Description
Following the assessment process for establishing eligibility under IDEA’s disability categories ensures adherence to proper legal provisions and ethical considerations. Understanding the purpose of each assessment utilized to establish eligibility assists in the ability to execute those assessments properly.
In your brochure, identify and describe the following:
The five primary purposes of the special education eligibility assessment process for individuals who have or appear to have disabilities (screening and identification, eligibility and diagnosis, IEP development and placement, instructional planning, and evaluation) as explained in “NASET Assessment in Special Education Series.”
The stakeholders involved in the assessment process with explanations of why and how each is involved.
How students are identified for assessment based on IDEA’s eligibility categories.
Legal and ethical considerations related to the assessment process and establishing eligibility.
At least three components of the comprehensive eligibility assessment process used to determine if there is a documented disability.
The brochure should include graphics that are relevant to the content, visually appealing, and use space appropriately.
Provide a minimum of three scholarly references.
While APA format is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and in-text citations and references should be presented using APA documentation guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.
This assignment uses a rubric. Review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
NO PLAGARISM
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Collapse All
Assessment Process to Establish Eligibility – Rubric
Assessment Purposes and Stakeholders
7.5 points
Criteria Description
Assessment Purposes and Stakeholders
5. Target
7.5 points
Brochure comprehensively outlines the five primary purposes of the eligibility
assessment process in a professional manner. A thorough explanation of
stakeholders involved in the assessment process is provided, along with an indepth, insightful explanation of the role each stakeholder holds.
4. Acceptable
6.38 points
Brochure provides a clear explanation of the five primary purposes of the eligibility
assessment and correctly outlines the roles of stakeholders involved within the
assessment process.
3. Approaching
5.63 points
Brochure sufficiently outlines the five primary purposes of eligibility assessment.
Explanation of the stakeholders involved within the assessment process and
respective roles is basic.
2. Insufficient
4.88 points
Brochure vaguely outlines the five primary purposes of eligibility assessment.
Explanation of the stakeholders involved within the assessment process and
respective roles is incomplete.
1. No Submission
0 points
Not addressed.
© 2023. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Identification
10 points
Criteria Description
Identification
5. Target
10 points
Brochure includes a quality, accomplished description of how students are
identified for assessment based on IDEA’s eligibility categories.
4. Acceptable
8.5 points
Brochure includes a sound, extensive description of how students are identified for
assessment based on IDEA’s eligibility categories.
3. Approaching
7.5 points
Brochure includes a basic description of how students are identified for assessment
based on IDEA’s eligibility categories.
2. Insufficient
6.5 points
Brochure inaccurately describes how students are identified for assessment based
on IDEA’s eligibility categories.
1. No Submission
0 points
Not addressed.
© 2023. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Legal and Ethical Considerations of Assessment Process
10 points
Criteria Description
Legal and Ethical Considerations of Assessment Process
5. Target
10 points
Legal and ethical considerations in the assessment process for establishing
eligibility are substantially explained.
4. Acceptable
8.5 points
Legal and ethical considerations in the assessment process for establishing
eligibility are clearly explained.
3. Approaching
7.5 points
Legal and ethical considerations in the assessment process for establishing
eligibility are moderately described.
2. Insufficient
6.5 points
Legal and ethical considerations in the assessment process for establishing
eligibility are insufficiently described.
1. No Submission
0 points
Not addressed.
© 2023. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Components
10 points
Criteria Description
Components
5. Target
10 points
A realistic, concise explanation of at least three components of a comprehensive
assessment is provided.
4. Acceptable
8.5 points
A competent explanation of at least three components of a comprehensive
assessment is provided.
3. Approaching
7.5 points
A broad explanation of at least three components of a comprehensive assessment
is provided.
2. Insufficient
6.5 points
An underdeveloped or inaccurate explanation of components of a comprehensive
assessment is provided.
1. No Submission
0 points
Not addressed.
© 2023. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Aesthetic Quality
2.5 points
Criteria Description
Aesthetic Quality
5. Target
2.5 points
Design is pleasing. Skillful handling of color, text and visuals creates a distinctive
and effective presentation. Overall, effective and functional audio, text, or visuals
are evident.
4. Acceptable
2.13 points
Design is clean. Differences in type size or color are used well and consistently. A
variety of objects, charts, and graphs are integrated to amplify the message.
3. Approaching
1.88 points
Design is fairly clean, with a few exceptions. There is some variation in type size,
color, and layout that is unnecessary. For the most part, visuals add to, not detract,
from the presentation.
2. Insufficient
1.63 points
Design is inconsistent, fragmented and detrimental to the presentation’s purpose.
Visuals detract from the content.
1. No Submission
0 points
Not addressed.
© 2023. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Overall Presentation
2.5 points
Criteria Description
Overall Presentation
5. Target
2.5 points
The work is well presented. The overall appearance is neat and professional. Work
would be highly desirable for public dissemination.
4. Acceptable
2.13 points
The overall appearance is generally neat, with a few minor organizational flaws.
Work would be desirable for public dissemination.
3. Approaching
1.88 points
The overall appearance and organization of material is generally acceptable. Work
would be adequate for public dissemination.
2. Insufficient
1.63 points
The work is not neat or organized. Work would not be presentable for public
dissemination.
1. No Submission
0 points
Not addressed.
© 2023. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Language Use and Audience Awareness
2.5 points
Criteria Description
Language Use and Audience Awareness
5. Target
2.5 points
Word choice in slides and speaker’s notes is distinctive, creative and well-suited to
purpose, discipline, scope, and audience of the Brochure.
4. Acceptable
2.13 points
Word choice in slides and speaker’s notes is reflective of the intended audience,
uses a variety of appropriate vocabulary, and communicates clearly.
3. Approaching
1.88 points
Some distracting inconsistencies or repetitions in word choice are present.
Language is designed for the targeted audience.
2. Insufficient
1.63 points
Inappropriate word choice is evident. Language is not reflective of the targeted
audience.
1. No Submission
0 points
Not addressed.
© 2023. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Mechanics of Writing
2.5 points
Criteria Description
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use)
5. Target
2.5 points
Submission is virtually free of mechanical errors.
4. Acceptable
2.13 points
Submission is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present.
3. Approaching
1.88 points
Submission includes mechanical errors, but they do not hinder comprehension.
2. Insufficient
1.63 points
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning.
1. No Submission
0 points
Not addressed.
© 2023. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Documentation of Sources
2.5 points
Criteria Description
Documentation of Sources (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
2.13 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is
mostly correct.
3. Approaching
1.88 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although several
formatting errors are present.
2. Insufficient
1.63 points
Documentation of sources is inconsistent and/or incorrect, as appropriate to
assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.
1. No Submission
0 points
Not addressed.
Total 50 points
© 2023. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
