Case Study: Developing Professional Capacity

Case Study: Developing Professional Capacity - Rubric

Case Analysis 1-3: Summary, Issues, Stakeholders 3 points

Criteria Description

Case Analysis 1-3: Summary, Issues, Stakeholders

5. Excellent 3 points

Analysis skillfully and convincingly summarizes the case, identifies the issues to be

resolved, and identifies the stakeholders involved in the issues.

4. Good 2.61 points

Analysis accurately summarizes the case, identifies the issues to be resolved, and

identifies the stakeholders involved in the issues.

3. Satisfactory 2.22 points

Analysis minimally summarizes the case, identifies the issues to be resolved, and

identifies the stakeholders involved in the issues.

2. Less than Satisfactory 2.07 points

Analysis inadequately summarizes the case, identifies the issues to be resolved, and

identifies the stakeholders involved in the issues.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

Not addressed.

Case Analysis 4-5: Laws and Policies 3 points

Criteria Description

Case Analysis 4-5: Laws and Policies

5. Excellent 3 points

Identifies compelling existing laws or court rulings and district policies related to

the issues.

4. Good 2.61 points

Collapse All

Clearly identifies existing laws or court rulings and district policies related to the

issues.

3. Satisfactory 2.22 points

Vaguely identifies existing laws or court rulings and district policies related to the

issues.

2. Less than Satisfactory 2.07 points

Ineffectively identifies existing laws or court rulings and district policies related to

Case Analysis 6-8: Solutions and Action Steps 6 points

Criteria Description

Case Analysis 6-8: Solutions and Action Steps

5. Excellent 6 points

Identifies exceptional solutions to resolve the issues and insightfully selects ideal

solutions for resolving the issues. Action steps and timeline are thoughtful and

realistic.

4. Good 5.22 points

Identifies logical solutions to resolve the issues and appropriately selects solutions

for resolving the issues. Action steps and timeline are suitable.

3. Satisfactory 4.44 points

Identifies cursory solutions to resolve the issues and selects partially proficient

solutions for resolving the issues. Action steps and timeline are weak.

2. Less than Satisfactory 4.14 points

Identifies incomprehensible solutions to resolve the issues and selects poor

solutions for resolving the issues. Action steps and timeline are irrelevant.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

Not addressed.

Case Analysis 9: Consequences 3 points

Criteria Description

Case Analysis 9: Consequences

5. Excellent 3 points

Moral and legal consequences of proposed solutions are thorough and proficiently

explained.

4. Good 2.61 points

Moral and legal consequences of proposed solutions are properly explained.

3. Satisfactory 2.22 points

Moral and legal consequences of proposed solutions are missing key details.

2. Less than Satisfactory 2.07 points

Moral and legal consequences of proposed solutions are incorrectly explained or

incomprehensible.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

Rationale 9 points

Criteria Description

Rationale

5. Excellent 9 points

Rationale compellingly explains how the proposed solutions: use data to design

plans for developing the instructional capacity of faculty; make decisions that

promote a culture of collaboration, trust, learning, and high expectations; evaluates

potential moral and legal consequences to make difficult decisions with integrity

and fairness; and strive to build and sustain positive relationships between school

representatives, students, families, and community partners, when their needs

conflict.

4. Good 7.83 points

Rationale reasonably explains how the proposed solutions: use data to design plans

for developing the instructional capacity of faculty; make decisions that promote a

culture of collaboration, trust, learning, and high expectations; evaluates potential

moral and legal consequences to make difficult decisions with integrity and

fairness; and strive to build and sustain positive relationships between school

representatives, students, families, and community partners, when their needs

conflict.

3. Satisfactory 6.66 points

Rationale inexplicitly explains how the proposed solutions: use data to design plans

for developing the instructional capacity of faculty; make decisions that promote a

culture of collaboration, trust, learning, and high expectations; evaluates potential

moral and legal consequences to make difficult decisions with integrity and

fairness; and strive to build and sustain positive relationships between school

representatives, students, families, and community partners, when their needs

conflict.

2. Less than Satisfactory 6.21 points

i l i d l l i h h d l i d d i

Organization 1.5 points

Criteria Description

Organization

5. Excellent 1.5 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.

4. Good 1.31 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.

3. Satisfactory 1.11 points

The content may not be adequately organized even though it provides the audience

with a sense of the main idea.

2. Less than Satisfactory 1.04 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.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

Documentation of Sources 1.5 points

Criteria Description

citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and

style

5. Excellent 1.5 points

Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment

and style, and format is free of error.

4. Good 1.31 points

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

mostly correct.

3. Satisfactory 1.11 points

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

minor formatting errors are present.

2. Less than Satisfactory 1.04 points

Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to

Mechanics of Writing 3 points

Criteria Description

includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use

5. Excellent 3 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. Good 2.61 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. Satisfactory 2.22 points

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in

language choice (register) and/or word choice are present.

2. Less than Satisfactory 2.07 points

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

Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction are used.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

Total 30 points