Use a fictional individual learning plan to guide teaching
This is a limited teaching-support plan for one wholly invented learner code, IL01. It is not a diagnosis, a mandated IEP form, an eligibility decision or approval for formal assessment accommodations. The completed plan can be reviewed as a teaching example now; competent inclusion/specialist review of the plan and appropriate local authorisation remain pending before real use. Do not put actual learner information into this public example.
Complete baseline and access record
Target area: comparing two-digit whole numbers by tens when the tens differ. The case provides no medical history or explanation for the observed errors. Baseline on 6 October: for 38 versus 41, IL01 chooses 38 “because 8 is bigger than 1”; for 52 versus 49, chooses 49 “because 9 is bigger than 2”. Both answers use ones digits and are incorrect for the stated comparison. The correct choices are 41 and 52, explained by 4 tens versus 3 and 5 tens versus 4.
In the fictional planning conversation, IL01 asks for one pair on each line and enough room to draw tens/ones. That is a stated task-format preference in this case, not evidence of a diagnosis. Teacher proposes a readable paper version and an oral or drawn explanation where the mathematical goal is preserved. Any real learner’s access requirements and response arrangements must be agreed with the relevant staff and learner, with specialist input where needed.
The filled individual teaching plan
| Field | Completed case entry |
|---|---|
| Plan identity and purpose | IL01-P1, original model, created 6 October 2026. Purpose: guide a short teaching sequence and collect interpretable comparison evidence. |
| Baseline | Two independent comparisons use the larger ones digit; exact responses retained above. Limited to these two tasks. |
| Specific goal | Across two fresh four-pair checks at separate review opportunities, choose the greater number and explain using tens for at least 3 of 4 pairs, without a content hint. This is a locally chosen instructional criterion, not a standard or guarantee. |
| Teaching support | Teacher demonstrates tens/ones drawings; learner compares quantities and says why tens decide these pairs. Present one pair per line. Keep response mode and any prompts in the record. |
| First taught model | Compare 27 and 34:2 tens versus 3 tens, so 34 is greater; the 7 ones in 27 do not outweigh the extra ten in 34. Draw 27 as 20+7 and 34 as 30+4. |
| Practice and adult responsibility | On 8 October, teacher offers 46/53 and 61/58; expected 53 and 61 with tens reasons. Teacher records first answer before giving feedback and checks whether the format can be used. |
| Review schedule | 13 October and 20 October are fictional available dates. Use four new pairs each time; no answer is pre-entered as achieved. |
| Evidence retained | Task ID/date, exact choice/reason, response route, support and next action. No diagnosis, family detail or real name needed for this teaching illustration. |
| People who would need to review a real plan | Responsible teacher and appropriately qualified inclusion/specialist staff, with learner/caregiver involvement as locally appropriate and authorised. No actual person has reviewed or approved this draft. |
| Access and privacy | Keep any real plan in the school’s approved restricted system. Share only the necessary information through authorised channels; do not publish it, upload it to open tools or include it in peer review. |
| Stop/revise condition | If the task remains inaccessible, a support supplies the assessed reasoning, or evidence suggests a different learning need, pause interpretation and seek appropriate review rather than force the score. |
Worked teaching and review record
| Date / task | Supplied fictional response and support | Decision |
|---|---|---|
| 8 October · practice | 46/53→53 with 5 versus 4 tens, no hint on the item.61/58→61 after teacher asks for the tens counts. | First response independently reasoned after teaching; second supported. Neither is a full four-pair goal check. |
| 13 October · check A | 45/52→52 with 5>4 tens; 72/68→72 with 7>6; 35/41→41 with 4>3; 68/71→68 because 8>1. No content hints. | 3/4 meets this one check’s chosen criterion. Ones-based choice recurs on last pair; discuss it after scoring. Goal across two checks is not yet established. |
| 20 October · check B, scheduled | Pairs 29/32,54/61,76/83,47/52. Expected 32,61,83,52 with 3>2,6>5,8>7,5>4 tens. No learner response yet. | Pending. Do not complete the achievement field from the answer key. |
| Next planned action | If B meets criterion independently, widen to suitable mixed comparisons; if not, inspect method/access and revise support with teacher/specialist input. | Conditional plan, not an implemented outcome. |
The correct answers in check B are a teacher key. Cover them during the learner attempt. If a prompt supplies the tens count, keep the resulting work as supported evidence. One correct response, a completed worksheet or an unchanged plan date cannot substitute for the two specified independent checks.
Review questions and independent teacher practice
| Review area | Specific question for the competent reviewer | Current state |
|---|---|---|
| Goal and task fit | Does the narrow comparison goal follow the observed work and applicable taught content? | Pending professional review. |
| Access and equivalence | Does one-pair-per-line/oral explanation preserve this mathematics goal for the intended learner, and what other access support is appropriate? | Pending actual learner/specialist consultation. |
| Evidence interpretation | Are content hints distinguished from neutral access support, and are two checks enough for the intended low-stakes teaching decision? | Pending professional review; no high-impact decision authorised. |
| Privacy and local process | Are storage, authorised viewers and review participants appropriate under the school’s process? | Pending local authorisation. |
Practice: A draft review says, “The learner has a disorder and is now cured because 3/4 was correct on 13 October.” Replace it with an evidence-based update.
Worked answer and review
“On 13 October, IL01 independently met the comparison criterion in 3 of 4 supplied items. The last response still chose by ones. Discuss that response and retain the 20 October fresh check. The two-check goal is not yet established.” The data neither diagnose a condition nor establish a cure. Keep specialist questions open rather than inventing a signature.
UNESCO’s inclusive-teaching overview emphasises identifying barriers to learning. It supports the general orientation here, not this plan’s numerical goal, a Kenyan mandated form or approval of any particular support.
WhatsApp Us Now