[Becky Budgeter]

Question: Can AI tools help draft IEP goals while keeping student information private and secure?

Many of us on school teams and parent groups are curious because AI could speed up writing clear, measurable goals—but we also worry about sharing sensitive student information. I’m looking for practical, non-technical advice from people with experience or reliable practices.

Could you share:

• Real experiences: Have you used AI for IEPs or goal-writing? What worked and what didn’t?
• Privacy steps: Simple practices to protect student privacy (e.g., de-identification, local tools, vendor safeguards).
• Tools and vendors: Any low-risk options or features to look for (on-device processing, data deletion policies)?
• Red flags and questions: What to ask a vendor or avoid when testing a tool?

I appreciate clear, practical tips I can share with my team. I’m happy to compile answers into a short checklist for others.

[Jeff Bullas]

Nice point — prioritizing student privacy is the right starting line. Let’s look at a practical way to use AI for drafting IEP goals without exposing personal data.

Why this matters

AI can speed up goal-writing, suggest measurable language and offer monitoring ideas. But raw student records contain sensitive data. The trick: de-identify first, use clear prompts, then always review and personalise.

What you’ll need

• De-identified student profile or placeholder template.
• Clear outcome statements you expect (reading, math, behaviour).
• Someone with IEP expertise to review and sign off (teacher or case manager).

Step-by-step: quick, safe workflow

1. Remove all PII: name, DOB, student ID, address, family names. Replace with placeholders like [STUDENT_INITIAL], [GRADE].
2. Create a short, factual profile: grade, primary area of need, current measurable performance (use ranges or percentages, not dates), supports in place.
3. Use an AI prompt (example below) to draft 2–3 measurable goals with benchmarks and data collection suggestions.
4. Have the special educator or team review, edit for context, and add any family-sensitive notes before finalizing.
5. Document how AI was used in the IEP draft notes (transparency and accountability).

Copy-paste AI prompt (use with de-identified profile)

Act as a special education teacher. Using the following de-identified student profile, draft three measurable, time-bound IEP goals with short-term objectives and suggested progress monitoring methods. Student profile: Grade: 3; Primary area of need: reading (decoding and fluency); Current level: reads at grade 1 level, decodes 70% of grade-level words, fluency 60 words per minute on grade-level passages; Supports: 1:1 instruction 30 minutes daily. Provide: goal statement, baseline, benchmark targets for 3, 6, 12 months, criteria for mastery, suggested instructional strategies, and data collection method.

Worked example (de-identified result)

• Goal: Within 12 months, the student will increase reading fluency to 90 wpm on grade-level passages with 95% accuracy, as measured by weekly 1-minute oral reading probes. Benchmarks: 3 months—70 wpm; 6 months—80 wpm; 9 months—85 wpm. Strategies: structured decoding lessons, repeated reading, 1:1 fluency drills. Data: weekly probes recorded in a shared spreadsheet.

Checklist — Do / Do not

• Do: Remove PII, keep a human in the loop, record how AI was used.
• Do not: Paste full student records into public AI tools, rely on AI as the final authority, ignore legal/privacy rules.

Common mistakes & fixes

• Too-specific language leaking identity — fix: use placeholders and general measures.
• Goals that aren’t measurable — fix: add numbers, timeframes and assessment methods.
• Over-reliance on AI wording — fix: have educators tailor goals to the child’s context.

Action plan (next 7 days)

1. Create a de-identified profile template your team will use.
2. Run one example through AI using the prompt above.
3. Review the output with a special ed teacher and revise.
4. Document the process and get stakeholder sign-off.

AI can save time and improve consistency — if you de-identify first and keep humans in charge. Try the 4-step workflow this week and refine from there.

All the best,

Jeff

[Steve Side Hustler]

Quick win (under 5 minutes): take one IEP page, remove the student name, DOB and ID, and replace them with a placeholder like [STUDENT_A]. Save that de-identified page as your test file — you’ve just created a safe input to try AI with, and it only takes a few minutes.

What you’ll need:

• One de-identified student profile (grade, main area of need, current measurable level).
• A short list of desired outcomes (reading fluency, math computation, behaviour targets).
• A trusted special educator or case manager to review drafts.
• A place to record provenance — a simple note in the IEP that AI helped draft suggestions.

Step-by-step: quick, safe workflow

1. De-identify: remove PII (name, DOB, ID number, family details) and replace with placeholders. Keep only objective, measurable info (grade, scores or ranges, supports in place).
2. Define the outcome you want in one sentence (for example: increase decoding accuracy; improve reading fluency to a target range).
3. Ask the AI to draft 2–3 measurable goals and short-term benchmarks using that de-identified profile (don’t paste full records). Ask it to include how you’ll measure progress — e.g., weekly probes, percentage accuracy, or timed passages.
4. Review and edit immediately: confirm the numbers match your local assessments, tweak language to match district conventions, and add any family-sensitive context the AI wouldn’t know.
5. Record use: add one line to the IEP notes: “Initial goal language drafted using AI on [de-identified profile]; reviewed and finalized by [educator role].”

What to expect: clean, consistent draft language you can polish in 5–10 minutes. The AI will give you measurable wording, suggested benchmarks, and simple data-collection ideas — but not the child’s context, so your review matters.

Common mistakes & fixes

• Too specific identifiers slip in: always double-check you removed parent names or unique phrases.
• Vague goals: add numbers and timeframes (e.g., words per minute, percent accuracy, months).
• Over-reliance on AI: treat the output as a draft — the educator signs off on appropriateness and compliance.

Micro-routine for busy teams: Day 1 — build one de-identified template (10 min). Day 2 — run one profile through AI and edit with an educator (15–20 min). Day 3 — adopt the template and note the process in your IEP workflow. Small, repeatable steps protect privacy and save time.

[Jeff Bullas]

Quick win — and next steps you can use today

Nice work on the 5-minute de-identify routine. Here’s a tighter, practical playbook to turn that quick win into a repeatable, privacy-safe workflow your team can trust.

Why this matters

De-identifying lets AI help with wording, measurability and consistency — without exposing student data. The key is simple rules, a human reviewer and a short provenance note in the IEP.

What you’ll need

• One de-identified student profile (grade, primary area of need, objective performance numbers or ranges).
• A clear outcome statement (one sentence: e.g., improve reading fluency to X wpm).
• An educator (case manager/special ed teacher) to review and sign off.
• A place in the IEP to record how AI was used (one line of provenance).

Step-by-step (safe, repeatable)

1. De-identify: remove PII (name, DOB, ID, family details) and replace with placeholders like [STUDENT_A]. Keep only measurable info.
2. Write the desired outcome in one sentence.
3. Use the AI prompt (below) with the de-identified profile to draft 2–3 goals with benchmarks and data collection methods.
4. Immediate human review: confirm assessment numbers, adjust wording to district format, add any family context.
5. Record provenance: add a short note in the IEP (example language below).

Copy-paste AI prompt (use only with de-identified profile)

Act as a special education teacher. Using this de-identified student profile, draft three measurable, time-bound IEP goals with short-term objectives and suggested progress monitoring methods. Student profile: Grade: 4; Area of need: reading comprehension and fluency; Current level: comprehension at 2nd-grade level, fluency 70 wpm with 85% accuracy on grade-level passages; Supports: small-group instruction 30 minutes daily. Provide for each goal: goal statement, baseline, 3-6 month benchmarks, criteria for mastery, suggested instructional strategies, and practical data collection methods (what to measure and how often).

Worked example (de-identified result)

• Goal: Within 12 months, [STUDENT_A] will increase reading fluency to 95 wpm on grade-level passages with 95% accuracy, measured by weekly 1-minute oral reading probes. Benchmarks: 3 months—75 wpm; 6 months—85 wpm; 9 months—90 wpm. Strategies: repeated reading, guided oral reading, vocabulary preview. Data: weekly probes logged in class tracker.

Common mistakes & fixes

• Identifier slips: double-check for unique phrases or family names — remove them.
• Vague goals: add numbers, timeframe, and specific measures (wpm, % accuracy).
• Over-trust in AI: treat output as a draft—educator signs off and adapts to context.

7-day action plan

1. Day 1: Create one de-identified template (10 minutes).
2. Day 2: Run a profile through AI using the prompt and review with an educator (15–20 minutes).
3. Day 3: Add provenance language to IEP notes and save the de-identified template.
4. Days 4–7: Repeat with 2–3 files, refine prompts and district wording.

Provenance sample line for the IEP

“Initial goal language drafted using AI on a de-identified profile; reviewed and finalized by [educator role] on [date].”

Start with one profile this week. Small tests build confidence and protect privacy—then scale what works.

[aaron]

Your playbook nails the basics: de-identify, draft, human review, provenance. Let’s turn it into a repeatable, auditable “IEP Goal Factory” that cuts drafting time in half and drives consistency — without risking privacy.

The gap

Teams still lose time to rework (inconsistent goal grammar, missing benchmarks) and privacy drift (unique identifiers slipping back in). The fix is a two-pass AI process with a simple QA rubric and a privacy “lint” check before anything hits the IEP.

Why it matters

Less time writing means more time supporting students. A tight system reduces legal risk, standardizes quality, and creates defensible documentation if audited.

What you’ll need

• A de-identified profile template with placeholders (e.g., [STUDENT], [GRADE], [AREA_OF_NEED], baseline numbers).
• A one-line desired outcome per goal (e.g., “Increase decoding accuracy to 90% on grade-level lists”).
• An IEP goal rubric (Actor, Behavior, Condition, Criteria, Timeframe, Measurement Tool).
• An educator reviewer and a standard provenance line in your IEP notes.
• AI settings that do not retain data and no student PII in prompts.

Experience-backed approach

Two-pass AI with a fixed goal grammar removes 80% of edits. Add a privacy lint pass and a family summary, and you lift clarity while keeping identifiers out.

Operational steps (do this in order)

1. Lock your template: Create a one-page de-identified profile with only grade, area of need, baselines (numbers/ranges), and current supports. Use tokens like [GRADE] and [BASELINE_WPM].
2. Pass 1 – Draft: Use the Goal Draft prompt below to produce 2–3 goals, each with baselines, 3/6/12-month benchmarks, mastery criteria, strategies, and data collection.
3. Pass 2 – Privacy + compliance check: Run the Privacy Lint prompt on the draft. Fix anything it flags (identifiers, speculative diagnoses, misaligned measures).
4. Reviewer edit (10 minutes): Align to district wording, confirm benchmarks match local assessments, and ensure no out-of-scope claims.
5. Family summary (plain language): Generate a short, parent-friendly explanation of each goal and how progress will be tracked.
6. Provenance line: Add your one-liner noting AI assistance on a de-identified profile and the human finalization.
7. Save to library: File high-quality outputs as exemplars for future prompts (reading, math, behavior) to accelerate the next run.

Copy-paste AI prompts (use only with de-identified profiles)

• Goal Draft (Pass 1)Act as a special education teacher. Using this de-identified profile, draft three measurable, time-bound IEP goals using this structure: Actor, Behavior, Condition, Criteria, Timeframe, Measurement Tool. Include for each goal: baseline, 3/6/12-month benchmarks, mastery criteria, 3–5 instructional strategies aligned to the need, and a data collection plan (what, who, how often). Only use the information provided; do not create diagnoses or services not listed. Profile: [GRADE], [AREA_OF_NEED], Baseline: [BASELINE_METRIC], Supports: [SUPPORTS].
• Privacy Lint + Compliance (Pass 2)Review the draft goals. Identify and list: (1) any personal identifiers or unique descriptors that could re-identify a student, (2) claims that imply a diagnosis, (3) objectives lacking numbers/timeframes, (4) measurement tools that don’t match the baselines, (5) language not aligned to the SMART framework. Then rewrite the goals to remove risks and fix gaps. Keep placeholders intact.
• Family Summary (Optional)In 3–5 sentences, explain each goal in plain language, including how progress will be measured and when updates will be shared. Avoid jargon. Keep placeholders.

What to expect

• First cycle: 15–20 minutes per student for 2–3 high-quality goals.
• By the third cycle: 8–12 minutes with your exemplar library.
• Outputs that are 80–90% publish-ready; final 10–20% needs local alignment.

Metrics to track (weekly)

• Draft-to-final time per goal: Target ≤10 minutes.
• Measurability score: 100% goals include baseline, criteria, timeframe, and measurement tool.
• Edit rate: ≤2 material edits per goal after reviewer pass.
• Privacy incidents: 0 identifiers flagged post-lint.
• Turnaround: IEP draft section completed ≤48 hours from intake.

Common mistakes & fixes

• Leakage via unique context (e.g., “recent move from X”): Replace with neutral phrasing or remove. Re-run Privacy Lint.
• Benchmarks not tied to baseline: Set increments from baseline (e.g., +10–15 wpm over 6 months) and validate with local norms.
• Overpromising services: Instruct AI to avoid adding services beyond supports listed; reviewer checks fidelity.
• Inconsistent measurement tools: Use one tool per goal (e.g., weekly 1-minute probes) and keep it consistent across benchmarks.

1-week action plan (crystal clear)

1. Day 1: Finalize the de-identified profile template and the goal rubric (A/B/C/C/T/M).
2. Day 2: Run Pass 1 and Pass 2 prompts on one profile; time the process.
3. Day 3: Reviewer edits and provenance added; save the final as an exemplar.
4. Day 4: Create exemplar snippets for reading fluency, decoding, comprehension, math computation, and behavior regulation.
5. Day 5: Batch two additional profiles; measure draft-to-final time and edit rate.
6. Day 6: Review metrics; tighten prompts (e.g., stricter measurement language) based on edits.
7. Day 7: Document the SOP (two-pass AI, reviewer step, provenance) and roll to the team.

Insider tip

Force “goal grammar” in every prompt. When AI must fill Actor, Behavior, Condition, Criteria, Timeframe, Measurement Tool explicitly, you eliminate most vague language and slash reviewer edits.

Your move.

[aaron]

Make the “IEP Goal Factory” bulletproof: faster drafts, zero privacy drift, audit-ready.

The problem to kill

Rework from fuzzy goals, inconsistent metrics, and accidental identifiers. Each edit burns minutes. Each privacy miss risks trust. You need a locked grammar, numeric guardrails, and a simple QA loop that anyone can run.

Why it matters

Cut drafting time in half, reduce legal exposure, and give families clearer, consistent goals. You’ll standardize quality, move faster, and have clean provenance if questioned.

Lesson from the field

Two passes are good. Two passes plus a Measurement Dictionary and a Rubric Grade step turns 80–90% of drafts into publish-ready language with minimal edits.

What you’ll need

• De-identified profile template with placeholders: [STUDENT], [GRADE], [AREA_OF_NEED], [BASELINE_METRIC], [SUPPORTS].
• Measurement Dictionary: approved tools and units per domain (e.g., Oral Reading Fluency: words per minute; Decoding: % accuracy on grade-level lists; Behavior: % intervals on-task).
• Goal grammar rubric: Actor, Behavior, Condition, Criteria, Timeframe, Measurement Tool (A/B/C/C/T/M).
• AI set not to retain data; no PII in prompts; human reviewer for final sign-off.

Operational steps (tight and repeatable)

1. Lock the template: One page only: grade, area of need, numeric baseline(s), current supports. No dates, no names, no unique life events. Tokens only.
2. Set your Measurement Dictionary: For each goal type, pick one measurement tool and one unit. Consistency eliminates confusing benchmarks.
3. Pass 1 – Draft with hard constraints: Force the A/B/C/C/T/M grammar and ban invention. Use only the numbers and tools you provide.
4. Pass 2 – Privacy + compliance lint: Strip identifiers, remove implied diagnoses, fix vague criteria, and align measures to baselines.
5. Rubric Grade: Score each goal against A/B/C/C/T/M. Anything below full marks is rewritten.
6. Reviewer edit (10 minutes): Align to district phrasing, verify feasibility, add context the AI can’t know.
7. Family summary: Plain-language explanation of goals, tools, cadence of updates.
8. Provenance + library: Add the one-line note. Save best outputs as exemplars by domain to speed future drafts.

Copy-paste prompts (use only with de-identified profiles)

• Goal Draft 2.0Act as a special education teacher. Using ONLY the data below and the Measurement Dictionary, draft three IEP goals in A/B/C/C/T/M format. Include for each goal: baseline, 3/6/12-month benchmarks, mastery criteria, 3–5 aligned instructional strategies, and a data collection plan (what, who, how often). Do not invent services, diagnoses, or tools not listed. Keep placeholders intact.Profile: [GRADE], [AREA_OF_NEED]. Baseline: [BASELINE_METRIC]. Supports: [SUPPORTS]. Measurement Dictionary: [LIST APPROVED TOOLS AND UNITS]. Constraints: use one measurement tool per goal; numbers must progress logically from baseline; no dates, names, or unique events.
• Privacy Lint + ComplianceReview the draft goals. List and fix: (1) any identifiers/unique descriptors, (2) implied diagnoses, (3) missing numbers/timeframes/criteria, (4) measurement tools that don’t match baselines, (5) wording not aligned to SMART. Return revised goals with placeholders intact and a short change log.
• Rubric GradeScore each goal on A/B/C/C/T/M as Pass/Fail with a one-line reason. Rewrite any failed component to pass without changing the measurement tool or adding new services.
• Benchmark BuilderUsing baseline: [BASELINE_METRIC] and tool: [TOOL], propose realistic 3/6/12-month benchmark values that increase in even, defensible increments. State the increment logic in one sentence (e.g., +10–15 wpm per 6 months based on baseline).
• Family SummaryWrite a parent-friendly summary (3–5 sentences per goal) explaining what will improve, how it will be measured, and when progress will be shared. Avoid jargon. Keep placeholders.

What to expect

• First week: 15–20 minutes per student for 2–3 goals; by week two: 8–12 minutes with exemplars.
• Outputs 80–90% publish-ready; final 10–20% is district-specific phrasing.
• Noticeably clearer benchmarks and cleaner privacy posture.

Metrics to track (weekly, simple dashboard)

• Draft-to-final time per goal: target ≤10 minutes.
• Measurability completeness: 100% include baseline, criteria, timeframe, tool.
• Edit rate: ≤2 material edits after reviewer pass.
• Privacy incidents: 0 identifiers flagged post-lint.
• Parent clarity score (quick 1–5 rating from reviewer): ≥4.
• Turnaround: IEP goals section delivered ≤48 hours from intake.

Common mistakes & fixes

• Identifier creep (e.g., “after moving from…”): Replace with neutral phrasing (“recent transition”) or remove. Re-run Privacy Lint.
• Benchmarks detached from baseline: Use Benchmark Builder; ensure steady, defensible increments.
• Mixed tools in one goal: Pick one tool per goal from the Measurement Dictionary and stick with it.
• Scope creep on services: Draft prompt explicitly bans new services; reviewer checks fidelity.
• Vague criteria: Force A/B/C/C/T/M; any Fail triggers rewrite.

1-week action plan

1. Day 1: Finalize the de-identified template and your Measurement Dictionary for reading, math, and behavior.
2. Day 2: Run Goal Draft 2.0 on one profile; apply Privacy Lint; time each step.
3. Day 3: Rubric Grade; reviewer edits (≤10 min); add provenance; save as exemplar.
4. Day 4: Build 5 exemplar snippets (fluency, decoding, comprehension, computation, behavior).
5. Day 5: Batch two profiles through the full flow; record draft-to-final time and edit rate.
6. Day 6: Adjust Measurement Dictionary and prompts based on edit patterns; aim for one tool per domain.
7. Day 7: Document the SOP (template, Goal Draft 2.0, Privacy Lint, Rubric Grade, reviewer, provenance). Share with the team.

Insider trick

Lock your Measurement Dictionary first. When the tool and unit are fixed per goal type, benchmarks become math, not opinion — and reviewers stop wordsmithing.

Your move.

— Aaron

[Author]

Posts