Bilingual Reading Concern or Specific Learning Disability?
Mateo is an 8-year-old third grader whose home language is Spanish; he has attended U.S. schools since kindergarten and receives English learner services. His teacher refers him because he reads 28 words correct per minute on a grade-level English passage and confuses vowel teams. He completed 16 weeks of Tier 2 phonics intervention, 25 minutes four times weekly; progress monitoring shows a slope of 0.4 words per week against a goal of 1.5. Attendance is 96%, vision and hearing screenings are normal, and he has no history of retention or head injury. On the WISC-V, FSIQ is 94, Verbal Comprehension 88, Visual Spatial 101, Fluid Reasoning 96, Working Memory 92, and Processing Speed 98. English WJ-IV Broad Reading is 79; Spanish Woodcock-Munoz decoding is 85 and Spanish oral reading is 52 words per minute. Math is 96. His parents speak mostly Spanish at home and report that he tells stories well in Spanish.
1. Does the data support a specific learning disability in reading? Analyze the dual-discrepancy and exclusionary-factor questions, including the role of language proficiency.
Read the worked answer
Use the dual-discrepancy concept: Mateo is below benchmark at 28 wcpm, and his growth of 0.4 words per week is far below the 1.5-word goal after 16 weeks, so Tier 2 has not been effective. That pattern is consistent with, but not sufficient for, SLD. IDEA does not require an IQ-achievement discrepancy, and a FSIQ of 94 does not rule out SLD. The central exclusionary question is whether limited English proficiency explains the reading gap. English Broad Reading of 79 and classroom phonics errors are low, but Spanish decoding of 85 is only low average and Spanish oral reading of 52 wcpm needs a Spanish benchmark before the team calls it a disability. Decide by examining reading in both languages, oral language proficiency, and the adequacy of instruction. If Spanish reading is also substantially below expectations and English exposure cannot account for the gap, SLD is more defensible. If Spanish reading is commensurate with Spanish instruction and English oral proficiency is still developing, continue language-supported intervention and re-evaluate. Document that attendance, sensory factors, and Tier 2 fidelity were checked, not merely listed.
2. What additional data should be collected before an eligibility meeting, and how should the team document the exclusionary factors?
Read the worked answer
Collect Spanish and English oral language data, such as a bilingual language sample, vocabulary, and comprehension measures, to establish dominance and proficiency. Add reading measures in Spanish, including decoding, fluency, and comprehension, using local or published Spanish benchmarks. Conduct classroom observations in English reading and content classes and gather work samples. Review intervention fidelity logs and schedules, health and attendance records, home literacy history, and English learner service records. Use a bilingual examiner or a trained interpreter and do not translate English tests on the fly. In the eligibility report, write a factor-by-factor analysis: for each exclusionary factor, state the data, whether it is ruled out, and why. For language, do not simply write 'bilingual'; show that the pattern of reading skills across both languages and response to appropriate instruction is not primarily explained by second-language acquisition. Include the team's conclusion and any dissenting views.
3. If eligibility is found, what IEP reading goals and services would be appropriate, and what should be monitored?
Read the worked answer
Goals should target the hypothesized deficit and be measurable. For example, by the end of 36 weeks Mateo will decode two-syllable words with 90% accuracy in English and Spanish, increase English oral reading fluency from 28 to 60 wcpm on grade-level probes, and answer inferential comprehension questions with 80% accuracy. Services should include daily 30-minute explicit, systematic phonics in a small group, bilingual vocabulary support, and repeated reading for fluency. Coordinate with English learner instruction rather than replacing it. Progress monitor weekly or biweekly using matched English and Spanish probes, and review after six to eight weeks. If growth occurs, keep the services; if not, adjust the intervention. Also monitor access to grade-level content and avoid a placement that segregates Mateo from peers more than necessary.