Use this rubric after you draft your response — before you look at the strong response example. Rate yourself honestly. The goal is to identify exactly what your response did and didn't do, not just whether you got it "right." Target length: 400–600 words. The TExES 253 constructed-response question expects a fully developed answer addressing all three parts of the prompt: academic area of concern with scores cited → cognitive process and the connection → specific evidence-based recommendation.
These five criteria apply regardless of which case you're working. Every strong PSW recommendation response must address all five.
The recommendation must address the specific academic area identified as the SLD — not a related area, not everything at once.
| ✦ Exemplary | ✓ Proficient | ~ Approaching | ✗ Developing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Names the exact academic domain (e.g., "basic reading decoding skills") and confirms it matches the deficit pattern in the data. | Addresses the correct academic area but names it broadly (e.g., "reading" without specifying decoding vs. comprehension). | Addresses a related but imprecise area (e.g., recommends phonics for a comprehension case because "reading was low"). | Targets the wrong area entirely, or recommends a generic "reading intervention" without specificity. |
Vague recommendations (e.g., "provide reading support") are not sufficient. The TExES 253 and real practice both require specificity.
| ✦ Exemplary | ✓ Proficient | ~ Approaching | ✗ Developing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Names a specific program, strategy, or protocol (e.g., Orton-Gillingham, SRSD, schema-based instruction, CRA sequence) and explains why it fits this profile. | Names a specific approach but does not explain the fit to the cognitive deficit or the student's profile. | References a general category (e.g., "structured literacy") without naming a specific program or strategy. | Does not name any specific intervention. Uses terms like "support," "help," or "additional instruction" without elaboration. |
A recommendation without dosage information is incomplete. Intensity matters for SLD intervention.
| ✦ Exemplary | ✓ Proficient | ~ Approaching | ✗ Developing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Specifies frequency (e.g., 4x/week), duration (e.g., 30–45 minutes), and group size (e.g., small group of 3–4). All three present. | Specifies at least two of the three (e.g., frequency and group size, but not session length). | Mentions only one parameter (e.g., "small group" with no frequency or duration). | No implementation detail whatsoever. Recommendation floats without any dosage information. |
This is the "so what" of PSW. The recommendation must be tied back to the processing weakness — not just the academic score. This is what distinguishes PSW reasoning from generic intervention planning.
| ✦ Exemplary | ✓ Proficient | ~ Approaching | ✗ Developing |
|---|---|---|---|
| References the cognitive deficit by name and score (e.g., "directly addressing the Phonological Processing deficit — SS 72") and explains how the intervention targets that processing weakness. | References the cognitive deficit by name but not the specific score, or explains the connection without naming the ability area. | Mentions that a cognitive weakness is present but does not name it or connect it to the intervention choice. | No reference to the cognitive deficit. Recommendation could apply to any student with low reading/math scores — not this student's specific profile. |
Progress monitoring closes the loop. The ARD team must know how you'll determine whether the intervention is working.
| ✦ Exemplary | ✓ Proficient | ~ Approaching | ✗ Developing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Names a specific PM tool (e.g., DIBELS ORF, AIMSweb Math Computation, MAZE probes), states frequency of administration, and includes a decision-making timeline (e.g., "ARD review at 6 weeks"). | Names a specific PM tool and a timeline, but omits administration frequency — or names frequency and timeline without a specific tool. | References progress monitoring generally (e.g., "monitor her progress monthly") without naming a specific tool or what data will be collected. | No progress monitoring component. Recommendation ends without any accountability structure. |
Each case has additional criteria specific to that cognitive-academic profile. Use these alongside the universal criteria above.
Noah, Age 11, Grade 5 · SLD: Math Problem Solving · Visual-Spatial Processing (Gv) deficit · Gv SS 71 · Applied Problems SS 79 · Calculation SS 97 (avg)
The primary SLD area of concern for Noah is Math Problem Solving, specifically his ability to solve problems that require interpreting, constructing, or reasoning about spatial and geometric information. His WJ-IV ACH scores confirm this pattern: Applied Problems is SS 79 (8th percentile), in the low range, while Calculation is SS 97 (42nd percentile), Reading Fluency is SS 96 (40th percentile), and Writing Samples is SS 95 (37th percentile) — all solidly average. This profile is domain-specific: Noah's deficit is not in arithmetic procedures, reading, or writing, but in the subset of mathematical problem solving that requires visual-spatial reasoning. His classroom performance confirms this precision: he failed his Geometry Unit Assessment (48%) and Graphing/Data Unit Assessment (52%), with errors concentrated entirely on spatial and diagram items, while passing computation-focused work. His Applied Problems CBM probe (4/20 correct) shows the same pattern — spatial and geometry items missed, single-step computation items passed. STAAR Math data show the geometry strand driving his Approaches score, and his teacher's observation that he cannot interpret diagrams or graphs reinforces the pattern at a behavioral level.
The cognitive process that best explains this Math Problem Solving deficit is Visual-Spatial Processing (Gv) — the ability to perceive, analyze, synthesize, and mentally manipulate visual patterns and spatial relationships. Noah's Gv composite is SS 71 (3rd percentile), with Spatial Relations at SS 69 (2nd percentile) and Visualization at SS 73 (4th percentile). Gv is the cognitive system that makes it possible to hold geometric shapes in mind, interpret diagrams and graphs, read maps, and mentally rotate or transform spatial representations. When Gv is significantly limited, mathematical problem solving breaks down specifically on geometry, graphing, and diagram-dependent applied problems — because those tasks require the student to perceive and manipulate spatial information, not just execute a memorized procedure. His average Fluid Reasoning (SS 91), Working Memory (SS 94), and Phonological Processing (SS 97) confirm that this is a specific visual-spatial processing deficit, not a general reasoning or learning problem. This profile is clinically distinct from a Gf-based math problem solving deficit: Noah can reason about non-spatial novel problems — the breakdown is specifically in the visual-spatial domain of mathematical thinking.
Based on this profile, Noah should receive explicit instruction in spatial mathematical reasoning using a concrete-to-representational-abstract (CRA) approach concentrated in geometry and applied problem domains — hands-on manipulatives for geometric concepts, structured diagramming protocols, and explicit step-by-step instruction in interpreting graphs and charts. This approach is directly indicated by his Gv deficit: it externalizes the spatial manipulation process by making spatial relationships physically tangible before moving to representational and abstract levels, compensating for the visual-spatial cognitive bottleneck his profile identifies. His teacher's observation that he cannot perceive spatial relationships intuitively confirms that implicit exposure to geometric content will not produce learning — the spatial reasoning process must be scaffolded explicitly. Instruction should be delivered in a small group of 3–4 students, 30–45 minutes four days per week, with the special education math teacher, concentrated during geometry, graphing, and data units. Noah should also receive accommodations on all spatial math tasks including extended time, simplified diagram formats, and graph paper for spatial organization. Progress should be monitored using Applied Problems CBM probes and teacher-developed geometry unit assessments administered bi-weekly, with an ARD team review at six weeks to evaluate growth rate and refine the plan.