|
|
1
Unsatisfactory
0.00%
|
2
Less than Satisfactory
65.00%
|
3
Satisfactory
75.00%
|
4
Good
85.00%
|
5
Excellent
100.00%
|
|
70.0 %Content
|
|
|
10.0 % Freeman-Brown Private School (FBPS) as an Open System and Complex Adaptive System
|
Evaluation of FBPS as an open system and as a complex adaptive system during the time of the campus closures is absent, inappropriate, or irrelevant.
|
Evaluation of FBPS as an open system or as a complex adaptive system during the time of the campus closures is vague or incomplete. Presentation of facts to support whether FBPS was effective as an open system or as a complex adaptive system is weak or marginal with gaps in presentation. Supporting material is often confusing or inappropriate.
|
Evaluation of the effectiveness of FBPS as an open system and as a complex adaptive system during the time of the campus closures is provided, but at a cursory level. Rudimentary evaluation of the effectiveness of FBPS as an open system and as a complex adaptive system may contain some inconsistencies. Supporting material is of baseline acceptable quality and quantity.
|
Evaluation of the effectiveness of FBPS as an open system and as a complex adaptive system during the time of the campus closures is clear and well integrated Supporting material is of above average quality and quantity.
|
Evaluation of the effectiveness of FBPS as an open system and as a complex adaptive system during the time of the campus closures is definitive and detailed. A thorough evaluation of FBPS as an open system and as a complex adaptive system, including examples and insights that further understanding, is provided. Supporting material is of exceptional quality and quantity.
|
|
|
10.0 % Organizational Culture and Climate at FBPS
|
Evaluation of the organizational culture and organizational climate within FBPS during the time of the closures is absent, inappropriate, or irrelevant.
|
Evaluation of either the organizational culture or the organizational climate within FBPS during the time of the closures is vague or incomplete. Evaluation of the climate or culture at FBPS is weak or marginal with gaps in presentation. Supporting material is often confusing or inappropriate.
|
Evaluation of the organizational culture and organizational climate within FBPS during the time of the closures is provided, but at a cursory level. Rudimentary evaluation of the climate and culture at FBPS may contain some inconsistencies. Supporting material is of baseline acceptable quality and quantity.
|
Evaluation of the organizational culture and organizational climate within FBPS during the time of the closures is clear and well integrated. Supporting material is of above average quality and quantity.
|
Evaluation of the organizational culture and organizational climate within FBPS during the time of the closures is methodical and detailed. A comprehensive evaluation of both the organizational culture and climate at FBPS, including examples and insights to further understanding, is provided. Supporting material is of exceptional quality and quantity.
|
|
|
10.0 % Closure Decision and Closure Process
|
Evaluation of the decision to close the campuses and the process of going about the closure is absent, inappropriate, or irrelevant.
|
Evaluation of the decision to close the campuses and the process of going about the closure is vague or incomplete. Evaluation of the impact on three specific stakeholders is weak or marginal, with gaps in presentation. Supporting material is often confusing or inappropriate.
|
Evaluation of the decision to close the campuses and the process of going about the closure is provided, but at a cursory level. The analysis of the decision and process may contain some inconsistencies. Supporting material is of baseline acceptable quality and quantity.
|
Evaluation of the decision to close the campuses and the process of going about the closure is clear and coherent. Supporting material is of above average quality and quantity.
|
Evaluation of the decision to close the campuses and the process of going about the closure is thorough and provides insight to further understanding. Supporting material is of exceptional quality and quantity.
|
|
|
10.0 % Social Responsibilities and Impact on Stakeholders
|
Evaluation of demonstrated social responsibilities and the impact on three specific stakeholders, is absent, inappropriate, or irrelevant.
|
Evaluation of demonstrated social responsibilities is vague or incomplete. Evaluation of the impact on three specific stakeholders is weak or marginal, with gaps in presentation. Supporting material is often confusing or inappropriate.
|
Evaluation of demonstrated social responsibilities is provided, but at a cursory level. Rudimentary evaluation of the impact on three specific stakeholders may contain some inconsistencies. Supporting material is of baseline acceptable quality and quantity.
|
Evaluation of demonstrated social responsibilities is clear and well integrated. A comprehensive evaluation of the impact on three specific stakeholders is provided. Supporting material is of above average quality and quantity.
|
Evaluation of demonstrated social responsibilities is thorough and well integrated. A thorough evaluation of the impact on three specific stakeholders, including examples and personal insights to further understanding, is provided. Supporting material is of exceptional quality and quantity.
|
|
|
10.0 % Administration Closure Options
|
Explanation of how the administration could have handled the closure according to organizational theories as specified in the assignment (one theory from each of the three approaches) is absent, inappropriate, or irrelevant.
|
Explanation of how the administration could have handled the closure according to organizational theories as specified in the assignment (one theory from each of three approaches) is vague or incomplete. Supporting material is often confusing or inappropriate.
|
An explanation of how the administration could have handled the closure according to organizational theories as specified in the assignment (one theory from each of three approaches) is provided, but at a cursory level. Supporting material is of baseline acceptable quality and quantity.
|
Explanation of how the administration could have handled the closure according to organizational theories as specified in the assignment (one theory from each of three approaches) is clearly articulated and well integrated. Supporting material is of above average quality and quantity.
|
Explanation of how the administration could have handled the closure according to organizational theories as specified in the assignment (one theory from each of three approaches) is thorough and well integrated. Examples and personal insights are used to further understanding. Supporting material is of exceptional quality and quantity.
|
|
|
10.0 % Plans for Future Direction of FBPS
|
An identification of one long-term and one short-term plan for the future direction of FBPS is absent, inappropriate, or irrelevant.
|
An identification of one long-term and one short-term plan for the future direction of FBPS is vague or incomplete. The justification of the plans is weak or marginal. Supporting material is often confusing or inappropriate.
|
An identification of one long-term and one short-term plan for the future direction of FBPS is provided, but at a cursory level. The justification of the plans is satisfactory. Supporting material is of baseline acceptable quality and quantity.
|
An identification and justification of the selection of one long-and one short-term plan for the future direction of FBPS are clearly articulated and well integrated. Supporting material is of above average quality and quantity.
|
An identification and justification of the selection of one long-and short-term plan for the future direction of FBPS are thorough and well-integrated. Examples and personal insight are used to further understanding. Supporting material is of exceptional quality and quantity.
|
|
|
10.0 % Concluding Statement
|
A statement that integrates the 4 functions of management in order to revamp management at FBPS and meet the recommended goals is absent, inappropriate, or irrelevant.
|
A statement that integrates the 4 functions of management in order to revamp management at FBPS and meet the recommended goals is vague or incomplete. Supporting material is often confusing or inappropriate.
|
A statement that integrates the 4 functions of management in order to revamp management at FBPS and meet the recommended goals is provided, but at a cursory level. Supporting material is of baseline acceptable quality and quantity.
|
A statement that integrates the 4 functions of management in order to revamp management at FBPS and meet the recommended goals is clearly articulated and well integrated. Supporting material is of above average quality and quantity.
|
A statement that integrates the 4 functions of management in order to revamp management at FBPS and meet the recommended goals is thorough and well-integrated. Examples and personal insight are used to further understanding. Supporting material is of exceptional quality and quantity.
|
|
|
20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness
|
|
|
7.0 % Thesis Development and Purpose
|
Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.
|
Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.
|
Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.
|
Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.
|
Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.
|
|
|
8.0 % Argument Logic and Construction
|
Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.
|
Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.
|
Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.
|
Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.
|
Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.
|
|
|
5.0 % Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)
|
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used.
|
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.
|
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.
|
Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech.
|
Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
|
|
|
10.0 %Format
|
|
|
5.0 % Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)
|
Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.
|
Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent.
|
Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.
|
Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style.
|
All format elements are correct.
|
|
|
5.0 % Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)
|
Sources are not documented.
|
Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.
|
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.
|
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.
|
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.
|
|
|
100 % Total Weightage
|
|
|
anonymous2017
FreemanBrownRubric.docx
