A Newcomer Under the Reading Table
Rosa, age 7, joined your second-grade class of 24 six weeks ago after moving from Guatemala. She attended school in Spanish through first grade, reads grade-level Spanish text fluently, and retells stories with detail. In English she decodes CVC words at roughly 80% accuracy but answers comprehension questions with one word or a shrug. Nine of your students are multilingual learners; the ESL teacher pushes in for 30 minutes twice a week. Your 90-minute literacy block includes 20 minutes of independent reading. For two weeks Rosa has crawled under the reading table during independent reading and twice refused to come to the rug for the English read-aloud; nothing similar happens in math, art, or recess. Her mother speaks no English and has not replied to two notes sent home in English. On Friday the principal asks whether Rosa should be referred for a special education evaluation, adding, 'We can't wait forever.'
1. The principal wants an answer today: refer Rosa or not? Analyze what the data do and do not tell you, and describe the defensible next step plus the evidence you would need before changing course.
Read the worked answer
Read the pattern before the label. The data cut against a disability hypothesis and toward second-language acquisition plus task avoidance:
- Fluent grade-level literacy in her first language and normal decoding growth in English rule out a global reading disability.
- A comprehension gap that appears only in English is the expected profile of a student still developing academic English; conversational fluency can take one to two years, academic language five to seven.
- The behavior appears only during English independent reading - not math, art, or recess - which points to the task, not the child, as the trigger.
Why I would not refer yet, and why 'wait' is not the plan. Language difference is an exclusionary factor: a referral built on English-only data is legally weak and can delay the right supports. But inaction is equally indefensible, so I would begin a documented pre-referral cycle with a review date:
- Screen vision and hearing; confirm attendance.
- Collect data in both languages (Spanish running record, English decoding probe, oral retell in each language).
- Implement four to six weeks of targeted supports: pre-taught vocabulary with visuals, Spanish and bilingual titles in her book bin, partner reading, sentence frames for retell, small-group guided reading at her instructional level.
- Progress-monitor weekly (words correct, comprehension questions, minutes engaged).
- Consult the ESL teacher and the MTSS team and set a decision date.
Decision rule: if her English comprehension does not respond to appropriate instruction and progress monitoring stays flat, that is the evidence that justifies a referral - and at that point I would refer without further delay. The principal should hear this as a plan with a deadline, not a refusal.
2. What is your hypothesis about the under-table behavior, and what would you change first? How would you know within three weeks whether the change worked?
Read the worked answer
Function first. Rosa is not being defiant; she is escaping a task she cannot do. Twenty minutes of independent reading in a language where her comprehension is near zero produces frustration with no acceptable exit, so she creates one. Two features confirm it: the behavior is setting-specific, and she avoids the rug only for the English read-aloud.
Change the antecedent before adding consequences.
- Put three or four Spanish or bilingual titles and a wordless picture book in her bin, with a simple choice board.
- Replace 20 minutes of solo English reading with a 10-minute partner read of a pre-taught text, then 10 minutes of independent reading of a high-success text.
- Give her a visual help card and a two-minute check-in at the start of the block.
- Pre-teach five vocabulary words from the read-aloud with pictures so the rug becomes a place where she can succeed.
- Keep a reading demand in place. Letting her opt out entirely reinforces escape.
Measure it. Collect ABC data for a week and tally minutes engaged per 20-minute block, plus a daily 1–5 frustration rating. Success in three weeks looks like engaged minutes rising from roughly 5 to 12 or more, under-table episodes dropping near zero, and her using the help card instead of hiding. If engagement rises but comprehension does not, that is instruction data rather than behavior data, and it feeds the first decision.
3. What are the non-negotiables in communicating with Rosa's mother, and which common moves would you avoid? Explain why each matters.
Read the worked answer
Non-negotiables
- Communicate in Spanish through a district interpreter or a translated written notice, and document every attempt. A parent who cannot read the notice cannot support the plan, and English-only notes can look like an uninvolved family when the real barrier is access.
- Do not use Rosa or a sibling as the interpreter. It reverses parent and child roles and distorts sensitive information.
- Frame the message around what Rosa can do (Spanish reading, math, friendships) and the specific supports being added, with a review date.
- Ask about her prior schooling, her health, and her goals for Rosa, and ask what the family has already noticed at home.
Avoid
- Suggesting a disability, ADHD, or retention before there are data. A premature label is hard to retract and can bias the mother's decisions about evaluation.
- Predicting what services she will receive, or implying the school cannot help without special education.
- Sending home a behavior report that reads as a list of complaints. If a daily report is used, pair every concern with a success.
- Treating two unanswered notes as refusal. The barrier is probably linguistic, so change the channel - phone call with an interpreter, messaging app, home-visit protocol - rather than concluding the family is uninvolved.