In your previous internships, you reviewed your school’s Continuous Improvement Plan (CIP). Throughout this internship course, you will be delving deeper into your school’s CIP. EAD-529 focused on curriculum and professional development. In EAD-539 you will focus on supporting an effective learning environment.
Write a 500-750 word analysis of your school’s CIP, addressing the following:
- Do the CIP’s action plans align to the school’s vision and mission?
About Us / Welcome (rcboe.org)
- Do the CIP’s action plans clearly support an effective student learning environment that meets the needs of all students?
- Are the stakeholders responsible for implementing action plans clearly identified?
- Are the best people/positions assigned to those responsibilities?
- Are all the action plans being implemented? If not, why not?
- Describe strategies for evaluating the effectiveness of the action plan.
APA format is not required, but solid academic writing is expected.
This assignment uses a rubric. Review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
Supporting an Effective Learning Environment – Rubric
CIP Mission/Vision 7.5 points
Criteria Description
CIP Mission/Vision
5. Target 7.5 points
The analysis clearly, accurately, and thoroughly describes how the CIP’s action plans
do or do not align to the school’s vision and mission.
4. Acceptable 6.53 points
The analysis completely describes how the CIP’s action plans do or do not align to
the school’s vision and mission.
3. Approaching 5.55 points
The analysis incompletely describes how the CIP’s action plans do or do not align to
the school’s vision and mission.
2. Insufficient 5.18 points
The analysis inadequately describes how the CIP’s action plans do or do not align to
the school’s vision and mission.
1. No Submission 0 points
CIP Supports Effective Learning Environment 7.5 points
Criteria Description
CIP Supports Effective Learning Environment
5. Target 7.5 points
The analysis of CIP’s action plans and how it does or does not clearly support an
effective student learning environment that meets the needs of all students is clear,
accurate, and thorough
4. Acceptable 6.53 points
The analysis of CIP’s action plans and how it does or does not clearly support an
effective student learning environment that meets the needs of all students is clear
and accurate.
Collapse All
3. Approaching 5.55 points
The analysis of CIP’s action plans and how it does or does not clearly support an
effective student learning environment that meets the needs of all students is
missing key details.
2. Insufficient 5.18 points
The analysis of CIP’s action plans and how it does or does not clearly support an
effective student learning environment that meets the needs of all students is
inadequate.
Stakeholders 5 points
Criteria Description
Stakeholders
5. Target 5 points
The analysis provides a clear, accurate, and thorough examination of whether or
not stakeholders are clearly identified and are responsible for implementing action
plans.
4. Acceptable 4.35 points
The analysis provides a complete examination of whether or not stakeholders are
clearly identified and are responsible for implementing action plans.
3. Approaching 3.7 points
The analysis provides an incomplete examination of whether or not stakeholders
are clearly identified and are responsible for implementing action plans.
2. Insufficient 3.45 points
The analysis provides an inaccurate examination of whether or not stakeholders are
clearly identified and are responsible for implementing action plans.
1. No Submission 0 points
Not addressed.
Best People/Positions 5 points
Criteria Description
Best People/Positions
5. Target 5 points
The analysis provides a thoughtful examination of whether or not the best
people/positions are assigned to the action plan’s responsibilities.
4. Acceptable 4.35 points
The analysis provides a credible examination of whether or not the best
people/positions are assigned to the action plan’s responsibilities.
3. Approaching 3.7 points
The analysis provides a weak examination of whether or not the best
people/positions are assigned to the action plan’s responsibilities
2. Insufficient 3.45 points
The analysis provides an unrealistic examination of whether or not the best
people/positions are assigned to the action plan’s responsibilities.
1. No Submission 0 points
Not addressed.
Action Plans Implemented 7.5 points
Criteria Description
Action Plans Implemented
5. Target 7.5 points
The analysis provides a compelling examination of whether or not all action plans
are being implemented and why.
4. Acceptable 6.53 points
The analysis provides a competent examination of whether or not all action plans
are being implemented and why
3. Approaching 5.55 points
The analysis provides an superficial examination of whether or not all action plans
are being implemented and why.
2. Insufficient 5.18 points
The analysis provides an insufficient examination of whether or not all action plans
b i i l d d h
Strategies for Evaluating Effectiveness 7.5 points
Criteria Description
Strategies for Evaluating Effectiveness
5. Target 7.5 points
The analysis provides a comprehensive description of the strategies for evaluating
the effectiveness of the action plan.
4. Acceptable 6.53 points
The analysis provides a detailed description of the strategies for evaluating the
effectiveness of the action plan.
3. Approaching 5.55 points
The analysis provides an inconsistent description of the strategies for evaluating the
effectiveness of the action plan.
2. Insufficient 5.18 points
The analysis provides an erroneous description of the strategies for evaluating the
effectiveness of the action plan.
Organization 5 points
Criteria Description
Organization
5. Target 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 4.35 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 3.7 points
The content is not well organized even though it provides the audience with a sense
of the main idea.
2. Insufficient 3.45 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
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. 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.
1. No Submission 0 points
Total 50 points
