### Beginning

### Advanced

### Exemplary

Strand 1: The Big Goal’s appropriateness for all students, reasoned ambitiousness, and sources.

Adopts a broad, generic goal that aspires to be ambitious and feasible for the entire class and achieves that balance for at least half of the teacher’s students

Designs a goal that is both ambitious and feasible for most students, based on reasoning informed by multiple sources, including diagnostic results for mastery goals

Designs feasible, highly ambitious goals that require intense work from each and every student, based on reasoning informed by multiple sources, including diagnostic results for mastery goals

Strand 2: The teacher’s understanding of how accomplishing goals will demonstrate mastery of standards and increase students’ opportunities in life.

Describes how the goal is aligned to key standards and identifies a basic tool of measuring achievement of the goal.

Describes how the goal is aligned to all key standards, explains broadly what students should know, understand or be able to do in order to achieve the goal, and cites the necessary assessment tools (e.g. achievement tests, performance-based assessments, etc.) that will be most meaningful to students’ lives when measuring the different facets of the goal

Describes how the goal is aligned to all key standards, explains the specific and prioritized knowledge and skills that each student will need to master in order to reach the goal – including pre-requisites – and cites a specific set of balanced measurement tools to measure different facets of the goal that will be most meaningful to students’ lives

**Analysis:** Why did the teacher receive these ratings?

Rating: **BP**Strand 1: **The Big Goal’s appropriateness for all students, reasoned ambitiousness, and sources**.

Why BP?

The teacher’s goal for reading of "1.5 to two grade levels from where they start" meets the AP bar for being "both ambitious and feasible for most students" as growth goals of at least 1.5 years are innately ambitious and differentiated enough to achieve the balance of ambitiousness and feasibility for "most students."

The teacher "adopts a broad generic goal that aspires to be ambitious and feasible for the entire class" for his math goal (i.e., "80% mastery in math"). The math goal is likely to achieve the balance between ambitious and feasible "for at least half the teacher’s students," based on the data that the teacher collected from conversations with his students’ former teachers, as well as the standardized test results which indicate that students are two to four years behind. (i.e., "Unfortunately, I really couldn't get a lot of information about students’ math levels as their math teacher from last year retired. I did look at some standardized test scored which placed my students two to four years behind, similar to reading. So, I just figured I'd set my goal at 80% mastery of fourth grade standards and hope that that's in the ball park of what most of my students can achieve this year.")

Further, the teacher has already implemented remedial units for math that gave him "assurance that they were about where [he] thought they were."

Why not AP?

Although the teacher does use "multiple sources" to inform the goal (i.e., conversations with former teachers and previous standardized tests), he does not administer diagnostic assessments. While a teacher can develop an AP-level goal before the school year starts without diagnostic data, after the school year starts, AP-level goals must integrate engagement with diagnostic data. Without diagnostic results, there is no way to assess whether the 80% mastery of math objectives goal is likely to be ambitious and feasible "for most students." In fact, the standardized test scores the teacher consulted "placed my students two to four years behind." Although the teacher would still need to use diagnostics to set accurate mastery targets for students, even the standardized test scores indicate the likelihood that the teacher would need to set different mastery goals for students starting two and students starting four years below grade level in order to create goals that are ambitious and within a reasonable reach for "most students" in the class.

Rating: **BP**Strand 2: **The teacher’s understanding of how accomplishing goals will demonstrate mastery of standards and increase students’ opportunities in life. **

Why BP?

The teacher "describes how the goal is aligned to key standards and identifies a basic tool for measuring achievement of the goal." He explains that the "scripted math curriculum is aligned to the standards" and that he "read over the standards and the scope and sequence for the scripted program and they definitely match up."

Further, the teacher will use the standardized reading test to measure 1.5 years of growth and a summative math assessment to measure mastery of the math standards.

Why not AP?

Although the teacher knows generally how the goal aligns key standards he does not explain "broadly what students should know, understand or be able to do in order to achieve the goal." Instead, he only has a very basic understanding of the standards and that they do in fact relate to the goal.

In addition, the teacher cites a variety of standardized assessment tools to measure students’ mastery of the goal but there is insufficient evidence that he "cites the necessary assessment tools (e.g. achievement tests, performance-based assessments, etc.)" There may be aspects of the standards that could only be measured by performance-based assessments or non-standardized tests and there is insufficient evidence that the teacher has taken this into account.

There is also insufficient evidence that the teacher takes into account which tools of assessment "will be most meaningful to students’ lives when measuring the different facets of the goal."