Enclosure 

OSEP’s Response to the Texas Education Agency’s Implementation of its Corrective Action Responses

OSEP Finding #1: TEA failed to ensure that all children with disabilities residing in the State who are in need of special education 

and related services were identified, located, and evaluated, regardless of the severity of their disability, as required by IDEA 

section 612(a)(3) and its implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. § 300.111

Corrective Action Response 

(CAR) 1.a.

Documents Submitted by TEA OSEP Analysis Required Action /Next Steps

Communicating Child Find 

and FAPE Requirements and 

Obligations Under IDEA to All 

LEAs

As set forth in OSEP’s October 19, 

2020 monitoring report (hereafter, 

2020 monitoring report), to satisfy 

this CAR item, TEA was required to 

identify and describe the additional 

activities it has completed or is 

currently implementing related to 

CAR 1.a., including the timeline for 

full implementation and completion 

of those activities. Specifically, TEA 

must specify the resources that it is 

providing to parents in addition to 

TEA’s FAQ on child find to ensure 

that parents are fully informed about 

the scope of IDEA's child find, 

individual evaluation, and FAPE 

requirements. This includes 

information about each LEA’s 

In response to CAR 1.a., TEA 

submitted the following 

documents: 

• Monitoring Reports 2019-2020

• Assurance Statement Status 

Report 2020-2021

• 2019-2020 Policy Review 

Accessible

• Ascend Online Monitoring 

Application (Policy)

• Ascend Policy IEP Development 

2020

• Ascend Policy State Assessment 

2020

• Ascend Policy Transition 2020 

• Ascend Policy1 2020

• Ascend Policy 2 2020 

• Ascend Policy 3 Properly 

Constituted ARD 2020 

• Ascend Policy IEP Content 2020 

• Desk Review Diagnostic 

Analysis Protocol Policy 

• Draft Materials Under Review

1.a

TEA has not completed all necessary 

actions to satisfy CAR 1.a. The 

Proposed Changes to the Texas 

Administrative Code Memorandum 

to OSEP dated 10-21-20, the 

Required Student Handbook 

Statement Memorandum to OSEP 

dated 10-21-20, and the TEA Child 

Find Network TA Launch 

Memorandum to OSEP dated 10-21-

20 represent additional resources 

that serve to communicate IDEA 

requirements to LEAs, including the 

child find, individual evaluation, and 

FAPE requirements under IDEA. 

However, the remaining documents 

that TEA has submitted in response 

to this CAR item do not provide the 

information that OSEP has 

requested. Although the remaining 

documents that TEA has provided 

included several draft materials 

under TEA’s review related to child 

find and a list of resources, it is not 

clear for whom these draft 

To satisfy CAR 1.a., within 30 days 

of the date of this letter, TEA must:

• Clarify whether the 20 LEAs that 

had not posted the SB-139 

Notice on their websites as of the 

date of OSEP’s 2020 monitoring 

report, have since posted the SB139 Notice on their websites, and 

if they have not yet done so, 

whether they have used an 

alternative way of providing this 

information to parents, such as 

sending it home in hard copy, 

until they have updated their 

websites. 

• Require all LEAs in Texas, not 

only those included in the 

sample, to post notice of SB-139 

on their websites no later than 30 

days from the date of this letter. 

• Provide an assurance to OSEP 

that TEA has verified that all 

LEAs have posted the SB-139 

notice on their websites and have 
Page 2 Enclosure to OSEP’s IDEA Part B 2021 Letter to Commissioner Mike Morath

obligation under IDEA to conduct a 

timely individual evaluation of a 

child suspected of having a disability 

who needs special education and 

related services and the timely 

provision of FAPE to each eligible 

child with a disability under IDEA. 

Additionally, TEA must clarify what 

steps it has taken and is continuing 

to take to ensure that each LEA's 

Student Handbook contains 

complete information for parents on 

how to request an initial evaluation 

of their child for special education 

and related services under IDEA, 

and that TEA ensures that each LEA 

provides the necessary information 

to parents. 

• Monitoring FAPE Child Find 

and Evaluation 2 

• Network 1 Child Find Duty -

Guidance Doc 10-20-20

• Network 1 Child Find Duty -

Online Module 9-16-20 

• Network 1 Guidance for the 

Identification of a Specific 

Learning Disability 

• Network 1 Informed Consent 

Module 9-23-20 

• Network 1 Informed Consent 

Quick Guide 9-2-20 

• Network 1 Referral for Initial 

Evaluation Quick Guide 9-25.20

• Proposed Changes to Texas 

Administrative Code 

Memorandum to OSEP 10-21-20

• Required Student Handbook 

Statement Memorandum to 

OSEP 10-21-20

• TEA Child Find Network TA 

Launch Memorandum to OSEP 

10-21-20

• Assurance Statement Status 

Report 2018-2019

• Assurance Statement Status 

Report 2019-2020

documents are intended. OSEP 

acknowledges that TEA has 

disseminated the referenced FAQ 

documents to its LEAs and has 

addressed the manner in which it has 

instructed LEAs to disseminate the 

student handbook to parents 

although as of May 2019, this had 

not been done consistently.

In 2019, the Texas legislature passed 

Senate Bill 139 (SB-139). This 

Senate Bill requires all LEAs to 

distribute information containing 

changes made regarding LEAs’ 

reporting requirements related to 

special education enrollment (based 

on the elimination of the former 

8.5% indicator in the state’s 

Performance-Based Monitoring 

Analysis System), the rights of a 

child regarding special education 

services, the process to initiate a 

special education evaluation, and 

where to find local policies and 

procedures related to initiating a 

referral for an evaluation under 

IDEA. It is our understanding that 

the notice under SB-139 superseded 

the Student Handbook.

Following the release of OSEP’s 

2020 monitoring report, TEA 

subsequently informed OSEP that it 

was using the SB-139 notice to 

previously distributed 

information to parents about SB139 in hard copy pending 

posting on their websites, 

including informing parents of 

how to request an initial 

evaluation of their child and the 

LEA’s obligation to conduct a 

full and individual evaluation 

under 34 C.F.R. § 300.301(a) and 

to make FAPE available to each 

eligible child under 34 C.F.R.§§

300.101 and 300.201 in a timely 

manner.

• If TEA is unable to complete the 

required actions above within the 

30-day timeline, submit a plan

and timeline to ensure that all

LEAs post the required

information for parents on their

websites as soon as possible, but

no later than 30 days after the 

expiration of the 30-day timeline.

This information must include 

notice to parents on how to 

request an initial evaluation of 

their child under 34 C.F.R. § 

300.301, an LEA’s obligation to 

provide a parent prior written 

notice consistent with 34 C.F.R. 

§ 300.503 once the LEA grants

or denies the parent’s request to 

evaluate their child, information 
Page 3 Enclosure to OSEP’s IDEA Part B 2021 Letter to Commissioner Mike Morath

ensure that LEAs provided the 

required student handbook statement 

to parents and was requiring that 

LEAs post information regarding 

IDEA evaluations and services 

requirements on each LEA’s website 

for parents to access. Based on the 

43 LEAs that TEA reported had 

provided the SB-139 notice to 

parents on their websites, as of April 

2021, OSEP was only able to locate 

the SB-139 notice to parents on the 

websites of 23 of those LEAs. 

Therefore, OSEP believes that 

53.5% of the 43 LEAs’ websites that 

TEA provided for OSEP’s review 

did not post the SB-139 notice on 

their websites. TEA has 1,207 LEAs 

and because it appears to OSEP that 

only 53.5% of the LEAs in the 

sample provided by TEA have 

posted the required information for 

parents on their websites, OSEP 

concludes that TEA has not provided 

documentation that is sufficient to 

demonstrate TEA’s compliance with 

CAR 1.a.

about the scope of IDEA’s 

individual evaluation 

requirements in 34 C.F.R. §§

300.300-300.311, and if the child 

is found eligible, how a parent 

can request additional services if

the child was previously denied a

timely initial evaluation or

appropriate services.
Page 4 Enclosure to OSEP’s IDEA Part B 2021 Letter to Commissioner Mike Morath

CAR 1.b. Documents Submitted by TEA OSEP Analysis Required Action /Next Steps

Ensuring All LEAs Have 

Policies, Procedures, and 

Programs that Meet IDEA’s 

Child Find and FAPE 

Requirements

As set forth in OSEP’s 2020

monitoring report, to satisfy CAR 

1.b., TEA must provide 

documentation that 100 percent of 

LEAs have submitted assurances in 

their IDEA Part B subgrant 

applications that are consistent with 

applicable IDEA requirements 

governing child find, individual 

evaluations, and the provision of 

FAPE. TEA must also demonstrate 

that each LEA has policies, 

procedures, and programs in effect 

that are consistent with IDEA's child 

find, individual evaluation, and 

FAPE requirements. TEA also must 

provide verification that such 

policies, procedures, and programs 

are being properly implemented. If 

TEA is unable to provide such 

documentation, TEA must provide a 

plan and timeline for providing the 

necessary documentation, including 

In response to CAR 1.b., TEA 

submitted the following documents:

• 2018-2019 Certified 

Applications Received by Date 

(RP56) 10-21-20

• 2019-2020 Certified 

Applications Received by Date 

(RP56) 10-21-20

• 2020-2021 Sample App 5-28-20 

• Corrective Action Plan (CAP)

Flow Chart

• CAP Talking Points Initial 8-18-

20 

• CAP Verification Process 

updated 8-18-20 

• Certified Applications Received 

by Date 10-19-20 

• Department of Review and 

Support Noncompliance Data 

Accessible

• LEA Steps Required to Correct 

Noncompliance 8-18-20 

• NC-SPP Verification 8-18-20 

• Program Guidelines 2020-2021 

Special Education Consolidated 

Grant Application (Federal)

• Texas Education Agency -

Department of Review and 

Support Corrective Action Plan 

Form

The documents that TEA has 

submitted are insufficient to verify 

correction of this noncompliance. 

The certified applications that TEA 

has provided only contain general 

assurances of compliance with the 

relevant requirements and do not 

specifically address requirements

related to child find, individual 

evaluations, and the provision of 

FAPE, in order to establish their 

eligibility for IDEA Part B funds 

from TEA and fully address CAR 

1.b. 

TEA’s LEA applications contain the 

following statement:

“I further certify that any 

ensuing program and activity 

will be conducted in 

accordance with all 

applicable Federal and State 

laws and regulations; 

application guidelines and 

instructions; the general 

provisions and assurances; 

debarment and suspension 

certification, lobbying 

certification requirements, 

special provisions and 

To satisfy CAR 1.b., within 30 days 

of the date of this letter, TEA must: 

• Revise its Federal Fiscal Year 

2022 LEA application for IDEA 

Part B funds to require each LEA 

to include assurances to 

demonstrate to TEA that it will 

satisfy all Part B requirements, 

including those related to child 

find, individual evaluations, and 

FAPE, as required by 34 C.F.R. 

§§ 300.200-300.201, specifically, 

34 C.F.R. §§ 300.111 (child find), 

300.122 (evaluation), and 300.101

(free appropriate public 

education).

• Provide copies of the revised FFY 

2022 LEA applications

demonstrating that TEA requires 

each LEA to submit appropriate 

assurances of compliance with all 

applicable IDEA requirements, 

including the child find, 

individual evaluation and FAPE 

requirements cited above.

• As soon as possible following 

receipt of revised LEA 

applications from LEAs in Texas 

for FFY 2022, TEA must provide 

OSEP with copies of the LEA 

applications for FFY 2022 that 
Page 5 Enclosure to OSEP’s IDEA Part B 2021 Letter to Commissioner Mike Morath

the actions it has taken or will take, 

to address and ensure timely 

correction of the noncompliance by 

those LEAs that have either failed to 

provide, or failed to implement the 

assurances in their IDEA Part B 

subgrant applications with respect to 

IDEA's child find, individual 

evaluation and FAPE requirements.

assurances, and the schedules 

submitted.”

The IDEA regulation in 34 C.F.R. § 

300.200 provides that each LEA is 

eligible for assistance under IDEA 

Part B if it submits a plan that 

provides assurances to the SEA that 

the LEA meets each of the 

conditions in §§300.201 through 

300.213. Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.201, 

each LEA, in providing for the 

education of children with 

disabilities within its jurisdiction, 

must have in effect policies, 

procedures, and programs that are 

consistent with the State policies and 

procedures established under 

§§300.101 through 300.163, and 

§§300.165 through 300.174.

Because the quoted statement from 

TEA’s LEA application is general 

and encompasses all Federal laws, it 

is not sufficient to demonstrate that 

LEAs in Texas provide assurances 

of compliance with specific IDEA 

requirements, including that each 

LEA has policies, procedures, and 

programs in effect that are consistent 

with IDEA’s child find requirements 

in 34 C.F.R. § 300.111, evaluation 

requirements in 34 C.F.R. § 300.122, 

and FAPE requirements in 34 C.F.R. 

include the specific assurances 

described above regarding child 

find, individual evaluations, and 

the provision of FAPE.
Page 6 Enclosure to OSEP’s IDEA Part B 2021 Letter to Commissioner Mike Morath

CAR 1.c. Documents Submitted by TEA OSEP Analysis Required Action /Next Steps

Revising Monitoring and 

Document Review 

Requirements to Ensure

Appropriate General

Supervision of LEAs’

Implementation of Child Find 

and FAPE

As set forth in OSEP’s 2020 

monitoring report, to satisfy CAR 

1.c., TEA must provide OSEP 

with:

• A sample of completed 

monitoring reports from the 

2020-2021 academic year. 

• A narrative on the discrepancy 

between notification of 

findings and completion of the 

CAR. 

• Documentation on TEA’s 

verification of identified 

In response to CAR 1.c., TEA 

provided the following documents:

• 2018-2019 Certified 

Applications Received by Date 

(RP56) 10-21-20

• 2019-2020 Certified 

Applications Received by Date 

(RP56) 10-21-20

• 2020-2021 Sample App 5-28-20 

• CAP Flow Chart 

• CAP Talking Points Initial 8-18-

20 

• CAP Verification Process 

updated 8-18-20 

• Certified Applications Received 

by Date 10-19-20 

• Department of Review and 

Support Noncompliance Data 

• LEA steps required to correct 

Noncompliance 8-18-20 

• NC-SPP Verification 8-18-20 

Although TEA has submitted 

extensive documentation to address 

this CAR item, TEA has still not 

completed the actions necessary to 

satisfy CAR 1.c. OSEP is concerned 

that TEA has failed to identify which 

documents constitute its monitoring 

protocols or to specify if and how 

those documents are used. 

Specifically, OSEP could not 

identify information from TEA’s 

monitoring protocols to specify how 

TEA conducted monitoring of 

procedures and practices for 

identifying and evaluating children 

with dyslexia who are suspected of 

having a disability and needing 

special education and related 

services under IDEA. Those 

concerns will be discussed in greater 

detail in section 3.a of this report. 

Further, the sample monitoring 

To satisfy CAR 1.c., within 30 days 

of the date of this letter, TEA must:

• Specify which documents from 

TEA’s submissions constitute 

TEA’s monitoring protocols, 

including its monitoring 

protocols for identifying children 

with dyslexia who are suspected 

of having a disability under 

IDEA, and indicate whether 

TEA has informed TEA staff, 

LEAs, and the public that these 

documents constitute its 

monitoring protocols. 

• Provide a detailed description of 

the process TEA uses to identify 

LEA noncompliance, and 

documentation of the specific 

actions TEA agreed upon or 

required noncompliant LEAs to 

take to timely correct findings of 

noncompliance regarding child 

§ 300.101. These provisions are 

integral to TEA’s implementation of 

CAR 1.b. Therefore, OSEP 

concludes that TEA has not satisfied 

CAR 1.b. and must revise its LEA 

application in accordance with the 

required actions set forth below. 
Page 7 Enclosure to OSEP’s IDEA Part B 2021 Letter to Commissioner Mike Morath

CAR 1.c. Documents Submitted by TEA OSEP Analysis Required Action /Next Steps

noncompliance in an LEA and 

describe the specific actions 

TEA required noncompliant 

LEAs to complete to correct 

the identified noncompliance 

as soon as possible, but in no 

case later than one year from 

the State’s identification of the 

noncompliance, as required by 

20 U.S.C. §§ 1232d(b)(3)(E), 

1412(a)(11) and 1416(a) and 

34 C.F.R. § 300.600(e) and 

OSEP Memorandum 09-02 

dated October 15, 2008.

• Program Guidelines 2020-2021 

Education Consolidated Grant 

Application (Federal)

• Texas Education Agency -

Department of Review and 

Support Corrective Action Plan 

Form

• Method: Cyclical Review 

Schedule

• Department of Review and 

Support 2019-2020 Monitoring

• Cyclical Report Public Release 

Template 

• Cyclical Report TEMPLATE 

C1G1 

• Targeted Review Summary Final 

- No Noncompliance 

• Targeted Review Summary Final 

- With Noncompliance 

• Parent Engagement for 

Monitoring

• Monitoring Family Fact Sheet 

• Monitoring Family Fact Sheet 

Spanish

• Monitoring Family Fact Sheet 

Vietnamese 

• Monitoring Family Fact Sheet 

English 

• Desk Review Crosswalks

• Crosswalk Behavior Checklist 

Accessible 

reports that TEA has provided for 

OSEP’s review do not contain 

detailed information explaining the 

basis for TEA’s findings of 

noncompliance related to child find, 

individual evaluations, and FAPE. 

Additionally, those reports do not 

specify the corrective actions that

TEA agreed upon or required LEAs 

to take in order to correct the 

identified noncompliance and 

whether verification of timely 

correction occurred consistent with 

34 C.F.R. § 300.600(e). For 

example, several monitoring reports 

that TEA submitted to OSEP only 

required the LEA to create a 

corrective action plan within three

months from the issuance of the 

findings. TEA provided no further 

information about the corrective 

action plan or explanation of 

whether and how it verified timely 

correction of the findings. Therefore, 

for the reasons stated above, and as 

explained further in the explanation 

of CAR 3.a., OSEP concludes that 

TEA has not provided OSEP with 

sufficient information to satisfy 

CAR 1.c. 

find, individual evaluations, and 

the provision of FAPE consistent 

with 20 U.S.C. §§ 

1232d(b)(3)(E), 1412(a)(11) and 

1416(a), 34 C.F.R. § 300.600(e),

and OSEP Memorandum 09-02 

dated October 15, 2008. 

Describe and document the

actions TEA has taken, or will 

take, to verify that such timely 

correction of findings of

noncompliance has occurred.

• Make any needed revisions to its 

LEA monitoring procedures to 

ensure identification and timely 

and appropriate correction of any 

identified noncompliance related 

to IDEA requirements governing 

child find, individual evaluation, 

and the provision of FAPE.

• Revise its monitoring protocols 

under either the IDEA 

monitoring referenced above and

in CAR 4.a., or under the State’s 

specific monitoring of the 

Dyslexia Program, as discussed 

in CAR 3.c., to ensure that the 

implementation of the State’s 

Dyslexia Program does not deny 

or delay IDEA evaluations and 
Page 8 Enclosure to OSEP’s IDEA Part B 2021 Letter to Commissioner Mike Morath

CAR 1.c. Documents Submitted by TEA OSEP Analysis Required Action /Next Steps

• Crosswalk Evaluation Checklist 

Accessible

• Crosswalk IEP Content Checklist 

Accessible 

• Crosswalk IEP Development 

Checklist 

• Crosswalk Implementation 

Checklist Accessible.docx

• Crosswalk Properly Constituted 

ARDs Checklist 

• Crosswalk State Assessment 

checklist 

• Crosswalk Transition Checklist 

• 20200107 Sample Table Method 

(Revised) 

• Desk Review Rubric.pdf

• Desk Review Step by Step 2 

• Review and Support Desk 

Review Protocol 2019-2020 

• Stakeholder Survey

• Monitoring Training

• Compliance Team Revised 

• Desk Review Fidelity Training 

• Desk Review Fidelity Training 

Agenda 

• Monitoring Training and 

Resources 2020-2021 

• On-site Review

• Virtual Onsite (COVID 

Accommodation)

the provision of FAPE to eligible 

children with disabilities.
Page 9 Enclosure to OSEP’s IDEA Part B 2021 Letter to Commissioner Mike Morath

CAR 1.c. Documents Submitted by TEA OSEP Analysis Required Action /Next Steps

• Virtual Onsite 2020 2021 

Internal Guidance 

• Onsite Monitoring Process

• On-Site Activities Agenda 

• On-site Monitoring Internal 

Agenda 

• On-Site Student Observation 

Protocol 

• On-Site Wireframes DRAFT 8-

04-2020 

• Send application onsite 

wireframe

• Promising Practices Spring 2020 

pilot Fall 2021 Rollout

• Promising Practices Outline 06-

11-2020 

• Promising Practices Process 

Flow Revised 06-15-2020 

• R&S Internal Timeline 9-11-20 

Accessible

• RDA and DMS Monitoring 

Process Manuals

• Dyslexia Program Eval - onepager - 7-22-20 draft 

• Intensive Supports One-Pager 9-

30-20 DRAFT (1) 

• Results Driven Accountability 

Manual 2020 Final 

• Review and Support Selection 

Methodology for Monitoring 

Activities 
Page 10 Enclosure to OSEP’s IDEA Part B 2021 Letter to Commissioner Mike Morath

CAR 1.c. Documents Submitted by TEA OSEP Analysis Required Action /Next Steps

• SPED Monitoring Stakeholder 

FAQ2019 

• TEA Special Education 

Monitoring One-Pager (1)

• TEA-Monitoring Manual 

Updated Final

• Special Education SelfAssessment

• Self-Assessment 9-8-2020 

AnLAR Final 

• Special Education Stakeholder 

Surveys. Interviews-Monitoring

• Campus Level Desk Review 

Interview Questions 

• Evaluation Staff Desk Review 

Interview Questions 

• GE and SE Teacher Desk 

Review Interview Questions 

• Parent interview questions.docx

• Stakeholder survey cover letter 

2020 

• Stakeholder Feedback 

• Stakeholder Feedback Survey 

• Strategic Support Plan

• 2020-21 RDA Intervention 

Requirements 

• Ascend Texas Access Guidance 

• SSP - Internal Resource -

Question Bank 

• 183 KB, Modified: 10-21-20 

3:23AM
Page 11 Enclosure to OSEP’s IDEA Part B 2021 Letter to Commissioner Mike Morath

CAR 1.c. Documents Submitted by TEA OSEP Analysis Required Action /Next Steps

• SSP Rubric 

• Strategic Support Plan 

Communication Protocol 

INTERNAL 

• strategic-support-plan-quick 

• Updated TEA-SSP-Form2020

• Targeted Monitoring Method

• Trending Topics Supporting 

Monitoring Findings

• Trending Topics in Monitoring 

Issue 1 

• Trending Topics in Monitoring 

Issue 2

CAR 1.d. Documents Submitted by TEA OSEP Analysis Required Action /Next Steps

Making Dispute Resolution 

Information Available, Easily 

Accessible, and 

Understandable to the Public

As set forth in OSEP’s 2020 

monitoring report, to satisfy CAR 

1.d., TEA must provide verification 

of revisions to TEA’s Notice of 

Procedural Safeguards revised July 

2020, TEA’s Dispute Resolution 

Handbook (March 2017), and A 

Parent’s Guide to the Admissions, 

In response to CAR 1.d., TEA 

submitted the following documents: 

• 2019-2020 Monitoring Reports

• CAP Flow Chart Accessible

• CAP Verification Process 

updated 8-18-20 

• Compliance Team Revised 

• Cycle 1 and Cycle 2 Monitoring 

Schedule

• Department of Review and 

Support Monitoring 2019-2020

• Department of Review and 

Support Noncompliance Data 

OSEP notes that the numerous 

documents that TEA has submitted 

in response to CAR 1.d. -- including 

monitoring reports, CAP procedural 

documents, and procedural 

monitoring documentation, as well 

as monitoring schedules and sample 

corrective action requirements -- are 

not directly responsive to this CAR 

item, even though some of the 

information provided was relevant to 

monitoring of procedural safeguards 

requirements. Consistent with CAR 

1.d., OSEP has reviewed TEA’s 

No further actions are required.
Page 12 Enclosure to OSEP’s IDEA Part B 2021 Letter to Commissioner Mike Morath

CAR 1.d. Documents Submitted by TEA OSEP Analysis Required Action /Next Steps

Review, and Dismissal Process (July 

2020). On October 27, 2020, OSEP 

outlined needed revisions to the 

referenced documents in an 

Appendix to its 2020 monitoring 

report. OSEP’s 2020 monitoring 

report also requested that TEA 

provide a plan to distribute these 

revised documents to LEAs, parents, 

and other stakeholders, as well as a 

plan to make these revised 

documents available to parents who 

are limited English proficient.

• LEA steps required to correct 

Noncompliance 8-18-20 

• SPED Corrective Action Plan 19 

• Updated Ascend TEA-CAPForm 2020 

• Notice of Procedural Safeguards, 

2021

• TEA’s Dispute Resolution 

Handbook, 2021

• TEA’s Parent’s Guide to the 

Admission, Review, and 

Dismissal Process 2021

Notice of Procedural Safeguards, 

Dispute Resolution Handbook, and 

A Parent’s Guide to the ARD 

Process, has informed TEA of the 

specific edits that were needed to 

comply with IDEA requirements and 

has also made several suggestions to 

improve the clarity of the 

documents. Upon further review of 

the revised documents that TEA

submitted on February 24 and April 

14, 2021, OSEP has determined that 

TEA made the required edits and 

addressed OSEP’s suggestions 

transmitted to TEA in the Appendix 

to the 2020 monitoring report dated 

October 27, 2020, and the additional 

edits and suggestions transmitted to 

TEA on January 5, 2021, and April 

14, 2021. As of April 14, 2021, 

OSEP has verified that TEA has 

made all OSEP’s requested edits to 

the Dispute Resolution Handbook, 

Notice of Procedural Safeguards, 

and A Parent’s Guide to the ARD 

Process. Currently, these documents 

are posted on TEA’s website and are 

available in English and Spanish. 

TEA also has informed OSEP that it 

intends to translate the documents 

into Vietnamese and Arabic and 
Page 13 Enclosure to OSEP’s IDEA Part B 2021 Letter to Commissioner Mike Morath

CAR 1.d. Documents Submitted by TEA OSEP Analysis Required Action /Next Steps

make them available to parents. 

OSEP appreciates TEA’s efforts to 

ensure that the required information 

provided to parents about IDEA’s 

dispute resolution procedures is both 

accurate and consistent with 

applicable IDEA requirements and 

that dispute resolution information is 

made available to parents, is easily 

accessible, and is provided in a 

format that is understandable to the 

public. Accordingly, OSEP 

concludes that TEA has satisfied 

CAR 1.d. 

CAR 1.e. Documents Submitted by TEA OSEP Analysis Required Action /Next Steps

Ongoing Training of Hearing 

Officers, Mediators, and 

Complaint Investigators

As set forth in OSEP’s 2020 

monitoring report, to satisfy CAR 

1.e., TEA was required to provide 

evidence of ongoing trainings 

conducted for the State’s hearing 

officers, mediators, and complaint 

investigators since February 2019 on 

IDEA’s FAPE, child find, and 

individual evaluation requirements, 

In response to CAR 1.e., TEA 

submitted the following documents: 

• April 2019 Agenda and Training 

Material

• April 2020 Agenda and Training 

Material

• Hearing Officer Training April 

2019

• May 2018 Agenda and Training 

Material

• November 2018 Agenda and 

Training Material

The above documents demonstrate 

that TEA has completed the 

necessary actions to satisfy CAR 1.e. 

OSEP appreciates TEA’s efforts to 

ensure that Training on applicable 

IDEA requirements relevant to child 

find, individual evaluations and 

FAPE has occurred for Hearing 

Officers, Mediators, and Complaint 

Investigators.

No further actions are required. 
Page 14 Enclosure to OSEP’s IDEA Part B 2021 Letter to Commissioner Mike Morath

CAR 1.e. Documents Submitted by TEA OSEP Analysis Required Action /Next Steps

including dates of trainings 

previously held and any trainings 

that occurred during Federal Fiscal 

Year (FFY) 2020 and that have been 

scheduled in FFY 2021.

• November 2019 Agenda and 

Training Material

• November 2020 Training 

Agenda

• Training Sign-In Sheets - 2018-

2020

OSEP Finding #2: TEA failed to ensure that FAPE was made available to all children with disabilities residing in the State in Texas’s 

mandated age ranges (ages 3 through 21), as required by IDEA section 612(a)(1) and its implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. § 

300.101.

CAR 2.a. Documents Submitted by TEA OSEP Analysis Required Action /Next Steps

Requiring All LEAs to Distribute 

Information to Each Student’s 

Family

As set forth in OSEP’s 2020 

monitoring report, to satisfy CAR 

2.a., TEA was required to provide 

evidence that all LEAs have posted 

accurate and complete information 

related to IDEA’s child find, 

individual evaluation, and FAPE 

requirements on their websites for 

parents. 

In response to CAR 2.a., TEA 

submitted the following documents:

• 2018-19 - COMPLETED - Right 

to Information Status Report

• 2019-20 - COMPLETED - Right 

to Information Status Report

• 2020-21 - COMPLETED - Right 

to Information Status Report

• Required Student Handbook 

Statement Memorandum to 

OSEP 10-21-20

While OSEP appreciates TEA’s 

submission of the documents listed 

above, TEA has not provided 

evidence demonstrating that TEA 

has distributed them to parents. 

TEA informed OSEP that TEA 

would use SB-139 to satisfy the 

requirement that all LEAs post 

accurate information related to 

IDEA’s child find, individual 

evaluation, and FAPE 

requirements on their websites for 

parents. As noted in OSEP’s 

analysis of CAR 1.a., of the 43 

To satisfy CAR 2.a., within 30

days of the date of this letter, the 

State must demonstrate to OSEP 

that it has completed the required 

actions referenced above in CAR 

1.a., i.e., provide evidence that the 

documents listed above have been 

provided or made available to 

parents in all LEAs in the State.
Page 15 Enclosure to OSEP’s IDEA Part B 2021 Letter to Commissioner Mike Morath

CAR 2.a. Documents Submitted by TEA OSEP Analysis Required Action /Next Steps

LEA websites that OSEP 

reviewed, 28 selected by TEA and 

15 selected by OSEP for on-site

monitoring, only 23 of those 

websites contained the information 

about IDEA’s child find, 

individual evaluation, and FAPE 

requirements reflected in SB-139. 

This constituted only 53.5% of the 

LEAs that OSEP reviewed. TEA 

has 1,207 LEAs and it is crucial 

that all 1,207 of the State’s LEAs 

provide parents with accurate 

information related to IDEA’s 

child find, individual evaluation 

and FAPE requirements. 

Therefore, OSEP concludes that 

TEA has not satisfied CAR 2.a. 

CAR 2.b. Documents Submitted by TEA OSEP Analysis Required Action /Next Steps

Providing Guidance and 

Information Regarding LEAs’

Legal Responsibilities under 

State and Federal Law

As set forth in OSEP’s 2020 

monitoring report, to satisfy CAR 

2.b., TEA must provide for OSEP’s 

review, its guidelines for providing 

In response to CAR 2.b., TEA 

submitted its Additional Services 

Provision Memorandum to OSEP 

dated October 21, 2020. 

TEA submitted to OSEP the 

above-referenced memorandum

which included a reference to a 

web linked letter to administrators,

dated July 18, 2018, stating that 

ARD committees (i.e., IEP teams) 

are responsible for determining 

what if any additional services 

were necessary. However, the 

To satisfy CAR 2.b., within 30

days of the date of this letter, the 

State must submit to OSEP: 

• The State’s guidelines to LEAs 

for providing additional 

services and supports for 

students who were not 

previously evaluated, but who 
Page 16 Enclosure to OSEP’s IDEA Part B 2021 Letter to Commissioner Mike Morath

additional services and supports for 

students who were not previously 

evaluated, but who were later 

evaluated and found eligible and 

who were denied appropriate 

services, and who require additional 

services and supports in order to 

receive FAPE, in light of services 

and supports previously provided.

.

information contained in the letter 

to administrators and in TEA’s 

memorandum only addressed the 

definition of additional services. It 

did not include the State’s 

guidelines for providing additional 

services and supports to students 

who were not previously 

evaluated, but who were later 

evaluated and found eligible and 

who require additional services and 

supports in order to remedy the 

delay in the provision of FAPE to 

the student. Therefore, OSEP 

concludes that the documentation 

that TEA has provided is 

incomplete, does not satisfy CAR 

2.b. and constitutes longstanding 

noncompliance. 

were later evaluated and found 

eligible for special education 

and related services and who 

require additional services and 

supports to remedy the delay in 

the provision of FAPE to the 

student.

CAR 2.c. Documents Submitted by TEA OSEP Analysis Required Action /Next Steps

Requiring LEAs to Collect and 

Retain Data on Requests for 

Evaluations and Outcomes of 

Those Requests

As set forth in OSEP’s 2020 

monitoring report, to satisfy CAR 

2.c., TEA must provide OSEP with 

a report on the data collected from 

In response to CAR 2.c., TEA 

submitted:

• SPP/APR IDEA Part B 

Indicator 11 data

• SPP data memorandum dated 

10-27-2020

In response to CAR 2.c., TEA 

submitted State Performance 

Plan/Annual Performance Report 

(SPP/APR) IDEA Part B Indicator 

11 data and an SPP data 

memorandum dated 10-27-2020. 

The SPP/APR Data submitted 

included eligibility rates for School 

Years (Sys) 2018-2019 and 2019-

To satisfy CAR 2.c., within 30 days

of the date of this letter, the State 

must:

• Provide to OSEP a report 

specifying what data, if any, 

were actually collected from its 

LEAs during the 2018-2019 

and 2019-2020 school years 
Page 17 Enclosure to OSEP’s IDEA Part B 2021 Letter to Commissioner Mike Morath

CAR 2.c. Documents Submitted by TEA OSEP Analysis Required Action /Next Steps

its LEAs during the 2018-2019 and 

2019-2020 school years that must 

include: 

• The number of children referred 

for IDEA evaluations; 

• The number of IDEA evaluations 

conducted; 

• The number of children 

determined eligible for special 

education and related services; 

• The number of children for 

whom additional services and 

supports were provided to ensure 

the provision of FAPE; and 

• The number of children for 

whom additional services were 

determined to be unnecessary for 

the provision of FAPE and the 

reasons for that determination. 

2020. The single page document 

included information such as 

children receiving a full evaluation 

who should have been evaluated in a 

prior school year; the number of 

children ages 3-21 for whom parents 

provided written consent for the 

evaluation; and the number of 

children that were found not eligible. 

In its SPP/APR data memorandum, 

with regard to the data described in 

CAR 2.c., TEA stated the following, 

“While TEA does not currently have 

[the requested] data nor a system by 

which to collect it, TEA has 

developed a plan to collect the 

requested data at a statewide level 

beginning in the [2020-2021] school 

year. The first preliminary data 

would be available from this new 

collection near the end of calendar 

year 2021.”

The data that TEA has submitted 

thus far are not responsive to this 

CAR item and are therefore 

insufficient to document correction 

of the longstanding noncompliance

resulting from TEA’s failure to 

timely evaluate all children suspected 

of having a disability under IDEA 

and explain why the data 

required to address the 

noncompliance identified in 

OSEP’s 2018 monitoring report 

were not reported by LEAs or 

collected by TEA. Specifically, 

TEA must provide the 

following data:

o The number of children 

referred for IDEA 

evaluations;

o The number of children for 

whom IDEA evaluations 

were conducted.

o The number of children for 

whom evaluations were 

conducted and were found 

eligible for special 

education and related 

services.

o The number of children for 

whom additional services 

and supports were provided 

that were determined 

necessary to ensure the 

provision of FAPE in light 

of services previously 

provided.

o The number of children for 

whom additional services 

were determined to be 
Page 18 Enclosure to OSEP’s IDEA Part B 2021 Letter to Commissioner Mike Morath

CAR 2.c. Documents Submitted by TEA OSEP Analysis Required Action /Next Steps

and to provide FAPE to all eligible 

children in a timely manner. 

SPP/APR IDEA Part B Indicator 11 

data are not responsive to this CAR 

item, and the memorandum admits 

that the requested data will not be 

available until some point in the 

future. In its CAR submission, TEA 

admitted that it did not collect data 

from its LEAs for the 2018-2019 and 

the 2019-2020 school years as 

required. Thus, OSEP concludes that 

TEA has not provided evidence that 

it has addressed the required actions 

relating to finding number 2 in 

OSEP’s January 11, 2018 monitoring 

report regarding TEA’s failure to 

provide FAPE to all eligible children 

with disabilities in Texas and this 

constitutes longstanding 

noncompliance. 

unnecessary for the 

provision of FAPE in light 

of services previously 

provided and the reasons 

for those determinations.

• Provide a copy of the reporting 

template and/or instructions it 

has provided to its LEAs to 

collect the data required under 

CAR 2.c for the 2020-2021 

school year, including a 

preliminary report of data 

collected from LEAs for the 

2020-2021 school year that 

provides the data referenced in 

the required action 

immediately above.

• If TEA has not required its LEAs 

to report the data described 

above for the 2020-2021 school 

year or has not collected the 

required data from its LEAs, 

TEA must provide evidence 

demonstrating that it has revised 

its data collection system 

consistent with CAR 2.c and 

must describe the specific 

actions it has taken to revise its 

data collection system to ensure 

that the required data can be 
Page 19 Enclosure to OSEP’s IDEA Part B 2021 Letter to Commissioner Mike Morath

CAR 2.c. Documents Submitted by TEA OSEP Analysis Required Action /Next Steps

provided for the 2020-2021 

school year as soon as possible, 

but no later than 30 days after 

the expiration of the 30-day 

timeline.

OSEP Finding #3: TEA failed to fulfill its general supervisory and monitoring responsibilities as required by IDEA sections 612(a)(11) 

and 616(a)(1)(C), and their implementing regulations at 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149 and 300.600, along with 20 U.S.C. 1232d(b)(3)(A), to 

ensure that LEAs throughout the State properly implemented the IDEA child find and FAPE requirements.

CAR 3.a. Documents Submitted by TEA OSEP Analysis Required Action /Next Steps

Facilitating a Process to 

Revise the State’s Dyslexia 

Handbook

As set forth in OSEP’s 2020 

monitoring report, TEA must 

submit a detailed report of the 

specific steps TEA has taken 

since the issuance of the 2020 

report to provide clarification,

training, and monitoring of LEAs 

necessary to ensure that LEA 

personnel and school staff are 

implementing the guidance in

Texas’s Dyslexia Handbook

In response to CAR 3.a., TEA 

submitted:

• Draft Materials Under Review 

3.a

• DRAFT Dyslexia Program 

Evaluation

• Draft Materials Under Review 

3.a

• Draft Dyslexia Module 1.pdf

• Draft Dyslexia Module 2.pdf

• Draft Dyslexia Module 3.pdf

• Draft Dyslexia Module 4.pdf

See below for OSEP analysis To satisfy CAR 3.a., within 30

days of the date of this letter, the 

State must submit to OSEP the 

specific steps TEA has taken 

since OSEP’s 2020 monitoring 

report related to the State’s 

Dyslexia Program by providing:

• A clear explanation to LEAs 

and parents of all applicable 

IDEA requirements, including 

those described above.

• Training of LEA personnel 

and school staff on applicable 

IDEA requirements.
Page 20 Enclosure to OSEP’s IDEA Part B 2021 Letter to Commissioner Mike Morath

CAR 3.a. Documents Submitted by TEA OSEP Analysis Required Action /Next Steps

consistent with IDEA, including

the additional actions that TEA 

has taken to ensure timely 

identification and correction of

noncompliance through on-site

monitoring and dispute resolution

procedures.

• Dyslexia Activities 

Memorandum to OSEP 10-21-

20

• Dyslexia in the IEP 6.3 

accessible 8.1 (4)

• Dyslexia Program Eval. - onepager - 7-22-20 draft 

• Dyslexia Monitoring Sample #1

• Dyslexia Monitoring Sample #2

• Dyslexia Monitoring Sample #3

• Dyslexia Monitoring Sample #4

• Dyslexia Monitoring Sample #5

• Revision of TEA’s monitoring 

protocols under either the 

IDEA monitoring referenced in 

CAR 1.c and 4.a. or under the 

State’s specific monitoring of 

the Dyslexia Program to ensure 

that the implementation of the 

State’s Dyslexia Program does 

not deny or delay IDEA 

evaluations and the provision 

of FAPE to eligible children 

with disabilities.

• Any additional actions that 

TEA has taken in the 

implementation of its 

Dyslexia Program to ensure 

timely identification and 

correction of noncompliance

related to child find and 

individual evaluations for 

children with dyslexia who are 

suspected of having a 

disability and need special 

education and related services 

under IDEA. 
Page 21 Enclosure to OSEP’s IDEA Part B 2021 Letter to Commissioner Mike Morath

CAR 3.a. OSEP Analysis 

As previously stated under finding #3 and consistent with CAR 3.a., there are specific applicable legal requirements for identification and evaluation of 

children with dyslexia under IDEA. 

IDEA defines “specific learning disability” (SLD), in part, as “a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological process involved in understanding or in 

using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical 

calculations.” IDEA specifically mentions dyslexia as one of the conditions that could qualify as specific learning disability. 34 C.F.R. § 300.8(c)(10); see 

also 20 U.S.C. § 1401(30). Thus, a determination can be made that a child with dyslexia has a specific learning disability if the child does not achieve 

adequately for the child's age or does not meet State-approved grade-level standards in specific areas, including basic reading skills, reading fluency skills, 

or reading comprehension. 34 C.F.R. § 300.309(a)(1)(iv)-(vi). A determination that a child has a learning disability can also be made if the child does not 

make sufficient progress when provided with scientific, research-based interventions, and exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in achievement, 

performance, or both relevant to age, State standards, and intellectual development that is relevant to the identification of a specific learning disability. 34 

C.F.R. § 300.309(a)(2). 

Under the IDEA, a child’s underachievement may not be due to lack of appropriate instruction in reading. 34 C.F.R. § 300.309(a)(3)(b). Accordingly, the 

group conducting the IDEA evaluation and making the IDEA eligibility determination under 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.304-300.306 for a child with dyslexia must 

consider: (1) data that demonstrate that prior to, or as a part of, the referral process, the child was provided appropriate instruction in regular education 

settings, delivered by qualified personnel; and (2) data-based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting 

formal assessment of student progress during instruction, which was provided to the child's parents. 34 C.F.R. § 300.309(b).

IDEA places specific obligations on an LEA if the child has not made sufficient progress. Specifically, under 34 C.F.R. § 300.309(c), a public agency is

required to promptly request parental consent to evaluate the child to determine if the child needs special education and related services and must adhere to 

the evaluation timeframe in 34 C.F.R. § 300.301, if, prior to a referral, (1) a child has not made adequate progress after an appropriate period of time when 

provided instruction, as described in § 300.309(b)(1) and (b)(2). This is also required whenever a child is referred for an evaluation. Id. Accordingly, 

IDEA recognizes that dyslexia is a condition that could qualify a child as having a specific learning disability, as defined in 34 C.F.R. § 300.8(c)(10) and 

sets out the specific actions that LEAs must take to evaluate such children, including the IDEA general supervision and monitoring and child find and 

initial evaluation requirements discussed below. 

The documents that TEA has submitted are insufficient to verify correction of the longstanding noncompliance related to CAR 3.a. because those 

documents appear to be primarily draft materials that have not been finalized and disseminated. The draft materials also do not provide clarification to 

LEA personnel and school staff about how to implement the Texas Dyslexia Handbook consistent with IDEA requirements governing child find and 

individual evaluations of students with dyslexia who need special education and related services under IDEA, as noted above.

Furthermore, although TEA reported and provided documentation to OSEP indicating that TEA is monitoring LEAs’ implementation of the Dyslexia 

Handbook, that documentation is insufficient to demonstrate that TEA’s monitoring addresses LEA compliance with IDEA requirements, including those 

cited above. Specifically, TEA provided five monitoring reports to OSEP that contained insufficient information about how a child suspected of having 
Page 22 Enclosure to OSEP’s IDEA Part B 2021 Letter to Commissioner Mike Morath

CAR 3.a. OSEP Analysis 

dyslexia is evaluated under IDEA.1

Although these reports focus on the procedures for identifying and serving students with dyslexia, they do not focus on whether and how LEAs ensure 

that children with dyslexia who need special education and related services are promptly referred for an evaluation under IDEA, as required by 34 C.F.R. 

§ 300.309(c).2 

It is also significant that there is no indication from these TEA monitoring reports that LEA personnel are meeting their responsibility to promptly refer a 

child for a full and individual initial evaluation under IDEA. This is particularly important whenever data-based documentation of repeated assessments 

of achievement at reasonable intervals conducted in the Dyslexia Program indicate that the child is not making sufficient progress when provided 

appropriate instruction in a regular education setting3 or whenever the child is referred for an evaluation because LEA personnel or the parent believe that 

the child needs special education and related services under IDEA. OSEP continues to have significant concerns about TEA’s lack of monitoring and 

supervision in the context of Texas’s Dyslexia Handbook and whether LEA personnel are implementing policies and procedures that are 

consistent with IDEA’s child find and individualized evaluation requirements in 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.111, 300.122, and 300.300-300.311. See also 34 C.F.R. 

§ 300.201. This was specifically addressed under TEA’s CAR.

OSEP continues to receive a steady stream of communications from stakeholders, including advocates, professional organizations, and parents, which raise 

questions about TEA’s and LEAs’ compliance with IDEA’s child find, individual evaluation, and FAPE requirements for children with dyslexia who are 

1 IDEA is the primary vehicle for determining whether a child with a disability, including dyslexia, should be evaluated to determine whether the child has a 

specific learning disability as defined in 34 C.F.R. § 300.8(c)(10) and needs special education and related services. The IDEA lists dyslexia as a specific learning 

disability. An IDEA evaluation of a student suspected of having a specific learning disability under IDEA would generally occur before a student’s evaluation 

under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504). This is because a child with dyslexia may still be eligible for FAPE under Section 504 after 

being determined not eligible under IDEA.

2 OSEP specifically notes the following questions regarding TEA’s Dyslexia monitoring: 

• Does the LEA have a local procedure for notifying all parents of services and options available to eligible students with dyslexia under IDEA or 

Section 504?

• Are there local procedures that demonstrate evidence that parents have been provided a copy or link to the Texas Dyslexia Handbook?

• Do local procedures include reporting the number of students identified as having dyslexia in the Public Education Information Management System 

(PEIMS)?

• Does local policy require that a student determined to have dyslexia may not be rescreened or retested for dyslexia for the purpose of reassessing the 

student's need for accommodations until the district reevaluates the information obtained from previous screening or testing of the student?

3 It is OSEP’s understanding that TEA considers the Dyslexia Program as a part of the regular education setting.
Page 23 Enclosure to OSEP’s IDEA Part B 2021 Letter to Commissioner Mike Morath

CAR 3.a. OSEP Analysis 

suspected of needing special education and related services under IDEA. This is especially significant because the TEA and the Texas School Boards 

Association appear to endorse the Texas Dyslexia Handbook as the key resource and guide for LEAs, schools, and parents to rely upon in considering if, 

when, and how a student with dyslexia is referred for an evaluation under IDEA. 

Stakeholders have explained to OSEP that some children participating in the State’s Dyslexia Program were only provided related aids and services under 

Section 504 even though they continued to encounter educational difficulties. These children were not referred for an IDEA evaluation by school staff. 

There also appears to be a common misunderstanding that a child must have a condition or disability, in addition to dyslexia, to be considered for an 

evaluation under IDEA. As noted above, under IDEA, dyslexia alone may be sufficient to determine IDEA eligibility.

These issues illustrate the continued potential for noncompliance generated by improper implementation of the Texas Dyslexia Program and highlights the 

importance of specific monitoring protocols to address this issue. It is apparent to OSEP that school staff, families, and advocates still do not have a clear 

understanding of all the requirements and rules outlined in the Texas Dyslexia Handbook. Because TEA has not provided OSEP with the information 

regarding this CAR item as set forth in the 2020 monitoring report, OSEP concludes that TEA has not satisfied CAR 3.a. 

CAR 3.b. Documents Submitted by TEA OSEP Analysis Required Action /Next Steps

Evaluate Existing Resources 

and Whether They Meet 

Legal Requirements Under 

the IDEA

As set forth in OSEP’s 2020 

monitoring report, TEA must 

revise the Parent’s Guide to the 

ARD, Procedural Safeguards and 

Dispute Resolution Handbook to 

be consistent with IDEA.

In response to CAR 3.b., TEA 

submitted the following documents:

• Parent’s Guide to the ARD

Process, 2021

• Notice of Procedural 

Safeguards 2021

• Dispute Resolution Handbook 

2021

OSEP’s response to the documents 

necessary to satisfy CAR 3.b has been 

addressed under CAR 1.d, and it is not 

necessary for TEA to provide any 

additional information in response to 

CAR 3.b.

No further actions are required.
Page 24 Enclosure to OSEP’s IDEA Part B 2021 Letter to Commissioner Mike Morath

CAR 3.c. Documents Submitted by TEA OSEP Analysis Required Action /Next Steps

Creating a Suite of 

Information to Share with 

Parents of Children 

Suspected of Having a 

Disability under IDEA

As set forth in OSEP’s 2020 

monitoring report, to satisfy 

CAR 3.c. TEA must provide for 

OSEP’s review, a representative 

sample of the documents the 

State has produced to inform 

parents of the differences 

between Section 504, RTI, and 

services under the State’s 

Dyslexia Program. 

In response to CAR 3.c., TEA 

submitted the following 

documents:

• Parent Documents 

Memorandum to OSEP 10-21-

20

• Notice of Education Rights 

Status Report

• Monitoring Response to 

Correction Action 12-11-20 

• TEA Documentation of 

Implementation for Monitoring 

Activities 

• Required Dyslexia Monitoring 

Memorandum to OSEP

Monitoring Reports

To satisfy CAR 3.c., OSEP’s 2020

monitoring report required TEA to 

provide a representative sample of the 

documents the State has produced to 

inform parents of the differences 

between evaluations and services under 

Section 504, RTI policies and 

procedures, and services under the 

State’s Dyslexia Program OSEP also 

required that TEA specify how it has 

ensured LEAs’ broader dissemination 

of these materials, to the extent that not 

all families in Texas may have access to 

websites4

. OSEP’s analysis found that 

TEA produced documents to inform 

parents of the differences between RTI, 

Section 504, and the Dyslexia Program 

(https://tea.texas.gov/academics/specialstudent-populations/specialeducation/resources). On October 21, 

2020, TEA also provided OSEP a 

memorandum that stated that TEA 

required all districts to inform parents 

of TEA’s corrective actions in response 

to Senate Bill 139 of the 86th Texas 

Legislature. TEA’s required 

communication to parents from LEAs 

To satisfy CAR 3.c., within 30 

days of the date of this letter,

TEA must provide evidence to 

OSEP that TEA has made the 

documents TEA has developed 

regarding Section 504, the 

Dyslexia Program and RTI 

available to parents. 

Dissemination of these 

documents may include posting 

on all LEA websites, posting on 

TEA’s website, posting in LEA’s 

Student Handbooks, or sending 

hard copies home to parents.

4 OSEP reminds TEA of its obligations to ensure effective communication under the requirements in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Page 25 Enclosure to OSEP’s IDEA Part B 2021 Letter to Commissioner Mike Morath

CAR 3.c. Documents Submitted by TEA OSEP Analysis Required Action /Next Steps

concerning Senate Bill 139 contained a 

link to a TEA website providing 

additional information regarding IDEA, 

Section 504, the Dyslexia Program, and 

Multi-Tiered Systems of Support. 

However, OSEP concludes that TEA 

has not satisfied this CAR item because 

the documents are only referenced in a 

link on TEA’s website without 

instructions on how to view the 

information, and TEA has not 

addressed how these materials would be 

distributed to families that may not 

have web access. OSEP is concerned 

that parents will not be aware of this 

link or the information that is being 

provided.

CAR 4.a.1. Documents Submitted by TEA OSEP Analysis Required Action /Next Steps

TEA Restructuring of Agency

Oversight with Increased

Capacity andMonitoring

Expertise

As set forth in OSEP’s 2020 

monitoring report, TEA must 

provide OSEP with an update on 

the specific actions it has taken to 

In response to CAR 4.a., TEA 

submitted the following documents:

• Desk Review Fidelity Training 

Accessible

• Monitoring Interview Questions

• Campus Level Desk Review 

Interview Questions (3)

• District Level Administration 

Desk Review Interview 

Questions (3) 

The documents that TEA has submitted 

are not sufficient to address this 

longstanding noncompliance. TEA has 

provided evidence demonstrating that it 

has restructured LEA agency oversight 

by increasing its capacity for 

monitoring. The state has reorganized its 

Special Population Department and

restructured Agency Oversight with

Increased Capacity and Monitoring 

As noted in the Required Actions 

for CARs 1.c. and 3.a., TEA must 

revise its monitoring protocols 

under either the IDEA monitoring 

referenced in CAR 1.c. or under 

the State’s specific monitoring of 

the Dyslexia Program, under CAR 

3.a. to ensure that the 

implementation of the State’s 

Dyslexia Program does not deny or 
Page 26 Enclosure to OSEP’s IDEA Part B 2021 Letter to Commissioner Mike Morath

CAR 4.a.1. Documents Submitted by TEA OSEP Analysis Required Action /Next Steps

restructure its general supervision 

and monitoring systems, including 

its updated general supervision 

policies and procedures and 

revised monitoring protocols, the 

number of staff that conduct 

monitoring visits, the criteria it 

uses in selecting LEAs for on-site 

monitoring, and how TEA 

considers stakeholder input. 

• Evaluation Staff Desk Review 

Interview Questions (3)

• GE and SE Teacher Desk 

Review Interview Questions (3) 

• Parent interview questions 

• Monitoring Methodology

• Cyclical Monitoring Method 

Accessible 

• Review and Support Selection 

Methodology for Monitoring 

Activities 

• Targeted Monitoring Method 

Accessible 

• Monitoring Protocols

• 2019-2020 Policy Review 

Accessible 

• Desk Review Diagnostic 

Analysis Protocol Policy Final 

Best Practice Interview 

Questions updated 1-17-19 

• Pilot Audit Papers Email 

Template 

• Pilot Batches-updated-12-6-18 

• Post Pilot survey email-Final-2-

24-19 

• Post-Pilot Survey Results 

• Pre-Pilot Survey Write Up 

• Request for Applications for 

Review and Support Pilot 

• SPED Monitoring Pilot 1-319 

• Cyclical Monitoring Survey

Expertise. The State has also transitioned

the Special Education monitoring duties 

from School Improvement to Special 

Populations (in the Office of Academics) 

as part of a new Review & Support 

Team. Based on documentation TEA 

submitted under CARs 1.c. and 3.a. 

above, TEA failed to adequately monitor 

LEAs to ensure that their implementation 

of the Dyslexia Program is consistent 

with the requirements of the IDEA found 

at 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.300-300.311.

delay IDEA evaluations and the 

provision of FAPE to eligible 

children with disabilities.
Page 27 Enclosure to OSEP’s IDEA Part B 2021 Letter to Commissioner Mike Morath

CAR 4.a.1. Documents Submitted by TEA OSEP Analysis Required Action /Next Steps

• Parent Survey Group 1 and 2 

Monitoring 

• Stakeholder survey cover letter 

2020

• Stakeholder Survey FAQ.pdf

• Stakeholder Feedback Survey 

• Total Participants in Group 1 

and Group 2 desk review 

surveys 

• Self-Assessment feedback 

survey 

• SPED Monitoring Stakeholder 

FAQ 2019 

• Stakeholder Engagement and 

Marketing and Communications 

Plan 

• MRS E2 Plan 2.0 

• Texas Education Agency SelfAssessment Pilot LEA Roster 

and

• TEA-Monitoring Manual

• Desk Review Step by Step 2 

• DMT Program Evaluation 

Protocol 10-19-2020 DRAFT 

• On-Site Activities Agenda 

• On-Site Student Observation 

Protocol 

• Review and Support Desk 

Review Protocol 2019-2020 

• Self-Assessment 9-8-2020 

AnLAR Final with Domains 
Page 28 Enclosure to OSEP’s IDEA Part B 2021 Letter to Commissioner Mike Morath

CAR 4.a.1. Documents Submitted by TEA OSEP Analysis Required Action /Next Steps

• Monitoring Response to 4a and 

4b Memorandum to OSEP 10-

22-20-DESKTOP 

• R&S Internal Timeline 9-11-20

• Stakeholder Activities and 

Feedback

• Regional Service Center 

Regional Stakeholder 

Engagements

• ESC Preferred Dates with 

Teams Assigned FINAL 

• ESC stakeholder event survey 

Accessible.docx

• Monitoring Stakeholder 

Interview Questions

• District Level Administration 

Desk Review Interview 

Questions 

• Evaluation Staff Desk Review 

Interview Questions 

• GE and SE Teacher Desk 

Review Interview Questions 

• Parent interview questions.docx

• Monitoring Pilot
Page 29 Enclosure to OSEP’s IDEA Part B 2021 Letter to Commissioner Mike Morath

CAR 4.a.2. Documents Submitted by TEA OSEP Analysis Required Action /Next Steps

As set forth in OSEP’s 2020 

monitoring report, TEA must 

provide evidence demonstrating 

that consistent with its general 

supervisory and monitoring 

responsibilities, TEA has the 

capacity and has a system in 

place to identify and correct 

noncompliance by all LEAs 

throughout the State with all 

IDEA requirements in a timely 

manner, particularly those 

requirements related to child 

find, individual evaluations, and

the provision of FAPE in

accordance with 20 U.S.C. §§

1412(a)(11) and1416(a) and 34

C.F.R. §§ 300.149 and 300.600,

20 U.S.C. § 1232d(b)(3)(E) and

34 C.F.R. § 300.600(e), and

OSEP Memorandum 09-02 dated 

October 15, 2008.

In response to CAR 4.a.2., TEA 

submitted sample monitoring 

reports and CAP information 

including both internal and 

external timelines. 

• CAP Flow Chart Internal

Facing Accessible

• Corrective Action Plan: 

Noncompliance Talking Points

• CAP Verification Process 

updated 8-18-20 Accessible (1)

• Compliance Team Revised 

Accessible (1)

• Department of Review and 

Support Organizational Chart 

Accessible

• Desk Review Fidelity Training 

Accessible (1)

• LEA steps required to correct 

Noncompliance 8-18-20 

Accessible

• LEA steps required to correct 

Noncompliance 8-18-20 

Accessible

The documents TEA has submitted are 

insufficient to document correction of 

this longstanding noncompliance 

because the sample CAP monitoring 

reports provided did not demonstrate 

100% correction of noncompliance with 

IDEA requirements by the LEAs 

monitored by TEA. OSEP notes that 

TEA has revised its monitoring system, 

hired staff to conduct monitoring, 

trained staff on monitoring, and 

conducted monitoring. However, the 

CAP monitoring reports that TEA has 

submitted for OSEP’s review thus far 

demonstrate inconsistencies, such as:5

(1) CAPs developed from 

noncompliance notifications on 

11/8/2019 and 6/30/2019 were written 

and closed prior to TEA issuing a letter 

with findings of noncompliance;

(2) CAP developed from a 

noncompliance notification on 6/1/2020 

did not address the findings of 

noncompliance and only identified 

To satisfy this CAR item, within 

30 days of the date of this letter 

the State must submit to OSEP: 

• Sample monitoring reports 

using TEA’s new monitoring 

process to identify and correct 

noncompliance by all LEAs 

throughout the State with all 

IDEA requirements in a 

timely manner, particularly 

those requirements related to 

child find, individual

evaluations, and the provision

of FAPE in accordance with

20 U.S.C. §§ 1412(a)(11) and 

1416(a) and 34 C.F.R. §§

300.149 and 300.600, 20 

U.S.C. § 1232d(b)(3)(E) and

34 C.F.R. § 300.600(e), and

OSEP Memorandum 09-02.

• Monitoring reports containing 

findings that account for all 

instances of noncompliance, 

including noncompliance 

5 TEA submitted six CAPS: 

• 3 CAPs from Cycle 1, Group 1 October 2019 -December 2019

• 2 CAPs from Cycle 1, Group 2 January 2020 – March 2020

• 1 CAP from 2018 -2019

• 1 Notification of Noncompliance 2019 - 2020
Page 30 Enclosure to OSEP’s IDEA Part B 2021 Letter to Commissioner Mike Morath

CAR 4.a.2. Documents Submitted by TEA OSEP Analysis Required Action /Next Steps

• NC-SPP Verification 8-18-20 

Accessible except for Rubric 

Tab

• R&S Internal Timeline 9-11-20 

Accessible (1)

• TEA-CAP-Form FINAL 508

training;

(3) CAPs developed from all 

notifications of noncompliance did not 

address verification that correction of 

noncompliance has occurred as 

documented on the CAP.

Therefore, OSEP concludes that TEA 

has not satisfied this CAR item.

identified: (a) through the 

State’s on-site monitoring 

system or other monitoring 

procedures such as selfassessment; (b) through the 

review of data collected by the 

State, including compliance 

data collected through the 

State’s data system(s); and (c) 

by the Department.

• Identify in which LEAs’

noncompliance occurred, the 

percentage level of 

noncompliance in each of those 

sites, and the root cause(s) of 

the noncompliance. 

• If needed, change, or require 

each LEA to change policies, 

procedures and/or practices 

that contributed to or resulted 

in noncompliance.

Determine, for each LEA with 

identified noncompliance, that 

the LEA is correctly 

implementing the specific 

regulatory requirement(s). This 

must be based on the State’s 

review of updated data such as 

data from subsequent on-site 

monitoring or data collected 
Page 31 Enclosure to OSEP’s IDEA Part B 2021 Letter to Commissioner Mike Morath

CAR 4.a.2. Documents Submitted by TEA OSEP Analysis Required Action /Next Steps

through the State’s data 

system(s).