PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Houchin, Erin [R-IN-9] · R–IN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 29, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10113 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10113 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10113 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10113 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-08-17 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This bill proposes changes to federal special education law. It would explicitly name developmental language disorder, autism spectrum disorders, and learning disabilities affecting reading, math, and writing, and revise descriptions of specific learning disabilities. It would also require education agencies to give all eligible children equal access to accommodations and services, expressly including children from low-income households and children with limited English proficiency.
by inserting (including developmental language disorder) after language impairments; (II) by inserting spectrum disorders after autism; and (III) by inserting (including dyslexia, dyscalculia, and dysgraphia, which relate to difficulties in reading, math, and writing) after specific learning disabilities
In determining eligibility for, or providing, an accommodation or service under this title, a local educational agency or other agency shall provide equal access, to the accommodation or service, to all eligible children, including eligible children who are— (1) children living in low-income households; and (2) children with limited proficiency in English.
The proposed law would be called the New Improvements to Definitions for Educational Access Act, or the New IDEA Act.
This Act may be cited as the New Improvements to Definitions for Educational Access Act or the New IDEA Act.
The bill would amend section 602(3) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to expressly include developmental language disorder under language impairments, change “autism” to “autism spectrum disorders,” and name dyslexia, dyscalculia, and dysgraphia under specific learning disabilities.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) is amended— (1) in section 602— (A) in paragraph (3)— (i) in subparagraph (A)— (I) by inserting (including developmental language disorder) after language impairments; (II) by inserting spectrum disorders after autism; and (III) by inserting (including dyslexia, dyscalculia, and dysgraphia, which relate to difficulties in reading, math, and writing) after specific learning disabilities
Two other wording changes would add “language or” before “communication development” in section 602(3)(B)(i), and change the order of “listen, think” to “think, listen” in section 602(30)(A). The surrounding statutory language is not supplied.
in subparagraph (B)(i) by inserting language or before communication development; and (B) in paragraph (30)— (i) in subparagraph (A), by striking listen, think and inserting think, listen
The revised description of specific learning disabilities would include disabilities involving reading individual words, understanding what is read, calculating, solving and reasoning through math problems, and expressing ideas in writing. It would also list perceptual disabilities and brain injury.
Such term includes such conditions as word-level reading disabilities, reading comprehension disabilities, math calculation disabilities, math problem-solving and reasoning disabilities, written expression disabilities, perceptual disabilities, and brain injury.
The bill would describe dyslexia as significant and unexpected difficulty reading and spelling words accurately and automatically. It says this is typically associated with difficulty processing individual sounds in spoken language.
dyslexia, characterized by significant and unexpected difficulties in reading and spelling words accurately and with automaticity, typically associated with weakness in phonological processing (the appreciation of individual sounds of spoken language)
The bill would describe dyscalculia as significant and unexpected difficulty with calculation skills and understanding numbers and math facts. It says this is typically associated with difficulty mentally representing and processing numbers.
dyscalculia, characterized by significant and unexpected difficulties in math calculation skills and understanding numbers and math facts, typically associated with weakness in fundamental number representation and processing
The bill would describe dysgraphia as significant and unexpected difficulty automatically forming letters or numbers and producing readable or coherent writing. It says this is typically associated with difficulty storing and automatically recalling letters and numbers.
dysgraphia, characterized by significant and unexpected difficulties in automatic formation of letters or numbers and the production of legible or coherent writing, typically associated with weakness in storing and automatically retrieving letters and numbers.
The proposed specific-learning-disability definition would exclude a learning problem primarily caused by visual, hearing, or motor disabilities; intellectual disability; emotional disturbance; inadequate reading or math instruction; or limited English proficiency. This exclusion concerns that definition, rather than declaring those children ineligible for all special education services.
(C) Disorders not included Such term does not include a learning problem that is primarily the result of— (i) visual, hearing, or motor disabilities; (ii) intellectual disability; (iii) emotional disturbance; (iv) a lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including in the essential components of reading instruction (as defined in section 203 of the Adult Education and Literacy Act (29 U.S.C. 3272)); (v) lack of appropriate instruction in math; or (vi) limited English proficiency.
New section 608A would require local education agencies and other agencies to provide equal access to accommodations and services under the title when determining eligibility or providing assistance. The requirement covers all eligible children and expressly includes eligible children from low-income households and those with limited English proficiency; it retains the eligibility qualification.
608A. Provision of accommodations and services In determining eligibility for, or providing, an accommodation or service under this title, a local educational agency or other agency shall provide equal access, to the accommodation or service, to all eligible children, including eligible children who are— (1) children living in low-income households; and (2) children with limited proficiency in English.
The supplied actions snapshot, updated September 29, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Education and Workforce on August 17, 2026. These entries do not establish enactment or what happened afterward.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-29T20:36:49Z. 2026-08-17: Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. 2026-08-17: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-08-17. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not cover other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish the absence of earmarks in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow preferential treatment, carve-out, or special exemption was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. Equal access for eligible children and descriptions of the program's intended beneficiaries do not alone constitute preferential treatment. This conclusion is limited to this version.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 29, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI