Explain stuttering and what helps to a teacher or classmates
Live goal preview
By the annual IEP review date, when preparing a short presentation, letter, or video about stuttering for a teacher or classmates, the student will explain what stuttering is, what it is like for them, and what listeners can do to help independently, earning a score of at least 6 out of 8 on a 4-row stuttering self-advocacy rubric scored 0–2 per row, on 2 consecutive rehearsals and one real presentation or meeting, as measured by a defined scoring rubric collected every two weeks during preparation.
Baseline: 2 out of 8 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 Speech Fluency (Stuttering).
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
- For students who stutter and want to explain stuttering to others in their own words, for example to a new teacher or their class. Present levels, the student's interest, and their chosen way of sharing, not grade, decide fit. This is always the student's choice.
- Baseline considerations
- Ask the student, in a relaxed conversation, to explain stuttering and what helps, and score it on the rubric. Ask what they would want others to know and whether they want to share at all.
- Usage notes
- Score each row 0 (not included), 1 (included in general terms), or 2 (clear and specific). The student decides what to share and with whom; the message is theirs, and they may stutter while delivering it. Written, recorded, or slide-based messages are all acceptable formats.
- Known limitations
- Rehearsals provide most of the data, since real opportunities are few. The rubric scores the message, not how the audience responds. Strategy use, communication attitudes, and participation are the targets chosen with the student; this goal is not a measure of fluency.
- Source
- Original IEP Atlas draft (AI-assisted) based on general measurement principles; not copied from any goal bank. Template ID
sl-flu-005.
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 6 out of 8 on a 4-row stuttering self-advocacy rubric scored 0–2 per row
- Mastery rule:
- on 2 consecutive rehearsals and one real presentation or meeting
- Collection schedule:
- every two weeks during preparation
- Method:
- Rubric scoring
- Data collector:
Goal: By the annual IEP review date, when preparing a short presentation, letter, or video about stuttering for a teacher or classmates, the student will explain what stuttering is, what it is like for them, and what listeners can do to help independently, earning a score of at least 6 out of 8 on a 4-row stuttering self-advocacy rubric scored 0–2 per row, on 2 consecutive rehearsals and one real presentation or meeting, as measured by a defined scoring rubric collected every two weeks during preparation.
| Date | Task / sample | Explains what stuttering is in their own words (0 = not stated, 1 = general, 2 = clear and accurate) | Describes what stuttering is like for them | Names what listeners can do to help (e.g., wait, keep listening, don't finish words) | Names a support or accommodation they want (e.g., option to present to a smaller group) | Total (of 8) | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Preview shows 4 of 12 rows.
- Score each sample with a 4-row stuttering self-advocacy rubric scored 0–2 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.