Part III: Writing DAP Goals for Inclusive Settings

The following is the final part of a three-part article and is intended to describe developmentally appropriate goals and objectives for young children with disabilities which facilitate instructional inclusion in natural settings. Part I defined developmentally appropriate goals and objectives; Part II presented examples of DAP goals and objectives that have been effective with children in natural environments; and Part III shares some strategies for the development of DAP goals and objectives.

Recommended practices are much easier to hear about in a workshop, read in a journal or newsletter, or discuss with colleagues than to implement in everyday work activities. Early childhood special educators struggle daily with doing the "right" thing for the children and families they serve in a profession that has many new practices which are evolving rapidly. Because there never seems to be enough time to accomplish all the great workshop ideas and initiate the most recent recommended practices, service providers regularly adopt "it" the way it's always been done in their program, the way they learned "it" in college, or the way "it" seems to be easiest.

Writing DAP goals is particularly difficult because it is a team effort (not just the ECSE professional) in which there are no opportunities for advance preparation or practice (the easiest way to implement a new idea) because the goals are not identified until the team, guided by the family, identifies the priorities for the child's plan. In addition to the inability to pre-plan or practice, there are also the time constraints of the IEP meeting (e.g. family members can be away from work only for a specified time, team members have limited time they can stay between duties, evening time can be difficult to schedule) that reduces the comfort level required to try something new. Another complicating factor may be team members who question the value of DAP goals or who do not share the philosophy of integrated therapy. These factors may increase the possibility of conflict at a meeting where the overriding purpose is consensus. In the case of an initial IEP, the preferences of the child within the selected placement may not be known, reducing the team's ability to specify individual routines, materials, or learning partners. With all of these very real barriers, it is easy to see why the change process is so slow and difficult or simply nonexistent! For those of you still reading who feel "the gain is worth the pain", consider some of the following suggestions for implementing a DAP approach to goals and objectives.

Seek administrative support: Share information about why DAP goals are important; show an example of how they meet compliance and are acceptable (and even validated) for ECSE. Explain the benefits for both the child and the team members involved. Be prepared to problem solve the logistics of computer developed documents or changes necessary on the IEP form to accommodate the length of objectives. With the new reauthorization, the timing may be perfect!

Begin with a child whose family and team are familiar with each other: Begin with a team interested in trying new things and willing to commit to the extra time it will take to develop the IEP. This provides a less stressful and more supportive environment. Using a child with a previous IEP provides the team with necessary information useful for individualizing objectives.

Start with an easy skill to target: Begin with a skill that the team can easily implement. This should be one the child is motivated to learn, has multiple opportunities to practice where the skill is readily observed in different activities, and that uses materials the child prefers. While eventually you'll have to tackle those tougher areas in the IEP, set your team up for success initially.

Use a checklist to review for quality: Checklists such as those developed by Notari- Syverson (Notari-Syverson & Lerner Shuster, 1995) can assist the team in quickly reviewing the adequacy of the document in meeting the recommended practices for writing goals and objectives.

Get feedback from other team members (with the family's permission and deleting identifying information): Group intelligence can really be helpful in evaluating new practices. This process can also help you acquaint other team members with the concept of developmentally appropriate goals and objectives and begin to gain their interest in future implementation.

Stick with it: For some, this process will be a common sense approach to your work and will not require major changes, while for others, this will look and feel very different. If you focus on the advantages for the child, the individual modifications necessary for the team are worth the effort.

Submitted by Juliann Woods Cripe, Derek Jones, and Laura Major, Department of Special Education and Communication Disorders, Valdosta State University, Valdosta, GA

Notari-Syverson, A. R., & Lerner Shuster, S. (1995). Putting real-life skills into IEP / IFSPs for infants and young children. Teaching Exceptional Children, 27 (2), 29-32.

KITS knows that many of you in the field have already adopted a more "discipline free," integrated approach to IEPs or a holistic child approach. We invite you to share comments about your successes and barriers, examples or documents (with all identifying information eliminated), or your feedback about the feasibility of this approach for your program.

Robin Bayless

KITS / KUAP, 2601 Gabriel
Parsons, KS 67357

We will share your correspondence with our readers in future newsletters.

Back To Top

Back to the Winter 1998 Newsletter Page