Mia: Language Difference or Disability?

The team should not move directly from an English-only oral reading score and teacher impressions to an SLD/ADHD evaluation. First, clarify the referral question: is Mia's silent behavior during whole-group instruction a language-comprehension issue, an attention issue, or both? Gather (a) language proficiency data in Spanish and English, (b) classroom observations in varied settings, (c) a parent interview in Spanish about attention, hearing, sleep, and development, (d) review of schooling history and attendance, and (e) targeted Tier 1/2 supports with 6–8 weeks of progress monitoring in English and Spanish. Because the school lacks a bilingual SLP, the team must arrange qualified interpretation and bilingual assessment rather than substituting an English-only measure. ADHD rating scales from one teacher and one parent are not enough; symptoms must be developmentally inappropriate, cross-setting, and not better explained by second-language acquisition or cultural expectations. If the team still suspects a disability, it may evaluate-but the evaluation plan must include nontraditional and bilingual measures, test the limits of English-only norms, and document how language exposure was considered. The 60-day timeline begins with consent, not with the meeting, so there is time to gather better data first.

The team should treat the discrepancy as a hypothesis-generating finding, not as evidence of ADHD. Cross-informant discrepancies are common; teacher ratings may reflect classroom demands, language comprehension, or referral bias, while parent ratings may reflect behavior at home where Spanish is spoken and tasks are familiar. Before concluding that Mia has ADHD, the team needs structured observations in both high- and low-demand settings, a second teacher rating if possible, and a parent interview that asks about attention in Spanish during Spanish-language tasks. The team should examine whether the teacher's elevated ratings cluster on items like 'does not follow directions' or 'does not listen,' which could reflect English comprehension, not inattention. It should also consider cultural norms for attention and behavior, and whether Mia's 'zoning out' occurs during whole-group English instruction specifically. If symptoms are setting-specific and language-related, the better intervention is sheltered English instruction, pre-teaching vocabulary, and checks for understanding-not an ADHD diagnosis. If cross-setting symptoms persist after language supports, a medical evaluation can be considered. The team should document the discrepancy and avoid averaging the two ratings into a false consensus.

The evaluation plan should be built around the exclusionary clause and the need for comprehensive data. Include: (1) a bilingual cognitive or nonverbal measure, with caution about construct validity; (2) oral language and phonological processing measures in Spanish and English, using a bilingual SLP or qualified interpreter; (3) English and Spanish reading measures, plus a measure of English proficiency; (4) classroom observations during reading and content instruction; (5) parent and teacher interviews about schooling history, home literacy, and attention; and (6) a review of intervention response with fidelity and dose data. The team should compare Mia's performance to true peers-other English learners with similar schooling-not only to English-only norms. In the eligibility discussion, the team must ask: can the pattern be explained by limited English proficiency, interrupted schooling, or lack of opportunity to learn? If yes, SLD is not appropriate. If a disability is found, the IEP should address language and literacy together. The school psychologist should also ensure the parents receive interpretation and written notice in Spanish, and that they understand their procedural safeguards.