Supporting an Effective Learning Environment

Supporting an Effective Learning Environment - Rubric

CIP Mission/Vision 7.5 points

Criteria Description

CIP Mission/Vision

5. Target 7.5 points

The analysis clearly, accurately, and thoroughly describes how the CIP’s action plans

do or do not align to the school’s vision and mission.

4. Acceptable 6.53 points

The analysis completely describes how the CIP’s action plans do or do not align to

the school’s vision and mission.

3. Approaching 5.55 points

The analysis incompletely describes how the CIP’s action plans do or do not align to

the school’s vision and mission.

2. Insufficient 5.18 points

The analysis inadequately describes how the CIP’s action plans do or do not align to

the school’s vision and mission.

1. No Submission 0 points

CIP Supports E�ective Learning Environment 7.5 points

Criteria Description

CIP Supports Effective Learning Environment

5. Target 7.5 points

The analysis of CIP’s action plans and how it does or does not clearly support an

effective student learning environment that meets the needs of all students is clear,

accurate, and thorough

4. Acceptable 6.53 points

The analysis of CIP’s action plans and how it does or does not clearly support an

effective student learning environment that meets the needs of all students is clear

and accurate.

Collapse All

3. Approaching 5.55 points

The analysis of CIP’s action plans and how it does or does not clearly support an

effective student learning environment that meets the needs of all students is

missing key details.

2. Insufficient 5.18 points

The analysis of CIP’s action plans and how it does or does not clearly support an

effective student learning environment that meets the needs of all students is

inadequate.

Stakeholders 5 points

Criteria Description

Stakeholders

5. Target 5 points

The analysis provides a clear, accurate, and thorough examination of whether or

not stakeholders are clearly identified and are responsible for implementing action

plans.

4. Acceptable 4.35 points

The analysis provides a complete examination of whether or not stakeholders are

clearly identified and are responsible for implementing action plans.

3. Approaching 3.7 points

The analysis provides an incomplete examination of whether or not stakeholders

are clearly identified and are responsible for implementing action plans.

2. Insufficient 3.45 points

The analysis provides an inaccurate examination of whether or not stakeholders are

clearly identified and are responsible for implementing action plans.

1. No Submission 0 points

Not addressed.

Best People/Positions 5 points

Criteria Description

Best People/Positions

5. Target 5 points

The analysis provides a thoughtful examination of whether or not the best

people/positions are assigned to the action plan’s responsibilities.

4. Acceptable 4.35 points

The analysis provides a credible examination of whether or not the best

people/positions are assigned to the action plan’s responsibilities.

3. Approaching 3.7 points

The analysis provides a weak examination of whether or not the best

people/positions are assigned to the action plan’s responsibilities

2. Insufficient 3.45 points

The analysis provides an unrealistic examination of whether or not the best

people/positions are assigned to the action plan’s responsibilities.

1. No Submission 0 points

Not addressed.

Action Plans Implemented 7.5 points

Criteria Description

Action Plans Implemented

5. Target 7.5 points

The analysis provides a compelling examination of whether or not all action plans

are being implemented and why.

4. Acceptable 6.53 points

The analysis provides a competent examination of whether or not all action plans

are being implemented and why

3. Approaching 5.55 points

The analysis provides an superficial examination of whether or not all action plans

are being implemented and why.

2. Insufficient 5.18 points

The analysis provides an insufficient examination of whether or not all action plans

b i i l d d h

Strategies for Evaluating E�ectiveness 7.5 points

Criteria Description

Strategies for Evaluating Effectiveness

5. Target 7.5 points

The analysis provides a comprehensive description of the strategies for evaluating

the effectiveness of the action plan.

4. Acceptable 6.53 points

The analysis provides a detailed description of the strategies for evaluating the

effectiveness of the action plan.

3. Approaching 5.55 points

The analysis provides an inconsistent description of the strategies for evaluating the

effectiveness of the action plan.

2. Insufficient 5.18 points

The analysis provides an erroneous description of the strategies for evaluating the

effectiveness of the action plan.

Organization 5 points

Criteria Description

Organization

5. Target 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 4.35 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 3.7 points

The content is not well organized even though it provides the audience with a sense

of the main idea.

2. Insufficient 3.45 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

Mechanics of Writing 5 points

Criteria Description

includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use

5. Target 5 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 4.35 points

Submission includes some mechanical errors, but they do not hinder

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

practice and content-related language.

3. Approaching 3.7 points

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistent

language or word choice is present. Sentence structure is lacking.

2. Insufficient 3.45 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 50 points