Benchmark - Clinical Field Experience D: Leading Leaders in Giving Peer Feedback Related to Teacher Performance
Benchmark - Clinical Field Experience D: Leading Leaders in Giving Peer
Feedback Related to Teacher Performance - Rubric
Develop and Supervise Instructional and Leadership Capacity (B) 75 points
Criteria Description
Develop and Supervise Instructional and Leadership Capacity (C2.3)
5. Target 75 points
Comprehensively summarizes coaching experiences, demonstrating how the staff’s
instructional and leadership capacity was developed and supervised.
4. Acceptable 65.25 points
Soundly summarizes coaching experiences, demonstrating how the staff’s
instructional and leadership capacity was developed and supervised.
3. Approaching 55.5 points
Vaguely summarizes coaching experiences, demonstrating how the staff’s
instructional and leadership capacity was developed and supervised.
2. Insufficient 51.75 points
Poorly summarizes coaching experiences, demonstrating how the staff’s
instructional and leadership capacity was developed and supervised.
1. No Submission 0 points
Not addressed.
Develop Leaders for High-Quality Instruction and Student Learning (B) 75 points
Criteria Description
Develop Leaders for High-Quality Instruction and Student Learning (C3.5)
5. Target 75 points
Analysis skillfully describes how developing leaders within the school helps focus
organizational time on high-quality school instruction and student learning.
4. Acceptable 65.25 points
Collapse All
Analysis logically describes how developing leaders within the school helps focus
organizational time on high-quality school instruction and student learning.
3. Approaching 55.5 points
Analysis shallowly describes how developing leaders within the school helps focus
organizational time on high-quality school instruction and student learning.
2. Insufficient 51.75 points
Analysis weakly describes how developing leaders within the school helps focus
organizational time on high-quality school instruction and student learning.
1. No Submission 0 points
Not addressed
Distributed Leadership Structure and Recommendations (B) 90 points
Criteria Description
Distributed Leadership Structure and Recommendations (C3.4)
5. Target 90 points
Analysis thoroughly explains the school’s distributed leadership structure and
provides 1-3 compelling recommendations to improve the structure or related
policies.
4. Acceptable 78.3 points
Analysis clearly explains the school’s distributed leadership structure and provides
1-3 appropriate recommendations to improve the structure or related policies.
3. Approaching 66.6 points
Analysis minimally explains the school’s distributed leadership structure and
provides 1-3 unfocused recommendations to improve the structure or related
policies.
2. Insufficient 62.1 points
Analysis inadequately explains the school’s distributed leadership structure and
provides 1-3 insufficient or irrelevant recommendations to improve the structure or
related policies.
1. No Submission 0 points
Organization 15 points
Criteria Description
Organization
5. Target 15 points
The content is well-organized and logical. There is a sequential progression of ideas
that relate to each other. The content is presented as a cohesive unit and provides
the audience with a clear sense of the main idea. The summary is within the
required word count.
4. Acceptable 13.05 points
The content is logically organized. The ideas presented relate to each other. The
content provides the audience with a clear sense of the main idea. The summary is
within a reasonable range of the required word count.
3. Approaching 11.1 points
The content is not adequately organized even though it provides the audience with
a sense of the main idea. The summary may not be within a reasonable range of the
required word count.
2. Insufficient 10.35 points
An attempt is made to organize the content, but the sequence is indiscernible. The
ideas presented are compartmentalized and may not relate to each other; or the
summary is widely outside of the required word count.
Documentation of Sources 15 points
Criteria Description
citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and
style
5. Target 15 points
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment
and style. Format is free of error.
4. Acceptable 13.05 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is
mostly correct.
3. Approaching 11.1 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some
key formatting and citation errors are present.
2. Insufficient 10.35 points
Documentation of sources is inconsistent and/or incorrect, as appropriate to
assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.
1. No Submission 0 points
Mechanics of Writing 30 points
Criteria Description
includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use
5. Target 30 points
Submission is virtually free of mechanical errors. Word choice reflects well-
developed use of practice and content-related language. Sentence structures are
varied and engaging.
4. Acceptable 26.1 points
Submission includes some mechanical errors, but they do not hinder
comprehension. Variety of effective sentence structures are used, as well as some
practice and content-related language.
3. Approaching 22.2 points
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistent
language or word choice is present. Sentence structure is lacking.
2. Insufficient 20.7 points
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning.
Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction are used.
1. No Submission 0 points
Total 300 points