Blue rose aren't you really suggesting the next steps in 'teaching' not learning. These are young children. Are we really teaching them eg. addition as a concept and a skill, or are we responding to their real learning needs across a whole lot of development at one time but which we have arbitrarily divided and defined as'subject or skill' areas? Is it clear that there is a next step determined by the teacher for every 'area'? What is relevant and real for one child may not be so for another but that doesn't mean teachers have to contort themselves writting up separately for everyone all the time. DOes it really matter if we are off target. Isn't it the pretence of precision insertion of just the right 'knowledge' at just the right stage that deludes us into thinking children can't learn if it isn't ordered and consistent? Aren't they hungry, won't they devour it all he same and grow irregularly, opening their patterns beneath their sun, each with different but perfect and beautiful symmetr? Who is repsonsible for thisnew orthodoxy. They are very young, is it of any relevance or utilty to them that they move from eg adding one digit numbers and then onto two digits and that the teacher 'shares this with the children' ?. Maybe for older children this is a method which works for some, but for younger children perhaps it is an unecessarily abstract relationship along a hierarchical continuum of skills which they neither have nor need insight into nor need to have their progress along praised? I think differentiation has become such a charged term, linked to endless paper trails and grids, charts and ladders which in turn are somehow magically and 'scientifcally' converted into criteria for evaluation and quality measurement even of teachers ourselves and the ability to do the job in terms others are continually conceiving and re-conceiving, irrespective of our own ability to do that for ourselves? At its most simplest surely it is the knowing of each child and they knowing that you are responding to them as individually as possible within the restraints of 3o individuals. The way a teacher does that and the way they show their 'differentiation' effectively in practice is surely down to each teacher. down to personality and style, almost nothing to do with being able to fill in paper trail? Or to match a lesson objective to a lesson and march from A to B with no deviation, distraction or even change of direction? There are teachers all over this forum who are trying to seccond guess an inspection and observation system which steamrollers many into a flat two -dimensional charicature of their real abilities. Teachers who have bounced around from 'excellent' to 'satisfactory' to 'competence' and back and forth in sometimes very short spaces of time; yoyoing around, trying to compete with the lates framework, to return the latest serve and yet with the best will in their world are being found wanting depending on who,- and how, why, where and when,- does the observing. I think that is what is at the heart of what the OP is saying. She is raising questions for all of us. Why shoud she suddenly doubt herself and in what terms should she consider herself excellent. Isn't she one who there but for the grace of god(and her observer) go you and I. How can we put up with that and remain self-confident, inspired, chance taking, orthodoxy-challenging, young-people-connected, forward looking teachers?