# data[].attributes.headline
This sample responded to all 3 types of writing, connected to the AAT, and showed evidence of standards.

# data[].attributes.subject
This sample responded to all 3 types of writing, connected to the AAT, and showed evidence of standards.

# data[].attributes.headline
No evidence of analytical or reflective writing

# data[].attributes.subject
No evidence of analytical or reflective writing

# data[].attributes.headline
Lacks descriptive writing about the teacher-created pretest the teacher used

# data[].attributes.subject
Lacks descriptive writing about the teacher-created pretest the teacher used

# data[].attributes.body
Doesn't seem to really know their students too well...depends and relies on the Special Educator to make accommodations without addressing what they can be doing to help their students. Lacks reflection. What instruction will be implemented to meet their goals? What are the clearly defined goals?

# data[].attributes.body
What does the pre-test look like? What are the unit goals? The teacher needs to be collaborating with the Special Educator to develop a fair, equitable assessment. What were the results? How did these results specifically decide which activities or types of instruction the students received?

# data[].attributes.body
Teacher was descriptive in their writing, showed collaboration with various specialists, reflected on the outcomes of the pre-test, really watched students, discussed goals that were set, and a plan was made after reflecting on their teaching, to reinforce certain areas and set new learning goals.

# data[].attributes.headline
Needs more specific info about types of questions on pre-test, activities used to enrich, student and class description

# data[].attributes.subject
Needs more specific info about types of questions on pre-test, activities used to enrich, student and class description

# data[].attributes.headline
Collaboration was included, sample included all 3 types of writing

# data[].attributes.subject
Collaboration was included, sample included all 3 types of writing

# data[].attributes.body
Seems to be only descriptive. No analysis, no reflection.

# data[].attributes.body
What is on the pretest? Missing specific information that would paint the picture for the assessor.

# data[].attributes.body
This response used all three DAR writing styles. A clear picture was painted.

# data[].attributes.body
The response did not address all the questions in the prompt. If it did, then the author would have had the opportunity to provide analytical and reflective writing in the response.

# data[].attributes.body
The author did not take the time to describe in detail the assessment that was used, nor did this author share the specific of their analysis of that assessment. Descriptions should be specific. Analysis should also be specific. Reflection can also be specific. This piece lacks all of that.

# data[].attributes.body
This sample addresses all of the questions in the prompt. It is descriptive and specific in each of the kinds of writing that address that prompt. It allows the reader to sit beside the author as they show rather than tell about the assessment and how they used it to drive instruction for all learners.

# data[].attributes.body
This sample had no descriptive writing. I didn't get a good understanding of the pretest or any information about/expectations of the instruction. There is also little indication of subject area. Students "who do not read well" are referenced, but that doesn't necessarily mean this was a Reading/Literacy content area.

# data[].attributes.body
This sample didn't seem to have any analytical or reflective writing. It also did not address all parts of the prompt. The author fails to discuss how the assessment results informed goals and instruction.

# data[].attributes.body
This sample response contains all three types of writing. The content area is easily identifiable, and the teacher reflects on the results and discusses how those results inform goals.

# data[].attributes.body
The response to this prompt seems to be lacking both descriptive and reflective pieces. The writer says what assessment the students were completing, but does not give details as to what the assessment is actually having them do and then connecting the assessment to any standards that it is measuring. The writer also did not include any reflective piece looking back on the assessment.

# data[].attributes.body
This writing piece is lacking description. The writer talks about how they have used this teacher-created pretest to address unit goals, but does not mention what any of the unit goals are. They also do not describe what kind of questions are on the pretest, and what it is even asking the students to do.

# data[].attributes.body
This writing sample had examples of all three types of writing. The writer did a great job describing exactly what the students were asked to do, they analyzed the story problems given to reach all children, and reflected at the end on how the task went and what they learned from giving the task. They also went into what their next steps would be now that they have that data collected from their students.

# data[].attributes.body
What areas were the students weak in? How do you know it's reliable when you have a new group of learners year after year? How does having the special educator give a separate assessment show differentiation on your part?

# data[].attributes.body
This piece clearly communicated each step in the process and addressed all 3 types of writing. The writer was specific and reflective. They also explained the reasoning behind the instructional choices.

# data[].attributes.body
The response did not include analytical or reflective writing. Additionally, I do not believe providing the title of the curriculum provides enough of a description. The writer did not address the type of questions that were addressed or the overall skills of assessed.

# data[].attributes.body
The response lacks clear description of the assessment created. What were the goals?

# data[].attributes.body
This response was able to target all 3 types of writing!

# data[].attributes.body
Very vague and not specific enough to the standards, goals, or data.

# data[].attributes.body
The assessment did not describe what they were learning. The response also used very objective words such as fair. They stated the assessment was fair because these assessments were used in the past, not reflecting on the current students.

# data[].attributes.body
This response was much more detailed and gave a clear picture of what the teacher was thinking and doing. The only thing I would add is including what hands-on materials were provided on the test, based on the student's accommodations.