Planning, differentiation, and feedback that keeps the teacher in charge.
All Teaching prompts
Teaching
Backward Plan From One Standard
Standard: [paste the standard or the observable thing students should be able to do]. Students: [grade band, prior knowledge, one constraint]. Time: [minutes]. Do not plan activities yet. First write the exit ticket: one task a student can complete independently that proves the objective. Then list the evidence a correct answer must show. Only then propose one opener, one direct-instruction block, one guided-practice block, and one independent task that lead to that evidence. Mark any part that does not feed the exit ticket as CUT. Do not add standards I did not give you.
Use when you have a standard and a blank lesson-plan template.
Why it works it starts from observable evidence and works backward, so activities cannot crowd out the objective.
Teaching
Three Reading Levels, Same Idea
Text I am allowed to adapt: [paste]. Grade band: [range]. Rewrite it at three levels: supported, on-level, and extension. Keep the same facts and the same sequence of ideas. Do not remove a cause, a comparison, or a key term; change sentence length, vocabulary, and the number of examples. For each version, list the terms you kept and why, one sentence that may still be hard, and the support you would give. Flag any place where simplifying the language would change the meaning.
Use when one text has to reach students reading well below and well above grade level.
Why it works it changes access without deleting the concept, so the class is working on the same idea rather than three different lessons.
Teaching
Parent Email: Observation vs Interpretation
Write a parent email from these facts: [what happened, dates, what has been tried]. Refer to the student only as "the student"; no names, grades, diagnoses, or family details. Context the family already has: [paste]. Outcome I need: [meeting / plan / response by date]. Draft under 180 words. First paragraph: observable behaviour only. Second: what I have tried. Third: one specific next step and who does it. Avoid labels, blame, and promises I cannot keep. Give me a warm version and a formal version, then mark any sentence that sounds like a diagnosis.
Use when a concern about a student keeps turning into an email you rewrite five times.
Why it works it separates what happened from what you think it means and forces one concrete next step, which is where parent emails usually go wrong.
Teaching
Rubric to Feedback, Not Grades
Task and rubric: [paste]. One student's work, with name and identifiers removed: [paste]. Do not give a grade. Quote one sentence or step that meets the rubric. Then name the single change that would most improve the work next time, written as a rule the student can apply to another task. Show one short model of that change applied to their own sentence. If the rubric cannot support a judgement, write CANNOT JUDGE. Maximum 90 words. Do not mention effort, attitude, or potential.
Use when you have a rubric and a stack of work, and the comments are turning into a second gradebook.
Why it works it keeps the grade with the teacher and turns the rubric into one next step the student can use on another task.
Teaching
Wrong-Answer Diagnosis
Here are three wrong answers to [problem type], with the student work and the correct answer: [paste, names removed]. For each, classify the first wrong step as: missing concept, misread the question, correct method but arithmetic slip, or ran out of time. Then find the one pattern shared by at least two answers. Give me a 5-minute mini-lesson and three practice problems that target only that pattern. Do not re-teach the whole topic. End with what a correct first step looks like.
Use when students keep missing the same kind of problem and the correction is not sticking.
Why it works it classifies the error before re-teaching, so the practice targets the actual break rather than the whole topic.
Teaching
Discussion Questions That Aren't Trivia
Text or topic: [paste]. Grade band: [range]. Build six discussion questions in three pairs: (1) observation — what the text says; (2) interpretation — what it means and what else it could mean; (3) evidence — which line supports your reading and which line complicates it. No yes/no questions. No question that can be answered by a definition alone. For each question, name the misconception it is likely to surface and one sentence a strong answer would contain. Do not include the answers for students.
Use when a discussion is supposed to go beyond recall but the questions keep producing one-word answers.
Why it works it builds a sequence from observation to interpretation to evidence, so students have something to argue with.
Teaching
Unit Roadmap From the Calendar
Unit: [topic]. Standards: [list]. Available days: [dates and number of periods]. Assessment: [date and format]. Build a day-by-day roadmap with one row per period: objective, activity, evidence of learning, and what can be cut if a day is lost. Mark the three lessons the assessment depends on and the two that are enrichment. Do not add content I did not list. If the standards cannot fit, say which one you would drop and what evidence the assessment would lose.
Use when a unit has more standards than days and the calendar is already shrinking.
Why it works it makes the trade-offs visible as a sequence, instead of discovering them in week three.
Teaching
Rewrite for a Language Learner
Text: [paste]. Student's language level: [CEFR or plain description]. Age or grade: [range]. Rewrite for access, not for a lower grade level. Keep the same facts and sequence. Use shorter sentences and common vocabulary, but keep the technical terms the student must learn. Add a short glossary for those terms in plain language. List the three sentences most likely to cause a misreading and a quick check question for each. Do not add examples that assume cultural knowledge the student may not have.
Use when a student is learning in a second language and the content is age-appropriate but the reading level is not.
Why it works it preserves the subject matter while making the language load visible, instead of watering down the concept.
Every prompt assumes you will replace the brackets. If you copy one unchanged, you have
borrowed someone else’s brief.