Writing ILP Goals That Actually Work: A Guide for Early Childhood Educators (With Before-and-After Examples)
By Anne Livas, Certified Practising Speech Pathologist · Updated August 2026
Individual Learning Plans (ILPs), sometimes called Individual Education Plans (IEPs) or Inclusion Plans, are one of the most common administrative responsibilities in early childhood education and care (ECEC). Educators are expected to draft them regularly, yet few receive guidance on how to write a goal that feels meaningful, child-centred, and achievable in a busy room.
As a result, ILP goals across the sector can unintentionally fall into two common traps:
- The “Finished Skill” Paradox: Setting a goal that expects the child to independently demonstrate the exact skill they are currently struggling with, rather than focusing on the adult supports and environmental scaffolding needed to get them there.
- The “Goal Bank” Trap: Selecting generic, pre-written targets from drop-down menus rather than shaping goals around a child’s unique strengths, interests, and room interactions.
Here is a gentle, practical framework to help your team overcome these traps and write goals that reflect each child’s authentic identity, scaffold genuine development, and support your centre’s EYLF V2.0 planning cycle.
1. The problem: the two hidden traps in traditional goal writing
| Trap 1: The “Finished Skill” Paradox | Trap 2: The “Goal Bank” Menu |
|---|---|
| Expects the child to already have the skill the plan exists to build. Result: the plan records “failure”. | Uses generic, cookie-cutter targets. Result: ignores individual sensory profiles and intrinsic motivations. |
Trap 1: the “Finished Skill” Paradox explained
Read almost any conventional ILP goal floating around the sector and ask one simple question: does this goal require the child to already possess the exact skill the plan was created to build?
Think of it like setting a goal for a beginner to “swim 50 metres independently” without ever mentioning the kickboards, floaties, or the instructor’s guidance they need to actually learn the strokes. We are demanding the final result without providing any of the scaffolding.
When a goal is written as “Harper will sit quietly and listen at group time for 10 minutes”, it creates the same logical paradox. To succeed, Harper must already have sustained attention, impulse inhibition, and sensory self-regulation in a dynamic room.
If Harper already had those three capacities, she wouldn’t need an ILP for group time in the first place! When a goal demands the finished skill up front without describing the adult actions, relational adjustments, or environmental scaffolding needed to build it, the plan inevitably stalls. And when it stalls, the documentation simply records that the child “failed”, when in reality, it was the plan’s lack of support that failed the child.
Trap 2: copy-pasting from generic “goal banks”
When time is short, it can be tempting to pull pre-written goals from standard checklists. However, generic goal banks treat children like templates. They miss a child’s unique communication preferences, sensory needs, and intrinsic motivations. A meaningful ILP goal cannot be picked off a menu; it must be born out of careful observation of this specific child within this specific room.
2. The solution: five principles for accommodation-first goals
To write goals that build authentic capability while honouring each child’s developmental pace, consider these five principles:
- Lead with accommodation-first wording: Structure goals so the environmental, interactional, or relational adjustment comes first. Frame the child’s participation following the phrase: “With these supports…”
- Reframe what success looks like: Success in an ILP does not always mean immediate skill mastery. Success often looks like reduced intensity of distress, increased comfort during transitions, or a child feeling safe enough to accept co-regulation from a trusted adult.
- Focus on one small step at a time: A goal that expects attention, expressive communication, and emotional regulation all at once is overwhelming. Isolate the primary area of focus and let adults scaffold the rest.
- Connect with the child’s natural motivations: Rather than redirecting a child towards adult-chosen tasks, shape goals around what naturally brings them joy. A child fascinated by vehicles will engage in turn-taking far more comfortably at the truck track than at a table activity.
- Review by adjusting supports first: If progress feels slow, adapt the environment, routines, or adult scaffolding before changing expectations for the child.
Deep dive: how to measure an accommodation-first goal (the new “SMART” goal)
When taught to write SMART goals (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound), educators often struggle to measure anything other than direct compliance. In an accommodation-first framework, you are measuring access, engagement, and comfort. Success is highly measurable through observable shifts, such as:
- Increased participation: The amount of time a child joyfully sustains play when provided with parallel play scaffolding.
- Communication initiation: The frequency a child successfully uses an AAC device to request a turn.
- Smoother transitions: The ability to move environments comfortably when provided with a transition object.
- Reduced distress: A decrease in the frequency or intensity of dysregulation due to proactive sensory adjustments.
3. The transformation: goal shift examples
When we apply the five principles above, we shift the burden of change from the child to the environment. Here is what that looks like in practice:
| Conventional / generic goal | Accommodation-first & scaffolded goal |
|---|---|
| ”Harper will sit quietly for 10 minutes at group time.” (Falls into the “Finished Skill” Paradox by demanding unsupported attention.) | ”Educators will offer a wobble cushion and introduce a planned movement break during group time. With these supports, Harper will participate comfortably in group time for up to 10 minutes." |
| "Leo will stop hitting when he gets frustrated.” (Demands emotional self-regulation without adult scaffolding.) | ”Educators will proactively implement Leo’s co-regulation plan, modelling visual emotion cards prior to known transition triggers to help identify appropriate regulation tools. With this proactive support, the frequency and intensity of distress will decrease as Leo learns to recognise regulation options and use a visual card or gesture to express frustration.” |
4. The administrative payoff: enriching your planning cycle & QIP
Writing accommodation-first goals supports your daily practice and aligns naturally with your administrative documentation under NQS Quality Area 1:
- Observation: Captures the child’s authentic strengths, play choices, and underlying needs.
- Planning: Details the specific environmental tweaks, visual tools, and interactional supports educators will introduce.
- Implementation: Demonstrates clear, reflective room practice, environmental adjustments, and relational support across the day.
- Evaluation: Offers clear insights into which adult strategies helped the child feel supported and engaged.
Aligning ILPs with this natural flow fulfils both your inclusion goals and your Quality Improvement Plan (QIP) evidence for Assessment & Rating (A&R).
When a goal isn’t met: embracing hidden complexity and layered supports
In an accommodation-first model, an unmet goal simply means the current support was insufficient or mismatched. Children often present with hidden complexity: a transition might look like a behavioural refusal, but it is actually a deeply intertwined mix of sensory processing differences, delayed receptive language, and high anxiety.
If a goal isn’t met, it is an invitation for multilayered planning. Educators may need to “stack” their approaches through trial and error.
- Example evaluation: “Providing Leo with a visual schedule for transitions did not consistently support his participation. Next cycle, we will use a multilayered approach: combining the visual schedule with a 3-minute auditory warning, while ensuring his key educator acts as a relational anchor to co-regulate with him during the shift.”
This approach proves to Assessors that your team is engaging in deep critical reflection (NQS Element 1.3.2) and continuously adapting your practice to meet the child’s layered needs.
At Pocket Education, our Centre Coaching & Professional Development Workshops support early learning teams in writing reflective, EYLF-aligned goals that feel manageable and authentic in daily room life.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
What is the difference between an ILP goal and a clinical therapy goal?
An ILP goal focuses on a child’s access, engagement, and belonging within their early childhood room routines, written within an educator’s scope of practice. A clinical therapy goal (written by an allied health professional) addresses specific functional activity limitations, levels of impairment, or specialised participation barriers. The two should complement each other smoothly.
Why move away from standardised ILP goal banks?
Standardised goal banks encourage a one-size-fits-all approach. They often result in targets that focus on compliance rather than tuning into a child’s individual sensory profile, intrinsic motivations, and unique way of connecting.
How can families and children be involved in drafting ILP goals?
Under NQS Quality Area 6 (Collaborative Partnerships), families are invited to share their insights and home routines before goals are finalised. Crucially, wherever possible, the child should also be consulted, honouring their agency by asking what activities bring them joy, what feels hard, and what helps them feel safe at the centre.
This article is general information for educators, not individual clinical advice or a diagnostic guide. For concerns about a specific child, involve the family and their health professionals.