Mire is well-liked by her peers. She was nominated as the band leader for her CCA. Recently, her English teacher reported that she has been displaying off-task behaviours such as daydreaming and playing with her stationeries. These behaviours occur at least 8 times in a 30 minutes English lesson, which leads to incomplete written work (e.g. P3 Stellar Booklet). Based on the Schonell Graded Word Spelling Test, her current spelling age is 7 years old.

AG - Given a P3 level spelling list, Mire will be able to spell with 85% accuracy on 2 consecutive weekly spelling test. 

STO 1- Given a P3 level spelling list, Mire will be able to spell with 55% accuracy on 2 consecutive weekly spelling test. 

STO 2- Given a P3 level spelling list, Mire will be able to spell with 65% accuracy on 2 consecutive weekly spelling test. 

STO 3- Given a P3 level spelling list, Mire will be able to spell with 75% accuracy on 2 consecutive weekly spelling test. 

Progress Monitoring:
- Weekly Spelling test results

AG -  During a 1 hour English lesson, Mire will demonstrate appropriate classroom engagement (look at the speaker and whiteboard, raise hand to ask for help and keep hands to herself) for at least 70% of the time over 3 consecutive twice weekly classroom observations.

STO 1 - During a 1 hour English lesson, Mire will look at the speaker for at least 70% of the time over 3 consecutive twice weekly classroom observations.
STO 2 - During a 1 hour English lesson, Mire will raise her hand to ask for help at least 70% of the time over 3 consecutive twice weekly classroom observations.
STO 3 - During a 1 hour English lesson, Mire will keep hands to herself for at least 70% of the time over 3 consecutive twice weekly classroom observations.

Progress Monitoring:
- Interval recording behavioural checklist

I like that the PLOP described the student’s strengths in a nutshell. It may be useful to add in the number of words that makes up her weekly spelling list and how many she can spell accurately.

AG
Better to include the number of words on her spelling list to determine a more concrete figure when calculating accuracy.

STO1/2
Just a thought, maybe we can offer Mire assisted spelling tests with some blanks answered. (Example: ‘friendly’ — assisted, ‘f r _ _ n d l y’)

(Non-Academic)
Just a thought - maybe we can focus on 1 behaviour at a time? To keep her hands to herself. 

Overall, great work! :)

- Objective

- Measurable 

- Very specific

- Good use of data 

- Jargon free

- Maybe can add strengths 

2. Annual Goal 

- Well linked to PLOP

- Very measurable and specific

- Condition, audience, behaviour and criterion were present 

- Observable, trackable STOs

- Descriptive 

- Maybe can add in time element (e.g., on 3 consecutive weekly assessments)

-        However, the degree to which Mire’s spelling skill is not on par was not stated (read _ words per minute).

-        AG is broad enough (to display appropriate classroom behaviour) but gives depth, it seems like an achievable goal that Mire will be able to accomplish with help given. There is C, A, B and D!

-        I am just wondering, for the AG would you have to elaborate more on the strategy, eg Given a P3 grade spelling list, Mire will apply basic spelling strategies and be able to spell with 85% accuracy.. Just a thought! 

-        Nice STOs!

 

Academic  AG/ STO

1.       How many words in the spelling list? What kind of words? 

Non- Academic  AG/ STO

2.       How do you gauge that she has met the 70% of the time? I find it hard to estimate. Do you time how long she keeps her eyes on the speaker or keeps her hand raised or do you count the number of times observed? How many times observed is expected ? 

AG & STO (acad) - Well written, specific

AG & STO (non- acad) – Well written. Just a suggestion, maybe we can focus on 1 behaviour first, like raising her hand? 

- Current spelling age = 7y/o, achieving 85% accuracy level on a P3 spelling list for an AG may be too high for the student? May want to consider lowering the level to 50%? We want to make sure AG is achievable so that we do not need to create more STOs in the long run

Non-academic: 
- May want to focus on max 2 behaviours so as not to overwhelm both student and SENO

- Measurable 

- Very detailed

- Good use of data (e.g., schonell results)

- Strengths included which is a plus

- Can add degree of skills

 

2. Annual Goal 

- Condition, audience, behaviour and criterion were present 

- More details can be included

- Systematic breakdown/increment of STO

- Good indication of time element (e.g., 3 consecutive twice weekly classroom observation)

Academic  AG/ STO

1.       The last part sounds like BM instead of STO because of the milestone. Will he need to achieve once only to be considered met the STO or AG? 

Non- Academic AG/ STO

2.       Sounds like BM too instead of STO. When is the checklist introduced before the AG?

Well done guys

-       Is George able to read Grade 8 passage independently or with help?

-       CABD components in academic Annual Goal may not be entirely present

- STOs are short and succinct!

- Non-academic STOs seem more like a BM due to the phrasing ‘by end of Term 2’, may want to edit it to gradual changes in acceptable behaviour as mentioned by Maddie 

Overall, good work! :)

AG & STO (acad) -  For AG, there is no criterion, and degree. The STOs are SMART.

AG & STO (non-acad) – Very clear. Student will be able to understand and follow. 

- Measurable and observable 

- Very clear and relevant details included 

2. Annual Goal 

- Condition, audience, behaviour and criterion were present 

- Specific details provided
 

- Systematic breakdown/increment of STO

- Maybe can indicate that passage for weekly reading exercise is P3 level also?

-       Yay to including the degree of her strength in the academic PLOP, maybe can include what she is unable to do that is affecting her as well?

-       CABD observed in your AG!

- Her disengagement behaviour was clearly defined in your PLOP description! 

AG & STO (acad) – Very straightforward. Easy to understand.

AG & STO (non-acad) – Agreeing to Madeline’s comment on working on 1 STO per behaviour. 

- Strengths of child included

- Can have more details for reading and spelling

 

2. Annual Goal 

- Succinct and to the point 

- Can improve on condition and criterion 
 

- Specific and measurable 

- Easy to observe

- For the academic domain, STOs are clearly defined and has a systematic increment
- For non-acad STOs, are we looking at completing task irregardless of its accuracy?

I really like how this team included a detailed progress monitoring for both domains. Good job ladies!

-       In your PLOP, it has been clearly defined what he can do and cannot do!

-       CABD components are observed in your AGs as well!

- Does the reading exercise include the grade level passage or an excerpt chosen? 

AG & STO– Well written. Maybe you might want to include to what degree.

-       In your PLOPs, what he can and cannot do have been clearly defined! You guys also elaborated on his degree of disruption in class.

-       CABD components observed in your AGs!