Decoding Difficulty or English Language Acquisition?
Mateo is a 9-year-old third grader enrolled in U.S. schools since kindergarten. His home language is Spanish; he is classified as an English learner at proficiency level 3 and receives 30 minutes of EL services daily. Universal screening shows oral reading fluency of 28 words correct per minute, below the district benchmark of 65, and 40% accuracy on CVCe word lists. His Spanish reading also falls below grade-level expectations, and phonological awareness tasks are weak in both languages. Attendance is 94%; vision and hearing screenings are normal. Mateo has received two 12-week cycles of Tier 2 intervention with 85% fidelity, but progress monitoring is flat. His teacher says he “cannot decode” and suspects dyslexia. His parents, who speak primarily Spanish, asked whether he might need special education. The school team responds that he is an English learner and should be given more time before any evaluation.
1. What data and evaluation procedures should the team use to distinguish a specific learning disability from limited English proficiency, and why is each source important?
Read the worked answer
Start with the exclusionary factors: the team must rule out limited English proficiency and lack of appropriate instruction as the primary causes of Mateo's reading difficulty. No single score can do that.
Useful sources include:
- Developmental and educational history in both languages. A disability usually affects learning across contexts; second-language acquisition follows a predictable course.
- Native-language and English measures of phonological awareness, decoding, and comprehension. Dyslexia-related weaknesses tend to appear in both languages, even though Spanish orthography is more transparent.
- Observations in EL, general education, and intervention settings. The team needs to see whether difficulties persist when supports are present.
- Intervention fidelity and attendance data. Two 12-week cycles at 85% fidelity with flat progress support inadequate response; low fidelity would weaken that conclusion.
- Comparison with similar English-learner peers. Expected EL progress is not the same as grade-level norms.
- Parent and teacher reports of attention, memory, and language use at home and school.
The team should then use a pattern-of-strengths-and-weaknesses or RTI-based SLD determination rather than a wait-to-fail discrepancy model. If the data suggest a disability, the team must proceed with an evaluation; EL status cannot be used to delay it.
2. How should the team respond to the 'give him more time' argument, and what procedural steps follow?
Read the worked answer
The team can recommend more intervention only if it has data showing the intervention is appropriate and the student is responding. Here, two 12-week cycles at 85% fidelity with flat progress weaken the 'more time' rationale. Mateo's parents have raised a disability concern, which triggers child find.
The district must review existing data and either initiate an initial evaluation or provide prior written notice explaining why it refuses. It cannot use RTI as a gatekeeper. If the team proceeds, it must obtain informed consent, complete the evaluation within the state's 60-day timeline unless extended by mutual agreement, and give the parents procedural safeguards. EL services should continue during the evaluation; the evaluation cannot be delayed until Mateo exits EL status.
If the team refuses, the notice must state the reasons, the data relied on, and the parents' dispute options. Best practice is to convene the team promptly, document the two intervention cycles, compare Mateo's progress with that of similar EL peers, and make a data-based decision rather than an automatic 'wait another year' response.