# data[].attributes.body
I think the domains are appropriate, I can't think of any immediate gaps.

# data[].attributes.headline
Something around "implementation guidance" "examples of use" or "implementation challenges to consider"  An example would be if the PACE crosswalk has included a few examples of how schools/districts implemented the resource, what it looked like and what challenges they encountered.  

# data[].attributes.subject
Something around "implementation guidance" "examples of use" or "implementation challenges to consider"  An example would be if the PACE crosswalk has included a few examples of how schools/districts implemented the resource, what it looked like and what challenges they encountered.  

# data[].attributes.body
there are criteria in each of the metrics that may not be met, therefore the rating could be split between two ratings (may meet one or the other). I'm still having trouble with how they are labeled. Needs Improvement implies there is something that should or can be done to improve the quality.

# data[].attributes.body
It was challanging because the rubric is somewhat specific but not extremely specific.  Also, the type of resource viewed may not align with the purpose of the rubric.

# data[].attributes.headline
It's hard to identify some of the aspects  of the rubric categories - eg. research base, cost, training - that stuff doesn't always seem to be easy to find, or many resources just don't reference this

# data[].attributes.subject
It's hard to identify some of the aspects  of the rubric categories - eg. research base, cost, training - that stuff doesn't always seem to be easy to find, or many resources just don't reference this

# data[].attributes.body
I was not sure how to assess/ confirm research based questions or questions about precedence of use because I don't have that knowledge

# data[].attributes.body
I think, for the resource I am familiar with, it was hard not to read into the alignment from information I know not just what I looked at.

# data[].attributes.headline
I wonder if a starting place for continued revisions to the rubric is thinking more about what campus leaders need to successfully utilize a resource

# data[].attributes.subject
I wonder if a starting place for continued revisions to the rubric is thinking more about what campus leaders need to successfully utilize a resource

# data[].attributes.body
for some of the resources, I found them helpful and I would know how they apply to the work. I felt like the rubric limited my ratings and would not meet quality standards.

# data[].attributes.body
The resources to build the framework of the EAF.  This rubric seemed to lend itself to more of the resources to use for students/families/counselors to implement the process.

# data[].attributes.body
I think this question specifically relied on more of our knowledge base to assess properly rather than our initial experience with the tool to assess

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, with some modifications.  It is always great to have a resource to help review resources.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, same as previous question.

# data[].attributes.body
Being able to take a resource you are already using or find out about that is not a part of the EAF materials and scale it with a rubric is very helpful.

# data[].attributes.body
There may be a need to have a separate set of metrics or criteria for student/parent facing resources.

# data[].attributes.body
we didn't get into the weight yet, but I think the weight for evidence should not be as high. I've not seen a lot of resources that have strong qualitative or quantitative evidence on their website. This seems to be difficult to find unless you spend time digging through the resource. Carol made a good point about have to look for the evidence.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, it would be helpful to have the rubric.  I agree with Carol's comment, with some modifications.  I also think having separate criteria would be best for student/parent facing resources.  You can probably use most of what you have, just not specifics (like research based evidence may not apply to a student facing resource).