THE
STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT / THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF
Office of Curriculum and Instructional Support
Office of Curriculum, Instruction and Instructional
Technology
Room 320 EB
Tel. (518) 474-5922, Fax (518) 473-4884
www.emsc.nysed.gov/ciai
Rubrics to Guide the Development of Model C-1
Applications
Proposed Implementation in September 2008
School: ______________________________________________ District:_______________________________________________
Address: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
City: ________________________________________, NY ___________________Telephone: (_________)_________-__________
Principal: ______________________________________________ E-mail: ______________________________________________
I. Eligibility- Basic Information
Unsatisfactory
Pending Approval Approved
1.
School/ District Particulars □ □ □
2.
Eligibility
□ □ □
3. Executive Summary □ □ □
4. Certification of Staff □ □ □
5. Student Achievement □ □ □
|
|
(Unsatisfactory) |
(Pending Approval) |
(Approved) |
|
Student achievement
information |
Only student achievement information for ELA
and mathematics provided. |
Student achievement
information limited to performance on the State’s intermediate assessments in
the core academic areas (ELA, mathematics, science and social studies).
Further information (data) is needed regarding student performances in the
Learning Standards area(s) for which regulatory relief is being requested. |
Student achievement
information includes performance on the State’s intermediate assessments in
ELA, math, science, and social studies, on other standardized assessments,
and on locally developed or adopted/ aligned
assessments related to the Learning Standards area(s) for all the
non-tested areas for which regulatory relief is being requested. |
II. Procedural Evidence
|
Evidence |
(Unsatisfactory) |
(Pending Approval) |
(Approved) |
|
Consultation with affected
constituencies at both the district and school level |
Involved informal, infrequent
contact with selected representatives from one or two key constituencies.
Requisite signatures and reporting forms from SDM/ SLT were not submitted. |
Involved periodic contact
with one or two key constituencies in accordance with a contractually
prescribed procedure |
Involved continuous contact
with multiple key constituencies and with the shared decision making/school
leadership teams constituted under Section 100.11 of Commissioner’s
Regulations, based upon mutually shared goals and interests. Requisite
signatures and reporting forms from SDM/ SLT were submitted. |
|
Agreement among key constituent groups |
A key constituent group or
groups at both the district and school levels have major reservations and unresolved
concerns about the Model C-1 application and its potential for success and do
not support it as written. |
A key constituent group or
groups at either the district or school levels have concerns or objections
about the potential success of the Model C-1 application and which have not
been adequately addressed by school officials. |
All key constituent groups
at both the district and school levels approved the submission of the Model
C-1 application, completed the required form and arrived at consensus to
support its implementation. |
|
Self study involved key
constituencies |
Involved only a few
selected members of the school’s administrative and instructional staff. |
Involved a limited number
(a minority) of the school’s administrative and instructional staff and
several parent representatives. |
Involved virtually all of
the school’s administrative and instructional staff, parent representatives
and additional key constituency groups, e.g., Central Office and Community. |
|
Self study accurately
describes strengths and identifies areas requiring attention |
Description of strengths
and areas needing strengthening is not based upon objective data/evidence;
instead, personal feelings and subjective assessments, unsubstantiated by
objective data, are the basis for the description of the strengths and areas
needing strengthening. No apparent
alignment with the Regents Policy Statement on Middle-Level Education, the
Department’s Essential Elements of Standards-Focused Middle-Level Schools and
Programs, or the State’s Learning Standards. |
The description of the
academic strengths and areas needing strengthening is limited to ELA and math
performance on State assessments; the description of the learning environment
is based entirely upon personal experiences and subjective
determinations. Partial alignment with
the Regents Policy Statement on Middle-Level Education, the Department’s
Essential Elements of Standards-Focused Middle-Level Schools and Programs,
and the State’s Learning Standards |
The description of the
academic strengths and areas needing strengthening is comprehensive,
reflecting student performance on State assessments in ELA and math as well
as student achievement data in other areas including a number of the
non-tested areas. There is evidence of
alignment of the goals, objectives and strategies of the Regents Policy
Statement on Middle Level Education and NYSED Essential Elements of Standards
Focused on |
|
Identified priority areas
based upon research data and evidence |
Prioritized areas requiring
attention are based entirely upon subjective criteria, unsupported by
research, hard data or other objective evidence. |
Identified priority areas
are based primarily upon subjective criteria, and informed by limited
selective research and evidence. |
Identified priority areas
based entirely upon the most current data and substantiated research,
informed by best practice. |
|
Self study included an
external review |
No external review
performed. |
Informal, unstructured
external review occurred. |
A formal external review,
e.g., SQR, was conducted by school constituents’ representatives and district
level staff. |
III. Required Information:
|
Information |
(Unsatisfactory) |
(Pending Approval) |
(Approved) |
|
Evidence of eligibility |
The evidence indicates that
the building meets none of the requirements for eligibility to prepare a
Model C-1 application. |
The evidence indicates that
the building meets many of the requirements for eligibility to prepare a
Model C-1 application. Further clarification is needed. |
The evidence indicates that
the building meets all the requirements for eligibility to prepare a Model
C-1 application. |
|
Regulatory relief |
No information presented on
what regulatory relief is being requested or the regulatory relief
being requested is not permissible under Model C-1. |
The regulatory requirements
in Section 100.4 for which regulatory relief is being requested are implicit. |
All of the regulatory
requirements in Section 100.4 for which regulatory relief is being requested
are explicit and clearly specified. |
|
Programmatic and scheduling
particulars for providing instruction related to achieving the 28 Learning
Standards. |
All the 28 Learning
Standards will be integrated throughout the curriculum. |
The Learning Standards in those
areas where there are State assessments will be taught through discrete or
interdisciplinary courses; Learning Standards in the non-tested areas will be
integrated throughout the curriculum. Sample student schedules are missing |
--------------------------------------- The 28 Learning Standards
will be taught through discrete or interdisciplinary courses and reinforced
across the curriculum. Required sample student schedules are provided. |
|
Addressing the Learning
Standards in those areas where regulatory relief is being requested |
The application includes no
plan for specifically addressing the Learning Standards in those areas where
regulatory relief is being requested so as to ensure students achieve
proficiency. |
The application includes a
limited number of discrete activities that will suffice to address the
standards in those areas where regulatory relief is being requested so as to
ensure students achieve proficiency. |
The application includes a
detailed, comprehensive plan, thoughtfully developed and thoroughly grounded
in research and best practice, for addressing the Learning Standards in those
areas where regulatory relief is being requested so as to ensure students
achieve proficiency. |
|
Interventions and changes |
The interventions and
changes in the Model C-1 proposal do not reflect or address the prioritized
areas generated by the self study. |
The interventions and
changes in the Model C-1 proposal address many of the prioritized areas
generated by the self study. Further clarification is needed. |
The interventions and
changes reflect the prioritized areas generated by the self study and are the
basis for the Model C-1 proposal and are fully and completely addressed in
the proposal. |
|
Safeguards |
The interventions and
changes and do not include safeguards to ensure that all students are
proficient in the State’s 28 Learning Standards. |
The interventions and
changes include some safeguards to ensure that all students are proficient in
the State’s 28 Learning Standards. Further clarification is needed. |
The Model C-1 proposal
includes extensive safeguards to ensure that all students are proficient in
the State’s 28 Learning Standards. |
|
Alignment with district and
school improvement plans |
The interventions and
changes are not aligned with district and school improvement plans. |
For the most part, the
interventions and changes are aligned with district and school improvement
plan. |
The interventions and
changes are fully aligned with the district and school improvement plans. |
|
Essential Elements of
Standards Focused |
There is nothing to
indicate that the Essential Elements
were either examined or considered in the development of the plan. |
Evidence indicates that
Essential Elements were summarily examined, all or in part, but that they
were not integral to the development of the plan. |
Evidence indicates that the
Essential Elements were thoroughly examined and that they were integral to
the development of the plan. |
|
Staff qualifications |
The responsibility for
teaching the Learning Standards for which regulatory relief is being
requested will rest generally with staff who are neither certified (duly
licensed by New York State) nor qualified (have both the content knowledge
and the pedagogical skills) to teach the Learning Standards; more than 10
percent of the staff teaching in the other Learning Standards areas (those
where regulatory relief is not being requested) are both uncertified and
unqualified. |
The responsibility for
teaching Learning Standards for which
regulatory relief is being requested will rest primarily with staff who are
certified (duly licensed by New York State) and qualified (have both the
content knowledge and the pedagogical skills) to teach the Learning
Standards; More than 90 percent, but less than 100 percent, of staff teaching
in other areas (those where regulatory relief is not being requested) are
either certified or qualified. |
The responsibility for
teaching the 28 Learning Standards, including those for which regulatory
relief is being requested, will rest with staff who are both certified (duly
licensed by New York State) and qualified (have both the content knowledge
and the pedagogical skills) to teach the Learning Standards. |
|
Measurable
indicators/evidence |
The application includes no
measurable indicators of school change and improvement aligned with the
Regents Policy, the Department’s Essential Elements, and the State’s Learning
Standards that can be used to evaluate the success of the school improvement
plan and the approved Model C-1 application. |
The application includes
several measurable indicators of school change and improvement that align, in
part, with the Regents Policy, the Department’s Essential Elements, and the
State’s Learning Standards. The
indicators cannot be used to evaluate fully the success of the school
improvement plan and the approved Model C-1 application. Further clarification
is needed. |
The application includes a
comprehensive set of research-based measurable indicators of school change
and improvement fully aligned with the Regents Policy, the Department’s
Essential Elements, and State’s Learning Standards that can be used to
evaluate the success of the school improvement plan and the approved Model
C-1 application including evidence related to student achievement in tested
and non-tested areas and to the integrity with which the applicant is being
implemented. |
|
Professional development |
The application does not
reference professional development or the professional development is not in
compliance with Section 100.2 of Commissioner’s Regulations. |
The application includes a
series of staff development activities that have a focus but the focus is not
closely and clearly tied to the priorities of the school improvement plan. |
The application includes an
organized, comprehensive staff development plan that is focused and clearly
aligned with the priorities of the school improvement plan. |
|
District office support |
The application does not
indicate any commitment from the District Office to support the development
and implementation of the school application Model C-1 schools. |
The District Office commits
to give Model C-1 schools additional, but modest, support above and beyond
that provided to other schools in the district. Needs further clarification. |
The District Office plan
reflects a commitment to give Model C-1 schools significant additional
support (resources, personnel, special attention) above and beyond that
provided other schools in the district. |
IV. Assurances
|
Assurances |
|
|
|
District submission |
There is a signed assurance
or clear, unequivocal evidence that the Model C-1 application came from the district,
with the full understanding of the President of the Board of Education and
the Superintendent of Schools (in the case of |
YES NO □ □ |
|
Compliance with the six
non-negotiable Educational Conditions |
There is a signed assurance
from the President of the Board of Education, the Superintendent of Schools and
the principals of each of the Model C-1 schools (in the case of New York
City, the Chancellor, the appropriate Regional Superintendents and
principals) that the middle-level schools included in the Model C-1
applications are in compliance with the six non-negotiable educational
conditions. |
YES NO □ □ |
|
Public school choice |
There is a signed assurance from the President of the Board of Education, the Superintendent of Schools and the principals of each of the Model C-1 schools (in the case of New York City, the Chancellor, the appropriate Regional Superintendents and principals) that in those districts where public school choice is required under No Child Left Behind (NCLB), a minimum of 20 percent of seats in each newly formed school will be offered to students seeking transfer, consistent with State and federal law. |
YES NO □ □ |
|
Collection of a common set
of data |
There is a signed assurance
from the President of the Board of Education, the Superintendent of Schools
and the principals of each of the Model C-1 schools (in the case of New York City,
the Chancellor, the appropriate Regional Superintendents and principals) that
the middle-level schools included in the Model C-1 applications agree to
collect a common set of data using SED approved research-based, survey
instruments that include objective, measurable indicators of structural,
organizational, curricular and/or instructional change as well as behavioral,
attitudinal, and environmental changes and are aligned to the Regents Policy
Statement on Middle-Level Education and the Department’s Essential Elements
of Standards-Focused Middle-Level Schools and Programs. |
YES NO □ □ |
|
Annual public evaluation |
There is a signed assurance
from the President of the Board of Education, the Superintendent of Schools
and the principals of each of the Model C-1 schools (in the case of New York
City, the Chancellor, the appropriate Regional Superintendents and
principals) that the middle-level schools included in the Model C-1
applications agree to conduct an annual public evaluation of the
implementation of the Model C-1 application that includes a report on the
implementation of the Model C-1 program enhancement contained in the approved
application, measurable indicators/evidence of school change and improvement
as proposed in the application, school Performance Index, State-developed
checklists of knowledge and skills or alternative assessments in those areas
where there are no State assessments, and compliance with the six
non-negotiable Educational Conditions. |
YES NO □ □ |
|
Submission of status report
to the State Education Department |
There is a signed assurance
from the President of the Board of Education, the Superintendent of Schools
and the principals of each of the Model C-1 schools (in the case of New York
City, the Chancellor, the appropriate Regional Superintendents and principals)
that the district and the middle-level school(s) will submit an annual status
report to the State Education Department on the implementation of the Model
C-1 application in such form and according to such timelines as may be
prescribed by the commissioner. |
YES NO □ □ |
|
Implementation of the Model
C-1 application |
There is a signed assurance
from the President of the Board of Education, the Superintendent of Schools
and the principals of each of the Model C-1 schools (in the case of New York
City, the Chancellor, the appropriate Regional Superintendents and
principals) that the middle-level schools included in the Model C-1
applications agree to implement the Model C-1 application as proposed. |
YES NO □ □ |