Praxis 5354 study materials
Praxis 5354 study resources

English Acquisition or a Learning Disability?

Praxis 5354 · Put your knowledge to work in context.

All case studies

English Acquisition or a Learning Disability?

Ms. Ferrer teaches third grade. Maya moved from Guatemala 14 months ago and is at WIDA level 3. She reads English at about a first-grade level, and her math computation is close to grade level, but word problems are very difficult for her. Last fall the school ran a six-week Tier 2 reading intervention delivered in English by a paraprofessional; Maya's progress-monitoring scores were flat, and the student support team has now scheduled a meeting to refer her for a special education evaluation for a learning disability. Maya's mother, who speaks Spanish, has not been contacted in her language, and the cumulative file contains no record of Maya's schooling before she arrived.

1. What exclusionary factors must be ruled out before Maya is referred, and what does the existing intervention data actually show?

Read the worked answer

IDEA prohibits finding a child eligible if the determinant factor is limited English proficiency or lack of appropriate instruction in reading or math. The team must be able to rule those out, and right now it cannot.

  • Language proficiency. At WIDA 3, Maya is still developing academic English. Her profile - near grade-level computation but weak word problems and weak English reading - is exactly what partial English proficiency looks like. Word problems are the most language-loaded part of elementary math.
  • Instructional adequacy. Six weeks is short, and the intervention was delivered in English by a paraprofessional. There is no evidence it was research-based, delivered with fidelity, or in a language Maya could access. Flat progress under those conditions is not evidence of a disability.
  • Other factors. Attendance, mobility, prior schooling, trauma, vision/hearing screening, and cultural differences in literacy expectations.

The referral should be paused, not cancelled, until these are addressed.

2. What should Ms. Ferrer do in the four to six weeks before the eligibility meeting?

Read the worked answer

Build the record the team will need either way.

  • Gather history: home language survey, ACCESS scores, enrollment and attendance, any records from Guatemala, work samples in both languages, and a parent interview conducted with a Spanish interpreter about Maya's schooling and literacy at home.
  • Consult the EL teacher about whether Maya's reading profile is typical for her English proficiency level and about what a bilingual or sheltered intervention would look like.
  • Deliver a real intervention: a research-based program, 20–30 minutes, 3–5 days a week, in Spanish where possible or with strong native-language and visual scaffolds, delivered by a certified teacher or a trained para under close supervision, with documented fidelity.
  • Monitor weekly with progress measures in the language of instruction, and hold a review date before the eligibility meeting.

Reasoning: if she responds, the question is answered. If she does not respond to genuine instruction in an accessible language, the team has far stronger evidence - and a defensible referral.

3. If the team does evaluate, what safeguards must the evaluation and meeting include?

Read the worked answer
  • Assessment and evaluation materials must be selected and administered so as not to be racially or culturally discriminatory, and must be given in the child's native language or mode of communication most likely to yield accurate information about what she knows and can do.
  • No single measure or assessment may be the sole criterion for eligibility.
  • The team needs a multidisciplinary evaluation: reading and math achievement, cognitive or language-reduced measures, and information from parents and teachers, interpreted with caution where norms are based on monolingual English speakers.
  • All notices and the meeting itself must be in Spanish, with a qualified interpreter, not Maya's older sibling.
  • The eligibility discussion should name explicitly why limited English proficiency was ruled out as the determinant factor.

Getting these wrong is the most common way schools lose due-process cases involving English learners.