By Sara Finegan  

To my way of thinking, there are two kinds of IEP goals:  remedial ones, and compensatory ones.  They are equally good; it is their purposes that differ.  A good IEP may contain some of both.

Remedial goals

A remedial goal is one which is intended to teach a student a skill which he has missed somewhere along the line.  I think of it as filling in a hole in the foundation of a child’s learning:  without this particular skill, progress in on grade-level standards is not achievable.

It’s important when considering remedial goals to choose ones which are reasonable and which are possible.  

I’ve written before about goals related to learning multiplication facts.  After fifth grade, I don’t think that should be a part of IEPs.   Knowing multiplication facts requires memory skills and sequencing.  Many kids really struggle with this – it may be a developmental thing and they’ll catch up later, or they may never get it.  

If parents really want the child to learn the multiplication tables, they can work on it at home.  Memorizing facts should not be an IEP goal.

Reasonable and possible remedial goals are ones which we believe a child can achieve with support and precise interventions.  

For example, we may discover that a sixth grade student doesn’t know what synonyms and antonyms are, and cannot use them in writing or to make meaning in reading.  This is something that has been taught in prior years, and is essential to progress in reading and writing. 

The student hasn’t “gotten it” in the general ed class,  so obviously a more direct and scaffolded approach is necessary.   Small group instruction or even a quick mini-lesson followed by 5-minute daily practice sessions could do the trick.  

Compensatory goals

Compensatory goals are ones which are designed to help a child perform a grade level standard with the necessary supports.  The goal is related to an academic standard, and it, as well as the benchmarks, specifies the types of supports that will be provided. 

Generally, we like to move from more to less.  

Lots of students have writing goals.  If the grade level standard requires that a child produce multi-paragraph essays (introductory paragraph with thesis statement, transition phrases, body paragraphs each with main idea and 3-5 supporting facts as well as a conclusion, and summary concluding paragraph, etc.) then that is the basic goal.  

Does the child need graphic organizers and visual prompts?  Checklists and rubrics?   A writing buddy?   Word banks and spellcheck?  

A goal might look like this:

“Given a topic, checklist of required assignment components, graphic organizer with word bank and rehearsal, Diana will produce a five-paragraph essay (introductory paragraph, 3 body paragraphs, conclusion) using compound sentences, rich vocabulary and proper spelling/punctuation, on 3 occasions with 80% accuracy as measured by checklist or rubric.”

If the child’s deficits are greater than Diana’s, perhaps the goal will read as follows: 

“Given a topic, checklist of required assignment components, and graphic organizer, Sam will use Dragon Speak or similar software to dictate 3 paragraphs, each with a main idea and 3-5 supporting details, on 3 occasions with 80% accuracy as measured by checklist or rubric.”

How about math?  Well, if Josh doesn’t know his multiplication facts in the fifth grade, he’s still going to have to be able to solve big multiplication problems.   As I said, Josh doesn’t need to learn to memorize.  He needs to learn strategies that will bridge the gap between his inability to memorize and fifth grade math problems.  Take a grade level standard and modify it.  How about one of these?

“Given 5 three-digit multiplication problems, a partial products template and a multiplication chart, Josh will show his work for each step in correctly solving them on 4/5 occasions with 80% accuracy.” 

Here, Josh is using compensatory strategies (multiplication chart and a partial products template) to do the same work as his grade-level peers.

Or

“Given 10 two-digit multiplication problems requiring knowledge of 8s facts and 9s facts, Josh will use compensatory strategies such as using the sum of the digits to write down his 9s facts and repeated addition to correctly solve them on 4/5 occasions with 80% accuracy as measured by student work.” 

If Josh can quickly jot down the 9s multiplication facts by writing 1 through 9 down the side of a page and then writing 1 through 9  up in the next space, he doesn’t need to have the nines memorized.  Similarly, if he can count on his fingers and write down the 8s through addition, he’s good to go!
 
Not every IEP needs both kinds of goals. 

Some kids are so close to grade level that they just need minimal supports in order to do the work that is required in their class.  Remedial goals might not be necessary.   Use your best judgment.

What I can say is that…

Only in IEPs for kids who are so severely disabled that the team decides they cannot access general education curriculum at all should you consider you omitting compensatory goals. 

Yes, a non-verbal child with autism who struggles with sensory issues can do some activity to demonstrate a component of a grade-level science standard.  It might be something simple, like correctly labeling the parts of a plant, or something more complex, such as growing a bean and making a chart of daily measurements.  

In a Special Day Class or a general ed class, our kids with IEPs are supposed to be accessing the gen ed curriculum.  They must have compensatory goals.

autism · benchmarks · case manager · compensatory · example · IEP goals · IEPs · math goals · multiplication · non-verbal · possible · reasonable · remedial · severe disability · support · writing goals · writing IEP goals

By Sara Finegan

A really good IEP goal requires some thinking and reviewing of student work.  It also requires that you really know the standards for the subject area and grade level the student is in now, or will be in the coming year.  

GOAL!!!

It helps to identify what the baseline is for the student and to state it explicitly with as  much precision as possible.   

• Does Betsy write a paragraph that has a topic sentence and supporting details but no conclusion? 
• Does Joe write short, choppy sentences without detail?  How often?   70% of the time?   6/10 times?  
• Does Abby successfully solve three-step math problems using a “how-to” chart 60% of the time?  
• Can you say that Bobby correctly answers comprehension questions with 65% accuracy after reading a second grade text?

Looking at that baseline and comparing it to the grade-level standard will show you exactly what to write in  the goal.  

 If the grade-level standard states that a student will use both compound and simple sentences in written work, and Josh uses simple sentences 90% of the time in independent writing, or will write compound sentences 60% of the time with maximum prompts, then the goal will be that Josh write using a combination of some sort (be specific) on 4/5 occasions, with 85% accuracy. 

Once you have the baseline and the goal, you need to start backwards planning.  What specific things does the student need to be able to do, with what kinds of support, on the way to achieve what goal?  If Josh needs maximum prompts to write compound sentences, what benchmarks are appropriate?  Here are a few:

1. How about starting out by having him combine simple sentences using prepositions and conjunctions?   A benchmark might be  “Given 10 simple sentences, a rehearsal and prompts as needed, Amy will use prepositions and/or conjunctions to make 5 compound sentences, on 4/5 occasions with 80% accuracy as measured by student work.”
2. Can Josh already combine sentences but only with maximum support?  Reduce the number of prompts.  Maybe “Given a student-written text, a rehearsal and no more than 2 prompts, Josh will revise two paragraphs by combining simple sentences into compound ones, on 4/5 occasions with 80% accuracy.”
3. Perhaps a later benchmark might read “Given a topic, graphic organizer and word bank, rehearsal and a visual prompt, Josh will write 3 compound sentences containing appositive or prepositional phrases, on 4/5 occasions with 80% accuracy as measured by student work.”

I like to have at least three measurable, data-based benchmarks for each goal.  Sometimes I write as many  as five–it just depends on the complexity of the goal.   As for the spacing intervals, the norm is to schedule them around the end of marking periods.  This is ok most of the time, but there are times when you need to set dates closer together.  

Recently, a colleague asked me not to write so many benchmarks, because it creates too much work; we have to write progress reports for each benchmark interval.     I replied that perhaps it creates more work for me, since I’m the one who will have to write the progress notes, but that’s not likely. 

A really good case manager is constantly collecting data, reviewing it and planning from it.  It takes me 3-4 minutes to write a progress note for a benchmark, because I have a notebook or folder with the data I need right at hand. 

I’m not afraid of hard work or more work; I’m afraid of what will happen if I start cutting corners on IEPs because I don’t want to work as hard as I do.

(Photo by popofatticus, Creative Commons Attribution 2.0)

backwards planning · baseline · benchmarks · collecting data · customized goals · generic goals · grade-level standards · IEP goals · IEPs · individualized · measurable · Sara Finegan · specific · standards-based · tips · writing IEP goals

By Sara Finegan

One of the coolest things about writing IEPs is that you get to create customized goals for the student.  

Once you know and understand a student’s learning style and deficits, you pinpoint the specific needs of the student and design measurable goals with objectives or benchmarks spaced at reasonable intervals throughout the year.    

This creates a roadmap for all of the support providers and teachers who are working with the student.

One of the most awful things I’ve discovered in  my consultations with parents and districts from around the country is how generic and inappropriate many goals are.    

• They aren’t measurable.   What the hell does “will improve in-class attitude by 50% ” mean?
• They aren’t standards-based.   There is no reason why a 14-year old should have a goal to learn the multiplication facts.   If he doesn’t know them by heart yet, he needs to use other strategies.   Any math goals should be related to the standards for his grade level, not third grade.
• They aren’t specific.    If I never again see a goal like “given a topic Danny will write a 5-paragraph essay that fulfils 70% of the requirements for the assignment” , I will be a happy woman.   Really?   Which 70%?   What can he already do, and what does he need to learn how to do?
• They aren’t customized to student needs and learning styles.   Many districts have an IEP system online, and in many cases there’s a drop-down menu of goals available.  The thing that most teachers don’t know is that these goals were never intended to be used as-is and the district administrators assumed we’d use them only in a pinch.   Generic goals have to be revised to match the student.  

We special ed teachers and case managers simply cannot allow ourselves to take shortcuts and use drop-down menus on this part of an IEP.  

There is absolutely no excuse for generic, mushy goals.   None.    

There’s a reason that special ed teachers have a smaller class or caseload size than general ed teachers:   we have more complicated work to do to create and fulfill individual education plans.   Not “group” education plans.

customized goals · generic goals · IEP goals · IEPs · individualized · measurable · specific · standards-based

By Sara Finegan 

         My colleague, Laurie Vierra, is a Special Education Intern this year with a special day class of third and fourth graders, having taken advantage of our district’s offer to pay for general education teachers to move into and obtain a Masters in Special Ed.  

         A background in the general education standards, pacing, and instructional methods are great assets in the special ed classroom.  Laurie knows what her students need to be able to do in order to function at grade level, and she’s interested in lifting them up to that level.  She has no sense of comfort with student dependence or any belief that a learning deficit is a static thing that can never be repaired. 

         She certainly isn’t under the impression that a learning disability prevents anyone from doing grade-level work.

         This was, at first, a little bit disconcerting to the students in her class and some of their parents, who are used to the program of the teacher she is replacing: 

• Gone are the days when the teacher and the teacher aide (para-educator) will go into student backpacks to retrieve homework:  she will not accept assignments turned in by anyone other than the student.   
• Nowhere in her classroom does the aide sit with students and follow a written script for instruction and support. 
• Students don’t get candy for behaving or finishing their work.   
• Students in Laurie’s class have homework every day, including weekends.  And parents can’t do it for their kids.
• Kids have to get their own pencils and paper; the aide is no longer running across the room to bring the students supplies.
• The work the kids do at home and in class is meaningful; there’s no such thing as “sponge work,” and every lesson and assignment is directed toward a reachable educational goal.  

         I’m interested to see what will happen as the year progresses, and Laurie alters her students’ IEP goals to better reflect state standards.   Almost all of the kids in her class had identical goals during the past couple of years, regardless of what their needs and strengths were.  

         I have a feeling that Laurie is already redesigning and reworking the expectations for each child; I know for a fact that she’s got a clear idea of what each child needs to learn in order to reach higher objectives.  If I know Laurie, she will be custom-creating goals that will actually move her students toward grade-level work.

         That class is moving, kicking and screaming perhaps at first, but more and more confidently into demanding, high-quality work.  I’m delighted, because it means that when the kids come my room for fifth and sixth grade, I won’t spend a year working to develop independent learners.

It was not always this way… 

         A few years ago, I opened my classroom to five new fourth graders, three of whom were GATE (gifted and talented) certified and all of whom, the teacher told me, were proficient in math, reading, and writing. 

         They’d scored high on the state’s standardized tests the previous spring and were just wonderful kids.  She advised that they should all be mainstreamed for math, and that four of them could attend a general education social studies or science class. 

She was right that they were wonderful kids.  I adore them.  But they were not wonderful students, not yet.

• During the first week, one of them spent six hours in the classroom crying because she wanted the lower-grades special day class (SDC) aide to come and sit with her. 
• During the first week, all of them failed the beginning of the year math inventory which reflected what they had learned the previous year.  Only one of them demonstrated anything close to mastery of some of the math modules for the previous year.
• During the first month, I discovered that they had no idea how to talk or think about what they were reading:  their idea of reading comprehension was to parrot back what the text said. 
• When I administered an On-Demand writing assessment that asked them to describe their favorite experience the previous summer, none of them wrote more than three sentences. 
• Three of them lasted less than two weeks in a general education math class because they weren’t able to follow the lessons.   
• None of them were able to participate in science or social studies, because they couldn’t get accustomed to the concept of active, engaged learning.  They sat passively through instruction, and waited during independent work time for someone to tell them what to do instead of reading the directions.
• I discovered on their first benchmark test that they were used to having all assessments read to them, even though four of them read at the third grade level or higher.  When they did in-class assignments, they expected me or our aide to sit with them and tell them what to do next.

The children were shorthchanged…

         Their previous teacher did them a grave disservice.  She sent me five very intelligent kids who hadn’t a clue how to learn.  It wasn’t their fault; they’d never been taught how to think or had thinking skills modeled for them. 

         My former colleague never worked in general education, never entered a general education classroom, and felt safe only in her cocooned Special Day Classroom, where she could nurture her students and coddle them.

         Laurie’s work is already showing results, and it’s just the beginning of November.  She’s participating in a fourth-grade team with two other general education teachers:  she took on social studies, and has a reverse-mainstreaming thing going on in her classroom; she teaches a rigorous math class to her students and some of the lower-scoring kids in general ed (and three of my students, fifth and sixth graders who are still needing support with basic math skills in a very small group situation). 

         When you walk into her classroom, it’s student work you see, not artwork done by her or her aide. 

         Laurie and I can finish each others’ sentences when we discuss rigor and independent learning.  This shorthand is based on a mutual understanding of what special education is:  a service designed to bridge the gap between ability and capacity, not an educational system to protect kids with special needs.

         When we smother kids with support and don’t teach them how to think for themselves, even the brightest of them will atrophy as learners.

demanding classroom · GATE · high expectations · homework · IEP goals · learning disabled · para-educator · reverse mainstreaming · rigor · rigorous instruction · special day class · special education · standards