The ARD Committee must develop specific, measurable academic and functional goals in a student’s IEP each academic year. A student’s annual goals must be designed to meet the student’s needs that result from the student’s disability to enable the student to be involved in and to make progress in the general education curriculum, and meet each of the student’s other educational needs that result from the student’s disability. Annual goals describe what a student with a disability can reasonably be expected to accomplish in the special education program within a twelve-month period. It is a skill and/or knowledge that can be measured and mastered based on given criteria. Each annual goal must include a timeframe, condition, behavior, and criterion. The ARD Committee determines the number of annual goals in a student’s IEP through examination of present levels of academic need and functional performance and individual needs. At least one annual goal must be included in the IEP.
The following situations require annual goals:
• Modification in content of a subject or course, whether in a general or special education setting, to address how the content is modified;
• Removal of a student from the general education setting for any period of time not due to modifications in subject or course content (ex. A student progressing on enrolled grade level curriculum is placed in a more restrictive environment for behavior concerns)
The IEP must include a description of (1) how the student’s progress towards the annual goals will be measured and (2) when periodic reporting on progress towards annual goals—e.g. through quarterly or periodic IEP progress reports issued along with report cards—will be provided.
For students with disabilities who take alternate achievement tests aligned to alternate achievement standards, the ARD Committee must include in the student’s IEP a description of short-term objectives or benchmarks. Short-term objectives are developed based on the major components of the student’s annual goals and serve as milestones for measuring progress toward meeting those goals. Like annual goals, short-term objectives must also be specific and measurable. Mastery of short-term objectives/benchmarks cannot be used as the criterion to indicate mastery of the annual goal. Rather, the short-term objectives/benchmarks reflect the steps the student shall take to reach the annual goal and allow the ARD Committee to successfully monitor the student’s interim progress towards annual goals. For example, an annual goal that states, “Student will show mastery of the objectives listed below” is not appropriate
“Present Levels / Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance (PLAAFP)” for the school-aged student summarizes the current strengths and needs of the student in both academic and functional performance areas. It must include how the student’s disability affects the student’s involvement and progress in the general education curriculum, regardless of the setting in which the student currently receives services. Additionally, it may describe the current instructional level of the student compared to the grade level Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, and, if the student is below grade level, the PLAAFP also may describe the prerequisite skills the student needs in order to achieve grade-level proficiency. PLAAFP for the preschool student summarizes the current levels of present performance related to the student’s developmental domains, functional performance, and pre-academic skills. It must include how the student’s disability affects the student’s participation in appropriate activities. Additionally, it may describe the student’s current developmental levels compared to the Texas Prekindergarten Guidelines or district-adopted prekindergarten curriculum. See [PRESENT LEVELS].
Campus Special Education Personnel will consult with the student’s general education teacher(s), where applicable, when developing a draft of the annual goals. Where feasible, Campus Special Education Personnel should send the parent a draft of the annual goals prior to the ARD meeting. The ARD Committee, including the parent, will provide input regarding the annual goals at the ARD meeting, and the annual goals will not be finalized or implemented until mutual agreement is reached.
The annual goals should be based on the student’s present levels of academic and functional performance (“PLAAFP”) and tailored to meet the student’s educational needs that result from the student’s disability. See [PRESENT LEVELS]. As such, Campus Special Education Personnel will assess the student prior to developing annual goal when preparing for annual ARD meetings. The goals should be realistic, attainable, and reasonably calculated to enable a student to make appropriate progress in light of the student’s unique circumstances. The criterion should specify the amount of growth expected to meet the annual goal and be based on how the progress will be measured—not necessarily the score required for passing the course or assignment. Restating attainment of a grade level standard should not be a student’s annual goal, as attainment of a grade level standard is a goal for every general education student. Additionally, a goal should be something that can be reasonably attained within one year.
When developing annual goals, Campus Personnel should include the following components within the annual goals:
Timeframe: Identifies the amount of time, usually specified in interval periods, for the goal to be completed;
Conditions: Describes the specific resources that must be used for a student to reach the goal. The condition of the goal should relate to the behavior being measured;
Behavior: Represents an action the student must take to achieve the goal that can be directly observed, measured, and monitored;
Criterion: Identifies the frequency or to what standard the behavior must occur to demonstrate that the goal has been met; and
Unit of Measure: A means for evaluating the goals and objectives
For example, the following is an example of a poorly written Annual Goal: Student will learn to count money. Instead, an appropriate goal would look something like the following: By the end of 36 instructional weeks, given a collection of pennies, nickels, and dimes, Student will determine the value of the coins with 100% accuracy on 8 out of 10 trials as measured by classroom observation and teacher-made assessments.”
Although short-term objectives or benchmarks are only required for students who take alternate tests, it is recommended that all special education students have short-term objectives within their IEP to gauge a student’s progress. Benchmarks/short-term objectives should include intermediate steps that serve to gauge student progress or lack of progress toward master of the annual goal. For example, if a student’s goal involves identifying lower and upper-case letters, the short-term objectives could require the student to master a-m (lowercase) by the first reporting period, a-z (lowercase) by the second reporting period, A-M (uppercase) by the third reporting period, and A-Z (uppercase by the end of the ARD year. The short-term objectives or benchmarks should also include a timeframe, conditions, behavior, criterion, and unit. Mastering benchmarks/short-term objectives does not necessarily mean that the student has mastered an annual goal. Thus, an annual goal should not simply state that the student will master the benchmarks/short-term objectives.
It is imperative that goals and objectives/benchmarks are measurable and that the teacher/service providers who are required to track progress understand how the goal will be measured and what data will be collected to show whether the student is progressing on the goals. Although the IDEA does not specify how often progress data of a student’s IEP goals should be monitored, such data should be considered at least every grading period or more often as needed.
Each IEP goal should correspond to specially designed instruction or related services that a student needs based on the student’s unique academic or functional needs. For example, if a student’s PLAAFP data shows that the student’s pragmatic speech is impacting his or her education, a student may have a speech goal related to improving pragmatic speech, as well as direct speech therapy related services to help the student master the goal. See [SUPPLEMENTARY AIDS AND SERVICES, SPECIAL EDUCATION, AND RELATED SERVICES]. Thus, goals should only be drafted after examining the student’s PLAAFP. The ARD Committee will then determine what specially designed instruction or special education services the student requires, as well as the frequency, duration, and location of these services, to meet the annual goals.
The ARD Committee has discretion over the areas in which a student requires measurable annual goals. However, the ARD Committee will implement an annual goal in any area where content is modified, specifically addressing how the content is modified. Additionally, the ARD Committee will include an annual goal for each subject where the student is removed from the general education setting, even if the content if not modified during that period.
The ARD Committee must include in the student’s IEP how the student is progressing towards meeting the annual goals and the reporting intervals for the ARD Committee to assess the student’s progress on the goals (e.g. quarterly or concurrent with report card grades).
Campus Special Education Personnel, such as the student’s case manager, should be tasked with collecting student data to create progress reports to be sent to the student’s parent. The progress data should be as specific as possible and based on data from the student’s current teachers and related service providers who are tasked with monitoring the student’s goals. Although the IDEA does not require the District to provide parents with short-term/benchmark progress data, it is best practice to provide this data to parents to ensure they are apprised of their student’s progress.
If the progress data reveals that a student has mastered an annual goal, the ARD Committee should convene and determine whether to remove the goal from the student’s IEP or modify the goal to target a more difficult concept that directly or sequentially relates to the original goal. If input from teachers reflect that a particular annual goal is no longer appropriate or if the student is not making expected progress on the goal, the ARD Committee should convene to determine if changes to the goals are indicated.
At least once annually, Campus and District Special Education Personnel will receive training on standards-based IEPs.
The District will maintain documentation requirements of compliance associated with Texas Student Data System (TSDS), Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS), and State Performance Plan (SPP). District staff will provide training, with follow up, to ensure the documentation required is in place and compliant.
FIE
IEP
Documentation of Collaboration Between Campus Personnel in Drafting Goals
Progress Reports on Annual Goals
Consistent Progress Documentation
Progress Monitoring Documentation
Report Card Grades
State Assessment Results
Teacher Input
Student/Parent Input
Documentation for the state in TSDS, PEIMS, and SPP
The Legal Framework for the Child-Centered Special Education Process: Annual Goals - Region 18
IEP Goal Development in Texas Online Training – Region 20
Standards-Based Individualized Education Program Guidance – Texas Education Agency
Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) – Texas Education Agency
OSEP Letter to Hayden (October 3, 1994) – U.S. Department of Education
OSEP Letter to Kelly (August 24, 2007) – U.S. Department of Education
OSERS Dear Colleague Letter (November 16, 2015) – U.S. Department of Education
OSEP Letter to Lenz (February 7, 2014) – U.S. Department of Education
IEP Measurable Annual Goals Q&A Document – Texas SPED Support
Board Policy EHBAB; 34 CFR 300.320(a)(2)–(3); 19 TAC 89.1055(j); Endrew F. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas County Sch. Dist. RE-1, 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017); Cypress-Fairbanks Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Michael F. by Barry F., 118 F. 3d 245 (5th Cir. 1997)