Www.fusd.net



Standard 5: Program Impact5B: The unit and its programs evaluate and demonstrate that they are having a positive impact on candidate learning and competence and on teaching and learning in schools that serve California’s students.The FUSD Induction Program uses the Individual Learning Plan (ILP) and the Continuum of Teaching Practice (CTP) to gauge its impact on the teacher’s growth and development and the subsequent impact on students’ learning. The ILP documents the teacher’s goals, their sources of action research, the effectiveness of their action research and whether or not they met their goals.When portfolio reviews are completed at the end of the ILP process, the candidate will complete an anonymous survey and one of the questions collects data around whether or not goals are met. Teachers set goals at the beginning of the year and may set new goals in the middle of the year or choose to revise and refine their initial goals. The goals are measured with student assessment data. They reflect about this process with their mentor and record insights in their ILP that is reviewed by the Induction Cohort Teams at Mentor Meetings. The program leadership knows the program is having a positive impact if most of its teachers are meeting their goals because the data reflects that student learning is occurring.The CTP is a document created by the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing that describes each element of the California Standards for the Teaching Profession in increasing levels of proficiency. At the beginning of the year, teachers assess their practice using evidence on all six standards at the holistic level. At the end of the year the standards are re-visited and re-assessed.After teachers assess themselves at the holistic level, they choose a focus standard. The focus standard is assessed at the beginning and end of the year with multiple ILP entries on the element that matches their goal. The CTP data is gathered by and submitted to the Sinclair Research Group that compiles and analyzes it. The program leadership knows it is having a positive impact when the data shows that teachers are increasing their skills and knowledge as indicated by them marking higher levels of practice each time they self-assess.Lastly, teachers and mentors in the FUSD Induction Program complete a mid-year and end-of-year survey that asks the question: What are you learning in this Induction program that is having the most positive impact on your work with your students/candidates? Candidates (teachers) and mentors (support providers) responses to this question is additional evidence that shows the positive impact this program has hadon teaching and learning in their classrooms.Fontana USD BTSA Program General Education and Education Specialist2017-2018California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP) Self-AssessmentCurrent Competency Levels and Growth Over Timeprepared for theFontana Unified School Districtby theJune 2018Table of ContentsINTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................ 72Overview............................................................................................................................ 72Methodology............................................................................................................................ 73DEMOGRAPHICS........................................................................................................................ 74GENERAL EDUCATION........................................................................................................................ 75Year One............................................................................................................................ 75Current Level of Competence in Elements – Year One 75Rank Order of Perceived Level of Current Competence in Elements – Year 1………..76Holistic CSTP Current Competence – Year 1 78Year Two & ECO79Current Level of Competence in Elements – Year 2 & ECO 79Rank Order of Perceived Level of Current Competence in Elements – Year 2 & ECO80Comparisons of Growth over Induction Period in Elements – Year 2 & ECO82Rank Order of Perceived Level of Growth over Time in Elements – Year 2 & ECO84Holistic CSTP Current Competence – Year 2 & ECO 86Holistic CSTP Growth over Time – Year 2 & ECO 87Extent analysis was completed considering evidence and with mentor 88General Education Conclusions............................................................................................................................ 89Elements – Current Competence 89Elements – Growth over Time 89Holistic – Current Competence 90Holistic – Growth over Time 90Extent All Teachers Completed Ratings Considering Evidence and with Mentor….90EDUCATION SPECIALIST........................................................................................................................ 92Year One............................................................................................................................ 92Current Level of Competence in Elements – Year One 92Rank Order of Perceived Level of Current Competence in Elements – Year 1………..93Holistic CSTP Current Competence – Year 1 94Year Two & ECO............................................................................................................................ 95Current Level of Competence in Elements – Year 2 & ECO 95Rank Order of Perceived Level of Current Competence in Elements – Year 2 & ECO.96Comparisons of Growth over Induction Period in Elements – Year 2 & ECO ……98Rank Order of Perceived Level of Growth over Time in Elements – Year 2 & ECO….99Holistic CSTP Current Competence – Year 2 & ECO 101Holistic CSTP Growth over Time – Year 2 & ECO 102Extent Examined Evidence and Worked with Mentor to Mark CSTP Self- Assessment103Education Specialist Conclusions............................................................................................................................ 104Elements – Current Competence 104Elements – Growth over Time 105Holistic – Current Competence 105Holistic – Growth over Time 60Extent All Teachers Completed Ratings Considering Evidence and with Mentor….105INTRODUCTIONOverviewAt the end of the 2017-2018 academic year, Sinclair Research Group collected data in the California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP) from the Fontana USD BTSA Program teacher candidates. Data for first and second year (and ECO) teachers candidates included their current level of competency in the Elements and their “holistic” competency. In addition, data was collected from second year and ECO teachers regarding their growth over their two years in Induction. This data was collected from both General Education teacher candidates and Education Specialist teacher candidates and used, as the data source, the reflectively marked levels in the Continuum of Teaching Practice (CTP). This tool is used as a reference point throughout the induction period and reflective conversations around all activities end with a shared discussion (mentor and candidate) regarding where the candidate places themselves at that moment in time. Hence, it is a very authentic data set.The CTP is a tool for self-reflection, goal setting, and inquiry into practice. It provides common language about teaching and learning, and results are used to promote professional growth within an environment of collegial support. Self-assessment, using authentic classroom practice and evidence, supports teacher candidates in making informed decisions about their ongoing development as professionals. Program leaders use teacher candidate assessment data to guide, support and accelerate professional growth focused on student achievement.The CTP is organized to describe five levels of development (Emerging, Exploring, Applying, Integrating and Innovating). Each level addresses what a teacher should know and be able to do in all the Elements (38) of the six CSTP. The levels do not represent a chronological sequence in a teacher’s growth but describe developmental levels of performance. The levels become increasingly complex and sophisticated and integrate the skills of previous levels. Teacher candidates reflect and describe practice in terms of evidence prior to self-assessing in order to make valid, authentic and accurate assessments.The process of assessing on the CTP is completed collaboratively making the process more authentic. Teacher candidates begin by reading the Element and together, with their mentor, examine evidence of practice related to that Element. They record evidence for each Element, and then, use that evidence to determine the level of practice. This data collection simply requires the recording of previous thoughtful work. When data flows from a highly reflective and evidence-based context, analysis results have a far greater chance of being highly reliable and reflecting the true level of teacher candidate practice. To ascertain the validity of this process, all candidates were asked to state the degree to which their mentor worked with them to consider evidence of classroom practice and assist them in responding to the CSTP Self-Assessment (thereby ensuring authentic responses).MethodologyThe researchers sought, through the analysis of the data, to identify in which of the six standards encompassed within the California Standards for the Teaching Profession (and the Elements within each standard) there is more or less knowledge and skill. The five levels become a “Likert type” scale (Emerging, Exploring, Applying, Integrating, and Innovating) with descriptions of what that level of practice looks like. This methodology lends itself to the development of frequencies, mean, median, mode, standard deviation and rank ordering. It should be noted that respondents did not have to mark every Element; only the Elements that they addressed with their mentor and work together toward improving. Therefore, the “N” changes from Element to Element. No results are shown where there are not at least four respondents.First presented in this study are the results for the perceptions of the current competence of first year teachers (both by Element and holistically). Then results are shown for exiting second year teacher candidates (and Early Completion Option teacher candidates) regarding their current levels of competence as they leave the program and their perceived growth over time. This was done by comparing where they first marked themselves in any Element of the CSTP and where they last marked their exiting competence.It is important when completing a perceptual survey that, as much as possible, results are based on authentic evidence. In this case, the researchers asked teacher candidates to work with their mentor using their CTP and other evidence of teaching practice to respond to this survey. The report ends with an examination of the likelihood that this type of authentic examination of evidence and shared reflection took place. The researchers hope that this gives some indication of the reliability and validity of the results.DEMOGRAPHICSThe following table shows the total number of stakeholder responses from both General Education and Education Specialists. In collecting the data, this program has made every attempt to ascertain that the data entered in the response is reliable and valid (based on evidence and shared reflection). The final test is the rate of response in this population study. The closer the response rate is to 100% response of program participants, the more reliable the results (minimum 80%).GENERAL EDUCATIONYear 139Year 237ECO1Both Gen Ed and Ed Spec3EDUCATION SPECIALISTYear 19Year 215ECO0Both Gen Ed and Ed Spec3OVERALL RESONSESTable 1GENERAL EDUCATIONYear OneIn the following section, the same analysis is shown for all Year One General Education teacher candidates.914400249555MeanStd Dev5.004.504.003.503.002.502.001.501.000.500.00General Education Current CompetenceYear 1 CSTP CTP Self-Assessment00MeanStd Dev5.004.504.003.503.002.502.001.501.000.500.00General Education Current CompetenceYear 1 CSTP CTP Self-AssessmentCurrent Level of Competence in Elements – Year One1297940-431800CSTP 1.1CSTP 1.2CSTP 1.3CSTP 1.4CSTP 1.5CSTP 1.6CSTP 2.1 CSTP2.2 CSTP2.3 CSTP 2.4CSTP 2.5CSTP 2.6CSTP 2.7CSTP 3.1CSTP 3.2CSTP 3.3CSTP 3.4CSTP 3.5CSTP 3.6CSTP 4.1CSTP 4.2CSTP 4.3CSTP 4.4CSTP 4.5CSTP 5.1CSTP 5.2CSTP 5.3CSTP 5.4CSTP 5.5CSTP 5.6CSTP 5.7CSTP 6.1CSTP 6.2CSTP 6.3CSTP 6.4CSTP 6.5CSTP 6.6CSTP 6.700CSTP 1.1CSTP 1.2CSTP 1.3CSTP 1.4CSTP 1.5CSTP 1.6CSTP 2.1 CSTP2.2 CSTP2.3 CSTP 2.4CSTP 2.5CSTP 2.6CSTP 2.7CSTP 3.1CSTP 3.2CSTP 3.3CSTP 3.4CSTP 3.5CSTP 3.6CSTP 4.1CSTP 4.2CSTP 4.3CSTP 4.4CSTP 4.5CSTP 5.1CSTP 5.2CSTP 5.3CSTP 5.4CSTP 5.5CSTP 5.6CSTP 5.7CSTP 6.1CSTP 6.2CSTP 6.3CSTP 6.4CSTP 6.5CSTP 6.6CSTP 6.7Figure 1? Sinclair Research Group - January 201975Rank Order of Perceived Level of Current Competence in Elements – Year 1General Education Current CompetenceElementsMeanStd DevCSTP 6.14.400.70CSTP 6.74.330.71CSTP 6.64.110.93CSTP 3.14.100.57CSTP 1.13.920.86CSTP 2.53.920.67CSTP 6.33.910.70CSTP 6.23.900.88CSTP 2.23.830.83CSTP 3.43.831.03CSTP 3.53.800.92CSTP 2.73.790.89CSTP 3.33.780.83CSTP 5.43.750.75CSTP 2.13.730.96CSTP 5.13.730.65CSTP 1.33.710.99CSTP 2.63.710.91CSTP 2.43.690.85CSTP 5.63.670.89CSTP2.33.640.84CSTP 1.23.560.92CSTP 5.73.550.69CSTP 1.53.530.94CSTP 1.43.530.96CSTP 1.63.530.77CSTP 5.23.501.00CSTP 5.33.460.88CSTP 3.23.450.69CSTP 4.53.440.89CSTP 3.63.400.70CSTP 4.43.380.97CSTP 5.53.331.15CSTP 4.33.290.92CSTP 4.13.251.06CSTP 6.43.220.97CSTP 4.23.191.05CSTP 6.52.800.92Table 2176212528956000.730.810.970.780.83.96General Education Exiting Year 1Current Competence CSTP Self-AssessmentPost MeanPost SD5.004.504.003.503.002.502.001.501.000.500.003.213.333.183.233.133.38CSTP 1CSTP 2CSTP 3CSTP 4CSTP 5CSTP 60000.730.810.970.780.83.96General Education Exiting Year 1Current Competence CSTP Self-AssessmentPost MeanPost SD5.004.504.003.503.002.502.001.501.000.500.003.213.333.183.233.133.38CSTP 1CSTP 2CSTP 3CSTP 4CSTP 5CSTP 6Holistic CSTP Current Competence – Year 1Figure 2Year Two & ECOCurrent Level of Competence in Elements – Year 2 & ECO22269451030605MeanStd Dev5.004.504.003.503.002.502.001.501.000.500.00General Education Current CompetenceExiting Year 2 CSTP CTP Self-Assessment00MeanStd Dev5.004.504.003.503.002.502.001.501.000.500.00General Education Current CompetenceExiting Year 2 CSTP CTP Self-AssessmentBTSA program evaluation is a valuable research tool that enables administrators to formulate the means by which they are more efficiently able to target and serve the needs of teacher candidates. Figure 1 represents an analysis of the level at which General Education teacher candidates exiting this induction program placed their competence in each CSTP Element (in the sequence in which the elements are presented). It should be noted that these competence ratings are based on evidence of classroom practice and shared conversations with the support provider over the Continuum of Teaching Practice.2611120-429260CSTP 1.1CSTP 1.2CSTP 1.3CSTP 1.4CSTP 1.5CSTP 1.6CSTP 2.1 CSTP2.2 CSTP2.3 CSTP 2.4CSTP 2.5CSTP 2.6CSTP 2.7CSTP 3.1CSTP 3.2CSTP 3.3CSTP 3.4CSTP 3.5CSTP 3.6CSTP 4.1CSTP 4.2CSTP 4.3CSTP 4.4CSTP 4.5CSTP 5.1CSTP 5.2CSTP 5.3CSTP 5.4CSTP 5.5CSTP 5.6CSTP 5.7CSTP 6.1CSTP 6.2CSTP 6.3CSTP 6.4CSTP 6.5CSTP 6.6CSTP 6.700CSTP 1.1CSTP 1.2CSTP 1.3CSTP 1.4CSTP 1.5CSTP 1.6CSTP 2.1 CSTP2.2 CSTP2.3 CSTP 2.4CSTP 2.5CSTP 2.6CSTP 2.7CSTP 3.1CSTP 3.2CSTP 3.3CSTP 3.4CSTP 3.5CSTP 3.6CSTP 4.1CSTP 4.2CSTP 4.3CSTP 4.4CSTP 4.5CSTP 5.1CSTP 5.2CSTP 5.3CSTP 5.4CSTP 5.5CSTP 5.6CSTP 5.7CSTP 6.1CSTP 6.2CSTP 6.3CSTP 6.4CSTP 6.5CSTP 6.6CSTP 6.7Figure 3? Sinclair Research Group - January 201979Rank Order of Perceived Level of Current Competence in Elements – Year 2 & ECOThe following table shows the level of current competence at which these teachers believe they are as they exit the program (from highest to lowest rating).General Education Current CompetenceMeanStd DevCSTP 6.73.880.99CSTP 6.13.801.03CSTP 6.33.781.20CSTP 2.53.770.93CSTP 6.23.750.89CSTP 1.13.640.63CSTP 3.13.640.50CSTP 2.23.620.77CSTP 5.43.600.99CSTP 1.33.550.69CSTP 1.23.541.05CSTP 2.33.530.83CSTP 3.43.530.77CSTP 1.63.500.52CSTP 4.43.500.89CSTP 2.43.470.94CSTP 2.63.471.01CSTP 2.73.470.92CSTP 1.43.430.85CSTP 1.53.420.90CSTP 3.53.380.96CSTP 2.13.360.84CSTP 3.33.360.74CSTP 4.33.360.93CSTP 4.53.330.98CSTP 5.33.291.16CSTP 4.23.290.83CSTP 6.43.251.28CSTP 3.23.230.73CSTP 5.23.231.01CSTP 5.53.231.17CSTP 5.13.180.75CSTP 5.73.181.17CSTP 6.63.131.25CSTP 4.13.090.70CSTP 5.63.090.94CSTP 3.63.000.85CSTP 6.52.631.19Table 3Comparisons of Growth over Induction Period in Elements – Year 2 & ECOThis section discusses the level of growth during the Induction period for these exiting second year and ECO General Education teachers. The results reflect the first time they marked themselves in any Element to the last time they marked themselves in any Element. The time frame for this varies over the two years but confirms change during the Induction period. It should be noted that these levels of assessed results were not developed in a vacuum but based on evidence of classroom practice collected by the support provider and the participating teacher and conversations around the Continuum of Teaching Practice, thus better ensuring reliable results.Also charted is the change in the standard deviation; whether the standard deviation was larger or smaller when compared with the baseline survey. A standard deviation above 0 indicates less agreement among teachers in their ratings; a standard deviation below 0 indicates increased agreement among respondents.4299585914400CSTP 1.1CSTP 1.2CSTP 1.3CSTP 1.4CSTP 1.5CSTP 1.6CSTP 2.1CSTP 2.2CSTP 2.3CSTP 2.4CSTP 2.5CSTP 2.6CSTP 2.7CSTP 3.1CSTP 3.2CSTP 3.3CSTP 3.4CSTP 3.5CSTP 3.6CSTP 4.1CSTP 4.2CSTP 4.3CSTP 4.4CSTP 4.5CSTP 5.1CSTP 5.2CSTP 5.3CSTP 5.4CSTP 5.5CSTP 5.6CSTP 5.7CSTP 6.1CSTP 6.2CSTP 6.3CSTP 6.4CSTP 6.5CSTP 6.6CSTP 6.700CSTP 1.1CSTP 1.2CSTP 1.3CSTP 1.4CSTP 1.5CSTP 1.6CSTP 2.1CSTP 2.2CSTP 2.3CSTP 2.4CSTP 2.5CSTP 2.6CSTP 2.7CSTP 3.1CSTP 3.2CSTP 3.3CSTP 3.4CSTP 3.5CSTP 3.6CSTP 4.1CSTP 4.2CSTP 4.3CSTP 4.4CSTP 4.5CSTP 5.1CSTP 5.2CSTP 5.3CSTP 5.4CSTP 5.5CSTP 5.6CSTP 5.7CSTP 6.1CSTP 6.2CSTP 6.3CSTP 6.4CSTP 6.5CSTP 6.6CSTP 6.76446520555561500620204555410100063347602478405Change in CSTP CTP Self-Assessment00Change in CSTP CTP Self-Assessment63849255742940Mean (change)00Mean (change)61258452621280Exiting Year 2 General Education00Exiting Year 2 General Education61696605742940Std Dev (change)00Std Dev (change)607695010147301.50001.50580961510147301.00001.00554228010147300.50000.50527494510147300.00000.005007610985520-0.5000-0.504740275985520-1.0000-1.0040652704845685Figure 400Figure 44457707649845? Sinclair Research Group - January 2019 8300? Sinclair Research Group - January 2019 83Rank Order of Perceived Level of Growth over Time in Elements – Year 2 & ECOThe table that begins below shows the levels that these exiting teachers believe that they have changed over their time in Induction (from most change to least change).General Education Change Over TimeMean (change)Std Dev (change)CSTP 3.51.390.07CSTP 3.41.32-0.06CSTP 4.51.290.08CSTP 2.21.29-0.12CSTP 4.31.270.02CSTP 2.31.24-0.07CSTP 1.11.23-0.29CSTP 1.61.20-0.49CSTP 6.21.20-0.30CSTP 3.11.18-0.65CSTP 6.31.17-0.02CSTP 2.51.16-0.15CSTP 4.21.15-0.21CSTP 1.41.13-0.11CSTP 2.71.10-0.16CSTP 6.11.100.03CSTP 1.21.09-0.06CSTP 4.41.07-0.07CSTP 3.31.05-0.13CSTP 2.41.04-0.19CSTP 5.11.04-0.11CSTP 6.71.03-0.49CSTP 1.30.99-0.45CSTP 2.10.97-0.21CSTP 5.40.94-0.05CSTP 3.20.94-0.41CSTP 1.50.94-0.18CSTP 3.60.93-0.20CSTP 4.10.89-0.37CSTP 5.70.850.18CSTP 2.60.82-0.20CSTP 5.30.810.10CSTP 5.50.710.32CSTP 5.20.710.04CSTP 6.60.700.06CSTP 5.60.64-0.08CSTP 6.50.57-0.01CSTP 6.40.55-0.07Table 4Holistic CSTP Current Competence – Year 2 & ECO12192005003805.00General Education Exiting Year 2 & ECO Current Competence CSTP Self-AssessmentPost MeanPost SD4.504.003.503.002.502.001.501.000.710.780.790.810.92.880.500.00CSTP 1CSTP 2CSTP 3CSTP 4CSTP 5CSTP 6005.00General Education Exiting Year 2 & ECO Current Competence CSTP Self-AssessmentPost MeanPost SD4.504.003.503.002.502.001.501.000.710.780.790.810.92.880.500.00CSTP 1CSTP 2CSTP 3CSTP 4CSTP 5CSTP 6This group of exiting second year teachers was also asked to examine their competence (and growth over time). The following two figures show those results.29229051828800042525951752600019094451504953.763.81003.763.813.423.663.453.76199898020510500Figure 512287252895601.50General Education Exiting Year 2 & ECO Change in CSTP Self-AssessmentChange MeanChange SD1.261.241.321.251.021.031.000.750.500.250.080.00-0.07-0.06-0.04-0.06-0.25-0.27-0.50CSTP 1CSTP 2CSTP 3CSTP 4CSTP 5CSTP 6001.50General Education Exiting Year 2 & ECO Change in CSTP Self-AssessmentChange MeanChange SD1.261.241.321.251.021.031.000.750.500.250.080.00-0.07-0.06-0.04-0.06-0.25-0.27-0.50CSTP 1CSTP 2CSTP 3CSTP 4CSTP 5CSTP 6Holistic CSTP Growth over Time – Year 2 & ECO2779395180975004102735173355001.16203581019367500Figure 6Extent analysis was completed considering evidence and with mentor15811502504440General Education - Considered Evidence & Worked with Mentor to Mark CSTP Self Assessment100.0%90.0%80.0%70.0%60.0%50.0%40.0%30.0%20.0%10.0%00General Education - Considered Evidence & Worked with Mentor to Mark CSTP Self Assessment100.0%90.0%80.0%70.0%60.0%50.0%40.0%30.0%20.0%10.0%In order to assess the level of depth of reliability of the results and the level of reflection to which teacher candidates and their mentors are sharing in examining evidence together and responding to this self-assessment, teacher candidates were asked to state the degree to which they to which their mentor worked with them and together they took into consideration evidence of their classroom practice to come up with the CSTP Self- Assessment placements? Responses were: 4- Looked at recorded evidence of where I first placed myself and then worked with my mentor to examine evidence and agree on final placement; 3-Didn't use recorded evidence of where I first place myself, but examined classroom practice and then worked with my mentor to agree on pre/post placement; 2-Talked to my mentor, thought about it, and together agreed on pre/post levels; 1- Did not work with my mentor to fill this out, but completed this on my own based on my own instincts. Results are shown in the chart that follows.0.0%1234MeanSDCandidates1.3%2.6%3.9%92.1%3.870.50Year 12.6%5.3%2.6%89.5%3.790.66Year 2 & ECO0.0%0.0%5.3%94.7%3.950.23Figure 7General Education ConclusionsElements – Current CompetenceYear One: At the end of this academic year, first year teacher candidates generally believed they were at the “Applying” level in most Elements. Four Elements moved into the “Integrating” level (4) and just one was at the “Exploring” level (2). The highest rated Elements were:CSTP 6.1 Reflecting on teaching practice in support of student learningCSTP 6.7 Demonstrating professional responsibility, integrity, and ethical conductCSTP 6.6 Managing professional responsibilities to maintain motivation and commitment to all studentsCSTP 3.1 Demonstrating knowledge of subject matter, academic content standards, and curriculum frameworksThe one lowest Element was CSTP 6.5 Engaging local communities in support of the instructional program.They marked themselves somewhat similarly in the Elements of the CSTP, as indicated by generally normal standard deviations; just five questions were slightly above 1.0.However, this is not surprising for a small group (N=39).Year Two and ECO: As they exited the program, Year 2 General Education teacher candidates in their second year (and ECO) generally, they believed they were at the “Applying” (3) level (in all Elements but one). The areas where they believed they were most competent were:CSTP 6.7 Demonstrating professional responsibility, integrity, and ethical conductCSTP 6.1 Reflecting on teaching practice in support of student learningCSTP 6.3 Collaborating with colleagues and the broader professional community to support teacher and student learningCSTP 2.5 Developing, communicating, and maintaining high standards for individual and group behaviorThe one Element that fell into the “Emerging” level was 6.5They marked themselves somewhat similarly in the Elements of the CSTP, though the spread was slightly wider than for first year candidates (eight of the 38 standard deviations were above 1.0).Elements – Growth over TimeYear Two and ECO: When change over the induction period is examined, these exiting second year and ECO teachers believed they had grown an average of one full level witha range of .55-1.39) The Elements where evidence points to the most growth (above 1.25) were:CSTP 3.5 Using instructional materials, resources, and technologies to make subject matter accessible to all studentsCSTP 3.4 Utilizing instructional strategies that are appropriate to the subject matterCSTP 4.5 Modifying and adapting instructional plans to meet the diverse learning needs of allstudentsCSTP 2.2 Creating physical or virtual learning environments that promote student learning, reflect diversity, and encourage constructive and productive interactions among studentsCSTP 4.3 Developing and sequencing long-term and short-term instructional plans to support student learningHolistic – Current CompetenceYear One: When examined from the Holistic level, these first-year teacher candidates affirm that they are in the “Applying” level (3) in all areas. Their highest area is CSTP 6: Developing as a Professional Educator (3.38). This is closely followed by CSTP 2: Creating and Maintaining Effective Environments for Student Learning (3.33). All standard deviations were within the normal range.Year Two and ECO: These exiting second year and ECO teachers rate themselves in the “Applying” level, but higher than Year 1 candidates. CSTP 2: Creating and Maintaining Effective Environments for Student Learning was rated highest at 3.81, nearly half a level higher than Year 1 candidates. This was closely following by CSTP 1: Engaging and Supporting All Students in Learning and CSTP 6: Developing as a Professional Educator (both at 3.76). The lowest growth was in CSTP 2: Creating and Maintaining Effective Environments for Student Learning (1.27). Standard deviations were within the normal range.Holistic – Growth over TimeYear Two and ECO: When examined from the Holistic level, these exiting second year and ECO teachers believe they have grown well over a full level in all six CSTP. The most change over time came in CSTP 5: Assessing Students for Learning and (1.32).Standard deviations were normal.Extent All Teachers Completed Ratings Considering Evidence and with MentorThere was strong agreement (3.87 out of 4) among General Education teacher candidates that they had examined the recorded evidence of where they first placed themselves and then worked with their mentor to agree on the final placement on the CSTP Self- Assessment. This leads us to believe that from the responding population, there was sufficient reflection on shared evidence. It is likely that results are reliable and valid.EDUCATION SPECIALISTYear OneIn the following section, the same analysis is shown for all Year One General Education teacher candidates.2226945251460MeanStd Dev5.004.504.003.503.002.502.001.501.000.500.00Education Specialist Current CompetenceYear 1 CSTP Self-Assessment00MeanStd Dev5.004.504.003.503.002.502.001.501.000.500.00Education Specialist Current CompetenceYear 1 CSTP Self-AssessmentCurrent Level of Competence in Elements – Year One2658745-432435CSTP 1.100CSTP 1.12886075-432435CSTP 1.200CSTP 1.23114040-432435CSTP 1.400CSTP 1.43341370-432435CSTP 1.500CSTP 1.53568700-432435CSTP 2.100CSTP 2.13796665-430530CSTP2.200CSTP2.24023995-430530CSTP2.300CSTP2.34251325-432435CSTP 2.400CSTP 2.44479290-432435CSTP 2.500CSTP 2.54706620-432435CSTP 2.600CSTP 2.64933950-432435CSTP 2.700CSTP 2.75161280-432435CSTP 3.100CSTP 3.15389245-432435CSTP 3.200CSTP 3.25616575-432435CSTP 3.300CSTP 3.35843905-432435CSTP 3.400CSTP 3.46071870-432435CSTP 3.500CSTP 3.56299200-432435CSTP 3.600CSTP 3.66526530-432435CSTP 4.100CSTP 4.16754495-432435CSTP 4.200CSTP 4.26981825-432435CSTP 4.300CSTP 4.37209155-432435CSTP 4.400CSTP 4.47437120-432435CSTP 4.500CSTP 4.5Figure 8Note that while there were nine responding candidates in their first year, they did not have to address each element; only the Elements on which they had worked during this first year. Therefore, there are some Elements that are missing as they did not have the minimum of four respondents.? Sinclair Research Group - January 201992Rank Order of Perceived Level of Current Competence in Elements – Year 1Education Specialist Yr 1 Current CompetenceMeanStd DevCSTP 2.63.001.10CSTP 2.32.830.98CSTP 2.12.600.89CSTP 2.72.601.52CSTP 1.22.501.00CSTP 3.62.501.00CSTP 2.52.401.34CSTP 2.22.201.10CSTP 1.12.001.15CSTP 1.42.001.15CSTP 1.52.001.15CSTP 3.12.001.15CSTP 3.22.001.15CSTP 3.32.001.15CSTP 3.42.001.15CSTP 3.52.001.15CSTP 4.12.001.41CSTP 4.22.001.41CSTP 4.32.001.41CSTP 4.42.001.41CSTP 2.41.801.10CSTP 4.51.601.34Table 5? Sinclair Research Group - January 2019932333625746125Education Specialist Exiting Year 1Current Competence CSTP Self-AssessmentPost MeanPost SD5.004.504.003.503.002.502.001.501.000.500.002.893.223.113.333.112.890.330.440.330.710.330.6000Education Specialist Exiting Year 1Current Competence CSTP Self-AssessmentPost MeanPost SD5.004.504.003.503.002.502.001.501.000.500.002.893.223.113.333.112.890.330.440.330.710.330.60Holistic CSTP Current Competence – Year 13175635-534035CSTP 100CSTP 13975735-534035CSTP 200CSTP 24775835-534035CSTP 300CSTP 35575935-534035CSTP 400CSTP 46376035-534035CSTP 500CSTP 57176135-534035CSTP 600CSTP 6Figure 9Year Two & ECOCurrent Level of Competence in Elements – Year 2 & ECO914400502920Education Specialist Current CompetenceExiting Year 2 & ECO CSTP Self-AssessmentMeanStd Dev5.004.504.003.503.002.502.001.501.000.500.0000Education Specialist Current CompetenceExiting Year 2 & ECO CSTP Self-AssessmentMeanStd Dev5.004.504.003.503.002.502.001.501.000.500.00The following section completes the same analysis as was completed for General Education teacher candidates. All charts and tables are labeled.1297940-431800CSTP 1.1CSTP 1.2CSTP 1.3CSTP 1.4CSTP 1.5CSTP 1.6CSTP 2.1 CSTP2.2 CSTP2.3 CSTP 2.4CSTP 2.5CSTP 2.6CSTP 2.7CSTP 3.1CSTP 3.2CSTP 3.3CSTP 3.4CSTP 3.5CSTP 3.6CSTP 4.1CSTP 4.2CSTP 4.3CSTP 4.4CSTP 4.5CSTP 5.1CSTP 5.2CSTP 5.3CSTP 5.4CSTP 5.5CSTP 5.6CSTP 5.7CSTP 6.1CSTP 6.2CSTP 6.3CSTP 6.4CSTP 6.5CSTP 6.6CSTP 6.700CSTP 1.1CSTP 1.2CSTP 1.3CSTP 1.4CSTP 1.5CSTP 1.6CSTP 2.1 CSTP2.2 CSTP2.3 CSTP 2.4CSTP 2.5CSTP 2.6CSTP 2.7CSTP 3.1CSTP 3.2CSTP 3.3CSTP 3.4CSTP 3.5CSTP 3.6CSTP 4.1CSTP 4.2CSTP 4.3CSTP 4.4CSTP 4.5CSTP 5.1CSTP 5.2CSTP 5.3CSTP 5.4CSTP 5.5CSTP 5.6CSTP 5.7CSTP 6.1CSTP 6.2CSTP 6.3CSTP 6.4CSTP 6.5CSTP 6.6CSTP 6.7Figure 10Rank Order of Perceived Level of Current Competence in Elements – Year 2 & ECOEducation Specialist Yr 2 & ECO Current CompetenceMeanStd DevCSTP 6.34.200.84CSTP 4.44.080.67CSTP 2.34.000.58CSTP 2.64.000.58CSTP 2.74.000.58CSTP 6.14.000.00CSTP 6.24.000.00CSTP 6.74.000.00CSTP 4.23.920.79CSTP 4.53.920.67CSTP 1.33.880.83CSTP 2.13.860.69CSTP 2.43.860.69CSTP 2.53.860.69CSTP 5.33.860.90CSTP 5.43.860.69CSTP 4.33.830.72CSTP 6.63.800.45CSTP 3.43.670.52CSTP 4.13.671.07CSTP 1.13.630.52CSTP 1.63.630.52CSTP 2.23.571.27CSTP 5.23.571.27CSTP 5.53.570.79CSTP 3.13.501.22CSTP 3.33.500.55CSTP 3.53.501.38CSTP 3.63.501.22CSTP 6.43.400.55CSTP 6.53.400.55CSTP 1.23.381.19CSTP 1.43.380.52CSTP 3.23.331.21CSTP 5.13.291.11CSTP 1.53.251.04CSTP 5.73.141.21CSTP 5.63.001.00Table 63735070913765CSTP 1.1CSTP 1.2CSTP 1.3CSTP 1.4CSTP 1.5CSTP 1.6CSTP 2.1 CSTP2.2 CSTP2.3 CSTP 2.4CSTP 2.5CSTP 2.6CSTP 2.7CSTP 3.1CSTP 3.2CSTP 3.3CSTP 3.4CSTP 3.5CSTP 3.6CSTP 4.1CSTP 4.2CSTP 4.3CSTP 4.4CSTP 4.5CSTP 5.1CSTP 5.2CSTP 5.3CSTP 5.4CSTP 5.5CSTP 5.6CSTP 5.7CSTP 6.1CSTP 6.2CSTP 6.3CSTP 6.4CSTP 6.5CSTP 6.6CSTP 6.700CSTP 1.1CSTP 1.2CSTP 1.3CSTP 1.4CSTP 1.5CSTP 1.6CSTP 2.1 CSTP2.2 CSTP2.3 CSTP 2.4CSTP 2.5CSTP 2.6CSTP 2.7CSTP 3.1CSTP 3.2CSTP 3.3CSTP 3.4CSTP 3.5CSTP 3.6CSTP 4.1CSTP 4.2CSTP 4.3CSTP 4.4CSTP 4.5CSTP 5.1CSTP 5.2CSTP 5.3CSTP 5.4CSTP 5.5CSTP 5.6CSTP 5.7CSTP 6.1CSTP 6.2CSTP 6.3CSTP 6.4CSTP 6.5CSTP 6.6CSTP 6.7602996055556150057689755540375006287770901700Comparisons of Growth over Induction Period in Elements – Year 2 & ECO00Comparisons of Growth over Induction Period in Elements – Year 2 & ECO59118502630805Change in CSTP Self-Assessment00Change in CSTP Self-Assessment59651905742940Mean (change)00Mean (change)56883302322195Exiting Year 2 & ECO Education Specialist00Exiting Year 2 & ECO Education Specialist57346855742940Std Dev (change)00Std Dev (change)42068759855202.502.001.501.000.500.00-0.50-1.00-1.50002.502.001.501.000.500.00-0.50-1.00-1.5034950404815205Figure 1100Figure 114457707649845? Sinclair Research Group - January 2019 9800? Sinclair Research Group - January 2019 98Rank Order of Perceived Level of Growth over Time in Elements – Year 2 & ECOEducation Specialist Year 2 & ECO Change over TimeMean (change)Std Dev (change)CSTP 6.32.08-0.52CSTP 1.31.84-0.35CSTP 4.41.84-0.39CSTP 2.31.71-0.78CSTP 2.11.69-0.56CSTP 2.51.69-0.56CSTP 3.41.64-0.60CSTP 1.21.630.14CSTP 4.21.62-0.28CSTP 2.41.60-0.42CSTP 6.21.55-1.30CSTP 6.61.55-0.72CSTP 4.31.54-0.35CSTP 2.21.530.14CSTP 4.51.53-0.37CSTP 3.51.480.34CSTP 6.71.44-1.10CSTP 2.61.41-0.57CSTP 2.71.41-0.57CSTP 3.61.390.15CSTP 1.11.34-0.45CSTP 6.41.33-0.57CSTP 6.51.33-0.57CSTP 3.21.310.10CSTP 3.11.300.13CSTP 3.31.30-0.55CSTP 1.41.27-0.48CSTP 1.61.24-0.54CSTP 1.51.240.08CSTP 4.11.200.15CSTP 6.11.19-1.05CSTP 5.51.16-0.19CSTP 5.31.100.00CSTP 5.40.93-0.16CSTP 5.10.910.18CSTP 5.70.840.15CSTP 5.60.760.00CSTP 5.20.750.28Table 71190625289560Education Specialist Exiting Year 2 & ECOCurrent Competence CSTP Self-AssessmentPost MeanPost SD5.004.504.003.503.002.502.001.501.000.500.003.794.003.583.693.623.770.700.550.670.751.040.8300Education Specialist Exiting Year 2 & ECOCurrent Competence CSTP Self-AssessmentPost MeanPost SD5.004.504.003.503.002.502.001.501.000.500.003.794.003.583.693.623.770.700.550.670.751.040.83Holistic CSTP Current Competence – Year 2 & ECO2014855-483235CSTP 100CSTP 12798445-483235CSTP 200CSTP 23582035-483235CSTP 300CSTP 34365625-483235CSTP 400CSTP 45148580-483235CSTP 500CSTP 55932170-483235CSTP 600CSTP 6Figure 121247775289560Education Specialist Exiting Year 2 & ECOChange in CSTP Self-AssessmentChange MeanChange SD1.251.051.131.011.051.121.131.000.750.500.250.00-0.25CSTP 1CSTP 2-0.26-0.19CSTP 3-0.35CSTP 4-0.26CSTP 5-0.18CSTP-06.18-0.5000Education Specialist Exiting Year 2 & ECOChange in CSTP Self-AssessmentChange MeanChange SD1.251.051.131.011.051.121.131.000.750.500.250.00-0.25CSTP 1CSTP 2-0.26-0.19CSTP 3-0.35CSTP 4-0.26CSTP 5-0.18CSTP-06.18-0.50Holistic CSTP Growth over Time – Year 2 & ECOFigure 13Extent Examined Evidence and Worked with Mentor to Mark CSTP Self-AssessmentEducation Specialists - Considered Evidence & Worked with Mentor to Mark CSTP Self Assessment100.0%90.0%80.0%70.0%60.0%50.0%40.0%30.0%20.0%10.0%0.0%1234MeanSDCandidates0.0%0.0%17.4%82.6%3.830.39Year 10.0%0.0%22.2%77.8%3.780.44Year 2 & ECO0.0%0.0%14.3%85.7%3.860.361326515-716280001326515-527050001326515-33083500Figure 14Education Specialist ConclusionsElements – Current CompetenceYear One: At the end of this academic year, Education Specialist first year teacher candidates generally believed they were at the “Emerging” (2) level. The one Element that reached the “Applying” (3) level was CSTP 2.6 Employing classroom routines, procedures, norms, and supports for positive behavior to ensure a climate in which all students can learn.Two Elements moved into the “Emerging” level (1):CSTP 2.4 Creating a rigorous learning environment with high expectations and appropriate support for all studentsCSTP 4.5 Modifying and adapting instructional plans to meet the diverse learning needs of allstudentsThey marked themselves somewhat similarly in the Elements of the CSTP, as indicated by generally normal standard deviations; just five questions were slightly above 1.0. However, this is not surprising for a small group (N=39).Year Two and ECO: As they exited the program, Education Specialist teacher candidates in their second year (and ECO) generally, they believed they were at least in the “Applying” (3) with approximately half of these ratings at the high end. There were eight Elements that reached the “Integrating” (4) level. They were (from highest to lowest):CSTP 6.3 Collaborating with colleagues and the broader professional community to support teacher and student learningCSTP 4.4 Planning instruction that incorporates appropriate strategies to meet the diverse learning needs of all studentsCSTP 2.3 Establishing and maintaining learning environments that are physically, intellectually, and emotionally safeCSTP 2.6 Employing classroom routines, procedures, norms, and supports for positive behavior to ensure a climate in which all students can learnCSTP 2.7 Using instructional time to optimize learningCSTP 6.1 Reflecting on teaching practice in support of student learningCSTP 6.2 Establishing professional goals and engaging in continuous and purposeful professional growth and developmentCSTP 6.7 Demonstrating professional responsibility, integrity, and ethical conductThere were no Elements that showed ratings below 3.0. Eleven standard deviations were slightly above the normal range. However, this is not unexpected with this small a group of respondents (N=15).Elements – Growth over TimeYear Two and ECO: When change over the induction period is examined, these exiting second year and ECO Education Specialist teacher candidates believed they had grown an average of one full level in all but three of the Elements (range .84-2.08). Sixteen Elements showed growth of at least 1 ? levels. The one Element which showed a full two levels of growth was CSTP 6.3 Collaborating with colleagues and the broader professional community to support teacher and student learning.Holistic – Current CompetenceYear One: When examined from the Holistic level, these first-year teacher Education Specialist teacher candidates mark themselves somewhat higher than when results were broken down by Element. They report being between the “Emerging” (2.89) and the “Applying” level (3). The highest area was CSTP 4: Planning Instruction and Designing Learning Experiences for All Students (3.33), closely followed by CSTP 2: Creating and Maintaining Effective Environments for Student Learning (3.33). All standard deviations were within the normal range.Year Two and ECO: These exiting second year and ECO Education Specialist teacher candidates rate generally themselves in the high “Applying” level. One rating was at the “Integrating” (4) level: CSTP 2: Creating and Maintaining Effective Environments for Student Learning. Standard deviations were generally within the normal range.Holistic – Growth over TimeYear Two and ECO: When examined from the Holistic level, these exiting second year and ECO teachers believe they have grown at least a full level in all CSTP. The highest growth levels were report in CSTP 2: Creating and Maintaining Effective Environments for Student Learning and CSTP 6: Developing as a Professional Educator (1.13). Standard deviations showed that respondents marked themselves more similarly than they did in their current competence ratings.Extent All Teachers Completed Ratings Considering Evidence and with MentorThere was strong agreement (3.83 out of 4) among these Education Specialist teacher candidates that they had examined the recorded evidence of where they first placed themselves and then worked with their mentor to agree on the final placement on the CSTP Self-Assessment. This leads the researcher to believe that, from the responding population, there was sufficient reflection on shared evidence. It is likely that results are reliable and valid.9144001066800Date & LocationProfessional Development SessionTimeNotesAugust 16, 2018John D. Piazza Ctr.Induction Kickoff Orientation(Not for PD- one Orientation required)4:00-5:30JDP not available until 3:30 Pre-K OrientationAugust 23, 2018Enrollment CenterInduction Kickoff Orientation Make-Up (Not for PD-one Orientation required)3:45-5:15NGSS in Enrollment Center 3:00September 6, 2018John D. Piazza Ctr.Classroom Management (Elementary & Sec.) Growth Mindset3:45-5:45Repeat on Sept. 20thSeptember 13, 2018John D. Piazza Ctr.Bryan Harris-Supporting Students of Poverty3:45-5:45Induction CandidatesSeptember 15, 2018Enrollment CenterBryan Harris-Teaching w/Poverty & Equity in Mind (May count as 4 additional PD hours)8:00-3:00ALL District Teachers*You may get 4 additional P hours OR pay, but not bothSeptember 20, 2018John D. Piazza Ctr.Classroom Management (Elementary & Sec.) Growth Mindset3:45-5:45Repeat of September 6thOctober 4, 2018John D. Piazza Ctr.Home/School Communication-Parent/Teacher Conferences/Role Play-Student Led Conferences3:45-5:45October 18, 2018John D. Piazza Ctr.Teach Like a Champion/Student Engagement3:45-5:45JDP not available until 3:00p Principal’s MeetingNovember 8, 2018John D. Piazza Ctr.Meeting the Needs of SpEd Studentsin ALL ClassroomsInclusionSevere/Profound SpEd StudentsManaging Paraprofessionals3:45-5:45Repeat on March 28thGen. Ed & SpEd candidates welcomeNovember 29, 2018John D. Piazza Ctr.Stress Management MindfulnessAvoiding Teacher Burnout3:45-5:453:45-5:4500Date & LocationProfessional Development SessionTimeNotesAugust 16, 2018John D. Piazza Ctr.Induction Kickoff Orientation(Not for PD- one Orientation required)4:00-5:30JDP not available until 3:30 Pre-K OrientationAugust 23, 2018Enrollment CenterInduction Kickoff Orientation Make-Up (Not for PD-one Orientation required)3:45-5:15NGSS in Enrollment Center 3:00September 6, 2018John D. Piazza Ctr.Classroom Management (Elementary & Sec.) Growth Mindset3:45-5:45Repeat on Sept. 20thSeptember 13, 2018John D. Piazza Ctr.Bryan Harris-Supporting Students of Poverty3:45-5:45Induction CandidatesSeptember 15, 2018Enrollment CenterBryan Harris-Teaching w/Poverty & Equity in Mind (May count as 4 additional PD hours)8:00-3:00ALL District Teachers*You may get 4 additional P hours OR pay, but not bothSeptember 20, 2018John D. Piazza Ctr.Classroom Management (Elementary & Sec.) Growth Mindset3:45-5:45Repeat of September 6thOctober 4, 2018John D. Piazza Ctr.Home/School Communication-Parent/Teacher Conferences/Role Play-Student Led Conferences3:45-5:45October 18, 2018John D. Piazza Ctr.Teach Like a Champion/Student Engagement3:45-5:45JDP not available until 3:00p Principal’s MeetingNovember 8, 2018John D. Piazza Ctr.Meeting the Needs of SpEd Studentsin ALL ClassroomsInclusionSevere/Profound SpEd StudentsManaging Paraprofessionals3:45-5:45Repeat on March 28thGen. Ed & SpEd candidates welcomeNovember 29, 2018John D. Piazza Ctr.Stress Management MindfulnessAvoiding Teacher Burnout3:45-5:453:45-5:45D914400-5079365Date & LocationProfessional Development SessionTimeNotesJanuary 17, 2019John D. Piazza Ctr.Hitting the Reset Button- Michael Linsen book:The Classroom Management SecretJanuary 31, 2019John D. Piazza Ctr.PD Survey Needs TBD*Will survey candidates in the fall for topics3:45-5:45February 28, 2019John D. Piazza Ctr.Lesson Design/Gradual Release-Checking for Understanding-Open & Close of Lesson-Active Participation-Assessment to Guide Instruction3:45-5:45March 7, 2019John D. Piazza Ctr.Advanced Learner Prompts for Yr. 1 Teachers Socratic MethodSpEd Classroom Differentiation3:45-5:45Year 1 or new candidatesMarch 28, 2019John D. Piazza Ctr.Meeting the Needs of SpEd Studentsin ALL Classrooms-Inclusion-Severe/Profound SpEd Students-Managing Paraprofessionals3:45-5:45Repeat from Nov. 8thGen. Ed & SpEd candidates welcomeApril 11, 2019John D. Piazza Ctr.Colloquium Journey Presentations- Q & A Information Session on What to Expect(Not for PD Hours- informational session only)3:45-5:45Anyone may attend Yr. 1 orMay 9, 2019John D. Piazza Ctr.2019 Colloquium Celebration(Not for PD Hours-required for Yr. 2 candidates)3:45-5:45Year 2 Candidates who ha completed the program00Date & LocationProfessional Development SessionTimeNotesJanuary 17, 2019John D. Piazza Ctr.Hitting the Reset Button- Michael Linsen book:The Classroom Management SecretJanuary 31, 2019John D. Piazza Ctr.PD Survey Needs TBD*Will survey candidates in the fall for topics3:45-5:45February 28, 2019John D. Piazza Ctr.Lesson Design/Gradual Release-Checking for Understanding-Open & Close of Lesson-Active Participation-Assessment to Guide Instruction3:45-5:45March 7, 2019John D. Piazza Ctr.Advanced Learner Prompts for Yr. 1 Teachers Socratic MethodSpEd Classroom Differentiation3:45-5:45Year 1 or new candidatesMarch 28, 2019John D. Piazza Ctr.Meeting the Needs of SpEd Studentsin ALL Classrooms-Inclusion-Severe/Profound SpEd Students-Managing Paraprofessionals3:45-5:45Repeat from Nov. 8thGen. Ed & SpEd candidates welcomeApril 11, 2019John D. Piazza Ctr.Colloquium Journey Presentations- Q & A Information Session on What to Expect(Not for PD Hours- informational session only)3:45-5:45Anyone may attend Yr. 1 orMay 9, 2019John D. Piazza Ctr.2019 Colloquium Celebration(Not for PD Hours-required for Yr. 2 candidates)3:45-5:45Year 2 Candidates who ha completed the programvInduction Professional Development Menu Guidelines:Each candidate will CHOOSE any 4 PD sessions (8 hours) that will contribute to professional learning goals on the Individual Learning Plan (ILP).Induction program requirements will be a total of 12 hours of PD. 8 hours from the 4 chosen two-hour sessions and 4 additional hours (may use 9/15 Bryan Harris) decided upon with the Mentor.(i.e. TED Talks, book study, IRIS modules, 2nd day of observations, additional PD)Professional Development being offered by the district is also an option for Induction PD.Professional Development chosen is part of the ILP and content/strategies learned should be documented in the “Plan-Teach- Reflect-Apply” section.Mentors will assist with the ILP goal development (1st goal determined within 60 days of enrollment in the Induction program) and relevant professional development that will assist in meeting the goal(s).110490031546Fontana Unified School DistrictInduction Completion RequirementsName: Date:Year:School:Mentor:1036320132080Transition PlanPre-InquiryILPReflection (name?)00Transition PlanPre-InquiryILPReflection (name?)4961890238760SurveyDateMid-YearYear-EndMENTOR OBSERVATIONSCANDIDATE OBSERVATIONS00SurveyDateMid-YearYear-EndMENTOR OBSERVATIONSCANDIDATE OBSERVATIONSProfessional DevelopmentDateAttendedNotesDistrict New Teacher Orientation7/31/18Induction Kick Off – Option 18/16/18Induction Kick Off – Option 28/23/18PD #1PD #2PD #3PD #4Additional 4 HoursColloquium5/9/19**Upload this completed document AND keep a copy for your records.91440016764000457200016764000Signature of CandidateDate91440016827500457200016827500Signature of MentorDate91440016510000457200016510000Signature of CoordinatorDateVerification of Completion Form (41-Induction)Multiple and Single Subject OnlyThis form is to be completed by a Commission-approved Professional Teacher Induction Program Sponsor and submitted to the CCTC with the application form (41-4) and appropriate fees. If verifying completion for both a Multiple and Single Subject Credential, please use a separate form for each.Approved Induction Program Sponsor: Name of Applicant: First Middle LastSocial Security Number: Type of Credential:_ Multiple Subject_Single Subject Subject(s) 91440023495000Completion Date of Induction Program: As the authorized representative of a Commission-approved Professional Teacher Induction Program, I have reviewed the applicant's application and preparation, and certify that the applicant has completed the Commission-approved Induction Program requirements for the Multiple or Single Subject Teaching Credential.Signature: Date: Name Title: Contact Phone Number: E-mail Address: This information may be computer generated. Please send a draft of the computer format to the Certification,Assignment and Waivers Division (attn: Donna Nakamura) for approval before implementing a new format.41-Induction (3/06) ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download