Present levels (PLAAFP) for speech: how to write them from your data, with 3 examples

A speech-language present levels statement (the PLAAFP, or present levels of academic achievement and functional performance) describes what the student can do in communication right now, backed by dated data, and how the communication disorder affects their involvement and progress in the general education curriculum. IDEA requires it in every IEP (34 CFR §300.320(a)(1) (opens in a new tab)), and the annual goals are written from it and measured against it. A strong one names the skill, the data and where it came from, the conditions and support, how that compares with what’s expected at the student’s grade, and the educational impact.

In short: write present levels from data you can date and source (baseline probes, a screener, a language sample, work samples, teacher and parent reports), in the same measure the goal will use. Accuracy gets a percentage with the trials behind it; frequency gets a count. End with the impact on the student’s school day. Your district’s form comes first.

What does IDEA require in present levels?

Under 34 CFR §300.320(a)(1) (opens in a new tab), each IEP includes a statement of the child’s present levels of academic achievement and functional performance, including how the disability affects their involvement and progress in the general education curriculum (for preschoolers, their participation in appropriate activities). The same section requires measurable annual goals that meet the needs coming from the disability (a)(2), and a description of how progress toward those goals will be measured (a)(3).

ASHA’s page on documentation in schools (opens in a new tab) describes the present level statement as the foundation of the IEP: the team sets goals, services, supports and accommodations from it, and goals should come from the needs it identifies. That’s why a vague present level (“struggles with articulation”) causes trouble later. Nothing measurable can be built on it.

The five parts of a speech present levels statement

1. The skill, specifically. Not “articulation”, but “/s/ blends at the beginning of words.” Not “language”, but “answering why questions about a story read aloud.”
2. The data, with dates and sources. Baseline probes across more than one session, a screener, a language sample, a work sample. Give the numbers, the trials behind a percentage, and the dates.
3. The conditions and support. Single words or sentences, structured or conversational, picture cards or classroom text, independent or with what level of cue.
4. What’s expected. How the skill compares with what the classroom asks of a student at that grade, in plain words. If you cite standardized scores, name the test and date and explain them for parents.
5. The educational impact. How it shows up in the school day: reading aloud, following directions, answering in class, joining peers at recess. Credit teacher and parent reports to their source.

Example 1: articulation (accuracy goal)

The data (made up): Maya, a second grader, was probed on /s/ blends at the beginning of words on three days in September, 10 picture-naming trials each, with no cues or feedback. She got 4/10, 3/10 and 5/10, which is 12 of 30 trials, or 40%. In a 10-sentence probe she was correct on 1. Her teacher reports that classmates sometimes ask her to repeat herself during sharing time.

Present levels: Maya currently produces /s/ blends (such as st, sp and sn) at the beginning of single words with 40% accuracy (12 of 30 trials across three baseline probes, September 8–15, picture naming, no cues or feedback). In sentences, she produced them correctly in 1 of 10 trials. Most errors drop the /s/ (for example, “top” for “stop”). Her classroom teacher reports that peers sometimes ask her to repeat herself during sharing time and oral reading. These errors reduce how well she is understood when she reads aloud and speaks in class, which affects her participation in oral reading and speaking activities in the general education curriculum.

Why it works: the 40% has its trials and dates behind it, the conditions are named, and the goal can now use the same measure: “Maya will produce /s/ blends at the beginning of words with 80% accuracy, independently, on 3 consecutive probes.” Her baseline and her goal are measured the same way.

Example 2: language (accuracy with a cue level)

The data (made up): Jonah, a fourth grader, answered 4 of 10 “why” questions about a grade-level story read aloud when he could have up to a moderate cue (a choice of two answers), and 1 of 10 on his own. A screener in October showed the same pattern on inferential questions. His teacher shares two reading-response work samples where his written answers to “why” questions were incomplete.

Present levels: When a grade-level story is read aloud, Jonah answers “why” questions with 40% accuracy given no more than moderate cues (4 of 10, October 6), and 10% independently (1 of 10). Most correct answers needed a choice of two. An October screener showed similar difficulty with inferential questions, while literal “who” and “what” questions were a relative strength. Two reading-response work samples, shared by his teacher, show incomplete written answers to “why” questions. This affects his ability to answer comprehension questions and explain his reasoning in fourth-grade reading and content-area lessons.

Why it works: it gives both numbers, the cued score and the independent one, so the team can see how much support is behind the 40%. With a choice of two, some correct answers may be guesses, which is another reason to report the independent number.

Example 3: social communication (frequency goal)

The data (made up): Ella, a first grader, was observed in three 20-minute structured games with two peers. She started a comment or question on her own 1, 0 and 2 times, and 3, 2 and 3 more times after an adult prompt. Her teacher reports she usually plays near, not with, classmates at recess.

Present levels: During 20-minute structured games with two peers, Ella initiated a comment or question to a peer independently 1, 0 and 2 times across three observations (September 22–October 6), an average of 1 per activity. She initiated 2 to 3 more times per activity after an adult prompt. Her teacher reports that at recess she usually plays near classmates rather than with them. Limited initiation with peers affects her participation in partner work, group activities and play, which are part of her first-grade school day.

Why it works: there’s no percentage, because nobody counted how many chances Ella had. Writing “Ella initiates with 30% accuracy” would invent a denominator. A frequency baseline is a count, under named conditions, and the goal should be a count too.

Common present-levels mistakes

• Test scores with no meaning attached. A standard score alone doesn’t tell a parent or teacher what the student can do in class.
• One good (or bad) day. Use more than one probe, and give the dates.
• A different measure than the goal. If the goal is independent accuracy in words, the present level needs independent accuracy in words.
• Percentages for counts. Frequency stays a count.
• No educational impact. IDEA asks how the disability affects involvement and progress in the general curriculum. Say it in classroom terms.
• Last year’s paragraph, lightly edited. Present means now. Start from this year’s data.

Can an app draft present levels from your data?

Full disclosure: I built SLPcentral, so weigh this section accordingly. In SLPcentral, the data for a present-levels statement is already there: the screener you ran in the app, each goal’s baseline and recent data points, and the cue level behind every trial. Tap Draft present levels on a screener’s results, or pick a student’s goals and a date range, and Ollie, the app’s AI assistant, drafts a statement from those numbers. It’s labeled as a draft, the app flags any number it can’t trace back to your data, and you add what only you know (teacher reports, the impact on the school day) before you save it yourself.

That’s the difference from a general chatbot: Ollie already knows the caseload’s data, while ChatGPT only knows what you paste into it. The client names you’ve saved are swapped for a code like CLT_X92J before anything goes to the AI. A name you type into free text can still be sent, so keep names out of it.

Once present levels are set, the progress report template and examples show how to report against them each quarter, and SLP SOAP note examples show the session notes in between. Licensed SLPs can start a 14-day free trial on yearly, 7-day on monthly; see pricing.

Frequently asked questions

Sources

• IDEA regulations, 34 CFR §300.320 (opens in a new tab) ((a)(1) present levels and their effect on the general education curriculum; (a)(2) measurable annual goals; (a)(3) how progress is measured and reported)
• ASHA Practice Portal, Documentation in Schools (opens in a new tab) (the present level statement as the base for goals, services and supports; data sources)
• ASHA, AI Considerations for CSD Professionals (opens in a new tab) (review AI-assisted documentation)

Drafted with AI help from the sources listed, then reviewed and edited by Ryan Lillard. Students in examples are fictional. This article is general information, not legal advice; follow your district’s forms and procedures. Ollie is an AI assistant; he drafts, you decide.