IEP Goals for Students with Assistive Technology

U.V. is a ninth grader with Read&Write on a district Chromebook for science and social studies reading, and speech-to-text in Google Docs when essays are assigned. World history collected a comprehension probe without text-to-speech, so the graph looks flat. The accommodation page says “technology as needed,” but the annual goal still requires a handwritten five-paragraph response. OT notes keyboarding trials; ELA never got trained on the same STT shortcut U.V. uses in resource room. The parent bought a home app that does not match the school license. You are not picking gadgets in the meeting—you are writing measurable annual goals that tell every teacher which AT is in play, where, and how someone scores progress with those tools in place.

IEP goals for students with assistive technology are measurable annual goals under IDEA: condition, behavior, criteria, baseline tied to present levels—not “will use technology,” not the AT inventory, and not pencil-only probes when text-to-speech or speech-to-text is documented daily access. What shifts across grades is setting complexity (centers vs seven periods vs CTE labs), not the compliance bar. Federal rules sit in 34 CFR §300.320(a)(2). Teams must consider assistive technology for every child with a disability (34 CFR §300.324(a)(2)(v)). AT trials and home–school match vary—confirm with your LEA.

This guide is for case managers, resource teachers, OTs, AT specialists, and gen-ed teachers who share U.V. It focuses on goal selection and criteria when curriculum-access AT is in present levels—not full IEP drafting. For PLAAFP, accommodations, and AT pages, see IEP writing for students with assistive technology. When the primary need is expressive communication through a speech-generating device or AAC app, use IEP goals for students with AAC devices instead—the documentation habits overlap, but the targets and logs differ. For the goal skeleton, start with how to write measurable IEP goals.

“Uses assistive technology” on the cover sheet is not an annual goal

Teams sometimes treat technology user, a Chromebook checkout line, or a vendor name in the AT section as if they were measurable targets. They are not. The IEP team writes goals for skills and behaviors that limit access: activating text-to-speech on assigned reading, composing a paragraph with speech-to-text after an outline, requesting a digital copy before instruction starts, using word prediction on a defined writing task, or maintaining keyboarding accuracy on classwork—not the fact that a device exists.

Short answer for busy readers: Strong IEP goals for students with assistive technology name tool and setting, what U.V. will do that an adult can score, how you score it, and baseline data from probes collected with the same access the signed IEP requires.

If present levels only say “benefits from technology” without dated work samples or trials, pause and collect baseline before signatures. Handwriting or oral reading may still be separate annual goals when evaluation supports them; do not hide a pencil-only requirement inside a reading goal when text-to-speech is documented daily access.

Goals, accommodations, and the AT section are related—not interchangeable

Accommodations open the door; goals describe what U.V. will learn to do through or with those tools when the team measures skill growth—self-advocacy for format, independent tool setup, reading comprehension with documented TTS, or composed writing with named STT. Meeting roles and AT consideration steps are in IEP meeting assistive technology requirements.

How assistive technology goals shift by grade level

Where the student works changes the condition line more than IDEA’s definition does. K–2 targets tool activation; 3–5 adds multi-step work and material requests; middle school needs the same extension profile in every period; high school—U.V.’s lane—adds longer texts, CTE software, and test settings that must match classroom access.

Pick settings U.V. attends this year—one measurable column per annual goal. Pair with IEP goals for ninth grade students when other domains share the bell schedule. Motor output barriers may pull from IEP goals for dysgraphia when handwriting—not reading access—is what present levels document.

Most teams write a few annual goals with separate data columns: reading with named text-to-speech, composed writing with named speech-to-text or word prediction, tool setup without verbal prompt, or self-advocacy for format before deadlines. U.V. might need reading-with-TTS and writing-with-STT while keyboarding stays in OT objectives until baseline is stable.

Start with present levels you can defend

Before you draft goals in the LEA portal, write PLAAFP in the same units your charts will use:

• Tool list — app or device name, platform, district vs personal, profile or extension settings that change scores.
• Baseline with documented access — dated probes or rubric scores with the AT the IEP will require, plus comparison data only when the team needs to show gap without access.
• Implementation gaps — periods where TTS was off, tests run print-only, broken charger, sub without login.
• Training — who trained U.V. and classroom staff; last AT consult if your district tracks it.
• Impact — incomplete reading logs, essay refusal when handwriting is required despite STT on the accommodation page.

Example snippet (initials only): U.V. uses district Read&Write on a school Chromebook for world history and biology reading (highlight-on, 1.0×). Comprehension with TTS (9/12, 9/19): 4 of 5 each; without TTS (9/10): 2 of 5. With STT and outline (9/20), U.V. dictated 6 sentences (organization rubric 2); handwritten draft (9/18) averaged 3 sentences. Teacher (9/17): participates when PDF is in Classroom; flat when only paper copies circulate.

If evaluation lists AT but school has no probes with access, run one two-week cycle with gen-ed before annual criteria go live. Vague present levels are how common IEP progress report mistakes show up by second quarter.

Graphic organizers, wait time, and enlarged text belong on the goal condition when they change scoring—not only on accommodations. Name who charts classroom data versus OT probes. Accommodation habits overlap with IEP accommodations for reading and IEP accommodations for writing—the annual goal still needs behavior, criterion, and baseline in the units on the signature page.

Goal wording examples for U.V. (rewrite for your student)

The lines below are conversation starters for your team meeting—swap tools, percentages, and settings for U.V.’s actual baseline.

Reading comprehension with text-to-speech — world history
When assigned grade-level articles in world history, U.V. will activate district text-to-speech (Read&Write, highlight-on) and answer 4 of 5 comprehension questions per article on two consecutive weekly checks, as scored by the teacher, by the annual IEP date. Baseline: 4 of 5 with TTS on 9/12 and 9/19; 2 of 5 without TTS on 9/10.

Composed writing with speech-to-text — ELA
Given a completed graphic organizer for a five-paragraph essay, U.V. will dictate the draft using school speech-to-text in Google Docs and score 3 or higher on the district organization rubric on 3 of 4 quarterly writing tasks, as scored by the ELA teacher, by the annual IEP date. Baseline: rubric 2 on 9/20 sample with STT; handwritten draft 3 sentences average on 9/18.

Read each goal aloud at the table. If someone asks “How will you know?”, you should point to a rubric, probe sheet, or access log—not “we’ll know when U.V. tries harder.” How to write SMART IEP goals helps teams argue about ambitious but reachable criteria without vague “improve with technology” language.

Reporting and common mistakes

Report each goal in its own units—dates, setting, prompts, tool availability—not labels like “tech kid.” If resource-room data rise but world history stays flat, split conditions or fix implementation before you blend progress into one sentence.

Watch for pencil-only criteria when STT is primary output, unnamed apps on the goal line, and probes collected without accommodation-page access. Fix before signatures—vague goals make how to write IEP progress reports for compliance harder for everyone.

What I’d do Monday

1. Open U.V.’s draft IEP and highlight any goal that does not name tool, setting, and scoring rule when AT is in present levels.
2. Match each annual goal to one data column; split resource-room and gen-ed conditions when probes differ.
3. Run one week of comprehension or writing samples with named AT in the same format you will promise on the IEP.
4. Share a one-page “how U.V. accesses reading and writing” sheet with subs before the team signs.

FAQ

Are IEP goals different because the student uses assistive technology?

The format is the same: measurable annual goals linked to present levels under IDEA. What differs is that criteria must name tools and access when they change scoring, settings must match the student’s real schedule, and baselines must come from probes with the same supports the team implements—not surprise print-only tests.

Should goals require handwritten work if speech-to-text is documented daily access?

When present levels show U.V. composes grade-level work through speech-to-text or word prediction, measurable writing goals should state that mode in the condition unless the team writes a separate, data-supported handwriting goal. Do not bury a pencil-only requirement inside a goal measured only on handwritten drafts.

Where do assistive technology goals belong on the IEP?

In the annual goal section, linked to present levels. Accommodations, AT equipment, and related services document implementation—they do not replace measurable targets. See IEP writing for students with assistive technology for how sections divide labor.

How is this different from IEP goals for AAC devices?

Curriculum-access AT goals focus on reading, writing, math response, and organization tools (text-to-speech, speech-to-text, word prediction, enlarged text, adaptive keyboards). AAC goals focus on expressive communication through a speech-generating device or AAC app—mode, initiation, and participation measured on that system. Some students need both; split goals so data plans stay clear.

Who collects data for assistive technology goals?

The IEP should name who collects—classroom teacher, resource teacher, OT, or shared log—using the rubric or probe referenced in the goal. OT keyboarding trials rarely prove ELA essay growth unless the goal condition includes those settings and tools.

How many AT-related goals does a student need?

No fixed number—cover critical access needs and keep charts realistic. Reading-with-TTS and writing-with-STT usually come before vague “technology exploration” goals nobody logs.

Sources

• 34 CFR §300.320(a)(1)–(3) — present levels, measurable goals, progress methods
• 34 CFR §300.324 — IEP development; assistive technology consideration
• 34 CFR §300.5 — assistive technology device and service definitions
• Center for Parent Information and Resources — Assistive technology basics — team vocabulary for families
• Your LEA AT assessment process, implementation checklist, and training records

Goals and compliance come first—there is no shortcut around baseline and named access. When quarterly reporting opens and you are staring at the progress narrative box, IEP Progress turns your session notes and probe summaries into a first draft you edit before pasting into Frontline, PowerSchool, or your LEA portal. It does not draft PLAAFP, pick service minutes, or configure Read&Write. Start free if turning AT logs into readable narrative is what eats your planning period—not choosing the annual goal line.

Morgan Patel, M.Ed., is a district assistive technology specialist and IEP team member. Student examples use initials only. General guidance, not legal advice—confirm AT and IEP procedures with your district.