Case Study: Strengthening Curricular Programs

Case Study: Strengthening Curricular Programs - Rubric

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

Criteria Description

Case Analysis 1-3: Summary, Issues, Stakeholders

5. Target 3 points

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

resolved, and identifies the stakeholders involved in the issues.

4. Acceptable 2.61 points

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

identifies the stakeholders involved in the issues.

3. Approaching 2.22 points

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

identifies the stakeholders involved in the issues.

2. Insufficient 2.07 points

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

identifies the stakeholders involved in the issues.

1. No Submission 0 points

Not addressed.

Case Analysis 4-5: Laws and Policies 3 points

Criteria Description

Case Analysis 4-5: Laws and Policies

5. Target 3 points

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

the issues.

4. Acceptable 2.61 points

Collapse All

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

issues.

3. Approaching 2.22 points

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

issues.

2. Insufficient 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. Target 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. Acceptable 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. Approaching 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. Insufficient 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. No Submission 0 points

Not addressed.

Case Analysis 9: Consequences 3 points

Criteria Description

Case Analysis 9: Consequences

5. Target 3 points

Moral and legal consequences of proposed solutions are thorough and proficiently

explained.

4. Acceptable 2.61 points

Moral and legal consequences of proposed solutions are properly explained.

3. Approaching 2.22 points

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

2. Insufficient 2.07 points

Moral and legal consequences of proposed solutions are incorrectly explained.

1. No Submission 0 points

Rationale 9 points

Criteria Description

Rationale

5. Target 9 points

Rationale compellingly explains how the proposed solutions sustain an inclusive

school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning; address

difficult issues related to meeting students’ needs while promoting a culture of

collaboration, trust, learning, and high expectations; evaluates potential moral and

legal consequences to make difficult decisions with integrity and fairness; strive to

build and sustain positive relationships between school representatives, students,

families, and community partners, when their needs conflict; and use technological

tools to collect and share professional artifacts that demonstrate aspects of school

leadership.

4. Acceptable 7.83 points

Rationale reasonably explains how the proposed solutions sustain an inclusive

school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning; address

difficult issues related to meeting students’ needs while promoting a culture of

collaboration, trust, learning, and high expectations; evaluates potential moral and

legal consequences to make difficult decisions with integrity and fairness; strive to

build and sustain positive relationships between school representatives, students,

families, and community partners, when their needs conflict; and use technological

tools to collect and share professional artifacts that demonstrate aspects of school

leadership.

3. Approaching 6.66 points

Rationale inexplicitly explains how the proposed solutions sustain an inclusive

school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning; address

difficult issues related to meeting students’ needs while promoting a culture of

collaboration, trust, learning, and high expectations; evaluates potential moral and

legal consequences to make difficult decisions with integrity and fairness; strive to

build and sustain positive relationships between school representatives, students,

families, and community partners, when their needs conflict; and use technological

tools to collect and share professional artifacts that demonstrate aspects of school

leadership.

2. Insufficient 6.21 points

Rationale inadequately explains how the proposed solutions sustain an inclusive

Organization 1.5 points

Criteria Description

Organization

5. Target 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. Acceptable 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. Approaching 1.11 points

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

with a sense of the main idea.

2. Insufficient 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. No Submission 0 points

Documentation of Sources 1.5 points

Criteria Description

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

style

5. Target 1.5 points

Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment

and style, and format is free of error.

4. Acceptable 1.31 points

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

mostly correct.

3. Approaching 1.11 points

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

minor formatting errors are present.

2. Insufficient 1.04 points

Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to

assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors

Mechanics of Writing 3 points

Criteria Description

includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use

5. Target 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. Acceptable 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. Approaching 2.22 points

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in

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

2. Insufficient 2.07 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 30 points