When a student is not making progress on IEP goals

A flat graph is a question, not a verdict. Before anyone decides the student "can't" or the goal was wrong, the case manager's job is to work through the likely causes in order, cheapest to check first. Most stalled goals turn out to have a fixable cause: missed sessions, a measure that changed, a goal aimed at the wrong skill, or instruction that never got more intensive.

This guide walks through those checks with time estimates and one fictional student. For the monitoring routine that catches the problem early, see the IEP progress monitoring pillar.

What the law expects

The IEP team must review the IEP at least once a year and revise it as needed to address any lack of expected progress toward the annual goals.^[1] The team does not have to wait for the annual review to do that. A parent or the school can ask for a meeting when the data shows a goal has stalled.

The law does not define "expected progress" in numbers. The Supreme Court has said the IEP must be reasonably calculated to enable progress appropriate in light of the child's circumstances.^[4] In practice, teams use the aimline from the baseline to the goal and a decision rule, such as 4 consecutive points below the line, to decide when progress is not enough.^[2]

Step by step

Step 1: Confirm the problem with data

Look at the graph. Are at least 4 consecutive points below the aimline, or is the trend line clearly flatter than the aimline? If the data is thin, such as 3 points in 9 weeks, the first problem is the data schedule, not the student. The four-point rule guide explains how to read the graph.

Step 2: Check that services were delivered

Pull the service log. Compare the minutes delivered with the minutes in the IEP. Count missed sessions and why: student absences, provider absences, testing weeks, assemblies. A student who got 40% of planned reading minutes has not had the intervention the IEP describes. The free service log makes this comparison quick.

Step 3: Check the measure

Ask whether the probe stayed the same. Same passage level, same number of items, same timing, same prompt level? Did the scorer change? A switch from grade 3 to grade 4 passages in January can flatten a fluency graph overnight. If the measure changed, mark it on the graph and compare like with like.

Step 4: Check the goal against the need

Look at the error pattern. A student stuck on comprehension questions may be unable to read the words. A student stuck on word problems may lack the computation. If a prerequisite is missing, the goal is aimed one step too high. Also check the target: was it set from the baseline, or was it a default such as 80%?

Step 5: Check attendance, health and setting

Note absences, medication changes, sleep, family changes and schedule changes. Do not guess; ask the family and the nurse what they have seen. Look at when the flattening began and what changed around that week.

Step 6: Change instruction

If services were delivered and the measure is sound, intensify instruction. Options include more minutes, a smaller group, a more explicit program, more practice turns per session, better-matched materials or a different time of day. Write the change on the graph with a date, then collect 4 to 6 new points. This cycle of adjusting instruction from progress and diagnostic data is what the National Center on Intensive Intervention calls data-based individualization.^[5]

Step 7: Bring it to the IEP team

If the student stays flat after one or two well-run changes, schedule an IEP meeting. Bring the graph with each change marked, the service log and the error analysis. The team can revise the goal, add or change services, change the setting, or consider whether more evaluation is needed. A reevaluation can happen when the school decides the student's needs call for one, or when a parent or teacher asks for one.^[3]

Step 8: Tell the family and document

Report the stall honestly in the next progress report, with the number, the change made and the review date. Document the team's decisions in the IEP or meeting notes. When the school proposes or refuses a change to the IEP, it must give the parents prior written notice that explains the decision.^[6]

Time each step takes

Steps 1 through 5 take about an hour and a half in total. Doing them before the meeting means the team discusses causes instead of guessing.

Worked example: Andre's math goal

Andre is a fictional sixth grader. The numbers show the method only.

Goal: "Given 10 multi-step word problems with whole numbers, Andre will solve 8 correctly on 3 consecutive biweekly probes." Baseline: 2 of 10. Aimline: from 2 in September to 8 in May.

The problem: By December, Andre has scored 3, 3, 2, 3 and 3 of 10. The aimline expects 5 by now. Five points below the line.

Step 2, service delivery: The IEP calls for 30 minutes of math support 4 days a week. The service log shows 41 of 64 planned sessions delivered (64%), mostly because his support block clashed with a schedule change in October. Fix: the block moves to first period.

Step 3, the measure: Probes used the same problem types all fall. Sound.

Step 4, goal against need: An error analysis of 20 problems shows Andre picks the right operations in 14 of 20 but makes computation errors in 12 of 20, mostly multi-digit multiplication. The word-problem goal sits on top of a computation gap. The team adds a short-term focus on multiplication with a separate accuracy probe.

Step 6, change instruction: Starting in January, Andre gets all 4 sessions a week, with 10 minutes of explicit multiplication practice each session and a calculator check on word problems to separate reasoning from computation. The teacher draws a change line on the graph.

Results: Six weeks later, his word-problem probes read 4, 5 and 5 of 10, and his multiplication accuracy has climbed from 55% to 80% of 20 problems. The trend now runs parallel to the aimline.

Step 7, the team: At a short IEP meeting, the team keeps the word-problem goal, adds a multiplication computation goal, and writes the schedule fix into the service delivery notes. The next progress report states all of this in four sentences, like the flat-pattern entries in the progress report comment examples.

Common mistakes

• Weak: "Andre is not motivated." Better: "Andre received 64% of planned sessions; his computation errors explain most missed problems."
• Weak: Lowering the goal at the first sign of trouble. Better: Check delivery, the measure and the need, and change instruction first.
• Weak: Waiting for the annual review. Better: Call a meeting when two real changes have not moved the graph.
• Weak: Changing three things at once with no record. Better: One labeled change at a time, so the graph shows what worked.
• Weak: Reporting "progressing" to avoid a hard conversation. Better: The honest number, the reason found and the plan.
• Weak: Ignoring missed services. Better: Document them and discuss make-up time with the team. Whether compensatory services are owed depends on the facts and on state practice.

Tools

The measurement methods pages help you check that a probe is scored the same way each time. The free IEP data sheets have room to note the support level and any change. To write the honest progress report entry that follows, use how to write an IEP progress report. Rules for meetings and notices vary by state, so check your district's procedures.

Frequently asked questions

Use it in IEP Atlas

• Progress monitoring in the IEP glossary
• Measurement methods
• Free IEP data sheets
• Service log
• Compensatory services in the IEP glossary

Related guides

• IEP progress monitoring: how to track, graph and report goal progress
• Decision rules: the four-point rule and trend analysis
• How to write an IEP progress report
• Graphing IEP data: aimlines and trend lines
• How to write a progress report when the goal was not met
• Progress monitoring for behavior goals

Sources

1. 34 CFR §300.324: Development, review, and revision of IEP, Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School
2. Progress Monitoring: Data & Goal Setting, National Center on Intensive Intervention
3. 34 CFR §300.303: Reevaluations, Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School
4. Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1, 580 U.S. 386 (2017), Supreme Court of the United States
5. What Is Data-Based Individualization?, National Center on Intensive Intervention
6. 34 CFR §300.503: Prior notice by the public agency; content of notice, U.S. Department of Education (IDEA website)

Written and checked by the IEP Atlas editorial team under our editorial policy. This guide describes general practice and federal rules. It is not legal advice; your state may add requirements, and the IEP team makes the decisions for each student.