Evidence Mastery Goal Document
EdPlan Compliant IEP Annual Goals & Objectives
Central Idea/Theme & Argument Evidence
Academic Year: 2026–2027
Target Band: Middle / Early HS (Grades 7–9)
PLAAFP Baseline Summary (Present Levels)
Diagnostic Benchmark & Classroom Work Samples
Command of Evidence 0% Critical Need: Guesses on MC evidence; writes opinions without citations
Central Idea 50% Developing: Identifies general topic; needs structure to state main point
Theme Determination 50% Developing: Recounts plot events instead of stating universal theme
EdPlan Syntax: {Given [Condition], [Student] will do [Targeted Skill/Behavior], to this extent [Criteria]}
GOAL 1: COMPREHENSION
Central Idea & Theme Determination
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RI.8.2 • RL.8.2
Annual EdPlan Goal Statement:
{Given a grade-level literary or informational text with a graphic organizer and sentence starters,} {[Student] will determine the central idea (for informational text) or universal theme (for literary text) and articulate an objective summary explaining how it emerges across the text,} {to this extent: scoring Level 3 (Proficient) or higher on the Central Idea/Theme Rubric across 4 out of 5 consecutive bi-weekly probes as documented by special education teacher logs.}
Objective 1.1 (Central Idea) Benchmark 1
{Given an informational article and a central idea organizer,} {[Student] will write a complete 1–2 sentence central idea statement and summarize two supporting key points,} {to this extent: achieving Level 3 on 3 consecutive bi-weekly probes.}
Objective 1.2 (Universal Theme) Benchmark 2
{Given a literary narrative and a theme identification guide,} {[Student] will distinguish theme from plot by stating a universal life lesson and explaining how character conflict reveals it,} {to this extent: scoring Level 3 on 3 consecutive trials.}
GOAL 2: EVIDENCE COMMAND
Evidence Selection (MC) & Argument Writing
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RI/RL.8.1 • W.8.1b
Annual EdPlan Goal Statement:
{Given a grade-level reading passage, text-dependent multiple-choice items, and an argumentative claim sentence stem,} {[Student] will accurately select the best piece of textual evidence on multiple-choice questions AND write at least one cited piece of direct textual evidence supporting an argument sentence with reasoning,} {to this extent: scoring at least 80% accuracy on evidence selection MC items and Level 3 on the Argument Evidence Rubric across 4 out of 5 consecutive probes.}
Objective 2.1 (MC Evidence Selection) Benchmark 1
{Given a grade-level text and 4 multiple-choice questions asking "Which quote best supports the claim?",} {[Student] will eliminate irrelevant details and select the best supporting textual citation,} {to this extent: achieving 75% or higher accuracy (3/4 correct) across 3 consecutive bi-weekly probes.}
Objective 2.2 (Written Argument Evidence) Benchmark 2
{Given a teacher-provided argument claim sentence and text passage,} {[Student] will write a complete sentence embedding a cited direct quote and a sentence explaining how the evidence validates the argument,} {to this extent: earning Level 3 on the Evidence Writing Rubric in 3 consecutive probes.}
EdPlan IEP Goal Specification • Case Manager / SpEd Team Reference Page 1 of 2 • Combined Goals & Objectives Alignment
IEP Progress Measurement System
Reading Comprehension & Evidence Rubric
Target Mastery = Level 3 (80%+)
Standardized 4-point analytic rubric evaluating bi-weekly progress toward Goals 1 & 2. Performance at Level 3 fulfills IEP mastery criteria.
| Skill Domain | Level 1: Emerging (1 pt)
Current Evidence: 0% | Level 2: Developing (2 pts)
Current Baseline: 50% | Level 3: Proficient (3 pts)
IEP Target Mastery | Level 4: Advanced (4 pts)
Exceeds Standard |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1. Central Idea & Theme RI.8.2 / RL.8.2 (Goal 1) | Misidentifies main idea; confuses minor details with central thesis, or provides plot summary unrelated to universal life lessons. | States broad topic (e.g., "perseverance") or specific plot event, but struggles to articulate an overarching life message or core thesis. | Accurately formulates a complete central idea or universal theme statement and explains how it develops across key text events. | Articulates nuanced thematic insights, analyzing how sub-claims, conflicting points of view, or literary devices interact to convey meaning. |
| 2. MC Evidence Selection RI/RL.8.1 (Goal 2 / Obj 2.1) | Scores below 50% on evidence MC questions; selects distractors that contain keywords but do not logically support the claim. | Scores 50%–74%; identifies partially relevant quotes but struggles when distractors present plausible background details. | Consistently scores 75%–100% (3/4 or 4/4 correct); reliably eliminates distractors and selects the best textual proof. | Scores 100% on evidence questions and can orally explain why the chosen quote directly validates the claim while others fail. |
| 3. Argument Evidence Writing W.8.1b / W.8.9 (Goal 2 / Obj 2.2) | Provides unsupported personal opinion; fails to cite text quotes, or copies irrelevant text strings without paragraph reference. | Includes a quote but drops it without sentence integration, quotation marks, or an explanation connecting it to the argument claim. | Writes a complete sentence introducing a cited direct quote and writes 1 sentence of reasoning linking evidence to the claim. | Fluidly embeds cited evidence using varied transitions and writes comprehensive reasoning demonstrating deep inferential alignment. |
SDI for Evidence & Comprehension
- • CER Writing Frames: "The author proves [claim] by stating, '[quote]' (paragraph #). This demonstrates that [reasoning]."
- • MC Distractor Elimination: Step-by-step text-marking routine to eliminate "true about the story, but doesn't prove the claim" options.
- • Theme vs. Plot Anchor Chart: Visual cue differentiating "What happened" (plot) from "What we learn about life" (theme).
Measurement & Assessment Schedule
- • Probe Format: Alternating bi-weekly 4-question MC evidence probes and 1 written argument-evidence response.
- • Data Log: Case manager records percentage accuracy for MC items and rubric level (1–4) for written evidence & theme/CI.
- • Quarterly Reviews: Review growth toward Level 3 target to adjust scaffolding intensity as baseline gaps close.
Quarterly Progress Tracking Quick-Log Criteria: MC % Correct + Rubric Score (1–4)
Quarter 1 Probe
Target: 50% MC | Level 2 Rubric
MC: __% | Rubric: __
Quarter 2 Probe
Target: 65% MC | Level 2.5 Rubric
MC: __% | Rubric: __
Quarter 3 Probe
Target: 75% MC | Level 3 Rubric
MC: __% | Rubric: __
Quarter 4 Probe
Target: 80%+ MC | Level 3+ Rubric
MC: __% | Rubric: __
Evidence-Based Reading & Writing Rubric • SDI Protocols Page 2 of 2 • Evaluation & Data Collection
