Intervention Plan

Kjjanders4

ESD-540Rubric-InterventionPlan.pdf

Home >Education homework help >Intervention Plan

Intervention Plan - Rubric

Criteria Description

Unit Alignment to Standards

5. Target 6.5 points

Unit plan thoroughly and comprehensively aligns to national or state content

standards and the student’s remediation needs.

4. Acceptable 5.66 points

Unit clearly aligns to national or state content standards and the student’s

remediation needs.

3. Approaching 4.81 points

Unit plan weakly aligns to national or state content standards and the student’s

remediation needs.

2. Insufficient 4.48 points

Unit plan fails to align to national or state content standards and the student’s

remediation needs.

1. No Submission 0 points

Not addressed.

Collapse All

Unit Alignment to Standards 6.5 points

© 2026. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2026. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2026. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2026. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2026. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2026. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2026. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2026. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2026. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.

https://www.gce.com/

Criteria Description

Instructional Activities

5. Target 6.5 points

Instructional activities skillfully target remediation of one or multiple standards. At

least one of the activities creatively incorporates technology to ensure the

accessibility and/or relevance for the student.

4. Acceptable 5.66 points

Instructional activities directly target remediation of one or multiple standards. At

least one of the activities effectively incorporates technology to ensure the

accessibility and/or relevance for the student.

3. Approaching 4.81 points

Instructional activities ambiguously target remediation of one or multiple

standards. At least one of the activities minimally incorporates technology to ensure

the accessibility and/or relevance for the student.

2. Insufficient 4.48 points

Instructional activities insufficiently target remediation of one or multiple

standards. None of the activities incorporate technology to ensure the accessibility

and/or relevance for the student.

1. No Submission 0 points

Not addressed.

Instructional Activities 6.5 points

https://www.gce.com/

Criteria Description

Informal Assessment

5. Target 9.75 points

An innovative informal assessment for each of the three days is included and

meaningfully checks student progress.

4. Acceptable 8.48 points

A suitable informal assessment for each of the three days is included and effectively

checks student progress.

3. Approaching 7.22 points

An informal assessment for each of the three days is included but each minimally

checks student progress.

2. Insufficient 6.73 points

An informal assessment is not included for each of the three days or would not

effectively checks student progress.

1. No Submission 0 points

Not addressed.

Informal Assessment 9.75 points

https://www.gce.com/

Criteria Description

Formal Assessment

5. Target 9.75 points

A comprehensive formal assessment is included that would specifically ensure full

understanding of remedial standards.

4. Acceptable 8.48 points

A credible formal assessment is included that would clearly ensure full

understanding of remedial standards.

3. Approaching 7.22 points

A formal assessment is included that would somewhat ensure full understanding of

remedial standards.

2. Insufficient 6.73 points

A formal assessment not fully included or would not ensure full understanding of

remedial standards.

1. No Submission 0 points

Not addressed.

Formal Assessment 9.75 points

https://www.gce.com/

Criteria Description

Remediations

5. Target 13 points

Specific remediations for the selected student are well-crafted for the student.

4. Acceptable 11.31 points

Specific remediations for the selected student are appropriate for the student.

3. Approaching 9.62 points

Specific remediations for the selected student do not demonstrate best practices.

2. Insufficient 8.97 points

Specific remediations for the selected student are inappropriate for the student.

1. No Submission 0 points

Not addressed.

Remediations 13 points

https://www.gce.com/

Criteria Description

Rationale

5. Target 9.75 points

Rationale compellingly justifies how the plan creates a supportive learning

environment that encourages self-advocacy, increases independence, and

emphasizes the safe and ethical use of information and technology. Meaningful

discussion of how the plan utilizes a MTSS approach and how the curriculum was

modified to make it accessible for the individual with exceptionalities is included.

4. Acceptable 8.48 points

Rationale credibly justifies how the plan creates a supportive learning environment

that encourages self-advocacy, increases independence, and emphasizes the safe

and ethical use of information and technology. Competent discussion of how the

plan utilizes a MTSS approach and how the curriculum was modified to make it

accessible for the individual with exceptionalities is included.

3. Approaching 7.22 points

Rationale superficially justifies how the plan creates a supportive learning

environment that encourages self-advocacy, increases independence, and

emphasizes the safe and ethical use of information and technology. Vague

discussion of how the plan utilizes a MTSS approach and how the curriculum was

modified to make it accessible for the individual with exceptionalities is included.

2. Insufficient 6.73 points

Rationale inadequately justifies how the plan creates a supportive learning

environment that encourages self-advocacy, increases independence, and

emphasizes the safe and ethical use of information and technology. Unfitting

discussion of how the plan utilizes a MTSS approach and how the curriculum was

modified to make it accessible for the individual with exceptionalities is included.

1. No Submission 0 points

Not addressed.

Rationale 9.75 points

https://www.gce.com/

Criteria Description

Template Format

5. Target 3.25 points

Content is well-presented and easy to read. All template and format elements are

correct.

4. Acceptable 2.83 points

Content is clear. Appropriate template is fully used. There are very few errors in

formatting style.

3. Approaching 2.41 points

Content is unfocused. Appropriate template is used, but formatting includes several

errors or lack of clarity.

2. Insufficient 2.24 points

Content is confusing. Template is missing key elements or includes pervasive

errors. A lack of control with formatting is apparent.

1. No Submission 0 points

Not addressed.

Template Format 3.25 points

https://www.gce.com/

Criteria Description

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)

5. Target 3.25 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 2.83 points

Submission includes some mechanical errors, but they do not hinder

comprehension. A variety of effective sentence structures are used, as well as some

practice and content-related language.

3. Approaching 2.41 points

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in

language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct

but not varied.

2. Insufficient 2.24 points

Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning.

Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used.

1. No Submission 0 points

Not addressed.

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) 3.25 points

https://www.gce.com/

Criteria Description

Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as

appropriate to assignment and style)

5. Target 3.25 points

Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment

and style, and format is free of error.

4. Acceptable 2.83 points

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is

mostly correct.

3. Approaching 2.41 points

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some

formatting errors may be present.

2. Insufficient 2.24 points

Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to

assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.

1. No Submission 0 points

Not addressed.

Total 65 points

Documentation of Sources 3.25 points

https://www.gce.com/