# data[].attributes.body
Why would we tier assessments?
Teachers tier assessments in order for students to be assessed and challenged at a level that is appropriate for them based on their readiness level for the grade-level standard. It is important for teachers to understand their student's current capabilities and allow scaffolding so that the entirety of the class can meet at the same threshold rather than asking them to meet the same standards without taking into account their differing levels of readiness.

How do we tier assessments while also holding students accountable for the established curriculum goals?
It is important to emphasize that "differentiation is always most effective through appropriate curriculum and strategies" (Wormeli,  73). Students are not eased on the level of rigor rather they are going to be pushed where they feel comfortable being pushed. Teachers can be flexible in moving students from tier to tier. however, it will depend on if they met clear expectations set out in the first place.

Is it appropriate for students to negotiate with teachers about how they will demonstrate mastery of content?

Student negotiation is appropriate in the cases that teachers offer consistency amongst their students. The teacher should allow students to demonstrate mastery at their own pace in order to emphasize a student-centered mindset of learning. However, I do believe too much flexibility can hinder a student's ability to grow and needs to be met with a higher level of consistency for clarity's sake.

# data[].attributes.body
Why would we tier assessments?

We should tier assessments in order to accurately assess students’ mastery when they are at different proficiency levels, and to allow for the fact that not all students will achieve mastery at the same time, or will provide the necessary evidence of mastery in exactly the same way.

In addition, tiering allows to provide higher levels of complexity to advanced students on assessments, without alienating the other students. These multiple levels of complexity lead to greater student engagement. According to Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development, students learn most when they are pushed.

How do we tier assessments while also holding students accountable for the established curriculum goals?

We can tier assessments while also holding students accountable for the established curriculum goals by starting the lowest level of our tiering at student proficiency in the learning objectives and established curriculum goals. Doing so allows us to challenge advanced students and to push all of our students to reach for higher levels of achievement and more  advanced forms of mastery.

Is it appropriate for students to negotiate with teachers about how they will demonstrate mastery of content?

It can be appropriate for students to negotiate with teachers about how they will demonstrate mastery of content. However, the teacher will always hold final say over what the learning objectives and criteria are that will be observed. According to Wormeli, one of the best methods for initiating this dialogue and negotiation comes in the form of the learning contract, in which both the student and teacher lay out and agree to the parameters by which the student will towards and eventually demonstrate mastery. This process affords the student greater agency in their learning, and helps to ensure that they understand and are intentional about the work and goals that lie before them.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I believe we tier assignments to allow student acquisition of the skills and activities in a way that is most accessible to them. If students have a certain reading or writing level, tiering assignments allows us as teachers to fluctuate assignment/challenge level for particular groups of students but also allows us to increase the difficulty based on what the students are doing/learning how to do. This can give multiple students multiple avenues of learning and acquiring the material, even at their different stages of learning.

2. Wormeli suggests that the criteria and the high expectations for all students is one of the keys for holding students accountable for the production of the work. Even if we as teachers are differentiating the assignments for students, and giving more assistance to the ones who may need it, we should keep the same rigor and higher expectations completely across the board to inform our students that we care about their learning and we can them to get to a better level than what they currently are. Another suggestions he includes are for learning contracts for students who would prefer to work at their own pace to acquire the skills. At this rate, students must recognize what they could do and at what pace they can do the assignments, and by signing this contract, they can hold themselves accountable to this contract.

3. I personally believe that at the end of the day, teachers would have the best opinions on what particular lessons and assessments would allow their students the mastery of content. I do believe also, however, that students should have some autonomy in choice into certain activities and projects that would still uphold the expectations and standards-based learning that might be happening in the classroom

# data[].attributes.body
1. Why would we tier assessments?

We tier assessments in order to raise or lower the difficulty level for students rather than change learner profiles and interests. Students need to be challenged at their readiness level, and for students who have already met the standard or benchmark level, it is only appropriate to further challenge them so they can learn to take their mastery and make those skills applicable to outside situations. Additionally, mastery of the standard or benchmark does not necessarily mean that all the subset skills of a lesson material are mastered; tiering can allow students to focus again on an area where they still need to develop and work on despite having technically met benchmark level.

2. How do we tier assessments while also holding students accountable for the established curriculum goals?

Wormeli suggests that we can tier assessments while having students hold themselves accountable for the established curriculum goals by having them sign learning contracts (61). These learning contracts mimic real life professional contracts; they can stipulate specific work behavior, expectations, and responsibilities. Additionally, these contracts can also include checklists and deadlines for when certain learning objectives must be met. If the expectations for student learning are clearly outlined and visible to students, then students can hold themselves accountable for their own learning.

3. Is it appropriate for students to negotiate with teachers about how they will demonstrate mastery of content?

I think it is appropriate for students to negotiate with teachers about how they will demonstrate mastery of content if they are negotiating about being able to choose among assessments that have been tiered above the standard. I think if they are already demonstrating proficient mastery at the standard or benchmark level, then they are already being challenged; it is therefore fair for them to be able to choose how they might want to further challenge themselves. However, Wormeli warns against tiering below the standard since teachers can fall in danger of settling for less. He states, “If we start lower or higher than the standard performance, we tend to distort our expectations for the on-grade-level performance, losing sight of the learning outcomes or benchmarks” (56). If students try to negotiate to take on assessments that have been tiered below the standard, then there is a danger of them not meeting the expected level of mastery. This in turn can begin the danger of students growing complacent and falling behind.

# data[].attributes.body
1. We tier assessments in order to cater to individual student readiness and to accurately gauge learning. Every skill has a subset of skills, in which tiering can occur. Tiering helps us assess the actual learning involved rather than measuring whether a student has reached an arbitrary standard.

2. One way we can tier assessments while also holding students accountable is by having a learning contract, where there are set goals and check points for the students to reach. The goals are alternative academic tasks from the rest of class, that are to be evaluated by both teacher and student over time. However, if the student does not hold up their end of the contract, it is broken and they will go back to what the rest of the class is doing.

3.

It is absolutely appropriate, in fact it is an essential part to creating a learning contract. While the teacher decides the objectives, the student can negotiate the due dates and how they demonstrate mastery. There are many pathways a student can take in order to demonstrate their knowledge, and the type of work, activity, or project is where we have leeway to choose.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I believe that tiering assessments gives us as educators the opportunity to meet students at their different levels and interests. This allows us to give them the best opportunity for success without compromising on the standard or their mastery. This maintains a level of challenge for all students and makes sure they are trying their best at the standard, while not expecting all students to learn the same.

2. I believe a great way to assure that students are being held accountable in their mastery is first by making sure that our high expectations as their teachers are clear and that we expect everybody's best effort. Using diagnostics and benchmarks along the way of mastery helps the educator see that a student is in fact improving and that they are getting closer to meet the standard and their goals. The progression of a lesson should also hold the same rigor, of starting of reflective and getting more complex so students have to flex their brains as they continue to learn.

3. I do believe that students should have the opportunity to negotiate with their teachers as to how to master the content. For example, if a student is a "bad" test-taker and would prefer to share their knowledge verbally, that is still an opportunity for them to show mastery of a skill or standard. I hold office hours at least once a week to allow for these kinds of options and additional negotiations, where students can ask for various ways of learning or get additional support. As long as they show mastery of the standard, the way in which they show that mastery is not as import to me. Additionally, students with IEPs may need those additional ways of learning, and this gives them better learning opportunities as well.

# data[].attributes.body
Why would we tier assessments?

Tiering assessment helps teachers assess mastery across a range of abilities without neglecting the grade level standard. Tiering assessments helps hold all students accountable to standards and benchmarks, while also understanding that mastery may look or sound different in accordance with abilities and strengths.

How do we tier assessments while also holding students accountable for the established curriculum goals?

One way to tier assessments while still centering standards and holding students accountable is to use the standards or benchmark as a starting point from which to build upon, rather than trying to take away from or simplify grade level standards. Doing so holds all students accountable to meeting grade-level expectations. Doing so also helps teachers think through the skills necessary to meet the standards, and helps the teacher scaffold different access points for these skills and standards. Having evolving tiers also helps hold students accountable to curriculum goals. For example, teachers can gradually add or remove tiers to accommodate students, making the tiers into a scaffolding measure.

Is it appropriate for students to negotiate with teachers about how they will demonstrate mastery of content?

To start, I'll say that I do think it's always appropriate for a student to voice how they think they'll learn best, even if you as the teacher don't always concede. This can be a strong exercise in self-advocacy, as well as an exercise in understanding that sometimes, you just have to do what you're being asked to do. As a high school student, I loved pushing the boundaries of what a project or speech would look like. I loved "playing devils advocate". In certain cases, if the negotiation involved simply presenting the content in a different manner, taking an opposing point of view, etc. that it is always appropriate for a student to negotiate along creative lines. However, it becomes more nuanced when a student is trying to negotiate a factor related to grade-level standards, such as rigor of a certain project. One has go consider IEP and 504 modifications before deciding if negotiations are appropriate.

# data[].attributes.body
Why would we tier assessments?

As educators, we would tier assessments to meet the interests, readiness levels, and learner profiles of students. In our classes, we are going to have students that will be ahead of other students. Wormeli notes that when educators tien assessments, they should “start tiering by expecting every student to demonstrate full proficiency with the standard, not something less.” This means that when we tier assessments, we are not lowering or increasing the expectations for students. All students are to meet the standard. What tiering does is to adjust the complexity of a lesson to meet students at their current readiness level. Sometimes, we might have a high tier and low tier, while other times we might have a medium tier and a low tier. What tiering also does is to challenge students based on their readiness level. When we have a “one-size fits all” approach to a lesson, some students might not be challenged enough while other students might find the lesson too challenging. Tiering meets students at their current level and allows them to work at their own pace and on different lessons. Wormeli also explains that “we don’t tier every aspect of every lesson. It is often okay for students to do what everyone else is doing (pg. 57).” Tiering might not be necessary for every lesson and sometimes, students just need a little extra time.

How do we tier assessments while also holding students accountable for the established curriculum goals?

Teachers should not lower the expectations for students when tiering assessments. All students need to demonstrate mastery, or at least proficiency in a standard. One way that Wormeli suggests is to have a learning contract. A learning contract “allows students to work at their own pace and on skills or in content areas that best meets their needs and interests (Wormeli, pg. 61). A learning contract lists the responsibilities of students as well as the expectations. Moreover, it lists the consequences for not respecting the learning contract. In a learning contract, there are checkpoints that ensure that students are keeping up with their responsibilities. The checkpoints “help teachers assess student progress and keep students dedicated to the tasks and learning (pg. 62).” If a student breaks the learning contract, then the student has to do what the others are doing. Ultimately, all students should meet the curriculum goals without lowering the expectations for students. If a teacher lowers the expectations for students, then the students won’t meet the curriculum goals. When tiering an assessment, it is important to remember that the standard is not changing, complexity is the only thing should change.

Is it appropriate for students to negotiate with teachers about how they will demonstrate mastery of content?

A lot of teachers don’t give students a voice when it came to demonstrating mastery of a subject. Most teachers just give students an essay or test as a way to show mastery of content. However, just like every student learns differently, they can also demonstrate mastery differently. As teachers, it is important to allow students to negotiate with teachers how they can demonstrate mastery of content learned. Wormeli mentions that one way of tiering assessments is a learning contract. He explains that a contract has “a combination of teacher and student designed tasks that, together, fulfill the expectations of the unit (Wormeli pg. 62).” This means that the student has a voice as to how they can demonstrate to the teacher that they mastered the content. It also gives the student a sense of responsibility and trust. The student and teacher must discuss how they can show mastery. Tests and essays are not the only way to show mastery of content. Students and teachers can discuss different ways they can demonstrate mastery of content. Both parties should have a voice.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Why would we tier assessments?

After reading this chapter I would say that Tiering assessments is a great strategy that teachers use so that their students can work on many levels of the same task. Some tasks may be more complex and challenging than others. Wormeli (2016) states, “…we change the complexity or challenge of tasks more and more subtly each day” (p.59). Using this approach provides students with differentiation allowing them to work on tasks at different levels of difficulty where they are able to apply their present understanding to develop, and incorporate new knowledge.

2. How do we tier assessments while also holding students accountable for the established curriculum goals?

Holding students accountable for the established curriculum goals is something I strongly believe teachers need to mention to their students at the very beginning of the instruction and remind them about the expectations as the course progresses. Now, when thinking about tiering assessments while also holding them accountable I am reminded of the times where I have prepared my classroom instruction where I start of with the Warm-up question called the (Do Now) which serves as a preparation or idea that eventually escalates and becomes more challenging as we get more into depth during the lesson, then finally they can demonstrate their understanding with the exit ticket. Accountability hits when students are to use knowledge from the lesson in order to demonstrate their understanding and mastery of the content.

3. Is it appropriate for students to negotiate with teachers about how they will demonstrate mastery of content?

I have always told my students to let me know when things are going too fast or too slow or if they have any new ideas for ways to deliver my content in case my version is not successful. I strongly believe that YES, students should be able to negotiate or express their concerns/ questions about the mastery of the content. In the text, we learn about the Learning contracts which gives students the chance to work at their own speed on skills or content areas that best suit their needs and interests (Wormeli 2016, p.61). I love the idea of including a mix of teacher- and student-designed tasks that, when combined, they are still able to meet the unit's requirements.

# data[].attributes.body
Tiering assessment means “ratcheting up or down the challenge level” of an assessment. (Wormeli 56). We as teachers tier assessments so that students are challenged at their appropriate level, including their readiness level for the particular grade-level standard(s) being assessed. For example, when tiering an assessment there may be an early readiness group, for whom the complexity is lessened, a grade level group who is expected to demonstrate proficiency with the standard, and an advanced readiness group, for whom the complexity is increased. When we tier assessments, we can still hold students accountable for the established curriculum goals by ensuring each tier is striving to meet the curriculum goal and standard for each assessment. To hold students accountable, teachers can be flexible in moving students from tier to tier depending on each student’s progress and proficiency with the standard(s) being assessed.

In some situations, it may be appropriate for students to negotiate with teachers about how they will demonstrate mastery of content. For example, teachers may use a learning contract which “allow students to work at their own pace and skills or in content areas that best meet their needs and interests” (Wormeli 61). The teacher decides the objectives and the student may negotiate how they demonstrate mastery of that objective. This emphasizes student choice in their learning. Another way for students to negotiate about how they will demonstrate mastery of content is through how students complete assessments. For example, a teacher may use a learning menu where students select the assessments they will complete, or tic-tac-toe board, which may incorporate a student choice box. All of these are appropriate ways for students to negotiate with teachers about how they will demonstrate mastery of content.

# data[].attributes.body
As educators, tiering assessments is a helpful strategy we can use to meet all students where they are at their present level of mastery. We can still do this without sacrificing student accountability and progress. Each student is still expected to meet the standard, then raise the challenge level. This is important as “if we start lower or higher than the standard performance, we tend to distort our expectations for the on-grade-level performance, losing sight of the learning outcomes or benchmarks” (Wormeli, 70). Students should not be “negotiating” how they will demonstrate mastery of content, rather they can communicate what supports and tiering they need in order to demonstrate their mastery of the subject and meeting of benchmark goals.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Why would we tier assessments?
- I believe that tiering assessments would be beneficial because it allows students to show the mastery of a specific learning target or skill necessary to move on to the upcoming material. By tiering assessments into levels, we can categorize them into more simple levels that assess basic skills then increase complexity as we see students mastering the material. This is also important because increasing complexity and challenge would allow students to constantly be working towards mastery of a skill rather than achieving it and waiting for others to "catch up" and master it. This type of differentiated instruction allows for students at different levels to assess at their own pace while working towards that mastery.

2. How do we tier assessments while also holding students accountable for the established curriculum goals?
- We can tier assessments and hold students accountable by setting goals for different students. We can also do this by doing the tiers at different levels. For example, if I am understanding this concept correctly, I believe I have already done this in my Spanish 2 Native classes. The way that I did it is by starting with a simple essential question to get them thinking about the material they will learn: "What is the significance of Day of the Dead?" This would prompt student to begin looking for this information in the guided instruction and supplemental materials I provided them. Students would submit these as either exit tickets or practice assignments. After this, I would add a specific country so they are able to do research on it and look for specific components of it. For example, "What is the significance of Day of the Dead in Mexico? Lastly, I would add a compare and contrast portion to this question to make it more complex and challenging such as "What is the significance of Day of the Dead in Mexico and other countries in Latin America?" This will then prompt students to incorporate the knowledge they have on the significance of the holiday in general, in Mexico and now to compare and contrast it to other countries (specifically one of their choice that they are interested in learning about). By tiering assessments in this way, students are held accountable as they need information from previous assessments to reach mastery of this learning target on cultural events.

3. Is it appropriate for students to negotiate with teachers about how they will demonstrate mastery of content?
- I think it is definitely appropriate for students to negotiate with teachers about how they will demonstrate mastery of the content because no one knows a student better than themselves. For example, if a student struggles with writing but can orally give an explanation, this is definitely acceptable. The same thing goes for writing vs. visual presentations such as images in a powerpoint presentation or compilation of a video. I definitely allow this in class especially when students reach out to me about this because it shows they are advocating for themselves!

# data[].attributes.body
Tiering assessments allows students to see their progress and challenge themselves through a progression of questions rather than feel that they must know everything right away. In addition, tiering gives teachers more valuable data as it grades for mastery because students are working through questions at their own pace and teachers can use this to later group students and differentiate learning for them.

Tiering assessments while also holding students accountable is ensured by keeping rigor consistent throughout the tiers. This means that while the challenge goes up, each tier is testing a different level of understanding rather than a completely different standard. This tiering ensures that even the students not completing the most challenging questions have met the curriculum standards.

Yes, as teachers we must understand that students process information differently from one another and therefore will show their mastery in different ways. I don't view this as a negotation but rather a conversation on how they as students best learn as well as how they process the content and meet the standards. This demonstration of mastery also allows students to be more reflective in their learning and make sure that we are holding them accountable for their education.

# data[].attributes.body
Chapter 5 Questions Tiered Assessments

1. Why would we tier assessments? Creating an inclusive and creative environment that pulls from students their instinctual and structural talents to engage the subject matter of our classrooms is vital to keeping them engaged and even more vital to their process of learning--their learning how to learn. I've recently been struggling to hold students accountable to know the facts, the details of a text, this to assure that they've actually been reading it (let's all answer questions together...). Now this might be a problem in consideration. If students haven't been reading the assigned canonical text and will not "know" it after the class experience has ended but can have a conversation about discussing a text or texts, do they meet muster? It depends on the learning opportunity, I guess. I think I understand this tension and necessity to let happen: "Students acting on their own ideas are motivated to do the work, and sometimes, their ideas are better than ours" (Wormelli 65).

2. How do we tier assessments while also holding students accountable for the established curriculum goals? It seems that differentiating assessments by tweaking the expectations is necessary. The cubing strategy is great. It's the stuff of an educator who has been practicing well, for more than two months. I need to move towards successful strategies that differentiate like this one and measure students where they are at without reducing the measures of success. I like the changing the verb suggestion, too. Seems so simple but has such punch (71).

3. Is it appropriate for students to negotiate with teachers about how they will demonstrate mastery of content? I think hell-ya! Some of the best discussions I've had in class with students have been when we've discussed their perspectives on my teaching (!) or on assignments, or on what they can do if not what I've assigned, and I've been able to pivot a couple of times and have had productive discourse at other times, mostly with individual students. (My teaching style has been kind of neurotic with one of my classes, an Honors class. I discuss my failures with them and encourage their input). The amazing thing is, when my students have been given credibility and respect during our academic exchanges (behavioral exchanges are a little bit more wiggy), I've seen some of the best results of what seemed to be, ahem, learning.

# data[].attributes.body
1. One of the main reasons to tier assessments is to ensure that we are differentiating for students that might be ready to move up in the complexity of an assignment. The chapter mentions that it is key to make sure that the standard is where the taxonomy starts.
2. To expand on accountability, the way we maintain rigor to reach curriculum goals is by making sure that the standards  are at the bottom of the taxonomy. Not in the sense that they don´t matter, but in the spirit that even if the students don´t move up the taxonomy, they are still reaching state standards as a minimum target. For students that master the topic, they have the option to move up this taxonomy and challenge themselves further.
3. Yes, I do think that it is important for students to be part of the process of negotiating  mastery of content beyond the minimum standard. I think this student-oriented process would help the teacher understand how the students perceive mastery of content AND beyond. With this expansion of perspective, the teacher can make decisions on whether they challenge the students more or not depending on their own confidence with regards to the material.