Entry Page Table of Contents Orientation Support Lessons Practice
Navigation bar
previous page disabledreturn to mainnext page disabled
space
Presentation (Transcript) IEPs space
Presentation Graphic Transcript for Lesson 3 Presentation:
Developing the Heart of the IEP

Image 01
Introduction

In the last lesson we left the IEP team members seated comfortably at a round table with herbal tea and soothing music. The meeting is about to begin. In this lesson we deal with the process of developing the heart of the IEP. In Lesson 1, we presented the IDEA requirements for all the elements that must be contained in an IEP. In this lesson we concentrate on the three most important components of an IEP: (a) the statement of the child's present levels of performance, (b) a statement of the special education and related service which are necessary in order to adequately address the child's unique educational needs, and (c) a statement of measurable annual goals, including benchmarks or short-term objectives which indicate the progress a child is expected to be able to make when the district provides appropriate special education and related services. Additional content requirements for the IEP will be addressed in Lesson 4: Completing the IEP.
Image 02 A very simple concept underlies the IEP. It is so simple it is sometimes overlooked or forgotten. The concept is this: the most basic, fundamental purposes of the IEP are (1) to identify and describe the child's unique educational needs (described as present levels of performance), (2) to determine what services are necessary to address those needs, and (3) to establish reasonable goals the student will be able to accomplish if the services are appropriate. This sequence is so critical it should be memorized--What are the student's needs? How will we address those needs? How will we know if our services are appropriate?

As we move into actual IEP development, it is good to remind ourselves that the IEP to be developed must be educationally useful and it must be developed according to the procedural rules of IDEA. If an IEP is not legally correct, a district could be liable for not providing a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to a student with a disability. Such liability could cost the district in time spent in litigation or mediation and in dollars for legal representation and reimbursement to parents. If an IEP is not educationally useful, then all parties to the IEP have wasted their time in developing the IEP, and the student for whom the IEP was developed will not benefit from an appropriate program.
Image 03
Present Levels of Performance

The first thing the IDEA regulations tell us must be in the IEP is a "statement of the child's present levels of performance including how the disability affects the child's involvement and progress in the general curriculum." This is a logical starting place for IEP development. Twenty years ago Appendix C (1981) to the IDEA regulations provided guidance to us about the present levels of performance (PLOPs): (1) the PLOPs should deal with all areas of education that are affected by the disability--academic, daily life activities, mobility, etc.; (2) the PLOPs should be written in objective, measurable terms--self-explanatory test scores may be used if they reflect the impact of the disability; and (3) there should be a direct relationship among the PLOPs, the services to be provided to address the PLOPs, and the goals and objectives (Question 36).
Image 04 Selecting PLOPs

How should the IEP team decide which of the child's hundreds of performance levels should be on the IEP? First, only areas of performance affected by the disability (or otherwise contributing a unique educational need) need be included. It is not appropriate to have a predetermined list of "topics" to be described as PLOPs for every child. If a district chooses (for reasons other than IDEA requirements) to add a descriptive narrative about the child on the IEP, the law does not prevent that. However, it is not required.

It can be helpful to ask, "What is it about this child that requires us to individualize for her?" In other words, what (of educational significance) is not predictable about this girl, given her age, grade, gender, etc.? If a 7th grade student has been diagnosed as learning disabled and attention deficit disordered, odds are high he will be described as disorganized, impulsive, lacking in good sense of time (often late), reading below grade level, and failing to turn in some homework. These, then, are proper topics for the PLOPs, services, and goals. The needs may be combined, or perhaps prioritized, so that on any given IEP there may be only three or four PLOPs and goals. Others may be added later.
Image 05 A related way to approach the selection of PLOPs is to ask, "What are this child's unique needs?" She needs better handwriting, she needs to manage her anger better, to get to school every day and on time, and to read better. Again, these "needs" can then be expressed as PLOPs. Each PLOP will then be addressed by a service and a goal (with objectives).

Let us look at a common example of a student diagnosed with dyslexia who is identified under IDEA as learning disabled (LD). By definition, his reading performance is affected by his disability, so reading level should appear as a PLOP. Further, we will need to include the services to be provided to improve his reading performance and the goal we believe he will reach as a result of the services.

This linking of PLOPs to services to goals and objectives is analogous to a person standing on Highway 101 at milepost 39 (PLOP) waiting for a bus (special education service) to take her to milepost 58 (goal). En route, she'll pass mileposts 40, 45, and 50 (objectives or benchmarks). Milepost numbers are a consistent unit of measurement used from PLOP through objectives to annual goal.
Image 06 Measurable PLOPs

Let us take a moment to discuss the concept of "measurable." More will be said about it when we deal with writing measurable goals and objectives later in this lesson, but it is just as important that the PLOPs be expressed objectively as it is for the goals and objectives. The PLOP tells us where we are starting. Without knowing that, we cannot meaningfully assess progress. For example, Joe was at milepost 50 on December 20. How far had he come since he started on September 1? We have no idea unless we know where Joe started on September 1. This is the function of the PLOP--it tells us where we are starting. Not only must it be measurable, it must be measured! It is not enough to say, "Maria has a real problem with getting to class on time, with the right books, assignments, and a pencil that writes." We need to be able to say that "At least twice a week Maria fails to arrive on time with all the necessary materials." But, more about this later.
Image 07 Units of Measurement

To return to reading performance, what single unit can we use to describe the PLOP, the objectives, and the annual goal? We might consider using a standardized reading test score such as a grade level equivalent (2.1 GE), a standard score (SS = 86), or a percentile (35 %tile). However, we would have to reject all of these because even if they were appropriate measures of progress (they are not), to use any of them would require that in addition to having given the test initially to obtain the PLOP, we would have to re-administer it a minimum of four times within the year. Progress, assessing whether the child has reached the pertinent objective, must be reported to parents at least as frequently as for non-disabled children. Typically that would be every 6 or 9 weeks. To administer a traditional standardized reading test a minimum of 5 times in a school year would be highly inappropriate and a waste of valuable time.

We need an objective measure of reading level that can be repeated and that will be sensitive to the progress the student makes. We strongly recommend this type of PLOP, objectives, and goal:
Image 08
PLOP: Mario orally reads 2nd grade material (a 200-word passage) at 35-40 wpm (words per minute) with 6--10 errors.
Obj. 1: At the end of the 1st nine weeks, Mario will read 2nd grade material (a 200-word passage)at 40-50 wpm with 0-3 errors.
Obj. 2: At the end of the 2nd nine weeks, Mario will read 2nd grade material (a 200-word passage) at 80-100 wpm with 0-2 errors.
Obj. 3: At the end of the 3rd nine weeks, Mario will read 3rd grade material (a 200-word passage) at 50-60 wpm with 0-2 errors.
Goal: By June 1, Mario will read 3rd grade material (a 200-word passage) at 80-100 wpm with 0-2 errors.


For additional examples of PLOPs, objectives, and the goal, refer to Handout 2 Section 1.

Here is an actual "Present Levels of Educational Performance" page taken from an IEP prepared in 2001 for a 7 year old IDEA student:
Image 09 Present Levels of Educational Performance

Strengths

  • Letter word identification
  • Reading comprehension
  • Uses a phonetic approach to decode unfamiliar words
  • Math calculation
    • add & multiply single-digit numbers
  • Math reasoning
    • solved orally-presented addition & subtraction
    • word problems
  • Tells time to the hour
  • Identifies a penny & quarter
  • Writes dictated letters
  • Spells some one-syllable words
  • Writes simple complete sentences
  • Neat handwriting
  • Knowledge of science, social studies, & humanities
  • Good attention & effort
  • Persistence
Image 10 Needs

  • Make inferences
  • Solve written subtraction problems
  • Identify a dime and nickel
  • Use capitalization at beginning of sentences
  • Use end punctuation
  • Say words that end with the /r/ sound
  • Social skill
  • Flexibility with changes
  • Rigid/literal thinking
  • Worried/stressed out/over stimulated
What is this boy's disability? Would you expect that to be discernible from his PLOPs? Are these PLOPs measured starting points? Are some closer to being measured/objective PLOPs than others? How many goals would you expect to see on the IEP?

A very different approach to PLOPs is seen in the following narrative style. "Jane" (not her real name) is 6 years old.
Image 11
Narrative Style PLOPs
  1. Achievement Levels
    2. Academic--Jane is able to match colors and shapes. She can string beads. She has been heard to rote count to 10, but generally not on request. Also can recite ABC to G, but not on request. She can work a simple puzzle, build towers with blocks, cut with assistance (using squeeze scissors) and scribble (to color). She enjoys painting. She has shown "pointing to" skill only with computer.

    Speech/Language--Jane generally communicates her needs by taking your hand and putting it on what she wants. She also pulls a person to where she wants to go. She is starting to express some words verbally but generally not on command. Words and phrases we hear her say are as follows: stop, go away, outside, shi-shi, nothing, ABCDEFG, 1-10, Old McDonald had a farm E-I-E-I-O, what it?, tickle, Yea!! Hooray!!, shush, be quiet. She will imitate "Mom" at times. This teacher has had some luck with "tactile" imitation sitting in front of mirror--example, tongue clicking, ma-ma, ba-ba, open & shut mouth.

    Life skill domain--Jane is toilet trained. She undresses herself. She is beginning to pull up pants. She drinks from a cup and eats independently. Once in a while, we stab her food to regain her attention. She carries her tray in cafeteria. She empties her tray with assistance.
Image 12
  1. Behavior Data--Jane enjoys throwing things (e.g., sand, grass, tinsel) watching them fall. Her class behavior has improved. She generally sits in a chair. Sometimes she can get up to wander but redirects. She is no longer resisting new activities & follows class routine without whimpering. She becomes very upset (crying, etc.) with certain noises (e.g. garbage trucks, lawn mowers, saws, drills, vacuum cleaners, mixers, etc.). We are working on sitting and covering her ears rather than bolting and crying. She is a very affectionate child. Her best learning modality seems to be tactile--Her eye contact is good when using tactile methods. She sucks her thumb when she wants to calm herself down.
Image 13
  1. Social/Family Information--Jane lives with both parents, who are very caring and great to work with, and an older sister. Jane loves music, sand and water and also mirrors. She wears glasses but often pulls them off. She squints without them.
Is Jane's disability discernible? Are any of these PLOPs appropriate beginning points from which to measure progress through to an annual goal? Which of Jane's needs are the most urgent or can all of them be considered simultaneously in her education program?

The IDEA PLOP regulation also requires that the statement of PLOPs include how the disability affects involvement and progress in the general curriculum. Little, if any, guidance is available as to how to satisfy this requirement. If a 9th grader reads at a second grade level, it is apparent he can only function in the general curriculum if the content of the curriculum is made available to him in a way he can access. Furthermore, his written expression is, in all probability, at no higher level than his reading. Therefore, he cannot be expected to use writing to express his understanding of the curriculum, and he must have alternative opportunities.

A mild speech impairment might have no significant impact on participation in the general curriculum, but a severe language problem could preclude much meaningful participation. While the PLOP requirement related to the curriculum is not yet well understood, it is obvious that the process of considering the issue can be helpful to the rest of the IEP development and perhaps to the later placement decision.
Image 14 To sum up, legally correct and educationally useful PLOPs (1) deal with performances affected by the disability; (2) are objectively measured; and (3) are directly related to services and goals.
Image 15
A Case Study

An IEP team might proceed something like this in arriving at the most important PLOPs for Jamie Smith, a 6th grader with a severe written expression disorder.

Case Manager: space Mrs. Smith (mom), what do you see as an important need of Jamie's that we should focus on right now?

Mrs. Smith: Definitely his writing. He hates to write because he is so slow. If he has written homework, it is just a battle. It really does take him forever, and then it's so messy and hard to read I sometimes have to copy some of it over for him.

Teacher Lopez: His writing is very slow indeed. Yesterday, I had my entire class copy from the board for one minute, then copy from the reading book for a minute, and finally just write the alphabet for a minute. When I averaged the scores, Jamie had only 12 letters per minute with 3 to 4 illegible.(Here is PLOP #1.).

Case Manager: Ms. Lopez, what is another of Jamie's needs we should look at this year?

Ms. Lopez: Well, he really needs to work on being a bit more polite in class. He has started talking without raising his hand and, honestly, I'm afraid he's gotten a little rude and mouthy. Especially, I think it happens when he's bored or when he's frustrated. We need to help him get over this before it gets worse and becomes a habit. Down the road it could get him in serious trouble.

Case Manager: How often does this happen?

Ms. Lopez: Lately it's been at least two or three times every day--the other children are noticing, and it's beginning to bother me, too.

Mrs. Smith: We're starting to hear some mouthiness at home, too, and his father really would like to put a stop to it.

Case Manager: This shouldn't take long at all to remedy, but just to make sure we all work on it together and in the same way, let's put it on the IEP. Let's call it "inappropriate verbal outbursts several times daily." (Here is PLOP #2.)

This sample dialogue is representative of effective communication between members of an IEP team where all members are full participants in the information-sharing and decision-making process.

We will now look at the next required component of the IEP following the PLOPs--the statement of needed services.
Image 16
Statement of Needed Services

The IDEA requires a statement of the special education and related services and supplementary aids and services to be provided to the child, or on behalf of the child, and a state of the program modifications or supports for school personnel that will be provided for the child--
  1. to advance appropriately toward attaining the annual goals;
  2. to be involved and progress in the general curriculum ... and participate in extracurricular and other nonacademic activities; and
  3. to be educated and participate with other children with disabilities and nondisabled children in the activities described in this section (34 CFR 300.347 (a)(3)
From Appendix C (1981), we learn that the IEP must include all of the specific special education and related services needed by the child even if they are not available from the district and must be provided by contract or other arrangements (Question 44). All services in the IEP must be provided (Question 45). The district remains responsible for insuring all the services are provided, even those provided by another agency (Question 46). Another very important consideration is that the IEP is required to include only special education and related services, not the total education program (Question 47). It must also include modifications (supplementary aids and services) to the regular program (Question 48), and a specification of the amount of services (Question 51). "Supports for school personnel" was added to this provision in 1997 and includes special training that staff need to work appropriately with a student. The 1997 Amendments also require that the location where the services is to occur be given (e.g., in a quiet area, or in the regular class, the library, etc.).
Image 17 Statements, Not Checkmarks

With that background, if we return to the regulation itself (34 CFR 300.347), the first thing that we see is the word "statement." The huge majority of IEPs contain no statement of services whatever. Many use, for example, a checkmark by the word special education, perhaps followed by an amount of time (e.g., 4 hours a week). That one checkmark is intended to represent, apparently, all the services needed to address all the PLOPs, objectives, and goals.

Another approach, almost never seen but far more desirable, is to describe the service (whether it is special education, related service, modification, or anything else) being provided to address each of the child's unique needs (expressed as a PLOP). Suppose, for example, one of Toni's PLOPs is that "She has 2-5 angry, inappropriate verbal or physical outbursts a day." The service could be a checkmark in front of the preprinted words "special education," or it could be a real statement such as "anger management, small group counseling (not to exceed 5 students) every day for 30 minutes before school in the library, to be conducted by J. Jones or other qualified counselor."

Suppose that Jason is in 9th grade, has above average intelligence, and his reading PLOP is "Jason reads 3rd grade material (a 200-word passage) at 40-60 wpm with 5-10 errors." The services, again, could be a checkmark by the words "special education" or better, it could be a statement, as IDEA requires, such as "1:1 direct instruction reading tutoring, twice daily for 35 minutes each session, taught by a person trained in direct instruction, in a quiet, private area."

Common sense suggests that, at a minimum, the statement of special education and other services should comply with the law and should allow the parents, the student, or an outsider to determine whether the service is being delivered as promised.
Image 18 Specifics of Needed Services

One of the many potential benefits of the IEP team thinking seriously about the specifics of necessary services is that doing so opens the door for genuine brainstorming and problem solving. Compare two IEP team approaches to this PLOP: "Malcolm never initiates social contact with his peers." Our first, traditional team says, "Let's put a checkmark by 'counseling once a week'." The second team says, "What could we do about Malcolm's inadequate social skills?" Several suggestions are offered, including "nothing." The team decides on the following idea: "Let's pair him up with Jose who is very popular and beautifully skilled at making and keeping friends. For the first 5 minutes of recess and for going through the lunch line, Jose would be happy to cooperate." The team confers about how to say that as a service and decides on this statement of service: "Structured peer support and modeling for 5 minutes daily plus during the cafeteria lunch line." Which solution is the less expensive? Which would you bet will be more effective? Faster? More fun? More in compliance with the letter and spirit of IDEA?

The range of services that may need to be included on an IEP is broad. Among common services are assistive technology devices and services, 1:1 aides, counseling, extracurricular activities, interpreter services, medical services (for diagnosis/evaluation and those medical services which do not require an M.D. to perform), occupational therapy, anger management, nursing services, physical therapy, psychotherapy, recreational services, school health services, speech therapy, behavior management plans, language therapy, testing accommodations, transportation, vision therapy, tutoring, extended school year, computer training, social skills training, and many more. Remember--IDEA, for good reason, requires a statement, not a checkmark, to describe these and all other services the IEP team has decided to try.

Distinctions are sometimes made among related services, supplementary aids and services, and accommodations and modifications. IDEA does not require such distinctions. It only requires that all such services that are needed be stated on the IEP, regardless of what they are called. If a state or district requires that distinctions be made, they should be made according to state or district guidelines. If there is no such requirement, it needn't be made, as long as we recall that only special education services require goals.
Image 19 IEP teams should focus on individualizing the needed service to the student while relying heavily, if not exclusively, on research-proven, effective practices. To illustrate, let's return to Jamie Smith and his PLOP of "writes 12 letters per minute with 3-4 illegible." After some discussion, the team agrees on a dual approach--to immediately begin keyboarding instruction and also to work on increasing Jamie's rate and legibility, recognizing that Jamie won't always have access to a computer. The keyboarding instruction posed a temporary problem because it wasn't offered at Jamie's middle school, but then the case manager recalled that a teacher who had just retired (and had volunteered to tutor occasionally) previously taught typing at the high school. She was contacted and agreed to provide two hours tutoring weekly in keyboarding at the middle school, provided Jamie had the opportunity to practice 20 minutes a day. So the required statement of service for that PLOP included "2 hours weekly keyboarding tutoring and 20 minutes of supervised practice daily."

The discussion then turned to increasing Jamie's rate and legibility of writing. Ms. Lopez was very knowledgeable about the use of brief, timed daily probes or practice sessions (1 or 2 minutes each) with charting and reinforcement. The team quickly agreed that it was worth a try. Ms. Lopez decided to create a group with the other three boys who were also very slow in writing. The team described the service on Jamie's IEP as "daily, timed copying and writing practice sessions, total 2 minutes, to be charted and reinforced." Other teams might word the same service descriptions somewhat differently. As long as the service is described with sufficient detail that an outsider could monitor whether or not the services was being delivered as promised, that is sufficient.
Image 20 Guidelines for IEP teams as they decide and record needed services include these:
  1. Be flexible and creative. Brainstorm and problem solve. There really is more than one way to get from here to there, from PLOP to goal. Often the unique services, truly designed to fit a unique child's unique need, can be less expensive and more effective than a more customary approach. (The word "unique" is obviously used loosely here, as in IDEA, to mean relatively unique, not uniquely unique.)


  2. Forgo checkmarks in favor of statements.


  3. Be specific enough in service descriptions to allow meaningful monitoring.
Image 21
Measurable Goals and Objectives/Benchmarks

A major focus and intention of the changes Congress made in IDEA 1997 was to improve educational results for students who have disabilities. Appendix A to the IDEA regulations offers these helpful observations:
Measurable annual goals, including benchmarks or short-term objectives are critical to the strategic planning process used to develop and implement the IEP for each child with a disability. Once the IEP team has developed measurable goals for a child, the team
  1. can develop strategies that will be most effective in realizing these goals and


  2. must develop either measurable, intermediate steps (short-term objectives) or major milestones (benchmarks) that will enable parents, students, and educators to monitor progress during the year, and, if appropriate, to review the IEP consistent with the student's instructional needs...
As noted above, each annual goal must include either short-term objectives or benchmarks. The purpose of both is to enable a child's teacher(s), parents, and others involved in developing and implementing the child's IEP, to gauge, at intermediate times during the year, how well the child is progressing toward achievement of the annual goal. IEP teams may continue to develop short-term instructional objectives that generally break the skills described in the annual goal down into discrete components. The revised statute and regulations also provide that, as an alternative, IEP teams may develop benchmarks, which can be thought of as describing the amount of progress the child is expected to make within specified segments of the year. Generally, benchmarks establish expected performance levels that allow for regular checks of progress that coincide with the reporting periods for informing parents of their child's progress toward achieving the annual goals. An IEP team may use either short-term objectives or benchmarks or a combination of the two depending on the nature of the annual goals and the needs of the child. (Appendix A, Question 1)
Many people use the terms "objectives" and "benchmarks" interchangeably or nearly so. For purposes of IEPs, most objectives/benchmarks should contain a date. Since progress must be reported to the parents of students with disabilities at least as often as parents of non-disabled children receive progress reports, efficiency supports having an objective/benchmark for the end of each reporting period. The only difference between an objective/benchmark and a goal is that the goal is the final objective for the year. Thus it is an annual goal whereas the first objective is the goal for the first progress reporting period. Let's take a simple example of a young student who is learning sight vocabulary.

PLOP on September 15-- Reads 20 words from sight vocab. list in 2 min. with 0 errors

Obj. 1 by the end of the first 9 weeks-- Will read 80 words from sight vocab. list in 2 min. with 0 errors

Obj. 2 End of 2nd 9 weeks-- Will read 140 words from sight vocab. list in 2 min. with 0 errors

Obj. 3 End of 3rd 9 weeks-- Will read 180 words from sight vocab. list in 2 min. with 0 errors

Annual Goal by 6/15-- Will read 200 words from sight vocab. list in 2 min. with 0 errors

For a tabular version of this PLOP, refer to Handout 2 Section 2.
Image 22
"Not Measurable" Goals

Many IEPs contain goals and objectives that are Not Real, that is, they are so totally not measurable that it is apparent no one ever intended to determine whether the student had reached them. Here are some examples of not measurable and, therefore, indefensible goals/objectives. Sadly, all are taken from real IEPs.
  1. Rebecca will increase her active listening skills. (How would an observer know if she had or had not met the criteria?)
  2. Tammy will improve basic and other life skills.(Who volunteers to measure this?)
  3. Kevin will decrease his inappropriate remarks to other children 90% of the time (What does this mean??)
  4. Max will be 75% successful in the mainstream. (Inclusion of percentages does not create measurability.)
  5. Sara will make wise choices in her use of leisure time. (Yes??)
  6. Beth will show an appropriate level of upper body strength.
  7. Joe will have a better attitude toward school 80% of the time.
Image 23 If only one misconception about measurability could be cleared up, it should be the false belief that inserting a percentage into a goal makes it measurable or makes it appropriate. This proposition is so preposterous as to provoke laughter if it weren't such a serious matter. Consider:
  1. Jinx will cross the street safely 80% of the time.
  2. Junior will comprehend what he hears with 85% accuracy.
  3. John will dress himself with 80% accuracy (does this mean he is stark nude every 5th day? Why not?)
  4. June will improve her behavior 90%.
Image 24 Now, just for fun, suppose you have been hired to measure (d) above--to determine whether June has improved her behavior 90%. How would you do that? One cannot make a goal or objective measurable just by putting a percentage in it, but what does make a goal measurable? A measurable goal or objective, standing alone with no further information, allows a yes or no determination as to whether the child has accomplished it. "Will improve high jumping performance" does not allow a yes or no without further information. "Will high jump 3 feet by June 5" does allow a yes or no. Furthermore, a measurable goal allows multiple observers who have never seen the child before to agree whether the goal has been reached.

In the words of Mager (1997), whose work on writing instructional goals is classic, "An objective is considered measurable when it describes a tangible outcome. For example, objectives that describe intended outcomes that you can see or hear are measurable ... 'Be able to tie a knot' is measurable because we can see knot-tying behavior ..." In addition to an observable performance, a measurable goal or objective must also include a criterion statement that will indicate the standard to be met. For example, tie a square knot in 5 seconds. Sometimes it is also necessary to specify conditions under which the performance will occur, e.g., given access to the internet, the student will write a 1,000 word paper on a specified topic with no factual inaccuracies, spelling errors, or incorrect grammar.

In short, a measurable goal, objective or benchmark must specify (1) an observable student performance, (2) a standard or criterion, and (3) if necessary, the conditions under which the performance will occur. Too many IEPs contain "goals" such as "John will improve his reading skills." That performance is too vague, and there is no standard or criterion whatsoever. If John learned one new sight word, would that be satisfactory? What if he read faster but less accurately? Would that satisfy the goal?

For Jinx, Junior, John, and June above, here are their goals and objectives rewritten so they are measurable:
  1. With adult supervision, Jinx will cross the street safely 100% of the time with no more than 2 verbal prompts to look both ways for traffic.
  2. Junior will correctly answer at least 4 of 5 comprehension questions after he listens to the teacher read a story.
  3. John will dress himself in underwear, socks, t-shirt, jeans, and shoes (in that order) every day without verbal prompting.
  4. June will tantrum fewer than 5 minutes per week.
The visible learner performances in these examples are "cross safely," "correctly answer," "dress himself," and "tantrum." In c there is an implicit condition--given access to clothes his size. In each example measurable criteria are included (e.g., fewer than 5 minutes per week, and 4 of 5 comprehension questions correct).

Almost unlimited refinements can be made in any measurable goal. Common sense is a good guide to use. Would most teachers agree on one of these three levels of refinement as being appropriate for school use?
  1. Will high jump 3 feet by X date.
  2. Will high jump 3 feet by X date on 4/5 trials.
  3. Will high jump 3 feet by X date on 4/5 trials, given a sunny day with no more than 5 mph winds.
Image 25 Examples of poor goals/objectives/benchmarks

Here is one example of very poor goals/objectives/benchmarks taken from real IEPs, followed by an improved version. A goal need not be perfect, but it must be measurable by someone other than the person who wrote it.

Poorly Written Version

1. J.B. will use at least 2 strategies to take responsibility for his anger management with 90% accuracy.

Improved Version

Given 10 hypothetical anger-producing situations, J.B. will describe appropriate responses to each.

or

J.B. will have zero inappropriate responses per month to situations which last year resulted in inappropriate displays of anger.

For additional examples, refer to Handout 2 Section 3.

Practice makes better and better. If writing behavioral goals and objectives still seems foreign or difficult, here are two non-technical tips. Suppose that you tend to think first in non-behavioral terms (e.g., he needs to learn to respect adults, or she should appreciate reading more). Ask yourself, "How would I know he was being more respectful?" Perhaps several things come to mind--he would say "sir" or "ma'am" when addressing an adult, he would not interrupt adults when they are talking, he would avoid all vulgar language in adults' presence. Any or all of these provide a good beginning for a goal/objective. "How would I know she appreciates reading?" Maybe you might know by the number of books she reads, or the amount of time spent reading, or by her choice of reading as a "reward" activity. The measurability element comes in answers to questions like "how often," "how many," "how fast," and "how many times."

A disturbing trend has developed in some states whereby teachers can be found laboriously selecting standards or benchmarks from the state assessment guides or curricula (for general education students) and diligently copying them onto IEPs. This sad, wasteful activity is so widespread that we repeat from Appendix A the legal guidance on this topic:
... a public agency is not required to include in an IEP annual goals that relate to areas of the general curriculum in which the child's disability does not affect the child's ability to be involved in and progress in the general curriculum. If a child with a disability needs only modifications or accommodations in order to progress in an area of the general curriculum, the IEP does not need to include a goal for that area; however, the IEP would need to specify those modifications or accommodations. (Question 4)
Image 26 To sum up, the heart of the IEP consists of what the child needs (expressed as PLOPs), what services will be provided to address those needs (in a statement, not a checkmark), and what the child can be expected to accomplish if the services are effective (goals and objectives or benchmarks). The remainder of the required IEP content is presented in the next lesson.
  previous page disabledtop of pagenext page disabled