Solved Questions Archives - Page 29 of 1303

D022 TASK 2

COMPETENCIES

2045.5.2 : Development of People and Talent

The graduate evaluates school and individual performance data to create professional growth plans for staff and personal development that promote leadership, well-being, and professional growth to support a school’s mission, vision, and values.

INTRODUCTION

School principals are responsible for planning school-wide professional development programs that support their school or district’s mission, vision, and beliefs (or values) and that adhere to identified core strategies. School principals are also responsible for their own personal growth and development plans that align with the school or district as well as their own professional growth goals. This task will give you the opportunity to demonstrate competency in creating a school-wide professional development plan (PDP) for staff and a personal professional growth plan (PGP).

SCENARIO

As the principal of Ridgeland Elementary School, you are responsible for creating the professional development plan for your staff for the coming school year. As part of the district performance evaluation process, you are also expected to create your own personal professional growth plan.

You began your planning by gathering several pieces of information and data as presented in the attached “Ridgeland Elementary School Information and Data.” Your next step will be to use this to inform the professional development path you will create for your staff and for yourself.

REQUIREMENTS

Your submission must be your original work. No more than a combined total of 30% of a submission and no more than a 10% match to any one individual source can be directly quoted or closely paraphrased from sources, even if cited correctly. An originality report is provided when you submit your task that can be used as a guide.
You must use the rubric to direct the creation of your submission because it provides detailed criteria that will be used to evaluate your work. Each requirement below may be evaluated by more than one rubric aspect. The rubric aspect titles may contain hyperlinks to relevant portions of the course.

A.  Using the attached “School Professional Development Plan (PDP),” create a school professional development plan with three areas for professional development that align with the scenario.
B.  Using the attached “School Principal Professional Growth Plan (PGP),” create a personal professional growth plan with two areas for professional growth that align to your personal goals as well as the scenario.
C.  Acknowledge sources, using in-text citations and references, for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized.
D.  Demonstrate professional communication in the content and presentation of your submission.

File Restrictions

File name may contain only letters, numbers, spaces, and these symbols: ! – _ . * ‘ ( )
File size limit: 200 MB
File types allowed: doc, docx, rtf, xls, xlsx, ppt, pptx, odt, pdf, txt, qt, mov, mpg, avi, mp3, wav, mp4, wma, flv, asf, mpeg, wmv, m4v, svg, tif, tiff, jpeg, jpg, gif, png, zip, rar, tar, 7z

RUBRIC

GENERAL TEACHING DISPOSITIONS AS INDICATED IN THE WGU TEACHERS COLLEGE CODE OF ETHICS:

NOT EVIDENT

The submission demonstrates consistently unprofessional or unethical behavior or disposition as outlined in the WGU Teachers College Code of Ethics.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The submission demonstrates behavior or disposition that conflicts with the professional and ethical standards outlined in the WGU Teachers College Code of Ethics.

COMPETENT

The submission demonstrates behavior and disposition that align with the professional and ethical standards outlined in the WGU Teachers College Code of Ethics.

A. PDP PART I: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AREAS AND RATIONALES:NELP 7, PSEL 6

NOT EVIDENT

3 target areas for professional development and a rationale for each area are not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

1 or more target areas do not align with the scenario. Or 1 or more rationales do not align with their corresponding target area or do not provide a logical basis for selection.

COMPETENT

Each target area aligns with the scenario. Each rationale aligns with its corresponding target area and provides a logical basis for selection.

A. PDP PART II: PROFESSIONAL LEARNING GOALS AND ACTIVITIES:NELP 7, PSEL 6

NOT EVIDENT

3 professional learning goals and a professional learning activity for each goal are not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

1 or more professional learning goals do not align with their corresponding target areas or rationales, or they are not actionable or measurable. Or 1 or more professional learning activities do not align with their corresponding goal or do not provide enough detail to be able to discern what the activity is or whether it aligns.

COMPETENT

Each professional learning goal aligns with its corresponding target area and rationale, and it is actionable and measurable. Each professional learning activity aligns with its corresponding goal and provides enough detail to be able to discern what the activity is and whether it aligns.

A. PDP PART III: TIME AND RESOURCES:NELP 7, PSEL 6

NOT EVIDENT

Time, resources, and other considerations for each professional learning activity are not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

1 or more entries of time, resources, and other considerations do not align with their corresponding activity.

COMPETENT

Each entry of time, resources, and other considerations aligns with its corresponding activity.

A. PDP PART IV: DETERMINING GOAL PROGRESS AND ATTAINMENT:NELP 7, PSEL 6

NOT EVIDENT

3 methods for determining goal progress and goal attainment are not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

1 or more methods for determining goal progress or goal attainment do not align with their corresponding goal or activity, or they would not provide evidence of progress or attainment.

COMPETENT

Each method for determining goal progress and goal attainment aligns with the corresponding goal and activity, and it would provide evidence of progress or attainment.

A. PDP PART V: APPLICATION OF ADULT LEARNING THEORY:NELP 7, PSEL 6

NOT EVIDENT

An explanation of the application of adult learning theory is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The explanation contains inaccuracies or does not logically connect adult learning theory to the professional development plan.

COMPETENT

The explanation is accurate and logically connects adult learning theory to the professional development plan.

B. PGP PART I: PROFESSIONAL GROWTH AREAS AND RATIONALES:NELP 7, PSEL 6

NOT EVIDENT

2 target areas for professional growth and a rationale for each area are not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

1 or more target areas or rationales do not align with the scenario. Or 1 or more rationales do not align with their corresponding target area or do not provide a logical basis for selection.

COMPETENT

Each target area and rationale aligns with the scenario. Each rationale aligns with its corresponding target area and provides a logical basis for selection.

B. PGP PART II: PROFESSIONAL GROWTH GOALS AND ACTIVITIES:NELP 7, PSEL 6

NOT EVIDENT

2 professional growth goals and a growth activity for each goal are not provided. provides an unsatisfactory response.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

1 or more professional growth goals do not align with their corresponding target area or rationale, or they do not adhere to SMART criteria. Or 1 or more professional learning activities do not align with their corresponding goal.

COMPETENT

Each professional growth goal aligns with its corresponding target area and rationale, and it adheres to SMART criteria. Each professional learning activity aligns with its corresponding goal.

B. PGP PART III: DOCUMENTING GOAL PROGRESS AND ATTAINMENT:NELP 7, PSEL 6

NOT EVIDENT

2 methods for documenting goal progress and 2 methods for goal attainment are not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

1 or more methods for documenting goal progress or goal attainment do not align with their corresponding goal or activity, or they would not provide evidence of progress or attainment.

COMPETENT

Each method for documenting goal progress and goal attainment aligns with its corresponding goal and activity, and it would provide evidence of progress and attainment.

C. SOURCES:

NOT EVIDENT

The submission does not include both in-text citations and a reference list for sources that are quoted, paraphrased, or summarized.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The submission includes in-text citations for sources that are quoted, paraphrased, or summarized and a reference list; however, the citations or reference list is incomplete or inaccurate.

COMPETENT

The submission includes in-text citations for sources that are properly quoted, paraphrased, or summarized and a reference list that accurately identifies the author, date, title, and source location as available.

D. PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION:

NOT EVIDENT

Content is unstructured, is disjointed, or contains pervasive errors in mechanics, usage, or grammar. Vocabulary or tone is unprofessional or distracts from the topic.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

Content is poorly organized, is difficult to follow, or contains errors in mechanics, usage, or grammar that cause confusion. Terminology is misused or ineffective.

COMPETENT

The candidate provides an adequate response.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

D022 TASK 1

COMPETENCIES

2045.5.1 : Acquisition of People and Talent

The graduate will apply policies and procedures that reflect best practices for determining the personnel needs of the school and acquiring appropriate people and talent to address the identified needs.

INTRODUCTION

School principals are responsible for determining staffing needs, as well as overseeing recruiting, interviewing, and hiring processes. The staffing plan and procedures for hiring new employees should also be in compliance with relevant laws, policies, and ethical codes. In this task, you will assume the responsibilities of an elementary school principal to develop a staffing plan and an interview process.

SCENARIO

You are the school principal at George Madison Elementary. You are required to create a staffing plan for the next school year that includes identifying areas in which additional staff will be needed. You will also create an interview process to determine the most eligible candidates.

Your superintendent has informed you that you will have $225,000 more in your staffing budget for hiring additional employees. These extra hires would result in a staff beyond what will need to be replaced because of teacher attrition. Your superintendent has also provided some assumptions for how far the additional funds in your staffing budget can be spread. The costs associated with new hires are as follows: Teachers with zero to four years of experience with only a bachelor’s degree usually require $61,000 (including base salary plus benefits). Teachers working five to nine years with a maximum of a bachelor’s degree usually require $71,000 (including base salary plus benefits). If teachers have a master’s degree, $4,000 is typically added to the base salary.

Besides hiring new teachers, you have considered hiring for positions that do not currently exist in your school. For instance, teachers increasingly notify you of the need for addressing students’ mental health issues. So you have thought about hiring a social worker (which generally costs $86,000, including base salary plus benefits) or school psychologist (which typically requires $93,000, including base salary plus benefits). You have also considered hiring a technical support analyst (which usually costs $81,000, including base salary plus benefits) since increasing enrollment has resulted in a demand for more technology support.

REQUIREMENTS

You must use the rubric to direct the creation of your submission because it provides detailed criteria that will be used to evaluate your work. Each requirement below may be evaluated by more than one rubric aspect. The rubric aspect titles may contain hyperlinks to relevant portions of the course.

A. Create a staffing plan for the next year, using the information in the scenario and the “Staffing and Enrollment Reports” attachment, by doing the following:

1. Recommend the positions that you would hire.

a. Justify your hiring recommendations by addressing the following:

• budget

• student need

• class size

• instructional space

• projected enrollment

• teacher attrition

• best staffing practice

• relevant law or policy
Note: Justifications may incorporate law and policy from your state or local district.
2. Provide a chart to represent next year’s staffing plan that includes the following:

• classrooms

• teacher assignments

• class sizes

• grade sizes
B. Identify the selection criteria you would use for each position you recommended in part A1, including the following:

• education requirements

• licensure

• experience

• soft skills

Note: Soft skills are defined as the attitudes, personality traits, interpersonal skills, and communication skills necessary for an effective educational practice when working with all stakeholders (e.g., students, colleagues, community members).
C. Describe the interview process you would use to select eligible candidates, including the following:

• number and type of interviews per candidate

• order of interviews

• collaboration with faculty, staff, or other stakeholders

1. Justify the interview process by addressing each of the following:

• alignment to selection criteria from part B

• best interview practice

• district policy related to personnel or employment practices

• federal law related to personnel or employment practices

• state law related to personnel or employment practices
D. Acknowledge sources, using in-text citations and references, for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized.
E. Demonstrate professional communication in the content and presentation of your submission.

File Restrictions

RUBRIC

GENERAL TEACHING DISPOSITIONS AS INDICATED IN THE WGU TEACHERS COLLEGE CODE OF ETHICS:

NOT EVIDENT

The submission demonstrates consistently unprofessional or unethical behavior or disposition as outlined in the WGU Teachers College Code of Ethics.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The submission demonstrates behavior or disposition that conflicts with the professional and ethical standards outlined in the WGU Teachers College Code of Ethics.

COMPETENT

The submission demonstrates behavior and disposition that align with the professional and ethical standards outlined in the WGU Teachers College Code of Ethics.

A1. POSITIONS RECOMMENDATION:NELP 7, PSEL 6

NOT EVIDENT

A recommendation of positions is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

1 or more of the positions recommended do not align with the student need from the scenario.

COMPETENT

All of the positions recommended are aligned with the student need from the scenario.

A1A. STAFFING PLAN JUSTIFICATION:NELP 7, PSEL 6

NOT EVIDENT

A justification of why the positions are needed is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The justification of why the positions are needed does not address each of the given points. Or the justification of 1 or more of the given points contains inaccuracies.

COMPETENT

The justification of why the positions are needed accurately addresses each of the given points.

A2. STAFFING PLAN CHART:NELP 7, PSEL 6

NOT EVIDENT

A chart that represents next year’s staffing plan is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The chart does not include each of the given points, or it inaccurately addresses 1 or more of the given points. Or it is not based on the projected enrollment. Or the chart does not include all the remaining teachers or all the new hires, or it contains 1 or more teachers whose contracts will not be renewed.

COMPETENT

The chart accurately addresses each of the given points. It is based on the projected enrollment. The chart includes all remaining teachers and all the new hires as well as excludes all teachers whose contracts will not be renewed.

B. SELECTION CRITERIA:NELP 7, PSEL 6

NOT EVIDENT

Selection criteria are not identified.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The selection criteria identified do not align to each position from part A1, do not comply with state or federal law related to personnel or employment practice, or do not include each of the given points.

COMPETENT

The selection criteria identified align to each position from part A1, comply with state and federal law related to personnel or employment practice, and include each of the given points.

C. DESCRIPTION OF INTERVIEW PROCESS:NELP 7, PSEL 6

NOT EVIDENT

A description of the interview process is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The description of the interview process is not organized in a sequence of steps, or the sequence of steps has an illogical flow, or each of the given points is not addressed.

COMPETENT

The description of the interview process is organized in a logical sequence of steps and addresses each of the given points.

C1. JUSTIFICATION OF INTERVIEW PROCESS:NELP 7, PSEL 6

NOT EVIDENT

A justification of the interview process is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The justification does not align to the interview process described in part C or does not address each of the given points. Or the justification makes an illogical or inaccurate argument for why the interview process aligns to the selection criteria in part B, how the process incorporates best interview practice, how the process complies with district policy, or how the process complies with federal or state law related to personnel or employment practices.

COMPETENT

The justification aligns to the interview process described in part C. The justification makes a logical and accurate argument for why the interview process aligns to the selection criteria in part B, how the process incorporates best interview practice, how the process complies with district policy, or how the process complies with federal and state law related to personnel or employment practices.

D. SOURCES:

NOT EVIDENT

The submission does not include both in-text citations and a reference list for sources that are quoted, paraphrased, or summarized.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The submission includes in-text citations for sources that are quoted, paraphrased, or summarized and a reference list; however, the citations or reference list is incomplete or inaccurate.

COMPETENT

E. PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION:

NOT EVIDENT

Content is unstructured, is disjointed, or contains pervasive errors in mechanics, usage, or grammar. Vocabulary or tone is unprofessional or distracts from the topic.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

Content is poorly organized, is difficult to follow, or contains errors in mechanics, usage, or grammar that cause confusion. Terminology is misused or ineffective.

COMPETENT

Content reflects attention to detail, is organized, and focuses on the main ideas as prescribed in the task or chosen by the candidate. Terminology is pertinent, is used correctly, and effectively conveys the intended meaning. Mechanics, usage, and grammar promote accurate interpretation and understanding.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

D019 TASK 2

COMPETENCIES

2046.1.2 : Applied Data Literacy Skills

The graduate applies data literacy and analysis skills appropriate to the graduate’s field of specialization to enhance learning and development opportunities for all P–12 students.

2048.1.3 : Best Practices Using Educational Data

The graduate recommends evidence-based practices based on emerging trends in data use appropriate to the field of specialization.

INTRODUCTION

In this task, you will begin by reviewing what you did in Task 1 of this assessment before creating an action plan within your educational setting. An action plan can include a school improvement plan (SIP), a student learning objective (SLO), or a professional learning community (PLC) plan. You will also reflect on best practices for data literacy, including continuous improvement planning, approaches to PLCs, and instructional decision-making processes. You may use the “Action Plan Template” attachment to help guide your submission .

REQUIREMENTS

Your submission must be your original work. No more than a combined total of 30% of the submission and no more than a 10% match to any one individual source can be directly quoted or closely paraphrased from sources, even if cited correctly. An originality report is provided when you submit your task that can be used as a guide.

A. Write an overview of Task 1: Data Analysis, including the following:

• problem statement

• participants and participant subgroups

• relevant stakeholders

• source the data was selected from

• data analysis

• inferences derived from your analysis
B. Write an action plan, based on your inferences derived from your analysis in part A. Discuss how the action plan can help solve the problem and improve the educational environment in your field of specialization.

1. Describe resources that you will need for the action plan.

2. Describe timelines for the action plan.

3. Describe evidence that the action plan has been implemented.
Note: Examples of an action plan can include but are not limited to an SIP, an SLO, or a PLC plan.
Note: While your role may be that of a principal, curriculum leader, director of English learning, or special education (SPED) teacher, the purpose of this task is to create an action plan based on your analysis of data and the inferences you make based on those data to address the problem identified in part A.
C. Justify how the action plan from part B could be used to help solve the problem and improve the educational environment, using three academic sources that support your position.

1.  Discuss how using the iterative decision-making cycle as part of the action plan may solve the problem.
D.  Discuss the action plan in terms of its issues of validity, reliability, and ethics.
E.  Discuss strategies that you could use to promote the action plan to stakeholders.
F.  Describe two examples of emergent education trends related to data literacy that could help drive continuous improvement within your educational setting.
Note: Examples include but are not limited to the following: how data are used in the context of methods that engage and motivate students, effective use of technology, project-based learning, increased engagement with content by using real-world data, and collaboration between educators and other stakeholders to ensure goals are being met.
G.  Acknowledge sources, using APA-formatted in-text citations and references, for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized.
H.  Demonstrate professional communication in the content and presentation of your submission.

File Restrictions

RUBRIC

GENERAL TEACHING DISPOSITIONS AS INDICATED IN THE WGU TEACHERS COLLEGE CODE OF ETHICS:

NOT EVIDENT

The submission demonstrates consistently unprofessional or unethical behavior or disposition as outlined in the WGU Teachers College Code of Ethics.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The submission demonstrates behavior or disposition that conflicts with the professional and ethical standards outlined in the WGU Teachers College Code of Ethics.

COMPETENT

The submission demonstrates behavior and disposition that align with the professional and ethical standards outlined in the WGU Teachers College Code of Ethics.

A. OVERVIEW OF TASK 1:CAEP A.1, INTASC 9

NOT EVIDENT

An overview of Task 1 is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

An overview of Task 1 is provided, but it does not include 1 or more of the given points.

COMPETENT

The overview of Task 1 includes the given points.

B. ACTION PLAN :CAEP A.1, INTASC 9

NOT EVIDENT

An action plan is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

An action plan is provided, but it is not based on the inferences in part A, or how the plan can help solve the problem or improve the educational environment in the field of specialization is not discussed.

COMPETENT

The action plan is based on the inferences in part A, and how the plan can help solve the problem and improve the educational environment in the field of specialization is discussed.

B1. RESOURCES:

NOT EVIDENT

A description is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The description does not address the resources that will be needed for the action plan, or the resources described do not relate to the action plan.

COMPETENT

The description addresses the resources that relate to and will be needed for the action plan.

B2. TIMELINES:CAEP A.1, INTASC 9

NOT EVIDENT

A description is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The description does not address the timelines for the action plan, or the timelines described do not relate to the action plan.

COMPETENT

The description addresses the timelines for the action plan.

B3. EVIDENCE OF IMPLEMENTATION:CAEP A.1, INTASC 9

NOT EVIDENT

A description is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The description does not address evidence of implementation of the action plan, or the evidence described does not relate to the action plan.

COMPETENT

The description addresses evidence of implementation of the action plan.

C. JUSTIFICATION :CAEP A.1, INTASC 9

NOT EVIDENT

A justification is not provided, or fewer than 2 supporting academic sources are provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The justification of the action plan is incomplete or inaccurate, or 2 supporting academic sources are provided.

COMPETENT

The justification of the action plan is complete and accurate, and 3 supporting academic sources are provided.

C1. ITERATIVE DECISION-MAKING CYCLE:CAEP A.1, INTASC 9

NOT EVIDENT

A discussion is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The discussion does not address how more than one round of analysis may be used to solve the problem. Or the discussion acknowledges that repeated rounds of analysis may be used, but the discussion does not use supporting details. Or the discussion does not address the differences between the rounds of analysis.

COMPETENT

The discussion addresses how more than one round of analysis may be used to solve the problem, including supporting details, and the discussion addresses the differences between rounds of analysis.

D. VALIDITY, RELIABILITY, AND ETHICS:CAEP A.1, INTASC 9

NOT EVIDENT

A discussion is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The discussion does not address the action plan in terms of its issues of validity, reliability, and ethics.

COMPETENT

The discussion addresses the action plan in terms of its issues of validity, reliability, and ethics.

E. STRATEGIES:CAEP A.1, INTASC 9

NOT EVIDENT

A discussion is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The discussion does not address strategies that could be used to promote the action plan to stakeholders. Or the discussion promotes the action plan but does not discuss strategies. Or the discussion addresses strategies that are unrelated to the action plan.

COMPETENT

The discussion addresses strategies related to the action plan that could be used to promote the plan to stakeholders.

F. EMERGENT TRENDS :CAEP A.1, INTASC 9

NOT EVIDENT

A description is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The description has fewer than 2 examples of emergent education trends, the trends do not relate to data literacy, or the description does not address how the data literacy trends could help drive continuous improvement for the school.

COMPETENT

The description addresses how 2 examples of emergent education trends relate to data literacy, and the description addresses how the data literacy trends could help drive continuous improvement for the school.

G. APA SOURCES:

NOT EVIDENT

The submission does not include in-text citations and references according to APA style for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The submission includes in-text citations and references for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized but does not demonstrate a consistent application of APA style.

COMPETENT

The submission includes in-text citations and references for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized and demonstrates a consistent application of APA style.

H. PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION:

NOT EVIDENT

Content is unstructured, is disjointed, or contains pervasive errors in mechanics, usage, or grammar. Vocabulary or tone is unprofessional or distracts from the topic.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

Content is poorly organized, is difficult to follow, or contains errors in mechanics, usage, or grammar that cause confusion. Terminology is misused or ineffective.

COMPETENT

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

D019 TASK 1

COMPETENCIES

2046.1.1 : Conceptual Framework for Data Literacy

The graduate applies research sources and data types useful in the graduate’s field of specialization to improve learning and development opportunities for all P–12 students.

2046.1.2 : Applied Data Literacy Skills

The graduate applies data literacy and analysis skills appropriate to the graduate’s field of specialization to enhance learning and development opportunities for all P–12 students.

INTRODUCTION

As a leader, you will be asked to use educational data and apply data literacy skills as a part of school improvement efforts. In this task, you will first describe an educational problem from your setting. You will then access existing educational data relevant to the problem and describe the source(s) of data that include information from technologies such as state department of education websites, data warehouses, data dashboards, simple spreadsheets, and apps. They may also include assessment systems, student information systems, instructional management systems, or other relevant technologies. Sources of data could also include district data or classroom data.

Next, you will apply data literacy skills to identify educational problems and data, analyze the data and their types, and then make inferences and draw conclusions. Last, you will summarize three credible research articles and describe how they may inform the next steps of an action plan. You may use the “Data Analysis Template” to help guide your submission.

REQUIREMENTS

A. Describe an educational problem relevant to your setting by doing the following:

1. Develop a problem statement that can be investigated by accessing and analyzing data.

Note: You will be accessing existing data. You will not need to collect original data.

2. Describe the setting or context in which the problem exists, including the participant group.

a. Describe the participant subgroups relevant to the problem.

Note: Some examples of participant characteristics include but are not limited to gender; socioeconomic status, homeless status; level of special education; and whether they are English learners, students with a parent in the military, or students in foster care.

3. Explain why each data type (qualitative and quantitative) may or may not be a good fit for the problem.

4. Describe stakeholders who may collaborate to address this problem, explaining why they are relevant.

5. Discuss ethical considerations related to student privacy, including how you will limit potential issues.
B. After selecting data relevant to the problem in part A, describe the source(s) of the data by doing the following:

Note: Data sources could include information from technologies such as state department of education websites, data warehouses, data dashboards, simple spreadsheets, and apps. They also may include assessment systems, student information systems, and instructional management systems. You may consider other relevant technologies that provide access to the analysis and reporting of data. You may access district data or classroom data as well.

1. Describe how you accessed the data, including the technology that you used.

2. Describe why the data you accessed from the source(s) are relevant to the problem and the participants in part A2.

3. Describe how the data source(s) is (are) credible.
C. Analyze each data set using methods aligned to the data type by doing the following:

1. Describe the quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods used.
Note: Examples of quantitative methods include measures of central tendency and proportions. An example of a qualitative method is coding for themes.
2. Describe how the data were made into a meaningful representation of the information, including any technology that was used to aid this process.

3. Explain what your data say about the measures in the performance of the whole group of participants from part A2.

4. Explain what your data say about the measures in the performance of the subgroups of the participants from part A2a.
D. Discuss your results and inferences by doing the following:

1. Summarize your results.

2. Discuss the inferences you made based on the data by doing the following:

a. Explain how you turned the raw data into actionable knowledge.

b. Discuss how you plan to share the data and the related inferences with each stakeholder group from part A4.

3.  Discuss how collaboration with each stakeholder group can help solve the problem from part A.
Note: These stakeholders can include but are not limited to principals, district administrators, parents, taxpayers, and legislators.
E.  Summarize three credible articles related to the problem, describing how each may inform the next steps in implementing an action plan related to this problem.
F.  Acknowledge sources, using APA-formatted in-text citations and references, for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized.
G.  Demonstrate professional communication in the content and presentation of your submission.

File Restrictions

RUBRIC

GENERAL TEACHING DISPOSITION AS INDICATED IN THE WGU TEACHERS COLLEGE CODE OF ETHICS:

NOT EVIDENT

The submission demonstrates consistently unprofessional or unethical behavior or disposition as outlined in the WGU Teachers College Code of Ethics.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The submission demonstrates behavior or disposition that conflicts with the professional and ethical standards outlined in the WGU Teachers College Code of Ethics.

COMPETENT

The submission demonstrates behavior and disposition that align with the professional and ethical standards outlined in the WGU Teachers College Code of Ethics.

A1. EDUCATIONAL PROBLEM STATEMENT :CAEP A.1, INTASC 9

NOT EVIDENT

A problem statement is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The provided problem statement cannot be investigated by accessing or analyzing data or is not focused on education.

COMPETENT

The provided problem statement can be investigated by accessing and analyzing data and is focused on education.

A2. SETTING OR CONTEXT AND PARTICIPANT GROUP:CAEP A.1, INTASC 9

NOT EVIDENT

A description is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The description does not include both the setting or context and the participant group, or the description does not relate 1 or more of these to the problem.

COMPETENT

The description relates the setting or context, including the participant group, to the problem.

A2A. PARTICIPANT SUBGROUPS:CAEP A.1, INTASC 9

NOT EVIDENT

A description is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The described participants are not divided into subgroups, the subgroups do not flow from the larger group, or the subgroups do not relate to the problem.

COMPETENT

The described participants are divided into subgroups, the subgroups flow from the larger participant group, and the subgroups relate to the problem.

A3. FIT FOR DATA TYPES:CAEP A.1, INTASC 9

NOT EVIDENT

An explanation is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The explanation does not distinguish between the identified qualitative and quantitative data types, or it does not address why each data type may or may not be a good fit for the problem.

COMPETENT

The explanation distinguishes between the identified qualitative and quantitative data types, and it addresses why each data type may or may not be a good fit for the problem.

A4. DESCRIPTION OF STAKEHOLDERS:CAEP A.1, INTASC 10

NOT EVIDENT

A description is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The description does not address the stakeholders or it does not explain why they are relevant.

COMPETENT

The description addresses the stakeholders and explains why they are relevant.

A5. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS:CAEP A.1, INTASC 9

NOT EVIDENT

A discussion is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The discussion of ethical considerations does not focus on student data privacy or does not address how to limit these potential issues.

COMPETENT

The discussion of ethical considerations focuses on student data privacy and addresses how to limit these potential issues.

B1. DATA ACCESS:CAEP A.1, INTASC 9

NOT EVIDENT

A description is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The description of how the data are accessed does not include enough detail to be replicated or does not specify the technology used to access the data.

COMPETENT

The description of how the data are accessed is detailed enough to be replicated and specifies the technology used to access this data.

B2. RELEVANCE OF DATA:CAEP A.1, INTASC 9

NOT EVIDENT

A description is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The description does not explain why the data are relevant to the problem or it does not explain why it is relevant to the participants in part A2.

COMPETENT

The description addresses why the data are relevant to the problem and why it is relevant to the participants in part A2.

B3. CREDIBILITY OF DATA SOURCE:CAEP A.1, INTASC 9

NOT EVIDENT

A description is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

A description addresses how the data source(s) is (are) credible, but the sources of the data are drawn from biased or not credible sources.

COMPETENT

The description addresses how the data source(s) is (are) credible, and the data are drawn from unbiased and credible sources.

C1. METHODS USED:CAEP A.1, INTASC 9

NOT EVIDENT

A description is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The description does not address describe all quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods used.

COMPETENT

The description addresses all quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods used.

C2. DATA REPRESENTATION:CAEP A.1, INTASC 9

NOT EVIDENT

A description is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

A description of how the data will be organized is provided, but the representation of the data is not meaningful, or the description does not include the technology used.

COMPETENT

The description addresses how the data will be organized into a meaningful representation and includes the technology used.

C3. DATA FROM WHOLE GROUP:CAEP A.1, INTASC 9

NOT EVIDENT

An explanation is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The explanation does not address what the data say about the measures of the whole group of participants.

COMPETENT

The explanation addresses what the data say about the measures of the whole group of participants.

C4. DATA FROM SUBGROUPS:CAEP A.1, INTASC 9

NOT EVIDENT

An explanation is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The explanation does not address what the data say about the measures, including the patterns and inconsistencies, in the performance of the subgroups.

COMPETENT

The explanation addresses what the data say about the measures, including the patterns and inconsistencies, in the performance of the subgroups.

D1. RESULTS SUMMARY:CAEP A.1, INTASC 9

NOT EVIDENT

A summary is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The summary of results is incomplete or inaccurate.

COMPETENT

The summary of results is complete and accurate.

D2A. TRANSFORMING DATA INTO ACTIONABLE KNOWLEDGE:CAEP A.1, INTASC 9

NOT EVIDENT

A explanation is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The explanation addresses the raw data but does not address how the data are turned into actionable knowledge.

COMPETENT

The explanation addresses how the raw data are turned into actionable knowledge.

D2B. SHARING WITH STAKEHOLDER GROUPS:CAEP A.1, INTASC 9

NOT EVIDENT

A discussion is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The discussion addresses either the data or the inferences that will be shared, or each stakeholder group is not addressed.

COMPETENT

The discussion addresses the data and the inferences that will be shared with each stakeholder group.

D3. COLLABORATION WITH STAKEHOLDER GROUPS:CAEP A.1, INTASC 10

NOT EVIDENT

A discussion is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The discussion does not address how collaboration with each stakeholder group can help solve the problem.

COMPETENT

The discussion addresses how collaboration with each stakeholder group can help solve the problem.

E. SUMMARY OF ARTICLES:CAEP A.1, INTASC 9

NOT EVIDENT

A summary is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The summary addresses fewer than 3 articles, or 1 or more articles are not credible. Or the description does not address how these articles are a good fit for the problem. Or the description does not address how each article may inform the next steps for an action plan based on research.

COMPETENT

The summary addresses 3 credible sources and how these articles are a good fit for the problem. The description addresses how each article may inform the next steps for an action plan based on research.

F. APA SOURCES:

NOT EVIDENT

The submission does not include in-text citations and references according to APA style for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The submission includes in-text citations and references for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized but does not demonstrate a consistent application of APA style.

COMPETENT

The submission includes in-text citations and references for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized and demonstrates a consistent application of APA style.

G. PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION:

NOT EVIDENT

Content is unstructured, is disjointed, or contains pervasive errors in mechanics, usage, or grammar. Vocabulary or tone is unprofessional or distracts from the topic.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

Content is poorly organized, is difficult to follow, or contains errors in mechanics, usage, or grammar that cause confusion. Terminology is misused or ineffective.

COMPETENT

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

D021 TASK 3

COMPETENCIES

2045.4.3 : Advancing Instructional Practices

The graduate advances the quality and effectiveness of academic and non-academic instructional practices, resources, technologies, and services to support equitable access to learning for each student.

2045.4.4 : Advancing Assessment Practices

The graduate uses data from culturally responsive and accessible formative and summative assessments to improve instruction and student learning and well-being.

INTRODUCTION

You must complete and pass Tasks 1 and 2 prior to beginning this task.

Part of being an effective school leader is ensuring the programs of study are coherent and prepare students for success. You will lead the school’s efforts in developing, implementing, and evaluating curricula, instructional practices, and assessments.

Over the three tasks for this assessment, you will use eight of the nine steps of curricular evaluation. For this task, Task 3, you will complete steps seven through nine of the curricular evaluation process for programs of study: select and develop tests, select instructional materials, and provide for professional learning. Task 1 covers steps one and two, and Task 2 covers steps four through six.

The documents in the attachments section compose a rich case study similar to the type of information you would have access to as a principal when conducting a curriculum evaluation. You may not need to use each of these attachments in every task, although some attachments are required for this task. However, collectively, the attachments will give you a broad scenario to analyze, and individually, the attachments will help inform thoughtful responses to real-world situations.

SCENARIO

As principal of West Oak Cove Elementary School, you have successfully led the curriculum evaluation team through the first five of the nine steps of the curriculum evaluation process for the fourth-grade math curriculum based on the Illinois Common Core State Standards. You have defined the scope of the evaluation, engaged stakeholders, and evaluated and adjusted the curriculum map and curriculum guide excerpt to improve learning. You are now ready to finalize the curriculum evaluation.

REQUIREMENTS

Tasks may not be submitted as cloud links, such as links to Google Docs, Google Slides, OneDrive, etc., unless specified in the task requirements. All other submissions must be file types that are uploaded and submitted as attachments (e.g., .docx, .pdf, .ppt).

A. Evaluate the attached “Summative Assessment” by doing the following:

1. Identify the strengths and weaknesses of the attached “Summative Assessment” in relation to cultural responsiveness, and justify why you classified each as a strength or weakness.

2. Identify the strengths and weaknesses of the attached “Summative Assessment” in relation to accessibility, and justify why you classified each as a strength or weakness.

3. Analyze how well the attached “Summative Assessment” aligns to the attached “Curriculum Map.”

4. Recommend specific steps you would take to help teachers who are using the attached “Summative Assessment” address each of the weaknesses you identified in parts A1–A3.
a. Justify how the steps in part A4 would be effective in addressing the identified weaknesses.

B. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the attached “Unit of Instruction: Division” by doing the following:

1. Identify the strengths and weaknesses of the attached “Unit of Instruction: Division” in relation to equity, and justify why you classified each as a strength or weakness.

2. Identify the strengths and weaknesses of the attached “Unit of Instruction: Division” in relation to engagement, and justify why you classified each as a strength or weakness.

3. Identify the strengths and weaknesses of the attached “Unit of Instruction: Division” in relation to digital literacy, and justify why you classified each as a strength or weakness.

4. Recommend specific steps you would take to help teachers who are using the attached “Unit of Instruction: Division” address each of the weaknesses you identified in parts B1–B3.
a. Justify how the steps in part B4 would be effective in addressing the identified weaknesses.

C. Acknowledge sources, using in-text citations and references, for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized.

D. Demonstrate professional communication in the content and presentation of your submission.

File Restrictions

RUBRIC

GENERAL TEACHING DISPOSITION AS INDICATED IN THE WGU TEACHERS COLLEGE CODE OF ETHICS:

NOT EVIDENT

The submission demonstrates consistently unprofessional or unethical behavior or disposition as outlined in the WGU Teachers College Code of Ethics.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The submission demonstrates behavior or disposition that conflicts with the professional and ethical standards outlined in the WGU Teachers College Code of Ethics.

COMPETENT

The submission demonstrates behavior and disposition that align with the professional and ethical standards outlined in the WGU Teachers College Code of Ethics.

A1. CULTURAL RESPONSIVENESS:NELP 4, PSEL 3

NOT EVIDENT

A submission that identifies strengths and weaknesses of the attached “Summative Assessment” is not provided, or 1 or more of the strengths or weaknesses are inaccurately identified. Or a justification is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The justification is not relevant to the attached “Summative Assessment” or is not related to cultural responsiveness. Or the justification does not logically explain why each of the identified strengths and weaknesses of the attached “Summative Assessment” is effective or ineffective in promoting cultural responsiveness. Or the justification is not supported with references to specific information in the attached “Summative Assessment.”

COMPETENT

The justification is relevant to the attached “Summative Assessment” and relates to cultural responsiveness. The justification logically explains why each of the identified strengths and weaknesses of the attached “Summative Assessment” is effective or ineffective in promoting cultural responsiveness. The justification is supported with references to specific information in the attached “Summative Assessment.”

A2. ACCESSIBILITY:NELP 4, PSEL 3

NOT EVIDENT

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The justification is not relevant to the attached “Summative Assessment” or is not related to accessibility. Or the justification does not logically explain why each of the identified strengths and weaknesses of the attached “Summative Assessment” is effective or ineffective in promoting accessibility. Or the justification is not supported with references to specific information in the attached “Summative Assessment.”

COMPETENT

The justification is relevant to the attached “Summative Assessment” and relates to accessibility. The justification logically explains why each of the identified strengths and weaknesses of the attached “Summative Assessment” is effective or ineffective in promoting accessibility. The justification is supported with references to specific information in the attached “Summative Assessment.”

A3. ALIGNMENT TO CURRICULUM MAP:NELP 4, PSEL 4

NOT EVIDENT

An analysis of how well the attached “Summative Assessment” aligns to the attached “Curriculum Map” is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The analysis includes an inaccurate explanation of how well the attached “Summative Assessment” and the attached “Curriculum Map” are aligned or does not include specific, relevant details from the attachment(s) to support the analysis.

COMPETENT

The analysis includes an accurate explanation of how well the attached “Summative Assessment” and the attached “Curriculum Map” are aligned and includes specific, relevant details from the attachment(s) to support the analysis.

A4. ADDRESSING WEAKNESSES OF CURRICULUM MAP:NELP 4, PSEL 4

NOT EVIDENT

A submission is not provided, or the submission does not include steps to help teachers who are using the attached “Summative Assessment.”

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The submission recommends steps that are not plausible or not specific enough to help teachers who are using the attached “Summative Assessment” address each of the weaknesses identified in parts A1–A3.

COMPETENT

The submission recommends plausible, specific steps to help teachers who are using the attached “Summative Assessment” address each of the weaknesses identified in parts A1–A3.

A4A. EFFECTIVENESS JUSTIFICATION:NELP 4, PSEL 4

NOT EVIDENT

A justification explaining how the steps in part A4 would address any of the weaknesses identified in parts A1–A3 is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The justification does not explain how the steps in part A4 would effectively address each weakness identified in parts A1–A3, or it does not use relevant examples for support.

COMPETENT

The justification explains how the steps in part A4 would effectively address each weakness identified in parts A1–A3 and uses relevant examples for support.

B1. EQUITY:NELP 4, PSEL 3

NOT EVIDENT

A submission that identifies the strengths and weaknesses of the attached “Unit of Instruction: Division” is not provided, or 1 or more of the strengths or weaknesses are inaccurately identified. Or a justification is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The justification is not relevant to the attached “Unit of Instruction: Division” or is not related to equity. Or the justification does not logically explain why each of the identified strengths and weaknesses of the attached “Unit of Instruction: Division” is effective or ineffective in promoting equity. Or the justification is not supported with references to specific information in the attached “Unit of Instruction: Division.”

COMPETENT

The justification is relevant to the attached “Unit of Instruction: Division” and relates to equity. The justification logically explains why each of the identified strengths and weaknesses of the attached “Unit of Instruction: Division” is effective or ineffective in promoting equity. The justification is supported with references to specific information in the attached “Unit of Instruction: Division.”

B2. ENGAGEMENT:NELP 4, PSEL 4

NOT EVIDENT

A submission that identifies strengths and weaknesses of the attached “Unit of Instruction: Division” is not provided, or 1 or more of the strengths or weaknesses are inaccurately identified. Or a justification is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The justification is not relevant to the attached “Unit of Instruction: Division” or is not related to engagement. Or the justification does not logically explain why each of the identified strengths and weaknesses of the attached “Unit of Instruction: Division” is effective or ineffective in promoting engagement. Or the justification is not supported with references to specific information in the attached “Unit of Instruction: Division.”

COMPETENT

The justification is relevant to the attached “Unit of Instruction: Division” and relates to engagement. The justification logically explains why each of the identified strengths and weaknesses of the attached “Unit of Instruction: Division” is effective or ineffective in promoting engagement. The justification is supported with references to specific information in the attached “Unit of Instruction: Division.”

B3. DIGITAL LITERACY:NELP 4, PSEL 4

NOT EVIDENT

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The justification is not relevant to the attached “Unit of Instruction: Division” or is not related to digital literacy. Or the justification does not logically explain why each of the identified strengths and weaknesses of the attached “Unit of Instruction: Division” is effective or ineffective in promoting digital literacy. Or the justification is not supported with references to specific information in the attached “Unit of Instruction: Division.”

COMPETENT

The justification is relevant to the attached “Unit of Instruction: Division” and relates to digital literacy. The justification logically explains why each of the identified strengths and weaknesses of the attached “Unit of Instruction: Division” is effective or ineffective in promoting digital literacy. The justification is supported with references to specific information in the attached “Unit of Instruction: Division.”

B4. ADDRESSING WEAKNESSES OF THE CURRICULUM:NELP 4, PSEL 4

NOT EVIDENT

A submission is not provided, or the submission does not include steps to help teachers who are using the attached “Unit of Instruction: Division.”

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The submission recommends steps that are not plausible or specific enough to help teachers who are using the attached “Unit of Instruction: Division” address each of the weaknesses identified in parts B1–B3.

COMPETENT

The submission recommends plausible, specific steps to help teachers who are using the attached “Unit of Instruction: Division” address each of the weaknesses identified in parts B1–B3.

B4A. EFFECTIVENESS JUSTIFICATION:NELP 4, PSEL 4

NOT EVIDENT

A justification explaining how the steps in part B4 would address any of the weaknesses identified in parts B1–B3 is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The submission does not justify the steps recommended in part B4, or it does not include specific examples of why the recommended steps would be effective.

COMPETENT

The submission justifies the steps recommended in part B4, including specific examples of why the recommended steps would be effective.

C. SOURCES:

NOT EVIDENT

The submission does not include both in-text citations and a reference list for sources that are quoted, paraphrased, or summarized.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The submission includes in-text citations for sources that are quoted, paraphrased, or summarized and a reference list; however, the citations or reference list is incomplete or inaccurate.

COMPETENT

D. PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION:

NOT EVIDENT

Content is unstructured, is disjointed, or contains pervasive errors in mechanics, usage, or grammar. Vocabulary or tone is unprofessional or distracts from the topic.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

Content is poorly organized, is difficult to follow, or contains errors in mechanics, usage, or grammar that cause confusion. Terminology is misused or ineffective.

COMPETENT

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

D021 TASK 2

COMPETENCIES

2045.4.1 : Designing, Evaluating, and Improving Curricula

The graduate evaluates curricula and recommends improvements that will ensure academic and non-academic programs are high-quality, technology-rich, and coherent.

2045.4.2 : Implementing and Aligning the Curriculum

The graduate implements and aligns the curriculum to ensure achievement of expected learning outcomes.

INTRODUCTION

Before you begin this task, you must have completed and passed Task 1, and you must complete and pass this task prior to beginning Task 3.

Over the three tasks for this assessment, you will use eight of the nine steps of curricular evaluation. For this task, Task 2, you will complete steps four through six of the curricular evaluation process for programs of study: refine curriculum map, refine curriculum materials (i.e., curriculum guide), and suggest time allocations. Task 1 covers steps one and two and Task 3 covers steps seven through nine.

While you do not need to complete step three, which is to map the desired curriculum, this step would be at the beginning of this task.

SCENARIO

You have successfully led West Oak Cove Elementary School through the first two steps of the curriculum evaluation process for the fourth-grade math curriculum based on the Illinois Common Core State Standards. You and your team have set the project parameters for the curriculum evaluation process, including identifying the purposes behind the evaluation and the stakeholders who should be involved. You have also completed the plan to orient the faculty to the curriculum evaluation. You will now continue the process, leading your faculty and staff through the next four steps of the curriculum evaluation process.

REQUIREMENTS

A. Evaluate the attached “Curriculum Map” by doing the following:

1. Discuss how well the attached “Curriculum Map” aligns to established Illinois Common Core State Standards.

2. Discuss student performance data as it relates to the standards in the attached “Curriculum Map,” including identification of areas that could be improved.

3. Recommend modifications to the attached “Curriculum Map,” and justify your recommendations based upon your responses to part A1 and part A2.

4. Explain the time allocations for key elements discussed in the attached “Curriculum Map.” Justify all changes to time allocations for key elements you would make, based on your responses to parts A1–A3.

B. Evaluate the attached “Curriculum Guide Excerpt” by doing the following:

1. Discuss how well the attached “Curriculum Guide Excerpt” addresses each of the following elements:

• grade-level standards alignment

• student performance data

• equity and cultural relevance

• use of technology

2. Recommend modifications to the attached “Curriculum Guide Excerpt,” and justify your recommendations based upon your response to part B1.

3. Explain each of the time allocations for key elements discussed in the attached “Curriculum Guide Excerpt.” Justify all changes you would make, based on your responses to parts B1 and B2.

C. Acknowledge sources, using in-text citations and references, for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized.

D. Demonstrate professional communication in the content and presentation of your submission.

File Restrictions

RUBRIC

GENERAL TEACHING DISPOSITION AS INDICATED IN THE WGU TEACHERS COLLEGE CODE OF ETHICS:

NOT EVIDENT

The submission demonstrates consistently unprofessional or unethical behavior or disposition as outlined in the WGU Teachers College Code of Ethics.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The submission demonstrates behavior or disposition that conflicts with the professional and ethical standards outlined in the WGU Teachers College Code of Ethics.

COMPETENT

The submission demonstrates behavior and disposition that align with the professional and ethical standards outlined in the WGU Teachers College Code of Ethics.

A1. CURRICULUM MAP ALIGNMENT:NELP 4, PSEL 4

NOT EVIDENT

A discussion of alignment to state standards is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The discussion does not plausibly address how well the attached “Curriculum Map” aligns to established Illinois Common Core State Standards, or the discussion does not include evidence from the attached “Curriculum Map” or corresponding state standards.

COMPETENT

The discussion plausibly addresses how well the attached “Curriculum Map” aligns to established Illinois Common Core State Standards, including evidence from the attached “Curriculum Map” and corresponding state standards.

A2. CURRICULUM MAP DATA:NELP 4, PSEL 4

NOT EVIDENT

A discussion is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The discussion does not logically connect student performance data to the standards in the attached “Curriculum Map.” Or the discussion does not accurately suggest areas that could be improved, or the suggestions are not supported by relevant student performance data.

COMPETENT

The discussion logically connects student performance data to the standards in the attached “Curriculum Map” and accurately suggests areas that could be improved, supporting these suggestions with relevant student performance data.

A3. CURRICULUM MAP MODIFICATIONS:NELP 4, PSEL 4

NOT EVIDENT

A recommendation is not provided, or a justification is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The recommended modifications provided are irrelevant to the attached “Curriculum Map,” or the justification does not logically rationalize how the modifications could improve alignment of the attached “Curriculum Map” to state standards or improve student performance data.

COMPETENT

The recommended modifications provided are relevant to the attached “Curriculum Map,” and the justification logically rationalizes how the modifications could improve alignment of the attached “Curriculum Map” to state standards and improve student performance data.

A4. CURRICULUM MAP TIME ALLOCATIONS:NELP 4, PSEL 4

NOT EVIDENT

A submission is not provided, or a justification is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The submission does not explain 1 or more of the time allocations for key elements discussed in the attached “Curriculum Map.” Or the submission does not justify all changes to time allocations for key elements by failing to base the justification on the need to align the curriculum map to the standards discussed in part A1, improve areas of student performance data in part A2, or support the recommended modifications to the curriculum map in part A3.

COMPETENT

The submission explains each of the time allocations for key elements discussed in the attached “Curriculum Map.” And the submission justifies all changes to time allocations for key elements, basing the justification on the need to align the curriculum map to the standards discussed in part A1, improve areas of student performance data in part A2, and support the recommended modifications to the curriculum map in part A3.

B1. CURRICULUM GUIDE EXCERPT COMPLETENESS:NELP 4, PSEL 4

NOT EVIDENT

A discussion is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The discussion does not identify or explain strengths or weaknesses in how the attached “Curriculum Guide Excerpt” addresses each of the given points, or the discussion is not supported with relevant details from the attachments listed in the attachments section.

COMPETENT

The discussion identifies and explains strengths and weaknesses in how the attached “Curriculum Guide Excerpt” addresses each of the given points, supporting the discussion with relevant details from the attachments listed in the attachments section.

B2. CURRICULUM GUIDE EXCERPT MODIFICATIONS:NELP 4, PSEL 4

NOT EVIDENT

A recommendation is not provided, or a justification is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The recommended modifications provided are irrelevant to the attached “Curriculum Guide Excerpt,” or the justification does not logically rationalize how the modifications could make the attached “Curriculum Guide Excerpt” better address the given points in part B1.

COMPETENT

The recommended modifications provided are relevant to the attached “Curriculum Guide Excerpt,” and the justification logically rationalizes how the modifications could make the attached “Curriculum Guide Excerpt” better address the given points in part B1.

B3. CURRICULUM GUIDE EXCERPT TIME ALLOCATIONS:NELP 4, PSEL 4

NOT EVIDENT

A submission is not provided, or a justification is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The submission does not explain 1 or more of the time allocations for key elements discussed in the attached “Curriculum Guide Excerpt.” Or the submission does not justify all changes to time allocations for key elements by failing to base the justification on the need for the attached “Curriculum Guide Excerpt” to fully address the given points in part B1 and address the timing needs of modifications in part B2.

COMPETENT

The submission explains each of the time allocations for key elements discussed in the attached “Curriculum Guide Excerpt.” And the submission justifies all changes to time allocations for key elements, basing the justification on the need for the attached “Curriculum Guide Excerpt” to fully address the given points in part B1 and address the timing needs of modifications in part B2.

C. SOURCES:

NOT EVIDENT

The submission does not include both in-text citations and a reference list for sources that are quoted, paraphrased, or summarized.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The submission includes in-text citations for sources that are quoted, paraphrased, or summarized and a reference list; however, the citations or reference list is incomplete or inaccurate.

COMPETENT

D. PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION:

NOT EVIDENT

Content is unstructured, is disjointed, or contains pervasive errors in mechanics, usage, or grammar. Vocabulary or tone is unprofessional or distracts from the topic.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

Content is poorly organized, is difficult to follow, or contains errors in mechanics, usage, or grammar that cause confusion. Terminology is misused or ineffective.

COMPETENT

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

D021 TASK 1

COMPETENCIES

2045.4.1 : Designing, Evaluating, and Improving Curricula

The graduate evaluates curricula and recommends improvements that will ensure academic and non-academic programs are high-quality, technology-rich, and coherent.

INTRODUCTION

You must complete and pass this task before beginning Tasks 2 and 3.

Over the three tasks for this assessment, you will use eight of the nine steps of curricular evaluation. For this task, Task 1, you will complete the first two steps of the curricular evaluation process for programs of study: establish project parameters and orient for mastery. Task 2 and Task 3 will cover the remaining steps.

SCENARIO

You are the principal of West Oak Cove Elementary School. You have been asked by district leadership to evaluate the curricula, instructional practices, and assessments for the school math program over the next school year as part of a district program evaluation. You are currently focusing on the fourth-grade math curriculum based on the Illinois Common Core State Standards.

REQUIREMENTS

A. Discuss the project parameters for the curriculum evaluation process by doing the following:

1. Identify key factors for student subgroups that indicate a need for a curriculum evaluation, using the data in the attached “Curriculum Guide Excerpt,” “Curriculum Map,” “Needs Assessment,” and “School Report Card.” Justify how the factors support the need for the curriculum evaluation process to continue.

2. Identify key stakeholder groups you would include in the curriculum development team (CDT) and their respective roles. Justify their inclusion and roles in the curriculum evaluation process.

B. Discuss the plan to orient faculty and staff who will be affected by the potential changes caused by the curriculum evaluation process by doing the following:

1. Identify staff who will participate in the curriculum evaluation orientation and their respective roles. Justify their inclusion and roles in the curriculum evaluation orientation.

2. Explain the concepts and processes you would include in the curriculum evaluation orientation that would effectively orient the staff members identified in part B1 to the curriculum evaluation process discussed in part A.

C. Acknowledge sources, using in-text citations and references, for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized.

D. Demonstrate professional communication in the content and presentation of your submission.

File Restrictions

RUBRIC

GENERAL TEACHING DISPOSITION AS INDICATED IN THE WGU TEACHERS COLLEGE CODE OF ETHICS:

NOT EVIDENT

The submission demonstrates consistently unprofessional or unethical behavior or disposition as outlined in the WGU Teachers College Code of Ethics.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The submission demonstrates behavior or disposition that conflicts with the professional and ethical standards outlined in the WGU Teachers College Code of Ethics.

COMPETENT

The submission demonstrates behavior and disposition that align with the professional and ethical standards outlined in the WGU Teachers College Code of Ethics.

A1. KEY FACTORS:NELP 4, PSEL 4

NOT EVIDENT

The submission does not identify key factors for student subgroups, or the identified factors do not indicate a need for curriculum evaluation. Or no justification is provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The submission does not plausibly justify how the identified key factors for student subgroups support the need for the curriculum evaluation process to continue, or the submission does not include evidence from each given attachment.

COMPETENT

The submission plausibly justifies how the identified key factors for student subgroups support the need for the curriculum evaluation process to continue, including evidence from the given attachments.

A2. KEY STAKEHOLDERS:NELP 4, PSEL 4

NOT EVIDENT

Key stakeholder groups for the curriculum development team are not identified, or the respective role for any identified stakeholder group is not provided. Or a justification for the inclusion of any of the stakeholder groups in the curriculum development team or the role of any of the stakeholder groups in the curriculum evaluation process is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The justification for the inclusion of identified key stakeholder groups in the CDT lacks relevant support or excludes details of how the groups will contribute to the process and fulfill the role identified.

COMPETENT

The justification for the inclusion of identified key stakeholder groups in the CDT includes relevant support, detailing how the groups will contribute to the process and fulfill the role identified.

B1. STAFF ORIENTATION:NELP 4, PSEL 4

NOT EVIDENT

Staff who will participate in the curriculum evaluation orientation are not identified, or the respective role for any identified staff is not provided. Or a justification for the inclusion or role of staff in the curriculum evaluation orientation is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The justification for the inclusion of identified staff in the curriculum evaluation orientation lacks relevant support or excludes details of how the staff will contribute to the process and fulfill the role identified.

COMPETENT

The justification for the inclusion of identified staff in the curriculum evaluation orientation includes relevant support, detailing how staff will contribute to the process and fulfill the role identified.

B2. ORIENTATION CONTENT:NELP 4, PSEL 4

NOT EVIDENT

An explanation is not provided, or the explanation does not provide concepts or processes to be addressed in the curriculum evaluation orientation.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The explanation addresses concepts and processes that the candidate would include in the curriculum evaluation orientation, but they are irrelevant, or they would not effectively orient the staff members identified in part B1 to the curriculum evaluation process discussed in part A.

COMPETENT

The explanation addresses relevant concepts and processes that the candidate would include in the curriculum evaluation orientation that would effectively orient the staff members identified in part B1 to the curriculum evaluation process discussed in part A.

C. SOURCES:

NOT EVIDENT

The submission does not include both in-text citations and a reference list for sources that are quoted, paraphrased, or summarized.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The submission includes in-text citations for sources that are quoted, paraphrased, or summarized and a reference list; however, the citations or reference list is incomplete or inaccurate.

COMPETENT

D. PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION:

NOT EVIDENT

Content is unstructured, is disjointed, or contains pervasive errors in mechanics, usage, or grammar. Vocabulary or tone is unprofessional or distracts from the topic.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

Content is poorly organized, is difficult to follow, or contains errors in mechanics, usage, or grammar that cause confusion. Terminology is misused or ineffective.

COMPETENT

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

D018 TASK 1

COMPETENCIES

2045.3.2 : Understanding Section 504

The graduate describes how Section 504 processes adhere to federal laws to enable students with impairments to receive appropriate accommodations and services to succeed academically in the least restrictive environment (LRE).

INTRODUCTION

It is the principals’ responsibility to ensure that students’ legal rights under Section 504 are protected and all requirements set forth within are adhered to. Although oversight can be delegated, you, as the principal, will ultimately hold accountability. As such, you must demonstrate your competence in ensuring adherence to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. In this task, you will act as a principal as you address parental concerns regarding Section 504 accommodations and oversee the development of a Section 504 plan.

REQUIREMENTS

A. Explain, as if you were talking to a parent, what Section 504 is, including the following:

• the type of law that Section 504 is

• the purpose of Section 504

• the eligibility requirements for Section 504 in an educational setting

• how Section 504 differs from the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
B. Explain how a Section 504 referral is submitted and how the screening or record would be reviewed, including the following:

• how the school should respond to the referral

• what documentation is required

• what meeting(s) should take place

• who should be involved

• the responsibilities of those involved
C. Evaluate the attached “Draft of Omar Thompson’s Section 504 Plan” by doing the following:

1. Evaluate whether the Section 504 plan as written is appropriate and meets all of Omar’s needs.

2. Evaluate whether the Section 504 plan as written adheres to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

3. Write a memorandum to the school’s Section 504 coordinator outlining any suggested revisions you may have for the draft of Omar’s Section 504 plan.
D. Respond to the following questions from Omar’s parents about his Section 504 plan:

• Will Omar’s Section 504 plan transfer from a K–12 school system to college?

• What should parents do if they think that a school staff member is not implementing Omar’s Section 504 plan appropriately?

• Will accommodations for state standardized testing be provided to Omar?
E. Explain the process for a Section 504 plan review, including the following:

• what documentation is required

• what meeting(s) should take place

• who should be involved

• the responsibilities of those involved

1.  Describe how the process for a Section 504 plan review could impact Omar’s Section 504 plan over time.
F.  Acknowledge sources, using in-text citations and references, for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized.
G.  Demonstrate professional communication in the content and presentation of your submission.

File Restrictions

RUBRIC

GENERAL TEACHING DISPOSITIONS AS INDICATED IN THE WGU TEACHERS COLLEGE CODE OF ETHICS:

NOT EVIDENT

The submission demonstrates consistently unprofessional or unethical behavior or disposition as outlined in the WGU Teachers College Code of Ethics.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The submission demonstrates behavior or disposition that conflicts with the professional and ethical standards outlined in the WGU Teachers College Code of Ethics.

COMPETENT

The submission demonstrates behavior and disposition that align with the professional and ethical standards outlined in the WGU Teachers College Code of Ethics.

A. SECTION 504:NELP 3, PSEL 3

NOT EVIDENT

An explanation of Section 504 is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The explanation of Section 504 is inaccurate, or 1 or more of the given points are not addressed.

COMPETENT

The explanation of Section 504 accurately addresses each of the given points.

B. SECTION 504 REFERRAL AND REVIEW PROCESS:NELP 3, PSEL 3

NOT EVIDENT

An explanation of how a Section 504 referral is submitted or an explanation of how the screening or record will be reviewed is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

An explanation of how a Section 504 referral is submitted and how the screening or record will be reviewed is inaccurate, or 1 or more of the given points are not addressed.

COMPETENT

An explanation of how a Section 504 referral is submitted and how the screening or record will be reviewed accurately addresses each of the given points.

C1. OMAR’S NEEDS:NELP 2, PSEL 3

NOT EVIDENT

An evaluation of whether the Section 504 plan meets Omar’s needs is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The evaluation of Omar’s Section 504 plan is inaccurate, does not address whether all of Omar’s needs are met, or does not address whether the Section 504 plan is appropriate for meeting Omar’s needs.

COMPETENT

The evaluation of Omar’s Section 504 plan accurately addresses whether all of Omar’s needs are met and whether the plan is appropriate for meeting Omar’s needs.

C2. ADHERENCE TO SECTION 504:NELP 2, PSEL 3

NOT EVIDENT

An evaluation of the Section 504 plan is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The evaluation draws inaccurate conclusions about whether the Section 504 plan adheres to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Or the conclusions are not supported by specific examples from the attached scenario.

COMPETENT

The evaluation draws accurate conclusions about whether the Section 504 plan adheres to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The conclusions are supported by specific examples from the attached scenario.

C3. MEMO TO SECTION 504 COORDINATOR:NELP 2, PSEL 3

NOT EVIDENT

A memorandum regarding additions or deletions to the Section 504 plan is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The memorandum suggests additions or deletions that are inappropriate for Omar, that are unrealistic, or that do not adhere to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Or the additions or deletions suggested would not result in a Section 504 plan that meets all of Omar’s needs.

COMPETENT

The memorandum suggests additions or deletions that are appropriate for Omar, are realistic, and adhere to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The additions or deletions suggested would result in a Section 504 plan that meets all of Omar’s needs.

D. ADDRESSING QUESTIONS ABOUT SECTION 504:NELP 3, PSEL 3

NOT EVIDENT

A response to the given questions is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The response provided to 1 or more of the given questions is inaccurate or inappropriate.

COMPETENT

The response accurately and appropriately addresses each of the given questions.

E. SECTION 504 RE-EVALUATION:NELP 2, PSEL 9

NOT EVIDENT

An explanation of the procedures for a Section 504 plan review is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The explanation of the procedures for a Section 504 plan review is inaccurate, or 1 or more of the given points are not addressed.

COMPETENT

The explanation of the procedures for a Section 504 plan review accurately addresses each of the given points.

E1. OMAR’S RE-EVALUATION:NELP 2, PSEL 9

NOT EVIDENT

A description of how the process for a Section 504 plan review could impact Omar’s Section 504 plan over time is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The description of how the process for a Section 504 plan review could impact Omar’s Section 504 plan over time is inaccurate or is not specific to Omar’s Section 504 plan.

COMPETENT

The description of how the process for a Section 504 plan review could impact Omar’s Section 504 plan over time is accurate and specific to Omar’s Section 504 plan.

F. SOURCES:

NOT EVIDENT

The submission does not include both in-text citations and a reference list for sources that are quoted, paraphrased, or summarized.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The submission includes in-text citations for sources that are quoted, paraphrased, or summarized and a reference list; however, the citations or reference list is incomplete or inaccurate.

COMPETENT

G. PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION:

NOT EVIDENT

Content is unstructured, is disjointed, or contains pervasive errors in mechanics, usage, or grammar. Vocabulary or tone is unprofessional or distracts from the topic.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

Content is poorly organized, is difficult to follow, or contains errors in mechanics, usage, or grammar that cause confusion. Terminology is misused or ineffective.

COMPETENT

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

D018 Task 2

COMPETENCIES

2045.3.3 : Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

The graduate explains how special education processes adhere to federal laws to enable students with disabilities to receive appropriate services and supports to succeed academically in the least restrictive environment (LRE).

INTRODUCTION

Parents will often contact the school principal when they have concerns about a possible violation of their child’s Individualized Education Program (IEP). The principal is ultimately responsible for ensuring that teachers and other school staff members properly adhere to the requirements within a student’s IEP.

In this task, you will act as a school principal to investigate a parent complaint regarding an alleged violation of a student’s IEP.

SCENARIO

Acting as the principal of George Mason High School it is your responsibility to investigate a parent complaint regarding an alleged IEP violation that occurred during the advanced algebra end-of-semester exam. You will use the information provided in the attached “AEM1 Task 2 Scenario” and “AEM1 Task 2 Parent Complaint Letter” to help determine an appropriate response to this situation.

REQUIREMENTS

A.  Explain how the advanced algebra teacher’s actions legally violated this student’s IEP, including references to applicable law.
B.  Write a detailed memorandum to your district superintendent regarding the IEP violation by doing the following:
1.  Provide a brief synopsis of the incident.

2. Explain your investigation into the incident and your findings.

3. Explain how you addressed the incident with each of the following stakeholders:

• Mr. Williams, the advanced algebra teacher

• Sara Thomas, the student

•   Mr. and Mrs. Thomas, Sara’s parents
C.  Acknowledge sources, using in-text citations and references, for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized.
D.  Demonstrate professional communication in the content and presentation of your submission.

File Restrictions

RUBRIC

GENERAL TEACHING DISPOSITIONS AS INDICATED IN THE WGU TEACHERS COLLEGE CODE OF ETHICS:

NOT EVIDENT

The submission demonstrates consistently unprofessional or unethical behavior or disposition as outlined in the WGU Teachers College Code of Ethics.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The submission demonstrates behavior or disposition that conflicts with the professional and ethical standards outlined in the WGU Teachers College Code of Ethics.

COMPETENT

The submission demonstrates behavior and disposition that align with the professional and ethical standards outlined in the WGU Teachers College Code of Ethics.

A:IEP VIOLATION (NELP 2, PSEL 9)

NOT EVIDENT

An explanation of how the teacher’s actions violated the student’s IEP is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The explanation contains 1 or more inaccuracies, does not address the legal violation of the student’s IEP, or does not reference applicable law.

COMPETENT

The explanation accurately addresses both the legal violation of the student’s IEP and references applicable law.

B1:OVERVIEW OF INCIDENT (NELP 6, PSEL 9)

NOT EVIDENT

A brief synopsis of the incident is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The synopsis contains 1 or more inaccuracies or is not written from an administrative perspective.

COMPETENT

The synopsis is accurate and is written from an administrative perspective.

B2:INVESTIGATION AND FINDINGS (NELP 6, PSEL 9)

NOT EVIDENT

An explanation of the investigation and findings is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The investigation explained is implausible or would not result in an appropriate or thorough inquiry into the incident. Or the findings are not logically supported by relevant information from the attached “AEM1 Task 2 Scenario.”

COMPETENT

The investigation explained is plausible and would result in an appropriate and thorough inquiry into the incident. The findings are logically supported by relevant information from the attached “AEM1 Task 2 Scenario.”

B3:ADDRESSING THE INCIDENT WITH STAKEHOLDERS (NELP 6, PSEL 9)

NOT EVIDENT

An explanation of how the incident was addressed with stakeholders is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The explanation does not adhere to Sara’s IEP or special education law, or does not address how the incident was addressed with each given stakeholder.

COMPETENT

The explanation adheres to Sara’s IEP and special education law and addresses how the incident was addressed with each given stakeholder.

C:SOURCES

NOT EVIDENT

The submission does not include both in-text citations and a reference list for sources that are quoted, paraphrased, or summarized.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The submission includes in-text citations for sources that are quoted, paraphrased, or summarized and a reference list; however, the citations or reference list is incomplete or inaccurate.

COMPETENT

D:PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION

NOT EVIDENT

Content is unstructured, is disjointed, or contains pervasive errors in mechanics, usage, or grammar. Vocabulary or tone is unprofessional or distracts from the topic.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

Content is poorly organized, is difficult to follow, or contains errors in mechanics, usage, or grammar that cause confusion. Terminology is misused or ineffective.

COMPETENT

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

D018 Task 3

COMPETENCIES

2045.3.4 : Meeting the Unique Needs of English Learners

The graduate analyzes how EL processes adhere to federal and state laws to enable students who are learning English to receive appropriate instruction, accommodations, and services to succeed academically.

INTRODUCTION

School principals are responsible for allocating curriculum and human resources to implement an instructional program for English learners (EL). This EL program should increase students’ academic and English language abilities. The program should also be in compliance with case law and federal law. In this task, you will assume the responsibilities of a high school principal to provide a proposal to the governing board of your school. You will propose a new program to serve the EL students described in a scenario.

SCENARIO

You are the high school principal at West Oak Cove School. You are required to propose a new program to serve the EL students and present this proposal to the governing board of your school. The total population for grades 9–12 is 1,256 students. The following is a breakdown of the languages spoken by the EL students at your school:

Language Percentage of EL Student Population

Spanish	25%
Portuguese	15%
Arabic	12%
Mandarin	8%

REQUIREMENTS

A. Write a proposal for a new EL program to the governing board of West Oak Cove School by doing the following:

1. Justify the need for an EL program based on relevant case law or federal legislation and the demographic information from the scenario.

2. Describe the newly proposed EL program, supported by relevant case law or federal legislation and the demographic information from the scenario. Address each of the following in your description:

• student eligibility

• classroom instructional accommodations

• program instructional services
3. Explain the steps, supported by relevant case law or federal legislation, needed to implement the new EL program. Address each of the following in your explanation of the steps:

• human resourcing needs

• professional development

• materials and resources

• funding source
B. Acknowledge sources, using in-text citations and references, for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized.
C. Demonstrate professional communication in the content and presentation of your submission.

File Restrictions

RUBRIC

GENERAL TEACHING DISPOSITIONS AS INDICATED IN THE WGU TEACHERS COLLEGE CODE OF ETHICS:

NOT EVIDENT

The submission demonstrates consistently unprofessional or unethical behavior or disposition as outlined in the WGU Teachers College Code of Ethics.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The submission demonstrates behavior or disposition that conflicts with the professional and ethical standards outlined in the WGU Teachers College Code of Ethics.

COMPETENT

The submission demonstrates behavior and disposition that align with the professional and ethical standards outlined in the WGU Teachers College Code of Ethics.

A1. JUSTIFICATION OF NEED FOR EL PROGRAM:NELP 6, PSEL 9

NOT EVIDENT

A justification of an EL program is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The justification of the need for an EL program contains 1 or more inaccuracies. Or the justification is not based on either relevant case law or relevant federal legislation. Or the justification is not based on the demographic information from the scenario. Or the justification does not correctly identify the relevant case law or federal legislation.

COMPETENT

The justification of the need for an EL program is accurate and is based on relevant case law or federal legislation and the demographic information from the scenario.

A2. DESCRIPTION OF EL PROGRAM:NELP 6, PSEL 9

NOT EVIDENT

A description of an EL program is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The EL program described does not align to the need justified in part A1. Or the description is not supported by either relevant case law or relevant federal legislation. Or the description is not based on the demographic information from the scenario. Or the description does not address 1 or more of the given points. Or the description of 1 or more of the given points contains 1 or more inaccuracies.

COMPETENT

The EL program described is aligned to the need justified in part A1 and is supported by relevant case law or federal legislation and the demographic information from the scenario. The description accurately addresses each of the given points.

A3. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EL PROGRAM:NELP 6, PSEL 9

NOT EVIDENT

An explanation of the steps needed to implement the EL program is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The explanation of the steps needed to implement the EL program does not align to the description in part A2. Or the explanation does not allow for plausible implementation of the EL program or is not supported by either relevant case law or relevant federal legislation. Or the explanation does not address 1 or more of the given points. Or the description of 1 or more of the given points contains 1 or more inaccuracies.

COMPETENT

The explanation of the steps needed to implement the EL program aligns to the description in part A2. The explanation of steps allows for plausible implementation of the EL program and is supported by relevant case law or federal legislation. The explanation accurately addresses each of the given points.

B. SOURCES:

NOT EVIDENT

The submission does not include both in-text citations and a reference list for sources that are quoted, paraphrased, or summarized.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The submission includes in-text citations for sources that are quoted, paraphrased, or summarized and a reference list; however, the citations or reference list is incomplete or inaccurate.

COMPETENT

C. PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION:

NOT EVIDENT

Content is unstructured, is disjointed, or contains pervasive errors in mechanics, usage, or grammar. Vocabulary or tone is unprofessional or distracts from the topic.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

Content is poorly organized, is difficult to follow, or contains errors in mechanics, usage, or grammar that cause confusion. Terminology is misused or ineffective.

COMPETENT