I previously posted a scaffolded handout and (subsequently posted) for identifying elapsed time between times on a pair of presented clocks (see image below of a page from the handout.)
A parent asked for a possible IEP objective. Here is one, along with some explanation.
Let’s start with a real life scenario many of our students may face. A municipal bus stops at a location a 7:04am. The individual is supposed to be at work at 7:30am. How much time does he have to walk to work from the drop off location? We can use this real life scenario to inform an IEP objective.
Here is a possible objective:
Given two times in a real life situation, presented with visuals and written or verbal context, Billy will identify the elapsed time. (For example: The bus drops you off at 7:23am and you have walk to work by 7:45am. How much time do you have to walk?). He will do so 9 out of 10 times correctly over 2 consecutive assessments. This would be aligned with the Common Core State Standard 3.MD.A.1.
The student can start with problems presented like what is shown in the handout I shared in the previous post as a step towards mastering the objective.
Connecticut has a new IEP template rolling out in 2022. A key feature is that elements of the IEP that are connected are now on the same page (below). I personally think this is outstanding, and at the time of writing this, I am still exploring.
I’ve had discussions with multiple caregivers and parents recently about IEP objectives and evaluation/assessment. I think this is not only an important issue but is an issue that is a foundation for special education.
The purpose of special education, as established in IDEA, is outcome based. The focus is on the future life of the student. Decision making and services are made in this context. With this in mind I believe evaluation/assessment and the development of the IEP, especially objectives, fall under this context. There should be an alignment to the long range future of the student.
Often the focus of special education is on deficits. Evaluations identify deficits and the programming is developed to address the deficits. Certainly many or most educators are conscientious of long range outcomes but the deficits are the priority. Contrasting this is a standards based approach. I do not mean every student working towards grade level work as this would be entirely inappropriate for severely impacted students (like my son). I mean more of an outcome based focus with long range goals as the priority. If the purpose of special education is to prepare students for life after K-12 education then the standards or outcome based approach is necessary. A deficits based approach can result in progress but progress that does not translate into necessary preparation for the future.
Here’s an analogy. A person gets up in the morning and has to go to work. She has a range of tasks from the essential, e.g. getting dressed, to the desired but not essential, e.g. send an email to a friend or make a cup of coffee to go. As is often the case with me, she runs out of time. Maybe she can try to send the email but then has no time for the coffee. Maybe she needed to print a report for work but overlooked it because she was preoccupied with all the other tasks. At some point she has no choice and has to leave regardless if the coffee is ready or the report is printed.
Our kids have a limited amount of time in special education. Like the person going to work, at some point our kids are exited from IDEA regardless if they are prepared. We know a great many of our kids are not prepared. A deficits approach prioritizes urgency at the expense of important. The email is sent but the report was overlooked. A standards/outcome based approach focuses on importance not urgency. This doesn’t mean deficits are overlooked but they are prioritized.
In my experience in school and in working with many different parents I have found a focus on deficits.
A sophomore in high school spent an entire year on arithmetic (doing this by hand) and basic pre-algebra skills because these were deficits. The goal is for him to go to a community college where he would qualify under ADA for use of a calculator.
A junior moderately impacted by autism was taking a basis algebra class. His postsecondary plans focused on some level of independence and maybe a supported work placement. He couldn’t count money but he was being taught how to simplify 3x + 2x.
Often, accommodations, e.g. teacher prompts, are included in assessment of IEP objectives “because the student needs this to be successful.” I’ve heard this in multiple situations.
Contrast this with another situation. I helped a family with a middle school student with autism. His mother explained to me that they had a goal of him having some type of job and some level of independence. He was very much interested in cars and working with cars in some capacity for his job. The math needed for auto repair is mostly measurement. We mapped out a muti-year plan for his math to focus on measurement and consumer math. He was not going to learn to simplify 3x + 2x but would focus on what a 5/16 inch wrench is and what is meant by 5/16 of an inch.
The first student I ever helped when I began my work in special education was a sophomore with aspergers. He received ineffective special education support and entered community college with the same challenges and gaps in math as he had his sophomore year. I served as a kind of case manager for him as he worked through community college. He needed help with study skills, math content, stress, completing work etc. This semester he is likely to graduate from community college and plans on transferring to a university.
Again, I am not proposing that deficits be marginalized. The deficits can be prioritized based on long range goals and addressed accordingly. The photo of the table above shows 3 categories of post-secondary outcomes and the level of focus on standards and curriculum.
Some level of independence – no formal vocational training or college course work
Some vocational training or college course work or a community college certificate or degree.
4 year college
My position is that the current student work and support should be aligned with the appropriate outcome.
The math objectives present in the photos on this post were written for former students of mine. These types of objectives are ineffective and ubiquitous. When I have sat in IEP meetings the majority of the time I am the only person who is capable of evaluating IEP math objectives. This post provides some guidance for others to evaluate these objectives.
In the photo above the objective has 3 major flaws.
“Using tools” is ambiguous. A 4 year old can use a calculator even if he does not know what he is doing.
“Problem solving skills” is a broad term that needs to be defined.
“Improve” can mean a student increases a success rate from 0% to 1%. That speaks for itself.
In the objective above there are 2 major problems.
“Multi-step word problems” is very broad. If a student shows she can solve a problem that requires addition and then subtraction but no multiplication or division is this mastery?
Often the accommodations are built into the objective and therefore the assessment. I have repeatedly had educators tell me this is what the student needs. That is valid if there is no intention for the student to do the work independently but often that point is overlooked.
The objective above is similar to the previous example. The examples in the objective include “solving” and “graphing.” Is the student supposed to demonstrate mastery in all the different types of algebra concepts? Or, if he can solve equations is the objective mastered?
How can caregivers evaluate these objectives?
The language of an effective objective can be used, almost verbatim, as problem. For example
Objective: Billy will add fractions with like denominators.
Problem: Add the following fractions (with like denominators).
Have the person writing the objectives provide an example problem that can be used to assess mastery of the objective. If the problem includes additional information or language beyond what is written in the objective then the objective is ineffective. For example:
In objective 1 above (the first one) the objective is to use tools to improve problem solving skills.
Below is a possible problem (from LearnZillion.com) that could be used. I would ask the author of the objective to explain what problem solving skills should be demonstrated and to explain what constitutes improvement. Neither of these terms is explicitly stated in this problem. It is very likely that valid responses to these questions is not possible and hence the objective needs to be revised.
In my 21 years in working as a math teacher (with 6 that focused on special education) I have rarely seen IEP objectives for math that are directly aligned with the math curriculum that is to be accessed by the respective student for whom the objectives are written (see photo below). The photo above shows an excerpt from an OSERS letter regarding IEP goals that are standards based.
Below is a list of IEP objectives I have written for use in an IEP. They are directly aligned with the math content to be covered. Some educators insist on including the specialized instruction as part of the setting of the objective. I have no qualms with this as long as the student ultimately will demonstrate mastery of the objective without the supports (unless the supports are to be permanent or lead to subsequent objectives that will not have the supports included). NOTE: If you would like suggestions for IEP objectives please use form below and I will add them to this post.
Pre-Algebra and Algebra 1
Goal 1: Xxxx will accurately simplify expressions and solve 1 variable linear equations.
Objective 1: Xxxx will simplify a given algebraic expression 8 out of 10 times with only minor algebraic mistakes (e.g. arithmetic error).
Objective 2: Xxxx will solve a given 1 variable linear equation by simplifying first 8 out of 10 times with only minor algebraic mistakes (e.g. arithmetic error).
Objective 3: Xxxx will solve a given 1 variable linear equation with a variable on both sides 8 out of 10 times with only minor algebraic mistakes (e.g. arithmetic error).
Goal 2: Xxxx will accurately complete linear function problems by identifying and using slope and intercepts.
Objective 1: Xxxx will identify and interpret slope given various representations (equation, graph or table) 8 out of 10 times with only minor algebraic mistakes (e.g. arithmetic error).
Objective 2: Xxxx will identify and interpret y-intercept given various representations (equation, graph or table) 8 out of 10 times with only minor algebraic mistakes (e.g. arithmetic error).
Objective 3: Xxxx will convert between various forms of a linear function 8 out of 10 times with only minor algebraic mistakes (e.g. arithmetic error).