Sources

'Tier 1 (Universal) Screening', first paragraph

Universal screening, referred to as a tier 1 dyslexia screening measure in Ohio’s dyslexia support laws (ORC 3323.251), identifies the students whose current level of skills indicate they may be at risk of reading difficulties such as dyslexia.

Ohio defines tier 1 dyslexia screening as universal screening that identifies students who may be at risk of reading difficulties such as dyslexia.

'Screening requirements by grade level', Kindergarten bullet

Kindergarten students: Universal (tier 1) screening must occur between the first day of January of their kindergarten year and prior to the first day of January of the following school year.

Kindergarten students must receive the tier 1 screening in a window that opens January 1 of kindergarten and closes before January 1 of the next school year.

'Screening requirements by grade level', Grades 1-6 bullet

Grades 1-6: Upon parent request or teacher request with parent permission.

For grades 1-6, tier 1 screening happens on parent request or on teacher request with parent permission.

'Progress Monitoring and Tier 2 (Intervention-Based Diagnostic) Screening', first paragraph

Students identified as at risk must be progress-monitored for up to six weeks and an intervention-based diagnostic (tier 2) screener must be administered to students who continue to exhibit risk for dyslexia.

Students identified as at risk are progress-monitored for up to six weeks, and those who continue to show risk get a tier 2 intervention-based diagnostic screener.

'Progress Monitoring and Tier 2 ...' section, Note

In lieu of the progress-monitoring period, an intervention-based diagnostic (tier 2) screener can also be administered immediately to any student who received a universal (tier 1) screener.

A tier 2 screener may be given immediately instead of waiting through the progress-monitoring period.

'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.

Families are to receive tier 2 results plus information on reading development, dyslexia risk factors and a written explanation of the structured literacy program.

First body paragraph, under the page heading 'District Comprehensive Evidence-Based Reading Plans' and the link text '6A-6.053 District Comprehensive Evidence-Based Reading Plan'

Annually, each school district is required to submit a District Comprehensive Evidence-Based Reading Plan (CERP) approved by the applicable district school board or authority.

Each Florida district submits an annually board-approved reading plan (CERP).

Section 'Assessment/Curriculum Decision Trees (Rule 6A-6.053(9)(b)4., F.A.C.)', bulleted list introduced by 'The Decision Trees must contain the following information:', fourth bullet

Specific criteria for when a student is identified to receive intensive reading interventions (Tier 3), what intensive reading interventions will be used, how the intensive reading interventions are provided

Decision trees must state the criteria for moving a student to intensive (Tier 3) reading intervention and how it is provided.

Subsection (3)(a)3.c. (Tier 3)

Tier 3 interventions must be provided to students identified as having a substantial deficiency in reading or characteristics of dyslexia pursuant to s. 1008.25(5)(a), F.S.

Tier 3 interventions must be provided to students identified with a substantial reading deficiency or characteristics of dyslexia.

Subsection (6)(a) (Identification, lead-in)

A kindergarten through grade 3 student is identified as having a substantial deficiency in reading if the student demonstrates through progress monitoring, formative assessments, or teacher observation data, minimum skill levels for reading competency in one or more of the six (6) components of reading

The rule begins its definition of substantial deficiency in reading (K-3) with minimum skill levels for reading competency in one or more of the six components of reading, shown through monitoring, assessment or teacher observation data.

Subsection (6)(a)3.a. (introduced by '3. For kindergarten through grade 2, the student scores:')

Below the tenth (10th) percentile or is unable to complete the practice items on the designated grade-level assessment at the beginning or middle of the year test administration of the coordinated screening and progress monitoring system

For kindergarten through grade 2, one trigger is scoring below the 10th percentile (or being unable to complete practice items) at the beginning or middle of the year.

Subsection (6)(a)4.a. (introduced by '4. For grade 3, the student scores:')

Below the twentieth (20th) percentile at the beginning or middle of the year test administration of the coordinated screening and progress monitoring system

For grade 3, one trigger is scoring below the 20th percentile at the beginning or middle of the year.

Subsection (6)(b)

Parents of students identified with a substantial deficiency in reading must be notified immediately in writing of the items listed in s. 1008.25(5)(d)-(e), F.S., and consulted in the development of a plan.

Parents must be notified immediately in writing and consulted in developing a plan.

Subsection (6)(c)2., last sentence

Nothing in this rule should be construed to require or prohibit an IEP or 504 Plan or the contents of these plans.

The rule states it does not require or prohibit an IEP or 504 Plan.

Subsection (6)(d)

Immediately following identification, students with a substantial deficiency in reading must be provided reading interventions that are intensive, explicit, systematic, and multisensory, in accordance with s. 1008.25(5)(a), F.S.

Interventions must start immediately after identification and be intensive, explicit, systematic and multisensory.

Subsection (7) (introductory sentences)

The primary characteristics of dyslexia include, but are not limited to, difficulties with accurate and fluent word recognition and spelling, difficulty with learning letters and their sounds, and confusion in the sequence of letters and sounds.

The rule lists primary characteristics of dyslexia, expressly not limited to those named.

Subsection (7)(a)

Parents of students identified with the characteristics of dyslexia must be notified immediately in writing and consulted in the development of a plan as described in s. 1008.25(4)(b), F.S., pursuant to s. 1002.20(11), F.S.

Parents of students with characteristics of dyslexia must be notified immediately in writing and consulted in plan development.

Subsection (7)(b)

Pursuant to s. 1008.25(9)(a)3., F.S., districts are required to conduct additional screening for any student identified as having characteristics of dyslexia through the coordinated screening and progress monitoring system.

Districts must conduct additional screening for any student identified with characteristics of dyslexia.

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.

Students with characteristics of dyslexia receive dyslexia-specific interventions, such as structured literacy, immediately after identification.

Subsection (9)(b)3.n.

The district’s process for identifying students in grades K-12 in need of Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions, which must be provided to students with a substantial deficiency in reading or characteristics of dyslexia;

Each district plan must describe its process for identifying K-12 students needing Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions.

Subsection (9)(b)4.

Assessment/Curriculum Decision Trees that demonstrate how data will be used to determine specific reading instructional needs and interventions for all students in grades K-12.

Plans must include decision trees showing how data determines reading needs and interventions for all K-12 students.

Subsection (9)(b)4.a.

For students in VPK through grade 10, the FAST must be administered pursuant to s. 1008.25(9)(b), F.S., and included as a component of the Assessment/Curriculum Decision Trees

The state progress-monitoring test (FAST) must be administered from VPK through grade 10 and included in the decision trees.

Section "Dyslexia Handbook", first paragraph

The Texas Dyslexia Handbook is developed and adopted into administrative rule by the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE).

TEA states the Dyslexia Handbook is adopted into administrative rule by the State Board of Education.

Section "Dyslexia Handbook", second paragraph

In effect as of June 30, 2024. At the April 12, 2024 State Board of Education (SBOE) meeting, the SBOE approved for second reading and final adoption changes to 19 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) 74.28.

The current handbook edition took effect June 30, 2024 following SBOE adoption of changes to 19 TAC 74.28.

Page body, paragraph beginning "Texas state law (TEC §38.003)..."

The program approved by the SBOE must include screening for each student at the end of the kindergarten year and then again during first grade.

The state-board-approved program must include dyslexia screening of every student at the end of kindergarten and again in first grade.

Page body, second paragraph ("Texas Education Code §38.003 does not explicitly state when first grade students must be screened...")

Screening of first-grade students can begin anytime in the fall as the teacher deems appropriate. Grade 1 screening must conclude no later than January 31 of each year.

Grade 1 dyslexia screening may start in the fall and must be finished by January 31 each year.

"Purpose and Use" > "Handbook Use and Connection to the Dyslexia Toolkit", p.2

This handbook is an informational document. Other than where statutory requirements are clearly stated, the handbook shares information and resources rather than mandating action.

The handbook states it is informational and does not mandate action except where statutory requirements are clearly stated.

Chapter 4, "Asking for School-Based Support", p.53

a caregiver, teacher, or other education professional may request an evaluation for special education and related services. It is suggested that this request for an evaluation be submitted in writing.

A caregiver, teacher, or other professional may request an evaluation, and the handbook suggests submitting the request in writing.

Chapter 4, "Asking for School-Based Support", p.53

Within 14 school days after receiving a request for an evaluation, the district will decide whether an evaluation is warranted and formally respond in writing.

The handbook says the district decides within 14 school days whether an evaluation is warranted and responds in writing.

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.

An outside dyslexia diagnosis does not automatically make a student eligible for special education.

Chapter 4, "Qualifying for Special Education and Related Services", p.55

Children and adolescents who do not qualify for special education services may be eligible for a 504 plan or may receive supplemental support through tiered interventions.

Students who do not qualify for special education may be eligible for a 504 plan or tiered supports.

Chapter 5, "Dyslexia and Special Education Eligibility", p.77

Although following the RtI process is not a valid reason to delay an evaluation, the use of RtI for eligibility in Illinois is required for SLD eligibility (23 IAC 226.130).

RtI is not a valid reason to delay an evaluation, though Illinois requires using RtI for SLD eligibility.

Chapter 5, "Dyslexia and Special Education Eligibility", p.77

a referral for special education evaluation can be made at any time by any member of the student’s problem-solving team (including caregivers).

A referral for special education evaluation can be made at any time by any problem-solving team member, including caregivers.

Chapter 5, "Dyslexia and Special Education Eligibility", p.77

according to administrative code, any child suspected of having dyslexia or those with an outside diagnosis of dyslexia must be referred for a special education evaluation.

The handbook says that under administrative code any child suspected of dyslexia or with an outside diagnosis must be referred for evaluation.

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.

The handbook acknowledges most schools use a screener but some collect data in other ways.

Chapter 5, Table 8: Screening Measures by Grade Level (Kindergarten row), p.64

Kindergarten • Oral language and vocabulary • Letter knowledge • Phonological (phonemic) awareness • Letter-sound associations • Phonological processing task (Rapid Automatized Naming assessment measure) • Spelling (end of kindergarten)

Table 8 lists recommended kindergarten screening skills including letter knowledge, phonemic awareness, letter-sound associations, rapid automatized naming, and end-of-year spelling.

Chapter 5, "Universal Early Literacy Screening" (continued), p.65

early literacy screening results alone do not provide enough information for the team to automatically “suspect” dyslexia.

The handbook says early literacy screening results alone are not enough for the team to automatically suspect dyslexia.

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.

The handbook urges districts to have an assessment plan for identifying older students with reading difficulty or signs of dyslexia who were not earlier identified.

Chapter 4, "Transition: Moving Beyond High School", p.57

Starting with the first IEP in effect at age 14-and-a-half, or sooner if the IEP team determines appropriate, students' IEPs must include a transition plan to address postsecondary employment, education/training, and independent living.

IEPs must include a transition plan starting with the first IEP in effect at age 14 and a half, or sooner if the IEP team decides.

Chapter 1, "Federal Laws Related to Dyslexia" > IDEA, p.10

there is nothing in the IDEA that would prohibit the use of the terms dyslexia, dyscalculia, and dysgraphia in IDEA evaluations, eligibility determinations, or IEP documents

The handbook cites a 2015 federal memo saying IDEA does not prohibit using the terms dyslexia, dyscalculia, and dysgraphia in evaluations, eligibility, or IEPs.

Chapter 2, "Comorbid Conditions That Can Impact Learning" > Dyscalculia, p.21

Dyscalculia is a learning disorder in the area of mathematics.

The handbook defines dyscalculia as a learning disorder in the area of mathematics.

Chapter 2, "Comorbid Conditions That Can Impact Learning" > Dysgraphia, p.21

Dysgraphia refers to unusual difficulty with handwriting, but not necessarily word reading, decoding, and spelling unless a student has co-occurring dyslexia.

The handbook describes dysgraphia as unusual difficulty with handwriting that does not necessarily affect word reading, decoding, or spelling unless dyslexia co-occurs.

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.

The handbook says literacy instruction should include evidence-based practices in oracy, phonological awareness, word recognition, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, and writing.

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.

At the Domain Meeting (Review of Existing Information), the parent role is to share information and concerns and give written permission to collect additional information.

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.

Parents submit a request for evaluation and the guide says it is best to put the request in writing.

Chapter 3, "Referral", p.21

Within 14 school days after receiving the written request, the district will decide whether to evaluate the child or not.

The district decides within 14 school days of receiving the written request whether to evaluate.

Chapter 3, "Referral", p.21

The district must advise the parents of their right to request a due process hearing to challenge its decision.

If the district decides not to evaluate, it must advise parents of their right to request a due process hearing.

Chapter 3, "Initial Eligibility: Step by Step" (Steps 3-5), p.22

Timelines for completing the evaluation do not start until consent has been given by the parent.

The evaluation timelines begin only after the parent gives informed written consent.

Chapter 3, "Important Reminder" box, p.27

The determination of eligibility shall be made, and the IEP shall be completed in 60 school days (or less) following the date of written consent from the parent.

Eligibility determination and the IEP must be completed within 60 school days of written parental consent.

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.

Parents can ask for an evaluation at any time regardless of the child's stage in MTSS.

Chapter 5, "Special Education Eligibility Considerations", p.36

The use of the MTSS/RTI process cannot delay the evaluation, if one is needed.

The guide states MTSS/RTI cannot delay an evaluation that is needed.

Chapter 1, "Screening", p.10

No child can be determined eligible to receive early intervention/special education and related services based only on the results of a screening procedure.

A child cannot be found eligible for special education based only on screening results.

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

The guide lists areas where a specific learning disability may show up, including written expression and mathematics problem-solving or calculations.

Chapter 15, "The 5 Common Myths About Section 504", Myth #1: 504 Equals IDEA ("The Truth"), p.118

If a student is Section 504 eligible (but not eligible for services as a special education student under IDEA), the student and the family have fewer protections than in the case of a special education student.

The guide says a Section 504 student who is not IDEA-eligible and their family have fewer protections than a special education student.

Chapter 3, "Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE)", p.27

parents can request in writing that a new evaluation be completed by an outside person or agency (someone not employed by the district) at the district’s expense.

Parents who doubt an evaluation can request in writing an independent evaluation at the district's expense.

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.

If the district decides not to evaluate, it must tell the parent in writing of that decision and the reasons.

SUBJECT line

A Response to Intervention (RTI) Process Cannot Be Used to Delay-Deny an Evaluation for Eligibility under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

The memo's subject line states that an RTI process cannot be used to delay or deny an IDEA eligibility evaluation.

Body paragraph 1 (child find)

States and LEAs have an obligation to ensure that evaluations of children suspected of having a disability are not delayed or denied because of implementation of an RTI strategy.

OSEP says states and districts must ensure RTI implementation does not delay or deny evaluations of children suspected of having a disability.

Body paragraph 6 (begins 'The regulations at 34 CFR §300.301(b) allow a parent…'), sentence 1

The regulations at 34 CFR §300.301(b) allow a parent to request an initial evaluation at any time to determine if a child is a child with a disability.

OSEP's reading of 34 CFR 300.301(b) is that a parent may request an initial evaluation at any time.

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.

RTI strategies cannot be used to delay or deny a full and individual evaluation of a child suspected of having a disability.

Body paragraph 6, sentence 3

If the LEA agrees with a parent who refers their child for evaluation that the child may be a child who is eligible for special education and related services, the LEA must evaluate the child.

If the district agrees with the parent that the child may be eligible, the district must evaluate the child (so the duty to evaluate is tied to the district's agreement that eligibility is possible).

Body paragraph 6, later sentence (cites 34 CFR §300.301(c))

An LEA must conduct the initial evaluation within 60 days of receiving parental consent for the evaluation or, if the State establishes a timeframe within which the evaluation must be conducted, within that timeframe.

The initial evaluation must be done within 60 days of parental consent, or within the State's own timeframe if the State sets one.

Body paragraph 7 (begins 'If, however, the LEA does not suspect…'), sentence 1

the LEA must provide written notice to parents explaining why the public agency refuses to conduct an initial evaluation and the information that was used as the basis for this decision.

If a district does not suspect a disability and denies a request for an initial evaluation, it must give parents written notice explaining why and what information it relied on.

Body paragraph 7, sentence 2

The parent can challenge this decision by requesting a due process hearing under 34 CFR §300.507 or filing a State complaint under 34 CFR §300.153 to resolve the dispute regarding the child’s need for an evaluation.

A parent can challenge a refusal to evaluate through a due process hearing or a State complaint.

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

WWC practice guide recommendation 1 for reading interventions, rated Strong 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

WWC practice guide recommendation 2 for reading interventions, rated Strong evidence.

Recommendations tab, rec 3; level = evidence icon alt text 'Strong Evidence' (matches Summary PDF p.1)

Routinely use a set of comprehension-building practices to help students make sense of the text

WWC practice guide recommendation 3 for reading interventions, rated Strong evidence. Page lists Parts 3A-3D under this recommendation.

Recommendations tab, rec 4; level = evidence icon alt text 'Moderate Evidence' (matches Summary PDF p.1)

Provide students with opportunities to practice making sense of stretch text (i.e., challenging text) that will expose them to complex ideas and information

WWC practice guide recommendation 4 for reading interventions, rated Moderate evidence.

Full Guide, Introduction p.1 (PDF p.8), paragraph on the students the guide refers to

Generally, the material in this guide should be appropriate for students with reading difficulties. However, additional accommodations or supports may be needed. The specific additional accommodations and supports, however, are beyond the scope of this guide.

The guide says its material is generally appropriate for students with reading difficulties but that additional accommodations or supports may be needed and are beyond its scope.

Full Guide, Introduction p.2 (PDF p.9), 'Levels of evidence' box, Strong

Strong: There is consistent evidence that meets WWC standards and indicates that the practices improve outcomes for a diverse student population.

WWC defines a Strong level of evidence as consistent evidence meeting WWC standards that practices improve outcomes for a diverse student population.

Full Guide, Introduction p.2 (PDF p.9), 'Levels of evidence' box, Moderate

Moderate: There is some evidence meeting WWC standards that the practices improve student outcomes, but there may be ambiguity about whether that improvement is the direct result of the practices or whether the findings can be replicated with a diverse population of students.

WWC defines a Moderate level of evidence as some evidence meeting WWC standards, with possible ambiguity about direct causation or replication with a diverse population.

Recommendations tab, rec 1; level = evidence icon alt text 'Strong Evidence' (matches Full Guide Table 1, p.3)

Systematic Instruction: Provide systematic instruction during intervention to develop student understanding of mathematical ideas.

WWC practice guide recommendation 1 for elementary mathematics intervention, rated Strong evidence.

Recommendations tab, rec 2; level = evidence icon alt text 'Strong Evidence' (matches Full Guide Table 1, p.3)

Mathematical Language: Teach clear and concise mathematical language and support students’ use of the language to help students effectively communicate their understanding of mathematical concepts.

WWC practice guide recommendation 2 for elementary mathematics intervention, rated Strong evidence.

Recommendations tab, rec 3; level = evidence icon alt text 'Strong Evidence' (matches Full Guide Table 1, p.3)

Representations: Use a well-chosen set of concrete and semi-concrete representations to support students’ learning of mathematical concepts and procedures.

WWC practice guide recommendation 3 for elementary mathematics intervention, rated Strong evidence.

Recommendations tab, rec 4; level = evidence icon alt text 'Strong Evidence' (matches Full Guide Table 1, p.3)

Number Lines: Use the number line to facilitate the learning of mathematical concepts and procedures, build understanding of grade-level material, and prepare students for advanced mathematics.

WWC practice guide recommendation 4 for elementary mathematics intervention, rated Strong 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.

WWC practice guide recommendation 5 for elementary mathematics intervention, rated Strong evidence.

Recommendations tab, rec 6; level = evidence icon alt text 'Strong Evidence' (matches Full Guide Table 1, p.3)

Timed Activities: Regularly include timed activities as one way to build fluency in mathematics.

WWC practice guide recommendation 6 for elementary mathematics intervention, rated Strong evidence.

Full Guide, Introduction p.1 (right column, paragraph 1)

it is narrower in scope, focusing only on practices and principles underlying effective small-group interventions in grades K–6.

The guide states its scope is small-group interventions in grades K-6.

Full Guide, Introduction p.3, 'Who Might Find This Guide Useful'

students with or at risk for mathematics disabilities who may also have reading, language, attention, behavior, working memory, or processing-speed difficulties

The guide is designed for teachers serving students with or at risk for mathematics disabilities (the full guide text does not use the word dyscalculia).

Full Guide, Introduction p.2, Box 1 'Levels of evidence', Strong

Strong: There is consistent evidence that meets WWC standards and indicates that the practices improve outcomes for a diverse student population.

WWC defines a Strong level of evidence as consistent evidence meeting WWC standards that practices improve outcomes for a diverse student population.

Recommendations tab, rec 1; level = evidence icon alt text 'Strong Evidence' (matches Full Guide Table 1, p.4)

Explicitly teach appropriate writing strategies using a Model-Practice-Reflect instructional cycle.

WWC practice guide recommendation 1 for secondary writing, rated Strong evidence.

Recommendations tab, rec 2; level = evidence icon alt text 'Moderate Evidence' (matches Full Guide Table 1, p.4)

Integrate writing and reading to emphasize key writing features.

WWC practice guide recommendation 2 for secondary writing, rated Moderate evidence.

Recommendations tab, rec 3; level = evidence icon alt text 'Minimal Evidence' (matches Full Guide Table 1, p.4)

Use assessments of student writing to inform instruction and feedback.

WWC practice guide recommendation 3 for secondary writing, rated Minimal evidence.

Summary PDF p.9, 'Summary of evidence for Recommendation 1'

The first recommendation in the guide was assigned a strong level of evidence.

The WWC summary states the level of evidence assigned to recommendation 1.

Summary PDF p.10, 'Summary of evidence for Recommendation 2'

The second recommendation in the guide was assigned a moderate level of evidence.

The WWC summary states the level of evidence assigned to recommendation 2.

Summary PDF p.10, 'Summary of evidence for Recommendation 3'

The third recommendation in the guide was assigned a minimal level of evidence.

The WWC summary states the level of evidence assigned to recommendation 3.

Summary PDF p.10, 'Summary of evidence for Recommendation 3'

A minimal level of evidence does not mean that there is no research evidence supporting the recommendation.

WWC clarifies that a Minimal level of evidence does not mean there is no research evidence supporting the recommendation.

Full Guide, 'About this practice guide' page (PDF p.2), paragraph 2

The goal of this practice guide is to offer educators specific, evidence-based recommendations that address the challenges of teaching students in grades 6–12 to write effectively.

The guide's stated goal is evidence-based recommendations for teaching students in grades 6-12 to write effectively.

Full Guide, Introduction (continued), printed p.3, first paragraph

The studies examined interventions appropriate for general education students. Five studies included ability or language subgroups, but the interventions in these studies were carried out in general education classrooms or were determined by the panel to be appropriate for general education students.

The supporting studies examined interventions appropriate for general education students; five studies included ability or language subgroups.

Full Guide, Introduction (continued), printed p.4, 'How to use this guide'

the flexibility to tailor instruction to meet the needs of their classrooms and students, including adapting the practices for use with students with disabilities and English learners.

The guide says teachers have flexibility to tailor instruction, including adapting the practices for students with disabilities and English learners.

PDF (linked from https://sites.ed.gov/idea/idea-files/osep-dear-colleague-letter-on-ideaiep-terms/): Page 1, paragraph 1 (last sentence)

The purpose of this letter is to clarify that there is nothing in the IDEA that would prohibit the use of the terms dyslexia, dyscalculia, and dysgraphia in IDEA evaluation, eligibility determinations, or IEP documents.

OSERS says nothing in IDEA prohibits using the terms dyslexia, dyscalculia and dysgraphia in evaluations, eligibility determinations or IEPs.

PDF (linked from https://sites.ed.gov/idea/idea-files/osep-dear-colleague-letter-on-ideaiep-terms/): Page 1, paragraph 3

While our implementing regulations contain a list of conditions under the definition “specific learning disability,” which includes dyslexia, the list is not exhaustive.

The regulatory list of conditions under 'specific learning disability' includes dyslexia but is not exhaustive.

PDF (linked from https://sites.ed.gov/idea/idea-files/osep-dear-colleague-letter-on-ideaiep-terms/): Page 1, paragraph 3 (continued)

the LEA must conduct an evaluation in accordance with 34 CFR §§300.304-300.311 to determine whether that child meets the criteria for specific learning disability or any of the other disabilities listed in 34 CFR §300.8

Whether or not a condition such as dyslexia, dyscalculia or dysgraphia is named in the definition, the district must conduct an evaluation to determine whether the child meets disability criteria.

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))

OSERS reminds states and districts that a parent may request an initial evaluation at any time.

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), later sentence

the use of MTSS, such as RTI, may not be used to delay or deny a full and individual evaluation under 34 CFR §§300.304-300.311 of a child suspected of having a disability

MTSS or RTI may not be used to delay or deny a full and individual evaluation of a child suspected of having a disability.

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.

Information about the child's difficulties in reading, mathematics or writing is important in determining the nature and extent of the disability and educational needs.

PDF (linked from https://sites.ed.gov/idea/idea-files/osep-dear-colleague-letter-on-ideaiep-terms/): Page 3, first paragraph (begins 'Stakeholders also requested…')

There is nothing in the IDEA or our implementing regulations that prohibits the inclusion of the condition that is the basis for the child’s disability determination in the child’s IEP.

IDEA and its regulations do not prohibit naming the condition that is the basis for the disability determination in the IEP.

PDF (linked from https://sites.ed.gov/idea/idea-files/osep-dear-colleague-letter-on-ideaiep-terms/): Page 3, second paragraph (begins 'Stakeholders requested that OSERS provide…')

The IDEA does not dictate the services or accommodations to be provided to individual children based solely on the disability category in which the child has been classified, or the specific condition underlying the child’s disability classification.

IDEA does not dictate particular services or accommodations based solely on the disability category or the underlying condition.

§ 300.8(c)(10)(i) General (first clause)

Specific learning disability means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written

The regulation defines specific learning disability as a disorder in basic psychological processes involved in understanding or using language.

§ 300.8(c)(10)(i) General (second clause)

that may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations, including conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia.

The definition covers imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations, and lists dyslexia among included conditions.

§ 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.

The definition excludes learning problems primarily resulting from visual, hearing or motor disabilities, intellectual disability, emotional disturbance, or environmental, cultural or economic disadvantage.

§ 300.8(a)(1) (end of paragraph)

a specific learning disability, deaf-blindness, or multiple disabilities, and who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services.

A child with a disability is a child evaluated as having a listed disability (including specific learning disability) and who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services.

§ 300.301(b) Request for initial evaluation

Consistent with the consent requirements in § 300.300, either a parent of a child or a public agency may initiate a request for an initial evaluation to determine if the child is a child with a disability.

Either a parent or a public agency may initiate a request for an initial evaluation, consistent with consent requirements.

§ 300.301(c)(1)(i)

Must be conducted within 60 days of receiving parental consent for the evaluation

The initial evaluation must be conducted within 60 days of receiving parental consent (paragraph (c)(1)(ii) allows a State-established timeframe instead).

§ 300.301(c)(1)(ii)

If the State establishes a timeframe within which the evaluation must be conducted, within that timeframe

If the State establishes its own evaluation timeframe, the evaluation must be conducted within that timeframe.

Chapter 2, Part A, "Dyslexia Screening — Universal Screening", p.14

screening is defined as a universal measure administered to all students by qualified personnel to determine which students are at risk for dyslexia or reading difficulties and/or a related disorder. Screening is not a formal evaluation.

The handbook defines screening as a universal at-risk check given to all students and states it is not a formal evaluation.

Chapter 2, Part B, Figure 2.2 "Criteria for English and Spanish Screening Instruments", p.16 (table transcribed in reading order)

Kindergarten • Letter Sounds Knowledge or Letter Naming Fluency • Phonological Awareness First Grade • Word Reading Accuracy or Fluency • Phonological Awareness

Required screener skills are letter sounds or letter naming plus phonological awareness in kindergarten, and word reading plus phonological awareness in grade 1.

Chapter 2, Part C (interpretation), p.17-18

The next steps are broadly categorized as: refer for evaluation, implement targeted intervention, and/or continue with core instruction.

After screening, the handbook describes three broad next steps: refer for evaluation, targeted intervention, or continue core instruction.

Chapter 2, Part C, "Screening Data Gathering", p.19

Screening data should always be shared in writing with parents.

The handbook says screening data should always be shared with parents in writing.

Chapter 2, Part C, p.18

Screening, by definition, should never be the final determination of whether a student has dyslexia.

The handbook says a screening result should never be the final determination of dyslexia.

Chapter 2, Part C, p.18

the use of a tiered intervention process, such as Response to Intervention or RTI, must not be used to delay or deny an evaluation for dyslexia, especially when parent or teacher observations reveal the common characteristics of dyslexia.

The handbook says tiered intervention such as RTI must not be used to delay or deny a dyslexia evaluation.

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.

Parents may request a referral for a dyslexia evaluation at any time.

Chapter 3, same section, p.25

Once a written parent request for dyslexia evaluation has been made to the appropriate administrator, the school district is obligated to review the student’s data history (both formal and informal data)

After a written parent request, the district must review the student's formal and informal data history.

Chapter 3, same section, p.25

to determine whether there is reason to suspect the student has a disability and must respond within 15 school days.

The district must respond within 15 school days of a written parent request.

Chapter 3, same section, p.25

In most cases, an FIIE under the IDEA must be completed within 45-school days from the time a district or charter school receives parental consent.

In most cases the full individual and initial evaluation must be completed within 45 school days of receiving parental consent.

Chapter 3, same section, p.25

Under the IDEA, if the school refuses the request to evaluate, it must give parents prior written notice of refusal to evaluate, including an explanation of why the school refuses to conduct an FIIE

If the school refuses to evaluate, it must give the parents prior written notice that includes an explanation of the refusal.

Foreword, p.4

The Handbook was amended again effective February 10, 2022, to clarify that evaluations for dyslexia and related disorders must go through the process required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

The handbook states a 2022 amendment clarified that dyslexia evaluations must follow the IDEA process.

Chapter 1, quoting TEC §38.003(d)(1) (1995), p.7

“Dyslexia” means a disorder of constitutional origin manifested by a difficulty in learning to read, write, or spell, despite conventional instruction, adequate intelligence, and sociocultural opportunity.

Texas statute (as quoted in the handbook) defines dyslexia as a disorder of constitutional origin with difficulty learning to read, write, or spell despite conventional instruction.

Chapter 5: Dysgraphia, "Definition and Characteristics of Dysgraphia", p.55

dysgraphia is best defined as a neurodevelopmental disorder manifested by illegible and/or inefficient handwriting due to difficulty with letter formation.

The handbook defines dysgraphia as a neurodevelopmental disorder shown by illegible or inefficient handwriting from difficulty with letter formation.

Chapter 2, Part A, "Other Related Disorders", p.15

at the time of the update to this handbook it was determined there are no grade-level appropriate screening instruments for dysgraphia and the other identified related disorders.

The handbook states there were no grade-level appropriate screening instruments for dysgraphia or the other related disorders at the time of the update.

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.

The handbook lists eight components of dyslexia instruction: 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.

The handbook lists delivery principles: simultaneous multisensory, systematic and cumulative, explicit, diagnostic teaching to automaticity, and analytic plus synthetic.

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.

The handbook says students may reach middle or high school unidentified and still 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.

The handbook says a referral for a dyslexia evaluation can be considered at any time from kindergarten through high school.

Chapter 4, "Evidence-Based Dyslexia Instruction", p.38

This means that evidence-based dyslexia instruction is only available to students who are served under IDEA, which prescribes the legal requirements for special education and related services.

In Texas, the handbook ties evidence-based dyslexia instruction to students served under IDEA (a Texas-specific rule to avoid assuming for Illinois).

Chapter 2, Part A, "Federal Requirements – Child Find", p.14 (repeated on p.25-26)

Therefore, when referring and evaluating students suspected of having dyslexia, LEAs must follow procedures for conducting a full individual and initial evaluation (FIIE) under the IDEA.

The handbook says that for students suspected of dyslexia, the district must follow the IDEA full individual and initial evaluation procedures, under Child Find.

Subsection (4)(a), second sentence (portion)

Each student who does not achieve a Level 3 or above on the statewide, standardized English Language Arts assessment; the statewide, standardized Mathematics assessment; or the Algebra I EOC assessment must be evaluated to determine the nature of the student’s difficulty

A student who does not reach Level 3 on the named statewide assessments must be evaluated to determine the nature of the student's difficulty.

Subsection (4)(c), second and third sentences through item 1

The individualized progress monitoring plan must be developed within 45 days after the results of the coordinated screening and progress monitoring system become available. The plan must, at a minimum, include: 1. The student’s specific, identified reading or mathematics skill deficiency.

The individualized progress monitoring plan is due within 45 days of screening results and must name the specific deficiency (further minimum items follow in the statute).

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.

The plan must include growth goals and benchmarks and a description of the measures used to monitor progress.

Subsection (5)(a), first sentence (portion)

any student in kindergarten through grade 3 who exhibits a substantial deficiency in reading or the characteristics of dyslexia based upon screening, diagnostic, progress monitoring, or assessment data; statewide assessments; or teacher observations must be provided intensive, explicit, systematic, and multisensory reading interventions

K-3 students with a substantial reading deficiency or characteristics of dyslexia must get intensive, explicit, systematic, multisensory reading interventions.

Subsection (5)(a)2., first sentence

A school may not wait for a student to receive a failing grade at the end of a grading period or wait until a plan under paragraph (4)(b) is developed to identify the student as having a substantial reading deficiency and initiate intensive reading interventions.

Schools may not wait for a failing grade or for a plan to be developed before identifying a substantial reading deficiency and starting intensive interventions.

Subsection (5)(a)2., second sentence (portion)

a school may not wait until an evaluation conducted pursuant to s. 1003.57 is completed to provide appropriate, evidence-based interventions for a student whose parent submits documentation from a professional licensed under chapter 490 which demonstrates that the student has been diagnosed with dyslexia

Schools may not wait for an evaluation under s. 1003.57 to be completed before providing interventions to a student whose parent submits a licensed professional's dyslexia diagnosis documentation.

Subsection (5)(d), lead-in (printed with footnote marker '1' before '(d)')

The parent of any student who exhibits a substantial deficiency in reading, as described in paragraph (a), must be immediately notified in writing of the following:

Parents of students with a substantial reading deficiency must be notified immediately in writing of a listed set of items.

Subsection (5)(d)1.

That his or her child has been identified as having a substantial deficiency in reading, including a description and explanation, in terms understandable to the parent, of the exact nature of the student’s difficulty in learning and lack of achievement in reading.

The notice must explain, in parent-understandable terms, the exact nature of the student's reading difficulty.

Subsection (5)(d)2.-3.

2. A description of the current services that are provided to the child. 3. A description of the proposed intensive interventions and supports that will be provided to the child that are designed to remediate the identified area of reading deficiency.

The notice must describe current services and proposed intensive interventions and supports.

Subsection (5)(d), paragraph after item 9

After initial notification, the school shall apprise the parent at least monthly of the student’s progress in response to the intensive interventions and supports

After the first notice, the school updates the parent at least monthly on progress.

Subsection (5)(d), paragraph after item 9

Upon the request of the parent, the teacher or school administrator shall meet to discuss the student’s progress.

On parent request, the teacher or administrator must meet to discuss progress.

Subsection (5)(e)2.

An overview of the types of assessments used to identify reading deficiencies and what those assessments measure or do not measure, the frequency with which the assessments are administered

The state-compiled parent resources must explain what the assessments measure or do not measure and how often they are given.

Subsection (5)(e)3.

An overview of the process for initiating and conducting evaluations for exceptional education eligibility. The overview must include an explanation that a diagnosis of a medical condition alone is not sufficient to establish exceptional education eligibility

Parent resources must explain how exceptional education evaluations are initiated and that a medical diagnosis alone does not establish eligibility.

Subsection (5)(e)4.

Characteristics of conditions associated with learning disorders, including dyslexia, dysgraphia, dyscalculia, and developmental aphasia.

Parent resources must describe characteristics of learning-disorder conditions including dyslexia, dysgraphia, dyscalculia and developmental aphasia.

Subsection (6)(a), lead-in

any student in kindergarten through grade 4 who exhibits a substantial deficiency in mathematics or the characteristics of dyscalculia based upon screening, diagnostic, progress monitoring, or assessment data; statewide assessments; or teacher observations must:

For mathematics, the statute reaches kindergarten through grade 4 students with a substantial deficiency or characteristics of dyscalculia.

Subsection (6)(a)1.

Immediately following the identification of the mathematics deficiency, be provided systematic and explicit mathematics instruction to address his or her specific deficiencies through either:

Mathematics instruction that is systematic and explicit must begin immediately after identification, delivered by one of two listed methods.

Subsection (9)(a)3. (portion)

identifies students who have a substantial deficiency in reading or mathematics, including identifying students with characteristics of dyslexia, dyscalculia, and other learning disorders; and informs instruction. Any student identified by the system as having characteristics of dyslexia or dyscalculia shall undergo further screening.

The statewide screening system identifies students with characteristics of dyslexia or dyscalculia, and those students shall undergo further screening.

Subsection (9)(b)1.

For students in the school-year Voluntary Prekindergarten Education Program through grade 2, the coordinated screening and progress monitoring system must be administered at least three times within a school year

For VPK through grade 2, the statewide screening and progress monitoring is given at least three times a year.

Subsection (9)(b)3.

For grades 3 through 10 English Language Arts and grades 3 through 8 Mathematics, the coordinated screening and progress monitoring system must be administered at the beginning, middle, and end of the school year pursuant to state board rule.

For ELA in grades 3-10 and mathematics in grades 3-8, the system is given at the beginning, middle and end of the school year.

Subsection (9)(c), lead-in (portion)

the system must provide results from the first two administrations of the progress monitoring to a student’s teacher or prekindergarten instructor within 1 week and to the student’s parent within 2 weeks after the administration of the progress monitoring.

Results from the first two administrations go to the teacher within 1 week and to the parent within 2 weeks.

Division (A)(2)(a)

A screening measure shall be administered to a student after the first day of January of the school year in which the student is enrolled in kindergarten and prior to the first day of January of the following school year.

Kindergarten screening occurs after January 1 of the kindergarten year and before January 1 of the following school year.

Division (A)(2)(b)(i)

The student's parent, guardian, or custodian requests that the screening measure be administered to the student.

A parent, guardian or custodian can request the screening for a student in grades 1-6.

Division (A)(2)(b)(ii)

A classroom teacher requests that the screening measure be administered to the student and the student's parent, guardian, or custodian grants permission for the screening measure to be administered.

A teacher can request screening in grades 1-6, but the parent, guardian or custodian must grant permission.

Division (A)(3)

Identify each student that is at risk of dyslexia based on the student's results on the tier one screening measure and notify the student's parent, guardian, or custodian that the student has been identified as being at risk.

Districts identify at-risk students from tier one results and must notify the parent, guardian or custodian.

Division (A)(4), first two sentences

Monitor the progress of each at-risk student toward attaining grade-level reading and writing skills for up to six weeks. The district or school shall check each at-risk student's progress on at least the second week, fourth week, and sixth week

At-risk students are progress-monitored for up to six weeks with checks at least in weeks two, four and six.

Division (A)(4), last sentence

If no progress is observed during the monitoring period, the district or school shall notify the parent, guardian, or custodian of the student and administer a tier two dyslexia screening measure to the student.

If no progress is observed, the district notifies the parent and gives a tier two screening measure.

Division (A)(5), first sentence

Report to a student's parent or guardian the student's results on a tier two screening measure approved by the Ohio dyslexia committee within thirty days after the measure's administration.

Tier two results must be reported to the parent or guardian within thirty days of administration.

Division (A)(5), second sentence

If, as determined by the tier two screening measure, the student is identified as having dyslexia tendencies, the student's parent or guardian shall be provided with information about reading development, the risk factors for dyslexia, and descriptions for evidenced-based interventions.

If tier two identifies dyslexia tendencies, parents receive information on reading development, risk factors and evidence-based interventions.

Division (A)(6)

If a student demonstrates markers for dyslexia, provide the student's parents or guardian with a written explanation of the district or school's structured literacy program.

Parents of a student showing dyslexia markers get a written explanation of the structured literacy program.

Division (C)(3)

Establish a multidisciplinary team to administer screening and intervention measures and analyze the results of the measures.

Each district or school must set up a multidisciplinary team to run screening and intervention measures and analyze results.

Introduction, paragraph 2

Section 504 is a federal law designed to protect the rights of individuals with disabilities in programs and activities that receive Federal financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Education (ED).

Section 504 is a federal law protecting individuals with disabilities in programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance from ED.

Students Protected Under Section 504 (intro paragraph)

Section 504 requires that school districts provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to qualified students in their jurisdictions who have a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.

Section 504 requires districts to provide FAPE to qualified students with an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.

FAQ 4

An appropriate education for a student with a disability under the Section 504 regulations could consist of education in regular classrooms, education in regular classes with supplementary services, and/or special education and related services.

Under Section 504, an appropriate education can range from regular classrooms to regular classes with supplementary services and/or special education and related services.

FAQ 35 (answer)

No. If a student is eligible under IDEA, he or she must have an IEP. Under the Section 504 regulations, one way to meet Section 504 requirements for a free appropriate public education is to implement an IEP.

A student eligible under both IDEA and Section 504 does not need a separate 504 plan; implementing the IEP is one way to meet Section 504 FAPE requirements.

FAQ 32 (answer)

The student may be eligible for services under Section 504. The school district must determine whether the student has an impairment which substantially limits his or her ability to learn or another major life activity

A student with an IDEA-referenced disability who does not need special education may still be eligible under Section 504 if the district finds a substantial limitation of learning or another major life activity.

FAQ 19 (answer)

School districts may use the same process to evaluate the needs of students under Section 504 as they use to evaluate the needs of students under the IDEA.

Districts may use the same process to evaluate students under Section 504 as under IDEA.

FAQ 5 (answer)

OCR generally will not evaluate the content of a Section 504 plan or of an individualized education program (IEP); rather, any disagreement can be resolved through a due process hearing.

OCR generally does not review the content of a 504 plan or IEP; disagreements can be resolved through a due process hearing.

p. 41 (printed page footer; equals PDF page index), 'Identifying Dyslexia as a Specific Learning Disability' (guidebook quotes ORC 3323.25 definition of dyslexia)

a specific learning disorder that is neurological in origin and that is characterized by unexpected difficulties with accurate or fluent word recognition and by poor spelling and decoding abilities not consistent with the person’s intelligence, motivation, and sensory capabilities

The guidebook quotes Ohio law's definition of dyslexia as a neurological specific learning disorder with unexpected word-recognition, spelling and decoding difficulties.

p. 2 (printed page footer; equals PDF page index), Executive Summary

The guidebook outlines several recommended best practices to consider when implementing the legal requirements of screening, intervention and remediation. All best practices in this guidebook are recommendations only.

The guidebook's best practices are recommendations, not requirements.

p. 22 (printed page footer; equals PDF page index), Section 2 introduction

Screening assessments are not designed to diagnose dyslexia but rather to identify risk.

Screening assessments identify risk rather than diagnose dyslexia.

p. 16 (printed page footer; equals PDF page index), 'Multi-Tiered System of Support', first paragraph

There is no single test for dyslexia. Dyslexia is not diagnosed through screening and cannot be diagnosed without measuring a student’s response to effective instruction.

The guidebook says no single test exists for dyslexia and screening does not diagnose it.

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.

Tier 2 assessments pinpoint the specific skills a student needs help with.

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.

The guidebook says the response to dyslexia risk is immediate structured literacy instruction and intervention with ongoing monitoring.

p. 31 (printed page footer; equals PDF page index), 'Communicating with Parents...' - Helpful communication list

Helpful communication should include: • The assessment used • The skills measured • The expected performance • The student’s performance • The next steps for instruction • A request to share information about their child and their family history

The guidebook lists what a helpful results communication to families should contain.

p. 38 (printed page footer; equals PDF page index), Section 3, 'Tier 3 Intensive Structured Literacy Intervention'

Tier 3 is not synonymous with special education. It is not necessary for a student to have a diagnosis of a disability such as dyslexia before getting reading support, even intensive reading support.

The guidebook says a diagnosis is not needed before a student gets reading support, even intensive support.

p. 40 (printed page footer; equals PDF page index), 'When to Suspect a Disability'

The student-level team can suspect a student may have a disability and request a comprehensive evaluation for special education eligibility when the instruction required for a student to make progress is individualized and intensive and cannot be maintained with general education resources.

The guidebook says the team can request a special education evaluation when needed instruction is individualized and intensive and cannot be sustained with general education resources.

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.

The guidebook says an outside dyslexia diagnosis does not automatically make a student identified as having a disability by the district.

p. 42 (printed page footer; equals PDF page index), 'Outside Clinical Diagnosis of Dyslexia'

Parents can request a comprehensive multifactored evaluation if they suspect a disability or have received a dyslexia diagnosis by an outside professional.

Parents can request a comprehensive multifactored evaluation if they suspect a disability or hold an outside diagnosis.

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.

The guidebook acknowledges older-grade students may need intense intervention or accommodations (guidance, not a screening mandate).

Section 'Dyslexia Screening and Intervention', question 'Will an individualized education program (IEP) need to be written if a child is identified as “at risk” by the dyslexia screener?' answer

The determination of “at risk” by a dyslexia screener is not a diagnosis.

Ohio states that an at-risk result on a dyslexia screener is not a diagnosis.

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

A parent who suspects a disability can ask the district to evaluate the child.

Section 226.110(b)

A request may be made by a parent of a child or by an employee of a State educational agency, another State agency, a local educational agency, or a community service agency.

The rule says a request for an initial evaluation may be made by a parent or by an employee of a state, local, or community agency.

Section 226.110(a)

Each school district shall develop and make known to all concerned persons procedures by which an evaluation may be requested.

Each district must develop and publicize its own procedures for requesting an evaluation.

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).

The district has 14 school days to decide whether an evaluation is warranted and must give parents written notice if it decides not to evaluate.

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.

Eligibility must be determined and the IEP meeting completed no later than 60 school days after the parent signs consent for the assessments.

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.

If fewer than 60 school days remain after consent, eligibility and the IEP meeting must be completed before the next school year starts.

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.

Illinois rule defines dyslexia as a neurobiological specific learning disability marked by difficulty with word recognition, spelling, and decoding.

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.

Each child suspected of having dyslexia or identified as dyslexic shall be referred for an evaluation under the cited federal and state requirements.

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.

A child's participation in the response-to-intervention or MTSS process cannot be the basis for denying a parent's evaluation request.

105 ILCS 5/2-3.196(c)(2), as added by Section 90

Provide guidance related to screening tools, the administration of such screening tools, and the interpretation of the resulting data to identify students at risk of reading difficulties in grades kindergarten through 2.

The statute directs the State Board to provide guidance on screening tools, administration, and interpreting data to identify K-2 students at risk of reading difficulties.

Section "Universal Early Literacy Screener", p.1

An early literacy screener is not a diagnostic test or used to monitor progress and will not result in a child being diagnosed with any particular learning disability.

ISBE says an early literacy screener is not diagnostic and will not result in a diagnosis of any learning disability.

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.

ISBE guidance says all students should be screened for foundational literacy skills three times a year.

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.

OSEP says IDEA does not require a specific disability label or diagnosis for each student, so long as the child is regarded as having a disability and receives needed services.

Page 1, sentence beginning 'There is no provision in the IDEA…' (sentence continues onto page 2)

There is no provision in the IDEA that gives a parent the right to dictate the specific areas that the public agency must assess as part of the comprehensive evaluation

OSEP says IDEA gives parents no right to dictate the specific areas the district must assess (the letter goes on to say a needed dyslexia assessment must then be conducted).

Page 2, sentence beginning 'Parents who disagree with an evaluation…'

Parents who disagree with an evaluation obtained by a public agency have the right to seek an independent educational evaluation (IEE) at public expense.

Parents who disagree with a district's evaluation have the right to seek an IEE at public expense; the letter then describes the district's options of filing for a due process hearing or providing the IEE.

Page 2, sentence beginning 'Based on section 607(e) of the IDEA…'

our response is provided as informal guidance and is not legally binding

OSEP states the letter is informal guidance and not legally binding.

§ 300.307(a)(1)

Must not require the use of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability

State SLD criteria must not require a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement.

§ 300.307(a)(2)

Must permit the use of a process based on the child's response to scientific, research-based intervention

State SLD criteria must permit a process based on the child's response to scientific, research-based intervention.

§ 300.309(a)(1) (lead-in; areas (i)-(viii) follow, including Written expression, Basic reading skill, Reading fluency skills, Reading comprehension, Mathematics calculation, Mathematics problem solving)

The child does not achieve adequately for the child's age or to meet State-approved grade-level standards in one or more of the following areas, when provided with learning experiences and instruction appropriate for the child's age or State-approved grade-level standards:

One SLD criterion is inadequate achievement for age or State grade-level standards, despite appropriate instruction, in one or more of eight listed areas covering oral expression, listening, writing, reading and mathematics.

§ 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

The evaluation group must consider data on prior appropriate instruction and repeated achievement assessments to ensure underachievement is not due to lack of appropriate instruction in reading or math.

§ 300.309(c) (lead-in; sentence continues with an 'unless extended by mutual written agreement' clause and (c)(1)-(2))

The public agency must promptly request parental consent to evaluate the child to determine if the child needs special education and related services, and must adhere to the timeframes described in §§ 300.301 and 300.303

The agency must promptly request parental consent to evaluate and adhere to the timeframes, subject to extension by mutual written agreement of the parents and a group of qualified professionals as the rest of the sentence provides.