Nine WEPs That Say "Differentiated Instruction"
At Riverside Middle School, nine identified gifted seventh graders are clustered in a math class of 28. Their teacher, Ms. Patel, holds no gifted endorsement and has not begun the district-funded endorsement cohort. The Written Education Plans for all nine list the service as "differentiated instruction in the regular classroom, in collaboration with the gifted coordinator" and a goal reading, "The student will demonstrate growth in mathematics." Work samples show the cluster completing the same 25-problem nightly sets as everyone else, plus occasional challenge worksheets. Forty minutes each week the cluster runs a review station for classmates who are struggling, which Ms. Patel describes as differentiation. A parent who teaches at a nearby university has requested a meeting and is quoting the WEP. The principal, noting that the 0.4 FTE gifted coordinator covers three buildings, asks you to "handle the parent," and mentions the district's upcoming gifted service review.
1. Evaluate these WEPs as service documents. What is missing, and why is peer tutoring not a defensible gifted service?
Read the worked answer
What a WEP has to do. A Written Education Plan is a commitment document. It must name the services being provided, who provides them, when and where they occur, specific goals, and the method and timeline for evaluating progress, plus how and when parents will be informed. These nine WEPs fail on nearly every element.
"The student will demonstrate growth in mathematics" is not a goal. Growth relative to what, measured how, by what date, by whom? A goal that cannot be evaluated cannot be enforced, and it gives a reviewing body nothing to check.
"Differentiated instruction in collaboration with the coordinator" without specification is a plan to make a plan. There is no described service, no frequency, no evidence trail, and no way for a parent or an auditor to determine whether the service occurred.
Peer tutoring. Explaining work to others can be a legitimate occasional strategy, because teaching forces deep processing. It is not a service here, for three reasons: the cluster is reteaching content they have already mastered rather than encountering new content, the arrangement primarily benefits the tutees, and it is untethered from any gifted goal. Forty minutes a week is a substantial share of whatever service time these students receive.
Resist framing this as Ms. Patel's failure. She was handed an unspecified obligation without training or time, and the paperwork was signed by adults who should have known better. The service failure originates upstream, in documents that were never written to be implemented.
2. Given 0.4 FTE across three buildings, design a service model. What will you cut, and what accountability mechanisms will you build?
Read the worked answer
What I would cut. The 40-minute peer tutoring block and the worksheet packets - the least defensible uses of time in the schedule. I would also cut the fiction that the coordinator can co-teach in three buildings. Honest scope beats an overpromised plan that is audited next spring.
What the model actually is.
Pre-assessment and compacting. A short diagnostic before each unit; students who demonstrate mastery skip the corresponding practice and move to above-level tasks tied to the same standards.
Co-planning cycle. Thirty minutes weekly with Ms. Patel, focused on one upcoming unit at a time, using a shared template: what the cluster already knows, what they will do instead, how it will be assessed. This is the highest-leverage use of 0.4 FTE.
Extension menu. A standing set of independent inquiry options aligned to the same content, so Ms. Patel does not have to invent differentiation during a 28-student class.
A pathway. Criteria for compacting Algebra I in eighth grade and earning high school credit, so the cluster's endpoint is not another worksheet.
Teacher capacity. A start date for the endorsement cohort, with interim coaching from the coordinator.
Accountability. Rewrite all nine WEPs with measurable goals, named providers, frequency, progress measures, and quarterly reporting dates. Build a coordinator data check - a brief observation and a work-sample review per cluster per month. Set a WEP review meeting each quarter and invite parents. Present disaggregated achievement data for the cluster at the district's service review, and state plainly in the service plan what 0.4 FTE can and cannot deliver.
3. How do you run the parent meeting and respond to the principal's instruction to "handle the parent"?
Read the worked answer
Reframe the instruction. "Handle the parent" means answer her with evidence and a dated plan. It does not mean managing her emotions, defusing her, or inducing her to go away. She has read the WEP accurately, and she is entitled to an honest account.
Prepare. Bring the WEP, the work samples, the unit plan Ms. Patel will teach next, and a revised draft WEP with three measurable goals, named services, and review dates. Bring the achievement data for the cluster. Do not walk in empty-handed.
Run the meeting in three moves. First, listen and ask what she is seeing at home; she may have information the school lacks. Second, state what the records show without euphemism: as written and as delivered, the WEP does not describe a defensible service, and the peer tutoring block is being discontinued. Third, commit to specific changes with dates and a review meeting she is invited to attend.
Be honest about constraints. Say that 0.4 FTE across three buildings means no pull-out and that the model will be co-planning, compacting, and a credit pathway. Parents tolerate limitations that are named; they do not tolerate limitations that are concealed.
Do not scapegoat Ms. Patel. The plan gave her nothing to implement. Say the responsibility sits with the service design.
Follow up in writing within a week, and brief the principal that the upcoming service review will examine precisely this, so remediating now serves the district's interest. If the parent escalates, explain the complaint procedure neutrally and without retaliation. The WEP is a promise; the ethical core here is telling the truth about whether it was kept.