IEP progress reporting is an important time to analyze data and to determine growth and regression. Marking just the IEP goal/objective codes are just one piece. Having a solid narrative for each goal area informs the IEP team member how the student is progressing on their IEP goals. Below are some examples that demonstrate a thorough description of a student's progress.
Reading:
John participates willingly in small group reading instruction when using instructional level texts at the 4th grade level. He volunteers to read aloud and joins in class discussion. John enjoys reading materials related to the outdoors, wildlife and hunting. Progress data (observation, checklists, timed sample and teacher made tests) indicate improvement in reading vocabulary and reading comprehension skills. In an instructional level text, John reads one syllable words with 90% accuracy and multi-syllable words with 60% accuracy. Given a one-minute timed reading of a 100 word instructional level text, John reads 50 words total (36 words correctly and 14 miscues). Analysis of miscues indicates that John attempts initial sounds (3 words), struggles with initial and ending blends (2 words), and most frequently skips unknown words (9 words). John is learning to apply comprehension strategies in literature and informational texts. When John encounters an unfamiliar vocabulary word in instructional level text, he uses context clues with 70% accuracy, uses text features to determine the meaning of the word with 55% accuracy and identifies main idea and detail of instructional level passages with 65% accuracy. In instructional level text, he answers literal comprehension questions (who/what/where/when) with 80% accuracy. He has more difficulty responding to inferential questions in instructional level text which requires application of information (60% accuracy). Significant deficits in reading vocabulary and reading comprehension negatively impact John ’s ability to independently read and comprehend literary and informational texts at the high end of text complexity as compared to his same age peers independently. John ’s reading deficits also affect his ability to read and comprehend both types of text at his instructional level.
Writing:
John has improved considerably in simple sentence construction. John independently uses prewriting strategies (e.g., list, column, graphic organizer) 65% of the time. He benefits from prompts in the selection and completion of prewriting strategies. When given an authentic assessment consisting of a writing prompt that requires 6 or more sentences on a single topic, John constructs complete and correct simple sentences 90% of the time (capital letter, at least one noun, at least one verb, proper end punctuation). He correctly uses commas in a series 80% of the time. He correctly applies an editing routine to ensure required elements of a simple sentence with 90% accuracy. He writes complicated sentences (compound, complex, compound/complex) with 40% accuracy. When provided paragraph models, John identifies the parts of a paragraph with 70% accuracy (e.g., topic sentence, supportive detail sentences, concluding sentence). Using model paragraphs as a guide, he independently generates paragraph components with 40% accuracy (topic sentence, three or more supportive detail sentences, concluding sentence) as measured by authentic assessment. John’s written language deficits negatively affects the quality and quantity of written work and writing pieces across content areas including open ended answers and short answers. Given teacher observation, John’s oral responses to content questions and prompts are more thorough as compared to written responses.
Math:
John independently uses fraction strips, Cuisenaire Rods and fraction area models to add, subtract and compare fractions during cooperative groups (85% accuracy). John independently demonstrates fractions for 1/2, 1/3 and 1/4 and can order these fractions concretely, however, his work samples demonstrate he does not have the understanding of multiplying and dividing fractions with manipulatives (30%). State and classroom assessment data also indicate computational fluency (consistently with speed) with addition, subtraction, and multiplication and division of whole numbers of with the use of a calculator (80% accuracy). He can solve one- and two-step algebraic equations with 80% accuracy on worksheets and classroom assessments. Given an application word problem, John needs assistance reading the problem. He correctly solves word (real-world) problems involving computation with a step by step guide with 40% accuracy. John needs continued instruction in learning and applying processes for what he knows about the operations of math to problem situations in other disciplines and in daily life. John’s deficits in math calculation and math reasoning, including the use of decimals, understanding of ordering of fractions, solving multi-step word problems, and using the four operations and fractions, negatively affect his progress in the general math curriculum at the level and pace of same age peers. John’s lack of understanding beyond concrete representations will continue to perpetuate the gap between John and his same grade peers.