Identification is triggered at enrollment for every student entering a Texas public school. The district must initiate screening within four calendar weeks of enrollment when an HLS indicates a non-English language. This applies to U.S.-born students, in-state transfers, and international arrivals alike.

Plyler v. Doe (1982) prohibits any inquiry about immigration status as a precondition to enrollment or assessment.

The Home Language Survey (HLS) is a state-prescribed instrument administered at first enrollment. Two required questions: (1) "What language is spoken in your home most of the time?" and (2) "What language does your child speak most of the time?" If either answer indicates a non-English language, the district must proceed with oral language proficiency screening.

The parent or guardian completes the HLS at registration. For students aged 18+ or emancipated minors, the student completes it themselves. The district may not complete it for the family or substitute its own language observations for the family's response.

Districts must provide the HLS in English and Spanish at minimum, plus qualified interpretation in any other language requested. Using a child as interpreter may violate Title VI and OCR's 2015 Joint Guidance.

English and Spanish at minimum. Title VI obligations apply independently: a district with 15%+ of enrolled families speaking a single non-English language (or 1,000 students of that group) must translate vital documents — including the HLS — into that language.

Day 0: HLS completed at enrollment
Days 1–10: OLPT administered
Days 11–15: LPAC convenes, reviews data
Day 15: Identification and placement finalized
Day 20 (30 calendar days): Parent written notification sent

Title III has a stricter clock — 30 calendar days from start of school year for continuing identification, or 14 days from identification for mid-year enrollees.

No. Parents cannot decline the screening assessment — Texas law and federal civil rights obligations require identification. What parents can decline is placement in a bilingual or ESL program after identification has occurred.

The receiving district must request the original HLS from the sending district. If it cannot be produced within a reasonable period, the receiving district administers a new HLS and proceeds with screening if triggered. The new HLS is dated as of the receiving district's enrollment date.

The HLS is filed in the student's permanent cumulative folder and follows the student through their entire Texas public-education career. Required for TEA PBMAS reviews and federal program reviews under Title III and Title VI.

Retention requirement: duration of enrollment plus five years after exit. Many districts retain indefinitely.

Current TEA-approved suite (published by DRC):
PreK–Kindergarten: PreLAS — Listening/Speaking only (Oral Composite)
Grade 1: LAS Links — Speaking + Listening only
Grades 2–12: LAS Links — all 4 domains (Speaking, Listening, Reading, Writing)

No substitute measures (WIDA Screener, BEST Plus, IPT) are permitted. Non-compliant identification subjects the district to PBMAS corrective action.

PreLAS is an oral language proficiency screener for PreK and Kindergarten. Five subtests: Simon Says, Art Show, Say What You Hear, Story Telling, and Let's Tell Stories. Produces a single Oral Composite (OL) score (1–5).

LAS Links is a four-domain assessment for Grades 1–12. Produces individual proficiency scores (PL1–PL5) for Speaking, Listening, Reading, and Writing, plus a Composite. Grade bands: K–1, 2–3, 4–5, 6–8, 9–12. Only Form A is used at initial screen. The Composite is not used for initial Texas identification — domain-level cut score rules apply.

Applied to the Oral Composite (OL):
Levels 1, 2, or 3 → Emergent Bilingual (EB)
Levels 4 or 5 → Fluent — not identified as EB

Score reported in Column AB of the standard PreLAS export as "C" or "Español C". Reading and Writing scores in the dataset are NOT evaluated for PreK/K identification.

Only Speaking (S) and Listening (L) evaluated:
1, 2, or 3 in EITHER S or L → Emergent Bilingual
4 or 5 in BOTH S and L → Fluent

All four domains evaluated:
1, 2, or 3 in ANY domain → Emergent Bilingual
4 or 5 in ALL FOUR domains → Fluent

The "any one domain" trigger is intentionally protective. A student with Speaking 5, Listening 5, but Reading 3 is still EB — all four domains at proficient level are required for Fluent classification.

Grade 1 students are in the foundational literacy acquisition phase. A standardized R/W proficiency measure at this stage would conflate literacy development (a developmental process) with language proficiency (the construct measured), yielding scores that reflect reading instruction more than EL status. By Grade 2 the R/W subtests yield interpretable proficiency data.

OLPT must be administered within ten school days of the HLS trigger date. LPAC must convene within four calendar weeks of enrollment. Districts cannot batch-schedule OLPTs for staff convenience if doing so pushes a student past the 10-day mark.

A trained district-employed certified teacher who has completed DRC's certification course and the district's local administration training. Suitable roles: bilingual/ESL certified teacher, LPAC chair or designee, or trained paraprofessional under certified supervision.

Untrained classroom teachers, parents, students, and volunteers may not administer the assessment. Improper administration triggers re-administration by a qualified examiner.

The Language Proficiency Assessment Committee (LPAC) is the campus-level body legally responsible for every EL programming decision — the EL counterpart to the ARD committee in special education. Authority covers: identification, placement, parental notification, annual review, STAAR linguistic accommodations, TELPAS rating verification, reclassification, and two-year post-exit monitoring.

Five required members at every meeting: (1) campus administrator or designee, (2) professional bilingual educator (if district offers bilingual), (3) professional ESL educator (if district offers ESL), (4) parent of a current or former EL — not employed by the district, (5) campus-based representative familiar with the student.

Failure to seat a parent member is the most frequently cited LPAC defect in PBMAS reviews.

Written decisions required on: initial EB identification, program placement, STAAR linguistic accommodations, annual review of progress, TELPAS rating verification, reclassification and program exit, two-year post-exit monitoring, and re-entry into program if monitoring shows insufficient progress.

Three mandatory annual cycles plus event-driven meetings:
BOY: Initial identification, placement, accommodations — first 4 weeks of enrollment
MOY: Mid-year review of progress — December through February
EOY: Reclassification review, monitoring decisions — April through June (post-TELPAS and STAAR)

Event-driven meetings required for: new mid-cycle enrollees, parent program denial, program change, dual identification (with ARD), and re-entry consideration.

Yes. Parents have the right to: receive written notice, attend (in person or by phone), receive interpretation in their preferred language, review all documents, and provide written or oral input. A parent's signature on the LPAC decision form indicates receipt of notice — not necessarily agreement. A parent who disagrees may submit written objection for the cumulative folder.

11 standard forms: HLS, Initial Identification Notice, Parent Notification of Program Eligibility, Parent Permission for Program Placement, Parent Right to Decline Form, Score Report (PreLAS/LAS Links), LPAC Decision Documentation Form, Program Placement Confirmation, TELPAS Roster Verification, Cumulative Folder Cover Sheet, and TSDS/PEIMS Submission Record. All filed in the cumulative folder.

Concurrent or back-to-back meetings with shared data and overlapping membership is best practice — increasingly the expectation in PBMAS reviews. The IEP must contain specific reference to ELPS-aligned linguistic instruction and any TELPAS accommodations. A joint summary record becomes part of both the cumulative folder and the special education eligibility folder.

TELPAS — Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System — is the state's annual measure of English language acquisition for every K–12 student identified as an Emergent Bilingual. Administered each spring, it produces proficiency ratings in four domains plus a composite used for federal Title III accountability and Texas reclassification decisions. Required by ESSA §1111(b)(2)(G) and TEC §39.027.

Every K–12 student currently identified as an Emergent Bilingual — regardless of: whether the parent declined program services, whether the student has an IEP (TELPAS Alternate for most significant cognitive disabilities), months of enrollment, or attendance pattern. Parent denial of program participation does not exempt from TELPAS.

Four levels aligned to ELPS §74.4 descriptors:
Beginning (B): Little or no English ability
Intermediate (I): Limited but functional English in familiar contexts
Advanced (A): Grade-appropriate English with second-language acquisition support
Advanced High (AH): Grade-appropriate English with minimal SLA support — exit-eligible

The four-level TELPAS structure is distinct from the five-level LAS Links structure for initial identification.

Four domains, all four assessed every year K–12:
K–1: All domains are holistic ratings by trained, calibrated teacher raters
Grades 2–12: Listening, Speaking, Reading = online machine-scored; Writing = online prompts plus collected samples

K–1 TELPAS is entirely holistic — no online testing. Reading carries 75% of the composite weight for Grades 2–12.

Single annual window: late February through early April. Exact dates in the TEA Student Assessment Calendar each year. Districts have approximately six weeks to complete K–12 testing and holistic ratings. Make-up administration is permitted with limits; late administration past window close requires an Eligibility Form.

TELPAS Alternate is the parallel assessment for ELs with the most significant cognitive disabilities for whom standard TELPAS is not appropriate. Eligibility mirrors STAAR Alternate 2 criteria — the student must have a significant cognitive disability documented in the IEP. Uses the same four proficiency levels through an observation-based protocol.

District-employed certified teachers who have: (1) at least three months of regular instructional contact with the student, (2) completed annual TELPAS rater training, (3) passed all calibration activities, and (4) are listed in the district's TELPAS rater roster credentialed in TIDE. Substitute teachers, paraprofessionals, parents, and family members may not serve as raters.

Four stages completed before the rating window opens each year: (1) Online training course — domain-specific ELPS modules, (2) Mini-practice rating set — 5–8 samples with TEA true scores, (3) Calibration set #1 — must reach ≥70% exact agreement and 100% within-one-level agreement, (4) Calibration set #2 (verification) — same thresholds. Raters who fail must remediate and re-attempt.

Weighted combination of four domain levels:
Listening: 5% · Speaking: 5% · Reading: 75% · Writing: 15%

Reading carries 75% of the weight because academic English depends most strongly on print literacy. This is why so many Texas ELs progress on oral domains for years but never exit — the academic-literacy ceiling is the binding constraint for reclassification eligibility.

Three reporting layers: (1) Student-level — Confidential Student Report (CSR) to parent/guardian in English and home language, (2) Campus/district — aggregate reports for instructional planning, EOY LPAC, and Title III accountability, (3) Federal accountability — via TSDS PEIMS through the federal ELP indicator under ESSA Title I.

Within Texas, TELPAS feeds the EL Progress Measure in academic accountability. A student increasing one proficiency level contributes positively to the campus EL progress score.

Stagnation triggers programmatic review. The LPAC must investigate instruction adequacy, placement appropriateness, and interfering factors. Students remaining at the same level for multiple years risk designation as Long-Term English Learners (LTELs) — typically defined as ELs in their 6th year or later without exit. LTEL status triggers heightened LPAC scrutiny and sometimes Special Education referral evaluation (with IDEA §300.306(b) safeguards — LEP shall not be the determinant factor).

Standard accommodations for all TELPAS-eligible students include: clarification of test directions in home language, breaks, individual or small-group administration, and optimal scheduling. Students with IEPs or 504s may receive additional accommodations documented in the plan: extended time, oral directions, manipulatives, assistive technology. All must be set in the TELPAS testing system before administration.

All four must be met simultaneously within the same school year:
1. TELPAS Composite of Advanced High
2. STAAR Reading at Approaches Grade Level or above (or English I/II EOC for high school)
3. Subjective teacher evaluation using the TEA Reclassification Rubric
4. LPAC committee decision, documented in writing and signed by the parent

Cannot reclassify in PreK or Kindergarten under any circumstances.

Two consecutive years of post-exit monitoring. During this window: student coded M1 (Year 1) then M2 (Year 2) in PEIMS. LPAC reviews report cards, state assessment results, and teacher input at the end of each grading period. After successful M2 completion, coded as Former EL (F) — no further LPAC oversight required.

Yes — during the two-year monitoring period only. If a Monitored EL is failing or demonstrating significant difficulty rooted in ongoing language acquisition needs, the LPAC may convene a re-entry meeting. Re-entry restarts the LPAC programming cycle and resumes services and TELPAS testing. After the M2 year closes successfully, re-identification is not available through LPAC — concerns must be addressed through 504, RTI/MTSS, or special education referral.

The student does not exit. All four criteria are mandatory and conjunctive — not a "best 3 of 4" rule. The LPAC documents which criterion was not met, continues programming, and develops targeted instructional supports for re-evaluation at the next EOY cycle.

An EL identified for six or more years without meeting reclassification criteria. LTEL students often share a profile: U.S.-born or early arrivals, conversational English fluency masking academic English gaps, inconsistent program placements, and frequently undiagnosed reading or processing difficulties. The LPAC's response should consider 504 evaluation, special education referral (with full IDEA §300.306(b) safeguards), targeted academic-language interventions, and parent re-engagement.

A parent may request LPAC consideration, but the committee retains legal authority to decide. The criteria under 19 TAC §89.1226 are objective — the LPAC cannot exit a student who has not met all four, and cannot deny exit to a student who has. Parent disputes run through district complaint procedures and ultimately TEA Special Populations Division.

Title III of ESSA guarantees parents the right to: receive written notice of EL identification within 30 days (14 for mid-year); receive notice in English and their preferred language; be informed of identification reasons, proficiency level, program model, exit criteria, and graduation rates; refuse program services in writing; choose among program options offered; receive timely meeting information with interpretation; and receive translated vital documents.

ESSA §1112(e)(3)(A) requires written notification within 30 calendar days of the start of the school year for continuing EL identifications, and within 14 calendar days of identification for mid-year enrollees. The notice must contain eight required elements including identification reason, proficiency level, program description, exit criteria, and parent right to refuse.

Yes — parents may refuse program participation. The district must honor the refusal, but the student's EL identification stands; TELPAS testing continues; and the district remains obligated under Lau v. Nichols and Castañeda v. Pickard to provide meaningful access to grade-level content. Parent denial does not absolve the district of any other federal or state obligation.

English and Spanish at minimum for most Texas districts. Title VI requires translation of vital documents into any language spoken by 5% (or 1,000 students) of the district's parent population — whichever is less. ESSA Title III adds: notifications must be in a language the parent can understand, "to the extent practicable."

No. OCR has been explicit since the 2015 Joint Guidance that using students, family members, or untrained school personnel as interpreters at meaningful school meetings (registration, ARD/LPAC, parent-teacher conferences, discipline hearings) is a Title VI violation. Districts must provide a qualified, trained interpreter — telephone or video remote interpretation counts if quality and confidentiality are maintained.

A parent of an EL or former EL — not a district employee — must be a member of every campus LPAC under 19 TAC §89.1220. The parent member participates in committee deliberations for other students (not their own child — conflict of interest). Districts must train and compensate (where appropriate) parent-LPAC members. Failure to include the parent member is the most cited LPAC defect in TEA monitoring.

A student concurrently identified as both an English Learner (TEC Ch. 29C) and a student with a disability under IDEA. Texas data consistently show ELs are under-represented in some SPED categories (autism, learning disabilities) and over-represented in others (speech/language, intellectual disability), indicating both under- and mis-identification are real risks.

IDEA §300.304(c)(1)(ii) requires evaluation materials be provided and administered in the child's native language, unless clearly not feasible. "Not feasible" is a high bar — lack of qualified bilingual evaluators is generally not sufficient. A monolingual English assessment of an EL student is presumptively suspect unless the IEP team has documented that the student's English proficiency was sufficient for valid testing.

No. IDEA §300.306(b)(1) prohibits eligibility determinations where the determinant factor is limited English proficiency. The ARD committee must rule out lack of appropriate instruction and LEP before finding eligibility. Conversely, EL status cannot be a basis for denying eligibility — "let's wait until they learn English" is an equally serious violation of IDEA.

IDEA §300.324(a)(2)(ii) requires the IEP team to consider the language needs of the child as those needs relate to the IEP for any student with limited English proficiency. This is a mandatory consideration — not optional. The IEP must reflect this deliberation with ELPS-aligned linguistic objectives, specific SLA accommodations, coordination with LPAC program placement, and separate measurement of linguistic progress.

Best practice: concurrent or back-to-back meetings with shared data and overlapping membership. Both committees should review HLS, OLPT scores, TELPAS results, native-language and English-language assessment data, IEP goal progress by language of instruction, linguistic accommodations for STAAR (agreed by both), and reclassification considerations. A coordinated joint summary record becomes part of both the cumulative folder and the special education eligibility folder.

Both LPAC linguistic accommodations and IEP-based accommodations may be combined. LPAC linguistic accommodations include bilingual dictionaries, content-area word meaning clarification, extra time, and oral administration of designated portions. IEP-based accommodations are ARD-determined. Both must be agreed in writing in advance and set in the testing system before administration.

Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974), was a unanimous Supreme Court decision holding that providing non-English-speaking students "the same" instruction without language supports violated Title VI. The core principle: identical treatment is not equal treatment when the underlying need is different. Lau is the constitutional and statutory foundation for all subsequent EL law.

Castañeda v. Pickard, 648 F.2d 989 (5th Cir. 1981), held that an EL program must be: (1) Based on sound educational theory — recognized by experts, (2) Implemented effectively with sufficient resources — adequate staffing, materials, training, (3) Periodically evaluated and modified — outcome data collected, analyzed, and used to refine the program. OCR and DOJ apply the three-prong in federal monitoring.

TSDS PEIMS — Texas Student Data System Public Education Information Management System — is the state's data submission framework. EL data reported in the LEP/Bilingual/ESL student-level files (Data Standards §C133) includes: LEP-Indicator-Code, Bilingual-Program-Type-Code, ESL-Program-Type-Code, Parental-Permission-Code, and dates of identification, placement, and exit. Submission cycles run on the PEIMS calendar; late or incorrect submissions trigger PBMAS findings.

Primary federal funding: Title III of ESSA (Language Instruction for English Learners and Immigrant Students). Required reporting: annual ELP progress and attainment measures, Title III Consolidated Performance Report (CSPR), approved local LEA Title III plan, and date-stamped parent notification documentation. Texas also provides state Bilingual Allotment funds (TEC §48.105) — must be used for direct EL program costs.

The EEOA, 20 U.S.C. §1703(f), prohibits states and districts from failing to take appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impede equal participation by students in instructional programs. Castañeda v. Pickard was decided under the EEOA. It is enforced by DOJ (and through private right of action), separately from Title VI's OCR enforcement. The two pathways often run in parallel.

The 2015 Joint Guidance consolidates federal expectations under Title VI, EEOA, ESSA, and IDEA into a single operational framework — the most-cited compliance reference in EL monitoring. Eleven sections cover: identification and assessment (§§A–B), language services (§§C–D), staffing and support (§§E–F), facilities (§G), special education and gifted (§H), opt-out/parent denial (§I), parent communication (§J), and program evaluation (§K).

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), held that the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause prohibits states from denying public education to undocumented children. Districts may not use the EL identification process or any other intake procedure to inquire about immigration status, demand specific identification documents that proxy for immigration status, or condition enrollment on such information. The HLS asks about language, never about citizenship or visa status.