A Goal That Cannot Be Measured, and a Parent Asking About the State Test
At an annual IEP review for Nadia, a sixth grader with a specific learning disability in written expression, the team drafts this goal: 'Nadia will improve her writing skills to 80% as measured by teacher-made tests.' Her most recent writing sample, scored on a district rubric, shows she writes three to four simple sentences on a topic, spells high-frequency words correctly, and rarely uses punctuation beyond periods; her handwriting is slow but legible. The general education teacher says Nadia 'refuses' to revise and shuts down during extended writing. The team has 45 minutes, the parent has brought a list of concerns about the state writing test, and the special education teacher wants to move on to the accommodation page.
1. Critique the drafted goal and rewrite it so it meets the requirements for a measurable annual goal.
Read the worked answer
The draft fails on almost every component. 'Improve writing skills' is not observable; 80% of what is undefined; there are no conditions, no timeframe, and no link to the baseline; and 'teacher-made tests' is not a reliable or repeatable measure across teachers.
A measurable annual goal needs: the learner, an observable behavior, the conditions under which it occurs, the criterion for acceptable performance, the timeframe, and a progress-monitoring method with a schedule. The criterion should be anchored to Nadia's baseline, not invented.
A defensible rewrite:
Given a grade-level narrative prompt and a planning graphic organizer, Nadia will write a five-sentence paragraph containing a topic sentence, three relevant detail sentences, and a concluding sentence, using correct end punctuation and capitalization, scoring at least 4 of 5 on the district writing rubric (organization and conventions) on three consecutive weekly probes by the end of the IEP year. Baseline: 2 of 5; three to four simple sentences with periods only.
Progress monitoring: a weekly ten-minute timed writing probe scored with the same rubric, graphed so the team can apply a decision rule rather than wait a year to find out the goal was never reachable.
2. The teacher describes Nadia as 'refusing' to revise. What present-level information does the team actually need before writing goals around this behavior?
Read the worked answer
'Refuses' is a conclusion, not data, and the team should not build a goal on a label. The present levels statement must describe what Nadia can currently do across each area affected by the disability, backed by evidence.
The team needs:
- Writing samples across genres and time limits - does the shutdown appear on extended writing only, or also on short responses? That distinction determines whether the target is endurance, planning, or revision specifically.
- Component skills: spelling inventory, sentence-combining tasks, handwriting fluency (letters per minute), and keyboarding rate, since slow transcription can cap composition quality.
- Observation during revision: what precedes the shutdown - a blank page, peer feedback, length of task, time of day, perceived evaluation? Note the consequence that follows.
- Self-regulation data: whether Nadia can plan, monitor, and revise when given an explicit strategy and checklist.
If the evidence points to executive-function and strategy gaps rather than defiance, the goals should target planning and revising with a taught strategy and scaffolded checklists, and the present levels should say so in observable terms. If task length is the trigger, that belongs in accommodations or in how assignments are structured - not in a behavior goal that frames her as noncompliant.
3. The parent wants to know whether Nadia can have a scribe or a word processor on the state writing test. How should the team reason about accommodation versus modification?
Read the worked answer
The organizing question is what the test is measuring. Accommodations change how the student accesses the task; modifications change what the student is expected to demonstrate. If the state writing test scores written expression, a scribe who transcribes Nadia's dictated sentences may be acceptable; a scribe who composes or edits for her is a modification because someone else is producing the construct being measured.
The team should decide on documented need, not on score outcomes - choosing an accommodation to raise a score is not a legitimate basis, and giving a student tools she does not use in class is a compliance problem, not a support.
The defensible sequence:
- Verify against the state's allowable accommodations list - states publish what is permitted and what invalidates the score.
- Confirm the student uses the tool routinely in instruction; an accommodation should be one she already relies on for access.
- Tie the decision to present-level data (e.g., keyboarding rate versus handwriting rate).
- Note the diploma and standards implications of any modification, and document the rationale in the IEP.
The team should answer the parent directly in the meeting rather than deferring to the accommodation page without explanation - and if the 45 minutes are insufficient, schedule a continuation rather than rushing the decision.