PWN Language Bank

Prior Written Notice · Barber Sped Hub ← Hub
How to use: Copy stems and adapt blanks in Frontline/Esped. Paragraph stems work for free-form fields; sentence blocks work for structured component fields. All language is parent-facing. Never copy without reviewing for accuracy — these are starting points, not final language.
IDEA Required PWN Components
  1. Action proposed or refused — What the district is doing or not doing
  2. Explanation of why — The reason for the action or refusal
  3. Description of each evaluation procedure, assessment, record, or report used
  4. Other options considered and why they were rejected
  5. Description of any other relevant factors
  6. Procedural safeguards notice — Required on all refusals; best practice on all PWNs

Eligibility Denial — Initial Evaluation

Denial
Action Proposed / Refused Component 1
Paragraph Stem
The [District Name] Admission, Review, and Dismissal (ARD) committee has completed an initial full and individual evaluation of             . After reviewing all evaluation data, the ARD committee has determined that              does not meet eligibility criteria for special education services at this time.
Replace [District Name] with your district
Sentence Stem
The district is not providing special education services to              at this time.
For structured "action refused" fields
Explanation of Why Component 2
Paragraph Stem — Does Not Meet Criteria
The evaluation data show that              does not meet the criteria for              under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Specifically,             . Although              may experience some academic challenges, the data do not show that those challenges are caused by a disability that requires specially designed instruction.
Third blank = brief data summary (e.g., "scores on reading measures are within the average range")
Paragraph Stem — Adverse Effect Not Established
While the evaluation data show that              has a             , the data do not show that this condition is having an adverse effect on educational performance that requires specially designed instruction.              is making meaningful progress in the general education curriculum with current supports in place.
Use when a condition exists but adverse effect prong is not met
Other Options Considered Component 4
Sentence Stem
The ARD committee considered providing special education services under              but determined that eligibility criteria were not met based on the evaluation data.
Name the eligibility category considered
Sentence Stem — General Ed Supports
The committee considered continued general education supports including              as an appropriate next step to address             's needs.
Good for when 504 or MTSS is the appropriate path
Procedural Safeguards Component 6
Safeguard Closing — Always Include on Denials
A copy of the Procedural Safeguards Notice has been provided to you. If you disagree with this decision, you have the right to request mediation, file a complaint with the Texas Education Agency, or request a due process hearing. If you have questions about your rights, please contact              at             .
Contact = special ed director or campus coordinator + phone/email

Partial Eligibility

Partial
Action Proposed Component 1
Paragraph Stem
The ARD committee has reviewed all evaluation data for              and determined that              meets eligibility criteria for special education services under             . The committee also reviewed data related to              and determined that eligibility criteria for that area are not met at this time.
First blank = qualifying area; second blank = non-qualifying area
Explanation — Qualifying Area Component 2
Sentence Stem
             meets eligibility criteria for              because              and this condition is adversely affecting educational performance in the area of             .
Third blank = brief basis (e.g., "evaluation data show significant weaknesses in phonological processing and word reading")
Explanation — Non-Qualifying Area Component 2
Sentence Stem
Regarding             , the data do not show that this area meets eligibility criteria at this time.             .
Second blank = brief data rationale for non-qualification
Caution Note
Be specific about which eligibility area did and did not qualify. Vague language like "some areas" creates confusion for parents and IEP teams. Name each area explicitly.
Best practice reminder — not for copying

Removing a Prior Eligibility at Reeval

Reeval
Action Proposed Component 1
Paragraph Stem
The ARD committee has completed a reevaluation of             . After reviewing all current evaluation data, the committee has determined that              no longer meets eligibility criteria for special education services under              and is proposing to dismiss              from special education services.
Third blank = prior eligibility category
Explanation of Why Component 2
Paragraph Stem — Skills Have Developed
Current evaluation data show that             's skills in              have developed to the point that a disability is no longer adversely affecting educational performance in a way that requires specially designed instruction. Specifically,             .
Third blank = brief data summary supporting the change
Caution — Dyslexia Dismissal
If the prior eligibility includes dyslexia, use extra care. Per Texas guidance, dyslexia does not resolve — scores in the average range reflect the benefit of intervention and accommodations, not the absence of the disability. Consider whether dismissal is truly appropriate or whether a change in services/placement is the more defensible action.
Clinical flag — not for copying
Other Options Considered Component 4
Sentence Stem
The committee considered continuing special education services but determined that current data no longer support the level of need that requires specially designed instruction.
Pair with a sentence naming any continued general ed supports being offered
Procedural Safeguards Component 6
Safeguard Closing
A copy of the Procedural Safeguards Notice has been provided to you. If you disagree with this decision, you have the right to request mediation, file a complaint with the Texas Education Agency, or request a due process hearing. If you have questions, please contact              at             .
Always include on dismissal PWNs

Parent Requested Eval — District Agrees

Parent Request
Action Proposed Component 1
Paragraph Stem
The district received a written request from             's parent/guardian on              requesting a full and individual evaluation to determine eligibility for special education services. The district agrees to conduct this evaluation. A consent form is enclosed for your signature.
Second blank = date of parent's written request
Areas to Be Evaluated Component 3
Sentence Stem
The evaluation will include assessment in the following areas:             . The specific tools and procedures will be determined by the evaluation team based on             's individual needs and the areas of concern identified.
List the domains, not specific tests — tests are documented in consent

Parent Requested Eval — District Declines

Refusal
Action Refused Component 1
Paragraph Stem
The district received a request from             's parent/guardian to conduct a full and individual evaluation for special education eligibility. After reviewing the information available, the district is declining to conduct this evaluation at this time.
Must always be followed by a clear explanation of why
Explanation of Why Component 2
Paragraph Stem — Data Do Not Support Eval
The district's decision is based on a review of the following information:             . This information does not indicate that              may have a disability that is adversely affecting educational performance and requiring specially designed instruction. Current data show that              is making adequate progress with general education supports in place.
First blank = list of data sources reviewed (grades, STAAR, CBM, attendance, etc.)
Caution — High-Stakes Decision
Declining a parent's evaluation request is one of the highest-risk PWN actions. The threshold for refusal is high — the district must show it has reviewed sufficient data and that no reasonable basis exists for suspecting a disability. When in doubt, evaluate. Always have this reviewed by your special ed director before issuing.
Clinical/legal flag — not for copying
Procedural Safeguards Component 6
Safeguard Closing — Required on All Evaluation Refusals
A copy of the Procedural Safeguards Notice is enclosed with this notice. If you disagree with the district's decision not to evaluate, you have the right to request mediation, file a state complaint with the Texas Education Agency, or request a due process hearing. These rights are explained in the Procedural Safeguards Notice. If you have questions or would like to discuss this further, please contact              at             .
This is legally required — do not omit

Change in Placement or Services

Change
Action Proposed Component 1
Paragraph Stem — Increasing Services
The ARD committee is proposing a change in             's special education services. Specifically, the committee is proposing to              in order to better support             's educational needs.
Second blank = describe the specific change (e.g., "increase resource room minutes from 180 to 300 per week")
Paragraph Stem — Decreasing Services
Based on             's current progress data, the ARD committee is proposing to reduce              from              to             . Current data indicate that              is making strong progress and this level of support is sufficient to meet identified needs.
Second blank = service type; third/fourth blanks = old and new amount
Explanation of Why Component 2
Sentence Stem
This change is based on the following data:             . The ARD committee determined that this change is appropriate to address             's current level of need.
First blank = data sources (progress monitoring, grades, teacher input, etc.)
Other Options Considered Component 4
Sentence Stem
The committee also considered              but determined that the proposed change better reflects             's current needs and progress.
Name the alternative considered, even if it was "no change"

Refusing a Parent's IEP Amendment Request

Refusal
Action Refused Component 1
Paragraph Stem
The district received a request from             's parent/guardian to amend             's Individualized Education Program (IEP) to             . The ARD committee has reviewed this request and is declining to make this change at this time.
Third blank = describe the specific amendment requested
Explanation of Why Component 2
Paragraph Stem — Not Supported by Data
The committee's decision is based on a review of             's current data, including             . This information does not support the requested change at this time. The current IEP is designed to address             's identified needs and is reasonably calculated to provide meaningful educational benefit.
Second blank = list data reviewed (progress monitoring, teacher reports, observations)
Paragraph Stem — Outside Scope of IEP
The requested change is outside the scope of what can be addressed through the IEP process because             . The ARD committee remains committed to working with the family to support             's educational progress.
Use when request involves something the IEP legally cannot mandate (e.g., specific curriculum brand, specific teacher assignment)
Other Options Considered Component 4
Sentence Stem
The committee considered              as an alternative approach but determined that             .
Always name at least one alternative — "no change" counts but should be explained
Procedural Safeguards Component 6
Safeguard Closing — Required on All Refusals
A copy of the Procedural Safeguards Notice has been provided to you. If you disagree with this decision, you have the right to request an IEP meeting to discuss your concerns, request mediation, file a state complaint with the Texas Education Agency, or request a due process hearing. If you have questions about your rights or would like to schedule a meeting, please contact              at             .
This is legally required — do not omit

Dyslexia Identified — 504 Referral (No IDEA Need)

504 Pathway
When to use this scenario: The ARD committee has completed a full individual evaluation, identified a dyslexia characteristic pattern, and determined that the student does not require specially designed instruction under IDEA at this time — meaning Prong 2 (need for SDI) is not met, even though Prong 1 (disability exists) is. The student is being referred to the campus 504 committee for accommodations. Use these stems to document the ARD committee's action and reasoning in the PWN. See also: Dyslexia IDEA vs. 504 Decision Guide ↗
Child Find reminder: The "no need" finding must come from the data — not from a desire to reduce caseload or avoid IDEA services. OSEP's 2018 monitoring report cited Texas for routing students with dyslexia to 504 without adequate data-driven justification. Document the committee's rationale explicitly.
Action Proposed / Refused Component 1
Paragraph Stem
The [District Name] Admission, Review, and Dismissal (ARD) committee has completed a full and individual evaluation of             . After reviewing all evaluation data, the ARD committee has determined that              does not meet eligibility criteria for special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) at this time. The committee proposes to refer              to the campus 504 committee for consideration of accommodations under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
Replace [District Name] with your district
Sentence Stem — Action Field
The district proposes to find              ineligible for special education services under IDEA and to refer              to the campus 504 committee for accommodations.
For structured "action proposed" fields
Explanation of Why Component 2
Paragraph Stem — Disability Identified, SDI Not Required
Evaluation data support a finding that              demonstrates characteristics consistent with dyslexia as described in the Texas Dyslexia Handbook. However, IDEA eligibility requires both that a disability exists and that the disability creates a need for specially designed instruction — instruction that modifies content, methodology, or delivery in ways that go beyond general education supports. Based on a review of all data, including             , the ARD committee determined that              is accessing the general education curriculum and making meaningful progress with             . The data do not show a current need for specially designed instruction. Accommodations under Section 504 are appropriate to maintain             's access to the curriculum.
Second blank = brief data summary (e.g., "current academic performance and three years of Tier III intervention data"). Fourth blank = current supports (e.g., "current classroom accommodations").
Paragraph Stem — Intervention Response Context
            's current average-range performance is understood in the context of              of consistent, intensive intervention. These scores reflect the educational benefit of that instruction and do not indicate that the dyslexia characteristics are absent. The committee considered the full picture — including              — in reaching its determination.
Second blank = duration (e.g., "three years"). Third blank = supporting indicators (e.g., "family history, phonological processing findings, and classroom observation data").
19 TAC §74.28 — Dyslexia Instruction Obligation Continues Under 504
Even when a student is served under 504 rather than IDEA, the SBOE rules under 19 TAC §74.28 still require that any dyslexia instruction follow Handbook procedures — multisensory, evidence-based, and delivered by a trained provider. If continued dyslexia instruction is warranted, the 504 plan must name the instruction, provider qualifications, and frequency. This is widely missed.
Legal reminder — not for copying into PWN, but inform the 504 team
Data Sources Component 3
Sentence Stem
The ARD committee reviewed the Full Individual Evaluation report, including              (cognitive and academic assessment),              (phonological processing), classroom observations, parent input, teacher input, and              of Tier III intervention data from the MTSS team.
Fill blanks with your specific batteries (e.g., WISC-V/WIAT-IV, CTOPP-2, DIBELS/TOWRE)
Other Options Considered Component 4
Sentence Stem — IDEA Eligibility Considered and Rejected
The ARD committee considered providing special education services under IDEA (Specific Learning Disability — Dyslexia). That option was rejected because evaluation data show that              does not currently demonstrate a need for specially designed instruction. The committee determined that Section 504 accommodations are appropriate to maintain curriculum access at this time.
Blank = brief data rationale, e.g., "the student is performing within the average range across reading measures and demonstrating adequate progress in the general education curriculum with current supports"
Parent-Facing Explanation Plain Language
Parent-Readable Snippet — Accommodations vs. Direct Instruction
The evaluation team identified that              has characteristics of dyslexia. Dyslexia does not go away — but with the right support, students can learn to read and access grade-level content successfully. Right now, the data show that              is doing well in the classroom with supports like             , and does not currently need the kind of intensive, specialized teaching that special education provides. The team is recommending a 504 plan, which means              will receive accommodations — tools and adjustments that make it easier to access the classroom — such as extra time on tests, audiobooks, and text-to-speech. If things change — for example, if              begins to struggle more — the team can always revisit this decision.
Third blank = current supports (e.g., "extra time and audiobooks"). Use or adapt in parent communication — not for the formal PWN document.
Procedural Safeguards Component 6
Safeguard Closing — IDEA Rights (Use for IDEA Ineligibility Finding)
A copy of the Procedural Safeguards Notice has been provided to you. If you disagree with this eligibility determination, you have the right to request mediation, file a state complaint with the Texas Education Agency, or request a due process hearing. You also have the right to request an independent educational evaluation (IEE) at no cost to you if you disagree with the evaluation. If you have questions about your rights, please contact              at             .
Note: once the student transitions to 504, rights shift to Section 504 / OCR procedures — IDEA due process no longer applies