IDEA and the IEP Process
REDD76
rubric.docxIDEA and the IEP Process - Rubric
Collapse All IDEA And The IEP Process - RubricCollapse All
IDEA Summary
12 points
Criteria Description
IDEA Summary
5. Target
12 points
IDEA summary, including discussion of professional practice standards and how these are used to guide the teacher in ensuring key components of the law are upheld, is thorough and includes substantial details.
4. Acceptable
10.2 points
IDEA summary, including discussion of professional practice standards and how these are used to guide the teacher in ensuring key components of the law are upheld, is sound and includes relevant details.
3. Approaching
9 points
IDEA summary, including discussion of professional practice standards and how these are used to guide the teacher in ensuring key components of the law are upheld, is minimal and missing key details.
2. Insufficient
7.8 points
IDEA summary, including discussion of professional practice standards and how these are used to guide the teacher in ensuring key components of the law are upheld, is poor and lacks details.
1. 1: No Submission
0 points
Not addressed.
IEP Team Member Collaboration
9 points
Criteria Description
IEP Team Member Collaboration
5. Target
9 points
Explanation of the importance of collaboration between members of the IEP team, including discussion about who should be included, how decisions are made, required attendance, and how ethical principles and professional practice standards guide collaboration and execution of the IEP process, is extensive.
4. Acceptable
7.65 points
Explanation of the importance of collaboration between members of the IEP team, including discussion about who should be included, how decisions are made, required attendance, and how ethical principles and professional practice standards guide collaboration and execution of the IEP process, is complete.
3. Approaching
6.75 points
Explanation of the importance of collaboration between members of the IEP team, including discussion about who should be included, how decisions are made, required attendance, and how ethical principles and professional practice standards guide collaboration and execution of the IEP process, is underdeveloped.
2. Insufficient
5.85 points
Explanation of the importance of collaboration between members of the IEP team, including discussion about who should be included, how decisions are made, required attendance, and how ethical principles and professional practice standards guide collaboration and execution of the IEP process, is incomplete.
1. 1: No Submission
0 points
Not addressed.
IEP Process
12 points
Criteria Description
IEP Process
5. Target
12 points
Description of the IEP process, including explanation of what IDEA indicates must be done before, during, and after an IEP meeting and why executing the IEP process according to the established standards is essential to avoid due process disputes, is thoughtful and in-depth.
4. Acceptable
10.2 points
Description of the IEP process, including explanation of what IDEA indicates must be done before, during, and after an IEP meeting and why executing the IEP process according to the established standards is essential to avoid due process disputes, is accurate and detailed.
3. Approaching
9 points
Description of the IEP process, including explanation of what IDEA indicates must be done before, during, and after an IEP meeting and why executing the IEP process according to the established standards is essential to avoid due process disputes, is vague and missing key details.
2. Insufficient
7.8 points
Description of the IEP process, including explanation of what IDEA indicates must be done before, during, and after an IEP meeting and why executing the IEP process according to the established standards is essential to avoid due process disputes, is inaccurate and/or inadequate.
1. 1: No Submission
0 points
Not addressed.
IEP Components
12 points
Criteria Description
IEP Components
5. Target
12 points
Identification of major components of the IEP, including explanation of why each is important, and discussion of legal, ethical, and policy responsibilities related to developing the IEP to ensure it meets the educational, developmental, and medical services requirements for students with disabilities, is substantial and insightful.
4. Acceptable
10.2 points
Identification of major components of the IEP, including explanation of why each is important, and discussion of legal, ethical, and policy responsibilities related to developing the IEP to ensure it meets the educational, developmental, and medical services requirements for students with disabilities, is complete and accurate.
3. Approaching
9 points
Identification of major components of the IEP, including explanation of why each is important, and discussion of legal, ethical, and policy responsibilities related to developing the IEP to ensure it meets the educational, developmental, and medical services requirements for students with disabilities, is cursory and somewhat inaccurate.
2. Insufficient
7.8 points
Identification of major components of the IEP, including explanation of why each is important, and discussion of legal, ethical, and policy responsibilities related to developing the IEP to ensure it meets the educational, developmental, and medical services requirements for students with disabilities, is incomplete and/or incorrect.
1. 1: No Submission
0 points
Not addressed.
Participating in the IEP Process
3 points
Criteria Description
Participating in the IEP Process
5. Target
3 points
Discussion of the key takeaways to be considered from the “FIEP: A Facilitated IEP Meeting” as a new teacher participating in the IEP process is realistic.
4. Acceptable
2.55 points
Discussion of the key takeaways to be considered from the “FIEP: A Facilitated IEP Meeting” as a new teacher participating in the IEP process is reasonable.
3. Approaching
2.25 points
Discussion of the key takeaways to be considered from the “FIEP: A Facilitated IEP Meeting” as a new teacher participating in the IEP process is overly simplistic.
2. Insufficient
1.95 points
Discussion of the key takeaways to be considered from the “FIEP: A Facilitated IEP Meeting” as a new teacher participating in the IEP process is unrealistic.
1. 1: No Submission
0 points
Not addressed.
Thesis, Position, or Purpose (ASL)
3 points
Criteria Description
Communicates reason for writing and demonstrates awareness of audience.
5. Target
3 points
The thesis, position, or purpose is clearly communicated throughout and clearly directed to a specific audience.
4. Acceptable
2.55 points
The thesis, position, or purpose is adequately presented. An awareness of the appropriate audience is demonstrated.
3. Approaching
2.25 points
The thesis, position, or purpose is discernable in most aspects but is occasionally weak or unclear. There is limited awareness of the appropriate audience.
2. Insufficient
1.95 points
The thesis, position, or purpose is unfocused or confused. There is very little awareness of the intended audience.
1. 1: No Submission
0 points
Not addressed.
Development, Structure, and Conclusion (ASL)
3 points
Criteria Description
Advances position or purpose throughout writing; conclusion aligns to and evolves from development.
5. Target
3 points
The thesis, position, or purpose is logically advanced throughout. The progression of ideas is coherent and unified. A clear and logical conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose.
4. Acceptable
2.55 points
The thesis, position, or purpose is advanced in most aspects. Ideas clearly build on each other. Conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose.
3. Approaching
2.25 points
Limited advancement of thesis, position, or purpose is discernable. There are inconsistencies in organization or the relationship of ideas. Conclusion is simplistic and not fully aligned to the development of the purpose.
2. Insufficient
1.95 points
Writing lacks logical progression of the thesis, position, or purpose. Some organization is attempted, but ideas are disconnected. Conclusion is unclear and not supported by the overall development of the purpose.
1. 1: No Submission
0 points
Not addressed.
Evidence (ASL)
2.4 points
Criteria Description
Selects and integrates evidence to support and advance position/purpose; considers other perspectives.
5. Target
2.4 points
Specific and appropriate evidence is included. Relevant perspectives of others are clearly considered.
4. Acceptable
2.04 points
Relevant evidence that includes other perspectives is used.
3. Approaching
1.8 points
Evidence is used but is insufficient or of limited relevance. Simplistic explanation or integration of other perspectives is present.
2. Insufficient
1.56 points
Evidence is limited or irrelevant. The interpretation of other perspectives is superficial or incorrect.
1. 1: No Submission
0 points
Not addressed.
Mechanics of Writing (ASL)
2.4 points
Criteria Description
Includes spelling, capitalization, punctuation, grammar, language use, sentence structure, etc.
5. Target
2.4 points
No mechanical errors are present. Appropriate language choice and sentence structure are used throughout.
4. Acceptable
2.04 points
Few mechanical errors are present. Suitable language choice and sentence structure are used.
3. Approaching
1.8 points
Occasional mechanical errors are present. Language choice is generally appropriate. Varied sentence structure is attempted.
2. Insufficient
1.56 points
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors are present. Inconsistencies in language choice or sentence structure are recurrent.
1. 1: No Submission
0 points
Not addressed.
Format/Documentation (ASL)
1.2 points
Criteria Description
Uses appropriate style, such as APA, MLA, etc., for college, subject, and level; documents sources using citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., appropriate to assignment and discipline.
5. Target
1.2 points
No errors in formatting or documentation are present.
4. Acceptable
1.02 points
Appropriate format and documentation are used with only minor errors.
3. Approaching
0.9 points
Appropriate format and documentation are used, although there are some obvious errors.
2. Insufficient
0.78 points
Appropriate format is attempted, but some elements are missing. Frequent errors in documentation of sources are evident.
1. 1: No Submission
0 points
Not addressed.
