Advanced proficiency level: 4th Grade Reading

In this example, a CM and Evaluator discuss differentiation.

Support materials:

CM and Evaluator Transcript
Lesson Plan

Overall rating & analysis

Overall rating: Three AP Strands 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/products for subgroups of students — using literature circles, centers, fluency work — and takes into account both interests and needs. Content/objectives are differentiated for subgroups in both centers and literature circles; process is differentiated for subgroups through different activities at centers; products are differentiated for subgroups through different literature circle projects and different center outputs.

Meets IEP requirements for two students with IEPs.

Why not E?

Differentiation is not customized for individual students (except for the two special education students).

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

Why AP?

Uses recent mid-year assessments and student surveys from centers as sources of planning data and is therefore using multiple sources of data. Also uses IEP goals for the two special education students.

Why not E?

No evidence of “pushing for students to transcend past performance.”

Rating: APStrand 3: The manageability of differentiation plans.

Why AP?

Has “outputs” for several of the centers and projects for literature circles, which constitute accountability systems.

Plans are efficient enough to allow flexible differentiation: teacher center and student-centered centers and literature circles with different students. Teacher is able to work with groups without interruption by rest of class. (Therefore meets E criteria.)

Why not E?

Do not have evidence of how the students in these groups can move around based on their performance on an ongoing basis.