Ill. Admin. Code tit. 23, 33 app C - Standard 2: Assessment Rubric

Current through Register Vol. 46, No. 15, April 8, 2022

The superintendent preparation program shall rate the candidate's completion of the assessments listed in Appendix B for each standard element of Standard 2: Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment as "meets standard" or "does not meet standard" according to the criteria set forth in the assessment rubric contained in this Appendix C.

Standard 2: Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment

Standard Category and Standard Elements

Meets Standard

Does Not Meet Standard

Standard Element 2.1

Advocate, nurture and sustain a district culture and instructional program conducive to student learning through collaboration, trust and a personalized learning environment with high expectations for students.

The candidate's observation report includes the following:

1) at least three existing data sources of the district;

2) an overview of the district's "culture";

3) recommendations for improving the district's collaboration and trust efforts; and

4) recommendations for improving the district's expectations and learning efforts.

The candidate's observation report fails to include one or more of the following:

1) at least three existing data sources of the district;

2) an overview of the district's "culture";

3) recommendations for improving the district's collaboration and trust efforts; or

4) recommendations for improving the district's expectations and learning efforts.

Standard Element 2.2

Understand and create and evaluate a comprehensive, rigorous and coherent curricular and instructional program for the district.

The candidate successfully provided evidence of the following:

1) having worked with multiple district leaders and reviewing the district's curricular and instructional program in one content area;

2) a successful mapping of the program and its intended outcomes for students;

3) identification of what data to analyze to determine if student outcomes are being met;

4) a continuous improvement plan for the curricular and instructional content area based on evidence from research and data available from the district.

The candidate was not successful in providing evidence of one or more of the following:

1) having worked with multiple district leaders and reviewing the district's curricular and instructional program in one content area;

2) a successful mapping of the program and its intended outcomes for students;

3) identification of what data to analyze to determine if student outcomes are being met;

4) a continuous improvement plan for the curricular and instructional content area based on evidence from research and data available from the district.

Standard Element 2.3

Understand and develop and supervise the instructional and leadership capacity across the district.

The candidate developed a comprehensive curriculum, instruction and assessment analysis project that integrates the major components and theories of school change and improvement and included all of the following:

1) An analysis of the district's curriculum map/sequence utilizing data from the district's curriculum evaluation processes to determine what is working and what is not working for student success and including recommendations for change in the report of the analysis;

2) An analysis of the district's instructional processes and formats from data of the district's staff evaluations that demonstrates adherence to the district's instructional formats, identifying which instructional formats are working and which are not working for student success, with recommendations for change;

3) An analysis of the district's assessment data as they relate to the district's curriculum and instruction; based on the data, the report provides a determination of which curriculum areas are in need of change and which instructional formats need adjustments.

The final report given to the candidate's mentor or superintendent provided direct references to changes to and improvements in the following areas: cultural competence; achievement of diverse students; and personalizing the learning environment with high expectations for all students.

The candidate failed to develop a comprehensive curriculum, instruction and assessment analysis project that integrates the major components and theories of school change and improvement and failed to include one or more of the following:

1) An analysis of the district's curriculum map/sequence utilizing data from the district's curriculum evaluation processes to determine what is working and what is not working for student success and including recommendations for change in the report of the analysis;

2) An analysis of the district's instructional processes and formats from data of the district's staff evaluations that demonstrates adherence to the district's instructional formats, identifying which instructional formats are working and which are not working for student success, with recommendations for change;

3) An analysis of the district's assessment data as they relate to the district's curriculum and instruction; based on the data, the report provides a determination of which curriculum areas are in need of change and which instructional formats need adjustments.

The final report given to the candidate's mentor or superintendent failed to provide direct references to changes to and improvements in one or more of the following areas: cultural competence; achievement of diverse students; and personalizing the learning environment with high expectations for all students.

Standard Element 2.4

Understand and promote the most effective and appropriate technologies to support teaching and learning within the district.

The candidate successfully completed the following "supervision of instruction" activities.

1) Met with principals and district leaders to assess the teaching and learning issues facing the district. Based upon the findings, developed a plan of action to improve teaching and learning practices. Using evidence-based research, the candidate developed a plan that clearly stipulates the practices to be changed; how the change process would take place; who would be involved; the time that it would take; what resources (human and financial) would be necessary for the plan to take effect; and what evaluation or assessment activities would be utilized to determine if the changes would be effective.

2) Met with a building principal and analyzed the building's achievement data and mapped the alignment of the building's curriculum, instruction and assessments. Based upon the findings of data analysis and mapping, the candidate made recommendations for alignment changes using evidence-based research to support the recommendations.

3) Utilizing the recommendations from #1 and #2 above, the candidate developed a budget (in consultation with the superintendent or chief school business official) that would allow the building principals of the district to fully and completely initiate the recommendations. Identified in the budget were the following resources: human, time, material and additional outside resources.

The candidate was unsuccessful in completing one or more of the following "supervision of instruction" activities.

1) Meeting with principals and district leaders to assess the teaching and learning issues facing the district. Based upon the findings, did not fully develop a plan of action to improve teaching and learning practices. The candidate was unable to develop a plan that clearly stipulated what practices were to be changed; how the change process was to take place; who was to be involved; the time that it would take; what resources (human and financial) would be necessary for the plan to take effect; and what evaluation or assessment activities would be utilized to determine if the changes would be effective.

2) Met with a building principal and failed to or did not fully analyze the building's achievement data and failed to or did not fully map the alignment of the building's curriculum, instruction and assessments. Based upon the findings of data analysis and mapping, as applicable, the candidate was neither able to make recommendations for alignment changes nor was evidence-based research used to support any of the recommendations made.

3) Utilizing the recommendations from #1 and #2 above, as applicable, the candidate was unable to develop a budget (in consultation with the superintendent or chief school business official) that would allow the building principals of the district to fully and completely initiate any recommendations. The candidate failed to identify one or more of the following resources in the budget: human, time, material or additional outside resources.

Comprehensive Instructional Renewal Project

The candidate worked with district leadership to review and map the district's assessment and accountability system used to monitor student growth. The candidate included in the map of the district's system the following: multiple and varied assessments; the persons responsible for administering the assessments; the data collection system and persons responsible for collection and assimilation of the data; the persons responsible for using the data to improve teaching and learning and who know how that process or system works and how the assessments and data are used in the professional performance evaluations of teachers and administrators.

The candidate worked with district leadership to review and map the district's assessment and accountability system used to monitor student growth. The candidate failed to successfully include in the map of the district's system one or more of the following: the multiple and varied assessments; the persons responsible for administering the assessments; the data collection system and persons responsible for collection and assimilation of the data; the persons responsible for using the data to improve teaching and learning and who know how that process or system works and how the assessments and data are used in the professional performance evaluations of teachers and administrators.

1) The candidate reviewed the district's professional development plan. If none was available, the candidate developed a plan that reflected what the district was doing and the needs of the district.

2) In collaboration with several district administrators, the candidate determined what data informed the development of the plan. The candidate reviewed that data (if none was available, the candidate determined and documented what data should have been gathered) and made an analysis.

3) Based upon the data analysis, the candidate reviewed the professional development plan again and made recommendations for improvement based on research and data.

4) The candidate prepared the recommendations into a report that models one that could be given to the district's board of education and that would be presented to the candidate's mentor or superintendent.

1) The candidate reviewed the district's professional development plan. If none was available, the candidate failed to develop a plan that reflected what the district is doing and the needs of the district.

2) In collaboration with several district administrators, the candidate was unable to determine what data informed the development of the plan. The candidate was unable to review that data and make an analysis.

3) The candidate reviewed the professional development plan again but was unable to make recommendations for improvement based on research and data.

4) The candidate failed to prepare recommendations into a report that models one that could be given to the district's board of education and that would be presented to the candidate's mentor or superintendent.

After consulting local board policy, administrative regulations, and/or district leadership, the candidate was able to determine the district's goals for the use of instructional time. Based on the goals for the use of instructional time, the candidate conducted an instructional time study of each school in the district. The candidate reviewed the data from the audit and, based on the data and relevant research, made a report with recommendations for improvement and reported those recommendations to the superintendent or mentor.

After consulting local board policy, administrative regulations, and/or district leadership, the candidate was unable to determine the district's goals for the use of instructional time. The candidate conducted an instructional time study of each school in the district. The candidate reviewed the data from the audit and made a report with inadequate recommendations for improvement and reported those recommendations to the superintendent or mentor.

The candidate conducted a technology study of the district, which focused on the integration of technology into content areas. The candidate:

1) reviewed the data from the study;

2) presented a report with recommendations for improvement to the districtwide leadership team; and

3) included research that supported the recommendations in the report.

The candidate successfully created a protocol to use for interviewing the following people in the same school district: the superintendent and a sample of district stakeholders (e.g., board members, principals and parents). The purpose of the protocol was to determine the district's culture of collaboration, trust, learning and expectations (for students, staff, administrators and board members).

The candidate attempted to conduct a technology study of the district, which focused on the integration of technology into content areas. The candidate:

1) reviewed the limited data from the study;

2) presented a report with few recommendations for improvement to the districtwide leadership team; and

3) failed to include research that supported the recommendations in the report.

The candidate did not successfully create a protocol to use for interviewing the following people in the same school district: the superintendent and a sample of district stakeholders (e.g., board members, principals and parents). The protocol was unable to determine the district's culture of collaboration, trust, learning and expectations (for students, staff, administrators and board members).

The candidate developed a comprehensive instructional renewal project that integrated the major components and theories of school change and improvement and the results of other assessment projects required in this Appendix C (which were all successfully completed). The candidate successfully completed the following:

1) Conducted a comprehensive analysis of the following district documents or procedures: district improvement plan; professional development plan; cultural assessment; the process for improving curricular and instructional programs; curriculum, instruction and assessment analysis; supervision of instruction activities; accountability and monitoring system for student support; time study; and technology study.

2) Developed an instructional renewal plan that used the analyses from all of the above plans and projects that included the following:

a) Comprehensive recommendations for districtwide improvement in curriculum, instruction and assessment;

b) Comprehensive recommendations for improvement in teaching and learning;

c) Comprehensive recommendations for districtwide improvement of systems for data, assessment, technology and the use of time; and

d) Comprehensive recommendations for districtwide improvement in culture, expectations, and the socio-emotional and academic growth of all students.

The candidate failed to develop a comprehensive instructional renewal project that integrated the major components and theories of school change and improvement and the other assessment projects required in this Appendix C (which may not have been successfully completed). The candidate was unsuccessful in completing one or more of the following:

1) Conducting a comprehensive analysis of the following district documents or procedures: district improvement plan; professional development plan; cultural assessment; the process for improving curricular and instructional programs; curriculum, instruction, and assessment analysis; supervision of instruction activities; accountability and monitoring system for student support; time study; and technology study.

2) Developing an instructional renewal plan that used the analyses from all of the above plans and projects that included the following:

a) Comprehensive recommendations for districtwide improvement in curriculum, instruction and assessment;

b) Comprehensive recommendations for improvement in teaching and learning;

c) Comprehensive recommendations for districtwide improvement of systems for data, assessment, technology and the use of time; and

d) Comprehensive recommendations for districtwide improvement in culture, expectations, and the socio-emotional and academic growth of all students.

Notes

Ill. Admin. Code tit. 23, 33 app C
Adopted at 38 Ill. Reg. 18948, effective 9/8/2014.

The following state regulations pages link to this page.



State regulations are updated quarterly; we currently have two versions available. Below is a comparison between our most recent version and the prior quarterly release. More comparison features will be added as we have more versions to compare.