This study guide is a review companion drawn verbatim from the course. Course completion requires the full lessons, activities, and assessment.
Module 1 · Start with the learning target and the learner
37 required minutes
Lesson 1.119 required minutes
Differentiation is a decision process, not three separate student tracks
Foundation for all three PELSB criteria
Learning objectiveIdentify a shared learning target, distinguish productive learner variability from deficit labels, and locate the barrier that makes the target inaccessible.
Key teaching points
Differentiated instruction begins with a common question: What is the essential learning, and what is preventing this learner or group from reaching it? It does not begin by sorting students into fixed “high,” “middle,” and “low” tracks. [S22] Minnesota's renewal statute calls for preparation in accommodating, modifying, and adapting curricula, materials, and strategies to meet individual needs and support adequate...
A useful planning sequence has four parts: (1) name the essential target; (2) define what success will look or sound like; (3) identify an observable barrier using more than one source of evidence; and (4) select the smallest effective change that preserves meaningful participation and progress. The change may be a universally available design feature, an accommodation, a curriculum modification, or a more...
Consider a grade-six science target: “Use evidence to explain how energy transfers in a system.” A student who understands the concept but cannot decode the textbook efficiently may face an access barrier, not a conceptual barrier. Audio-supported text, vocabulary preview, or a teacher-created diagram can preserve the same target.
The research literature on differentiation, synthesized in the review by Tomlinson and colleagues, organizes learner variability along three dimensions: readiness, a learner's current proximity to one specific target; interest, the topics and modes that recruit attention and persistence; and learning profile, contextual preferences in how a learner engages, which shift across tasks and should not be treated as fixed...
A second anchor comes from the design side. The high-leverage practice framework for special education describes adapting tasks and materials as a targeted act: the teacher identifies the essential curricular element, locates the specific point of mismatch, and alters only what the mismatch requires. [S26, S27] The discipline in that account is subtraction.
A grade-two literacy target reads: "Retell a story, including characters, setting, and central events in sequence." Two students produce nearly identical work: fragmentary retells naming one character and one event. The behavior is the same; the barriers need not be.
A high-school chemistry target reads: "Use a balanced equation to model conservation of mass in a reaction." A student repeatedly submits unbalanced equations. At least three rival explanations deserve testing before any support is chosen: the student may hold the misconception that mass can appear or disappear, in which case the need is conceptual instruction with particulate models; the student may understand...
Everything that follows in this course elaborates one branch of the sequence introduced here: Module 2 develops supports that preserve the target, Module 3 develops deliberate changes to the target, Module 4 develops individualized design, and Module 5 develops the evidence loop that tells you whether any of it worked.
Equity check. Never infer a student's learning level from disability category, home language, race, behavior, housing status, income, or a single score. Use student work, observation, conversation, progress data, and information from the student, family, and relevant team.
Target: The essential knowledge, skill, or practice students are expected to develop.
Barrier: A mismatch between the learner and the current materials, task, environment, language demand, timing, or response mode.
Support: A deliberate change chosen to reduce the barrier while protecting dignity, agency, access, and progress.
Evidence: Information used before and after the change to decide whether it is working.
Applied activity
Choose one upcoming lesson. Write its essential learning target and success criteria in learner-friendly language. Identify one specific barrier shown by evidence, not by a label, and name one strength the learner or group brings.
Artifact specification. A strong target-barrier-strength statement runs 150 to 250 words and contains four labeled parts: the essential target with success criteria a student could restate; the two or more evidence sources behind the barrier claim (work sample, observation, conversation, progress measure); the barrier written as an observable mismatch, not a trait; and a strength stated specifically enough to be usable in support design. Quality criteria: (1) the target names learning, not activity completion; (2) no diagnostic or demographic label appears anywhere in the barrier statement; (3) the barrier could be confirmed or disconfirmed by a colleague observing the same evidence; (4) the strength is specific to this learner or group rather than generic; (5) the statement would let a reader predict which of Modules 2 through 4 the decision belongs to.
Use the three terms precisely, and respect the decision boundary
Accommodating · Modifying · Adapting
Learning objectiveOperationally distinguish accommodation, modification, and adaptation while recognizing that legal documents and local practice control the support a student receives.
Key teaching points
PELSB's renewal rubric uses three verbs: accommodating, modifying, and adapting. The form does not define them.
These distinctions help a teacher reason clearly, but they are not universal legal definitions. OCR states that, for Section 504 in elementary and secondary schools, the ultimate question is meaningful access and it does not require schools to distinguish “reasonable modifications” from “reasonable accommodations.” IDEA uses the terms accommodations, modifications, supplementary aids, and supports in relation to...
Decision boundary. A classroom teacher may offer many universally available access supports and differentiate daily instruction. The teacher must also implement required supports in a student's plan.
Underneath all three terms sits a single concept from assessment theory: the construct, meaning the specific knowledge or skill a task is intended to develop or measure. A change is target-preserving when it removes construct-irrelevant demands, obstacles unrelated to what is being taught or measured, and target-altering when it removes construct-relevant ones.
A related empirical idea sharpens the accommodation concept: the differential boost hypothesis, examined in Sireci and colleagues' review of test accommodation research. A well-matched accommodation should help students who face the barrier substantially more than it helps students who do not; a change that raises everyone's performance equally is better understood as an improvement to the task itself, and a change...
Elementary: a grade-three team wants every student to master multiplication fact fluency. For a student with a motor impairment, answering orally or on a keyboard preserves the fluency construct; the response channel was never the point.
Applied activity
Sort these changes and explain your reasoning: audio text for a content-area reading; alternate grade-level target; sentence starters; fewer practice items; bilingual glossary; adult scribing; open-book assessment. For at least two, write “cannot classify without knowing…” and name the missing information.
Artifact specification. A strong sort presents all seven items in a three-column record: the item, the classification (or the explicit "cannot classify" finding), and a rationale of two to four sentences that names the construct the classification depends on. Quality criteria: (1) every rationale refers to a target and a barrier, never to the support's name alone; (2) at least two items identify the precise missing fact (for example, whether decoding is the measured construct, or whether a governing plan exists) rather than a vague "it depends"; (3) at least one rationale invokes construct relevance explicitly; (4) no rationale relies on a student label; (5) a colleague reading only the rationales could reconstruct which lesson concepts they apply.
Module 2 · Accommodate curriculum for diverse learners
32 required minutes
Lesson 2.116 required minutes
Match an accommodation to the barrier, target, and context
PELSB: accommodating curriculum for diverse learners
Learning objectiveSelect and justify an accommodation that removes a documented barrier without invalidating the intended learning.
Key teaching points
An accommodation is strong when the support, barrier, and target form a visible line of reasoning. “Preferential seating” is not a complete plan.
Accommodations should not erase productive challenge. If vocabulary use is part of the target, a word bank may be appropriate while copying a complete answer is not.
Use a five-question match test:
When an accommodation is in an IEP or 504 plan, implementation is not optional. IDEA requires the responsible teacher to be informed of the specific accommodations, modifications, and supports that must be provided. [S9] Follow local procedures for access to plans, documentation, assessment-specific rules, and concerns.
The four dimensions are not an arbitrary menu; each targets a different stage of the interaction between learner and task, and knowing the mechanism improves selection. Presentation supports intervene at intake: they reroute information around a blocked or overloaded channel (print to audio, spoken directions to visual sequence) or reduce the processing cost of an intact channel (chunking, vocabulary preview...
Elementary: a grade-four student's target is explaining ecosystem relationships. Evidence shows accurate oral explanations but written responses of one fragment, produced slowly and with visible frustration; handwriting is effortful across all subjects.
Applied activity
For the target–barrier statement from Lesson 1.1, propose two possible accommodations. Apply the five-question match test and select one. State what the accommodation does not change.
Artifact specification. A strong barrier-accommodation match documents both candidate supports, the full five-question analysis for each, the selection decision, and a plan for teaching the support to the student before first use. Quality criteria: (1) the two candidates come from different access dimensions, forcing a real comparison; (2) question four (construct threat) receives a substantive answer for both candidates, not "none"; (3) the selected support's mechanism is stated (what stage of the learner-task interaction it changes); (4) the "does not change" statement names the intact construct and the intact success criteria; (5) the chosen indicator would detect failure as readily as success.
Design accessible materials before adding individual workarounds
PELSB: accommodating curriculum for diverse learners
Learning objectiveRedesign a classroom material for broader access while preserving required individual accommodations.
Key teaching points
Universal design and individual accommodation work together. Accessible base materials reduce preventable barriers for everyone; they do not cancel a student's documented individualized supports.
For digital and print materials, use the following minimum design checks:
the UDL Guidelines invite teachers to vary engagement, representation, and action/expression. Use UDL as a design prompt, not a learning-style assignment.
The design checklist above is not merely etiquette; it maps onto a mechanism described by cognitive load theory. Sweller, van Merrienboer, and Paas distinguish intrinsic load, the complexity inherent in the material relative to the learner's prior knowledge, from extraneous load, the processing imposed by the presentation itself: hunting through clutter, holding ambiguous directions in mind, integrating a diagram...
The UDL evidence base deserves an honest statement. Capp's meta-analysis of 18 studies concludes that UDL implementation improves the learning process for diverse learners; evidence tying UDL, as a whole framework, to gains on standardized achievement outcomes is thinner, and the framework's own authors describe it as design guidance rather than a packaged intervention. [S13, S23] This course therefore treats UDL as...
Elementary: a grade-one mathematics page presents twelve problems in dense rows with a decorative border, directions in italic cursive font, and color-coded operation signs. Redesign: six problems per page with white space, a plain high-contrast font, a worked example in the first position, directions in one short imperative sentence with an icon, and operation signs distinguished by symbol shape rather than color...
Accessible materials also protect the validity of assessment. A cluttered page, unlabeled graphic, ambiguous direction, or inaccessible response control can measure navigation or decoding burden instead of the intended knowledge.
Applied activity
Audit one worksheet, slide, LMS page, lab direction, or assessment screen. Identify three access barriers using the checklist, revise the material, and explain which individual supports would still be needed.
Artifact specification. A strong before/after audit contains the original material (or a faithful description of it), a numbered barrier list keyed to checklist items, the revised material, and a closing paragraph on remaining individual supports. Quality criteria: (1) each identified barrier names who it burdens and through what mechanism (extraneous load, missing alternative channel, ambiguous structure); (2) at least one barrier concerns structure or navigation rather than surface formatting; (3) the revision demonstrably preserves the full academic demand, stated explicitly; (4) the remaining-supports paragraph names at least one plan-required support that the redesign does not replace and explains why; (5) the revised material could be handed to a colleague tomorrow without further explanation.
Module 3 · Modify curriculum for varied learning levels
32 required minutes
Lesson 3.116 required minutes
Modify deliberately, never as a shortcut around instruction
PELSB: modifying curriculum for a variety of learning levels
Learning objectiveDetermine when a task adjustment preserves the target and when it changes the breadth, depth, complexity, output, or success criteria.
Key teaching points
Teachers routinely vary examples, grouping, practice quantity, scaffolds, and challenge. Some changes preserve the learning target; others change what mastery means.
Use the target-integrity test:
Example: All students analyze how a character's choices influence the plot. One student uses audio text and a cause/effect organizer.
Modification is not synonymous with “easier.” Advanced learners may require greater depth, faster pacing after demonstrated mastery, more complex sources, or open-ended transfer. Modifying for varied levels should protect intellectual dignity in every direction.
The obligation to keep targets ambitious is not only an instructional value; it has a legal center of gravity. In Endrew F. v.
Elementary: the class target is adding fractions with unlike denominators. Student one receives fraction strips and a worked example alongside each problem; the target is intact and the supports are scaffolds to be faded.
Applied activity
Take one assignment and produce three versions: (A) same target with an accommodation; (B) same target with increased depth or extension; (C) a clearly labeled modified target that would require team/program alignment. Highlight exactly what changed in each.
Artifact specification. A strong three-version analysis presents the original assignment, all three versions, and for each version a completed target-integrity test covering breadth, depth, complexity, output, and success criteria. Quality criteria: (1) version A's analysis shows all five integrity dimensions unchanged and names the barrier the accommodation addresses; (2) version B raises depth, complexity, or transfer, not quantity, and states what new learning it produces; (3) version C names precisely which dimensions changed, who would authorize the change, how progress would be measured, and how it would be reported; (4) the changed elements are visually marked so a reviewer can locate them in seconds; (5) no version relies on a student label as its justification.
Build a multi-level task without building a status ladder
PELSB: modifying curriculum for a variety of learning levels
Learning objectiveDesign pathways with meaningful thinking, transparent success criteria, student dignity, and opportunities to move based on evidence.
Key teaching points
Poorly differentiated tasks announce a status hierarchy: one group receives rich inquiry while another fills blanks; one group uses real materials while another receives a visibly “baby” page. Strong multi-level design preserves belonging, purpose, and authentic thinking.
Grading and reporting must match the target actually taught and the local policy. A score should not imply grade-level mastery when a different target was assessed, nor should an accommodation reduce the grade merely because the student used it.
Student voice is evidence. Ask which supports reduce effort that is unrelated to the target, which supports feel stigmatizing, and which options increase independence.
The review literature on differentiation is blunt about the social dimension: students read grouping arrangements as information about their standing, and perceived standing feeds effort, participation, and identity over time. [S22] Two mechanisms deserve explicit management. First, expectation transmission: adults telegraph their expectations through task assignment, wait time, and the cognitive level of the...
Elementary: a grade-three science class investigates which materials insulate best. Common launch: the same phenomenon, a melting ice cube in different wrappers, and the same driving question for everyone.
Applied activity
Design a common launch and two pathways for one upcoming task. State whether the pathways share a target. Add one method for students to move between levels, one dignity safeguard, and one plan for accurate grading/reporting.
Artifact specification. A strong multi-level task map lays out the common launch, both pathways in parallel columns, the shared or distinct targets stated at the top, the movement rule, the dignity safeguard, and the reporting plan. Quality criteria: (1) both pathways pass the worthiness check, with the reasoning or application demand of each stated; (2) the movement rule names the specific evidence and timing that trigger movement, in both directions; (3) the dignity safeguard addresses an identified status mechanism (visibility, task richness, or permanence), not decor; (4) supports within pathways carry fading conditions; (5) the reporting plan states what a grade from each pathway asserts about the target.
Create an individual adaptation from a learner profile, not a disability label
PELSB: adapting curriculum to meet individual needs
Learning objectiveUse strengths, needs, context, student voice, and multiple evidence sources to design an individualized adaptation.
Key teaching points
An individualized adaptation should be traceable to a current need in a specific context. A diagnosis or eligibility category does not prescribe a single classroom method.
Build a concise learner profile with six parts:
Then use the ADAPT cycle: A nchor the target; D escribe the barrier and strength; A lign the smallest effective change; P lan implementation and evidence; T est, talk, and tune. The cycle discourages a “support menu” approach in which a strategy is chosen because it is familiar rather than because it matches the barrier. [S28]
Individual does not mean isolated. An adaptation can increase membership: peer-supported rehearsal with defined roles; a communication system available during group inquiry; a visual schedule that enables transition with classmates; or preteaching that prepares the student for shared discussion.
Individualization is not a single switch but a set of adjustable dimensions, and the National Center on Intensive Intervention's Taxonomy of Intervention Intensity names seven of them: strength (the evidence behind the practice for learners like this one), dosage (frequency and duration of the support or instruction), alignment (fit between the support and the actual need, including not addressing needs the student...
Elementary: a kindergartner's profile shows strengths in oral vocabulary and pretend play, an existing speech-language plan, and a barrier recorded as leaving the carpet during whole-group story time, most often during long stretches of teacher talk. The label "attention problem" would suggest proximity seating and reminders.
Applied activity
Using a de-identified learner, complete the six-part profile and the first three steps of ADAPT. If you lack evidence, list what you must learn before choosing a support.
Artifact specification. A strong profile-and-draft artifact completes all six profile parts with concrete entries and shows the Anchor, Describe, and Align steps with reasoning visible. Quality criteria: (1) the strengths section contains at least three entries specific enough to be design material, not compliments; (2) the barrier is written as context-behavior-frequency, with the evidence source named for each claim; (3) the align step explains why the chosen change fits this barrier better than one named alternative, referencing at least one taxonomy dimension; (4) any missing-evidence list states how and when the evidence will be gathered; (5) nothing in the artifact would identify the learner to a reader from the same school.
Make the adaptation specific enough to implement consistently
PELSB: adapting curriculum to meet individual needs
Learning objectiveWrite an adaptation plan that another responsible educator can implement and monitor without guessing.
Key teaching points
“Provide support as needed” is not an implementable adaptation. Consistency requires operational detail while preserving professional responsiveness.
Implementation fidelity is not rigid sameness. It means the agreed support is present as designed and variations are documented.
Implementation research distinguishes several components of fidelity, and the distinctions matter in classrooms because each fails differently. Adherence asks whether the specified actions occurred; dosage asks whether they occurred at the planned frequency and duration; quality asks whether they were delivered with the intended skill and tone; and responsiveness asks whether the student actually engaged with the...
Consider a middle-school student whose escape-maintained shutdowns during independent writing were profiled in Lesson 4.1 terms. A vague plan says: "Allow breaks and reduce writing demands as needed." Its implementable rewrite specifies: during independent writing blocks longer than ten minutes, the student uses a two-column planning card before drafting; after each completed section he may take a self-timed...
Protect privacy. Share student information only through authorized systems and with personnel who need it for their role. The reviewer artifact for this course must be de-identified: no name, student ID, birth date, school, unique circumstance, or combination that makes the learner identifiable.
Applied activity
Turn your ADAPT draft into an implementable plan with context, responsible person, exact action, student agency, materials, frequency, success indicator, and review date. Remove all identifying information.
Artifact specification. A strong implementation plan states all eight elements in operational language and adds a one-line fidelity check for each of adherence, dosage, quality, and responsiveness. Quality criteria: (1) every action is observable, with no "as needed," "regularly," or "appropriate" left undefined; (2) the student's agency appears as a genuine choice or self-management role, not as compliance restated; (3) the success indicator has a baseline value and a review date within six weeks; (4) a colleague could implement the plan tomorrow without asking a single clarifying question; (5) the plan states what happens at review for each of three outcomes: improvement, no change, and deterioration.
Module 5 · Monitor progress and refine the decision
31 required minutes
Lesson 5.116 required minutes
Measure access, learning, independence, and belonging
Evidence across all three PELSB criteria
Learning objectiveChoose a small set of indicators that show whether a support improves progress without creating a new barrier.
Key teaching points
A support is not successful merely because it was provided. Monitor whether it improves the intended outcome.
Collect a baseline when feasible, identify the review interval, and use a measure sensitive enough to detect change. [S25] “Student improved” is too vague. A practical statement is: “Across four grade-seven science explanations, the student used the organizer independently in three; included claim, evidence, and reasoning in three compared with one at baseline; and reported that the organizer reduced planning load...
Interpret cautiously. Improvement after a support does not prove the support caused the change; lack of immediate improvement does not prove the student is unable. Look for patterns across tasks and talk with the student.
Minnesota Standards 3F/G ask teachers to assess individual/group performance, modify instruction, and use varied, including disaggregated, data to evaluate outcomes and adapt practice. Disaggregation can reveal access patterns, but avoid publishing small cells or identifiable learner data in course artifacts. [S4]
The insistence on formal monitoring is not procedural fussiness; it is one of the better-supported practices in special education research. Fuchs and Fuchs' meta-analysis of systematic formative evaluation found that when teachers regularly measured student progress and used the data to adjust instruction, achievement rose substantially, with an average effect around seven tenths of a standard deviation, and the...
Elementary: for the grade-two retelling supports from Lesson 1.1, a four-indicator set might be: access, the student initiates the retell within thirty seconds of the prompt (from a tally); learning, retell rubric score across weekly probes (charted against a baseline of two element types); independence, number of card prompts needed, aiming downward; belonging, the student participates in partner retells and...
Applied activity
For your adaptation plan, select one access, one learning, one independence, and one belonging indicator. Define the baseline, collection method, review interval, and decision rule for continue/change/fade/escalate-to-team.
Artifact specification. A strong monitoring plan presents the four indicators in a table with baseline, method, frequency, and the person collecting each, followed by the written decision rules. Quality criteria: (1) the learning indicator is brief, repeatable, and sensitive enough to move within the review window; (2) at least one indicator is graphed or chartable, and the artifact says which; (3) each decision rule names a quantitative or clearly observable trigger, not "if things improve"; (4) the escalate rule includes a fidelity check as its first step; (5) the belonging indicator includes the student's own report, gathered in a way the student experiences as respectful.
Primary sources: S4 · S5 · S8 · S12 · S25 · S36
Lesson 5.215 required minutes
Collaborate without handing off responsibility
Evidence across all three PELSB criteria
Learning objectivePrepare a concise evidence-based team communication that respects student/family expertise and clarifies implementation roles.
Key teaching points
Differentiation is shared professional work. Minnesota Standard 7 asks teachers to communicate reciprocally with families and plan with professionals who have specialized expertise to meet unique needs.
Use the BRIDGE brief:
A strong brief might ask: “Should the team review the response mode because the student can explain the concept orally with the visual model but written output remains a barrier despite six weeks of implemented supports?” A weak brief asks for “an easier assignment” without naming the target or evidence.
General education teachers do not need to wait for formal eligibility before making ordinary instruction accessible and responsive. At the same time, classroom differentiation cannot replace required evaluation, special education, Section 504, English-learner services, or other mandated processes.
The BRIDGE sequence is engineered against the predictable failure points of school collaboration. Opening with target and strengths counters the deficit frame that otherwise sets in before the second sentence and that families, reasonably, hear as a verdict on their child.
Elementary: after six weeks of the retelling supports, the grade-two teacher's data show the first student thriving with audio access but the second student's retell scores flat despite verified fidelity. The BRIDGE brief to the intervention team reports the target, both strength areas, the flat trend with the chart attached, the fidelity check results, the family's observation that the student tells elaborate...
Applied activity
Write a de-identified BRIDGE brief for your plan. Include one student/family question and one question for a colleague or team. End with the exact decision or support you are requesting.
Artifact specification. A strong BRIDGE brief fits on one page, follows the six-element sequence in order, and could be sent tomorrow with only names restored. Quality criteria: (1) the strengths opening contains information a decision-maker could actually use, not pleasantries; (2) the implementation element honestly distinguishes what the plan required from what was delivered, with any gap explained; (3) the evidence element cites at least two of the four indicator types with values, not adjectives; (4) both questions are answerable by their recipients and neither is rhetorical; (5) the closing request names a specific decision, support, or review, with a proposed timeline.
Case lab: keep the target, name the change, defend the evidence
Integrated demonstration of all three PELSB criteria
Learning objectiveAnalyze three learner cases and justify an accommodation, modification, or adaptation without using deficit assumptions.
Key teaching points
Case A: same target, access barrier. Elena, a multilingual grade-eight student, explains proportional relationships accurately with diagrams and home-language discussion.
Case B: required individual plan. Marcus, a grade-five student with an IEP, has a documented accommodation for speech-to-text on extended written assignments and a goal addressing written organization.
Case C: varied level and greater depth. Anika demonstrates mastery of the unit's grade-seven data-analysis target on the preassessment.
For each case, use the decision record:
There may be more than one defensible answer. A high-quality response makes assumptions visible, refuses to infer from identity, and names when the information is insufficient for a unilateral decision.
Applied activity
Complete the eight-part decision record for all three cases. Then compare them: one must preserve the target through accommodation, one must honor an existing plan and team boundary, and one must extend learning after demonstrated mastery.
Artifact specification. A strong case-lab artifact completes all eight record parts for each case and closes with a cross-case comparison paragraph. Quality criteria: (1) each record identifies at least one fact given in the case that is insufficient for a unilateral decision and says whose decision it is; (2) case A's record analyzes what the 58% measured and rules on the section change with construct reasoning; (3) case B's record separates the teacher's immediate obligations from the team questions and drafts the substance of the family response; (4) case C's record uses at least one named taxonomy dimension and resolves the grouping problem without coercion; (5) the comparison paragraph states one principle each case would falsify if handled badly.
Capstone: build a defensible differentiated lesson plan
Integrated demonstration of all three PELSB criteria
Learning objectiveProduce a standards-aligned plan that demonstrates accommodation, modification analysis, individual adaptation, monitoring, and collaboration.
Key teaching points
The capstone is the course's professional-learning artifact. Use a real upcoming lesson, but remove all student-identifying information.
The capstone is complete when every section is present, the same essential target can be traced through instruction and assessment, plan-required supports are respected, and every individualized decision includes evidence and a review plan.
A compliant capstone fills every section; a strong capstone coheres. Coherence shows in traceability: the barrier named in section 2 is the barrier the accommodation in section 4 addresses; the indicator in section 8 is capable of detecting that specific accommodation failing; the collaboration brief in section 9 asks a question the evidence in section 8 could actually raise.
Applied activity
Complete the ten-section capstone. Use the rubric in the participant workbook to self-score. Revise any section rated “missing” or “partially demonstrated” before the assessment.
Artifact specification. A strong capstone runs roughly 1,200 to 2,000 words plus attached materials and satisfies the coherence test described above. Quality criteria: (1) a single essential target is traceable, verbatim or near-verbatim, through sections 1, 4, 7, and 8; (2) every support in the plan carries a barrier rationale, an implementation detail, and either a fading condition or a review date; (3) section 5 reaches a defended conclusion in either direction, with authorization and reporting addressed; (4) section 10 identifies a real risk in the author's own original design, not a hypothetical one; (5) the artifact contains no student-identifying information and would survive both a colleague's implementation attempt and a reviewer's thread-pull.
Primary sources: S1 · S2 · S3 · S4 · S5
Assessment question stems
Answer all 20 scenario-based questions. The planned completion threshold is 80% (16 of 20). This reviewer copy shows feedback after submission; the deployed version must make the same threshold, scoring, feedback, and remediation rules consistent in the interface and server.
Question stems are listed for study purposes. Answer choices and keys are intentionally omitted.
A student understands a science concept but cannot efficiently decode the assigned article. Decoding is not the lesson target. Which response best preserves the target?
Which information is most important before classifying fewer practice problems as an accommodation or modification?
A required IEP accommodation is difficult to implement during a lab. What is the teacher's best next action?
Which statement best describes this course's operational use of “adaptation”?
Which plan best matches a barrier to multi-step directions?
When is a curriculum modification most clearly present?
What is the strongest evidence that an accommodation is working?
Which grouping practice best avoids a status ladder?
A teacher wants to remove speech-to-text because a student has improved. What should happen first when it is an IEP accommodation?
Which baseline statement is most useful?
Which digital-material change is most broadly accessible?
Which response shows appropriate modification analysis for an advanced learner?
What does OCR's Section 504 FAQ caution about the words accommodation and modification in K–12?
Which capstone element most directly demonstrates “adapting curriculum to meet individual needs”?
Which is the best reason to use student voice when selecting a support?
A bilingual glossary is offered during a math reasoning task. What question determines whether it preserves the target?
Which BRIDGE brief is strongest?
Why can a universal design feature not replace an individual accommodation?
Which monitoring set is most balanced?
What is the correct submission status of this pilot course file?
Primary source register
Sources S1-S18 were checked July 22, 2026. Sources S19-S33 were added and individually verified July 24, 2026, and sources S34-S37 were added and verified the same day during the full-depth instructional expansion (live retrieval of agency, center, and regulatory pages; bibliographic verification of every journal article against its Crossref DOI record). Reconfirm current statutes, rules, forms, and agency guidance immediately before submission.
S2. Minn. Stat. §122A.187. Renewal training must address accommodating, modifying, and adapting curricula, materials, and strategies to meet individual needs and promote progress toward Minnesota graduation requirements. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/122A.187
S3. Minn. R. 8710.7200. Clock hours must be actual instruction or planned professional development, be professionally relevant, and address at least one Standard of Effective Practice. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/8710.7200/
S4. Minn. R. 8710.2000 - Standards of Effective Practice. Standards on learner strengths and needs, assessment, planning, differentiation, instructional strategies, collaboration, and reflection. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/8710.2000/
S6. Minnesota Department of Education - Inclusive Instructional Resources. Minnesota resources for access, participation, learning progress, and outcomes for students with disabilities. https://education.mn.gov/mde/dse/sped/PROD084118
S7. IDEA regulation: 34 C.F.R. §300.42. Supplementary aids and services support education with nondisabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/a/300.42
S8. IDEA regulation: 34 C.F.R. §300.320(a)(4). IEPs identify services, aids, program modifications, and supports needed for goals, general-curriculum progress, and participation. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/d/300.320/a/4
S9. IDEA regulation: 34 C.F.R. §300.323(d). Responsible teachers and providers must have access to the IEP and be informed of implementation responsibilities and required accommodations, modifications, and supports. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/d/300.323/d
S10. IDEA regulation: 34 C.F.R. §300.324(a)(3). The regular education teacher participates, as appropriate, in IEP-team decisions about supplementary aids, program modifications, and supports. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/d/300.324/a/3
S13. Universal Design for Learning Guidelines 3.0. Design prompts for reducing barriers and supporting learner agency through multiple means of engagement, representation, and action/expression. https://udlguidelines.cast.org/
S14. W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.2. Primary standard for accessible digital course design. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/
S16. Minn. R. 3525.2810 - Development of IEP. Minnesota requirements for present levels, goals, progress measures, services, supplementary aids, program modifications, assessment modifications, and team consideration. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/3525.2810/
S18. Minn. Stat. §363A.43 - Accessibility of continuing education. Accessibility and reasonable-modification duties relevant to state-approved or administered continuing-education/professional-development courses. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/363A.43
S19. Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1, 580 U.S. 386, 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017). Unanimous holding: an IEP must be reasonably calculated to enable progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances; every child should have the chance to meet challenging objectives, and school officials must offer a cogent and responsive explanation for their decisions. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-827_0pm1.pdf
S21. Section 504 regulation: 34 C.F.R. §104.33 - Free appropriate public education. FAPE under Section 504 is the provision of regular or special education and related aids and services designed to meet individual educational needs of students with disabilities as adequately as the needs of nondisabled students are met. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/34/104.33
S22. Tomlinson, C. A., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., Brimijoin, K., Conover, L. A., & Reynolds, T. (2003). Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, interest, and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: A review of literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27 (2-3), 119-145. Peer-reviewed literature review grounding differentiation in readiness, interest, and learning-profile evidence rather than fixed ability tracks. DOI 10.1177/016235320302700203. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235320302700203
S23. Capp, M. J. (2017). The effectiveness of universal design for learning: A meta-analysis of literature between 2013 and 2016. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21 (8), 791-807. Meta-analysis of 18 studies finding UDL an effective teaching methodology for improving the learning process for all students. DOI 10.1080/13603116.2017.1325074. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1325074
S24. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., & Simmons, D. C. (1997). Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 34 (1), 174-206. Experimental evidence that structured peer-mediated learning with defined roles improves reading outcomes for low-achieving students with and without disabilities and for average achievers. DOI 10.3102/00028312034001174. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312034001174
S25. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53 (3), 199-208. Meta-analysis showing that systematic formative evaluation of student progress significantly increases achievement, the research base for the monitoring cycle in Module 5. DOI 10.1177/001440298605300301. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440298605300301
S26. Council for Exceptional Children & CEEDAR Center - High-Leverage Practices in Special Education (HLP 13: Adapt curriculum tasks and materials for specific learning goals). The national HLP framework; HLP 13 defines adapting curriculum tasks and materials to student needs, essential curriculum elements, and criteria for success. https://highleveragepractices.org/
S27. CEEDAR Center, University of Florida (OSEP-funded). Federal technical-assistance center for educator preparation in evidence-based and high-leverage practices for students with disabilities. https://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/
S28. National Center on Intensive Intervention - Taxonomy of Intervention Intensity. Seven dimensions (strength, dosage, alignment, attention to transfer, comprehensiveness, behavioral/academic support, individualization) for selecting and intensifying interventions through data-based individualization. https://intensiveintervention.org/taxonomy-intervention-intensity
S29. PROGRESS Center at the American Institutes for Research (OSEP-funded). Federal center on high-quality educational programming and IEP implementation that supports access, progress, and individualized instruction for students with disabilities. https://promotingprogress.org/
S30. IRIS Center, Vanderbilt University - Accommodations: Instructional and Testing Supports for Students with Disabilities. OSEP-funded module defining the four accommodation categories (presentation, response, setting, timing/scheduling) and how to implement and evaluate them. https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/acc/
S31. Institute of Education Sciences, What Works Clearinghouse - Providing Reading Interventions for Students in Grades 4-9 (WWC 2022007, March 2022). Evidence-based practice guide: decoding barriers call for targeted reading intervention, not lowered content targets. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide/29
S32. National Center on Educational Outcomes, University of Minnesota. National research center on accommodations, accessibility, and inclusive assessment for students with disabilities, including the Accommodations Toolkit research syntheses. https://nceo.info/
S33. Brysbaert, M. (2019). How many words do we read per minute? A review and meta-analysis of reading rate. Journal of Memory and Language, 109, 104047. Meta-analysis of 190 studies: mean silent-reading rate for adults reading English non-fiction is approximately 238 words per minute, with lower rates for difficult text and reading for study; the empirical basis for this course’s clock-hour computation. DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2019.104047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2019.104047
S34. Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10 (3), 251-296. Foundational statement of cognitive load theory: working-memory limits, intrinsic versus extraneous load, and the worked-example and chunking effects underlying the accessible-design and scaffolding guidance in Modules 2 and 3. DOI 10.1023/A:1022193728205. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022193728205
S35. Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9 (3), 105-119. Review finding that studies meeting the required crossover design standard do not support matching instruction to learning styles; the evidence base for this course's caution against modality typing. DOI 10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x
S36. Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52 (3), 219-232. Foundational description of curriculum-based measurement, developed at the University of Minnesota: brief, repeatable, curriculum-sampled progress measures sensitive to small change, the measurement model behind Module 5. DOI 10.1177/001440298505200303. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440298505200303
S37. Sireci, S. G., Scarpati, S. E., & Li, S. (2005). Test accommodations for students with disabilities: An analysis of the interaction hypothesis. Review of Educational Research, 75 (4), 457-490. Review of test-accommodation research examining the interaction (differential boost) hypothesis: well-matched accommodations should help students who face the barrier more than those who do not, with effects varying by student, task, and implementation. DOI 10.3102/00346543075004457. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075004457
