Opinion ID: 156357
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Annual Goals and Short-Term Objectives

Text: 70 The February IEP listed six annual goals: (1) to improve reading skills; (2) to improve English language skills; (3) to facilitate academics; (4) to facilitate language; (5) to improve articulation; and (6) to enhance sport activities. Appellant's App. Vol. 4 at 45. It listed three items under Long-range planning: (1) improve compliance behavior; (2) improve self concept; and (3) improve academic skills. Id. at 46. To further the first annual goal (improving reading skills), the IEP listed seven short-term objectives. 11 To implement her second annual goal (improving English language skills), the IEP listed eight short-term objectives. 12 To implement her third annual goal (facilitating academics), the IEP listed five short-term objectives. 13 To implement her fourth annual goal (facilitating language), Molly's IEP listed two short-term objectives. 14 To implement her fifth annual goal (improving articulation), Molly's IEP listed three short-term objectives. 15 Finally, to implement her sixth annual goal (enhancing sports activities), Molly's IEP listed two short-term objectives. 16 16 71 The August 1993 addendum listed five annual goals: 1) to improve social skills; 2) to present functional level curriculum; 3) to facilitate language; 4) to improve articulation; and 5) to enhance sports activities. It reduced her time in regular classes from 56% to 25%. It contained a number of short-term objectives to implement each annual goal. 17 It increased the number of related services to be made available to Molly. 72 The hearing officer held that while more specific or more carefully tailored information could be provided ... [t]here is no rational basis to believe that procedural inadequacies compromised the student's right to an appropriate education or that the parents' opportunity to participate in the formulation process has been hampered. Memorandum and Order at 18, Addendum to Appellant's Br. at 18. The reviewing officer held that certain of the short-term objectives listed under the annual goals did not set intermediate steps between the present levels of performance and the goals and/or did not include objective criteria or evaluation procedures and data collection schedules for determining at least every 12 weeks whether the short-term objectives are being achieved. Review Officer's Decision at 14, Addendum to Appellant's Br. at 39. The officer also concluded that the five annual goals were inadequate, as they give the parent absolutely no idea of what his child is supposed to be able to accomplish within a year's time. Id. at 16, Addendum to Appellant's Br. at 41. The district court reversed the reviewing officer, stating [b]ecause there is no legal authority [requiring the District to set more specific annual goals] and because the plaintiff's parents played an active role in the formulation of the plaintiff's IEP, the court concludes that the plaintiff's IEPs adequately set forth annual goals. O'Toole, 963 F.Supp. at 1013. With respect to the short-term objectives, the court concluded that: 73 [w]hile most of [them] do not contain a specific mechanism under which [Molly's] progress is tested every twelve weeks, they all contain objective criteria by which [her] progress can be measured. Moreover, the uncontroverted evidence indicates that one of the [District's] representatives discussed [Molly's] progress with Mr. O'Toole in detail more than once every twelve weeks. Thus, although [Molly's] IEPs did not specifically provide for progress reports every twelve weeks, Mr. O'Toole clearly received such and then some. 74 Id. 75 We agree with the district court that the annual goals and short-term objectives comply with the procedural requirements of the IDEA and Kansas law. As the court noted, there is no legal authority requiring a particular level of specificity in the statement of annual goals. While some of the goals were general (to facilitate academics, to facilitate language, to present functional level curriculum), others clearly conveyed an articulable goal--to improve reading skills, to improve English language skills, to improve articulation, to improve social skills, to enhance sports activities. Moreover, while we agree that the short-term objectives for implementing the annual goals did not contain specific criteria for evaluating progress at least every twelve weeks, they contained either explicit or implicit criteria for evaluating general progress toward achieving the goals. 18 Given that IEPs are not required to provide the level of detail found in monthly instructional plans, we cannot say that the goals and objectives were inadequate. While we recognize that due weight must be accorded the reviewing officer's conclusion of inadequacy, our own review of the record convinces us that we cannot draw the same legal conclusion from the words contained in the IEPs.