IEP Progress Monitoring in South Dakota: What the Reports Should Tell You

You receive an IEP progress report. Under each goal, you see words like "making progress," "emerging," or "goal continues." Nothing tells you whether your child is on track to meet the goal by the end of the year. Nothing shows you a number, a data point, or a trend. And despite the optimistic language, your child's reading or communication or behavior does not look any different than it did six months ago.

Vague progress reports are one of the most common — and most frustrating — problems South Dakota IEP parents encounter. They obscure whether services are working, make it impossible to identify stalled goals, and make it very hard to advocate for changes when something is not working. Here is what the law actually requires, what good progress data looks like, and what to do when the reports fall short.

What South Dakota Law Requires for Progress Monitoring

The IEP document must include more than just the goal. Under ARSD 24:05 and the corresponding federal requirements, the IEP must specify the methodology the team will use to measure progress toward each annual goal. That is a requirement of the written IEP document itself — not just a practice recommendation.

Progress reports must be provided to parents as frequently as report cards are provided to general education students. For most South Dakota districts, that means quarterly progress reports. Each report must describe the extent to which the child is making progress toward meeting their annual goals, and whether that progress is sufficient for the child to reach the goal by the end of the annual IEP period.

That last piece is important. The report must tell you whether the rate of progress is sufficient. "Making progress" without a judgment on adequacy does not satisfy this requirement. A student can be technically progressing — moving from 40% accuracy to 45% accuracy over six months — while being nowhere near the 85% accuracy goal that expires in eight weeks. "Making progress" in that scenario is technically true and practically misleading.

What Measurable Goals and Real Data Look Like

A measurable annual goal defines a specific skill, a performance criterion, the conditions under which the skill will be demonstrated, and the timeline. "Student will read grade-level passages with at least 90% comprehension accuracy in four out of five trials by the end of the IEP year" is measurable. "Student will improve reading comprehension skills" is not.

Once a goal is properly written, the progress monitoring methodology in the IEP should specify how data will be collected: what tool or instrument, how often, and by whom. Examples include curriculum-based measurement probes administered weekly, teacher observation checklists completed during specific instructional activities, session data recorded by a therapist on each contact, or standardized assessment administered at benchmarking periods.

Progress reports grounded in real data look like this: "In the current quarter, [student] demonstrated an average of 72% accuracy on comprehension questions in three out of five trials. This compares to 58% in the previous quarter. Goal target is 90%. At the current rate of growth, student will need approximately two additional quarters to meet the goal; the goal expires in one quarter. IEP team should discuss goal adjustment or service intensity."

That is a progress report. It tells you the current performance level, the trajectory, and whether the student is on track. It also flags a problem — the student is improving but will likely not meet the goal — giving the IEP team actionable information.

When Progress Reports Show No Growth

Flat or absent progress across multiple quarters is a signal that something in the intervention is not working. The intervention itself may be poorly matched to the student's needs. The service may not be delivered with sufficient frequency or fidelity. The goal may have been written at the wrong level. Or the student may need a fundamentally different approach.

When you receive a progress report showing no meaningful movement toward a goal, the appropriate response is to request an IEP meeting to discuss the data. Your written request should specifically reference the goal, note the periods of concern, and ask the team to discuss what changes in instruction, services, or goals are being considered.

At the meeting, ask: What specific data is being used to measure this goal? Who is collecting it and how often? What does the trend line show over the past two quarters? What hypothesis does the team have about why progress has stalled? And most importantly: what is the team proposing to do differently?

A district that responds to stalled progress by saying "we'll continue with the same approach and see how next quarter goes" — without any change in intervention — is not responding to the data. Continuing an intervention that is demonstrably not working is not a neutral choice; it is a choice to allow the student to fall further behind.

Cooperative and Teletherapy Service Tracking Challenges

In South Dakota districts served by cooperatives, progress data can be difficult to obtain because the specialist providing the service is not a district employee and may not report data through district systems. Parents in districts served by entities like the Prairie Lakes Educational Cooperative, the East Dakota Educational Cooperative, or other regional bodies sometimes find that progress notes exist in the cooperative's records but never make their way back to the IEP document or the parent's hands.

For teletherapy services specifically, the problem is compounded. A teletherapy provider may be recording session data on their own platform, in a format the local district does not access or review. Parents have the right to request session notes and data from all providers delivering IEP services, regardless of whether those providers are local staff or cooperative or contracted specialists. Those records are educational records covered by FERPA.

When requesting data from a teletherapy provider, be specific in writing: you want session notes, the data collected during each session, and any provider-documented observations of the student's engagement and progress for a specified date range. Direct the request to both the local special education director and the cooperative, and ask the district to coordinate production of all records.

Using Progress Data to Drive IEP Decisions

Progress data is not just a reporting formality. It is the factual foundation for every significant IEP decision: whether a goal is appropriately challenging, whether services are working, whether a student needs more support or different support, whether a placement change is warranted.

If you are going into an annual IEP meeting, obtain the progress data ahead of time. Request it in writing at least a week before the meeting. Compare what you receive against the goal criteria in the IEP and the methodology the IEP said would be used. If the data format does not match the measurement approach the IEP specified, that is worth raising.

If goal after goal is showing flat progress, and the district's response is to write essentially the same goals again at the annual meeting, the team is not using data to drive programming. You have the right to ask for an explanation of how the proposed goals address the pattern of insufficient progress, and to request changes in service intensity, provider, or methodology before agreeing to another year of the same approach.

For a practical framework — including what to look for in a progress report, questions to ask when data is missing or vague, and how to use South Dakota's dispute pathways when the district is not responding to the data — the South Dakota IEP & 504 Blueprint gives you the specific tools and language to use at every stage of the process.

See more United States homeschool guides →