FAQs: Dyslexia Evaluation, Identification, & Instruction
House Bill (HB) 3928
For more information contact: Special Education Programs | [email protected]
Updated: Nov.15, 2023
Dyslexia Evaluation, Identification, and Instruction – House Bill (HB) 3928
HB 3928 prompts changes to the Dyslexia Handbook, 2021 Update, adopted by the State Board of Education (SBOE), and
the Questions and Answers document related to the handbook that is housed as Appendix A. While the SBOE goes
through the rule making process to make the necessary changes to the Handbook, TEA is providing this document to
assist in the implementation of HB 3928, as the law is currently in effect.
TEA has modified Appendix A to retain only questions and answers that are likely unaffected by future Handbook changes
and the bill. Once the SBOE revises the Dyslexia Handbook, Appendix A will be revised to incorporate both the guidance
provided in this FAQ and the changes made by the SBOE.
Disclaimer: TEA is issuing this FAQ and interim guidance expeditiously for the field and parents/guardians to know current
requirements and recommended best practices as close to the beginning of the 2023-2024 school year as possible. Note,
however, that these questions and answers are subject to modification and revision as the field, TEA, and
parents/guardians learn more about the bill’s impacts and the upcoming decisions of the SBOE.
Visit the TEA Dyslexia and Related Disorders website for additional information.
Definitions
It is important to provide certain definitions for terms used in this FAQ. Those are:
• Child with a disability - The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) defines a child with a disability as a
child evaluated as having at least one of 13 disabilities, and by reason thereof, needs special education and
related services. Therefore, in this document, the use of this term means both the presence of an eligible
disability and the need for special education and related services. The need for special education and related
services includes the need for instruction through the local educational agency’s (LEA’s) evidence-based dyslexia
program based on the identified disability of dyslexia.
• Dyslexia Handbook – This is one component of how the SBOE complies with its statutory authority to adopt rules
and standards for screening, testing, and serving students with dyslexia. Sometimes referred to as simply “the
Handbook” throughout this FAQ, it is officially the 2021 update adopted by reference in SBOE rule at 19 Texas
Administrative Code (TAC) §74.28. All LEAs are required to follow the Handbook.
• Evidence-based dyslexia program – This term refers to one or more evidence-based reading programs for
dyslexia or curriculums purchased or developed by an LEA, as required by 19 TAC §74.28(e), that is/are aligned
with all instructional methods and components for dyslexia instruction as described in the Dyslexia Handbook.
Evidence-based dyslexia programs include instructional methods that are simultaneous and multisensory (visual,
auditory, kinesthetic, and tactile); systematic and cumulative; explicit; diagnostic and taught to automaticity;
synthetic; and analytic [pages 42-43 of the Dyslexia Handbook]. In addition, evidence-based dyslexia programs
must address all of the required critical, evidence-based components of dyslexia instruction (phonological
awareness, sound-symbol association, syllabication, orthography, morphology, syntax, reading comprehension,
and reading fluency) [pages 40-42 of the Dyslexia Handbook].
PAGE | 2
FAQs HB 3928:
Dyslexia Evaluation, Identification, & Instruction
Evidence-based dyslexia programs are considered specially designed instruction (SDI) (i.e., a special education
service). An admission, review, and dismissal (ARD) committee will ensure, for a student with dyslexia eligible
under IDEA, that the SDI contains all elements of an evidence-based dyslexia program as outlined in the
Handbook. Accommodations (e.g., additional practice, smaller groups or individual instruction, longer time to
progress) may be listed in the student’s individualized education program (IEP) and provided based on student
need. An ARD committee should only consider deviations from the program if clearly indicated by data collection,
a student’s present levels of academic achievement and functional performance (PLAAFP), and other areas of the
student's IEP. For instance, a student who has dyslexia and a sensory impairment (e.g., blind or visually impaired,
deaf or hard of hearing, deafblind) may need modifications to access the program.
The term “evidence-based dyslexia program” can be interpreted as being synonymous with “standard protocol
dyslexia instruction,” as that term is used in the Dyslexia Handbook, 2021 update.
• Local educational agency (LEA) – This term applies to both school districts and open enrollment charter schools.
Where questions and answers in this document do not pertain to open enrollment charter schools, the item will
specifically refer to school districts.
• Parent – This term generally means a child’s biological or adoptive parent but may also include another person
who is included in the definition of the term “parent” under IDEA at 34 C.F.R. §300.30.
• Provider of dyslexia instruction (PDI) – This person must be fully trained in the LEA’s adopted instructional
materials for students with dyslexia, as required by Texas Education Code (TEC) §29.0032 (added by HB 3928).
This means that a PDI must be fully trained in the LEA’s evidence-based dyslexia program and able to use
individualized, intensive, multisensory, phonetic methods, and a variety of writing and spelling components
described in the Dyslexia Handbook [19 TAC §74.28(e)]. While there is no required certification or license
required for a PDI, LEAs are encouraged to seek out individuals who have specific licenses and certifications that
focus on dyslexia identification and instruction, such as licensed dyslexia therapists (LDTs), licensed dyslexia
practitioners (LDPs), certified academic language therapists (CALTs), certified academic language practitioners
(CALPs), and those with structured literacy certifications. A PDI does not have to be a certified special education
teacher, unless the LEA employs the PDI in a position that requires the certification. Because paraprofessionals
must work under the supervision of teachers, a paraprofessional cannot be the person providing instruction to
students in the evidence-based dyslexia program.
• Specially designed instruction (SDI) – As an element of the term special education, IDEA defines SDI as adapting,
as appropriate to the needs of an eligible child with a disability, the content, methodology, or delivery of
instruction to address the unique needs of the child that result from the child’s disability and to ensure access of
the child to the general curriculum. [34 C.F.R. 300.39(b)(3)] In addition to the identification of a disability, the
need for SDI is an area that an ARD committee considers when determining initial and continued eligibility for
special education and related services.
• Standard protocol dyslexia instruction (SPDI) – This term, as used in the Dyslexia Handbook, 2021 Update, is
defined on pages 39 and 40 of the Handbook as evidence-based, multisensory structured literacy instruction for
students with dyslexia. An SPDI program must be explicit, systematic, and intentional in its approach. This term
should be interpreted as being synonymous with "evidence-based dyslexia program.”
PAGE | 3
FAQs HB 3928:
Dyslexia Evaluation, Identification, & Instruction
Effective Dates of HB 3928
HB 3928 became effective on June 10, 2023, when Governor Abbott signed the legislation. The bill applies beginning with
the 2023-2024 school year. This means that LEAs began implementing the bill on the first day of instruction of their 2023-
2024 school year. There are two provisions in HB 3928 that require actions and decisions of the SBOE. One relates to a
requirement that the SBOE’s Dyslexia Handbook no longer provide a distinction between SPDI and other types of direct
dyslexia instruction, including SDI. The SBOE has until June 30, 2024, to update the Handbook. The SBOE must also
determine training requirements and credentials for a person with specific knowledge in the reading process, dyslexia and
related disorders, and dyslexia instruction to serve on an LEA’s multidisciplinary team (MDT) who completes evaluations
and an ARD committee when determining a student’s eligibility for special education and related services. The SBOE will
likely incorporate its determination of training requirements into the next edition of the Handbook.
Child Find and the Initial Evaluation Process
1. How does HB 3928 impact an LEA’s Child Find process?
Distribution of a form on rights under IDEA that may be additional to those under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973. If a student is suspected of having dyslexia and may be a child with a disability, including when data supports
a suspicion after the reading diagnostic assessments under TEC §28.006 or screening under TEC §38.003, LEAs must
distribute to parents a form, developed by TEA, explaining the rights under IDEA that may be additional to those under
Section 504. The Notice of Procedural Safeguards (NPS) meets the federally required notice of IDEA rights and is part of
the process of seeking informed parental consent for evaluation, but the state requirement resulting from this bill is a
specific form summarizing the rights that might be additional to those offered under Section 504. The Overview of Special
Education for Parents form is available in English and in multiple languages.
Based on feedback from the field, the form was revised and reposted on August 24, 2023. The following adjustments have
been made to the form:
• Moved the statement acknowledging receipt of the document with the parent’s signature to a separate page to
avoid having to photocopy the last page to give back to a parent. This change will assist the LEA in retaining the
parent’s acknowledgement that they received the document without risking the parent losing any content
described on the form.
• Added a space to input the student’s name and student ID number.
TEA does not expect LEAs to take any retroactive action if they have already distributed the form between August 16 and
August 24, the date on which the form was adjusted.
In regard to the form, LEA responsibilities include the following when an initial special education evaluation has been
requested by a parent, or the LEA has referred the student for an initial evaluation:
• When dyslexia is suspected, the LEA must distribute the form when the LEA issues to parents the prior written
notice of its proposal to conduct an evaluation, a copy of the NPS, and the opportunity to consent to the
evaluation [19 TAC §89.1011(b)(1)], or when the LEA issues to parents the prior written notice of its refusal to
conduct an evaluation and a copy of the NPS [19 TAC §89.1011(b)(2)];
• TEA expects LEAs to incorporate the distribution of this form in the same circumstances as above to every parent,
regardless of the disability that is suspected.
• Parents need to be asked to acknowledge receipt of the form by signing and dating the last page. Each LEA will
need to retain evidence of the parent’s signature or documentation that the parent refused to provide a
signature.
Updated
11/15/23
PAGE | 4
FAQs HB 3928:
Dyslexia Evaluation, Identification, & Instruction
2. What are the changes to the evaluation and identification process?
Required Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) Member. The bill created a new TEC §29.0031 that now specifies that someone
with specific knowledge of the reading process, dyslexia and related disorders, and dyslexia instruction must serve on the
LEA’s MDT when dyslexia is the suspected disability. This is a team of qualified professionals who conduct the evaluation
for a student. [See Required Member of the Multidisciplinary Team and the ARD Committee for more specific
information about requirements for this person’s qualifications and participation in the evaluation and ARD committee
meeting.]
Dyslexia is a specific learning disability (SLD). The bill created TEC §29.0031 that now states dyslexia is an example of
and meets the definition of a SLD under IDEA. This is in conformity with IDEA’s federal regulations at 34 C.F.R.
§300.8(c)(10), which specifically lists dyslexia as an example of an SLD. TEA provides the following guidance associated
with an evaluation for dyslexia:
• The condition of dyslexia, if identified, must be documented and used in a student’s evaluation and any resulting
IEP. However, for purposes of the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS), 34 C.F.R. §300.311
requires specific documentation of a child’s eligibility determination as a child with an SLD. Thus, for the purpose
of data reporting, an LEA would indicate the eligibility category for a student identified with dyslexia as SLD. As a
result of the bill, TEA anticipates that each software vendor that contracts with LEAs for IEP development and
implementation will add dyslexia to the list of SLD areas. In other words, dyslexia would be added to the existing
list of SLD areas (e.g., basic reading skill, math calculations, reading fluency, written expression) so that ARD
committees can simply select “dyslexia” to indicate the type of SLD identified. Whereas the current Handbook
states that dyslexia is an example of an SLD in basic reading and/or reading fluency, the impact of HB 3928 is that
dyslexia can instead be listed on its own as the area of SLD identified. OSERS’s October 23, 2015 Dear Colleague
letter on dyslexia clarifies that there is nothing in the IDEA that would prohibit the use of the terms dyslexia,
dyscalculia, and dysgraphia in IDEA evaluations, eligibility determinations, or IEP documents.
• There are specific evaluation domains and questions outlined in the Handbook that must be used when
determining the presence of dyslexia. There is no single instrument, score, or formula that will automatically rule
in or rule out dyslexia. It is not required that a student demonstrate a specific cognitive weakness on standardized
assessments as demonstrated by achieving below a certain threshold to otherwise display a pattern of strengths
and weakness relevant to the identification of dyslexia. Dyslexia identification is based on the preponderance of
evidence. The ARD committee must interpret evaluation test results in light of the student’s educational history,
linguistic background, environmental or socioeconomic factors, and any other pertinent factors that affect
learning. The team must first look for a pattern of evidence reflective of the primary characteristics of dyslexia,
i.e., unexpectedly low performance in some or all of the following areas:
o reading words in isolation,
o decoding unfamiliar words accurately and automatically,
o reading fluency for connected text (rate and/or accuracy and/or prosody), and
o spelling (an isolated difficulty in spelling would not be sufficient to identify dyslexia).
Teams should keep in mind that a deficit in one area of phonological awareness can limit reading progress and consider
discreet skills (vs. composite scores), when drawing conclusions. Teams should also keep in mind that the presence of a
sensory impairment, such as visual impairment, deaf-blindness, or being deaf or hard of hearing does not rule out the
possibility of the presence of an SLD, including dyslexia. If the ARD committee determines that the student exhibits
weaknesses in reading and spelling, the committee will then examine the student’s data to determine whether these
difficulties are unexpected in relation to the student’s other abilities, sociocultural factors, language difference, irregular
attendance, or lack of appropriate and effective instruction. It is not one single indicator but a preponderance of data
(both informal and formal) that provides the committee with evidence for whether these difficulties are unexpected. In
other words, the following questions must be considered when making a determination regarding dyslexia:
Updated
11/15/23
PAGE | 5
FAQs HB 3928:
Dyslexia Evaluation, Identification, & Instruction
• Do the data show the following characteristics of dyslexia?
o Difficulty with accurate and/or fluent word reading
o Poor spelling skills
o Poor decoding ability
• Do these difficulties (typically) result from a deficit in the phonological component of language? (Be mindful that
average phonological scores alone do not rule out dyslexia.)
• Are these difficulties unexpected for the student’s age in relation to the student’s other abilities and provision of
effective classroom instruction?
Required Member of the Multidisciplinary Team and the ARD Committee
3. Who can serve as the required MDT and ARD committee member when dyslexia is suspected and special
education eligibility is determined?
Requirements for Member With Dyslexia and Reading Knowledge. When dyslexia is suspected, a person with specific
knowledge in the reading process, dyslexia and related disorders, and dyslexia instruction must serve on the LEA’s MDT
and any ARD committee that is convened to determine eligibility for special education and related services. The bill
created new TEC §29.0031, which lists three means to satisfy this membership requirement:
• Be an LDT;
• Be an individual who holds the most advanced dyslexia-related certification issued by an association recognized
by the SBOE, and identified in, or substantially similar to an association identified in, either the rules or Handbook
adopted by the SBOE; or
• If neither of the first two is available, be an individual who meets applicable training requirements adopted by the
SBOE.
Because the SBOE must decide on certain qualifications and training requirements, each LEA should analyze the
current credentials and qualifications of existing staff and determine who is most appropriately trained to meet the
specific knowledge required by the bill. TEA anticipates the SBOE will address not only the recognized associations and
the training requirements, but also the interpretation of availability/unavailability and whether someone could serve dual
roles on an MDT and in an ARD committee meeting.
4. How should this member document their participation in a student’s evaluation and any
resulting IEP?
The bill created a new TEC §29.0031 that now requires the dyslexia member of the MDT or ARD committee to sign a
document describing their involvement and participation in the evaluation and any resulting IEP. TEA expects the member
to sign the evaluation report conducted by the MDT. Signatures from the professionals serving on the MDT indicate
consensus with the overall interpretations and conclusions contained within the evaluation. In situations where members
of the MDT have different interpretations, they must work collaboratively to review the various sources of data and
gather additional information as necessary to complete a single comprehensive evaluation report that is compliant with
state and federal requirements and present the results for ARD committee consideration. Participation and involvement
in an ARD committee meeting should be noted on an IEP signature page and clearly indicate that the person is fulfilling
the role of this required member. In this case, it might be appropriate to document the member’s role as the member
required by TEC §29.0031(b).
Updated
11/15/23
PAGE | 6
FAQs HB 3928:
Dyslexia Evaluation, Identification, & Instruction
5. Is this member required for every ARD committee meeting?
No. The bill states that this member must be part of any ARD committee meeting convened to determine a student’s
eligibility for special education and related services. This means that the member must be a part of an ARD committee
meeting that determines initial eligibility and any meeting at which a change in and/or continued eligibility is discussed, as
in a re-evaluation. Keep in mind, however, that a student's PDI must be involved in the development and implementation
of the student’s IEP. While the student’s PDI does not necessarily have to meet the criteria listed for this required
member, the PDI will also have knowledge of the reading process, dyslexia and related disorders, and dyslexia instruction
since the PDI is required to be fully trained in the LEA’s adopted instructional materials for students with dyslexia. [See
Providers of Dyslexia Instruction (PDIs), below]
Determining Eligibility for Special Education and Related Services
6. Is an evidence-based dyslexia program (also known as SPDI) considered SDI, i.e., a special
education service?
Yes, an evidence-based dyslexia program is a special education service. The bill amends TEC §7.102(c)(28) regarding the
SBOE authority on dyslexia services and gives the SBOE until June 30, 2024, to complete the rulemaking process required
to update the Handbook to no longer provide a distinction between standard protocol dyslexia instruction and other
types of dyslexia instruction. Therefore, in order to provide clear guidance on how to implement the bill while the field
waits for the Handbook changes, this document explains how LEAs should comply with the requirement not to have such
distinctions in dyslexia instruction. An evidence-based dyslexia program, then, is SDI that is required for students who
need it. The term evidence-based dyslexia program includes SPDI that is used in the current Handbook. Both terms refer
to the programs purchased or developed by each LEA, as required by SBOE rule, and should be considered for each
student identified with dyslexia.
To establish a student’s eligibility under IDEA, an ARD committee must address two qualifying factors, commonly referred
to as prong 1 and prong 2. For purposes of this bill that addresses dyslexia specifically, first, to determine whether a
student has a qualifying disability under prong 1, an ARD committee reviews evaluation reports and other appropriate
information to determine whether a student has dyslexia. Second, if prong 1 is established, the ARD committee next
determines prong 2, whether the student needs special education and related services. For a student with dyslexia, the
prong 2 decision should include whether a student needs an evidence-based dyslexia program or any other SDI to make
progress. Therefore, if a student has been identified as a student with dyslexia and has been determined to need an
evidence-based dyslexia program or other SDI, then the student qualifies for special education and related services under
IDEA as a student with an SLD for dyslexia. To reiterate, any student needing the evidence-based dyslexia program
containing all elements in the Handbook (or what is currently considered to be SPDI), should now be treated as reaching
eligibility for prong 2.
For a student with a disability who is in need of special education, the ARD committee determines the SDI that meets the
unique needs of the student. Note that an ARD committee is NOT prohibited from determining that an evidence-based
dyslexia program is an appropriate special education service for any IDEA-eligible student with a disability who may not be
formally identified with dyslexia. A student with a disability has access to the SDI needed in order for that student to make
progress on his or her IEP. If a student needs instruction through an evidence-based dyslexia program, the ARD
committee would document in the PLAAFP the student’s needs in the area of reading with baseline data, an annual goal
for that area of reading, and evidence of progress is documented when goals are monitored.
7. What about students who currently receive evidence-based dyslexia programs through an
accommodation plan under Section 504?
LEAs cannot unilaterally decide to discontinue the provision of an evidence-based dyslexia program to a student who
currently receives it through a Section 504 plan. Additionally, if a student is currently receiving only instructional
Updated
11/15/23
Updated
11/15/23
PAGE | 7
FAQs HB 3928:
Dyslexia Evaluation, Identification, & Instruction
accommodations and other regular education aids and services under a Section 504 accommodation plan (i.e., is not
being provided an evidence-based dyslexia program), an LEA cannot discontinue those protections and plan with the
exception of the already required periodic Section 504 reviews to document a student’s continued impairment and
continued need for 504 protections. As the field begins to transition to the change that a student’s identification of
dyslexia and need for an evidence-based dyslexia program will be considered SDI and qualifies the student as eligible for
special education and related services, action will be required for those students whose LEAs currently offer the evidence-
based dyslexia program through Section 504. Section 504 committees must begin the process of discussing a student’s
continued need for an evidence-based dyslexia program and submitting referrals for full individual and initial
evaluations (FIIEs). Absent any directives prescribed by the SBOE through its upcoming rule and Handbook revisions, TEA
anticipates that each LEA should hold a Section 504 meeting as soon as possible but no later than by the end of the
2024-2025 school year to determine whether the student continues to require an evidence-based dyslexia program. If
so, the LEA must refer the student for an FIIE. In these cases, the student should continue to receive instruction through
an evidence-based dyslexia program while awaiting parental consent for the FIIE, its completion, and the subsequent
eligibility determination. LEAs should prepare for eligibility determinations to be made so that each eligible student could
begin services under an IEP as soon as possible but no later than the beginning of the 2025-2026 school year.
Note that many of these students may have recently had an FIIE as part of the identification of dyslexia (a requirement
since the 2021 update to the Handbook), and the ARD committee may have determined the student was not eligible to
receive special education services. In these cases, an LEA must still operate as if a new initial evaluation is taking place,
which means asking parents to provide informed consent for evaluation and adhering to 34 C.F.R §300.301 and 19 TAC
§89.1011. However, during the review of existing evaluation data (REED) process, the MDT, which includes input and data
from the student’s parents, might determine that an updated student observation and collection of recent informal
student data would be the only items necessary to include along with the recent evaluation report in order to determine
eligibility and educational needs. If the parent of a student receiving this type of instruction under a Section 504
accommodation plan refuses to consent to an FIIE, the LEA has the option of using due process and/or mediation to seek
consent to evaluate.
If an LEA receives a transfer student identified with dyslexia who was receiving an evidence-based dyslexia program
through a Section 504 accommodation plan at the student’s former LEA, the receiving LEA should take the necessary
steps to accept and implement the Section 504 accommodation plan. The receiving LEA should provide the student the
evidence-based dyslexia program while it initiates the process to refer the student for an FIIE.
Absent any directives prescribed by the SBOE through its upcoming rule and Handbook revisions, TEA expects that a
student will no longer be eligible to receive instruction in an evidence-based dyslexia program through a Section 504
accommodation plan if a parent refuses to consent to an FIIE. As LEAs begin this transition, they are encouraged to
prioritize referrals for FIIEs during this timeframe to those students who are currently receiving this type of instruction
through a 504 plan because the LEA initially declined to evaluate under IDEA, as well as to those students who are not
progressing appropriately through their evidence-based dyslexia program. A parent may request an evaluation at any
time.
8. What if a parent does not give consent for either an FIIE when dyslexia is suspected or for the
provision of special education and related services when dyslexia is identified?
Beginning with the 2023-2024 school year, which is the school year in which HB 3928 first applies, a student will not
be entitled to receive an evidence-based dyslexia program if a parent refuses to consent to the provision of special
education and related services following an FIIE or after an ARD committee has determined that the student is eligible for
special education based on the identification of dyslexia and a need for an evidence-based dyslexia program. Under IDEA
at 34 C.F.R. §300.300(b), a parent of a child with a disability is entitled to decline the provision of special education and
related services.
Because evidence-based dyslexia programs are considered SDI and therefore special education services, the provision
of those services must follow the IDEA requirements. A parent’s refusal to consent to an evidence-based dyslexia
Updated
11/15/23
PAGE | 8
FAQs HB 3928:
Dyslexia Evaluation, Identification, & Instruction
program through IDEA means that the parent is refusing the child’s special education and related services. Therefore, a
parent should be informed of the following:
• The provision of an evidence-based dyslexia program is considered SDI, as that term is defined under IDEA. This
means that an evidence-based dyslexia program is only available to students who are served under IDEA, which
prescribes the legal requirements for special education and related services.
• Evidence-based dyslexia programs are not considered to be “regular” education aids and services. Regular aids
and services are things like accommodations provided to a student to assist in classroom instruction and access to
instruction, such as giving extra time for assignments and allowing speech-to-text capabilities when given a
writing assignment. While a Section 504 plan could be appropriate for those needs, the need for an evidence-
based dyslexia program crosses over into a special education need.
• Receiving special education and related services does not equate to a “place” where students are sent or that a
student will necessarily see a dramatic shift in their services and schedules. The term special education and
related services is drawn from IDEA and its terminology of requiring SDI because of an identified disability. IDEA
provides unique parent and student protections under the law.
9. If a student is not entitled to an evidence-based dyslexia program because a parent refused
consent for an FIIE or the provision of special education and related services, what is the LEA’s
obligation to provide the student supports?
For those students who are having difficulty in the regular classroom, all LEAs must consider tutorials, interventions, and
other academic or behavioral support services available to all students, including a multi-tiered system of supports
(MTSS). A parent’s refusal to consent to an FIIE does not prohibit the student from receiving other support services from
which they may benefit and that are available to all students. A student with a Section 504 accommodation plan would
also be entitled to those support services. However, with the passage of HB 3928, implementation of the LEA’s purchased
or developed evidence-based dyslexia program is now considered SDI (i.e., a special education service not available to all
students); therefore, the program will be provided to a student whose parent consents to the provision of special
education and related services. Note that a reading intervention program that addresses all of the required components
and instructional methods of dyslexia instruction as listed in the Handbook would be considered an evidence-based
dyslexia program. While a student determined to be at risk for dyslexia or other reading difficulties based on a dyslexia
screener would likely receive temporary targeted interventions as part of the LEA’s data gathering process to determine
whether the student is suspected of having dyslexia – which will likely overlap with some of the same components and
instructional methods – it would be inappropriate to utilize a program that is designed to be used for dyslexia instruction
through the LEA’s MTSS. LEAs are reminded that they must comply with TEC §26.0081 whenever a child begins to receive
intervention strategies. One of the requirements is that LEAs must provide parents notification. Additionally, LEAs are
reminded that they cannot deny a parent’s request for a special education evaluation for their child based on a
requirement that students receive interventions and supports for specific amount of time.
10. If a student no longer needs an evidence-based dyslexia program, might that student
eventually be exited from special education and placed on a Section 504 plan?
Under IDEA, it is possible for a student to no longer require special education and thus no longer qualify for an IEP. A
school may only exit a student from special education after following all applicable procedures. When an ARD
committee determines a student with dyslexia no longer requires an evidence-based dyslexia program, it might
determine that the student still would benefit from regular education aids and services (e.g., instructional
accommodations). In that case, if an evidence-based dyslexia program was the only special education and related
services the student received, the ARD committee could determine that the student no longer meets prong 2 under IDEA
(the student’s need for SDI), exit the student from special education, and a Section 504 committee should determine
eligibility and consider the student’s need for a Section 504 plan as necessary.
Updated
11/15/23
Updated
11/15/23
PAGE | 9
FAQs HB 3928:
Dyslexia Evaluation, Identification, & Instruction
Determining and Documenting Special Education and Related Services in the IEP
11. Once a student is determined eligible for special education and related services based on
identification of dyslexia and a need for an evidence-based dyslexia program, how does an ARD
committee determine and document the program in the IEP?
Every eligible student with dyslexia needs to be considered for the LEA’s evidence-based dyslexia program. Each LEA’s
program is already required to address every component of dyslexia instruction and each instructional delivery method
required in the Handbook. Accordingly, every ARD committee should be able to communicate and discuss how the
program addresses the following:
• The required components of dyslexia instruction;
• The required instructional delivery methods;
• How teaching the program with fidelity is defined (e.g., grouping formats, duration of program, how often and for
how long a student receives the program); and
• The PDI’s training and skill level required for the program.
An LEA’s first consideration for every student who requires dyslexia instruction should be an evidence-based dyslexia
program taught with fidelity and in accordance with all SBOE dyslexia program requirements. The student’s PLAAFP
and the goals developed based on the PLAAFP will also target the student’s specific reading goals as determined by the
ARD committee. While a PDI is teaching the program, the PDI should always consider individual student needs while
progressing through the program. As they track the student’s progress on his or her IEP goals and through the program’s
progress monitoring checks, the PDI and cooperating special education teacher might determine that a student requires
additional services and supports, such as lowering the group size or utilizing a slower pace than what the program
anticipates, while still maintaining the fidelity of the program. These types of determinations should be communicated to
a parent/guardian, even when the additional services and supports do not affect the student’s special education minutes
or placement. An ARD committee should only consider deviations from the program’s fidelity requirements when data
collection, a student’s PLAAFP, and other areas of the student's IEP clearly indicate the need for individualized
modifications. An ARD committee cannot create its own type of SDI when the evidence-based dyslexia program is
adequate to meet a student’s needs, with or without some additional supports, unless it can specifically identify how the
modified plan will offer and monitor all required components of dyslexia instruction.
Note that alterations from the program’s fidelity statements and expectations should be made only for the direct benefit
of the student based on his or her individual needs and must not be made deliberately to circumvent the components of
fidelity that do not directly benefit the student (e.g., expanding the recommended group size or shortening the number of
days/minutes per week for the instruction because of staff or scheduling capacity).
A student’s need for an evidence-based dyslexia program might not end simply based on the student’s progression
through the program’s sequence of lessons. Even when a student completes the program’s sequential lessons, the PDI
and cooperating special education teacher should work to identify whether the student continues to exhibit a need for an
evidence-based dyslexia program based on identified skill gaps or any required components that need to be targeted in
order for the student to meet his or her IEP goals.
12. How does an ARD committee document the evidence-based dyslexia program on the schedule of
services of an IEP, and how does the program impact instructional arrangement (IA) coding for purposes
of state funding?
The evidence-based dyslexia program will be documented as a special education service that is received in a special
education location. An ARD committee will document frequency and duration of services in accordance with the
evidence-based dyslexia program requirements unless the ARD committee is adding to or extending the SDI that is
Updated
11/15/23
PAGE | 10
FAQs HB 3928:
Dyslexia Evaluation, Identification, & Instruction
required to meet the student’s needs. Note that if the PDI is not a special education teacher, a certified special education
teacher is required to be involved in the implementation of the student’s IEP through the provision of direct, indirect
and/or support services to the student in the general education classroom and/or in collaboration with the student’s
general education classroom teacher and the PDI. The special education teacher in this scenario is likely to collaborate
with the PDI and the rest of the ARD committee in the development of the student’s PLAAFP and in the development and
implementation of the student’s annual goals related to dyslexia. The special education teacher is also likely to collaborate
with the student’s other teachers to assist with the provision of accommodations or in lesson planning. However, it is
possible that a special education teacher could provide direct support in a general education setting in other content
areas because of the student’s identified dyslexia or other identified disabilities.
The following chart reflects common situations on how an evidence-based dyslexia program could impact the schedule of
services and a student’s IA:
Arrangement A
Role of PDI and Special Education Teacher
The evidence-based dyslexia program is taught by a trained PDI who is not a certified special education teacher, and the
student is provided indirect special education teacher supports.
Impact on Schedule of Services
The evidence-based dyslexia program is documented in the IEP as a special education service required for the provision of
a free appropriate public education (FAPE). A certified special education teacher provides indirect or support/consultative
services. The IEP includes measurable annual goals, progress monitoring, and any appropriate accommodations. The
student receives no other special education and related services.
Impact on IA
Where the student receives the evidence-based dyslexia program is considered a special education location. The ARD
committee will determine the indirect or support/consultative services that are necessary for the student and document
those accordingly. If the required frequency of the program and indirect supports result in less than 21 percent of the
student’s instructional day in a special education setting, the IA code will be PEIMS code 41.
Arrangement B
Role of PDI and Special Education Teacher
The evidence-based dyslexia program is taught by a trained PDI who is not a certified special education teacher, and the
student is provided direct special education teacher supports and/or related services.
Impact on Schedule of Services
The evidence-based dyslexia program is documented in the IEP as a special education service required for the provision of
FAPE. A certified special education teacher provides direct supports to the student in one or more content areas, and/or
the student receives related services.
Impact on IA
Where a student receives the evidence-based dyslexia program is considered a special education location for purposes of
the student’s IA. The ARD committee will determine the necessary direct supports and related services and document
those accordingly. The IA code will be determined based on the percentage of the student’s instructional day the student
receives special education and related services in a setting other than general education. [Calculate IA per the Student
Attendance Accounting Handbook (SAAH)].
Arrangement C
Role of PDI and Special Education Teacher
The evidence-based dyslexia program is taught by a trained PDI who is a certified special education teacher (the
certification is required by the LEA), and the student receives no other special education and related services.
Impact on Schedule of Services
The evidence-based dyslexia program is documented in the IEP as a special education service required for the provision of
FAPE.
PAGE | 11
FAQs HB 3928:
Dyslexia Evaluation, Identification, & Instruction
Impact on IA
Where a student receives the evidence-based dyslexia program is considered a special education location for purposes of
the student’s IA. If the required frequency the program results in less than 21 percent of the student’s instructional day in
a special education setting, the PEIMS code would be 41.
Arrangement D
Role of PDI and Special Education Teacher
The evidence-based dyslexia program is taught by a trained PDI who is a certified special education teacher (the
certification is required by the LEA), and the student receives other special education and related services.
Impact on Schedule of Services
The evidence-based dyslexia program is documented in the IEP as a special education service required for the provision of
FAPE. A certified special education teacher provides direct or indirect supports to the student in additional content areas,
and/or the student receives related services.
Impact on IA
Where a student receives the evidence-based dyslexia program is considered a special education location for purposes of
the student’s IA. The ARD committee will determine the necessary direct or indirect supports and related services and
document those accordingly. IA code will be determined based on the percentage of the student’s instructional day the
student receives special education and related services in a setting other than general education. [Calculate IA per the
Student Attendance Accounting Handbook (SAAH)].
13. Are there restrictions as to when (such as outside the school day) an LEA can require the
provision of SDI, such as the provision of an evidence-based dyslexia program, to a student?
The LEA is responsible for the provision of FAPE to a student. In the case of a student receiving an evidence-based dyslexia
program – which typically requires a certain number of minutes per day or majority of days each week – it can be difficult
to accommodate this instruction into a student’s daily schedule. While an ARD committee, which includes the student’s
parent (or adult student), can make adjustments to accommodate the student’s schedule while still developing an IEP that
offers a FAPE, an LEA should not mandate the provision of special education and related services outside of school hours.
An LEA also should not unilaterally decide that all students who need to receive instruction through an evidence-based
dyslexia program must give up specials (e.g., music, art) or a chosen elective in order to receive that instruction. Again,
whereas an ARD committee can come to agreement on certain scheduling decisions, an LEA must not place certain
conditions on a student or student group that they would not impose on other students simply because of the
identification of a disability and the need for special education and related services. If the evidence-based dyslexia
instruction that is being considered is outside of school hours or as a replacement for a non-core class or elective, it needs
to be an ARD committee decision and must not be a unilateral decision of the LEA. If the LEA and parent disagree
regarding the evidence-based dyslexia program or SDI instruction time that is provided during non-core classes/electives
or outside of the school day, this must be documented in the IEP, and the parent must be provided prior written notice of
any resulting change of placement. LEAs are encouraged to schedule special education services first when developing the
master schedule for any given school year. Providing a zero hour/advisory period/homeroom time during the school day
may provide needed flexibility in a master schedule.
14. If a student was receiving an evidence-based dyslexia program through special education and
was coded as a 40 (mainstream instructional arrangement) last year, does an ARD committee
meeting need to be held immediately to reflect a change in IA coding?
The IA submitted through PEIMS for a student impacts the state special education allotment generated for that student.
The coding itself is not a specific part of a student’s IEP since it is related to state funding rather than a student’s
programming. However, the IA coding is impacted by a student’s schedule of services because time spent outside the
general education classroom is considered in the calculation of the appropriate IA code. The LEA must first determine if
New
11/15/23
New
11/15/23
PAGE | 12
FAQs HB 3928:
Dyslexia Evaluation, Identification, & Instruction
the change in this circumstance is a change in location or a change in placement. To the extent that the LEA determines
that it is a change in location and not a change in placement, an IEP amendment by agreement may be an option.
Impacts on PEIMS Coding and Program Intent Codes (PICs)
15. How does HB 3928 impact the collection of PEIMS data associated with the identification of students
with dyslexia under TEC §48.009?
The bill should not significantly impact the data collection associated with TEC §48.009. An LEA will still be expected to
note a “0” if the student is not identified with dyslexia and a “1” if a student is identified with dyslexia. If “1” is used, the
LEA will still be expected to note whether the student participates in a special education program under TEC Chapter 29
or receives services under Section 504. Over time, TEA anticipates that these numbers will show a shift of students with
dyslexia being served under special education.
16. How will HB 3928 impact the coding associated with an LEA’s uses of the dyslexia allotment under TEC
48.103?
TEA is currently working on current and future impacts of the uses of PICs 37 and 43 for purposes of coding uses of the
dyslexia allotment. Those plans and directives will be communicated at a later date. However, if an LEA has historically
coded salaries and stipends for PDIs under PIC 37, the LEA may see a significant shift over to PIC 43 because the students
served by PDIs will become almost exclusively students served by special education. As LEAs identify students with
dyslexia and the need for an evidence-based dyslexia program, which will be provided under special education, the
shift to the use of PIC 43 is likely. As mentioned, more guidance will be provided soon.
Providers of Dyslexia Instruction (PDIs)
17. What are the requirements for PDIs?
Every PDI must be fully trained in the LEA’s adopted instructional materials for students with dyslexia. The bill created
a new TEC §29.0032 that now imposes PDI training requirements. Each LEA is responsible for ensuring compliance with
this requirement.
A PDI does not have to be a certified special education teacher unless the individual is employed in a special education
position that requires that certification. LEAs will determine whether the position requires the certification. The most
highly trained and qualified individuals need to be the ones providing dyslexia instruction, including in an evidence-based
dyslexia program. LEAs should strive to have the most highly trained and qualified individuals (e.g., CALTs, CALPs, LDTs)
providing dyslexia instruction. It may divert from those efforts if LEAs use the approach of quickly training certified special
educators to become PDIs as an alternative to these highly trained individuals. Similarly, requiring an LDT, CALP, or CALT
to become a certified special educator may significantly reduce the applicant pool of well qualified PDI candidates.
Because paraprofessionals must work under the supervision of teachers, a paraprofessional cannot be the person
providing instruction to students in the evidence-based dyslexia program.
While literacy achievement academies are valuable resources for any teacher involved in the science of teaching reading,
completion of this academy does not meet the requirements for a PDI to be considered fully trained.
Updated
11/15/23
PAGE | 13
FAQs HB 3928:
Dyslexia Evaluation, Identification, & Instruction
18. What role does the PDI play in the development of a student’s IEP and progress monitoring of
goals, especially if the PDI is not a certified special education teacher?
The PDI will play a critical role in the development of a student’s IEP. The PDI should be most familiar with the student’s
progress and present levels of performance through the provision of the evidence-based dyslexia program. If the PDI is
not also the special education teacher who works with the student, the PDI and special education teacher need to
collaborate on all areas of the student’s IEP and progress monitoring. Note that a PDI who is not a certified special
education teacher cannot fill the role of a special education teacher as a required ARD committee member, so both
will likely be a part of the ARD committee. As a reminder, under 34 C.F.R. §300.321(a)(6), an LEA or parent can invite to
an ARD committee meeting any person who has knowledge of special expertise regarding the child.
While TEA recognizes that staffing shortages exist across the state and respects LEA efforts to be strategic in hiring
individuals to fulfill dual and specialized roles where possible, TEA cautions LEAs against an approach of using
professionals like LDTs or CALTs outside of their expertise in instructing students with dyslexia or related disorders. While
an LDT or CALT who is also a certified special educator might allow that professional to case manage and provide indirect
supports to a student who is only receiving SDI because of the provision of an evidence-based dyslexia program, best
practice would indicate to not divide that individual’s expertise and require other special education duties simply because
the LDT or CALT is also a certified special educator. For example, if an LEA requires that its PDIs be both LDTs and certified
special education teachers, that LDT would ideally not be assigned a role requiring the individual to teach content
knowledge in math to another student receiving special education and related services simply because their teaching
certification allows for it.
19. Can PDIs who are not certified special education teachers be paid through federal or state special
education funds?
Yes. PDIs will be providing instruction through the evidence-based dyslexia program that is considered a special education
service documented in the IEP. Because the services are required to provide FAPE, special education funds may be
used for those positions.
Progress Reporting
20. Is the required progress reporting only for students with IEPs?
No. The bill created a new section TEC §29.0031 that now imposes progress reporting specific to students receiving
dyslexia instruction. During the anticipated timeframe at which students transition to receiving dyslexia instruction only
under and IEP, any student that is provided an evidence-based reading program under a Section 504 accommodation plan
must have a progress report prepared and communicated to a parent specifically on the student’s progress as a result of
that program at least once per grading period. To the extent that an IEP goal progress report would not comply with this
requirement for a student receiving special education and related services, a separate progress report should be sent to
comply with this piece of the bill.
Required Board Policy
21. What is the purpose of the required board policy stated in the bill?
The bill amended TEC §38.003(b) to require that the board of trustees of each school district and the governing board
of each open enrollment charter school adopt and implement a policy requiring the district or school to comply with
all rules and standards adopted by the SBOE to implement the dyslexia program, including the Handbook and
guidance published by the commissioner. While a district or school was already required to comply with these
Updated
11/15/23
PAGE | 14
FAQs HB 3928:
Dyslexia Evaluation, Identification, & Instruction
requirements prior to the enactment of this law, the explicit local policy requirement may assist in boards staying directly
involved in the LEA’s implementation of the dyslexia program requirements.
Impact on Dyslexia Monitoring
22. Will the TEA monitoring processes change as a result of this bill?
Yes. As has been the case for several years, the agency has monitoring authority to assess for compliance with IDEA and
authority under TEC §38.003(c-1) to develop procedures designed to ensure LEAs are complying with the SBOE’s dyslexia
program (i.e., compliance with the Handbook and corresponding rules). This bill adds that the agency must now develop
procedures to solicit input from parents of students enrolled in an LEA during the agency’s monitoring of an LEA’s
implementation of the SBOE’s dyslexia program.
The agency will develop a plan over the next several months to propose, adopt, and implement changes to the dyslexia
monitoring process as required by this bill. For the 2023-2024 school year, each LEA that is monitored will need to be
prepared to respond to questions associated with how they have adapted practices to comply with HB 3928.
Impact on Related Disorders
23. Will the bill have the same impact on dysgraphia, which is the related disorder recognized by
the state when referring to dyslexia and related disorders?
The bill primarily addresses dyslexia. However, it is reasonable to interpret most or all of the bill’s requirements as
applying to suspicions of, evaluation for, and instruction for dysgraphia, as it is an SLD. Dysgraphia and dyslexia are
both language-based disorders, and dysgraphia is unique from the general description of the SLD area of written
expression in that it can involve both motor and language skills. While the required MDT and ARD committee member for
a student suspected or identified with dyslexia is mandated as described in HB 3928, a suspicion of dysgraphia and a
corresponding suspicion of the need for SDI will also require knowledgeable members on the MDT and ARD committee as
a required component of the Child Find and evaluation process. These members would likely include occupational
therapists and diagnosticians or other appropriate personnel who have the expertise to address all required areas of
evaluation for dysgraphia that are identified in the Handbook.
Bill Requirement Not Exclusive to Dyslexia (Disciplinary Placements)
24. Why do school districts have to provide information on how to request FIIEs when students are assigned
to disciplinary alternative education placements (DAEPs) or when returning from DAEPs?
Students who experience exclusionary discipline may have unidentified disabilities that impact their learning. Accordingly,
the bill amended TEC §37.006 and §37.023 to require that each school district provide information to a student’s
parent regarding the process for requesting an FIIE when the student is placed in a DAEP and as part of the student’s
personalized transition plan when returning to campus from a DAEP. TEA suggests that school districts use language
from the required student handbook statements regarding students who are experiencing learning difficulties when
providing this information. Since the requirement refers specifically to initial evaluations, the requirement would not
apply to students who are already served by special education. Also note, that as defined at LEA above, this answer
specifically references school districts as these statutory sections do not apply to open enrollment charter schools.
Updated
11/15/23
