What is included in the IEP document?

Page 7: Challenging, Ambitious, Measurable Annual Goals

The second required component of an IEP is the measurable annual goals section. The academic and/or functional goals described in this section are intended to meet a student’s disability related needs that enable her to be involved in and make progress in (a) the general education curriculum (e.g., achieve grade-level mathematics skills) and (b) other education-related areas that arise from the student’s disability (e.g., improve articulation, increase socially appropriate behaviors). Measurable annual goals describe what the student is reasonably expected to accomplish in a 12-month period, when provided with appropriate special education services. Each measurable annual goal should:

• Address academic and/or functional needs identified in a PLAAFP statement
• Be guided by grade-level content standards and therefore tied to participation in the general education curriculum
• Include benchmarks or short-term objectives (for students taking alternate assessments aligned to alternate achievement standards)
• Help IEP team members determine whether a student is making educational progress and whether the special education program is providing meaningful educational benefit
• Lead to a corresponding special education service

Developing Measurable Annual Goals

To begin the process of writing measurable annual goals, the IEP team should:

• Start with the academic and functional needs identified in the PLAAFP statements
• Identify any relevant state academic standards for the student’s grade
• Discuss what the student should be able to achieve during the next 12 months

Once this is done, the team is ready to design annual goals that will help close the gap between the student’s current skill levels and the expected academic and/or functional performance levels. Each goal has four elements: a target behavior, the conditions under which the target behavior will be exhibited and measured, the criterion for acceptable performance, and the timeframe within which the student will meet the criterion. To develop each element, the team members can ask guiding questions that will help them narrow down the information that should be documented in each goal. The table below outlines sample guiding questions for each element and offers tips for writing measurable annual goals.

To help develop well-written, measurable goals, IEP teams may consider using the acronym SMART. These characteristics, when applied to the four goal elements above, can support IEP team members in the goal-development process. Learn more about SMART in the box below.

	Specific	Clearly stated descriptions of each goal element: the conditions, the academic or functional skill, the criterion for success, and the timeframe within which the criterion should be met
	Measurable	Quantifiable by a defined standard that can be observed in some way, particularly so that any amount of change can subsequently be identified and/or evaluated
	Actively phrased	Involving actions that are clearly observable (e.g., “Write a five-sentence paragraph.”) rather than implied (e.g., “Improve your writing.”)
	Realistic	Practical but ambitious and challenging and based on relevant information (e.g., evaluation results, previous rates-of-growth, the student’s unique circumstances, IEP team members’ professional judgment)
	Time-limited	Involves a specified timeframe within which the skill is anticipated to be mastered

Note: There are multiple versions of SMART in which the letters stand for different terms (e.g., ambitious for ‘A’ or relevant for ‘R’). The primary factor to consider when using any of them is to determine whether they will help develop better IEP goals.

The IEP team should keep in mind that these goals should be written in brief, specific, and clear language that can be easily understood by all members of the IEP team. Keeping the SMART acronym in mind, the goal below was written for K, the student from the previous page, based on his PLAAFP statement.

The next two goals were written for a different student whose IEP included PLAAFP statements with identified needs in the areas of mathematics calculation (double-digit multiplication) and initiating appropriate peer interactions.

Note: The order in which the goal elements are written depends on the information laid out in the overall goal. For example, the timeframe may be placed prior to the condition in some instances and after the performance criterion in others.

In the interview below, Mitch Yell provides some insight into the need for measurable annual goals. Although IEP teams have always been required to develop and include annual goals in students’ IEPs, Congress changed this requirement to measurable annual goals in the 1997 reauthorization of IDEA. The distinction is important because it is difficult, if not impossible, to show student growth if goals are not measurable (time 1:05).

Endrew Implications for Developing Ambitious and Challenging Annual Goals

Although IDEA requires IEP goals to be measurable, courts have ruled that they must also be ambitious and challenging. Goals that contain all four elements—target behavior, condition, performance criterion, and timeframe—may be considered “complete” in a technical sense, but those that are also ambitious and challenging are more likely to meet the Endrew substantive standard. IEP teams should have high expectations for the student and create goals that are ambitious and challenging enough for her to make meaningful progress. Additionally, goals should be realistic, based on the team’s knowledge of the student’s unique circumstances.

In Carter v. Florence County School District Four (see box above), 9th-grade student Shannon Carter’s reading scores were four to five years below grade level. Her IEP team developed annual reading goals that called for growth of only four months, which the court found to be “wholly inadequate. … Because much more progress was necessary in order to provide Shannon an appropriate education” (Carter v. Florence County School District Four, 1991, p. 454). Goals that are not ambitious and challenging may be readily achieved but do not result in meaningful progress for the student. Such goals may render the IEP inappropriate. Shannon’s goals were so unambitious that the district court judge found that she was denied an appropriate education.

The Endrew decision recognizes that teams should have high expectations for the progress of a student and should craft challenging and ambitious IEP goals. However, goals should not be so ambitious that there is little chance that a student will actually achieve them. For example, because Shannon was reading four to five years below grade level, it would not have been realistic to expect her to be reading at grade level by the end of the year. Therefore, the team must draw on current data and their collective expertise to create a goal that strikes a balance between being ambitious and challenging and being realistic.

Remember that the annual goals are meant to guide instruction for the next 12 months. In this interview, Tamara McLean discusses some considerations regarding annual goal development and updates (time: 0:57).

This toolbox describes additional resources related to the information presented on this page. These resources are provided for informational purposes only for those who wish to learn more about the topic(s). It is not necessary for those working through this module to read or refer to all of these additional resources to understand the content. Annual Goals This document, prepared by the Center for Parent Information & Resources (CPIR), provides information on developing measurable annual goals, including the importance of tying them to the needs identified in the PLAAFP statements, and provides examples for each goal element. High Expectations and Appropriate Supports: The Importance of IEPs The video below is part of the virtual 2018 OSEP Symposium High Expectations and Appropriate Supports: The Importance of IEPs. In this clip, Chris Lemons, Associate Professor of Special Education at Vanderbilt University, demonstrates how to use state academic achievement standards to develop challenging IEP goals (time: 2:52). Video Player Media error: Format(s) not supported or source(s) not found Download File: https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/wp-content/uploads/module_media/iep01_media/movies/iep07_video_p07.mp4?_=1Download File: https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/wp-content/uploads/module_media/iep01_media/movies/iep07_video_p07.webm?_=1 00:00 00:00 00:00 None English (loading) Use Up/Down Arrow keys to increase or decrease volume. View Transcript Transcript: Chris Lemons – High Expectations and Appropriate Supports: The Importance of IEPs So next I’m going to talk about the relation between challenging goals and objectives, and state academic achievement standards. Standards are written to outline a developmental trajectory through a content area. As you can see … for example goals on the right hand side of your screen. Each of these could be an appropriate IEP goal or objective target, so a skill that we want a child to learn, for a child with a disability who is functioning at that instructional level. Standards like these, I think, can really be useful to guide an evaluation of the student’s present levels of academic performance. Again, the examples on the slide, you can imagine knowing and applying grade-level phonics, and word analysis skills, and decoding words, that is a goal target that may be appropriate for a specific student. If you look on the next slide, you can see how we might turn the standard into an IEP goal. If we have a standard that we want a child to segment spoken single syllable words, into their complete sequence of individual sounds, or phonemes, we would want to conduct an assessment. Here, I suggested that the school use a first grade curriculum based measure, or CBM, phoneme segmentation fluency at a first grade level. That is this child’s instructional level. On the median of three probes, Chadwick, the student, was able to provide 12 correctly segmented phonemes within one minute. This provides us information that, by the end of the year, a reasonable goal could be, “By the end of the year, when presented with three probes from a first grade phoneme segmentation fluency CBM, Chadwick will correctly provide 45 correctly segmented phonemes in one minute.” I think it’s also good to realize that this also can provide instructional information. So you can see that Chadwick is currently providing only the first sound for words. That’s the instructional target that can help the teacher plan instruction. I think it’s also useful to know IEP teams should not feel the need to solely rely on standards to write objectives. The IEP team really should return to the language of Endrew, and as they’re having conversations about the IEP goals, to return to these words and clarify whether they have a cogent responsive explanation for the plan, and whether it’s really reasonably calculated for the individual child. Okay. Why is considering instructional level goals and objectives important? A recent meta‐analysis found that, in the area of reading at least, students with disabilities are currently performing 1.17 standard deviations less well than their typically developing peers. This represents about a gap of 3.3 years. I think that it’s worth considering whether writing an annual goal that represents more than three years worth of growth will really be seen as being defensible, or achievable. Further, writing goals that are more closely aligned to the child’s correct achievement level, will often begin to provide clear guidance as to what the actual instruction, or intervention, should look like.