Discussion 1.2

[Ashley Lyons]

Directions:

STEP 1-  Consider whether the IEP goal meets all four filters as discussed in Module 1.2. For each of the four filters, describe how the goal meets or does not meet the filter.

STEP 2- Respond to at least one colleague’s posting.

• “During a variety of daily activities, (insert child’s name) will correctly pair a label/name, a symbol, and/or an action of one object, person, and/or event to another. The child will correctly pair five different labels, symbols, or actions each day for two consecutive weeks. For example, the child will correctly pair number tags with corresponding objects by counting, child will select a buddy to read with when directed to “find a friend”, child will pair matching letter tags with letter sounds, child will name each animal in a story, child will give each child a napkin during snack, child will hang their backpack on a hook).”

[Dawn Fagenstrom]

Filter 1: Not having the PLAAFP makes it hard to determine if the need comes from the child’s disability. I also feel that this goal is very broad and crosses over several different areas. The examples include pairs in academics to social skills to self help.

Filter 2: Not being able to match in the academics content would impacts his progress to the curriculum. Not recognizing the social cues and prompts would impact your access to socialization. Not understanding purposes for materials we use would impede a child’s inpedendence. Therefore, broken down into smaller objectives this goal would encourage the child to have greater access, participation, and progress in the different content areas.

Filter 3: Being able to pair in different situations may require more individual prompting or practice then typically considered appropriate so this goal my require specially designed instruction to meet the needs of the child.

Filter 4: Depending on the child’s baseline ability this goal may be accomplished over a year’s time in specific areas.

[Ashley Lyons]

Exactly, I think this is yet another example of why a PLAAFP is so critical/central to the IEP process.

For Filter 2, you discussed how this goal example attempts to address academics, social skills, and perhaps independence and you provided illustrative points about how difficulty in these areas would affect a child’ access, participation, and progress.

That said, while Module 1.3 delves into functionality (and we haven’t broached that too much yet), what would you say about the extent to which this goal addresses functional (or meaningful) skills? While we do not have a PLAAFP to look at, are each of these goals (or objectives if we broke them up) likely to be important to a child’s access, participation, and progress across daily routines and activities (in addition to the general curriculum)? In what ways do you think there is a connection or relationship between the general curriculum and children’s ability to be a part of everyday routines and activities across settings, people, and time?

[Daniel Kaasa]

Hi Dawn!

Dan again completing Step Two of Module 1.2 and responding to a colleague’s posting!

I agree with your comments related to our lack of knowledge about this student. I found it hard to assess if the goal met the Four Filters fully. We needed to make assumptions, I guess, that because the student had an IEP, staff had already walked through each step and determined the student to be “IEP Worthy.” I, too, see the broadness of the goal that you mentioned. As written, it could be challenging when it came to collecting accurate date and evaluating progress.

[Dawn Fagenstrom]

I would say that these are functional goals. There is meaning and a purpose to the objectives listed above. The academic skills are base skills used as foundations for higher levels of learning. Being able to find a partner and identify needs of others are important social skills that we utilize throughout our lives. Understanding the functions of the tools around us helps us lead independent lives. I see these goals as being meaningful when broken down into smaller objectives, particularly if the child is not making appropriate gains without specialized supports. The academic goals are similar to concepts that are taught in the general curriculum in early childhood and as I mentioned above part of the foundation for learning reading and mathematic skills. The ability to find a partner is skill that is expected throughout the K-12 curriculum and it is a social skill that people use throughout their lives and settings. The ability is recognize a need in others is a skill that more adults should demonstrate as we enter into society. The ability to care for our neighbors is taught in our homes, schools, churches, in many professions, and supported by our government. This is a life skill that is meant to reach across our lives and settings. Understanding the use of the tools around us is something that one must acquire for ones lifetime in a multitude of situations.

[Beth Craig]

Hi Dawn- I appreciate your insights and ideas. And I like how you spoke about specific examples that are appropriate for a wide range of our students in several curricular areas and even extended into being a successful life skill outside of school. I often feel like good, functional IEP goals are based on life skills all students should be working on in many settings. Beth C.

[Daniel Kaasa]

Hi Ashley,

I’m really pleased to have the Four Filters! It will clarify the discussion at future individual student-based meetings. Here is my Step One assignment for part two of module one:

Filter One: This goal does not designate disability determination so does not connect with Filter One.

Filter Two: There is an inference in this goal that the student’s need is impacting their access to the learning environment at as the examples are for active participation in components of the school day.

Filter Three: There is the assumption that the activities related to this goal would require specialized instruction. The skills involved with pairing in the related tasks would require direct instruction and ongoing supports to master them.

Filter Four: Because IEPs are written annually, there is the understanding that this is a need that can be accomplished within that year.

[OLENA KYSELOVA]

“During a variety of daily activities, (insert child’s name) will correctly pair a label/name, a symbol, and/or an action of one object, person, and/or event to another. The child will correctly pair five different labels, symbols, or actions each day for two consecutive weeks. For example, the child will correctly pair number tags with corresponding objects by counting, child will select a buddy to read with when directed to “find a friend”, child will pair matching letter tags with letter sounds, child will name each animal in a story, child will give each child a napkin during snack, child will hang their backpack on a hook).”

Filter 1: I think that this IEP goal is very broad and does not meet the filter. The information is not sufficient to determine if it is a child’s educational need or common age delay. We do not know the age of the child and what specific deficits were identified as the area of his educational needs. Expectations for students are different for ages 3, 4 and 5. We will need more information about the student’s cultural background, primary language and access to instructions.

Filter 2: This goal addresses several needs – student’s literacy skills, math skills, and social skills (working cooperatively with a peer and following teacher’s directions). These skills are critical to student’s successful performance in the classroom setting. Student’s delays in these foundational skills aversively impact his learning. This goal meets filter 2.

Filter 3: The goal above addresses student’s deficits in basic literacy, social and math skills. I would separate all these areas into different goals in the areas of reading, writing and math. I will gather more information and data for baselines and be more specific about the setting and activities (general education classroom or special education classroom, and independent work or group work).

Filter 4: I think the IEP goal meets the filter. It is functional and measurable and achievable in a one year period of time. I would be more specific in what setting it will be addressed and who will be responsible for data collection.

[Gwendolyn Hill]

Hi Olena,
I am in agreement that Filter 1 has not been met. We have no information on what skills this child has, doesn’t have, etc. Without some background, we do not know if not being able to pair labels, etc. with people or actions is from lack of experience or actually a part of a disability. I also agreed with your assessment that filter 2 & 3 had been met, but not filter 4. Our reasons were slightly different, but along the same track.

[OLENA KYSELOVA]

Hi Daniel,

I agree with you that the Four Filters help clarify and determine student’s need for specially designed instructions. Filter 1 is crucial in determining if the child has disability. Working with preschool children and evaluating them for special education services, my team members and I are always hesitant to qualify preschool children in the area social skills as the only area of educational needs. Many of them have never had opportunity to be in a social setting with same age peers. We always encourage parents to try general education preschool first. We explain to them that children learn from peers. Sometimes, parents have only one child and they do not know what behaviors are developmentally appropriate. Working with families and educating them about child development is a very important component of the assessment process.

[Melinda Jones]

Just an fyi – after reading the goal, I extrapolated a bit in thinking about who this child may be based on the goal being achievable in one year . . . I may have over reached but it did make for an interesting way to analyze the goal.

Filter 1:
The information in this goal implies that the child may be experiencing a developmental delay – and is not making crucial cognitive connections that could be indicated by the types of outcomes that are the focus of the goal. In such case this may stem from the child’s disability. One of the examples (find a friend) may be reasonable functional need for the child that is missing and will need to be addressed in an IEP. I also see the needs in the areas of pairing and beginning to understand symbols as worthy – though some of the examples may be a bit broad and academic vs based in symbolic play with peers.

Filter 2:
Assuming this goal is what the team hopes to accomplish over the next year – and without the baseline to guide – and with the assumption that I have made through filter 1 . . . I would say that this does represent an adverse impact on the child. Participation with peers will be limited if the child cannot begin to make the types of connections that are represented through – choosing a buddy, participating in a “job” at snack time, or take care of everyday tasks during the arrival routine at school. Acitivities of pairing number and letter tags will begin to help the the team determine readiness for learning more complex academic tasks.

Filter 3:
Could this child acquire these skills if given exposure, access, and practice? This is a really tough one that hits home for me as i am fortunate to work in a setting that provides very high quality care and education. Part of my assessment process is based on the time we have given already to see if the child has responded to just that. And when they are not responding then we consider the need for specially designed instruction. But if the the team is trying to make this determination based on information gathered through other’s observations and insight – they will have to use that to form an opinion. If there is a history of this child just not making connections that support pariticipation with peers and others, then I do think that it may require specially designed instruction.

Filter 4:
Is this goal developmentally approriate and does it predict what this child might have accomplished in one year? I do think that if it is done in a sequential manner (it does seem like elements of stages are represented here – while not necesarily aligned), the skills do make sense in moving from simple connections with peers to symbolic connections with numbers and letters.

Comment: I have never seen a goal written this way – rather it seems to be a goal and multiple objectives all grouped together. This thinking may be related to how we delineate goals and objectives of the forms that we use in our district.

[Rebecca Sedor]

Hi Melinda,

I appreciate your narrative, it inspired me picture this student in my own classroom.

[Naomi Buck]

Hi Melinda,
I appreciated your take on this goal. I have not had to write a goal to address this sort of need so I really struggled to make sense of the intent of the goal. I found your response to be very interesting and logical. Given the limited information that we were given with this goal, we have both made several implications to justify our decisions. I find very interesting that, though our implications and areas of focus were different in nature, we pretty much came to the same results. Thinking about your response and mine, I also realized that the result of writing a goal in such general terms is that we may all interpret it differently, based on our own experiences.

[Melinda Jones]

Response to Daniel:
Hello Daniel – I will try to respond to someone different each time so it is your turn :).

I appreciated your responses. It should be difficult to get past Filter 1 – and without the information it is challenging. In our IEP goals we do not refer to the disability determination – so I had to think outside the box on this one. For Filter 2, I agree about the inference to being limited in the ability to actively participate in the daily activities. Your response to Filter 3 was interesting and I believe accurate as I envision a play based small group learning to pair the labels to the numbers. And your comment about the annual nature of IEPs for Filter 4 is accurate – and it is very challenging to speculate where a child will be in a year. My experience is that I tend to “undershoot” and they get farther than I expected!

Thanks!
Melinda

[Beth Craig]

“During a variety of daily activities, (insert child’s name) will correctly pair a label/name, a symbol, and/or an action of one object, person, and/or event to another. The child will correctly pair five different labels, symbols, or actions each day for two consecutive weeks.
For example, the child will correctly pair number tags with corresponding objects by counting, child will select a buddy to read with when directed to “find a friend”, child will pair matching letter tags with letter sounds, child will name each animal in a story, child will give each child a napkin during snack, child will hang their backpack on a hook).”

Rewritten: During a variety of daily activities, (child) will correctly pair a label/name, a symbol, and/or an action of one object, person, and/or event to another pairing 5 different labels/symbols/or actions daily for 2 consecutive weeks.

Filter 1- I’m not sure how we would know if the need for this goal stems from the disability, given that we don’t have access to the PLAAF page. And I felt like I had to re-write the goal more in the way that I write goals to think it out and disseminate exactly what the goal was asking the child to do.

Filter 2- In my opinion, this is an important skill and the examples they gave clearly show how the skill is essential as it is used throughout many different daily activities and in several of the areas of development (social skills, math, reading, etc). I believe the skill is important to the student’s success in a classroom setting. This goal meets #2.

Filter 3- The goal as written shows that the child is behind in basic math, literacy, following directions, and social skills. Something else that I noticed right away is that the goal has a wide range of difficulty. For example, it lists an easier skill of pairing a symbol or person, to a harder skill of pairing an action/event, to the most difficult of pairing a written label. Surely, this will require direct instruction and many levels of support to master the goal as it is written. This goal meets #3.

Filter 4- I do feel that the goal is achievable in a year as it is written. It would be helpful to have the setting be described as that could make a difference, too. This goal meets #4. It’s IEP worthy!

Beth Craig

[Rebecca Sedor]

Filter 1 – Need stems from the child’s disability, not from a common outcome or common expectations
After trying to picture this child in my classroom, I would say this sounds like it was written for child with a developmental delay, it passes filter one.

Filter 2 – Need is having an adverse impact on the child’s access, participation, and progress
This meets filter two. The skills described are needed to navigate the environment, relationships, and situations in a preschool classroom.

Filter 3 – Need requires specially designed instruction, not just exposure, practice, or maturation
Meets filter three based on the assumption of being in a developmental classroom with multiple layers of support built in and the child continues to need specific prompting and support to navigate their day.

Filter 4 – Need can be addressed and accomplished within a year of “typical” development
Filter four is met, this can be seen as a reasonable expectation for one years growth in some preschool students with developmental delays.

[Gwendolyn Hill]

“During a variety of daily activities, (insert child’s name) will correctly pair a label/name, a symbol, and/or an action of one object, person, and/or event to another. The child will correctly pair five different labels, symbols, or actions each day for two consecutive weeks. For example, the child will correctly pair number tags with corresponding objects by counting, child will select a buddy to read with when directed to “find a friend”, child will pair matching letter tags with letter sounds, child will name each animal in a story, child will give each child a napkin during snack, child will hang their backpack on a hook).”

Filter 1: Does the need arise from the child having a disability?
As has been mentioned in previous posts, without a PLAAF, any baseline information, or even background eligibility information, we just have to assume that since there is an IEP being written, this child has been determined by the team to actually have a disability. But, I cannot say definitively that Filter 1 has been met.

Filter 2: Is it having an adverse impact on their access, participation and progress? The skills listed within the goal are definitely skills needed to function in a basic 3 or 4-year old educational environment. Our student not having this basic ability to pair names/labels/actions with another event, person or action would definitely impair their access to activities, etc within their environment. Filter 2 has been met.

Filter 3: Does it require specialized instruction? If he child has not yet picked up these very basic skills just by observing his surroundings, then yes specialized instruction is needed to help him/her make the necessary connections. Filter 3: is met.

Filter 4: Can it reasonably be met in a year’s time? I would say it could definitely be met in a year or far less for a typically developing child, but I have no background information to know just how atypical our chlld is or how developmentally delayed he/she is. I cannot give a definitive met or not met answer on this.

[Andrea Colvin]

Hi Gwen,

I definitely agree with you on many of the things you said. For filter 1, I think it is so crucial to have the PLAAF to know if this need is an outcome of the child’s disability. I also like what you said in filter 4, in a typical year of development, this goal could easily be met by a 2-3 year old. It is hard to know what a year of development looks like for this child since we don’t have the rest of the IEP to reference.

-Andrea

[Lynn Edwards]

I believe that you are correct that we do not have enough background about this kiddo to be able to meaningfully right a specific goal for this child.

[Andrea Colvin]

“Filter 1” Need stems from the child’s disability, not from a common outcome or common expectations
-This filter is hard to know based on the goal alone. Without the PLAAFP and the evaluation needs and recommendations, it is difficult to know if this need stems from the child’s disability.

“Filter 2” Need is having an adverse impact on the child’s access, participation, and progress.
-This child needs to work on identifying basic actions, people, and events. This skill is an essential part of not only education, but daily living in our world and conversation with others. The child’s present level (I’m assuming) is having an adverse impact on the child’s access, participation, and progress on daily tasks and school related activities.

“Filter 3” Need requires specially designed instruction, not just exposure, practice, or maturation
-This is also difficult to determine without knowledge of the specific child this goal is written for. If this child is a 3-year-old who has been neglected, he or she could require exposure and practice. Assuming this is not the case, the skill of identifying basic actions, people, and events, needs specially designed instruction.

“Filter 4” Need can be addressed and accomplished within a year of “typical” development
-Again, so much is based on the present levels and the development of the child, but this seems like a reasonable goal to accomplish within a year. The child is asked to name five items each day for two weeks. The only thing I do wonder about this goal is if the child is to be prompted or not to meet the goal.

[Mark Dinelt]

Ashley Lyons – Keymaster
Directions:
STEP 1- Consider whether the IEP goal meets all four filters as discussed in Module 1.2. For each of the four filters, describe how the goal meets or does not meet the filter.
STEP 2- Respond to at least one colleague’s posting.
o “During a variety of daily activities, (insert child’s name) will correctly pair a label/name, a symbol, and/or an action of one object, person, and/or event to another. The child will correctly pair five different labels, symbols, or actions each day for two consecutive weeks. For example, the child will correctly pair number tags with corresponding objects by counting, child will select a buddy to read with when directed to “find a friend”, child will pair matching letter tags with letter sounds, child will name each animal in a story, child will give each child a napkin during snack, child will hang their backpack on a hook).”

Filter 1: Of course, we don’t have the Present Levels before us, so we can’t properly judge for Filter 1. We can hope information was collected that makes these skills look important for this child. What I can say, though, is that the skill is rather broadly written, covering both self-help and academic type skills. I probably would have written it as 2 different goals.

Filter 2: These are skills that would increase the child’s direct participation in the classroom and likely, at home, also. They would help the student to become more independent. Learning to take care of his/her own backpack would certainly help with self-regulation.

Filter 3: We don’t really know if temporary supports or changes in the environment would be helpful for this particular student but the expectations are certainly relevant and appropriate. We can only assume that age and experience have been accounted for making this an appropriate goal.

Filter 4: These skills look like they would align with common outcomes. We don’t really know about the uniqueness of this particular child or family/cultural values but they seem like skills that would be agreeable in most families/cultures. We can’t really tell from the information provided whether specialized instruction is needed versus simple exposure and opportunity.

I would like to add that the goal, as written does not actually align “will correctly pair a label/name, a symbol, and/or an action of one object, person, and/or event to another.”
The first example actually pair 3 things; symbol to object by counting.
Two of the example match object to person.
And, as mentioned earlier, the goal actually has academic skills mixed with social and self-help skills. These are all good things to work on but I would likely separate them out, at least the academic from the social/self-help skills.

Dawn Fagenstrom
Participant
Filter 1: Not having the PLAAFP makes it hard to determine if the need comes from the child’s disability. I also feel that this goal is very broad and crosses over several different areas. The examples include pairs in academics to social skills to self help.
Good observations. Almost identical to my comments.
Filter 2: Not being able to match in the academics content would impacts his progress to the curriculum. Not recognizing the social cues and prompts would impact your access to socialization. Not understanding purposes for materials we use would impede a child’s inpedendence. Therefore, broken down into smaller objectives this goal would encourage the child to have greater access, participation, and progress in the different content areas.
Strongly agree with these observations. Nicely broken down. I would definitely want to break this down to smaller objectives, also.
Filter 3: Being able to pair in different situations may require more individual prompting or practice then typically considered appropriate so this goal my require specially designed instruction to meet the needs of the child.
Sometimes I think that I am so used to modifying, adapting and designing situations to meet the needs of children I have worked with that I have a hard time identifying specially designed instruction. Otherwise, not really knowing where this student is at, Dawn’s observations seem quite correct.
Filter 4: Depending on the child’s baseline ability this goal may be accomplished over a year’s time in specific areas.
These do seem like tasks that can be accomplished in a year. Definitely not obviously “too much”.

• Daniel Kaasa Participant
Hi Ashley,
I’m really pleased to have the Four Filters! It will clarify the discussion at future individual student-based meetings. Here is my Step One assignment for part two of module one:
Filter One: This goal does not designate disability determination so does not connect with Filter One.
We certainly agree on this one.
Filter Two: There is an inference in this goal that the student’s need is impacting their access to the learning environment at as the examples are for active participation in components of the school day.
I agree, you have to guess that the writer is basing the goal on real needs.
Filter Three: There is the assumption that the activities related to this goal would require specialized instruction. The skills involved with pairing in the related tasks would require direct instruction and ongoing supports to master them.
Again, a good assumption but we don’t really have the information to judge accurately.
Filter Four: Because IEPs are written annually, there is the understanding that this is a need that can be accomplished within that year.
Again, I agree. As a best guess, this goal looks similar to ones I have written for students I have known. They do look reasonable without having more detailed information.

[Lynn Edwards]

“During a variety of daily activities, (insert child’s name) will correctly pair a label/name, a symbol, and/or an action of one object, person, and/or event to another. The child will correctly pair five different labels, symbols, or actions each day for two consecutive weeks. For example, the child will correctly pair number tags with corresponding objects by counting, child will select a buddy to read with when directed to “find a friend”, child will pair matching letter tags with letter sounds, child will name each animal in a story, child will give each child a napkin during snack, child will hang their backpack on a hook).”

Filter 1: The goal is very hard to break down because there are so many things that are covered in it. We also don’t have the PLAAFP to help us with this students’ needs.

Filter 2: The goal is to broad and needs to be broken down. This student would not have full access to the curriculum or to social interactions.

Filter 3: We are often pulling students out of class to do interventions that we should probably actually push in for so that the student can still make progress with the general ed curriculum. This student does need it modified but also needs the exposure and practice.

Filter 4: It is a goal that is covering a lot of things. I feel that if it was broken down into little pieces or objectives, the student could accomplish them within a year’s time.

[Naomi Buck]

Filter 1:
Based only on the goal written, I don’t think there any way to determine if it meets the first filter. It may – but without some background information and/or access to the present levels there is no way to know.

Filter 2:
Based on the “find a reading buddy” example, I am assuming that this student is in at least Kindergarten because that does not seem like an activity that would be expected for any child younger. And based on that assumption of age/grade, many of the skills encompassed by those in the examples are pretty crucial to functioning in a typical school setting. Any significant deficit in those skills would very likely adversely impact the student’s participation in activities. I am making a lot of assumptions, but I think it does meet filter number 2.

Filter 3:
Again, I am assuming that this student is at least 5 or 6 years old and that the need is not based on a lack of exposure. If those are true, and the student is still struggling with all of the skills listed in the examples, then he/she will probably require some direct instruction to learn these skills. So yes, I think it meets filter number 3.
(However, if I am wrong and this child is barely 3 years old or if the need is due to a lack of exposure, then it’s entirely possible that maturation and exposure to a high quality school setting might be enough for the student to acquire these skills- in which case, the goal would not meet this filter.)

Filter 4:
This one is tricky for me. My first gut instinct was: Though the goal seems reasonable and within the realm of what can be expected in 1 year of “typical development,” it does not meet the criteria for filter 4 because there is not enough information. There is no baseline given and I have no idea as to the cognitive abilities of the student so I do not know what sort of growth rate can be expected.

That being said, after really thinking about it, I am going to say that (in real life) it will meet filter number 4 because of the way that it is worded. I may be misreading the intent of this goal, but to me, it is so vague that it could be met if the student improves in practically any skill area. (For example, giving each child a napkin could address a struggle with 1-to-1 correspondence, or a variety of social/emotional skills. Hanging up a backpack up could address a fine or gross motor skill, recognition of the student’s name, the ability focus and follow single-step directions, or a behavioral compliance issue. Naming each animal in a story could address attention and focus, listening comprehension, or a language/vocabulary need.) Because this goal doesn’t measure a specific skill, given a year of direct instruction, a teacher will be able to find (or expect) enough growth in at least one skill that demonstrates that the student has met this goal. I know this is a loophole and not at all what filter 4 was designed to measure, but it’s what would likely happen.

[Kaleigh Ryno]

“During a variety of daily activities, (insert child’s name) will correctly pair a label/name, a symbol, and/or an action of one object, person, and/or event to another. The child will correctly pair five different labels, symbols, or actions each day for two consecutive weeks. For example, the child will correctly pair number tags with corresponding objects by counting, child will select a buddy to read with when directed to “find a friend”, child will pair matching letter tags with letter sounds, child will name each animal in a story, child will give each child a napkin during snack, child will hang their backpack on a hook).”

Filter 1: Do the student’s needs come from a disability? What are the student’s deficits? I would assume that this information would be in the PLAAFP. Filter one may or may not be met based on that information.

Filter 2: I think that this IEP goal can be written better and broken down over content areas, however, I believe the goal shows that there is an adverse impact on the student’s participation and progress in the current setting. I think filter two has been met.

Filter 3: I think that the way this goal is written, filter 3 is met. The student would need direct instruction and ongoing supports to achieve this goal.

Filter 4: Again, I need more information from the PLAAFP. I would like to know what the student is currently doing. However, I do feel that this goal can be met in a year’s time based on my assumptions of the student. I would still like to know the baseline of goals for the student.

[Kaleigh Ryno]

Peer response:
Olena,
I agree with you that the goal was broad and needs to include more information, but it does show a need for literacy, math and social skills and it would be best if the goal was broke down into these specific areas. Based on assumption, I thought all four filters were met, or could be met on assumption, but we were lacking information for filter one.

[Jesse Riesenberger]

Filter 1- It is hard to determine this without PLAAFP, while this would be a common expectation it is unclear if this is something the child’s disability is driving the goal.

Filter 2-I’m having a hard time determining what the need in this paticular goal is. It addreses math, language, and social skills in a broad statement. Is the need connected to language, processing, attention, etc. I guess in that way it does meet Filter 2, as it addresses many needs which would adversely affect the students education.

Filter 3- I am assuming the student would be recieveing direct instruction and in class support for this goal, however it does not state this as written.

Filter 4- Again, I am unclear on what need is being addressed in this goal. If it was broken into seperate goals and objectives in respective areas then I would say it is measurable and acceptable for a year of development.

[Jesse Riesenberger]

Peer Response to Naomi Buck:
I agree the vagueness and grouped together goal makes it difficult to determine how it could be measured. I really struggled with this as the goal itself did not make sense to me, I didn’t feel like I had enough information to detemine if it met any of the filters and had to make a lot of assumptions like you.

[Sandra Diaz Cross]

Filter #1: This goal seems like a common expectation for all kids. The statement does not tell us what the child’s disability is so we don’t know if this need arises from the his/her disability. This goal does not meet filter 1.

Filter #2: The goal’s intentions are to improve the child’s skills in pre-academics, language, social/emotional, and life skills. Based on this goal, I am making the assumption that this child’s needs are impacting his/her access, participation, and progress in the general education curriculum or participation in appropriate activities. This goal meets filter 2.

Filter #3: To meet this goal and help improve the child’s skills, this will need specially designed instructions to gain success. These activities are very specific to certain skills and to meet them, they need to be taught intentionally and can be done in the general education curriculum. This meets filter 3.

Filter #4: This is an IEP goal so I think the need/s can be accomplished within the year. Based on the type of activities the child is supposed to improve on, I assume that he/she is in kinder. These needs, I assume, are developmentally appropriate for this child. This goal meets filter 4.

[Rebecca Jones]

Hi Sandra,
It is an interesting question to see if Filter 3 is met by this goal. I thought not, because the goal is asking for more practice not necessarily using specially designed instruction. I would imagine this might be an activity all kids might do at this younger age, but maybe the child is not younger and maybe this activity IS specially designed for this child. It is a good question and one that we can only know if we are working with that child. I appreciated reading your reasoning and seeing it from a different perspective:)

[Sandra Diaz Cross]

Response to Kaleigh Ryno
I agree that having more information from the PLAAFP would have been helpful. Not knowing the child’s disability makes it difficult to determine if filter 1 was met. I also thought that filters 2,3, and 4 were met.

[LuEmma Rowland]

Filter 1: I think that this IEP goal is too board and doesn’t meet filter 1. There is not enough information to determine if it stems from a disability or is a common outcome or general expectation. It would be helpful to know the student’s age, the student’s educational need, and primary language. There are different language expectations for students 3-5 years of age. Having the age would at least help know if it’s a general expectation or not.

Filter 2: In my opinion, this goal meets filter 2. This goal impacts different curricular areas like literacy, math, self-help, and social skills which directly impacts the student’s needs and performance within the classroom. It gives examples of how it impacts access on the student’s different environments within the classroom while mentioning how it’s an appropriate and why it matters to have these skills.

Filter 3: In my opinion, this goal doesn’t meet filter 3. There are many goals lumped into one goal. It would be better to have goals in reading, math, social, and self-help with more specific data including baselines.

Filter 4: I believe this goal meets filter 4 as it is achievable within one year. The developmentally appropriate part is hard to determine without knowing the student’s age.

[LuEmma Rowland]

Peer Reply to Jesse R:

I agree that the whole PLAAFP would help to better understand the child and their disability. I like that the goal gave examples of how the goal could be met in different areas (math, reading, social, self-help) but as board as it is written, I agree that it needs split up into better written goals with baselines. As I am now reading other goals that haven’t been written by me, it’s nice to have this new knowledge of the 4 filters. I have completed a number of kindy transitions in the past few weeks and I hope that the receiving team doesn’t read the IEP goals and be left with questions.

[Diane George]

Filter 1 – As several others have pointed out it is hard to judge this goal without having a PLAAFP and knowing something about the child’s abilities in this area. I don’t have enough information about the child, so I can’t determine if the goal is appropriate.

Filter 2 – Because there is no PLAAFP, I am unclear as to what the child’s need is. Is this a math goal paired with social and daily living activities? Is the focus math, social, daily living?? I don’t know if it meets Filter 2 due to a lack of information.

Filter 3 – Coming back to the PLAAFP. How old is this child? What is the expectation of other children his age? Can these activities be incorporated into the general education setting? For instance, I know in many Head Start programs, students buddy up for reading and set the table for meals and hang their belongings on a hook or in a cubby. I don’t know enough about this student to know whether in order to learn these skills the student needs direct explicit instruction or can learn the skills with modeling and peer support throughout the school day.

Filter 4 – I believe that this goal can be achieved in one year.

[Diane George]

I agree with your response to Filter 1. It is hard to know if the goal is appropriate without having information about the child’s strengths or needs, age, etc. A good PLAAFP would be helpful. The goal also just seems very unwieldy to me. I had to read it several times just to get the point of it.

[Christine Kleinhenz]

“During a variety of daily activities, (insert child’s name) will correctly pair a label/name, a symbol, and/or an action of one object, person, and/or event to another. The child will correctly pair five different labels, symbols, or actions each day for two consecutive weeks. For example, the child will correctly pair number tags with corresponding objects by counting, child will select a buddy to read with when directed to “find a friend”, child will pair matching letter tags with letter sounds, child will name each animal in a story, child will give each child a napkin during snack, child will hang their backpack on a hook).”

Questions: Is this one goal? It looks like there are a couple of separate goals all in one. It looks like there is a goals about labeling an object/activity, a matching goal and a following directions goal (hanging backpack and handing out napkins). I will try to respond to this as if it were several different goals.

Filter 1: Stemming from disability versus a common expectation: I like that the goal addresses activities that happen within the classroom routine. I understand the goal for labeling with words/pictures as a goal for learning vocabulary and increasing the ability to request and interact with others. This is a pretty common communication goal in preschool and I like that it is embedded within classroom routines that happen naturally. It would fit for a kiddo who is around four who does not have access yet to a large vocabulary and needs help building words to be able to communicate his needs and wants with others. I’m not sure if pairing letter sounds with the alphabet would be something that would need to be in an IEP as it is something that naturally happens within the classroom activity and is a typical skill for kiddos to be learning in preschool. If this child is in second grade then this would be more appropriate to work on as a goal. Does this child have a hard time following directions and understanding verbal language? If so, the following directions goal would be appropriate. If not, then again, the learning a classroom routine is taught naturally within a classroom experience. Learning classmate’s names is a great idea. However, if it is the beginning of a school year, we are all learning each other’s names. I’m not sure that this stems form a disability. If this child has a hard time with learning new information and using words to communicate, this goal may be more appropriate as learning people’s names opens up doors for play and interactions. However, if it is hard for the child to remember and use names, more practice in a different type of activity may be important for building success and confidence before they are able to use the skill within the classroom routine and on the spot when asked. It is hard to tell if these goals are appropriate for this child not knowing their disability, skill level and strengths and interests.

Filter 2: What matters to this child and how does this help with access to curriculum? Learning skills within the classroom and it’s routines will help build friendships and a feeling of success within the learning environment so that is a good thing. I wonder what the child is interested in. Are they interested in following what other children are doing? Do they want to learn how to be a part of the class (put up a backpack and be successful with jobs like handing out napkins?) or is this something that the teacher/SLP would like to see. I like the labeling objects in a book as labeling is often the first step after flipping pages and looking at pages that a child starts to do when having book reading time with a parent/teacher. It allows for being a part of the group and feeling successful as well as builds vocabulary while having a joint reference photo that both people are looking at. This is a good goal as long as the child is able to sit and attend to a book and is interested in doing so.

Filter 3: Special instruction within routines: These goals work entirely in the classroom. The only thing I would question would be if it is something that a child would learn those skills just based on having natural models in the classroom or if they need extra support. I this due to a disability or a need for maturity?

Filter 4: Accessible in one year: These goals should be accessible within one year unless the severity of the child is such that learning words and directives within the classroom routines needs more support and specific practice before providing them within the every day classroom routines. I’m not sure if these goals are developmentally appropriate. The goals seemed to fit preschool or kindergarten level skills and if that is the case, most of those goals are ones that all children are learning at this time except for maybe learning how to label objects if they have limited word/picture usage.

[Christine Kleinhenz]

Lynn,
I agree that without knowing a child’s present levels that it is hard to know what is a disability versus common expectations. I also had a hard time with reading the goal as there is a lot of different areas covered within this one goal. I was thinking it was several goals meshed together. I’m glad I wasn’t the only one scratching my head.

[Kathlyn Philpot]

• “During a variety of daily activities, (insert child’s name) will correctly pair a label/name, a symbol, and/or an action of one object, person, and/or event to another. The child will correctly pair five different labels, symbols, or actions each day for two consecutive weeks. For example, the child will correctly pair number tags with corresponding objects by counting, child will select a buddy to read with when directed to “find a friend”, child will pair matching letter tags with letter sounds, child will name each animal in a story, child will give each child a napkin during snack, child will hang their backpack on a hook).”

FILTER 1 (disability based): Fail
First, this goal is vague and after reading it several times I still don’t know what they are talking about. The different activities given in the example don’t seem to be connected with a specific disability or need, unless it is developmental delay. Even if it is DD, each goal should be more narrowly focused. Nothing in this goal says what the disability is to me. It should be specific enough to jump out at you.

FILTER 2 (negative impact): Pass
If we assume the student’s deficits listed as examples are related to the student’s disability, yes, this would negatively impact the student’s access, participation, and progress.

FILTER 3 (SD Instruction):
If we assume the student’s deficits listed as examples are related to the student’s disability, then yes, it would require specially designed instruction. However, I would not include this broad range of activities in one goal. I would separate them into a math goal, a reading goal, a social skill, goal, and a language arts goal. I don’t see this child being able to meet these needs with just exposure, practice, or maturation.

FILTER 4 (w/in 1 year):
Like others have said, without the PLAAFP, we can’t really know if this child will be able to achieve this goal within one year. If the goal was separated into its different areas addressed and specific measures were set for each of them, based on the PLAAFP data, I would have to say it is achievable within a year.

[Jill Winford]

I agree with your comments. It is unlikely we can assess need from the goal statement alone; we need an accurate assessment of the student’s need in order to apply the steps of the Four Filters. Missing from the information we are given is data about the nature of the child’s disability, the child’s age in order to compare his progress to that of his peers. The team is unlikely to be successful without first assessing WHY the student is missing these skills. Further, we need to know his previous access to adequate instruction. This student may not be correctly pairing due to a variety of factors – receptive language delay, reading or math delay, behavioral delay. Correctly applying the Four Filters would help an IEP team to determine and/or rule-out potential needs of the student.

[Kathlyn Philpot]

Peer Response to Kaleigh Ryno

Kaleigh wrote…
Filter 4: Again, I need more information from the PLAAFP. I would like to know what the student is currently doing. However, I do feel that this goal can be met in a year’s time based on my assumptions of the student. I would still like to know the baseline of goals for the student.

Kaleigh, how do you think progress can be measured, to judge whether it can be achieved within a year, when it covers such a broad range of areas like counting, picking a peer to read to, reading, letters/sounds, identifying characters in a story, handing out napkins, and hanging backpack on a hook? Is it measurable to pair labels/names/actions/symbols to its match/activity? I don’t question whether the child can master the individual activities within a year, I question how it will be measured to determine if the child has mastered these activities when they are all compiled into 1 goal.

[Jill Winford]

If I’m understanding the Four Filters correctly, they are to be used in determining a student’s need; the step before creating a goal. It is unlikely we can assess need from the goal statement alone; we need an accurate assessment of the student’s need in order to apply the steps of the Four Filters.

In order to determine if this goal stems from the child’s disability, not from a common outcome or common expectations, I need to know what is the nature of the child’s disability.

In order to determine if this goal addresses an area of adverse impact on the child’s access, participation, and progress, I need to know his age in order to compare his progress to that of his peers. Each of these goals (or objectives if we broke them up) is likely to be important to a child’s access, participation, and progress across daily routines and activities (in addition to the general curriculum), but the team is unlikely to be successful without first assessing WHY the student is missing these skills.

In order to determine if this goal addresses a need requiring specially designed instruction, not just exposure, practice, or maturation, I again need to know his age and his previous access to adequate instruction. This goal addresses functional (or meaningful) skills, but potentially across a wide array of needs. This student may not be correctly pairing due to a variety of factors – receptive language delay, reading or math delay, behavioral delay. Correctly applying the Four Filters would help an IEP team to determine and/or rule-out potential needs of the student.

In order to determine if this goal can be addressed and accomplished within a year of “typical” development I again need to know this child’s age and severity of disability. Children succeeding in everyday routines and activities across settings, people, and time are better able to access the general curriculum.

[Erin Spooner Meyer]

It is my understanding that you have to pass each preceeding filter before moving on to the next filter. If that is the case I agree that it is difficult to assess these filters if we don’t have enough info to pass filter 1. I did appreciate your thoughts about what the underlying reason or disabilty is that affects the child’s ability to match. That would certainly help the team figure out whether this is an appropriate goal.

[Rebecca Jones]

“During a variety of daily activities, (insert child’s name) will correctly pair a label/name, a symbol, and/or an action of one object, person, and/or event to another. The child will correctly pair five different labels, symbols, or actions each day for two consecutive weeks. For example, the child will correctly pair number tags with corresponding objects by counting, child will select a buddy to read with when directed to “find a friend”, child will pair matching letter tags with letter sounds, child will name each animal in a story, child will give each child a napkin during snack, child will hang their backpack on a hook).”

Filter 1- Need stems from the child’s disability, not from a common outcome or common expectations:
I would ask if the expectation for this child to match 5 pairs is based on the expectation for kids that age or based on the child’s disability. This depends on the disability and how it might be affecting the student’s ability to match.
Filter 2- Need is having an adverse impact on the child’s access, participation, and progress: Because we cannot see the baseline, we don’t know how the child is functioning in the classroom, but if the child is asking a friend for help, it would indicate that others are able to do the task and this child is not. We should probably look for more information regarding access, paritcipation and progress.
Filter 3-Need requires specially designed instruction, not just exposure, practice, or maturation: This goal is based on practice; not on specially designed instruction necessarily.
Filter 4- Need can be addressed and accomplished within a year of “typical” development: I would expect that this is a reasonable expectation to accomplish within a year’s time.

[Erin Spooner Meyer]

“During a variety of daily activities, (insert child’s name) will correctly pair a label/name, a symbol, and/or an action of one object, person, and/or event to another. The child will correctly pair five different labels, symbols, or actions each day for two consecutive weeks. For example, the child will correctly pair number tags with corresponding objects by counting, child will select a buddy to read with when directed to “find a friend”, child will pair matching letter tags with letter sounds, child will name each animal in a story, child will give each child a napkin during snack, child will hang their backpack on a hook).”

Filter 1: Without having the PLAAFP, it makes it difficult to pass filter #1. We don’t know key details about the child to know whether the needs stem from a disability. We don’t know the child’s disability. For example, does the child have an emotional disorder as her documented disability? Then this goal does not address a need from the disability. We also don’t know the child’s age. If the child is 3 years old, this skill would be a common expectation.

Filter 2: If the child had passed filter #1, I think this goal would meet filter 2. It does seem that this need would impact the child’s ability to access and participate in the general education setting . This skill deficit adversely affects a variety of the child’s daily activities.

Filter 3: This child seems to need a lot of practice with this skill. It also might be that the student needs maturation or exposure because we don’t know her age. However if this goal has passed through filter #1, it would most likely pass through filter #3. Most kids will not need this intensive instruction if they are older than kindergarten. This need is extensive and spans social skills, daily living skills, and academics. Therefore, this child would need specially designed instruction in order to progress.

Filter 4: This need would meet filter #4. With specific teaching, the child could accurately match a variety of objects, people, and events with a typical year of development. The underlying skill of matching could be generalized to numerous daily activities.

[Author]

Posts