Writing SMARTObjectives and

Strategies Tiiat Fittiie ROUTINE

Lee Ann Jung

Maisie is a 6-year-old child with devel-

opmental disabilities who attends

kindergarten in a rural area. The

individualized education program {IEP)

team is meeting soon to devise her IEP

(see box, "What Is the Importance of an

Individualized Education Program?"),

One goal of this IEP will be to improve

Maisie's communication skills. To help

them write an IEP that maximizes

opportunities for Maisie to learn, the

team will use techniques described by

the two acronyms SMART and ROU-

TINE. Educators and related ser\'ice

providers can use these two acronyms

to help them write and check the quali-

ty of goals, opportunities, and strate-

gies. Figure 1 presents these acronyms.

Writing Statemenh of Goalsond ObieclivesBusinesses frequently use the SMARTacronym (Lazarus, 2004) to guide thedevelopment of quality goals and objec-tives, IEP team members can use a mod-ified version of this acronym to guideIEP goals and instructional plan objec-tives. SMART stands for

• Specific.

• Measurable.

• Attainable.

• Routines-based.

• Tied to a funclional priority (Jung &

Grisham-Brown, in press).

Specific

Goals and objectives should be specificenougb so that everyone on the teamknows exactly what behavior is beingtargeted (McWilliam, Ferguson, Harbin,Porter, & Vaderviere, 1998). Withoutadequate specificity, members of theIEP team can have completely differentideas about expectations. An exampleof a goal that is not sufficiently specificis "Maisie's communication willimprove." Maisie's general educationteacher may interpret this goal to meanthat Maisie will begin using the wordsthat she knows in a communicativeway. The speech and language patholo-gist (SLP) may agree that this goal isappropriate but may also believe thatthe goal indicates that Maisie will usesigns to communicate. Because the goalis not specific enough, determining theintended target behavior for Maisie isimpossible. An example of a specificbehavior, as shown in Figure 2, is"Maisie will indicate her preferred activ-ity, interaction, or object by using a signor word." This ianguage specifies exact-ly what the team wants Maisie to com-municate and the ways in which shewill do so. Figure 2 provides an exampleof an objective and strategies for Maisiethat is used throughout this article.

Measurable

All teachers and related service

providers have responsibility for meas-

uring and demonstrating progress.Goals and objectives need to include cri-teria for success so that the team candetermine when students have accom-plished them (Jung, Gomez, & Baird.2003), Special educators are not theonly members of the team wbo will be

What Is the Importance ofan Individualized EducationProgram?

The individualized education pro-gram (IEP) is the cornerstone docu-ment that guides the instruction andinclusion of children with specialneeds. The goals included on the IEPreflect what everyone in the child'slife values to be important for thechild in that year. The strategiesdeveloped to address the goals on theIEP direct teachers, parents, andparaprofessionals how to achievethese goals. Because educators buildcritical decisions on the content ofthe IEP and related instructionalplans, these documents must includemeaningful information that a vari-ety of people can use in a variety ofsettings.

54 • COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

Figure 1 . SMART and ROUTINE Acronyms

SMART Goals and Objectives . . .

. and Strategies That Fit the ROUTINE

Specific

Measurable

Attainable

Routines-based

Tied to a functional priority

•

a

•

••

Routines-based

Outcome-related

Understandable

Transdisciplinary

Implemented by leacherand family

Nonjudgmental

Evidence-based

a

a

•

a

•

•

mind, objectives for instructional plansshould reflect what the student is likelyto achieve within 2 to 4 months (Jung.Come/.. & Baird. 2D03). By writingobjectives that the student can attainwitliin 2 to 4 months, te ims can cele-brate success at each iEP review. A fam-ily member or other IEP team membermay suggest a goal that reflects a morelong-lerm priority for the child. Teammembers can discuss the steps that leadto the long-term priorily so that theycan arrive at an outcome that is attain-able within 2 to 4 months. Looking atthe baseline behavior helps teamsdevelop criteria tliat the student canachieve in this timeframe. Maisie is cur-rently demonslrating this choice-mak-ing behavior two to three limes eachweek. The team believes thai she willprobably be able to use this skill fivetimes each day within 4 months.

identifying progress toward the out-come. General education teachers areresponsible for providing much of thedata, but they can quickly become over-burdened if they must squeeze multipledata collection trials into an already fullschool day. Special education profes-sionals can support teachers" ability tocollect meaningful data by providingcriteria that are sufficiently specificwithout being complicated. An exampleof a complicated criterion is "7 out of 10trials for 5 consecutive data collectiondays." This criterion, although very spe-cific and in line with recommendedpractice for writing behavioral objec-tives, requires that someone collect for-mal data 10 times each day. lEP teammembers can write criteria in a way thatcoincides with already occurring eventsand thus does not require a separatedata session. A more appropriate criter-ion may be "at least 5 times each day."To demonstrate the behavior for this cri-terion, Ihe teacher can simply make amark each time that the student demon-strates the behavior during the dayinstead of Implementing 10 data collec-tion trials.

Attainable

Although [EP team members typically

wrile IEP goals with a 1-year timeline in

Figure 2. Maisie's Choice-Male Ing Objective atitl Strategies

Objective: Maisie will indicate her preferred activity, interaction, or object by using a

sign or word at least five times each day during meals, free play, circle, and cenler

time so that she can become more independent and so that others wili be able to meet

her needs,

Slratej^ii's; Use "Wait, ask, say, show, do" strategy. First, wait for Maisie to voluntar-

ily express a choice. If she does not make a choice after 1 5 seconds, ask Maisie which

(drink, food, cenler, or song) she would like. After another 10 seconds, give Maisie

limited choices and pair them with their signs (e,9,, "Maisie, would you like the apple

juice or the milk?"). If she does nol respond within 5 seconds, show Maisie the two

objects or pictures of the activities or song and ask again, giving the choices. If Maisie

responds by pointing, acknowledge her choice by saying and signing the choice (e.g,,

saying "OK, Maisie, you want the milk" and signing milk). If she slill does nol make a

choice, physically guide her to touch the object or picture while saying the name. Then

say and sign the choice, and then use hand-over-hand assistance to facilitate her sign-

ing of the choice. If Maisie makes a choice at any point during this process, acknowl-

edge her choice verbally and present her with her choice.

Meals At mealtime, give Maisie a choice between at least two drinks and at

least one other set of food choices (e,g,, apple or grapes; peanut butler

or ham sandwich).

Circle Use photos to represent some of the common songs and fingerplays used

during circle time (e,g., spider for "Itsy Bitsy Spider," apples for "apple

tree"). Give Maisie the opportunity to choose one song or fingerplay

each day.

Ptaylime Have photos at home and school of Maisie's favorite toys and activities

to use in the "show" and "do" portions of the strategy.

Center Have photos on hand of the centers to use in the "show" and "do" por-

tions of the strategy. If Maisie tends to choose the same center each day,

provide her with at least two choices for center time and begin each cen-

ter with the "say" portion of the strategy.

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN • MAR/APR 2007 • 55

Routine5-Based

Young children do nol easily generalizeskills to other settings, people, or mate-rials. For example, if a child who hasdifficulty walking on uneven surfacesworks on stair climbing in a therapyroom, he or she may not generalize thatskill to other uneven surfaces or even toother sets of stairs. Teaching the skillsthat children need in the context inwhich they need them is important(McWilliam, 2000). Goals and objec-tives should therefore identify criticalor pivotal skills (Grisham-Brown &Hemmeter, 1998; Pearl, 1993), Criticalskills are skills that the child can learnduring the day within the context ol"daily routines and activities (Jung &Grisham-Brown, 2006) and increase thechild's success in those daily routinesand activities. Maisie's use of words orsigns to express her preference is anexample of a critical skill that she canpractice throughout the day with manypeople. The team may indicate thatMaisie should express her preference atmealtimes, center time, and circle time.By including the routines or activities inthe objective, ail members of the IEPteam will be aware of some of the con-texts in which they can assess the out-come.

Tied to a Functional Priority

IEP teams should write children's goalsand objectives directly in response tofunctional priorities and concerns of themembers of the team (Bernheimer &Keogh. 1995; Hanft & Pilkington, 2000;Scott, McWilliam, & Mayhew. 1999)rather than in response to evaluationand assessment results. Goals andobjectives can resemble test items whenIEP reams write them as a response toitems missed on norm-referencedinstruments. Such goals and objectivesare often specific, measurable, andattainable, but these goals and objec-tives are almost never embedded intothe routine. Furthermore, developingquality strategies to address these typesof outcomes is nearly impossible. Anexample of an assessment-based objec-tive is "Maisie will complete a three-piece formboard within 3 minutes eachtime she is prompted." Although this

objective is certainly specific, measura-ble, and possibly attainable, it is notclear why this objective is important toMaisie or her family. An appropriaterationale statement can make apparentthe tie to the functional priority. "Sothat" and "in order to" are phrases thatcan help build the rationale portion ofthe statement. An example of a ration-ale for Maisie's communication objec-tive is "so that she can become moreindependent and so that others canmeet her needs."

Selecting StrategiesAfter the IEP team agrees on goals andobjectives, team members can begindiscussing instructional strategies.Although the IEP document may notformally include these strategies, well-developed, systematically implementedinstructional strategies are a necessarycomponent of delivering services andsupports to children in special educa-tion. To select strategies, IEP teamsshould be knowledgeable about inter-vention methods and current researchon effective practices. The acronymROUTINE can help educators developand evaluate the quality of the writtenstrategies. ROUTINE stands for

• Routines-based.

• Outcome-related,

• Understandable.

• Transdisciplinary.

• Implemented by teacher and family.

• Nonjudgmental.

• Evidence-based.

Routines-Based

Whereas goals and objectives indicatethe routines in which educators shouldembed intervention, strategies explainwhat everyone will do during thoseroutines to support the goal or objec-tive. If we are going to embed interven-tion in Maisie's communication duringmealtimes, for example, the strategy forthat routine might be as follows: Atmealtime, give Maisie a choice betweenat least two drinks and at least oneother set of food choices (e.g., an appleor grapes; a peanut butter sandwich ora ham sandwich). Such a written strat-egy reminds teams which routines are

the focus and enables them to makesuggestions for interventions duringthose routines. Teachers may suggestadditional settings specific to theirclass, and families may do the same forhome (Tisot & Thurman, 2002), Byfocusing strategies on routines, teachersand families do not have to take timeaway from what they would normallydo so that they can work with the child.Instead, they may add to or modify thethings that they are already doing toinclude a strategy. This method makesimplementing strategies much moremanageable.

Well-developed, systematically

implemented instructional strategies

are a necessary component of

delivering services and supports to

children in special education.

Outcome-Related

Strategies that interventionists suggestfor children should tie directly to a goalor objective that the team has agreed isimportant (Bernheimer & Keogh. 1995;Hanft & Pilkington, 2000; Scott et al..1999), Many strategies are possible forany given child, but organizing them ina way that clearly relates to a specific,routines-based goal or objective canhelp alt team members evaluatewhether the strategy is actually effectivein facilitating progress toward the out-come. For example, talking about thethings Maisie sees and does may infact be a wonderful strategy; however,failure to tie the strategy to its outcomemay make unclear the rationale forusing that strategy.

Understandable

Because many people will be imple-menting the strategies that are selectedfor addressing a goal or objective, every-one on the team needs to understandhow this strategy looks (McWilliam etal., 1998). Special educators and relatedproviders are comfortable with thewords they use, even though they maybe jargon to people not working in the

56 • COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

field. Terms like mastery motivation,vestibiilar stimulation, and pincer graspand symbols like the letter c with a lineover it become a part of intervention-ists' language. Specialists often forgetthat the general public does not usethese words and symbols. Using thesewords in reports, IEPs, and instruction-al plans can confuse or even intimidategeneral education teachers, parents, orolher IEP team members. To help iden-tify jargon, some specialists find it help-ful to invite a colleague from anotherdiscipline to read a report.

In writing SMART goals and

objectives and writing strategies

that fit the ROUTINE, special

education professionals can

provide teachers and families

with support that maximizes

the power of developmental

and therapeutic services.

Transdisciplinary

Educators should use strategies thatintegrate all disciplines involvedinstead of using instructional strategiesthat address, for example, speech goalsseparately from those that address spe-cial education goals. AddressingMaisie s goal of indicating her prefer-ences may require a certain type ofpositional support that the physicaltherapist can suggest. The SLP or spe-cial instructor may suggest the "wait,ask, say, show, do" strategy (WASSD;McGee, Morrier, & Daly, 1999). And thevision specialist may suggest a particu-lar background for photographs tomake them easier for Maisie to see.Each IEP team member can contributeto the strategies, which are integratedfor a single purpose and implementedby the people who are naturallyinvolved in the daily routines thatrequire the set of strategies.

Figure 3. Weekly Instructional Opportunities

Implemented by Teacherand Family

To maximize instructional strategies,the teacher and family should imple-ment them throughout the day andwhenever they are needed (McWilliam,2000), Specialists are In contact withchildren for a relatively small portion ofeach day. When specialists indicatehow others can use the strategy, muchmore intervention can occur. Considera child who is in the general educationclassroom 32 hr per week and receivesspecial education and therapy servicesfor a total of 3 hr per week. If the pro-fessional is the only person who direct-ly provides instruction for the child,that child has only 3 hr of opportunityfor intervention each week. If that pro-fessional instead wisely uses the 3 hr toplan and demonstrate strategies to theteacher and family, the child then hassignificantly more opportunity for inter-vention (Jung. 2003). Figure 3 providesa graphic representation of this con-cept. Certainly no teacher should needto think about instructional strategiesfor a single child during every class-room moment, but including theteacher as the implementer in thisexample more than triples the numberof opportunities.

Nonjudgmental

When special education professionalswrite strategies that families will imple-ment at home, they can best supportfamilies by writing these strategies in away that does not imply judgment(Pearl. 1993). Instructional plansshould articulate how to use a particu-lar strategy, btit it should not look likea contract between the special educa-tion professionals and the teacher orfamily. For example, such phrases as"family will follow ihrough" or "theteacher will implemenl recommenda-tions," definitely demonstrate thai theteacher and family are the imple-menters bul do not provide informationthat describes how to use the strategy.These phrases instead imply that theother party needs to be told to followthrough.

One way to support others in thechild's life is to have conversationsabout the way that they are currentlysupporting and interacting with thechild. Before selecting new empiricallybased strategies, special education pro-fessionals can highlight the strategiesthat Ihe child's teachers and family arealready using that are likely to lead topositive outcomes. They can then listthese strategies along with others thatthe team suggests. For example, the SLP

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL. CHIU)RI-N m MAR/AI-R 2007 • 57

may notice that the teacher gives

Maisie a couple of choices each day at

lunch. The SLP can point out the poten-

tial benefits of that approach for reach-

ing a goal that the team has identified.

He or she can then suggest other times

to use that strategy and ways to extend

the strategy. Highlighting strategies that

a child's parents and family are already

using can help the team develop strate-

gies that are judgment-free and that

build on strengths that are already in

place.

Evidence- Ba5ed

Finally, teams should select strategiesbased on evidence that the strategy willresult in progress toward the desiredgoal or obiective. Special education pro-fessionals should keep abreast ofempirically based strategies found inthe literature so thai they can makethese decisions. Often, however, educa-tors and therapists may find that theytend to use the same strategies over andoven Although they are certainly usingevidence-based strategies, they manytimes use a limited range of the strate-gies available. Many excellent resources(including Bailey and Wolery, 1992)can help support a provider's use ofsome strategies that he or she may nothave recently been using.

Final ThoughtsThe goals, objectives, and strategiesfound in IEPs and instructional planslay an important foundation for includ-ing a child with disabilities or deveiop-mentai delays in the least restrictiveenvironment. By considering twostrategies—SMART and ROUTINE—indeveloping these documents, specialeducation professionals can facilitatediscussion not only on the milestonesthat are ahead but also on exactly howto support those milestones within thecontext of the child's everyday life. Inwriting SMART goals and objectivesand writing strategies that fit the ROU-TINE, special education professionalscan provide teachers and families withsupport that maximizes the power ofdevelopmental and therapeutic ser-vices.

ReferencesBailey, D., & Wolery, M. (1992). TMching

infants and preschoolers with disabilities.New York: Macmilkn.

Bernheimer, L. P., & Keogh, B. K. (1995).Weaving interventions into the fabric ofeveryday life: An approach to familyassessment. Topics in Early ChildhoodSpecial Edacation. 15,415-433.

Grisham-Brown. J.. S Hemmeter, M. L(1998). Writing IEP goals and objectives:Reflecting an activity-based approach toinstruction for children with disabilities.Young Exceptional Children, i(3), 2-10.

Hanft. B. E.. & Pilkington, K. 0. (2000).Therapy in natural environments: Themeans or end goal for early interven-tion? Infants and Young Children, i2[4),1-13.

Jung, L. A. (2003). More is better: Max-imizing natural learning opportunities.Young Exceptional Children. 6(3), 21-27.

Jung. L. A., Gomez, C, & Baird, S. M. (2003).Family-centered intervention: Bridging thegap between IFSPs and implementation.In E. Horn. M. M. Ostrosky, & H. Jones(Eds.), Young Exceptional ChildrenMonograph Series No. 5: Family-BasedPractices (pp. 61-76). Longmoni, CO:Sopris West Educational Services.

Jung. L. A., & Grisham-Brown, J. L. (2006).Moving from assessment information toIFSPs: Guidelines for a family-centeredprocess. Young Exceptional Children, 9{2).2-11.

Lazanis. A. (2004), Reality check: Is yourbehavior aligned with organizationalgoals? The Physician Executive. 30(5).50-52.

McGee, G. G., Morrier. M. J.. & Daly. T(1999). An incidental teaching approachto early intervention for toddiers withautism. The Association for Persons withSevere Disabilities. 24. 133-146.

McWilliam. R. (2000). It's only n a t u r a l . . . to

bave early intervention in the environ-

ments wbere it's needed. Yoang Excep-

tional Children Monograph Series No. 2:Natural Environments and Inclusion, (pp.t7-26). Longmont. CO: Sopris West, TheDivision for Eariy Childhood of the Coun-cil for Exceptional Ghildren EducationServices.

McWilliam, R. A., Ferguson, A.. Harbin, G.,Porter, D. M.. & Vaderviere. P. (1998)- Thefamily-centeredness of individualizedfamily services plans. Topics in EarlyChildhood Special Education. 18, 69-82.

Pearl, L. F. (1993). Providing family-centeredearly intervention. In W. B. Brown, S. K.Thurman, S. K.. & Pearl, L.F. (Eds.),Family-centered intervention with infantsand toddlers: Innovatiue cross-disciplinaryapproaches (pp. 81-101). Baltimore:Brookes.

Scott, S. M., McWiOiam, R., & Mayhew. M. S.(1999). Integrated therapy: Putting ser-

vices in their place. Young Exceptional

Children. 2(3), 15-24.

Tisot, G.M..& Thurman. S. K. (2002). Using

behavior setting theory to define natural

settings: A family-centered approach.

Infants and Young Children, / 4 ( 3 ) ,

65-71.

Lee Ann Jung (CEC KY Federation).

Assistant Professor. Special Education and

Rehabilitation Counseling. University of

Kentucky, Lexington.

Address correspondence to I^e Ann Jung.

Special Education and Rehabilitation Coun-

seling. Uniuersity of Kentucky. 124 Taylor

Education Building. Lexington. KY 40S06

(e-mail: ljung@uky.edu).

TEAGHING Exceptional Ghildren. Vol. 39,

No. 4. pp. S4'58.

Ad Index

Abilitations, 23

American Priming House, 73

Behavioral Dynamics. 53

CEC, 4, 51, 68, 72, 74, 75, 76

Crisis Prevention Institute (CPI),cover 4

Cumberland Therapy Services, 22

Curriculum Associates, 15

Jack Kent Cooke Foundation, 59

Jossey Bass, an Imprint of JohnWiley, 67

John Wiley, 67

Making the Grade, 14

Mesa Public Schools. 33

MindPlay, 52

Nasco Special Education, 73

PCI Education, 32

Penn State, cover 3

St. Coletta of Greater Washington,52

Scholastic, cover 2, 1

Sopris West, 41, 53, 59

Tfexas Tech University, 73

Watchminder2, 73,

58 • CooNciL r-OR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN