How Well-Intended Language is Being Used to Justify Inappropriate IEP Goals and Silence Families
In recent years, many parents of children with disabilities have encountered a familiar response when raising concerns about their child’s IEP goals or placement:
“We presume competence.”
At face value, this phrase sounds respectful, hopeful, and even student-centered. In its original intent, presuming competence means believing that students are capable of learning, deserving of dignity, and entitled to meaningful instruction.
However, in practice, this language is increasingly used in ways that discourage legitimate questions, bypass instructional realities, and leave parents doubting their own judgment. This article is not an argument against high expectations, inclusion, or respect for students with disabilities. It is an examination of how these concepts are sometimes misapplied in ways that conflict with educational logic and the legal purpose of an IEP.
IEP Goals are NOT Aspirational Visions
They are one-year instructional commitments.
An IEP is a legal document designed to outline what a child can reasonably be taught and expected to demonstrate within a single year.
IEP goals are not meant to represent what a school hopes a child might eventually accomplish. They are not meant to be based on what other age-level peers are learning right now. They are meant to reflect what a specific child can realistically be taught, supported, and expected to demonstrate over the course of a single year.
For a goal to meet the purpose of an IEP, it must be:
- Based on the child’s present levels of performance
- Measurable and specific
- Reasonably attainable within one year
- Aligned with the child’s documented rate of progress
If a goal is not reasonably attainable within a year based on the child’s current skills and documented rate of progress, it does not meet the legal purpose of an IEP.
Ambition alone does not make a goal appropriate. Likewise, alignment to grade-level standards alone does not make a goal appropriate either. A goal must be grounded in reality, instruction, and time.
When “Presuming Competence” Replaces Instructional Analysis
Parents often find themselves in a difficult position when they question whether a proposed goal is appropriate. Concerns about pacing, sequencing, or developmental readiness may be met not with instructional explanations, but with moral language:
- “We don’t want to limit the student.”
- “We presume competence.”
- “Research shows inclusion works for everyone.”
This response subtly reframes the discussion. Instead of examining whether a goal is appropriate, the focus shifts to whether the parent believes enough. Legitimate instructional concerns are treated as philosophical objections, and parents are left feeling as though questioning feasibility is equivalent to underestimating their child.
This dynamic discourages advocacy—not because parents are convinced, but because they are made to feel morally or professionally outmatched.
A Clear Example: Math and Developmental Sequencing
Math provides one of the clearest illustrations of why this matters.
Consider a child who is currently learning to add single-digit numbers.
In typical development, students progress through multiple clearly defined stages before reaching multi-digit multiplication. This process commonly takes three or more years, even for students without learning disabilities, and relies on systematic instruction in place value, multi-digit addition and subtraction, and foundational number sense.
If such a student is given an IEP goal requiring mastery of multi-digit multiplication within one year, the issue is not expectations – it is feasibility.
Skipping essential instructional steps does not reflect confidence in a child’s potential. It reflects a disconnect between the goal and how learning actually occurs.
Presuming competence does not mean assuming a child can skip foundational learning milestones and still meaningfully master higher-level skills.
Why Math Makes this Especially Visible
Math instruction is cumulative and sequential by design. Skills build on one another in a predictable way. Unlike some other academic areas, gaps cannot easily be bypassed.
For this reason, math often provides the clearest evidence when an IEP goal is inappropriate:
- Are prerequisite skills already in place?
- Is the proposed goal an expansion of an existing skill—or an entirely new one?
- How many instructional steps are being skipped?
When a goal jumps across multiple grade-level expectations without addressing the skills in between, it is reasonable for parents to question whether that goal can be achieved within one year.
Ability to Perform Steps is NOT the Same as Meaningful Learning
There is an additional, often overlooked issue: understanding.
A child may be trained to follow the rote steps of a math procedure—lining up numbers, applying memorized rules, producing a correct-looking answer—without understanding what those steps represent. This is especially common when abstract procedures are introduced before a child has developed conceptual foundations such as quantity or value.
In such cases, a goal may be technically performable while still being educationally inappropriate.
An IEP goal should be reasonably calculated to build understanding and meaningful skill development, not merely the ability to follow memorized steps without comprehension. Teaching a child to execute procedures they do not understand may not result in transferable skills, functional use, or increased independence.
Parents are not required to accept goals simply because a child can be trained to perform them. It is reasonable to ask whether the goal results in meaningful educational benefit for that child, given their current level of understanding and learning profile.
Why this Matters for Students with Significant Disabilities
For many students with disabilities, learning is slow, fragile, and highly dependent on carefully chosen instructional priorities. Time spent on one goal is time not spent on another.
When instructional time is devoted to abstract or developmentally inaccessible skills, it may come at the expense of:
- Foundational number sense
- Functional academics
- Communication skills
- Independence and real-world application
In these situations, the question is not whether a child can be made to perform a task, but whether that task is a reasonable and meaningful use of instructional time.
That is a valid—and necessary—question for parents to ask.
The Impact on Parents: Doubt Replaces Advocacy
Even when parents recognize that something is not right, the language used in meetings can cause them to second-guess themselves.
Schools often speak from a position of authority and moral certainty. Parents, especially those new to the special education system, may hesitate to challenge statements framed as settled science or best practice—particularly when those statements are presented as universally accepted.
Over time, this dynamic can discourage parents from speaking up, even when their concerns are grounded in logic and observation.
Teachers are Often Placed in the Middle
This dynamic does not only affect families. Teachers are frequently expected to implement goals and placements determined at administrative levels over which they have little control.
Many educators recognize when goals are unrealistic or disconnected from students’ actual learning needs. However, they are often told what must be done without being given guidance on how those expectations are supposed to work in practice.
When such goals fail, responsibility quietly shifts to those implementing them, rather than those who designed them.
This places teachers in an untenable position and further erodes trust between families and schools.
Inclusion is NOT One-Size-Fits-All
Inclusion can be an appropriate and beneficial placement for many students. However, no single educational environment can meet the needs of every learner, regardless of disability type, severity, or instructional profile.
Special education law requires that placement decisions be individualized, not ideological. When inclusion is treated as a universal solution rather than one option among many, the focus shifts away from appropriateness and toward uniformity.
A Practical Starting Point for Parents
Parents do not need to rely on emotion or opinion to evaluate whether a goal is appropriate.
One concrete approach is to do the following:
- Print a copy of the grade-level standards for the subject area. English Language Arts and Math standards can be found here . On that page, click the orange boxes on the right side to select the subject.After selecting the subject, use the orange boxes on the right side to view standards by grade level and specific skill area.For each skill area, print copies of all grade levels from your child’s current functioning level up to their current grade level.
- Identify and highlight the skills the child can currently demonstrate
- Locate the standard or skill reflected in the proposed IEP goal
- Examine how many instructional steps lie between the two
If multiple foundational steps are being skipped—or if the goal requires conceptual understanding the child has not yet developed—it is reasonable to question whether the goal can be achieved meaningfully within one year.
Goals may reasonably expand a child’s existing skills. They should not leap to entirely different skill sets without a clear, teachable pathway.
If this review shows that a proposed goal skips multiple foundational steps or requires skills that the student has not yet demonstrated, parents are not required to accept the goal as written. A reasonable next step is to ask the IEP team to explain how the goal is expected to be achieved within one year, including what prerequisite skills will be taught, how instruction will be provided, and how progress will be measured. If the team cannot clearly articulate a teachable pathway from the student’s current skills to the proposed goal, it is appropriate to request that the goal be revised to better align with the student’s present levels and documented rate of progress.
And always remember: if a child makes quick progress and meets a goal in less than a year, the team can always come together more frequently to propose new goals. Although it is more difficult for schools logistically to set up more frequent IEP meetings, it is better (and legally appropriate) for the student to have realistic goals, even if it means that they need to be updated more frequently, than for a student to waste an entire year on unrealistic goals!
Closing thought
Presuming competence should never require parents to ignore reality, nor teachers to implement plans they know are unworkable.
High expectations matter—but only when they are paired with appropriate instruction, realistic timelines, and honest acknowledgement of how learning occurs.
An IEP that guarantees failure, or that prioritizes procedure over meaning, does not reflect hope.
It reflects a system unwilling to confront its own assumptions.
Next Steps for Parents
If this article helped you put words to concerns you’ve been feeling, you don’t have to stop here. The resources below are designed to help you turn understanding into action.
- IEP Goal Review Worksheet
A simple, step-by-step tool to help you evaluate whether a proposed IEP goal is appropriate for your child’s current skills and rate of progress. - One-Page Handout: “Presuming Competence ≠ Skipping Instruction”
A calm, meeting-safe summary you can print or share that explains why appropriate goals must follow instructional steps. - IEP Meeting Script for Parents
Clear, respectful language you can use when a proposed goal doesn’t feel right and you need help asking the right questions.
Always remember, you are allowed to ask questions. You are allowed to pause. And you are allowed to expect goals that give your child a real opportunity to succeed.
Article Note:
This article reflects the author’s professional experience and analysis of common practices in special education. Examples are hypothetical or anonymized and are not intended to describe any specific school, district, employee, or student. This content is provided for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are encouraged to consult qualified professionals regarding their individual circumstances.
Leave a Reply