Scoring_Rubric_-_Saturday_LEAD_.pdf
PDF 181 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- RFP- 25 - 308
- Issued by
- Pinellas County, Florida
About this file
The document is a Saturday LEAD Scoring Rubric created by the City of St. Petersburg's Education & Youth Opportunities department, which outlines a comprehensive evaluation framework for assessing youth programming proposals. The rubric contains nine key assessment criteria, including Program Design and Implementation, Parent Engagement, Innovation and Student Thriving Focus, Evaluation and Data Use, Curriculum and Instructional Strategy, Evidence of Past Success, Partnerships and Support, and Budget and Timeline Alignment. Each criterion is scored on a 0-10 point scale across four performance levels: Exceeds Expectations (10-9), Meets Expectations (8-6), Below Expectations (5-3), and Not Evident (2-0).
The scoring methodology enables evaluators to systematically rate proposals based on specific, detailed expectations within each category. For instance, in the Program Design and Implementation category, proposals are assessed on curriculum innovation, technology integration, student-centered approaches, and collaboration with Pinellas County Schools (PCS). Higher-scoring proposals demonstrate clear, innovative strategies, strong technological integration, comprehensive parent engagement plans, evidence of past programming success, strong community partnerships, and budgets that are realistic and aligned with proposed timelines and activities. The rubric serves as a structured tool to objectively compare and score youth program proposals, ensuring that selected programs meet high standards of educational quality and organizational effectiveness.
View the file
Other files
Show all 11
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
City of St. Petersburg | Education & Youth Opportunities
Saturday LEAD Scoring Rubric
Criteria Exceeds Expectations (10–9) Meets Expectations (8–6) Below Expectations (5–3) Not Evident (2–0)
Program Design and Implementation
Clear, innovative Saturday curriculum; strong tech integration and student-centered approaches; strong collaboration plan with PCS
Solid curriculum and structure; appropriate technology use;
includes PCS coordination
Basic program outlined;
limited innovation or unclear use of technology;
minimal detail on PCS collaboration
Weak or no plan for implementation; no coordination with PCS described
Parent Engagement
Strong, multi-faceted strategy for ongoing parent involvement;
includes communication tools and scheduled events
Defined engagement strategy; some tools and touchpoints for parent updates
Minimal engagement plan;
vague strategies or reliance on one method
No meaningful plan for parent involvement provided
Innovation and Student Thriving Focus
Demonstrates use of innovative methods and strategies aligned with student thriving and diverse learning styles
Includes some innovative practices and student-centered strategies
Minimal innovation or unclear connection to student growth and engagement
No evidence of innovative or engaging strategies
Evaluation and Data Use
Clear evaluation framework; uses multiple data sources to assess academic progress and adapt program in real time
Describes assessment methods and plan to adjust instruction;
collects basic data
Evaluation plan lacks depth or is only partially developed
No clear evaluation or data plan provided
Curriculum and Instructional Strategy
Well-developed curriculum aligned with standards and learning goals; includes technology, differentiation, and enrichment
General curriculum plan provided;
addresses learning objectives with some tools
Curriculum is vague or lacks depth; unclear how learning goals are supported
No curriculum plan or instructional detail provided
Evidence of Past Success
Strong record of successful youth programming with compelling data and narrative; aligns with project goals
Provides examples of success and experience in youth programming
Limited examples or data supporting past success
No relevant past experience or supporting data provided
City of St. Petersburg | Education & Youth Opportunities
Criteria Exceeds Expectations (10–9) Meets Expectations (8–6) Below Expectations (5–3) Not Evident (2–0)
Partnerships and Support
Strong letters of support from schools/community partners;
clearly integrated into the program
Includes at least one letter of support; some partner involvement evident
Limited support or unclear role of partners
No letters of support or partner references included
Budget and Timeline Alignment
Budget is clear, realistic, and aligned with proposed timeline and activities; maximizes impact over two years
Budget is reasonable;
supports proposed activities with general alignment
Budget is unclear or misaligned with scope/timeline
Budget is incomplete, unrealistic, or not aligned with project scope
Saturday LEAD Scoring Rubric
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .