Reading Comprehension IEP Goals: 21 Measurable Examples

IDEA requires every IEP to include measurable annual goals, academic and functional (34 CFR §300.320(a)(2)(i)). A measurable reading comprehension IEP goal names the comprehension skill, the text the student reads and how it is presented, a criterion with a time window, and the probe that measures it. It starts from a baseline taken on that same probe. Without those parts, two staff members scoring the same answer can reach different numbers, and nobody can check either one.

The 21 goals below run from kindergarten through high school and 18–22 programs (19 for comprehension, two for decoding and fluency).

Is It Comprehension, Decoding or Fluency? Check Before You Write the Goal

Check the barrier first. The Simple View of Reading treats comprehension as the product of decoding and language comprehension, so a weakness in either one lowers it (Gough & Tunmer, 1986).

IDEA’s criteria for a specific learning disability list basic reading skill, reading fluency skills, reading comprehension and listening comprehension as separate areas (34 CFR §300.309(a)(1)). Write the goal for the area the data points to. Under the Simple View, the score on text the student reads alone is limited by word reading, so a comprehension goal for a student whose barrier is decoding ends up measuring decoding.

Three checks before you write:

• Oral reading accuracy and rate on the passage you plan to probe with. If the student misreads many words or reads very slowly, the comprehension score from that passage tells you little.
• The same kind of text read aloud vs read independently. If listening comprehension is much stronger, look at word reading and fluency first.
• Where the answers fall apart. If accuracy drops in the last third of every passage, check stamina, rate and question difficulty as well as attention. If attention is the barrier, focus and attention IEP goals fit better.

The barriers can coexist. When word reading and language comprehension are both weak, write a goal for each.

Aligning Reading Goals with the Science of Reading

NICHD’s Put Reading First guide, which summarizes the National Reading Panel’s findings, covers five areas: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and text comprehension (NICHD). Where the data show a need in an area, that area gets its own goal and probe.

For Grades 4–9, the What Works Clearinghouse rates three intervention practices as strong evidence: decoding multisyllabic words, fluency-building, and a set of comprehension practices (building world and word knowledge, asking and answering questions, finding the gist, monitoring comprehension) (WWC).

State laws on the science of reading, dyslexia and structured literacy differ, and some add requirements beyond IDEA. Check your state education agency’s rules before you write science of reading IEP goals.

Writing Present Levels That Lead to the Goal

The goal should read as the next step from the present levels. IDEA requires a statement of present levels of academic achievement and functional performance, including how the disability affects involvement and progress in the general education curriculum (34 CFR §300.320(a)(1)). For reading, present levels are most useful when they give probe data, not a reading level alone.

Example present-levels statement (Grade 7):

On three teacher-made probes in September, using 400–600 word informational passages at a Grade 5 instructional level read independently, [Student] answered literal questions accurately (median 4 of 5) but scored a median 3 of 10 points on five inferential questions scored 0–2, answering from background knowledge without citing the text. Oral reading on the same passages was 97–98% accurate at about 110 words correct per minute, so word reading did not appear to limit comprehension of this text. [Student] retells events in order and joins readily in discussion of science topics. In science and social studies, [Student] finds stated facts but misses conclusions the text implies, which limits [Student]’s answers to analysis questions on unit tests. Instructional-level passages reduce the decoding load, so the probe shows the inference skill more clearly; [Student] reads Grade 7 science and social studies text with text-to-speech (listed in the accommodations).

From present levels to goal. The passage type, length and level become the condition. The gap, inference with text evidence, becomes the behavior. The median of 3 of 10 becomes the baseline. The result is goal I2 below.

Reading Comprehension IEP Goal Examples by Skill and Grade Band

Every reading comprehension IEP goal below has a condition (text, length, level and presentation), an observable behavior, a criterion with a window, a named measure and a baseline in parentheses; fluency goal D2 leaves the baseline and target to your measure’s data. The pattern:

Given [text, length, level, presentation], [Student] will [observable behavior], scoring [criterion] on [count and window], as measured by [probe] (baseline: [median of 3 probes]).

Baselines and criteria below are examples. Set the passage level, criterion and window from [Student]’s own baseline and rate of progress, not from these numbers. “4 of 5 consecutive weekly probes” means five probes in a row, about five weeks, with at least four meeting the score. For kindergarten and early Grade 1, measure comprehension with text read aloud, as in L1 and I1.

Literal and Wh-Question Comprehension

L1. Grades K–5 (listening comprehension). Given a 100–150 word picture-supported story read aloud by an adult, [Student] will answer five who, what and where questions by speaking or by pointing to one of three pictures, with at least 4 of 5 correct and unprompted on 4 of 5 consecutive weekly probes, as measured by a wh-question probe (baseline: median 2 of 5; answers “who” questions only).

L2. Grades 1–5. Given a 100–150 word instructional-level passage read independently, with answer sentences highlighted for the first 18 weeks of the goal period only, [Student] will answer five who, what, where and when questions, scoring at least 4 of 5 without highlighting or prompts on 4 of 5 consecutive weekly probes, as measured by a question probe with prompt levels recorded (baseline: median 2 of 5 with highlighting, 1 of 5 without).

L3. Grades 6–8. Given a 300–400 word instructional-level passage read independently, [Student] will answer five literal questions and point to the sentence holding each answer, scoring at least 8 of 10 points on 4 of 5 consecutive weekly probes, as measured by a question probe scored 2 points per item (1 for the answer, 1 for the sentence) (baseline: median 5 of 10; answers correctly, locates no sentences).

L4. Grades 9–12 and 18–22 programs. Given a 300–500 word content-area text at [Student]’s grade level, presented with text-to-speech that [Student] may replay, [Student] will answer five literal questions with at least 4 of 5 correct on 4 of 5 consecutive weekly probes, as measured by a question probe (baseline: median 2 of 5).

Retell, Summary and Main Idea

R1. Grades 2–5. Given a narrative passage of about 250–300 words at [Student]’s instructional level, read independently, and a five-box story map, [Student] will orally retell the story, naming the main character, the setting, the problem, at least three key events in order and the solution, scoring at least 8 of 10 points on a 5-element retell rubric (0–2 points per element) on 4 of 5 consecutive weekly probes, as measured by a teacher-scored retell rubric (baseline: median 3 of 10 points across 3 probes in September; names characters, omits the problem and solution).

R2. Grades 1–5. Given an 80–120 word instructional-level informational paragraph read independently, [Student] will orally state the main idea and two supporting details, scoring at least 5 of 6 points on 4 of 5 consecutive probes given every 2 weeks, as measured by a main-idea rubric (0–2 per element) (baseline: median 2 of 6; names a detail as the main idea).

R3. Grades 6–8. Given a 500–700 word instructional-level narrative read independently, [Student] will write a five-part summary (Somebody, Wanted, But, So, Then), with a printed frame faded after the first grading period, scoring at least 8 of 10 points without the frame on 3 consecutive probes given every 2 weeks, as measured by a summary rubric scored 0–2 per part for content (baseline: median 5 of 10 with the frame, 2 of 10 without).

R4. Grades 9–12 and 18–22 programs. Given a 600–800 word instructional-level news or magazine article read independently, [Student] will orally state the main idea and three supporting details, scoring at least 7 of 8 points (2 for the main idea, 2 per detail) on 4 of 5 consecutive probes given every 2 weeks, as measured by an informational retell rubric (baseline: median 3 of 8; lists facts, states no main idea).

Inference and Text Evidence

An inference IEP goal asks the student to state something the text implies and to show the words that support it. Scoring the evidence separately shows whether the answer came from the text or from background knowledge.

If the class’s inferential questions are swapped for literal ones while inference is still being taught, write that change into the IEP as a classroom modification.

I1. Grades K–5 (listening comprehension). Given five illustrated story pages read aloud by an adult, each with the question “How does [character] feel?”, [Student] will name the feeling and point to or state the clue in the words or the picture, scoring at least 8 of 10 points on 4 of 5 consecutive probes given every 2 weeks, as measured by an inference probe scored 0–2 per item that records which kind of clue was used (baseline: median 3 of 10; names feelings without clues).

I2. Grades 6–8. Given a 400–600 word informational passage at [Student]’s instructional level, read independently, and five inferential questions, [Student] will answer each question and point to or quote the sentence that supports the answer, scoring at least 8 of 10 points (2 points per item: 1 for a correct inference, 1 for relevant text evidence) on 4 of 5 consecutive weekly probes, as measured by a teacher-made inference probe scored with a 0–2 rubric (baseline: median 3 of 10 points across 3 probes; answers from background knowledge without citing the text).

I3. Grades 9–12 and 18–22 programs. Given a 500–800 word instructional-level opinion piece read independently, [Student] will answer three questions about the author’s purpose or point of view, quoting one supporting sentence for each, scoring at least 5 of 6 points on 4 of 5 consecutive probes given every 2 weeks, as measured by an inference probe scored 0–2 per item (1 for the purpose or point of view, 1 for the quotation) (baseline: median 2 of 6; states the topic, not the purpose).

I4. 18–22 programs. Given five short workplace emails or posted notices per probe (under 60 words each, not used in instruction, read independently), each implying a request without stating it, such as “The break room fridge will be cleaned out Friday at 3,” [Student] will state what the writer wants the reader to do and name the clue, correct on at least 4 of 5 messages with no more than one verbal prompt per probe, on 5 of 6 consecutive twice-weekly probes, as measured by a functional inference checklist recording accuracy and prompt level (baseline: 1 of 5; restates the message, misses the action).

Vocabulary in Context

V1. Grades 2–5. Given a 150–200 word instructional-level passage read independently, with five unfamiliar words underlined and a clue in a nearby sentence, [Student] will choose each word’s meaning from three choices, scoring at least 4 of 5 on 4 of 5 consecutive weekly probes, as measured by a context-clue probe (baseline: median 2 of 5).

V2. Grades 6–8. Given a 300–400 word instructional-level passage read independently, with five unfamiliar words underlined, each with a definition, example or contrast clue in the passage, [Student] will state each meaning and quote or point to the clue, scoring at least 8 of 10 points (1 for the meaning, 1 for the clue) on 4 of 5 consecutive weekly probes, as measured by a context-clue probe (baseline: median 3 of 10; guesses from how the word looks).

V3. Grades 9–12 and 18–22 programs. Given five content-area or workplace terms not taught beforehand, in a 300–500 word passage presented with text-to-speech, [Student] will explain each term in [Student]’s own words using context and word parts, scoring at least 8 of 10 points on 4 of 5 consecutive probes given every 2 weeks, as measured by a vocabulary probe scored 0–2 per term (baseline: median 4 of 10; repeats the surrounding sentence).

Functional Reading: Schedules, Labels and Forms

Functional reading IEP goals measure whether a student can find and use information in real adult text, such as a schedule, a label or a form. They score the reading, not the task the text describes.

The task itself, such as cooking from a recipe, belongs in a daily living skills goal.

F1. Grades 9–12 and 18–22 programs. Given a printed weekly work or class schedule and a local bus timetable, read independently, [Student] will answer four questions (the start time of a named activity, the activity that follows, the departure time needed to arrive on time, and the stop name), answering 4 of 4 correctly with no more than one verbal prompt on 4 of 5 consecutive opportunities, given twice a week, as measured by a functional reading checklist that records accuracy and prompt level (baseline: 1 of 4 correct with three or more prompts across 3 opportunities in September).

F2. Grades 9–12 and 18–22 programs. Given a food or medicine label [Student] has not practiced with, read independently, [Student] will answer four questions (serving size or dose, one warning, expiration date, storage), with 4 of 4 correct and no more than one verbal prompt on 4 of 5 consecutive opportunities, given twice a week, as measured by a functional reading checklist with prompt levels (baseline: 1 of 4; finds the date only).

F3. 18–22 programs. Given a one-page job application or intake form not used in instruction and a personal information sheet, [Student] will read each field label and enter the matching information, completing at least 9 of 10 fields correctly (the right information in the right field) with no more than one verbal prompt on 3 consecutive weekly probes, as measured by a form-completion checklist (baseline: 4 of 10 fields; misplaces “previous employer” and “date available”).

F4. Grades 9–12 and 18–22 programs. Given a 5–8 step recipe or set of assembly instructions not used in instruction, read independently, [Student] will answer four sequence questions before starting the task (first step, next step after a named step, last step, what must happen before a named step), with 4 of 4 correct on 4 of 5 consecutive opportunities, given twice a week, as measured by a procedural-text checklist (baseline: 1 of 4; starts without reading ahead). Doing the routine itself belongs in an adaptive skills IEP goal; this goal measures the reading.

When the Barrier Is Basic Reading Skill or Fluency

Basic reading skill (accurate word reading) and reading fluency are separate areas from reading comprehension in IDEA’s criteria (34 CFR §300.309(a)(1)). Use these two goals when the first check points away from comprehension.

D1. Grades 6–8. Given an untimed list of 20 multisyllabic words not used in instruction, built from taught syllable types (closed, open, vowel-consonant-e), [Student] will read at least 18 of 20 correctly on 3 consecutive weekly probes, as measured by a word-reading probe (baseline: median 9 of 20; reads the first syllable, then guesses).

D2. Grades K–5 (from mid-Grade 1). Given unpracticed passages at the level the team names from a published oral reading fluency measure, [Student] will read aloud for one minute and reach [target] words correct per minute at [accuracy]% accuracy or higher, a target the team sets from the measure’s published norms and [Student]’s growth, with the median of the 3 most recent weekly probes at or above the target by [date], as measured by an oral reading fluency probe graphed against an aim line (baseline: median of three September probes, entered in present levels).

Weak Goal, Strong Goal: Two Comprehension Rewrites

A weak reading goal usually has no baseline, an undefined behavior, no text level and no named measure. Both weak goals below come from the earlier version of this page, and each strong rewrite fixes all four.

Pair 1, detail recall

• Weak: “By (date), the student will correctly recall at least three significant details from grade-level texts in 80% of reading assignments.”
• What’s wrong: No baseline. “Significant” is undefined. A grade-level text may be at frustration level, which mixes decoding into the score. “80% of reading assignments” has no count or window, and no method is named.
• Strong: Given a 250–350 word informational passage at [Student]’s instructional level, read independently, [Student] will state the main idea and three supporting details in an oral retell, scoring at least 7 of 8 points on an informational retell rubric (2 points for the main idea, 2 per detail) on 4 of 5 consecutive weekly probes, as measured by a teacher-scored retell rubric (baseline: median 2 of 8 points across 3 September probes; lists unrelated facts and states no main idea).

Pair 2, summary

• Weak: “By (date), the student will summarize a story or article, capturing key points and main ideas, in 4 out of 5 opportunities, as measured by teacher observations and assessments.”
• What’s wrong: No baseline. “Key points” is undefined. Stories and articles need different rubrics. “Observations and assessments” is not a method, and there is no consistency window.
• Strong (Grades 6–8): Given a 500–700 word short story at [Student]’s instructional level, read independently, [Student] will write a five-part summary (Somebody, Wanted, But, So, Then) using a printed frame, scoring at least 9 of 10 points on 3 consecutive probes given every 2 weeks, as measured by a summary rubric scored 0–2 per part for content, with spelling and mechanics not scored (baseline: median 4 of 10; names the character and the want, omits the conflict and outcome).

How to Measure Comprehension Each Week

Give each skill its own short probe, the same way every time. IDEA requires the IEP to say how progress will be measured and when families get reports (34 CFR §300.320(a)(3)). It does not require weekly probes; weekly data is what makes the decision rules below work.

Fit it into small group. Give written probes (questions, inference, vocabulary) to the whole group at once. Give 1:1 probes (oral retell, read-aloud, oral reading fluency) to half the group one week and the other half the next, and write “every 2 weeks” in those goals.

Keep probes comparable:

• Same passage length and level every time, rotating equivalent passages. Draw them from your intervention program’s assessment set or a published progress-monitoring passage set; write your own only when nothing fits.
• Same presentation every time (read aloud, text-to-speech or independent), recorded on the sheet.
• Rubric anchors fixed: 2 = complete and accurate, 1 = partial, 0 = missing or wrong. Record the prompt level in its own column. Unless a goal allows prompts, only unprompted probes count toward its criterion.
• At least 3 probes before you set the baseline; use the median.
• For a student with a language impairment, pair a retell goal with a question probe on the same passage, so expressive language isn’t the only route to a score.
• Maze is a general outcome measure. It shows overall growth; it does not replace a skill probe. Formats, timing and normed grade ranges vary by publisher; the IRIS Center’s example is designed for Grades 4–6 (IRIS Center).

Filled example: a retell rubric across three weeks (goal R1)

Week 3 meets the criterion once; the goal needs 4 of 5 consecutive weekly probes.

Print a blank copy (one page, no sign-up): Download the checklist and rubric data sheet (PDF, one page)

Reading the Data: When to Keep, Change or Raise the Goal

Graph each probe score against an aim line drawn from the baseline to the goal. The IRIS Center’s four-point method, built for general outcome measures such as oral reading fluency and maze, waits for six to eight data points and at least three weeks of instruction, then looks at the four most recent; if eight points show no pattern, draw a trend line instead (IRIS Center). With weekly probes, the first decision comes at about six weeks; with probes every 2 weeks, reaching six points takes about twelve.

Teacher-made probes are not standardized, so use the rule as a guide and the goal’s own criterion as the test of mastery.

• Keep going when points run along the aim line or split above and below it.
• Change instruction when the four most recent points fall below the line. Check the probes first: same level, same presentation, prompts recorded.
• Re-check the barrier when comprehension stays flat but the student understands the same text read aloud. That points to word reading or fluency.
• Raise the target when the four most recent points sit above the line or the criterion is met well before the annual date. Raise the text level or remove one support, one change at a time. Raising the annual goal itself is an IEP change: it needs an IEP team meeting or a written amendment the parent and district agree to (34 CFR §300.324(a)(4)).
• Consider reconvening the team when a reporting period shows no progress. IDEA requires the team to revise the IEP as appropriate to address any lack of expected progress toward the annual goals (34 CFR §300.324(b)(1)(ii)(A)).

One sentence for families, as an example: “On weekly passages at [Student]’s reading level, [Student] now scores 6 of 10 points on a five-part story retell, up from 3; the goal is 8.”

What a File Reviewer Looks for in a Reading Comprehension Goal

In a file review, present levels, goal and progress reports are read together, and they should describe the same skill, measured the same way. Five checks to run on a reading comprehension goal before the file leaves your desk:

1. Present levels name the skill and the probe, with current numbers (the median of several probes), not a reading level alone.
2. The goal states the passage level and how the text is presented. If probes use instructional-level text for a student reading well below grade level, the file says why, and grade-level access appears in the accommodations.
3. The criterion has a count and a window, such as “4 of 5 consecutive weekly probes,” never a bare “80% of the time.”
4. The measure matches the skill. A retell goal is measured with a retell rubric, not a reading-level test.
5. Progress reports show data, issued on the IEP’s schedule. “Progressing” tells a family nothing; “6 of 10, up from 3; goal 8” does.

Also check that the services page lists reading instruction that supports each reading goal (34 CFR §300.320(a)(4)). For a student who takes an alternate assessment aligned to alternate academic achievement standards, the IEP also needs benchmarks or short-term objectives (§300.320(a)(2)(ii)).

A Functional Reading Lesson for 18–22 Programs

Functional reading goals for students in 18–22 programs, such as reading a schedule, a form or a recipe (goals F1, F3 and F4), need practice on real text. Ori Learning’s “Everyday Academic Skills” lesson offers one session of that practice. It is part of Adult Transition (18+), the Transition Curriculum‘s course for students 18 and older.

Early in the lesson, students discuss in groups of two or three whether everyday items such as a menu, a bus card or a recipe could be used without reading or math. They read short examples of reading in daily life: “Reading helps you follow directions, signs, schedules, and instructions.” One example: “Jeremy reads the bus schedule to know what time he needs to leave for work.”

In one activity, students choose a station: follow a recipe, fill out a simple form or read a daily schedule. The schedule station asks questions such as “What is the first activity on the schedule, and what time does it start?” Those are the same kind of item the checklist in goal F1 scores, so they can serve as models for F1 probe questions.

The lesson pairs reading with everyday math. Ori Learning does not currently offer a lesson that teaches main idea, retelling, inference or wh-questions as reading strategies on academic text.

Related Resources

• SMART IEP goals guide
• written expression IEP goals
• executive functioning IEP goals

Sources

1. 34 CFR §300.320, Definition of individualized education program: present levels (a)(1), measurable annual goals and, for students taking alternate assessments aligned to alternate academic achievement standards, benchmarks or short-term objectives (a)(2), how progress is measured and reported (a)(3), services to advance toward the goals (a)(4); and 34 CFR §300.324(a)(4) (amendments) and (b)(1)(ii)(A) (revising the IEP for lack of expected progress). U.S. Department of Education, IDEA regulations. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/d/300.320 and https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/d/300.324.
2. 34 CFR §300.309(a)(1), Determining the existence of a specific learning disability: the eight areas, including basic reading skill, reading fluency skills, reading comprehension and listening comprehension. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/d/300.309.
3. National Reading Panel (2000), Teaching Children to Read, and NICHD’s Put Reading First teacher’s guide. NICHD’s National Reading Panel publications page describes Put Reading First as covering “five areas of reading instruction: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and text comprehension”; the panel’s own report is organized by subgroup (alphabetics, fluency, comprehension and others). https://www.nichd.nih.gov/about/org/der/branches/cdbb/nationalreadingpanelpubs.
4. What Works Clearinghouse (2022), Providing Reading Interventions for Students in Grades 4–9. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide/29.
5. IRIS Center, Vanderbilt University, Progress Monitoring: Reading, page 6 (administering and scoring maze) and page 7 (four-point method; six to eight data points; trend line after eight). https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/pmr/cresource/q2/p06/ and https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/pmr/cresource/q2/p07/.
6. Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104.