Make the changes requested in feedback on a draft
When to use this goal
For students whose present levels show drafts resubmitted unchanged, or with the feedback argued rather than applied. Fits writing and project classes with revision cycles.
- Baseline
- Compare two or three recent drafts with their feedback and count items addressed over items given. Ask the student which feedback they chose not to apply and why; some disagreement is healthy, but refusing all of it is the pattern here.
- Tips
- The denominator is the number of specific requested changes; an item is addressed when the new version shows a change that responds to it, even if imperfect. A student may decline one item with a written reason; score that as addressed if the team agrees. Vague feedback (make it better) cannot be scored; ask teachers for specific items.
- Limits
- Feedback quality varies by teacher. Does not measure whether the revision is good; see writing rubric goals.
Original IEP Atlas template based on general measurement principles; not copied from any goal bank. ID ef-cf-012.
Sign in to add this goal to a student.
Goal
By the annual IEP review date, given written feedback with three or more specific requested changes on a draft, the student will make the requested changes in the next version independently with at least 85% accuracy on feedback items addressed, on 3 consecutive revised drafts, as measured by work-sample analysis collected each revision cycle.
Baseline: 30% accuracy.
- Condition
- Observable behavior
- Criterion
- Measurement method
Measurability check11 of 11 met
Met: Observable behavior. Stated as an action.
Met: Condition. Stated.
Met: Unit fits the behavior. Percent accuracy fits this behavior.
Met: Explicit criterion. Number and unit stated.
Met: Mastery rule and schedule. Both stated.
Met: Method produces the metric. Work-sample analysis gives percent accuracy data.
Met: Review timeframe. Stated.
Met: Baseline and target compatible. Same unit, change in the right direction.
Met: Aligned with area of need. Still about Cognitive Flexibility.
Met: Level of support. Defined.
Met: Blanks filled in. Nothing left to fill in.
Checks structure and wording only. Whether the goal fits the student is the team's call.
Short-term objectives (optional)
When are objectives required?Required for students on alternate assessments (34 CFR §300.320(a)(2)(ii)); some states require them for everyone.
Paste into your IEP system
Most district systems have a separate box for each part of a goal. Copy them one at a time, or all at once as labeled text.
- Area of need
- Executive Function - Cognitive Flexibility
- Baseline
- 30% accuracy.
- Annual goal345 characters
- By the annual IEP review date, given written feedback with three or more specific requested changes on a draft, the student will make the requested changes in the next version independently with at least 85% accuracy on feedback items addressed, on 3 consecutive revised drafts, as measured by work-sample analysis collected each revision cycle.
- Timeframe
- By the annual IEP review date
- Condition
- Given written feedback with three or more specific requested changes on a draft
- Behavior
- The student will make the requested changes in the next version independently
- Criteria
- With at least 85% accuracy on feedback items addressed, on 3 consecutive revised drafts
- Evaluation method
- Work-sample analysis
- Schedule
- Each revision cycle
Copied as plain text, with straight quotes and plain dashes.
Matching data sheet
Accuracy tracker. Records number correct and number attempted.
Accuracy tracker
Percent accuracy- Student label:
- Target:
- with at least 85% accuracy on feedback items addressed
- Mastery rule:
- on 3 consecutive revised drafts
- Collection schedule:
- each revision cycle
- Method:
- Work-sample analysis
- Data collector:
Goal: By the annual IEP review date, given written feedback with three or more specific requested changes on a draft, the student will make the requested changes in the next version independently with at least 85% accuracy on feedback items addressed, on 3 consecutive revised drafts, as measured by work-sample analysis collected each revision cycle.
| Date | Task / materials | # correct | # attempted | % accuracycorrect ÷ attempted × 100 | Support levele.g., independent, 1 verbal prompt | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Preview shows 4 of 12 rows.
- Score only items the student attempted unless the goal defines a fixed set of items. Use the same denominator every session.
- Percent = numerator ÷ denominator × 100. Round to one decimal place.
- Record the support actually provided, even if the goal is independent performance.
The CSV opens in Excel or Google Sheets, with formulas. Sheets print blank; no student data is stored.