Present levels examples for students with severe disabilities

By the IEP Atlas editorial teamLast updated November 1, 2026

Short answer

A strong present levels statement for a student with severe disabilities describes what the student does now, how they respond, at what prompt level, and how often, in the setting where it matters. It leads with strengths and communication. Example: the student requests a break by touching a symbol on 3 of 10 opportunities, and pushes materials away on the other 7.

Present levels for students with extensive support needs are often written as a list of what the student cannot do. "Nonverbal. Not toilet trained. Functions at an 18-month level." None of that helps the next teacher, and none of it gives a goal a baseline.

A useful statement answers four questions. What does the student do now, and how often? How does the student respond (speech, gaze, switch, sign, device)? What prompt level do they need? What does that mean for their day? The federal rule asks for the student's present levels of academic achievement and functional performance and how the disability affects participation in appropriate activities.^[1] For many students in this group, the functional part carries most of the weight.

The 16 examples below pair a weak statement with a rewrite and a note on what makes it work. All students and numbers are fictional. For the goals that follow from statements like these, see the pillar on IEP goals for students with severe and profound disabilities.

What every strong example includes

Strengths first. What the student enjoys, does well, and responds to. These become the supports in the goals.
The response mode. How the student shows what they know. This also tells the next teacher how to teach, and it feeds the communication needs the team must consider.^[2]
A number from recent data. Opportunities, task analysis steps, minutes. Use the same unit the goal will use, so it becomes the baseline.
The prompt level. "With partial physical help at the wrist" is information. "With assistance" is not.
Impact and need. What the gap means for the student's day, and what to teach next.

Communication

1. Requesting. Weak: "Sam is nonverbal and cannot communicate wants." Strong: "Sam communicates with vocalizations, reaching and a 4-symbol board. Across 10 snack and play opportunities in two weeks, he touched a symbol to request 3 times. The other 7 times he reached or vocalized until an adult guessed. He requests faster when the board is within 30 cm of his right hand. Sam needs to request with symbols so adults don't have to guess." Why it works: it names how Sam already communicates, gives a count, and points to the position that helps.

2. Refusing. Weak: "Lena has behaviors when she doesn't want to do something." Strong: "When offered a task Lena does not want, she pushes materials off the table on about 6 of 10 occasions, based on 3 days of ABC data. She has a 'no' sign she uses with her mother at home but not yet at school. Lena needs a safe way to refuse at school, such as her 'no' sign or a symbol." Why it works: it treats the behavior as a message and names the replacement she already has.

3. Device use. Weak: "Marcus has a device but doesn't use it." Strong: "Marcus has a speech-generating device with 40 core words. In 3 observed 30-minute class periods, he used it to send 2, 1 and 3 messages, all requests, each after an adult model. He did not comment or answer questions. He carries the device between rooms when it is on his chair. Marcus needs models and chances to use the device for commenting and answering, not only requesting." Why it works: frequency per period, the function used, and the prompt are all there.

Choice-making and self-determination

4. Choosing between options. Weak: "Jada can make choices." Strong: "Given 2 real objects, Jada reaches for the one she wants on 8 of 10 trials when one is a preferred snack. With 2 activity photos, she selects at chance level (5 of 10). She looks longer at the item she prefers before reaching. Jada needs to choose between activities using photos, starting with objects paired with photos." Why it works: it separates object choice from photo choice and notes that 5 of 10 with 2 options is guessing.

5. Showing preferences. Weak: "Theo likes music." Strong: "Across a 2-week preference check, Theo smiled and stayed with music videos for a median of 6 minutes, with a drum toy for 4 minutes, and pushed away puzzles within 30 seconds. He does not yet request a preferred activity; adults choose for him. Theo needs a way to ask for music or drums himself." Why it works: duration data turns "likes" into evidence, and the need follows directly.

Self-care and daily living

6. Handwashing. Weak: "Ava needs help washing hands." Strong: "On a 7-step handwashing task analysis probed 3 times, Ava completed 2 steps independently (turn on water, put hands under water). She needed partial physical help for soap and rubbing and full help to dry. She smiles during water play and stays at the sink. Ava needs to complete the soap and rubbing steps with less help." Why it works: the task analysis count and the step-level detail tell the team exactly where to teach.

7. Toileting. Weak: "Not toilet trained." Strong: "Mia wears pull-ups and is changed on a schedule 4 times a day. Over 2 weeks, she was dry at 9 of 40 scheduled checks. She does not signal when wet, but she pulls at her clothing within a few minutes. She sits on the toilet for 2 minutes with an adult beside her. Mia needs a signal for wet clothing and practice with timed sits." Why it works: it gives a dry-check baseline and treats pulling at clothing as a signal to build on. It also stays factual and private in tone.

8. Eating. Weak: "Jonah is fed by staff." Strong: "Jonah eats a soft diet set by his feeding plan. With a built-up spoon and partial physical help at the wrist, he brings food to his mouth for a median of 2 bites per meal, then turns his head away. He picks up soft finger foods on his own. Jonah needs to bring more bites to his mouth with less help, within the limits of his feeding plan." Why it works: it defers safety to the feeding plan and measures what Jonah does.

9. Dressing. Weak: "Needs full assistance with coat." Strong: "At arrival, Kai completes 1 of 7 coat removal steps at a gestural prompt or better (stopping at the cubby). He pushes one arm out of a sleeve when an adult holds the cuff. He likes to hang the coat on a hook with a photo of his dog. Kai needs to remove his coat with fewer physical prompts." Why it works: it uses a task analysis baseline and a motivating detail that becomes a support.

Functional academics

10. Sight words in the community. Weak: "Reads at a preschool level." Strong: "Shown 10 community signs (exit, restroom, stop, open, closed), Rosa identifies 3 by pointing when named, in a field of 3. She identifies her own name in a field of 4 on 9 of 10 trials. She notices signs in the hallway and points at them. Rosa needs to read the safety signs she sees at school and in the community." Why it works: it ties reading to real signs and gives a field size, so the next probe can match.

11. Counting. Weak: "Cannot count." Strong: "Given up to 5 objects, Eli counts with one-to-one correspondence to 3 on 4 of 5 trials, touching each object as an adult says the numbers. Beyond 3, he touches objects twice or skips them. He counts plates for the class snack with an adult and enjoys the job. Eli needs to count sets to 5 during real tasks like setting the table." Why it works: it pins the skill at 3, describes the error pattern, and names a meaningful context.

12. Story participation. Weak: "Does not attend during reading." Strong: "During 15-minute adapted read-alouds in the general education class, Noor looks at the book or reader for a median of 4 minutes. She activates a single switch with a repeated line on 2 of 6 opportunities when prompted with a touch. She laughs at animal sounds. Noor needs to take part in group reading by activating the repeated line." Why it works: duration and opportunities both appear, and the setting is the general education class.

Motor and mobility

13. Mobility. Weak: "Uses a wheelchair." Strong: "Leo uses a power wheelchair with a joystick. He drives from the classroom to the cafeteria (60 meters, 2 turns) with verbal cues at each turn, taking a median of 6 minutes. He stops for people in his path on 3 of 5 trials without a cue. He is proud of driving and asks to go first. Leo needs to drive familiar routes safely with fewer cues." Why it works: distance, time, prompt level and a safety measure are all included.

14. Switch access. Weak: "Limited hand use." Strong: "Grace activates a head switch to the right of her headrest on 7 of 10 trials within 10 seconds when the switch is placed by the OT. With the switch on the left, she activates it on 2 of 10. She uses the switch to play music and turn pages. Grace needs to use her right-side head switch for choices in class." Why it works: it gives access data by position, which protects every other goal from poor setup.

Behavior, regulation and community

15. Regulation. Weak: "Has frequent meltdowns." Strong: "Across 10 school days, Owen had 14 episodes of crying and dropping to the floor, lasting 2 to 20 minutes. Twelve happened within 5 minutes of a change in routine. He calms faster with a weighted lap pad and a first-then board. Owen needs a way to handle changes, such as a visual warning before each one." Why it works: frequency, duration range and the pattern point straight to the support and the goal.

16. Community and work. Weak: "Ready for vocational training." Strong: "At a weekly school job delivering mail to 8 offices, Zoe delivers to 5 offices correctly with a photo route card and an adult walking behind her. She greets staff by waving and smiling. She stops at the vending machine on the route on most trips. Zoe needs to complete the route with the card and an adult at a distance." Why it works: it gives a real work count, the support used and the next step.

Weak phrases and what to write instead

Weak phrase	Why it fails	Write instead
"Nonverbal"	Says what the student doesn't do	How the student communicates, and how often
"Functions at a 2-year-old level"	An age-equivalent, not a skill	What the student does, with a count
"With assistance"	Hides the prompt level	The prompt level: gestural, partial physical
"Does not attend"	No setting or time	Minutes engaged during a named activity
"Has behaviors"	No function or count	Frequency, duration, and when it happens

Common mistakes

Deficit-only statements. Lead with strengths and what works. The team needs both.
Age-equivalents in place of skills. A 15-year-old described as "functioning like a toddler" will be handed toddler materials. Describe skills and keep materials age-respectful.
No response mode. If you don't say how the student answered, the next probe may use a different mode and the data won't match.
Last year's numbers. Collect at least 3 recent probes. See how to collect baseline data.

For the process of writing present levels from scratch, see how to write a PLAAFP and the PLAAFP glossary entry. For functional areas in depth, see functional performance present levels. Once the statement is written, draft the goal and run it through the goal checker. Matching templates are on the significant support needs goal page.

Frequently asked questions

How do you write present levels for a student with severe disabilities?

Start with strengths and how the student communicates. Then give a recent number for each area a goal will target, the response mode, the prompt level, and what the gap means for the student's day. End with what the student needs to learn next.

Should present levels use developmental age?

Avoid it as the main description. Age-equivalents tell the team little about what to teach and can lead to materials that are not age-respectful. Describe skills with counts, response modes and prompt levels instead.

What if the student has no reliable way to respond?

Describe the signals the student does use, such as looking, reaching, vocalizing or turning away, and how often they occur. That becomes the baseline for a communication goal, which usually comes first.

Use it in IEP Atlas

Sources

34 CFR §300.320: Definition of individualized education program, Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School
34 CFR §300.324: Development, review, and revision of IEP, Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School

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.