In February, the graph shows a student at 92 percent on a goal written for 80 percent. The goal says "by May." The team wonders: do we wait three months, or do something now?
A goal that is met early is good news. It also needs a plan, or the student spends the rest of the year practicing what is already learned. This guide covers what counts as mastery, what the sources suggest, and what the rule requires.
What counts as mastered
Mastery is whatever the goal's criterion says. If the criterion reads "80 percent accuracy on three consecutive probes," then one score of 92 does not count, and three in a row do. NCII's goal-setting guide lists "three consecutive probes" as an example of a proficiency level, along with a number of trials and a timeline.
This is why the criterion needs a number of checks and not only a score. A goal met once might be a good day.
What NCII says to do
For academic goals, NCII's decision rules handout says: if all four recent points are above the goal line, increase the goal. If the trend line is steeper than the goal line, increase the goal. If the median of the last three points is above the goal line, increase the goal. Each rule has the same minimum before you apply it, covered in how many data points before deciding.
For behavior goals, NCII's guide says that if a student is meeting the goal consistently at the initial review date, consider gradually increasing the goal, or gradually fading supports while continuing to collect data. It also notes a team may start by measuring progress at a lower level, such as 60 percent, and raise the goal when the student consistently meets it.
| Option | What it means | When it fits |
|---|---|---|
| Raise the goal | Keep the skill, increase the criterion | Student is ahead of the aimline and the skill has room to grow |
| Fade supports | Reduce prompts or help, keep collecting data | Student meets the goal with supports that will not always be there |
| Check generalization | Test the skill in other settings and with other people | The skill is solid in one place only |
| Move to the next skill | Close the goal and write a new one at the next annual review or by amendment | The skill is complete and a new need is clear |
What the rule requires
Section 300.324(b)(1) says the IEP team must review the IEP periodically, but not less than annually, to determine whether the annual goals are being achieved, and revise it as appropriate to address any lack of expected progress.
That rule is aimed at too little progress. It does not say what to do about too much. But the team's duty to keep the IEP appropriate does not stop when a goal is met. The practical route is to bring the data to the team and ask whether to raise the goal, change supports, or add a goal.
Section 300.324(a)(4) allows the parent and the school to agree to change the IEP without a meeting, by writing an amendment, as long as the team is informed. Whether your district uses that route for goal changes is a local matter. Ask before you act.
A worked example
A goal says: "When given a third-grade passage, the student will read 80 words correctly per minute on three consecutive probes by May." The baseline was 52. In early February the scores are 84, 86, 85. The condition is met on three consecutive probes, three months early.
What now? The team looks at the checks.
- Was the goal too low? The baseline and criterion are on the record. The growth needed was 28 over the year. The student gained 33 in about five months.
- Does the skill hold? The team asks for a probe at a higher passage level and a probe in the classroom.
- Raise or move on? If the student is on grade level, a new goal might target comprehension. If still below, the criterion might rise.
- Tell the family. Share the graph and the options.
Choosing a new number
If the team decides to raise the criterion, the same tools apply as when the goal was first written. NCII's formula is ROI times weeks plus the baseline. In a raise, the current score takes the place of the baseline. With invented numbers: a student now reads 85, there are 12 weeks left, and the team picks an ambitious growth of 1.5 words per week. The new criterion is 85 plus 18, or 103.
The team may also check the new number against a benchmark for the tool. If 103 is far above the benchmark for the grade, ask whether a higher number on this skill still matters more than a new skill. See writing measurable criteria for IEP goals for the three ways of setting the number.
Telling the family
A met goal is one of the best conversations to have with parents, and the one most often skipped. Show the graph with the criterion line and the date it was met. Say what you propose, whether that is a higher number, fewer supports, or a new skill, and ask what they see at home. Ask too whether they want any of it in writing. The answers often point to the next goal better than the data alone.
Checking the skill holds
A skill mastered in a one-to-one probe may not appear in class. Before you close a goal, test it in another setting or with another person. See generalization and maintenance data for how. A short check a few weeks later also shows whether the skill held. Both are practice suggestions, not rules from the sources.
Slips to avoid
- Closing on one score. Wait for the number of checks the goal names.
- Raising the goal without telling the team. Changes go through the IEP process.
- Stopping data. Fade supports, not measurement.
- Writing the next goal at the same level. If the criterion barely changes, the student is not being asked for more.
Keep the record
Mark the date the criterion was met on the graph, and the date any change was made. This is the record a new teacher, a parent, or a reviewer will want to see.
Terms are in the glossary. Related: decision rules for changing an intervention.
Decisions that stay with the team
The sources do not tell teams when to stop monitoring a mastered goal, how large a raise to make, or whether to amend or wait. Those are local and team decisions. Use the data to start the conversation.