Revise a weak thesis to be arguable
When to use this goal
For high school students who write thesis statements that are facts, too broad, or a list of topics, which weakens every essay that follows. Present levels should show the student writes a thesis-like sentence; the target is judging and fixing weak ones.
- Baseline
- Give one or two probes of eight items. Score correct when the revision meets all three checklist parts. Note which weakness the student misses most; overly broad theses are common.
- Tips
- Use theses from real student essays (with names removed) and the student's own old essays. Discuss why a fact cannot be argued. The checklist doubles as a self-check for new essays.
- Limits
- Revising given theses is easier than writing a strong one from scratch. Judging specificity depends on essay length; state it. Course content affects revisions.
Original IEP Atlas template based on general measurement principles; not copied from any goal bank. ID wr-par-048.
Sign in to add this goal to a student.
Goal
By the annual IEP review date, given eight weak thesis statements (facts, announcements, too broad, or vague) on course topics, the student will rewrite each weak thesis so it takes an arguable position, is specific enough for the essay length, and signals how the argument will develop independently with at least 80% accuracy on thesis statements, in 3 of 4 consecutive biweekly probes, as measured by work-sample analysis collected every two weeks.
Baseline: 25% 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
- 25% accuracy.
- Annual goal451 characters
- By the annual IEP review date, given eight weak thesis statements (facts, announcements, too broad, or vague) on course topics, the student will rewrite each weak thesis so it takes an arguable position, is specific enough for the essay length, and signals how the argument will develop independently with at least 80% accuracy on thesis statements, 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 eight weak thesis statements (facts, announcements, too broad, or vague) on course topics
- Behavior
- The student will rewrite each weak thesis so it takes an arguable position, is specific enough for the essay length, and signals how the argument will develop independently
- Criteria
- With at least 80% accuracy on thesis statements, 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 80% accuracy on thesis statements
- 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 eight weak thesis statements (facts, announcements, too broad, or vague) on course topics, the student will rewrite each weak thesis so it takes an arguable position, is specific enough for the essay length, and signals how the argument will develop independently with at least 80% accuracy on thesis statements, 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.