IEP goals for nonverbal students: write the goal around the message, not the mouth
The single most common defect in IEP goals for nonverbal students is baking speech into the success criterion — “will verbally request,” “will say,” “will state aloud” — so the student can learn the actual skill and still fail the goal as written. The fix is modality-neutral wording: measure the communication (requesting, rejecting, responding, commenting) and accept any reliable mode — speech, sign, a speech-generating device, picture exchange, eye gaze. Federal law backs this up: the IEP team must consider every child’s communication needs and whether the child needs assistive technology (34 CFR § 300.324(a)(2)(iv)–(v)), and every goal still has to meet the measurability bar of § 300.320(a)(2). Below: the wording rules, then sample goals by area.
Three rules before you write anything
1. Name the modality menu, not one modality. “Using any communication modality (speech, sign, AAC device, or picture symbols)” keeps the goal about the skill. The exception is a deliberately chosen device-fluency goal — “will navigate to the requesting page and select a symbol” — where the device is the skill. 2. Define the response window and prompt level. For students at early communication stages, “within 10 seconds” and “with no more than one gestural prompt” are what make the data collectable — otherwise every trial becomes a judgment call. 3. Baseline what exists, however small. Reaching, leading an adult by the hand, pushing away, looking toward — those are communication behaviors, and they’re your baseline. The formula mechanics (condition, behavior, criterion, timeframe) are the same ones in our measurable goals guide, and the baseline logic is covered in baseline data.
Sample goals by area
All goals below are invented samples for illustration — starting points to adapt to your student’s present levels and your team’s measurement system, not language to copy into a real IEP.
Requesting (manding)
Sample goal: Given access to a speech-generating device with a personalized core vocabulary page, [Student] will request a desired item or activity using the device, speech, or sign in 8 of 10 structured opportunities across 3 consecutive data days, as measured by trial data.
The workhorse goal. Requesting is usually the first function to target because it pays the student immediately — the environment starts working for them.
Rejecting / protesting appropriately
Sample goal: When presented with a non-preferred item or activity, [Student] will indicate 'no,' 'stop,' or 'all done' using any communication modality, in place of dropping to the floor or pushing materials away, in 4 of 5 observed opportunities per day across 2 weeks, as measured by teacher data.
An appropriate 'no' is a communication skill, and it directly replaces behavior. Pair it with the function data from an ABC log if behavior is part of the picture.
Responding / joint attention
Sample goal: When a communication partner says [Student]'s name and presents a choice of two items, [Student] will make a selection by touching, pointing, or eye gaze within 10 seconds in 7 of 10 opportunities across 3 consecutive sessions, as measured by trial data.
Choice-making with a defined response window is measurable even for students at the earliest stages — and it's the foundation for almost everything else.
Commenting / social
Sample goal: During a preferred shared activity, [Student] will use their AAC system to make a comment or share attention (e.g., 'look,' 'more,' 'funny') at least 3 times per 15-minute session, in 4 of 5 sessions across 2 weeks, as measured by frequency data.
Communication beyond wants and needs. Frequency-per-session is the practical measure here — percentage-of-opportunities is hard to define for spontaneous comments.
Functional literacy / academics
Sample goal: Given a field of 4 picture-word cards, [Student] will match 20 functional sight words (name, stop, exit, lunch) to the corresponding picture with 90% accuracy across 3 consecutive weekly probes, as measured by probe data.
Academic goals stay fully available to nonverbal students — the response mode changes (matching, pointing, device selection), not the content.
Classroom routines
Sample goal: Following the classroom visual schedule, [Student] will transition between activities by checking the schedule and moving to the named area with no more than 1 gestural prompt in 4 of 5 transitions daily, across 2 consecutive weeks, as measured by routine data.
Independence goals reduce prompt dependence — track the prompt level, not just completion, or the data will hide the real story.
The AAC paper trail: what “considered” has to look like
For a student without reliable spoken language, the special-factors consideration is not a checkbox. A defensible IEP documents what system the student uses (device and vocabulary, sign, picture exchange), where it’s available (all settings — an AAC device that lives in the speech room isn’t a communication system, it’s a speech activity), and who supports it — including training for staff and, where the team agrees, family. If the team considered AAC and decided against it, the reasoning belongs in the meeting notes and in prior written notice if a parent requested it. Data collection is the other half of the paper trail: goals like the samples above live or die on trial and frequency data, which is exactly what our data collection sheets and ABC data guide are built for. For the broader goal-writing context around autism specifically, see IEP goals for autism and functional life skills goals.
FAQ
Should IEP goals for a nonverbal student require speech?
Almost never. A goal that says 'will verbally request' builds the student's disability into the failure condition — the student can master requesting with an AAC device and still 'fail' the goal as written. Write goals modality-neutral: 'will request a desired item using any communication modality (speech, sign, AAC device, or picture exchange).' The skill being measured is communication, not speech production. If speech production itself is an appropriate target, that's a separate, deliberately chosen goal — usually written with the SLP.
Does the IEP team have to consider AAC?
Yes, twice over. Under 34 CFR § 300.324(a)(2)(iv), the team must consider the communication needs of every child for whom they're relevant, and under § 300.324(a)(2)(v) it must consider whether the child needs assistive technology devices and services. For a student without reliable spoken language, 'we considered it' means the IEP documents what communication system the student uses and what support keeps it working — not a checked box.
How do I write a baseline for a student with no reliable response mode?
Baseline the communication behaviors that exist now, however small: reaches toward desired items, leads an adult by the hand, vocalizes in protest, looks at a named picture 2 of 5 times. 'No baseline' almost always means 'no measurement system yet,' not 'no behavior.' If the current data honestly shows near-zero, record that — a 0-2 out of 10 baseline with a defined measurement procedure is a legitimate starting point, and it makes progress visible instead of invisible.
How many goals should a nonverbal student's IEP have?
There's no legal number — the test is that every area of need identified in the present levels has a goal or a documented reason it doesn't. For students with complex communication needs, teams commonly land on a small set that covers requesting, rejecting or protesting appropriately, responding to others, and one or two academic or functional-routine goals written so the student's communication system is the access route, not the barrier.