Explain why a comment might hurt someone
When to use this goal
For middle school students whose blunt or joking comments sometimes hurt peers without the student meaning it. Present levels decide fit. Honesty is valued; the goal is seeing how a comment can land differently than intended.
- Baseline
- Score two scenario explanations on the rubric. Ask the student about comments that have hurt them, which helps make the idea concrete.
- Tips
- Keep the student's direct style; offer options, not a script. Reflection on real events is the student's choice.
- Limits
- Rubric scores depend on the scenario. The goal does not measure changes in the student's comments; that is a separate peer-interaction goal if needed.
Original IEP Atlas template based on general measurement principles; not copied from any goal bank. ID se-aw-028.
Sign in to add this goal to a student.
Goal
By the annual IEP review date, given a written or video scenario in which a student makes a comment that hurts a peer, the student will explain how the comment could land for the listener, why it might hurt, and a way to say the same idea differently independently, earning a score of at least 7 out of 9 on a 3-row comment impact rubric scored 0 to 3 per row, in 3 of 4 biweekly probes, as measured by a defined scoring rubric collected every two weeks.
Baseline: 3 out of 9 rubric points.
- 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. Rubric score fits this behavior.
Met: Explicit criterion. Number and unit stated.
Met: Mastery rule and schedule. Both stated.
Met: Method produces the metric. Rubric scoring gives rubric score 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 Social Awareness & Perspective Taking.
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
- Social-Emotional & Communication - Social Awareness & Perspective Taking
- Baseline
- 3 out of 9 rubric points.
- Annual goal454 characters
- By the annual IEP review date, given a written or video scenario in which a student makes a comment that hurts a peer, the student will explain how the comment could land for the listener, why it might hurt, and a way to say the same idea differently independently, earning a score of at least 7 out of 9 on a 3-row comment impact rubric scored 0 to 3 per row, in 3 of 4 biweekly probes, as measured by a defined scoring rubric collected every two weeks.
- Timeframe
- By the annual IEP review date
- Condition
- Given a written or video scenario in which a student makes a comment that hurts a peer
- Behavior
- The student will explain how the comment could land for the listener, why it might hurt, and a way to say the same idea differently independently
- Criteria
- Earning a score of at least 7 out of 9 on a 3-row comment impact rubric scored 0 to 3 per row, in 3 of 4 biweekly probes
- Evaluation method
- A defined scoring rubric
- Schedule
- Every two weeks
Copied as plain text, with straight quotes and plain dashes.
Matching data sheet
Rubric tracker. Scores each rubric criterion and totals them.
Rubric tracker
Rubric score- Student label:
- Target:
- earning a score of at least 7 out of 9 on a 3-row comment impact rubric scored 0 to 3 per row
- Mastery rule:
- in 3 of 4 biweekly probes
- Collection schedule:
- every two weeks
- Method:
- Rubric scoring
- Data collector:
Goal: By the annual IEP review date, given a written or video scenario in which a student makes a comment that hurts a peer, the student will explain how the comment could land for the listener, why it might hurt, and a way to say the same idea differently independently, earning a score of at least 7 out of 9 on a 3-row comment impact rubric scored 0 to 3 per row, in 3 of 4 biweekly probes, as measured by a defined scoring rubric collected every two weeks.
| Date | Task / sample | States what the speaker meant | Explains how the listener may have heard it and why | Offers another way to say it or a repair | Total (of 9) | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Preview shows 4 of 12 rows.
- Score each sample with a 3-row comment impact rubric scored 0 to 3 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. Sheets print blank; no student data is stored.