Action plan
Each action shows why it is suggested, which answers it came from, its sources, and how to check whether it helps. These are possible next steps to discuss — not actions the school has agreed to take.
Discuss first
Requests professional evaluation
General
Discuss whether a full evaluation is needed
Ask the school, in writing, whether a full and individual evaluation is warranted for the areas of concern you described. Name the skill areas and give examples. In Illinois, a parent can ask the school to evaluate at any time, whatever stage the child is at in MTSS, and putting the request in writing is recommended. Within 14 school days of a request, the district decides whether an evaluation is warranted; a decision not to evaluate must be explained to you in writing. If the district evaluates, eligibility is decided and the IEP is completed within 60 school days of your written consent (or before the next school year starts, if fewer than 60 school days are left in the year). Support or intervention can continue while this is discussed.
Why this is suggested
- You reported a current concern in at least one skill area and no current IEP. Support and an evaluation discussion can proceed together. Good grades, strengths, multilingual status, or a missing diagnosis do not rule out an evaluation discussion.
Based on what you told us
- I01 Reading impact: A lot (Reported by adult)
- I02 Math impact: A little (Reported by adult)
- I03 Writing impact: Not at all (Reported by adult)
- I04 Spoken language impact: Not at all (Reported by adult)
- Suggested responsible role
- Special education coordinator, school psychologist, or case manager
- Evidence to collect
- A copy of your written request and the date you sent it
- The school's written response
- Examples of the difficulty, such as work samples or teacher comments
- How to review it
- Check that you received the school's written decision and know the next step.
- Limits
- Asking for an evaluation does not mean the student has a disability. A qualified team decides what the full record means.
- Evidence coverage
- Based on reported observations
Sources
-
Ohio dyslexia FAQ (S26 · Ohio · agency guidance)
- Same answer, second sentence: “If a parent or guardian thinks his or her child may have a disability that is affecting the child’s education, a request can be made to the district to evaluate the child”
-
Texas Dyslexia Handbook (2024 Update) (S21 · Texas · law or rule (adopted into Texas Administrative Code 19 TAC 74.28))
- Chapter 3, "When the Data Lead to a Suspicion of a Disability...", p.25: “Parents/guardians always have the right to request a referral for a dyslexia evaluation at any time.”
-
ISBE Parent Guide to special education (S07 · Illinois · agency guidance)
- Chapter 3, "Referral", p.21: “Parents need to submit a request for evaluation to have their child considered eligible for special education services. It is best if the parent puts the request in writing.”
- Chapter 2, "The Role of Parents in an MTSS Process", p.19: “You can ask the school to evaluate your child at any time, regardless of where your child is at in the MTSS process.”
- Chapter 3, "Referral", p.21 (Appendix B p.151 repeats this wording; S06 p.53 has similar wording using "not warranted"): “If the district determines that the evaluation is not necessary, it must notify the parent in writing of the decision not to evaluate and the reasons for the decision.”
-
23 Ill. Adm. Code 226.110 (S27 · Illinois · law or rule)
- Section 226.110(c)(3): “Within 14 school days after receiving a request for an evaluation, the district shall determine whether an evaluation is warranted. If the district determines not to conduct an evaluation, it shall provide written notice to the parents in accordance with 34 CFR 300.503(b).”
- Section 226.110(d): “no later than 60 school days following the date the parent signs the written consent to perform the needed assessments, the determination of eligibility shall be made and the IEP meeting shall be completed.”
- Section 226.110(d), second sentence: “If fewer than 60 school days remain in a school year after the date of parental consent, the eligibility determination shall be made and the IEP meeting shall be completed prior to the first day of the following school year.”
-
23 Ill. Adm. Code 226.130 (S29 · Illinois · law or rule)
- Section 226.130(b): “When a district implements the use of a process of this type, the district shall not use any child's participation in the process as the basis for denying a parent's request for an evaluation.”
-
OSEP Memo 11-07 (RTI and evaluation) (S08 · United States (federal) · agency guidance)
- Body paragraph 6, sentence 2: “The use of RTI strategies cannot be used to delay or deny the provision of a full and individual evaluation, pursuant to 34 CFR §§300.304-300.311, to a child suspected of having a disability under 34 CFR §300.8.”
-
OSERS letter on dyslexia terms (2015) (S18 · United States (federal) · agency guidance)
- PDF (linked from https://sites.ed.gov/idea/idea-files/osep-dear-colleague-letter-on-ideaiep-terms/): Page 2, first paragraph (continues from page 1): “a parent may request an initial evaluation at any time to determine if a child is a child with a disability under IDEA (34 CFR §300.301(b))”
Rules applied: EVAL01 v1 (Current concern without an IEP)
Discuss first
Gathers evidence
General
Gather the learning history
Write down earlier signs of difficulty, what may have hidden them (such as strong memory or extra adult help), and what changed as work got harder. Later recognition does not lower the priority of these needs. Early screening windows are not an upper age limit for recognizing reading needs.
Why this is suggested
- Needs were recognized in grade 7 or later, or a secondary student has unresolved concerns without identification. Instructional history, workload changes, earlier support, and the student's own view are added. This does not lower the priority because early screening windows have passed.
Based on what you told us
- P02 Current grade: Grade 8 (Reported by adult)
- H01 Identified before: Yes (Reported by adult)
- H04 Grade at identification: Grade 7 (Reported by adult)
- Suggested responsible role
- Parent, with input from past teachers if possible
- Evidence to collect
- Earlier report cards or teacher comments
- Notes on earlier help at home or from tutors
- How to review it
- Share the history at the meeting and ask that it be considered alongside current information.
- Evidence coverage
- Needs clarification
Sources
-
Ohio's Dyslexia Guidebook (S25 · Ohio · agency guidance)
- p. 43 (printed page footer; equals PDF page index), 'Support for Adolescent Students' (first paragraph): “Even with effective universal screening and classroom instruction, there will be students in older grades who will need intense intervention and/or accommodations for academic and social-emotional success.”
-
Texas Dyslexia Handbook (2024 Update) (S21 · Texas · law or rule (adopted into Texas Administrative Code 19 TAC 74.28))
- Chapter 2, Part D, "Best Practices in Progress Monitoring", p.22: “Schools should be aware that a student may have reached middle school or high school without ever being screened, evaluated, or identified; however, the student may have dyslexia or a related disorder.”
- Chapter 2, Part D, p.22: “Therefore, it is important to remember that a referral for a dyslexia evaluation can be considered at any time kindergarten–high school.”
-
Illinois Dyslexia Handbook (ISBE) (S06 · Illinois · agency guidance (informational except where statutory requirements are stated))
- Chapter 5, "Screening for Older Students", p.65: “It is crucial for districts and schools to establish a comprehensive assessment plan aimed at identifying individuals who struggle with reading or may exhibit signs of dyslexia, especially if they were not identified during their earlier years.”
Rules applied: LATE01 v1 (Later or absent identification)
Discuss first
Student participation
General
Include the student's view
Ask the student what feels hardest, what helps, what teachers should understand, and what goal matters to them. Bring these words to the meeting. If accounts differ, keep both for discussion.
Why this is suggested
- Needs were recognized in grade 7 or later, or a secondary student has unresolved concerns without identification. Instructional history, workload changes, earlier support, and the student's own view are added. This does not lower the priority because early screening windows have passed.
- The student's own view of what is hard, what helps, and what goal matters belongs in the plan. If accounts differ, both are kept for discussion.
- The student's own answers have not been recorded yet.
Based on what you told us
- P02 Current grade: Grade 8 (Reported by adult)
- H01 Identified before: Yes (Reported by adult)
- H04 Grade at identification: Grade 7 (Reported by adult)
- I01 Reading impact: A lot (Reported by adult)
- I02 Math impact: A little (Reported by adult)
- I03 Writing impact: Not at all (Reported by adult)
- I04 Spoken language impact: Not at all (Reported by adult)
- Suggested responsible role
- Parent and case manager
- Evidence to collect
- The student's answers in their own words
- How to review it
- Check that the student's view is part of the meeting record.
- Evidence coverage
- Based on reported observations
Sources
No published source is attached to this step yet. Developer plan section 4: student voice section. It is waiting for specialist review.
Rules applied: LATE01 v1 (Later or absent identification); VOICE01 v1 (Student participation); VOICE02 v1 (Student voice missing)
Discuss first
Requests professional evaluation
Reading
Discuss assessment of word reading and fluency
Ask the team to look at accurate word reading, reading of longer words, and reading fluency. You reported difficulties that identify skills worth examining; the questionnaire cannot determine their cause.
Why this is suggested
- You reported difficulty reading unfamiliar or longer words. These observations identify skills worth examining; the questionnaire cannot determine their cause. Better listening comprehension can add to the picture, but it is not required and is not used as an ability-discrepancy test.
- You reported slow or effortful reading. Fluency, meaning accurate reading at a comfortable speed, is worth examining together with word reading.
Based on what you told us
- R01 Unfamiliar words: Often (Reported by adult)
- R03 Which reading tasks: Reading words accurately; Reading speed (Reported by adult)
From your description
reads unfamiliar words slowly
Difficulty reading unfamiliar words accurately (AI interpretation, confirmed by adult)
- Suggested responsible role
- Reading specialist, school psychologist, or special education teacher
- Evidence to collect
- Recent reading screening or progress-monitoring results
- Notes from the student reading aloud
- Spelling samples
- How to review it
- Check that results are explained skill by skill (word reading, fluency, comprehension) rather than as one overall number.
- Limits
- A reading difficulty alone does not establish dyslexia or any other condition.
- Evidence coverage
- Based on reported observations
Sources
-
Ohio's Dyslexia Guidebook (S25 · Ohio · agency guidance)
- p. 26 (printed page footer; equals PDF page index), 'Purpose and Use of Intervention-based Assessments (Tier 2 Dyslexia Screening)': “Intervention-based diagnostic assessments (tier 2 dyslexia screening) are administered to understand the specific skills a student needs instructional support with.”
-
Texas Dyslexia Handbook (2024 Update) (S21 · Texas · law or rule (adopted into Texas Administrative Code 19 TAC 74.28))
- Chapter 2, Part C, p.18: “Screening, by definition, should never be the final determination of whether a student has dyslexia.”
-
ISBE Parent Guide to special education (S07 · Illinois · agency guidance)
- Chapter 5, "Overview", p.35: “SLD may manifest itself in: • listening comprehension • oral expression • word reading • reading fluency • reading comprehension • written expression • mathematics problem-solving or calculations”
-
23 Ill. Adm. Code 226.125 (S28 · Illinois · law or rule)
- Section 226.125(a): “dyslexia means a specific learning disability that is neurobiological in origin. It is characterized by difficulties with accurate and/or fluent word recognition and by poor spelling and decoding abilities.”
Rules applied: READ01 v1 (Persistent word-reading difficulty); READ04 v1 (Slow or effortful reading)
Discuss first
Develops a skill
Reading
Discuss explicit instruction in word reading
Ask whether the student receives explicit, systematic instruction in decoding, including longer words, matched to the skills the assessment shows. Ask how often it happens, who teaches it, and how progress is checked.
Why this is suggested
- You reported difficulty reading unfamiliar or longer words. These observations identify skills worth examining; the questionnaire cannot determine their cause. Better listening comprehension can add to the picture, but it is not required and is not used as an ability-discrepancy test.
Based on what you told us
- R01 Unfamiliar words: Often (Reported by adult)
- R03 Which reading tasks: Reading words accurately; Reading speed (Reported by adult)
From your description
reads unfamiliar words slowly
Difficulty reading unfamiliar words accurately (AI interpretation, confirmed by adult)
- Suggested responsible role
- Reading specialist or interventionist
- Evidence to collect
- Name and focus of current reading instruction
- Planned and actually delivered schedule
- Progress-monitoring results
- How to review it
- Review progress on comparable measures at a date the team sets, and adjust if progress is not adequate.
- Evidence coverage
- Based on reported observations
Sources
-
Ohio's Dyslexia Guidebook (S25 · Ohio · agency guidance)
- p. 29 (printed page footer; equals PDF page index), 'Interpreting Assessment Results': “An appropriate response to risk for dyslexia involves the immediate provision of structured literacy instruction and intervention, promotion of protective factors and ongoing monitoring of the student’s response to increasingly intensive instructional supports.”
-
Florida Rule 6A-6.053 (S03 · Florida · law or rule)
- Subsection (7)(c): “Immediately following identification, students with characteristics of dyslexia must be provided dyslexia-specific interventions, such as structured literacy approaches, that are intensive, explicit, systematic, and multisensory, in accordance with s. 1008.25(5)(a), F.S.”
-
Texas Dyslexia Handbook (2024 Update) (S21 · Texas · law or rule (adopted into Texas Administrative Code 19 TAC 74.28))
- Chapter 4, "Providers of Dyslexia Instruction", p.42 (components defined pp.39-40): “This includes training in critical, evidence-based components of dyslexia instruction such as phonological awareness, sound-symbol association, syllabication, orthography, morphology, syntax, reading comprehension, and reading fluency.”
- Chapter 4, "Providers of Dyslexia Instruction", p.42 (delivery principles defined pp.40-41): “they must deliver multisensory instruction that simultaneously uses all learning pathways to the brain, is systematic and cumulative, is explicitly taught, uses diagnostic teaching to automaticity, and includes both analytic and synthetic approaches.”
-
Illinois Dyslexia Handbook (ISBE) (S06 · Illinois · agency guidance (informational except where statutory requirements are stated))
- Chapter 6, "Components of Effective Literacy Instruction", p.84: “as outlined in the Illinois Comprehensive Literacy Plan, educators should ensure literacy instruction includes evidence-based practices in oracy, phonological awareness, word recognition, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, and writing.”
-
WWC reading interventions, grades 4-9 (S09 · United States (federal) · research evidence)
- Recommendations tab, rec 1; level = evidence icon alt text 'Strong Evidence' (matches Summary PDF p.1): “Build students' decoding skills so they can read complex multisyllabic words”
Rules applied: READ01 v1 (Persistent word-reading difficulty)
Also discuss
Gathers evidence
General
Bring the evaluation report
You reported an earlier identification. Bring the written report if you have it, and be ready to say who made it, what was evaluated, and what was recommended. In this plan the label stays as you reported it; the school team considers the full record.
Why this is suggested
- You reported an earlier identification or diagnosis. It stays recorded as reported by you. The written report, who made it, and what was evaluated help the team.
- An earlier identification was reported, but a copy of the report is not at hand. Asking for a copy is a data request.
Based on what you told us
- H01 Identified before: Yes (Reported by adult)
- H06 Report copy: No (Reported by adult)
- Suggested responsible role
- Parent
- Evidence to collect
- The written report
- Who made the identification and when
- How to review it
- Check that the team has seen the report and discussed its recommendations.
- Evidence coverage
- Needs clarification
Sources
-
Ohio's Dyslexia Guidebook (S25 · Ohio · agency guidance)
- p. 42 (printed page footer; equals PDF page index), 'Outside Clinical Diagnosis of Dyslexia': “A diagnosis of dyslexia by an outside professional does not mean the school district must automatically identify the student as a student with a disability.”
-
Illinois Dyslexia Handbook (ISBE) (S06 · Illinois · agency guidance (informational except where statutory requirements are stated))
- Chapter 4, "Qualifying for Special Education and Related Services", p.55: “even an outside diagnosis of dyslexia (or other related condition) does not automatically result in a student being eligible for and entitled to special education services.”
-
23 Ill. Adm. Code 226.125 (S28 · Illinois · law or rule)
- Section 226.125(c): “Each child suspected of having dyslexia or identified as dyslexic shall be referred for an evaluation in accordance with the requirements of 34 CFR 300.304 through 300.311 and Subpart B of this Part.”
-
OSEP Letter to Unnerstall (2016) (S32 · United States (federal) · agency guidance (informal, not legally binding))
- Page 1, sentence beginning 'As we explained in our October 23, 2015 letter, while IDEA does not prohibit…': “there is no requirement under IDEA that a disability label or “diagnosis” be given to each student receiving special education and related services, so long as the child is regarded as having a disability and receives needed special education and related services.”
Rules applied: DX01 v1 (Reported earlier identification); DX03 v1 (Evaluation report not at hand)
Also discuss
Builds on strengths
General
Build on strengths and interests
Share the strengths and interests you described. Ask how they could support engagement and an achievable goal the student chooses. Interests can make work more engaging; they do not prescribe a learning style.
Why this is suggested
- Every plan builds on the student's strengths and interests. They can support engagement and a student-chosen goal; they do not prescribe a learning style.
Based on what you told us
- I01 Reading impact: A lot (Reported by adult)
- I02 Math impact: A little (Reported by adult)
- I03 Writing impact: Not at all (Reported by adult)
- I04 Spoken language impact: Not at all (Reported by adult)
- S01 Strengths: He explains science ideas really well and loves talking about space and how machines work. (Reported by adult)
- Suggested responsible role
- Whole team, with the student
- Evidence to collect
- Examples of the student's strengths
- How to review it
- Check that the plan names at least one strength and one student-chosen goal.
- Evidence coverage
- Based on reported observations
Sources
No published source is attached to this step yet. Developer plan sections 4 and 18; product design choice. It is waiting for specialist review.
Rules applied: STR01 v1 (Strengths and interests)
Also discuss
Develops a skill
Reading
Discuss purposeful fluency practice
Ask whether the plan includes purposeful fluency-building activities that help the student read with less effort, and how the practice text is matched to the student's current skills.
Why this is suggested
- You reported slow or effortful reading. Fluency, meaning accurate reading at a comfortable speed, is worth examining together with word reading.
Based on what you told us
- R03 Which reading tasks: Reading words accurately; Reading speed (Reported by adult)
- Suggested responsible role
- Reading specialist or interventionist
- Evidence to collect
- Current fluency measures and the conditions they were taken under
- The texts used for practice
- How to review it
- Compare fluency on the same kind of measure, under the same conditions, at a review date the team sets.
- Evidence coverage
- Based on reported observations
Sources
-
WWC reading interventions, grades 4-9 (S09 · United States (federal) · research evidence)
- Recommendations tab, rec 2; level = evidence icon alt text 'Strong Evidence' (matches Summary PDF p.1): “Provide purposeful fluency-building activities to help students read effortlessly”
Rules applied: READ04 v1 (Slow or effortful reading)
Also discuss
Improves access to content
Reading
Try accessible text or oral access for content tasks
For science, social studies, and other content tasks, ask for a trial of accessible text (for example, text-to-speech or audiobooks) and note whether participation improves. Keep a separate check of reading skill whenever reading itself is what is being taught or measured.
Why this is suggested
- Understanding appears stronger when material is read aloud. A trial of accessible text can show whether participation in content tasks improves; reading skill still needs its own assessment and instruction.
Based on what you told us
- R02 Understanding when read aloud: Yes (Reported by adult)
From your description
He knows the answer when someone reads it
Understands better when material is read aloud (AI interpretation, confirmed by adult)
- Suggested responsible role
- Classroom teachers with the case manager or reading specialist
- Evidence to collect
- Which tasks the trial covers
- Notes on participation and understanding with and without the support
- How to review it
- After the trial period the team sets, compare participation with and without accessible text.
- Limits
- Accessible text improves access; it is not reading instruction.
- Evidence coverage
- Based on reported observations
Sources
No published source is attached to this step yet. Accommodation discussion example from the developer plan section 7; needs a reviewed source. It is waiting for specialist review.
Rules applied: READ05 v1 (Understanding stronger with oral access)
Also discuss
Gathers evidence
Mathematics
Compare math with and without the reading load
Ask the teacher to try some word problems read aloud with the language explained, and record which barrier changes. If difficulty remains once reading and language demands are reduced, ask for a math-specific assessment question too. Reading and math needs can exist together.
Why this is suggested
- Difficulty with word problems can come from reading and language demands, from math reasoning, or from both. Comparing performance with the language load reduced shows which barrier changes. Mixed needs are possible.
Based on what you told us
- M01 Which math tasks: Word problems (Reported by adult)
From your description
Dense math word problems are the hardest part of math homework
Difficulty with math word problems (AI interpretation, confirmed by adult)
- Suggested responsible role
- Math teacher
- Evidence to collect
- A few word problems done with the language clarified
- The same math in fewer words
- How to review it
- Review the comparison at the next meeting.
- Evidence coverage
- Needs clarification
Sources
-
WWC math intervention, grades K-6 (S10 · United States (federal) · research evidence)
- Recommendations tab, rec 5; level = evidence icon alt text 'Strong Evidence' (matches Full Guide Table 1, p.3): “Word Problems: Provide deliberate instruction on word problems to deepen students’ mathematical understanding and support their capacity to apply mathematical ideas.”
Rules applied: MATH02 v1 (Difficulty with word problems)
Gather information
Gathers evidence
General
Ask for recent hearing and vision results
Ask whether recent hearing and vision screening results are available, or how to get them. Results help interpret other information; they do not replace a discussion of the learning concern.
Why this is suggested
- Recent hearing and vision results are not available, or a concern was noted. Results help interpret other information; they do not replace a discussion of the learning concern.
Based on what you told us
- I01 Reading impact: A lot (Reported by adult)
- I02 Math impact: A little (Reported by adult)
- I03 Writing impact: Not at all (Reported by adult)
- I04 Spoken language impact: Not at all (Reported by adult)
- AX02 Hearing check: Not sure (Needs clarification)
- Suggested responsible role
- School nurse
- Evidence to collect
- Dates and results of recent hearing and vision checks
- How to review it
- Check that results are on file before decisions are made.
- Evidence coverage
- Needs clarification
Sources
-
34 CFR 300.8 (IDEA definitions) (S19 · United States (federal) · law or rule)
- § 300.8(c)(10)(ii) Disorders not included: “Specific learning disability does not include learning problems that are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of intellectual disability, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage.”
Rules applied: HV01 v1 (Hearing or vision results not recent or not known)
Gather information
Gathers evidence
General
Ask for details of current and past support
Ask the school for the name of each intervention, its schedule, the skill it targets, how many sessions were actually delivered, and the progress data collected.
Why this is suggested
- Reading is an area of concern, but the instruction and intervention tried so far are not known. This is a data request, not a conclusion.
- Math is an area of concern, but the supports tried so far and their results are not known. This is a data request, not a conclusion.
- An intervention was provided, but its name is not known. Asking the school for the details is a data request, not a conclusion.
- An intervention was provided, but progress data have not been shared or are not known. Asking for them is a data request.
Based on what you told us
- I01 Reading impact: A lot (Reported by adult)
- I02 Math impact: A little (Reported by adult)
- SUP01 Intervention received: Yes (Reported by adult)
- R05 Reading support tried: Not answered (Needs clarification)
- M05 Math support tried: Not answered (Needs clarification)
- SUP02 Intervention name: Not answered (Needs clarification)
- SUP07 Progress data shared: Not sure (Needs clarification)
- Suggested responsible role
- Interventionist or case manager
- Evidence to collect
- Program name
- Schedule
- Target skill
- Delivery records
- Progress data
- How to review it
- Check that you have these details before the team judges whether support is working.
- Evidence coverage
- Needs clarification
Sources
-
Florida Statutes s. 1008.25 (S22 · Florida · law or rule)
- Subsection (4)(c), items 2-3: “2. Goals and benchmarks for student growth in reading or mathematics. 3. A description of the specific measures that will be used to evaluate and monitor the student’s reading or mathematics progress.”
-
34 CFR 300.309 (determining SLD) (S34 · United States (federal) · law or rule)
- § 300.309(b) (lead-in; (b)(1)-(2) follow): “To ensure that underachievement in a child suspected of having a specific learning disability is not due to lack of appropriate instruction in reading or math, the group must consider, as part of the evaluation described in §§ 300.304 through 300.306”
Rules applied: READ06 v1 (Reading instruction history unknown); MATH05 v1 (Math support history unknown); SUPPORT03 v1 (Intervention name unknown); SUPPORT04 v1 (Intervention progress data not shared)
Gather information
Gathers evidence
General
Ask what screening and progress data exist
Ask the school what reading, math, or writing screening and progress-monitoring results it has for the student, and ask for copies.
Why this is suggested
- No screening or test results are on hand. The plan still works without scores; asking what data the school has is a data request.
Based on what you told us
- I01 Reading impact: A lot (Reported by adult)
- I02 Math impact: A little (Reported by adult)
- I03 Writing impact: Not at all (Reported by adult)
- I04 Spoken language impact: Not at all (Reported by adult)
- SUP08 Written results: No (Reported by adult)
- Suggested responsible role
- Classroom teacher or case manager
- Evidence to collect
- Copies of screening and progress-monitoring results
- How to review it
- Check that you have the results before the next meeting.
- Evidence coverage
- Needs clarification
Sources
-
Ohio dyslexia screening page (S01 · Ohio · agency guidance)
- 'Communication with Families', third bullet: “Results of the intervention-based diagnostic (tier 2 ) screener, along with information about reading development, the risk factors for dyslexia and a written explanation of the district or school's structured literacy program.”
-
Texas Dyslexia Handbook (2024 Update) (S21 · Texas · law or rule (adopted into Texas Administrative Code 19 TAC 74.28))
- Chapter 2, Part C, "Screening Data Gathering", p.19: “Screening data should always be shared in writing with parents.”
-
Illinois Dyslexia Handbook (ISBE) (S06 · Illinois · agency guidance (informational except where statutory requirements are stated))
- Chapter 4, "Screening, Assessment, and Evaluation", p.53: “Though the majority of schools do utilize some type of screener, there are schools who opt to collect data in other ways.”
-
ISBE early literacy screening guidance (S31 · Illinois · agency guidance)
- Section after the "Screening Measures by Grade Level" chart, p.2: “All students should participate in screening for foundational literacy skills three times annually—typically, at the beginning, middle, and end of the school year.”
Rules applied: SCORES02 v1 (No results on hand)
Gather information
Gathers evidence
General
Ask how many sessions actually happened
Ask for the planned schedule and a record of the sessions actually delivered. Missing delivery information is a gap to fill, not evidence that the intervention failed.
Why this is suggested
- It is not known whether intervention sessions happened as planned. Missing delivery information produces a data request, not a claim that the intervention failed.
Based on what you told us
- SUP01 Intervention received: Yes (Reported by adult)
- SUP04 Sessions delivered: Not sure (Needs clarification)
- Suggested responsible role
- Interventionist
- Evidence to collect
- Planned schedule
- Record of delivered sessions
- How to review it
- Compare planned and delivered sessions before judging progress.
- Evidence coverage
- Needs clarification
Sources
-
34 CFR 300.309 (determining SLD) (S34 · United States (federal) · law or rule)
- § 300.309(b) (lead-in; (b)(1)-(2) follow): “To ensure that underachievement in a child suspected of having a specific learning disability is not due to lack of appropriate instruction in reading or math, the group must consider, as part of the evaluation described in §§ 300.304 through 300.306”
Rules applied: SUPPORT02 v1 (Intervention delivery unknown)
Gather information
Gathers evidence
General
Bring recent work samples
Collect two or three recent examples that show the difficulty and one that shows a strength. Note the date, the task, and how much help was given.
Why this is suggested
- No recent work samples are on hand. Two or three dated examples make the concern concrete.
Based on what you told us
- I01 Reading impact: A lot (Reported by adult)
- I02 Math impact: A little (Reported by adult)
- I03 Writing impact: Not at all (Reported by adult)
- I04 Spoken language impact: Not at all (Reported by adult)
- I09 Work samples: No (Reported by adult)
- Suggested responsible role
- Parent and teachers
- Evidence to collect
- Recent work samples with dates and notes on help given
- How to review it
- Bring the samples to the meeting.
- Evidence coverage
- Needs clarification
Sources
-
Illinois Dyslexia Handbook (ISBE) (S06 · Illinois · agency guidance (informational except where statutory requirements are stated))
- Chapter 4, Table 6: Special Education Meeting Types (Domain Meeting row), p.56: “Share information and concerns related to health, academics, social and emotional skills and behavior, motor skills, expressive and receptive language; give written permission to collect additional information.”
-
OSERS letter on dyslexia terms (2015) (S18 · United States (federal) · agency guidance)
- PDF (linked from https://sites.ed.gov/idea/idea-files/osep-dear-colleague-letter-on-ideaiep-terms/): Page 2, second paragraph (begins 'In determining whether a child has a disability…'): “information about the child’s learning difficulties, including the presenting difficulties related to reading, mathematics, or writing, is important in determining the nature and extent of the child’s disability and educational needs.”
Rules applied: WORK01 v1 (Work samples not yet collected)
