Bilingual Evaluation and the Pressure to Find Eligible
A 34-month-old child, Mateo, was referred for a speech-language evaluation. His family speaks Spanish at home; his parents understand some English but requested an interpreter for meetings. The evaluation was completed in English by a monolingual SLP. A standardized English language measure yielded a standard score of 68, and the report notes 'limited attention' and 'few verbalizations' during testing. No interpreter was used, no Spanish-language sample was collected, and the family questionnaire was sent home in English and never returned. Mateo's mother reports that he uses more than 40 Spanish words, combines two words ('más agua'), follows two-step directions at home, and asks for help by pointing and vocalizing. His bilingual childcare teacher describes him as quiet during English circle time but says he chats with Spanish-speaking peers at lunch. The eligibility meeting is scheduled in 10 days. The team chair proposes eligibility as speech-language impairment based on the standard score and wants to move straight to drafting goals.
1. Identify the main problems with the evaluation and the team's proposed eligibility decision, citing the relevant legal and clinical principles.
Read the worked answer
The core problem is that the evaluation was not conducted in Mateo's native language or mode of communication, so the English standard score cannot carry the weight the team wants to give it. IDEA requires nondiscriminatory assessment, multiple measures, and information from parents and teachers; a single standardized score is not enough, and a score from an English-only test is an invalid estimate of ability for a Spanish-dominant child. The 'limited attention' and 'few verbalizations' may reflect test language and unfamiliarity, not a disorder. Eligibility also cannot be based on limited English proficiency. The team should distinguish language difference from language disorder by examining Mateo's Spanish skills, comparing him with bilingual peers, and using dynamic assessment. Proceeding to draft goals before resolving these gaps would predetermine eligibility. The chair's proposal is clinically and legally premature; the team needs valid data first.
2. What specific steps should the team take before the eligibility meeting?
Read the worked answer
Before the meeting, the special education teacher or SLP should request an interpreter and a bilingual SLP consultation, even if the bilingual SLP is available only two days a week. Gather a Spanish language sample during play and daily routines, a bilingual parent interview about vocabulary, grammar, code-switching, and home communication, and a structured observation in both Spanish and English childcare contexts. Use a bilingual language development checklist and, if possible, dynamic assessment that measures how quickly Mateo learns new words with support. Review hearing screening and health history. Ask the family what concerns them and what they see as strengths. The team should also check whether the English questionnaire can be completed orally with an interpreter. Document each source. If the bilingual data cannot be obtained before the 10-day meeting, the team should consider rescheduling or using the meeting to plan the missing assessments rather than making an eligibility decision on incomplete information.
3. How should the team handle the English standard score of 68 when making the eligibility decision?
Read the worked answer
Treat the standard score of 68 as one low English-language data point, not as the eligibility decision. First ask whether the test was normed on bilingual children and whether the examiner followed the manual; if not, the score underestimates skills. Then look for convergent evidence: does Mateo show disordered Spanish patterns (for example, no two-word combinations, restricted vocabulary, poor intelligibility) compared with Spanish-speaking peers, or is his Spanish development within typical limits? Does he use communication to repair breakdowns, request, and comment across settings? If both languages show disorder and the pattern is not explained by exposure, eligibility may be appropriate. If Spanish is typical and only English is low, the pattern is a language difference, not a disability. If data are insufficient, the team should say so and collect more; it should not default to eligibility because a score is low or to ineligibility because the child is bilingual.