Barber Sped Hub
Report Lab
Phrase Library · Score Patterns · PWN Language
← Hub
Report Writing

Report Phrase Library

Copy-ready narrative phrases organized by domain, disability profile, and clinical context. Use the tabs and filter pills to find language that fits your student's profile.

Profile:
Reading / Dyslexia Concerns
[STUDENT] was referred for a Full Individual Evaluation due to persistent concerns regarding reading development. Despite receiving [Tier 2/Tier 3] reading intervention, [STUDENT] continues to demonstrate difficulty with decoding, reading fluency, and/or spelling relative to same-grade peers.
DyslexiaGeneral
Concerns prompting this referral include difficulty sounding out unfamiliar words, inconsistent sight word recognition, slow and effortful oral reading, and significant spelling errors that have persisted despite targeted intervention. Teachers report that [STUDENT] avoids independent reading tasks and often loses place when reading aloud.
Dyslexia
[STUDENT]'s parent reports a family history of reading difficulties. [STUDENT] received early literacy intervention beginning in [grade] and has continued to require intensive reading support. Current classroom performance indicates [STUDENT] is reading [X] grade levels below benchmark on [assessment name].
Dyslexia
A review of educational records indicates that [STUDENT] has received [describe interventions] with limited progress as evidenced by [describe data — e.g., DIBELS, progress monitoring graphs]. The campus intervention team determined that a comprehensive psychoeducational evaluation was warranted to determine the presence of a specific learning disability.
DyslexiaGeneral
Attention / ADHD Concerns
[STUDENT] was referred for evaluation due to ongoing concerns regarding attention, impulse control, and task completion. Teachers across settings report that [STUDENT] has significant difficulty sustaining attention during instruction, following multi-step directions, and completing independent work within expected timeframes.
ADHDGeneral
Referral concerns include frequent off-task behavior, difficulty remaining seated, excessive talking or interrupting, and careless errors on academic work that is inconsistent with observed verbal ability. [STUDENT]'s parent/guardian reports similar concerns at home, including difficulty completing homework and transitioning between activities.
ADHD
Referral concerns are primarily inattentive in nature. Teachers report that [STUDENT] frequently loses materials, has difficulty sustaining mental effort on tasks, is easily distracted by extraneous stimuli, and often appears to daydream or mentally "check out" during instruction. [STUDENT]'s academic performance is inconsistent and is believed to be below actual ability level.
ADHD
Intellectual Disability / Developmental Concerns
[STUDENT] was referred for a comprehensive evaluation due to concerns regarding overall cognitive development and academic progress. [STUDENT] is performing significantly below grade-level expectations across all academic areas and has required substantial modifications to curriculum and instructional delivery throughout [his/her/their] educational history.
IDDev. DelayGeneral
Referral concerns include significant delays in academic skill acquisition, adaptive functioning, and conceptual reasoning that are not adequately explained by instructional factors alone. [STUDENT]'s parent reports delays in developmental milestones including [describe — e.g., speech, self-care, social development].
IDDev. Delay
ASD / Social-Communication Concerns
[STUDENT] was referred for evaluation due to concerns regarding social communication, sensory processing, and behavioral flexibility. Teachers report that [STUDENT] demonstrates difficulty with peer interactions, perspective-taking, transitions between activities, and adapting to changes in routine.
ASDGeneral
Speech / Language / DLD Concerns
[STUDENT] was referred for evaluation following ongoing concerns regarding oral language development, including difficulty expressing ideas verbally, limited vocabulary, and/or difficulty understanding and following oral directions. Concerns have been noted both in the classroom and during speech-language therapy sessions.
SLIDLDGeneral
Emergent Bilingual / Language Background
[STUDENT] is an emergent bilingual student whose primary home language is Spanish. Prior to initiating this evaluation, the team reviewed available language proficiency data, instructional history, and intervention response to ensure that academic difficulties are not primarily attributable to limited English proficiency or lack of appropriate instruction, per TAC §89.1040.
EB / BilingualGeneral
Difficulties have been documented in both English and Spanish, suggesting that language acquisition alone does not account for [STUDENT]'s academic struggles. [STUDENT] has received [bilingual/ESL] instruction since [year/grade] and continues to perform significantly below peers with similar language backgrounds.
EB / Bilingual
General / Re-evaluation
This Full Individual Evaluation was completed as a [initial/triennial re-evaluation] to determine [STUDENT]'s continued eligibility for special education services and to gather updated information to guide educational planning. Written consent was obtained from [STUDENT]'s parent/guardian on [date].
General
This evaluation was conducted by [examiner name/title]. All assessments were administered in accordance with standardized procedures, with deviations noted where applicable. Results reflect [STUDENT]'s performance on the date(s) of testing and should be interpreted within the context of [his/her/their] developmental, educational, and language history.
General
Profile:
Rapport & General Demeanor
[STUDENT] separated from [his/her/their] parent/teacher without difficulty and accompanied the examiner to the testing room willingly. Rapport was established easily, and [STUDENT] appeared comfortable throughout the evaluation sessions.
General
[STUDENT] initially appeared hesitant and required time to warm up to the examiner. After a brief period of rapport-building, [STUDENT] became more relaxed and participated more freely. Results are considered a valid estimate of current functioning despite initial reluctance.
GeneralASD
[STUDENT] was cooperative and motivated throughout the evaluation. [He/She/They] approached tasks with a positive attitude, persisted through challenging items, and appeared to put forth genuine effort. Results are considered a reliable reflection of current ability.
General
[STUDENT] required frequent verbal encouragement to persist through challenging tasks. [He/She/They] tended to give up quickly when items were difficult, stating [e.g., "I don't know"] without attempting a response. The examiner provided standardized encouragement; scores may slightly underestimate potential due to reduced persistence.
GeneralID
Attention & Activity Level
[STUDENT] demonstrated variable attention throughout the evaluation. [He/She/They] had difficulty sustaining focus on lengthier tasks, required frequent redirection to the task at hand, and appeared easily distracted by environmental stimuli. Task performance improved noticeably during shorter, more novel activities.
ADHDGeneral
[STUDENT] displayed high levels of motor activity during the evaluation, frequently shifting position, tapping [his/her/their] hands, and leaving [his/her/their] seat on several occasions. Despite this, [STUDENT] maintained adequate engagement with the tasks and results are considered valid.
ADHD
[STUDENT]'s attention was generally adequate for one-on-one structured testing but deteriorated notably as sessions progressed. Testing was conducted across [X] sessions to minimize the impact of fatigue and attentional fatigue on performance. Results across sessions were consistent.
ADHDGeneral
[STUDENT] maintained focused attention throughout all testing sessions. [He/She/They] was not easily distracted and remained on task without prompting. Attention and effort were not identified as factors that would limit the validity of the results obtained.
General
Language & Communication During Testing
[STUDENT]'s expressive language during the evaluation was [age-appropriate / slightly limited / notably reduced]. [He/She/They] communicated responses in [complete sentences / brief phrases / single words], and word retrieval appeared [fluent / mildly effortful / significantly effortful] at times. Communication was adequate for task completion.
DyslexiaSLIDLDGeneral
On verbally loaded tasks, [STUDENT] showed evidence of word retrieval difficulty, using circumlocution, fillers ("um," "that thing"), or pausing significantly before responding. This pattern was more pronounced on tasks requiring rapid verbal retrieval and is consistent with the phonological and/or language concerns noted in the referral.
DyslexiaSLIDLD
Response Style & Problem-Solving
[STUDENT] demonstrated an impulsive response style on several subtests, providing answers quickly without fully considering the question. [He/She/They] was occasionally able to self-correct when given time to reconsider, suggesting that performance on speeded or first-response tasks may underestimate deliberate reasoning ability.
DyslexiaADHDGeneral
[STUDENT] approached tasks methodically and checked work before responding on several items. [He/She/They] appeared to self-monitor effectively and asked for clarification when uncertain about task directions, which is an adaptive problem-solving behavior.
GeneralID
On reading and writing tasks, [STUDENT] demonstrated visibly increased anxiety, including sighing, erasing frequently, and making self-deprecating comments (e.g., "I'm not good at reading," "I always mess this up"). [His/Her/Their] affective response to literacy tasks is noted and may reflect a history of frustration and perceived failure in this area.
DyslexiaGeneral
Written Expression — Graphomotor Observations Framework: Seaberry, ESC Region 11 (2025); Texas Dyslexia Handbook
[STUDENT] wrote with [his/her/their] [dominant] hand using a [describe grip — e.g., thumb wrap grip / tripod grip / fisted grip]. Letter formation was [adequate / inconsistent / poor], with several letters [unrecognizable / variably formed across the sample]. Letter sizing was inconsistent, and spacing between letters and words was irregular. These handwriting characteristics are consistent with graphomotor difficulties affecting the physical execution of writing.
DyslexiaGeneral
A comparison of [STUDENT]'s performance on a copy task versus a dictated writing task was conducted. [STUDENT]'s handwriting did not improve significantly when copying text from a model, suggesting that the handwriting difficulty reflects an underlying graphomotor deficit rather than a difficulty retrieving letter forms from memory alone. This pattern is consistent with motor planning and execution as the primary point of breakdown.
DyslexiaGeneral
On an alphabet writing fluency task, [STUDENT] was able to write [X] letters in one minute. This rate is significantly below age expectations and reflects limited automaticity in letter production. Reduced alphabet fluency places increased demand on working memory and executive functioning during writing tasks, as [STUDENT] must allocate conscious attention to letter formation rather than to idea generation and composition.
DyslexiaGeneral
[STUDENT]'s written output was notably limited in volume relative to oral expression. When asked to write about a topic [he/she/they] had described in detail orally, [STUDENT]'s written sample captured only a small portion of the ideas expressed verbally. Details were omitted, elaboration was minimal, and sentence structure was simplified compared to oral production. This pattern suggests that transcription demands and working memory load are interfering with [STUDENT]'s ability to sustain, organize, and elaborate ideas in writing. (Seaberry, ESC Region 11, 2025)
DyslexiaGeneral
Both [STUDENT]'s oral and written expression were limited in elaboration and detail, even with examiner scaffolding. Oral narrative remained brief and minimally connected across prompts. The written sample closely mirrored oral output in its limited organization and reduced detail. When both oral and written expression are limited, this pattern suggests weaknesses in the oral language foundation of writing rather than breakdown caused solely by transcription demands. (Seaberry, ESC Region 11, 2025)
DyslexiaSLIDLDGeneral
Written Expression — Orthographic Processing Observations Framework: Seaberry, ESC Region 11 (2025); Texas Dyslexia Handbook
Analysis of [STUDENT]'s spelling errors revealed a pattern of [orthographic / phonological / morphological / mixed] errors. Orthographic errors reflect difficulty storing and retrieving accurate letter sequences and whole-word forms from memory, even for frequently encountered words. Phonological errors reflect difficulty applying sound-symbol correspondences during spelling. This error pattern is consistent with [describe — e.g., dysgraphia / dyslexia / combined profile] and informs instructional targets in spelling and written expression.
DyslexiaGeneral
[STUDENT]'s handwriting sample showed the same letter formed inconsistently across the writing sample, suggesting difficulty with reliable orthographic storage and retrieval of letter forms. This pattern is distinct from a purely graphomotor deficit and indicates that the retrieval of letter-form memory (orthographic processing) is contributing to the handwriting breakdown. (Seaberry, ESC Region 11, 2025; Berninger & Wolf, 2009)
DyslexiaGeneral
Writing Task Initiation — Can't vs. Won't Framework: Seaberry, ESC Region 11 (2025); McCloskey & Perkins (2013)
[STUDENT] demonstrated difficulty initiating writing tasks both during formal assessment and per teacher and parent report. This difficulty is consistent with a "can't initiate" pattern — [STUDENT] appeared cognitively overloaded rather than unwilling to engage, as evidenced by long response latency, incomplete starts, reliance on examiner prompts to begin, and improved output when provided with sentence frames or structured supports. This pattern is distinct from behavioral refusal and suggests an executive functioning or language-retrieval basis for the initiation difficulty. (Seaberry, ESC Region 11, 2025; McCloskey & Perkins, 2013)
DyslexiaADHDGeneral
During writing tasks, [STUDENT] required significant support to begin writing independently. Notably, [STUDENT] was able to verbalize ideas clearly when prompted but struggled to translate those ideas to the page once writing began. Writing that started with adequate content deteriorated in quality and volume as the task continued, consistent with working memory collapse under sustained composition demands rather than a lack of ideas or motivation. (Seaberry, ESC Region 11, 2025)
ADHDGeneral
[STUDENT]'s writing output varied noticeably across task conditions. On a preferred, self-selected topic with no structural demands, [STUDENT] produced [describe output]. On a non-preferred or structured prompt, output was significantly reduced. This variation is relevant to eligibility considerations: when output improves substantially under high-interest or low-demand conditions, the writing difficulty may reflect an access and regulation issue (consistent with OHI-ADHD) rather than a persistent learning-based deficit in written expression. (Seaberry, ESC Region 11, 2025)
ADHDGeneral
[STUDENT]'s writing difficulties persisted across task conditions, including preferred topics, structured prompts, graphic organizer supports, and extended time. Writing remained weak in organization, elaboration, and volume even with scaffolding in place. This persistence across support conditions is consistent with an SLD-Written Expression profile rather than an attention- or motivation-based explanation for the writing difficulty. (Seaberry, ESC Region 11, 2025)
DyslexiaGeneral
Validity Statement
Overall, [STUDENT]'s behavior during testing was consistent with valid test performance. [He/She/They] appeared to understand task demands, put forth genuine effort, and results are considered a reliable estimate of current functioning across the domains assessed.
General
While attention and activity level were areas of concern during testing, [STUDENT] engaged sufficiently with all tasks to produce interpretable results. Scores should be interpreted as a reasonable estimate of current functioning, with the understanding that optimal performance under typical classroom conditions may vary.
GeneralADHD
Profile:
SLD — Dyslexia / Reading
[STUDENT]'s disability significantly impacts [his/her/their] ability to participate in the general education curriculum. The core deficits in phonological awareness, rapid naming, and/or orthographic processing result in slow, effortful decoding that affects reading accuracy and fluency across all content areas. [STUDENT] cannot access grade-level text independently at the same rate as peers, which limits participation in independent reading, content-area reading assignments, and any task requiring efficient written language processing.
Dyslexia
In the classroom, [STUDENT]'s reading disability manifests as difficulty completing reading-based assignments within typical time constraints, frequent misreading of words on tests and worksheets, avoidance of reading aloud, and spelling errors that interfere with the legibility and quality of written work. These difficulties are present despite [STUDENT]'s adequate cognitive ability and motivation to learn.
Dyslexia
[STUDENT]'s significant weaknesses in phonological awareness and phonological memory directly impair [his/her/their] ability to decode unfamiliar words, retain spelling patterns, and develop automaticity in word recognition. As a result, [STUDENT] expends disproportionate cognitive effort on word-level reading, leaving fewer cognitive resources available for comprehension, written composition, and content-area learning.
Dyslexia
OHI — ADHD
[STUDENT]'s attentional difficulties adversely affect [his/her/their] educational performance across all academic settings. [STUDENT] has significant difficulty sustaining attention during whole-group instruction, completing multi-step tasks independently, and organizing materials and assignments. These difficulties result in incomplete work, inconsistent academic performance, and a need for significantly more adult support than same-age peers to access and participate in the general education curriculum.
ADHD
The impact of [STUDENT]'s ADHD extends beyond attention to include difficulties with working memory, processing speed, and executive functioning. [STUDENT] frequently loses track of multi-step directions, struggles to initiate and sustain effort on non-preferred tasks, and has difficulty organizing written work and long-term projects. These impairments affect daily academic functioning and require ongoing specially designed instruction and supports.
ADHD
Intellectual Disability
[STUDENT]'s intellectual disability significantly impacts all areas of academic functioning. [He/She/They] requires substantial modification of curriculum, pacing, and instructional materials across all content areas. In the classroom, [STUDENT] is unable to access grade-level content without significant support, requires repeated presentation of concepts in concrete and multisensory formats, and benefits from reduced task complexity and extended time on all activities.
ID
In addition to academic impact, [STUDENT]'s adaptive skill deficits affect [his/her/their] ability to function independently in daily routines, social settings, and age-appropriate self-care tasks. [STUDENT] requires ongoing support for [describe — e.g., personal organization, self-monitoring, social communication, community skills], which limits [his/her/their] independence relative to same-age peers.
ID
ASD
[STUDENT]'s autism spectrum disorder adversely affects [his/her/their] ability to engage in reciprocal social communication, navigate group learning environments, and adapt to changes in routine or instruction. In the classroom, [STUDENT] requires predictable structure, explicit social skill instruction, and support during unstructured periods such as transitions, lunch, and recess. Behavioral rigidity and sensory sensitivities may further limit [his/her/their] access to the full school environment.
ASD
SLI / DLD
[STUDENT]'s language impairment adversely affects [his/her/their] ability to access and demonstrate learning across the curriculum. Difficulties with oral expression and/or listening comprehension affect [STUDENT]'s ability to follow classroom directions, participate in academic discussions, express [his/her/their] understanding verbally, and develop the language base necessary for reading comprehension and written composition.
SLIDLD
Pattern-Based Eligibility Summary Templates Framework: Stephens, C-SEP (2015–2026); TEA SLD Guidance (2025)
Through the collection and analysis of multiple sources of data gathered as part of the assessment process, results indicate that [STUDENT]'s [domain — e.g., reading / written expression] skills are an area of concern consistent with a specific learning disability. Data collected over time indicates a clear pattern of weakness in this area. [STUDENT] has a history of [describe — e.g., below-grade-level reading scores, failing STAAR in reading, below-benchmark CBM data]. [His/Her/Their] teacher rates [his/her/their] [domain] skills as [below average / poor]. Parent report indicates [describe concern]. Standardized testing results are consistent with these patterns, with scores in [domain] falling in the [descriptive range] relative to same-age peers. Taken together, the preponderance of data across multiple sources supports the identification of [STUDENT] as a student with a specific learning disability in the area of [domain]. (Stephens, C-SEP, 2015–2026)
DyslexiaGeneral
Through the collection and analysis of multiple sources of data gathered as part of the assessment process, results indicate that [STUDENT]'s [domain] skills are intact, and [domain] is not suspected as an area of disability. Data collected over time indicates a clear pattern of adequate ability in this area. [STUDENT] has a history of [passing grades / meeting benchmarks / passing screeners] in [domain]. [His/Her/Their] teacher rates [his/her/their] [domain] skills as [average / above average]. Parent report indicates no concerns in [domain]. Consequently, there is no need to conduct formal norm-referenced testing in the area of [domain], and [domain] is not identified as an area of educational need. (Stephens, C-SEP, 2015–2026)
General
The pattern of strengths and weaknesses identified across this evaluation is consistent, meaningful, and supported by multiple data sources including [list 3–4 sources — e.g., STAAR results, CBM/progress monitoring data, teacher interview, standardized achievement testing, classroom observation]. The convergence of data across formal and informal measures, across settings, and across reporters strengthens the defensibility of the eligibility determination. This decision reflects a preponderance of evidence rather than reliance on any single score or data point. (Stephens, C-SEP, 2015–2026; TEA SLD Guidance, 2025)
DyslexiaGeneral
The eligibility determination in this case is supported by concordant weaknesses across cognitive processing and academic achievement domains, as well as by consistent functional impact documented through teacher report, parent report, classroom observation, and [STUDENT]'s own self-report. Discordant strengths in [describe — e.g., verbal reasoning / visual-spatial ability / math / oral language] further establish the pattern of specific weakness rather than global impairment, and are consistent with the profile of a student with [eligibility category]. (Stephens, C-SEP, 2015–2026)
DyslexiaADHDGeneral
SLD — Written Expression (including dysgraphia features): The primary area of writing breakdown for [STUDENT] is [graphomotor / orthographic processing / language formulation / combined], as evidenced by [describe key data — e.g., very low alphabet fluency, handwriting not improving on copy vs. dictation, very low orthographic processing scores, spelling error pattern]. These weaknesses appear across settings and tasks, persist despite [describe supports tried], and are not adequately explained by attentional or motivational factors alone. The pattern is consistent with SLD–Written Expression, with dysgraphia features. (Seaberry, ESC Region 11, 2025; Texas Dyslexia Handbook)
DyslexiaGeneral
OHI–ADHD (writing impact): [STUDENT]'s writing difficulties are most consistent with an access and regulation profile rather than a learning-based written expression deficit. Writing improves meaningfully with [structure / chunking / verbal rehearsal / high-interest topics / frequent check-ins], consistent with an OHI–ADHD profile in which the core issue is attention and executive self-regulation rather than a deficit in writing-specific learning. Writing weaknesses are not uniform across conditions and do not persist at the same level when appropriate supports are in place. (Seaberry, ESC Region 11, 2025)
ADHDGeneral
General Eligibility / Closing
Based on the results of this evaluation, [STUDENT] meets eligibility criteria for special education services under the category of [eligibility category]. [His/Her/Their] disability adversely affects educational performance and requires specially designed instruction that cannot be adequately provided through general education supports alone.
General
Based on the results of this evaluation, [STUDENT] does not meet eligibility criteria for special education services at this time. [His/Her/Their] academic difficulties are more consistent with [language acquisition / insufficient instructional opportunity / other factor] than with a disability as defined under IDEA. Continued monitoring and general education supports are recommended.
General
Profile:
Reading / Dyslexia
[STUDENT] would benefit from structured literacy instruction that is explicit, systematic, and multisensory (Orton-Gillingham based or aligned). Instruction should include phonemic awareness, phonics taught in a structured sequence, fluency practice with decodable text, and spelling instruction that directly mirrors the phonics scope and sequence.
Dyslexia
Access to audiobooks, text-to-speech technology, and/or read-aloud accommodations is recommended to ensure [STUDENT] can access grade-level content while reading skills are being developed. These supports allow [STUDENT] to demonstrate content knowledge without being limited by word-level reading barriers.
Dyslexia
Extended time (1.5x or 2x) on all reading-based and written assignments and assessments is recommended. Given [STUDENT]'s slow processing speed and effortful decoding, standard time limits do not allow [him/her/them] to demonstrate knowledge at the same rate as peers without the disability.
DyslexiaGeneral
Spelling and written expression accommodations are recommended, including use of spell-check tools, word prediction software, and/or a scribe or speech-to-text option for extended writing tasks. Grading of written work should account for content and ideas separately from spelling and mechanical accuracy where possible.
Dyslexia
ADHD / Attention / Executive Functioning
Preferential seating near the teacher and away from high-traffic areas of the classroom is recommended to minimize distractions. A structured, predictable daily routine with visual schedules and advance notice of transitions would support [STUDENT]'s ability to regulate attention and behavior throughout the school day.
ADHDGeneral
Breaking multi-step tasks into smaller, sequenced components with checkpoints is recommended. [STUDENT] benefits from explicit organizational supports including graphic organizers, checklists, and assignment notebooks. Providing directions both verbally and in written form reduces the working memory demand associated with remembering multi-part instructions.
ADHD
Extended time, reduced-distraction testing environment, and the option to take breaks during lengthy assessments are recommended accommodations for [STUDENT]. These supports address the functional impact of [STUDENT]'s attentional difficulties on standardized test performance.
ADHDGeneral
Frequent, brief check-ins from the teacher to confirm task understanding and progress are recommended, rather than waiting until task completion. Positive reinforcement systems tied to on-task behavior and task initiation are often more effective for students with ADHD than consequences-based approaches alone.
ADHD
Intellectual Disability / Developmental
Instruction should be concrete, hands-on, and presented in small, sequential steps with frequent repetition and review. [STUDENT] benefits from multisensory learning experiences, real-world application of academic skills, and consistent use of visual supports including picture schedules, graphic organizers, and visual word walls.
IDDev. Delay
Functional life skills instruction integrated into the curriculum is recommended, with an emphasis on daily living, community participation, vocational awareness, and self-advocacy skills appropriate to [STUDENT]'s age and developmental level. Transition planning and transition-related goals should be incorporated into [STUDENT]'s IEP no later than age 14, per Texas Education Agency requirements (TAC §89.1055).
ID
ASD
Explicit social skills instruction in a structured small-group setting is recommended to support [STUDENT]'s development of peer interaction skills, perspective-taking, and understanding of social conventions. Instruction should be direct and include modeling, role-play, and generalization activities across natural settings.
ASD
Sensory accommodations should be considered based on [STUDENT]'s identified sensory sensitivities, which may include preferential seating away from high-noise areas, access to noise-canceling headphones during independent work, reduced visual clutter in the work environment, and scheduled movement or sensory breaks throughout the day.
ASD
SLI / DLD / Oral Language
Continued speech-language therapy services are recommended to target [STUDENT]'s identified deficits in [e.g., morphosyntax, vocabulary, listening comprehension, narrative language]. Therapy goals should be coordinated with classroom instruction to support generalization of language skills across academic contexts.
SLIDLD
Classroom supports for oral language difficulties include: providing written versions of oral instructions, allowing additional processing time before expecting a verbal response, pre-teaching key vocabulary before new units, and offering alternative means of demonstrating knowledge beyond verbal explanation (e.g., written, drawn, or visual-spatial responses).
SLIDLDDyslexiaGeneral
General / Closing Recommendations
Regular communication between home and school is recommended to ensure consistency in supports and to monitor [STUDENT]'s progress across settings. A home-school communication log or weekly check-in system may support this coordination.
General
Progress toward IEP goals and the effectiveness of accommodations should be reviewed at least annually. If [STUDENT] is not making adequate progress, the IEP team should reconvene to consider adjustments to goals, services, placement, or instructional strategies.
General
[STUDENT]'s strengths in [e.g., verbal reasoning, visual-spatial ability, social engagement, creativity] should be deliberately incorporated into instructional planning. Strength-based instruction supports motivation, self-efficacy, and engagement — all of which are particularly important for students who have experienced repeated academic difficulty.
GeneralDyslexiaADHD
💡
Each card describes a common score pattern seen in special education evaluations, with a copy-ready paragraph for use in FIE reports and a clinical note on what to rule out or document alongside it. Paragraphs use [Student] and [pronoun] as placeholders — replace before use. All findings require professional judgment — these are starting points, not conclusions.
💡
Each card describes a common score pattern seen in special education evaluations, with a copy-ready paragraph for use in FIE reports and a clinical note on what to rule out or document alongside it. Paragraphs use [Student] and [pronoun] as placeholders — replace before use. Score descriptors are battery-neutral; refer to your specific instrument's classification system for exact labels. All findings require professional judgment — these are starting points, not conclusions.
Filter:
🔍
Professional Judgment Required — Score patterns are clinical aids, not diagnostic conclusions. Eligibility determinations are made by a qualified multidisciplinary ARD committee in accordance with IDEA, Texas TAC §89.1040, and district policy. Always interpret findings in the context of the full evaluation, history, and student background.
How to use: Copy stems and adapt blanks in Frontline/Esped. 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
Professional Judgment Required — Tools and references on this hub are clinical aids, not substitutes for professional judgment. Eligibility decisions must be made by a qualified multidisciplinary ARD committee in accordance with IDEA, Texas TAC §89.1040, and district policy.