Case Study: Instructional Leadership Team

Case Study: Instructional Leadership Team - Rubric

Instructional Goals 10 points

Criteria Description

Instructional Goals

5. Target 10 points

The plan clearly, accurately, and thoroughly identifies one instructional SMART goal

per content area, including math, reading, writing, and science.

4. Acceptable 8.7 points

The plan completely identifies one instructional SMART goal per content area,

including math, reading, writing, and science.

3. Approaching 7.4 points

The plan incompletely identifies one instructional SMART goal per content area,

including: math, reading, writing, and science.

2. Insufficient 6.9 points

The plan inadequately identifies one instructional SMART goal per content area,

including math, reading, writing, and science.

1. No Submission 0 points

Qualities of the Instructional Leadership Team 5 points

Criteria Description

Qualities of the Instructional Leadership Team

5. Target 5 points

The plan comprehensively describes the qualities, knowledge, experience, and skills

needed for positions on this team, reflective of the instructional goals.

4. Acceptable 4.35 points

The plan competently describes the qualities, knowledge, experience, and skills

needed for positions on this team, reflective of the instructional goals.

Collapse All

3. Approaching 3.7 points

The plan ambiguously describes the qualities, knowledge, experience, and skills

needed for positions on this team. May only somewhat reflect the instructional

goals.

2. Insufficient 3.45 points

The plan unrealisticly describes the qualities, knowledge, experience, and skills

needed for positions on this team.

Ideal Candidate and Quali�cations 5 points

Criteria Description

Ideal Candidate and Qualifications

5. Target 5 points

The plan expertly describes who would be an ideal candidate for each position as

well as the qualifications sought for each position.

4. Acceptable 4.35 points

The plan effectively describes who would be an ideal candidate for each position as

well as the qualifications sought for each position.

3. Approaching 3.7 points

The plan minimally describes who would be an ideal candidate for each position as

well as the qualifications sought for each position.

2. Insufficient 3.45 points

The plan ineffectively describes who would be an ideal candidate for each position

as well as the qualifications sought for each position.

1. No Submission 0 points

Not addressed.

Interviewing Potential Instructional Leadership Team Candidates 10 points

Criteria Description

Interviewing Potential Instructional Leadership Team Candidates

5. Target 10 points

The plan provides a professional description of how potential members of the

leadership team will be interviewed, if an interview team will be formed, and why

key stakeholders should be involved in the decision-making process.

4. Acceptable 8.7 points

The plan provides a detailed description of how potential members of the

leadership team will be interviewed, if an interview team will be formed, and why

key stakeholders should be involved in the decision-making process.

3. Approaching 7.4 points

The plan provides an overly simplistic description of how potential members of the

leadership team will be interviewed, if an interview team will be formed, and why

key stakeholders should be involved in the decision-making process.

2. Insufficient 6.9 points

The plan provides an inaccurate description of how potential members of the

leadership team will be interviewed, if an interview team will be formed, and why

key stakeholders should be involved in the decision-making process.

Measuring E�ectiveness 10 points

Criteria Description

Measuring Effectiveness

5. Target 10 points

The plan convincingly describes how to support teacher leaders to meet their goals

and how to monitor progress and effectiveness of the new roles.

4. Acceptable 8.7 points

The plan logically describes how to support teacher leaders to meet their goals and

how to monitor progress and effectiveness of the new roles.

3. Approaching 7.4 points

The plan superficially describes how to support teacher leaders to meet their goals

and how to monitor progress and effectiveness of the new roles.

2. Insufficient 6.9 points

The plan inadequately describes how to support teacher leaders to meet their goals

and how to monitor progress and effectiveness of the new roles.

1. No Submission 0 points

Not addressed.

Organization 2.5 points

Criteria Description

Organization

5. Target 2.5 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. The plan uses the correct titles

and is within the required word count.

4. Acceptable 2.18 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. The plan uses a

majority of the correct titles and is within a reasonable range of the required word

count.

3. Approaching 1.85 points

The content is not adequately organized even though it provides the audience with

a sense of the main idea. The plan using the correct titles and may not be within a

reasonable range of the required word count.

2. Insufficient 1.72 points

An attempt is made to organize the content using titles, but the sequence is

indiscernible. The ideas presented are compartmentalized and may not relate to

each other; or the essay is widely outside of the required word count.

Research Citations and Format 2.5 points

Criteria Description

Research Citations and Format

5. Target 2.5 points

All sources are credible, appropriate, and strongly support the submission. All

required aspects of APA format are correct within the submission.

4. Acceptable 2.18 points

All sources are credible, adequate, and support the submission. All required aspects

of APA format are correct within the submission.

3. Approaching 1.85 points

Some citations may be missing where needed; or some of the sources do not

support the submission; or APA is attempted where required, but some aspects are

missing or mistaken.

2. Insufficient 1.72 points

Many citations are missing where needed; or many of the sources are inappropriate

for the submission; or APA is attempted where required, but many aspects are

missing or mistaken.

Mechanics 5 points

Criteria Description

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. A 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.

Total 50 points