lesson_differentiation v1.0.0

name: "lesson_differentiation" description: "Adapt one lesson into tiered versions for below, at, and above proficiency: keep the core objective and vocabulary fixed across tiers, change scaffolds and challenge instead of the goal, and check that each tier still teaches the same thing. Triggers when tiering a lesson, differentiating a worksheet or task, supporting struggling learners without lowering the goal, or stretching advanced learners beyond more volume." metadata: { "includeInPrompt": true }

Lesson Differentiation

Purpose

Turn one lesson into three honest versions: below, at, and above proficiency. Honest means every version teaches the same objective, uses the same core vocabulary, and ends with an assessment that tests the same skill. What changes is support and thinking demand, not the goal, not the topic, and not the worth of the work.

Most tiering fails in predictable ways. The low tier gets a smaller, duller task that never reaches the objective. The high tier gets more of the same work. The middle tier is the real lesson. This skill prevents all three with a fixed core, a scaffold menu per subject, a checker that rejects drift, and worked lessons to copy. For the sources behind the rules, see references/evidence.md. For the planning sheet, see references/tiering-worksheet.md. For subject scaffolds, see references/scaffold-menus.md. For complete examples, see references/worked-lessons.md.

Workflow

1. Write the shared core first and lock it. One objective in one sentence, starting with the success verb: explain, justify, solve, compare, design. List 3 to 6 core vocabulary terms every learner must meet and use. Write 3 to 4 success criteria a marker could see in finished work. Name the core material every tier works from, such as one text, one data set, one problem type, one source. If you cannot write the objective in one sentence, the lesson has two objectives. Split it before tiering it.

1. Judge readiness for this skill, this week. Use recent work on this specific skill: an exit question, a short pre-check of 3 to 5 items, or the last marked task. Readiness is per skill. A learner can be above tier in discussion and below tier in written explanation in the same lesson. Never tier from a general ability label, a reading age alone, or last term grouping. Plan for learners to move tiers between lessons, and keep tier names off student facing material where you can. Numbers, task names, or a shared title with different support sheets all work better than labels the class can rank.

1. Name the barriers before choosing scaffolds. For the shared objective, list what actually blocks learners: decoding the text, starting a blank page, holding several steps in memory, organising an answer, expressing reasoning in writing. Pick scaffolds that act on those barriers from references/scaffold-menus.md. A scaffold that does not act on a named barrier is decoration. Write the fade step beside each scaffold at planning time: when it drops, what replaces it, and what evidence says the learner is ready. Support that never fades becomes the ceiling.

1. Build the below tier by adding support, not by cutting the goal. Give two to four scaffolds: a worked first step, a frame for the target move only, a word bank, a pre-drawn model, a chunked version of the same material. Reduce steps only by pre-completing steps that are not the objective, such as setting up the table when the objective is interpreting the table. Keep the full objective, the full vocabulary, and a real challenge lever, even if it is a guided choice between two options with a reason. Check the finished tier by eye: if it looks like a colouring task next to the other two, it is wrong.

1. Build the at tier as the plain route to the objective. One or two light scaffolds, available on request where possible: a blank organiser, a word bank, a model from earlier in the lesson. Steps and independence sit at grade expectation. The challenge lever asks for one thing the material does not state directly, such as an unstated link, an unlabelled step, or the stronger of two pieces of evidence. This tier is the reference version. Build it first if building the below tier first tempts you to shrink the goal.

1. Build the above tier by raising thinking, not volume. Remove scaffolds by design and say so in the plan. Raise demand with one or two levers from this list: justify a choice with evidence, transfer the skill to a new case, critique a model or method and name its limits, work under a tighter constraint, concede the strongest counterpoint and answer it, generate an example that meets a condition. Use Depth of Knowledge to check yourself: below and at tiers usually sit at level 2, the above tier at level 3, and level 4 only when work spans several lessons. More problems, longer answers, and extra worksheets are banned as challenge levers. The checker rejects them by name.

1. Tier the assessment with the task, not after it. Write one assessment item per tier, and require the success verb in every item. Same verb, same vocabulary, same success criteria. What may differ is the material the learner works on and the support present while they work. If the below tier assessment tests recall while the at tier tests explanation, you have tiered the goal, not the task. Mark all three tiers against the shared criteria, then add one tier specific note on support used or lever attempted. That note is how you decide who moves tiers next lesson.

1. Keep shared moments shared. Tier only the middle of the lesson. Open together with the same input, the same worked example, and the objective and vocabulary on display for everyone. Close together with one discussion or one common exit question that tests the success verb. Tiered groups that never meet again as a class fragment the learning and advertise the grouping. Present every tier task with the same framing and the same enthusiasm, and make the three sheets look alike in length, layout, and care.

1. Run the checker before teaching. Convert the plan to the JSON shape in the checker help and run it:

sh
bin/tier_check.py plan.json
bin/tier_check.py --demo

The checker fails a plan when a tier objective or vocabulary list drifts from the shared core, when an assessment item misses the success verb, when all tiers carry identical scaffolds, or when the above tier lever is more volume. Fix failures by editing the plan, not by arguing with the checker. Keep the passing output with the lesson plan.

1. Review work, then re-tier. After the lesson, sort a small sample of finished work by what it shows, not by which tier produced it. Ask three questions. Did below tier work reach the objective, and if not, was the barrier the one you scaffolded? Did above tier work show real justification or transfer, or only speed? Did anyone sit in the wrong tier, shown by finished work that was effortless or by work that stalled at step one? Record the answers in two or three lines and let them set the next lesson tiers.

Output Contract

• A shared core block: one objective with its success verb, 3 to 6 vocabulary terms, 3 to 4 success criteria, and the core material named.
• Three tier cards, below, at, and above, each with the task in learner words, scaffolds with fade steps, steps and independence level, a challenge lever, a Depth of Knowledge level, and one assessment item that uses the success verb.
• A passing bin/tier_check.py report for the plan, kept with the lesson.
• A shared opening and shared close, with one common exit question.
• A two or three line review note after teaching, recording who should move tiers and which scaffold needs adjusting next time.

Operating Rules

1. Fix the objective and vocabulary across tiers. Change support, structure, steps, pacing, materials, expression, and independence. Those levers are the whole job.
2. Respectful work at every tier: equally interesting, equally active, equally close to the essential skill. Different work, never lesser work and never extra work as a prize or a penalty.
3. Scaffold the barrier, then fade the scaffold. Name both at planning time. A permanent scaffold and a missing scaffold fail in the same way: the learner never does the target move alone.
4. Challenge means thinking. Justification, transfer, critique, constraint, and concession raise a tier. Volume does not.
5. Assess the same verb in every tier and mark against the same criteria. A tier with its own easier assessment hides failure until an exam finds it.
6. Readiness is temporary and specific. Re-judge it per skill from recent work, let learners move, and keep tier identity off the student facing page.
7. Use multiple means where they help: the same content in text and diagram, a choice in how learners show the answer, support offered to anyone who asks. Design out barriers before class rather than rescuing learners during it. See the UDL notes in references/evidence.md.
8. Do not simplify the core material for the below tier by removing the vocabulary the assessment needs. Gloss it, pre-teach it, or chunk it instead.
9. Keep groups flexible within the lesson. A learner stuck at step one joins a guided round and returns to their task. A learner who finishes early takes the above tier lever, not a new topic.
10. Know the limits. Tiering handles readiness spread inside one objective. It does not replace specialist support for a learner whose plan names specific provision, it does not turn three objectives into one lesson, and it does not fix a weak objective. Say so and fix the underlying problem instead of tiering around it.