For this assignment, take on the role of the newly hired principal of a K-6 grade school with 1,100 students and 90 staff members. Your school received a "C" rating the previous year. Review the “State Assessment Data Table,” representing the date for the state assessment administered to first through sixth grade students.
You have one assistant principal already on staff, and the opportunity to fill three teacher leader positions as instructional coaches to collaborate with the teaching staff. Your goal is to develop a strategic plan with the assistance of this four-person instructional leadership team for your school to increase the growth percentile scores from the "State Assessment Data Table."
In 1,000-1,500 words, create a strategic plan for the instructional leadership team with the following sections:
- Instructional Goals: Evaluate the “State Assessment Data Table” and identify one instructional goal per content area. The goals should be SMART (specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time-bound). The content areas include math, reading, writing, and science.
- Qualities of the Instructional Leadership Team: Using the instructional goals you identified above, discuss the qualities, knowledge, experience, and skills needed for the teacher leader members of the instructional leadership team. Who would be your ideal candidate for each of the three positions? What qualifications would you seek for each position?
- Interviewing Potential Instructional Leadership Team Candidates: How would you share the information about the three positions being offered to your faculty? Discuss your process for posting the positions, as well as how you plan to select the candidates. Will there be a team to help select the individuals? Why would you want key stakeholders involved in the decision-making process?
- Measuring Effectiveness: How will you, as the school leader, support your teacher leaders in meeting these instructional goals? How will you monitor and meet with these teacher leaders to check on progress? How will you monitor the progress of these new roles to demonstrate if they have been effective or not?
Support your plan with 3-5 scholarly resources.
Share your plan with your principal mentor and make revisions based on his or her feedback before submitting your final product.
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.
State Assessment Data Table
|
Passing Rates |
Math % Passing (School/State) |
Reading % Passing (School/State) |
Writing % Passing (School/State) |
Science % Passing (School/State) |
|
Grades 2-6 |
77/73 |
71/69 |
89/89 |
55/54 |
|
Growth Percentile* |
Math Growth Percentile (School/State) |
Reading Growth Percentile (School/State) |
Writing Growth Percentile (School/State) |
Science Growth Percentile (School/State) |
|
Grades 2-6 |
50/42 |
50/46 |
50/38 |
50/49 |
*The Growth Percentile is created by comparing the growth “like” students in the entire state on the
state assessment from the previous year’s state assessment (Past Year or PY) to the current year’s
state assessment (Current Year or CY). To receive a score, therefore, a student must have PY and
CY scores. The student’s score is then given a percentile rank based on their growth (CY minus PY)
compared to all students in the state who received the same PY score.
© 2020. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
image1.jpeg
,
Case Study: Instructional Leadership Team – Rubric
Instructional Goals 10 points
Criteria Description
Instructional Goals
5. Target 10 points
The plan clearly, accurately, and thoroughly identifies one instructional SMART goal
per content area, including math, reading, writing, and science.
4. Acceptable 8.7 points
The plan completely identifies one instructional SMART goal per content area,
including math, reading, writing, and science.
3. Approaching 7.4 points
The plan incompletely identifies one instructional SMART goal per content area,
including: math, reading, writing, and science.
2. Insufficient 6.9 points
The plan inadequately identifies one instructional SMART goal per content area,
including math, reading, writing, and science.
1. No Submission 0 points
Qualities of the Instructional Leadership Team 5 points
Criteria Description
Qualities of the Instructional Leadership Team
5. Target 5 points
The plan comprehensively describes the qualities, knowledge, experience, and skills
needed for positions on this team, reflective of the instructional goals.
4. Acceptable 4.35 points
The plan competently describes the qualities, knowledge, experience, and skills
needed for positions on this team, reflective of the instructional goals.
Collapse All
3. Approaching 3.7 points
The plan ambiguously describes the qualities, knowledge, experience, and skills
needed for positions on this team. May only somewhat reflect the instructional
goals.
2. Insufficient 3.45 points
The plan unrealisticly describes the qualities, knowledge, experience, and skills
needed for positions on this team.
Ideal Candidate and Quali�cations 5 points
Criteria Description
Ideal Candidate and Qualifications
5. Target 5 points
The plan expertly describes who would be an ideal candidate for each position as
well as the qualifications sought for each position.
4. Acceptable 4.35 points
The plan effectively describes who would be an ideal candidate for each position as
well as the qualifications sought for each position.
3. Approaching 3.7 points
The plan minimally describes who would be an ideal candidate for each position as
well as the qualifications sought for each position.
2. Insufficient 3.45 points
The plan ineffectively describes who would be an ideal candidate for each position
as well as the qualifications sought for each position.
1. No Submission 0 points
Not addressed.
Interviewing Potential Instructional Leadership Team Candidates 10 points
Criteria Description
Interviewing Potential Instructional Leadership Team Candidates
5. Target 10 points
The plan provides a professional description of how potential members of the
leadership team will be interviewed, if an interview team will be formed, and why
key stakeholders should be involved in the decision-making process.
4. Acceptable 8.7 points
The plan provides a detailed description of how potential members of the
leadership team will be interviewed, if an interview team will be formed, and why
key stakeholders should be involved in the decision-making process.
3. Approaching 7.4 points
The plan provides an overly simplistic description of how potential members of the
leadership team will be interviewed, if an interview team will be formed, and why
key stakeholders should be involved in the decision-making process.
2. Insufficient 6.9 points
The plan provides an inaccurate description of how potential members of the
leadership team will be interviewed, if an interview team will be formed, and why
key stakeholders should be involved in the decision-making process.
Measuring E�ectiveness 10 points
Criteria Description
Measuring Effectiveness
5. Target 10 points
The plan convincingly describes how to support teacher leaders to meet their goals
and how to monitor progress and effectiveness of the new roles.
4. Acceptable 8.7 points
The plan logically describes how to support teacher leaders to meet their goals and
how to monitor progress and effectiveness of the new roles.
3. Approaching 7.4 points
The plan superficially describes how to support teacher leaders to meet their goals
and how to monitor progress and effectiveness of the new roles.
2. Insufficient 6.9 points
The plan inadequately describes how to support teacher leaders to meet their goals
and how to monitor progress and effectiveness of the new roles.
1. No Submission 0 points
Not addressed.
Organization 2.5 points
Criteria Description
Organization
5. Target 2.5 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 plan uses the correct titles
and is within the required word count.
4. Acceptable 2.18 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 plan uses a
majority of the correct titles and is within a reasonable range of the required word
count.
3. Approaching 1.85 points
The content is not adequately organized even though it provides the audience with
a sense of the main idea. The plan using the correct titles and may not be within a
reasonable range of the required word count.
2. Insufficient 1.72 points
An attempt is made to organize the content using titles, but the sequence is
indiscernible. The ideas presented are compartmentalized and may not relate to
each other; or the essay is widely outside of the required word count.
Research Citations and Format 2.5 points
Criteria Description
Research Citations and Format
5. Target 2.5 points
All sources are credible, appropriate, and strongly support the submission. All
required aspects of APA format are correct within the submission.
4. Acceptable 2.18 points
All sources are credible, adequate, and support the submission. All required aspects
of APA format are correct within the submission.
3. Approaching 1.85 points
Some citations may be missing where needed; or some of the sources do not
support the submission; or APA is attempted where required, but some aspects are
missing or mistaken.
2. Insufficient 1.72 points
Many citations are missing where needed; or many of the sources are inappropriate
for the submission; or APA is attempted where required, but many aspects are
missing or mistaken.
Mechanics 5 points
Criteria Description
spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use
5. Target 5 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 4.35 points
Submission includes some mechanical errors, but they do not hinder
comprehension. A variety of effective sentence structures are used, as well as some
practice and content-related language.
3. Approaching 3.7 points
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistent
language or word choice is present. Sentence structure is lacking.
2. Insufficient 3.45 points
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning.
Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction are used.
Total 50 points