Creating Meaningful and Measurable Early Childhood IEP Goals and Objectives

Feel free to print and/or copy any original materials contained in this packet. KITS has purchased the right to reproduce the copyrighted articles included in this packet. Any additional duplication should adhere to appropriate copyright law.

The example organizations, people, places, and events depicted herein are fictitious. No association with any real organization, person, places, or events is intended or should be inferred.

_{Compiled by Misty Goosen, Ed. S., and David P. Lindeman, Ph.D.} 

_{Adapted by Chelie Nelson, Ph.D., and David P. Lindeman, Ph.D.} 

April 2003, updated October 2006

_{Kansas Inservice Training System}

_{Kansas University Center on Developmental Disabilities}

Adapted for accessibility and transferred to new website October 2022

_{Kansas Inservice Training System is supported though Part C, IDEA Funds from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment.}

_{The University of Kansas is and Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer and does not discriminate in its programs and activities. Federal and state legislation prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, disability, and veteran status. In addition, University policies prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, marital status, and parental status.}

Table of Contents

Letter from the Director

Essential Elements, Checklists

Guided Practice

Frequently Asked Questions

KELSD Standards

References and Resources 

Packet Evaluation

Letter from the Director

December 2011

Dear Colleague,

Writing a child’s individualized education plan (IEP) is an important responsibility of early childhood special educators. The IEP is the primary documentation regarding the child’s educational program, and requires teams to meet both procedural (regarding the process of IEP development) and substantive (contents of the IEP designed with the intent of educational benefit) requirements of IDEA. KSDE provides information on both the procedural and substantive IEP requirements through the Kansas Technical Assistance Network (TASN). IEP training modules, including a module specific to early childhood, can be found at TASN.

The TASN modules address issues related to the development of compliant IEPs and address issues such as early childhood transition requirements and who can be considered a regular education teacher for a preschool age student.  This packet is focused on the substantive requirements of writing IEPs for children receiving early childhood special education, including the integration of early childhood outcomes into the design of an IEP.  Much of the content of this packet was adapted for early childhood special educators from the Kansas Special Education Process Handbook (2011) found at KSDE.

We hope that you will find that the packet contains helpful information. After you have examined the packet, please complete the evaluation found at the end of this packet. Thank you for your interest and your efforts toward the development of quality services and programs for young children and their families.

Sincerely,

David P. Lindeman, Ph.D.

KITS Director

Back to top of page

Essential Elements, Checklists and Forms

If possible, please read this article along with the packet - Access through an institution can be granted. 

• Chambers, C. R., & Childre, A. L. (2005). Fostering Family-Professional Collaboration Through Person-Centered IEP Meetings: The “True Directions” Model. Young Exceptional Children, 8(3), 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/109625060500800304

Essential Elements of Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional  Performance (PLAAFP)

• Key Question
  • What is the child able to do?
• Purpose
  • To describe the current level of functioning in the general curriculum (for preschoolers defined as “appropriate activities”) and the unique needs of the child that will be addressed by special education and related services. To establish a baseline of measurable information that serves as the starting point for developing goals.
• Definition
  • The Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance specifies:
    • the strengths of the child
    • the unique needs of the child
    • parental concerns
    • how the child’s disability affects his/her involvement and progress in age appropriate activities
• Key Characteristics
  • measurable
  • meaningful
  • objective
  • functional
  • current
  • identifies any special factors
  • describes both academic and non-academic areas
  • summarizes evaluation results in understandable language
  • establishes a baseline of information used in writing goals, short term objectives and benchmarks
• Writing Strategy
  • Describe the behavior the child is doing in objective, measurable terms. Describe how the developmental delay is keeping the child from participating and progressing in the same activities that other children of the same age are doing.   

Essential Elements of Measurable Annual Goals

• Key Question
  • What should the child be doing a year from now?
• Purpose
  • To describe what a child can reasonably be expected to accomplish within 12 months with specially designed instruction and related services. Measurable annual goals enable the child to be involved in and progress in age appropriate activities.
• Definition
  • A measurable annual goal
    • is directly related to the needs identified in the PLAAFP
    • sets the direction for working with the child
    • uses the baseline established in the PLAAFP as a starting point to monitor progress
    • is stated in clear terms
    • has four parts: time frame, conditions, behavior,  and criterion
• Key Characteristics
  • describes what the child will do
  • measurable
  • meaningful
  • functional
  • objective
  • comprehensive
• Writing Strategy
  • Describe the behavior the child will be doing when the goal is reached. Include the time frame, the conditions in which the behavior will be seen, the specific behavior to be achieved, and what level/degree will be used to identify if the goal has been achieved.

Essential Elements of Short Term Objectives & Benchmarks

Note:  While not required, short-term objectives/benchmarks continue to be a useful component of an IEP by providing intermediate gauges of progress toward the overall goal. 

• Key Question
  • What are the intermediate steps or major milestones needed to achieve the goal?
• Purpose
  • To outline measurable, intermediate steps between the child’s baseline data established in the PLAAFP and the annual goal.
• Definitions
  • Short term objectives
    • intermediate steps to a goal
  • Benchmarks
    • major milestones to a goal
• Key Characteristic
  • Short Term Objectives
    • measurable
    • minimum of 2 per goal
    • a logical breakdown of the major components of the annual goal
    • general indicators of progress, not a detailed instructional plan
    • include time frame, conditions, behavior, criteria
    • may be sequential or parallel
    • comprehensive
• Key Characteristic
  • Benchmarks
    • measurable
    • minimum of 2 per goal
    • expected performance level
    • major milestones or precursor steps
    • sequential
    • include time frame, condition, behavior
• Writing Strategy
  • Describe the behavior the child will be doing when the short-term objective or benchmark is achieved.

_{Adapted from O’Donnell, D. (1999, November 29). Examples and tips of making annual goals measurable. Memorandum from Nissan B. Bar-Lev, Cooperative Education Service Agency No. 7, Department of Special Education. Retrieved January 18, 2003 from http://www.cesa7.k12.wi.us/sped/issues-IEPissues/writingiep/GoalsMeasurable.html - Webpage has since been removed.} 

PLAAFP Checklist

• Sufficient information on what the child is doing with regard to age appropriate activities and early childhood outcomes.
  • strengths identified as they relate to possible interventions or strategies
  • needs stated are clear priorities
  • parent concerns have been addressed
• A statement has been made regarding how the child’s disability or developmental delay is affecting progress in age appropriate activities.
  • clearly states what the delay is keeping the child from doing
• The PLAAFP establishes a baseline that will be used in the annual goals.
  • behaviors/skills can be seen, heard, or counted (measurable)
  • behaviors/skills are useful across environments (functional)
  • special considerations were considered (i.e. specialized equipment)

Measurable Annual Goals Checklist

• Established from the needs identified on the PLAAFP
• Established related to parent concerns
• Established related to early childhood outcomes
• Provide a clear picture of what the child will be able to do in 12 months as a result of intervention
• Describe behaviors/skills that can reasonably be expected in 12 months as a result of intervention.
• Describe behaviors/skills that would not have been achieved without special education
• Achievement will enhance the child’s participation in current and future inclusive environments
• Are meaningful and functional towards the success of the child across environments
• Establishes the level or degree of mastery for goal accomplishment
• Includes:
  • time frame
  • conditions
  • behavior
  • criterion
• Are written in a way that any person working on the educational plan can easily begin instruction.  Jargon is explained or not used
• Are stated in positive terms

Short Term Objectives/Benchmarks Checklist

• Define intermediate steps towards the goal
• At least 2 short term objectives / benchmarks have been written per goal
• Establishes the level or degree of mastery for goal accomplishment
• Short-term objectives include:
  • time frame
  • conditions
  • behavior
  • criterion
• Benchmarks identify major milestones towards achieving the goal
• Benchmarks include:
  • time frame
  • condition
  • behavior
• Specific instructional strategies, materials, and personnel have been listed

Best Practices in Goal Setting

Individualized - Goals are specifically designed to address child’s individual needs as identified on the PLAAFP. They specify antecedents, conditions and mastery criteria appropriate for the child. They are not selected from a canned list of IEP goals.

Comprehensive - Goals address all aspects of the child’s current and future environments and are selected by the team as priorities for which special interventions are necessary.

Normalizing - Goals focus on skills that are normalizing, not stigmatizing. The team considers the effect of goal achievement on the child’s perceived status in typical settings.

Appropriate Activities - Goals are selected that will specifically improve the child’s ability to participate and progress in appropriate activities.

Interdisciplinary - All members of the team, including the family, contribute to the identification and prioritization of goals.

Collaborative - Team members are aware of and involved in implementing goals. If multiple agencies are involved, information is coordinated so all agencies are addressing the same or compatible goals.

Family-Centered Relationship-Supportive - Goals address behaviors/skills that will enhance the child’s interactions and relationships with family members and significant others. The family is an important contributor in the process of selecting and prioritizing goals.

Culturally Sensitive - Goals are appropriate to the child’s family culture and are written in a style (and language) that is meaningful to the family.

_{Adapted from McLean, L.  (1992, June). Assessment and Curriculum:  Choosing a System That’s Right for Your Program.  Presenter at Early Childhood Special Education Summer Institute, Ames, Iowa.}

Ten Methods for Collecting Baseline Data

1. Work Sample Analysis
2. Time Sampling
3. Rubrics
4. Checklists
5. Rating Scales
6. Timed Probes
7. Task Analysis
8. Frequency Counts
9. Curriculum Based Assessments
10. Criterion Based Assessments

Revised IEP/IFSP Goals and Objectives Rating Instrument (R-GORI)

Functionality

• Will the skill increase the child’s ability to interact with people and objects within the daily environment?
  • Does the child need to demonstrate the skill in all/most situations?
  • Is the skill crucial (increases independence) for participation in most daily routines (e.g., playing, dressing, eating, participating in family activities such as shopping eating at restaurants, participating in classroom activities such as snack, centers, circle time), OR is it a necessary or precursor component of a skill that is crucial?
• Will the skill have to be performed by someone else if the child cannot do it?
  • Is the skill crucial for the completion of most daily routines?
  • Is the skill considered a precursor, building block, or necessary element to the acquisition of another skill?

Generality

• Does the skill represent a general concept or class of responses?
  • Does the goal represent a generic process?
  • Does the goal represent a group of related behaviors?
  • Is the objective a precursor or building block to the goal (i.e., a milestone)?
  • Is the objective a component or aspect of the goal?
• Can the skill be generalized across a variety of settings, materials, and/or people?
  • Can the child use the skill across settings, materials, and/or people?
  • Can everyday items be used by the child when performing the skill?

Instructional Context

• Can the skill be taught in a way that reflects the manner in which the skill will be used in daily environments?
  • Can others provide opportunities or teach the skill in common, everyday situations?
• Can the skill be elicited by the teacher/ parent/therapist/caregiver within the classroom/home activities?
  • Is the goal/objective written in clear, jargon free language that can be elicited by any member of the team?
  • Is the skill written in a way that is not confusing, too clinical, or requires specific knowledge that is not readily available to all team members?

Measurability

• Can the skill be seen and/or heard?
  • Can multiple people agree that the same skill has occurred?
  • Is a specific definition of the skill provided—is it operationally defined?
• Can the skill be directly counted/measured?
  • Is the dimension of the skill provided (e.g., frequency, duration, latency, endurance, intensity, accuracy)?
  • Is the length of time the skill is to be consistently performed indicated (e.g., for 5 days, 2 weeks)?
• Does the skill contain performance criteria?
  • Are the conditions or circumstances under which the skill is to be performed/ demonstrated provided (e.g., when given, during, at)?
  • Is the level of performance stated (e.g., with assistance, independently) or implied in the target behavior (e.g. copies, initiates)?

_{Adapted from Notari-Syverson, A.R., & Schuster, S. L. (1995)  Putting real life skills into IEP/IFSPs for infants and young children.  Teaching Exceptional Children, 27(2), 29-32.}

Early Childhood Outcome and IEP Review Summary Form

Child's name:

IEP Review Date:

Outcome 1: To what extent does the child show age appropriate functioning , across a variety of settings and situations, in the area of social interaction?

Outcome 2: To what extent does the child show age appropriate functioning , across a variety of settings and situations, related to the acquisition and use of knowledge and skills?

Outcome 3: To what extent does the child  take action to meet his/her own needs as appropriate to his/her age across a variety of settings and situations?

 _{Adapted from : Nylander, D. (2010). Nylander Annual Report ECO Worksheet. Paper presented at the 2010 OSPE Leadership Mega Conference. Retrieved from http://leadershipmega-conf-reg.tadnet.org/ uploads/file_assets/attachments/228/original_Nylander_Annual_Report_w-ECO_worksheet.pdf?1280160000 - Webpage has since been removed.} 

Integrating Child Outcomes Measurement into the IEP Process

Instructions: The group decides for each practice, which is implemented well and which is not. List some barriers for those practices that are not well implemented. If time allows, one person from each table will report to the other IFSP groups on 2 or 3 things going well and 2 or 3 things that are hard to implement and why. 

Barriers:

Barriers: 

Barriers: 

_{The practices in this worksheet are based on Integrating Child Outcomes Measurement with the Individualized Education Program (IEP) Process: Implementations Rating Scale (July 2010) by the IEP Workgroup of the IDFSP/IEP-Outcomes Integration Think Tank}

Back to top of page

Guided Practice

KSDE IEP modules and training materials  can be downloaded from the  Technical Assistance System Network

PLAAFP 1

Chris is able to build simple block structures. He can cut on a line when assisted with hand placement on scissors and copy a line (vertical and horizontal) though he switches the writing utensil in his hands frequently, during all activities.

• Measurable Annual Goal
  • In 36 weeks, Chris will improve his fine motor skills within the daily classroom routine to a more age appropriate level by meeting the listed benchmarks.
• Benchmarks
  • Copy a circle using tripod or adapted tripod grasp & writing utensil.
  • Copy a cross, using tripod or adapted tripod grasp & writing utensil.
  • Copy a square, using tripod or adapted tripod grasp & writing utensil.

What do you think about this PLAAFP?

Chris is able to build simple block structures. He can cut on a line when assisted with hand placement on scissors and copy a line (vertical and horizontal) though he switches the writing utensil in his hands frequently, during all activities.

1. Does it tell us what Chris can do now, not what he did in the past?   
   • Yes. We know Chris is able to build simple block structures, cut on lines when assisted with hand placement on the scissors, and copy lines (vertical and horizontal) though he switches his hands frequently.
2. Is it stated in terms that are specific, measurable and objective? Can you see it, hear it or count it?
   • Yes. The description in this PLAAFP provides us with information that we can see and count. Specifically, we know that Chris switches hands when holding onto a writing utensil. He does this frequently and across all situations. We also know that Chris can cut on a line when someone helps him put his fingers around the scissors correctly, but he is unable to do this on his own.   
3. Does it describe the effect of the disability on Chris’s progress in appropriate activities?
   • No. There is no statement regarding what this is keeping Chris from being able to do within age appropriate activities. An easy way to correct this portion of the PLAAFP would be to include a statement regarding what children his age are able to do. This sets the stage to illustrate exactly what Chris isn’t getting to do and how it is affecting his ability to participate and progress in appropriate activities. The following example could be inserted to help correct this portion of the PLAAFP: “Children of the same age are able to copy a circle, cross, and square in their drawings. A delay in this area prevents Chris from being able to engage in prewriting activities.”
4. Does it identify and prioritize specific needs that will be written as goals?   
   • Yes. Information is provided in a straightforward manner, making it easy to identify needs as well as indicate what skills are priorities for this child.
5. Does it identify strengths as they relate to possible interventions?
   • Yes. Chris is able to build simple block structures, cut on lines with assistance, and draw lines to some degree. While this PLAAFP doesn’t list these skills specifically as strengths, they are things that Chris is able to do. It isn’t mandatory to write strengths in the PLAAFP section, however, information regarding a child’s specific or relative strengths can be valuable in helping the team determine what skills are a priority. Information regarding strengths may also prove useful when identifying specific interventions.
6. Does it provide baseline data for the need?   
   • Yes. A baseline has been established, but it could have been written with more information that would make the next step of writing goals easier. In this example we are still missing information regarding the conditions in which the behaviors were observed (i.e., during paper and pencil, art, or direct instruction activities) or the specific method in which the data was collected (i.e., when asked to draw a line on a piece of paper after watching a model). By including the conditions and methods of data collection in the PLAAFP, goal writing will be easier since it is necessary to include that information in the goal.

Measurable Annual Goal

In 36 weeks, Chris will improve his fine motor skills within the daily classroom routine to a more age appropriate level by meeting the listed benchmarks.

Is this goal measurable?  Does it contain all the required information?

• Timeframe:
  • in 36 weeks
    • yes
• Conditions:
  • within the daily classroom routine
    • yes
• Behavior:
  • will improve his fine motor skills  to a more age appropriate level
    • no
• Criterion:
  • by meeting the listed benchmarks
    • no

This example is not a measurable goal. In this goal, the behavior and criterion are not specific, observable or measurable. The behavior, “improve fine motor skills to a more age appropriate level” does not provide a clear picture of what this child will be doing in 12 months as a result of intervention. It is not specific enough to be measurable.

Another problem is the statement “as measured by the listed benchmarks”. All the necessary information must be included in the goal.  In this example the necessary information is listed in the benchmarks. Thus the goal does not pass the “stranger test”. Without seeing the benchmarks the reader would have no idea what to expect of this child in a year.

In this example the only intervention needed for Chris to improve his skills in this area is to participate in the daily curriculum of the preschool program (perhaps with adaptive equipment). The team may feel this does not illustrate a high priority need and could elect to address it in another portion of the IEP. For example, they might indicate that adaptive equipment will be provided throughout the preschool day to address his fine motor needs, and record this information in the services section of the IEP, rather than including it as a goal.

Remember, needs identified in the PLAAFP must be addressed somewhere in the IEP. In most cases they will be addressed as goals, in some cases they can be addressed somewhere else on the IEP.

Benchmarks

• Copy a circle using tripod or adapted tripod grasp & writing utensil.
• Copy a cross, using tripod or adapted tripod grasp & writing utensil.
• Copy a square, using tripod or adapted tripod grasp & writing utensil.

Do the benchmarks contain all the required information?

• No. The benchmarks listed do not include the time. They do, however, include all other elements (e.g., behavior, conditions)

PLAAFP 2

Sammi achieved an age equivalent score of 35 months on the auditory comprehension portion of the Language and Comprehension Preschool Scale. She scored 38 months on the expressive communication portion of this test and overall scored in the moderately severe range of communication.

• Measurable Annual Goal
  • In 36 instructional weeks, Sammi will increase her speech and language skills to age appropriate levels with 80% accuracy.
• Short-term objectives
  • In 9 weeks, Sammi will produce /l/ in all positions in words, phrases and sentences with 80% accuracy.
  • In 18 weeks, Sammi will produce /l/ in all positions in spontaneous speech with 80% accuracy
  • In 27 weeks, Sammi will use pronouns appropriately in spontaneous speech with 80% accuracy.

What do you think about this PLAAFP?

1. Does the PLAAFP tell us what Sammi can do now, not what she did in the past?
   • Yes. It does appear that the data is in reference to the latest assessment information.
2. Is it stated in terms that are specific, measurable and objective? Can you see it, hear it or count it?   
   • Yes/No. While age scores are provided in the PLAAFP, the description of the behavior is not specific enough to understand what Sammi is really able to do. All we really know is the score the child achieved on this instrument. We do not have detailed information regarding specific skills. In addition, age scores are not easily understood providing even less information from which to build on later in the process.
3. Does it describe the effect of the disability on Sammi’s progress in appropriate activities?
   • No. We know that Sammi’s scores fell in the moderately severe range of communication, but we do not know how that affects Sammi’s ability to progress in appropriate activities.   
4. Does it identify and prioritize specific needs that will be written as goals?
   • No. Information provided was too general. Not enough information was provided from which specific needs could be identified and goals written.
5. Does it identify strengths as they relate to possible interventions?
   • No.
6. Does it provide baseline data for the need?
   • No. Age scores are not good measures to use in monitoring progress over a short period of time. Not enough information was provided to establish a baseline.

Measurable Annual Goal 2

In 36 instructional weeks, Sammi will increase her speech and language skills to age appropriate levels with 80% accuracy.

Is this goal measurable? Does it contain all the required information?

• Timeframe
  • in 36 instructional weeks
    • yes
• Conditions
  • *******
    • no
• Behavior
  • will increase her speech and language skills to age appropriate levels
    • no
• Criterion
  • with 80% accuracy
    • no

This example is not a measurable goal. The behavior is not specific enough to fully understand what Sammi will be doing this time next year (e.g., increase her speech and language skills to age appropriate levels). In addition the criterion is not tied to anything (e.g., 80% of what?). This goal is also missing information regarding the conditions in which the behavior will be observed (i.e., during free choice and center time activities). Finally, this goal does not pass the “stranger test”, and is, therefore, not meaningful. This is an unacceptable goal.

Short-term objectives

• In 9 weeks, Sammi will produce /l/ in all positions in words, phrases and sentences with 80% accuracy.
• In 18 weeks, Sammi will produce /l/ in all positions in spontaneous speech with 80% accuracy
• In 27 weeks, Sammi will use pronouns appropriately in spontaneous speech  with 80% accuracy.

Do the benchmarks contain all the required information?

• Timeframe
  • in 9, 18, 27 weeks
    • yes
• Conditions
  • ******
    • no
• Behavior
  • will produce /l/ in all positions in words, phrases, sentences, etc.
    • yes
• Criterion
  • with 80% accuracy
    • no

The criterion statement is ambiguous because the goal is missing the statement of the conditions in which the behavior would be observed.

Sample Measurable Annual Goals

• In 12 months, Timmy will follow 2-step directions, during large group activities (i.e., groups of 6 or more children), 1 time per observation period, across 5 consecutive group times.
• By November 1, 200X, when given a verbal direction by an adult, Robin will begin to comply with the direction within 10 seconds, 3 out of 4 opportunities, for 3 consecutive days.
• In 12 months, while at school, Bobbie will use the toilet independently when necessary, for a period of at least 3 weeks without an accident.
• In 36 weeks, Misty will establish and maintain proximity with peers and cooperatively play with partners during child-directed free choice activities for at least 5 minutes, one time per observation period, across 5 consecutive free choice activities.
• In 36 weeks, Vera will use scissors to cut out simple shapes with curved lines when presented with scissors, and paper with printed shapes (at least 3 inches in diameter).  She will cut out the shapes within 1/4 inch of the line, 4 out of 5 trials.
• In 36 weeks, during conversations with peers or adults, Terry will use words to describe attributes of toys or foods (e.g., shape, size, color, texture, and spatial relationship), 2 times per observation period for 3 consecutive days.

Measurable Annual Goals

1. Using the information you have learned in this packet, re-write the following goals:
2. In 12 months, Garrett will improve his personal-social skills by 6 months according to the Battelle Developmental Inventory.
3. Samantha will increase her adaptive skills by six months by improving toileting skills with 40% accuracy.
4. Brett will improve his cognitive skills by 6 months by working on his perceptual discrimination skills with 90% accuracy.
5. Heather will increase her ability to complete a variety of daily living skills by completing the following benchmarks with 100% accuracy.
6. Cody will improve his stability and mobility to improve his classroom participation by accomplishing 100% of the stated benchmarks, by October 20, 200x.

_{Goosen, M., & Lindeman, D. (2003). Creating Meaningful and Measurable Early Childhood IEP Goals & Objectives. Parsons, KS: Kansas Inservice  Training System, Kansas University Center on Developmental Disabilities.}

Dr. Phil on Prioritizing IEP Goals

Okay… I admit it.  I’m a Dr. Phil junky.  He seems to have a no-nonsense way of telling folks how to cut to the chase and just do something.  People flock around him to hear, what I consider to be, common sense with pizzazz.   

Recently, Ol’ Doc Phil has agreed to take on the national problem of obesity.  I haven’t read his book, but I bet he will help the masses cut through the enormous amount of magazine articles, medical journals, and specialized diets to tell us the key points we all should be working on to acquire that perfect figure.   

It’s almost as if Dr. Phil is on a mission to develop a grown-up version of an IEP, tailored to move each of us toward the healthy weight and lifestyle we should all be experiencing. I wonder… if Dr. Phil were counseling early childhood teachers and support staff, could he as easily help us identify and prioritize IEP goals for young children with special needs?  Could he “cut to the chase” and identify those “big dang deal” goals worth writing on the IEP?  What words of wisdom would Dr. Phil have for teachers and support staff trying to identify and prioritize IEP goals?

Here is how I imagine a Dr. Phil show might go if he were talking with an early childhood disabilities teacher on the topic of prioritizing IEP goals. 

How’s That Working for You? *

Miss Nelly, an early childhood disabilities teacher from Somewhere, Kansas, is sitting in the hot seat next to Dr. Phil.  Dr. Phil leans a little closer to Miss Nelly and speaks in that pleasant Texan drawl. 

Dr. Phil: “I hear you are having a little trouble identifying IEP goals for a preschool student in your class.  I also hear that this is a common problem.  Your colleagues tell me that you have a tendency to write a whole lot of goals on every IEP that passes your way.  Let me ask you Miss Nelly, how do you go about selecting IEP goals for a given student?” 

Miss Nelly: “Well Dr. Phil, I look at the evaluation information and then I write down every possible need I can think of given that information.  In Johnny’s case, there are a lot of needs, so of course I have a lot of goals.”

Dr. Phil: “And how’s that working for you?”*

Miss Nelly: “Actually, it’s pretty hard to keep track of everything I am supposed to be working on.  It is very difficult to monitor progress as often as I would like, so I don’t do much of that.  Truth is, I don’t pay much attention to what’s on the IEP except when I send out progress reports, and of course when it is time to write a new IEP at the annual review.  You must remember, Johnny’s IEP isn’t the only plan I am working on.  It’s just so much to remember!“

Dr. Phil: “So what you are saying is that you write a whole lot of goals, but it’s hard to keep track of them?  So I ask you again, Miss Nelly, is what you are doing now working for you?  Is it working for Johnny?  If the cat’s in the kitchen, then you had better give him some yarn.”

I’m not sure what point Dr. Phil was attempting to make with the cat metaphor.  The reality is Dr. Phil loses me sometimes.  However, I believe he did make a strong case for Miss Nelly to rethink how she identifies goals on the IEP.  Obviously, identifying everything that was noted in the evaluation as a goal wasn’t working for Miss Nelly or Johnny.  This strategy made the IEP unmanageable and, therefore, ineffective.

You Have to Name it Before You Can Claim It *

Miss Nelly is becoming a little nervous.  She has no clue what Dr. Phil might be asking her to do, and is still wondering what the cat has to do with IEP writing.  She gathers up the courage to speak to this Cowboy of Conundrums.

Miss Nelly: “Dr. Phil, you must understand that the Kansas State Department of Education (KSDE) has made it very clear that any need identified in the Present Levels of Educational Performance (PLAAFP) must be addressed somewhere on the IEP.  Like I said, in Johnny’s case there is a long list of needs, so it seems necessary to make a goal to address each of them.  Isn’t that what I am supposed to do?”

Dr. Phil: “The problem is that you think every need is a high priority, and I’m here to tell you that just ain’t true, Miss Nelly.  The fact of the matter is if an alligator steals your earring, you had better let him have it. “

Miss Nelly: “If an alligator…wait, I’m not sure…”

Dr. Phil: “Don’t interrupt me here, darlin, I’m trying to make a point.  It seems to me that there is a little confusion on the topic of prioritizing goals.  It just so happens that I have asked my top notch staff to do some research about the rules and regulations regarding IEP writing in Kansas and I have found some interesting points that just might help you out.

You are right in stating that needs identified in the PLAAFP must be addressed somewhere on the IEP; and you are also right that, in most cases, those needs will be written on the IEP as goals.  Here is where the rubber hits the road, Miss Nelly.  It isn’t necessary to write down every need identified in the evaluation on the PLAAFP, but only those needs that will require specially designed instruction AND will help the preschool child participate and progress in appropriate activities.  Needs that were identified in the evaluation that will be addressed just through the experience of participating in a preschool classroom (without specially designed instruction) need not be listed on the PLAAFP, and, therefore, will not need to be addressed as goals.

Sure, it’s a good idea to include other stuff, like the strengths of the child, and an even better idea to include the concerns noted by the parents.  Shucks, that last one is a no-brainer. Can you think of a better way to help prioritize a goal than to address the concerns of the parents?

The bottom line is, if you write an appropriate PLAAFP, you will have a much easier time of identifying and prioritizing high priority goals.  Write down those needs you think will have the biggest impact on the life of this child and his family. From that information you will be able to write high priority goals. They will both be better in content and less in number, therefore a win-win for everyone. You have to name it (high priority goals) before you can claim it (effective IEP).”

Once again, Dr. Phil hit the nail right on the head. There is a direct relationship between the needs identified on the PLAAFP and the measurable annual goals. In order to identify really meaningful goals, the PLAAFP should first identify those needs, which if addressed, will make the most positive difference for the child and his/her family.

Pretti-Frontczak and her colleagues also recommend choosing skills that are:

• Functional, usable, observable and measurable
• Not likely to develop without intervention
• Developmentally appropriate/match child’s developmental level
• Address multiple areas and are generalizable
• A priority to all team members, including parents
• Enhance participation in appropriate activities
• Realistic and achievable as a means to prioritizing meaningful and measurable IEP goals.

Would You Rather Be Right or Happy? *

As the show comes to an end, Miss Nelly shares her final thoughts with Dr. Phil.

Miss Nelly: “So you are saying that it is okay to write only those goals that the team, including the parents, believes will make the biggest impact on the life of the child and that I don’t need to worry about writing a whole bunch of goals?  Does that mean I will only be teaching Johnny a few things since I have only a few goals?”

Dr. Phil: “Dagnabbit, Woman! If a kangaroo hops on your radiator, don’t you think it would be a good idea to turn off the car?”

Miss Nelly: “Huh?”

Dr. Phil: “Of course you will be teaching Johnny many things that are not specifically written out as goals.  Through the course of the preschool day, he’ll be engaging in planned activities built from your classroom curriculum.  Many of the skills that were identified in the evaluation, but not identified as needing specialized instruction, will be addressed through the course of the preschool program.  Johnny will participate and be supported in those activities just like all the other children.  Since you are not doing anything different for Johnny in this part of the program, there is no need for the intensive level of monitoring that is required for an IEP goal.   So, Miss Nelly, given all that I have taught you, tell me now, would you rather be right or happy?“

Miss Nelly: “Well, in this case, Dr. Phil, if I follow your advice, I believe I will be right and happy at the same time.  I will be focusing on high priority goals for Johnny – goals that really will make a difference.  By writing only the highest priority goals, Johnny’s IEP will be more meaningful and more manageable.”   

Dr. Phil: “Gosh I’m good!  That’s all for today, folks. And remember: you either get it or you don’t.”*

This satirical account of the Dr. Phil Show is purely fictitious and should not be interpreted as a factual account of a previously aired episode. Quotes followed by an * were taken from excerpts of the Dr. Phil Show; however, the ideas and opinions expressed in this article are entirely that of the author, Misty Goosen, Ed.S., KITS.

Back to top of page

Frequently Asked Questions

Wise Words From Irmagene Eloise Petticoat  “Ms. IEP”

Have you been caught faking Carpal Tunnel Syndrome at an IEP meeting?

Does your mother  routinely call you during IEP meetings when it is your turn to discuss measurable annual goals?

Just as you were beginning to realize that  artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity,  Ms. Irmagene Eloise Petticoat, aka “Ms. IEP”, comes out  of the Ivory Towers of Topeka to answer probing questions from early childhood special education professionals.

Dear Ms. IEP,

When I start this whole IEP process it feels like I am writing the same information over and over again (e.g., individual report, team evaluation report, PLAAFP). Is this really necessary?

Deja Vu

Dear Deja,

I’m reminded of similar feelings when faced with creating the annual family newsletter. While I have a very full and exotic life, reporting such extravagance begins to feel redundant. So, too, may the sage reader feel when asked to write information regarding evaluation. Heed the following advice from Ms. IEP:

The PLAAFP is different from the team evaluation report, and therefore should not be a reiteration of what has already been written. The team evaluation report includes all of the evaluation results and documentation concerning the eligibility of the child. The report is written by the evaluation team, which includes the parents. It is no longer necessary (or advisable) for individual professionals to write separate reports.

The PLAAFP does not include all of the evaluation results, it includes only the most pertinent information needed to develop an IEP. The PLAAFP describes performance in the general education curriculum, for preschool children this means performance in appropriate activities. It describes how the disability is effecting the child’s performance and establishes a baseline from which measurable annual goals will be written. Other information can be included in the PLAAFP (i.e., strengths, concerns of parents) especially as it applies to the development of a good educational plan.    

Dear Ms. IEP,

Is it necessary to report test scores in the PLAAFP? Some people are telling me I should, and other people are telling me I shouldn’t.

Gullible Gary

Dear Gary,

While I understand the puzzle you face, I feel compelled to ask the question, “Do you do everything other people tell you to do?“ Alas, that information is for a different column. To include test scores or not include test scores, that is the question.   

It is not necessary to report test scores in the PLAAFP. It is necessary to establish a baseline in the PLAAFP, but it is not mandatory for that baseline to be established with a specific test score.  Baseline data can be established in a variety of ways. Structured observations, checklists, curriculum and criterion based measures could all be used to establish and report baseline data depending on the specific skill in question.  If scores are reported from any of these methods they should be written in a manner that is understandable to all team members, including parents.

Dear Ms. IEP,

What is the difference between short-term objectives and benchmarks? When should I use a benchmark instead of a short-term objective?

Puzzled Pat

Dear Pat,

Some have suggested to me that the confusion noted here is nothing more than a conspiracy created by paper companies to rule the free world. However, I am not as suspicious as some of my readers, and would offer the following explanation:

Since the reauthorization of IDEA 2004, IEP teams are no longer required to write short-term objectives or benchmarks for young children with disabilities who will not be taking alternative state assessments. Given that state assessments are not administered to this population of children virtually every IEP preschool age children would be exempt.  However, short-term objectives and benchmarks are still considered best practice toward monitoring progress toward the overall goal, and therefore IEP teams should consider writing them as part of a quality IEP.

• Short-term objectives are discrete component skills of the annual goal, while benchmarks are statements of expected performance levels.
• There is no rule governing when a short-term objective should be written instead of a benchmark and visa versa.
• Short-term objectives and benchmarks are both used to measure intermediate steps towards the accomplishment of a goal.
• Short-term objectives and benchmarks both include a timeframe, conditions under which the behavior will occur, and a description of the behavior.
• Short-term objectives also include a criterion from which to gauge if the objective has been accomplished.  Benchmarks do not.
• Short-term objectives may be written in sequential or parallel order and should be comprehensive.  Benchmarks are written in hierarchical order.
• The underlying thought when writing a benchmark is, “Can the child do the skill or not?”
• It is important not to confuse IEP benchmarks with district benchmarks.

Dear Ms. IEP,

If you put a weakness or concern in the PLAAFP, are you always required to write a goal? 

Anonymous

Dear Anonymous,

When I receive a question like yours, one cloaked with mystery, I am always intrigued. Some might worry that you, Dear Reader, have been concealing children’s weaknesses so as not to write goals. However, I’ve noted your concern and understand how this may be, in fact, a gray area. Not to worry! I’m here to provide enlightenment.

IDEA 2004 does not require that a measurable annual goal be written for each concern identified in the PLAAFP. However concerns not addressed through goals, MUST be addressed SOMEWHERE in the IEP.

The following is an example in which an IEP team decided to address a concern on another portion of the IEP and not as a goal. After they reviewed Jerry’s PLAAFP (see below) they decided to address the concern in another portion of the IEP.

• Jerry’s PLAAFP: When asked to point to colors, Jerry is able to point to red and green consistently. He is unable to identify the colors yellow, blue, pink, orange, and purple like other children his same age.   
• Special Considerations Portion of Jerry’s IEP: “The daily classroom routine and active-ties will provide opportunities for Jerry to learn the colors yellow, blue, purple, pink, and orange. The team feels no additional supports are necessary.”

It is important to remember that in most cases the IEP team will address concerns identified in the PLAAFP by writing measurable annual goals. In the above example, the team decided against doing so.  However, they could have written a goal if they had wished.  Such decisions are left up to individual teams.   

Dear Ms. IEP,

What do they mean by prioritizing goals? If there are a lot of needs, shouldn’t I write a goal for everything?

Meticulous Max

Dear Max,

I suspect that you have engaged in a scientific breakthrough and have invented a way to increase the hours in the normal day from 24 to 38.  As the rest of us in the field of education are not allowed the great fortune of a 38-hour day, we must limit the number of goals we write.  If you read further, you may come to understand that those of us on Earth prioritize what we write, allowing us to contribute to society, eat and even sleep – all within the 24-hour day we are allocated.

There is a common misconception that for every need identified in the PLAAFP, an individual goal must be written. The truth is, high priority goals often address several needs in one statement. When the team writes the PLAAFP, they are setting the stage for prioritizing the most important skills for the child to acquire in the coming year. Those skills that will enable the child to be involved in and progress in appropriate activities. Only the most significant needs should be recorded in the PLAAFP, from which goals will be written. 

Remember, the IEP is not a lesson plan. It is a document that provides guidance to the team, from which specific interventions and other planning can take place. It provides focus and accountability to the achievement of very specific goals; however, it does not preclude other learning that will invariably take place in the overall program for the child. In the course of a year, the child will learn a host of other things that may or may not be related to the IEP, but will occur as a result of participating in the curriculum.

Dear Ms. IEP,

What assessment tools should I use for documentation on the PLAAFP?

Jupiter Aligned With Mars

Dear Mars,

I am perplexed and wonder if you, Dear Reader, have been consulting astrological charts to determine your assessment strategies? While astrological charts may be helpful when identifying lottery numbers, they provide little information in the evaluation process.

The focus of the PLAAFP is to identify the current functioning of the child within age appropriate activities, and to prioritize the special needs of the child to be used when writing goals. Therefore, information must be collected that will allow the team to establish a baseline within age appropriate activities. A variety of formal and informal measures are useful in this process. Examples include published curriculum based assessments or criterion referenced tests, structured observations, rating scales, rubrics, portfolio assessments, work sample analysis, language samples, and checklists. Information collected using such methods will provide good baseline data from which measurable annual goals can be written.

A common mistake made by IEP teams is to use a standardized number produced from a published norm-referenced test as the baseline.  Norm-referenced tools may be useful in answering eligibility questions, but are not sensitive enough to monitor growth in specific skills, especially for young children.  Additionally, all the members of the team (including the parents) may not easily understand standard scores.  They do not provide information regarding a child’s functioning within the general curriculum, nor do they provide instructional guidelines from which to make educational plans. Therefore, norm-referenced tests are not the best tools to establish baseline information.

Dear Ms. IEP,

Should parent concerns be documented in the PLAAFP?

Ima Mom 2

Dear Mom,

I delight in the opportunity to share from my very own familial fountain pen of knowledge. I will strive to help you put the “k” in “kwality”.  Read the following answer to your paternal conundrum.

Teams must consider the concerns of the parents when developing the IEP. However, there are no clear rules where this information should be documented. The PLAAFP is a logical place for noting parent concerns since the IEP will be constructed using PLAAFP information.

Dear Ms. IEP,

If the PLAAFP and measurable annual goals are written in simple terms, will they be accepted?

Ordinary Mary

Dear Mary,

I just love a simple mind, and it is clear that you are the proud owner of one. You would do well to heed the following advice.

PLAAFPs and measurable annual goals that are written in simple terms, are not only acceptable, they are desirable. The law spells out that the PLAAFP must be stated in terms that are specific, measurable, and objective.  Measurable annual goals must also be specific and measurable. In addition, they must be written so that anyone who is working with the child, including the parents, can use the information to develop appropriate instructional plans as well as assess the child’s progress (e.g., pass the “stranger test”).

Above all, goals should be meaningful. A goal is meaningful when it describes a behavior/skill that will have a real impact on the success of a child in current as well as future environments. If the PLAAFP and goal have these components they are acceptable.

Dear Ms. IEP,

Is using a criteria like “80% accuracy” sufficient when writing goals?

Just Wondering

Dear Wondering,

Far be it for me to interfere with an educator’s right to confuse the public and sound professional all in one statement. Nevertheless, I should remind you that the purpose of documenting criteria is to make the goal understandable and meaningful.  I suggest that you commit the following rules to memory.

The criterion identifies how much, how often and to what standards the behavior must occur in order to demonstrate that the goal has been reached. “80% accuracy” identifies how much, but it does not identify to what standards the behavior must occur. Look at the following examples.

• Example 1 Goal: In 36 instructional weeks, when asked to tie his untied shoes, Billy will tie his shoe with 80% accuracy.

How will the team measure the accomplishment of this goal? What does a shoe that has been tied to 80% accuracy look like? A percentage criteria is not sufficient in this example because the percentage doesn’t provide useful information.

• Example 2 Goal: In 12 months, during personal sharing time at school, Kelly will respond to the topic and initiations of others appropriately (i.e., stay on topic, ask pertinent questions, make related statements) 80% of the time, as measured during 5 consecutive structured observations.

How will the team determine if this goal has been accomplished? The team will conduct timed observations during personal sharing time at school. They will count the number of responses Kelly exhibits within those timed periods, and indicate the percentage of positive responses to see if they reach or exceed 80%. Once Kelly exhibits positive responses for at least 80% of the time, the team will continue timed observations until she exhibits this percentage for at least 5 observational periods in a row. In this example information is provided to make the 80% meaningful to the accomplishment of the goal.

Dear Ms. IEP,

Do I really have to rewrite the PLAAFP every year? 

Really Busy

Dear Busy,

I am really curious as to what part of “present”, as in the phrase, ”Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance”, you really don’t understand?  I really feel compelled to remind you that the word “present” means “current, existing or latest”, implying that the PLAAFP is really written every time an IEP is written or updated.  The word “present, in this context, really should not be confused with the word “gift” as in “gift of another year or two before I need to write a new PLAAFP”.  Really now, if the child has not changed from last year to this year, should we really even be in this business?  Better or worse is really a change and tells us what we are, or are not, really doing with the child.

The PLAAFP must include current information, not past performance, and therefore must be rewritten every year.

IEPs According to Dr. Seuss™

If Dr. Seuss would have had to do IEPs, he might have written this.

Do you like these IEPs?

I do not like these IEP’s

I do not like them, Jeeze Louise

We test, we check

We plan, we meet

But nothing ever seems complete.

Would you, could you

Like the form?

I do not like the form I see

Not page 1, not 2, not 3.

Another change,

A brand new box. I think we all

Have lost our rocks.

Could you all meet here or there?

We could not all meet here or there.

We cannot all fit anywhere.

Not in a room

Not in a hall

There seems to be no space at all.

Would you, could you meet again?

I cannot meet again next week

No lunch, no prep

Please hear me speak.

No, not at dusk and not at dawn

At 4 p.m. I should be gone.

Could you hear while all speak out?

Would you write the words they spout?

I could not hear, I would not write

This does not need to be a fight.

Sign here, date there,

Mark this, check that.

Beware the student’s ad-vo-cat(e)

You do not like them

So you say

Try it again! Try it again!

And then you may.

If you let me be,

I’ll try again

And you will see.

Say!

I almost like these IEPs

I think I’ll write 6003

And I will practice day and night

Until they say

“You’ve got it right”.

(Author Unknown)

Back to top of page

KELSD Standards

Visit the KSDE website for the latest on the Kansas Early Learning Standards

Back to top of page

References and Resources

References

*Bagnato, S., Neisworth, J., & Pretti-Frontczak (2010). Linking authentic assessment and early childhood intervention: Best measures for best practices. Baltimore: Brookes.

Bentzen, W. R. (2008). Seeing young children: A guide to observing and recording behavior (6th ed.). Albany, NY: Delmar.

*Curtis, D. & Carter, M.   (2002) The art of awareness: How observation can transform your teaching. St. Paul: Redleaf Press.

*Chambers, C. R. & Childre, A. L. (2005). Fostering family-professional collaboration through person-centered IEP meetings: The "true directions" model, Young Exceptional Children, 8:20- 28.

Christle, C.A. (2010). Individualized education programs: Legal requirements and research findings, Exceptionality, 18:3, 109- 123.

*Colker, L. J., (1995). Observing young children: Learning to look, looking to learn.   Washington, DC: Teaching Strategies. (video)

Division for Early Childhood. (2007). Promoting positive outcomes for children with disabilities: Recommendations for curriculum, assessment, and program evaluation. Retrieved June, 13, 2011 from http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/ PrmtgPositiveOutcomes.pdf - Webpage has since been removed. 

Grisham-Brown, J., Pretti-Fronczak, K., Hemmeter, M. L. Ridgley, R.   (2002). Teaching IEP goals and objectives: In the context of classroom routines and activities, Young Exceptional Children. 6: 18 - 27.

Hojnoski, R. L., Gischlar, K.L., Missall, K.N. (2009). Improving child outcomes with data-based decision making: graphing data, Young Exceptional Children, 12: 15- 30.  

Horn, E. & Banerjee, R. (2009). Understanding curriculum modifications and embedded learning opportunities in the context of supporting all children's success, Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 40, 406-415.

Horn, E., Lieber, J., Li, S., Sandall, S. & Schwartz, I. (2000). Supporting young children's IEP goals in inclusive settings through embedded learning opportunities, Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 20:4, 208 - 223.

Jung, L.A. (2007). Writing SMART objectives and strategies that fit the routine, Teaching Exceptional Children, Mar/Apr, 54- 58.

Kansas State Department of Education Student Support Services. (2008). The Individualized Education Program. In The Kansas special education process handbook Topeka. Retrieved from http://www.ksde.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket= v14pER6l8ng%3d&tabid=3152&mid=8268 - Webpage has since been removed. 

*Losardo, A., & Notari-Syverson, A (2011). Alternative approaches to assessing young children.   Baltimore: Brookes.

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2002, March 29). Special education compliance: Measurable goals and objectives questions and answers. Retrieved January 22, 2003, from http://www.dese.mo.gov/divspeced/Compliance/Q&A/MGO.html - Webpage has since been removed. 

National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (NECTAC),  (2011). Integrating Outcomes - Individual Education Planning (IEP) Process. Retrieved from http://leadershipmega-confreg.tadnet.org/uploads/file_assets/ attachments/139/original_IEP-Outcomes_Flow_Chart.pdf?1279906774 - Website has since been discontinued. 

Nebraska Department of Education. (n.d.). Present level of education performance. Retrieved November 25, 2009, from http://www.nde.state.ne.us/SPED/technicalassist/iepproj/develop/pre.html - Webpage has since been removed. 

Notari-Syverson, A.R., & Schuster, S. L. (1995)   Putting real life skills into IEP/IFSPs for infants and young children.   Teaching Exceptional Children, 27(2), 29-32.

Nylander, D. (2010). Nylander Annual Report ECO Worksheet. Paper presented at the 2010 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference. Retrieved June 2011 from http://leadershipmega-conf-reg.tadnet.org/uploads/file_assets/attachments/228/ original_Nylander_Annual_Report_w-ECO_worksheet.pdf?1280160000 - Website has since been discontinued. 

O’Donnell, D. (1999, November 29). Examples and tips of making annual goals measurable. Memorandum from Nissan B. Bar-Lev, Cooperative Education Service Agency No. 7, Department of Special Education. Retrieved January 18, 2003, from http://www.cesa7.k12.wi.us/sped/issues-IEPissues/writingiep/GoalsMeasurable.html - Department has since been renamed and website has moved (https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/index.html). 

Office of Special Education Programs. (2001, November/December). Access to the general curriculum: Questions and answers. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34, (2), 84-85.

Office of Special Education Programs. (2006).   IDEA'2004 Amendments, Final Regulations, Retrieved June 13, 2011 from http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cregs%2C - Visit sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/c for updated versions. 

Pretti-Frontczak, K. (2002). Accessing the general curriculum/IEP goals.  Retrieved September 24, 2003, from http://fpsrv.dl.kent.edu/ecis/Web/Inservice/inservice.htm - Website address has since been discontinued. 

 Pretti-Frontczak, K. o Bricker, D. (2000) Enhancing the quality of individualized education plan (IEP) goals and Objectives, Journal of Early Intervention, 23:2, 92-105.

 *Sandall, S. (Ed.). (2004). DEC recommended practices: A comprehensive guide for practical application. Denver, CO: Sopris West.

 *Sandall, S., Schwartz, I. & Joseph, G. E. (2008). Building blocks for teaching preschoolers with special needs.   Baltimore: Brookes.

 U.S Department of Education   (2010) Questions and Answers On Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), Evaluations, and Reevaluations " http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cdynamic%2CQaCorner%2C3%2C - Visit sites.ed.gov/idea/topic-areas/ for updated version. 

U. S. Department of Education Office of Special Education. (n.d.). IDEA practices: Special education questions and answers written by the experts. Retrieved January 22, 2003, from http://www.ideapractices.org/qanda/qanda.php?showCat=33&showSub=37-top

Walsh, S., Smith, B. J., & Taylor, R. C. (2000). IDEA requirements for preschoolers with disabilities: IDEA early childhood policy and practice guide.  Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

•  Wright, P. D., & Wright, P. W. (2003). Your child's IEP: Practical and legal guidance for parents. Retrieved January 22, 2003, from http://www.wrightslaw.com/advoc/articles/iep_guidance.html - Page has since updated to https://www.wrightslaw.com/advoc/articles/iep_guidance.html

*These items are available from:

KITS Early Childhood Resource Center
2601 Gabriel, Parsons, KS 67357
Email: resourcecenter@ku.edu
Phone: 620-421-3067

Resources

Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) The Division for Early Childhood

Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (ECTA Center)

Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute 

Pacer Center

U.S. Department of Education

Waisman Center

• For more information on Creating Meaningful and Measurable Early Childhood Individual Education Plan (IEP) Goals, visit the Family Service Coordination Tool Kit. 

Back to top of page

Packet Evaluation

Please take a few minutes to complete the brief online survey located above. Your feedback is central to our evaluation of the services and materials provided by KITS.

Back to top of page