Mark claims and evidence in an argument
When to use this goal
For high school students who read editorials, speeches, or primary sources for class but cannot pull the argument out for discussion or writing. Reading level should allow access with supports. Present levels, not grade, decide the text length.
- Baseline
- Make a teacher key for two or three argument texts listing the claim, reasons, and evidence. Score the student's marks against the key: correct marks over the number of key elements plus any extra wrong marks. Note whether errors are missed elements or opinion marked as evidence.
- Tips
- Count each key element once; extra marks on non-evidence lower the score, which discourages marking everything. Use the marked text right away in a discussion or a written response so the annotation has a purpose. Digital highlighters in three colors work well.
- Limits
- Texts differ in how clear their structure is; choose texts with a findable claim for data. Does not measure whether the student can evaluate the argument.
Original IEP Atlas template based on general measurement principles; not copied from any goal bank. ID ef-ss-024.
Sign in to add this goal to a student.
Goal
By the annual IEP review date, given an argument text (editorial, speech, or opinion article) of 600 to 900 words with a claim, reasons, and evidence, the student will underline the author's claim, number each reason, and bracket the evidence that supports each reason independently with at least 80% accuracy on claims, reasons, and evidence marked to match the teacher key, on 3 of 4 consecutive argument texts, as measured by work-sample analysis collected every two weeks.
Baseline: 40% 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 Study & Test-Taking Skills.
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 - Study & Test-Taking Skills
- Baseline
- 40% accuracy.
- Annual goal476 characters
- By the annual IEP review date, given an argument text (editorial, speech, or opinion article) of 600 to 900 words with a claim, reasons, and evidence, the student will underline the author's claim, number each reason, and bracket the evidence that supports each reason independently with at least 80% accuracy on claims, reasons, and evidence marked to match the teacher key, on 3 of 4 consecutive argument texts, as measured by work-sample analysis collected every two weeks.
- Timeframe
- By the annual IEP review date
- Condition
- Given an argument text (editorial, speech, or opinion article) of 600 to 900 words with a claim, reasons, and evidence
- Behavior
- The student will underline the author's claim, number each reason, and bracket the evidence that supports each reason independently
- Criteria
- With at least 80% accuracy on claims, reasons, and evidence marked to match the teacher key, on 3 of 4 consecutive argument texts
- Evaluation method
- Work-sample analysis
- Schedule
- Every two weeks
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 80% accuracy on claims, reasons, and evidence marked to match the teacher key
- Mastery rule:
- on 3 of 4 consecutive argument texts
- Collection schedule:
- every two weeks
- Method:
- Work-sample analysis
- Data collector:
Goal: By the annual IEP review date, given an argument text (editorial, speech, or opinion article) of 600 to 900 words with a claim, reasons, and evidence, the student will underline the author's claim, number each reason, and bracket the evidence that supports each reason independently with at least 80% accuracy on claims, reasons, and evidence marked to match the teacher key, on 3 of 4 consecutive argument texts, as measured by work-sample analysis collected every two weeks.
| 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.