educational specialist degree) and AAAA level (doctoral degree). It is expected that teachers receive an A license as their initial licensure. Those teachers pursuing AA licensure without an undergraduate degree in education must pursue alternate route licensure, either through an intensive A level training regimen (not available in special education at Delta State University), or enroll in an MAT program. The exception is in special education, where a candidate may, upon finishing a master’s degree in special education, apply for AA licensure without first receiving alternate route certification.

In our master’s degree program we have three distinct subsets of candidates. One set of candidates includes students who are already licensed on the A or AA level in special education, elementary education or a content area. Most of these candidates are presently employed as special education teachers, elementary education teachers, or content area teachers on the secondary level. A second set of candidates includes students who have alternative teaching licenses and are pursuing standard licensure through a combination of state training for alternative route teachers and candidacy for a master’s degree in special education. These candidates are employed as special education teachers. The first two sets of candidates are part-time students who take 3 - 6 hours a semester. Most of their practicum experiences are in the schools where they teach. The third set of candidates includes full time students who presently do not have licensure to teach. They enroll in 9 hours a semester and are placed in practicum experiences with highly qualified mentor teachers.

Changes in interpretation of highly qualified status for Mississippi special education teachers in the 2005-2006 school year left numerous veteran special education teachers

with inadequate planning. Veteran special education teachers have felt disenfranchised by these changes. Many retired, quit, or transferred to general education teaching positions, which

exacerbated an already desperate special education teacher shortage. Increasingly, schools in the area are staffed with novice special education teachers, many of whom are on alternate licensure. The dearth of qualified, experienced special education teachers in the region complicates our efforts to provide quality field experiences. Many of the practices delineated by CEC in the ten standards are being inadequately implemented by inexperienced teachers and are poorly monitored by administrators.

This teacher shortage has led to increased enrollment in the special education master’s degree program, especially by those without teaching licenses. Three issues have emerged in our teacher education program as a result of these circumstances: First, class size has grown, creating challenges in: a) how we deliver instruction, b) how we deliver instruction in a culturally

responsive manner, c) how we create quality field experiences, and d) how we provide adequate feedback. Second, with large numbers of candidates on alternate licensure using their place of employment for field experiences, we have less control over teaching conditions. Third, in many schools in the area there are few experienced special education teachers to serve as field

supervisors or mentors. All three groups are affected by the lack of feedback from experienced peers in the school setting.

B. Field and clinical experiences

A large percentage of the candidates in our program are presently employed in school settings either as teachers or paraprofessionals. Informally, these candidates are implementing strategies and practices in their own classrooms or instructional situations throughout their programs. Formally, all candidates have three major field experience requirements: a) a field experience in a setting with elementary aged children, b) a field experience with adolescents, and c) an intensive culminating internship or practicum.

Since our program prepares candidates for teaching in K-12, we require initial field experience in both elementary and secondary settings. Two practicum courses, Programming for Adolescents with Mild/Moderate Exceptional Learning Needs (CSP 643) and Education of Individuals with Mild/Moderate Exceptional Learning Needs (CSP 686),require a combination of 30 hours of field experience. The candidates may divide their hours as they choose as long as they have a combination of 30 hours and at least 10 hours in each age range. Candidates may complete these hours in their own classroom or school setting as long as the age range of the children is appropriate, and the candidate can meet all requirements for the experience.

Candidates who teach all day with one age range may meet their field experience requirement in approved after school programs for children with ELN or who are at risk for ELN. In addition to meeting the 30-hour requirement, each course requires specific activities in the setting including targeted observations, writing and implementation of lesson plans, and reflections on each lesson implemented.

Each candidate is required to complete an intensive practicum or internship at the culmination of the program. Candidates who fulfill student teaching requirements in

necessary because a candidate cannot self-evaluate and design an improvement plan for field research if he or she is not presently teaching.

Candidates who have not completed a student teaching experience or the equivalent are required to complete a 200-hour internship. This internship parallels the undergraduate

requirements of student teaching at Delta State University. If the candidate is already teaching on alternate licensure, he or she completes the 200 hours in his or her own classroom but must have a field supervisor. Candidates who are not working in school settings are placed in the same manner as a student teacher. All candidates in internships are observed a minimum of three times by Delta State University special education faculty.

C. Admission and retention standards

Individuals may be admitted to the special education master’s degree program who hold an undergraduate degree in any discipline with a minimum overall GPA of 2.5 or a GPA of 2.75 in their last 64 hours of coursework. During the initial phase of the program, candidates must earn a B or higher in stipulated course work and submit passing scores from the Praxis I exam in reading, writing and mathematics. Full time candidates must meet these requirements by the end of their first 9 hours, and part time candidates must meet these requirements at the end of their first 12 hours. Candidates who meet these requirements are fully admitted to the graduate degree program. Candidates who earn a C or below during the first 9 or 12 hours are dismissed from the program.

Candidates complete a program of study that outlines all required coursework while maintaining a 3.0 grade average. If a candidate’s overall grade point average on graduate courses drops below a 3.0, he or she is placed on probation and is no longer considered a candidate for a degree. Probationary status can be removed by raising the overall grade point average to 3.0 or higher on all graduate work at the end of the semester following placement on probation. For candidates enrolled in summer school, both summer terms are used to determine if probationary status should be removed. Failure to be removed from probation in the manner described results in dismissal from the degree program.

Individuals who have been dismissed from a graduate degree program may be eligible to apply for re-admission, with approval from their respective graduate program and school, one full semester after their dismissal. One full semester refers to one regular term (fall or spring) or both summer terms. During the dismissal term, individuals who intend to return to their graduate degree program are encouraged to address deficiencies in their academic work with their advisor and academic program coordinator. In addition, any candidate who earns three grades of C or one grade of D or F is dismissed from the degree program. An individual is not eligible to seek readmission to the university after a second dismissal from a graduate degree program.

D. Relationship to unit’s conceptual framework

The Delta P³ model is predicated on five principles: a) education is a life long endeavor, b) education is interactive and reflective, c) education is culturally contextualized, d) education is dynamic and e) education is enhanced by technology.

The Master of Education degree program in special education exemplifies these principles. We are constantly reminded of the renewable nature of education by the diverse background of our candidates. Our candidates exemplify that education is a life long endeavor because they represent those with traditional training in special education who are updating their knowledge base in the discipline, as well as those with training in elementary and secondary education who are supplementing their training to better serve children with ELN. Additionally, a large number of our candidates are training to be teachers for the first time.

Candidates in the special education Master of Education degree program are given frequent opportunities to reflect on their classroom experiences in the degree program before, during and after their experiences in P-12 classrooms. Each course has numerous reflection activities. In addition, the special education program folio completed in the internship/practicum experience requires reflection on a synthesis of the ten standards delineated by CEC.

Preparing to teach special education requires each candidate to examine his or her world view and philosophy of education within a cultural context. With increased emphasis on

inclusive teaching in special education, all educators are forced to re-conceptualize the culture of school and the culture of the classroom. This re-conceptualization leads each candidate to

explore the full diversity of our region including not only issues of disability, but race, gender, ethnicity, and socio-cultural factors.

As candidates reflect on their own experiences and examine the cultural context of teaching within their communities, we who develop the program reflect on their experiences and feedback and respond by making program modifications. The formal program assessment system is used to suggest programmatic changes. Each semester, faculty members formally meet to consider program adjustments to improve program outcomes. Additionally, individual instructors adjust instruction, feedback and assessment systems in courses based on formal student course evaluations and student responses to informal class activities.

Increasingly, technology serves to supplement and enhance the graduate experience. The Internet opens a world of information to professionals in a geographically isolated region of Mississippi. Word processors and graphics packages enable candidates to produce high quality presentations and projects. Additionally, candidates learn how to use technology to enhance their own classroom teaching. They develop standards-based lesson plans, learn about emerging assistive technologies and develop professional electronic portfolios using TaskStream.

Technology also facilitates program and course assessment and information management in the master’s degree programs.

E. Program and unit assessments

Unit assessments have four checkpoints: a) prior program entry, b) prior to clinical practice, c) upon completion of clinical practice and d) upon program completion. These

checkpoints apply to initial and advanced programs. As an initial program on the graduate level, our assessment system borrows from initial and advanced standards to create an assessment system appropriate for our candidates.

undergraduate work, and a grade of B or higher on the first 9 hours of graduate work. Prior to clinical practice, candidates complete a self-evaluation covering 15 categories of dispositions that impact student learning (CSP 643). In addition, 30 hours of field experiences in elementary and secondary settings includes both observation and lesson plan delivery (CSP 643 and CSP 686). A diversity assessment is completed in EPY 601 and a technology assessment is completed in ELR 605.

Upon completion of clinical practice, candidates are assessed on their ability to demonstrate instructional planning and delivery that quantitatively impacts student learning. These assessments for candidates who have not had student teaching as part of their

undergraduate degree program occur during the 200-hour internship that includes a minimum of three clinical observations using STAI indicators. Candidates who have already completed student teaching develop a TaskStream folio in order to demonstrate content mastery of their clinical practice, as well as mastery of all 10 CEC standards. Also included in the TaskStream folio is a philosophy of education statement and reflections for each standard.

Program completion requires a passing score on a written comprehensive exam, a 3.0 overall GPA, a B average in the core courses (CUR 60, EPY 601, and ELR 605), a passing score on both the PLT and the special education specialty test (0353).

ATTACHMENT A Candidate Information

Program:

Master of Education in Educational Leadership

Academic

Year # of Candidates Enrolled in the Program

# of Program Completers

2005-2006 14 14

2004-2005 15 15

ATTACHMENT B Faculty Information Faculty Member Name Highest Degree, Field, & University Assignment: Indicate the role of the

faculty member Faculty Rank Tenure Track (Yes/ No)

Scholarship, Leadership in Professional Associations, and Service:List up to 3 major contributions in the

past 3 years

Teaching or other professional experience in

P-12 schools

Arthur J.

Cartlidge Ed.D., Secondary School Administrati on and Supervision, Mississippi State University Faculty & Clinical Supervisor Visiting

Professor No Consultant for school districts across the state; State curriculum and advisory task forces; President of Delta Area Association for Improvement of Schools; Mississippi State University Hall of Fame for Lifetime Achievement

Retired District

Superintendent, Deputy Superintendent, Director of Federal Programs, Principal, Assistant Principal, Teacher & Coach; AAAA MS state Administrator Certificate

Lynn J.

House Ph.D., Administrati on and Supervision, University of Mississippi

Dean Professor Yes Five presentations at professional regional, national, and international conferences; NCATE state reviewer; Delta Education Initiative grant ($992,000); Delta Health Alliance grant ($1,440,000)

MS Department of

Education Bureau Director, Director of Student

Teaching, Principal, Director of Academic Affairs &

School Improvement Programs, Reading

Specialist, Teacher; AAAA MS state Administrator Certificate

Kathleen B.

Studies, Delta State

University

Coordinator, Faculty, & Clinical Supervisor

Committees; SREB training in Leading Change; 3

Dissertation committees; Provide training for principals and teachers in P-12 schools.

Superintendent, Director of Curriculum & Instruction, Principal and Teacher; AAAA MS state Administrator Certificate

Dan R.

McFall Ph.D., Educational Administrati on and Research, University of Southern Mississippi

Faculty Assistant

Professor Yes SREB Team Leadership Training; Dissertation Chair for 5 students; Provide professional development to P-12; APA workshops for Doctoral students

P-12 Teacher &

Administrator, Community College Advisory Committee

Lynn W.

Varner Ph.D., Educational Leadership, University of Mississippi

Division

Chair Assistant Professor Yes Eight presentations at professional regional, national, and international conferences; Five refereed publications; 2004-2005 Kossman Award for

Outstanding Teacher; College of Education Faculty Award for Outstanding Service, Teaching, and Research; State executive boards for rural education and for leadership training; Review

boards for two professional journals

Ann Harland Webster

Ed.D.,

Professional Studies, Delta State University

Faculty & Clinical Supervisor

Assistant

Professor No Regional Trainer for MDE for TST and ICAI Professional Development Modules; Served as external evaluator for Reading First Grant in a local K-6 school; DSU Conceptual Framework Committee; Chair of 2 dissertations committees; Provide training/technical assistance to P-12 schools

Retired District Superintendent,

Administrative Asst. to Supt, K-12 Curriculum

Coordinator, Special Education Coordinator/Supervisor, Speech-Language

Program of Study

Master's of Education Educational Leadership Program

Student:

Date:_____________

______

All courses listed in the Program of Study are required.

CORE

COURSE NO. COURSE TITLE DATE TO BE TAKEN CR. HR

EPY 601 Psychology of Learning 1st Summer I 3 ELR 605 Methods of Research & Stats 1st Summer II 3 CUR 608 Historical Foundations 2nd Summer I 3

Total 9

MAJOR

FIELD

COURSE NO.

EDL 601 Foundations I 1st Summer I 3

EDL 602 Foundations II 1st Summer II 3

EDL 603 Foundations III Fall 3

EDL 620 Application of Practice I Fall 3 EDL 624 Application of Practice II Spring 3 EDL 628 Application of Practice III Spring 3 EDL 640 Organizational & School Issues I 2nd Summer I 3 EDL 645 Organizational & School Issues II 2nd Summer II 3 EDL 650* Elementary Field Experience Fall, Spring, or 2nd Summer I 4 EDL 652* Middle School Field Experience Fall, Spring, or 2nd Summer I 4 EDL 654* High School Field Experience Fall, Spring, or 2nd Summer I 4 EDL 655* Central Office Field Experience 2nd Summer II 3

Total 39

*All internships occur during the school year. EDL 650, EDL 652 & EDL 654 are 12-weeks. Three internships are rotated among Candidates and they enroll in one each of the above noted semesters as directed by Program Coordinator.

EDL 655 is one week during the spring semester. All Candidates complete this internship at the same time and receive credit for it during 2nd summer II term.

SECTION II— LIST OF ASSESSMENTS

Name of Assessment Type or

Form of Assessment

When the Assessment Is Administered

1 Content Knowledge:

School Leaders Licensure Assessment (SLLA)

State Licensure Exam

Last semester of

program (June)

Content Knowledge

:

Master of Educational

Leadership

Program Comprehensive Examination

Comprehensive Examination

Last Semester of

program (May/June)

3 Professional Knowledge, Skills and Dispositions:

Data Analysis/School Improvement Plan

Project

Fall Semester: EDL 603

4

Professional Knowledge,

Skills and Dispositions

:

Intern Performance

Assessment

Internship supervisor’s evaluation of candidates’ performances

End of Internship (Oct./Feb./May) EDL 650, EDL 652, EDL 654

5 Effects on Student Learning: Educational Leadership Program Preparation Questionnaire (ELPPQ)

Survey/Questionnaire Spring semester each year (April)

6 Content Knowledge:

Exit Portfolio

_Portfolio

7 Professional Knowledge, Skills and Dispositions:

School-Community Relations Project

Project

Spring semester: EDL

628

SECTION III—RELATIONSHIP OF ASSESSMENT TO STANDARDS

ELCC STANDARD APPLICABLE ASSESSMENTS FROM SECTION II

Standard 1.0: Candidates who complete the program are educational leaders who have the knowledge and ability to promote the success of all students by facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a school vision of learning supported by the school community.

1.1 Develop a School Vision of Learning. X#1

□

□

□

1.2 Articulate a School Vision of Learning. X#1

□

□

X#2 X#4 X#6 X#8

1.3 Implement a School Vision of Learning. X

#1 X#3 X#5 X#7

X#2 X #4 X#6 X#8

1.4 Steward a School Vision of Learning. X X#1 #2 XX#3 #4 XX#5 #6 XX#7 #8

1.5 Promote Community Involvement in School Vision. X#1 X#3 X#5 X#7

X#2 X #4 X#6 X#8

Standard 2.0: Candidates who complete the program are educational leaders who have the knowledge and ability to promote the success of all students by promoting a positive school culture, providing an effective instructional program, applying best practice to student learning, and designing comprehensive professional growth plans for staff.

2.1 Promote a Positive School Culture. X#1 X#3 X#5

□

ELCC STANDARD APPLICABLE ASSESSMENTS FROM SECTION II

2.2 Provide Effective Instructional Program. X#1 X#3 X#5

□

X#2 X#4 X#6 X#8

2.3 Apply Best Practice to Student Learning. X#1 X#3 X#5

□

X#2 X#4 X#6 X#8

2.4 Design Comprehensive Professional Growth Plans. X#1 X#3 X#5

□

X#2 X#4 X#6 X#8

Standard 3.0: Candidates who complete the program are educational leaders who have the knowledge and ability to promote the success of all students by managing the organization, operations, and resources in a way that promotes a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment.

3.1 Manage the Organization. X#1

□

X#2 X#4 X#6 X#8

3.2 Manage the Operations. X#1

□

X#2 X#4 X#6 X#8

3.3 Manage the Resources. X#1

□

X#2 X#4 X#6 X#8

ELCC STANDARD APPLICABLE ASSESSMENTS FROM SECTION II

4.1 Collaborate with Families and Other Community Members. X#1 X#3 X#5 X#7

X#2 X#4 X#6 X#8

4.2 Respond to Community Interests and Needs. X#1

□

X#2 X#4 X#6 X#8

4.3 Mobilize Community Resources. X#1

□

X#2 X#4 X#6 X#8

Standard 5.0: Candidates who complete the program are educational leaders who have the knowledge and ability to promote the success of all students by acting with integrity, fairly, and in an ethical manner

5.1 Acts with Integrity. X#1

□

□

X#2 X#4

□

5.2 Acts Fairly. X#1

□

□

X#2 X#4

□

5.3 Acts Ethically. X#1

□

□

X#2 X#4

□

Standard 6.0: Candidates who complete the program are educational leaders who have the knowledge and ability to promote the success of all students by understanding, responding to, and influencing the larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context.

6.1 Understand the Larger Educational Context. X#1

□

ELCC STANDARD APPLICABLE ASSESSMENTS FROM SECTION II

6.2 Respond to the Larger Educational Context. X#1 X#3 X#5 X#7

X#2 X#4 X#6 X#8

6.3 Influence the Larger Educational Context. X#1

□

X#2 X#4 X#6 X#8

Standard 7.0: Internship. The internship provides significant opportunities for candidates to synthesize and apply the knowledge and practice and develop the skills identified in Standards 1-6 through substantial, sustained, standards-based work in real settings, planned and guided cooperatively by the institution and school district personnel for graduate credit.

7.3 Candidates apply skills and knowledge articulated in the first six ELCC

standards as well as state and local standards for educational leaders. Experiences are designed to accommodate candidates’ individual needs.

SECTION IV

ASSESSMENT #1 Content Knowledge:

School Leader Licensure Assessment

ISLLC/ELCC Standards 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

The School Leaders Licensure Assessment (SLLA), developed and administered by Educational Testing Service, is a validated assessment that is based on the ISLLC standards and is designed to measure whether or not entry-level principals and other school leaders have the standards-relevant knowledge believed necessary for competent professional practice. The SLLA has been required by Mississippi as part of the licensure process for school administrators since 1999. The six hour SLLA is organized into four sections: Evaluation of Actions I consists of 10 short vignettes requiring candidates to respond to a question by providing next steps, factors influencing a decision, or possible consequences of the action. Evaluation of Actions II includes six longer vignettes that present a typical school dilemma and requires candidates to respond to a question by prioritizing action steps or articulating relevant issues. Synthesis of Information and Problem Solving consists of two case studies involving teaching and learning issues and requires candidates to synthesize information provided in a set of documents and a short scenario, and propose a course of action to address a complex problem. Analysis of Information and Decision Making requires candidates review and analyze information from seven documents and answer two questions about each one. The ISSLC standards are embedded throughout these modules. Since, the ISSLC and ELCC standards are aligned, this assessment provides evidence of candidate’s proficiency on the ELCC standards as well.

At the current time, a minimum SLLA score of 154 is required for school administrator licensure in Mississippi. Candidates from all eight (8) Cohorts that have completed the Delta State Educational Leadership program since 1999 have demonstrated a 100% pass rate on the SLLA.

Educational Testing Service provides institutional summary reports on persons who have taken the examination and listed the institution to receive their scores, but ETS does not

Beginning with the 2005-06 academic year, the Master of Educational Leadership

program began requiring candidates to submit their individual score report to the Division so that program specific data could be maintained both on the overall scores, but also disaggregated by the four major sections of the SLLA to better inform our program improvement efforts. The 2005-2006 year institutional report that provides comparison data for the state and national levels had not been received by the submission date of this report.

The following table provides summary data on the previous three years of MEd. Candidates in comparison to all examinees nationally on the SLLA:

School Leaders Licensure Assessment Results Summary

2003-04 Cohort 2004-05 Cohort 2005-06 Cohort*

National (2001-04)

Mean Score 177.42 178.38 175.43 Not reported Average Range 171-185 174-182 171-179 171-182

Median Score 178.5 180 175.5 177

Lowest score 161 163 163 134

Highest score 192 188 188 200

Number included 12 13 14 15,298

* Includes one “estimated score” for one Candidate explained below

The mean score for Cohort VIII (175.43) was slightly below the mean scores for the previous two DSU MEd cohort groups and the median score (175.5) was slightly below the previous two cohort groups and the median reported for all examinees in 2005. However, there were two situations that had an impact on this current year’s scores. One candidate took the SLLA in February 2006 rather than at the end of the program of study as recommended. This score was one of the lower scores (166) obtained by cohort members for the past three years. Additionally, the test booklets and score sheets for one candidate in Cohort VIII who took the SLLA in June 2006 were lost by ETS. ETS found three booklets and scored them and the Candidate made a 174 on those three, which was satisfactory for Mississippi Administrator License. However, it can certainly be assumed that the candidate would have scored higher than 174 and thus had a more positive impact on the overall mean score for the cohort group this year.

The average percent correct for Cohort VIII (13 of 14 members) on the four sections of the SLLA is as follows:

Evaluation of Actions I 64% Evaluation of Actions II 76% Synthesis of Information/Problem Solving 65% Analysis of Information/Decision Making 57%

When the 2005-2006 Institutional Summary Report is received, this data will be

ASSESSMENT #2

CONTENT KNOWLEDGE:

Educational Leadership Program Comprehensive Examination

(ELCC standards 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3)

All candidates for the Master of Education degree in Educational Leadership take a Comprehensive Examination at the end of the spring semester each year. The 2006 exam was constructed by faculty and was formatted like the SLLA requiring the candidate to construct written responses to stimulus materials. The 2006 comprehensive exam consisted of three

sections: Five vignettes which required evaluation of actions (Section I), one case analysis which required synthesis and problem solving (Section II), and three documents which required

analysis of information and decision making (Section III). The exam stimulus materials are developed to reflect situations and issues of current educational leadership practice and each item assesses multiple ISLLC/ELCC standards. A rubric for each item was developed collaboratively by the faculty and used to score candidates’ responses consistently. Each of the five vignettes and the three documents were scored 2,1 or 0 based on the individual rubric for each. The case, which required synthesis of information from a scenario and five documents, was scored 3, 2, 1 or 0. A matrix showing each test item and the ELCC standardsmeasured by that item is included at the end of this section along with selected items from the examination and the respective rubrics.

The overall mean score for Cohort VIII in May 2006 was 14.57 with a standard deviation of 2.14. Scores ranged from 10 to 18 with 19 being the highest possible score. Ten of the 14 students (71%) passed the comprehensive exam during the first administration by scoring 70% or above. After appropriate feedback and additional instruction, four students were given a second examination and subsequently passed the exam. Therefore, 100% received a passing score on the comprehensive exam.

An assessment matrix was constructed for each candidate with the score on each test item entered for each ELCC standard measured by that item. Therefore, each candidate’s performance by standard could be examined and a composite of the average performance by standard could be analyzed. An analysis of performance revealed weak performance (below 70%) on standards 4.2, 5.2, 6.2, and 6.3. These standards were influenced by the fact that 10 of 14 candidates scored 0 on Document 2 that required candidates to recognize the legal and policy implications in the situation (specifically Title IX) and propose a solution that would address it. While multiple test items assessed most standards, standard 6.3 was assessed by only the one score received on Document 2.

Summary of Performance

Section I Section II Section III Evaluation of Synthesis & Analysis &

TOTAL Actions

Problem Solving

Decision Making

Points Possible 19.00 10.00 3.00 6.00

Mean Score 14.57 8.29 2.64 3.57

Standard Deviation 2.14 1.20 0.63 1.55

N = 14

Performance by Test Item

Item Total Possible Mean St. Dev.

Vignette 1 2 1.43 0.65

Vignette 2 2 1.79 0.43

Vignette 3 2 1.71 0.47

Vignette 4 2 1.79 0.43

Vignette 5 2 1.42 0.76

Case 3 2.64 0.63

Document 1 2 1.57 0.65

Document 2 2 0.57 0.93

Document 3 2 1.43 0.85

Performance by ELCC Standard Measured

ELCC Standard 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3.1 3.2 3.3

AVG.%

Correct

ELCC Standard 4.1 4.2 4.3 5.1 5.2 5.3 6.1 6.2 6.3

Assessment Matrix by Standard

Item 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3.1 3.2 3.3 4.1 4.2 4.3 5.1 5.2 5.3 6.1 6.2 6.3 Vignette 1 X X X X Vignette 2 X X X X X Vignette 3 X X X X Vignette 4 X X X Vignette 5 X X X X Case X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Document 1 X X X X X X X X Document 2 X X X X X X X Document 3 X X X X X X X X

SELECTED TEST ITEMS

SECTION I: EVALUATION OF ACTIONS (60 Minutes/5 vignettes)

Directions: In this section, you are presented with five vignettes. Read each vignette and specifically answer the questions that follow it. Be sure to label your answers with the question number.

2. The Parent Organization at Delta Elementary School is very active in fundraising activities. Last year, they purchased five new computers and printers for the library. The faculty was very pleased since a mini-lab for research had been at the top of the list of needs to improve the school. On Monday, the principal received a letter from the Parent group president stating they had raised over $1,500 this year and would be purchasing new library books for the library. She indicated that they planned to complete their order by the end of the week and that she was certain he and the teachers would be pleased with their choices of new books. The principal knew that the school improvement goals for this year include enhancing technology in the school and the faculty has expressed a desire for DVD player/recorders, Elmos, digital cameras,

the faculty should be “thankful” for whatever the parents group provided for the school. He promptly filed the letter without telling anyone else about it.

a. Do you agree with the principal’s action?

b. Give rationale citing factors that are relevant to a principal’s decision in such situations.

SCORING RUBRIC

Score 2 Response should indicate “no agreement” with principal’s action and cite at least 2 of the following factors:

Principal ignored school improvement goals

Lack of parent group’s involvement/knowledge of school improvement goals

Lack of collaboration/consultation with teachers

Lack of communication with parent group about problem/solution Relationship between school & parent group

Appropriate/effective use of funds Other logical relevant factor(s)

Score 1 Response should indicate “no agreement” with principal’s action and cite at least 1 of the following factors noted above

Score 0 Response indicates agreement with principal’s action – OR-

Response indicates “no agreement” with action but response is vague and omits adequate references to the essential factors.

SECTION II: SYNTHESIS OF INFORMATON AND PROBLEM SOLVING

(60 minutes/ 1 case)

Use the scenario below and the information that is provided on the following pages as a basis for answering the questions.

CASE I: DELTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Scenario:

Questions:

1. What additional information would you seek, from whom and why? 2. Characterize the major problems facing this school.

3. Describe how you would implement the school improvement process, the major areas of focus for improving student achievement, and specific strategies you might want to consider.

Documents providing information to be analyzed for case: Fact Sheet

Test Scores

Discipline summary report Teacher Attendance report Student Attendance report

SCORING RUBRIC

(Adapted from SLLA Practice Test/Case scoring guide)

SCORE 3 Candidate’s overall response is detailed, specific and

convincing

Candidate demonstrates clear understanding of the issues presented in the case and of the connections among facts presented, and makes sensible speculations about possible causes. Response shows candidate comprehends complexity of situation, differing viewpoints of multiple stakeholders and the need to address several issues simultaneously. Response includes need for immediate action as well as need for more information and long-term response

strategies. Response focuses on students and learning and promotes involvement of all stakeholders as parties to student achievement using consensus-building and power-sharing strategies. Response does not simply repeat facts and information presented in the case stimulus.

SCORE 2 Candidate’s overall response is less detailed, specific and convincing than a level 3 response.

Candidate’s response to the stimulus questions is uneven in one or more of the following ways:

one or more questions are left unanswered

answers are not all detailed, specific, or convincing

Problems/issues articulated do not align with solutions proposed The response is less comprehensive than a score 3 response: may demonstrate

SCORE 1 Candidate’s response is limited, vague and general.

Candidate’s response does not include critical elements of the case presented and/or is not relevant to the case or problems presented. Response indicates or hints that candidate understands only one of the important issues posed in the case and there is no connection among elements in case or understanding of multiple causes of the situation. Response may substantially repeat facts/information in case stimulus materials, use terms without explaining relevance to context, and/or provide superficial reasoning in developing solutions. There may be no focus on students and their learning.

SCORE 0 Candidate’s response fails to address basic components of the prompt. Response simply repeats information from case stimulus without comment or

interpretation. Response provides little or no evidence that candidate has knowledge or understanding of the issues raised in the prompt and/or of possible causes or solutions.

SECTION III: ANALYSIS OF INFORMATION AND DECISION MAKING

(60 minutes/ 3 documents)

DOCUMENT 2

You have been selected as the new principal of Blues City High School. The Superintendent has directed you to address the situation described in the Board Minutes on the attached page and you plan for the coming school year.

Read the excerpt from the Board minutes and then answer the following:

(a) What are the larger educational issues you have to consider in addressing this situation? Explain your answer.

(b) What specific actions would you take in addressing these issues?

Excerpt from Board Minutes

Item 5.1 Community Input

basketball. He requested that the Board and district administration take these concerns seriously and address them for the coming school year.

SCORING RUBRIC (Document 2)

Larger Issues:

School-Community issues Legal issues-Title IX Finances

Opportunities for involvement in extra-curricular athletics and activities for all students

Logical Actions:

Examine budget …is it equitable? How activities financed? Audit of activities/participation by gender/race

Consider in light of Title IX/discuss with Supt.

Form committee (all stakeholders involved) to study issues/solutions & make recommendations Encourage parent/community assistance in supporting funding additional activities i.e. athletic boosters, band boosters, etc.

SCORE 2

Addresses both parts of prompt

Response must include legal issue/Title IX and one other issue AND At least two logical actions

SCORE 1

Addresses both parts of prompt

Response must include legal issue/Title IX AND At least one logical action

SCORE 0

Fails to address both parts of prompt

ASSESSMENT #3

PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND DISPOSITIONS:

Data Analysis/School Improvement Plan Project

(ELCC standards 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 4.1, 6.2)

The Data Analysis/School Improvement Plan Project is one of several performance products required to demonstrate a candidate’s proficiency in standards related to the area of teaching and learning. This project requires the candidate to collect, interpret, and analyze student performance data (ELCC 2.3), develop a plan of action for improving student performance (ELCC 1.3, 1.4, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4) and to develop a multi-media presentation for reporting student achievement and improvement goals and strategies to a school community group, i.e. board, parent group, (ELCC 1.5, 4.1,6.2). A rubric is used to assess candidate performance on the written document and multimedia presentation. The rubric criteria are specific to the assignment and the rating scale is as follows: 4-Exemplary, 3-Proficient, 2-Developing, 1 Rudimentary. A copy of the project assignment and thescoring rubric are included at the end of this section. While the candidate’s overall performance on this project is used for course grading purposes, the project provides an assessment of the each candidate’s proficiency relative to specific ELCC standards measured by the project. The combined scores for the Cohort group provide information about strengths and weaknesses that may be addressed individually or collectively, as appropriate, and used in program improvement.

Candidates’ overall scores on the Data Analysis/Improvement Plan Project ranged from 4 to 24, which represents the total range of possible scores based on the rubric. The mean score for the cohort group was 21 with a standard deviation of 5; however, the majority of the scores ranged from 22 to 24. A distribution of scores is shown below.

Distribution of Total Scores

Raw Score 4 19 21 22 23 24

Frequency 1 1 1 5 3 3

Percentage of total 7 7 7 36 21 21

N = 14

significant overall program weakness. Candidates who scored 2 or 1 were given appropriate feedback and remediation.

Candidate performance by ELCC standard measured on this assessment is shown below.

Candidate Performance by ELCC Standard

Rating 1.3 1.4 1.5 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 4.1 6.2

4 11 (79%) 11 (79%) 7 (50%) 11 (79%) 11 (79%) 10 (71%) 11 (79%) 7 (50%) 7 (50%) 3 1 ( 7%) 1 ( 7%) 5 (36%) 1 ( 7%) 1 (7%) 2 (14%) 1 ( 7%) 5 (36%) 5 (36%) 2 1 ( 7%) 1 ( 7%) 1 ( 7%) 1 ( 7%) 1 (7%) 1 ( 7%) 1 ( 7%) 1 ( 7%) 1 ( 7%) 1 1 ( 7%) 1 ( 7%) 1 ( 7%) 1 ( 7%) 1 (7%) 1 (7%) 1 ( 7%) 1 ( 7%) 1 ( 7%)

DATA ANALYSIS/SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECT

Objectives:

To collect, interpret, and analyze student performance data using technology (2.3) To develop a plan of action for improving student performance (1.3, 1.4, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4) To develop a multimedia report to be presented to a school community group regarding student performance (1.5, 4.1, 6.2)

Assignment:

• Collect, interpret, and analyze student performance data for your internship site. • Chart student data using Excel.

• Provide a detailed outline identifying how you would present student performance data to various school community groups (e.g. parents, school board members, teachers

students). Choose two groups to address. In your detailed outline, be sure to:

o Identify major points you would emphasize with the group. (Consider the group’s knowledge base, interest, assumptions, etc.)

o Identify how you would begin and end the presentation.

o Identify questions likely to be asked by individuals within the group.

• Based on your data analysis, develop a plan of action for improving student performance that includes professional development activities for faculty designed to promote high expectations, promotes use of technology, improve curriculum and instructional practices and other strategies to improve student achievement in specific subject areas as needed. • Design a PowerPoint presentation on your school’s performance data to be presented to

one of the school community groups. Be sure to include handouts and/or additional information and resources needed for a successful presentation. Assume you have 30 minutes for your presentation. (This will be presented to cohort group and faculty.)

Data Analysis/School Improvement Plan Project Rubric

Levels:

Criteria:

4 - Exemplary 3 - Proficient 2 - Developing 1 - Rudimentary Score

Data Collection and Analysis (ELCC 2.3)

All pertinent data are collected; analysis is comprehensive and in-depth; interpretation is thorough and accurate

All pertinent data are collected and analyzed adequately;

interpretation is accurate

May not include all appropriate data and/or analysis & interpretation are superficial or incomplete

Insufficient data are collected and/or analyzed appropriately Plan of Action/Improvement Plan (ELCC 1.3,1.4,2.1,2.2,2.4)

Clearly related to data analysis; weaknesses are addressed in thorough & substantial manner with specific recommendations & activities outlined to improve areas as needed

Plan of action may be less specific but addresses most weaknesses adequately; is related to data analysis; recommendations & activities for improvement are adequate, but less specific or

comprehensive than level 4

Plan of action lacks completeness; may include general recommendations or activities and/or some recommendations are not related to data analysis

Plan of action is not developed or is extremely insufficient to improve area identified in data analysis

Organization Well structured, synthesized and presented; all components of project are easily identified; information is relevant and presented clearly and in logical sequence

Less well structured & synthesized; all components are presented, but may be difficult to identify; information is presented clearly and in logical sequence

Limited structure & synthesis of ideas; components are difficult to identify and/or not presented in logical sequence; information lacks clarity and focus

Organization is haphazard; components may be missing or not recognizable; information is unclear and unfocused

Mechanics Errors in spelling, capitalization, punctuation, grammar, and usage are rare. Word selection is precise & appropriate. No use of cliché’s, colloquialisms, run-on sentences or fragments

Few errors in spelling, capitalization, punctuation, grammar, and usage; word selection usually appropriate; occasional use of clichés, colloquialisms; run-on sentences or fragments are rare

Occasional errors in spelling, capitalization, punctuation, grammar, and usage; word selection often inappropriate or inaccurate; frequent use of clichés or colloquialisms; run-on sentences or fragments are frequent

Errors in aspects of mechanics make written product unacceptable for graduate level PowerPoint Presentation for Community Group (ELCC 1.5,4.1,6.2)

Slides are clear, well-developed and attractive; provide relevant information and substantially support/reinforce the presentation

Slides are adequately developed; contain mostly relevant information & provide adequate support for presentation

Slides include too much or insufficient information for clarity; provide limited support for presentation

Slides are poorly developed and/or provide little or no support for presentation

Oral Presentation Content & Delivery (ELCC 1.5,4.1,6.2)

Includes substantial information for audience; ideas are communicated clearly and with enthusiasm; language is appropriate to audience

Includes essential information for audience; most ideas are communicated clearly & with appropriate enthusiasm and language

Includes limited essential information but lacks clarity or completeness; lacks enthusiasm and/or language is inappropriate for audience

Little or no essential information is included; communication is unclear, shows little enthusiasm and/or language is not appropriate to audience

ASSESSMENT #4

PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND DISPOSITIONS

Intern Performance Assessment ELCC standards 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.3

Description of Internship

The Internship is a substantial component of Delta State University’s Master of Educational Leadership Program. Candidates complete three 12-week internships at three different school sites: an elementary school, a middle/junior high school and a high school. Candidates spend four days each week at each of these internship sites for a total of 48 days (approximately 384 hours) in each setting. These internships occur over the course of the school year, August through May, and once completed, candidates have over 1,152 hours of

administrative experience in real school settings. Candidates complete an internship portfolio at the end of each internship period that includes an overview of the school, a description of the mentor’s leadership practices, a log of activities and hours, and documentation of the major project completed at that site as a contribution by the candidate.

In addition to the school-based internships, candidates complete a one-week intensive internship (approximately 40 hours) at a local school district central office. This central office experience occurs during the spring semester, between the second and third school site

internship. In addition to the on-site activities, students compile a central office resource document, visit the Mississippi Department of Education and the Mississippi Legislature to complete the central office administrative experience. Candidates receive four hours of graduate credit for each of the 12-week school site internships and three hours of credit for the central office internship (ELCC 7.1, 7.2, 7.4, 7.6).

The internship experiences are fully integrated with the ISSLC/ELCC standards based program content and each course syllabus includes field experiences and internship activities to be completed during the internship periods that provide opportunities to apply the knowledge, skills and dispositions being acquired. Interns complete additional activities assigned by faculty and/or the mentor that are designed to meet individual needs or the needs at a specific school site. Over the course of eight years, program faculty and practicing school administrators who serve as mentors at various school sites across Mississippi have planned appropriate activities cooperatively, and review and revise them as appropriate. Program faculty work cooperatively with the site mentors through visits to the sites, phone calls and email to ensure successful internship experiences for program candidates. (ELCC 7.3, 7.5)

Intern Performance Assessment

instrument is formatted as a checklist with a rating scale of 4, 3, 2, 1 or not observed, and items are designed to assess a candidate’s knowledge, skills and dispositions relative to the

ELCC/NCATE standards. The instrument also allows the site supervisor/mentor to make comments and suggestions for the candidate’s improvement. This assessment provides

information about each candidate’s strengths and weaknesses as perceived by the mentor at each site and is used to guide individual candidate improvement during the program year. These assessments from three different school sites/mentors combined provide an excellent overall indication of each candidate’s abilities and potential for success as a future school administrator. Analysis of data from the Intern Performance Assessments for all cohort members provides faculty with important information for overall program improvement at critical points throughout the program the year (October, February & May). A copy of the Intern Performance Assessment instrument is included at the end of this section.

The Intern Performance Assessment was revised after the first internship during the 2005-06 year to better align with the ELCC/NCATE standards; therefore, data are only available for Cohort VIII from the second and third twelve-week internship periods.

Analysis of ratings by standard for Internship 2 revealed a majority of the candidates were rated at or above expectations for each ELCC standard assessed. However, one candidate was rated as below expectations on all standards except Standard 5 where the rating was at expected level, and three candidates received “not observed” ratings on one of the following standards 2.4, 4.0 and 6.0. At the end of Internship 3, all candidates were rated at or above expectations on all standards except Standard 4 where one candidate received a “not observed” rating. The number and percentage of candidates rated above expectations increased from Internship 2 to Internship 3 on all standards except Standard 3.0, where there was a slight decrease from 8 (57%) to 7 (50%). While most comments made by mentors were specific to individual candidates, there were several instances in which more knowledge and experience in budgeting, working with finances, i.e. gate receipts, and federal program budgeting were noted as suggestions for improvement. Management of resources is a component of Standard 3.

Summaries of performance on the Intern Performance Assessments are shown below.

Summary of Intern Performance Assessment

Internship 2

February, 2006

Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6 Item 7 Item 8 Item 9 ELCC ELCC ELCC ELCC ELCC ELCC ELCC ELCC ELCC Rating 1 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3 4 5 6

1

Not observed 1 (7%) 1 (7%) 1 (7%)

Summary of Candidate Intern Performance Assessment

Internship 3 May 2006

Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6 Item 7 Item 8 Item 9 ELCC ELCC ELCC ELCC ELCC ELCC ELCC ELCC ELCC Rating 1 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3 4 5 6

4 12 (86%) 12 (86%) 12 (86%) 12 (86%) 12 (86%) 7 (50%) 10 (72%) 14 (100%) 12 (86%) 3 2 (14%) 2 (14%) 2 (14%) 2 (14%) 2 (14%) 7 (50%) 3 (21%) 2 (14%)

2

1

Not Observed 1 (7%)

An analysis of mean scores showed improvement and growth from Internship 2 to

Internship 3, in all areas related to ELCC/NCATE standards except Standard 3.0 that remained at a mean score of 3.5. Candidates received the highest possible mean scores, 3.86 and 4.0, on ELCC Standard 5 reflecting their ability to act with integrity, fairly and ethically. Candidates’ mean scores also demonstrated growth and strong performance in the areas related to vision; instructional leadership; working with and responding to families and community members; and understanding, responding to and influencing the larger context. The mean score of 3.5 for ELCC standard 3 was the lowest. While the 3.5 indicates at or above expected levels of performance for the cohort as a group, this score most probably reflects the comments about candidates needing more experience with budgeting and finance. Several mentors indicated that candidates’ skills would continue to increase with “more experience”.

The table of mean scores for items 1-9 and the relative ELCC standard is shown below.

Mean Scores on Intern Performance Assessment

Item 1 ELCC

1

Item 2 ELCC 2.1

Item 3 ELCC 2.2

Item 4 ELCC 2.3

Item 5 ELCC 2.4

Item 6 ELCC

3

Item 7 ELCC

4

Item 8 ELCC

5

Item 9 ELCC

6

Internship 2 3.57 3.79 3.64 3.71 3.54 3.50 3.69 3.86 3.43

* 4 is highest possible rating

Delta State University

Master’s Level Cohort Program

Intern Performance Assessment

Candidate: Internship:_______

Question: Please base response on candidate’s amount of

internship experience at this time.

4 Above Expectations

3 Meets Expectation

2 Below Expectations

1 Needs Extreme

Improvement

Unable to Answer 1. Candidate can develop, articulate,

implement, and steward a school vision of learning supported by a school community. (ELCC 1.0) 2. Candidate can promote a positive school culture. ( ELCC 2.1) 3. Candidate can provide an effective instructional program.(ELCC 2.2)

4. Candidate can apply best practice to student learning. (ELCC 2.3) 5. Candidate can design comprehensive growth plans for staff. (ELCC 2.4)

6. Candidate can manage the organization, operations, and resources of a school. (ELCC 3) 7. Candidate can collaborate with families and other community members, respond to community interests and needs, and mobilize community resources. (ELCC 4) 8. Candidate acts with integrity, fairly, and ethically (ELCC 5) 9. Candidate can understand, respond to, and influence the larger context. (ELCC 6)

10. In your opinion, what are the candidate’s greatest strengths?

Superior

Above

Average Average

Below

Average Unsatisfactory

Unable to Observe Punctuality

Attendance Appropriate attire

Ability to organize Ability to perform tasks Problem analysis

Decisiveness Ability to use supervision

Ability to delegate Personal motivation

Judgment Teamwork Ethical behavior

Written communication Oral communication Tact in dealing with stressful

situations Interpersonal relations

Ability to work with support staff

Ability to work with professional staff

Ability to cope with stress Ability to communicate with

faculty Ability to relate to students

Sensitivity to diversity issues Quality of final project Overall leadership

performance

Please rate the candidate’s performance on the following individual characteristics and dispositions:

What areas would you recommend for the intern to concentrate on in his/her continued professional development?

Please comment on any other aspect of the intern’s performance on the back of this page.

______

Mentor signature Title

School Date

ASSESSMENT # 5: EFFECTS IN STUDENT LEARNING:

Educational Leadership Preparation Programs Questionnaire (ELPPQ)

ELCC Standards 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.3

The Educational Leadership Preparation Programs Questionnaire (ELPPQ) is based on the ISSLC/ELCC/NCATE Standards and is given to a sample of current students, graduates, employers of our graduates, and other stakeholders in the broader educational community to gain insight about perceptions of the DSU leadership programs and provide an opportunity for input from our consumers to be used in program improvement. At the current time, the overall evaluation includes all programs, but comments and suggestions are sometimes made about specific programs.

Forty-two persons completed the ELPPQ in April 2006. Seventy-six (76) percent of those responding indicated that the internships and field experiences were above expectations in terms of being designed to accommodate individual candidates’ needs. And, 73% of those responding rated candidates’ abilities as above expectations in terms of applying the knowledge and skills relative to the ELCC standards during the internships and field experiences. The primary

strengths noted for the Master of Education program were the extensive internships during which candidates gain experience applying the content and professional knowledge and skills, and the cohort concept that allows the candidates to learn, share and grow in a collaborative setting. Both the substantial and sustained internships and the cohort concept are possible because the program is a full-time, 14-month program.

In terms of program performance, over 70% of those responding indicated candidates were prepared “above expectations” in all areas related to the six ELCC standards. The greatest strengths noted on this assessment were in the areas related integrity, ethics and fairness (5.0), aspects of school culture, effective instruction and professional growth (2.0), and developing and maintaining a vision of learning (1.0).

Center for Rural School Leadership and Research Educational Leadership Preparation Programs Questionnaire

Thank you for taking the time to complete this short survey. Your input is crucial to us as we continuously seek ways to improve our programs. We welcome any additional information you would like to supply; the contact information is at the end of the survey. Thank you again. Please respond to each question by marking the appropriate box.

Please base response on graduates’ amount of work experience at the time of your contact with them. Above expected at this level Average for experience Below expected at this level Need Extreme Improvement Unable to Answer

1. Graduates can facilitate the development, articulation,

implementation, and stewardship of a school vision of learning supported by a school community.

32 (76%)

9 (21%) 1 (2%)

2. Graduates can promote a positive school culture, provide an effective instructional program, apply best practice to student learning, and design

comprehensive growth plans for staff.

30 (77%)

8 (21%) 1 (3%)

3. Graduates can manage the

organization, operations, and resources of a school.

28 (70%)

11 (28%) 1 (3%)

4. Graduates can collaborate with families and other community members, respond to community interests and needs, and mobilize community resources.

30 (71%)

12 (29%)

5. Graduates act with integrity, fairly, and ethically.

33 (79%)

8 (19%) 1

(2%)

6. Graduates can understand, respond to and influence the larger context.

29 (71%)

12 (29%)

7. During the internships/practicum courses/field experiences students are able to apply the above skills and knowledge to an appropriate degree for his/her stage in the degree program.

30 (73%)

11 (28%)

8. Experiences during

internships/practicum courses/field

experiences are designed to accommodate the students’ individual needs.

32 (76%)

7 (17%) 3

(7%)

Internships.

Internships, cohort group, instructors Internship Experiences

The practical experiences the members receive. The opportunity to participate in full-time internships The cohort concept is by far the greatest strength. Another strength is the promoting of ethics and integrity.

Having the opportunity to learn from administrators and being provided guidance during internships

I am well-trained.

The coming together and sharing of ideas and experiences.

The greatest strengths of the DSU educational leadership are internships and the debriefing sessions.

The practical application of the academic knowledge through internships. Internship experiences.

Debriefing and sharing of ideas and experiences. Hands on experience

Internships/practicums that provide practical experiences and real applications of leadership concepts

The greatest strength of the program is the practice of allowing the cohorts to gain practical experiences through the internships. This is followed by the comprehensive discussions and assessments.

10. In what ways could the DSU educational leadership programs be improved?

Improved communication/collaboration between students/faculty.

In my opinion, the ED.S and MED programs could be combined. The Ed.S program part should be more of a practicum with mini-internships or academics.

Field experiences

Continue discussion with practicum. Excellent

Continue to look at policy

Longer or more frequent central office experiences Excellent program!

Rigor with a clear purpose. At the present time rigor is being implemented and there is no reasoning. Currently I do not see purpose based on present rigor.

Less emphasis on Delta culture More on school law

Make it a requirement for all administrators

More central office time- visited more than one central office The opportunity to participate in full-time internships

Former cohort members should be asked to come in and share their experiences in their positions of leaderships. Re-assert rigor into the training program.