Keep handwriting legible across a full page
When to use this goal
For students whose first lines are readable but whose writing deteriorates over a page, so the second half of tests and essays cannot be scored. Compare legibility in the first and last third of a page during baseline; the drop-off decides fit.
- Baseline
- Score legibility in the first third and the last third of three full-page samples; the goal measures the last third. If the first third is also poor, use the paragraph legibility rubric instead. Note pencil pressure and grasp changes over the page, which point to fatigue.
- Tips
- Tests and essays provide the samples; no separate probe is needed. For secondary students, this goal often runs alongside keyboarding for long assignments, with handwriting kept for short answers and tests where a device is not allowed.
- Limits
- Page length and the time allowed differ across assignments; compare similar tasks. Fatigue-related deterioration may respond better to tool changes or keyboarding than to practice, and the team should set a decision point.
Original IEP Atlas template based on general measurement principles; not copied from any goal bank. ID mt-hw-015.
Sign in to add this goal to a student.
Goal
By the annual IEP review date, during a written assignment of at least one page, the student will write the whole page with words legible to a reader unfamiliar with the student's writing independently with at least 90% accuracy on words legible in the final third of the page, on 3 consecutive biweekly work samples, as measured by work-sample analysis collected every two weeks from a full-page writing sample.
Baseline: 65% 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 Handwriting.
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
- Motor & Sensory Skills (OT, PT & Adapted PE) - Handwriting
- Baseline
- 65% accuracy.
- Annual goal412 characters
- By the annual IEP review date, during a written assignment of at least one page, the student will write the whole page with words legible to a reader unfamiliar with the student's writing independently with at least 90% accuracy on words legible in the final third of the page, on 3 consecutive biweekly work samples, as measured by work-sample analysis collected every two weeks from a full-page writing sample.
- Timeframe
- By the annual IEP review date
- Condition
- During a written assignment of at least one page
- Behavior
- The student will write the whole page with words legible to a reader unfamiliar with the student's writing independently
- Criteria
- With at least 90% accuracy on words legible in the final third of the page, on 3 consecutive biweekly work samples
- Evaluation method
- Work-sample analysis
- Schedule
- Every two weeks from a full-page writing sample
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 90% accuracy on words legible in the final third of the page
- Mastery rule:
- on 3 consecutive biweekly work samples
- Collection schedule:
- every two weeks from a full-page writing sample
- Method:
- Work-sample analysis
- Data collector:
Goal: By the annual IEP review date, during a written assignment of at least one page, the student will write the whole page with words legible to a reader unfamiliar with the student's writing independently with at least 90% accuracy on words legible in the final third of the page, on 3 consecutive biweekly work samples, as measured by work-sample analysis collected every two weeks from a full-page writing sample.
| 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.