As the school leader, you will want to initiate change by engaging and collaborating with faculty and staff. Professional development sessions can offer a useful opportunity to introduce n

CLC: Collaborative Learning Communities – Rubric

De�nition of PLCs 6 points

Criteria Description

Definition of PLCs

5. Target 6 points

A definition of PLCs, including the value of PLCs for teacher and students, is

exemplary.

4. Acceptable 5.22 points

A definition of PLCs, including the value of PLCs for teacher and students, is precise

and includes key details.

3. Approaching 4.44 points

A definition of PLCs, including the value of PLCs for teacher and students, lacks

precision and/or is missing key details.

2. Insufficient 4.14 points

A definition of PLCs, including the value of PLCs for teacher and students, is

inaccurate.

Mission Statement 6 points

Criteria Description

Mission Statement

5. Target 6 points

Mission statement example that describes the purpose of a PLC is exemplary.

4. Acceptable 5.22 points

Mission statement example that describes the purpose of a PLC is accurate.

3. Approaching 4.44 points

Mission statement example that describes the purpose of a PLC is cursory.

Collapse All

2. Insufficient 4.14 points

Mission statement describes the purpose of a PLC is inaccurate.

1. No Submission 0 points

Not addressed.

Overall Goal 6 points

Criteria Description

Overall Goal

5. Target 6 points

An example of the overall goal of a PLC, including how a successful goal will affect

student outcomes, is exemplary.

4. Acceptable 5.22 points

An example of the overall goal of a PLC, including how a successful goal will affect

student outcomes, is complete and includes key details.

3. Approaching 4.44 points

An example of the overall goal of a PLC, including how a successful goal will affect

student outcomes, is overly simplistic and lacks key details.

2. Insufficient 4.14 points

An example of the overall goal of a PLC, including how a successful goal will affect

student outcomes, is inadequate.

1. No Submission 0 points

Measurable Outcomes 6 points

Criteria Description

Measurable Outcomes

5. Target 6 points

Examples of 2-4 measurable outcomes for a PLC are expertly crafted.

4. Acceptable 5.22 points

Examples of 2-4 measurable outcomes for a PLC are complete and precise.

3. Approaching 4.44 points

Examples of 2-4 measurable outcomes for a PLC are included, but lack precision.

2. Insufficient 4.14 points

Examples of 2-4 measurable outcomes for a PLC are incomplete or incorrect.

1. No Submission 0 points

Not addressed.

PLC Structure 6 points

Criteria Description

PLC Structure

5. Target 6 points

An example of an overall structure of a PLC, including member roles and

expectations, is expertly crafted.

4. Acceptable 5.22 points

An example of an overall structure of a PLC, including member roles and

expectations, is complete and includes supporting details.

3. Approaching 4.44 points

An example of an overall structure of a PLC, including member roles and

expectations, is vague and lacks supporting details.

2. Insufficient 4.14 points

An example of an overall structure of a PLC, including member roles and

expectations, is incomplete or incorrect.

1. No Submission 0 points

Timeline 6 points

Criteria Description

Timeline

5. Target 6 points

An example timeline to implement the PLC is thorough and specific.

4. Acceptable 5.22 points

An example timeline to implement the PLC is complete and reasonable.

3. Approaching 4.44 points

An example timeline to implement the PLC is underdeveloped.

2. Insufficient 4.14 points

An example timeline to implement the PLC is incomplete.

1. No Submission 0 points

Not addressed.

Evaluation of PLC Outcomes 6 points

Criteria Description

Evaluation of PLC Outcomes

5. Target 6 points

An example of how PLC outcomes could be evaluated is expertly crafted.

4. Acceptable 5.22 points

An example of how PLC outcomes could be evaluated is complete and includes

supporting details.

3. Approaching 4.44 points

An example of how PLC outcomes could be evaluated is weak and unfocused.

2. Insufficient 4.14 points

An example of how PLC outcomes could be evaluated is incomplete or incorrect.

1. No Submission 0 points

Not addressed.

Title Slide, Reference Slide, and Presenter’s Notes 3 points

Criteria Description

Title Slide, Reference Slide, and Presenter’s Notes

5. Target 3 points

Title slide, reference slide, and presenter’s notes are complete accurate.

4. Acceptable 2.61 points

Title slide, reference slide, and presenter’s notes are mostly complete and accurate.

3. Approaching 2.22 points

Title slide, reference slide, and presenter’s notes are partially complete and

accurate.

2. Insufficient 2.07 points

Title slide, reference slide, and presenter’s notes are incomplete and/or inaccurate.

1. No Submission 0 points

Not addressed.

Presentation Organization and Visual Appeal 3 points

Criteria Description

Presentation Organization and Visual Appeal

5. Target 3 points

The work is well presented. The overall appearance is neat and professional. Work

would be highly desirable for public dissemination. Appropriate and thematic

graphic elements are used to make visual connections that contribute to the

understanding of concepts. Differences in layout, type size, and color are expertly

used.

4. Acceptable 2.61 points

The overall appearance is generally neat, with a few minor organizational flaws.

Work would be desirable for public dissemination. Thematic graphic elements are

used, but not always in context. Visual connections mostly contribute to the

understanding of concepts. Differences in layout, type size, and color are well used

and consistent.

3. Approaching 2.22 points

The overall appearance and organization of material is generally acceptable. Work

would be adequate for public dissemination. Minimal use of graphic elements is

evident. Elements do not consistently contribute to the understanding of concepts.

There is some variation in layout, type size, and color.

2. Insufficient 2.07 points

The work is not neat or organized. Work would not be presentable for public

dissemination. There are few or no graphic elements or variation in layout, type

size and color

Organization 6 points

Criteria Description

Organization

5. Target 6 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 summary is within the

required word count.

4. Acceptable 5.22 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 summary is

within a reasonable range of the required word count.

3. Approaching 4.44 points

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

a sense of the main idea. The summary may not be within a reasonable range of the

required word count.

2. Insufficient 4.14 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; or the

summary is widely outside of the required word count.

Mechanics of Writing 3 points

Criteria Description

includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, 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. 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. Inconsistent

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

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

Documentation of Sources 3 points

Criteria Description

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

style

5. Target 3 points

Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment

and style. Format is free of error.

4. Acceptable 2.61 points

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

mostly correct.

3. Approaching 2.22 points

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

key formatting and citation errors are present.

2. Insufficient 2.07 points

Documentation of sources is inconsistent and/or incorrect, as appropriate to

assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.

1 No Submission 0 points Total 60 points