Six Data Points and a Request to Make the Graph Look Better
Mr. Delgado monitors a reading fluency IEP goal for Ana, a fourth grader: 90 words correct per minute on grade-level passages by June. Her September baseline was 42 wcpm. He has collected one-minute probes every week for six weeks, using different fourth-grade passages: 44, 46, 45, 47, 46, 48. Her comprehension on the same passages averages 3 of 8 questions correct, and her accuracy is 89%. The principal's designee asks him to "move her to an easier level so the graph shows growth for the state report," and Ana's mother asks at conferences whether Ana is "almost at her goal."
1. Interpret the data using a decision rule, and check whether the measure itself is sound.
Read the worked answer
Compute both lines before deciding anything.
- Aim line: 42 to 90 is a 48-point gain across roughly 34 instructional weeks - about 1.4 wcpm per week.
- Trend line: 44 to 48 over five weeks is about 0.8 wcpm per week, roughly half the needed rate.
- Decision rule: with at least four to six data points and a trend consistently below the aim line, the intervention changes, not the goal. Six flat-to-slow points is enough to act; waiting until spring wastes months.
- Check the measure. Accuracy of 89% is below the roughly 95% needed for fluency practice to build rather than cement errors, and comprehension at 3/8 is low. Her practice materials are too hard even though the progress-monitoring passages are correctly at grade level.
So the data support intensifying instruction, not raising the passage level.
2. How should Mr. Delgado respond to the request to change passage levels for the state report?
Read the worked answer
He should decline, respectfully but clearly, and offer the alternative.
- The IEP goal is written against grade-level passages. Changing the monitoring level changes what the number means, destroys comparability across weeks, and would overstate Ana's performance to her mother, the team, and the state.
- The important distinction is instructional level versus progress-monitoring level. Instruction can and should move to easier text so Ana practices at roughly 95% accuracy with modeling, error correction, and repeated reading. Progress monitoring should stay fixed at grade level so the trend stays interpretable.
- Offer the administrator a graph with both lines and the decision rule written on it, plus the intervention change he is making and the date of the next data review.
- State plainly that altering the measure to improve reported growth is a data-integrity issue and, if it reaches parents or the state, a credibility problem for the school. Document the request and his response.
3. How should he answer the mother at conferences?
Read the worked answer
Show the graph and translate it into ordinary language.
- "In September Ana read 42 words correctly in a minute. Now she reads about 48. To reach 90 by June she needs to gain about a word and a half a week; she's gaining less than one."
- Say clearly that she is not on track, and then say exactly what changes: more explicit decoding and word work, text she can read at 95% accuracy during practice, and more frequent checks.
- Give a concrete next checkpoint - four to six weeks - and commit to showing her the updated graph then.
- Avoid "almost there" phrasing; the percentage of the goal reached will look further along than the pace actually is, and the honest number is the rate.
- Ask what she observes when Ana reads at home, and send home a short routine (paired reading, 10 minutes, easier books). Document the conversation.