Explain a fraction comparison with a model or strategy
Live goal preview
By the annual IEP review date, given a fraction comparison problem (for example, which is greater, 3/8 or 2/3?), the student will state or write the comparison and a justification using a model, a benchmark fraction, or a common denominator independently, earning a score of at least 5 out of 6 on a 3-row fraction reasoning rubric (0–2 points per row), on 3 of 4 consecutive scored samples, as measured by a defined scoring rubric collected every two weeks.
Baseline: 2 out of 6 rubric points.
- Condition
- Observable behavior
- Criterion
- Measurement method
Measurability check10 of 10 met
All structural checks are met.
Met: Observable behavior. The behavior is stated as an action.
Met: Condition. The goal states when or under what conditions the behavior occurs.
Met: Unit fits the behavior. Rubric score is a reasonable way to quantify this behavior.
Met: Explicit criterion. The success criterion is stated with a number and unit.
Met: Mastery rule and schedule. Mastery rule and collection schedule are stated.
Met: Method produces the metric. Rubric scoring can produce rubric score data.
Met: Review timeframe. The goal includes a timeframe.
Met: Baseline and target compatible. Baseline and target use the same unit and show change in the intended direction.
Met: Aligned with area of need. The wording still relates to Fractions.
Met: Level of support. The level of support is defined.
What this checks: the goal's structure and wording, using fixed rules: observable behavior, condition, criterion, method, mastery rule, timeframe, baseline/target consistency, and support. It can't judge whether the goal is appropriate, ambitious enough, or legally sufficient for a particular student. That requires assessment data and the IEP team.
About this template
- Level guidance
- Fits students who can sometimes pick the larger fraction but cannot explain why, or who rely on a rule that fails in some cases. Present levels, including oral and written expression, decide whether to accept spoken or written responses.
- Baseline considerations
- Score two or three responses with the rubric before setting the target, and have a second adult score one sample to check that rubric levels are applied the same way.
- Usage notes
- Accept oral explanations recorded by an adult if writing is a barrier; note the response mode. Combines well with ma-fr-003.
- Known limitations
- Rubric scores depend on scorer judgment; use anchor examples. One problem per sample is a small set, so use two problems when time allows.
- Source
- Original IEP Atlas draft (AI-assisted) based on general measurement principles; not copied from any goal bank. Template ID
ma-fr-006.
Short-term objectives (optional)
When are objectives required?Federal IDEA regulations require benchmarks or short-term objectives only for students who take alternate assessments aligned to alternate academic achievement standards (34 CFR §300.320(a)(2)(ii)). Your state or district may require them more broadly.
Matching data sheet
Rubric tracker. Your goal is a rubric score, so the sheet scores each rubric criterion and totals them.
Rubric tracker
Rubric score- Student label:
- Target:
- earning a score of at least 5 out of 6 on a 3-row fraction reasoning rubric (0–2 points per row)
- Mastery rule:
- on 3 of 4 consecutive scored samples
- Collection schedule:
- every two weeks
- Method:
- Rubric scoring
- Data collector:
Goal: By the annual IEP review date, given a fraction comparison problem (for example, which is greater, 3/8 or 2/3?), the student will state or write the comparison and a justification using a model, a benchmark fraction, or a common denominator independently, earning a score of at least 5 out of 6 on a 3-row fraction reasoning rubric (0–2 points per row), on 3 of 4 consecutive scored samples, as measured by a defined scoring rubric collected every two weeks.
| Date | Task / sample | Comparison: states the correct relationship with <, >, =, or in words | Strategy: names a valid reason (benchmark, common denominator or numerator, or unit size) | Model: a drawing or model that matches the reasoning and uses same-size wholes | Total (of 6) | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Preview shows 4 of 12 rows.
- Score each sample with a 3-row fraction reasoning rubric (0–2 points per row). Attach or reference the rubric's score descriptors.
- Use the same prompt type and conditions for each scored sample.
- If two people score, check agreement on a few samples before relying on the data.
The CSV opens in Excel or Google Sheets with formulas for the calculated columns. Sheets are blank: IEP Atlas doesn't store student data.