Chapter 2

The “Gold Standard” for Setting Goals and Measuring Progress

“Without a standard there is no logical basis for making a decision or taking action.”

—Joseph M. Juran

IDEA 2004 contains new, more specific language that clearly ties the present levels of performance (PLP) to achievement in traditional academic areas such as reading, math, history, language arts, and the like for students who come under the grade-level performance category. In addition, it also uses the term functional performance to refer to those areas that are outside academics.

When one thinks of the term functional, the traditional activities of daily living usually come to mind. This would, of course, apply to students for whom grade-level academic performance is not expected—such as those who come under the alternate assessment provision of IDEA 2004. That said, readers are cautioned not to apply the terms academic and functional in a strict either-or sense because both may be appropriate for some students. To clarify, although it is true that for some significantly challenged students functional performance may be the most appropriate standard for judging progress, for others who are less challenged (but still under the alternate assessment provision) there may also be rudimentary academic goals. In addition, many students with ASD, ADD/ADHD, NLD, S/LI, and ED are able to meet grade-level standards even as they manifest specific cognitive and social-cognitive problems that impede their ability to function adequately or independently in social settings. Hence, for our purposes, we apply the term functional performance to students who require goals for many of the nonacademic areas of functioning covered even as we acknowledge that many of these same students may still be able to meet grade-level standards in academic areas. Nonacademic skill areas include pragmatic communication, language, and speech; nonverbal cues and signals; executive function; theory of mind; social relatedness; play/leisure; and critical thinking (for example, making inferences, problem solving, and so on).

Apart from the addition of the words present levels of academic achievement and functional performance, the requirements for the PLP statement did not change in IDEA 2004. IEP teams must still include information on “[h]ow the child's disability affects the child's involvement and progress in the general education curriculum (i.e., the same curriculum as for nondisabled children); or [f]or preschool children, as appropriate, how the disability affects the child's participation in appropriate activities” (Wright and Wright, 2006, p. 245). The importance of the PLP in the IEP cannot be overstated because (a) it forms the basis for generating annual goals and short-term objectives or benchmarks that are specifically individualized to the student's needs; and (b) it serves as the standard against which to measure performance or progress.

Ironically, the PLP statement is one of the most misunderstood elements of the IEP, and one that is very often neglected. For example, the following “PLPs” are taken directly from an IEP document for an elementary school student with autism:

Social-Emotional/Behavioral: Has difficulty in this area.

Communication: Has made progress.

The first thing that needs to be said about these statements is that neither one addresses the student's academic achievement or functional performance—that is, what can he or she actually do? Second, neither statement addresses the impact of the student's disability on involvement and progress in the general curriculum, as required by IDEA 2004. Third, both statements are so vague as to be useless with respect to both the judgment of progress and the provision of information necessary to generate individualized goals and objectives.

Sometimes school districts list test scores as the “statement” of present levels of performance. Although this can be appropriate, given the emphasis on academic performance in IDEA 2004, the use of a score as a PLP must be specific enough to serve as an appropriate standard by which to determine progress. Consider the differences in the following two PLP statements, both of which relate to functioning on tests. First:

Sara is an eight-year-old student who scores at the six-year-old age level on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. This is significantly below her grade-level peers, making it difficult for her to follow directions in class.

This PLP is tied to performance; leads one to write an annual goal and objectives designed to improve Sara's receptive language ability; and includes a statement regarding how Sara's performance impacts her involvement and progress in the general education curriculum.

Now consider this:

Academic/Cognitive: WISC III—V 128 P 111; FS 122

Unlike the information given for Sara, the information in this PLP is too global to serve as an appropriate standard against which to measure progress. In addition, there is no indication of level of performance in specific areas of functioning; nor is there any statement about the student's involvement and progress in the general education curriculum. Last but not least, the IEP team would be hard-pressed to come up with an annual goal and objectives because there is not enough information given on which to base them.

The general rule to follow on the use of test scores to document the student's PLP is this: they need to be relevant to the specific area of functioning under consideration; specific enough to lead to appropriate annual goals and short-term objectives; and capable of serving as the standard against which to measure progress.

The PLP Statement Under IDEA 2004

In order for the statement on the student's PLP to be used as the law intended—that is, as the basis for generating goals and objectives, and as the standard by which to determine progress—it needs to meet certain conditions:

Furthermore, it's good practice to also include the sources on which the information is based, such as the name of the test if reporting test scores. Let's take a closer look at some of these components.

Present Academic or Functional Performance

The focus here is on current functioning: What is the student able to do or not do vis-à-vis a specific area of functioning? Needless to say, in order for the PLP to serve as the basis for generating annual goals and short-term objectives, as well as the standard for determining progress, it needs to be sufficiently comprehensive. It does not, however, have to be overly long. The following PLP for academic development is far too global to be meaningful, and thus falls far short of the mark on both counts:

Student has moderate academic deficits that adversely affect his educational performance.

It should be noted that in the IEP from which this PLP was taken, academic development was the umbrella category for the subject areas of reading, social studies, math, and science. Clearly, this is an inappropriate PLP because it meets none of the criteria listed in the preceding section. Hence, it would neither lead to the generation of an appropriate annual goal nor serve as an appropriate standard by which to determine progress.

Another common error in writing PLPs is a failure to adequately link them to the goals and objectives written to address them. This would seem obvious, but the following example from a student's IEP clearly reveals an all-too-common lack of synchrony:

Present level of performance: Student continues to need verbal and gestural support to move through a conflict or change his expectations.

Annual goal: Student will increase his pro-social behavior.

Short-term objective: Student will be comfortable in simple social situations (for example, lunch at school).

Clearly, neither the goal nor the objective follows from the PLP, even though the PLP is the standard for determining progress. (Although we are not addressing goals or objectives in this chapter, we can't ignore the fact that those listed above not only are too vague to be understood but are also not measurable!)

Sometimes the IEP form itself constrains the process of generating appropriate PLPs. In some cases, the amount of space allotted to this essential IEP element is minimal, thus severely limiting the amount of information that can be given. In other cases, forms call for a lengthy narrative. If carefully written, this can meet the previously stated criteria. More often than not, however, PLPs constructed in this manner are rambling narratives that contain irrelevant and outdated information. A far better practice for generating appropriate PLPs is to provide separate descriptions for each of the annual goals, because they would relate more directly to the particular area or domain for which the goals and objectives are to be written. For example, when writing PLPs for academics, we recommend writing individual descriptions for each of the subjects to be addressed (that is, reading, social studies, math, and science), rather than writing one global PLP for academic development.

Involvement and Progress in the General Curriculum

This component of the PLP addresses the impact of the student's disability on his or her ability to be involved and make progress in the general education curriculum. By requiring thoughtful consideration of this issue, IDEA 2004 underscores the importance of the least restrictive environment (LRE) even for students who receive programming in specialized settings, and it also emphasizes the importance of the tie-in to the general curriculum for students with disabilities. Independence, prompt levels, and the need for assistance are appropriately stated here. Moreover, information on these issues provides the basis for determining not only whether accommodations and supports are needed but also the specific types that may be necessary. Despite the importance of these issues, impact statements on involvement and progress in the general curriculum, or in appropriate activities for preschool children, are often sadly lacking in many of today's IEPs. To avoid this, it is recommended that the concluding statement of the PLP directly address the impact of the student's disability on his or her ability to function in the mainstream. This need not be anything more complex than the following:

Sabrina's executive function deficits impact her ability to function in mainstream educational settings that are not highly structured, or that do not regularly employ visual supports to accompany auditory information.

Sources of Information

Information for the PLP can and should be based on a variety of sources, ranging from formal (when possible) and informal assessments, teacher-clinician observation, student performance data, and parental input. Attribution of the source, although optional, is recommended, because blanket statements made without attribution hold no one accountable for the judgments or observations rendered. In contrast, statements beginning with words such as reportedly, based upon, or according to not only link judgments to their sources but also go a long way toward embedding them in an appropriate context. The following PLP on executive functioning in a seventh-grade boy with ASD takes into account all of the information in this chapter:

While John is able to manage his time and personal belongings with the use of visual supports (for example, timers and checklists), he is resistant to using them. Several of his teachers note, however, that without them, he functions less competently. As a result of his disability, John has difficulty keeping up with his mainstream classmates without the use of supports for his executive function deficits.

Wrapping Up the Main Points