The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: October 12, 2020
A Comparison of State Eligibility Criteria
Kyrie E. Dragoo
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; P.L. 108-446) is the primary
Analyst in Education Policy
source of federal funding to states for the identification and education of children with

disabilities. The majority of IDEA appropriations are al ocated to states by formula to
carry out activities under Part B, which covers 14 disability categories: (1) autism, (2)

deaf-blindness, (3) deafness, (4) emotional disturbance, (5) hearing impairment, (6)
intel ectual disability, (7) multiple disabilities, (8) orthopedic impairment, (9) other health impairment, (10)
specific learning disability, (11) speech or language impairment, (12) traumatic brain injury, (13) visual
impairment, and (14) developmental delay.
Each state is responsible for ensuring that children with disabilities are found and evaluated. States must submit a
plan to the Secretary of Education (the Secretary) that provides assurances that the state has policies in place to
meet certain conditions. Two of the required conditions are (1) finding children who may have disabilities and (2)
evaluating them. States are required to implement the provisions regarding evaluation to determine whether a
student is a child with a disability and eligible for special education and related services. States develop their own
definitions and eligibility criteria, but they are not required to submit this information to the Secretary.
This report seeks to document the variability in state definitions of eligibility criteria in IDEA disability
categories. CRS conducted a survey of state regulations and other state department of education documents to
identify operational definitions of eligibility criteria for each of the IDEA disability categories. CRS identified 15
states that have operational definitions of eligibility criteria with similar levels of detail for most of the disability
categories. For these 15 states, CRS compared and contrasted state operational definitions of eligibility criteria to
evaluate the size and scope of the variability. The survey results are grouped into three broad categories for
analysis: low-incidence disabilities, medium-incidence disabilities, and high-incidence disabilities. The results
indicate there is uneven variability in state operational definitions of eligibility criteria for disabilities in terms of
specificity, severity, method of identification, and timeline for identification. Eligibility criteria for low-incidence
disabilities tend to be less variable than eligibility criteria for high-incidence disabilities. The greater variability in
eligibility criteria for high-incidence disabilities may be reflective of ongoing debate surrounding the
identification of these disabilities, most notably in the specific learning disabilities category.
Because of the variability in eligibility criteria across states, there may be confusion for some regarding the
identification of and service delivery for children with disabilities. In many cases, a child with a disability in one
state would be eligible as a child with the same disability in another state, and in those cases service delivery may
continue with minimal disruption. In some cases, however, a child with a disability in one state may not be
identified as a child with a disability in another state. Service delivery would be discontinued if the child no
longer met the definition and eligibility criteria of child with a disability in the new state. In other cases, a child
who is determined not to be a child with a disability in one state may be found to be a child with a disability
eligible for special education and related services in another state. To minimize disruption in service delivery,
Congress could consider whether to create provisions that (1) incentivize interstate or regional compacts, (2)
create an expedited evaluation process, and (3) direct states to establish a network that would al ow local
educational agencies to work across state lines to help children with disabilities transition into a new school.

Congressional Research Service

link to page 27 The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A Comparison of State Eligibility Criteria

Introduction
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; P.L. 108-446) is the primary source of
federal funding to states for the identification and education of children with disabilities.1 The
majority of IDEA appropriations are al ocated to states by formula to carry out activities under
Part B—the Assistance for Education of Al Children with Disabilities.2 The FY2020
appropriations for Part B were $12.8 bil ion.3
The IDEA defines a child with a disability as one “with intel ectual disabilities, hearing
impairments (including deafness), speech or language impairments, visual impairments
(including blindness), serious emotional disturbance (referred to in this title as ‘emotional
disturbance’), orthopedic impairments, autism, traumatic brain injury, other health impairments,
and specific learning disabilities; and, who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related
services.”4 The legislation specifical y mentions 10 disability categories. Subsequent U.S.
Department of Education (ED) regulations list two additional disability categories: “deaf-
blindness” and “multiple disabilities.” The regulations also separate deafness from hearing
impairment, bringing the total number of disability categories to 13: (1) autism, (2) deaf-
blindness, (3) deafness, (4) emotional disturbance, (5) hearing impairment, (6) intel ectual
disability, (7) multiple disabilities, (8) orthopedic impairment, (9) other health impairment (OHI),
(10) specific learning disability (SLD), (11) speech or language impairment (SLI), (12) traumatic
brain injury (TBI), and (13) visual impairment (including blindness).5 ED provides definitions of
each of these 13 disabilities in regulations (see Appendix B).6
The IDEA also includes the option to add (14) “developmental delay” as a disability category, at
the discretion of the state. A child with developmental delay is one aged three through nine who
experiences developmental delays in at least one of the following areas: physical development,
cognitive development, communication development, social or emotional development, or
adaptive development; and who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services.
Fifty-six of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the territories, and outlying areas (hereinafter,
these entities are referred to as states) use “developmental delay.” 7 Because of the widespread
adoption of developmental delay, it is included in this report as a fourteenth disability category.8
The state is responsible for ensuring that children with disabilities are found and evaluated. To be
eligible to receive Part B funds, a state must submit a plan to the Secretary of Education (the
Secretary). The plan must provide assurances that the state has policies in place to meet certain

1 See CRS Report R41833, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B: Key Statutory and
Regulatory Provisions, by Kyrie E. Dragoo.
2 See CRS Report R44624, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Funding: A Primer, by Kyrie E.
Dragoo.
3 See FY2020 budget tables at https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/tables.html.
4 IDEA §602(3). U.S. Department of Education regulations officially replaced the term mental retardation with
intellectual disability or intellectual disabilities in 2010 (Rosa’s Law; P.L. 111-256).
5 34 C.F.R. §300.8(c).
6 Note that in reporting data, “ hearing impairment” and “deafness” are often reported as a single disability category.
7 California, Iowa, Puerto Rico, and T exas do not use developmental delay as a disability category.
8 U.S. Department of Education, “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments for School Year 2018 -
2019”, OSEP Data Documentation, pp. 31-34, https://www2.ed.gov/programs/osepidea/618-data/collection-
documentation/data-documentation-files/part-b/child-count -and-educational-environment/idea-partb-
childcountandedenvironment -2018-19.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
1

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A Comparison of State Eligibility Criteria

conditions.9 Two of the required conditions include carrying out “child find” and “evaluation.”10
Child find is a process of locating children who may have a disability and letting their families
know they may be evaluated free of charge to determine if they are eligible for services under the
IDEA. The state is required to implement child find for al children in the state, including (1)
children with disabilities who are homeless or wards of the state and (2) children attending
private schools. The state must also provide an assurance that an evaluation wil be carried out for
al children with possible disabilities.11
The IDEA outlines the required procedures for evaluations and eligibility determinations.12 Initial
evaluations can be requested by a parent, the state, or the local educational agency (LEA). The
evaluation must be conducted (1) within 60 days of receiving parental consent for the evaluation,
or (2) within a timeframe established by the state.13 In conducting an evaluation, an LEA must
 use a variety of assessment tools and strategies;
 not use a single measure or assessment as the sole criterion for determining
whether a child has a disability;
 use technical y sound instruments that may assess the contribution of cognitive,
behavioral, physical, and developmental factors;
 ensure that assessments or other evaluation materials (1) are not discriminatory
on a racial or cultural basis; (2) are provided and administered in the language
and form most likely to yield accurate information on what the child knows and
can do academical y, developmental y, and functional y, unless it is not feasible
to do so; (3) are used for purposes for which the assessments or measures are
valid and reliable; (4) are administered by trained and knowledgeable personnel;
and (5) are administered in accordance with any instructions provided by the
producer of such assessments;
 ensure that the child is assessed in al areas of suspected disability;
 ensure that assessment tools and strategies provide relevant information that
directly assists persons in determining their educational needs;
 ensure that assessments of children with disabilities who transfer from one LEA
to another LEA in the same academic year are coordinated with the child’s prior
and subsequent schools, as necessary and as expeditiously as possible, to ensure
prompt completion of full evaluations.
Upon completion of the evaluation,
 the determination of whether the child is a child with a disability and the
educational needs of the child must be made by a team of qualified professionals
and the parent of the child; and
 a copy of the evaluation report and the documentation of determination of
eligibility must be given to the parent.

9 IDEA §612(a).
10 See IDEA Section 612(a) for other assurances required in the state plan.
11 T he requirements to provide assurances for child find and evaluation are found in IDEA Section 612(a). Child find is
described in Section 612(a)(3) and evaluation is described in Section 612(a)(7).
12 IDEA §614.
13 IDEA §614(a)(1)(C)(i)(I).
Congressional Research Service
2

link to page 8 link to page 8 The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A Comparison of State Eligibility Criteria

The evaluation and eligibility determination provisions above do not outline specific tests,
criteria, or decision procedures. The provisions maintain, in brief, that the evaluation must use a
variety of assessments that are valid and reliable, that the eligibility determination cannot be
made based on a sole criterion, and that eligibility determination must be decided by a qualified
team.14
States are required to interpret and implement these evaluation and eligibility determination
provisions. To determine whether children are eligible for special education and related services,
states develop their own disability definitions and eligibility criteria; however, states are not
required to submit this information to the Secretary. There have been reports of variability among
state definitions and eligibility criteria, but the variability is not wel documented or widely
understood.15 CRS’s efforts to locate existing reports on the variation or consistency among state
definitions and eligibility criteria identified no such products.
The purpose of this report is to document the variability in state definitions and eligibility criteria
in the 14 IDEA disability categories. The first section describes ED data that highlight
identification rates by disability type and identification rates by state. The next section offers a
theory to explain the variability in identification rates across states, focusing specifical y on the
role of state definitions and eligibility criteria. The report then describes the methodology for
studying the variability and how it supports the aim of exploring whether evidence supports this
theory. Final y, it presents results, discusses implications for special education service delivery,
and considers the role of the federal government in special education eligibility determinations.
Disability Identification Rates
ED collects data on the number and percentage of children in public schools that have been
evaluated and found eligible to receive special education and related services under the IDEA.
Table 1 presents the percentage of al children enrolled in P-12 public schools that are served
under IDEA, Part B by their primary IDEA disability category. In school year (SY) 2018-2019
(the most recent data available), 14.1% of al public school students in pre-kindergarten through
12th grade (P-12 children) received special education and related services. Rates of disability
identification vary by type of disability. Within the 14.1% of al P-12 children who have
disabilities, the most common disabilities are SLD (4.7%), SLI (2.7%), and OHI (2.1%). 16 The
least common disabilities are deaf-blindness (less than 0.1%), hearing impairment (0.1%),
orthopedic impairment (0.1%), TBI (0.1%), visual impairment (0.1%), and multiple disabilities
(0.3%). (See Table 1.)

14 CRS analysts and librarians searched legislative history surrounding these provisions and did not find an explicit
rationale for requiring states to determine eligibility criteria for disability identification rather than establishing
eligibility criteria in federal law. Because states and localities have historically had primary responsibility for
element ary and secondary education, it is possible that Congress chose to avoid prescribing specific criteria in
legislation. It is also possible that concerns may have arisen about the technical complexity of determining eligibility
criteria in statutory provisions or that common eligibility criteria might have committed states and localities to a certain
level of expenditure for special education services.
15 See U.S. Government Accountability Office, Special Education: Varied State Criteria May Contribute to Differences
in Percentages of Children Served,” GAO 19-348, April 2019.
16 T hese are the percentages of children with a particular type of disability as a proportion of total public school
enrollment from pre-kindergarten through 12th grade.
Congressional Research Service
3

link to page 8 link to page 8 link to page 9 The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A Comparison of State Eligibility Criteria

Table 1. Children Served Under IDEA, Part B, as a Percentage of Total P-12
Enrollment by Primary Disability Category: SY2018-2019
IDEA disability categories listed in order of frequency
Type of Disability
School Year 2018-2019a
Al disabilities
14.1
Specific learning disabilities
4.7
Speech or language impairment
2.7
Other health impairmentb
2.1
Autism
1.5
Developmental delay
0.9
Intel ectual disability
0.9
Emotional disturbance
0.7
Multiple disabilities
0.3
Hearing impairment (including deafness)
0.1
Orthopedic impairment
0.1
Traumatic brain injury
0.1
Visual impairment (including blindness)
0.1
Deaf-blindness
#
Source: Table created by CRS using data from U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, 2019 (NCES 2020-009), 2019, Table 204.30.
Notes: # = rounds to zero. Table displays percentage of served children with disabilities who were 3 to 21
years old.
a. Includes SY2015-2016 data for 3- to 21-year-olds in Wisconsin because SY2018-2019 data were not
available.
b. Other health impairments include having limited strength, vitality, or alertness due to chronic or acute
health problems such as a heart condition, tuberculosis, rheumatic fever, nephritis, asthma, sickle cel
anemia, hemophilia, epilepsy, lead poisoning, leukemia, or diabetes.
Figure 1 presents the percentage distribution of children with disabilities by disability type (i.e.,
the percentage of children with one type of disability divided by the total of al children with
disabilities). Again, the most common types of disabilities identified were SLD (33%), SLI
(19%), and OHI (15%). Children with SLD represented one-third of al children identified with a
disability. The least common types of disabilities are not represented in the figure: visual
impairment, TBI, and deaf-blindness each account for less than 0.5% of children identified with a
disability.
Congressional Research Service
4

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A Comparison of State Eligibility Criteria

Figure 1. Percentage Distribution of Children Ages 3–21 Served Under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), by Disability Type: SY2018–2019

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of Education,
“Students with Disabilities.”
Notes: Other health impairments include having limited strength, vitality, or alertness due to chronic or acute
health problems such as a heart condition, tuberculosis, rheumatic fever, nephritis, asthma, sickle cel anemia,
hemophilia, epilepsy, lead poisoning, leukemia, or diabetes.
For the purposes of this report, the data above is used to sort the disability categories into three
groups:
 Low-incidence disabilities. Multiple disabilities, hearing impairment, orthopedic
impairment, visual impairment, TBI, deafness, and deaf-blindness represent
approximately 5% of al children with disabilities.
 Medium-incidence disabilities. Autism, developmental delay, intel ectual
disability, and emotional disturbance represent approximately 28% of al children
with disabilities.
 High-incidence disabilities. SLD, SLI, and OHI represent approximately 67% of
al children with disabilities.
ED also collects and reports data on disability identification rates by state. Table C-1 presents
disability identification rates by state, expressed as a proportion of total public school enrollment
from pre-kindergarten through 12th grade. For SY2017-2018 (the most recent data available that
are disaggregated by state), a total of 13.7% of children aged 3 through 21 received special
education and related services. The majority of states reported disability rates somewhere
between 11% and 16%, and the rates ranged from a low of 9.2% (Texas) to a high of 19.2% (New
York).
The top end of the range represents more than double the percentage of children with disabilities
than the bottom end. There are multiple explanations for this:
 Some states may in fact have higher shares of children with disabilities than do
other states. For example, a state may have a special school or program that
serves children with disabilities, and families may move to find better services
for their child.
Congressional Research Service
5

link to page 27 The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A Comparison of State Eligibility Criteria

 A state may have a university with a strong special education program, and
families may move to a place where there are more special education service
providers.
 Some states may have a more widely implemented child find process, which may
lead states to evaluate more children and therefore have a higher overal
percentage of children with disabilities.
 States may be implementing the evaluation and eligibility determination
requirements of IDEA in different ways. As discussed earlier, states create
policies for LEAs to determine the eligibility of children for special education
and related services. These eligibility determinations depend on state definitions
and criteria, which are not consistent across the states.
Variability Across States
This report investigates whether the variability in disability identification rates may be due, in
part, to differences in implementation of the IDEA—specifical y the evaluation and eligibility
determinations.17 It shows that some of the variability could be due to state definitions and criteria
for the 14 disability categories in the IDEA. While al states have a definition of child with a
disability, this report primarily examines states that present operational definitions.
An operational definition is a description of something in terms of the operational procedures,
actions, or processes by which it could be observed and measured.18 An operational definition has
three components:
1. Test: a specific procedure for measuring a characteristic .
2. Criteria: the standard against which to evaluate the results of the test.
3. Decision: the determination as to whether the test results show that the
characteristics meet the criteria.19
The definitions of disability categories in the ED regulations are not operational definitions (see
Appendix B). These definitions provide a description of the characteristics of a disability;
however, the federal government does not specify the procedures and processes by which
disability is observed and measured. An operational definition of an IDEA disability category
may include tests, such as checklists of behaviors, test scores from certain types of assessments,
or medical assessments. Each test may include related criteria. For example, to be eligible for
special education under a particular disability category, a child may need to
 exhibit a certain number of behaviors on a checklist (e.g., exhibit four out of
seven behaviors),
 score a certain level below the mean on a test of intel ectual functioning (e.g.,
two or more standard deviations), or
 have poor visual acuity on a medical assessment of vision (e.g., 20/70 or worse in
the better eye with correction).

17 See IDEA §614.
18 G. R. VandenBos, and American Psychological Association, APA dictionary of psychology (Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association, 2007).
19 W. Edward Deming, Out of the Crisis, Massachusetts Institute of T echnology, Center for Advanced Educational
Services, Cambridge, MA, p. 238.
Congressional Research Service
6

link to page 33 link to page 7 The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A Comparison of State Eligibility Criteria

When test scores are compared to criteria, a decision can be made about whether a child has a
disability and qualifies for special education and related services under the IDEA. If operational
definitions (tests, criteria, and decisions) vary across states, it is likely that different percentages
of children would qualify as a child with a disability across states. A child who is identified with a
disability in one state may not be identified as such in another. Or, as another example, a child
identified with an intel ectual disability in one state may be identified with multiple disabilities in
another.
Although there is no requirement that states develop operational definitions as defined above,
some states provide them in regulations or other state department of education documents. When
operational definitions can be located, they are useful for il ustrating the state eligibility criteria
used to make eligibility determinations under the IDEA.
Methodology
CRS conducted a survey of state regulations and department of education documents. These
documents were used to locate and examine operational definitions of eligibility criteria. CRS
aimed to find states that provided operational definitions of eligibility criteria for the 14 disability
categories in the IDEA. Many state regulations adhere to the federal regulations but do not
provide additional information, such as operational definitions of eligibility criteria. In cases
where state regulations closely paral eled federal regulations, the state was excluded from further
analysis. That is, if the state regulations did not provide operational definitions of eligibility
criteria, they were not used to compare the consistency or variability across states.
In the survey of state regulations and state department of education documents, 15 states20 were
identified that provided operational definitions of eligibility criteria for most IDEA disability
categories with similar levels of detail.21 These 15 states, which represent a non-random sample
of approximately 29% of al states, are the focus of this report. The 15 sample states represent a
little less than 20% of the total public school enrollment.22
The goal of the report is not to evaluate eligibility criteria to assess their accuracy or quality; but
rather, to il ustrate a range of operational definitions of eligibility criteria used across a sample of
states. Because the sample represents a minority of the public school enrollment, the ability to
generalize from this report’s findings and make conclusions based upon its analysis may be
limited. It is possible, for instance, that the states not included in the sample describe operational
definitions of eligibility criteria in other formats (e.g., special education eligibility forms, parent
handbooks).23 Those states not included in the sample serve over 80% of the public school
enrollment. If it is assumed that those states have fairly consistent operational definitions of
eligibility criteria, then any variability this report’s analysis found would be applicable to only a
subset rather than the majority of states.24

20 See Appendix D for information on the 15 states chosen for analysis and selected results of the state survey.
21 It was uncommon for states to provide operational criteria; therefore, the sample for this examination includes a
minority of states.
22 Data are compiled from T able 203.20 in the Digest of Education Statistics, available at https://nces.ed.gov/programs/
digest/d19/tables/dt19_203.20.asp.
23 T hese written formats are not consistently available through electronic searches, and thus were excluded from the
analysis.
24 While it is possible that consistency in operational criteria exist, anecdotal evidence suggests that there is variability
that is not well understood. See footnote 15. Also see https://www.masters-in-special-education.com/student -eligibility-
Congressional Research Service
7

link to page 27 link to page 27 The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A Comparison of State Eligibility Criteria

In general, the 15 states examined in this report used either the federal definitions in ED
regulations or slight variations thereof. (See Appendix B.) Due to the consistency in state
definitions, the definitions were excluded from the analysis because they would not help explain
the variability in disability identification rates across states. The primary data used for analysis,
therefore, were the state eligibility criteria for disability identification.
This report describes the consistency and variability of eligibility criteria for disability
identification across the sample of 15 states. Regarding consistency, it aims to summarize what is
similar across the entire sample. Regarding variability, it selects three states to provide examples
of eligibility criteria to il ustrate the range across states. When possible, it uses a low, medium,
high example within each disability category (See Appendix B). Each state’s data were used at
least once (i.e., for each state, there is at least one example profiled in one of the disability
categories). The number of examples from each state used for the analysis ranged from one to six.
No attempt was made to make the number of examples from each state equal.
A low, medium, high example looks different depending on the type of disability. For example,
for sensory impairments (e.g., hearing impairment and visual impairment), the low, medium, high
example would be based on a medical assessment of hearing or vision. A simplified example for
visual impairments would be the following:
 Low: 20/50 visual acuity or worse in the better eye with correction.
 Medium: 20/60 visual acuity or worse in the better eye with correction.
 High: 20/70 visual acuity or worse in the better eye with correction.
The low example would represent a child with lesser visual impairment than the high example. In
the high example, a child must exhibit greater visual impairment to be identified as a child with a
disability.
As another example, consider a cognitive impairment such as intel ectual disability. Intel ectual
disability is typical y defined by subaverage intel ectual functioning and subaverage adaptive
functioning. A low, medium, high example would be defined by the degree to which the
functioning is impaired as measured by assessments of intel ectual and adaptive functioning. A
simplified example for intel ectual disability, as measured by a common assessment, would be the
following:
 Low: Intel ectual functioning at least two standard deviations below the mean.
 Medium: Intel ectual functioning at least two standard deviations below the
mean and adaptive functioning at least 1.5 standard deviations below the mean.
 High: Intel ectual functioning at least two standard deviations below the mean
and adaptive functioning at least two standard deviations below the mean.
Again, the low example would represent a child with a lesser degree of intel ectual disability than
the high example. In the high example, the child must exhibit greater deficits to be identified as a
child with a disability.

for-special-education-programs-state-differences/; https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/
2012/01/24/state-special-education-rates-vary-widely and http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/speced/2017/10/
special_educators_accept_wide.html. T he scale of this variability cannot be precisely described.
Congressional Research Service
8

link to page 33 The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A Comparison of State Eligibility Criteria

Examination of Results
This section of the report presents results by the three disability groups described earlier: low -
incidence disabilities,25 medium-incidence disabilities,26 and high-incidence disabilities.27 The
results presented here first provide a sense of the overal consistency or variability in operational
definitions of eligibility criteria used across the 15 states. Then, salient similarities and
differences in the eligibility criteria are presented, using examples from three states profiled for
each disability category. The profiled states were selected to il ustrate the range in eligibility
criteria. A fuller elaboration of the distinctions among eligibility criteria from the three state
examples is presented in Appendix D.
Low-Incidence Disabilities
Low-incidence disabilities include hearing impairment, deafness, visual impairment (or
blindness), deaf-blindness, orthopedic impairment, TBI, and multiple disabilities. Low -incidence
disabilities are sometimes visible and often easily observable. These disabilities general y require
a medical or clinical diagnosis as wel as an evaluation of educational needs by a
multidisciplinary team.28 Hearing impairments, deafness, visual impairments (or blindness), and
deaf-blindness are al sensory impairments that require a hearing or vision assessment by a
qualified professional. Orthopedic impairment is a physical impairment usual y due to congenital
anomaly, disease, or accidents, and TBI is a cognitive disability due to an acquired injury.
Multiple disabilities are a combination of one or more disability categories, as al owed by the
state eligibility criteria.
Hearing Impairment
 Across the sample of 15 states:
 Hearing impairment criteria are relatively consistent. Hearing loss is
measured based on how loud sounds need to be for an individual to hear
them. Hearing loss is measured in terms of decibels (dB).29
 Across three selected states:
 Hearing impairment criteria vary in terms of the type of hearing loss
specified (i.e., sensorineural loss versus conductive loss), number of ears
affected (i.e., unilateral versus bilateral), severity of loss (pure tone average
20 dB or greater, pure tone average between 30-65 dB, etc.).
 Hearing impairment criteria sometimes specify a time frame required for
observing the loss (e.g., persisting over three months or occurring at least
three times in the previous 12 months).
 Hearing impairment eligibility can also depend on compound criteria, such as
either (1) a conductive hearing loss with an unaided pure tone average of 20

25 Multiple disabilities, hearing impairment, orthopedic impairment, visual impairment, traumatic brain injury,
deafness, and deaf-blindness.
26 Autism, developmental delay, intellectual disability, and emotional disturbance.
27 SLD, SLI, and OHI.
28 T here may be an uncommon exception to this statement in the case of multiple disabilities. It is possible that a child
can have multiple disabilit ies and be found eligible without a medical assessment.
29 For more information, see the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association website at https://www.asha.org/
public/hearing/Degree-of-Hearing-Loss/.
Congressional Research Service
9

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A Comparison of State Eligibility Criteria

dB or greater, or (2) a unilateral sensorineural or persistent conductive loss
with an unaided pure tone average of 45 dB or greater in the affected ear. For
a bilateral loss, eligibility criteria may specify a different level of hearing loss
than for a unilateral loss. For a conductive hearing loss, state eligibility
criteria may specify a different level of hearing loss than for a sensorineural
loss.
Deafness
 Across the sample of 15 states:
 Deafness criteria are relatively consistent.
 Across three selected states:
 The criteria for deafness can vary in terms of their specificity, but the unaided
pure tone average is similar.
 Deafness criteria ranged from a minimum pure tone average of 66 dB to 70
dB.
Visual Impairment (Including Blindness)
 Across the sample of 15 states:
 Blindness criteria are not included in al definitions of visual impairment.
When blindness is included, the criteria are consistent across states and are
typical y defined as visual acuity of 20/200 or less in the better eye with
correction.30
 States consistently measure visual impairment by visual acuity and visual
field, but across the three states selected to highlight variability, criteria differ
somewhat in terms of severity.
 Across three selected states:
 Visual impairment criteria range from 20/50 to 20/70 or less in the better eye
with correction.
 Visual field criteria range from 40 degrees or less to 20 degrees or less.
Deaf-Blindness
 Across the sample of 15 states:
 Deaf-blindness criteria are consistent and typical y require that a student
meets the requirements for hearing impairment and visual impairment.
Criteria do not necessarily specify that a student must meet the requirements
for deaf and blind.
 Across three selected states:
 The variability in deaf-blindness criteria depend upon the variability in the
hearing impairment and visual impairment criteria. The criteria for hearing
impairment, visual impairment, and deaf-blindness are consistent.

30 A person with 20/200 vision standing 20 feet away from an eye chart sees what an average individual can see when
they are 200 feet from an eye chart.
Congressional Research Service
10

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A Comparison of State Eligibility Criteria

Orthopedic Impairment
 Across the sample of 15 states:
 Orthopedic impairment criteria are general y consistent.
 Across three selected states:
 Criteria vary in terms of their specificity and severity.
 Some orthopedic impairment criteria specify that the impairment is caused
by congenital anomalies, disease (e.g., poliomyelitis, osteogenesis
imperfecta, muscular dystrophy, bone tuberculosis), or other causes (e.g.,
cerebral palsy, amputations, and fractures or burns that cause contractures).
 In terms of severity, orthopedic impairment criteria range from (1) evidence
that the child has a severe orthopedic impairment to (2) motor impairment
that results in deficits in the quality, speed, or accuracy by at least 2 standard
deviations below the mean in fine motor skil s, gross motor skil s, or self-
help skil s (or functional deficits in at least two of these three areas); and, the
condition is permanent or expected to last for more than 60 days.
Traumatic Brain Injury
 Across the sample of 15 states:
 TBI definitions are consistent and general y use the definition in federal
regulations.
 Across three selected states:
 TBI criteria are consistently nonspecific and contain no information on the
level of severity necessary for eligibility.
Multiple Disabilities
 Across the sample of 15 states:
 Multiple disabilities eligibility criteria differ. Criteria vary based on the
combination of disabilities al owed and the level of severity. There was no
discernable pattern to the different combinations that were permitted.
 Across three selected states:
 The combinations of multiple disabilities differed. For example, in one state,
a student with multiple disabilities must meet the eligibility criteria in two or
more categories of disabilities. In a second state, a student with multiple
disabilities must meet the eligibility criteria for intel ectual disability and
another disability category (except SLD, developmental delay, or SLI). In a
third state, a student with multiple disabilities must meet the eligibility
criteria for intel ectual disability, as demonstrated by intel ectual functioning
at least three standard deviations below the mean with concomitant deficits in
at least two adaptive skil s areas. The student must also meet the eligibility
criteria for one of the following: autism, deaf, hearing impairment,
orthopedic impairment, OHI, or visual impairment (including blindness).
Congressional Research Service
11

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A Comparison of State Eligibility Criteria

Medium-Incidence Disabilities
Medium-incidence disabilities include autism, developmental delay, intel ectual disability, and
emotional disturbance. These disabilities are not often visible, but they are observable in terms of
characteristic behaviors. Medium-incidence disabilities sometimes, but not always, require a
medical diagnosis. For example, a psychologist may conduct an evaluation for a student
suspected of having autism or emotional disturbance. In al cases, a multidisciplinary team
conducts an evaluation of educational needs.
Autism
 Across the sample of 15 states:
 Autism is a spectrum disorder, and eligibility criteria are lengthy and
variable. In general, criteria specify impairments in social interaction and
communication, as wel as restricted, repetitive, or stereotyped patterns of
behavior that are characteristic of autism.
 Autism criteria are typical y checklists of behavior, but states vary in terms of
how many of these behaviors must be present. Criteria also vary in terms of
their specificity.
 Across three selected states:
 In one state, a student must be administered a rating scale, which “indicates
the presence of an autism spectrum disorder.” In this example, it is unclear
how many behaviors a student must exhibit to be found eligible under autism
criteria.
 In another state, a student must exhibit at least two behaviors in social
interaction, at least one behavior in communication, and at least one behavior
in restricted, repetitive, or stereotyped patterns of behavior.
 A third state uses criteria from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders (DSM-5). In the DSM-5, a student must exhibit three
behaviors in social interaction and social communication, and at least two
behaviors in restricted, repetitive, and stereotyped patterns of behavior.
Developmental Delay
 Across the sample of 15 states:
 Developmental delay is consistently characterized by a delay in one or more
of the following areas of development: cognitive development,
physical/motor development, communication development, social/emotional
development, and adaptive development. It is the only IDEA disability that
specifies an age range (children aged three through nine, or any subset of that
range).31 States are not required to use the full age range that is permitted in
the IDEA, and, as such, there is variability in the age range across states.32

31 IDEA, §602(3)(B). IDEA generally covers children aged 3 through 21.
32 For a list of states’ development delay age ranges, see U.S. Department of Education, “IDEA Part B Child Count and
Educational Environments for School Year 2018 -2019”, OSEP Data Docum entation, pp. 31-34, https://www2.ed.gov/
programs/osepidea/618-data/collection-documentation/data-documentation-files/part-b/child-count -and-educational-
environment/idea-partb-childcountandedenvironment -2018-19.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
12

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A Comparison of State Eligibility Criteria

Criteria for developmental delay also vary in terms of the severity of delay
that must be exhibited.
 Across three selected states:
 In terms of age range, one state included ages three through nine (the
maximum age range al owed in IDEA). Two other states included alternate
age ranges: (1) three through five, and (2) three through seven.
 In terms of severity, two states specify that a student must exhibit either (1) a
delay of two standard deviations below the mean in one developmental area
or (2) a delay of one and one-half standard deviations below the mean in two
developmental areas. A third state specifies that a student must exhibit either
(1) a delay of two and one-half standard deviations below the mean in one
area of development, (2) a delay of two standard deviations below the mean
in two areas of development, or (3) a delay of one and one-half standard
deviations below the mean in three areas of development.
Intellectual Disability
 Across the sample of 15 states:
 Intel ectual disability is characterized by subaverage intel ectual functioning
and adaptive functioning. Criteria for intel ectual disability are relatively
consistent; however, there is variability in the specificity and severity of
impairment required for eligibility.
 In terms of intel ectual functioning, the criteria consistently specify that a
student must exhibit intel ectual functioning at least two standard deviations
below the mean; however, criteria can vary in terms of severity.
 Across three selected states:
 One state specifies different levels of intel ectual disability: (1) mild
intel ectual disability means a student must exhibit intel ectual functioning at
least two standard deviations below the mean, (2) moderate intel ectual
disability means that a student must exhibit intel ectual functioning at least
three standard deviations below the mean, and (3) severe intel ectual
disability means that a student must exhibit intel ectual functioning at least
four standard deviations below the mean.
 In terms of adaptive functioning, the criteria vary in specificity. Two, for
instance, specify that the adaptive functioning deficits exist “concurrently
with” or “consistent with” deficits in intel ectual functioning. Two states
specify that the adaptive functioning deficits must occur in two skil areas.
One state specifies that deficits in adaptive behavior must be at least two
standard deviations below the mean.
Emotional Disturbance
 Across the sample of 15 states:
 Emotional disturbance is characterized by serious behavior problems that are
present over a long period of time (usual y six months). It is typical y
assessed by rating scales and observation.
 Across three selected states:
Congressional Research Service
13

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A Comparison of State Eligibility Criteria

 There is variability in the specificity and severity of eligibility criteria across
states.
 In one state, a student must exhibit withdrawn or anxious behaviors,
pervasive unhappiness, depression, or severe problems with mood or feelings
of self-worth. In this case, there is no checklist of behaviors or rating scales
discussed among the criteria.
 In two other states, children must be assessed with a norm-referenced
measure or behavior scale. The behavior must be at least two standard
deviations from the mean (above or below, depending on the measure).
High-Incidence Disabilities
High-incidence disabilities include SLD, SLI, and OHI. High-incidence disabilities are not
visible, and they are often difficult to observe. SLD and SLI are typical y assessed by a school-
based multidisciplinary team. OHI often requires a combination of a medical assessment and
evaluation by a multidisciplinary team.
Specific Learning Disability
IDEA contains specific provisions regarding the identification of children with SLD. First,
although many eligibility criteria include a documented discrepancy between intel ectual ability
and achievement, the federal government does not require an LEA to take into consideration
whether a student has a severe discrepancy. (This process is commonly cal ed the discrepancy
method.) Second, the LEA may use a process to determine whether a student responds to
scientific, research-based intervention as part of the evaluation procedures. (This process is
commonly cal ed response-to-intervention, or RTI.)33
 Across the sample of 15 states:
 Criteria vary widely. Some states use the discrepancy model, some use RTI,
and some use both. Al states require a child to demonstrate some form of
low achievement that cannot be explained by other factors.
 Across three selected states:
 Two states use a combination of the discrepancy method and RTI, and one
state used RTI only.
 For the discrepancy method, eligibility criteria vary in severity and
whether additional data outside of the discrepancy are required. In one
state, children must exhibit a discrepancy of one and one-half standard
deviations between intel ectual ability and achievement. In addition, the
state must collect data on a student’s response to general education
interventions and level of performance. In another state that uses the
discrepancy method, the discrepancy must be one and three-quarters
standard deviations or more below the mean for the general population of
the student’s age.34

33 See sections on Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) and Response to Intervention (RT I) in CRS Report
R41833, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B: Key Statutory and Regulatory Provisions , by
Kyrie E. Dragoo.
34 Assessments used to identify students with an SLD differ across states; therefore, the data that are used in the
Congressional Research Service
14

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A Comparison of State Eligibility Criteria

 For RTI, criteria vary in terms of severity and timeline. In one state that
uses RTI, a student must participate in a scientific, research-based
intervention for at least seven weeks, and the rate of progress must be
measured by a minimum of 12 data points. If the progress is minimal or
not likely to be maintained without intervention and if the student’s level
of achievement is at or below the 5th percentile, the student meets the
criteria for SLD. In another state that uses RTI, a student must participate
in a scientific, research-based intervention for at least 12 weeks. If the
student is not making “sufficient progress” to meet age-or grade-level
standards within a reasonable timeframe, the student meets the criteria
for SLD.35
Speech or Language Impairment
SLI includes several types of communication disorders that affect different aspects of language:
articulation, voice, fluency, and language. Articulation disorders include atypical production or
omission of sounds. Voice disorders include atypical vocal quality, pitch, loudness, resonance, or
a disruption in vocal cord function. Fluency disorders are interruptions in the flow of speech,
characterized by an atypical rate or rhythm of sounds, syllables, words, and phrases. Language
disorders are characterized by impaired comprehension or use of spoken language, which
adversely affects written language and other symbolic forms of communication.
 Across the sample of 15 states:
 SLI criteria vary by the type of communication disorder. Eligibility criteria
for language disorders are more likely to incorporate standardized, norm-
referenced tests with associated performance targets.36 Other types of
communication disorders use standardized techniques for administering
assessments, along with error analysis. For example, to measure
communication other than language disorders, the state eligibility criteria
may use language samples to denote the number of errors within a sample or
the percentage of errors, dysfluencies, etc.
 Across three selected states:
 One state provides descriptions of the communication disorders. Another
state provides criteria with norm-referenced tests for only language disorders.
A third state provides operational criteria (standardized, norm-referenced
tests, or number/percentage of errors) for fluency disorders, articulation
disorders, and language disorders.
 In general, the most specific state eligibility criteria are those for articulation
disorders and language disorders.

discrepancy calculation differ across states. In using the discrepancy model, the SLD eligibility criteria are dependent
on the type of assessment used and the size of discrepancy required.
35 Similar to assessments used to identify SLD with the discrepancy model, assessments used to measure progress in an
RT I model differ across states. T he different assessments may also contribute to the variability in identification rates of
SLD.
36 For example, assessment of language disorders includes tests such as the Peabody Picture Vocabulary T est, 4th
Edition (PPVT -4); the Comprehensive T est of Phonological Processing, 2 nd Edition (CT OPP -2); and the Clinical
Evaluation of Language Fundamentals, 4th Edition (CELF-4). For a list of examples, see https://comdis.uni.edu/sites/
default/files/Standardized%20SLP%20T esting%20%20Instruments%20List -2.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
15

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A Comparison of State Eligibility Criteria

 For articulation disorders, two states describe characteristics of the
disorder and one state describes characteristics and provides eligibility
criteria. For example, a student whose test performance is two standard
deviations or more below the mean on a standardized, norm-referenced
test of articulation meets the criteria for SLI (articulation disorder). Also,
a student who is nine years of age or older and for whom a sound is
consistently in error as documented by two, three-minute language
samples meets the criteria for SLI (articulation disorder).
 For language disorders, one state describes characteristics of the disorder
and two states describe characteristics and provide eligibility criteria. In
both states that provide eligibility criteria, a student whose test
performance is two standard deviations or more below the mean on a
standardized, norm-referenced test meets the criteria for SLI (language
disorder). One state specifies that if a standardized, norm-referenced test
is not available to provide evidence of a two standard deviation deficit, a
student may be assessed with two documented measurement procedures
that indicate a substantial language difference from expectations based
on age, developmental, or cognitive level.
Other Health Impairment
OHI includes chronic or acute health problems that result in limited strength, vitality, and limited
or heightened alertness to the surrounding environment. OHI conditions may include asthma,
attention deficit disorder (ADD) or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), diabetes,
epilepsy, a heart condition, hemophilia, lead poisoning, leukemia, nephritis, rheumatic fever,
sickle cel anemia, and Tourette syndrome. Most OHI conditions require a medical assessment
and diagnosis; however, ADD/ADHD may be diagnosed by a certified school psychologist or
licensed psychologist.
 Across the sample of 15 states:
 Criteria for OHI vary by type of condition and by state. Criteria for most
conditions are not included; however, some states include operational criteria
for ADD/ADHD.
 Across three selected states:
 Two of the three states have eligibility criteria for ADD/ADHD.
 ADD/ADHD criteria include behavior rating scales and observations of
classroom behavior. In one state, a student must be rated within the “highest
level of significance” on a behavior rating scale by the classroom teacher and
parent, and there must be documentation that the student’s observable
classroom behaviors are occurring at a significantly different rate, intensity,
or duration than the majority of typical school peers. In another state,
standard scores on a norm-referenced behavior scale must be at least two
standard deviations above or below the mean. Ratings must be obtained from
at least three independent raters, one of whom may be the parent.
Congressional Research Service
16

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A Comparison of State Eligibility Criteria

Conclusion
Observations from the survey of state regulations and department of education documents
provides some data that may support the possibility that the adoption of operational definitions of
eligibility criteria may contribute to differences in disability identification rates across states.
Criteria vary in terms of specificity, severity, methods of identification, and timeline for
identification. For example, consider differences in intel ectual disability eligibility criteria
between two states. One state requires a child to exhibit significant limitations in intel ectual
functioning and significant limitations in at least two areas of adaptive functioning, which al
must be evidenced by scores that are at least two standard deviations below the mean. The other
state requires a child to exhibit significant limitations in intel ectual functioning, as evidenced by
scores at least two standard deviations below the mean, and exhibit delays in adaptive functioning
consistent with the disability. The second state, however, does not require adaptive functioning to
be two standard deviations or more below the mean in two areas. The first state, therefore, may
identify a lower percentage of children with intel ectual disabilities than the second state.37
Consider the disability category of SLD as another example. One state requires a child to exhibit
a discrepancy of one and one-half standard deviations between intel ectual functioning and
academic achievement in at least one academic area. The other state does not use a discrepancy
model and requires a child to participate in an RTI model for a minimum of 12 weeks and
demonstrate insufficient progress. It is possible that a child who exhibits a discrepancy between
intel ectual functioning and achievement in the first state would make sufficient progress during
12 weeks of scientific, research-based interventions in the second state and not be identified as
having SLD. Furthermore, it is possible that a child who responds well to scientific, research-
based interventions may stil have a discrepancy between intel ectual functioning and academic
achievement. Proponents of the discrepancy model may argue that this child should stil be
identified with an SLD and receive special education and related services. Even with RTI, if a
child exhibits a discrepancy between intel ectual functioning and academic achievement, an
argument can be made that this student is not realizing his or her academic potential. On the other
hand, a child who responds wel to RTI and stil has a discrepancy between intel ectual
functioning may not satisfy the federal definition of child with a disability. That is, the child with
a discrepancy between intel ectual functioning and academic achievement may not require special
education because his or her achievement is considered acceptable under the RTI model.
Also consider the reverse situation with SLD. A child may not exhibit a discrepancy between
intel ectual functioning and academic achievement, but the child may also not make sufficient
progress within an RTI model. The child would not be eligible for a SLD designation in the first
state above but would be eligible for SLD in the second state. If this child lived in the first state
and did not exhibit a discrepancy but stil exhibited low academic achievement, he or she may be
identified under a different disability category. This child may be eligible for an intel ectual
disability designation because he or she demonstrates subaverage intel ectual and adaptive
functioning. Or, this child may be eligible for an OHI designation if it is determined that
ADD/ADHD contributes to low academic achievement. The same child, therefore, may be
eligible or ineligible for special education and related services, depending on the state where he or
she is identified. Furthermore, the child may be eligible for SLD in one state and eligible for

37 Assessments of intellectual and adaptive functioning can differ across states. T here are several common
standardized, norm-referenced assessments of intellectual functioning for children: the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for
Children (WISC); the Stanford-Binet; the Kauffman Assessment Battery for Ch ildren, Second Edition; and Wechsler
Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence, T hird Edition (WPPSI -III).
Congressional Research Service
17

link to page 7 link to page 11 The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A Comparison of State Eligibility Criteria

intel ectual disability or OHI in another state. Either way, the variability in how a child is
identified with a disability may confuse parents and cause disruption in service delivery.
Some disability categories have less variability than others. For example, low -incidence
disabilities tend to have less variability than high-incidence disabilities. The variability of
eligibility criteria and the higher rates of identification for high-incidence disabilities may
contribute to controversy surrounding disability identification, most notably SLD.38 Because SLD
accounts for approximately one-third of al children with disabilities, any change in the variability
of eligibility criteria across states may lead to substantial differences in overal IDEA
identification rates. For example, if one state created more stringent eligibility criteria for SLD
and another state created less stringent eligibility criteria, the first state may identify fewer
children with SLD. The stringency of the criteria, therefore, may contribute to the variability in
identifying students with SLD.
Differences in practices among state agencies that promulgate regulations may have contributed
to the variability found in the results of CRS’s survey of state regulations and state department of
education documents. The difference in the level of detail within state regulations may contribute
to the unintentional omission in this report of criteria that may be available elsewhere. If the level
of detail provided in state regulations were equal across states, it would likely be easier to
investigate the true size and scope of the variability. As mentioned earlier in this report, it is
possible that the 36 states that are not included in this analysis have relatively consistent
operational definitions of eligibility criteria to identify children with disabilities. If this is
assumed to be true, the variability found in this report’s analysis represents a minority of the
eligibility criteria across states. Given the anecdotal evidence, however, it is unlikely that there is
uniformity among eligibility criteria in the 36 states that are not represented in the sample.39
Implications for the Identification of and Service Delivery for
Children with Disabilities
Because of the variability in operational definitions of eligibility criteria across states, there is
understandably some confusion regarding the identification of and service delivery for children
with disabilities. One question that arises is, why does a child with a disability in one state not
have a disability when he or she moves to another state? Another question is, how is it possible
that a child identified with the same disability in two different states receives different special
education and related services in each of these states?
The variability in operational definitions of eligibility criteria across states may affect the delivery
of special education and related services for some children with disabilities. Before discussing
implications for service delivery, it is helpful to have a basic understanding of how special
education and related services are determined. After an initial evaluation, a multidisciplinary team
develops an individualized education program (IEP) for a child. The IEP provides, among other
educational information, a statement of the child’s present levels of academic achievement and a
statement of measurable, annual goals.40 After a child is found eligible for special education and

38 See, for example, https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2000/11/29/13idea.h20.html and https://www.edweek.org/ew/
articles/2019/01/09/special-education-is-broken.html.
39 See footnote 15 and footnote 24.
40 IDEA §614(d). For more information on IEPs, see CRS Report R41833, The Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA), Part B: Key Statutory and Regulatory Provisions, by Kyrie E. Dragoo.
Congressional Research Service
18

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A Comparison of State Eligibility Criteria

related services, a meeting to develop the IEP must be conducted within 30 days, and services
must be provided “as soon as possible.”41
If a child transfers to a new school within the same LEA,42 services provided on the IEP remain in
place. If a child transfers to a new LEA within the same state and enrolls in a new school within
the same school year, the new LEA must continue to provide a free appropriate public education
(FAPE), including services “comparable” to those in the established IEP, until either (1) the new
LEA adopts the student’s IEP from the previous LEA, or (2) the new LEA develops, adopts, and
implements a new IEP.43 When a child with a disability transfers within the same state, there is no
requirement for a new evaluation. If, however, a child transfers to a new state, the new LEA must
continue to provide a FAPE, including services “comparable” to those in the established IEP, until
(1) the new LEA conducts a new evaluation, and (2) the new LEA develops, adopts, and
implements a new IEP, if appropriate.44
In some cases, a child with a disability in one state may not be identified as a child with a
disability in another state. Service delivery would be discontinued if the child no longer met the
definition and eligibility criteria of child with a disability in the new state. In many cases,
however, a child with a disability in one state would be eligible as a child with the same disability
in another state. In these cases, the delivery of special education and related services may
continue with minimal disruption. The timing of conducting evaluations and developing IEPs,
however, introduces another complication into the consistency of service delivery. After receiving
parental consent for an evaluation, a new LEA has 60 days to complete an initial evaluation and
an additional 30 days to develop an IEP. If a child moves toward the middle or end of a school
year, he or she may not receive a new IEP by the end of the school year. While the new LEA is
required to continue to provide “comparable” services, the evaluation and development of a new
IEP may be delayed until the following school year.
If a child with a disability in one state qualifies for a different disability in another state, service
delivery wil continue to depend on educational needs irrespective of the disability label. The IEP
determines service delivery, not the disability label itself. The IEP includes a statement of which
special education and related services are to be provided to a child with a disability, so that the
child can (1) advance toward the attainment of annual goals, (2) make progress in the general
education curriculum, and (3) be educated and participate with other children with disabilities and
their non-disabled peers.45 If a child receives a different disability label in a new state but the IEP
team determines that the educational needs of the child are similar, service delivery may be
continued with minimal disruption. If the new IEP team determines, however, that the educational
needs of that child are different from those addressed in the child’s previous IEP, service delivery
may change significantly.

41 34 C.F.R. §300.323(c).
42 T he regulations describe transfers within and between public agencies, not LEAs. In the case of public school
transfers for children with disabilities, it is most common to transfer between LEAs. For the sake of simplicity, LEA is
used in lieu of public agency.
43 IDEA §614(d)(2)(C)(i). 34 C.F.R. §300.323(e).
44 IDEA §614(d)(2)(C)(i). 34 C.F.R. §300.323(f). A new IEP must be developed and agreed to by the IEP team and
fulfill the FAPE requirements for the child.
45 IDEA §614(d)(1)(A)(i)(IV).
Congressional Research Service
19

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A Comparison of State Eligibility Criteria

Considerations for the Federal Role in Special Education
Eligibility Determinations
The federal role in special education eligibility determinations has historical y been largely an
indirect role, comprised mainly of providing broad guidance in statute and regulations. Because
states and localities have the primary responsibility for financing and providing elementary and
secondary education, it is possible that the federal government did not intend to be more directly
involved with eligibility determinations. The original authorizing legislation for the IDEA was the
Education for Al Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (P.L. 94-142). This act did not provide
specific eligibility criteria in legislation, though it did direct the Commissioner of Education to
create regulations that established specific criteria and diagnostic procedures for determining
whether a particular disorder or condition may be considered an SLD. Subsequent regulations,
however, did not expand upon the statute.46 In September 1976, a short discussion on disability
definitions was issued by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW). As described
in the Federal Register, HEW used disability definitions in the National Center for Education
Statistics handbook, “Handbook V-R, Student/Pupil Accounting.”47 The purpose of the handbook,
however, was to provide common definitions for data and information used in education. These
definitions did not include eligibility criteria.
Forty-five years after the initial passage of federal special education legislation, it is possible that
the role of the federal government with regard to eligibility criteria and determinations could be
reevaluated in light of current policies and practices in special education.
One of the stated purposes of IDEA is to “assess, and ensure the effectiveness of, efforts to
educate children with disabilities.”48 In light of this, Congress might consider whether disparity in
eligibility criteria for services across some states, or the potential disruption in service delivery
for some children with disabilities moving from one state to another, makes a case for a greater
federal role in determining operational definitions and criteria for the disability categories in the
IDEA.
If the objective of the federal government is to focus IDEA, Part B funds on children with
disabilities in a more targeted way, it could be done by developing universal operational
definitions of eligibility criteria. For example, if Congress wanted to target funds to children with
the highest need, the federal government could establish more stringent, precisely specified
eligibility criteria. On the other hand, if Congress wanted to serve the greatest number of children
with disabilities, the federal government could establish less stringent, precisely specified
eligibility criteria. Either way, universal criteria may ensure a certain level of consistency in how
children are identified with a disability and provided special education and related services. It
may also al ow a simpler transition for children with disabilities who transfer to schools in a
different state.
The development of universal operational definitions of eligibility criteria may be considered by
some observers to be federal overreach. A universal system may not be able to account for

46 Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, “Handicapped Children: Assistance to States for Education,” 41
Federal Register 37813-37817, September 8, 1976; and U.S. Office of Education, HEW, “ Implementation of Part B of
the Education of the Handicapped Act,” 42 Federal Register 42474-42518, August 23, 1977.
47 John F Putnam, Student/Pupil Accounting: Standard T erminology and Guide for Managing Student Data in
Elementary and Secondary Schools, Community/Junior Colleges, and Adult Education, National Center for Education
Statistics, State Educational Records and Reports Series: Handbook V. Revised, Washington, DC, 1974,
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED102678.pdf.
48 IDEA §601(d)(4).
Congressional Research Service
20

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A Comparison of State Eligibility Criteria

differences in state population, educational capacity, organizational structure, or funding. A
universal system may increase federal oversight because there may be a greater need to monitor
compliance with the system. Such a system may also inadvertently increase the number of waiver
requests, seeking to account for special circumstances. If a certain number of waivers were
granted, the system that intended to be universal may eventual y become fragmented.
An alternative approach may be to require states to submit their operational definitions of
eligibility criteria to the Secretary. This would al ow states to maintain their unique systems of
identifying children with disabilities, but it would increase transparency in these definitions. The
transparency may al ow for examination of the variability using more complete and reliable data.
It may also help families navigate interstate moves and understand potential changes to special
education service delivery.
States could be reluctant to support the development of universal operational definitions of
eligibility criteria. If Congress passed legislation that created uniform operational definitions of
eligibility criteria, some states could end up serving more students with disabilities than they
currently do. This could be viewed by some as a federal mandate to increase the number of
students with disabilities served, which may put pressure on local and state budgets. Conversely,
some states might end up serving fewer students with disabilities. In these states, students who
were receiving special education and related services may lose their current services, leading to
an influx of students into general education (without accommodations or special services).
General education systems in these states may not be prepared to handle a shift in how they serve
these students.
Congress may be able to work toward consistency in service delivery across states even without
offering a universal system of identifying and serving children with disabilities. For example,
Congress could include provisions to incentivize interstate compacts or regional compacts,
al owing states within a compact to adopt the IEP of a child entering the state as is. These
compacts may be especial y relevant in areas where there is a high level of mobility across state
borders. If there were no interstate or regional compact in place, Congress could also include
provisions that the new LEA carry out an expedited evaluation and IEP process to establish
service delivery in a more timely fashion. Another option may be for Congress to direct states to
establish policies facilitating interstate moves of children with disabilities. States could establish a
network that would al ow LEAs to work across state lines to help children with disabilities and
their families transition into a new school.
Congressional Research Service
21

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A Comparison of State Eligibility Criteria

Appendix A. Common Abbreviations Used in This
Report

ADD
Attention Deficit Disorder
ADHD
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
ED
U.S. Department of Education
DSM-5
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
FAPE
Free Appropriate Public Education
IDEA
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
IEP
Individualized Education Program
LEA
Local Educational Agency
OHI
Other Health Impairment
SLD
Specific Learning Disability
SLI
Speech or Language Impairment
SY
School Year
RTI
Response-to-Intervention
TBI
Traumatic Brain Injury

Congressional Research Service
22

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A Comparison of State Eligibility Criteria

Appendix B. Definitions
Table B-1. Definitions of Disability Categories in the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act
Disability
Definition
Autism
(i) Autism means a developmental disability significantly affecting verbal and
nonverbal communication and social interaction, general y evident before age
three, that adversely affects a child’s educational performance. Other
characteristics often associated with autism are engagement in repetitive activities
and stereotyped movements, resistance to environmental change or change in
daily routines, and unusual responses to sensory experiences.
(i ) Autism does not apply if a child’s educational performance is adversely affected
primarily because the child has an emotional disturbance, as defined in paragraph
(c)(4) of this section.
(i i) A child who manifests the characteristics of autism after age three could be
identified as having autism if the criteria in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section are
satisfied.
Deaf-blindness
Deaf-blindness means concomitant hearing and visual impairments, the
combination of which causes such severe communication and other
developmental and educational needs that they cannot be accommodated in
special education programs solely for children with deafness or children with
blindness.
Deafness
Deafness means a hearing impairment that is so severe that the child is impaired
in processing linguistic information through hearing, with or without amplification,
that adversely affects a child’s educational performance.
Hearing Impairment
Hearing impairment means an impairment in hearing, whether permanent or
fluctuating, that adversely affects a child’s educational performance but that is not
included under the definition of deafness in this section.
Emotional Disturbance
(i) Emotional disturbance means a condition exhibiting one or more of the
fol owing characteristics over a long period of time and to a marked degree that
adversely affects a child’s educational performance:
(A) An inability to learn that cannot be explained by intel ectual, sensory, or
health factors.
(B) An inability to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships
with peers and teachers.
(C) Inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under normal circumstances.
(D) A general pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression.
(E) A tendency to develop physical symptoms or fears associated with
personal or school problems.
(i ) Emotional disturbance includes schizophrenia. The term does not apply to
children who are social y maladjusted, unless it is determined that they have an
emotional disturbance under paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section.
Intel ectual Disability
Intel ectual disability means significantly subaverage general intel ectual functioning,
existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior and manifested during the
developmental period that adversely affects a child’s educational performance. The
term intel ectual disability was formerly termed mental retardation.
Multiple Disabilities
Multiple disabilities means concomitant impairments (such as intel ectual disability-
blindness or intel ectual disability-orthopedic impairment), the combination of
which causes such severe educational needs that they cannot be accommodated in
special education programs solely for one of the impairments. Multiple disabilities
does not include deaf-blindness.
Congressional Research Service
23

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A Comparison of State Eligibility Criteria

Disability
Definition
Orthopedic Impairment
Orthopedic impairment means a severe orthopedic impairment that adversely
affects a child’s educational performance. The term includes impairments caused
by a congenital anomaly, impairments caused by disease (e.g., poliomyelitis, bone
tuberculosis), and impairments from other causes (e.g., cerebral palsy,
amputations, and fractures or burns that cause contractures).
Other Health Impairment
Other health impairment means having limited strength, vitality, or alertness,
including a heightened alertness to environmental stimuli, that results in limited
alertness with respect to the educational environment, that—
1) Is due to chronic or acute health problems such as asthma, attention deficit
disorder or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, diabetes, epilepsy, a heart
condition, hemophilia, lead poisoning, leukemia, nephritis, rheumatic fever, sickle
cel anemia, and Tourette syndrome; and
2) Adversely affects a child’s educational performance.
Specific Learning Disability
Specific learning disability—
(i) General. Specific learning disability means a disorder in one or more of the
basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language,
spoken or written, that may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think,
speak, read, write, spel , or to do mathematical calculations, including conditions
such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and
developmental aphasia.
(i ) Disorders not included. Specific learning disability does not include learning
problems that are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of
intel ectual disability, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or
economic disadvantage.
Additional Information (IDEA, §612(b)(6) and 34 C.F.R.,§300.307)
(a) General. A State must adopt, consistent with §300.309, criteria for determining
whether a child has a specific learning disability as defined in §300.8(c)(10). In
addition, the criteria adopted by the State -
(1) Must not require the use of a severe discrepancy between intel ectual
ability and achievement for determining whether a child has a specific learning
disability, as defined in §300.8(c)(10);
(2) Must permit the use of a process based on the child's response to
scientific, research-based intervention; and
(3) May permit the use of other alternative research-based procedures for
determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, as defined in
§300.8(c)(10).
(b) Consistency with State criteria. A public agency must use the State criteria
adopted pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section in determining whether a
child has a specific learning disability.
Speech or Language
Speech or language impairment means a communication disorder, such as
Impairment
stuttering, impaired articulation, a language impairment, or a voice impairment,
that adversely affects a child’s educational performance.
Traumatic Brain Injury
Traumatic brain injury means an acquired injury to the brain caused by an external
physical force, resulting in total or partial functional disability or psychosocial
impairment, or both, that adversely affects a child’s educational performance.
Traumatic brain injury applies to open or closed head injuries resulting in
impairments in one or more areas, such as cognition; language; memory;
attention; reasoning; abstract thinking; judgment; problem-solving; sensory,
perceptual, and motor abilities; psychosocial behavior; physical functions;
information processing; and speech. Traumatic brain injury does not apply to brain
injuries that are congenital or degenerative, or to brain injuries induced by birth
trauma.
Congressional Research Service
24

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A Comparison of State Eligibility Criteria

Disability
Definition
Visual Impairment (including
Visual impairment including blindness means an impairment in vision that, even
Blindness)
with correction, adversely affects a child’s educational performance. The term
includes both partial sight and blindness.
Source: 34 C.F.R. §300.8.
Notes: States and LEAs may, at their discretion, include the disability category of “developmental delay” for
children aged three through nine who experience developmental delays in at least one of the fol owing areas:
physical development, cognitive development, communication development, social or emotional development, or
adaptive development; and who, by reason thereof, need special education and related services.

Congressional Research Service
25

link to page 32 link to page 32 link to page 32
Appendix C. Disability Identification
Table C-1. Disability Identification Rates by State
As a Percentage of Public
School Enrollment,
State or Jurisdiction
1990-1991
2000-2001
2010-2011
2015-2016
2017-2018a
2017-2018b
United States
4,710,089
6,295,816
6,434,916
6,676,974
6,964,424
13.7
Alabama
94,601
99,828
82,286
84,278
90,319
12.2
Alaska
14,390
17,691
18,048
18,390
19,148
14.3
Arizona
56,629
96,442
125,816
132,592
140,702
12.5
Arkansas
47,187
62,222
64,881
68,178
72,835
14.8
California
468,420
645,287
672,174
727,718
767,562
12.2
Colorado
56,336
78,715
84,710
95,101
102,240
11.2
Connecticut
63,886
73,886
68,167
75,030
79,758
15.1
Delaware
14,208
16,760
18,608
20,742
23,196
16.9
District of Columbia
6,290
10,559
11,947
12,258
13,399
15.5
Florida
234,509
367,335
368,808
372,476
389,626
13.7
Georgia
101,762
171,292
177,544
202,314
214,267
12.1
Hawai
12,705
23,951
19,716
19,223
19,276
10.6
Idaho
21,703
29,174
27,388
29,718
32,908
11.0
Il inois
236,060
297,316
302,830
296,784
295,066
14.6
Indiana
112,949
156,320
166,073
171,368
176,104
16.8
Iowa
59,787
72,461
68,501
63,822
65,935
12.9
Kansas
44,785
61,267
66,873
70,762
73,729
14.9
Kentucky
78,853
94,572
102,370
99,283
104,270
15.3
Louisiana
72,825
97,938
82,943
84,221
84,473
11.8
Maine
27,987
35,633
32,261
32,531
33,004c
18.4
Maryland
88,017
112,077
103,490
105,440
108,491
12.1
Massachusetts
149,743
162,216
167,526
168,199
173,762
18.0
CRS-26

link to page 32 link to page 32 link to page 32 link to page 32
As a Percentage of Public
School Enrollment,
State or Jurisdiction
1990-1991
2000-2001
2010-2011
2015-2016
2017-2018a
2017-2018b
Michigan
166,511
221,456
218,957
197,316
198,751
13.1
Minnesota
79,013
109,880
122,850
128,218
135,386d
15.3
Mississippi
60,872
62,281
64,038
66,799
69,197
14.5
Missouri
101,166
137,381
127,164
126,328
131,114
14.3
Montana
16,955
19,313
16,761
17,387
18,803
12.8
Nebraska
32,312
42,793
44,299
47,795
50,415
15.6
Nevada
18,099
38,160
48,148
55,452
60,123
12.5
New Hampshire
19,049
30,077
29,920
28,806
29,233
16.4
New Jersey
178,870
221,715
232,002
232,401
238,178
16.9
New Mexico
36,000
52,256
46,628
49,667
52,838
15.8
New York
307,366
441,333
454,542
499,551
522,221
19.2
North Carolina
122,942
173,067
185,107
198,808
200,905
12.9
North Dakota
12,294
13,652
13,170
13,953
15,153
13.9
Ohio
205,440
237,643
259,454
253,896
266,670
15.7
Oklahoma
65,457
85,577
97,250
108,459
112,080
16.1
Oregon
54,422
75,204
81,050
84,517
87,156
14.3
Pennsylvania
214,254
242,655
295,080
303,633
320,817
18.6
Rhode Island
20,646
30,727
25,332
23,515
23,748
16.7
South Carolina
77,367
105,922
100,289
101,776
104,698
13.5
South Dakota
14,726
16,825
18,026
19,527
21,190
15.4
Tennessee
104,853
125,863
120,263
129,386
129,319
12.9
Texas
344,529
491,642
442,019
463,238
498,588
9.2
Utah
46,606
53,921
70,278
79,932
84,196
12.6
Vermont
12,160
13,623
13,936
13,903
14,482c
16.7
Virginia
112,072
162,212
162,338
164,757
172,370
13.4
Washington
83,545
118,851
127,978
135,757
143,498
12.9
CRS-27

link to page 32 link to page 32 link to page 32 link to page 32
As a Percentage of Public
School Enrollment,
State or Jurisdiction
1990-1991
2000-2001
2010-2011
2015-2016
2017-2018a
2017-2018b
West Virginia
42,428
50,333
45,007
45,297
46,810
17.3
Wisconsin
85,651
125,358
124,722
120,864
120,864e
14.0
Wyoming
10,852
13,154
15,348
15,608
15,551
16.6
Subtotal: States
4,710,089
6,295,816
6,434,916
6,676,974
6,964,424
13.7
American Samoa
363
697
935
666
636
—
Guam
1,750
2,267
2,003
2,036
2,015
—
Northern Marianas
411
569
944
886
956
—
Puerto Rico
35,129
65,504
126,560
123,376
105,827
—
U.S. Virgin Islands
1,333
1,502
1,405
1,207
1,105
—
Palau
—
131
—
97
74
—
Subtotal: Other Jurisdictionsf
38,986
70,670
131,847
128,268
110,613
—
Bureau of Indian Education
6,997
8,448
6,801
6,309
6,285
—
Total
4,756,072
6,374,934
6,573,564
6,811,551
7,081,322
—
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, 2019 (NCES 2020-009), 2019, Table 204.70.
a. Includes some data for 2015-2016 or 2016-2017 due to unavailability of 2017-2018 data for specific states, as noted below.
b. Based on projected fal 2017 total public school enrol ment in prekindergarten through grade 12.
c. Data for 6- to 21-year-olds are for 2016-2017 because 2017-2018 data for this age group were not available for this state.
d. Data for 3- to 5-year-olds are for 2016-2017 because 2017-2018 data for this age group were not available for this state.
e. Data are for 2015-2016 because 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 data were not available for this state.
f.
Other jurisdictions are American Samoa, Guam, Northern Marianas, Palau, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

CRS-28

link to page 33 link to page 33 The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A Comparison of State Eligibility Criteria

Appendix D. Selected Results of State Survey
Appendix D presents tables displaying operational definitions of eligibility criteria for a selection
of three states for al 14 disability categories in the IDEA. The 15 states these operational
definitions were drawn from and that were the focus of this CRS examination were: Alabama,
Georgia, Hawai , Indiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. In general, the data in Appendix D
were copied from official state documents; however, CRS made several changes in the following
areas: (1) deleting information deemed irrelevant, (2) formatting (e.g., if irrelevant information
was deleted, items in a list were renumbered), (3) changing names of disabilities (e.g., changing
mental retardation to intellectual disability49), and (4) removing information that may identify the
state.
Low-Incidence Disabilities
Table D-1. Hearing Impairment
Example 1
1) A child who is hard of hearing can be characterized by the absence of enough
measurable hearing (usual y a pure tone average range of 30-65 decibels American
National Standards Institute without amplification) that the ability to communicate is
adversely affected; however, the child who is hard of hearing typical y relies upon
the auditory channel as the primary sensory input for communication.
Example 2
1) Sensorineural hearing loss with an unaided pure tone average, speech threshold, or
auditory brainstem response threshold of 20 decibels hearing level (HL) or greater
in the better ear;
2) Conductive hearing loss with an unaided pure tone average or speech threshold of
20 decibels hearing level (HL) or greater in the better ear persisting over three
months or occurring at least three times in the previous 12 months as verified by
audiograms with at least one measure provided by a certified audiologist;
3) Unilateral sensorineural or persistent conductive loss with an unaided pure tone
average or speech threshold of 45 decibels hearing level (HL) or greater in the
affected ear; or
4) Sensorineural hearing loss with unaided pure tone thresholds at 35 decibels hearing
level (HL) or greater at two or more adjacent frequencies (500 hertz, 1000 hertz,
2000 hertz, or 4000 hertz) in the better ear.
Example 3
1) The student has a hearing loss that is 20 decibels or greater at any one frequency,
either unilateral y or bilateral y, or
2) The student has a fluctuating hearing loss, either unilateral y or bilateral y. The
student’s hearing impairment adversely affects his or her educational performance.

Table D-2. Deafness
Example 1
1) A child who is deaf can be characterized by the absence of enough measurable
hearing (usual y a pure tone average of 66-90+ decibels American National
Standards Institute without amplification) such that the primary sensory input for
communication may be other than the auditory channel.

49 P.L. 111-256, commonly referred to as Rosa’s Law, required references to mental retardation in IDEA and other
federal laws to be changed to intellectual disability.
Congressional Research Service
29

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A Comparison of State Eligibility Criteria

Example 2
1) Deafness is a hearing loss that is so severe that the student is impaired in processing
linguistic information through hearing, even with amplification, and that adversely
affects the student’s educational performance.
2) A student may be identified as deaf if
a. The unaided hearing loss is in excess of 70 decibels and precludes
understanding of speech through the auditory mechanism, even with
amplification, and
b. The student demonstrates an inability to process linguistic information
through hearing, even with amplification.
Example 3
1) A student shal be eligible under the disability category of deaf if the student has a
hearing loss averaging greater than 70 decibels in the speech frequencies (500 hertz
to 4,000 hertz) and:
a. The hearing loss impairs the student's auditory processing of linguistic
information through hearing, with or without amplification; or
b. The hearing loss adversely affects the student's educational performance.

Table D-3. Visual Impairment or Blindness
Example 1
1) Documentation of loss of vision which adversely affects the child’s educational
performance and requires the use of specialized tests, techniques, materials, or
assistive technology devices; and
2) Documentation of visual acuity in the better eye with the best possible correction
of:
a. 20/200 or less (blind);
b. 20/50 or less (partial y sighted);
3) Documentation of reduced visual field to 20 degrees or less in the better eye;
4) Documentation of a progressive loss of vision which may, in the future, affect the
child's ability to learn; or
5) Visual acuity, which cannot be measured, but in which the child has a functional loss
of vision as determined through a functional vision assessment.
Example 2
At least one of the fol owing:
1) Visual acuity of 20/60 or less in better eye with best conventional correction.
2) Estimation of acuity for difficult-to-test pupils.
3) For pre-kindergarten, measured acuity must be significantly deviant from what is
developmental y appropriate.
4) Visual field of 20 degrees or less, or bilateral scotomas.
5) Congenital or degenerative condition: such as, progressive cataract, glaucoma,
retinitis pigmentosa
Example 3
At least one of the fol owing:
1) The visual acuity with correction is 20/70 or worse in the better eye; or the visual
acuity is better than 20/70 with correction in the better eye, and there is
documentation of either of the fol owing conditions: a diagnosed progressive loss of
vision or a visual field of 40 degrees or less;
2) The visual acuity is unable to be determined by a licensed optometrist or
ophthalmologist, and the existence of functional vision loss is supported by
functional vision assessment findings;
3) There is evidence of cortical visual impairment, and the student’s visual impairment
adversely affects his or her educational and functional performance; or
4) The adverse effects of the visual impairment on the child’s educational performance
require specialized instruction and related services.
Congressional Research Service
30

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A Comparison of State Eligibility Criteria

Table D-4. Deaf-Blindness
Example 1
Deaf-Blindness:
1) Audiological data indicating the individual has a hearing impairment.
2) Optometric and/or opthalmic data indicating the individual has a visual impairment.
3) Evidence of severe communication needs and evidence of severe educational needs
related to the functional use of hearing and vision.
Hearing Impairment for state in Example 1:
1) Evidence that vision screening results are satisfactory prior to proceeding with
evaluations.
2) Audiological data indicating that the child has a hearing impairment.
3) Evidence that the educational performance is adversely affected by the disability.
Vision Impairment for state in Example 1:
1) Evidence that hearing screening results are satisfactory prior to proceeding with
evaluations.
2) Optometric/ophthalmic data indicating that the individual has a visual impairment.
3) Evidence of visual functioning that adversely affects educational performance as
evaluated by a certified vision specialist.
Example 2
Deaf-blindness:
1) If the student meets the criteria under the category of deaf, or the category of hard
of hearing, and the category of visual disability; and
2) The concomitant hearing and visual disabilities cause severe communication and
other developmental and educational needs.
Hearing Impairment for state in Example 2:
1) A student shal be eligible under the disability category of hard of hearing if the
student has a hearing loss, whether permanent or fluctuating, averaging 26 to 70
decibels in the speech frequencies (500 hertz to 4,000 hertz), and:
a. The hearing loss impairs the student’s auditory processing of linguistic
information, with or without amplification; or
b. The hearing impairment adversely affects the student's educational
performance.
Deafness for state in Example 2:
1) A student shal be eligible under the disability category of deaf if the student has a
hearing loss averaging greater than 70 decibels in the speech frequencies (500 hertz
to 4,000 hertz) and:
a. The hearing loss impairs the student's auditory processing of linguistic
information through hearing, with or without amplification; or
b. The hearing loss adversely affects the student's educational performance.
Visual Impairment for state in Example 2:
1) Visual disability including blindness. A student shal be eligible for the disability
category of visual disability, including both partial sight and blindness, if the
impairment in vision, even with the best correction, adversely affects the student's
educational performance and one or more of the fol owing are met:
a. Partial y-sighted. The student's visual acuity is 20/70 to 20/200 in the better
eye and with the best correction;
b. Blind. The student's visual acuity is 20/200 in the better eye and with the
best correction, or less, or the student has a subtended visual field of less
than 20 degrees, regardless of central visual acuity;
c. The student has a progressive visual impairment, such as retinitis
pigmentosa, that wil lead to eventual visual disability.
Example 3
There is evidence that the child meets the criteria for both the Deaf or Hard of Hearing
category and the Visual Impairment category.
Congressional Research Service
31

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A Comparison of State Eligibility Criteria

Deaf or Hard of Hearing for state in Example 3:
1) There is evidence that the child
a. Has a hearing loss that is 20 decibels or greater at any one frequency,
either unilateral y or bilateral y, or
b. Has a fluctuating hearing loss, either unilateral y or bilateral y.
2) The adverse effects of the deafness or hard of hearing impairment on the child’s
educational performance require specialized instruction and/or related services.
Visual Impairment for state in Example 3:
1) There is evidence that the child has one of the fol owing:
a. The visual acuity with correction is 20/70 or worse in the better eye;
b. The visual acuity is better than 20/70 with correction in the better eye, and
there is documentation of either of the fol owing conditions: a diagnosed
progressive loss of vision, or a visual field of 40 degrees or less;
c. The visual acuity is unable to be determined by a licensed optometrist or
ophthalmologist, and the existence of functional vision loss is supported by
functional vision assessment findings; or
d. There is evidence of cortical visual impairment.
2) The adverse effects of the visual impairment on the child’s educational performance
require specialized instruction and/or related services.

Table D-5. Orthopedic Impairment
Example 1
1) There is evidence that the child has a severe orthopedic impairment.
2) The adverse effects of the orthopedic impairment on the child’s educational
performance require specialized instruction and/or related services.
Example 2
1) Impairment caused by congenital anomalies (e.g., deformity or absence of some
limb.)
2) Impairment caused by disease (poliomyelitis, osteogenesis imperfecta, muscular
dystrophy, bone tuberculosis, etc.)
3) Impairment from other causes (e.g., cerebral palsy, amputations, and fractures or
burns that cause contractures). Secondary disabilities may be present, including, but
not limited to, visual impairment, hearing impairment, communication impairment
and/or intel ectual disability.
Example 3
1) The child has a motor impairment that results in deficits in the quality, speed, or
accuracy of movement. These deficits must be documented by a score of two or
more standard deviations below the mean in fine motor skil s, gross motor skil s, or
self-help skil s, or functional deficits in at least two of these three motor areas; and
2) The child’s condition is permanent or is expected to last for more than 60 calendar
days.

Table D-6. Traumatic Brain Injury
Example 1
1) Traumatic brain injury refers to an acquired injury to the brain caused by an external
physical force resulting in a total or partial functional disability or psychosocial
impairment, or both, that adversely affects educational performance. The term
applies to open or closed head injuries resulting in impairments in one or more
areas such as cognition, language, memory, attention, reasoning, abstract thinking,
judgment, problem solving, sensory, perceptual and motor abilities, psychosocial
behavior, physical functions, information processing, and speech. The term does not
apply to congenital or degenerative brain injuries or to brain injuries induced by
birth trauma.
Congressional Research Service
32

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A Comparison of State Eligibility Criteria

Example 2
1) Traumatic brain injury means an acquired injury to the brain caused by an external
physical force resulting in total or partial functional disability or psychosocial
impairment, or both, that adversely affects a child’s educational performance. The
term applies to open or closed head injuries resulting in impairments in one or more
areas, such as cognition; speech and language; memory; attention; reasoning; abstract
thinking; communication; judgment; problem solving; sensory, perceptual and motor
abilities; psychosocial behavior; physical functions; information processing; and
executive functions, such as organizing, evaluating, and carrying out goal-directed
activities. The term does not apply to brain injuries that are congenital or
degenerative, or brain injuries induced by birth trauma.
2) Children whose educational performance is adversely affected as a result of acquired
injuries to the brain caused by internal occurrences, such as vascular accidents,
infections, anoxia, tumors, metabolic disorders, and the effects of toxic substances
or degenerative conditions may meet the criteria of one of the other impairments
under this section.
3) The results of standardized and norm-referenced instruments used to evaluate and
identify a child under this paragraph may not be reliable or valid. Therefore,
alternative means of evaluation, such as criterion-referenced assessment,
achievement assessment, observation, work samples, and neuropsychological
assessment data, shal be considered to identify a child who exhibits total or partial
functional disability or psychosocial impairment in one or more of the areas
described under par.
4) Before a child may be identified under this subsection, available medical information
from a licensed physician shal be considered.
Example 3
1) A student shal be eligible under the category of traumatic brain injury if both of the
fol owing are met:
a. There is medical evidence that the student has an acquired injury to the
brain, caused by an external physical force, resulting in total or partial
functional disability or psychosocial impairment, or that adversely affects
the student’s educational performance; and
b. The traumatic brain injury is either an open or closed head injury, resulting
in impairments in one or more areas such as:
i. Cognition;
ii. Language;
iii. Memory;
iv. Attention;
v. Reasoning;
vi. Abstract thinking;
vi . Judgment;
vi i. Problem-solving;
ix. Sensory, perceptual and motor abilities;
x. Psychosocial behavior;
xi. Physical functions;
xi . Information processing;
xi i. Speech.
2) The team of qualified professionals and the parent may not identify a student as
having a traumatic brain injury if the brain injury is congenital or degenerative, or
induced by birth trauma.

Congressional Research Service
33

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A Comparison of State Eligibility Criteria

Table D-7. Multiple Disabilities
Example 1
The child must meet al eligibility criteria for two or more areas of disabilities as
defined in these rules. Eligibility criteria for the two or more areas of disabilities
must be documented on the eligibility report.
Example 2
A student with multiple impairments is eligible for special services and programs of
instruction if the student meets the requirements for eligibility for intel ectual
disability and the eligibility team concludes that the student meets the
requirements for eligibility for any additional disabling condition, other than a
specific learning disability, developmental delay, or a speech and language
impairment.
Example 3
A student shal be eligible under the category of multiple disabilities if the student
has concomitant impairments, the combination of which causes severe educational
needs and al of the fol owing criteria are met:
a. The student has subaverage general intel ectual functioning, as
demonstrated by evidence of intel ectual functioning three or more
standard deviations below the mean;
b. The subaverage intel ectual functioning exists concurrently with deficits in
at least two adaptive skil areas;
c. The subaverage intel ectual functioning and deficits in adaptive skil areas
were manifested during the developmental period and adversely affect the
student’s educational performance; and
d. The student is not eligible under the category of deaf-blindness, as set forth
in subsection (c), and the student is eligible under one or more of the
fol owing disability categories:
i. Autism spectrum disorder, as set forth in subsection (a);
ii. Deaf, as set forth in subsection (b);
iii. Hard of hearing, as set forth in subsection (f);
iv. Orthopedic disability, as set forth in subsection (i);
v. Other health disability, as set forth in subsection (j); or
vi. Visual disability including blindness, as set forth in subsection
(n);
Medium-Incidence Disabilities
Table D-8. Autism
Example 1
1) Evidence that vision/hearing screening results are satisfactory prior to proceeding
with evaluations.
2) Score on a rating scale (normed for the appropriate diagnostic group) indicating the
presence of an autism spectrum disorder.
3) Medical, clinical, psychiatric, or school psychologist evaluation, or an assessment by a
qualified person (e.g., psychometrist) trained in the area of autism evaluation.
4) Evidence that communication/language skil s and/or social skil s adversely affect
educational performance.
5) Evidence of current characteristics/behaviors typical of an autism spectrum disorder.
Example 2
The team must document that the pupil demonstrates patterns of behavior described in at
least two of the three subitems, one of which must be subitem (1).
1) Qualitative impairment of social interaction, as documented by two or more
behavioral indicators, for example:
a. limited joint attention and limited use of facial expressions towards others;
b. does not show or bring things to others to indicate interest in the activity;
c. demonstrates difficulty relating to people, objects, and events;
d. gross impairment in ability to make and keep friends;
Congressional Research Service
34

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A Comparison of State Eligibility Criteria

e. significant vulnerability and safety issues due to social naiveté;
f. may appear to prefer isolated or solitary activities;
g. misinterprets others’ behaviors and social cues;
h. Other.
2) Qualitative impairment in communication, as documented by one or more behavioral
indicators, for example:
a. not using finger to point or request;
b. using other’s hand or body as a tool;
c. showing lack of spontaneous imitations or lack of varied imaginative play;
d. absence or delay of spoken language;
e. limited understanding and use of nonverbal communication skil s such as
gestures, facial expressions, or voice tone;
f. odd production of speech, including intonation, volume, rhythm, or rate;
g. repetitive or idiosyncratic language;
h. inability to initiate or maintain conversation when speech is present;
i. other
3) Restricted, repetitive, or stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests, and activities as
documented by one or more behavioral indicators, for example:
a. insistence on fol owing routines or rituals;
b. demonstrating distress or resistance to change in activity;
c. repetitive hand or finger mannerism;
d. lack of true imaginative play versus reenactment;
e. overreaction or under-reaction to sensory stimuli;
f. rigid or rule-bound thinking;
g. intense, focused preoccupation with a limited range of play, interests, or
conversation topics;
h. other.
Example 3
An eligibility committee wil determine that a student is eligible for special education services
as a student with autism when al of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (DSM-5) criteria are met:
1) Documentation wil assure that the student meets al of a. and at least two from b.:
a. Persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction across
multiple contexts, as manifested by the fol owing, currently or by history:
i. Deficits in social-emotional reciprocity, ranging, for example, from
abnormal social approach and failure of normal back-and-forth
conversation; to reduced sharing of interests, emotions, or affect;
to failure to initiate or respond to social interactions.
ii. Deficits in nonverbal communicative behaviors used for social
interaction, ranging, for example, from poorly integrated verbal
and nonverbal communication; to abnormalities in eye contact
and body language or deficits in understanding and use of
gestures; to a total lack of facial expressions and nonverbal
communication.
iii. Deficits in developing, maintaining, and understanding
relationships, ranging, for example, from difficulties adjusting
behavior to suit various social contexts; to difficulties in sharing
imaginative play or in making friends; to absence of interest in
peers.
b. Restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests, and
activities, as manifested by at least two of the fol owing:
Congressional Research Service
35

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A Comparison of State Eligibility Criteria

i. Stereotyped or repetitive motor movements, use of objects, or
speech (e.g., simple motor stereotypies, lining up toys or flipping
objects, echolalia, idiosyncratic phrases).
ii. Insistence on sameness, inflexible adherence to routines, or
ritualized patterns or verbal nonverbal behavior (e.g., extreme
distress at smal changes, difficulties with transitions, rigid thinking
patterns, greeting rituals, need to take same route or eat food
every day).
iii. Highly restricted, fixated interests that are abnormal in intensity
or focus (e.g., strong attachment to or preoccupation with
unusual objects, excessively circumscribed or perseverative
interest).
iv. Hyper- or hypo-reactivity to sensory input or unusual interests in
sensory aspects of the environment (e.g., apparent indifference to
pain/temperature, adverse response to specific sounds or
textures, excessive smel ing or touching of objects, visual
fascination with lights or movement).
c. Symptoms must be present in the early developmental period (but may not
become ful y manifest until social demands exceed limited capacities, or
may be masked by learned strategies in later life).
d. Symptoms cause clinical y significant impairment in social, occupational, or
other important areas of current functioning.
e. These disturbances are not better explained by intel ectual disability
(intel ectual developmental disorder) or global developmental delay.
Intel ectual disability and autism spectrum disorder frequently co-occur; to
make comorbid diagnoses of autism spectrum disorder and intel ectual
disability, social communication should be below that expected for general
developmental level.

Table D-9. Developmental Delay
Example 1
1) Developmental delay is a disability category solely for students who are at least three
(3) years of age and less than nine (9) years of age.
2) Developmental delay means a delay of either two (2) standard deviations below the
mean in one (1) of the fol owing developmental areas or one and one-half (1.5)
standard deviations below the mean in any two (2) of the fol owing developmental
areas:
a. Gross or fine motor development.
b. Cognitive development.
c. Receptive or expressive language development.
d. Social or emotional development.
e. Self-help or other adaptive development.
Example 2
1) For children ages three (3) through five (5) (not kindergarten age eligible)
a. The child’s development is at or below 1.5 standard deviations, or
equivalent levels, of the mean in any TWO areas of development OR at or
below 2.0 standard deviations, or equivalent levels, in any ONE area of
development. Areas of development that can be used to determine
eligibility include physical, cognitive, communication, social/emotional, or
adaptive.
b. The child needs special education and related services.
c. A child may also be deemed eligible when:
i. The evaluation report documents through formal and informal
assessment that a significant deficit exists and a child is eligible
Congressional Research Service
36

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A Comparison of State Eligibility Criteria

for services even though the standard scores, or equivalent
levels, do not meet the stated criterion levels in a. above, or
ii. The team may determine that a child, who is functioning above
the stated criterion level and because of intensive early
intervention, is eligible for services based on expected
regression if services were to be terminated.
2) For children ages five (5) (kindergarten age eligible)
a. Children kindergarten age eligible may continue eligibility as a Young Child
with a Developmental Delay if they were identified as such prior to
attaining kindergarten age eligibility.
Example 3
1) In a student ages three through seven, developmental delay means a significant delay
in one or more of the fol owing areas: physical/motor development, cognitive
development, communication development, social/ emotional development, or
adaptive development. The delay must adversely affect a student’s educational
performance. LEAs that choose to use the classification of developmental delay must
conform to the State’s definition of developmental delay, including the age range
adopted by the State, and the requirement that the LEA conduct a ful and individual
initial evaluation.
2) A team of qualified professionals and the student’s parent(s) determine eligibility as
defined above.
a. The team must determine that the student’s primary disability is
developmental delay, and not one of the other disability categories. The
team must also consider al available evaluation data to show whether the
student meets one of the other specific disability categories and if so, the
student must be classified in one of the other specific disability categories.
b. The developmental delay must adversely affect the student’s educational
performance.
c. The student with a developmental delay must require special education and
related services.
d. Students who are eligible for services include students who have been
determined to have a significant delay or deficit in one or more of the
fol owing areas:
i. Cognitive development.
ii. Physical/motor development.
iii. Communication development.
iv. Social/emotional development.
v. Adaptive development.
e. Significant delays are defined as:
i. 1.5 standard deviations below the mean, or at or below
the seventh percentile in three areas of development.
ii. 2.0 standard deviations below the mean, or at or below
the second percentile in two areas of development.
iii. 2.5 standard deviations below the mean, or at or below
the first percentile in one area of development.

Table D-10. Intellectual Disability
Example 1
1) The student has subaverage general intel ectual functioning, as demonstrated by
evidence of intel ectual functioning two or more standard deviations below the
mean;
2) The subaverage intel ectual functioning exists concurrently with deficits in at least
two adaptive skil areas; and
Congressional Research Service
37

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A Comparison of State Eligibility Criteria

3) The subaverage intel ectual functioning and deficits in adaptive skil areas were
manifested during the developmental period and adversely affect the student’s
educational performance.
Example 2
1) There is evidence that the child has:
a. Significant limitations in intel ectual functioning must be evidenced by scores
on both verbal and nonverbal scales that are at least two standard
deviations below the mean (+/- the standard error of measurement) on an
individual y administered intel igence test.
b. Significant deficits in adaptive behavior must be evidenced by a score at
least two standard deviations below the mean (+/- the standard error of
measurement) in at least two adaptive skil domains.
c. Significant deficits in educational performance (pre-academic, academic
and/or functional academic skil s) must be evidenced by significant delays in
functioning when compared to the child’s same aged peers.
2) The adverse effects of the intel ectual disability on the child’s educational
performance require specialized instruction and/or related services.
Example 3
An intel ectual disability:
1) is manifested during the developmental period;
2) is characterized by significant limitations in intel ectual functioning;
3) is demonstrated through limitations in adaptive behavior; and
4) adversely affects educational performance.
A student with a mild intel ectual disability has intel ectual functioning that general y:
1) fal s two (2) standard deviations below the mean; and
2) manifests delays in adaptive behavior consistent with the mild intel ectual disability.
A student with a moderate intel ectual disability has intel ectual functioning that general y:
1) fal s three (3) standard deviations below the mean; and
2) manifests delays in adaptive behavior consistent with the moderate intel ectual
disability.
A student with a severe intel ectual disability has intel ectual functioning and adaptive
behavior skil s that general y:
1) fal s four (4) or more standard deviations below the mean; and
2) manifests delays in adaptive behavior consistent with the severe intel ectual disability.
Table D-11. Emotional Disturbance
Example 1
1) Significantly Different Behaviors. The student must exhibit withdrawn or anxious
behaviors, pervasive unhappiness, depression, severe problems with mood or
feelings of self-worth as defined by behaviors, such as:
a. isolating self from peers;
b. overly perfectionistic;
c. displaying intense fears or school refusal;
d. failing to express emotion;
e. displaying pervasive sad disposition;
f. changes in eating or sleeping patterns;
g. developing physical symptoms related to worry or stress;
h. Other: OR the student must exhibit disordered thought processes
manifested by unusual behavior patterns, atypical communication styles, or
distorted interpersonal relationships, such as: Reality distortion beyond
normal developmental fantasy and play or talk; Inappropriate laughter,
crying, sounds, or language; Self-mutilation; Developmental y inappropriate
sexual acting out or developmental y inappropriate self-stimulation; Rigid,
ritualistic patterning; Perseveration or obsession with specific objects;
Congressional Research Service
38

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A Comparison of State Eligibility Criteria

Overly affectionate behavior towards unfamiliar persons; Hal ucinating or
delusions of grandeur.
i. Other: OR the student must exhibit aggressive, hyperactive, or impulsive
behaviors that are developmental y inappropriate, such as: Physical y or
verbal y abusive behaviors; Impulsive or violent, destructive, or intimidating
behavior; Behaviors that are threatening to others or excessively
antagonistic.
2) Adverse Effects on Educational Performance. The student’s pattern of emotional or
behavioral responses must adversely affect education performance and result in at
least ONE of the fol owing:
a. Inability to demonstrate satisfactory social competence that is significantly
different from appropriate age, cultural, or ethnic norms; OR
b. A pattern of unsatisfactory educational progress that is not primarily a
result of intel ectual, sensory, physical health, cultural, or linguistic factors;
il egal chemical use; autism spectrum disorders; or inconsistent educational
programming.
3) Areas of Impact K-12. Documentation of prior interventions and the evaluation data
for K-12 students must establish significant impairments in at least ONE of the
fol owing areas: intrapersonal, academic, vocational, or social skil s
a. The impaired area identified above must meet ALL of the fol owing criteria:
i. Severely interferes with the pupil’s or other students’
educational performance;
ii. Is consistently exhibited by occurrences in at least three
different settings: two educational settings, one of which is the
classroom, and a setting in either home, child care, or
community;
iii. Has been occurring throughout a minimum of six months, or
results from the wel -documented, sudden onset of a serious
mental health disorder diagnosed by a licensed mental health
professional.
Example 2
1) The student demonstrates serious behavior problems over a long period of time,
general y at least six months, with documentation from the school and one or more
other sources of the frequency and severity of the targeted behaviors;
2) The student’s performance fal s two standard deviations or more below the mean in
emotional functions, as measured in school and home or community on national y-
normed technical y adequate measures; and
3) An adverse effect on educational performance is verified through the ful and
individual evaluation procedures. A student may not be identified as having an
emotional disturbance if common disciplinary problem behaviors, such as truancy,
smoking, or breaking school conduct rules, are the sole criteria for determining the
existence of an emotional disturbance.
Example 3
Criteria to identify a student with emotional disturbance include al of the fol owing:
1) Evidence that vision/hearing screening results are satisfactory prior to proceeding
with evaluations.
2) Evidence that the problem is not due to intel ectual, sensory, or health factors.
3) Standard scores (total or composite) on two out of three of the same norm-
referenced behavior rating scale must be at least two standard deviations above or
below the mean (70, depending on the rating scale). Ratings from three or more
scales wil be obtained from at least three independent raters, one of whom may be
the parent or the child through a self report.
4) Evidence that the emotional disability adversely affects the child’s academic
performance and/or social/emotional functioning in the school environment.
Congressional Research Service
39

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A Comparison of State Eligibility Criteria

5) Evidence that the emotional disability is exhibited over a long period of time
(typical y six months) and to a marked degree, and that the child's educational
performance is adversely affected.
6) Observational data that documents the emotional disability in two or more
educational settings.
High-Incidence Disabilities
Table D-12. Specific Learning Disability
Example 1
1) A Severe Discrepancy Between Ability & Achievement based upon individual y
administered assessments and other evaluation data reviewed, a severe discrepancy
of 1.5 standard deviations exists between the ful scale intel ectual ability score
(FSIQ) and the standard score from one or more of the 8 areas listed under
evaluation considerations for SLD. You must not use age equivalents, grade
equivalents or Relative Proficiency Index (RPI) to determine a severe discrepancy.
2) In addition to the required specific learning disability eligibility criteria, the
evaluation group must make a determination using a convergence of multiple
sources of data that demonstrate the fol owing:
a. Response to General Education Interventions: Individual student learning
requires resources beyond what typical y can be provided in the general
education curriculum in order to make adequate progress that is
consistent with national or local growth rate comparisons. The student is
expected to perform at grade level within a reasonable time period.
b. Level of Performance: The student’s level of performance in the area of
academic concern is significantly below what is expected for their grade
and educational setting.
Example 2
A child with a specific learning disability must meet the criteria in (1) or (2).
1) Severe Discrepancy
a. The child demonstrates a severe discrepancy between general intel ectual
ability and achievement in at least one of the identified areas of
achievement.
b. The demonstration of a severe discrepancy shal not be based solely on
the use of standardized tests. The instruments used to assess the child’s
general intel ectual ability and achievement must be individual y
administered and interpreted by an appropriately licensed person using
standardized procedures.
c. For initial placement, the severe discrepancy must be equal to or greater
than 1.75 standard deviations below the mean on a distribution of
regression scores for the general population at the student's
chronological age.
2) Inadequate rate of progress in response to scientific research-based intervention
(SRBI).
a. The child demonstrates an inadequate rate of progress in response to
intensive SRBI and the fol owing components are documented: Rate of
progress is measured over at least seven (7) school weeks on a minimum
of 12 data points;
b. Rate of improvement is minimal and continued intervention wil not likely
result in reaching age or state-approved grade-level standards;
c. Progress wil not likely be maintained when instructional supports are
removed; Level of performance in repeated assessment of achievement
fal s below the child’s age or state approved grade-level standards; and
d. Level of achievement is at or below the 5th percentile on one or more
valid and reliable achievement tests using either state or national
comparisons. Local comparison data that is valid and reliable may be used
Congressional Research Service
40

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A Comparison of State Eligibility Criteria

in addition to either state or national data, but if it differs from either
state or national data, the group must provide a rationale to explain the
difference.
Example 3
1) The child with a specific learning disability has one or more serious academic
deficiencies and does not achieve adequately according to age to meet State-
approved grade-level standards. These achievement deficiencies must be directly
related to a pervasive processing deficit and to the child’s response to scientific,
research-based interventions. The nature of the deficit(s) is such that classroom
performance is not correctable without specialized techniques that are
fundamental y different from those provided by general education teachers, basic
remedial/tutorial approaches, or other compensatory programs. This is clearly
documented by the child’s response to instruction as demonstrated by a review of
the progress monitoring available in general education and Student Support Team
(SST) intervention plans as supported by work samples and classroom
observations. The child's need for academic support alone is not sufficient for
eligibility and does not override the other established requirements for
determining eligibility.
2) Required Data Col ection. In order to determine the existence of Specific Learning
Disability, the group must summarize the multiple sources of evidence to conclude
that the child exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance,
achievement, or both, relative to age, State-approved grade level standards and
intel ectual development. Ultimately, specific learning disability is determined
through professional judgment using multiple supporting evidences that must
include:
a. At least two current (within twelve months) assessments such as the
results of the state-required assessment, norm-referenced achievement
tests or benchmarks indicating performance that does not meet
expectations for State-approved grade-level standards;
b. Information from the teacher related to routine classroom instruction
and monitoring of the child’s performance. The report must document
the child’s academic performance and behavior in the areas of difficulty.
c. Results from supplementary instruction that has been or is being
provided:
i. that uses scientific, research or evidence-based interventions
selected to correct or reduce the problem(s) the student is
having and was in the identified areas of concern; and
ii. such instruction has been implemented as designed for the
period of time indicated by the instructional strategy(ies). If
the instructional strategies do not indicate a period of time
the strategies should be implemented, the instructional
strategies shal be implemented for a minimum of 12 weeks
to show the instructional strategies' effect or lack of effect
that demonstrates the child is not making sufficient progress
to meet age or State-approved grade level standards within a
reasonable time frame.
Table D-13. Speech or Language Impairment
Example 1
1) There is evidence that the child has one or more of the fol owing:
a. Fluency – interruption in the flow of speech characterized by an atypical
rate, or rhythm in sounds, syl ables, words, and phrases that significantly
reduces the child’s ability to participate within the learning environment
with or without his or her awareness of the dysfluencies or stuttering
b. Articulation – atypical production of phonemes characterized by
substitutions, omissions, additions, or distortions that impairs intel igibility
in conversational speech and adversely affects academic achievement
and/or functional performance in the educational setting
Congressional Research Service
41

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A Comparison of State Eligibility Criteria

c. Language – impaired comprehension and/or use of spoken language which
adversely affects written and/or other symbol systems and the child’s
ability to participate in the classroom environment
d. Voice – interruption in one or more processes of pitch, quality, intensity,
resonance, or a disruption in vocal cord function that significantly reduces
the child’s ability to communicate effectively
2) The adverse effects of the speech-language impairment on the child’s educational
performance require specialized instruction and/or related services
Example 2
1) Articulation
a. Evidence that vision/hearing screening results are satisfactory prior to
proceeding with evaluations.
b. Errors are primarily characterized by substitutions, distortions, additions,
and omissions. Phonological errors are in excess of developmental
expectations and non-developmental processes may be noted. Errors are
not stimulable. Connected speech may be unintel igible or may be
intel igible only to familiar listeners or within known contexts.
c. Children who exhibit a tongue thrust are not eligible for speech/language
services unless they also exhibit an associated articulation disorder.
Speech/language services are not a required service for children who
exhibit tongue thrust only.
d. A child does not meet the criteria for an articulation disorder if the sole
assessed disability is an abnormal swal owing pattern.
e. A child does not meet the criteria for an articulation disorder as a result of
dialectal patterns or second language acquisition patterns.
2) Voice
a. Evidence that vision/hearing screening results are satisfactory prior to
proceeding with evaluations.
b. The child’s voice is abnormal in vocal quality, pitch, loudness, resonance,
and/or duration and is inappropriate for the child's age and gender.
Deviance is noticeable and distracting to any listener. The disorder
adversely affects communication.
c. The voice disorder is not the result of a temporary problem such as
normal voice change, al ergies, asthma, tonsils and/or adenoid removal or
other such conditions.
3) Fluency
a. Evidence that vision/hearing screening results are satisfactory prior to
proceeding with evaluations.
b. Abnormal y dysfluent speech is observed during conversation and/or
structured speaking tasks. Listeners are distracted by the child’s dysfluent
speech and distracting concomitant behaviors may be observed. The child
may exhibit fear or avoidance of speaking.
c. The child’s ability to communicate is adversely affected by the disorder.
Developmental dysfluencies attributable to normal maturation patterns are
not considered as a disability.
4) Language
a. Evidence that vision/hearing screening results are satisfactory prior to
proceeding with evaluations.
b. Syntactic, morphologic, semantic, and/or pragmatic errors are observed.
The child’s ability to comprehend or use spoken language is adversely
affected.
c. A total language standard score or quotient of at least two standard
deviations below the mean (70 or below) on a standardized
comprehensive language test containing both receptive and expressive
components must be obtained.
Congressional Research Service
42

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A Comparison of State Eligibility Criteria

d. Dialectal differences or English as a second language is not considered a
language disorder.
Example 3
1) Fluency Disorder. A student who meets al of the fluency disorder criteria below is
eligible for speech or language special education services:
a. The pattern interferes with communication as determined by an
educational speech language pathologist and either another adult or the
pupil.
b. Dysfluent behaviors occur during at least 5 percent of the words spoken
on two or more speech samples.
c. Fluency patterns are not attributed only to dialectical, cultural, or ethnic
difference or to the influence of a foreign language.
2) Voice Disorder. A student with a voice disorder must meet al criteria below to be
eligible for speech or language special education services:
a. The pattern interferes with communication, as determined by an
educational speech language pathologist and either another adult or the
pupil.
b. Achievement of a moderate to severe vocal severity rating, as
demonstrated on a voice evaluation profile administered on two separate
occasions, two weeks apart, at different times of the day.
c. Voice patterns are not attributed only to dialectical, cultural, or ethnic
differences or to the influence of a foreign language.
3) Articulation Disorder. A student with an articulation disorder qualifies for speech or
language special education services if the student meets both a. and d. and either b.
or c.:
a. The pattern interferes with communication, as determined by an
educational speech language pathologist and either another adult or the
pupil.
b. Test performance fal s 2.0 standard deviations below the mean on a
technical y adequate, norm-referenced articulation test.
c. The pupil is 9 years of age or older and a sound is consistently in error as
documented by two, three-minute conversational speech samples.
d. Articulation patterns are not attributed only to dialectical, cultural, or
ethnic differences or to the influence of a foreign language.
4) Language Disorder. A student with a language disorder qualifies for speech and
language special education if the student meets a., b., and e. and either c. or d.:
a. The pattern interferes with communication, as determined by an
educational speech language pathologist and either another adult or the
pupil.
b. Analysis of language sample or documented observation of communication
interaction indicates that language behavior is below or different from
expectations based on age, developmental level, or cognitive level.
c. Test performance fal s 2.0 standard deviations below the mean on a
technical y adequate language tests.
d. If technical y adequate, norm-referenced language tests are not available to
provide evidence of a deficit of 2.0 standard deviations below the mean on
the area of language, two documented measurement procedures indicate a
substantial difference from expectations based on age, developmental level,
or cognitive level.
e. Language patterns are not attributed only to dialectical, cultural, or ethnic
differences or to the influence of a foreign language.
Table D-14. Other Health Impairment
Example 1
Al of the fol owing must be met:
Congressional Research Service
43

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A Comparison of State Eligibility Criteria

1) The student exhibits characteristics consistent with the definition;
2) The student has a chronic or acute medical or health condition as diagnosed and
described by a licensed physician; with the exception of ADHD which can be
diagnosed by a school psychologist or licensed psychologist.
3) The existence of educational needs as a result of the medical or health condition.
4) The student’s condition adversely affects educational performance.
5) The student needs special education.
Example 2
1) There is evidence that the child has a chronic or acute health problem.
2) There is evidence that the diagnosed chronic or acute health problem results in
limited alertness to the educational environment due to limited strength, limited
vitality, limited or heightened alertness to the surrounding environment.
3) The adverse effects of the other health impairment on the child’s educational
performance require specialized instruction and/or related services.
Evidence of a chronic or acute health problem may be found in the fol owing required
evaluation component:
1) A comprehensive written report from a licensed physician documenting a diagnosis
of the chronic or acute health problem;
2) In the case of a child with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), the
diagnosis may be made by a licensed physician, a certified school psychologist,
licensed psychologist, or a licensed psycho-educational specialist. A term ADHD
includes several subtypes. One of those subtypes is “predominantly inattentive
type,” formerly described as Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD).
3) In the case of a child with ADHD, the student is rated within the highest level of
significance on a valid and reliable problem behavior rating scale in areas related to
the diagnosis of ADHD by both his classroom teacher and parent.
4) Documentation that the student’s observable school and/or classroom problem
behaviors related to ADHD are occurring at a significantly different rate, intensity,
or duration than the substantial majority of typical school peers.
5) The medical diagnosis may not be used as the sole criterion for determining
eligibility. There must be evidence that the other health impairment adversely
affects the child’s educational performance.
Congressional Research Service
44

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A Comparison of State Eligibility Criteria

Example 3
1) Evidence that vision/hearing screening results are satisfactory prior to proceeding
with evaluations.
2) Evidence of a health impairment.
3) Performance measures that document how the child’s disability affects his or her
involvement and progress in the general education curriculum, or for preschool
children, how the disability affects the child’s participation in age-appropriate
activities.
4) A statement providing evidence that the health impairment adversely affects the
educational performance of the child and, for initial evaluation for special education
services only, evidence of interventions/accommodations that have been tried in
regular education class(es) or the natural environment (for preschool children) but
were deemed unsuccessful.
Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD):
1) Evidence that vision/hearing screening results are satisfactory prior to proceeding
with evaluations.
2) Evidence that the health impairment adversely affects the educational performance
of the child.
3) Standard scores (total or composite) on two out of three of the same norm-
referenced scale designed specifical y to determine the presence of ADD or ADHD
must be at least two standard deviations above or below the mean (70, depending
on the rating scale). Ratings from three or more scales must be obtained from at
least three independent raters, one of whom may be the parent.
4) For initial evaluations only, evidence of interventions/accommodations that have
been tried in regular education class(es) or the natural environment (for preschool
children) but were deemed unsuccessful.

Author Information

Kyrie E. Dragoo

Analyst in Education Policy

Acknowledgments
Erin Lomax, an education policy consultant and former CRS analyst, co-authored this report.

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should n ot be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
Congressional Research Service
R46566 · VERSION 1 · NEW
45

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A Comparison of State Eligibility Criteria

Congressional Research Service
R46566 · VERSION 1 · NEW
46