Choose the strongest evidence for a claim
When to use this goal
For middle school students who pick the first quote they find or evidence that is only loosely related to their claim. Present levels should show the student can find evidence on a topic; the target is choosing evidence that directly supports a stated claim.
- Baseline
- Give one or two probes of six claims. Score correct when the best evidence is chosen and the explanation names why. Include distractors that are on topic but do not support the claim; those are the real test.
- Tips
- Build probes from texts in the student's classes. Talk through why on-topic evidence is not always supporting evidence. Move to the student's own essays once the probe is steady.
- Limits
- Multiple-choice evidence is easier than finding evidence in a full text. Reading level affects scores. The best choice can be debatable; agree on answers in advance.
Original IEP Atlas template based on general measurement principles; not copied from any goal bank. ID wr-par-046.
Sign in to add this goal to a student.
Goal
By the annual IEP review date, given six claims, each with a short text and four possible pieces of evidence, the student will choose the piece of evidence that most directly supports each claim and write one sentence explaining why it is stronger than the others independently with at least 85% accuracy on claims, in 3 of 4 consecutive biweekly probes, as measured by work-sample analysis 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. 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 Paragraph Organization.
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
- Writing - Paragraph Organization
- Baseline
- 30% accuracy.
- Annual goal417 characters
- By the annual IEP review date, given six claims, each with a short text and four possible pieces of evidence, the student will choose the piece of evidence that most directly supports each claim and write one sentence explaining why it is stronger than the others independently with at least 85% accuracy on claims, in 3 of 4 consecutive biweekly probes, as measured by work-sample analysis collected every two weeks.
- Timeframe
- By the annual IEP review date
- Condition
- Given six claims, each with a short text and four possible pieces of evidence
- Behavior
- The student will choose the piece of evidence that most directly supports each claim and write one sentence explaining why it is stronger than the others independently
- Criteria
- With at least 85% accuracy on claims, in 3 of 4 consecutive biweekly probes
- Evaluation method
- Work-sample analysis
- 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 85% accuracy on claims
- Mastery rule:
- in 3 of 4 consecutive biweekly probes
- Collection schedule:
- every two weeks
- Method:
- Work-sample analysis
- Data collector:
Goal: By the annual IEP review date, given six claims, each with a short text and four possible pieces of evidence, the student will choose the piece of evidence that most directly supports each claim and write one sentence explaining why it is stronger than the others independently with at least 85% accuracy on claims, in 3 of 4 consecutive biweekly probes, as measured by work-sample analysis 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.