Electronic Portfolio - Entry 4.9.a./Eligibility Determination/Write-Up for DCD/ SPED 420

Standard B: Referral, Assessment, Planning, and Placement Procedures

Description

Given a case study provided by the instructor (age, description of student, data from family, observational information, academic performance information, general intelligence test scores, and scores from an adaptive behavior instrument), the candidate writes a report in which eligibility is determined based on Minnesota standards (DCD Companion Manual). In addition, the candidate must justify in writing the decision that they have made based on the above-mentioned standards. The write-up must employ vocabulary from the Companion Manual accurately and be professional in terms of the standards of written English (attaining a level of 95% accuracy). Above all, the eligibility determination must be accurate, given the information provided.

Please refer to the Minnesota Department of Education DCD Eligibility Criteria.

Scoring Rubric

Portfolio Artifact or Performance : 4.9.a. DCD Eligibility Determination

Points

1

2

3

Performance or Artifact Level

In Progress:
Additional Work Required

Standards Met

Standards Met with
High Quality

Generic Level Descriptor

No or limited evidence of the ability to perform the tasks specified in the task description. The candidate requires significant assistance to perform the task at a level expected of a beginning teacher.

The work sample/ portfolio entry demonstrates that the candidate can perform all or the majority of tasks at the level required of a first-year teacher.  While the individual may require some mentoring during their first years of employment on the task(s), they are well on their way to independent performance.

The work sample/ artifact reveals work beyond the performance and independence level expectations for a first-year educator. The work reveals a level of sophistication more like that of a successful veteran.

Description of Performance

Given the information provided in the case study, the candidate draws the wrong conclusion regarding eligibility. The candidate is accurate in terms of eligibility, but makes at least one fundamental error regarding justification in any of five domains (misinterpreting either general intelligence scores, adaptive behavior composite, justification of  “needs” with adaptive domains, role of parents, or direct observation requirements.

The eligibility decision is accurate and is based on all five “decision” domains listed under “In Progress”.  The write-up must evidence at least 95% accuracy in terms of the conventions of written English. While accurate, the write-up does not extend to a deep level of analysis such as would be reflected in a request for more information or a criticism of the data provided.

All of the criteria for “Standards Met” are present and great insight and analysis/synthesis is shown in the report. The candidate extends beyond “mere” accuracy and poses questions about the data or requests useful information not present in the simulation.

 

Untitled Document