Welcome to the show everybody! I'm Renata Salas, here with Colin Whitfield. And Colin, I want to start with a scenario that played out in my third-period ELA class just last Tuesday. I was handing out a graphic organizer for analyzing character motives, and I watched three of my students—kids who struggle, but try so hard—just physically deflate the second the paper hit their desks. They saw the giant blank boxes and their brains just went, "Nope, not for me." Yes, the classic "cognitive opt-out." It’s that immediate defensive wall because the gap between where they are and where the task starts feels like a chasm. Exactly! And that's why I was so struck by Nancy Ironside’s piece in Edutopia from March 12th, 2025. She introduces this beautiful framing of "same lesson, three doors." Instead of handing every single kid the exact same independent practice sheet, she offers them three options: Mild, Medium, and Spicy. Same skill, but three different entry points, and the kids choose where to start that day. Mild, Medium, and Spicy. Like a curry menu. But wait, is this just differentiated instruction rebranded? Because we’ve been trying to differentiate for decades, and let’s be honest, it usually ends up with the teacher planning three entirely separate lessons and running around the room like a headless chicken. No, and that’s the magic of it. It’s the *same* skill, the same lesson, just packaged into three levels of scaffolding. And the crucial part is the choice. Ironside has this brilliant line that became my emotional hinge when reading it: "Level choice can vary day to day, your math level is not fixed." Ah! Now that connects directly to Peter Liljedahl's work. In his book, *Building Thinking Classrooms in Mathematics*, Liljedahl talks extensively about how fixed-ability grouping—where the teacher decides you're in the "red group" or the "blue group"—actually destroys student agency. It sends this incredibly loud, toxic message that math ability is static. You are a "struggling" student, therefore you get the "struggling" work. But level choice? It makes readiness feel temporary and changeable. Yes! It changes the whole classroom dynamic. The labels are about the *task*, not the child. My kids aren't "remedial" kids; they are just choosing a "mild" task today because maybe they didn't sleep well, or equivalent fractions haven't clicked yet. But tomorrow, they might go straight for the spicy. I see the theoretical beauty in that, Renata, but let's look at the research reality. If you let kids choose, isn't there a massive risk of them just... sandbagging? I mean, human nature, right? If I'm fourteen and you give me a choice between an easy task and a hard task, I'm taking the easy one so I can finish early and look at my phone. How do we stop this from just becoming a sneaky tracking system where the self-esteem-conscious kids stay in the mild lane forever? That is the exact tension we have to manage. And it comes down to how we build it, which is actually much easier than it sounds. Let's talk about how to actually build this before first period tomorrow morning, because I don't want any teacher listening to think they need to pull an all-nighter. You take the practice set you were already going to assign. You do not write new questions. You just rebuild that single set into three tiers. Same skill, same class period, three entry points. Right, so let's unpack the logic of those tiers, because it has to be systematic. For the **Mild** tier, you keep the scaffolds firmly in place. This isn't "dumbing it down"; it's providing a worked example, a sentence stem, or a visual model right there on the paper. For the **Medium** tier, you remove one of those major scaffolds—maybe they get the formula, but not the step-by-step example. And for the **Spicy** tier, you push for transfer. You ask them to apply the skill to a brand new context, or write a puzzle, or explain the method to someone else. Yes! Ironside gives a perfect math example with equivalent fractions. On the Mild sheet, students are matching fractions to visual models, like shaded circles. On the Medium sheet, they're solving word problems about sharing pizzas. And on the Spicy sheet, they are actually writing fraction puzzles for their classmates to solve. That translates beautifully outside of math, too. In chemistry, a Mild task might be balancing an equation with a visual atom-counting grid. Medium is balancing it with just the chemical symbols. Spicy is explaining why changing the coefficient works but changing the subscript would break the laws of physics. Exactly. Or in my ELA class, Mild is analyzing a character motive with a graphic organizer and sentence stems. Medium is writing the paragraph with just a checklist. Spicy is writing a diary entry from that character's perspective showing *why* they made that choice. And when you launch this, you just post them side-by-side—ideally color-coded on a wall or digital board—and say this exact two-sentence launch: "Pick where you will grow most today. You can switch tiers anytime." "Pick where you will grow most today." I like that. It frames the choice around growth, not baseline ability. But Renata, what happens when a kid who clearly knows how to balance equations chooses the Mild sheet just to coast? Oh, they try. Trust me. But that's where teacher judgment and circulating the room comes in. This isn't "set it and forget it." I walk around, and if I see a kid flying through Mild with 100% accuracy in two minutes, I don't shame them. I just tap their paper and say, "Hey, this looks like a warm-up for you. I want to see what you can do with number four on the Medium sheet. Give it a shot." It's a gentle nudge based on what they are *doing*, not what I assumed they could do before class started. That active nudging is key, and it actually aligns with another great piece of writing on this. Crystal Frommert wrote an article back in November of 2023 for Edutopia called *More Meaningful Math Homework*. She argues that when students are given this kind of self-selection, they actually stop hiding from challenge. They start tracking their own growth because they aren't trying to avoid the shame of the "low group." Yes! That shame is so real. When you're labeled as the "struggling reader" in third grade, you carry that badge like a lead weight. But when the label is just "Mild" and it only lasts for the next twenty minutes? It's low-stakes autonomy. And autonomy is one of the most powerful drivers of effort we have in the classroom. I must admit, I was skeptical about the self-selection, but the cognitive psychology supports it. If you lower the barrier to entry, you increase the likelihood of what we call "productive struggle." If the starting point is too high, they get frustrated and quit. If it's too low, they get bored. This three-door system lets them find their own "Zone of Proximal Development" with the teacher acting as a guide, rather than a gatekeeper. And the best part is, you don't have to spend hours designing these. If you're sitting there thinking, "Renata, this sounds great, but I have three prep periods and no time," here is a quick AI prompt you can copy and use right now: "You are an instructional coach. I am teaching to my class tomorrow. Generate a three-tier independent practice set labeled Mild, Medium, and Spicy, where Mild has heavy scaffolding, Medium has moderate scaffolding, and Spicy pushes for transfer and explanation." That is incredibly usable. It does 80% of the heavy lifting, and then you just refine it with your own teacher magic. Exactly. Give it a try tomorrow. Watch which door your students choose to walk through. You might be very surprised by who decides to go Spicy. Let us know how it goes in your classrooms. Until next time, I'm Colin Whitfield. And I'm Renata Salas. Happy teaching, everyone!
Audio Coursesby Jellypod