Secondary You are a school principal in a 9-12 grade high school. In preparation for a meeting with your ELA department chair, Mr. Wong, you have been analyzing the students ELA performan
Secondary
You are a school principal in a 9-12 grade high school. In preparation for a meeting with your ELA department chair, Mr. Wong, you have been analyzing the students’ ELA performance data. Including Mr. Wong, your school has eight ELA teachers. For seven of the ELA teachers, 70% or more of their students are demonstrating good to exceptional outcomes on their writing benchmark data. Four of the teachers have historically yielded student scores with above average state standardized test results in comparison to schools in your district with similar demographics. In previous discussions, Mr. Wong has cited the teachers’ efforts to plan together utilizing the pacing guide, core program, and assessment results as the primary reasons for their students’ positive outcomes.
One teacher, however, Mr. Blumenstock, has been identified as an outlier by the district’s assessment coordinator, relative to the results of his students, compared to the other two teachers. Additionally, you have observed evidence that suggests Mr. Blumenstock is behind on the pacing guide compared to his colleagues. You also have anecdotal information that he does not engage with his teammates during scheduled content team meetings, which leads you to believe that he is not making an effort to plan with them outside the scheduled meetings.
In 750-1,000 words, analyze your chosen case using the three-part guiding questions below.
Part 1: Analyze the Case
Consider the following questions to begin analyzing the situation:
- What do you consider the responsibility of the team lead/department chair in assisting the outlier teacher?
- What stakeholders should be included in the conversation relative to next steps? Are these individual conversations or a group discussion or both?
- What questions should be considered when making a determination about next steps?
Part 2: Identify the Larger Issues
Consider the following questions to analyze the contextual issues present in the situation:
- What school or district policies might affect your decisions?
- What additional information do you need as part of your decision-making process?
- What are the potentially positive and negative outcomes of doing nothing?
- What are the potentially positive and negative outcomes of taking action?
Part 3: Create an Action Plan
Use the following questions to guide you in describing what approach you will take to assist the team lead/department chair to help the outlier teacher, including 3-5 specific action steps:
- What is your plan moving forward?
- How does your plan sustain a culture of collaboration, trust, learning, and high expectations?
- How will you include the critical stakeholders in the decision-making process?
- What challenges do you anticipate?
- How will you provide ongoing support to your team lead/department chair?
- How will you evaluate the results of your teacher leader’s efforts?
- What does the timeline look like?
Support your analysis and plan with 2-3 scholarly resources.
Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.
This assignment uses a rubric. Review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
Performance Evaluation and Action Plan – Rubric
Part 1: Analyze the Case 14 points
Criteria Description
Part 1: Analyze the Case
5. Target 14 points
Analysis expertly addresses the case, including responsibility of the team lead,
relative stakeholders, and questions to determine next steps.
4. Acceptable 12.18 points
Analysis capably addresses the case, including responsibility of the team lead,
relative stakeholders, and questions to determine next steps.
3. Approaching 10.36 points
Analysis vaguely addresses the case, including responsibility of the team lead,
relative stakeholders, and questions to determine next steps.
2. Insufficient 9.66 points
Analysis inaccurately addresses the case, including responsibility of the team lead,
relative stakeholders, and questions to determine next steps.
1. No Submission 0 points
Not addressed.
Part 2: Identify the Larger Issues 14 points
Criteria Description
Part 2: Identify the Larger Issues
5. Target 14 points
Analysis comprehensively identifies the larger issues, including policies and other
information affecting decisions and addressing potential positive and negative
outcomes attributed to no action versus action.
4. Acceptable 12.18 points
Collapse All
Analysis soundly identifies the larger issues, including policies and other
information affecting decisions and addressing potential positive and negative
outcomes attributed to no action versus action.
3. Approaching 10.36 points
Analysis weakly identifies the larger issues, including policies and other information
affecting decisions and addressing potential positive and negative outcomes
attributed to no action versus action.
2. Insufficient 9.66 points
Analysis poorly identifies the larger issues, including policies and other information
affecting decisions and addressing potential positive and negative outcomes
attributed to no action versus action.
Part 3: Create an Action Plan 28 points
Criteria Description
Part 3: Create an Action Plan
5. Target 28 points
Action plan skillfully includes 3-5 specific steps, how to sustain the culture, critical
stakeholders, anticipated challenges, team lead/department chair support,
evaluation procedures, and a timeline.
4. Acceptable 24.36 points
Action plan credibly includes 3-5 specific steps, how to sustain the culture, critical
stakeholders, anticipated challenges, team lead/department chair support,
evaluation procedures, and a timeline.
3. Approaching 20.72 points
Action plan inexplicitly includes 3-5 specific steps, how to sustain the culture, critical
stakeholders, anticipated challenges, team lead/department chair support,
evaluation procedures, and a timeline.
2. Insufficient 19.32 points
Action plan does not include or irrelevantly includes 3-5 action steps, how to sustain
the culture, critical stakeholders, anticipated challenges, team lead/department
chair support, evaluation procedures, and a timeline.
Organization 3.5 points
Criteria Description
Organization
5. Target 3.5 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 summary is within the
required word count.
4. Acceptable 3.05 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 2.59 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 2.42 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.
Documentation of Sources 3.5 points
Criteria Description
citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and
style
5. Target 3.5 points
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment
and style. Format is free of error.
4. Acceptable 3.05 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is
mostly correct.
3. Approaching 2.59 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some
key formatting and citation errors are present.
2. Insufficient 2.42 points
Documentation of sources is inconsistent and/or incorrect, as appropriate to
assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.
1 No Submission 0 points
Mechanics of Writing 7 points
Criteria Description
includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use
5. Target 7 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 6.09 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 5.18 points
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistent
language or word choice is present. Sentence structure is lacking.
2. Insufficient 4.83 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 70 points
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
