Essay Instructions: In Spring 2010, the staff of Normandy Crossing Elementary School eagerly awaited results of state achievement tests. For the principal and assistant principal, high scores could buoy their careers at a time when success is increasingly measured by such tests. For fifth-grade math and science teachers, the rewards were more tangible: a bonus of $2,850.
But when the results came back, some seemed too good to be true. After an investigation by the Galena Park Independent School District, the principal, assistant principal and three teachers resigned May 24 in a scandal over test tampering. The district said the educators had distributed a detailed study guide after stealing a look at the state science test by ?tubing? it ? squeezing a test booklet, without breaking its paper seal, to form an open tube so that questions inside could be seen and used in the guide. The district invalidated students? scores.
Analyze this scenario from the 5P?s perspective. Specifically, 1) Read the journal article by Pryor, Anderson, Toombs, and Humphreys (2007); 2) Provide a summary of the information presented in the Pryor et al (2007) article; and 3) Integrate information from the websites of Normandy Crossing Elementary School and Galena Park ISD, the journal article, and your book in order to assess this situation from the 5P?s perspective.
Questions to consider (including, but not limited to):
? What went wrong?
? How can it be fixed (or prevented in the future)?
? What are their goals, mission/vision, and processes of the school/ISD? Do these need to be altered or changed?
? Was there 1 particular portion of the 5P?s that was ignored? Put above the others because of pressure?
Include a link to any information you find on the websites, and provide page numbers for any direct quotes from the article.
NOTE: This is not an opinion question. I am looking for you to integrate what you?ve learned and apply it to this real-world example. Your analysis and recommendations should be based on what you?ve read, not what you think. In other words, I should not read, ?I think they should?.? Instead, I should read something like, ?The article states that principles guide the organization by?. Therefore, Normandy Crossing should do X.?
I will not give you a page limit on the essay, but I do want to say that I want you to be very specific and to the point while presenting an in-depth analysis. I should also point out that I grade somewhat on comparison. If one student submits a essay that is 20 pages long, includes 15 examples from the article and the websites, and is well-written, that student?s grade will be dramatically higher than a student who submits 2 pages, includes 2 references, and has a bunch of spelling and grammar errors.
Case Analysis Grading Rubric
Far Exceeds Standards Exceeds Standards Meets Standards Fails to Meet Standards
Identification of Critical Issues and Depth of Analysis
I will consider how detailed your analysis is, how far into depth you go, and whether you address many of the existing and critical issues in the case. Identifies all of the critical managerial issues. Thoroughly discusses, evaluates, and analyzes each managerial issue, providing convincing and supported arguments. Identifies most of the critical managerial issues. Discusses, evaluates, and analyzes each managerial issue, providing convincing and supported arguments, but could have gone into a bit more depth. Identifies many of the critical managerial issues. Discusses, evaluates, and analyzes each managerial issue, providing convincing and supported arguments, but could have gone into much more depth. Identifies few, if any, critical managerial issues.
Fails to discuss, evaluate, and analyze each managerial issue, does not provide convincing or supported arguments, and lacks any significant degree of depth.
Score: (40) (37) (34) (31)
Supported Recommendations Regarding the Best Approaches for Handling the Problematic Issues in the Case
Provided a thorough and well-supported discussion of several valid approaches for dealing with all of the critical, problematic issues in the case. Provided a sufficient and supported discussion of several valid approaches for dealing with most of the critical, problematic issues in the case, but could have gone into more depth or provided a few more recommendations. Discussed some valid approaches for dealing with some of the critical, problematic issues in the case, but could have gone into much more depth, provided more support, and/or provided several more recommendations. Discussed few, if any, approaches for dealing with some of the critical, problematic issues in the case, and provided little or no support.
Score: (20) (18) (16) (14)
Turnitin.com Similarity Rating
Student submits a paper that scores a low similarity rating (below 25%), indicating a high degree of originality of the student?s work.
Student submits a paper that scores a mid-range similarity rating (between 25 and 50%).
Student submits a paper that scores a rather high similarity rating (between 50% and 75%).
Student submits a paper that scores a high similarity rating (above 75%), suggesting that there could be an issue with plagiarism. Such papers will be investigated and administrative action may be taken.
Score: (5) (4) (3) (2)
Overall Quality of Written Communication Student presented a well-written, coherent analysis that was free from any grammar and/or spelling errors. Student presented a well-written, coherent analysis that contained a few minor errors. Student presented a rather coherent analysis that contained several minor errors. Student presented an incoherent analysis that contained several major errors.
Score: (10) (8) (6) (4)
Grade:
Scoring Key:
? Far Exceeds Standards = 68 ? 75
? Exceeds Standards = 60 ? 67
? Meets Standards = 52 - 59
? Fails to Meet Standards = < 52
