I need someone who is objective to help me sort this out. In the past, my child has had 80% accuracy for completion of her G’s and O’s. On the upcoming IEP the RSP teacher is pushing for 60% accuracy on math and reading goals. When I make g’s and o’s for speech and language I use 80% accuracy to pass them off not 60%. Is 60% accuracy an acceptable passage according to what other educators are doing with their students? It just doesn’t make sense to me. 60% accuracy is just 10% over a coin toss of 50-50 and I don’t feel that is even close to mastery.
Any thoughts from the teachers on this?
Re: Is 60% completion for G's and O's acceptable?
I got my school to go to 90% mastery of goals for all the reasons you cite. I totally agree that 60% is basically worthless.
Beth
Re: Is 60% completion for G's and O's acceptable?
Thanks…I was feeling the same way…I just wanted to make sure…that I wasn’t being neurotic since it is my kid. :-)
Re: Is 60% completion for G's and O's acceptable?
Patti, I usually don’t go with 60% either. However, I believe that goals/objectives should be based on present levels of performance and should be reasonably attainable. So, to truly evaluate this situation, I would have much more data.
Re: Is 60% completion for G's and O's acceptable?
Let me clarify my thinking:
When we have a child who turns in 10% of homework or who is off-task 80% of the time, the annual goal may be to get to even 50%. This is reasonable because, unless there is a medical issue that is taken care of in the interim, it is unrealistic to go from 10%-80% in many instances.
Depending on the child and the extent of the child’s disability, I might actually write a 60% objective under the following circumstances:
1. The child is at a 0% level re. the skill.
2. The skill is being introduced late enough in the year that I don’t believe we have ample time for complete mastery, thus I will continue the goal on the next IEP and then go for 80%. If a child has an IEP that expires in May and I start long division in March, for the first time. I may just shoot for partial mastery (which in this case shows progress).
Again, I cannot see a black and white answer. However, perhaps for political acceptance, I endeavor to write my goals/ojbectives in a manner that will generally permit 70-90% mastery on the goal. So, if I am not confident the goal is attainable at 80%, then I might soften the goal to a point where i think it is attainable.
If the teacher plugs in 60% for all goals, all the time. No way, I don’t plug in 80% for all goals all the time.
Re: Is 60% completion for G's and O's acceptable?
So are you saying if the present level of performance is at 60% mastery which is what the child has achieved now…then the new goal should be at 60% mastery? This kid is on task, organized, does all the assignments never turns in things late. Is totally mainstreamed and pulling B’s and C’s in regular ed curriculum. I feel the new goals are obtainable at even 90% accuracy.
Re: Is 60% completion for G's and O's acceptable?
I don’t think that’s what she meant, Patti. I think she meant the expectations need to be realistic. So if she scored 60% on a Brigance subtest, then her goals (or objectives) should be to increase her accuracy on those same goals to 80% (or more) before going to the next higher skill level. I agree. It’s not appropriate for her to go from current 60% accuracy on third grade reading (for example) to 60% of fourth grade reading. I would want much better mastery of third grade reading before going to fourth.
Janis
Especially in math — unless she’s really mastered one group of skills, but doesn’t get any at the higher level. I’d specify mastery of specific topics.