Is It a Learning Disability or a Language Difference?
Diego is an 8-year-old third grader who has attended U.S. schools for two years. Spanish is spoken at home; his parents have limited English proficiency. Attendance is 92%. His oral reading fluency is 22 words correct per minute on a grade-level passage, while the winter benchmark is 60. On a Spanish-language parallel passage, he reads 24 words correct per minute, and the Spanish benchmark is 55. His math computation standard score is 82, the 8th percentile; reading comprehension standard score is 78, the 7th percentile. He received 14 weeks of Tier 2 intervention, 30 minutes three times weekly, focused on phonics and fluency; four progress points show a flat trajectory. The student support team says his scores reflect English language acquisition and recommends continuing intervention without an evaluation. His parents request a full evaluation for special education.
1. What exclusionary factors must the team rule out, and what evidence is missing?
Read the worked answer
The team must rule out lack of appropriate instruction in reading and math, limited English proficiency, cultural and economic factors, attendance, and sensory or health issues. The current data are incomplete. The team needs evidence that Tier 2 intervention was evidence-based, delivered with fidelity, and of sufficient duration; 14 weeks with four flat data points is suggestive but not enough by itself. It should review attendance patterns, classroom observation in both languages, work samples, developmental and health history, hearing and vision, and opportunity to learn grade-level content. The Spanish reading score is also far below benchmark, which weakens a pure language-acquisition explanation, but the team must confirm that the Spanish measure was appropriate and that instruction in Spanish was adequate. The parents' request for evaluation cannot be denied simply because the student is an English learner.
2. How should the evaluation be designed to be nondiscriminatory and comprehensive?
Read the worked answer
The evaluation should be comprehensive and nondiscriminatory. It should include assessments in Spanish and English, with bilingual evaluators or interpreters, and should not rely on a single discrepancy formula. The team should use multiple measures: curriculum-based measures in both languages, standardized achievement tests with caution about norms, classroom observations, work samples, teacher and parent interviews, and a review of the intervention record. It should assess oral language proficiency to distinguish language difference from disability and examine patterns across domains, such as low reading and math in both languages. The team must document fidelity of instruction and consider whether Diego has had adequate opportunity to learn. The evaluation must be completed within the IDEA timeline, generally 60 days, and the parents must receive prior written notice and an explanation of the process.
3. What eligibility determination and instructional implications are defensible if the evaluation confirms the pattern?
Read the worked answer
If the evaluation shows low achievement in both languages, a flat response to a well-implemented intervention, and a pattern of strengths and weaknesses not explained by language proficiency, attendance, or lack of instruction, SLD eligibility is defensible. The team should not wait for a severe discrepancy. The IEP should include explicit, systematic instruction in phonics, fluency, and math computation, with bilingual or English-learner supports, and weekly progress monitoring. Services should be delivered by qualified personnel and not amount to only accommodations. If the data instead show that instruction was inadequate or that language difference explains the pattern, the team should continue Tier 2 or Tier 3 intervention and monitor. In either case, the team must give the parents a clear written explanation and preserve their right to challenge the decision.