When dyslexia is identified but SDI is not required
IDEA eligibility is a two-part test. A student can meet Part 1 — a disability exists — without meeting Part 2 — the disability requires specially designed instruction (SDI). Texas guidance explicitly contemplates this scenario for dyslexia and provides a clear pathway: when the data support a disability finding but do not show a need for SDI, the appropriate route is a referral to the campus 504 committee. This tool walks through the legal basis, how to tell the difference, what the 504 plan must still include, and how to document it defensibly.
Evaluation data document that the student has a disability — in this context, dyslexia as defined under Texas law and the Dyslexia Handbook. The pattern of phonological processing characteristics, family history, response to intervention, and behavioral indicators collectively support the disability finding, even when norm-referenced scores are within average limits due to the benefit of intervention.
AND
Prong 2 — Required for IDEA
Need for Specially Designed Instruction
The disability must adversely affect educational performance in a way that requires specially designed instruction (SDI) — modification of content, methodology, or delivery that goes beyond general education supports. If the student is accessing the general education curriculum and making meaningful progress with accommodations alone, this prong may not be met. This is a data-driven ARD committee determination, not a routing decision.
✓ Both Prongs Met → IDEA / ARD
Disability identified AND the disability requires SDI. The student qualifies for special education services. An IEP is developed by the ARD committee. Services may include direct dyslexia intervention by a trained provider.
↑ IDEABoth prongs ↓ 504Prong 1 only
✓ Prong 1 Only → 504 Referral
Disability identified but SDI is not required at this time. The student is referred to the campus 504 committee. The ARD committee's not-eligible determination must be data-driven and documented. Accommodations may still be warranted and dyslexia instruction requirements under 19 TAC §74.28 still apply.
Child Find concern: The "no need" finding must come from the data — not from a desire to avoid IDEA or reduce service load. OSEP's 2018 monitoring report cited Texas for routing students away from IDEA without adequate data-driven determination. Document the ARD committee's rationale explicitly and thoroughly in the FIE and meeting notes.
Section 2 — Legal Authority & Citations
"Some students with dyslexia reach a point where direct intervention and explicit skill instruction is no longer warranted, but accommodations to provide curriculum access may be warranted. This is one example when provision of services under Section 504 may be more applicable than services under the IDEA."
TEA Technical Assistance Advisory — Provision of Services for Students with Dyslexia and Related Disorders (2018)
"If it is suspected or known that special education services are needed, the student should not be directed to, or first served through, Section 504."
TEA TAA Letter (2018) — Critical Caveat
TEA TAA Letter (2018)
Provision of Services for Students with Dyslexia
The strongest legal anchor for this pathway. Explicitly contemplates the scenario where dyslexia is identified but SDI is no longer warranted. Also establishes that 504 is not appropriate when IDEA services are still needed — making data quality essential.
19 TAC §74.28
SBOE Rules — Dyslexia Services
Requires that dyslexia instruction follow Handbook procedures — multisensory, evidence-based, delivered by a trained provider — regardless of whether the student is served under IDEA or Section 504. This obligation does not end with IDEA ineligibility.
OSEP 2018 Monitoring Report
Texas Child Find Violation Finding
OSEP found Texas was systematically routing students with dyslexia to 504 without completing the full two-prong IDEA analysis. The resulting guidance dismantled the old "dual pathway default." Every not-eligible finding now requires explicit documentation that the data — not a policy preference — drove the determination.
Texas Dyslexia Handbook (Feb 2022)
Identification & Service Requirements
Aligns with the TAA letter. Describes how characteristics of dyslexia may be present even when norm-referenced scores are within average limits due to the benefit of intervention and accommodations. A student with documented dyslexia characteristics remains a student with dyslexia.
2023 TX Legislature
Dyslexia as a Learning Disability — State Law
Texas codified dyslexia as a learning disability under state law. This strengthens the disability identification prong and underscores that a formal dyslexia identification carries legal weight whether services are provided under IDEA or 504.
34 CFR §300 (IDEA) · 34 CFR §104 (504)
Federal Regulatory Basis
IDEA governs eligibility for and provision of special education. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibits disability-based discrimination by programs receiving federal funding and requires reasonable accommodations. These operate as parallel but distinct systems — a student ineligible for IDEA retains rights under 504.
Sections 3 & 4 — When This Pathway Fits vs. When It's Risky
✅When This Pathway Fits Well
Student completed a structured dyslexia program and data document the response — decoding, fluency, and comprehension are now functional with accommodations.
Mild presentation with strong compensatory strategies — student is on grade level, using learned strategies effectively, and classroom access does not require SDI.
Reevaluation where SDI is no longer required — current performance with accommodations shows the student can access the curriculum without specially designed instruction.
Data clearly show accommodations alone provide access — extended time, text-to-speech, audio books, and spelling leniency are sufficient scaffolds.
Initial evaluation with documented Tier III response — student has received intensive, fidelity-based intervention for multiple years and made documented, meaningful growth. Norm-referenced scores are within average range but dyslexia characteristics remain present. (This is your current case scenario.)
Family and student are stable and informed — parent understands the distinction, agrees with the data, and the family relationship with the school supports follow-through on 504 implementation.
⚠️When This Pathway Is Risky
Initial evaluations on younger students (K–3) — limited intervention history, shorter academic track record, and more developmental runway ahead. The data are less stable at this age to support a "no need" finding.
Recent intervention with limited progress data — if the student has only received Tier III for one year or less, the response data may not be sufficient to support a "completed" rationale.
The student never received a systematic, evidence-based program — a "no need" finding is harder to defend when it is unclear whether adequate dyslexia-specific instruction was ever tried.
"No need" feels like a routing decision — if the committee discussion is about caseload, staffing, or service model rather than the data, OSEP Child Find scrutiny applies.
Parent disagrees — contested IDEA ineligibility findings significantly increase legal exposure. A disagreeing parent can request an IEE, file a complaint with TEA, or initiate due process.
Academic demands are increasing — a student performing adequately in 3rd grade may not be adequately served by accommodations alone in 6th or 9th grade when text complexity and writing demands escalate.
Section 5 — What the 504 Plan Must Still Include for Dyslexia
🚨
Widely missed: Under 19 TAC §74.28, dyslexia instruction must follow Handbook procedures — multisensory, evidence-based, delivered by a trained provider — regardless of whether the student is served under IDEA or Section 504. A 504 plan for a student with identified dyslexia is not just an accommodations checklist. If continued dyslexia instruction is warranted, the 504 plan must name the instruction, provider qualifications, and frequency. The SBOE rules do not have an IDEA/504 carve-out.
📋 What a Dyslexia 504 Plan Should Typically Address
Accommodations (access supports — not SDI):
Extended time on tests and assignments (typically 1.5× or time-and-a-half)
Audio access — text-to-speech tools, audiobooks, human reader for content-area assessments
Spelling leniency on content-area assessments where spelling is not the target skill
Preferential seating, reduced distraction environment for testing
Option to respond orally to demonstrate knowledge when written output is the barrier
Word prediction or speech-to-text tools for written tasks
Curriculum or program alignment with evidence-based, multisensory approaches
Annual review: The 504 committee must review the plan at least annually. As academic demands increase, the committee should explicitly revisit whether accommodations remain sufficient or whether IDEA eligibility should be reconsidered.
Section 6 — Procedural Differences: IDEA vs. 504 for This Student
Area
Under IDEA (if eligible)
Under Section 504
Decision-making body
ARD committee — prescribed composition including special ed teacher, gen ed teacher, campus admin, diagnostician, parent
504 committee — broader / less prescribed composition; no federally mandated team structure
Written plan
Individualized Education Program (IEP) — detailed, regulated document with present levels, annual goals, service minutes, placement
504 Accommodation Plan — less prescribed; no required annual goals or present levels of performance
Parent rights / due process
IDEA procedural safeguards — mediation, state complaint, impartial due process hearing through TEA
Section 504 / OCR procedures — complaint to Office for Civil Rights (OCR), internal grievance process; no IDEA due process
Federal funding
Student generates federal IDEA Part B funds to the district; services are funded through special education budget
No federal IDEA funding generated; services funded through general education budget
Re-evaluation requirements
Full reevaluation required every 3 years; may be waived by parent/district agreement; annual IEP review required
No federally mandated reevaluation timeline; annual plan review recommended; periodic reassessment best practice
Transition planning
Formal transition planning required beginning at age 16 (Texas: age 14); documented in IEP
No formal IDEA transition requirements; postsecondary accommodations must be self-advocated and documentation re-established
Discipline protections
Manifestation determination required before change of placement; stay-put protections apply
No manifestation determination required; some functional behavioral analysis protections apply under OCR guidance
Diagnostician role note: The diagnostician completes the evaluation and documents findings in the FIE. The eligibility determination is made by the ARD committee. The 504 referral comes from that committee's determination — the diagnostician does not refer to 504 unilaterally. Document the ARD committee's discussion and rationale, not just the outcome.
Section 7 — FIE Documentation Language
FIE Section
Defensible Language Stem
Disability Prong — Affirm Eligibility section
Evaluation data support a finding that [Student] demonstrates characteristics consistent with dyslexia as described in the Texas Dyslexia Handbook and defined under Texas law. Specifically, [Student] demonstrates [name pattern: e.g., phonological processing characteristics, family history, documented response-to-instruction pattern] that are consistent with this profile.
Evaluation data support a finding that ___ demonstrates characteristics consistent with dyslexia as described in the Texas Dyslexia Handbook and defined under Texas law. Specifically, ___ demonstrates [pattern] that are consistent with this profile.
SDI Prong — Not Met Eligibility section
While a dyslexia characteristic pattern is supported by the data, the ARD committee determined that [Student]'s current performance does not reflect the need for specially designed instruction at this time. [Student] is accessing the general education curriculum and demonstrating meaningful progress with [accommodations / supports currently in place]. The data do not show that modification of content, methodology, or delivery beyond these supports is required.
While a dyslexia characteristic pattern is supported by the data, the ARD committee determined that ___'s current performance does not reflect the need for specially designed instruction at this time. ___ is accessing the general education curriculum and demonstrating meaningful progress with [supports in place]. The data do not show that modification of content, methodology, or delivery beyond these supports is required.
Intervention Response Language Reading narrative or Academic Summary
[Student]'s current performance in the average range is interpreted in the context of [number]-year(s) of consistent, fidelity-based Tier [II/III] intervention. These scores reflect the educational benefit of that instruction and are not interpreted as the absence of the underlying characteristic pattern. The response-to-instruction data, [phonological processing findings], [family history], and [behavioral indicators] collectively inform the committee's understanding of [Student]'s profile.
___'s current performance in the average range is interpreted in the context of [X]-year(s) of consistent, fidelity-based Tier [II/III] intervention. These scores reflect the educational benefit of that instruction and are not interpreted as the absence of the underlying characteristic pattern.
The ARD committee recommends that [Student] be referred to the campus 504 committee for consideration of accommodations to support continued access to the general education curriculum. This referral is based on the committee's determination that [Student]'s dyslexia characteristics, while present, do not currently require specially designed instruction. The 504 committee should consider accommodations consistent with [Student]'s identified pattern, and should ensure that any continued dyslexia instruction meets the requirements of 19 TAC §74.28.
The ARD committee recommends that ___ be referred to the campus 504 committee for consideration of accommodations to support continued access to the general education curriculum. This referral is based on the committee's determination that ___'s dyslexia characteristics, while present, do not currently require specially designed instruction.
Scores-in-Context Clarifier For any narrative where average scores might mislead
Average norm-referenced scores in the context of a documented dyslexia characteristic pattern do not indicate that the disability is absent — they indicate that the student has responded meaningfully to instruction and support. This distinction is important for the committee's understanding of [Student]'s long-term profile and continued accommodation needs.
Average norm-referenced scores in the context of a documented dyslexia characteristic pattern do not indicate that the disability is absent — they indicate that the student has responded meaningfully to instruction and support.
This tool is intended to support the professional reasoning of educational diagnosticians. It does not replace ARD committee decision-making, legal counsel, or district policy. All eligibility determinations must be made by the ARD committee based on a complete, individualized review of evaluation data. This resource reflects current guidance as of the 2025–2026 school year; verify against the most current TEA guidance, Dyslexia Handbook, and district procedures before use.