Three Years of Schooling and a Score of 68
A bilingual assessment team evaluates Lucía, an 11-year-old who moved from a rural Guatemalan town 14 months ago. She speaks Q'anjob'al at home, learned to read in Spanish at school, and has roughly three total years of formal schooling, including a 14-month gap before immigrating. Her Spanish WISC-V Full Scale IQ is 68. Her English-only Woodcock-Johnson reading and math cluster scores are at the 1st percentile. The evaluating teacher observed her for 30 minutes during silent reading, noted she was "off task and looking around," and wrote that this supports an intellectual disability. The report recommends a self-contained class for students with moderate intellectual disabilities.
1. Identify the assessment errors in this evaluation and state what a nondiscriminatory evaluation requires.
Read the worked answer
Errors present
- Language of assessment mismatch. The achievement tests were given in English to a student with 14 months of exposure and no prior English schooling - the scores largely measure English proficiency, not academic skill.
- Norm group mismatch. A Spanish WISC-V score of 68 is compared against monolingual Spanish-speaking norms from different educational and cultural contexts. Norms assume schooling exposure and test familiarity that Lucía has not had.
- Single-source reasoning. An IQ score alone is being used to infer intellectual disability, with no adaptive behavior measure - the defining deficit in ID is adaptive functioning, and it must be assessed in the home/community context, ideally with someone who speaks Q'anjob'al.
- Invalid observation inference. "Off task and looking around" during silent reading in an unfamiliar language is a predictable language response; inferring cognitive deficit from it is unsupported.
- No exclusionary-factor analysis of interrupted formal education and limited English proficiency.
What is required
- Assessment in the child's native language/most proficient language or a valid nonverbal/alternative procedure, by qualified personnel, in all areas of suspected disability.
- Multiple measures, methods, and sources, including parent interview (via Q'anjob'al interpreter), teacher reports, work samples, dynamic assessment or test-teach-test, and adaptive behavior scales.
- Materials selected and administered so as not to be racially or culturally discriminatory; results interpreted by a team that includes someone who understands second-language acquisition.
2. How should the team distinguish a disability from limited English proficiency combined with interrupted formal education? What specific evidence would settle the question?
Read the worked answer
The core distinction
- LEP/SIFE patterns typically show: stronger skills in the first language than in English, uneven exposure-driven gaps (e.g., decoding in Spanish better than English vocabulary), performance that improves with scaffolding and familiarity, and difficulty concentrated in language-loaded tasks.
- Disability patterns typically show: low performance in the native language too, deficits in nonverbal/adaptive domains, slow growth despite appropriate instruction in a language the child understands, and difficulty not explained by exposure.
Evidence to gather
- Native-language (or best-language) data: Spanish reading and math measures, Q'anjob'al oral language sample, parent report of communication at home. If she reads and reasons at age level in Spanish, the low English scores are an acquisition artifact.
- Nonverbal problem-solving (e.g., nonverbal IQ measure or dynamic assessment) to separate reasoning from language.
- Adaptive behavior in the home setting, through interviews conducted in Q'anjob'al - independent self-care, money handling, following multi-step routines, navigating the community.
- Progress data under appropriate instruction: did she respond to targeted native-language or sheltered instruction over 8–12 weeks? Compare growth rate, not just level.
- Opportunity-to-learn record: cumulative schooling, curriculum she has been exposed to, attendance.
Decision rule: a disability finding requires converging evidence across languages and domains, with exclusionary factors explicitly ruled out. Flat performance in every language and modality, plus adaptive deficits, points to disability. Strength in the native language or in nonverbal reasoning with rapid response to scaffolded instruction points to LEP/SIFE.
3. The team is split. What placement rule applies, and what should happen at the meeting?
Read the worked answer
Placement rule
- Placement must follow from the evaluation and the IEP, not precede it, and must be in the least restrictive environment - educated with nondisabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate, with supplementary aids and services considered first.
- A self-contained class for students with moderate intellectual disabilities is justified only if the evaluation supports that identification and the team documents that education in general classes with supports cannot be achieved satisfactorily. A recommendation written before an eligibility determination is procedurally out of order.
At the meeting
- Treat the current report as incomplete evidence, not a verdict: request additional native-language, adaptive-behavior, and dynamic-assessment data before determining eligibility.
- Document the disagreement and the reasons in the eligibility report and prior written notice; parents must receive written notice of any proposal/refusal and of their procedural safeguards.
- If the team proceeds with any special education services while evaluation is completed, keep services supplementary and general-education-based (e.g., sheltered instruction, native-language support), not a self-contained placement.
Snap judgment to avoid: accepting a translated IQ score as the anchor and building placement on top of it. The report's weakest link is the missing adaptive and native-language evidence - closing that gap is the meeting's first order of business.