Explain what would happen if something changed
When to use this goal
For older students who answer factual questions about class content but cannot reason aloud about a changed situation ("What would happen if there were no bees?"). This is verbal reasoning in academic talk. Base the choice on class work samples and the SLP's language assessment.
- Baseline
- Ask 10 what-if questions on familiar content and score each answer: a result plus a connecting reason, a result with no reason, or an off-topic or factual answer. Ask the content teacher which topics the class has covered so knowledge gaps are not mistaken for reasoning gaps.
- Tips
- Score correct when the answer names a reasonable result and a reason that links it to the change. Wording and length do not matter. Choose questions from the unit the student is studying so practice supports class work. Share the frame with the content teacher for class discussions.
- Limits
- Content knowledge strongly affects answers; use studied topics only. The goal measures spoken reasoning, not written responses. Some students reason well but need more time; extended response time is an accommodation and does not change scoring.
Original IEP Atlas template based on general measurement principles; not copied from any goal bank. ID sl-exp-030.
Sign in to add this goal to a student.
Goal
By the annual IEP review date, given 10 what-if questions about science, history, or civics topics the class has studied, each read aloud, the student will explain a likely result of the change and give a reason that connects the change to the result independently with at least 70% accuracy on what-if reasoning questions, in 3 of 4 consecutive biweekly probes, as measured by opportunity-by-opportunity data collected every two weeks.
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. Opportunity (trial) recording 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 Expressive Language.
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
- Speech & Language - Expressive Language
- Baseline
- 30% accuracy.
- Annual goal436 characters
- By the annual IEP review date, given 10 what-if questions about science, history, or civics topics the class has studied, each read aloud, the student will explain a likely result of the change and give a reason that connects the change to the result independently with at least 70% accuracy on what-if reasoning questions, in 3 of 4 consecutive biweekly probes, as measured by opportunity-by-opportunity data collected every two weeks.
- Timeframe
- By the annual IEP review date
- Condition
- Given 10 what-if questions about science, history, or civics topics the class has studied, each read aloud
- Behavior
- The student will explain a likely result of the change and give a reason that connects the change to the result independently
- Criteria
- With at least 70% accuracy on what-if reasoning questions, in 3 of 4 consecutive biweekly probes
- Evaluation method
- Opportunity-by-opportunity data
- 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 70% accuracy on what-if reasoning questions
- Mastery rule:
- in 3 of 4 consecutive biweekly probes
- Collection schedule:
- every two weeks
- Method:
- Opportunity (trial) recording
- Data collector:
Goal: By the annual IEP review date, given 10 what-if questions about science, history, or civics topics the class has studied, each read aloud, the student will explain a likely result of the change and give a reason that connects the change to the result independently with at least 70% accuracy on what-if reasoning questions, in 3 of 4 consecutive biweekly probes, as measured by opportunity-by-opportunity data 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.