Advanced proficiency level: 10th Grade Science

In this example, a CM and Evaluator discuss differentiation.

Support materials:

CM and Evaluator Transcript
Handout

Overall rating & analysis

Overall rating: Two AP Strands and one E Strand equal an overall AP rating.

Beginning

Advanced

Exemplary

Strand 1: The specificity with which the teacher targets differentiation.

Designs content, process, and products applicable to a general group of students, while complying with official accommodations and modifications, if applicable.

Regularly designs content, process, and products applicable to subgroups of students with different needs and interests.

Designs content, process, and products customized for individual students.

Strand 2: The extent to which data informs a teacher’s differentiation.

Crafts plans based on student diagnostic data and/or goals of the IEPs, if applicable.

Crafts plans based on multiple sources of data (including ongoing assessments) and goals of the IEPs, if applicable.

Uses multiple sources of data to inform plans, while consistently pushing for students to transcend past performance.

Strand 3: The manageability of differentiation plans.

Designs efficient plans so that the teacher can offer support to individual students when the whole class is working.

Designs efficient plans and accountability systems to initiate various forms of structured differentiation (e.g., teacher rotating among established student groupings).

Designs efficient plans and accountability systems to initiate flexible differentiation (e.g., students in varied groups; students working independently).


Analysis: Why did the teacher receive these ratings?

Rating: APStrand 1: The specificity with which the teacher targets differentiation.

Why AP?

Regularly designs content, process, and products applicable to subgroups (through different texts, assignment/project choice, “groundwork,” and “Reading and Writing in the Sciences” groups). States that he/she adjusts/modifies as necessary to meet IEP requirements.

The teacher differentiates both literacy and science skills. There are different texts centered on the same material, which are meant to address students’ literacy needs, and there is a “menu” of project options and remediation assignments. The teacher indicates in the conversation that these assignments are given out based on the students’ biology diagnostics; this idea is stressed again in the handout that students receive (with the note that people will be working on different things depending on what they need to be individually successful).

Why not E?

The teacher does not design content, process, and products for individual students.

Rating: EStrand 2: The extent to which data informs a teacher’s differentiation.

Why E?

The teacher uses multiple sources of data — English teachers’ diagnostics, additional assessments, and IEPs — to plan. The teacher also mentions wanting to grow students’ literacy skills, rather than just compensating for them, which may qualify as “pushing for students to transcend past performance.”

Why not AP?

The evidence suggests that the teacher only used student diagnostic data and IEPs, which do not constitute “multiple sources of data.”

Rating: APStrand 3: The manageability of differentiation plans.

Why AP?

Accountability systems are in place for differentiated projects, readings, and “groundwork.”

Accountability systems are assumed for the “Reading and Writing in the Sciences” groups, as students have “tasks” that they must complete.

Teacher’s plans are efficient enough to allow various structured differentiation (working with lowest group, different projects for different kids, etc.).

Why not E?

There is no evidence that the students ever change groups.