Present levels, the PLAAFP, is the most skipped-over section of the IEP and the most important. Everything else hangs on it: goals, accommodations, services, placement. When present levels are vague, the whole IEP floats. When they're specific, the rest of the document practically writes itself.
Here's how I write them after 20 years in special education.
What present levels must include
Federal law (IDEA) requires four things:
- Current academic achievement: with data, not adjectives
- Current functional performance: behavior, social skills, communication, daily living
- Strengths of the student: yes, required, and yes, people skip it
- How the disability affects involvement and progress in the general education curriculum: the "so what" that justifies everything below it
Miss any one of these and the section is legally incomplete, and practically useless.
The "so what" test
This is my one rule: every need you state in present levels must connect to something below it: a goal, an accommodation, a service, or a placement decision. If you write "struggles with multi-step directions" but there's no goal, accommodation, or service addressing it, either add one or cut the sentence.
Read your present levels and ask of each sentence: so what does the IEP do about this? If there's no answer, the sentence is decoration.
Weak vs. strong: real examples
Weak · Reading
[Student] is performing below grade level in reading. He has difficulty staying focused during class. He is a friendly student who tries hard.
This says nothing measurable, cites no data, and names needs with no plan attached.
Strong · Reading
[Student] currently reads 62 words correct per minute on grade-level passages (fall benchmark; grade-level expectation: 120 wcpm). On the QRI, he comprehends at an instructional level when text is read aloud but drops to frustration level reading independently, indicating a decoding deficit, not a comprehension deficit. This affects his progress in ELA, where grade-level text is required across all units. Strengths: strong oral vocabulary, persists through difficult tasks, responds well to graphic organizers. These present levels support annual goals in reading fluency and decoding, 60 minutes/week of specialized reading instruction, and the accommodation of text-to-speech for content-area assessments.
Notice: numbers, a strengths line, the explicit effect on gen-ed progress, and every need tied to something below.
Strong · Behavior
Per 4 weeks of daily point-sheet data, [Student] is on task for an average of 6 of 20 minutes during independent work (baseline period: 8/18–9/12). Antecedent data shows off-task behavior spikes during unstructured transitions. Strengths: strong relationships with peers, responds to visual schedules, successful with chunked assignments in math. The off-task behavior limits completion of grade-level assignments across all subjects. These present levels support a behavior goal targeting on-task duration, a check-in/check-out intervention, and the accommodation of visual schedules during transitions.
Where the data comes from
You don't need a new evaluation to write good present levels. Pull from:
- Recent progress monitoring datayour strongest source; it's current and in your unit of measurement
- The most recent evaluationespecially cognitive and academic profiles
- Work samplestwo or three that show the gap concretely
- Teacher and para observationsdated, specific ("9/10: left seat 6 times during 30-min lesson")
- Parent inputrequired to consider; often surfaces functional needs you don’t see at school
- Student inputespecially at the secondary level; "what’s hardest for you?" is data
The 3 mistakes I see most
1. Adjectives instead of numbers.
"Below grade level," "struggling," "difficulty with": none of this is a present level. If there's no number, there's no baseline for the goal to grow from.
2. Skipping strengths.
It's legally required, but more than that: strengths tell the team how to teach the student. "Responds to visual schedules" is intervention guidance hiding in a compliance box.
3. Copy-paste from last year.
Present levels should describe the student now. If last year's numbers are still accurate, the student hasn't grown, which is itself something the team needs to confront, not paste over.
Quick checklist before you finalize
- Academic performance stated with current data?
- Functional performance stated with current data?
- Strengths included (not just needs)?
- Explicit statement of how the disability affects gen-ed involvement and progress?
- Every need linked to a goal, accommodation, service, or placement decision below?
- Parent and (where appropriate) student input considered?
A note on the writing itself
Present levels are where IEP writing eats the most time, synthesizing evals, data, observations, and parent input into something coherent, for every student, every year.
That's why I built IEP Architect. You paste the evaluation or last year's IEP, and it drafts the complete IEP (present levels with real data carried through, measurable goals, accommodations, services) in about 90 seconds, shaped to your state's rules. It's a draft for your professional review, not a replacement for your judgment: you stay the expert, it does the typing.
Your first IEP is free, no credit card. And the free tools library has data sheets, progress graph makers, and more, no account needed.