# data[].attributes.body
The lessons are logically sequences and each lessons build on the next. However, there is little connections to mathematical context. It is rather algorithmic and procedural.

# data[].attributes.body
Logically sequenced and builds on previous lessons and concepts. Connections are explicitly written. Ex. "connect students understanding of similar triangles having proportional sides to the special similar triangle case".
Connections are teacher driven rather than student driven.

# data[].attributes.body
The lessons were logically sequenced, but the lessons didn't necessarily build on previous lessons. The teacher fails to make connections to previously learned concepts although relies on those concepts.

# data[].attributes.body
The sequence is not logical (lesson 4 does not seem to fit between lessons 3 and 5)
Some of the materials do not seem to explicitly relate to the topic at hand for the lesson (e.g. Check-In Question in lesson 3)

# data[].attributes.body
She shows supports to ELL students by grouping them with their bilingual friends. She also accommodates for the higher level students by giving them more challenging hw problems.

# data[].attributes.body
The supports would work for any learning objective and therefore are not closely connected to the learning objectives or central focus. Stronger students are grouped with less strong students but specific rationale for how these heterogenous groups would benefit the students is not discussed.

# data[].attributes.body
Supports ELL students but does not go into detail in how sitting next to bilingual students will help. Reasoning for heterogeneous grouping is weak.

# data[].attributes.body
They do address the supports required by the rubrics, and have supports planned for each student. The supports are not particularly strong or specific but do meet the rubric requirements.

# data[].attributes.body
The candidate uses vague and unconvincing connections to students personal interests and assets (They're interested in the aspect ratio of a TV because they have phones?? REALLY???)
The candidate seems mostly unaware of the previous learning of the students in her class, and relies on assumptions about their previous learning.

# data[].attributes.body
She only lists what her students know in terms of prior knowledge, but she does not really relate it to planning.

# data[].attributes.body
Lessons are not meaningful to students' backgrounds and personal experiences. Ignores students' cultural backgrounds.

# data[].attributes.body
The teacher does site research and addresses her students' cultures/interests but the analysis of and connections to their cultural experience is very shallow and not incorporated into the plans.

# data[].attributes.body
She specifically sites the syntax for two column proofs and she plans for language support with sentence starters.

# data[].attributes.body
The candidate identifies specific language demands (vocabulary/symbols & syntax/discourse) and plans supports in the lessons.

# data[].attributes.body
identifies specific planned language and supports are focused.

# data[].attributes.body
The candidate identifies the language function (prove) as well as other language demands (vocabulary and symbols, syntax, discourse) and provides specific supports for multiple of these as required by level 4 (language function, vocabulary/symbols, discourse). Though the candidate includes references to her ELL students, she does not plan anything specific for them, but rather states that her general supports will help them too along with all of the other students.