Posted: March 11th, 2023

Performance Evaluation and Action Plan

 

Secondary

You are a school principal in a 9-12 grade high school. In preparation for a meeting with your ELA department chair, Mr. Wong, you have been analyzing the students’ ELA performance data. Including Mr. Wong, your school has eight ELA teachers. For seven of the ELA teachers, 70% or more of their students are demonstrating good to exceptional outcomes on their writing benchmark data. Four of the teachers have historically yielded student scores with above average state standardized test results in comparison to schools in your district with similar demographics. In previous discussions, Mr. Wong has cited the teachers’ efforts to plan together utilizing the pacing guide, core program, and assessment results as the primary reasons for their students’ positive outcomes.

One teacher, however, Mr. Blumenstock, has been identified as an outlier by the district’s assessment coordinator, relative to the results of his students, compared to the other two teachers. Additionally, you have observed evidence that suggests Mr. Blumenstock is behind on the pacing guide compared to his colleagues. You also have anecdotal information that he does not engage with his teammates during scheduled content team meetings, which leads you to believe that he is not making an effort to plan with them outside the scheduled meetings.

In 750-1,000 words, analyze your chosen case using the three-part guiding questions below.

Part 1: Analyze the Case

Consider the following questions to begin analyzing the situation:

• What do you consider the responsibility of the team lead/department chair in assisting the outlier teacher?
• What stakeholders should be included in the conversation relative to next steps? Are these individual conversations or a group discussion or both?
• What questions should be considered when making a determination about next steps?

Part 2: Identify the Larger Issues

Consider the following questions to analyze the contextual issues present in the situation:

• What school or district policies might affect your decisions?
• What additional information do you need as part of your decision-making process?
• What are the potentially positive and negative outcomes of doing nothing? 
• What are the potentially positive and negative outcomes of taking action? 

Part 3: Create an Action Plan

Use the following questions to guide you in describing what approach you will take to assist the team lead/department chair to help the outlier teacher, including 3-5 specific action steps:

• What is your plan moving forward?
• How does your plan sustain a culture of collaboration, trust, learning, and high expectations?
• How will you include the critical stakeholders in the decision-making process?
• What challenges do you anticipate?
• How will you provide ongoing support to your team lead/department chair?
• How will you evaluate the results of your teacher leader’s efforts?
• What does the timeline look like?

Support your analysis and plan with 2-3 scholarly resources.

Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.

This assignment uses a rubric. Review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

Performance Evaluation and Action Plan – Rubric

Part 1: Analyze the Case 14 points

Criteria Description

Part 1: Analyze the Case

5. Target 14 points

Analysis expertly addresses the case, including responsibility of the team lead,

relative stakeholders, and questions to determine next steps.

4. Acceptable 12.18 points

Analysis capably addresses the case, including responsibility of the team lead,

relative stakeholders, and questions to determine next steps.

3. Approaching 10.36 points

Analysis vaguely addresses the case, including responsibility of the team lead,

relative stakeholders, and questions to determine next steps.

2. Insufficient 9.66 points

Analysis inaccurately addresses the case, including responsibility of the team lead,

relative stakeholders, and questions to determine next steps.

1. No Submission 0 points

Not addressed.

Part 2: Identify the Larger Issues 14 points

Criteria Description

Part 2: Identify the Larger Issues

5. Target 14 points

Analysis comprehensively identifies the larger issues, including policies and other

information affecting decisions and addressing potential positive and negative

outcomes

attributed to no action versus action.

4. Acceptable 12.18 points

Collapse All

Analysis soundly identifies the larger issues, including policies and other

information affecting decisions and addressing potential positive and negative

outcomes attributed to no action versus action.

3. Approaching 10.36 points

Analysis weakly identifies the larger issues, including policies and other information

affecting decisions and addressing potential positive and negative outcomes

attributed to no action versus action.

2. Insufficient 9.66 points

Analysis poorly identifies the larger issues, including policies and other information

affecting decisions and addressing potential positive and negative outcomes

attributed to no action versus action.

Part 3: Create an Action Plan 28 points

Criteria Description

Part 3: Create an Action Plan

5. Target 28 points

Action plan skillfully includes 3-5 specific steps, how to sustain the culture, critical

stakeholders, anticipated challenges, team lead/department chair support,

evaluation procedures, and a timeline.

4. Acceptable 24.36 points

Action plan credibly includes 3-5 specific steps, how to sustain the culture, critical

stakeholders, anticipated challenges, team lead/department chair support,

evaluation procedures, and a timeline.

3. Approaching 20.72 points

Action plan inexplicitly includes 3-5 specific steps, how to sustain the culture, critical

stakeholders, anticipated challenges, team lead/department chair support,

evaluation procedures, and a timeline.

2. Insufficient 19.32 points

Action plan does not include or irrelevantly includes 3-5 action steps, how to sustain

the culture, critical stakeholders, anticipated challenges, team lead/department

chair support, evaluation procedures, and a timeline.

Organization 3.5 points

Criteria Description

Organization

5. Target 3.5 points

The content is well-organized and logical. There is a sequential progression of ideas

that relate to each other. The content is presented as a cohesive unit and provides

the audience with a clear sense of the main idea. The summary is within the

required word count.

4. Acceptable 3.05 points

The content is logically organized. The ideas presented relate to each other. The

content provides the audience with a clear sense of the main idea. The summary is

within a reasonable range of the required word count.

3. Approaching 2.59 points

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

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

required word count.

2. Insufficient 2.42 points

An attempt is made to organize the content, but the sequence is indiscernible. The

ideas presented are compartmentalized and may not relate to each other; or the

summary is widely outside of the required word count.

Documentation of Sources 3.5 points

Criteria Description

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

style

5. Target 3.5 points

Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment

and style. Format is free of error.

4. Acceptable 3.05 points

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

mostly correct.

3. Approaching 2.59 points

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

key formatting and citation errors are present.

2. Insufficient 2.42 points

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

assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.

1 No Submission 0 points

Mechanics of Writing 7 points

Criteria Description

includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use

5. Target 7 points

Submission is virtually free of mechanical errors. Word choice reflects well-

developed use of practice and content-related language. Sentence structures are

varied and engaging.

4. Acceptable 6.09 points

Submission includes some mechanical errors, but they do not hinder

comprehension. Variety of effective sentence structures are used, as well as some

practice and content-related language.

3. Approaching 5.18 points

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistent

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

2. Insufficient 4.83 points

Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning.

Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction are used.

1. No Submission 0 points

Total 70 points