Full Goal

In real or rehearsed communicative contexts identified by the student (classroom, group project, social situation), [Student] will voluntarily disclose stuttering and/or request a specific accommodation or conversational behavior (e.g., ‘I stutter — please don’t finish my sentences’) in 3 of 5 self-selected opportunities across 4 weeks, with student-rated success on a self-defined rubric, as measured by student self-report log, optional partner debrief, and SLP review with the student.

Neurodiversity-Affirming Notes

Fluency goals that target reduced stuttering frequency assume that stuttering itself is the problem to be removed. Research and lived-experience advocacy from the stuttering community (NSA, StutterTalk, Constantino’s “stuttering pride” work) frame stuttering as a way of speaking, not an impairment to suppress. Concealment — avoidance of words, situations, and disclosure — is associated with greater anxiety and lower communicative participation than the stuttering itself.

This goal targets agency and disclosure rather than fluency:

• Disclosure is a skill. When, to whom, and how to tell a listener about stuttering is a learnable, generalizable communicative skill. It is a counter to the secrecy that compounds the lived experience of stuttering.
• Self-advocacy is the second half. Disclosure alone may be passive (“just so you know”). Pairing it with a specific ask (“please don’t finish my sentences,” “I need a few extra seconds”) teaches the student to shape conversational conditions in their favor.
• The student defines success. A “successful” disclosure for one student is matter-of-fact; for another it is whispered to one trusted person. The SLP does not impose a script or a tone. Score against the student’s rubric, not a clinician’s.
• Fluency-shaping is not the foundation. This goal does not require the student to use fluency-enhancing techniques. It can stand alone or pair with other goals, depending on what the student wants.
• The IEP team needs orientation. Parents and teachers may expect “stuttering reduction” goals. Be explicit in the IEP meeting that this goal targets self-advocacy because the evidence supports it and the student wants it. Get student assent.

Individualization Guidance

Before using this goal, verify:

• Student is part of the goal-setting process. A self-advocacy goal that the student did not co-design is paradoxical. Use age-appropriate goal-planning conversations and the OASES Impact and Reactions subscales as conversation anchors.
• Audience selection is the student’s. A 4th-grader may start with one trusted friend. A high-schooler may start with a teacher or a coach. The clinician’s job is to scaffold preparation, not pick the audience.
• Rehearsal is part of the work. Role-play disclosures in session, including with anticipated awkward reactions. The first real disclosure is rarely the smoothest, and rehearsal protects against a discouraging early failure.
• “Did it work?” is the wrong question. Replace with “Did you say what you wanted to say?” Success is the student’s exercise of agency, regardless of the listener’s response.
• Document risks. Some contexts (bullying, hostile teachers, certain family dynamics) are not safe for disclosure. Goal selection includes context risk assessment.

Clinical Notes

The “3 of 5 self-selected opportunities” criterion is intentionally not “80% accuracy.” Self-advocacy is not a percentage; it is a count of acts taken. Lower-frequency, higher-meaning events are the substrate.

The 4-week window respects the reality that disclosure opportunities don’t arise on a therapy schedule. The student needs runway to identify and act on real contexts.

The self-defined rubric is the most important feature of this goal. It moves the locus of evaluation from the clinician to the student, which is the entire point. Sample rubric items: “I said what I wanted to say.” “I felt OK after.” “I would do it again.” Avoid items the clinician would write reflexively: “I sounded confident.” “I made eye contact.” Those import neurotypical communication norms and undermine the goal.

The current state of fluency research and stuttering-community advocacy supports moving school-age fluency goals in this direction. Goals that target reduced stuttering frequency without student buy-in remain common but are increasingly questioned in the literature.

Related Goals

• (No companion fluency goal yet — see Childhood Fluency Disorders Practice Portal for related goal patterns.)