LEA439.W3A1.04.2013

Description:


Total Possible Score: 8.00

Identifies the Background, Reasoning of the C.R.P., and the Resulting Influence and Lobbying of Political Leadership

Total: 2.20

Distinguished - Identifies the background, the reasoning of the C.R.P. during negotiations, and the influence and lobbying of the political leadership of the case study. All three components are comprehensive and accurate.

Proficient - Identifies the background, the reasoning of the C.R.P. during negotiations, and the influence and lobbying of the political leadership of the case study. All three components are accurate, but minor details are missing.

Basic - Identifies the background, the reasoning of the C.R.P. during negotiations, and the influence and lobbying of the political leadership of the case study. All three components are mostly accurate, but relevant details are missing.

Below Expectations - Attempts to identify the background, the reasoning of the C.R.P. during negotiations, and/or the influence and lobbying of the political leadership of the case study; however,  one of the components is missing or the components contain key inaccuracies. Significant details are missing.

Non-Performance - The identification of the background, reasoning behind the C.R.P., and the resulting influence and lobbying are either nonexistent or lack the components described in the assignment instructions.


Analyzes Austin City Council Who Lobbied for the C.R.P. and Explains How the C.R.P. Became Part of a Negotiated Contract

Total: 2.40

Distinguished - Thoroughly analyzes how the lobbying members of the City Council contributed to the C.R.P. implementation and provides a comprehensive explanation of how the C.R.P. was negotiated into the contract.

Proficient - Analyzes how the lobbying members of the City Council contributed to the C.R.P. implementation and provides an explanation of how the C.R.P. was negotiated into the contract. The analysis or the explanation is slightly underdeveloped.

Basic - Minimally analyzes how the lobbying members of the City Council contributed to the C.R.P. implementation and somewhat explains how the C.R.P. was negotiated into the contract. The analysis or the explanation is underdeveloped.

Below Expectations - Attempts to analyze how the lobbying members of the City Council contributed to the C.R.P. implementation and explain how the C.R.P. was negotiated into the contract; however, the analysis or the explanation is significantly underdeveloped

Non-Performance - The analysis of the lobbying members of the City Council and the explanation as to how the C.R.P. was negotiated into the contract are either nonexistent or lack the components described in the assignment instructions.


Provides Opinion Regarding the Ethics of Influence of City Council Members During Campaigns

Total: 2.20

Distinguished - Provides opinion on the influence and support of City Council Members during campaigns and whether or not the process is ethical. The opinion is supported by specific and relevant examples.

Proficient - Adequately provides opinion on the influence and support of City Council Members during campaigns and whether or not the process is ethical. The opinion is supported by examples.

Basic - Briefly provides opinion on the influence and support of City Council Members during campaigns and whether or not the process is ethical. The opinion is somewhat supported by examples

Below Expectations - Minimally provides opinion on the influence and support of City Council Members during campaigns and whether or not the process is ethical. The opinion is not sufficiently supported by examples.

Non-Performance - The opinion regarding ethics of influence of city council members during campaigns is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.


Critical Thinking: Evidence

Total: 0.20

Distinguished - Employs persuasive information from credible sources to develop an ample analysis or synthesis of the topic. Viewpoints of experts are scrutinized thoroughly.

Proficient - Employs applicable information from credible sources to develop an analysis of the topic.

Basic - Identifies applicable information from credible sources, but may neglect the application of such information toward the analysis of the topic.

Below Expectations - Displays information from external sources, but such information may lack credibility and/or relevance. Neglects the application of such information toward the analysis of the topic.

Non-Performance - The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.


Critical Thinking: Explanation of Issues

Total: 0.20

Distinguished - Clearly and comprehensively explains in detail the issue to be considered, delivering all relevant information necessary for a full understanding.

Proficient - Clearly explains in detail the issue to be considered, delivering enough relevant information for an adequate understanding.

Basic - Briefly recognizes the issue to be considered, delivering minimal information for a basic understanding.

Below Expectations - Briefly recognizes the issue to be considered, but may not deliver additional information necessary for a basic understanding.

Non-Performance - The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.


Written Communication: Control of Syntax and Mechanics

Total: 0.20

Distinguished - Displays meticulous comprehension and organization of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains no errors, and is very easy to understand.

Proficient - Displays comprehension and organization of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains only a few minor errors, and is mostly easy to understand.

Basic - Displays basic comprehension of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains a few errors, which may slightly distract the reader.

Below Expectations - Fails to display basic comprehension of syntax or mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains major errors, which distract the reader.

Non-Performance - The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.


Written Communication: APA Formatting

Total: 0.20

Distinguished - Accurately uses APA formatting consistently throughout the paper, title page, and reference page.

Proficient - Exhibits APA formatting throughout the paper. However, layout contains a few minor errors.

Basic - Exhibits basic knowledge of APA formatting throughout the paper. However, layout does not meet all APA requirements.

Below Expectations - Fails to exhibit basic knowledge of APA formatting. There are frequent errors, making the layout difficult to distinguish as APA.

Non-Performance - The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.


Written Communication: Page Requirement

Total: 0.20

Distinguished - The paper meets the specific page requirement stipulated in the assignment description.

Proficient - The paper closely meets the page requirement stipulated in the assignment description.

Basic - The paper meets over half of the page requirement stipulated in the assignment description.

Below Expectations - A fraction of the page requirement is completed.

Non-Performance - The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.


Written Communication: Resource Requirement

Total: 0.20

Distinguished - Uses more than the required number of scholarly sources, providing compelling evidence to support ideas. All sources on the reference page are used and cited correctly within the body of the assignment.

Proficient - Uses required number of scholarly sources to support ideas. All sources on the reference page are used and cited correctly within the body of the assignment.

Basic - Uses less than the required number of sources to support ideas. Some sources may not be scholarly. Most sources on the reference page are used within the body of the assignment. Citations may not be formatted correctly.

Below Expectations - Uses inadequate number of sources that provide little or no support for ideas. Sources used may not be scholarly. Most sources on the reference page are not used within the body of the assignment. Citations are not formatted correctly.

Non-Performance - The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.