TEA’s April 16, 2026 funding letter: the framework goes live

How is this about funding determination?

Directly. This is the foundational letter. It’s where TEA released the actual framework that operationalizes HB 2 / SB 568 — the rubric that turns an IEP into a tier and service groups — along with the online funding tool districts use to do it and the plan for what to report in 2026–27. The other letters all revise or sit alongside what this one established.

What it says

The model is now real, not just statutory. The bills set the structure; this letter delivered the working version. TEA published the New Intensity of Services Funding Model framework, an online Special Education Funding Tool that crosswalks a student’s IEP into a tier and service groups, a how-to guide, a framework narrative, and an FAQ.

Eight tiers. The letter confirms the statute’s eight intensity tiers, with the two anchored ends named explicitly: Tier 1 is a student whose only instructional service is speech therapy (no other specially designed instruction), and Tier 8 is a student whose ARD committee determines a residential placement program is the student’s least restrictive environment. The six tiers in between are detailed in the framework and adopted in rule.

Service groups. The letter restates the statutory floor — the commissioner must establish at least four service groups — and describes them as supplemental funding for instructional and related services beyond the foundational tier funding.

The 2026–27 hybrid year — report both systems. This is the operational heart of the letter. For 2026–27 only, every special-education student is reported two ways at once: the legacy instructional-arrangement/setting code and the new tier + service group(s) + minutes-per-day in a special-education setting. The old codes don’t go away during the transition — TEA needs them to set the new weights (see “what it means,” below). Legacy reporting ends in 2027–28.

A new minutes data element. Because the old contact-hour math is gone, districts now report the average number of minutes per instructional day a student spends in a special-education setting, which feeds the regular-program offset under §48.051(a). The funding tool produces the tier and service groups but does not calculate this minutes figure — that’s on the district.

The reporting deadline (as stated in this letter). The letter set a single deadline: by the first PEIMS Attendance Submission (1st Six-Weeks), due October 8, 2026, districts enter each student’s tier, service groups, and minutes-per-day, based on the IEP in place at the start of the year, back-dated to the first day of school.

A new “educational environment” element begins collection in 2026–27, but unlike the tier/group data it doesn’t have to be reported until a student’s IEP is next revised. (The May 28 update later delayed this element to 2027–28.)

An optional early-data ask. Districts can voluntarily submit early student-level data via secure ShareFile by August 14, 2026 to help TEA build statewide projections for the Legislative Budget Board. Not a requirement.

What it means for you

The single most useful thing to take from this letter: the framework is the deliverable, and the IEP is the input. TEA didn’t ask districts to invent anything. It asked them to read each student’s existing IEP through a defined rubric and produce a tier and service group(s). The work is real — every special-education student needs a determination built from their IEP and reported on TEA’s schedule — but it’s classification work against a published standard, not a new assessment regime.

The double-reporting is not busywork, and it’s worth understanding why, because it explains the whole transition. TEA is setting the new tier weights and service-group dollar amounts to hit a statewide target — roughly $250M above what the old system would have paid (the §48.1022(b) instruction). To back into per-tier weights that sum to that target, TEA has to know how many students land in each tier and group statewide. That data doesn’t exist until districts report it. So every district reports the old codes (to compute the comparison baseline) and the new tiers/groups (to build the new weights) for one full year. The old codes are the floor calculation; the new codes are the system being calibrated.

What you owe, concretely: a tier-and-service-group determination for every special-education student, built from the IEP in place at the start of 2026–27, reported through PEIMS on TEA’s sequence — plus the minutes-per-day figure the tool won’t compute for you, plus continued reporting of the legacy setting code all year. When an IEP revision changes services, minutes, or staffing mid-year, the determination revises with it: old values end-date, new values begin-date.

Does it change anything prior?

This letter doesn’t supersede anything — it’s the first operational guidance. But two things on this page were later changed, and they’re called out above where they appear: the single October 8 reporting deadline was split into October 8 / December 3, and the “educational environment” element was delayed to 2027–28. Both changes come from the May 28, 2026 update.

How much will I get?

Nobody can hand you a dollar figure per tier until fall 2027 — and structurally, it can’t come sooner.

What Texas released in April 2026 is the framework, not the price list. There is the rubric (the eight tiers and the service groups), the funding tool that crosswalks an IEP into them, and the supporting guidance. What there is not — and won’t be until near-final settle-up in September 2027 — is the table that says “Tier 3 + Service Group 2 = $X.” The per-tier weights and service-group amounts don’t exist yet.

Why they can’t exist yet. The statute (§48.1022(b)) doesn’t hand the commissioner per-tier dollar values. It says: set the 2026–27 formulas so the statewide total comes out about $250M above the old system. To hit a statewide target, TEA first has to know how many students land in each tier and group statewide — which is exactly the data districts are reporting all year. TEA collects a full year of real participation through PEIMS, then works backward to set weights that sum to the target. The price list is the output of the year, not an input to it.

What you actually experience during 2026–27. TEA pays you during the year on legislative planning estimates tied to your old setting-code FTEs, refreshed each six weeks and scaled up proportionally by the statewide $250M. Those estimates may run high or low for any individual district. The real new-model numbers land at settle-up in fall 2027.

The floor only goes one way. For 2026–27 you are guaranteed at least what the old instructional-arrangement formula would have paid you for that year. “A floor” sounds like you could fall below it; you can’t. Your settle-up amount lands at the floor or above it, never below. And the floor is the old formula run on the transition year — a number you can calculate today. It’s your known, calculable worst case.

So untangle the two questions that get crossed:

• “When is it final?” September 2027 settle-up. There’s no later step.
• “When can I predict it?” The exact new-model number, not before settle-up — the weights are derived from the whole year’s statewide data and don’t exist until the year is over. But the floor, right now.

The thing you’re genuinely waiting on in September 2027 is how far above your floor you landed, driven by the $250M top-up. You are never waiting to learn whether you got cut. Worst case for the transition year is the old-system amount you can already compute; everything the new model does sits on top of that.

The sequence, in one glance