Barber Sped Hub
Texas Sped Law Quick Reference
TAC, IDEA & Texas-Specific Requirements — Plain English + Citations
← Hub

⚖️ Texas Sped Law Quick Reference

Plain-English summaries of key Texas special education requirements with TAC and IDEA citations. Scoped to evaluation and eligibility — the diagnostician's corner of the law.

Note: "School days" means days school is in session for students, excluding holidays and weekends. "Calendar days" includes all days. Always verify current TEA guidance — rules can be updated between handbook editions.
Initial Evaluation
📅
Consent for Initial Evaluation — 15 Calendar Days
Timeline▼
Once a student is referred, the district must provide written notice of the proposed evaluation and obtain written parental consent within 15 calendar days of the referral date. The clock starts on the referral date — not the meeting date or the date the form was sent.
TAC§89.1011(b) — Notice and consent for initial evaluation within 15 calendar days of referral
IDEA34 CFR §300.300(a) — Parental consent for initial evaluation
Calendar days: Weekends and holidays count. If day 15 falls on a Saturday, the deadline is that Monday.
📅
Complete Initial Evaluation & ARD — 45 School Days from Consent
Timeline▼
After written consent is received, the district has 45 school days to complete the FIE and hold the initial ARD meeting. Both must occur within this window. The 45-day clock pauses during school breaks of 5 or more consecutive school days.
TAC§89.1011(c) — Evaluation and ARD within 45 school days of consent
IDEA34 CFR §300.301(c) — Initial evaluation timelines (federal default is 60 calendar days; Texas uses 45 school days)
Texas is stricter: 45 school days is more demanding than the federal 60 calendar day default. The ARD must also occur within this window — completing the FIE alone is not sufficient.
⏸️
When the 45-Day Clock Pauses
Timeline▼
The clock pauses during school breaks of 5 or more consecutive school days (e.g., winter break, spring break) and resumes on the first day school is back in session. It also pauses if the parent repeatedly fails or refuses to produce the child for evaluation. Brief single-day holidays do not pause the clock.
TAC§89.1011(c)(1) — School break exception; §89.1011(c)(2) — Parent unavailability exception
Document any pauses: Note the pause start date, reason, and resume date in your caseload tracker. This is your paper trail if compliance is questioned.
Re-Evaluation
🔄
Re-Evaluation — At Least Every 3 Years
Timeline▼
A student with a disability must be re-evaluated at least once every 3 years (triennial), unless parent and district agree in writing that re-evaluation is unnecessary. Re-evaluation may also be requested by a parent or teacher but not more than once per year unless both parties agree.
TAC§89.1040(e) — Re-evaluation at least every 3 years; written agreement to waive may be documented in ARD
IDEA34 CFR §300.303 — Re-evaluation; 34 CFR §300.305 — Review of existing evaluation data (REED)
REED first: Before any re-evaluation, the ARD must review existing data to determine what additional data are needed. No new testing may be required if existing data are sufficient to determine continued eligibility.
📝
Re-Evaluation Consent — When It Is and Isn't Required
Timeline▼
Consent is required before administering new assessments in a re-evaluation. Consent is not required for reviewing existing data (REED), or when the district determines no new testing is needed (with parent notice). If parents don't respond after documented reasonable attempts, the district may proceed without consent.
IDEA34 CFR §300.300(c) — Consent for re-evaluation; exception for documented non-response
TAC§89.1011(b) — Notice and consent requirements apply to re-evaluations
Transfer Students
🚌
Transfer Students — IEP Continuity & 30-Day ARD Requirement
Timeline▼
In-state: Provide comparable services immediately; hold ARD within 30 calendar days to adopt or adapt the existing IEP.

Out-of-state: Provide comparable services immediately; hold ARD within 30 calendar days. Texas may initiate a new evaluation if the student does not meet Texas eligibility criteria — this requires parental consent.
IDEA34 CFR §300.323(e)(f) — Transfer students; comparable services; in-state vs. out-of-state requirements
TAC§89.1053 — Transfer students; 30 calendar day ARD; comparable services pending
Out-of-state: Texas is not required to accept another state's eligibility determination. If the student doesn't meet Texas criteria, a new evaluation may be needed with parental consent.
Note: Eligibility is determined by the full ARD committee — not by the diagnostician alone. The FIE informs the decision; the ARD makes it.
✅
The 13 Texas Eligibility Categories — All Three Prongs Required
Eligibility▼
Texas recognizes 13 disability categories under IDEA. To be eligible, a student must: (1) have a qualifying disability; (2) the disability must adversely affect educational performance; AND (3) the student must require specially designed instruction. All three prongs are required — a diagnosis alone is not sufficient.
TAC§89.1040(c) — Eligibility criteria; all 13 categories; all three prongs required
IDEA34 CFR §300.8 — Child with a disability; 34 CFR §300.306 — Eligibility determination
The 13 categories: Auditory Impairment, Autism, Deaf-Blindness, Developmental Delay (ages 3–9), Emotional Disturbance, Intellectual Disability, Multiple Disabilities, Non-Categorical Early Childhood (ages 3–5), Orthopedic Impairment, Other Health Impairment, Specific Learning Disability, Speech or Language Impairment, Traumatic Brain Injury, Visual Impairment.
📘
SLD — Permissible Identification Approaches & Exclusionary Factors
Eligibility▼
Texas permits three SLD identification approaches: ability-achievement discrepancy, patterns of strengths and weaknesses (PSW/XBA/C-SEP), and response to intervention (RTI/MTSS). A student is not eligible as SLD if the primary cause of learning difficulty is: visual/hearing/motor disability, intellectual disability, emotional disturbance, cultural factors, environmental/economic disadvantage, or limited English proficiency. All exclusionary factors must be explicitly ruled out in the FIE.
TAC§89.1040(c)(1) — SLD eligibility; permissible approaches; exclusionary factors
IDEA34 CFR §300.307–300.311 — SLD identification procedures; exclusionary factors at §300.309(a)(3)
Document exclusionary factors: The FIE must affirmatively rule out each exclusionary factor — not just mention them. Silence implies you didn't consider them.
❤️‍🩹
OHI — Other Health Impairment & ADHD Eligibility
Eligibility▼
OHI covers chronic or acute health conditions resulting in limited strength, vitality, or alertness — including heightened alertness to environmental stimuli — that adversely affects educational performance. ADHD is the most common OHI basis. Educational impact must be documented; a medical diagnosis alone is not sufficient.
TAC§89.1040(c)(8) — OHI eligibility; limited alertness criterion
IDEA34 CFR §300.8(c)(9) — OHI definition; ADD/ADHD explicitly included
Key IDEA language: "Heightened alertness to environmental stimuli that results in limited alertness with respect to the educational environment" — this covers ADHD's inattentive presentation in IDEA and TAC.
🧩
Intellectual Disability — Both Cognitive & Adaptive Data Required
Eligibility▼
ID requires: (1) significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning (typically SS ≤70, two or more SDs below the mean); (2) deficits in adaptive behavior (conceptual, social, and/or practical skills); AND (3) onset during the developmental period (before age 18). Cognitive scores alone are not sufficient — adaptive data are required.
TAC§89.1040(c)(6) — Intellectual Disability; both cognitive and adaptive criteria required
IDEA34 CFR §300.8(c)(6) — Intellectual disability definition
Adaptive is required: An IQ score at or below 70 without documented adaptive deficits does not meet Texas criteria for ID.
❌
Not Eligible Determinations — ARD Decides, Not the Evaluator
Eligibility▼
A student does not qualify if: (1) no qualifying disability is present, (2) the disability does not adversely affect educational performance, or (3) specially designed instruction is not required. The ARD committee — not the diagnostician — makes this determination. The district must provide prior written notice of the decision and the parent's rights to challenge it.
IDEA34 CFR §300.306(a) — ARD makes eligibility determination; §300.503 — Prior written notice required
TAC§89.1040(b) — ARD committee determines eligibility; §89.1011 — Prior written notice of any decision
Evaluator role: Present your data clearly and state whether findings support eligibility — but the ARD committee makes the determination. Document your conclusions; let the ARD do its job.
👥
Required ARD Committee Members
ARD / IEP▼
Required members: (1) parent(s); (2) at least one general education teacher (if in or likely in gen ed); (3) at least one special education teacher or provider; (4) an LEA representative who can supervise SDI and commit district resources; (5) someone to interpret evaluation results (often the diagnostician); (6) the student when transition is discussed (required) or when appropriate.
IDEA34 CFR §300.321 — IEP team members and roles
TAC§89.1050(a) — ARD committee composition; LEA representative requirements
Excusal: A required member may be excused with written parental consent if their area is not being discussed. Excusal without consent — even one member — can invalidate the ARD.
📆
Annual IEP Review — Required Once Per Year
ARD / IEP▼
The ARD committee must review and revise the IEP at least once per year, addressing progress toward annual goals, whether goals need revision, and any changes in services. Parents must receive advance notice — TEA recommends at least 5 school days. Additional ARDs may be called more frequently as needed.
IDEA34 CFR §300.324(b) — IEP review and revision; at least annually
TAC§89.1055(e) — Annual ARD review; parent notice requirements
📋
Required IEP Components
ARD / IEP▼
Every IEP must include: (1) PLAAFP — how disability affects involvement in general curriculum; (2) measurable annual goals; (3) special education services, supplementary aids, and program modifications; (4) explanation of extent of non-participation in regular education; (5) accommodations for state/district assessments; (6) start date, frequency, and duration of services; (7) beginning at age 14, transition planning with measurable post-secondary goals.
IDEA34 CFR §300.320 — IEP definition and required content
TAC§89.1055 — IEP content; §89.1055(b)(7) — Transition at age 14 (Texas is stricter than federal age 16)
Texas transition age: Texas requires transition planning beginning at age 14 — two years earlier than the federal requirement of age 16.
🏫
Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)
ARD / IEP▼
Students with disabilities must be educated with non-disabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate. Removal from general education may only occur when education there — even with supplementary aids and services — cannot be achieved satisfactorily. Districts must maintain a continuum of placements. Removal must be justified and documented by the ARD committee.
IDEA34 CFR §300.114–300.116 — LRE requirements; continuum of alternative placements
TAC§89.1045 — LRE; placement decided by ARD committee; justification required for non-inclusion
Placement follows IEP: The IEP is written first; placement is determined after. Placing a student first and writing goals to match is a procedural violation of IDEA.
📜
Prior Written Notice (PWN) — When It's Required
Parent Rights▼
The district must provide Prior Written Notice (PWN) a reasonable time before proposing or refusing to initiate or change identification, evaluation, or placement. PWN must describe: what action is proposed or refused, why, evaluation procedures used, other options considered, and how to obtain procedural safeguards. Must be in the parent's language.
IDEA34 CFR §300.503 — Prior written notice; required content
TAC§89.1011 — Notice requirements; language accessibility requirement
Refusals too: PWN is required when the district refuses a parent request — including a refusal to evaluate. The notice must explain why the district is declining.
🔎
Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE)
Parent Rights▼
Parents may request an IEE at public expense if they disagree with the district's evaluation. The district must either (1) fund the IEE, or (2) file for due process to show its evaluation was appropriate. The district may not delay or deny without initiating due process. The ARD must consider an IEE — but is not required to adopt its conclusions.
IDEA34 CFR §300.502 — IEE; public expense; ARD must consider results
TAC§89.1165 — IEE rights; district response options; ARD consideration
📋
Procedural Safeguards — When the Notice Must Be Provided
Parent Rights▼
The Procedural Safeguards Notice must be provided: (1) once per year (at annual ARD); (2) upon initial referral; (3) upon re-evaluation; (4) when a due process complaint is filed; (5) upon disciplinary change of placement; and (6) upon parent request. Must be in the parent's language.
IDEA34 CFR §300.504 — Procedural safeguards notice; required distribution events
TAC§89.1011 — Notice in native language; annual and event-based distribution
📁
Access to Education Records — FERPA & IDEA Rights
Parent Rights▼
Parents have the right to inspect and review all education records relating to their child. The district must comply within 45 days (or before any ARD meeting, whichever is sooner). The district may charge a reasonable copying fee unless the fee prevents access. Parents may request amendment of records believed to be inaccurate.
IDEA34 CFR §300.613–300.617 — Access to records; 45-day response; copying fees
FERPA20 USC §1232g — Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act; applies alongside IDEA
📚
Universal Dyslexia Screening — K and 1st Grade Required
Dyslexia▼
Texas requires districts to screen all students in Kindergarten and 1st grade for dyslexia using a TEA-approved instrument (e.g., TPRI, Istation). Transfer students must be screened if not previously screened. Results must be shared with parents. Students flagged at risk must receive appropriate structured literacy instruction and may be referred to the campus dyslexia team.
Texas Ed. Code§38.003 — Universal dyslexia screening; K and 1st grade; transfer student requirements
TEADyslexia Handbook (2024) — Screening requirements; approved instruments; HB 3928 alignment
🔬
Dyslexia Evaluation — Required Components per TEA Handbook
Dyslexia▼
A comprehensive dyslexia evaluation must assess: phonological awareness, phonological memory, rapid automatic naming, word reading (real words and nonsense words), reading fluency, spelling, and reading comprehension. A cognitive assessment is also required to establish that reading deficits are not primarily explained by intellectual disability or another primary condition.
TEADyslexia Handbook (2024) — Chapter 3: Evaluation; required assessment components
Texas Ed. Code§38.003(b) — Evaluation for dyslexia and related disorders; district responsibility
Dyslexia ≠ SLD eligibility: A student can be identified with dyslexia under Texas Ed. Code §38.003 without qualifying for IDEA special education. These are two separate determinations — document both clearly in the FIE.
📚
Required Services — Structured Literacy Mandate
Dyslexia▼
Once identified with dyslexia, the district must provide structured literacy instruction that is explicit, systematic, and multisensory (Orton-Gillingham based or aligned), regardless of whether the student qualifies for IDEA services. Students who do not meet IDEA eligibility may be served under Section 504. Accommodations must be provided in either case.
Texas Ed. Code§38.003(c) — Required instruction for students with dyslexia; structured literacy mandate; HB 3928
TEADyslexia Handbook (2024) — Chapter 4: Instruction; structured literacy requirements
504 vs. IDEA: If dyslexia doesn't meet the three-prong IDEA test, 504 may be the right vehicle. Both require documentation of the disability's impact on a major life activity (learning, reading).
📝
Texas Definition of Dyslexia & Related Disorders
Dyslexia▼
Texas defines dyslexia as a disorder of neurological origin characterized by difficulties with accurate and/or fluent word recognition and poor spelling and decoding, resulting from a deficit in the phonological component of language. Related disorders are similar conditions affecting reading ability. Texas Ed. Code references dyslexia separately from other SLDs, though they may coexist.
Texas Ed. Code§38.002 — Definition of dyslexia and related disorders; neurological origin; phonological basis
TEADyslexia Handbook (2024) — Chapter 1: IDA definition adopted by TEA; relationship to SLD
📈
Texas Dyslexia Identification Trends — Why Caseloads Are Rising
Dyslexia▼
Texas dyslexia identification rates rose from 4.10% of total student enrollment in 2016–17 to 7.03% in 2022–23 — a 3-point increase representing approximately 142,130 additional students statewide. This rise is directly linked to the 2018 OSEP Corrective Action, which found TEA in violation of IDEA for failing to identify and evaluate all eligible students. The largest increases occurred in suburban districts, which had been the lowest identifiers under the previous enrollment cap era (2004–2018). Rising caseloads reflect correction of prior under-identification, not over-identification.
ResearchSimmons, Shin & Hart (2024). Texas legislative trends in prevalence rate of students by school district locale. Texas Education Review, 12(2), 6–24.
FederalOSEP Corrective Action Letter to TEA (January 2018) — Three findings of IDEA non-compliance including failure to identify and evaluate all eligible students.
For ARD/admin conversations: If your campus or district leadership questions the volume of dyslexia referrals, the OSEP corrective action history and PEIMS trend data provide evidence-based context. This is a documented policy correction, not diagnostic inflation.
Note: Discipline rules for students with disabilities are complex. This is a quick-reference overview — consult your campus administrator and district legal counsel for specific situations.
📅
The 10-Day Rule — When Change of Placement Is Triggered
Discipline▼
A student with a disability may be suspended up to 10 school days per year without triggering IDEA discipline protections. Once removals exceed 10 cumulative school days, a change of placement occurs — triggering: a manifestation determination review (MDR), continuation of FAPE, and parent notification. A single suspension of 10 or more consecutive days also triggers these requirements immediately.
IDEA34 CFR §300.530 — Authority of school personnel; 10-day threshold; change of placement definition
TAC§89.1053(g) — Discipline for students with disabilities; change of placement triggers; FAPE continuation
Cumulative days matter: Multiple short suspensions add up. Track total days — once 10 is crossed, IDEA protections apply regardless of individual suspension lengths.
🔍
Manifestation Determination Review (MDR)
Discipline▼
When a change of placement is triggered, the ARD must conduct an MDR within 10 school days. The committee determines: (1) was the conduct caused by or directly and substantially related to the disability? and (2) was it a direct result of the district's failure to implement the IEP? If yes to either — it's a manifestation. The student returns to current placement; the ARD must conduct an FBA and develop/revise a BIP.
IDEA34 CFR §300.530(e) — Manifestation determination; within 10 school days; two-question standard
TAC§89.1053(g)(3) — MDR requirements; FBA and BIP required when manifestation found
Evaluator role in MDRs: Diagnosticians are often called to speak to disability characteristics and evaluation data. Bring your FIE findings and cognitive/behavioral profile — the committee needs this to answer the two-question standard.
⚠️
Special Circumstances — Weapons, Drugs & Serious Bodily Injury
Discipline▼
Regardless of manifestation, a student may be placed in an Interim Alternative Educational Setting (IAES) for up to 45 school days if the student: (1) carries or possesses a weapon at school or a school function; (2) knowingly possesses, uses, or sells illegal drugs at school; or (3) has inflicted serious bodily injury on another person at school. FAPE must continue in the IAES.
IDEA34 CFR §300.530(g) — Special circumstances; 45-day IAES placement; FAPE must continue
TAC§89.1053(g)(4) — IAES for special circumstances; educational services must continue in IAES
🏫
FAPE Must Continue During Disciplinary Removals
Discipline▼
Once a student has been removed for more than 10 cumulative school days, the district must continue to provide FAPE — including special education and related services. Services must enable the student to continue progressing toward IEP goals and accessing the general education curriculum, even during suspension or IAES placement. This does not apply to non-disabled students.
IDEA34 CFR §300.530(d) — FAPE during removal; required after 10 cumulative school days
TAC§89.1053(g)(2) — Services during disciplinary removal; FAPE continuation requirement
🌎
Ruling Out Language Difference — Required & Must Be Documented
EB / EL▼
Before determining eligibility, the ARD must rule out that difficulties are primarily due to: limited English proficiency, lack of appropriate instruction, or cultural/economic factors. This must be explicitly documented in the FIE — not just mentioned in passing. The strongest evidence of a disability (vs. language acquisition) is deficits present in both L1 and L2.
TAC§89.1040(c)(1)(C) — Limited English proficiency as exclusionary factor; must be affirmatively ruled out
IDEA34 CFR §300.306(b) — Exclusionary factors; 34 CFR §300.304(c)(1)(ii) — Assessment in native language
Silence is not enough: The FIE must affirmatively explain why language acquisition, insufficient instruction, or cultural factors were ruled out. A sentence or two in the background section is not sufficient.
🗣️
Assessment in Native Language — IDEA Requirement
EB / EL▼
IDEA requires assessments be administered in the student's native language or mode of communication unless clearly not feasible. Assessments must be selected and administered in a non-discriminatory manner. Using English-only instruments with a Spanish-dominant student without documenting why bilingual assessment was not feasible is a procedural violation.
IDEA34 CFR §300.304(c)(1)(ii) — Assessment in native language; non-discriminatory assessment
TAC§89.1011 — Evaluation in native language; LPAC coordination required
Document your rationale: If using English instruments with a Spanish-dominant student, document why — e.g., Advanced High TELPAS, 6+ years English instruction, parent preference documented. Don't leave it blank.
👥
LPAC & Special Education — Required Coordination
EB / EL▼
When an EB student is referred for special education, the LPAC and ARD committees must coordinate on: whether difficulties relate to language acquisition or disability, appropriate language of instruction and services, and state assessment accommodations. An EB student placed in special education retains all LPAC rights and bilingual/ESL program entitlements — special education does not replace bilingual services.
TAC§89.1226 — LPAC responsibilities for students referred to special education; joint decision-making required
Texas Ed. Code§29.063 — Bilingual education; students with disabilities retain bilingual program entitlements
Key principle: EB students in special education are entitled to both sets of services. LPAC and ARD must jointly determine the language of instruction for special education services.
📊
State Assessment — EB Students with Disabilities Get Both Sets of Accommodations
EB / EL▼
EB students with disabilities are entitled to both IDEA accommodations (from the IEP) and EB-specific accommodations (from LPAC decisions) on state assessments. LPAC and ARD must coordinate to ensure all applicable supports are provided. First-year reading assessment exemptions and other EB-specific exemptions are determined by LPAC and are separate from IEP-based accommodations.
TAC§89.1226 — Coordination of LPAC and ARD for state assessment; combined accommodations
TEALPAC Decision-Making Process Guide — Assessment accommodations for EB students with disabilities
New SY 2026–27: Texas is transitioning from instructional arrangement/setting-based funding to a service intensity model. The FIE and IEP documentation quality now directly influences funding accuracy. See the full Intensity of Services Funding Reference for complete domain, tier, and service group details.
Legislative Authority
⚖️
HB 2 / SB 568 — New Special Education Funding System (Effective Sept 1, 2026)
Funding▼
Passed during the 89th Regular Session, HB 2 / SB 568 replaces instructional arrangement/setting-based special education funding with a service intensity of services model effective September 1, 2026. Funding is now tied to what a student's IEP documents as required SDI — not where services are delivered. The law mandates 8 intensity tiers and at least 4 service groups, established through commissioner rules.
TEC§48.102 (amended) — Intensity Tiers · §48.1021 (new) — Service Groups · §48.1022(b) — Transition year funding
SessionHB 2 / SB 568, 89th Regular Session, Texas Legislature — effective September 1, 2026
For diagnosticians: FIE documentation is the foundation ARD committees use to build IEPs — and IEPs now drive funding. Thorough documentation of the type, frequency, and intensity of required SDI directly supports accurate tier placement.
Transition Year Requirements (SY 2026–27)
📊
Dual PEIMS Reporting — SY 2026–27 Only
Funding▼
During SY 2026–27, districts must report special education participation through PEIMS using both the old instructional arrangement/setting codes and the new tier/service group data. The new data — tier of intensity, service group(s), and average minutes per instructional day in a special education setting — is due by the 1st Six-Weeks Attendance submission: October 8, 2026. Old IA/setting codes continue to be reported and updated as IEPs change. Beginning SY 2027–28, old codes are no longer required.
DeadlineOctober 8, 2026 — 1st Six-Weeks Attendance PEIMS submission · Based on IEP in place first day of SY 2026–27
AuthorityTEC §48.1022(b) · TEA TAA Letter, April 16, 2026
Data elements required by Oct 8: (1) Tier of intensity (1–8), (2) Service group(s) if applicable (1–5), (3) Average minutes per instructional day in a special education setting. The TEA Special Education Funding Tool assists with (1) and (2); (3) must be calculated separately.
💵
SY 2026–27 Funding Floor Guarantee + $250M Statewide Increase
Funding▼
During the 2026–27 transition year only, TEA guarantees that each district will receive at least the same special education funding it would have received under the old instructional arrangement/setting system. Additionally, the new system adds a statewide $250 million increase on top of prior-law amounts. Final funding is determined at settle-up in September 2027 based on PEIMS Summer Submission data. Beginning in SY 2027–28, funding is based solely on the intensity of services model with no floor guarantee.
TEC§48.1022(b) — Commissioner must ensure SY 2026–27 statewide total is ~$250M greater than prior-law amounts
Budget planning: TEA will flow funds during the year based on prior year IA/setting codes (as a planning estimate), then reconcile at settle-up. Many districts will receive an increase; final amounts will vary by district based on tier and service group data.
Framework Summary
🏷️
Eight Intensity Tiers — Overview
Funding▼
Tiers are assigned based on a composite score across 5 IEP-documented domains: Curriculum & Instruction, Behavior, Communication, Independent Functioning, and Personal Care/Health. Each domain is scored 0–3 based on 4 factors (type/frequency of services, specialized provider needed, required ratio, and specialized equipment). Tier 1 (speech only) and Tier 8 (residential placement) are defined in statute; Tiers 2–7 are established through commissioner rules currently in draft form.
TEC§48.102 — Tier 1 (speech only) and Tier 8 (residential) defined in statute; Tiers 2–7 defined by commissioner rule
Full reference: See the Intensity of Services Funding Reference on this hub for complete domain descriptions, factor definitions, and the scoring process.
➕
Five Service Groups — Overview
Funding▼
Service groups are add-on funding for students whose IEPs require resources beyond what the base intensity tier captures. Groups 1–3 address the extent of related services required (limited, moderate, extensive). Groups 4–5 are for students requiring a 1:1 provider-to-student ratio for at least 50% of their instructional day. Like tiers, service group assignment must be grounded in explicit IEP documentation.
TEC§48.1021 — Commissioner must establish at least 4 service groups through rule
These three Supreme Court cases define the legal floor for special education in every Texas ARD. Rowley set the standard; Endrew raised it; Fry clarified when other laws apply. Every FIE you write lives in the shadow of these decisions.
FAPE Standard Cases
⚖️
Board of Education v. Rowley — 458 U.S. 176 (1982)
FAPE Standard▼
The Supreme Court's first IDEA case. Amy Rowley was a deaf student doing well in school with an FM system and tutoring; her parents sought a full-time sign language interpreter. The Court ruled 6–3 that FAPE does not require maximizing a student's potential — it requires a "basic floor of opportunity" that gives the student access to educational benefit. Because Amy was passing and advancing grade to grade, the district had met the FAPE standard without an interpreter.
HoldingFAPE = access + educational benefit, not maximum potential. IEP must be "reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits."
OpinionJustice Rehnquist (6–3). Dissent: White, Brennan, Marshall — argued the standard should be an education equal to that of non-disabled peers.
Diagnostician application: Rowley established the procedural and substantive two-part FAPE test still used today — did the district follow IDEA procedures, and is the IEP reasonably calculated to confer educational benefit? Your FIE is the foundation of the substantive prong. Read on Oyez ↗
⚖️
Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District — 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017)
FAPE Standard▼
Thirty-five years after Rowley, the Supreme Court unanimously raised the FAPE standard. Endrew was a student with autism whose IEP had been largely unchanged for years with minimal progress. His parents enrolled him in a private school where he made meaningful gains and sought tuition reimbursement. The Court rejected the "merely more than de minimis" standard some lower courts had applied — an IEP must be "reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child's circumstances." Ambitious is required; trivial progress is not enough.
HoldingFAPE requires IEPs that are "appropriately ambitious" and designed to enable progress in light of the individual child's circumstances — not merely more than de minimis benefit.
OpinionChief Justice Roberts, unanimous (9–0). No dissent.
Diagnostician application: Post-Endrew, a FIE that only documents deficits without connecting findings to the potential for ambitious progress is not laying the groundwork for a legally compliant IEP. Present levels must reflect honest assessment of the child's capacity, not just current performance. An IEP essentially identical year over year is a red flag. Read on Oyez ↗
Jurisdiction & Other Laws
⚖️
Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools — 137 S. Ct. 743 (2017)
ADA / 504 Jurisdiction▼
Ehlena Fry had cerebral palsy and used a service dog trained to assist with daily living tasks. Her school refused to allow the dog, claiming her IEP-based aide was sufficient. Her parents sued under the ADA and Section 504, not under IDEA. Lower courts dismissed the case, requiring the family to first exhaust IDEA's administrative process. The Supreme Court ruled 8–0 that the IDEA exhaustion requirement only applies when a complaint is about the denial of FAPE — not when the complaint is about disability discrimination that would exist regardless of the school setting.
HoldingIDEA exhaustion is required only when the gravamen (core) of the complaint is denial of FAPE. Discrimination claims under ADA or Section 504 unrelated to FAPE do not require exhausting IDEA administrative remedies first.
OpinionJustice Kagan (8–0). Alito concurred in part (joined by Thomas). The court created a two-question test: Could the claim have been brought in another public setting? Could an adult have brought an identical claim?
Diagnostician application: Schools have obligations to students with disabilities under IDEA, ADA, and Section 504 — these are separate legal frameworks. Non-FAPE issues (physical access, service animals, non-academic activities, medications) are governed by ADA and 504. A student's IEP does not displace those rights. Read on Oyez ↗
Research & Legal Resources
🔬
Key Legal Research Resources
Resources▼
Free resources for researching case law, statutes, and regulations: Oyez (oyez.org) — plain-language Supreme Court case summaries with audio of oral arguments; the go-to for understanding landmark IDEA cases. Cornell LII (law.cornell.edu) — full annotated US Code and Code of Federal Regulations, including IDEA Part B and 34 CFR Part 300. govinfo (govinfo.gov) — official Federal Register, Public Laws, and statutes. ERIC (eric.ed.gov) — free IES-hosted database for peer-reviewed education research.
Case Lawoyez.org · law.cornell.edu
Statutesgovinfo.gov · sites.ed.gov/idea
Researcheric.ed.gov · sciencedirect.com
⚠️

Professional Judgment Required — Tools and references on this hub are clinical aids, not substitutes for professional judgment or assessment manuals. Always refer to the administration and technical manuals for each instrument. Eligibility decisions must be made by a qualified multidisciplinary team in accordance with IDEA, Texas TAC §89.1040, and district policy. Barber Sped Hub is an internal diagnostic reference developed for Barber Sped Hub diagnosticians and is not intended as legal, psychological, or medical advice.

Reference Note: Clinical guidance and interpretive summaries on this page are original synthesis prepared for professional reference by educational diagnosticians. Legal citations reference federal and state statute (public domain). Assessment descriptions are paraphrased from published professional literature. Eligibility determinations must be made by a qualified multidisciplinary ARD team in accordance with IDEA and Texas TAC §89.1040. Barber Sped Hub is an independent diagnostic reference and is not affiliated with or endorsed by any test publisher, researcher, or professional organization.