Lesson

see attachement called Lesson

his discussion is your opportunity to demonstrate your understanding of how to effectively use present levels of academic and functional performance to create specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time-based (SMART) IEP goals that strongly align with student needs.

Prepare

Prior to beginning work on this discussion forum,

· Read Chapter 10 in your

 

Inclusion: Effective Practices for All Students text.

· Read 

SMART or Not? Writing Specific, Measurable IEP Goals

.

· Read 

How to Tell if Your Child’s IEP Goals Are SMART (Links to an external site.)

.

https://www.understood.org/en/school-learning/special-services/ieps/how-to-tell-if-your-childs-iep-goals-are-smart

· Review 

A Place to Start: Understanding the Present Level of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance Statement (Links to an external site.)

.

· Review 

Browse Instructional Content (Links to an external site.)

.

https://goalbookapp.com/toolkit/v/browse

· Review the

 ESE601 Week 5 IEP Goals SMART Goals Template

.

· Review the

 Instructor Guidance

 lesson for this week.

· Thoroughly read the assignment instructions for this discussion forum post.

· Carefully read the scenario listed below.

· Review the results of 

Henry’s Evaluation Report

 to align goals with current student needs.

· Complete the 

Smart Goals and Progress Monitoring (Links to an external site.)

 

https://content.bridgepointeducation.com/curriculum/file/29a0a4ca-a2a8-473b-850e-d1db17a2fe54/1/ESE601_Week_Five_Discussion_Interactive.zip/story.htm l

interactive related to this week’s discussion forum and assignment.

· Review the Week 6 final paper (Resource Manual for Educating Students With Exceptionalities) description to see where this artifact fits into your final paper.

 

Reflect

As you navigate this scenario, consider how you can apply these concepts and critical terms to your chosen path or learning environment in the field of education. Points to ponder as you begin:

· P-12: Consider the state or educational standards your district follows or the Common Core State Standards.

· Early Childhood: The National Association for the Education of Young Children or your local education standards.

· Post-secondary: Adult learning or training environments (e.g., educational, military, corporate environments) and standards aligning with professional learning.

 

Consider your goal for this discussion
.

By the end of the day Thursday, complete the Week 5 Present Level of Performance (Scenario) initial discussion forum content expectation steps of writing at least three SMART goals in the discussion forum based on the supporting required resources provided with 100% accuracy.

Scenario

You play an important role on the individualized education program (IEP) team, which is required to meet at least once annually. This federal mandate requires that all participants meaningfully contribute information regarding the student’s current abilities, strengths, and areas of weaknesses so that specific goals and services can be provided. Remember that evaluation and IEPs are completed by multi-disciplinary teams and not the decision of one educator or stakeholder. The written document that results from the IEP team meeting is akin to a “roadmap” that is specifically designed for each student who qualifies for special education and related services.

During Henry’s annual IEP meeting, his present levels of academic and functional performance are discussed. You are still concerned for Henry’s overall lack of academic progress and quiet demeanor. Since you know Henry well and want him to be successful in school, you make suggestions to the team regarding his goals. Collaboratively developing goals for any student is one of the most important components of the IEP process. Because they are the basis on which appropriate services and placement are determined, this discussion serves significant importance to the overall plan that is developed. IEP goals must be developed based on the student’s current levels of abilities, be measurable, linked to the general education curriculum, and reasonably met within one year.

 

Take Action

Initial Post:

· Create at least three IEP goals using the SMART goal format.

· Review the 

ESE601 Week 5 IEP Goals SMART Goals template

 if you need support.

· Each of these goals should strongly align with Henry’s present levels of performance.

· Present a descriptive narrative, offering a rationale for your decision-making process, explaining why you chose each of the goals, how they align with Henry’s levels of performance, and how they meet the SMART goal criteria.

 

T
E
A

C
H

IN
G

E
xc

ep
ti

on
a
l
C
h
il
d
re

n
,

V
o
l.
5

1,
N

o
.

2,
p

p
.

10
0 –

11
0.

C
o
p
yr

ig
h
t

20
18

T
h
e

A
u
th

o
r(

s)
.
D

O
I:

1
0.

11
7

7

/0
04

00
59

91
88

02
58

7

SMART or Not?
Writing Specific, Measurable

IEP Goals
Laura Hedin and Stephanie DeSpain

T
E
A
C
H
IN
G
E
xc
ep
ti
on
a
l
C
h
il
d
re
n
,
V
o
l.
5
1,
N
o
.
2,
p
p
.
10
0 –
11
0.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
20
18
T
h
e
A
u
th
o
r(
s)
.
D
O
I:
1
0.

11
77

/0
04
00
59
91
88
02
58

7
SMART Goals

https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059918802587

TEACHING ExcEptional childrEn | novEmbEr/dEcEmbEr 2018 101

Mr. Chen, a special educator, is drafting
individualized education program (IEP)
goals for upcoming annual review
meetings for two of his students with
high-incidence disabilities—Mikenna
and Andre—who are fourth graders in
his resource room class. He knows that
IEP goals are easier to implement and
track if they are specific, include
observable or measurable behaviors,
and represent realistic growth for
students. How can Mr. Chen write IEP
goals that reflect the individual
strengths and needs of his students but
are also specific and measurable?

The recent Supreme Court case
Endrew F. v. Douglas Co. School
District highlighted the need to
develop meaningful IEPs for students
with disabilities (U.S. Department of
Education, 2017). Endrew’s parents
contended that his “academic and
functional progress had stalled” (p. 3)
in part because his educational
program and IEP goals did not change
from year to year. In writing about the

Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA), Chief Justice Roberts
wrote that students who make
“merely more than de minimis
progress from year to year can hardly
be said to have been offered an
education at all. . . . The IDEA
demands more,” including an
“educational program reasonably
calculated to enable a child to make
progress appropriate in light of the
child’s circumstances” (p. 5; Wright &
Wright, 2006). However, many IEP
goals fall short in terms of
individualization, provision of
sufficient detail, alignment with
students’ present levels of
performance, or high expectations
(Jung, 2007; Pretti-Frontczak &
Bricker, 2000; see Table 1,
“Nonexamples”).

To avoid these shortcomings and
ensure that goals are more than de
minimus, educators can use the

SMART acronym. Although different
authors define the SMART acronym
differently (Jung, 2007), an IEP-related
interpretation of the acronym is as
follows: specific, measurable, action
verbs, realistic, and time limited. In
addition to these features, well-written
IEP goals reflect students’ unique
strengths and needs. Using the SMART
acronym as a guide, educators can
produce specific, measurable, realistic
goals with action verbs (see Table 1,
“Examples”).

Components of IEP Goals and
Short-Term Objectives

In general, IEP goals include four
components: conditions, learner,
behavior, and criteria. Each component
contributes to making goals SMART.
Although many formats are appropriate
for writing IEP goals, the cloze
statement provided in Table 1 can be
used as a template. Table 1 also shows
examples and nonexamples of SMART

IEP goals. The IDEA (2004) does not
require short-term objectives (STOs) for
every IEP goal; however, when they are
included, goal writers can use the same
format to ensure that STOs contain all
components. Many educators find that
checklists are useful in helping them
monitor whether their IEP goals
include all recommended parts (Figure
1). Writing IEP goals, however, begins
with students’ present levels of
academic achievement and functional
performance.

Learner

Descriptions of students’ strengths,
interests, and needs within each
domain form the foundation of IEPs
(Spiel, Evans, & Langberg, 2014). The
IDEA (2004) requires that data be
reported on students’ present levels of
academic achievement and functional
performance (PLAAFPs). Data that are

collected over time with valid, reliable
measures help educators establish goals
and choose appropriate interventions
(Pretti-Frontczak & Bricker, 2000; Spiel
et al., 2014). A PLAAFP usually
includes quantitative data (e.g., the
number of words read correctly, how
many task steps completed correctly in
2 minutes) related to a student’s
performance in comparison with that of
same-aged or grade-level peers.

For Mikenna’s PLAAFP section, Mr.
Chen reported the number of problems
correct and the percentile ranking on
grade-level curriculum-based measures
(CBMs) as well as Mikenna’s most
recent standardized test scores in math.
Mikenna’s scores on fourth-grade CBMs
placed her below the 50th percentile in
computation and problem solving
(Figure 2). Mr. Chen identified the types
of problems that she solved correctly
and reported those as her strengths.
Problems that she solved incorrectly or
did not attempt were also identified.
From this information, Mr. Chen was
able to identify whether her math errors
were in computation (basic facts),
procedures, or strategy use.

To provide additional details about
students’ performance, qualitative data
are also important. For example, (a)
qualitative data on the specific types of
skills that students have fully or
partially mastered; (b) observations of
motivation, attention, and engagement;
(c) survey results; and (d) teacher
notes from class observations, parental
comments, and student interactions
with peers during instruction can all
yield useful information (Spiel et al.,
2014). Narrative descriptions of
students added to PLAAFPs help to
create a fine-grained picture of
strengths and needs on which to base
SMART IEP goals.

Mr. Chen added information about
his class observations of Mikenna and
her responses on the math attitudes
survey that he created in the PLAAFP
section of her IEP. These results showed
that she preferred reading to math and
had little confidence in math as
compared with her peers in general

Many IEP goals fall short in terms of individualization,
provision of sufficient detail, alignment with students’
present levels of performance, or high expectations.

102 council for ExcEptional childrEn

education. He concluded that she
needed support to increase her ability
and, therefore, her self-perception and
confidence. He planned to foster
confidence by assigning work that she
could complete with high rates of

success to increase fluency (speed and
accuracy) in these foundational skills,
while planning for targeted, scaffolded
instruction in areas of weakness. He
would create IEP goals to reflect these
dual needs.

Like academic goals, social- and
functional-behavior IEP goals require
detailed PLAAFPs to compare a
student’s performance to that of typical
peers, set specific annual goals, and
track changes over time. Once the

Table 1. IEP Goal Makeover: Format for Writing SMART Goals With Examples and Nonexamples

Template for writing SMART goalsa

Nonexamples Examples

Given instructional reading–level text,
Eugenia will increase her oral reading rate
by 22 words correct per minute.

Given a Guided Reading Level S passage, individualized reading instruction
in word chunking and use of context, and directions to read quickly and
smoothly, Eugenia will read aloud with 95% accuracy at a rate of 84 words
correct per minute in two of three trials by [target date].

When asked, Maverick will brush his teeth
with 100% accuracy.

When provided the appropriate materials (i.e., a toothbrush, toothpaste,
and sink) and prompted to brush, Maverick will brush his teeth after school
snack or meal time, completing 8 of 10 steps independently, 4 days per
week for 3 consecutive weeks [target date].

Given a grade-level math CBM, Jorge will
score 31 problems correct.

Given a third-grade mixed-operation math computation CBM, pencil and
paper, and the prompt to work for 8 minutes, Jorge will solve and write
the answers with 31 problems correct in three consecutive trials by [target
date].

Note. CBM = curriculum-based measure; IEP = individualized education program.
a“Given [conditions], [the learner] will [observable behavior] with [mastery criteria] in — of — trials [retention criteria] by [date].”

Figure 1. Self-monitoring checklist for determining the completeness of individualized education program (IEP) goals and
short-term objectives (STOs)

TEACHING ExcEptional childrEn | novEmbEr/dEcEmbEr 2018 103

PLAAFP section is complete, goal
writers can draft SMART IEP goals in
terms of three elements: condition,
behavior, and criteria.

Condition

Condition statements make IEP goals
specific, measurable, and replicable by
describing the context in which students
perform target behaviors. Condition
statements answer questions such as
“Where is the behavior performed?”
“What materials does the student use to
complete the behavior?” and “What level
of support is provided?” To facilitate
writing strong condition statements,
professionals can use the acronym MAD
as a guide: materials, assistance, and
directions or instruction (Table 2).

Materials. Materials include
anything that students use when
performing target behaviors or skills
during progress monitoring. Materials
vary widely depending on the
strengths, needs, and contexts in which
students perform target skills. Materials
may reflect a variety of possible
supports, such as modified texts,
assistive technologies, picture
schedules, video models,
manipulatives, or everyday objects
used to complete functional skills (e.g.,
microwave, washing machine, coat
with zipper). Examples of materials
(see Table 2) should not represent an
exhaustive list but reflect individual
strengths and needs and the demands
of the contexts in which students
perform target skills. Collecting and

reporting detailed PLAAFP statements
helps educators develop specific IEP
goals, particularly when they note
details about the factors that foster
students’ successful task completion.
Collaborating with related service
providers, such as occupational and
physical therapists and social workers,
and with general educators can assist
goal writers in identifying appropriate
materials to incorporate into IEP goals.

Materials also include assessments
completed by students to measure skill
performance. Level and type of
assessment establish the specific
conditions in IEP goals. For example,
fourth- and second-grade math
assessments differ in types of problems
according to the scope and sequence in
mathematics. Using terms such as

Figure 2. Present levels of academic achievement and functional performance: Narratives written by Mr. Chen for Mikenna
(CBM = curriculum-based measure)

104 council for ExcEptional childrEn

grade-level assessment, instructional-
level passages, and age-appropriate
tasks introduces ambiguity into IEP
goals. One rationale for using general
terms for materials is concern over
portability of the IEP. If students move
to districts that use different materials,
an IEP goal may need revision.
However, the benefit of having specific
conditions outweighs the
inconvenience of such revisions.
Although general terms such as these
offer district personnel flexibility in
writing goals, parents may view them
as de minimus because expectations
seem vague or static. Instead, goal
writers can specify the assessment level
to use.

Providing specific details about the
materials to use eliminates ambiguity
and provides a measurable standard for
tracking student progress—another
SMART feature. Teachers, parents, and
others comparing IEPs from different
years can track changes in reading
passages or CBM levels as well as
changes in target scores.

Mr. Chen made Mikenna’s IEP
specific by including materials to
measure her performance: a fifth-grade
curriculum-based math assessment. He
remembered that he had collected
Mikenna’s math data this year using a
fourth-grade assessment (see Figure 2)
and that the IEP goal would be revisited
in 1 year, when she would be in fifth
grade.

To prepare for Andre’s IEP meeting,
Mr. Chen looked at his IEP goals from
the past 2 years (i.e., second and third
grade). Mr. Chen noted that Andre’s
reading rate targets—specifically, words
correct per minute (WCPM)—had
increased by only 10 to 12 each year;
however, Andre’s accuracy goals
advanced by three to four levels. Andre
read aloud Level L passages (Fountas &
Pinnell, 2016) at an instructional level
during his most recent assessments. To
make Andre’s reading level clear, Mr.
Chen noted that Level L is equivalent to
approximately mid– to late second
grade. He then specified in the goal
condition that independent-level

reading of Level Q text (early to
mid–fourth grade) would be Andre’s
goal for this year’s IEP.

Assistance. Assistance is defined as
the number, type, and level of supports
that students receive as they complete
skills. For example, specifying that a
task will be completed independently
in an IEP goal makes the level of
assistance specific—another
component of SMART IEP goals. At
times, teachers may provide verbal
prompting, hand-over-hand assistance,
or other supports, such as cue cards,
mnemonics, calculators, math-facts
tables, or checklists. Without
statements about assistance level or
specific supports, parents or others
may assume that students are working
independently. Assistance levels also
make IEP goals measurable and
provide evidence of students’ progress.
Evidence of movement toward
independence and the possible levels
of assistance that can be included in an
IEP goal include, for example, the times

Table 2. Examples of MAD Conditions for IEP Goals and Short-Term Objectives

Skill area Materials Assistance Directions or instructions

Reading comprehension Passage (with level
indicated)

Written literal
comprehension questions
with four print answers

Test-taking strategies and a
prompt to look back in the
text

Alphabetic principle Print cards with individual
uppercase letters (52 total)

A choice of three sounds
pronounced by the teacher

“Say the sound”

Math Two-factor binomial
multiplication math
problems

FOIL cue card with steps
and a sample problem/
solution

“Show all your work when
solving the problems”

Writing Visual, written, or verbal
story starter (or CBM topic),
pencil, lined paper

Graphic organizer for
planning

“Plan for 1 minute and write
for 3 minutes”

Oral language 20 pictures of common
objects

Words stated twice by
teacher

“Say the word the fast way”

Social skills A card with several
conversation-initiating
prompts prior to entering a
social situation

Gesture or visual prompt to
initiate interaction

Explicit instruction on
initiating peer interaction
(target skill)

Functional behavior Toothpaste, toothbrush, and
bathroom setting with a sink

Hand-over-hand support
when adding toothpaste to
brush

Explicit instruction with
backward chaining

Note. CBM = curriculum-based measure; FOIL = multiply first terms, outer terms, inner terms, then last terms; IEP = individualized
education program; MAD = materials, assistance, and directions or instruction.

TEACHING ExcEptional childrEn | novEmbEr/dEcEmbEr 2018 105

when (a) students move from using a
video model to completing tasks with
only verbal prompting or a checklist
and (b) the number of prompts needed
decreases over time.

As Mr. Chen wrote Mikenna’s IEP
goals, he considered what type and level
of assistance she needed in order to
complete her target skills. For her math
IEP goal, he wrote that she would
receive verbal prompts and praise as
needed to support her motivation and
engagement. This directly aligned with
observations in her PLAAFP (Figure 2)
about her low confidence level.

Directions. Finally, condition
statements in IEP goals provide specific
directions to students. Directions
sometimes include how students will
complete assessments and what type of
intervention was used to move them
toward achieving the IEP goal. For
example, for a writing CBM, directions
may be to “plan for 1 minute and write
for 3 minutes.” The fact that students
wrote for only 3 minutes allows
parents and others who read the IEP to

put outcomes in the appropriate
context. Knowing these directions also
helps professionals make appropriate
interpretations when comparing scores
with benchmark tables. Taken together,
materials, assistance, and directions
make IEP goals specific and
measurable (Figure 1).

Behavior

The A in SMART reminds professionals
to use action verbs when they identify
the behavior for an IEP goal; that is,
the action verb corresponds with
observable behavior (see Table 1).
Behaviors are specific skills that
students perform as part of their IEP
goals. Using action verbs such as read
aloud, tie shoes, brush teeth, produce
audible sounds, point to, circle the
answer, and write makes behaviors
observable, measurable, and student
focused. Table 3 contains examples and
nonexamples of action verbs
sometimes used in IEP goals.

Professionals sometimes write
vague IEP goals by using behaviors or

verbs that are not observable. For
example, students can read and
comprehend or solve a math problem
without taking any observable action.
The term identify is another example of
an ambiguous verb because it may
entail many concepts: pointing, stating,
coloring, circling, and completing other
actions. Including specific conditions
sometimes clarifies these verbs: “Given
a field of four lowercase letter cards, a
letter sound pronounced by the
teacher, and the verbal prompt ‘Which
letter says . . . ?’ the learner will
independently identify . . .” The
detailed condition clarifies identifies as
the action verb: the student will point
to or hand the teacher the correct letter
card. Adverbial clauses also clarify
vague verbs (e.g., “demonstrate
comprehension by stating the main
idea and three supporting details,”
“engage in career planning by
producing a written action plan”).

Finally, appropriate behaviors or
strong action verbs are student-
centered, meaning that they refer to
actions that students take as they

Table 3. Observable, Measurable Action Verbs Acceptable for IEP Goals and Short-Term Objectives

Area Acceptable Acceptable if . . . Not acceptable

Academic Answer verbally
Point to
Solve

Evaluate [by . . .]
Demonstrate [what?]
Analyze [by . . .]

Achieve/attain
Increase (score)
Decrease (score)

Improve
Know
Think

Comprehend
Understand

Develop
Will not

Communication Pronounce/target sound or
word
Repeat
Verbally request

Request [by . . . sign,
gesture, PECS]
Use AAC [to do what?]

Functional Cook/prepare recipes
Count coins/money

Complete steps in . . .
[followed by task such as
dressing]

Self-determination State preferences
Verbally state problem
Verbally communicate
accommodations

Self-evaluate [what
behavior, with what tool/
instrument]
Self-monitor [what behavior,
with what tool/instrument]

Social Verbally initiate
Maintain appropriate
personal space

Identify [by doing what?]
Demonstrate [by doing
what?]
Interact appropriately [by?]

Note. These behaviors do not include criteria or measures that professionals plan to use to evaluate student performance. AAC =
augmentative and alternative communication; IEP = individualized education program; PECS = picture exchange communication
systems.

106 council for ExcEptional childrEn

complete tasks or engage in progress-
monitoring assessments. This may
include completing steps in doing
laundry, verbally answering literal
comprehension questions, producing
correct phonemes, requesting
assistance by raising hand, or removing
self from stressful situations. Verbs
such as improve, increase, and decrease
do not refer to skills or tasks that
students perform, even though they do
suggest measurable changes in
behaviors.

While drafting Mikenna’s IEP goal,
Mr. Chen wondered whether writing
“Mikenna will solve math problems”
was sufficient for the action verb.
Because he thought that this was
somewhat ambiguous (i.e., she could
do this in her head), he wrote “solve
and write answers” instead. For Andre,
Mr. Chen initially wrote “Andre will
increase his independent reading level
to Level Q and his reading rate to 85
WCPM.” However, he decided to change
this to “Andre will read aloud” and to
include WCPM as the criteria—the final
section of the IEP template.

Criteria

The criteria in IEP goals provide two
types of information that make goals
measurable. Mastery criteria, the first
type of information, are the expected
levels of performance with respect to
particular skills. Retention criteria refer
to the number of times or how often
students must achieve a mastery level to
demonstrate skill acquisition. Setting
appropriate mastery and retention
criteria make IEP goals realistic and time
limited—the final SMART components.

Mastery criteria. Mastery criteria
in academic areas often include
quantitative scores, such as digits
correct, correct writing sequences,
words read (aloud) correctly, or
percentile rankings from benchmark
tables. Units of measurement used for
mastery criteria closely align with
PLAAFP units to allow for monitoring
of students’ growth.

Mr. Chen noted that Andre’s past
IEP goals and PLAAFP included

percentage accuracy reading Level Q
text and reading rate in WCPM as part
of the mastery criteria. As a result, he
knew that the new IEP goal should
include performance levels for each of
these. Similarly, Mikenna’s PLAAFP
and IEP goal criteria included digits
correct with the corresponding percentile
ranking and percentage accuracy from
her math assessment. How could he
estimate realistic one-step growth based
on their PLAAFPs?

For many students, a realistic
expectation for growth is one academic
year of progress. For example, if
students read third-grade passages this
year, a realistic goal is to read fourth-
grade passages at the instructional level
in 1 year’s time. Benchmark tables
show percentile rankings for scores
organized into grade levels and
marking periods (e.g., Hasbrouck
&Tindal, 2006). Looking at the next
year’s grade-level benchmark scores at
the same or slightly higher percentile
ranking allows goal writers to predict
growth for students. The Common Core
and developmental milestone tables
also describe skills’ progressions in
different areas (National Governors
Association Center for Best Practices &
Council of State School Officers, 2010a,
2010b). Finally, published sources
provide guidelines for expected growth
rates in reading rates (e.g., Hasbrouck
& Tindal, 2006) and math and writing
scores (e.g., Hosp, Hosp, & Howell,
2007). For example, Fuchs and Fuchs
(1993 [as cited in Hosp et al., 2007])
suggested realistic and ambitious
growth rates of 0.7 and 1.15 digits
correct per week, respectively, for
fourth graders completing math
assessments. Multiplying these growth
rates by expected weeks of intervention
estimates increases in students’ scores
over time. Adding the increase to
students’ PLAAFP score results in
specific mastery criteria. These
methods, however, generally rely on
data from typically achieving students.
Students with IEPs may follow atypical
growth patterns, taking longer to
acquire academic skills than their
peers, or teachers may attempt to
accelerate growth. Professionals can

instead examine students’ own growth
rates to estimate 1 year’s growth for
realistic IEP criteria.

To estimate expected change in a
particular student’s performance for
the upcoming year from previous years’
growth, professionals first calculate his
or her average weekly growth. This is
done by finding the student’s overall
change in performance over a period
(ending score – beginning score) and
dividing by the number of weeks of the
intervention. The average of at least
the five most recently collected data
points/scores provides a baseline for
growth in the upcoming period (Hosp
et al., 2007).

Mr. Chen knew that Andre had been
making steady progress in his reading
rate over the past year, so he decided to
base mastery criteria for the new IEP
goal on Andre’s current growth rate.
First, Mr. Chen found Andre’s average
weekly growth rate by

•• Calculating Andre’s change in
reading rate by subtracting his score
at the start of intervention from his
ending score (WCPM: 48 – 32 =
16-word increase during the
intervention period)

•• Finding his weekly rate change by
dividing the overall rate by the
number of weeks of the intervention
(16-word increase divided by 16
weeks = 1 word/week)

Mr. Chen then used Andre’s growth rate
to set mastery criteria by

•• Multiplying the growth rate by the
number of expected weeks of the
intervention (1 word per week × 36
weeks of intervention in the
upcoming year = 36-word increase
total)

•• Adding Andre’s PLAAFP score
(WCPM: 48) to his expected increase
(36) = 84

Mr. Chen then completed the same
process using digits correct to estimate a
1-year step for Mikenna. He decided to
write STOs so that he and the students
could track progress toward mastery
levels.

TEACHING ExcEptional childrEn | novEmbEr/dEcEmbEr 2018 107

As shown in Figure 3, STOs can be
represented as stair steps moving
students from their PLAAFPs (i.e., the
bottom of the staircase) to their annual
goal levels (i.e., the top of the
staircase). Using STOs as benchmarking
points makes it possible for educators
to monitor whether students are on
track to achieve the mastery levels of
the IEP goals. In the example shown in
Figure 3, the number of problems
correct gradually increases,
demonstrating that the student’s
performance shifts from PLAAFP to the
level of mastery criteria over time. This
method considers quantitative scores
only. However, STOs can reflect
component or subskills that support
overarching IEP goals. For example,
before achieving mastery criteria on a
fourth-grade math computation CBM,
students need to successfully solve and
write answers to all types of operations

using whole numbers and some
fractions. Each STO could then address
a different operation to support the
overarching IEP goal. Similarly, if the
student’s annual goal was to use the
toilet independently, STOs might
include component skills (i.e.,
awareness of need to use the toilet,
dressing, hand washing).

Mr. Chen decided that providing STOs
would encourage Mikenna and help
motivate her by showing her progress.
On the fifth-grade CBM that she would
use the following year, Mikenna needed
to add, subtract, multiply, and divide
single- and multidigit numbers and
complete operations with fractions with
like denominators. The fifth-grade CBM
also included problems with percents
and decimals. Following the same
format as the IEP goal, Mr. Chen selected
three skills (multiplication, division,
fractions/percents) as STOs supporting

Mikenna’s IEP goal of solving and
writing the answers to problems on the
CBM. For example, the first STO read
“Given a teacher-made assessment with
10 one-, two-, and three-digit
multiplication problems, as well as
unlimited time, pencil, paper, and verbal
prompts as needed to support
engagement, Mikenna will solve and
write the answer to 8 of 10 problems by
[date].”

For Andre’s IEP, Mr. Chen had set a
realistic oral reading target score of 84
WCPM. He decided to establish STOs by
evenly distributing the reading rate
increase over the entire year. He divided
the expected increase of 36 WCPM into
equal parts (36/4 = 9) to match
grading periods in the school year.
Mastery criteria for each STO therefore
included a 9-WCPM increase in Andre’s
reading rate: STO 1 = 57, STO 2 = 66,
STO 3 = 75, STO 4 = 84.

Figure 3. Stair step model illustrating relationship among individualized education program goals and short-term
objectives (CBM = curriculum-based measure)

108 council for ExcEptional childrEn

Retention criteria. Retention
criteria refer to the number of probes
or trials in which the student needs to
demonstrate mastery-level
performance. Students may achieve
mastery-level performance once
through random chance; as such, using
a series of trials or a mean score over
several probes establishes that the
student has truly mastered the skill.
Retention criteria can be written in
different patterns, such as “two of
three trials,” “four of five probes,”
“three consecutive trials,” or “average
score across four trials.” This might be
appropriate for skills such as reading
fluency (WCPM) or comprehension in
which students complete multiple sets
of questions with different passages.
Similarly, steps completed correctly in
a task analysis of functional skills (e.g.,
toothbrushing) can be used as
retention criteria: an average of 10 of
12 steps correct in three consecutive
probes. The average is calculated with
students’ scores on probes closest to
the target date for the IEP goal.

Mr. Chen knew that when students
are familiar with the passage topic,
their rate and comprehension would be
better than when the topic was
unfamiliar. He did not want Andre to
meet his IEP goal criteria simply
because he was familiar with the topic.
To control for this, he decided to have
Andre read three different passages
during progress monitoring and to
report the median score. Andre’s
median reading rate across 2 weeks of
progress monitoring had to meet or
exceed the WCPM criteria for each STO.

Adding a date for completion makes
IEP goals and STOs time limited. Target
scores used in IEP goals and STOs are
estimates of the progress that students
will make in an allotted period. The
completion date for IEP goals is typically
1 year from the date when they were
adopted and approved in the IEP meeting
(Wright & Wright, 2006). Dates for STOs
(if included) and accompanying progress-
monitoring dates are often distributed
across the academic year but may or may
not align with the ends of academic
quarters. Whereas phrases such as “in 1

year” or “after 9 weeks” introduce
ambiguity into IEP goals, including
specific dates makes reading and
evaluating progress toward target scores
more comprehensible for parents. If

students are not on track to achieve
mastery of IEP goals by target dates,
professionals can implement different
interventions or increase the intensity of
current interventions to accelerate
students’ progress. As a last resort,
mastery criteria for IEP goals can be
changed to reflect the new rates of
growth; however, in keeping with the
Endrew decision, educators should avoid
writing the same goals year after year
with minimal evidence of student
progress toward mastery. As with
previous components, the self-monitoring
checklist (Figure 1) guides professionals
in evaluating the presence and quality of
time-limiting components of IEP goals.

Implications for Practice

Teachers and other professionals
working with students with disabilities
continue to need assistance in
developing SMART IEP goals.
Appropriate IEP goals guide
practitioners as they work with
students with disabilities. SMART goals
also help school district personnel to
demonstrate fulfillment of IDEA’s
requirements and communicate
expectations to parents of children with
IEPs. SMART goals based on students’
present levels of performance with an
emphasis on their strengths and needs
communicate expectations and
eliminate ambiguities. The
recommended template—which
includes conditions, learner, behavior,
and criteria—can assist professionals in
developing goals that meet the rigorous
demands of a legal contract with
parents. Although goal writers may
understand SMART IEP goals and have
adequate PLAAFPs to write them,

district or state requirements may
complicate their task. Districts and
states set policies for writing IEPs for
students with disabilities to which
personnel must adhere.

Special Considerations

In some cases, states and/or districts
require special considerations for IEP
goals. These may impact a teacher’s
ability to create SMART goals.

Standards-Based IEP Goals

Some districts require that IEP goals
reflect grade-level, Common Core, or
state standards with STOs specifying
behaviors and criteria related to
students’ skills. Tying specific skills to
the Common Core may be difficult,
particularly for older students working
far below grade level on academic skills
or those working on functional skills
(e.g., a high school student learning to
do laundry independently). It may be
appropriate to develop an IEP goal
related to a foundational reading skill
for students who have not mastered
phonics or fluent reading; however,
these skills are generally associated
with standards for Grades 1 to 4.
Consequently, writing an IEP goal
associated with grade-level standards
may be difficult, especially when
district policy requires that only grade-
level standards be used. In these cases,
professionals can write the overarching
IEP goal using a general standard (in
this case, reading) that aligns with the
specific IEP skill. STOs can then address
the more specific component skills
associated with a lower-grade standard
that support the broad IEP goal. For
example, for Mikenna’s goal standard,
Mr. Chen could have used CCSS.
MathContent.4.NBTB.6: “Find whole-
number quotients and remainders with
up to four-digit dividends and one-digit
divisors” (National Governors
Association Center for Best Practices &
Council of State School Officers, 2010b).

The recommended template—which includes
conditions, learner, behavior, and criteria—can assist
professionals in developing goals that meet the
rigorous demands of a legal contract with parents.

TEACHING ExcEptional childrEn | novEmbEr/dEcEmbEr 2018 109

Mikenna’s STOs in this case might
focus on subskills that she must learn
to successfully complete division
problems (e.g., creating “groups of”
from a given number of objects or
understanding division as the reverse of
multiplication). All of these STOs allow
Mikenna to work toward a grade-level
standard. Although this method works,
tying IEP goals to grade-level standards
will continue to pose problems for goal
writers when students are working well
below grade level.

Mapping Social and Functional
Area Goals to Learning Standards

Writing IEP goals for social and
functional areas can be difficult for a
number of reasons. Few widely
accepted methods are available for (a)
establishing present levels of
performance, (b) determining what a
“typical” performance might be (for
comparison with that of peers), (c)
finding the current rate of growth, or
(d) estimating the change in student
performance for the next year. For
example, professionals may not have
available CBMs, surveys, or checklists
to collect data on a child’s current
functioning. Similarly, learning
standards and benchmarking tables
with expected rates of growth over
time may not be available for social or
functional skills, or they may contain a
broad range of ages during which
individuals master certain skills.

Some states have adopted social-
emotional learning standards that
provide some guidance for goal writers
(e.g., Illinois State Board of Education).
Although not all states have social-
emotional learning standards with
descriptions of age-related milestones,
some professional organizations have
developed sets of such standards
grounded in research (e.g., CASEL).
These standards help professionals
identify social skills that students need
to better function across environments
(Dusenbury, Zadrazil, Mart, &
Weissberg, 2011).

In the case of functional skills,
district personnel may require that
functional goals be tied to grade-level

Common Core standards. Math and
English language arts standards, albeit
advanced, may align somewhat with
skills that students learn in secondary
classes as they prepare for
postsecondary life. However, IEP goals
focused on daily living, self-care, and
leisure activities may require some
creative interpretation of standards. For
example, an IEP goal focused on
independent living skills, such as doing
laundry and cooking, might reference
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RST.9-10.3: “Follow
precisely a complex multi-step
procedure when carrying out
experiments, taking measurements, or
performing technical tasks, attending
to special cases or exceptions defined
in the text” (National Governors
Association Center for Best Practices &
Council of State School Officers,
2010b).

Prioritizing IEP Goals

Although there is no required number of
goals, each area in which students
receive services contributes at least one
goal. The final determination of how
many goals is highly individualized. IEP
teams work together to interpret and
summarize baseline data after they are
collected. The team, which includes the
parents, then prioritizes skills most
important for students. The team
considers the students’ strengths and
needs, the learning standards, the age
appropriateness, and the areas with the
greatest potential impact across
contexts, including home and school. In
addition, teams consider the available
time and the impact of providing special
education services on the students’
current and future inclusion with
typically achieving peers. Due to the
Endrew case, teams may want to reflect
on whether making greater progress on
a few core skills benefits the student
more than making little progress toward
a large number of goals.

Computer-Generated IEPs

Districts’ use of computerized or
electronic IEPs has increased over the
years, making IEPs easier to write and
more uniform. Electronic forms allow

multiple service providers to access
documents, manage IEP dates, quickly
input demographic information, and
create goals from a database within
the program (More & Hart, 2013;
Serfass & Peterson, 2007; Wilson,
Michaels, & Margolis, 2005). Goal
banks in these programs, however,
may not offer useful or appropriate
choices, or the goals offered may lack
specificity (Wilson et al., 2005). More
and Hart Barnett (2014) observed that
goals in computerized programs often
“fail to match the student’s learning,
behavioral, and social needs, and are
not clearly observable and
measurable” (p. 104), which in turn
limits goal writers’ ability to
individualize for students. Most IEP
programs allow users to individually
create goals to add to goal banks for
review and later use. This may require
training that teachers may not receive
(More & Hart, 2013; More & Hart
Barnett, 2014). District personnel
considering electronic IEP programs
can determine whether the program’s
options allow sufficient flexibility in
formatting the IEP goals so that they
are individualized. Although goals do
not have to follow condition-learner-
behavior-criteria sequence, SMART
goals contain all these components.
Optimal electronic options allow for
these details and provide professionals
with the option of writing their own
IEP goals and STOs.

Conclusion

Well-written annual goals and STOs
based on current and accurate PLAAFPs
are the core of legally defensible IEPs.
Professionals who use the condition-
learner-behavior-criteria template
produce SMART IEP goals. The template
allows for more or less specificity in the
conditions for performance of the
behavior, in selecting measures for
particular behaviors that fit district and
school practices, and in determining
growth rates on which to base 1-year
steps for students. Although
professionals from various disciplines
may have different approaches to
writing IEP goals and STOs and

110 council for ExcEptional childrEn

establishing criteria, the structured
template can provide some common
ground for conversations within districts
and schools. This in turn may result in
SMART goals and STOs that benefit all
stakeholders in the IEP process.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support
for the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.

References

Dusenbury, L., Zadrazil, J., Mart, A., &
Weissberg, R. (2011). State learning
standards to advance social and
emotional learning: The state scan of
social and emotional learning standards,
preschool through high school. Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago.

Fountas, I., & Pinnell, G. S. (2016).
Benchmark assessment system (3rd ed.).
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. A. (2006).
Oral reading fluency norms: A valuable
assessment tool for reading teachers.
The Reading Teacher, 59, 636–644.
doi:10.1598/RT.59.7.3

Hosp, M. K., Hosp, J. L., & Howell, K. W.
(2007). The ABCs of CBMs: A practical
guide to curriculum-based measurement.
New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,
20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).

Jung, L. A. (2007). Writing SMART
objectives and strategies that

fit the ROUTINE. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 39(4), 54–58.
doi:10.1177/004005990703900406

More, C. M., & Hart, J. E. (2013).
Maximizing the use of electronic
individualized education
program software. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 48(6), 24–29.
doi:10.1177/004005991304500603

More, C. M., & Hart Barnett, J. E. (2014).
Developing individualized IEP goals in
the age of technology: Quality challenges
and solutions. Preventing School Failure,
58, 103–109.

National Governors Association Center for
Best Practices & Council of State School
Officers. (2010a). Common Core State
Standards for English language Arts/
science and technical subjects: Grade
9–10. Retrieved from http://www
.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/RST/9-
10/3/

National Governors Association Center for
Best Practices & Council of State School
Officers. (2010b). Common Core State
Standards for mathematics: Grade 4.
Retrieved from http://www.corestand
ards.org/Math/Content/4/NBT/B/6/

Pretti-Frontczak, K., & Bricker, D.
(2000). Enhancing the quality
of individualized education plan
(IEP) goals and objectives. Journal
of Early Intervention, 23, 92–105.
doi:10.1177/105381510002300204

Spiel, C. F., Evans, S. W., & Langberg,
J. M. (2014). Evaluating the content
of individualized education programs
and 504 plans of young adolescents

with attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder. School Psychology Quarterly,
29, 452–468. doi:10.1037/spq0000101

Serfass, C., & Peterson, R. L. (2007).
A guide to computer-managed
IEP record systems. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 40, 16–21.
doi:10.1177/004005990704000102

U.S. Department of Education. (2017).
Questions and answers (Q & A) on U.S.
Supreme Court Case decision Endrew F.
v Douglas County School District Re-1.
Washington, DC: Author.

Wilson, G. L., Michaels, C. A., &
Margolis, H. (2005). Form versus
function: Using technology to develop
individualized education programs for
students with disabilities. The Journal
of Special Education, 20(2), 37–46.
doi:10.1177/016264340502000204

Wright, P., & Wright, P. (2006).
Wrightslaw: From emotions to advocacy
(2nd ed.). Hartfield, VA: Harbor House
Law Press.

Laura Hedin, Associate Professor, and
Stephanie DeSpain, Assistant Professor,
Department of Special and Early Education,
Northern Illinois University, DeKalb.

Address correspondence concerning this
article to Laura Hedin, Northern Illinois
University, 162J Gabel Hall, DeKalb, IL
60115 (e-mail: lhedin@niu.edu).

TEACHING Exceptional Children,
Vol. 51, No. 2, pp. 100–110.
Copyright 2018 The Author(s).

journals.sagepub.com

SAGE Deep Backfile
Deep Backfile for SAGE’s peer-reviewed scholarly journals are available in a wide range of subject areas,
including business; humanities and social sciences; and science, technology, and medicine.

• Deep Backfile of over 560 journals.

• More than 760,000 articles.

• Lease and purchase of one entire deep backfile or individual
titles available for individual libraries and library consortia.

• Coverage back to Volume 1, Issue 1, through the last issue
of 1998.

• Content ownership of purchased content.

• Journal Backfile articles posted in PDF format
with XML based headers, abstracts and references.

For more information please visit sagepub.com/sage-backfile-packages
or contact librarysales@sagepub.com

http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/RST/9-10/3/

http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Content/4/NBT/B/6/

Copyright of Teaching Exceptional Children is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.

© 2018, 2011 PACER Center, Inc. | ACTion Sheet: PHP-c186
8161 Normandale Blvd. Minneapolis, MN 55437 | Phone (952) 838-9000 | MN Toll-Free (800) 537-2237
PACER@PACER.org | PACER.org

PACER CENTER

ACTION
INFORMATION SHEETS

A Place to Start: Understanding the present
levels of academic achievement and functional
performance statement
A student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) team expects special education services to help the student
meet their unique needs and prepare him or her for further education, employment, and independent living.1
As a foundation for higher achievement and IEP goals, the IEP team will identify:

• The child’s current levels of learning or performance
• The effect or impact of the child’s disability on learning

This process can be compared to planning a trip to another city: You need to know where you are beginning
as well what may make your trip more challenging. The team will see where your child is beginning and how
the disability impacts learning.

The IEP team, including the parents, will ask these important questions at the annual IEP meeting:
• What are the disability-related challenges affecting the student’s progress and participation in the general

education curriculum?
• At what academic and functional levels2 is the student performing right now? (Where is the student’s

starting point?)
• What strategies, accommodations, and assistive technology have already been successful for the student’s

learning? Has the student had an assistive technology evaluation?
• What are the grade-level academic standards3 for the student’s grade? How do the student’s skills

compare to those standards?
• Does the student behave and learn with age-appropriate developmental skills?
• How does the student perform in non-school environments? (Information provided by family)
• What does the student think is working or not working during the school day?
• Is there any other information we need to provide a complete picture of the student?4

The answers to these questions will be documented every year as the present levels of academic achievement
and functional performance (PLAAFP) statement on the IEP. A student’s annual IEP will be the map guiding
him or her from beginning levels of performance to higher levels of performance (IEP goals).

The PLAAFP statement will give a snapshot of the student at a particular time and place. It will describe the
levels at which the student is currently working academically and functionally. This includes a description of a
student’s strengths and needs. Areas the team will consider include:

1 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 601(d)(1)
2 As used in special education, functional means routine activities of everyday living. Federal Register, August 14, 2006, Analysis of
Comments and Changes, page 46661.
3 Minnesota follows a set of academic standards in language arts, math, social studies, English language proficiency and science for
kindergarten through 12th grade. The standards describe what all students in a particular grade are expected to know and be able to
do. School districts have chosen various curricula to teach these skills to their students.
4 See PACER’s handout “Six Areas that May Affect IEP Services” PACER.org/parent/php/php-c221

© 2018, 2011 PACER Center, Inc. | ACTion Sheet: PHP-c186 | PACER.org 2

• Academic
• Communication
• Functional
• General intelligence
• Health
• Motor or physical
• Sensory (such as vision and hearing)
• Social and emotional
• Transition to postsecondary adult living (beginning in ninth grade)

The PLAAFP statement will include information gathered from various sources including:

• Ending levels of performance on last year’s goals
• Any new special education assessment results
• Performance on district and statewide assessments, including identification of skills and knowledge

already attained in relation to academic grade-level standards
• Classroom grades and observations, including behavior data
• Information from the student and parents (you have important information to share about your child and

you and school professionals may see your child in different ways in different environments and situations)
• Interests and strengths, including non-curricular areas (these can provide valuable information about a

student’s abilities, potential for learning, and possible motivators)
• Any strategies, accommodations, or assistive technology devices or services that have already shown

success

It is important to note that the student’s regular education teacher, a required member of the IEP team, is a
key team member.5

• This teacher is familiar with grade-level and age-level expectations for all children so he or she will know
how a student is doing on grade-level skills compared to peers.

• The team will want to make sure that the designated regular education teacher brings the appropriate
information to the IEP meeting. For example, an art teacher may be a child’s regular education teacher
but may not be familiar with the child’s reading and math skills.

• Depending on the time of year that the meeting is held, a regular education teacher for the next grade
level may be the best source of regular education information needed for development of this IEP.

• Other teachers may attend or submit written information as well.

The information in the PLAAFP section of the IEP should be written in brief, clear, specific, and accurate
statements with enough information to describe the student’s current skill levels in objective, measurable terms.
If scores are reported, they should either be self-explanatory or explained.6

The PLAAFP statement will lead to the development of annual goals, accommodations, modifications, and
other IEP services. All IEP goals should be connected to the PLAAFP statement. Parents knowledgeable about
the PLAAFP statement and the IEP process can be an effective part of the IEP team and help their child work
toward higher achievement.

5 The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) states that the school district must assign one regular education teacher of
the student to be at the IEP meeting if the student is or may be participating in the regular education environment during this IEP
year. Though parents may agree in writing to excuse one or more IEP team members, PACER recommends that all required IEP team
members be present in order to plan an appropriate IEP for a student.
6 See PACER’s Handout PHP-c253, Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance (PLAAFP) Examples

Date: Click or tap to enter a date.

Week 5: IEP Goals Worksheet

Your Name:

Click or tap here to enter text.

Directions: Complete all parts of this document to draft an IEP goal.

1. Write an IEP SMART goal:

Click or tap here to enter text.

Need help?
Consider using one of the following templates to craft your IEP goals in SMART goal format:

1. In order to _____________ (relevant goal), ____________ (specific, measurable, achievable action) before _______ (deadline).

2. _____________ (specific, measurable, achievable action) by _____ (deadline) in order to ________ (relevant goal).

3. Before _______ (deadline), ___________ (specific, measurable, achievable action) in order to ________ (relevant goal).

2. Explain how your IEP goal is SMART. Be sure to answer in one to two complete sentences.

Click or tap here to enter text.

Click or tap here to enter text.

Click or tap here to enter text.

Click or tap here to enter text.

Click or tap here to enter text.

S Specific	Explain how your academic goal is specific :
M Measurable	Explain how your academic goal is measurable :
A Achievable	Explain how your academic goal is achievable :
R Relevant	Explain how your academic goal is relevant :
T Time Bound	Explain how your academic goal is time bound :

Review

the Following Excerpts from Henry’s Evaluation Report

Biographical Information

Name Henry _________

Date of Birth __/__/______

Gender Male

Age ___ years old

Grade ___

School or Learning Center _______________

Parent’s Phone Number (___)___-______

Parent’s Email Address ___________@______.____

Reason for Referral

Henry is a transfer student to the school who enrolled approximately three weeks after the start of the

school year. His previous school did not send past school records. Henry is currently in an inclusive

classroom that is being co-taught by Mr. Franklin and an educator representing special education.

Henry is a quiet young man who sits near the back of the classroom and is reluctant to participate in

whole-group discussions. When asked to read aloud, Henry will comply; his verbal expression is

restrained, but he is unable to decode each word. While reading silently during independent practice, he

struggles with answering grade-level comprehension questions that require higher-level thinking skills. In

group-work settings, Henry will listen and doodle to avoid peer requests for his involvement.

Parent concerns:

• Academic

• Attention

• Spelling

• Reading

• Written language

• Schoolwork/homework

• Memory

Response to Intervention

(Image credit: polo.k12.mo.us, n.d.)

PAST INTERVENTION:

Henry has received extra remediation in the below academic areas:

Reading Intervention:

Reported by Parent: Henry has been receiving individualized reading tutoring one hour per week for the

past two years from a registered tutor.

Reported by Mr. Franklin: Henry has received Tier 1, 2, and 3 interventions since entering his classroom.

Writing Intervention:

Reported by Parent: Henry has been receiving individualized writing tutoring one hour per week for the

past two years from a registered tutor.

Reported by Mr. Franklin: Henry has received Tier 1, 2, and 3 interventions since entering his classroom.

Spelling Intervention:

Reported by Parent: Henry has been receiving individualized spelling tutoring one hour per week for the

past two years from a registered tutor.
Reported by Mr. Franklin: Henry has received Tier 1, 2, and 3 interventions since entering his classroom.

Mathematics Intervention:

Reported by Parent: Henry has not required any additional remediation in the academic area.

Reported by Mr. Franklin: Henry has received Tier 1 interventions for story problems and written

instructions since entering his classroom.

https://polo.k12.mo.us/StaffPages/WestoverA_web/response_to_intervention.htm

PAST INTERVENTION SUMMARY:

Based on the above information, parents and instructor report evidence of Intensive, Individualized Tier 3

intervention implemented for the following areas: Reading, Writing, and Spelling.

Behavioral Observations during Testing

During the reading portion of the education assessment, Henry told the assessor that he didn’t like reading

because he “isn’t very good at it.” He also said that his mom takes him to the library once a week, but he

has a difficult time finding a book the he likes and usually ends up checking out a movie or CD instead.

Although Henry mentioned, several times, how he does not like reading, he was willing to try each

portion of the assessment and seemed to be putting forth his best effort. It is relevant to mention that after

each subtest, Henry asked the assessor if he did “a good job?”

Based on Henry’s overall performance on the education assessment and his academic history, the

evaluation results appear to be a valid representation of his abilities.

Sources of Information, Tests, and Procedures

Personal Observations and Interviews:

Henry (student)

Henry’s parents

Teacher reports

Classroom observation

Formal and Informal Assessments:

Woodcock-Johnson Test of Achievement

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-V)

Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-Third Edition- (WIAT-III)

Curriculum Based Measurements (CBM)—Filed with Mr. Franklin

Student portfolio—Filed with Mr. Franklin

Test Results

Woodcock-Johnson, Education Assessment:

The following is a summary of Henry’s current performance in reading, math and language/content:

Letter-Word Identification: Henry was asked to read a list of words beginning at his level of

independence and gradually becoming more difficult. He scored within the low average range (standard

score: 88)

Word Attack: Henry was asked to decode (phonetically pronounce) a list of nonsense words using letter

patterns that gradually advanced in difficulty. He scored within the low average range (standard score: 87)

Passage Comprehension: Henry was asked to read a passage (beginning at his level of independence)

silently and then verbally provide the omitted word. This subtest measured Henry’s level of reading

comprehension. He scored within the low range (standard score: 77)

Reading Vocabulary: Henry was asked to provide the antonym (opposite) and synonym (same) for two

separate vocabulary lists, and then he was asked to complete analogies. He scored within the low range

(standards score: 76)

Writing Fluency: Henry was asked to formulate and write sentences comprised of three given words

along with a picture within a 7-minute timeframe. He scored within the low average range (standards

score: 82)

Writing Samples: Henry was asked to formulate sentences that combine visual and auditory information.

There is no penalty, in this subtest, for basic writing, spelling or punctuation errors. He scored within the

average range (standard score: 92)

Math Calculation: Henry was asked to complete basic addition, subtraction, multiplication and division

equations gradually advancing in difficult to more complex computations involving decimals, fractions

and geometry. He scored within the average range (standards score: 95)

Math Fluency: Henry was asked to complete simple addition, subtraction and multiplication facts within

a 3-minute timeframe. He scored within the average range (standard score: 90)

Conclusions

Strengths: Henry’s strengths are in math calculation and fluency where he scored in the average range.

He also excelled in completing the “Writing Samples” and “Letter-Word Identification” subtest that

requires visual and auditory information input.

Areas of Need: Based on the assessments administered, it is evident that Henry struggles in the areas of

reading and vocabulary comprehension. In the subtests that required “Passage Comprehension (standards

score: 78), “Reading Vocabulary” (standard score: 76) and “Writing Fluency” (standard score: 76), Henry

scored in the low range. These scores indicate an area of need in demonstrating vocabulary and reading

comprehension skills. Although considered low- average, Henry struggled with phonetics of non-sight

words in the “Word Attack” subtest (standard score: 87).

WISC-V COGNITIVE BATTERY ASSESSMENT:

WISC-V Indexes Composite

Score

Percentile

Rank

95%

Confidence

Interval

Qualitative

Description

PRIMARY INDEXES

Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI)

Visual Spatial Index (VSI)

Fluid Reasoning Index (FRI)

Working Memory Index (WMI)

Processing Speed Index (PSI)

Full Scale Intelligence Quotient (FSIQ)

ANCILLARY INDEXES

Auditory Working Memory Index

(AWMI)

Nonverbal Index (NVI)

General Ability Index (GAI)

Cognitive Proficiency Index (CPI)

9

5

115

115

7

7

78

9

6

78

97

105

78

37

84

84
6
7

39

7

4

2

63

7

87-

103

106-122

106-122

71-88

72-91

91-

102

73-85

91-103

99-111

72-87

Average

High Average

High Average

Very Low

Very Low
Average

Very Low

Average
Average
Very Low

WIAT-III EDUCATIONAL BATTERY ASSESSMENT:

WIAT-III

Subtest

Standard

Score

95%
Confidence
Interval
Percentile

Qualitative

Description

< 15th

%ile

READING

Word Reading

– Word Reading Speed

89

85-93

23

50

Low Average

Pseudoword Decoding

– Pseudoword Decoding Speed

Oral Reading Fluency

– Oral Reading Accuracy

– Oral Reading Rate

Basic Reading Composite

MATHEMATICS

Numerical Operations

Maths Reasoning

Maths Fluency

WRITTEN LANGUAGE

Alphabet Writing Fluency

Sentence Composition

Essay Composition

– Word Count

– Theme Dev. and Text Org.

– Grammar and Mechanics

Spelling

89

81

81

82

95

103

100

102

97

107

75

86

68

82

83

85-93

69-93

69-93

70-94

90-99

94-1

12

92-1

10

93-1

13

81-113

97-117

64-86

76-90

23
50
10
10
12
39

58

50

56

42
68
5

18

2
12
13
Low Average

Low Average
Low Average
Low Average
Average

Average
Average
Average

Average
Average
Very Low

Low Average
Extremely Low

Low Average
Low Average

Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes

Summary & Recommendations

Student Summary: At this time, there have been no records transferred from Henry’s previous school for

teachers and other school personnel to review. Parents report he was under evaluation for concerns in the

classroom. Because there is no background information, the team is only able to use the current class

performance and his educational assessment regarding his ability levels and eligibility for services

provided under IDEA. It is evident from the teacher and parent reports along with classroom observation

that Henry’s area of weakness is in reading and vocabulary comprehension.

The assessment results indicate that Henry is not making effective progress in the areas of reading and

vocabulary comprehension at his grade level. If allowed to continue without proper support and

intervention strategies, he will continue to fall behind his same-aged peers as he progresses through each

grade level.