Texas Educational Eligibility — AU (TAC §89.1040)
📌
Texas educational AU eligibility is distinct from a medical ASD diagnosis. A student may have a physician's diagnosis and not meet Texas educational eligibility criteria, or may meet educational criteria without a formal medical diagnosis. The ARD committee — not the physician — makes the educational eligibility determination. Medical documentation is helpful but not required.
A student must demonstrate all of the following to meet Texas AU eligibility:
1
DSM-5 Criterion A — Social Communication and Interaction Deficits (all three must be present): The student shows meaningful difficulties across three areas of social communication: reciprocal social-emotional exchange, use of nonverbal communicative behaviors in social contexts, and building or sustaining age-appropriate relationships. For the complete diagnostic criteria, refer to DSM-5 (APA, 2013) or DSM-5-TR (APA, 2022).
2
DSM-5 Criterion B — Restricted, Repetitive Behaviors, Interests, or Activities (at least two of four must be present): The student demonstrates restricted or repetitive patterns in at least two of the following areas: repetitive motor or verbal behaviors; rigid adherence to routines or resistance to change; unusually intense or narrow areas of interest; and atypical sensory responses (over- or under-reactivity). For the complete diagnostic criteria, refer to DSM-5 (APA, 2013) or DSM-5-TR (APA, 2022).
3
Early onset: Symptoms present in the early developmental period (may not fully manifest until social demands exceed limited capacities, or may be masked by learned strategies).
4
Functional impairment: Symptoms cause clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of current functioning.
5
Not better explained by intellectual disability or global developmental delay alone. (ID and AU can co-occur — comorbid diagnosis is appropriate when social communication deficits exceed what is expected for the general developmental level.)
+
Adverse educational impact: The disability adversely affects the student's educational performance and requires special education and related services. This is the educational nexus — required for Texas IDEA eligibility regardless of DSM-5 diagnosis status.
DSM-5 Severity Levels — Educational Application
| Severity Level |
Social Communication |
Restricted/Repetitive Behaviors |
FIE Relevance |
| Level 1 — Requiring Support |
Noticeable impairments without supports; difficulty initiating social interactions; atypical responses to social overtures |
Inflexibility causes significant interference with functioning in one or more contexts; difficulty switching between activities |
Most students served in gen ed with supports. FIE focuses on pragmatic language, transition supports, anxiety, executive function. |
| Level 2 — Requiring Substantial Support |
Marked deficits; limited initiation; reduced or atypical response to social approaches even with supports |
Inflexibility, repetitive behaviors appear frequently enough to be obvious; interfere across settings |
Often requires structured environment, social skill instruction, sensory accommodations. FIE documents pervasive impact across settings. |
| Level 3 — Requiring Very Substantial Support |
Severe deficits; very limited initiation; minimal response to social approaches |
Behaviors cause marked interference with functioning; very difficult to redirect |
Typically requires more restrictive placement, communication supports (AAC), high-level behavioral support. FIE documents functional communication needs. |
What "Masked" Presentation Means for Evaluation
Camouflaging / Masking
Some students — particularly girls, students with higher cognitive ability, and students who have been explicitly taught social scripts — learn to mask AU characteristics. They may perform adequately in structured settings while experiencing significant internal distress. Elevated anxiety, post-school emotional exhaustion ("school fatigue"), rigid internal routines not visible to teachers, and high performance in structured tasks that collapses in unstructured settings are common indicators. Informant discrepancies between school and home are expected and diagnostically meaningful — not contradictory.
Late Identification
Students identified later (middle/high school) often have strong verbal ability, compensatory strategies, and long histories of academic success. Referrals may come after a transition (new school, grade change, puberty) overwhelms compensatory capacity. FIE for late-identified students should include: developmental history interview focused on early childhood behavior; self-report where available (ASRS, Conners-4 SR); and explicit acknowledgment of masking in the interpretive narrative.
Instrument-to-DSM-5 Criteria Mapping
| Instrument |
DSM-5 Criterion A (Social Comm.) |
DSM-5 Criterion B (RRB) |
Informants |
Score Type |
| ADOS-2 |
✅ Direct observation — Social Affect domain |
✅ Direct observation — RRB domain |
Examiner (direct) |
Comparison Scores, Severity Classification |
| MIGDAS-2 |
✅ Interview + observation — Social Communication domain |
✅ Unusual Behaviors / RRB domain |
Examiner + Parent interview |
Domain descriptive scores |
| SRS-2 |
✅ Social Awareness, Cognition, Communication, Motivation |
✅ Restricted/Repetitive Behavior subscale |
Parent, Teacher |
T-scores (mean=50, SD=10) |
| ASRS |
✅ Social/Communication subscale |
✅ Unusual Behaviors subscale |
Parent, Teacher |
T-scores (mean=50, SD=10) |
| BASC-4 |
Partial — Atypicality, Withdrawal, Social Skills subscales |
Partial — Atypicality subscale |
Parent, Teacher, Self-Report |
T-scores (mean=50, SD=10) |
| BRIEF-2 |
Indirect — EF deficits affect social functioning |
Partial — Shift, Emotional Control (inflexibility) |
Parent, Teacher |
T-scores (mean=50, SD=10) |
| Vineland-3 |
Socialization domain (peer interaction, play, coping) |
— |
Parent/caregiver interview |
Standard scores (mean=100, SD=15) |
| WISC-V / WPPSI-IV |
— |
— |
Examiner (direct) |
Standard/Scaled scores — context for AU profile |
ADOS-2 — Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule, 2nd Ed.
The ADOS-2 is the gold-standard direct observational measure for AU. The examiner administers structured activities and rates the student's responses across two domains:
- Social Affect (SA): Social-emotional reciprocity, nonverbal communication, and relationship initiation/maintenance — maps directly to DSM-5 Criterion A
- Restricted and Repetitive Behaviors (RRB): Stereotyped behaviors, sensory interests, and rigidity — maps to DSM-5 Criterion B
Module selection is based on language level, not age:
- Module 1: Nonverbal to single words
- Module 2: Phrase speech (not fully conversational)
- Module 3: Fluent speech — children and adolescents
- Module 4: Fluent speech — older adolescents and adults
- Toddler Module: Ages 12–30 months
Output scores: Raw totals → Algorithm Comparison Score (CS) → Severity Classification (1–10 scale). CS ≥4 = autism spectrum range; CS ≥7 = autism range. These are comparison scores, not standard scores.
Criterion A + B direct evidence
Language-level module selection
Severity 1–10
MIGDAS-2 — Monteiro Interview Guidelines for Diagnosing ASD, 2nd Ed.
The MIGDAS-2 uses structured parent interview combined with naturalistic observation across four functional domains:
- Social Communication: Initiating/responding, perspective-taking, conversation skills
- Sensory: Hyper/hyposensitivity, sensory-seeking behaviors
- Unusual Behaviors / RRB: Repetitive movements, insistence on sameness, restricted interests
- Functional Communication: Quality and pragmatic use of language in context
Particularly valuable for:
young children (ages 2–5) where ADOS-2 alone may not capture the full profile;
non-speaking or minimally verbal students; students who perform differently in naturalistic vs. structured settings; situations where parent perspective on home functioning is essential.
Naturalistic — complements ADOS-2
Strong for EC ages 2–5
Parent interview + observation
SRS-2 — Social Responsiveness Scale, 2nd Ed.
The SRS-2 yields Parent and Teacher T-scores across five subscales plus a Total Score. Cross-informant comparison is essential:
- Social Awareness: Ability to pick up on social cues
- Social Cognition: Understanding others' intentions and feelings
- Social Communication: Pragmatic language, conversation reciprocity
- Social Motivation: Drive to engage with others; avoidance vs. indifference
- Restricted/Repetitive Behavior (RRB): Rigidity, routines, restricted interests, sensory
T-score interpretation: ≤59 = Within Normal Limits; 60–65 = Mild; 66–75 = Moderate; ≥76 = Severe range for social impairment.
Quantifies social impairment severity
Cross-informant: parent + teacher
Both DSM-5 A and B coverage
ASRS — Autism Spectrum Rating Scales
Parent and Teacher rating scales with T-scores and a Total Score. DSM-5 aligned — subscales map directly to diagnostic criteria:
- Social/Communication: Deficit in social-emotional reciprocity and communication (Criterion A)
- Unusual Behaviors: Repetitive behaviors, restricted interests, sensory (Criterion B)
- Self-Regulation: Emotional and behavioral dysregulation (common in AU)
Available for ages 2–18 across multiple age bands. A useful complement to the SRS-2 — both capture cross-informant ratings, but the ASRS has stronger DSM-5 criterion alignment in its subscale structure.
Ages 2–18
DSM-5 subscale alignment
Parent + Teacher forms
BASC-4 (Replacing BASC-3 Late Summer 2026) & BRIEF-2
Broad-band behavior rating scale — not AU-specific but provides crucial context. Key scales for AU evaluation:
- Atypicality: Bizarre, peculiar, or psychotic behavior — captures unusual/repetitive behaviors
- Withdrawal: Social disengagement, avoidance
- Social Skills: Prosocial behavior (low scores in AU)
- Adaptability: Flexibility — often low in AU
- Anxiety: Frequently co-elevated with AU
BASC-4 transitioning from BASC-3 late summer 2026. Scale structure expected to update — document version used in the FIE.
Measures executive function — critical in AU because EF deficits drive many of the behavioral challenges educators see:
- Shift: Cognitive flexibility — often severely impaired; reflects the "insistence on sameness" Criterion B feature
- Emotional Control: Regulation of emotional responses
- Initiate: Task initiation difficulties common in AU
- Working Memory: Holding info while acting on it
- GEC (Global Executive Composite) = overall EF summary
BRIEF-2 data directly informs classroom accommodation and IEP goal recommendations.
SRS-2 & ASRS — T-Score Classification
ℹ️
Both SRS-2 and ASRS use T-scores (mean=50, SD=10). Unlike ADHD rating scales where T≥65–70 is the threshold, AU rating scales use different clinical cut-points — particularly the SRS-2 which has its own published severity ranges. Use the instrument-specific cut-points below, not generic T-score bands.
SRS-2 Total Score Ranges
| T-Score |
Classification |
Interpretation |
| ≤59 | Within Normal Limits | Social behaviors not significantly different from peers |
| 60–65 | Mild | Subclinical social impairment; may reflect mild AU, anxiety, or social skill deficits |
| 66–75 | Moderate | Significant social impairment; consistent with AU; corroborate with direct observation |
| ≥76 | Severe | Marked social impairment; strongly associated with AU diagnosis across research literature |
ASRS T-Score Thresholds
| T-Score |
Classification |
Interpretation |
| ≤64 | Average | Behaviors within expected range for age |
| 65–69 | Elevated | Subclinical — note and monitor; may reflect AU characteristics or other concerns |
| 70–74 | Significantly Elevated | Consistent with AU spectrum characteristics; document cross-instrument corroboration |
| ≥75 | Very Elevated | Strongly associated with AU; document pervasive impact across settings |
ADOS-2 — Comparison Scores and Severity Classification
| Algorithm Comparison Score (CS) |
Severity Classification |
Range |
FIE Application |
| 1–2 | Non-Spectrum | Below autism spectrum threshold | Does not meet ADOS-2 threshold; document and consider differential diagnoses |
| 3 | Non-Spectrum (Borderline) | Just below threshold | Note as borderline; weight other data sources more heavily in profile interpretation |
| 4–5 | Autism Spectrum | Meets spectrum criteria on ADOS-2 | Document SA and RRB domain scores alongside CS; describe observed behaviors |
| 6–7 | Autism Spectrum (Moderate) | Moderate autism characteristics | Document specific SA and RRB behaviors observed; connect to educational impact |
| 8–10 | Autism | Meets full autism criteria | High certainty from ADOS-2; corroborate with rating scale and history data |
📌
ADOS-2 Comparison Scores are not standard scores or T-scores — they are an ordinal severity scale specific to the ADOS-2. Do not compare to T-score thresholds. Report the raw domain totals (SA, RRB), the algorithm total, and the resulting Comparison Score and severity level.
Vineland-3 in AU Context
Socialization Domain
The Socialization domain (Interpersonal Relationships, Play and Leisure Time, Coping Skills) is the most AU-sensitive Vineland domain. A student with AU often shows disproportionate weakness here relative to Daily Living Skills or Communication. A Socialization score significantly lower than the Communication or Daily Living scores is a meaningful pattern — document it.
ABC and Adaptive Pattern
The AU cognitive-adaptive discrepancy pattern: cognitive ability often substantially higher than adaptive behavior composite (ABC) — particularly Socialization. This gap reflects that the student can learn rules and facts, but struggles to apply social knowledge flexibly in real contexts. Document this discrepancy explicitly when present — it is educationally important for IEP planning.
Cognitive Profile in AU
Common WISC-V Patterns in AU
There is no single "AU cognitive profile" — intellectual ability spans the full range. Common patterns include:
- High VCI or VSI with relatively lower Processing Speed (PSI) or Working Memory (WMI)
- Significant variability across indices — high scatter is common and should not be averaged away
- Some students show exceptional verbal knowledge or spatial reasoning alongside marked WMI or PSI weaknesses
- Students with Level 2–3 AU may present with ID-range composites — use separate ID analysis if indicated
What Cognitive Data Contributes
In AU evaluations, cognitive data:
- Establishes that AU symptoms are not explained by ID alone (IDEA criterion)
- Informs placement and IEP planning — a Level 1 AU student with average IQ has different instructional needs than a Level 2 student with borderline cognitive ability
- Identifies processing-specific deficits (e.g., low WMI) that warrant specific accommodations
- Documents the cognitive-adaptive gap when present
The Multi-Source, Multi-Method Requirement
📌
No single instrument establishes or rules out AU. Texas requires a comprehensive evaluation using multiple tools and data sources. The convergence (or divergence) of findings across direct observation, rating scales, parent interview, and records review is itself meaningful clinical data that must be synthesized — not simply listed — in the FIE.
Convergence Patterns — Interpretation Guide
ADOS-2 in autism spectrum range + MIGDAS-2 social communication and RRB concerns documented + SRS-2 and ASRS Parent and Teacher T-scores elevated in the moderate-to-severe range + Vineland-3 Socialization significantly depressed + developmental history consistent with early-onset social communication differences.
Interpretation: High confidence in AU profile. FIE synthesis should name the convergence explicitly and connect each data source to DSM-5 criteria. Educational eligibility is well-supported; ARD team focuses on level of support, placement, and service design.
ADOS-2 in autism spectrum range; MIGDAS-2 documents social communication and sensory concerns — but SRS-2 and ASRS Teacher ratings fall in the mild or average range while Parent ratings are elevated.
Possible Explanations
- Student is masking in structured school setting
- Highly structured classroom compensates for AU-related needs
- Teacher-student relationship or classroom accommodations buffering observable impact
- Parent observing genuine "decompression" at home after masking all day
Documentation Approach
- Describe the discrepancy transparently in the FIE
- Reference masking research — it is an established phenomenon
- Obtain unstructured observation data (lunch, recess, transitions)
- Weight direct observation and parent interview given compensation pattern
SRS-2 and ASRS Teacher and Parent ratings in moderate-to-severe range; ADOS-2 Comparison Score in the 3 (borderline) or low spectrum range.
Possible Explanations
- Strong testing rapport with examiner may have elicited atypically adaptive responses during structured ADOS-2 session
- Student highly motivated by the novel testing environment
- Module selection may not have been optimal for this student's language level
- Masking particularly effective in novel structured context
Documentation Approach
- Do not default to ruling out AU based on ADOS-2 alone
- Document the discrepancy and consider re-observation in naturalistic setting
- Weight developmental history and MIGDAS-2 interview more heavily
- ARD team makes the final eligibility determination — document the full picture
ADOS-2 below spectrum threshold; SRS-2 and ASRS in mild range only; BASC-4 elevations on Anxiety and Withdrawal without specific AU subscale pattern; developmental history does not include early-onset social communication concerns.
Interpretation: Profile does not support AU eligibility at this time. FIE should document findings transparently, acknowledge the referral concern, and recommend continued monitoring and/or evaluation for alternative explanations (anxiety, SLI, social skill deficits secondary to another disability). Do not default to AU when evidence is insufficient — a DNQ with clear reasoning is appropriate and legally defensible.
What Each Instrument Uniquely Contributes
ADOS-2 Unique Contribution
Direct behavioral observation by a trained examiner under structured conditions. This is the only instrument that captures how the student navigates novel social demands in real time — not reported by someone else, not filtered through compensation strategies, and not dependent on the student's self-awareness.
MIGDAS-2 Unique Contribution
Captures the student's functional communication and behavior patterns in naturalistic context — which are often different from performance in structured testing. Provides the parent's detailed narrative of home behavior, sensory patterns, and developmental history in a structured format.
SRS-2 / ASRS Unique Contribution
Cross-informant quantification of social impairment and AU characteristics across settings. Provides a normed, repeatable measure that can be used across re-evaluations to track change. Captures both the parent's (home) and teacher's (school) perspectives systematically.
Vineland-3 Unique Contribution
Documents how AU-related deficits affect the student's real-world functional independence — not just symptom presence, but actual adaptive skill levels. The Socialization domain is the most AU-sensitive and the most directly relevant to IEP goal planning for social skill development.
📌
Differential diagnosis in AU evaluation does not mean choosing between AU and another diagnosis — it means determining whether each condition is independently present. AU commonly co-occurs with ADHD/OHI, anxiety, SLI, ID, and SLD. These are not mutually exclusive categories. Each condition that independently meets eligibility criteria should be separately documented.
Key distinction: SCD involves deficits in social use of language (pragmatics) without the restricted/repetitive behaviors required for AU diagnosis. If a student meets DSM-5 Criterion A but not Criterion B, the diagnosis is SCD, not AU.
Points Toward AU
- Criterion B features present: restricted interests, insistence on sameness, sensory differences, repetitive motor behaviors
- Social impairment present even in structured, rule-based interactions
- Early onset documented in developmental history
- Elevated ADOS-2 RRB domain + SRS-2 RRB subscale
Points Toward SCD Only
- Pragmatic language deficits present but no RRB features
- Flexible in routines and transitions
- No sensory hypersensitivity or seeking
- ADOS-2 RRB domain not elevated; SRS-2 RRB subscale within normal limits
Texas note: SCD does not have its own Texas special education eligibility category. Students with SCD typically qualify under SLI (communication disorder) or may co-qualify with AU if both criteria are met.
DSM-5 now allows ADHD and ASD to be co-diagnosed (this was not the case in DSM-IV). In Texas schools, a student can hold both AU and OHI eligibility if both independently meet criteria. These are distinct constructs that share surface features — attention difficulties, impulse control, and dysregulation appear in both.
Distinguishing Features
- AU: attention difficulties are content-specific — hyperfocus on preferred topics, disengagement from uninteresting ones
- ADHD: attention difficulties are pervasive — even preferred activities affected by impulsivity/hyperactivity
- AU: social motivation is the core issue (not just social skill); rigidity is prominent
- ADHD: social skill deficits driven by impulsivity, not social motivation or theory of mind
When Both Apply
- Student meets AU Criteria A+B independently AND shows pervasive ADHD symptoms not explained by AU alone
- Conners-4 or ADDES-5 elevated across both parent and teacher for Inattention AND Hyperactivity/Impulsivity
- Medical physician documentation supports ADHD
- ARD determines both OHI and AU eligibility are warranted
Critical legal distinction: ED and AU are separate Texas categories with different eligibility criteria. A student with AU who shows emotional/behavioral challenges may be misidentified as ED. The AU behavioral profile (meltdowns, rigidity, withdrawal, anxiety) can look like ED on the surface — but the etiology and intervention approach differ fundamentally.
Points Toward AU
- Behavioral dysregulation is triggered by sensory input, routine changes, or social demands — not primarily by relationship or mood
- Social difficulties present even when not distressed
- Restricted interests and RRB features present
- Early onset documented
- ADOS-2 and MIGDAS-2 findings consistent with AU
Points Toward ED (or Co-occurring)
- Mood disorder, anxiety disorder, or thought disorder documented by mental health professional
- Behavioral dysregulation is primarily relationship-driven (family disruption, trauma, attachment)
- Social deficits are secondary to mood/anxiety rather than primary
- No early-onset developmental history of AU features
AU and ED
can co-occur. A student with AU who also has a mood or anxiety disorder that
independently meets ED criteria may hold both eligibilities.
AU and ID can and do co-occur. IDEA explicitly states that AU cannot be ruled out solely because of intellectual disability — AU must be separately documented if present. The key question is whether the social communication deficits are greater than what would be expected given the student's general developmental level.
Key interpretive principle: If a student with ID shows social communication deficits that exceed peers with similar intellectual ability, this supports AU co-occurrence. Use mental-age-referenced comparison where available. The ADOS-2 comparison scores are normed for this — the algorithm accounts for language and developmental level.
Adaptive profile: In AU+ID, Socialization often shows the greatest depression relative to other Vineland-3 domains. In ID without AU, domains tend to depress more uniformly.
📌
Hub rule: never use "clinically" or "clinical" in FIE narrative language. Use "educationally significant," "consistent with," "documented across sources," or "observed during evaluation." AU FIE narratives should be parent-readable and describe what the student does, not just label criteria.
Background / Evaluation Context
Evaluation Context — Collaborative AU Evaluation
[Student] was referred for a comprehensive evaluation to assess for Autism Spectrum Disorder. The evaluation was conducted collaboratively by [Educational Diagnostician name] and [School Psychologist name]. [Student's first name] was assessed across multiple domains using a combination of direct observational assessment, standardized rating scales, parent interview, and records review, consistent with Texas requirements for a comprehensive special education evaluation. Instruments administered by each evaluator are identified throughout this report. No single instrument was used as the sole basis for any conclusion — findings are interpreted across the full body of evidence gathered.
Adjust roles to reflect your actual collaborative structure. Always specify who administered what.
ADOS-2 — FIE Narrative
ADOS-2 · Module [X] · Findings in Autism Spectrum Range
[Student] was administered Module [#] of the ADOS-2 by [School Psychologist name], reflecting [his/her/their] current language level of [nonverbal / phrase speech / fluent speech]. The ADOS-2 consists of structured social press activities designed to elicit behaviors relevant to autism spectrum characteristics. During the evaluation, [Student's first name] demonstrated [description of specific observed behaviors — e.g., limited spontaneous social initiation, reduced reciprocal sharing of enjoyment, atypical use of gestures, repetitive manipulation of materials]. [His/Her/Their] Social Affect (SA) domain total was [##] and Restricted and Repetitive Behavior (RRB) domain total was [##], yielding an algorithm total of [##] and an ADOS-2 Comparison Score of [#], which falls in the [Autism Spectrum / Autism] range (Severity Classification [#] on a 1–10 scale). These findings reflect that the social behaviors observed during the evaluation were [moderately / markedly] discrepant from what would be expected for a same-age peer without autism spectrum characteristics.
Describe specific observed behaviors — do not just report numbers. Parent-readable behavioral descriptions are required.
SRS-2 / ASRS — Cross-Informant FIE Narrative
SRS-2 · Elevated Across Parent and Teacher
The SRS-2 was completed by [Student]'s parent/caregiver and classroom teacher to assess social responsiveness across settings. Parent ratings yielded a Total SRS-2 score of [##] (T=[##]), which falls in the [Moderate / Severe] range, reflecting significant concerns across [specific elevated subscales — e.g., Social Cognition, Social Communication, and Restricted/Repetitive Behavior]. Teacher ratings were similarly elevated, with a Total score of [##] (T=[##]). The cross-informant consistency of these ratings — both parent and teacher observing significant social impairment in their respective settings — is educationally significant, as it indicates that [Student]'s social communication difficulties are pervasive rather than setting-specific. Notably, [he/she/they] was rated as [describe notable subscale pattern — e.g., showing particularly high scores on Restricted/Repetitive Behavior, reflecting rigid behavioral patterns and restricted interests that affect participation in both home and school routines].
Name the specific elevated subscales and what they mean behaviorally. Connect to real-world classroom and home behaviors described in the teacher/parent interview.
MIGDAS-2 — FIE Narrative
MIGDAS-2 · Parent Interview + Naturalistic Observation
The MIGDAS-2 was administered by [School Psychologist name] using a combination of structured parent interview and naturalistic observation of [Student]'s communication and behavior in context. In the Social Communication domain, [Student's first name] demonstrated [description — e.g., difficulty initiating and sustaining conversation on topics not of [his/her/their] choosing; limited use of facial expression and gesture to support communication; responses to social overtures that were brief or absent]. Sensory domain findings were notable for [description — e.g., hypersensitivity to auditory input in group settings and sensory-seeking behavior involving tactile stimulation]. Unusual Behaviors / Restricted and Repetitive Behaviors were documented, including [description — e.g., rigid adherence to preferred activity sequences and significant distress when routines were disrupted]. These findings, gathered through both parent report of home behavior and direct observation, complement the results of the ADOS-2 and provide a naturalistic picture of [Student]'s autism-related characteristics across settings.
MIGDAS-2 provides descriptive domain findings, not standardized scores. Write in behavioral terms. Explicitly connect to ADOS-2 findings as complementary — not redundant.
Educational Impact Statement
Impact Statement — Autism (Garcia-Prats TEDA 2026 Framework)
[Student]'s autism spectrum characteristics affect [his/her/their] ability to navigate the social demands of the school environment, including initiating and sustaining reciprocal interactions with peers, reading nonverbal social cues during group instruction and unstructured activities, and tolerating the sensory and routine variability of a typical school day. [He/She/They] requires [predictable structure, explicit social skill instruction, and sensory accommodations] to access instruction and participate meaningfully in school routines.
One paragraph per eligibility area per Garcia-Prats TEDA 2026 framework. Structure: skill affected → classroom behavior → what helps. 3–4 sentences. No clinical jargon. Parent-readable.
Eligibility Determination Language
Eligibility — AU Determination Statement
Based on the comprehensive evaluation conducted by [Diagnostician] and [School Psychologist], [Student] demonstrates documented deficits in social communication and social interaction across multiple settings, as evidenced by [summarize key cross-source findings]. Additionally, [he/she/they] demonstrates restricted and repetitive behaviors and interests, including [briefly name 2–3 documented Criterion B features]. These characteristics were present in the early developmental period based on [parent report / records / developmental history], and they adversely affect [Student]'s educational performance by limiting [his/her/their] ability to [specific educational impact — e.g., access group instruction, build peer relationships, manage transitions, and engage in unstructured activities without significant support]. The ARD committee determined that [Student] meets the Texas eligibility criteria for Autism Spectrum Disorder under IDEA and TAC §89.1040, and that [he/she/they] requires special education and related services.
The ARD committee — not the diagnostician alone — makes the eligibility determination. Use "The ARD committee determined" not "I determined." Name the specific DSM-5 Criterion A and B features documented.
DNQ / Does Not Meet Criteria Language
AU — Does Not Meet Educational Eligibility Criteria
Results of the comprehensive evaluation did not yield sufficient evidence to support educational eligibility for Autism Spectrum Disorder at this time. While [summarize what was found — e.g., teacher ratings on the SRS-2 indicated mild elevations in social communication concerns (T=[##])], findings from the ADOS-2 (Comparison Score [#], below autism spectrum threshold) and developmental history [did not / do not] document early-onset pervasive social communication deficits consistent with an autism spectrum profile. Parent ratings on the [ASRS / SRS-2] were within the average range. The pattern of findings is more consistent with [alternative explanation — e.g., pragmatic language deficits associated with an SLI profile / social skill difficulties secondary to anxiety / attentional difficulties affecting social interactions]. These results are interpreted in the context of all data sources reviewed and are one component of the ARD committee's eligibility determination.
A well-reasoned DNQ narrative is legally important. Document what was found, what the threshold was, why the threshold was not met, and what the alternative explanation is. Do not leave a DNQ underdocumented.