- Username
- Password
forgot?

iRubric: Literacy Program Evaluation rubric

edit print share Copy to my rubrics Bookmark test run assess... delete Do more...
Literacy Program Evaluation District Reading Program Analysis Evaluate/analyze the Reading/Language Arts Program in one school. Rubric Code: Z44WWX By smhart12 Ready to use Public Rubric Subject: Education Type: Assignment Grade Levels: Graduate

Subjects:

Education

Types:

Assignment

Discuss this rubric

Components
	Excellent 5 pts	Fair 3 pts	Poor 1 pts
RTI (Interventions)
Tiers How many levels? What are they like? When? Who teaches?	Excellent All levels of interventions are listed and thoroughly described (classroom/pull-out). Description includes names of programs, materials, schedules, grouping, and instructor qualifications.	Fair All levels of interventions are listed, and most are thoroughly described (classroom/pull-out). Description may not include all key elements: names of programs, materials, schedules, grouping, and instructor qualifications.	Poor Few levels of interventions are listed and description lacks many of the key components.
Assessment What tools? How administered? How analyzed? What purpose?	Excellent Tools to determine intervention needs are listed and thoroughly described. Description includes how tools are used for placement, monitoring, and transition out of programs.	Fair All tools are listed, and most are thoroughly described. Description may not include all key elements: placement, monitoring, transition.	Poor Few tools are listed and descriptions lack many of the key components.
RTI Analysis	Excellent Analysis is clearly written and accurately reflects data provided. Analysis thoroughly synthesizes the strengths/weaknesses of all components. Analysis is supported by at least 2 APA cited references to current research.	Fair Analysis is clearly written and accurately reflects data provided. Strengths/weaknesses are not clearly synthesized across all components. Analysis is supported by at least 1 APA cited reference to current research.	Poor Analysis is not clearly written and/or does not accurately reflect data provided. Strengths/weaknesses are not clearly synthesized across all components. Analysis is not supported by references to current research.
Literacy Instruction
Activities/Grouping (e.g., teacher read aloud, small group, whole class)	Excellent Quantitative and Qualitative data are presented from interviews, observations and surveys across grade levels. Types and frequency of instructional activities and grouping structures are clearly described.	Fair Quantitative and Qualitative data are presented from interviews, observations and surveys across grade levels. Types and frequency of instructional activities and grouping structures are vaguely described.	Poor Report does not include both Quantitative and Qualitative data from interviews, observations and surveys across grade levels. Types and frequency of instructional activities and grouping structures are vaguely described.
Reading Components (e.g., Phonics, phonemic awareness, comprehension, vocabulary, fluency)	Excellent Quantitative and Qualitative data are presented from interviews, observations and surveys across grade levels. Types and frequency of reading areas taught are clearly described.	Fair Quantitative and Qualitative data are presented from interviews, observations and surveys across grade levels. Types and frequency of reading areas taught are vaguely described.	Poor Report does not include both Quantitative and Qualitative data from interviews, observations and surveys across grade levels. Types and frequency of reading areas taught are vaguely described.
Writing Skills (Process, Components)	Excellent Quantitative and Qualitative data are presented from interviews, observations and surveys across grade levels. Types and frequency of writing instruction are clearly described.	Fair Quantitative and Qualitative data are presented from interviews, observations and surveys across grade levels. Types and frequency of writing instruction are vaguely described.	Poor Report does not include both Quantitative and Qualitative data from interviews, observations and surveys across grade levels. Types and frequency of writing instruction are vaguely described.
Instruction Analysis	Excellent Analysis is clearly written and accurately reflects data provided. Analysis thoroughly synthesizes the strengths/weaknesses of all components. Analysis is supported by at least 2 APA cited references to current research.	Fair Analysis is clearly written and accurately reflects data provided. Strengths/weaknesses are not clearly synthesized across all components. Analysis is supported by at least 1 APA cited reference to current research.	Poor Analysis is not clearly written and/or does not accurately reflect data provided. Strengths/weaknesses are not clearly synthesized across all components. Analysis is not supported by references to current research.
Assessment Practices
Assessment Tools	Excellent At least 3 tools used to measure student learning in various grade levels are presented and thoroughly described. Description includes grades, area assessed, and how results are used.	Fair At least 2 tools used to measure student learning in various grade levels are presented and thoroughly described. Description includes grades, area assessed, and how results are used.	Poor Only 1 tool is presented or descriptions lack detail and clarity.
Achievement Data	Excellent Data from at least 3 tools used to measure student learning in various grade levels are presented and results are clearly and accurately interpreted.	Fair Data from at least 2 tools used to measure student learning in various grade levels are presented, but results may be unclearly or inaccurately interpreted.	Poor Data from only 1 tool used to measure student learning in various grade levels are presented, and results may be unclearly or inaccurately interpreted.
Instructional Materials
Use of Materials (texts, books, workbooks, videos, websites)	Excellent Quantitative and Qualitative data are presented from interviews, observations and surveys across grade levels. Types and frequency of use of instructional materials are clearly described. Description includes type of material, genre and use/purpose.	Fair Quantitative and Qualitative data are presented from interviews, observations and surveys across grade levels. Types and frequency of use of instructional materials are described. Description may lack key components: type of material, genre and use/purpose.	Poor Report does not include both Quantitative and Qualitative data from interviews, observations and surveys across grade levels. Types and frequency of use of instructional materials are vaguely described. Description may lack key components: type of material, genre and use/purpose.
Technology Resources	Excellent Quantitative and Qualitative data are presented from interviews, observations and surveys across grade levels. Types and frequency of use of instructional technology are clearly described. Description includes type of material, genre and use/purpose.	Fair Quantitative and Qualitative data are presented from interviews, observations and surveys across grade levels. Types and frequency of use of instructional technology are described. Description may lack key components: type of material, genre and use/purpose.	Poor Report does not include both Quantitative and Qualitative data from interviews, observations and surveys across grade levels. Types and frequency of use of instructional technology are vaguely described. Description may lack key components: type of material, genre and use/purpose.
Recommendations Weighted x4
Program Elements	Excellent Succinct and precise summary synthesizes information from report to clearly identify areas of strength and need. Conclusions are strongly supported by evidence in the report and recommendations for refinements are supported by at least 4 research references.	Fair Summary synthesizes most information from report to identify most areas of strength and need. Some conclusions are not supported by evidence in the report and recommendations for refinements are supported by less than 4 research references.	Poor Summary does not adequately synthesize information from report to identify areas of strength and need. Many conclusions are not supported by evidence in the report and recommendations for refinements are supported by less than 4 research references.
Professional Development	Excellent Report clearly identifies areas of need for future professional development. Content of PD is strongly supported by evidence in the report and recommended processes/formats for PD are supported by at least 4 research references from PD literature and Adult Learning Theory literature.	Fair Report identifies most areas of need for future professional development. Some content of PD is not supported by evidence in the report and recommended processes/formats for PD are supported by less than 4 research references from PD literature and Adult Learning Theory literature.	Poor Report does not adequately identify areas of need for future professional development. Many content topics of PD are not supported by evidence in the report and recommended processes/formats for PD are supported by less than 4 research references from PD literature and Adult Learning Theory literature.
Format/Writing Conventions
Writing Mechanics	Excellent Excellent scholarly writing. Organization is logical. Report is carefully written and edited, free of serious grammar, syntax, spelling and punctuation errors.	Fair Organization is adequate but at times difficult to follow. Report shows some signs of editing, but needs more care to address grammar, syntax, spelling and punctuation errors.	Poor Report is disorganized and difficult to follow. Report lacks editing, contains serious grammar, syntax, spelling and punctuation errors.
APA Requirements	Excellent All necessary citations are provided in the body of the text and the reference section Accurately adheres to APA style in formatting, organization, and construction The appropriate number of references are used	Fair -Minor errors in the formatting of the citations -The appropriate number of references are used	Poor The paer does not follow APA guidelines for in text citations or references -Paper lacks the appropriate number of citations