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.

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.

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. 

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.