EDEX 790 Student Report Final
Sample for Practice Purposes only
| Name: Isabel |
|
| D.O.B.: 7/2/94 |
C.A.: 8-4 |
| School: Hurricane Elementary |
Grade: 2.2 |
| Teacher: Mrs. Weathers |
Evaluation Procedures and Dates:
| Observation |
10/2/02 & 10/30/02 |
| CBM Assessment |
10/15/02 & 10/16/02 |
| WJIII |
10/31/02 & 11/13/02 |
| Brigance |
11/13/02 |
Reason for Referral: Isabel was chosen by her teacher and evaluated to meet the requirements for EDEX 790 in order to be assessed on her performance in academic areas.
Relevant Background: Isabel is currently is her third year but second grade at Hurricane Elementary. She began special education services in 1999 as a Kindergartner. She is currently placed in a self-contained ED class and has one general education teacher for math.
Classroom Observations: During the first observation in the
self-contained classroom, Isabel was working on reading. I used time sampling
with three behaviors defining on-task and three behaviors defining disruption.
The on-task behaviors I looked for were: 1) reading, either aloud (when called
to), along with the group, or silently 2) writing, and 3) attending to the
lesson, shown by giving eye contact to the speaker of the moment. The disruptive
behaviors were 1) talking out on topic, but not recognized first 2) talking
out off topic 3) not attending (looking elsewhere or otherwise occupied).
For comparison I observed a peer during the session that was in Isabel’s
same instructional group, but sat at least five feet from her. The peer was
also closer to the instructor than Isabel, who was sitting in one of the farthest
seats from the instructor. I chose to check Isabel and the peer at intervals
of 30 seconds.
During the initial nine-ten minutes a teacher-lead discussion of the reading
selection took place. During this time, Isabel displayed passive attending
during seven intervals (out of 20) and answered questions by the instructor
when asked, during four intervals. She was inattentive, looking elsewhere
or laying her head down, during three intervals, and spoke out of turn, but
on topic, during four intervals. By contrast, her peer was attentive during
six intervals, inattentive during four, spoke out of turn (on topic) on three
occasions and participated when called upon on seven occasions. This resulted
in Isabel being either mildly disruptive or off-task for 8/20 intervals and
her peer for 7/20, not a remarkable difference. On task percentage were 60%
for Isabel and 65% for the peer.
The subsequent five minutes were devoted to a “round robin” style
reading of the story. At this time Isabel seemed inattentive- looking mostly
at his desk or lap- for seven out of ten intervals. She attended to other
readers once and attempted to read when called upon for one minute. Her peer
only seemed inattentive for two intervals, raised his hand once for a comment,
and read for one interval. Thus, while Isabel was very passive during this
time, she did not appear to be on task.
The final five minutes of the observed period were spent on a writing assignment.
During this time a fairly significant change in Isabel was noted; she was
inattentive during the entire writing session, and was disruptive- talking
with classmates- for five consecutive intervals, about 2.5 minutes out of
five. This contrasts with the observed peer, who was on-task for six of the
ten intervals, and was not disruptive the entire five minutes.
From this observation it appeared that Isabel did not exhibit significant
behavior problems and was not greatly disruptive. The only minor disruption
she displayed was talking, and this was in a normal tone of voice and during
a narrow, specific time frame. She was overall a passive student and not a
participant in class activities. She showed a greater inattentiveness during
reading and writing segments than during the pre-reading “walk-through”
and discussion.
I observed a second time when Isabel attended her general education math classroom.
This was her first day in the math class because her teacher rearranged her
morning schedule to allow more one-on-one time with Isabel to work on reading
and writing. The math class was working in a large, teacher lead group on
money and then “doubles.” Isabel appeared fidgety or restless
(moving around in her chair, biting her fingernails) at times but eager to
answer even though she was not sure of the correct answer. I again used time
sampling with three behaviors defining on-task and three behaviors defining
disruption. Compared with her peers, Isabel remained on task 90% of the time
while her near and far peers were on task 75% and 65% of the time, respectively.
Isabel seemed to like math, only appearing to have difficulty when she answered
before thinking the whole problem out in her head.
Testing Observations: Isabel was cooperative and attentive to the tasks. Isabel was cooperative and attentive to the tasks. At this time I have worked with Isabel to complete three different reading samples. I also worked with her completing some of the reading tasks with the Brigance. She needed a few breaks, sometimes in the middle of a test, especially when the items became more difficult. When she was reading from the books, she was able to maintain her attention for 1 minute. She would wiggle in her seat when she came to a word she did not know and also when I asked her some comprehension questions on the text. Overall she was willing to work and maintain attention in a one-to-one situation.
During the WJIII assessment, Isabel attempted the difficult tasks, but gave up easily skipping to the next one. Sometimes during a test, Isabel would stand up or half lean out of her chair while answering questions. This behavior occurred when she was near the ceiling and appeared to be guessing at answers. She seemed to have more difficulty during the timed tests. She would look around, or speak off topic, which limited the amount of questions she was able to answer. She was given breaks in between all sub-tests; during this time, we would have a conversation or read a book of his choice. Overall, Isabel appeared to work hard during the testing period and remained cooperative.
Test and Subtests Administered:
Woodcock-Johnson III Test of Achievement, Standard Battery
| Subtest | Standard Score | Percentile Ranks | Grade Equivalent | Age Equivalent |
| Letter-Word Identification | 85 | 16 | 2.1 | 7-5 |
| Reading Fluency | 81 | 10 | 1.7 | 7-0 |
| Passage Comprehension | 89 | 24 | 2.0 | 7-4 |
| Broad Reading | 82 | 12 | |
7-3 |
| Calculation | 93 | 32 | 2.4 | 7-9 |
| Math Fluency | 101 | 52 | 3.0 | 8-5 |
| Applied Problems | 104 | 61 | 3.1 | 8-8 |
| Broad Mathematics | 99 | 47 | |
8-3 |
| Spelling | 86 | 18 | 1.8 | 7-6 |
| Writing Fluency | 87 | 19 | 2.1 | 7-2 |
| Writing Samples | 98 | 46 | 2.4 | 8-2 |
| Broad Written Language | 87 | 19 | 7-6 |
|
| Sound Awareness (or any other subtests that you have given, if you have given a number of subtests that fit into one of the BROAD categories then just add that here) | 100 | 51 | 2.8 | 8-5 |
Level of Achievement:
Before the test results are discussed, a brief explanation of scores is offered.
Standardized tests are tests for which the test publisher develops the “norms”
or norm-referenced scores. In order to find out what scores are high, average,
or low, they give the test to a large number of children across the country.
The students in the national population samples are carefully selected. The
publisher will use census data to select a group of students so that their
scores on the test will represent the scores that would have been gotten if
all the children in the country had been tested. After the group has been
selected, the test’s directions are very specifically written. The test
is always presented in the same way to all children. This is done so all children
have the same chance to know what they are supposed to do on the test. A test
written and administered in this way is a “standardized” test.
Fairly specific parameters of “correct” answers are also given.
Standard or scale scores are typically used in interpreting ability (IQ) or
achievement tests.
Percentile ranks describe performance on a scale from 1 to 99 relative to
the performance of some segment of the norming sample that is at a specific
age or grade level. The subject’s percentile rank indicates the percentage
of the children in the norm group who got the same scores or a lower score
on the test. These scores are frequently misunderstood since an “average”
score falls between the 25th and 75th percentile. This is because the distance
between the 1st and the 2nd percentile is much larger than the distance between
the 50th and 51st percentile. That is, the scale is not divided evenly.
A special feature of the WJIII is the option to use either grade- or age-based
norms. A grade equivalent reflects the subject’s performance in terms
of the grade level in the norming sample at which the average score is the
same as the subject’s score. An age equivalent score is similar to a
grade equivalent, except that it reflects performance in terms of the age
level in the norming sample at which the average score is the same as the
subject’s score.
Percentile ranks and Standard scores are
based on age and not grade placement because Isabel is older than most students
in the second grade. The WJIII classifications based on standard score and
percentile ranks are as follows:
High Average= SS 111 to 120 and % Rank 76 to 91
Average= SS 90 to 110 and % Rank 25 to 75
Low Average = SS 80 to 89 and % Rank 9 to 24
Low = SS 70 to 79 and % Rank3 to 8
Very Low = SS 69 and below and % Rank 0.1 to 2
The results of the WJIII placed Isabel in the low average to average range of achievement in all areas. The Broad Mathematics and Sound Awareness scores were in the average range of achievement and both the Broad Written Language and Broad Reading scores were in the low average range.
Isabel's Broad Reading standard score of 82 places her overall reading performance in the low average range. Her instructional On the Letter-Word Identification subtest, Isabel read words presented in a list form within the low average range, a standard score of 85. Isabel could automatically identify several words but required more time and attention to the words she had to decode. On the Reading Fluency subtest, Isabel read and comprehended sentences within the low average range, a standard score of 81. Isabel was able to comprehend the sentences but was limited due to her basic reading skills and time requirements of the test. On the Passage Comprehension subtest, that required Isabel to read a short passage and supply the missing word, her standard score of 89 placed her one point below the average range. The nine-point difference between her basic reading fluency skills and comprehension skills reflects Isabel increased ability to gain meaning from words in context when she is not timed. This also indicate that she needs assistance to increase her reading fluency. The instructional zone for Broad Reading is from an easy grade level of 1.7 to a difficult grade level of 2.6 Informal reading assessments and curriculum based monitoring would provide additional information on reading strengths and weaknesses.
Isabel's Broad Math score of 99 places her overall math performance in the average range. Isabel's standard score of 93 on the Calculation subtest, which required her to perform mathematical computations in a worksheet format, placed her in the average range. Isabel quit working when she approached the subtraction of a two-digit number from a two-digit number, which was one problem away from a multiplication problem (not yet taught). On the Math Fluency subtest, Isabel accurately and rapidly solved simple addition and subtraction problems within the average range, a standard score of 101. On the Applied Problems subtest, Isabel was required to look at pictures and count items, tell time and temperature, and count money. She received a standard score of 104 which placed her in the average range. Isabel's overall scores in the area of math are average, showing strength in applying her computation skills to solving mathematical problems in everyday situations.Isabel's Broad Written Language score of 87 places her overall writing performance in the average range. On the Spelling subtest, Isabel produced single letters and words in response to oral prompts within the low average range, a standard score of 86. Isabel could identify lower case and upper case letters but tried to spell words phonetically that required the memorization of visual features. She also omitted needed letters. This weakness in spelling words was consistent with her difficulty in reading words in list form as evidenced by the fact that Isabel could automatically spell several words but required more time and attention on the words she had to spell phonetically. On the Writing Fluency subtest, Isabel wrote legible, simple sentences with acceptable English syntax within the low average range, a standard score of 87. Isabel wrote slowly but accurately and was limited due to the time constraint. This is consistent with Isabel's reading skills being limited due to time as evidenced by her low average score on the timed subtest Reading Fluency. Isabel's standard score of 98 on the Writing Samples subtest, which required writing meaningful sentences in response to a variety of tasks, placed her achievement in the average range. The twelve-point difference between her writing skills and spelling skills reflects Isabel's strength in her ability to produce expressive sentences. In addition, the writing samples subtest does not deduct for errors in spelling. capitalization, or punctuation.
On the Sound Awareness subtest, Isabel demonstrated her phonological awareness abilities by rhyming, deleting sounds, substituting sounds, and reversing sounds within the average range, a standard score of 100. Isabel rhymed, deleted sounds, and substituted sounds with ease but found reversing sounds difficult. Isabel appears to have the prerequisite phonological skills for reading but is not yet automatic in her decoding skills.
(Update your initial report by relating your findings on the CBM, to the WJIII and your one other assessments. If there is major information to be added then include a section. Use common sense, only include the parts of the final report that apply to your situation. If you did not do testing in oral language then you would not include this part. If your only assessment in written language was with the WJIII, then you do not have to include it again.)
Brigance Comprehensive Inventory of Basic Skills 10/22/2002
Summary of Test & Level Placed
Word Recognition: First Grade Level
Oral Reading: Upper Second Grade Level
Reading Comprehension: Upper Second Grade Level
Spelling: Second Grade Level
Sentence Writing: First Grade Level
Capitalization Beginnings of sentences, Pronoun I, Initials
Punctuation Level 1 - Did not get any correct
Reading Performance (Based on WJIII, IRI or Brigance): Isabel's reading skills range from a second to fifth grade level. Her decoding skills of words in isolation and in context are at a second grade level. Her comprehension skills range from fourth to fifth grade.
Isabel read both words from a list and words from a passage at the second grade level. She was weak in the skills needed to analyze unfamiliar words. Although she attempted to sound out some of the words, she was unable to blend the sounds together to produce the whole word. This weakness in reading words in isolation was consistent with her ability to read words in context as evidenced by the fact that she had to keep going back to the beginning of a sentence in attempting to decipher the words in a passage.
Isabel's reading comprehension skills were slightly stronger than her word word recognition skills. When reading aloud, Isabel was able to understand what she read at the fourth grade instructional level. However. Isabel's silent reading comprehension skills are much weaker, as she performed at a second grade instructional level when asked to read a passage and answer questions. Isabel's difficulty, however, is not with comprehension as evidenced by her ability to listen to a fifth grade passage read aloud and correctly answer questions about it. Her performance in listening comprehension indicates that if she had the decoding and fluency skills, her comprehension would be age appropriate.
Oral Language (based on the TOLD-2, if applicable): : According
to the TOLD-2 Primary, Isabel's overall spoken language score fell in the
average range of performance with a standard score (SS) of 89. Isabel's strengths
were in the receptive language areas of Phonology (SS 100), which required
Isabel to detect subtle differences in speech sounds and to pronounce words
correctly, and Listening (SS 100), in which Isabel demonstrated her ability
to understand speech. In both of these broad areas, Chad performed in the
average range of performance. On the individual subtest of Grammatic Understanding,
in which Isabel had to listen to a sentence and point to the corresponding
picture, Isabel scored in the average range with a scaled score of 11. On
the Word Discrimination subtest, Isabel had to listen to two words that had
subtle phonological differences and determine if the words were the same or
different. On this subtest, Isabel scored in the average range with a scaled
score of 11. Isabel's weaknesses were in the expressive language areas of
Syntax (SS 83), in which Isabel had to understand and generate grammatically
correct sentences, Semantics (SS 91), in which Isabel had to understand the
meanings of words, and Speaking (SS 82), in which Isabel had to communicate
ideas orally. In the individual subtest of Grammatic Completion, Isabel was
required to complete sentences with the correct grammatical form of a word.
Isabel's low average performance (scaled score 6) on this subtest indicated
difficulties in the use of plurals, verb tenses, and possessives. In the Sentence
Imitation subtest in which Isabel had to listen to increasingly complex sentences
and repeat them verbatim, Isabel obtained a scaled score of 5, which is in
the low average range. Isabel's errors on this subtest were generally minor
errors that did not change the meaning of a sentence but indicated a weakness
in the appropriate use of grammatical structures. Isabelagain demonstrated
lower scores in the area of vocabulary. She obtained a scaled score of 8 on
Picture Vocabulary, in which she had to point to pictures of words, and a
scaled score of 9 on Oral Vocabulary, in which she had to define words, placing
her in the average range of performance on both of these subtests. Isabel's
lower performance in vocabulary is interfering with reading comprehension
and with written language tasks.
TOWL Written Language ( if applicable) : According to the TOWL-2, Isabel's overall written language score fell in the low average range with a SS of 84. He scored in the low average range in Contrived Writing with a SS of 74. Isabel had difficulty with Sentence Combining, obtaining a scaled score of 5 (low average range). While she was able to combine the example "Tom is big. Tom is a man.", Isabel was not able to combine the remaining sentences in the subtest. During administration of this subtest, Isabel became frustrated, repeating several times, "I can't do this." Isabel acted frustrated throughout administration of the Contrived Written Language. Comments included, "Do I have to do all these?"; "My neck is hurting."; "I can't do these." When asked if she was a writer, Isabel replied emphatically "NO!". Asked why, she replied, "I don't like to write. . . . It's just one of those things I don't like to do."
Isabel_ scored in the average range in Spontaneous Writing with a SS of 96. Isabel's strengths were in Contextual Style (S= 12) and Thematic Maturity (S= 11). Contextual Style required the proper use of punctuation and capitalization. Thematic Maturity requires the student the mention a predetermined element in the story content. Initially, Isabel balked when asked to write a story using both pages. Once she started writing, she did not hesitate. However, when she finished her story and still had half a page left on the second page, Isabel wrote a big THE END and signed her name to fill the page.
Math Performance (based on Key Math or Brigance, if applicable): According to the Key Math, Isabel's overall math performance fell in the average range with a SS of 111. Isabel demonstrated an appropriate mastery of mathematical operations and applications as evidenced by her scores of SS 114 (Operations) and SS 111 (Application). A discrepancy was noted among the subtests. Isabel obtained a SS of 104 on the Basic Concepts subtest as compared to scores obtained on Operations (SS 114) and Application (SS 111). It was noted when computing, Isabel used her fingers to count. It was also noted when adding using addition sentences, Isabel often rewrote the problem in columnar form. Weaknesses were also noted in identifying passage of time and interpreting data using charts and graphs. When asked to read the date Aug, 6, 1980 Isabel read the date Aug. 6, 1890. Isabel was also not able to determine the date of the third Tuesday in a month.
Summary and Conclusions (now all reports should include this part):
Isabel's overall performance ranged from low average to average. Her relative strengths were her comprehension skills, math, writing meaningful sentences when given a task, and phonological skills. However, Isabel is not as strong in reading, spelling, and writing fluency abilities. She is strong in word recognition. However, Isabel is not as strong as strong in her independent reading comprehension abilities. Comprehension difficulties arose in recalling detail and sequencing of events. These skills also influences lower scores in Contrived Written Language, as well as in Applied Problems in mathematics. Based on her testing, Isabel will need support in basic reading decoding skills and in transferring those skills to written expression. In addition, Isabel was limited when a subtest had a time constraint. She was able to do the work but had difficulty when she had to finish in a specific amount of time. She will need assistance to increase her fluency skills.
Isabel's strength is in mathematical skills. Overall the biggest discrepancy is between her math abilities and her reading/written language. These results are also supported by the fact that she attends general education for math and that her time on task in math class is excellent. Isabel will be monitored in mathematics depending on her scores on PACT and MAPS starting in 3rd grade.
Based on the results additional instruction and curriculum based assessment in reading to pinpoint specific phonetic weaknesses would be appropriate. In addition curriculum based assessment related to the mechanics of written language would be helpful.
<Please note that some of what you have written in this report will be used to develop your IEP.>
Academic and Functional
Strengths and Needs |
Describe the academic and functional strengths and needs of the student and how the disability affects involvement and progress in the general curriculum.
|
Functional Behavior:
|
Does the student’s behavior warrant a Functional Behavioral Assessment?
|
Present
Levels of Educational Performance |
|||
| Areas of Assessment |
Method of Assessment |
Date |
Findings |
| Basic Reading & Reading Comprehension |
WJIII Brigance |
Date |
In reading fluency, Isabel has improved since 1st grade from reading 9 words per minute to 33 words per minute. But she is still behind her grade peers who are reading, between 50 and 106 words correct per minute. Needs strategies for word attack and decoding to continue building on fluency and her developing skills. Isabel scored in the 16th percentile rank which is low average compared to her peers in letter word identification. Isabel scored in the 24th percentile rank in reading comprehension which is at the lowest end of the average range compared to her peers. She performed better with silent reading comprehension than oral. |
| Math Calculation |
WJIII |
Date |
Isabel scored in the 47rd percentile rank for her broad mathematics score and is performing in the average range. |
| Written Expression |
WJIII Curriculum based |
Date |
|
| Functional Behavior | Observation | Date | Include observations. |
| Accommodations to the General Curriculum |
Based on the student’s disability describe accommodations (supplementary aids) needed to participate and progress in the general curriculum. Consider instructional and classroom management types of accommodations.
|
Modifications to the General Curriculum:
|
| Accommodations for High Stakes Testing |
|
|
| Modifications for High Stakes Testing |
<Reminder about goals
and objectives > |
Objectives: Objectives identify the specific knowledge and/or skills the student is to demonstrate, the conditions under which they are to be exemplified, and the level of proficiency at which the new behaviors are to be performed: |
Time Frame Conditions Target Criterion |
Goal 1: Given a second grade reading text, Isabel
will increase her reading fluency from 33 words a minute to 87 words a minute
at the end of the 36 weeks. (see projected trend on graph at end of the report)
For the purposes of this report, do NOT use state
standards for the goal or the objectives. I want you to practice writing actual
behavioral objectives. Include the standard underneath the goal.
Standard: The student will use word analysis and vocabulary strategies to
read fluently.
Indicators: For example
PHONICS
2-3.7 Use a knowledge of spelling patterns and high-frequency words.
2-3.8 Analyze spelling patterns in context and parts of multisyllabic words
such as onsets and rimes.
2-3.9 Apply a knowledge of alphabetizing a series of words to the second and
third letters.
| Short Term Objectives | Criteria for Mastery |
| Given a list of 20 words at a time, Isabel will read a list of sight words from the 92 words in Reading Mastery II. | 85/92 post test |
| Given 10 word pairs at a time, Isabel will read word pairs such as rat-rate, fin-fine at the second grade level. | 90% accuracy |
| Given a list of 20 words at a time, Isabel read the following sound combinations in isolation and in words at the second grade level: ai, ar, ee, ea, ai, oo, ao, ou | 90% accuracy |
| Given one minute to read, Isabel will increase her fluency by 1.5 words per week. | 100% accuracy |
Goal 2: Given a second grade
reading text, Isabel will increase her reading comprehension to third grade
level.
Standard: The student will use word analysis and vocabulary strategies to
read fluently.
For example:
VOCABULARY DEVELOPMENT
2-3.1 Use context clues to determine the meaning of unfamiliar words.
2-3.2 Construct meaning through a knowledge of base words, prefixes (e.g.,
un-, re-, pre-, bi-, mis-, dis-) and suffixes (e.g., -er, -est, -ful) in context.
2-3.3 Recognize high-frequency words in context.
2-3.4 Identify idioms in context.
2-3.5 Recognize synonyms, antonyms, and homonyms in context.
2-3.6 Use a knowledge of individual words to determine the meaning of compound
words.
| Short Term Objectives | Criteria for Mastery |
| Given a list of 10 compound words at a time, Isabel will identify the meaning of each word. and use each word in a sentence. | 90% post test |
| Given 10 words from a second grade text, Isabel will name a synonym and antonym for each word and use each word in a sentence. | 90% accuracy |
| Given a short story, Isabell will read and answer comprehension questions related to the story. | 90% accuracy |
| Given 10 new words from a story, Isabel will be able to use context clues and research to learn the meaning of the words. | 90% accuracy |
Final Report Rubric Scoring based on 25 points total
| Category | Full Credit | Reduction |
| Quality & interpretation of Information Scoring of all the tests and reporting (copying from report, using correct format, spelling etc), Correction made to student report 1 and WJIII (5) | Every major point well supported with examples and scores from tests. All summaries were organized in an objective, tight, logical fashion. Common similarities between tests and skills were presented. No technical, grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors. Correct scoring on all tests, clear format in presentation. Include scoring and discussion of one additional assessment. | Reduction taken for problems with each test not presented clearly. Reduction taken for inappropriate or inaccurate interpretation of any test item or inconsistencies between tests not discussed. Reduction taken for technical, grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors or incorrect scoring, not clear in format for presentation |
| Quality & interpretation of Information-PLOP (5) | Area of strengths and weaknesses addressed in depth based on information from the report. Summarize all the assessments into one concise paragraph. | Reduction taken for missing information on the areas of strengths and weaknesses addressed based on information from the report. |
Accommodations or modifications for General curriculum - AND Accommodations/modifications for Assessment include those related to high stakes assessment (5) |
Information from report used to make recommendations based on the student’s disability describe accommodations (supplementary aids) needed to participate and progress in the general curriculum. Consider instructional and classroom management types of accommodations. Information from report used to make recommendations for accommodations and modifications for high stakes testing based on the areas for specific type of accommodations. |
Reduction taken if the recommendations do not include accommodations, modifications for general ed. Reduction taken if the recommendations do not include accommodations, modifications for high stakes testing. or incorrectly stated |
| Quality of CBM and trend graph and goal for CBM skill (5) | Three measures of CBM fluency and prediction of possible gain in one year based on national or class norms. Includes graph and appropriately written goal. Includes 3 additional objectives that will supplement the progress in reading fluency. | Reduction taken if CBM graph produced incorrectly. |
| Quality of 1 additional goal and 2 objectives with standard (5) | Goal includes: describe benchmark – increase, decrease, maintain; how and what percentage; at what level. Relate to standards and indicators but do not use standards for the goals and objectives. | Reduction taken if the goal is missing any of the information or standard is missing.or not written in behavioral terms Reduction taken if the goal or the standards are stated identical to a state standard. |
Return to EDEX 790 Syllabus: http://www.ed.sc.edu/caw/edex790.html