A Written Evaluation Request for a Second-Language Learner
Mateo is a 9-year-old third grader in an Oklahoma elementary school. He moved from Mexico two years ago; Spanish is spoken at home, and he receives English-learner services. His English proficiency is intermediate. On the fall universal screening he read 18 words correct per minute, compared with a class median of 72, and he struggles to blend sounds and decode two-syllable words. His teacher says his errors are 'just language difference' and has used small-group leveled reading for eight weeks. Mateo's mother has now sent a written request for a special education evaluation; she says he cries about reading and has begun refusing homework. Hearing and vision screenings are normal. Attendance is 96%. The school's RTI team wants to continue intervention for another 12 weeks before deciding whether to evaluate. The principal asks the special education teacher to advise the team.
1. What should the team do in response to the mother's written request, and how should it document the decision? Explain the legal and educational reasoning.
Read the worked answer
The team should treat the written request as a trigger for a timely child-find decision, not as a reason to wait another 12 weeks. Under IDEA, a parent may request an initial evaluation, and the district must respond within the state's required timeline. The team may either obtain consent and evaluate or provide prior written notice explaining why it refuses and what information supports that refusal. RTI data can be used as part of the evaluation, but RTI cannot be used to delay an evaluation when a disability is suspected.
The team should review existing data: screening scores, intervention history, attendance, hearing/vision results, English-proficiency data, work samples, and teacher observations. It should ask whether Mateo's difficulties are atypical for a student with his language-learning history and whether they persist despite appropriate instruction. The mother's report of emotional distress and refusal behaviors is also relevant because it shows adverse educational impact.
Documentation should include the date the request was received, the team meeting, the decision and rationale, the parents' procedural safeguards, and either consent forms or a prior written notice. The team should not tell the parent that evaluation is impossible because Mateo is an English learner; that would risk both under-identification and discriminatory practice.
2. What assessment information would the team need to determine whether Mateo has a specific learning disability, including dyslexia, rather than a language-acquisition difference?
Read the worked answer
The evaluation must be comprehensive and nondiscriminatory. It should include oral-language measures in both Spanish and English, including vocabulary, listening comprehension, and sentence structure, because a true language difference can depress English reading scores. It should also assess phonological awareness, letter-sound knowledge, rapid naming, decoding of real and nonsense words, spelling, oral reading fluency, and reading comprehension in the language(s) of instruction.
The team should compare Mateo's performance with both English-learner peers and monolingual peers on tasks that are less dependent on English vocabulary, such as phonemic awareness and pseudoword decoding. A pattern of weakness in phonological processing and word-level decoding, with stronger oral comprehension, would be more consistent with dyslexia than with second-language acquisition. The team should also examine whether errors reflect Spanish-English transfer, such as vowel differences, rather than disordered reading processes.
Exclusionary factors must be addressed: limited English proficiency, lack of appropriate instruction, attendance, sensory impairment, and emotional factors. Classroom observations, work samples, and intervention response data should supplement standardized measures. The eligibility team should use a pattern of strengths and needs, not a single score, and should document why the findings are or are not consistent with a specific learning disability.
3. How should the team involve Mateo's mother and interpreter services in the evaluation and eligibility process?
Read the worked answer
The team should provide notices and procedural safeguards in a language the mother understands, using a trained interpreter rather than relying on Mateo or a sibling. The interpreter should be available for the planning meeting, consent discussion, evaluation results meeting, and any follow-up questions. The team should avoid jargon such as 'processing deficit' or 'severe discrepancy' without plain-language explanation.
The mother should be asked about Mateo's developmental history, early literacy experiences, language use at home, emotional responses to school, and her goals for him. Her observations are evidence, not merely background. The team should explain the difference between language acquisition and disability, describe the evaluation activities, and state clearly that consent is voluntary and that she may revoke it or request additional assessments.
If the team proposes evaluation, it should obtain informed written consent and schedule the evaluation within the required timeline. If the team refuses, it should issue prior written notice with reasons and explain dispute-resolution options. Throughout, the team should document the use of interpretation and confirm that the mother's questions were answered.
4. What instructional supports should be provided while the evaluation is pending, and how should the team avoid prematurely changing placement?
Read the worked answer
While the evaluation is pending, Mateo should continue receiving English-learner services and intensive reading intervention. The team should not wait passively; it can adjust the intervention to include more explicit phonological awareness and decoding practice, smaller-group instruction, and progress monitoring. These supports are general education or intervention supports, not a predetermined special education placement.
The team should keep Mateo in the least restrictive environment and avoid moving him to a substantially separate setting before eligibility and IEP decisions are made. It should monitor response to the revised intervention with brief, frequent measures and share the data with the evaluation team. If the data show inadequate response, that information can inform eligibility; if they show strong response, the team should still consider whether a disability exists and whether specialized instruction is needed to sustain progress.
The key is to avoid both premature labeling and prolonged delay. The team should set a clear decision date, document the interventions and their fidelity, and communicate with the mother about what is happening while the evaluation proceeds.