Choose could, should, or might by meaning
When to use this goal
For students who use can and will but rarely use could, should, might, or must to talk about possibility, advice, or obligation. Modal verbs carry meaning in problem solving, science predictions, and social reasoning. Base the choice on a language sample and structured probes.
- Baseline
- Probe 10 scenarios across the three meanings and record each answer. Note which modals are used and whether the meaning fits. Double modals ("might could") are typical in some Southern US dialects and count as correct.
- Tips
- Score correct when the modal fits the meaning; more than one modal can be right (could or might for possibility). Double modals and other dialect forms are correct. Tie scenarios to class content (science predictions, social studies choices) to support carryover.
- Limits
- Choosing a modal involves reasoning as well as grammar; a student who misreads the scenario may answer with the wrong modal for a non-grammar reason. Check answers that miss with a follow-up question.
Original IEP Atlas template based on general measurement principles; not copied from any goal bank. ID sl-syn-036.
Sign in to add this goal to a student.
Goal
By the annual IEP review date, given 10 short scenarios that call for a prediction, advice, or a rule (such as "Your friend left their lunch at home. What could they do?"), the student will answer each scenario with a sentence that uses a modal verb matching the meaning (might or could for possibility, should for advice, must or have to for a rule) independently with at least 80% accuracy on scenario responses needing a modal verb, across 3 consecutive therapy sessions, as measured by opportunity-by-opportunity data collected during each therapy session.
Baseline: 40% 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 Grammar, Syntax & Morphology.
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 - Grammar, Syntax & Morphology
- Baseline
- 40% accuracy.
- Annual goal560 characters
- By the annual IEP review date, given 10 short scenarios that call for a prediction, advice, or a rule (such as "Your friend left their lunch at home. What could they do?"), the student will answer each scenario with a sentence that uses a modal verb matching the meaning (might or could for possibility, should for advice, must or have to for a rule) independently with at least 80% accuracy on scenario responses needing a modal verb, across 3 consecutive therapy sessions, as measured by opportunity-by-opportunity data collected during each therapy session.
- Timeframe
- By the annual IEP review date
- Condition
- Given 10 short scenarios that call for a prediction, advice, or a rule (such as "Your friend left their lunch at home. What could they do?")
- Behavior
- The student will answer each scenario with a sentence that uses a modal verb matching the meaning (might or could for possibility, should for advice, must or have to for a rule) independently
- Criteria
- With at least 80% accuracy on scenario responses needing a modal verb, across 3 consecutive therapy sessions
- Evaluation method
- Opportunity-by-opportunity data
- Schedule
- During each therapy session
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 80% accuracy on scenario responses needing a modal verb
- Mastery rule:
- across 3 consecutive therapy sessions
- Collection schedule:
- during each therapy session
- Method:
- Opportunity (trial) recording
- Data collector:
Goal: By the annual IEP review date, given 10 short scenarios that call for a prediction, advice, or a rule (such as "Your friend left their lunch at home. What could they do?"), the student will answer each scenario with a sentence that uses a modal verb matching the meaning (might or could for possibility, should for advice, must or have to for a rule) independently with at least 80% accuracy on scenario responses needing a modal verb, across 3 consecutive therapy sessions, as measured by opportunity-by-opportunity data collected during each therapy session.
| 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.