TITLE 23: EDUCATION AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
SUBTITLE A: EDUCATION
CHAPTER I: STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
SUBCHAPTER b: PERSONNEL
PART 30 PROGRAMS FOR THE PREPARATION OF PRINCIPALS IN ILLINOIS
SECTION 30.APPENDIX A INTERNSHIP ASSESSMENT RUBRIC



Section 30.APPENDIX A   Internship Assessment Rubric

 

Assessment 1 – Demonstrate a comprehensive understanding and performance in data analysis, school improvement, and conducting the School Improvement Plan (SIP) process (to the extent possible).

 

Focus Area: 1.1 – Explain the purpose of the SIP and its relationship to the school's vision in a presentation to a group of stakeholders (e.g., at a faculty meeting, department meeting, parent group, community group).

 

 

Meets the Standard

Does Not Meet the Standard

Score

Content:

·         ISLCC Standards 1.A through 1.E, 4.A, and 5.A

·         Appropriateness of the content

The candidate uses media in a compelling presentation format that focuses on the school's vision and mission and its connection to the work of the staff and principal to attain greater student achievement. The presentation also connects the vision to the work of the school's improvement plan and is tailored to the audience.

The presentation does not bring the vision and mission of the school into focus for the attainment of greater student achievement. The school improvement plan is mentioned but is not a central part of the work to accomplish greater student achievement. The presentation is too generic to specifically connect the audience to the material.

1   /   0

Process:

·         Follows theory to  practice

·         Logical and sequential

·         Understandable

·         Achieves the purpose

The candidate creates a document that clearly outlines the process used in preparing for the presentation, communicating with the audience, and planning the follow-up meeting.  The candidate provides additional artifacts to support the presentation.  There is a logical sequence to all events, all are well-planned and executed, and achieve the stated purpose.

The candidate's outline is brief or incomplete for the presentation.  Few artifacts support the presentation.  It lacks organizational logic and reflects poor planning. The purpose is vague, clear communication to the audience is lacking, and the presentation does not achieve its purpose.

1   /   0

Outcomes:

·         Clearly stated

·         Clearly demonstrated

·         Data support the results

The candidate clearly states the outcomes and expectations of the presentation.  The candidate has additional data and documents to support the outcomes and expectations. The candidate provides artifacts to support the presentation.

The outcomes of the candidate's presentation are vague and unclear (few or no artifacts support the presentation).  There are few supporting documents or data to back up the presentation.

1   /   0

Products:

·         Align to standards

·         Articulate and well organized

·         Demonstrates full completion

The candidate produces the following presentation items: an outline, a multi-media presentation (Power Point or other), handouts, meeting minutes, and documentation of the input from the audience as a result of the presentation. (More artifacts are encouraged to demonstrate greater competency.)

The candidate produces few of the following suggested items and artifacts did not demonstrate competency: an outline, a multi-media presentation (Power Point or other), handouts, meeting minutes, and documentation of the input from the audience as a result of the presentation.

1   /   0

Quality:

·         First-year principal or better

·         Complete

·         Accurate

Demonstrates the following quality in all materials: correct formatting in accordance with the "Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA), Sixth Edition" (no later amendments to or editions of these standards are incorporated); correct spelling and grammar; completeness; accuracy; comprehensiveness.  The candidate meets or exceeds the standards and competencies of this assessment.

The following quality is lacking in materials: correct APA formatting; correct spelling and grammar; completeness; accuracy; comprehensiveness. The candidate does not meet or exceed the standards and competencies of this assessment.

1   /   0

Candidates must meet 5 of 5 to demonstrate competency.

Total Score

 

 

Focus Area: 1.2 – Analyze and review data, including but not limited to, State test results, and work with a faculty team to identify areas for improvement and interventions, with particular attention given to NCLB student subgroups identified under 23 Ill. Adm. Code 1.60 (Subgroups of Students; Inclusion of Relevant Scores) and low-performing students.   As used in this Section, "NCLB" refers to Public Law 107-110, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (20 USC 6301 et seq.).

 

 

Meets the Standard

Does Not Meet the Standard

Score

Content:

·         ISLLC Standards 2.A through 2.I, 5.A, 5.C, 5.D, and 5.E

·         Appropriateness of the content

The candidate works with faculty to review and analyze national, State, district, school and classroom data to identify academic achievement interventions for each of the schools' NCLB subgroups or low-performing students. Candidate's work reflects new interventions that align to the School Improvement Plan and the school's student achievement goals.

The candidate's work with faculty to analyze and review data will not likely result in improved student learning for each of the schools' NCLB subgroups or low-performing students. The candidate's work with faculty is sporadic, disconnected, or does not connect the intervention to the SIP and the school's student achievement goals.

1   /   0

Process:

·         Follows theory to  practice

·         Logical and sequential

·         Understandable

·         Achieves the purpose

The candidate produces an analysis of data (an artifact) and has other artifacts to demonstrate the process used in preparing for, working with, and following up on the work with the faculty in the identification of interventions that will improve student learning for all NCLB subgroups.  There is a logical sequence to all activities. Planning and execution is of high quality and achieves the purpose.

The candidate is not able to produce a useable process for the review and analysis of data (an artifact) or other artifacts that demonstrate a reliable process for preparing, working with, and following up on the work with the faculty.  The candidate identifies inadequate improvement interventions.  There is an illogical sequence to all activities. Planning and execution is poor and the purpose is not achieved. 

1   /   0

Outcomes:

·         Clearly stated

·         Clearly demonstrated

·         Data support the results

The candidate produces clearly stated outcomes and expectations, performs data analysis, reviews the process used with the faculty (artifacts to demonstrate accomplishment) and has additional data and documents to support the outcomes of specific new improvement interventions for all NCLB subgroups.

The candidate produces unclear outcomes and expectations for the data analysis and review process with the faculty (and has poorly constructed artifacts). Further, additional data and documents to support the outcomes of specific new improvement interventions for all NCLB subgroups are lacking or absent.

1   /   0

Products:

·         Align to standards

·         Articulate and well organized

·         Demonstrates full completion

The candidate produces the following suggested items: a document detailing the data analysis and review process and products; all materials created and used in leading the faculty through the analysis and identification of specific interventions; and the meeting minutes verifying the input of, and work done by, the faculty on the interventions (more artifacts are encouraged to demonstrate greater competency).

The candidate produces few of the suggested items. Those produced do not demonstrate competency in the documentation of the following processes: conducting a review of the analysis of data; leading the faculty through the analysis and identification of specific instructional interventions; detailing meeting minutes indicating faculty worked on the interventions discussed; or soliciting input from faculty in the school improvement process.

1   /   0

Quality:

·         First-year principal or better

·         Complete

·         Accurate

The following quality is demonstrated in all materials: correct APA formatting; correct spelling and grammar; completeness; accuracy; comprehensiveness.  The candidate meets or exceeds the standards and competencies of this assessment.

The following quality is lacking in materials: correct APA formatting; correct spelling and grammar; completeness; accuracy; comprehensiveness.  The candidate does not meet or exceed the standards and competencies of this assessment.

1   /   0

Candidates must meet 5 of 5 to demonstrate competency.

Total Score

 

 

Focus Area: 1.3 – Work with faculty or faculty teams to create, implement, and formatively evaluate a school improvement action plan.

 

 

Meets the Standard

Does Not Meet the Standard

Score

Content:

·         ISLLC Standards 1.B through 1.E, 2.A, 2.D, 2.E, 2.I, 4.A through 4.D, and 5.A

·         Appropriateness of the content

The candidate demonstrates his or her work with the faculty to create, implement and evaluate an SIP action plan.  The action plan is based on current data, reflects current research and best practices, and is connected to the work outlined in the school's SIP. 

The candidate's action plan does not clearly focus on the work of the faculty to attain greater student achievement. The plan is not based on data, does not reflect current research, and is not clearly connected to the work outlined in the school's SIP.

1   /   0

Process:

·         Follows theory to  practice

·         Logical and sequential

·         Understandable

·         Achieves the purpose

The candidate creates a clear action plan (an artifact) in collaboration with the faculty and possesses other artifacts that demonstrate the processes used in preparing for, implementing and evaluating the SIP action plan.  There is a logical sequence to all events, all are well-planned and executed, and achieve the purpose of improving student achievement.

The candidate's action plan is not clear or is missing (an artifact), and other artifacts that demonstrate the processes used in preparing for, implementing, and evaluating the action plan are inadequate to create success.  The candidate does not engage faculty in the creation of the action plan. The sequence of events is illogical, often unplanned and executed, and they do not achieve the purpose of improving student achievement.

1   /   0

Outcomes:

·         Clearly stated

·         Clearly demonstrated

·         Data support the results

The candidate clearly states the outcomes and expectations of the action plan.  The candidate and the faculty demonstrate a clear understanding of the roles and responsibilities required for the implementation of the action plan and the continuous school improvement process.

The candidate states the outcomes and expectations of the initiatives but the focus is unclear.  The candidate's action plan is unclear or lacks faculty input.  The additional data and documents to support the outcomes of the initiative are lacking or absent.  The process for the formative evaluation of the action plan is lacking or absent.

1   /   0

Products:

·         Align to standards

·         Articulate and well organized

·         Demonstrates full completion

The candidate produces the following artifacts: a copy of the action plan; data and other information used with staff who work on the creation and implementation of the action plan; documentation of meetings and processes used to monitor the progress of the implementation; and evidence of a formative evaluation process and impacts on student learning attained as a result of the initiative (more artifacts are encouraged to demonstrate greater competency).

The candidate produces a few but not all of the suggested items: a copy of the action plan; data and other information used with staff who work on the creation and implementation of the action plan; documentation of meetings and processes used to monitor the progress of the implementation; evidence of a formative evaluation process and measurement of impact on student learning attained as a result of the action plan.

1   /   0

Quality:

·         First-year principal or better

·         Complete

·         Accurate

The following quality is demonstrated in all materials: correct APA formatting; correct spelling and grammar; completeness; accuracy; comprehensiveness.  The candidate meets or exceeds the standards and competencies of this assessment.

The following quality is lacking in materials: correct APA formatting; correct spelling and grammar; completeness; accuracy; comprehensiveness.  The candidate does not meet or exceed the standards and competencies of this assessment.

1   /   0

Candidates must meet 5 of 5 to demonstrate competency.

Total Score

 

 

Focus Area: 1.4Work with faculty or faculty teams to gather and examine data to assess progress on the SIP and make recommendations for improvements or modifications to the SIP for the following year.

 

 

Meets the Standard

Does Not Meet the Standard

Score

Content:

·         ISLLC Standards 1.B through-1.E, 2.A, 2.D, 2.E, 2.I, 4.A-4.D, and 5.A

·         Appropriateness of the content

The candidate presents to the school's leadership team a comprehensive examination of the progress made by the staff and principal toward the identified goals of the SIP.  The presentation clearly explains the data used to analyze the impact of various interventions toward the goals identified in the SIP.  The candidate's recommendations are based on an analysis of interventions implemented in support of the SIP, faculty input, and are aligned with the mission and vision of the school.  The presentation focuses on the work of the staff and principal to attain improved and increased student achievement and demonstrates significant logical and practical improvements for future planning by the school's leadership team.

The candidate's presentation to the school's leadership team is an incomplete examination of the school's SIP; the analysis of action plans is lacking and recommendations are not logical or practical for future improvement planning.  The recommendations are not based on an analysis of interventions implemented in support of the SIP or are lacking in detail. The presentation is unclear in its focus on the work of the staff and principal to increase student achievement.  The recommendations are not aligned with the mission and vision of the school or are not clearly articulated as such.

1   /   0

Process:

·         Follows theory to  practice

·         Logical and sequential

·         Understandable

·         Achieves the purpose

The candidate demonstrates the analysis and presentation as an artifact and has other artifacts that demonstrate the processes used in preparing for, presenting, and following up on the meeting after the presentation.  There is a logical sequence to all events, all are well-planned and executed, and they achieve the purpose of improving student achievement.

The candidate has an incomplete analysis and presentation as an artifact and does not provide other artifacts that demonstrate the processes used in preparing for, presenting, and following up on the meeting after the presentation.  The sequence of events is illogical, often unplanned and executed, and the events do not achieve the purpose of improving student achievement.

1   /   0

Outcomes:

·         Clearly stated

·         Clearly demonstrated

·         Data support the results

The candidate clearly states the outcomes and expectations of the presentation (and possesses artifacts to demonstrate accomplishment).  The candidate produces additional data and documents to support the outcomes or expectations from the presentation.

The outcomes of the candidate’s presentation are vague and unclear (few or no artifacts support the presentation).  There are few supporting documents or data to back up the presentation.

1   /   0

Products:

·         Align to standards

·         Articulate and well organized

·         Demonstrates full completion

The candidate produces the following presentation items: an outline, a multi-media presentation (Power Point or other), handouts, explanation of the analysis of interventions implemented in support of the SIP and how the recommendations incorporate that analysis, list of recommendations, meeting minutes, and input received as a result of the presentation. (More artifacts are most certainly welcome to demonstrate greater competency.)

The candidate produces few of the following items and those presented do not demonstrate competency: handouts, explanation of the analysis of interventions implemented in support of the SIP and how the recommendations incorporate that analysis, list of recommendations, and meeting minutes, and input received as a result of the presentation.

1   /   0

Quality:

·         First-year principal or better

·         Complete

·         Accurate

The following quality is demonstrated in all materials: correct APA formatting; correct spelling and grammar; completeness; accuracy; comprehensiveness.  The candidate meets or exceeds the standards and competencies of this assessment.

The following quality is lacking in materials: correct APA formatting; correct spelling and grammar; completeness; accuracy; comprehensiveness. The candidate does not meet or exceed the standards and competencies of this assessment.

1   /   0

Candidates must meet 5 of 5 to demonstrate competency.

Total Score

 

 

Assessment 2 – Demonstrate comprehensive understanding and performance in conducting teacher hiring, faculty evaluation, and professional development.

 

Focus Area: 2.1 – Participate in the hiring process including, at a minimum, creation of a job description; creation of interview questions and evaluation tools; participation in interviews for the position; recommendation of the candidate to hire with rationale and data to support the selection; and preparation of letters of rejection for candidates who were not selected.

 

 

Meets the Standard

Does Not Meet the Standard

Score

Content:

·         ISLLC Standards 3.A, 3.B, 4.B, 5.B, and 6.A

·         Appropriateness of the content

The candidate collaborates with staff to align the teacher job description to student learning needs.  The candidate creates a job description.  Alternatively, if the school district uses a standard job description, the candidate analyzes an existing job description and composes a memo to the human resources director or superintendent with recommendations for improvements to the job description. The candidate creates interview questions and a tool to evaluate the applicants' competence. The interview questions are aligned with student learning needs. The evaluation tools are based on the job description and provide clear criteria for evaluating the applicants for the position.  The interview questions are relevant to making judgments about the competency of applicants and do not request information that violates anti-discrimination laws.

The candidate does not collaborate with staff on the alignment of the teacher job description to student learning needs.  The candidate neither creates nor analyzes the standard job description provided by the school district and does not write a critique of it or the analysis is lacking in substance. The candidate does not create interview questions, and tools to evaluate the applicants or the interview questions are not aligned with student learning needs. The candidate does not create evaluation tools, the evaluation tools are not based on the job description, or the tools do not provide clear criteria for evaluating applicants for the position.

One or more of the interview questions are not relevant to making judgments about the competence of applicants or request information that violates anti-discrimination laws.

1   /   0

Process:

·         Follows theory to  practice

·         Logical and sequential

·         Understandable

·         Achieves the purpose

The candidate participates in the interviews of applicants for the position. The candidate greets applicants, states the purpose of the interview, asks relevant questions, takes accurate notes, and provides information to applicants about the school and district. The candidate completes the evaluations of the applicants. The candidate prepares rejection letters for candidates who were not selected.

The candidate does not complete one or more important aspects of the process. The candidate does not participate in the interviews of applicants for the position; does not perform one or more of the following: greets applicants, states the purpose of the interview, asks relevant questions, takes accurate notes, or provides information to applicants about the school and district; does not complete the evaluations of the applicants; or does not prepare rejection letters for candidates who were not selected.

1   /   0

Outcomes/Reflection:

·         Clearly stated

·         Clearly demonstrated

·         Data support the results

·         Reflection

The candidate recommends an applicant for employment as a teacher, and the recommendation is supported with a sound rationale and data from the evaluation. (In the event an applicant was not acceptable, the candidate explained why.)

The candidate reflects on the knowledge and skills required to effectively perform his or her role and explains how the outcome of the hiring process contributes to student learning.

The candidate recommends an applicant for the position, but the rationale is weak or is not supported with data from the evaluation. The candidate does not reflect on the knowledge and skills required to effectively perform his or her role, or the reflection is superficial. The candidate does not explain how the outcome of the hiring process contributes to student learning or the explanation is facile.

1   /   0

Products:

·         Align to standards

·         Articulate and well organized

·         Demonstrates full completion

The candidate produces (1) a description of collaboration with staff on alignment of the job description with student learning needs; (2) the job description the candidate creates or, if a standard job description is used by the district, a recommendation memo to human resources or the superintendent; (3) interview questions; (4) evaluation tools to rate the applicants; and (5) rejection letters for candidates who were not selected.

The candidate is missing one or more of the following: (1) description of collaboration with staff on alignment of the job description with student learning needs; (2) job description the candidate creates or, if a standard job description is used by the district, a critique of the job description; (3) interview questions; (4) evaluation tools to rate the applicants; and (5) rejection letters for candidates who were not selected.

1   /   0

Quality:

·         First-year principal or better

·         Complete

·         Accurate

The following quality is demonstrated in all materials: correct APA format, correct spelling and grammar, completeness, accuracy, and comprehensiveness; meets or exceeds the standards and competencies of this assessment.

The following quality is lacking in materials: correct APA format, correct spelling and grammar, completeness, accuracy, and comprehensiveness; did not meet the standards and competencies of this assessment.

1   /   0

Candidates must meet 5 of 5 to demonstrate competency.

Total Score

 

 

Focus Area: 2.2Conduct a full cycle of clinical supervision, including a pre-observation conference, a classroom observation, and a post-observation conference.  Write a summary that provides evidence using actual notes, observations, discussion, forms, and student achievement data providing feedback to the teacher.  Provide examples of interventions and supports needed for the non-tenured or struggling teacher.

 

 

Meets the Standard

Does Not Meet the Standard

Score

Content:

·         ISLLC Standards 1.B through 1.E, 2.A, 2.D, 2.F, 2.G, 2.H, 2.I, 3.C, 3.D, 3.E, 5.B,  5.C, and 5.E

·         Appropriateness of the content

The candidate clearly demonstrates knowledge and skills of clinical supervision and formative and summative evaluation (through a summary based upon notes, observations, meeting with a teacher, forms and student achievement data). The candidate demonstrates knowledge of methods that school leaders employ to strengthen the vision and mission of the school through alignment of clinical supervision with the school improvement process. The candidate demonstrates the communication, interpersonal, and ethical skills and understandings necessary for effective school leadership through clinical supervision.

The candidate does not demonstrate knowledge and skills of clinical supervision and formative and summative evaluation (through a summary based upon notes, observations, meeting with a teacher, forms and student achievement data). The candidate does not demonstrate knowledge of methods that school leaders employ to strengthen the vision and mission of the school through alignment of clinical supervision with the school improvement process. The candidate does not demonstrate the communication, interpersonal, and ethical skills and understandings necessary for effective school leadership through clinical supervision.

1   /   0

Process:

·         Follows theory to  practice

·         Logical and sequential

·         Understandable

·         Achieves the purpose

Based upon best practices in clinical supervision, the candidate clearly connects the three stages of clinical supervision: the pre-observation conference, classroom observation, and post-observation conference. The candidate's process is coherent and purpose-driven. The pre-observation conference establishes the purpose of the observation and the tools used to gather data on the classroom instructional process. The observation is focused and aligned to its purpose. During the post-observation conference, results are shared, recommendations for improvement provided, and professional development activities identified.

The candidate does not follow the three-step clinical supervision process.  The candidate's process is disjointed, not purpose-driven, and unfocused. The process does not result in useful and data-based recommendations for improvement that could guide ongoing professional development.

1   /   0

Outcomes/Reflection:

·         Clearly stated

·         Clearly demonstrated

·         Data support the results

·         Reflection

The candidate clearly states the outcomes of the clinical supervision process and formative and summative evaluation. The candidate demonstrates accomplishment of the purpose of the process using appropriate data and other information to assess teacher performance from the observation. The candidate provides examples of professional development connected to the school's improvement process for the majority of teachers or necessary interventions and support for non-tenured or struggling teachers. The candidate reflects individually and seeks feedback on performance as an evaluator from the evaluated teacher or principal mentor to assess personal effectiveness.

The outcomes for the clinical supervision and formative and summative evaluation process are not clearly identified during the pre-observation conference. As a result, data and information collected during the observation are disjointed and unfocused. The lack of identification of outcomes negatively impacts the post-conference.  The candidate's personal reflection lacks depth or does not address the individual teacher who was observed.  The candidate does not solicit feedback on his or her performance as an evaluator from the teacher being evaluated or the internship principal.

1   /   0

Products:

·         Align to standards

·         Articulate and well organized

·         Demonstrates full completion

The candidate produces an articulate and well-organized summary of the formative clinical supervision process that includes documentation from the formative pre-observation conference, classroom observation, the post-observation conference and the summative evaluation of the teacher's performance.  In a reflection, the candidate articulates the effects of supervision on student learning and the school improvement process. Artifacts include notes and forms used in the pre-observation conference, classroom observation, post-observation conference, post-observation conference write-up or formative evaluation form; summative evaluation; professional development recommendations.

The candidate is missing one or more of the artifacts that summarizes the candidate's work in the clinical supervision process, including documentation from the formative pre-observation conference, classroom observation, the post-observation conference or the summative evaluation of the teacher's performance.  Artifacts missing include notes and forms used in the pre-observation conference, classroom observation, post-observation conference; post-observation conference write-up or formative evaluation form; summative evaluation; or professional development recommendations.

1   /   0

Quality:

·         First-year principal or better

·         Complete

·         Accurate

The following quality is demonstrated in all materials: correct APA format, correct spelling and grammar, completeness, accuracy, and comprehensiveness; meets or exceeds the standards and competencies of this assessment.

The following quality is lacking in materials: correct APA format, correct spelling and grammar, completeness, accuracy, and comprehensiveness; did not meet the standards and competencies of this assessment.

1   /   0

Candidates must meet 5 of 5 to demonstrate competency.

Total Score

 

 

Focus Area: 2.3 – In conjunction with stakeholders, lead in the development of a professional development plan for a school building that includes (1) data analysis (reviewed in Focus Area 1.2); (2) multiple options for teacher development; and (3) a method for evaluating the professional development plan and the extent to which it will lead to school improvement.

 


 

Meets the Standard

Does Not Meet the Standard

Score

Content:

·         ISLLC Standards 1.B through 1.E, 2.A, 2.D, 2.F, 2.G, 3.D, 4.A  through 4.D, and 5.A

·         Appropriateness of the content

The candidate clearly demonstrates knowledge and understanding of the 12 components of the National Staff Development Council's Standards for Staff Development (2001).

The candidate does not or inadequately demonstrates knowledge of the National Staff Development Council's Standards for Staff Development (2001).

1   /   0

Process:

·         Follows theory to  practice

·         Logical and sequential

·         Understandable

·         Achieves the purpose

The candidate clearly demonstrates application of the staff development standards to his or her school's professional development needs by analyzing data, creating options, and creating an evaluation plan in collaboration with stakeholders.

The candidate does not or inadequately demonstrates application of the staff development standards to his or her school's professional development needs by analyzing data, creating options, and creating an evaluation plan in collaboration with stakeholders.

1   /   0

Outcomes:

·         Clearly stated

·         Clearly demonstrated

·         Data support the results

The candidate clearly states the outcomes of the school's professional development plan in relationship to school improvement.

The candidate does not or inadequately states the outcomes of the school’s professional development plan in relationship to school improvement.

1   /   0

Products:

·         Align to standards

·         Articulate and well organized

·         Demonstrates full completion

The candidate's internship time-log and reflections clearly indicate knowledge of the staff development standards, application of the standards to the professional development plan embedded in the school's SIP, and a mechanism for evaluating the effectiveness of the plan to improve student learning.

The candidate's internship time-log and reflections do not indicate or inadequately indicate knowledge of staff development standards, application of the standards to the professional development plan embedded in the school's SIP, and a mechanism for evaluating the effectiveness of the plan to improve student learning.

1   /   0

Quality:

·         First-year principal or better

·         Complete

·         Accurate

The following quality is demonstrated in all materials: correct APA format, correct spelling and grammar, completeness, accuracy, and comprehensiveness; meets or exceeds the standards and competencies of this assessment.

The following quality is lacking in materials: correct APA format, correct spelling and grammar, completeness, accuracy, and comprehensiveness; did not meet the standards and competencies of this assessment.

1   /   0

Candidates must meet 5 of 5 to demonstrate competency.

Total Score

 

 

Assessment 3 – Demonstrate comprehensive understanding and performance in conducting schoolwide management of personnel, resources, and systems for adequacy and equity.

 

Focus Area: 3.1Investigate, define, and delineate the systems and factors within the internship school for advocating, nurturing and sustaining a culture of collaboration, trust, learning, high expectations and a personalized and motivating learning environment for students.

 


 

Meets the Standard

Does Not Meet the Standard

Score

Content:

·         ISLLC Standards 1.D, 2.A through 2.I, 4.A through 4.D, 5.B, 5.C, 5.E, and 6.A through 6.C

·         Appropriateness of the content

The candidate demonstrates knowledge and skills in an understanding of systems and factors within the internship school that advocate, nurture and sustain a culture of collaboration, trust, learning, high expectations and a personalized and motivating learning environment for students. Content knowledge is demonstrated in the following areas: professional learning community, school improvement process, professional development, teacher leadership, building leadership teams, cultural proficiency and guaranteed and viable curriculum and climate.

The candidate does not demonstrate knowledge and skills in an understanding of systems and factors within the internship school that advocate, nurture and sustain a culture of collaboration, trust, learning, high expectations and a personalized and motivating learning environment for students. Content knowledge is not demonstrated in the following areas: professional learning community, school improvement process, professional development, teacher leadership, building leadership teams, cultural proficiency and guaranteed and viable curriculum and climate.

1  /  0

Process:

·         Follows theory to  practice

·         Logical and sequential

·         Understandable

·         Achieves the purpose

The candidate clearly demonstrates an understanding of the systems and factors within the internship school that advocate, nurture and sustain a culture of collaboration, trust, learning, high expectations and a personalized and motivating learning environment for students through the graphic mapping of the system and recommendations for improvement.  Recommendations are accurate, complete, logical, and able to be implemented in a school setting.

The candidate does not demonstrate an understanding of the systems and factors within the internship school that advocate, nurture and sustain a culture of collaboration, trust, learning, high expectations and a personalized and motivating learning environment for students through the graphic mapping of the system and recommendations for improvement.  Recommendations are inaccurate, incomplete, illogical, and not able to be implemented in a school setting.

1  /  0

Outcomes/Reflection:

·         Clearly stated and demonstrated

·         Data support the results

·         Candidate reflects on his or her role in the process

·         Reflection

The candidate clearly states the outcomes and expectations for improving student learning through the analysis of two areas of the school's learning environment as evidenced by conducting a review of data, identifying supporting factors and impeding factors, creating a graphic map of the system, evaluating effectiveness and making recommendations for improvement. The candidate reflects on his or her involvement and the potential impact these systems may have on school personnel and student achievement and learning.

The candidate does not clearly state the outcomes and expectations for improving student learning through the analysis of two areas of the school's learning environment as evidenced by a poor review of data, lack of identification of supporting factors and impeding factors, poorly graphed map of the system, incomplete evaluation of effectiveness and poor recommendations for improvement.  The candidate is not able to adequately reflect on his or her involvement and the potential impact the work may have on school personnel and student achievement and learning.

1  /  0

Products:

·         Align to standards

·         Articulate and well organized

·         Demonstrates full completion

 

The candidate produces the following: a review and map of the learning environment, an analysis of supporting and impeding factors, and an evaluation of the systems' effectiveness and recommendations for improvement. Potential learning environment system areas include professional learning communities, the school improvement process, professional development, teacher leadership, school leadership teams, cultural proficiency and guaranteed and viable curriculum and climate.

The candidate does not or poorly produces the following items: a review and map of the learning environment, an analysis of supporting and impeding factors, and an evaluation of the systems’ effectiveness and recommendations for improvement. Potential learning environment system areas include professional learning communities, the school improvement process, professional development, teacher leadership and building leadership teams, and these are minimally or not included.

1   /   0

Quality:

·         First-year principal or better

·         Complete

·         Accurate

The following quality is demonstrated in all materials: correct APA format, correct spelling and grammar, completeness, accuracy, and comprehensiveness; meets or exceeds the standards and competencies of this assessment.

The following quality is lacking in materials: correct APA format, correct spelling and grammar, completeness, accuracy, and comprehensiveness; did not meet the standards and competencies of this assessment.

1   /   0

Candidates must meet 5 of 5 to demonstrate competency.

Total Score

 

 

Focus Area: 3.2 Review the school's budget and other resources with the mentor.  Detail how the resources are typically used, evaluated for adequacy and assessed for effectiveness and efficiency.  Provide recommendations for improvement.  Address the impact of the budget on the following NCLB student subgroups:  limited English proficiency, special education and economically disadvantaged.  Present recommendations for improvement to a faculty group and solicit input in the budget development process.

 



 

Meets the Standard

Does Not Meet the Standard

Score

Content:

·         ISLLC Standards 1.D, 2.E, 3.A through 3.E, 4.A, and 5.A through 5.E

·         Appropriateness of the content

The candidate's presentation and artifacts support a clear understanding of the school's budget and delineate the use of available resources, evaluate adequacy and assess for effectiveness and efficiency.  The candidate's presentation provides recommendations for improvement to a specific audience and solicits input. The candidate's presentation and final report addresses the impact of the budget on NCLB student subgroups, such as limited English proficiency, special education and economically disadvantaged.

The candidate does not present or poorly presents his or her understanding of the school budget, available resources and specific impact of the budget on NCLB student subgroups, such as limited English proficiency, special education and economically disadvantaged. The candidate's final budget report does not provide or minimally provides appropriate recommendations for improvement.

1   /   0

Process:

·         Follows theory to  practice

·         Logical and sequential

·         Understandable

·         Achieves the purpose

The candidate documents a meeting with the mentor to review the school’s budget (an artifact). The candidate demonstrates an understanding of the school budget and resources available, providing details of how the resources are used, and an assessment of adequacy, effectiveness, and efficiency as delineated in a report prepared and shared with the mentor. The candidate documents the presentation of recommendations for budget improvement to the faculty and receives input. The candidate and mentor meet to discuss the candidate's recommendations and reflections on the school budget, resources, impact on student subgroups and recommendations.

The candidate fails to demonstrate an understanding of the school budget and resources. The candidate's report does not show an understanding of how resources are used or provide an assessment of adequacy, effectiveness and efficiency. The candidate does not present the budget to a faculty group for input. No meeting or a limited meeting is held between the candidate and mentor to discuss the school budget, resources, impact on student subgroups, the candidate’s recommendations or the candidate's reflections on the school budget and other resources.

1   /   0

Outcomes/Reflection:

·         Clearly stated and demonstrated

·         Data support the results

·         Candidate reflects on his or her role in the process

·         Reflection

The candidate clearly understands the school budget and resources as evidenced by a formal report detailing how the resources are used, including an assessment of adequacy, effectiveness and efficiency. Appropriate recommendations are made for improvement.  The report specifically addresses the impact of the budget on NCLB student subgroups, such as limited English proficiency, special education and economically disadvantaged. The report findings are presented to the principal. The candidate is able to reflect on his or her involvement in the budget review process, resources available and the impact the recommendations will have on the school.

The candidate reviews the budget.  Knowledge of other resources is minimal.  The details on how the resources are used, including an assessment of adequacy, effectiveness and efficiency, are incomplete.  School budget recommendations are poor or inappropriate. Little or no specificity is given to the impact of the budget on NCLB student subgroups, such as limited English proficiency, special education and economically disadvantaged.  The candidate is unable to accurately reflect on his or her involvement in reviewing the school budget, resources and impact on subgroups.

1   /   0

Products:

·         Align to standards

·         Articulate and well organized

·         Demonstrates full completion

The candidate produces the following: a copy of the school budget he or she has reviewed, initialed by the mentor; a report containing the details of how the budget resources are used, and how the resources are evaluated for adequacy and assessed for effectiveness and efficiency; and recommendations for improvement. The final report addresses the impact of the budget on NCLB student subgroups, such as limited English proficiency, special education and economically disadvantaged.

 

The candidate does not produce a copy of the school budget he or she has reviewed, initialed by the mentor. The report does not contain the details of how resources are used, or how the resources are evaluated for adequacy or assessed for effectiveness and efficiency. The candidate makes inadequate or inappropriate recommendations for budget improvements or the final report does not specifically address the impact of the budget on NCLB student subgroups, such as limited English proficiency, special education and economically disadvantaged.

1   /   0

Quality:

·         First-year principal or better

·         Complete

·         Accurate

The following quality is demonstrated in all materials: correct APA format, correct spelling and grammar, completeness, accuracy, and comprehensiveness; meets or exceeds the standards and competencies of this assessment.

The following quality is lacking in materials: correct APA format, correct spelling and grammar, completeness, accuracy, and comprehensiveness; did not meet the standards and competencies of this assessment.

1   /   0

Candidates must meet 5 of 5 to demonstrate competency.

Total Score

 

 

Focus Area: 3.3 – State the mission of the school. Determine and analyze the different systems that exist within the school to fulfill the school's mission (i.e., instructional (curriculum, assessment, technology, class structure) and management (discipline plan, attendance, maintenance, transportation)).  Choose one instructional and one management system and create an assessment tool that will be used to rate the two systemsFinally, develop recommendations for improvement of aspects of the two systems that need improvement and report the findings to the mentor.

 



 

Meets the Standard

Does Not Meet the Standard

Score

Content:

·         ISLLC Standards  1.A, 1.B, 1.D, 2.E, 2.G, 2.H, 3.A, 3.B, 4.A, and 5.A

·         Appropriateness of the content

The candidate clearly incorporates the mission of the school in determining and analyzing the two different systems (one instructional and one management).  The candidate creates an assessment tool for analysis to use in developing recommendations for improvement in the final report.

The candidate does not clearly incorporate the mission of the school in determining and analyzing the two different systems (one instructional and one management).  The candidate's assessment tool for analysis lacks development for accurate and worthwhile recommendations for improvement in the final report.

1   /   0

Process:

·         Follows theory to  practice

·         Logical and sequential

·         Understandable

·         Achieves the purpose

The candidate demonstrates an understanding of two school systems (instructional and management) through the use of an accurately created assessment to analyze the two systems. Results of the analysis are connected to practical recommendations for improvement.

The candidate is unable to demonstrate an understanding of two school systems (instructional and management). The assessment is not accurate for use in analysis of the two systems.  The analysis is unconnected to practical recommendations for improvement.

1   /   0

Outcomes/Reflection:

·         Clearly stated and demonstrated

·         Data support the results

·         Candidate reflects on his or her role in the process

·         Reflection

The candidate clearly states the outcomes and expectations of analyzing two systems (one instructional and one management) through reviewing data and systems, creating an assessment tool, evaluating effectiveness, making recommendations and reporting findings to the principal.  The candidate is able to reflect on his or her involvement in the project and the impact the recommendations will have on the school.

The candidate does not clearly state the outcomes and expectations of analyzing two systems (one instructional and one management). The reviewed data are lacking, the assessment is ineffective and lacks connection to the recommendations, and the reported findings are not appropriate.  The candidate is lacking in the reflection on his or her involvement in the project and the impact the recommendations will have on the school.

1   /   0

Products:

·         Align to standards

·         Articulate and well organized

·         Demonstrates full completion

The candidate produces a report that contains the following: a clear connection of recommended changes to the mission of the school; a mapping of two systems (one instructional and one management); an assessment tool used for the systems' evaluation; an analysis of the data; and recommendations for improvement. 

The candidate is unable to produce a report that contains clear connections of recommended changes to the mission of the school; an analysis of two systems in the school (one instructional and one management); an assessment tool used for analysis; and recommendations for improvement.

1   /   0

Quality:

·         First-year principal or better

·         Complete

·         Accurate

The following quality is demonstrated in all materials: correct APA format, correct spelling and grammar, completeness, accuracy, and comprehensiveness; meets or exceeds the standards and competencies of this assessment.

The following quality is lacking in materials: correct APA format, correct spelling and grammar, completeness, accuracy, and comprehensiveness; did not meet the standards and competencies of this assessment.

1   /   0

Candidates must meet 5 of 5 to demonstrate competency.

Total Score