Case Study: Special Education – Rubric
Case Analysis 1-3 5 points
Criteria Description
Case Analysis 1-3
5. Target 5 points
Analysis skillfully and convincingly summarizes the case, identifies the issues to be
resolved, and identifies the stakeholders involved in the issues.
4. Acceptable 4.35 points
Analysis accurately summarizes the case, identifies the issues to be resolved, and
identifies the stakeholders involved in the issues.
3. Approaching 3.7 points
Analysis minimally summarizes the case, identifies the issues to be resolved, and
identifies the stakeholders involved in the issues.
2. Insufficient 3.45 points
Analysis inadequately summarizes the case, identifies the issues to be resolved, and
identifies the stakeholders involved in the issues.
1. No Submission 0 points
Not addressed.
Case Analysis 4-5 5 points
Criteria Description
Case Analysis 4-5
5. Target 5 points
Identifies compelling existing laws or court rulings and district policies related to
the issues.
4. Acceptable 4.35 points
Clearly identifies existing laws or court rulings and district policies related to the
issues.
Collapse All
3. Approaching 3.7 points
Vaguely identifies existing laws or court rulings and district policies related to the
issues.
2. Insufficient 3.45 points
Ineffectively identifies existing laws or court rulings and district policies related to
the issues.
Case Analysis 6-8 10 points
Criteria Description
Case Analysis 6-8
5. Target 10 points
Identifies exceptional possible solutions to the issues and insightfully selects ideal
solutions for resolving the issues. Action steps and timeline are thoughtful and
realistic.
4. Acceptable 8.7 points
Identifies possible solutions to the issues and ambiguously selects solutions for
resolving the issues. Action steps and timeline are weak.
3. Approaching 7.4 points
Identifies logical possible solutions to the issues and appropriately selects
competent solutions for resolving the issues. Action steps and timeline are suitable.
2. Insufficient 6.9 points
Identifies incomprehensible solutions to the issues and selects poor solutions for
resolving the issues. Action steps and timeline are irrelevant.
1. No Submission 0 points
Not addressed.
Case Analysis 9 5 points
Criteria Description
Case Analysis 9
5. Target 5 points
Moral and legal consequences of proposed solutions are thorough and proficiently
explained.
4. Acceptable 4.35 points
Moral and legal consequences of proposed solutions are properly explained.
3. Approaching 3.7 points
Moral and legal consequences of proposed solutions are missing key details.
2. Insufficient 3.45 points
Moral and legal consequences of proposed solutions are incorrectly explained.
1. No Submission 0 points
Not addressed
Rationale 15 points
Criteria Description
Rationale
5. Target 15 points
Rationale compellingly explains how the proposed solutions: reflects professional
ethics, integrity, and fairness; promote social justice and ensure that individual
student needs inform all aspects of schooling; and promote collaboration, trust,
learning, and high expectations.
4. Acceptable 13.05 points
Rationale reasonably explains how the proposed solutions: reflect professional
ethics, integrity, and fairness; promote social justice and ensures that individual
student needs inform all aspect of schooling; and promote collaboration, trust,
learning, and high expectations.
3. Approaching 11.1 points
Rationale inexplicitly explains how the proposed solutions: reflect professional
ethics, integrity, and fairness; promote social justice and ensure that individual
student needs inform all aspects of schooling; and promote collaboration, trust,
learning, and high expectations.
2. Insufficient 10.35 points
Rationale inadequately explains how the proposed solutions: reflect professional
ethics, integrity, and fairness; promote social justice and ensure that individual
student needs inform all aspects of schooling; and promote collaboration, trust,
learning, and high expectations.
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.
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.
3. Approaching 1.85 points
The content may not be adequately organized even though it provides the audience
with a sense of the main idea.
2. Insufficient 1.72 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.
1. No Submission 0 points
Documentation of Sources 2.5 points
Criteria Description
citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and
style
5. Target 2.5 points
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment
and style, and format is free of error.
4. Acceptable 2.18 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is
mostly correct.
3. Approaching 1.85 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although several
minor formatting errors are present.
2. Insufficient 1.72 points
Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to
assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.
Mechanics of Writing 5 points
Criteria Description
includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use
5. Target 5 points
Submission is virtually free of mechanical errors. Word choice reflects welldeveloped 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. Inconsistencies in
language choice (register) and/or word choice are present.
2. Insufficient 3.45 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 50 points
