|
||||
| PARTNERSHIPS -- FUNCTIONAL & STRATEGIC (We involve the educational community in our endeavors) | ||||
|
Users & Customers | Collaborative Relationships | JPL Strengths | NASA | Planning & Length | Resource Sharing | K-12 Agencies | Higher Education |
||||
| Users & Customers |
| INDICATOR | What should educational programs be able to do? | |
| SUPERIOR | Program exceeds the needs and expectations of educational community customers | |
| GOOD | Program always meets the needs and expectations of educational community customers | |
| ACCEPTABLE | Program usually meets one or more needs and expectations of educational community customers | |
| NEEDS REVISION | Program seldom meets a need or expectation of educational community customers |
| Collaborative Relationships |
| INDICATOR | What is the nature of the relationship with partners? | |
| SUPERIOR | Partnership is both intellectual (knowledge shared at the inception of the relationship) and in-depth, capitalizing thoroughly on JPL/NASA enterprises, explorations, or discoveries | |
| GOOD | Partnership is in-depth, capitalizing on JPL/NASA enterprises, explorations, or discoveries | |
| ACCEPTABLE | Partnership is in-depth, capitalizing on JPL/NASA enterprises, explorations, or discoveries | |
| NEEDS REVISION | Partnership is symbolic, superficial or non-intellectual |
| JPL Strengths |
| INDICATOR | What are our strengths in a partnership? | |
| SUPERIOR | Program builds on unique strengths of access to ideas and data, technology-knowledgeable people, enthusiastic people for education | |
| GOOD | Program builds on unique strengths of technology-knowledgeable people, enthusiastic people for education | |
| ACCEPTABLE | Program builds on unique strengths of enthusiastic people for education | |
| NEEDS REVISION | Program builds on unique strengths of enthusiastic people for education |
| NASA |
| INDICATOR | What are NASA's interests? | |
| SUPERIOR | Highly aligned with Strategic Education Plans of NASA Codes FE, S, and Y | |
| GOOD | Aligned with Strategic Education Plans of NASA Codes FE, S, and Y | |
| ACCEPTABLE | Aligned with Strategic Education Plans of NASA Codes FE, S, and Y | |
| NEEDS REVISION | Not aligned with Strategic Education Plans of NASA Codes FE, S, and Y |
| Planning & Length |
| INDICATOR | What is good planning like? | |
| SUPERIOR |
Long-term planning such that JPL can complete it's role in a timely, effective and economical fashion; links across themes.
Partnership is both long-term and limited |
|
| GOOD |
Ample details in plan, realistic and clear objectives; links to themes
Partnership is either long-term or limited |
|
| ACCEPTABLE |
General deliverable dates, budget, links to other local products
Partnership is short-term but limited |
|
| NEEDS REVISION |
No plan, ad hoc implementation
Partnership is both short-term and unconstrained |
| Resource Sharing |
| INDICATOR | How should resource-sharing be addressed? | |
| SUPERIOR | Wide sharing of resources is clearly evident in all areas | |
| GOOD | Some sharing of resources, wide usage of NASA or JPL enterprises or materials | |
| ACCEPTABLE | Some sharing of resources, limited usage of NASA or JPL enterprises or materials | |
| NEEDS REVISION | Some sharing of resources, limited usage of NASA or JPL enterprises or materials |
| K-12 Agencies |
| INDICATOR | How are K-12 agencies involved? | |
| SUPERIOR | Includes extensive participation and guidance of recognized classroom teachers, curriculum developers, or curriculum framework experts | |
| GOOD | Includes some participation and guidance of recognized classroom teachers, curriculum developers, or curriculum framework experts | |
| ACCEPTABLE | Includes marginal participation and guidance of recognized classroom teachers, curriculum developers, or curriculum framework experts | |
| NEEDS REVISION | Internally developed (to JPL) |
| Higher Education |
| INDICATOR | How is Higher Education Involved? | |
| SUPERIOR | Includes extensive participation and leadership by faculty recognized for their leadership and their expertise in the content area | |
| GOOD | Includes some participation by faculty recognized for their expertise in the content area | |
| ACCEPTABLE | Very limited participation by faculty in the content area | |
| NEEDS REVISION | Internally developed (to JPL) |
| Nature of Science/Quality of Science | Teacher/Faculty Prep & Enhancement | Curriculum Support | Program Evaluation | Student Support | Partnerships Functional | Partnerships Institutional |
Content: Richard Alvidrez
Web Developer: Kristy Kawasaki