Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The review of Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District case revealed that an Individualized Education Program (IEP) requires inclusion of specific measurable goals to ensure educational benefit. The purpose of this article is to provide a systematic approach to progress monitoring IEP goals in mathematics, which monitors whether a student is benefiting from the mathematics instruction being provided. Using curriculum-based measures (CBM) is discussed as a feasible tool for monitoring the progress of students and creating specific measurable IEP goals. The article includes step-by-step strategies and guidelines for teachers to collect CBM data, create strategic IEP goals, and evaluate student progress.

Keywords

progress monitoring curriculum-based measurement mathematics

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bryant

D. P.

Porterfield

Dennis

M. S.

Falcomata

Valentine

Brewer

Bell

(2016). The effects of a tier 3 intervention on the mathematics performance of second grade students with severe mathematics difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49(2), 176–188.

Dennis

M. S.

Gratton-Fisher

(2020). Use data-based individualization to improve high school students’ mathematics computation and mathematics concept and application performance. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 35(3), 126–138.

Deno

S. L.

(1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52(3), 219–232.

Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 580 U.S. (2017).

Endrew F. V. Douglas County School District, 798 F. 3d 1329. (10th Cir. 2015).

Foegen

Jiban

Deno

(2007). Progress monitoring measures in mathematics: A review of the literature. The Journal of Special Education, 41(2), 121–139.

Fuchs

L. S.

Vaughn

(2014). What is intensive instruction and why is it important? Teaching Exceptional Children, 46(4), 13–18.

Fuchs

L. S.

Fuchs

(2002). Curriculum-based measurement: Describing competence, enhancing outcomes, evaluating treatment effects, and identifying treatment nonresponders. Peabody Journal of Education, 77(2), 64–84.

Johnson

K. N.

Thompson

K. L.

Farmer

R. L.

(2020). Determining growth sensitivity of star math with a latent growth curve model. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 35(3), 197–209.

10.

Powell

S. R.

Fuchs

L. S.

(2015). Intensive interventions in mathematics. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 30(4), 182–192.

11.

Vanderheyden

A. M.

Codding

R. S.

Martin

(2017). Relative value of common screening measures in mathematics. School Psychology Review, 46(1), 65–87.

12.

Wells

J. C.

Sheehey

P. H.

Sheehey

(2017). Using self-monitoring of performance with self-graphing to increase academic productivity in math. Beyond Behavior, 26(2), 57–65.

13.

Yell

M. L.

Bateman

D. F.

(2017). Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (2017): FAPE and the U.S. Supreme Court. Teaching Exceptional Children, 50(1), 7–15.

Systematic Progress Monitoring of Individualized Education Program Goals in Mathematics

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References