Leadership Program Endorsement after Two Unsuccessful Assessment Attempts
Mr. Patel is completing a Georgia educational leadership preparation program. He has passed all coursework, completed a 180-hour internship with a principal mentor who rated him 'exemplary' in instructional leadership and 'proficient' in school improvement. He has taken the GACE Educational Leadership assessment twice: 217 and 219, with the state threshold at 220. His lowest subarea on both attempts is 'school improvement and data use.' A neighboring district has offered him an assistant principal interview in three weeks, contingent on eligibility for a leadership certificate. The program director must decide whether to sign a program completion recommendation now, require a third attempt first, or recommend an alternative pathway. The state allows a candidate to be recommended for certification only after all program requirements, including the leadership assessment, are met; the program has a policy of not endorsing candidates with two unsuccessful attempts unless a remediation plan is documented.
1. What should the program director decide about signing the completion recommendation now?
Read the worked answer
The director should not sign a recommendation that certifies completion of all program requirements while the leadership assessment remains unmet. The state rule in the scenario makes the assessment a condition of recommendation, and the program's own policy requires a documented remediation plan after two unsuccessful attempts. Signing now would misrepresent the candidate's status and could expose the program and the candidate to later revocation or compliance problems.
What the director can do: Prepare a conditional letter that states Mr. Patel has completed coursework and the internship, has two assessment attempts, and is on a remediation plan. The letter should not call him certification-eligible. The director can also confirm the exact date by which a third attempt would need to be scored for the district's hiring timeline.
Reasoning: The director's loyalty is split between the candidate's strong internship performance and the integrity of the endorsement. The internship ratings support his readiness to lead, but they do not substitute for the assessment requirement. A conditional letter preserves honesty and gives the district accurate information.
2. How should the director communicate with the hiring district and with Mr. Patel about the interview?
Read the worked answer
With Mr. Patel, the director should be direct: the program cannot certify completion yet, but it can document his progress and remediation plan. The director should explain that an interview is not the same as an offer and that the district needs accurate eligibility information. With the hiring district, the director should provide only verifiable facts: coursework completed, internship hours and ratings, assessment attempts and scores, and the date of the next scheduled attempt. The director should not imply that certification is likely by a certain date unless the state has confirmed it.
Reasoning: Overstating eligibility to help a candidate get an interview can harm the candidate if the district later rescinds the offer and can harm the program's credibility. A conditional letter with precise facts allows the district to decide whether to interview and whether to hold the position. The director should also avoid speculating about why the subarea score is low; the remediation plan is the appropriate place for that analysis.
3. Design a remediation plan focused on the school improvement and data use subarea.
Read the worked answer
Goal: Improve performance in school improvement and data use while maintaining the strong instructional-leadership rating.
Activities:
- Complete a guided data review of a real school improvement plan, identifying the problem statement, root causes, measurable goals, and monitoring indicators. Mr. Patel should annotate each component and explain how the data support or fail to support the plan.
- Shadow a district data specialist for two sessions focused on interpreting disaggregated assessment data and selecting evidence-based strategies.
- Complete two timed practice sections in the subarea, followed by a review of wrong answers with a program faculty member.
- Produce a one-page improvement memo that connects data, a selected strategy, and a progress-monitoring timeline.
Documentation: Faculty should record dates, practice scores, and a brief assessment of readiness before the third attempt. The plan should be shared with Mr. Patel and retained in his program file.
Reasoning: The plan targets the specific subarea deficit and gives the program the documentation its policy requires. It also builds a defensible record if the third attempt is unsuccessful.