Interim Assessment Data and the Temptation to Reteach Everything
A 10th grade ELA team of four teachers serves 132 students. On the fall interim assessment, 68 percent of students scored proficient on informational reading but only 42 percent on explanatory writing. Item analysis shows moderate strength on central-idea multiple-choice items, weaker performance on selecting relevant evidence (48 percent correct), and weak elaboration (31 percent proficient on the constructed response). In one teacher’s class of 29, six students have 504 plans for extended time, eight are reclassified fluent English proficient, and three have IEPs in written expression. The PLC wants to reteach the entire explanatory writing unit for three weeks. The district calendar allows one week before the next unit, and the next benchmark is in six weeks. One teacher argues the data prove students “can’t write”; another says the test’s wording confuses students. The team must decide what to change and how to know whether it worked.
1. How would you interpret the interim data to choose a one-week response instead of a three-week reteach? What additional evidence would you examine?
Read the worked answer
The 68% vs. 42% gap does not justify reteaching the whole explanatory unit. It points to a specific skill gap: selecting relevant evidence (48% correct) and elaboration (31% proficient). Reteaching everything for three weeks would consume time the calendar does not have and would not target the weakness. I would examine:
- Item-level distractors to see whether students chose plausible but irrelevant evidence or misunderstood the prompt;
- A sample of constructed responses across score points to identify whether elaboration fails because of evidence choice, explanation, or language demands;
- Disaggregated results for students with 504 plans, reclassified fluent English proficient students, and IEP students, not to label them but to see whether extended time or language access changed performance;
- Whether the writing prompt’s wording may have confused students, as one teacher claims. If the pattern holds, a one-week targeted mini-unit on evidence selection and commentary is more defensible than a full reteach. I would still build in a short review of explanatory structure, but the main focus would be the high-leverage skills.
2. Describe a formative assessment plan you would use in your class to confirm the gap and monitor growth in evidence selection and elaboration.
Read the worked answer
Pre-check (20 minutes): Give a short, unfamiliar informational passage with a prompt and four candidate evidence sentences. Students choose the best evidence and write two sentences of commentary. This separates selection from elaboration. Analysis: Sort responses into: chooses relevant evidence + explains; chooses relevant evidence + summarizes; chooses irrelevant evidence. This tells me whether to teach selection, commentary, or both. During the week: Use two exit tickets. One asks students to rank three quotations for relevance to a claim and justify the ranking. The other asks them to revise a summary sentence into commentary. I would score with a two-point checklist and return feedback the next day. Post-check: A new short prompt at the end of the week, same skills, different text. I would compare pre/post on the checklist and keep a student-facing tracker. For students with 504 plans, I would note whether extended time was needed; for reclassified students, I would check whether academic language, not comprehension, is the barrier. The purpose is to verify the gap and adjust, not to accumulate grades.
3. How would you facilitate the PLC conversation so the team uses data without adopting a deficit narrative, and what decision rules would you propose?
Read the worked answer
I would start with a data protocol that separates observation from interpretation. Teams first list what the data show, then generate multiple hypotheses, then choose evidence to test them. I would intervene when “students can’t write” appears: that is a conclusion, not a datum. I would ask, “Which students, on which items, under what conditions?” and point to the 68% reading proficiency as evidence that students can comprehend complex text. I would propose decision rules:
- Reteach only skills below 60% proficient and only if they are prerequisite to the next unit.
- Use one common formative task to confirm the gap before committing three weeks.
- Protect the one-week calendar; target evidence selection and commentary, not the whole unit.
- Disaggregate by accommodation and language status to check access, not to rank students.
- Recheck in two weeks with a short cold prompt. I would also bring anonymous student work samples to keep the conversation concrete. The goal is a shared instructional response, not a shared complaint.