Perspective-Taking IEP Goals: 16 Examples for Teachers and SLPs

A substitute walks in, and a student tells her to “do it like yesterday,” sure she knows what yesterday looked like. A perspective-taking IEP goal measures whether a student can work out what someone else sees, knows, thinks or wants, and then change what they say or do because of it. Every goal here starts from a baseline: ideally one number from a structured probe and one from a real class or work setting.

The goals, by skill:

• What others can see and know (3 goals)
• Why someone thinks or feels that way (3 goals)
• Finding out instead of assuming (3 goals)
• Adjusting what you say for the listener (4 goals)
• Two sides of a disagreement (3 goals)
• 23 more one-line goals to adapt

What perspective-taking looks like at school

Perspective-taking is part of what CASEL calls social awareness: “The abilities to understand the perspectives of and empathize with others, including those from diverse backgrounds, cultures, and contexts” (CASEL).

For goal writing, it breaks into five skills, and the present levels show which of them need a goal.

Underneath the first two rows sits theory of mind: understanding that other people can believe something different from what you know. In studies of false-belief tasks, older preschoolers consistently pass and younger children usually do not (Wellman, Cross and Watson, 2001).

Sharing a perspective-taking goal with the SLP

A perspective-taking goal can be shared between the speech-language pathologist (SLP) and the classroom teacher. One workable split: the SLP runs a structured probe (picture scenes, short stories or video clips, each scored 0–2) and a 10-minute conversation sample with an unfamiliar partner, and the teacher counts the skill in class. Mental-state words (know, think, guess, forget, believe) can also be language targets. Speech-language pathology is a related service under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (34 CFR 300.34(c)(15)), and under some state standards it is the student’s special education itself (300.39(a)(2)(i)). The IEP team must also consider every child’s communication needs (300.324(a)(2)(iv)).

ASHA’s Practice Portal page on social communication disorder says social communication skills include the ability to “understand the perspectives of others”, and it lists attributing “thoughts, beliefs, and feelings” to oneself and others (theory of mind) among the abilities an SLP may assess. It describes treatment as often collaborative with classroom teachers and special educators, and says social skills intervention “provides continuity of services across settings” (ASHA).

A Cochrane review found some evidence that theory-of-mind skills can be taught to autistic people, but little evidence that the skill lasted or carried over to other settings, and it rated that evidence low or very low in quality (Fletcher-Watson et al., 2014). So at least one number in the IEP should come from a classroom or work setting.

If the student misses the cue itself, such as a frown or a flat “fine”, start with a goal from our social cues IEP goals guide, which also sets out how the SLP and the teacher split one goal’s data.

Score a probe and watch a week of class first

Take the baseline from two sources in the same week: the SLP’s probe and a class count.

The probe. Build 10 items in one fixed format, for example 5 short stories and 5 video clips, each asking one question. Score each item 0 (incorrect or no response; note when the answer came from the student’s own view), 1 (correct without a reason, or with a wrong one) or 2 (correct with a reason). The SLP gives 3 probes in one week, and the baseline is the median number of items at 2 points.

Write new items for every probe, keeping the format, length and scoring the same; a bank written at the start of the year makes that workable. On a heavy caseload, probe every other week and write the criterion in consecutive probes instead of weeks. To catch confusing items, try the probe on two or three classmates (if district policy allows) and drop any item most of them miss. It is a team-built probe rather than a standardized test. If it re-uses scenarios taught in lessons, the score can reflect recall instead of the skill.

The class count. Pick one named 10-minute setting, such as science group work, lunch or a job-site break. On 3 days that week, tally each opportunity (say, a group member who arrived late or was out of the room missed directions that [Student] heard) and each use:

Every goal below has five parts:

• Baseline: a number from the probe or the count, in parentheses at the end, counting the same thing as the criterion.
• Condition: the probe material or the named setting.
• Observable behavior: says, signs, writes, types, tells, asks or selects on an augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) device; the goal states which.
• Criterion with a window.
• Method: who records it, on which sheet.

Perspective-taking IEP goal examples by skill

These 16 perspective-taking IEP goals cover five skills and all three grade bands, each in the five-part format above. The numbers are examples, so adapt them to your student’s present levels. Four rules apply to every goal:

• Start it with “By [date]” or “Within 36 instructional weeks”, date the baseline (these are from September), and state how often it’s measured.
• A response counts only without an adult prompt, unless the goal names the support.
• The first person named records the data; a second adult rescores 1 session in 5. A week with fewer than 3 opportunities is combined with the next.
• Pair a probe-only goal with a class or work goal for the same skill. A goal with a probe part and a class part is met only when both parts are.

What others can see and know

• [Grades K–5] During a barrier task with an adult (a two-sided picture card, or an object behind a screen), [Student] will say, point to or select on an AAC device which of 3 pictures the adult can see, correct on 9 of 10 items on 2 consecutive weekly probes, as measured by the SLP’s probe sheet (baseline: 4 of 10 items, the median of three probes; on the other 6, named their own side).
• [Grades 6–8] After a short story or video clip in which one character misses a key event, [Student] will answer one question about what that character knows (“Maya missed the announcement. When does she think the test is?”), giving a reason based on what the character saw or was told, scoring 2 points on at least 8 of 10 probe items on 3 consecutive weekly probes, as measured by the SLP’s probe sheet with new items each week; and in science group work will fill in a classmate who missed the directions in at least 75% of opportunities in each of 2 consecutive weeks, as measured by the science teacher’s tally (baseline: 2 points on 3 of 10 items, the median of three September probes, answering with what [Student] had seen on most of the other 7; filled in a classmate in 1 of 4 opportunities, 25%, in the week of 9/14).
• [Grades 9–12 and 18–22 programs] When a new coworker, substitute or visitor joins the work-based learning site or a classroom job (a real arrival, or a staff member new to the site whom the job coach sends every 2 weeks), [Student] will tell that person, without a prompt, one thing from a pre-agreed list that they need and could not have known (where supplies are, the next step, break time), in 3 of 4 consecutive arrivals, as measured by the job coach’s checklist, with role-play practice graphed separately (baseline: 1 of 4 arrivals; waited to be asked in the other 3).

Why someone thinks or feels that way

• [Grades K–5] Given an 8-item probe of short stories or picture sequences that state what a character likes, where the character’s preference differs from [Student]’s (“Sam loves rain”), [Student] will predict how the character will feel and give a reason based on what the character likes (spoken, signed or on AAC, with or without the word “because”), scoring 2 points on 7 of 8 items on 2 of 3 consecutive biweekly probes, as measured by the SLP’s 0–2 rubric (baseline: 2 points on 2 of 8 items; answered with their own preference on 5).
• [Grades 6–8] Given a discussion scenario in which two people react differently to the same event (a move to a new school, a surprise quiz), answered in a small group, in writing or on AAC, [Student] will state one reason each person may see it differently, naming a factor such as past experience, what they know or what they want, scoring 2 points (2 = a reason for each person, 1 = for one, 0 = own reaction only) on 3 of 4 scenarios on 2 probes two weeks apart, as measured by the teacher’s rubric (baseline: 2 points on 0 of 4 scenarios; described only their own reaction).
• [Grades 9–12 and 18–22 programs] Before changing a shared plan [Student] starts at the job site or in a group project (leaving early, switching tasks), [Student] will tell the affected person what will change for them and check that it works for them (any check question, such as “Is that OK for you?”), in at least 80% of logged plan changes (minimum 6) across the grading period, as measured by the job coach’s checklist (baseline: 2 of 10; left or switched without telling in 6, told but did not check in 2).

Finding out instead of assuming

• [Grades K–5] At centers or recess, when a peer says no to the game [Student] chose, [Student] will ask what the peer wants to play, or offer a choice of two, instead of repeating the request, in 8 of 10 recorded opportunities within a 4-week period, as measured by the paraprofessional’s tally; walking off to play something else is not scored either way (baseline: 2 of 10 over 2 weeks; repeated the request in the other 8).
• [Grades 6–8] In a role-play where the SLP plays a peer whose reason is unclear (the peer turns down an invitation, or doesn’t answer a message), [Student] will say a clue the peer gave or ask the peer about their reason before stating an opinion (naming a similar time from their own life counts when [Student] then checks it with the peer), in 4 of 5 scenarios on 3 consecutive weekly probes, as measured by the SLP’s probe sheet (baseline: 1 of 5 scenarios; stated a guess as fact in 4).
• [Grades 9–12 and 18–22 programs] Given 15 written practice messages from a group-project partner or coworker, 10 of which could mean more than one thing, [Student] will ask a checking question that names both readings before replying (“Do you mean redo it, or just fix the ending?”) on 9 of the 10 unclear messages on 2 consecutive probes, as measured by the SLP’s probe set; the 5 clear messages are a check against over-asking rather than a target, and direct replies to them should hold at 4 or 5 (baseline: asked on 3 of 10 unclear messages and replied to their own reading on 7; replied directly to all 5 clear ones).

Adjusting what you say for the listener

• [Grades K–5] When telling an adult about something the adult did not see (the weekend, recess), [Student] will name who and where before what happened, in 8 of 10 retellings across 2 consecutive weekly sessions, as measured by the SLP’s retelling probe, which uses one open prompt (“Tell me about recess”) and no follow-up question before scoring (baseline: 2 of 10; started mid-event, as in “And then he pushed it!”).
• [Grades 6–8] In a 10-minute conversation sample with an unfamiliar partner, before or when mentioning a person, game or show the partner may not know, [Student] will check (“Do you know ___?”) or explain it in one sentence, in at least 75% of opportunities (at least 4 per sample) on each of 2 consecutive monthly samples; right after each sample, [Student] will mark yes or no for each reference the SLP lists, agreeing with the SLP on at least 75% of them, as measured by the SLP’s conversation sample and the student self-check (baseline: 1 of 4 in the September sample; self-check agreed with the SLP on 1 of 4).
• [Grades 9–12 and 18–22 programs] When telling a staff member or peer about an event the listener did not see, [Student] will give the background the listener needs (who, where, what happened first) before the main point, without a prompt, in at least 4 of 5 elicited retellings in each weekly speech session and in at least 3 of 4 retellings the teacher or job coach logs each week, for 3 consecutive weeks, as measured by the SLP’s conversation sample and the classroom or job-site tally (baseline: gave the background in 1 of 5 elicited retellings in speech and 0 of 4 logged retellings in class; listeners asked “who?” or “where?” after 3 of the 4 class retellings).
• [Grades 9–12 and 18–22 programs] At each scheduled end-of-task check-in with a supervisor at the job site, [Student] will give the update the supervisor needs (what is done, what is next, and any problem if there is one) instead of a one-word answer, in 9 of 10 observed check-ins across 4 weeks, as measured by the job coach’s checklist (baseline: 4 of 10; a one-word update or none in 6).

Two sides of a disagreement

These goals stop at understanding the other side; when the next step is repairing things with a friend, see our friendship IEP goals.

• [Grades K–5] During a disagreement over materials in one named center block, [Student] will say what the other child wants (“You want the red one”) before saying what [Student] wants, in 6 of 8 recorded disagreements over 6 weeks, as measured by the paraprofessional’s tally (baseline: 1 of 6 recorded disagreements over 2 weeks; stated their own want or took the item in the other 5).
• [Grades 6–8] In a structured discussion or debate in one named class, [Student] will restate the other side’s point and ask a check question (such as “Did I get that right?”) before giving their own view, scoring 2 points on the teacher’s rubric (2 = the point and the reason behind it, then a check question; 1 = the point only, or no check question; 0 = own view or off the point) in 4 of 5 discussions per month for 2 consecutive months (baseline: 2 points in 1 of 5 September discussions).
• [Grades 9–12 and 18–22 programs] Given an issue chart for three people on an issue the class has not studied (a later school start time: a teacher, a student and a parent; or a schedule change at work: a supervisor, a coworker and a customer), [Student] will explain what each person would think and what in their role or experience leads them there, in writing, speech or on AAC, scoring 2 points (2 = a view and a reason tied to role or experience, 1 = a view only, 0 = own view) for all 3 people on 3 of 4 issues on 2 probes a month apart, as measured by the teacher’s rubric (baseline: all 3 people at 2 points on 0 of 4 issues; on most, gave only their own view).

More perspective-taking goals to adapt

These one-line perspective-taking goals still need a baseline in the same unit as the criterion before you set the numbers.

Rows scored on stories and texts overlap with reading inference, so check them against the student’s reading comprehension goals.

Turning an emotion-labeling goal into a perspective-taking goal

An emotion-labeling goal becomes a perspective-taking goal when it names the perspective skill, fixes the material or setting, and counts the same thing at baseline and criterion.

Weak (from an earlier version of this page): “By (date), the student will identify and label emotions in others in various situations, improving from recognizing emotions correctly in 2 out of 10 opportunities to 8 out of 10 opportunities.”

Why it fails:

• “Identify and label emotions” usually means reading faces. That is a social cues goal.
• “Various situations” fixes neither the material nor the setting, so 2 of 10 in September and 8 of 10 in May may measure different things.
• Nobody is named to measure it, and nothing says how many probes in a row count, so “8 out of 10” could happen once.

Strong [Grades 6–8]: Given 10 short scenarios, read aloud or on video, in which a character’s feeling follows from what the character wanted or knew (no face shown), [Student] will state the likely feeling and the reason in the situation, scoring 2 points on 8 of 10 items on 2 consecutive biweekly probes, as measured by the SLP’s probe sheet (baseline: 2 points on 2 of 10 items, the median of three probes in this format).

Check your own draft:

1. Does it name which perspective skill it targets: see and know, why, finding out, adjusting, or two sides?
2. Is the material or setting fixed, so the score means the same thing each time?

Present levels that lead to a perspective-taking goal

IDEA requires the present levels to say how the disability affects the student’s involvement and progress in the general education curriculum, and the annual goals to be measurable (34 CFR 300.320(a)(1)(i) and (a)(2)(i)). The part of the present levels behind the Grades 6–8 goal under “What others can see and know” might read:

On three 10-item story and video probes the SLP gave on 9/15, 9/16 and 9/17 (stories read aloud, answers spoken), [Student] explained what a character knew, with a reason, on a median of 3 of 10 items; two classmates given the same probe as an informal check scored 2 points on 9 and 10 of 10 items. On most of the others, [Student] answered with what [Student] had seen. [Student] answers literal questions about the same stories correctly. In science group work (the science teacher’s tally, week of 9/14), [Student] filled in a classmate who had missed the directions in 1 of 4 logged chances; twice the group stalled while [Student] assumed everyone knew the next step. [Student] says group work is “confusing because people don’t say what they mean.” This affects [Student]’s participation in small-group work in general education science.

In developing the IEP, the team must also consider the parents’ concerns and the latest evaluation’s results (300.324(a)(1)). And the student’s words point to a support: directions given to the group in writing as well as aloud.

Perspective-taking goes both ways

Damian Milton’s “double empathy problem” argues that misunderstanding between autistic and non-autistic people runs both ways (Milton, 2012): a non-autistic classmate can misread an autistic student as easily as the reverse.

So the goals here measure whether the student works out what another person sees, knows or wants. None of them asks the student to look non-autistic, so there are no eye-contact, “quiet hands” or “appropriate empathy” goals. The student’s own perspective belongs in the data too: in the present levels, and in reflection such as the lesson’s journal prompt below. When staff or classmates need to learn the student’s way of communicating, the IEP can list that under supplementary aids and services or supports for school personnel (300.320(a)(4)) instead of in the student’s goals.

Perspective-taking needs come from the present levels, whatever the eligibility category. And if a scenario or a real event involves a peer in distress, the student’s step is telling an adult, who follows the school’s process. No goal makes the student responsible for the peer.

Tracking probe scores and classroom use together

On the progress report, the SLP’s probe score and the teacher’s class count (taken 2–3 days a week) go side by side.

Baseline: 2 points on 3 of 10 items (median of 3 probes); 1 of 4 (25%) in class. Goal line: 8 of 10 items at 2 points on 3 weekly probes in a row; at least 75% in class, 2 weeks in a row.

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

Plot both lines on one 0–100% chart, each labeled with its denominator, draw an aim line for each from baseline to criterion, and look at the graph every 2 weeks. Report progress on the schedule the IEP states (300.320(a)(3)); if progress stalls, the team revises the IEP as appropriate (300.324(b)(1)(ii)(A)).

Data-based individualization is a cycle: monitor progress and, when the student isn’t responding, find out why and adapt the intervention (NCII). NCII’s page sets no number of data points, so these are starting rules a team might agree on:

• The probe sits below the aim line for 3 probes in a row: re-teach, or simplify the teaching material (fewer characters, pictures added). Keep the probe itself fixed; if it has to change, take a new baseline and amend the goal.
• The probe climbs but the class count lags, as in the example above (7 of 10 on the probe, 2 of 4 in class): first check the number of opportunities, the setting and how clearly the group gives directions. If those hold, the gap is likely carry-over, the weak spot the Cochrane review found. Then prompt in the moment, practice with a peer and add a second setting. Don’t raise the goal yet.
• The class count rises but the probe doesn’t: check the probe itself (reading load, abstract stories) before deciding the skill hasn’t grown.
• Both lines sit above their aim lines for 3 points in a row: consider raising the goal.
• The skill breaks down only in heated moments: regulation comes first, so pair this goal with one of the self-regulation IEP goals.

Once a skill reaches criterion, run a maintenance probe 4–6 weeks later.

For families, two plain sentences from the graph: “On the latest weekly check, [Name] explained what a story character knew, with a reason, on 7 of 10 questions, up from 3 of 10 in mid-September. In science group work it showed up in 2 of 4 chances that week, so the teacher is prompting it there.”

Where supports and teaching methods go in the goal

A support the student uses during the measured response belongs in the goal’s condition: a “three ways to find out” cue card (listen, think of a similar time, ask, from the lesson below) or a “who, where, what first” card on the desk or job-site clipboard. Teaching methods used between probes, such as barrier games, pausing a story to ask “What does she know right now?”, drawn thought bubbles and role swaps, stay out of the goal.

Questions teams ask about perspective-taking goals

Can you give me an example of perspective taking?

A classmate missed the directions, and the student tells them what to do next instead of assuming they heard. That is perspective taking: working out what someone else sees, knows, thinks or wants, then adjusting. Other examples: telling an aunt who wasn’t at recess who was there before what happened, or saying why a friend wants pizza before arguing for tacos.

What is an IEP goal for perspective-taking skills?

One example: after a short story in which a character misses a key event, the student explains what that character knows, with a reason, on 8 of 10 probe items on 3 consecutive weekly probes, and fills in a classmate who missed the directions in at least 75% of class opportunities. A usable goal names one perspective skill, a fixed condition, a criterion with a window and who measures it, from a baseline in the same unit.

How do you measure perspective taking in an IEP goal?

With two numbers from the same week. The SLP gives a 10-item probe in one fixed format, scores each item 0–2 and counts items at 2 points; the teacher tallies opportunities and uses in one named 10-minute class setting. The probe shows the skill in a controlled task; the class count shows whether it carries over to real group work.

Do students with ADHD struggle with perspective taking?

Some do, though on average less than autistic students. A 2016 meta-analysis of 44 studies found lower theory-of-mind scores in people with ADHD than in comparison groups, with larger differences in autism, no significant difference in adults with ADHD, and general cognitive difficulties contributing (Bora and Pantelis, 2016). Either way, write the goal from the student’s present levels.

For attention, impulse and peer goals written from ADHD present levels, see these ADHD IEP goal examples by grade band.

Classroom lesson: “Taking Perspective” (Transition Grades 9–10)

In “Taking Perspective”, from the Grades 9–10 Social Skills unit of Ori Learning’s Transition Curriculum for special education, students learn three ways to understand someone else’s view. They pay attention to what people say. They “Think about how you felt when you were in a similar situation or how you would feel if you were in their place.” And if that doesn’t help, they “ask someone about their perspective.” The lesson gives the reason: “Recognizing that everyone sees the world differently can help us be more understanding, kind, and respectful towards other people.”

Three tiered activities follow: matching each perspective to the factor behind it; scenarios such as “You see a new student sitting alone at lunch,” where students choose between imagining being new, assuming, and asking to join; and a chart of what a teacher, a peer and a parent would think about cell phones in school, and why. A journal prompt closes the lesson: “Think of a time when you disagreed with someone. What did you disagree about and why do you think you saw things differently?” The three ways to find out match the “Finding out instead of assuming” goals, and the chart has the same shape as the issue-chart goal under “Two sides of a disagreement”. Keep these scenarios and issues out of the probe.

Sources

1. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Social Communication Disorder (Practice Portal). asha.org
2. Fletcher-Watson, S., McConnell, F., Manola, E., & McConachie, H. (2014). Interventions based on the Theory of Mind cognitive model for autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2014(3), CD008785. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD008785.pub2. PubMed abstract
3. Milton, D. E. M. (2012). On the ontological status of autism: The “double empathy problem”. Disability & Society, 27(6), 883–887. doi:10.1080/09687599.2012.710008
4. Wellman, H. M., Cross, D., & Watson, J. (2001). Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind development: The truth about false belief. Child Development, 72(3), 655–684. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00304. PubMed abstract
5. National Center on Intensive Intervention. Data-Based Individualization. intensiveintervention.org
6. Bora, E., & Pantelis, C. (2016). Meta-analysis of social cognition in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Comparison with healthy controls and autistic spectrum disorder. Psychological Medicine, 46(4), 699–716. doi:10.1017/S0033291715002573. PubMed abstract
7. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act regulations: 34 CFR 300.320, 300.324, 300.34 and 300.39.

Related IEP Goal Resources

• writing SMART IEP goals
• social skills IEP goals
• peer interaction goals
• social-emotional IEP goals