State-by-State SLD Evaluation Comparison

Evaluation Timeline Comparison

How long does a district have to complete an initial evaluation once consent is received? The answer varies significantly by state — and the type of day counted (calendar vs. school) matters as much as the number.

Texas context: Texas moved from 60 calendar days to 45 school days (SB 816, 2013 — TAC §89.1011), making it one of the most compressed timelines in the country by day count — but school days means breaks don't count. The FIE report date triggers a separate 30-calendar-day ARD/eligibility window. Absences of ≥3 days extend the timeline by that number of school days.

State	Eval Days	Day Type	Clock Starts	After Eval / ARD Deadline	Notable Exceptions	Citation	vs. TX
📍 Texas	45	School days	Signed consent received	30 calendar days from FIE report date	Extended by absences ≥3 days; summer/breaks excluded	TAC §89.1011; Tex. Ed. Code §29.004	Baseline
Massachusetts	30	School working days	Signed consent received	IEP developed within Team meeting (same 30-day window)	If referral falls within 30 days of year-end, timeline may carry to next school year	603 CMR 28.05	Shorter, all methods
Florida	60	Calendar days	Signed consent received	30 calendar days after eligibility determination	Federal exceptions (transfer, repeated unavailability)	Rule 6A-6.0331 F.A.C.	Similar method, longer window
California	60	Calendar days	Signed consent received	Within 60-day window; IEP within 30 days of eligibility	School breaks >5 consecutive school days excluded from count	Cal. Ed. Code §56344; §56043(c)	Discrepancy primary
Illinois	60	School days	Signed consent received	14 school days after eligibility determination	School breaks excluded; federal exceptions apply	23 Ill. Admin. Code §226.130	Same day type, 15 more days
New York	60	Calendar days	Signed consent received	30 calendar days after eligibility determination	Federal exceptions; NYC has historically had compliance challenges	8 NYCRR §200.4	Longer window, all methods
Pennsylvania	60	Calendar days	Signed consent received	30 calendar days after eligibility determination	Federal exceptions apply	22 Pa. Code §14.153	Longer window, all methods
Virginia	65	Business days	Receipt of referral (not consent)	30 calendar days after eligibility determination	Clock starts at referral — different trigger than TX. Holidays excluded.	8 VAC 20-81-110 (verify current)	Verify · referral clock
North Carolina	90	Calendar days	Date referral received (verify)	30 calendar days after eligibility determination	Longer overall window; clock start may differ from TX. Confirm with NCDPI.	NCDPI Exceptional Children guidance (verify current)	Verify · longer window
New Jersey	90	Calendar days	Signed consent received	⚠️ Included in 90-day window (eval + eligibility + IEP initiation)	NJ's 90 days covers the full sequence through IEP implementation — unique among these states. Federal exceptions apply.	N.J.A.C. 6A:14-3.4(e)	Different structure entirely

Calendar vs. school days — what does it mean in practice? Texas's 45 school days ≈ 9 instructional weeks. California's 60 calendar days ≈ 8–10 weeks depending on when the clock starts. In winter/spring, calendar-day states may have a real-time window similar to Texas. In late spring, a 60-calendar-day clock that runs into summer may include very few actual school days. School-day clocks provide more predictable, consistent timelines for practitioners. The type of day matters as much as the number.

New Jersey is uniquely structured. Most states set a timeline for the evaluation only, then have a separate deadline for the IEP meeting. New Jersey's 90-calendar-day window covers the entire sequence: referral → evaluation → eligibility → IEP initiation. This is both the longest and the most comprehensive single-deadline model in this comparison.

SLD Identification Methods by State

IDEA 2004 permits three approaches to SLD identification: ability-achievement discrepancy, response to intervention (RTI/MTSS), and alternative research-based procedures (which includes PSW models). States have broad authority over which methods are required, allowed, or prohibited — and this is where practice diverges most sharply.

Texas context: Texas prohibits ability-achievement discrepancy as a standalone basis for SLD eligibility and requires converging data from multiple sources — including documented RTI/MTSS intervention data. PSW frameworks (C-SEP, Schultz & Stephens) are widely used. No single test determines eligibility. TAC §89.1040(c)(2).

Why this variation exists: A 2020 Congressional Research Service analysis of 15 states (CRS R46566) found that SLD has the greatest variability of all 14 IDEA disability categories — more than any other. The CRS attributed this to "ongoing debate surrounding the identification of these disabilities." An earlier foundational analysis by Schultz & Stephens (2009, The Advocacy Institute) surveyed all 50 states and found 39 still allowed discrepancy, 11 prohibited it, and 21 explicitly allowed an alternative research-based method (PSW/processing deficit). Texas was among those 11 that prohibited standalone discrepancy — a posture that remains in place today.

🔒 Required Method or data is required ★ Primary Primary/emphasized approach ✓ Allowed Permitted by state ⚠ Conditions Allowed with conditions ✗ Prohibited Not permissible (alone) 📊 Data Req'd Data must inform evaluation ? Verify Confirm with state guidance

State	Discrepancy IQ–Achievement	PSW Pattern of Strengths & Weaknesses	RTI / MTSS Response to Intervention	Convergent Multi-source required	Key Practitioner Note
📍 Texas	✗ Prohibited alone	🔒 Required	📊 Data Req'd	🔒 Yes	RTI/MTSS data must be part of the evaluation. PSW framework or pattern-based reasoning required. Convergent, multi-source evidence — no single test determines eligibility. TAC §89.1040(c)(2)
California	★ Primary	✓ Allowed	✗ Not sole basis	✓ Encouraged	Severe discrepancy (1.5 SD) is the primary model. PSW permitted as an alternative. RTI data cannot serve as the sole basis for SLD identification. Significant departure from TX practice. 5 CCR §3030(j)
Florida	⚠ Discouraged	🔒 Required	📊 Integrated	🔒 Yes	Florida explicitly requires documentation of a "pattern of strengths and weaknesses." Progress monitoring/RTI data integrated into evaluation. Multi-source, convergent evidence is the expectation — most similar to TX. Rule 6A-6.03018 F.A.C.
Virginia	✓ Allowed	★ Primary	✓ Allowed	★ Expected	VDOE published detailed PSW guidance (2021) with specific score criteria: strength ≥90 SS, weakness ≤80 SS. PSW is the expected approach at most VA LEAs, though all three methods are technically permitted. 8 VAC 20-81-110; VDOE SLD Guidelines
North Carolina	✓ Allowed	✓ Allowed	📊 Data Req'd	🔒 Yes	RTI documentation required as part of SLD eligibility decisions. PSW recognized. No single data source determines eligibility. Multi-disciplinary team makes final determination with documented intervention history. NCDPI Exceptional Children guidance (verify current)
Massachusetts	✓ Allowed	✓ Allowed	✓ Allowed	✓ Encouraged	All three IDEA methods permitted. The "Team" (equivalent to TX ARD) makes eligibility decisions. DESE guidance encourages comprehensive, multi-source evaluation. Practitioners have flexibility to choose approach. 603 CMR 28.05
Illinois	✓ Allowed	✓ Allowed	✓ Allowed	✓ Encouraged	All three IDEA methods permitted; local districts choose their approach. ISBE guidance encourages multi-method, comprehensive evaluation. No statewide mandate to prefer one method. 23 Ill. Admin. Code §226.130
New York	✓ Allowed	✓ Allowed	✓ Allowed	✓ Encouraged	All three methods permitted. Significant district-level variability — NYC and rural districts may approach SLD very differently. No state mandate to prohibit discrepancy. RTI data encouraged in practice. 8 NYCRR §200.4(j)
Pennsylvania	✓ Allowed	✓ Allowed	✓ Allowed	✓ Encouraged	PaTTAN SLD Guidelines (2008) describe both discrepancy and RTI. PSW recognized as alternative research-based approach. Districts have considerable flexibility. PaTTAN resources emphasize multi-source data. 22 Pa. Code §14.155; PaTTAN SLD Guidelines
New Jersey	✓ Allowed	✓ Allowed	✓ Allowed	🔒 Yes	All IDEA methods allowed. Unique requirement: no single standardized test may serve as the sole evaluation tool. Evaluation must include at least two assessments from at least two Child Study Team members in their area of expertise. N.J.A.C. 6A:14-3.4

For Texas-trained diagnosticians considering expansion: If you're trained in PSW/CHC-based frameworks (C-SEP, Schultz & Stephens, Dehn), states with discrepancy-primary models — California is the most prominent — may require a reframe. In California, the severe discrepancy calculation is still the default; you could use PSW, but you'd be working against the prevailing expectation. States that require or emphasize PSW and convergent evidence (Florida, Virginia) align most closely with current Texas practice. States where all methods are allowed (NY, MA, IL, PA, NJ) give you the most flexibility.

On ADHD across states: All states covered here use federal IDEA's "Other Health Impairment" (OHI) category for ADHD. The core framework — physician documentation + multi-source data + educational impact — is consistent across states. The main variation is in who has eligibility authority: Texas's ARD model explicitly gives the committee full authority over eligibility, independent of the physician. In New Jersey, the Child Study Team (school psychologist + LDT-C + social worker) conducts the evaluation and makes the determination. Most other states are similarly team-based. The physician diagnoses the condition; the educational team determines whether it results in an educational disability.

Dyslexia Law Landscape

Dyslexia mandates range from comprehensive statutory frameworks with specialist requirements and dual-track eligibility (Texas) to purely advisory guidelines with no screening mandate (California). This section covers screening requirements, grade ranges, specialist mandates, and legislative basis.

Strength ratings are relative: "Strong" = statutory screening mandate + instruction requirements. "Moderate" = statutory screening with limited instruction mandate. "Advisory" = state dyslexia guidance exists but is not legally binding. "Emerging" = advocacy activity but no significant state law yet.

📍 Texas

Strong

HB 3928 (2017) / HB 4170 (2019) · Tex. Ed. Code §38.003 · 19 TAC §74.28

✓ Screening Required ✓ K–2 Annual ✓ Dyslexia Specialist ✓ Dual-Track (IDEA + 504)

Comprehensive statutory framework. Dyslexia Specialist required at each campus. Texas Dyslexia Handbook governs assessment and instruction. Structured literacy mandated. Two-track eligibility: IDEA for SLD/dyslexia OR Section 504. Screened annually in grades K–2; ongoing if suspected.

Florida

Strong

HB 7 (2017) · Florida Literacy Law HB 1467 (2022) · Fla. Stat. §1008.25

✓ Screening Required ✓ K (FLKRS) ✓ Reading Specialist – Dual-Track: N/A

One of the strongest structured literacy frameworks outside Texas. The Florida Kindergarten Readiness Screener (FLKRS) includes phonological awareness. Dyslexia, dyscalculia, and dysgraphia named explicitly in law. Structured literacy (Science of Reading) required. Strong continuity with TX approach.

North Carolina

Strong

SL 2014-96 · Read to Achieve (2012) · N.C.G.S. §115C-83.3

✓ Screening Required ✓ K–3 ✓ Literacy Coach/Specialist – Dual-Track: N/A

One of the strongest structured literacy mandates in the country. Universal reading screening K–3. "Read to Achieve" provides a comprehensive intervention-to-identification pipeline. Dyslexia-specific evaluation protocols and Literacy Coach infrastructure.

Virginia

Strong

HB 1718 (2018) · VA Literacy Act (2022) · Va. Code §22.1-213.2

✓ Screening Required ✓ K–3 ✓ Reading Specialist – Dual-Track: N/A

Virginia Dyslexia Guidance Document provides a comprehensive evaluation and instruction framework. K–3 universal screening required. Structured literacy (Science of Reading) mandated through the Virginia Literacy Act. Strong Reading Specialist infrastructure across the state.

Massachusetts

Strong

M.G.L. c.71B · DESE Dyslexia Guidance · Early Literacy Screening

✓ Screening Required ✓ K–3 – Specialist: Not statewide – Dual-Track: N/A

Strong dyslexia identification expectations with K–3 universal reading screening. DESE provides detailed guidance on evaluation and instruction. Strong parent advocacy community. Dyslexia named in state guidance; structured literacy instruction required for identified students.

New Jersey

Strong

S2442 / A3819 (2018) · N.J.S.A. 18A:40-5.1

✓ Screening Required ✓ K–3 – Specialist: Not required – Dual-Track: N/A

Comprehensive dyslexia screening law (2018) requires universal K–3 screening. Structured literacy instruction required for identified students. NJ has a robust IEE community and strong parent advocacy infrastructure, which affects how dyslexia evaluations proceed in practice.

Illinois

Moderate

PA 099-0456 (2016) · PA 101-0491 (2019) · 105 ILCS 5/14-1.01

✓ Screening Required ✓ K–2 – Specialist: Not required – Dual-Track: N/A

Universal dyslexia screening required in K–2. Illinois Dyslexia Handbook available. Dyslexia named in state law. Structured literacy instruction encouraged but structured literacy mandate less comprehensive than TX/FL. ISBE provides implementation guidance through regional education agencies.

Pennsylvania

Moderate

Act 69 of 2014 · 22 Pa. Code §11.41

✓ Screening Required ✓ K–2 – Specialist: Not required – Dual-Track: N/A

Act 69 (2014) requires universal screening for characteristics of dyslexia in K–2. Structured literacy instruction required for identified students. PaTTAN (PA Training and Technical Assistance Network) provides guidance on dyslexia evaluation and instruction.

California

Advisory

AB 1369 (2015) · SB 237 (2021) · Cal. Ed. Code §56335

– Screening: Not required N/A Grades – Specialist: Not required – Dual-Track: N/A

California Dyslexia Guidelines (2017) are advisory — not legally binding. SB 237 (2021) mandated dyslexia training for teachers, but no universal screening requirement. Dyslexia is not named in the eligibility code; "specific learning disability" is used. Strong advocacy community pushing for comprehensive legislation.

New York

Emerging

Dyslexia Awareness Act (2016, informational) · NY Ed. Law §305

– Screening: Not required N/A Grades – Specialist: Not required – Dual-Track: N/A

No universal dyslexia screening mandate as of 2024–25. Dyslexia awareness training for teachers encouraged but not systematically required. Strong advocacy community — legislation has been introduced but not passed. Significant variation in dyslexia practice across the state's 700+ school districts.

Texas dual-track is unique. Texas is the only state in this comparison with a formal dual-track eligibility framework — a student can be identified under IDEA (as SLD) or under Section 504, and the dyslexia pathway explicitly supports both. This structure does not exist in most other states, where dyslexia identification is either fully embedded in the IDEA/SLD pathway or handled informally.

State Detail Cards

Full comparison details for each state. Click any state to expand. Focuses on what matters most for SLD/LD and ADHD evaluations under IDEA 2004.

Texas (Baseline)

45 school days PSW required Strong dyslexia law

▼

⏱️ Evaluation Timeline

45 school days

Clock: signed consent received. Extended by absences (≥3 days). Summer and school breaks excluded. Separate 30 calendar days for ARD eligibility meeting from FIE report date.

TAC §89.1011; Tex. Ed. Code §29.004

🔬 SLD Identification

PSW + Convergent Data

Discrepancy alone is prohibited. RTI/MTSS data required as part of evaluation. PSW framework (C-SEP, Schultz & Stephens) widely used. No single test determines eligibility.

TAC §89.1040(c)(2)

📘 Dyslexia

Strong — HB 3928 / HB 4170

Annual screening K–2. Dyslexia Specialist required at each campus. Texas Dyslexia Handbook governs. Structured literacy mandated. Dual-track eligibility (IDEA + 504).

Tex. Ed. Code §38.003; 19 TAC §74.28

🧠 ADHD / OHI

OHI · ARD authority

Physician diagnosis required but not sufficient. ARD committee has full eligibility authority. Rating scales (Conners or similar), educational impact documentation, and multi-source data required.

TAC §89.1040(c)(11)

TEA Special Education ↗ TX Law Reference Tool ↗

Florida

60 calendar days PSW required Strong dyslexia

▼

⏱️ Timeline

60 calendar days

From signed consent. Separate 30 calendar days for eligibility/IEP meeting after eval completion. Federal exceptions apply.

Rule 6A-6.0331 F.A.C.

🔬 SLD Identification

PSW required · Convergent

Florida requires "pattern of strengths and weaknesses" documentation. Progress monitoring integrated. Discrepancy alone is insufficient. Multi-source, convergent evidence — approach most similar to Texas.

Rule 6A-6.03018 F.A.C.

📘 Dyslexia

Strong — HB 1467 (2022)

FLKRS screener in Kindergarten. Structured literacy required. Dyslexia, dyscalculia, dysgraphia named in law. Reading Specialist requirement. One of the strongest frameworks outside TX.

Fla. Stat. §1008.25; §1011.62

🧠 ADHD / OHI

OHI · Standard framework

Multi-source evaluation required. Educational impact documented. Convergent evidence expected — consistent with Florida's SLD approach.

Rule 6A-6.03020 F.A.C.

✅ Most similar to Texas — PSW required, convergent data expected, strong dyslexia law. Primary difference is 60 calendar days vs. 45 school days, and no dual-track 504 pathway for dyslexia.

FDOE Exceptional Student Education ↗

Virginia

65 business days (verify) PSW primary Strong dyslexia

▼

⏱️ Timeline

65 business days (verify)

Clock reportedly starts from receipt of referral — not signed consent, which differs from TX. Holidays excluded. Confirm current rule with VDOE before relying on this figure.

8 VAC 20-81-110 (verify current)

🔬 SLD Identification

PSW primary · All methods allowed

VDOE published detailed PSW guidance (2021) with specific criteria: cognitive strength ≥90 SS, weakness ≤80 SS. All three methods technically allowed, but PSW is the expected approach at most VA LEAs.

8 VAC 20-81-110; VDOE SLD Guidelines (2021)

📘 Dyslexia

Strong — VA Literacy Act (2022)

K–3 universal screening required. Structured literacy mandated. Virginia Dyslexia Guidance Document provides comprehensive framework. Strong Reading Specialist infrastructure.

Va. Code §22.1-213.2

🧠 ADHD / OHI

OHI · Team determination

VDOE 2021 Supplemental Guidance explicitly addresses ADHD within the SLD evaluation framework. Multi-source data required. Educational impact documented.

8 VAC 20-81-110

✅ Similar approach to Texas — PSW emphasized, convergent data expected, strong dyslexia framework. Key differences: clock may start at referral (not consent), business days vs. school days, and discrepancy is technically allowed (though rarely used).

VDOE Special Education ↗

North Carolina

90 cal. days (verify) RTI data required Strong dyslexia

▼

⏱️ Timeline

90 calendar days (verify)

Clock may start from referral receipt. Verify current timeline and clock-start with NCDPI Exceptional Children Division — this is among the items most likely to have changed.

NCDPI Exceptional Children guidance (verify current)

🔬 SLD Identification

RTI required · PSW allowed

RTI documentation required as a component of SLD eligibility decisions. PSW approach recognized. No single data source determines eligibility. Multi-disciplinary team with documented intervention history.

NCDPI Exceptional Children guidance

📘 Dyslexia

Strong — SL 2014-96 / Read to Achieve

Universal K–3 reading screening. "Read to Achieve" pipeline from screening to intervention to eligibility. Literacy Coach/specialist infrastructure. Dyslexia-specific evaluation protocols.

N.C.G.S. §115C-83.3; §115C-83.6

🧠 ADHD / OHI

OHI · Standard framework

Federal IDEA OHI criteria. Educational impact documentation required. No NC-specific OHI guidance beyond federal requirements.

NCDPI Exceptional Children Division

🔍 Verify before relying on NC data. Timeline start and day-count are uncertain in this reference. The SLD requirement for RTI documentation aligns well with Texas practice; the dyslexia framework is strong. Recommend consulting NCDPI directly for current procedure.

NCDPI Exceptional Children Division ↗

Massachusetts

30 school days — fastest All methods allowed Strong dyslexia

▼

⏱️ Timeline

30 school working days

From signed consent. If referral falls within 30 school days of year-end, the IEP Team meeting may carry over to the next school year. IEP is developed at the Team meeting within the same 30-day window.

603 CMR 28.05

🔬 SLD Identification

All three methods allowed

Discrepancy, PSW, and RTI all permitted. The "Team" (equivalent to TX ARD) makes eligibility determinations. DESE encourages comprehensive, multi-source evaluation but does not mandate one approach.

603 CMR 28.05; M.G.L. c.71B §3

📘 Dyslexia

Strong — K–3 screening

Universal K–3 reading screening required. Dyslexia named in guidance; structured literacy instruction required. Strong parent advocacy community (MDLC, Decoding Dyslexia MA) influences practice.

603 CMR 28.05; M.G.L. c.71B

🧠 ADHD / OHI

OHI · Team determination

Standard OHI framework. Team has full eligibility authority. Massachusetts is notable for strong parent participation rights and a robust IEE culture — IEE requests are common.

603 CMR 28.02

⚠️ Key differences from Texas: Significantly shorter timeline (30 school days vs. 45); discrepancy approach is still permitted; all three SLD methods are left to team discretion. Dyslexia framework is strong but lacks the dual-track and campus specialist requirements of Texas.

DESE Special Education ↗

New York

60 calendar days All methods allowed Emerging dyslexia

▼

⏱️ Timeline

60 calendar days

From signed consent. Separate 30 calendar days for IEP meeting after eligibility. NYC has historically had documented compliance challenges meeting this timeline.

8 NYCRR §200.4

🔬 SLD Identification

All three methods allowed

Discrepancy, PSW, and RTI all permitted. State guidance encourages RTI data as part of evaluation. Significant district-level variability — practice in NYC differs substantially from rural upstate districts.

8 NYCRR §200.4(j)

📘 Dyslexia

Emerging — no screening mandate

No universal dyslexia screening requirement as of 2024–25. Awareness training encouraged but not systematically required. Strong advocacy; legislation introduced but not passed.

NY Ed. Law §305

🧠 ADHD / OHI

OHI · Standard framework

Written documentation of school-based performance and behavior expected. No NY-specific OHI/ADHD guidance beyond federal IDEA. Strong parent-rights culture — IEE requests common in NYC.

8 NYCRR §200.1(zz)(10)

⛔ Notable differences from Texas: Discrepancy approach is still widely used; no dyslexia screening mandate; 60 calendar days vs. 45 school days. The greatest practical divergence from TX is on dyslexia — NY lacks the statutory framework that Texas practitioners are trained within.

NYSED Office of Special Education ↗

New Jersey

90 days · unique structure All methods + no sole test Strong dyslexia

▼

⚠️ Critical NJ structure note

New Jersey's 90-calendar-day window covers the entire sequence: evaluation + eligibility determination + IEP initiation. Most other states have a timeline for the evaluation only, then a separate deadline for the IEP meeting. NJ's single 90-day deadline is both broader and more integrated.

⏱️ Timeline

90 calendar days · all-in

From signed consent. Covers evaluation + eligibility + IEP initiation. Evaluation conducted by the Child Study Team (CST): school psychologist, LDT-C (Learning Disabilities Teacher-Consultant), and social worker.

N.J.A.C. 6A:14-3.4(e)

🔬 SLD Identification

All methods · No sole test

All IDEA methods allowed. Unique requirement: no single standardized test may serve as the sole basis. At least two assessments from at least two CST members required. Multi-source data is both expected and mandated.

N.J.A.C. 6A:14-3.4; N.J.A.C. 6A:14-3.5

📘 Dyslexia

Strong — S2442 (2018)

Universal K–3 dyslexia screening required. Structured literacy required for identified students. Robust IEE community and strong parent advocacy infrastructure influence dyslexia identification in practice.

N.J.S.A. 18A:40-5.1

🧠 ADHD / OHI

OHI · CST model

Physician documents diagnosis; CST determines educational disability. No single test sufficient. Multi-disciplinary evaluation required. NJ has a particularly active IEE community for ADHD cases.

N.J.A.C. 6A:14-3.4

⛔ Structurally different from Texas: The CST model is distinct from the TX ARD model. The 90-day all-in window is unique. All SLD methods are allowed (discrepancy is still used). Strong dyslexia screening law does align with TX values. Diagnosticians considering NJ should review the CST model and LDT-C credential requirements carefully before pursuing licensure.

NJDOE Office of Special Education ↗

Pennsylvania

60 calendar days All methods Moderate dyslexia

▼

⏱️ Timeline

60 calendar days

From signed consent. Separate 30 calendar days for IEP meeting after eligibility. Federal exceptions apply. PaTTAN provides implementation guidance and training.

22 Pa. Code §14.153

🔬 SLD Identification

All methods · PaTTAN guidance

Discrepancy and RTI described in PA SLD Guidelines (PaTTAN, 2008). PSW recognized as alternative research-based approach. Considerable district flexibility. PaTTAN resources emphasize multi-source data.

22 Pa. Code §14.155; PaTTAN SLD Guidelines

📘 Dyslexia

Moderate — Act 69 (2014)

Universal K–2 dyslexia screening required. Structured literacy instruction required for identified students. PaTTAN provides implementation support for districts.

Act 69 of 2014; 22 Pa. Code §11.41

🧠 ADHD / OHI

OHI · Standard framework

Standard IDEA OHI criteria. No PA-specific ADHD guidance beyond federal requirements. PaTTAN resources cover OHI documentation.

22 Pa. Code §14.102

⚠️ Moderate differences from Texas: 60 calendar days vs. 45 school days; all SLD methods allowed (discrepancy not prohibited); K–2 screening is one grade shorter than TX; no dual-track dyslexia pathway.

PDE Special Education ↗

Illinois

60 school days All methods Moderate dyslexia

▼

⏱️ Timeline

60 school days

From signed consent. School breaks excluded (same as TX). IEP meeting within 14 school days of eligibility determination — shorter than most states' 30-day window.

23 Ill. Admin. Code §226.130

🔬 SLD Identification

All methods · ISBE guidance

All three IDEA methods permitted. Local districts choose approach with considerable flexibility. ISBE encourages multi-method, comprehensive evaluation. No statewide mandate to prefer one approach.

23 Ill. Admin. Code §226.130

📘 Dyslexia

Moderate — PA 099-0456 (2016)

Universal K–2 dyslexia screening required. Illinois Dyslexia Handbook available. Structured literacy encouraged. Dyslexia named in state law. Implementation varies significantly by district.

105 ILCS 5/14-1.01

🧠 ADHD / OHI

OHI · Standard framework

Standard IDEA OHI criteria. No ISBE-specific ADHD guidance beyond federal requirements. Shorter 14 school-day IEP meeting deadline post-eligibility.

23 Ill. Admin. Code §226.75

⚠️ Moderate differences from Texas: Same day type (school days) but 60 vs. 45 days; discrepancy approach is not prohibited; K–2 screening is K–2 (same); IEP meeting at 14 school days is actually faster than TX's 30 calendar days.

ISBE Special Education ↗

California

60 calendar days Discrepancy primary Advisory dyslexia only

▼

⏱️ Timeline

60 calendar days

From signed consent. School breaks >5 consecutive school days excluded. IEP meeting within 30 calendar days of eligibility (within the 60-day window). Assessment plan must be sent within 15 calendar days of referral.

Cal. Ed. Code §56344; §56043

🔬 SLD Identification

Discrepancy primary (1.5 SD)

Severe discrepancy (1.5 SD between ability and achievement) is the primary model. PSW permitted as alternative. RTI/MTSS data cannot serve as the sole basis for SLD identification. This is the most significant departure from TX practice.

Cal. Ed. Code §56337; 5 CCR §3030(j)

📘 Dyslexia

Advisory — no screening mandate

California Dyslexia Guidelines (2017) are advisory, not legally binding. SB 237 (2021) mandated teacher training on dyslexia characteristics. No universal screening requirement. "Specific learning disability" used in law — dyslexia not named.

Cal. Ed. Code §56335

🧠 ADHD / OHI

OHI · Standard framework

Multi-source data required (rating scales, observations, medical documentation). Large IEE market in California — independent evaluations are very common and factor significantly into eligibility decisions.

5 CCR §3030(j)

⛔ Most different from Texas: Discrepancy is the primary SLD method; RTI cannot be the sole basis (opposite to TX which requires RTI data); no universal dyslexia screening; advisory-only dyslexia guidelines. A TX-trained PSW practitioner would need to significantly reframe their approach in California.

CDE Special Education ↗

This is a v1 comparison tool. 10 states are included in this initial build. Future versions may add additional states, state-specific credential requirements (e.g., NJ's LDT-C, TX's Educational Diagnostician), and ADHD-specific state guidance variations. If you have corrections or updates to share, contact sbarber@barbersped.org.

SLD Eligibility Areas by State

IDEA 2004 established eight specific academic areas in which a student may qualify for Specific Learning Disability. Most states mirror these verbatim in regulation — but not all. This tab shows which areas each state enumerates and flags meaningful deviations from the federal standard.

Reading Fluency was new in 2004. Prior to IDEA 2004, federal law listed only 7 SLD areas. Reading Fluency was added as a distinct, standalone area in the 2004 reauthorization. States that did not update their regulations afterward may still carry the older 7-area list. California is the primary example among this tool's comparison states — its regulations predate 2004 and were never amended to add Reading Fluency as a separate area. This has real practitioner implications: a California FIE may not have assessed reading fluency as a standalone eligibility area.

OE — Oral Expression

LC — Listening Comprehension

WE — Written Expression

BRS — Basic Reading Skill

RF ⚡ — Reading Fluency (added in IDEA 2004)

RC — Reading Comprehension

MC — Math Calculation

MPS — Math Problem Solving

DX — Dyslexia named in state law or regulation

DYG — Dysgraphia named in state law or regulation

DCA — Dyscalculia named in state law or regulation

✓ Enumerated in regulation

✗ Not listed

* See footnote

~ Guidance / advisory only

— Not named at state level

verify Confirm against current regs

DX/DYG/DCA columns reflect whether the condition is named in state statute or binding regulation (✓), addressed in official agency guidance or on the state DOE website (~), or not specifically named at the state level (—). See the Dyslexia Laws tab for full dyslexia framework detail.

State	OE	LC	WE	BRS	RF ⚡	RC	MC	MPS	DX	DYG	DCA	Notes & Citation
📍 Texas	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	~	Exact IDEA 2004 language. All 8 areas. Dyslexia named in HB 3928; TEC/TAC explicitly name "developmental dysgraphia" under SLD. Dyscalculia not named in statute but recognized as an eligible related disorder within the SLD category. TAC §89.1040(c)(2); TEC §38.003; TEA Dyslexia Handbook
Massachusetts	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	—	—	All 8 areas. Definition includes "spell" and "think." Dyslexia screening mandated by MGL c.71B §57A. Dysgraphia and dyscalculia not named. 603 CMR 28.02(7)(j)
Florida	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	All 8 areas. The only state here with dyslexia, dysgraphia, AND dyscalculia all named in binding SLD regulation (plus developmental aphasia). Rule 6A-6.03018 F.A.C.
California ⚠️	✓	✓	✓	✓	✗	✓	✓	*	~	—	—	7 areas only. RF absent. Math uses "Mathematical Reasoning." Dyslexia guidelines advisory only (2017). Dysgraphia and dyscalculia not named. 5 CCR §3030(b)(10)
Illinois verify	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	verify	—	—	Federal alignment expected. Dyslexia recognition unconfirmed — ISBE source unavailable. Dysgraphia and dyscalculia not named. 23 Ill. Admin. Code §226
New York verify	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	~	—	—	Federal alignment via 2025 NYSED Parent Guide. Dyslexia awareness law; primarily guidance level. Dysgraphia and dyscalculia not named. 8 NYCRR §200.4; 34 CFR §300.309
Pennsylvania	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	~	—	—	All 8 confirmed verbatim (i–viii). RTI and discrepancy/PSW both permitted. Dyslexia screening exists; not in SLD eligibility reg. Dysgraphia and dyscalculia not named. Amended Dec 2023. 22 Pa. Code §14.125
Virginia verify	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	~	~	Federal alignment expected. Dyslexia in statute (COV §22.1-213). VDOE officially names dysgraphia AND dyscalculia as SLD subtypes on its primary LD page — official recognition, not in regulatory definition text. Area enumeration verify. 8 VAC 20-81-210; VDOE LD page
North Carolina	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	—	✓	8-area alignment confirmed. SLD definition explicitly names dyslexia AND dyscalculia as included conditions. Dyslexia has its own policy definition (NC 1500-2.9, citing HB 149). Dysgraphia absent from entire policy document. NC Policies NC 1500-2.4(c)(11); NC 1500-2.9; G.S. §115C-105.49
New Jersey	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	~	—	—	All 8 confirmed. Definition includes "think" and "spell." Dyslexia recognized; less formally codified than TX/FL/VA/NC. Dysgraphia and dyscalculia not named. N.J.A.C. 6A:14-3.5(b)

* California's MPS column uses "Mathematical Reasoning" rather than "Mathematics Problem Solving" — pre-IDEA 2004 language retained in 5 CCR §3030(b)(10).

Key Findings

California: the Reading Fluency gap. California's SLD regulations predate IDEA 2004 and were never updated to add Reading Fluency as a standalone eligibility area. Practically, this means a California FIE may not have assessed or documented Reading Fluency as a discrete SLD — it may appear only as part of a broader reading evaluation rather than as a named eligibility area. For diagnosticians reviewing records from California students, this is the most important transfer-of-records flag in this entire comparison tool. California also uses "Mathematical Reasoning" rather than "Mathematics Problem Solving" — a difference in phrasing that reflects the older federal language more than a substantive difference in what's assessed.

Two states name dyscalculia in binding policy — FL and NC. Florida names dyslexia, dysgraphia, AND dyscalculia in its SLD eligibility regulation (Rule 6A-6.03018). North Carolina names dyslexia AND dyscalculia in its binding Policies definition (NC 1500-2.4(c)(11)) but does not name dysgraphia. Texas explicitly names dyslexia (HB 3928) and "developmental dysgraphia" (TEC/TAC) in statute, but dyscalculia is recognized as an eligible related disorder without being named in the code. Virginia officially names all three on the VDOE website but not within the regulatory definition text.

Oral Expression and Listening Comprehension: the SLD/SLI boundary. All 10 states in this tool list OE and LC as SLD-eligible areas, but their use is consistently nuanced in state guidance. Most SEA documents recommend — though rarely require in regulation — that teams rule out Speech-Language Impairment before determining SLD in OE or LC. The overlap with expressive and receptive language disorder is significant; a student who qualifies as SLI in expressive/receptive language may not also warrant an SLD in OE/LC. In Texas practice, this typically means coordinating with the SLP before finalizing OE or LC as the primary SLD area.

What this means when reviewing out-of-state FIEs. If a student transfers from California, check whether Reading Fluency was assessed and whether it appears as a named eligibility area. If it doesn't, and RF concerns exist, that gap may warrant assessment in the new state. For all other comparison states, the 8-area framework is consistent — terminology and area definitions translate directly.

Sources: Area enumeration based on each state's primary special education eligibility regulations as cited. California confirmed via 5 CCR §3030(b)(10); Florida confirmed via Rule 6A-6.03018 F.A.C.; Massachusetts confirmed via 603 CMR 28.02(7)(j) and DESE SLD forms; New Jersey confirmed via N.J.A.C. 6A:14-3.5(b); Pennsylvania confirmed via 22 Pa. Code §14.125 (amended December 2023); North Carolina confirmed via NC Policies Governing Services for Children with Disabilities NC 1500-2.4(c)(11) and NC 1500-2.9 (NCDPI Office of Exceptional Children, amended 2024). Illinois, New York, and Virginia area counts are based on federal alignment — marked "verify" and should be confirmed against current state agency guidance before use. New York federal alignment confirmed via NYSED 2025 Parent Guide (8 NYCRR §200.4). Federal baseline: 34 CFR §300.309(a)(1).

Sources & Further Reading

Primary sources behind this comparison tool — federal law, congressional research, academic analysis, and national evaluation data. All are in the public domain or freely accessible.

Federal Framework

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B: Key Statutory and Regulatory Provisions

Congressional Research Service (CRS) · Report R41833 · Updated February 13, 2026

Read ↗

The authoritative federal overview of IDEA Part B — evaluation timelines, SLD identification procedures, IEP requirements, procedural safeguards, and funding. The February 2026 update confirms the SLD three-method framework (discrepancy may not be required; RTI must be permitted; alternative research-based methods may be permitted) remains unchanged since IDEA 2004 reauthorization. Includes current enrollment data: 7.9 million students receiving IDEA services in 2023–24, with SLD representing nearly a third of all students with disabilities.

IDEA Part B: A Comparison of State Eligibility Criteria

Congressional Research Service (CRS) · Report R46566 · October 2020

Read ↗

Comparative analysis of IDEA eligibility criteria across 15 states for all 14 disability categories. Key finding: SLD has the greatest variability of any IDEA disability category — more than autism, OHI, or any other. The CRS attributed this to "ongoing debate surrounding the identification of these disabilities." The variability in timelines, SLD methods, and dyslexia requirements documented in this tool reflects what CRS called "uneven variability in state operational definitions of eligibility criteria in terms of specificity, severity, method of identification, and timeline for identification."

Appropriate Identification of Children with Disabilities for IDEA Services: A Report from Recent National Estimates

IES / National Center for Education Evaluation (NCEE) · NCEE 2024-004r · June 2024

Read PDF ↗

National survey of all 50 states + 688 school districts, using 2019–2020 data. Published by IES/Mathematica. Key findings: most states reported broad Child Find efforts but with less intensive outreach for younger children; states generally tried to use specialized assessments and RTI data for more accurate identification; challenges with linguistically and culturally responsive evaluation remain significant; state differences in measuring racial/ethnic disproportionality limited consistent detection. Provides a national-level baseline for how IDEA identification is implemented in practice across states.

Academic & Professional Research

SLD Identification: An Analysis of State Policies

Edward K. Schultz & Tammy L. Stephens · The Advocacy Institute · 2009

Read ↗

The foundational post-IDEA-2004 analysis of all 50 states' SLD identification frameworks, by the same Schultz & Stephens whose PSW/C-SEP frameworks are used throughout the Barber Sped Hub. Surveyed each state's special education rules and regulations and coded them by eligibility model. Found: 39/50 states allowed discrepancy; 11 prohibited it (Texas among them); all states allowed RTI in some form; 21 allowed an alternative research-based method (PSW/processing deficit). Established the three-model taxonomy that OSEP and subsequent CRS reports have carried forward. Includes an audio interview with the authors.

SLD Eligibility Policy and Practice Recommendations

National Association of School Psychologists (NASP)

Read ↗

NASP's professional position on SLD eligibility policy and practice. Note: this page requires direct site access (not fetchable via automated tools). NASP has historically supported comprehensive, multi-method evaluation approaches that integrate cognitive and academic assessment data with RTI data — broadly aligned with the convergent evidence framework used in Texas and Florida. Relevant particularly to the PSW and ADHD/OHI sections of this tool.

Texas Primary Sources (Baseline)

Evaluation Timelines

19 TAC §89.1011 · Tex. Ed. Code §29.004. SB 816 (2013) changed TX from 60 calendar days to 45 school days.

TEA Special Education ↗

SLD Eligibility

19 TAC §89.1040(c)(2). Prohibits standalone discrepancy; requires PSW/pattern reasoning + RTI data + convergent evidence.

TAC Rules ↗

Dyslexia

Tex. Ed. Code §38.003 · 19 TAC §74.28 · HB 3928 (2017) · HB 4170 (2019). Texas Dyslexia Handbook governs assessment and instruction.

TEA Dyslexia ↗

Hub Tools

The TX Sped Law Quick Reference on this hub provides plain-English summaries of all Texas-specific requirements with TAC and Tex. Ed. Code citations.

TX Law Reference Tool ↗

About this tool's data and methodology. State data in this tool was compiled from each state education agency's published special education rules and regulations, supplemented by state guidance documents and the sources listed above. Data reflects conditions as of 2024–2025. Regulations change — always verify against current state agency guidance before making policy, procedure, or eligibility decisions. Virginia and North Carolina timelines are marked "verify" because those figures are less certain than the others. Corrections welcome: sbarber@barbersped.org

⚖️ State-by-State SLD Evaluation Comparison

Evaluation Timeline Comparison

SLD Identification Methods by State

Dyslexia Law Landscape

State Detail Cards

SLD Eligibility Areas by State

Sources & Further Reading