The Report That Was Already Written

1. Norm appropriateness. The WISC-V and WJ-IV norms represent English-speaking examinees; scores from a student with limited English proficiency are not valid estimates of ability or achievement and systematically underestimate both.
2. The discrepancy logic is empty here. A 4-point gap between FSIQ 82 and Broad Reading 78 is not a discrepancy at all in any meaningful sense, and even a large gap would not establish a disability. Ability-achievement discrepancy is not required by IDEA and does not distinguish disability from language difference.
3. FSIQ masks the profile. A single composite hides whether verbal and nonverbal performance diverge, which is exactly the information needed when language is a confound.
4. Exclusionary factors were not evaluated. IDEA requires the team to rule out lack of appropriate instruction and limited English proficiency before determining SLD. Two years of English exposure, interrupted prior schooling, and no documented intervention history were not analyzed.
5. No data in the native language and no opportunity-to-learn data were collected, so a language difference cannot be separated from a disability.
6. Predetermination. A completed draft before the meeting frames the team's decision and effectively excludes the parents from the process.

Gather

• Bilingual assessment: Spanish measures of decoding, word reading, and comprehension using Spanish-language norms or appropriate comparison groups, not on-the-fly translation of English tests.
• Full history: years of schooling, literacy instruction in Spanish, interruption, current home literacy practices, and English exposure outside school.
• English proficiency scores and teacher reports of classroom performance in both languages.
• Classroom work samples and curriculum-based data in both languages.
• Documented intervention history with fidelity and duration.
• Nonverbal reasoning used only as one source, never as the sole index of ability.

Interpretive pattern

• Difference, not disability: intact Spanish decoding and phonological skills with weaker English reading, errors that reflect English phonology and vocabulary gaps, performance that improves with English exposure, and a profile consistent with second-language acquisition.
• Disability more likely: low performance in the native language and in both languages on the same underlying skill (e.g., phonological awareness, rapid naming, word decoding accuracy) despite adequate instruction in Spanish, low growth after a well-implemented intervention, and a pattern not explained by language proficiency.
• Neither conclusion is warranted from English-only tests. If the data remain ambiguous, the defensible step is to delay determination, gather more, and document the reasons -- not to identify on thin evidence.

• Use a trained, neutral interpreter, not a family member, not the student, and not a bilingual aide from the same small community who has a social relationship with the family. Siblings and untrained staff cannot preserve confidentiality or render technical terms accurately.
• Brief and debrief the interpreter before and after: purpose of the session, vocabulary that must be rendered consistently, expectation to interpret verbatim and in first person, no side conversations, no summarizing.
• Do not translate standardized tests on the fly. That invalidates the norms. Use instruments with appropriate norms or non-standardized assessment reported as such.
• Provide documents in advance in the parents' language, plus procedural safeguards translated.
• Document who interpreted, what method was used, and how understanding was confirmed (e.g., teach-back).
• Check your own assumptions. Interpret Marisol's behavior and her parents' participation through a cultural and linguistic lens; silence or hesitation is not disinterest, and eye contact norms vary.