Peer Interaction IEP Goals: 15 Examples for Recess, Lunch and Work

Peer interaction IEP goals target how often a student starts, answers and keeps up exchanges with classmates (in class, at lunch, at recess and, for older students, at work), measured in counts a teacher can collect.

What counts as peer interaction, and how to count it

Peer interaction is any exchange between a student and a same-age peer, spoken, signed, written, gestured or through AAC, in which each responds to the other. Sitting beside classmates doesn’t count, and neither does talking with the paraprofessional at the lunch table. In 18–22 programs, “peer” widens to fellow students and coworkers; job coaches, supervisors and customers aren’t peers.

Count three units:

• Initiation: the student starts it: a greeting, a question, offering a toy, a tap and a point, or an AAC message. It counts even when the peer doesn’t answer.
• Response: the student answers a peer’s bid (a hello, a question, a request) within a set window. Set it from the student’s baseline, for example 5 seconds for speech and longer for AAC, and write it down for every observer.
• Exchange: a back-and-forth with one or more peers, counted in turns from all partners. A–B–A–B is 4 turns, 2 by each. Decide when an exchange ends (say, 5 seconds with no turn, not counting time spent composing on AAC) and keep that rule all year.

“More social” isn’t a goal, and “interacts appropriately” can’t be scored. A count in a fixed window gives the team a baseline, a target and a progress-report line. The units also point to the goal. If peer bids are rare, fix the setting first. A student who answers but never starts needs an initiation goal; one who rarely answers needs a response goal; one-word answers may be a language question for the SLP.

Conversation quality, such as staying on topic, belongs with social skills goals. If the concern is making and keeping friends, see goals for making and keeping friends.

Observe first: a peer interaction baseline

Take the baseline before writing the goal, in the setting where it will be measured. Pick the window the goal will use (10–30 minutes of the same lunch, recess or group-work period) and observe it on 3–5 days. Tally initiations and responses, count peer bids so a response rate has a denominator, and note the longest exchange in turns.

In a busy room, use momentary time sampling. At each 1-minute signal (a vibrating timer works), glance at the student and mark peer, alone or adult. That estimates time with peers, not how many initiations happened between signals, so don’t mix the two methods in one goal.

Record the partner every time, by role or code (Peer A), not by name. Talk with adults inflates peer data, and a nearby adult changes what peers do. Observing 16 classrooms, Giangreco and colleagues found that “at times, prolonged close adult proximity adversely affected peer involvement,” while noting that some closeness is essential, such as for tactile signing or health management (Giangreco et al., 1997). Count from outside the group, within sight and earshot, and note when an adult was within arm’s reach. Ask the student, too, what they want from lunch or recess (a game partner, a seat with a friend, some quiet time); with younger or non-speaking students, watch whom and what they approach.

One row of a baseline sheet:

A measurable peer interaction IEP goal has five parts:

1. Baseline: a number from this count.
2. Condition: the setting, window and support (“during 15-minute recess”, “with a conversation-starter card”).
3. Observable behavior: initiates, responds, takes 4 turns.
4. Criterion with a consistency window: “at least 3 per period on 4 of 5 observed days for 3 consecutive weeks.”
5. Measurement method: a frequency count, momentary time sampling or an exchange tally.

Peer and social interaction IEP goals by grade band

Each goal is tagged [initiate], [respond] or [sustain]; replace the numbers with your own baseline. Three scoring rules apply throughout:

• Any mode counts. A prompted act is scored P; unless a goal targets fading prompts, only independent acts count toward the criterion. AAC, a card or a device isn’t a prompt.
• Response goals are scored as a share of peer bids. Set a floor, such as 3 bids; sessions below it are “no opportunity” and don’t count.
• “4 of 5 days for 3 consecutive weeks” means 4 of every 5 consecutive observations, at least 2 a week, for 3 weeks.

Grades K–5

Recess, choice time and play centers are natural places to start. Goals 2 and 3 are the cooperative play IEP goals: a turn on cue and a sustained exchange.

1. [initiate] Recess (model goal A). During 15-minute recess or choice-time periods, [Student] will initiate an interaction with a peer (a greeting, an invitation to play, offering a toy, or a message on their AAC device) at least 3 times per period on 4 of 5 observed days for 3 consecutive weeks, as measured by a staff frequency count (baseline: 0–1 initiations per period across 5 observed days; plays alongside peers without approaching them).
2. [respond] Cooperative play. During a 10-minute board game with 2–3 peers, [Student] will take their turn within 5 seconds of a peer’s cue, spoken or gestured, on at least 80% of cues per game, on 4 of 5 observed days for 3 consecutive weeks, as measured by a staff tally of cues and turns from outside the game (baseline: 20%; waits for an adult’s cue).
3. [sustain] Cooperative play. In 15-minute block or pretend-play centers with 1–2 peers, [Student] will keep up a shared play exchange of 4 or more turns, at least 2 by [Student] (adding to a peer’s tower, passing a cup), at least 2 times per center on 4 of 5 observed days for 3 consecutive weeks, as measured by an exchange tally (baseline: 0 across 4 centers; builds beside peers).
4. [respond] AAC. At a 20-minute lunch, [Student] will start answering a peer’s greeting or question within 10 seconds (AAC, sign or speech) on at least 75% of peer bids per lunch, on 4 of 5 days for 3 consecutive weeks, as measured by a staff count of bids and responses within sight of the device (baseline: 1 of 5 bids; looks to the adult).
5. [initiate] New setting. During the first 15 minutes of PE and of library group time, with classmates outside the recess group, [Student] will initiate with a peer at least 2 times per period on 4 of 5 observed periods in each setting across 3 consecutive weeks, as measured by each teacher’s sticky-note count (baseline: 3 per recess; 0 across 4 PE and library periods).

Grades 6–8

Middle school settings shift to lunch, clubs and cooperative group work, where adults are expected to be less visible.

6. [initiate] Shared-interest club. In the first 15 minutes of a weekly gaming or art club, [Student] will start an interaction with a peer (a question, a comment, showing their work), in speech or with a conversation-starter card, at least 2 times per meeting on 4 of 5 consecutive meetings, as measured by the staff sponsor’s frequency count (baseline: 0 across 4 meetings; works beside peers in silence).
7. [respond] Group work. In a 15-minute cooperative task with an assigned role, [Student] will respond within 5 seconds to a group member’s question or request (answering, handing over a material, doing the step) on at least 80% of peer bids per session, on 4 of 5 observed sessions across 3 consecutive weeks, as measured by a co-teacher’s tally of bids and responses (baseline: 33%, 2 of 6 bids; an adult answers for [Student]).
8. [sustain] AAC. In a lunch group of 2–4 classmates, [Student] will take part in at least 2 exchanges per 25-minute lunch in which [Student] takes 2 or more turns, 1 or more on a speech-generating device, on 4 of 5 observed lunches across 3 consecutive weeks, as measured by an exchange tally kept in sight of the device (baseline: 0 such exchanges across 4 lunches; one-turn answers only).
9. [sustain] Time sampling. During 20-minute advisory free time, [Student] will be interacting with a peer (talking, signing, playing a game together) at 8 or more of 20 one-minute samples on 4 of 5 observed days across 3 consecutive weeks, as measured by staff momentary time sampling (baseline: 1–2 of 20 samples).
10. [initiate] New setting. During 20-minute partner work in science and art, [Student] will initiate a task-related interaction with the assigned peer partner (asking for a material, sharing an idea) at least 2 times per period on 4 of 5 observed periods in each class across 3 consecutive weeks, as measured by each teacher’s sticky-note count (baseline: 2 per period in the resource room; 0 across 3 general education periods).

Grades 9–12 and 18–22 programs

Older students meet peers at lunch, in clubs, in the job-site break room and in community classes. At work or in a community class, agree the method with the student: a self-record checked against occasional staff probes can be less conspicuous than an adult with a clipboard.

11. [sustain] Lunch group (model goal B). During lunch with a structured peer group of 2–4 classmates, [Student] will take part in at least 3 separate back-and-forth exchanges of 4 or more turns (at least 2 turns by [Student]) per 25-minute lunch on 4 of 5 days across 3 consecutive weeks, as measured by a twice-weekly 25-minute observation tallying exchanges and turns (baseline: 1 exchange of 2 turns per lunch; responds only when a peer asks a direct question).
12. [initiate] Job site. During the 15-minute break at a community work site, [Student] will initiate with a coworker or fellow intern (a greeting, a question about the shift) at least 2 times per break on 4 of 5 observed breaks with a coworker present across 3 consecutive weeks, as measured by the job coach’s frequency count from outside the break area (baseline: 0 across 5 breaks; speaks only to the job coach).
13. [respond] Community class. In a weekly community recreation or college class, [Student] will answer a classmate’s greeting or question within 10 seconds (speech, gesture, typed phone message or AAC) on at least 75% of classmate bids per class on 4 of 5 consecutive classes, as measured by a staff tally of bids and responses (baseline: 25%, 1 of 4 bids, by a nod).
14. [initiate] AAC. During a 30-minute school club meeting, [Student] will start an interaction with a peer by AAC (a prepared club page is available) at least 2 times per meeting on 4 of 5 consecutive meetings, as measured by a paraprofessional’s frequency count from the side of the room (baseline: 0 across 4 meetings; uses the device only for requests to adults).
15. [sustain] New peers. During a 15-minute cooperative task in a general education class, with classmates outside the lunch group, [Student] will take part in at least 2 exchanges of 4 or more turns (at least 2 by [Student]) per task on 4 of 5 observed tasks across 3 consecutive weeks, as measured by the co-teacher’s exchange tally (baseline: 0 across 4 class tasks; 1–2 per lunch with the structured group).

From a vague peer goal to a measurable one

Rewrite 1

Weak (from the earlier version of this page): “By (date), the student will engage in sharing materials and cooperative play in a group setting in 3 out of 4 group activities each week.”

Why it fails:

• “Engage” isn’t defined, so observers will score it differently.
• It bundles sharing materials and cooperative play.
• It has no baseline and no consistency window.

Strong: During a 20-minute cooperative art or building activity with 2–3 peers sharing one set of materials, [Student] will ask a peer for a material (in speech, sign, AAC or with a picture card) at least 2 times per activity on 4 of 5 observed activities across 3 consecutive weeks, as measured by a teacher frequency count (baseline: 0 requests to peers across 4 activities; waits for an adult to hand materials over). Cooperative play gets its own goal (goal 3).

Rewrite 2

Weak: “[Student] will improve peer relationships.”

Why it fails:

• A relationship is an outcome, not a behavior; no one can count it.
• It has no setting, no count and no baseline.

Strong (Grades 6–8): During the first 15 minutes of lunch at a table with classmates, [Student] will start an interaction with a peer (a greeting, a question or a comment, in speech or with a conversation-starter card) at least 2 times per lunch on 4 of 5 observed days across 3 consecutive weeks, as measured by a staff frequency count from a nearby table (baseline: 0 to peers across 5 days; 0–1 per lunch to the paraprofessional).

Before the IEP meeting, run every peer goal through three checks:

• Is it counted in a fixed window?
• Is a peer, not an adult, the partner?
• Does it name the student’s communication mode?

Three mistakes that sink peer goals:

1. Counting interactions with adults, so the graph climbs while peer contact stays at zero.
2. Observing at different times and places each week, so the numbers can’t be compared.
3. Writing a goal around what peers do (“peers will invite [Student] to play”) instead of what the student does.

Setting up times and places where peers can connect

IDEA requires districts to ensure each child with a disability participates with nondisabled children in nonacademic settings, “including meals, recess periods,” and clubs, to the maximum extent appropriate (34 CFR §300.117; §300.107). The IEP must state the supports for that participation and explain to what extent, if any, the student won’t participate (34 CFR §300.320(a)(4)(ii)–(iii) and (a)(5)). A goal in those settings shows whether those supports work. List the arrangement that makes a goal possible (a peer network, trained partners, a lunch group) in the IEP’s supplementary aids and services. Pair each setup with the goal it serves:

• Peer support arrangements → respond and sustain goals in general education classes (7, 15). Classmates recruited, trained and supported by staff give academic and social help, so the adult no longer has to provide all support. In a randomized trial with 99 high school students, those with peer supports had more peer interaction, more progress on social goals and more new friendships than students supported only by adults (Carter et al., 2016).
• Peer networks → sustain goals at lunch or in a club (8, 11). A small group of peers meets with the student regularly across a semester, with a staff facilitator. Students in peer networks gained more new social contacts and friendships than a comparison group, though few contacts reached beyond the school day (Asmus et al., 2017).
• Cooperative roles → respond goals (7). A role card (materials manager, timekeeper) gives peers a reason to ask the student something.
• Shared-interest activities → initiate goals (6, 14). A club built around what the student likes gives them something to say.
• Conversation-starter card → initiate goals (6, Rewrite 2); AAC page → goal 14. Fade the card (reading it, glancing at it, no card). Keep the AAC page and fade the adult prompts.
• Adult proximity → every goal. Prompt from a distance and step back once the exchange starts, unless the IEP requires an adult close by (health, safety, tactile signing, AAC modeling).

Role cards are easier to use when the whole class already works in group roles, as in these classroom routines for group work.

Peer-based instruction and intervention is one of 28 evidence-based practices for autistic children, youth and young adults identified by the National Clearinghouse on Autism Evidence and Practice (Steinbrenner et al., 2020). That supports the approach, not every lunch club or card. If a student misses when peers want to talk, or want to stop, start with social cues IEP goals.

Reporting peer interaction progress to families

Report on the schedule the IEP states. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and its regulations require the IEP to say how progress will be measured and when reports go home, “such as through the use of quarterly or other periodic reports, concurrent with the issuance of report cards” (34 CFR §300.320(a)(3)). Check your state for any required format, and whether rights have transferred to an adult student, in which case notices go to the student too (34 CFR §300.520).

Give families one plain line built from the counts, naming the goal, the setting and the partner: “Goal 11: on 3 of the last 5 observed lunches (goal: 4 of 5), [Student] had 3 or more back-and-forth conversations of 4+ turns with lunch-group classmates, up from no 4-turn exchanges in September. Close to the goal; next month we add a new group member.”

Then suggest one way to practice the same skill outside school: a short script for a playdate (younger students), a community club built around an interest, or the conversation-starter card on a family outing. For goals across all five SEL competencies, see social emotional IEP goals.

Keeping peer interaction data across a semester

Peer data is useful only if this week’s numbers compare with last month’s. Use one cycle: write, track, judge.

Write. Use the baseline count, taken in the goal’s own window and setting.

Track. Observe twice a week for 10–30 minutes, at the same time and place, from outside the group. Once a month, have a second observer count the same session and compare. Score each unit I (independent: no extra adult prompt), P (prompted) or N (not yet). An illustrative sheet for goal 11, five observed lunches:

Summary: 3 of 5 lunches with 3+ exchanges of 4+ turns; initiations independent on 2 of 5 days.

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

Graph the goal’s own measure for each observation (for goal 11, exchanges of 4+ turns; initiations can be a second line), with an aim line from the baseline to the criterion.

Judge.

• Check the graph every 2 weeks and at each IEP progress report; end the semester with a summary of the trend.
• With at least 6 points over 3 weeks, look at the 4 most recent. If all 4 fall below the aim line, change the setup first (a structured group, a shared-interest activity, the adult stepping back) before the IEP team considers a lower goal. This is a team rule adapted from the National Center on Intensive Intervention’s rule for academic data (NCII decision rules; data-based individualization).
• When the criterion holds for 3 weeks, add new peers or a new setting before raising the number. A skill that works with one trained group may not carry over, so check before moving on.

Peer-partner input. Once a month, ask peer partners: “How did lunch group go?” and “What would make it better?” Treat the answers as social-validity data that never replaces the count, and never share the student’s disability information.

Starting conversations: an Adult Transition (18+) lesson

In “Starting Conversations,” Lesson 3 of the Social Skills unit in Ori Learning’s Adult Transition (18+) course, students break starting a conversation into three steps: a friendly greeting, sharing your name, and a simple question or comment to keep it going. One example: “Maya meets someone new at work and says, ‘Hi, I’m Maya. Nice to meet you.'” By task level, students match each step to its meaning, choose what to say to a new classmate and a coworker, or build a Conversation Starter Plan: pick a situation, write a greeting and introduction, add a small-talk question, and practice it aloud.

A finished plan can supply the greetings and shift questions that goal 12 counts in the break room. Adult Transition (18+), for students in 18–22 programs, is an add-on to Ori Learning’s Transition Curriculum.

Sources

1. Giangreco, M. F., Edelman, S. W., Luiselli, T. E., & MacFarland, S. Z. C. (1997). Helping or hovering? Effects of instructional assistant proximity on students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 64(1), 7–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299706400101
2. Carter, E. W., Asmus, J., Moss, C. K., Biggs, E. E., Bolt, D. M., Born, T. L., Brock, M. E., Cattey, G. N., Chen, R., Cooney, M., Fesperman, E., Hochman, J. M., Huber, H. B., Lequia, J. L., Lyons, G., Moyseenko, K. A., Riesch, L. M., Shalev, R. A., Vincent, L. B., & Weir, K. (2016). Randomized evaluation of peer support arrangements to support the inclusion of high school students with severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 82(2), 209–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915598780
3. Asmus, J. M., Carter, E. W., Moss, C. K., Biggs, E. E., Bolt, D. M., Born, T. L., Bottema-Beutel, K., Brock, M. E., Cattey, G. N., Cooney, M., Fesperman, E. S., Hochman, J. M., Huber, H. B., Lequia, J. L., Lyons, G. L., Vincent, L. B., & Weir, K. (2017). Efficacy and social validity of peer network interventions for high school students with severe disabilities. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 122(2), 118–137. https://doi.org/10.1352/1944-7558-122.2.118
4. Steinbrenner, J. R., Hume, K., Odom, S. L., Morin, K. L., Nowell, S. W., Tomaszewski, B., Szendrey, S., McIntyre, N. S., Yücesoy-Özkan, S., & Savage, M. N. (2020). Evidence-based practices for children, youth, and young adults with autism. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, National Clearinghouse on Autism Evidence and Practice Review Team. https://ncaep.fpg.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/EBP-Report-2020.pdf
5. National Center on Intensive Intervention. (2024). Decision rules for analyzing academic progress monitoring data. https://intensiveintervention.org/sites/default/files/2024-12/apm-decision-rules.pdf; and Data-based individualization. https://intensiveintervention.org/data-based-individualization
6. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act regulations, 34 CFR §300.107 (https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/b/300.107), §300.117 (https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/b/300.117), §300.320 (https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/d/300.320) and §300.520 (https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/e/300.520); statute, 20 U.S.C. §1414(d) (https://sites.ed.gov/idea/statute-chapter-33/subchapter-ii/1414/d).

Related IEP Goal Resources

• writing SMART IEP goals
• social skills IEP goals
• perspective-taking IEP goals