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 yourInclusion: Effective Practices for All Studentstext.
Read
SMART or Not? Writing Specific, Measurable IEP Goals
.
Read
How to Tell if Your Childs 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 linteractive related to this weeks 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.
Consideryourgoal 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 students 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 Henrys annual IEP meeting, his present levels of academic and functional performance are discussed. You are still concerned for Henrys 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 students 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 Henrys 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 Henrys 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
77
/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 disabilitiesMikenna
and Andrewho 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). Endrews 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
childs 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 students
performance in comparison with that of
same-aged or grade-level peers.
For Mikennas PLAAFP section, Mr.
Chen reported the number of problems
correct and the percentile ranking on
grade-level curriculum-based measures
(CBMs) as well as Mikennas most
recent standardized test scores in math.
Mikennas 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
students 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 readinglevel 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.
aGiven [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 progressanother
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 Mikennas IEP
specific by including materials to
measure her performance: a fifth-grade
curriculum-based math assessment. He
remembered that he had collected
Mikennas 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 Andres IEP meeting,
Mr. Chen looked at his IEP goals from
the past 2 years (i.e., second and third
grade). Mr. Chen noted that Andres
reading rate targetsspecifically, words
correct per minute (WCPM)had
increased by only 10 to 12 each year;
however, Andres 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 Andres 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
midfourth grade) would be Andres
goal for this years 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 specificanother
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 Mikennas 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 Mikennas 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 criteriathe 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
limitedthe 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 Andres 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, Mikennas 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 years time. Benchmark tables
show percentile rankings for scores
organized into grade levels and
marking periods (e.g., Hasbrouck
&Tindal, 2006). Looking at the next
years 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 years growth for
realistic IEP criteria.
To estimate expected change in a
particular students performance for
the upcoming year from previous years
growth, professionals first calculate his
or her average weekly growth. This is
done by finding the students 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 Andres current growth rate.
First, Mr. Chen found Andres average
weekly growth rate by
Calculating Andres 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 Andres 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 Andres 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 students
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
students 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
Mikennas 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 Andres 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 Andres
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
