Published in the August 2026 issue of the ISHA Voice
By Maureen Marrandino, ASHA SEAL for Illinois and member Legislative and Regulatory Committee, Karen Kockler, ASHA SEAL for Illinois and member of the School Affairs Committee
The advent of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has prompted professionals to consider practical applications while also asking an important question: How can AI be used as a tool for generating ideas without compromising clinical judgment, evidence-based practice, and legal standards?
This question is particularly important when considering the use of AI in developing Individualized Education Program (IEP) goals and objectives.
Dr. David Bateman, writing for the SPED Law Blog, raises important questions about the use of AI to assist with IEP goal development—and highlights the potentially serious consequences of relying too heavily on AI-generated content.
Read Dr. Bateman’s article: “Using Artificial Intelligence (AI) to Assist in Writing IEP Goals”
Dr. Bateman concludes with a poignant question that every IEP team should consider:
“If the student’s name were [sic] removed from the IEP, would an experienced educator be able to determine that this goal was written specifically for this student and no other?” (What does [sic] mean in legal writing?)
If the answer is no, the team should reconsider whether the goal is truly individualized, educationally meaningful, and legally defensible.
Consider these two examples:
Goal 1:
By the annual review date, given a communication breakdown or a perceived change in signal quality in the educational environment, __________ will independently troubleshoot or advocate for the use of their hearing aids and FM system (e.g., asking the teacher(s) to wear the microphone, reporting a dead battery and changing it, requesting preferential seating or closed captioning) in 4 out of 5 opportunities across three sessions.
Goal 2:
By the annual review date, __________ will improve articulation by producing all age-appropriate speech sounds in sentences in 4 out of 5 trials.
Which goal is more likely to withstand scrutiny in a due process hearing?
More importantly, which goal demonstrates a meaningful understanding of the individual student?
The first goal provides context. It identifies a specific area of need, describes functional skills relevant to the student's educational environment, establishes measurable criteria, and reflects individualized supports. The second goal may be measurable, but without additional context, it provides little indication of why the goal is appropriate for this particular student or how it connects to the student's educational needs.
This distinction is critical. Creating specific, measurable, individualized, and defensible goals is not simply about satisfying legal requirements. It is fundamental to best practice. Well-developed IEP goals help teams identify meaningful outcomes, align supports with student needs, monitor progress, and provide students with opportunities to reach their full potential.
AI as a Tool—not the Decision Maker
AI can be valuable during the conceptualization and preplanning stages of IEP development. It can help professionals brainstorm possibilities, identify questions to consider, organize information, or generate potential starting points for discussion.
But there is an important boundary.
AI should support professional judgment—not replace it.
A licensed professional brings knowledge of the student, clinical expertise, educational context, evidence-based practices, and applicable legal and ethical standards that an AI system cannot independently establish. An AI-generated goal may sound appropriate, include measurable language, and appear professionally written while still being inappropriate for the individual student.
The responsibility ultimately remains with the professionals who know the student and participate in the IEP process.
As AI becomes increasingly accessible, the question should not simply be whether we can use it to write IEP goals. We should ask whether we are using it responsibly, ethically, and purposefully.
AI has a place in the IEP process—but that place should be carefully defined.
Use AI to generate ideas. Use professional expertise to determine what belongs in the IEP.
The goal is not to resist technology. It is to ensure that technology strengthens—not diminishes—the individualized, evidence-based, and legally defensible decision-making at the heart of special education.