» Master of Arts in Counseling & Pupil Personnel Services Credential in School Counseling

Description of the Program

The Attallah College of Educational Studies offers a Master of Arts in Counseling and a California Pupil Personnel Services Credential in School Counseling. The program prepares students to serve as counselors in public schools for grades K–12 and meets requirements for a California state credential authorizing service as a school counselor.

The College also offers an emphasis in professional clinical counseling. The LPCC emphasis meets the educational requirements of the State of California Board of Behavioral Sciences (BBS) for licensure as a Professional Clinical Counselor as well as the standards for the Pupil Personnel Services Credential in School Counseling.

In keeping with the Attallah College of Educational Studies commitment to developing global citizenship, students are encouraged to consider taking part in at least one international learning experience during their program.

Program at a Glance

Cohort model with entry each summer term.
Low student-to-faculty ratio, with close collaboration between students and faculty on professional training, research, publications, and presentations.
A 51-unit program that can be completed in 2 years of full-time study or 3 years of part-time study.
200 hours of practica and 600 hours of internship for a total of 800 hours of fieldwork.
Students also earn the California Pupil Personnel Services Credential in School Counseling at the same time as the Master of Arts in Counseling.
Option for an emphasis in Professional Clinical Counseling, which fulfills the educational requirements for the California license as a Licensed Professional Clinical Counselor (LPCC). This emphasis requires 12 additional credits as well as 280 hours of additional fieldwork.
Student organization is the Association of School Counselors at Chapman University

Chapman's Masters in School Counseling curriculum is built on the American School Counselor Association's National Model of School Counseling as well as eight "big ideas." These include:

Collaboration
Oral Communication
Self-reflection and tolerance for complexity and ambiguity
Written Communication
Commitment to service and advocacy
Building solutions for children through an appreciation of their strengths and resources
Understanding children both as individuals and as participants in systems
Time management and organizational skills

Mission

The program builds on the mission of the Donna Ford Attallah College of Educational Studies by seeking to prepare knowledgeable, skilled, and reflective school counselors who are effective change agents for individuals, families, communities, and institutions.

CAEP Standard A.1

Advanced Preparation Content and Pedagogical Knowledge. The provider ensures that candidates for professional specialties develop a deep understanding of the critical concepts and principles of their field of preparation and, by completion, are able to use professional specialty practices flexibly to advance the learning of P-12 students toward attainment of college- and career-readiness standards.

CAEP guidance on how to respond overall to Standard A.1. These reflection questions for advanced preparation may help focus the selection of evidence and the School Counseling inquiry for its case that Standard A.1 is met.

Continuous Improvement. What strengths and areas of challenge have you discovered about candidate content knowledge and skills in their specialty field and their ability to apply that knowledge and skill as you analyzed and compared the results of your disaggregated data by program and by demographics? What questions have emerged that need more investigation? What features of preparation have enhanced completer’s understanding of diversity and equity issues and their readiness for diverse experiences they will encounter in teaching situations? What applications of technology have prepared completers for their responsibilities on the job? How are you using this information for continuous improvement? Consider, in particular, the development of candidate proficiencies in the listed advanced professional skills in the standard, as adapted to each specialty field:

Applications of data literacy;
Use of research and understanding of qualitative, quantitative, and/or mixed methods research methodologies
Employment of data analysis and evidence to develop supportive school environments;
Leading and/or participating in collaborative activities with others such as peers, colleagues, teachers, administrators, community organizations, and parents;
Supporting appropriate applications of appropriate technology for their field of specialization; and
Application of professional dispositions, laws and policies, codes of ethics and professional standards appropriate to their field of specialization.

Trends. What trends have emerged as you compared program and demographic data about candidate content knowledge and skills required for each specialty field and their applications across evidence sources and programs? What questions have emerged that need more investigation? How are you using this information for continuous improvement?

Implications. What implications can you draw, or conclusions can you reach across evidence sources about candidate content and pedagogical knowledge and its applications? What questions have emerged that need more investigation? Improvement? How have data- driven decisions on changes been incorporated into preparation?

Accomplishments. How well are you doing?

What are the accomplishments and performances of your candidates relevant to competence in their advanced-level preparation area? How do you know? e.g.:
What is your evidence about candidate’s knowledge of their specialty field by completion?
What is your evidence about candidate’s ability to apply their knowledge in situations similar to what they will experience on the job?
What evidence do you have about candidate’s knowledge and skills in their field of specialization relevant to college and career level preparation of P-12 students?
What do data show about the performance of your candidates, by exit, in relation to peers or over time?
What external benchmark performance levels do you meet?
What evidence can you assemble that will most compellingly demonstrate your case? As a result of your reflections on strengths and challenges, trends, and evidence implications (from section above), what points will help to strengthen your case for Standard A.1?

Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Professional Dispositions

CAEP Standard A.1.1. Candidates for advanced preparation demonstrate their proficiencies to understand and apply knowledge and skills appropriate to their professional field of specialization so that learning and development opportunities for all P-12 are enhanced through:

Applications of data literacy;
Use of research and understanding of qualitative, quantitative and/or mixed methods research methodologies;
Employment of data analysis and evidence to develop supportive school environments;
Leading and/or participating in collaborative activities with others such as peers, colleagues, teachers, administrators, community organizations, and parents;
Supporting appropriate applications of appropriate technology for their field of specialization; and
Application of professional dispositions, laws and policies, codes of ethics and professional standards appropriate to their field of specialization.

Evidence of candidate content knowledge appropriate for the professional specialty will be documented by state licensure test scores or other proficiency measures.

CAEP Standard A.1.1 Evidence

Key Assignments scores
Examination scores
Practica assessments
- Supervisor evaluation
- Self-evaluation
Internship assessments
- Supervisor evaluation
- Self-evaluation
Final Portfolio scores

Students in the School Counseling program demonstrate their proficiencies to understand and apply knowledge and skills appropriate to professional school counseling in multiple ways. These include key assignments, self and supervisor assessment of skills during practicum, final year portfolio and fieldwork, and performance on the ETS Praxis Exam in Counseling and Guidance.

The program has seven key assignments (please see course matrix). These include:

Resilience Project – Fall, year 1
First year research paper – Spring, year 1
Consultation case studies (2) – Spring, year 2
Systems change project – Spring, year 2
Interview project – Fall, year 2 – Data not yet available for Fall 2018
Group Counseling case study – Spring, year 1 Note*: Introduced in Spring 2019. Data not yet available
Final exam – Fall, year 1 Note*: Introduced in Fall 2018 – data not yet available

Key assignments are evaluated on a common 1 to 4 metric and rubric. The 1 to 4 metric uses the following descriptors:

Insufficient - 1
Developing -2
Sufficient – 3
Artisan - 4

Of the seven key assignment, current data is available for five assignments.

Assignment	Year/semester in program	Mean rubric score of three years
Resilience Project	Year 1/Fall	2.19
First year research paper	Year 1/Spring	2.83
Interview project	Year 2/Fall	3.4
Consultation case studies	Year 2/Spring	3.02
Systems Change Project	Year 2/Spring	3.74

These data suggest that as a group, students follow a typical developmental pattern; their scores on first year key assignments tend toward “developing,” while later assignments show movement toward “sufficient” or “artisan.”

Our students do well on the Praxis exam. Currently, a passing score is 156, which is based on the passing score of states that require the exam for a School Counseling credential (California does not require the praxis exam). All our students pass the exam with a score higher than 156. The average score among the 19 students in the most recent graduating cohort was 173, 17 points higher than the needed passing score.

During the exit interview students in the spring of their final year, students present their final portfolio and answer questions about different aspects of the practice of school counseling. Multiple aspects of the portfolio as well as students’ responses to questions are evaluated using a rubric that uses a 1 to 3 scale. An example of this scale is below:

Overall Quality of Portfolio

3. Artifacts and work samples are clearly and directly related to specific ASCA domains and program “big ideas.” The portfolio matrix is easy to read and guides the reader to the connections between domains and artifacts. As a whole, this portfolio provides evidence that this student is ready to enter the field with an advanced depth of knowledge

2. Artifacts and work samples are adequately related to specific ASCA domains and program “big ideas.” The portfolio matrix is complete. As a whole, this portfolio provides evidence that this student is ready to enter the field with adequate knowledge

1. Artifacts do not connect to all domains, the portfolio matrix is incomplete, and/or artifacts do not show adequate knowledge or readiness to enter the field.

The mean score for student who completed the program in May of 2018 for overall quality of the portfolio was 2.71. The mean for the quality of artifacts was 2.22 and the mean for the quality of oral responses was 2.29.

While in both Practica and Internship/final fieldwork, students are assessed on a 1 to 4 metric via a Self-Assessment and a Supervisor Assessment. These are based on the Domains of Competencies for the Training and Practice of School Counseling and the School Counseling Program’s “Big Ideas.” This is done midway through fieldwork and again at the end of fieldwork.

The average supervisor rating for students at the end of practicum was 3.5 and for final fieldwork it was 3.75. These data that site supervisors view School Counseling fieldwork students as appropriately competent at different stages of their development.

Provider Responsibilities

CAEP Standard A.1.2. Providers ensure that advanced program completers have opportunities to learn and apply specialized content and discipline knowledge contained in approved state and/or national discipline-specific standards. These specialized standards include, but are not limited to, Specialized Professional Association (SPA) standards, individual state standards, standards of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), and standards of other accrediting bodies (e.g., Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs [CACREP]).

CAEP Standard A.1.2 Evidence

The program is focused on the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing’s (CTC) standards for the Pupil Services Credential with authorization in School Counseling. The program’s coursework is organized so that each of the 30 CTC standards are introduced (I), practiced (P) and assessed (A). In most cases, assessment is done via one of the key assignments or during fieldwork. In addition, the program is guided by the American School Counseling Association’s National Model for School Counseling. The ASCA model provides a framework for the components of a comprehensive school counseling program and provides an outline of what activities are appropriate for school counselors. Lastly, the program also focuses on eight “Big Ideas,” which are also assessed as part of key assignments and during fieldwork.

CAEP Standard A.2

Advanced Preparation Clinical Partnerships and Practice. The provider ensures that effective partnerships and high-quality clinical practice are central to preparation so that candidates develop the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions appropriate for their professional specialty field.

Self-Study Reflection questions for Standard A.2
These reflection questions for advanced preparation may help focus the selection of evidence and the EPP inquiry for its case that Standard A.2 is met. The EPP reflects on its experience with continuous improvement:

Strengths and Challenges. What strengths and areas of challenge have you discovered in your clinical experiences and in your partnership arrangements as you analyzed and compared the results of your disaggregated data by program and by demographics? What features of partnerships and of clinical experiences have enhanced completer’s understanding of diversity and equity issues and their readiness to use that understanding in teaching situations? What applications of technology have prepared completers for their responsibilities on the job? What questions have emerged that need more investigation? How are you using this information for continuous improvement? For example: o What are the mutually agreeable expectations for candidate entry, preparation, and exit to ensure that theory and practice are linked, to maintain coherence across clinical and academic components of preparation, and to share accountability for candidate outcomes?

How do clinical partners co-select, prepare, evaluate, support, and retain high-quality clinical educators, both provider- and school-based, who demonstrate a positive impact on candidates' development and P-12 student learning and development?
What are the multiple indicators and appropriate technology-based applications used to establish, maintain, and refine criteria for selection, professional development, performance evaluation, continuous improvement, and retention of clinical educators in all clinical placement settings?
How are clinical experiences, including technology-enhanced learning opportunities, structured to have multiple performance-based assessments at key points within the program to demonstrate candidates' development of the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions (as delineated in Standard 1) that are associated with a positive impact on the learning and development of all P-12 students?

Trends. What trends have emerged as you compared program and demographic data describing clinical experiences across evidence sources and programs? What questions have emerged that need more investigation? How are you using this information for continuous improvement?

Implications. What implications can you draw or conclusions can you reach across evidence sources about your school/districts partnerships and your clinical experiences? What questions have emerged that need more investigation? Improvement? How have data driven decisions on changes been incorporated into preparation?

Partnerships for Clinical Preparation

CAEP Standard A.2.1. Partnerships for Clinical Preparation Partners co-construct mutually beneficial P-12 school and community arrangements, including technology-based collaborations, for clinical preparation and share responsibility for continuous improvement of advanced program candidate preparation. Partnerships for clinical preparation can follow a range of forms, participants, and functions. They establish mutually agreeable expectations for advanced program candidate entry, preparation, and exit; ensure that theory and practice are linked; maintain coherence across clinical and academic components of preparation; and share accountability for advanced program candidate outcomes.

CAEP Standard A.2.1 Evidence

The School Counseling program currently has fieldwork contracts with 37 school districts. These contracts are multiyear so only 8 to 12 are typically active in one year.

Students in the School Counseling Program complete 200 hours of Practica in the Spring semester of the first year of the program. This exceeds the California state requirement of 100 hours. In the second year of the program, students complete 600 hours of Internship or what the state of California calls “final fieldwork.” Per California state requirements, candidates are required to complete a minimum of 200 clock hours across two of the three age groups, (a) elementary, (b) middle school or Jr. high, and (c) high school. All supervisors are required to provide a minimum of two hours of direct supervision per week.

School sites typically assign supervisors. All School Counseling supervisors must have a Pupil Personnel Services Credential and have a minimum of two years of professional experience.

In addition, all sites must meet the following qualifications:

Provide an average of two hours of individual or small group supervision per week
Provide opportunities to work with students of different cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds.
Provide experiences with students of varying ages, developmental levels, and abilities.
Provide experiences with general education, special education, and other related services.

At the end of their practica or internship, students evaluate their supervisor and fieldwork sites. In the spring of 2018, the average rating across 13 questions was 3.4 on a 1 to 5 Likert scale. In the same semester, the average rating for students in internship was 4.7.

The finding that students rate their practica supervisors much lower than their internship supervisors is noteworthy. Our hypothesis is that this may be because the difference between practica and internship is poorly understood in the field of school counseling and that students at the practica level are not being as closely supervised and given as much direction as they feel they need.

An important goal for the program for the spring of 2019 and the following academic year is to develop more resources for supervisors. We believe that this will strengthen the relationship between the program and school districts as well as support higher quality supervision. Activities in support of this goals include:

Development of a standalone web site for supervisors where we would provide easily accessible information about the program, including fieldwork requirements and needed forms.
Development of a site supervisor handbook, which would also information about the program, elements of good supervision, etc. This would be given to site supervisors as well as places on the web site.
Development of on-line training materials for site supervisors. This would be available to all practicing school counselors, as well as those who are currently supervising Chapman University students. The program is exploring offering CEUs for this for a modest fee.

To facilitate the above steps, we will host a lunch time focus group for employers of school counselors in the spring of 2019. Our goal is to determine what local employers are looking for in both fieldwork students and professional school counselors and discuss the match between these expectations and our current coursework and assignments.

Clinical Experiences

CAEP Standard A.2.2. The provider works with partners to design varied and developmental clinical settings that allow opportunities for candidates to practice applications of content knowledge and skills that the courses and other experiences of the advanced preparation emphasize. The opportunities lead to appropriate culminating experiences in which candidates demonstrate their proficiencies through problem-based tasks or research (e.g., qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods, action) that are characteristic of their professional specialization as detailed in component A.1.1.

CAEP Standard A.2.2 Evidence

School Counseling CTC Course Matrix
Placements
Systems Change Key Assignment scores
Practica assessments
- Supervisor evaluation
- Self-evaluation
Internship assessments
- Supervisor evaluation
- Self-evaluation
Student feedback on fieldwork experience

Students begin practicum early in the program, after one semester of coursework. Prior to beginning practicum, students take courses such as CSP 511: Introduction to the ethical practice of school counseling, CSP 600: Multi-Tiered Systems and Supports for School Counselors , CSP 500: Introduction to counseling and mental health interventions, and CSP 517: School-based mental health, that allow them to enter this initial fieldwork with a knowledge of the profession and entry level skills. Students work with the practicum instructor to find an appropriate placement that matches their interest and provide a variety of developmental experiences. For example, the syllabus for CSP 515: Practicum in School Counseling, states that sites must:

Provide daily supervision from an experienced school counselor with at least two years of professional experience.
Provide opportunities to work with students of different cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds.
Provide opportunities to work with students of different ability levels and with different learning needs.
Provide opportunities for students to provide individual and group counseling for academic, career and personal development.
Provide opportunities for students to participate in consultation and program development, implementation, and evaluation activities.

In addition, class size is limited to a maximum of ten students so that students will receive appropriate university supervision and personal attention.

In the second year of the program, students complete 600 hours of internship or what CTC calls “final fieldwork.” Before entering their final fieldwork, students will have completed courses such as CSP 512: Advanced Counseling and Mental Health Interventions, CSP 513: Group Counseling Leadership and Intervention, and CSP 514: Cultural and Community Issues in Counseling and School Psychology.

In the first semester of final fieldwork, students complete a case study where they interview a child or adolescent during counseling. They are required to record at least one session and they recordings are used as part of supervision during the fieldwork class. The Interview Project is a program key assignment. As noted above, key assignments are evaluated on a common 1 to 4 metric and rubric, which uses the following descriptors:

Insufficient – 1
Developing -2
Sufficient – 3
Artisan - 4

The program has two years of data for the Interview Project (2015. /16. 2016/17 academic year). The average rubric score is 3.4, suggesting that students demonstrate good skills in this vital skill for school counselors.

In addition, in the final semester of fieldwork, students complete a final Systems Change Project. The Systems Change Project is described thus in the key assignment protocol:

The systems change project is intended to provide you with experiences as a change agent at a systems level. You will consult with your site supervisors and choose a program area at your internship site that may be in need of improvement. These programs may include Early Intervention Teams [a.k.a. SST, BCT], school climate, at risk programs, bullying or other systems issues agreed upon with your site supervisor. You may use extant data for problem/needs identification, but you must engage in a system change intervention and collect data to assess the system change. The project may be conducted with a classroom or larger population.

The average key assignment rubric scores for the systems change project for three academic years (2015/16, 2016/17, 2017/18) is 3.74. As noted above, this indicates students are performing between sufficient and artisan on this capstone project.

As noted, students are assessed on a 1 to 4 metric via a Self-Assessment and a Supervisor Assessment in Practica and Internship/final fieldwork. These are based on the Domains of Competencies for the Training and Practice of School Counseling and the School Counseling Program’s “Big Ideas.” This is done midway through fieldwork and again at the end of fieldwork.

Also, as we describe above, students evaluate their site supervisors and fieldwork sites at the end of practicum and internship. In the spring of 2018, the average rating across 13 questions was 3.4 on a 1 to 5 Likert scale for practicum. In the same semester, the average rating for students in internship was 4.7.

As we note, our hypothesis about why the site ratings are lower for practicum than for internship is that supervisors do not understand the difference between practica and internship that students and that students at the practica level are not being as closely supervised and given as much direction as they need.

We have outlined the steps we believe will improve this, which include:

Development of a standalone web site for supervisors where we would provide easily accessible information about the program, including fieldwork requirements and needed forms.
Development of a site supervisor handbook, which would also information about the program, elements of good supervision, etc. This would be given to site supervisors as well as places on the web site.
Development of on-line training materials for site supervisors. This would be available to all practicing school counselors, as well as those who are currently supervising Chapman University students. The program is exploring offering CEUs for this for a modest fee.

CAEP Standard A.3

The provider demonstrates that the quality of advanced program candidates is a continuing and purposeful part of its responsibility so that completers are prepared to perform effectively and can be recommended for certification where applicable.

Self-study reflection questions for Standard A.3. These reflection questions for advanced preparation may help focus the selection of evidence and the EPP inquiry for its case that Standard A.3 is met.

The EPP reflects on its experience with continuous improvement:

Strengths and Challenges. What strengths and areas of challenge have you discovered as you analyzed and compared the results of your disaggregated data on candidate quality, recruitment/admissions, and quality monitoring by program and by demographics? What questions have emerged that need more investigation? How are you using this information for continuous improvement? More specifically: o What are the criteria for program progression and how does the provider monitor candidates' advancement from admissions through completion? o What has the provider concluded about advanced level candidate understanding of the expectations of the profession—including codes of ethics, professional standards of practice, and relevant laws and policies? o What features of recruitment, academic proficiency, and candidate progression have enhanced completer’s understanding of diversity and equity issues and their readiness to use that understanding in teaching situations? What applications of technology have prepared completers for their responsibilities on the job?

Trends. What trends in candidate quality, recruitment and admissions practices, and monitoring of candidate progress have emerged as you compared program and demographic data across evidence sources and programs? What questions have emerged that need more investigation? How are you using this information for continuous improvement? For example: What are the provider's plans and goals to recruit and support completion of high quality candidates from a broad range of backgrounds and diverse populations to accomplish their mission?

What are the admission requirements?
What are the criteria for program progression and how does the provider monitor candidates' advancement from admissions through completion?
How does the provider Ensure that the admitted pool of candidates reflects the diversity of America's P-12 students? Address community, state, national, regional, or local needs for advanced-level completers in hard-to-staff schools and shortage fields? Gather data to monitor applicants and the selected pool of candidates? Establish and monitor attributes and dispositions beyond academic ability that candidates must demonstrate at admissions and during the program? Select criteria, describe the measures used and evidence of the reliability and validity of those measures, and report data that show how the academic and non-academic factors predict candidate performance in the program and effective teaching? What is the provider's evidence that ensures the average GPA of its accepted cohort of candidates meets or exceeds the CAEP minimum of 3.0, or that the group average performance on nationally normed ability/achievement assessments is in the top 50 percent?

Implications. What implications can you draw, or what conclusions can you reach, across evidence sources about candidate quality, recruitment/ admissions, and quality monitoring? What questions have emerged that need more investigation? Improvement? How have data driven decisions on changes been incorporated into preparation?

Admission of Diverse Candidates who Meet Employment Needs

CAEP Standard A.3.1. The provider sets goals and monitors progress for admission and support of high-quality advanced program candidates from a broad range of backgrounds and diverse populations to accomplish their mission. The admitted pool of candidates reflects the diversity of America’s teacher pool and, over time, should reflect the diversity of P-12 students. The provider demonstrates efforts to know and address community, state, national, regional, or local needs for school and district staff prepared in advanced fields.

CAEP Evidence A.3.1

Describe recruitment and admission process for the last three cycles. Four recruitment strategies:

Internal recruitment
External recruitment (info sessions and graduate fairs)
Admissions Office recruitment
Upcoming – virtual webinars

The School Counseling program approaches admissions holistically. We review applications via Slate and then those chosen to a half-day admissions process that includes: 1) an orientation to the program, 2) small group discussions with a faculty member, 3) an on-demand writing sample, and 4) individual interviews with a faculty member.

Throughout this process, we take into consideration several factors: 1) GPA, 2) knowledge of the profession, 3) experience with children, 4) experience in schools, and 5) significant life experiences (e.g., bilingual/bicultural, non-traditional student, history of significant resilience in the face of adversity, etc.) and 6) interpersonal skills demonstrated in the group and individual interviews.

Our admissions data suggests this process allows us to achieve diversity in our students without sacrificing traditional markers of academic quality. For example, among our fall 2018 cohort, 3 of 13 students admitted were first generation college students and 7 of 13 spoke a language other than English. The average undergraduate GPA was 3.41 and the average GRE Analytic Writing was 3.88.

In an effort to maintain this combination of diversity and academic quality, the program uses several ways of recruiting students. We currently hold regular on campus information sessions. Because of feedback gathered from participants of our on-campus information session suggesting that many of them would prefer a virtual information session, we will soon hold our first virtual information session. These, we believe, will reach candidates who face barriers of transportation or work and family obligations.

As part of the effort to recruit diverse high-quality students, the program has a goal is to increase both the size of the applicant pool and the number of applicants admitted. In an effort to meet this goal, the faculty members in School Counseling have decided to drop the requirement for the GRE for the 2018 admissions cycle because feedback suggests this is a potential barrier for applicants, especially first-generation students (Rogers & Molina, 2006).

We are also stepping up our internal recruitment efforts at Chapman University. We recently held a Chapman only information session. The first one was a notable success and was attended by 22 potential students. In addition, we are exploring ways that students in the Attallah College’s Integrated Educational Studies Program can take six credits as undergraduates before formally entering the program. This will not necessarily shorten the program but will save students tuition costs while earning the MA.

We observed that all of the School Counseling students admitted this year chose to pursue the Professional Clinical Counseling option (LPCC). Given this, we plan to create a standalone web page on our web site to make the LPCC option more “forward” on our web page. We will also pursue this same strategy in our written recruitment literature.

References

Rogers, M. R., & Molina, L. E. (2006). Exemplary efforts in psychology to recruit and retain graduate students of color. American Psychologist, 61(2), 143.

Candidates Demonstrate Academic Achievement and Ability to Complete Preparation Successfully

CAEP Standard A.3.2. Evidence Required for this Component - The provider sets admissions requirements for academic achievement, including CAEP minimum criteria, the state’s minimum criteria, or graduate school minimum criteria, whichever is highest and gathers data to monitor candidates from admission to completion. The provider determines additional criteria intended to ensure that candidates have, or develop, abilities to complete the program successfully and arranges appropriate support and counseling for candidates whose progress falls behind.

The CAEP minimum criteria are a college grade point average of 3.0 or a group average performance on nationally normed assessments, or substantially equivalent state-normed or EPP administered assessments, of mathematical, verbal, and written achievement in the top 50 percent of those assessed. An EPP may develop and use a valid and reliable substantially equivalent alternative assessment of academic achievement. The 50th percentile standard for writing will be implemented in 2021. The CAEP minimum criteria apply to the group average of enrolled candidates whose preparation begins during an academic year. EPPs must continuously monitor disaggregated evidence of academic quality for each branch campus (if any), mode of delivery, and individual preparation programs, identifying differences, trends, and patterns that should be addressed.

CAEP Standard A.3.2. Evidence

As discussed above, the School Counseling program approaches admissions holistically. We review applications via Slate and then those chosen to a half-day admissions process that includes: 1) an orientation to the program, 2) small group discussions with a faculty member, 3) an on-demand writing sample, and 4) individual interviews with a faculty member.

During the program, students must maintain a 3.0 grade point average per university guidelines. Students are given a comprehensive handbook at the beginning of the program, which details the course sequence, fieldwork requirements, and other exit requirements such as the Praxis Exam in Counseling and Guidance and the final year portfolio. In addition, program expectations are reviewed at several points in the admission’s process as well as during the program, including information sessions, admission’s interviews, new student orientations and in the introductory course, CSP 511 – Introduction to the Ethical Practice of School Counseling, which all new cohort members take at the same time.

Student progress is discussed at least once a semester at faculty meetings. At that time, each student is discussed and rated as “making good progress,” “making good progress but needs additional specific supports,” and “not making good progress.” Those in the last category are required to meet with faculty members and a specific Remediation Plan is developed.

Of the 32 students reviewed at the mid-term point in 2018, three students received a rating of 2, all because of family or personal issues that made it more difficult to focus on their classwork. Specific full-time faculty members were assigned to monitor these students. The one student who received a rating of 1, eventually dropped out of the program after deciding that her goal was to work in higher education rather than the k12 sector.

Last spring, the program initiated a First-Year Review, which occurs early in the spring of the first year in the program. As part of this, students completed an essay responding to the program’s eight big ideas and met individually with full time faculty members to discuss the essay, their progress in the program, and set goals for the upcoming semester.

Of the 12 students reviewed in spring 2018, the average score on a scale of 1 to 3, was 2.83. Nine students earned a score of 3, two students earned 2.5 and one student earned a 2. Similar to our mid-term ratings, score less than three meant that these students needed additional support. As above, scores of 2 or 2.5 meant that although the students needed monitoring and additional support, their situations did not call for a formal Program Improvement Plan.

The Program Assistant visits a class early in the fall semester for the first year to explain requirements for fieldwork, e.g. satisfying one of the basic skills requirements, providing a TB test, state certificate of clearance, etc. She also sends emails periodically to remind students who have not completed requirements for entering fieldwork or graduation.

Toward the end of the program, students present a portfolio of their work during their final fieldwork or internship. If successful, they are recommended for the credential, which is processed by the Program Assistant. She also communicates the state requirements for the credential to students via email toward the beginning of their final year.

Program faculty also believe that the cohort model and peer-to-peer mentoring program coordinated by the student association provide additional monitoring and support. For example, recently, students contacted faculty members to express concern that one of their peers was struggling with mental health problems (anxiety). The faculty was able to intervene and connect this student to resources at school and in the community. In addition, a Student Support Plan was developed and a faculty member, who the student was comfortable communicating with, assigned to monitor the student.

Selectivity During Preparation

CAEP Standard A.3.3. The provider creates criteria for program progression and uses disaggregated data to monitor candidates’ advancement from admissions through completion.

CAEP Standard A.3.3 Evidence

During the program, students must maintain a 3.0 grade point average per university guidelines. The average GPA for the 2017 summer, fall and spring terms was 3.93.

As we discuss above, student progress is discussed at least once a semester at faculty meetings. At that time, each student is discussed and rated as “making good progress,” “making good progress but needs additional specific supports,” and “not making good progress.” Those in the last category are required to meet with faculty members and a specific Remediation Plan is developed.

Last spring, the program also initiated a First-Year Review, which occurs early in the spring of the first year in the program. As part of this, students completed an essay responding to the program’s eight big ideas and met individually with full time faculty members to discuss the essay, their progress in the program, and set goals for the upcoming semester.

Students must also pass the Praxis Exam in Counseling and Guidance with a score of 156, which is based on the passing score of states that require the exam for a School Counseling credential (California does not require the praxis exam). All our students pass the exam with a score above 156. The average score among the 19 students in the most recent graduating cohort was 173, 17 points higher than the needed passing score.

During the exit interview students in the spring of their final year, students present their final portfolio and answer questions regarding different aspects of the practice of school counseling. Multiple aspects of the portfolio as well as students’ responses to questions are evaluated using the 1 to 3 scale rubric described above.

While in both Practica and Internship/final fieldwork, students are also assessed on a 1 to 4 metric via a Self-Assessment and a Supervisor Assessment. These are based on the Domains of Competencies for the Training and Practice of School Counseling and the School Counseling Program’s “Big Ideas.” This is done midway through fieldwork and again at the end of fieldwork.

The Program Assistant monitors students’ progress in the program by reviewing program evaluation reports at least once a semester. She also tracks students’ completion of fieldwork requirements such as fingerprinting, passing of CBEST and TB testing. The Program Assistant also processes credential requirements and tracks if students have completed all requirements, including the Praxis Exam in Counseling and Guidance and Portfolio presentation and exit interview.

CAEP Standard A.3.4. Selection at Completion. Before the provider recommends any advanced program candidate for completion, it documents that the candidate has reached a high standard for content knowledge in the field of specialization, data literacy and research-driven decision making, effective use of collaborative skills, applications of technology, and applications of dispositions, laws, codes of ethics, and professional standards appropriate for the field of specialization.

CAEP Standard A.3.4. Evidence

Criteria for program completion include:

Successful completion of 51 credits of coursework, including 9 credits of practica and final fieldwork, with a minimum GPA of 3.0.
Successful completion of the ETS Praxis Exam in Counseling and Guidance.
Successful completion of an exit interview, which includes presentation of a portfolio to a faculty member and responding to oral questions

Average GPA for summer 2017, fall 2017, and spring 2018 was 3.93. It is important to note that the program has a competency based approach to assignments and coursework. This means that students are typically allowed to redo assignments until they reach the required level of competence.

Our students also do well on the Praxis exam. Currently, a passing score is 156, which is based on the passing score of states that require the exam for a School Counseling credential (California does not require the praxis exam). All our students pass the exam with a score of 156 or above. The average score among the 19 students in the most recent graduating cohort was 173, 17 points higher than the needed passing score.

As noted above, during the exit interview students present their final portfolio and answer questions regarding different aspects of the practice of school counseling. Multiple aspects of the portfolio as well as students’ responses to questions are evaluated using a rubric that uses a 1 to 3 scale. An example of this scale is below:

Overall Quality of Portfolio (please Circle rating)

1. Artifacts do not connect to all domains, the portfolio matrix is incomplete, and/or artifacts do not show adequate knowledge or readiness to enter the field.

The mean score for student who completed the program in May of 2018 for overall quality of the portfolio was 2.71. The mean for the quality of artifacts was 2.22 and the mean for the quality of oral responses was 2.29.

CAEP Standard A.4

CAEP Standard A.4 Satisfaction with Preparation. The provider documents the satisfaction of its completers from advanced preparation programs and their employers with the relevance and effectiveness of their preparation.

Self-study reflection questions for Standard A.4. These reflection questions for advanced preparation may help focus the selection of evidence and the EPP inquiry for its case that Standard A.4 is met.

The EPP reflects on its experiences with continuous improvement:

Strengths and Challenges. What strengths and areas of the challenge have you discovered about: o the satisfaction of completers with their preparation when they are employed in the professional education positions for which they were prepared? Do completers perceive their preparation as relevant to the responsibilities they confront on the job, and that the preparation was effective? (Investigate these data when they are disaggregated by program and by demographics.)

The satisfaction of employers with the completers' preparation for their assigned responsibilities? What questions have emerged that need more investigation? How are you using use this information for continuous improvement?

Trends. What trends have emerged about completer performance and completer/employer satisfaction with preparation as you compared program and demographic data across evidence sources and programs? What questions have emerged that need more investigation? How are you using this information for continuous improvement?

Implications. What implications can help you draw, or conclusions can you reach across, evidence sources about completer performance and completer/employer satisfaction with preparation? What questions have emerged that need more investigation? Improvement? How have data-driven decisions on changes been incorporated into preparation.

CAEP Standard A.4.1 Satisfaction of Employers. Evidence Required for this Component - The provider demonstrates that employers are satisfied with completers’ preparation and that completers reach employment milestones such as promotion and retention.

CAEP Standard A.4.1 Evidence

Satisfaction of employers and employment milestones

CAEP Standard A.4.2 Satisfaction of Completers The provider demonstrates that advanced program completers perceive their preparation as relevant to the responsibilities they confront on the job and that the preparation was effective.

CAEP Standard A.4.2 Evidence

Of the 19 completers for 2018, all completed on time. One student in the 2019 cohort dropped out for personal reasons. Employment data for 2016 and 2017 data shows that of 18 graduates surveyed, 16 are employed as school counselors and one as a Professional Clinical Counselor. Two graduates appear to be employed in related fields.

Program completers are asked to complete a survey regarding their satisfaction with the training in the program across 14 areas of skill and knowledge using a 1 to 5 scale ranging from “extremely well” to “not very well at all.” The average rating for these 14 areas is 4.0. The average response to the question “Overall, when you compare your knowledge and skills against your peers, do you feel that you had better training than your peers?” was 4.3

The program plans two actions to improve outcomes for our completers. This last year, a PT faculty member who is a director of counseling services, organized a “Job Fair” for our students, which consisted of a panel discussion of local employers and mock interviews. We are planning a similar event for the spring of 2019. they found helpful.

We also plan to invite five or six employers to campus for a focus group/discussion of what skills and knowledge they are looking for when hiring school counselors. At this time, we have the names of several candidates for this group and will begin planning a date in early spring.

CAEP Standard A.5

CAEP Standard A.5. The provider maintains a quality assurance system comprised of valid data from multiple measures, including evidence of candidates’ and completer’ positive impact on P-12 student learning and development. The provider supports continuous improvement that is sustained and evidence-based, and that evaluates the effectiveness of its completers. The provider uses the results of inquiry and data collection to establish priorities, enhance program elements and capacity, and test innovations to improve completers’ impact on P-12 student learning and development.

Quality and Strategic Evaluation

CAEP Standard A.5.1 The provider’s quality assurance system is comprised of multiple measures that can monitor advanced program candidate progress, advanced completer achievements, and provider operational effectiveness. Evidence demonstrates that the provider satisfies all CAEP standards.

CAEP Standard A.5.1 Evidence

CAEP Standard A.5.2 The provider’s quality assurance system relies on relevant, verifiable, representative, cumulative and actionable measures, and produces empirical evidence that interpretations of data are valid and consistent.

CAEP Standard A.5.2 Evidence

CAEP Standard A.5.3 Continuous Improvement

The provider regularly and systematically assesses performance against its goals and relevant standards, tracks results over time, tests innovations and the effects of selection criteria on subsequent progress and completion, and uses results to improve program elements and processes.

CAEP Standard A.5.3 Evidence

GPA
Practica assessments
- Supervisor evaluation
- Self-evaluation
Internship assessments
- Supervisor evaluation
- Self-evaluation
PRAXIS scores
Exit Survey results

As we discuss in our response to A.1.1, students in the School Counseling program demonstrate their proficiencies to understand and apply knowledge and skills appropriate to professional school counseling in multiple ways. These include key assignments, self and supervisor assessment of skills during practicum, final year portfolio and fieldwork, and performance on the ETS Praxis Exam in Counseling and Guidance.

The program has seven key assignments (please see course matrix). These include:

Resilience Project – Fall, year 1
First year research paper – Spring, year 1
Consultation case studies (2) – Spring, year 2
Systems change project – Spring, year
Interview project – Fall, year 2 – Data not yet available for Fall 201
Group Counseling case study – Spring, year 1 Note*: Introduced in Spring 2019. Data not yet available
Final exam – Fall, year 1 Note*: Introduced in Fall 2018 – data not yet available

Key assignments are evaluated on a common 1 to 4 metric and rubric. The 1 to 4 metric uses the following descriptors:

Insufficient - 1
Developing -2
Sufficient – 3
Artisan - 4

Of the seven key assignment, current data is available five assignments.

Assignment	Year/semester in program	Mean rubric score of three years
Resilience Project	Year 1/Fall	2.19
First year research paper	Year 1/Spring	2.83
Interview project	Year 2/Fall	3.4
Consultation case studies	Year 2/Spring	3.02
Systems Change Project	Year 2/Spring	3.74

Our students do well on the Praxis exam. Currently, a passing score is 156, which is based on the passing score of states that require the exam for a School Counseling credential (California does not require the praxis exam). All our students pass the exam with a score of 156 or above. The average score among the 19 students in the most recent graduating cohort was 173, 17 points higher than the needed passing score.

Overall Quality of Portfolio

Artifacts and work samples are clearly and directly related to specific ASCA domains and program “big ideas.” The portfolio matrix is easy to read and guides the reader to the connections between domains and artifacts. As a whole, this portfolio provides evidence that this student is ready to enter the field with an advanced depth of knowledge
Artifacts and work samples are adequately related to specific ASCA domains and program “big ideas.” The portfolio matrix is complete. As a whole, this portfolio provides evidence that this student is ready to enter the field with adequate knowledge
Artifacts do not connect to all domains, the portfolio matrix is incomplete, and/or artifacts do not show adequate knowledge or readiness to enter the field.

The average supervisor rating for students at the end of practicum was 3.5 and for final fieldwork it was 3.75. These data that site supervisors view School Counseling fieldwork students at different stages of their development as competent.

These data are discussed at monthly faculty meetings and faculty retreats held in August and in December or January. Based on these data and student feedback, we added a new course, CSP 600, which focuses on topics identified by students as needed. These include multiple tiered systems of support and supporting students with identified disabilities (Section 504 or special education).

Although our curriculum reflects state and national standards, we intend to review the curriculum course by course this year to find and eliminate unnecessary redundancies (we consider some redundancy useful). We have scheduled an extended program meeting that will focus exclusively on the school counseling curriculum, including topics and assignments.

One concern raised by students is the number of courses required in the second year of the program while they are in their internships. Although we don’t believe it is practical to move more courses into the first year, the program is discussing the idea of making some of the third-year classes hybrid, thus reducing the need to come to campus as often during their internships.

CAEP Standard A.5.4

Measures of advanced program completer outcomes, are summarized, externally benchmarked, analyzed, shared widely, and acted upon in decision-making related to programs, resource allocation, and future direction. Outcomes include completion rate, licensure rate, employment rate in field of specialty preparation, and consumer information such as places of employment and salaries.

CAEP Standard A.5.4 Evidence

State Survey results - external benchmarking (upcoming);
Program Annual Report Template
WASC ALOAR Template
Website

As we discuss above, program completers are asked to complete a survey regarding their satisfaction with the training in the program across 14 areas of skill and knowledge using a 1 to 5 scale ranging from “extremely well” to “not very well at all.” The average rating for these 14 areas is 4.0. The average response to the question “Overall, when you compare your knowledge and skills against your peers, do you feel that you had better training than your peers?” was 4.3

As we have discussed, the program plans two actions to improve outcomes for our completers. This last year, a PT faculty member who is a director of counseling services, organized a “Job Fair” for our students, which consisted of a panel discussion of local employers and mock interviews. We are planning a similar event for the spring of 2019. they found helpful.

In addition, we plan to invite employers to campus for a focus group/discussion of what skills and knowledge they are looking for when hiring school counselors. At this time, we have the names of several candidates for this group and will begin planning a date in early spring.

The program is required to produce several reports that communicate our progress to the larger university community. These include the Annual Learning Outcome Assessment Report, which is related to the universities WASC reports, and an Annual Program Report, which goes the offices of the Dean and Director of Program Assessment and Improvement.

CAEP Standard A.5.5

The provider assures that appropriate stakeholders, including alumni, employers, practitioners, school and community partners, and others defined by the provider, are involved in program evaluation, improvement, and identification of models of excellence.

CAEP Standard A.5.5 Evidence

Graduate Outcome Survey results
Upcoming - meeting with employers in Spring 2018

As we discuss above, program completers are asked to complete a survey about their satisfaction with the training in the program across 14 areas of skill and knowledge using a 1 to 5 scale ranging from “extremely well” to “not very well at all.” The average rating for these 14 areas is 4.0. The average response to the question “Overall, when you compare your knowledge and skills against your peers, do you feel that you had better training than your peers?” was 4.3

As we have discussed, we plan to invite employers to campus for a focus group/discussion of what skills and knowledge they are looking for when hiring school counselors. At this time, we have the names of several candidates for this group and will begin planning a date in early spring.