I continue to think about how differentiation needs to be re-evaluated in light of the Common Core. Unless we are using assessments diagnostically (aka formative assessment), we really are doing students no favors by altering summative assessments. By "altering," I mean giving easier texts and questions to different groups of students depending on what we judge to be their abilities. Also, I mean providing the same text and questions with varying degrees of scaffolding, depending on what we judge to be different abilities of students. Doing so becomes a crutch for both teachers and students, an excuse to have things remain the way they are, rather than truly upping the level of challenge, as required by the CC. 
As for differentiating process, the CC requires that students process information through reading and writing to a very large extent. We have to re-think practices of differentiation that skirt around the need to process informaiton through reading and writing. Here is where we can provide scaffolding, assuming, of course, that the scaffolding is to fade with increased competency and responsibility on the part of the student. A student's ability to read complex text and express knowledge in writing is to be nurtured, not eliminated, through scaffolding.
As for differentiating content, we can still do this, as long as the level of text meets CC Standards of complexity, and the writing required maintains CC expectations. 
The practices (which I have never advocated, by the way) of tiering assignments (small, medium, large) and leveling or "translating" texts into dumbed-down versions are hard to justify in the age of the Common Core.