What's measurable?

Here's an interesting challenge. I received this note from a former student of mine who had taken a special ed. law course with me two years ago. --KK

Dear Kathleen:

How should we be writing our IEP goals for our students?
I know they need to be measurable, but look below for the differences I am talking about.

Let's take math for example,

1. Do I write a goal related to where the student is currently functioning (will be able to complete 8/ 10 addition problems with regrouping) even though this is not what they are working on in the gen ed inclusion math classroom?

Or

2. Do I write a goal related to the students needs to meet the GLCEs (Grade Level Content Expectations) for that grade ( will be able to solve 1 step linear equations with the use of a calculator)?

Or

3. Do I write goals related to the students needs and GLCEs of another grade: 3rd grade GLCE, for example, even if the student is in 8th grade?

I have looked at various goal-writing books that help to write measurable goals, but am just not sure about the answer to this.

Also, if you have documentation that explains what we should be doing, that would be great.

Thank you,
Former Student

And my response to her:

Dear Former Student:

Good to hear from you...and a really good question.

I gather that you are teaching and an IEP is coming up. I always hated writing "measurable goals and objectives" because I always worried that they'd be aiming too high, or too low...or too specific or too broad. Of course if you aim too low, I believe that we are now allowed to amend the IEP to account for that kind of under-estimation of progress.

Your option (1) appears to be too narrow for an objective, although it could be part of a Present Level of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance (PLAAFP statement).

Your option (2) takes into consideration the student's access to the general curriculum, although it does not identify the modifications to the curriculum to account for what your student might reasonably be able to accomplish.

Your option (3) could arguably be the best choice--assuming that you would monitor progress frequently sampling the same set of skills for one or two years' worth of GLCEs and noting progress.

Universal Skills Approach: I went to the Center for Educational Networking site and found this article which illustrates one kind of thinking used in six Michigan schools as a pilot. The article was published in 2004. In this model, you'd be setting goals about "thinking and problem-solving"; universal skills across the curriculum.

Curriculum Based Monitoring Approach: There's the Toolkit on Teaching and Assessing Students with Disabilities. An article by Lynn and Doug Fuchs describes the scientific basis of CBM, and the process used. The parent version of the toolkit gives a reasonably clear description of CBM and writing goals and objectives that are measured by CBM.

Cookbook or A La Carte Menu Approach: NICHCY has a resource listed on an "old" page. Scroll down to just above the "Especially for Parents" heading on the page. There's a "cookbook" for writing measurable goals/objectives there; very formulaic and boring, but serviceable, if this is how your bosses want you to write 'em.

Now that I've overwhelmed you with information, but not given you a straight answer, I'd suggest taking your research (and mine) to your boss or your spec. ed. colleagues, explaining the difficulty you are having, and asking the same question. What do other IEPs look like in your district, and what kind of Professional Development is being offered through your local district or ISD? Is your district using an electronic IEP form with an electronic menu of goals and objectives? My "gut" on this one is that the votes are still out on what the standard is--the regulations say what you are supposed to do, and how it should connect from performance statement to outcome measurement. But--if you are too specific, you'd have to write a zillion goals and objectives, and if you're too global, it is often difficult to assess progress. Then you end up having IEPs that have been accomplished before the ink is dry on the signatures, or that take several years to accomplish.

You know what? I'd like to hear what you get as an answer (and if you were willing to tell me, where you are currently working). It's a real stinker of a question. And...if all else fails, I'd suggest doing the best you can, given the ambiguities. The worst that can happen is someone will tell you to fix it, which gives you an opportunity to show how carefully you've thought about this, and how you are genuinely in need of a clear answer. I think that the answers you get will be more reflective of the district's alignment to a particular school of thought, than of a "right" answer.

Kathleen

Postscript: I'm on the Special Education Advisory Committee for the state (representing LDA of Michigan) and we looked at some of the data on State Performance Plan #5: Educational Settings. One of the findings for the schools in need of most assistance was that placements were made on the basis of categorical label, not need, and IEP goals and objectives were based on categorical placement in one setting, despite differences in individual performance and need.

Since my past includes stints working with students with severe cognitive and multiple impairments, giftedness and LD, emotional impairments, mild cognitive impairments, and health impairments (diabetes, AD/HD, transplantation, etc.), you'd think I'd be an expert on goal/objective writing but I realized that to answer her question, it was less about what I would do for a given student in an IEP, and more about what I would be told to do by my supervising administrators, depending on curriculum, setting, accountability requirements, with individual need becoming a moving target based on all of these other, external factors.

Any comments?

Kathleen