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 ...

1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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.

5. 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:

6. 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,

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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 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.

10. 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
Case Study: Special Education
You are the assistant principal overseeing the counseling and
special education departments of a large, K-8 elementary
school. The counseling department documents students on 504
plans, and the special education staff monitors students with
IEPs. There are 4.5 counselors, four special education resource
teachers, and 79 regular education teachers assigned to the
school. There are two additional educators assigned to the
special education department in addition to the resource
teachers.
In a school of 2,400 students, 100 students have 504 plans and

11. 180 students have IEPs. The accommodations for both range
from copies of notes to preferential seating to test taking. For
test taking, the accommodations can include verbal tests,
scribes, chunked questions, alternate testing site (testing
center), and use of notes. Currently, both types of students are
served in the classroom or the testing center. The classroom
accommodations are the responsibility of the student and
teacher and the testing center accommodations are the
responsibility of the student and the testing center coordinator.
At the end of the last school year, staffing was cut. Special
education support staff was reduced by one employee, the
testing center coordinator. Special education teachers will
continue to accommodate their students through their programs
and with their current staff. Special education class sizes are 17
or lower.
The issue for regular classroom teachers is how to provide the
testing accommodation for the 504 students. Regular classroom
teachers can have 40 students in a class and total contacts that
do not exceed 185. They are also responsible for English as a
second language learners and their ILLPs. They can have
multiple students with 504s, IEPs for inclusion, ILLPs, and
gifted students. They are responsible for all levels of learning in
their classroom. Many do this through differentiated learning,
cooperative groups, project-based learning, and peer work.
These do not address the alternate testing site for 504 students.
Teachers are upset because they feel they cannot meet
everyone’s needs. They are uncomfortable with students sitting
in the halls to take a test. Parents are not happy with the
change in the testing center and want an employee assigned to
monitor the testing center. They do not understand why the
district would cut this very important position. Special
education teachers feel bad they cannot continue to help.
Students are frustrated because the routines they have had

12. established for so long are changing. They feel deserted and are
now worried about their success.
© 2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
image1.jpeg