Goals should be written for those areas of need that will have a specific learning outcome (e.g., reading skills development, self-care independence, etc.). In some need areas, goals are not written. For example, transportation may be a need area, but a goal is not written. Physical modifications may be necessary for participation in certain activities and environments, but a goal is not written. While these are areas of need, there are no specific learning outcomes intended for the student. 

Specific goal areas are identified through:

1. Discussion of the expectations for the student’s age or grade.

2. Review of progress on previous goals.

3. Evaluation of the student’s current performance (consider teacher/parent/service provider input, grades, attendance, group achievement scores, informal observations, etc.)

The team's discussion should include a student-centered consideration of what achieving this goal will do for the student (e.g. level of independence, living skills, etc.)

1. Time Frame: When do we want the goal to be achieved by?

2. Condition: Under what circumstances will we be measuring the student's performance?

3. Behavior: What behavior/skill will we be measuring, and what aspect of it (e.g., rate, quality, independence, duration, etc.)?

4. Criterion: What performance level will indicate that the goal has been achieved? We strongly encourage developing goals that monitor an increase in a desired skill/behavior versus simply a reduction in an undesired behavior.

By [due date] when [measurement condition], XXX will increase [skill performance] from [baseline] to [target] as measured by [description of measurement tool, frequency of data collection, and individual(s) responsible].

Examples

By January 2018 (time frame), when presented with unrehearsed 5th grade level passages (condition), Cindy will increase her rate of reading orally (behavior) from 84 correct words per minute to 121 correct words per minute with at least 95% accuracy for two consecutive data points (criterion), as measured weekly by special education staff using oral reading fluency probes.

By October 2018 (time frame), when Beverly exhibits visible signs of agitation (clenched fists, scowling, angry voice tone) (condition), she will increase her rate of using anger control strategies (behavior) from 30% of opportunities to 65% for two consecutive data points (criterion), as measured every other week using a direct behavior rating completed by teachers working directly with Beverly.

By May 2018 (time frame), when observed in all school settings (condition), Randy will increase his rate of keeping a daily to-do list, using effective time management strategies, and maintaining organized materials (behavior) from a level of 21/55 points obtained on an organizational skills inventory completed by special education staff working directly with Randy to 44/55 points for two consecutive data points (criterion), as measured every other week.

By September 2018 (time frame), when presented with 30 tasks, 10 each of synonyms, analogies and multiple meanings (condition), George will increase his rate of correct response (behavior) from a current level of 4/30 tasks completed correctly to a level of 25/30 tasks completed correctly for two consecutive data points (criterion), as measured weekly by a Speech Language Pathologist working with George during small group instruction.

By July 2018 (time frame), when presented with a toothbrushing task (condition), Adam will increase his ability to complete a toothbrushing routine (behavior), from currently obtaining 8 out of 24 points on the toothbrushing rubric to obtaining 16 out of 24 points for two consecutive data points (criterion), as measured weekly by special education staff using the toothbrushing rubric.

Within the same IEP, teams may use either or both benchmarks and short-term objectives. However, these two measures should not be mixed under the same annual goal. Both of these measures break learning into measurable, intermediate steps that enable families, students, and educators to monitor progress during the year.

In order to meet minimal compliance standards in the state of Minnesota, IEPs need to include at least two benchmarks/short-term objectives. It is recommended that they be intentionally plotted so that they are evenly spaced throughout the duration of the IEP. Some case managers choose to schedule their benchmarks/objectives near the end of grading periods when progress reports will be sent out; however, this is by no means mandatory.

Benchmarks

Benchmarks are the most common method. When feasible, they are preferred. Use benchmarks when the skill or behavior leading to the annual goal remains essentially the same but some aspect of performance is expected to change (e.g., rate, duration, quality, independence, etc.). For example, for the first benchmark a student might be expected to read 43 words correctly on an Oral Reading Fluency probe, for the second benchmark they are expected to read 56, etc.

Short-Term Objectives

Objectives are more frequently used with students with significant needs. They are used when the skills leading to the annual goal are different. This typically occurs when the IEP team has engaged in task analysis and broken a sequence of skill performance down into component steps. For example, the first objective for a tooth-brushing routine might focus on picking up the toothbrush independently. The second objective might focus on applying toothpaste, etc.

Academic progress monitoring typically measures rate and/or accuracy:

• Rate - Given a window of time, how many problems can the student complete successfully, words can they read successfully, word sequences can they write successfully, etc.?

• Accuracy - What is the student's ratio of successful versus unsuccessful responses?

Non-academic progress monitoring typically measures:

• Rate - Given a window of time or a certain number of opportunities, how much of the time or in how many opportunities was the student successful? The determination of success/non-success is binary. They either were or they weren't successful (e.g., being on-task or off-task).

• Duration - How long does the student engage in a specific desirable activity or stay in a desired environment? Similar to rate, this is a binary determination.

• Quality - A more complex skill (e.g., reciprocal social conversations) is broken down into component steps (e.g., eye contact, turn taking, voice tone, posture, etc.). The success or non-success of each skill step is rated separately.

• Independence - A prompt hierarchy is defined (e.g., from independent performance all the way to hand-over-hand physical prompting) and either the whole skill (e.g., greeting someone) or separate components of the skill (e.g., toothbrushing) are rated based on the level of prompting needed to illicit a successful response. The prompting sequence and execution must be consistent across staff in order to avoid measuring staff behavior instead of student behavior.

Common examples include: Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) probes (e.g., ORFs, CWSs), rating forms (multiple choice category labels used to rate performance - e.g., Direct Behavior Ratings), rubrics (rating forms with a detailed description of what performance looks like at each rating level rather than a simple label), checklists (rating forms with a yes-no binary determination for each item), and direct observations (e.g., Momentary Time Sampling, duration, etc.). 

Permanent products (e.g., rate of homework completion) are generally not recommended for IEP goal progress monitoring and only recommended as a secondary data collection tool to confirm intervention effectiveness.

Who will collect the data?

A special education teacher or paraprofessional trained in administration of CBMs? A student's classroom teacher(s)? A service provider who is working with the student (e.g., an SLP)?

How often will we collect data? 

 The interval should be reasonably calculated to be:

• Infrequent enough to capture new data when we can reasonably expect a change in performance. For example, we cannot reasonably expect a student's skill proficiency to meaningfully change on a daily basis. If data is collected daily (e.g., a daily point sheet), the average or median of that data is typically graphed less frequently (e.g., weekly) in order to capture trends.

• Frequent enough to allow the team to respond to inadequate progress. For example, if we collect data 1x/month, it will take far too long---at least a quarter of an annual IEP---to determine a trend of inadequate progress and make changes to our intervention.

The case manager should formulate progress monitoring procedures and determine a baseline for any proposed goals prior to the IEP meeting. The baseline establishes the student’s level of performance at the point in time when specialized instruction and supports related to the IEP goal begin. A reliable baseline measure is generally the median of three scores of performance taken at three different times (usually three different days). The measurement procedure used to establish the baseline score must match the procedure described in the goal.

Sometimes, the IEP team will determine that the proposed progress monitoring procedures should be modified or that a new IEP goal should be added that the case manager did not anticipate. In these cases, the case manager will need to collect data and determine a baseline between the meeting and when the IEP is sent to parents. This should be a rare occurrence. It doesn't allow the full IEP team to meaningfully discuss the goal target, and it puts significant pressure on the case manager to collect multiple data points and determine an appropriate goal target during the 10 school day timeline for sending out the new IEP.