Setting a realistic annual target from baseline and growth rate

By the IEP Atlas editorial teamLast updated November 1, 2026

Short answer

To set a realistic IEP goal target, start from a baseline of at least three probes, estimate weekly growth from the student's own recent slope or published norms, multiply by the weeks of instruction before the review, and add that to the baseline. Then check the result against the skill's ceiling and the student's need, and raise it if it is too easy.

A target that is too low lets a student meet the goal without catching up. A target that is too high makes a working plan look like a failure. Both mistakes come from picking a number before looking at data.

The method below uses arithmetic a busy case manager can do on the back of a data sheet. It works for any goal measured in a unit that can grow week by week: words correct per minute, digits correct per minute, rubric points, steps completed. For where the target fits in the full goal, see the pillar guide on how to write IEP goals.

What you need before you start

A baseline of three or more probes, taken the way the goal will be measured. Report the median. If you do not have this, start with how to collect baseline data.
The number of instructional weeks between now and the annual review. Count school weeks, not calendar weeks. A 12-month IEP usually holds 32 to 36 weeks of instruction once breaks are removed.
A growth estimate. This comes from one of three places, described in Step 2.
The skill's ceiling. Percent accuracy stops at 100%. Opportunities stop at the number offered. Steps stop at the length of the task analysis.

Step 1: Fix the baseline

Use the median of the most recent three probes, not the first probe and not the best one. The median ignores one unusually good or bad day.

Example: three September probes of 19, 22 and 21 give a baseline of 21.

Step 2: Estimate weekly growth

The National Center on Intensive Intervention describes three common ways to set goals for progress monitoring: end-of-year benchmarks, national norms for rate of improvement, and the student's own rate of improvement.^[1]

Method	Where the number comes from	Best when
Benchmark	The end-of-year score the probe publisher lists for the grade	The student is close enough to reach it in a year
Norm-based growth	The publisher's typical weekly growth for the grade, often multiplied up for an ambitious goal	You have a published probe set with growth tables
Student's own slope	The trend line of 6 to 8 recent probes during instruction	The student is far below grade level, or no norms exist

Use the growth figures that come with your own probe set. Different probe sets give different numbers, so never mix a baseline from one with norms from another.

Step 3: Multiply and add

Target = baseline + (weekly growth × instructional weeks).

Example: 21 + (0.8 × 32) = 21 + 25.6 = 46.6, rounded to 47.

Step 4: Check the ceiling and the need

Ask two questions. Is the target possible within the unit? And if the student reaches it, will the problem in class be smaller? In Endrew F., the Supreme Court said a student's educational program must be appropriately ambitious in light of the student's circumstances.^[2] A target that only keeps the gap the same size is worth a second look.

Step 5: Plan the check-in

Write down when you will compare the data to the goal line. After 6 to 8 weekly probes, the trend will tell you whether the target is on track. Draw a goal line from the baseline to the target on the graph so the comparison takes seconds.

Worked example: Eli, grade 1, letter sounds

Eli is a fictional 1st grader. All numbers are illustrations.

Baseline. In October, his teacher gave six weekly 1-minute probes of random lowercase letters during small-group phonics. He said 18, 18, 20, 19, 21 and 22 correct letter sounds per minute. The median of the last three is 21.

Growth. No grade 1 growth table came with the school's letter-sound probes, so the team used Eli's own slope. A trend line through the six probes rises about 0.8 sounds per week.

Weeks. The annual review is in late September next year. Removing winter break, spring break and summer leaves 32 instructional weeks.

Arithmetic. 21 + (0.8 × 32) = 46.6. Rounded: 47 correct letter sounds per minute.

Need check. The team planned to add 15 minutes of daily one-to-one practice, which should speed growth beyond the October slope. They raised the target to 50. They agreed to review the slope after 8 weekly probes, in December.

The goal. By the annual IEP review date, given a 1-minute probe of randomly ordered lowercase letters, Eli will say the most common sound for each letter at a rate of at least 50 correct letter sounds per minute, in 3 of 4 consecutive weekly probes, as measured by timed probes collected weekly.

The wording comes from the library template say letter sounds on a timed probe. The numbers come from Eli.

Targets for goals that do not grow in a straight line

Not every goal is a weekly probe. For opportunities, steps and rubric points, set the target from the size of the gap and the time available:

Task analysis. A student at 2 of 7 steps who learned one new step every 4 to 5 weeks last year can reasonably reach 7 of 7 in a school year. Write the steps in the task analysis so each one is teachable.
Opportunities. Moving from 1 of 5 to 4 of 5 opportunities is a common one-year goal for a new replacement skill. Moving from 4 of 5 to 5 of 5 is not much of a goal; change the condition instead, such as a new setting.
Rubric points. Look at which rubric rows the student scores zero on. A target that requires two new rows, not five, is usually realistic for a year.

For safety skills, the target is 100% of critical steps regardless of baseline. The page on IEP mastery criteria explains why.

Common mistakes when setting targets

Weak: "80% accuracy," chosen before looking at the baseline.

Better: "From a baseline of 35% on 20 dictated words, a target of 75%, based on 1.2 points of growth per week over 32 weeks."

Weak: "One year's growth" for a student two years behind.

Better: A target that closes some of the gap, checked against the student's need and reviewed at 8 weeks.

Weak: Baseline from the student's best probe.

Better: The median of the last three probes.

Weak: Calendar weeks in the arithmetic.

Better: Instructional weeks only, with breaks removed.

Weak: Target in a different unit from the baseline.

Better: The same unit, the same probe type, the same conditions.

The page on why 80% accuracy is often the wrong criterion covers the first mistake in more depth.

Using the goal builder to set the target

Open a template in the goal builder and enter the student's baseline in the present level field. Then type the target you calculated. The builder will not let a target pass the unit's ceiling, such as 100% or the number of opportunities offered. Choose "Intermediate criteria" in the objectives panel, and it steps the target from the baseline to the annual number at each checkpoint. Those checkpoints give you a ready goal line for the first progress report. Finish by running the sentence through the goal checker.

The IEP must state how progress will be measured and when it will be reported.^[3] A target set from data makes each of those reports meaningful.

Frequently asked questions

How much growth should an IEP goal expect in a year?

It depends on the skill, the probe set and the student. Use the growth figures that come with your probe set, or the student's own slope from 6 to 8 recent probes. Then ask whether the target narrows the gap enough to matter in class.

What if the student reaches the target early?

Confirm the skill holds over a few more probes, then ask the team to write a new goal. A target met in January was probably set too low, and the next one should be more ambitious.

Should the target be the grade-level benchmark?

Only if the student can realistically reach it in a year. For a student far below grade level, a growth-based target that closes part of the gap is often more honest, with the benchmark as a longer-term aim.

Use it in IEP Atlas

Sources

Progress Monitoring: Data & Goal Setting, National Center on Intensive Intervention
Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1, 580 U.S. 386 (2017), Supreme Court of the United States
34 CFR §300.320: Definition of individualized education program, 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.