Language proficiency considerations, instrument selection decision-making, validity cautions for EB students, and best-practice FIE documentation language. Primarily Spanish-English context at LEA.
Pre-Evaluation Language Checklist
Work through these items before selecting instruments. Click each item to mark complete. This checklist does not save between sessions — use it as a thinking prompt during planning.
📁 Records & Background
Language History
Home Language Survey reviewed. Identify language(s) spoken at home, language first spoken by child, language most often spoken at home.
Age of first exposure to English documented. Note whether student is simultaneous bilingual (two languages from birth) or sequential bilingual (L2 introduced after age 3).
Schooling history in L1 (Spanish) reviewed. Note years of formal Spanish literacy instruction — impacts Batería ACH validity and reading scores in both languages.
Country of origin / recent immigration status noted. Recent immigrants may have limited English exposure regardless of ability; note mobility and schooling gaps.
Proficiency Data
Most recent TELPAS scores pulled. Note composite level (Beginning, Intermediate, Advanced, Advanced High) and domain breakdown (Listening, Speaking, Reading, Writing).
LPAC designation and program placement reviewed. Note current or prior ESL/bilingual program type (dual language, ESL pull-out, monitored, LTEL status).
Long-Term English Learner (LTEL) status considered. Students enrolled 6+ years without reaching Advanced High may have academic language gaps distinct from disability.
RTI / Intervention History
Interventions delivered in appropriate language confirmed. Inadequate access to L1-based or sheltered instruction can mimic disability — document what language interventions were provided in.
Peer comparison considered. Is the student performing significantly below peers with similar language backgrounds and educational experience? (TAC §89.1040 requirement)
Referral timing reviewed. Has a referral been delayed because the team is "waiting for more English proficiency"? Research documents that emergent bilinguals are systematically underidentified in early elementary grades and then overidentified in 3rd–5th grade — often because referrals were postponed rather than conducted with appropriate bilingual tools. Early evaluation with appropriate instruments is preferable to waiting. (Ortiz & Chow, 2026)
🗣️ Language Dominance & Proficiency
Language dominance informally assessed or documented. Consider BESA, informal language samples, teacher/parent input, or prior speech-language evaluation results.
Language of instruction for core academics documented. A student in dual-language may have stronger academic Spanish than a student in ESL-only — affects ACH instrument choice.
Student's self-reported language preference noted. Ask the student directly — preferred language for thinking, talking with family, reading — and document in the FIE.
Parent/guardian input on language use at home gathered. Document parent-reported language of conversation, literacy activities, and any bilingual literacy instruction at home.
🔬 Instrument Planning
Decision made: WJ-V Batería vs English WJ-V vs both. Documented rationale for language of assessment in FIE. (See Instrument Selection tab.)
Cognitive instrument reviewed for CLD appropriateness. Consider reduced verbal-loading for limited English proficiency — KABC-II MPI or FCI may be preferable over WJ-V COG GIA or WISC-V FSIQ.
Speech-language referral or BESA considered if oral language deficits are present in both languages — a deficit present across both L1 and L2 is a stronger indicator of DLD/SLI than a deficit in English only.
Qualified bilingual examiner or interpreter considerations addressed. If using an interpreter, document qualifications and note potential impact on score validity per IDEA and TEA guidance.
Language Proficiency & Dominance Considerations
Understanding an EB student's language profile is prerequisite to instrument selection. These are not static categories — proficiency is domain-specific and changes over time.
🎯 C-LIM Assessment Planning Framework
C-LIM (Comprehensive Linguistic Interactive Model, Ortiz 2002+) is a systematic assessment planning framework designed to distinguish language difference (normal bilingual development) from language disorder (disability), and to avoid confusing either with disability in other domains. It guides evaluators through five sequential steps:
1
Assess Language Dominance & Proficiency
Which language(s) does the student use most? Where? With whom? Determine dominant language for conversation (BICS) and for academics (CALP). Use HLS, TELPAS, informal observation, parent/student interview.
2
Select Language(s) of Assessment
Assess in the student's dominant language first, or in both languages (if feasible). Language-specific deficits appear in one language; true disorders appear across both languages. EB students are often strongest in combined bilingual vocabulary — English-only assessment underestimates their true ability.
For cognitive assessment, use instruments with reduced verbal and cultural loading (KABC-II MPI/FCI, nonverbal subtests). For oral language, administer in both languages if possible. Compare across languages to identify patterns.
4
Compare Across Languages — Identify Patterns
Consistent across both languages (e.g., low phonological processing in English AND Spanish, low vocabulary in English AND Spanish) → suggests disorder/disability. Unique to one language (e.g., low reading in English only, but adequate Spanish reading) → suggests language difference or limited instruction in that language, not disability.
5
Document Exclusionary Factors
Formally rule out limited English proficiency, lack of appropriate instruction, or cultural/economic factors as the primary explanation for academic struggle. TAC §89.1040 requires this documentation in every FIE for EB students.
Why C-LIM matters: It prevents misidentification by ensuring that (1) you assess in the student's dominant language, (2) you use culturally fair tools, (3) you look for patterns across languages, and (4) you formally document that any disability is not simply a language difference. This is especially important for EB students referred for reading disabilities or language disorders, where language development and disorder can look superficially similar.
📊 TELPAS — What It Tells You (and What It Doesn't)
What TELPAS measures: English language proficiency across Listening, Speaking, Reading, and Writing. Composite levels range from Beginning → Intermediate → Advanced → Advanced High.
What TELPAS does not tell you: L1 (Spanish) proficiency, dominant language, whether the student has a disability, or whether academic struggles are due to language acquisition vs. learning disability. A student can be Advanced High in English and still have a reading disability.
Beginning / Intermediate TELPAS: Limited English proficiency is likely to significantly affect performance on English-normed assessments. WJ-V Batería (Spanish norms) or a reduced verbal-load cognitive battery (KABC-II) is strongly preferred for cognitive and most academic testing.
Advanced / Advanced High TELPAS: English proficiency is sufficient for most standardized assessment. English-normed instruments are generally appropriate but document language background in FIE. Consider bilingual assessment if L1 academic skills are a specific question.
🗣️ Dominant Language Determination
Key principle: Language dominance is multidimensional — a student may be dominant in Spanish for conversational purposes but dominant in English for academic tasks (BICS vs CALP distinction). Assess both.
1
Review existing data
Home Language Survey, TELPAS history, LPAC records, prior SLP evaluations, teacher input. Note language(s) of instruction across all grade levels.
2
Interview parent / guardian
Ask about: language spoken most at home, language the child uses with parents vs siblings, language of literacy activities, which language the child "thinks in," any concerns about L1 development.
3
Interview / observe the student
Ask the student directly in both languages. Note: comfort level, vocabulary retrieval ease, sentence complexity, code-switching patterns, and language used when asked to explain something difficult.
4
Consider BESA or informal language sample
The BESA provides standardized measurement of Spanish and English morphosyntax and semantics. An informal language sample in both languages can supplement when full BESA is not available. SLP referral is appropriate when DLD is suspected.
5
Document conclusions in FIE
State the student's estimated dominant language for conversational and academic purposes separately. Explain how this determination informed instrument selection. See Documentation tab for sample language.
🧮 WJ-IV OL Broad Oral Language — CLI Calculator
District guidance: If there is 15 or more points between the Spanish and English Broad Oral Language scores on the Comparative Language Index (CLI), the higher-scored language is the dominant language. A difference of less than 15 points indicates Unclear Dominance. Enter the RPI numerator for each language — the first number in the RPI fraction (e.g., enter 80 for an RPI of 80/90). Do not use standard scores.
What is the student's language of instruction?
📋 Who Writes What on the FIE?
Always applies: Achievement/areas of concern are assessed in both languages. Cognitive testing is administered in the language and form most likely to yield accurate information.
📌 BICS vs CALP — Why It Matters in Eligibility
BICS (Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills) Conversational fluency — typically develops in 1–3 years. A student may appear proficient in everyday conversation while still having limited academic language.
Common error: Assuming a student with strong BICS does not need bilingual assessment. Conversational fluency does not equal academic English proficiency.
CALP (Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency) Academic language — typically develops in 5–7+ years. This is the language needed to access grade-level curriculum, understand test instructions, and demonstrate knowledge on standardized measures.
Implication: A student can be Advanced High on TELPAS (BICS) and still have insufficient CALP for English-normed achievement testing to be fully valid. Document this distinction in the FIE when relevant.
⚖️ The Central Eligibility Question for EB Students
TAC §89.1040 requirement: Before determining eligibility for special education, the ARD committee must rule out that the student's learning difficulties are primarily the result of limited English proficiency, lack of appropriate instruction, or cultural/economic factors. This must be documented explicitly in the FIE.
The clearest evidence of a disability (vs. language acquisition) is: deficits present in both L1 and L2, documented even with appropriate bilingual instruction, and not explained by limited schooling opportunity or recent immigration.
📈 The Identification Trajectory — What Research Shows
Key finding (Ortiz & Chow, 2026): A nationally representative longitudinal study (ECLS-K:2011, K–5th grade, n ≈ 15,700) found a consistent pattern: bilingual students — particularly emergent bilinguals — are underidentified in early elementary grades and overidentified in later grades. This is not random variation. It is a systematic consequence of delayed referrals.
Emergent bilinguals (limited English at school entry):
Enter kindergarten with lower rates of SLI and SLD than monolinguals — not because they have fewer disabilities, but because they are referred less often
By 3rd–5th grade, identification rates spike dramatically, reaching overrepresentation relative to monolinguals
When health, SES, and academic variables are controlled, much of the overrepresentation is explained — poverty, immigrant status, limited healthcare access, and lower working memory at kindergarten entry drive the risk, not language background per se
English-proficient bilinguals (passed English screener in K):
Consistently underrepresented in SLI and SLD through early elementary — even controlling for background variables
By 5th grade, incidence in SLD rises above monolinguals in adjusted models, suggesting delayed identification that finally occurs under accumulated academic failure
English-proficient bilinguals may be the group most at risk of being missed entirely — they "pass" screeners but are not being evaluated when early signs appear
The reclassification bottleneck: Students classified as ELL who also receive special education services are less likely to be reclassified as fluent English proficient — because reclassification typically requires high achievement levels. This creates inflated special education numbers for emergent bilinguals in upper grades, independent of actual disability prevalence. It is a classification artifact, not an identification problem. (Umansky et al., 2017; Ortiz & Chow, 2026)
Practical takeaway: The research does not say "don't evaluate EB students early." It says the system has been systematically not evaluating them early, and the predictable consequence is a late-grade identification spike. The solution is timely, appropriate bilingual evaluation — not waiting for English proficiency. If a student shows signs of a disability in kindergarten or 1st grade, evaluate with appropriate tools now. Source: Ortiz, J. & Chow, J. (2026). Research in Special Education, 3. doi:10.25894/rise.2785
Instrument Selection for EB Students
Instrument choice should follow from the language profile established in pre-eval. Document rationale for every selection decision in the FIE.
⚡ Quick Decision Guide: Cognitive Battery
Student Profile
Recommended Cognitive Battery
Rationale
Spanish-dominant, Beginning/Intermediate TELPAS
WJ-V Batería III COG
Spanish-normed; reduces English-proficiency confound in cognitive testing
Spanish-dominant, any TELPAS level with significant language concerns
KABC-II (MPI or FCI)
Reduced verbal loading; MPI excludes Knowledge/Crystallized subtests; FCI is most culturally fair estimate
Bilingual (balanced), Advanced/Advanced High TELPAS
WJ-V COG (English) or WISC-V
Sufficient English proficiency; standard norms appropriate; document language background
Unknown/unclear dominance
KABC-II + language sample or BESA
Most resistant to language confound; clarify dominance before drawing conclusions
Any level where verbal subtests would be invalid
WISC-V NVI as supplement
Nonverbal Index reduces but does not eliminate language demands; not a complete solution
English only, no Spanish proficiency
Standard English battery as appropriate
Typical selection process applies; EB status still documented
⚡ Quick Decision Guide: Academic Achievement
Student Profile
Recommended ACH Battery
Notes
Spanish-dominant with formal Spanish literacy instruction
WJ-V Batería III ACH (Spanish) + English ACH (WJ-V or WIAT-IV)
Assess both languages; compare reading profiles across languages
Spanish-dominant, no formal Spanish literacy instruction
WJ-V Batería III ACH with caution on literacy subtests; note limited Spanish reading instruction
Low Spanish reading scores may reflect instruction gap, not disability
English-dominant but Spanish-speaking home
WJ-V ACH (English)
Standard selection; document language background; consider Spanish supplemental if RtI data is mixed
Phonological deficits in both languages = stronger dyslexia indicator; BESA includes phonological tasks
WJ-V Batería III COG & ACH
Woodcock-Johnson V Batería III — Cognitive & Achievement (Spanish norms)
COGACHSPANISH
What it measures
Parallel Spanish-normed version of the WJ-V COG and ACH. Cognitive clusters mirror WJ-V COG (Gc, Gf, Gwm, Gs, Gl, Gr, Gv). Achievement clusters cover reading, math, and written language with Spanish-normed tasks. Normed on Spanish-speaking individuals in the U.S., Mexico, and other Latin American countries.
✅ Use when: Student is Spanish-dominant, or when you need to assess academic skills developed in Spanish, or to compare performance across languages. Preferred instrument at LEA for Spanish-dominant EB students.
Key interpretation notes
Gc (Comprehension-Knowledge) on the Batería COG reflects Spanish-language crystallized knowledge — lower scores may reflect limited Spanish academic vocabulary, not cognitive deficit.
ACH reading subtests require formal Spanish literacy instruction to be valid — document whether student has received Spanish reading instruction and for how long.
Compare Batería COG cluster scores to WJ-V COG (English) if both were administered — discrepancies inform which language better reflects the student's true ability level.
Batería norms are separate from WJ-V English norms — do not directly compare standard scores across versions without noting this in the FIE.
Administering Batería ACH reading subtests to a student who has never received Spanish literacy instruction will yield invalid results — low reading scores would reflect lack of instruction, not reading disability. Document instruction history explicitly.
KABC-II
Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, Second Edition
COGREDUCED VERBAL
What it measures
Cognitive processing battery grounded in both Luria neuropsychological theory and CHC theory. Provides multiple composite scores: Mental Processing Index (MPI), Fluid-Crystallized Index (FCI), and Nonverbal Index (NVI). The MPI and especially FCI are specifically designed to minimize cultural and linguistic bias.
Composite scores for CLD use
FCI (Fluid-Crystallized Index): Includes all scales. Broadest estimate — appropriate when the student has had sufficient exposure to mainstream U.S. school culture and language.
MPI (Mental Processing Index): Excludes the Knowledge/Gc scale. Best choice for students with limited English proficiency or limited U.S. cultural exposure — removes the crystallized intelligence subtests most influenced by language background.
NVI (Nonverbal Index): Minimal verbal instructions and no verbal responses required. Use for students with severe language barriers or when verbal loading must be minimized.
✅ Use when: English proficiency is significantly limited, dominant language is unclear, or when a culturally fair cognitive estimate is needed alongside or instead of WJ-V Batería COG. Strong choice when SLP involvement is needed and a nonverbal cognitive estimate will complement language testing.
The KABC-II was last normed in 2004 (KABC-II; updated norms in KABC-II NU, 2018). Use KABC-II NU norms when available. Always document which norm set was used.
BESA
Bilingual English-Spanish Assessment
LANGUAGESPANISH/ENGLISH
What it measures
Standardized assessment of Spanish and English language skills in bilingual children ages 4–0 to 6–11 (preschool/K) and 5–0 to 13–11 (school age). Assesses morphosyntax, semantics, and phonology in both languages using bilingual norms. Specifically designed to differentiate language difference from language disorder (DLD/SLI) in Spanish-English bilinguals.
✅ Use when: DLD or SLI is suspected, when oral language deficits appear in both languages, when TELPAS/LPAC data alone is insufficient to characterize language profile, or when the referral question specifically involves language development vs. disability. Often administered by or in consultation with the SLP.
Key interpretation principle
A deficit identified in both Spanish and English on the BESA is a much stronger indicator of language disorder than a deficit in English only (which may reflect language acquisition). The BESA's bilingual norms are its key strength — it accounts for the fact that bilinguals distribute language knowledge across both languages.
BESA is typically within SLP scope. Diagnosticians should be aware of it for cross-disciplinary referral and report integration, but administration is generally an SLP function.
Score Validity & Interpretation Cautions
Scores from EB students require additional interpretive context. These cautions must be addressed in the FIE — silence on validity issues implies the scores are unqualifiedly valid.
🚨 Sources of Invalid or Reduced Validity Scores
Examiner obligation: IDEA requires that assessments be administered in the student's dominant language or in a manner that does not reflect language proficiency unless that is what is being assessed. Scores obtained under conditions that violate this must be flagged and interpreted cautiously.
Validity Threat
Affected Domains
How to Address in FIE
Limited English proficiency affecting verbal subtests
WJ-V COG Gc, WISC-V VCI, any verbal-heavy composite
Flag subtests; report scores as "an underestimate" or "should be interpreted cautiously given limited English proficiency"; use MPI or NVI instead of FSIQ/GIA
Batería ACH administered without prior Spanish literacy instruction
Batería reading/writing clusters
Note lack of instruction explicitly; do not interpret low reading scores as evidence of reading disability without this context
Interpreter used for administration
All subtests administered via interpreter
Document interpreter's qualifications; note that scores may not reflect standardized conditions; interpret with caution; note in FIE validity section
Testing in a non-dominant language
All domains if administered in wrong language
If only English instruments were available but Spanish is dominant, document the limitation prominently and note that scores likely underestimate ability
Note if stimulus content reflects U.S. cultural norms unfamiliar to the student; particularly relevant for recent immigrants and students with limited U.S. schooling
Test anxiety / unfamiliarity with standardized testing format
Timed subtests, PSI, all scores
Note behavioral observations; build rapport; administer during optimal session; document if testing conditions may have affected performance
Referral delay — evaluation conducted under academic failure conditions
All achievement domains; overall profile interpretation
If evaluation occurs in 3rd–5th grade after years of struggle, scores may reflect cumulative academic impact of an unaddressed disability rather than current ability. Document the referral timeline; note whether earlier intervention data was available and why evaluation was not initiated sooner. (Ortiz & Chow, 2026)
🔍 The Language Difference vs. Disability Distinction
Indicators of Language Difference (not disability):
Deficits only in English; performs age-appropriately in L1
Adequate academic progress in L1-based instruction
Peers with similar language backgrounds perform similarly
Limited English exposure / recent immigration
No deficits in nonverbal cognitive tasks
Rate of English acquisition appears consistent with peers
Indicators of Disability (present across languages):
Deficits in both L1 and L2
Deficits persist even with adequate instruction in L1
Phonological processing deficits in both languages (CTOPP-2 + Spanish phono tasks)
Progress significantly below same-language peers
Consistent cognitive-achievement discrepancy across both language batteries
History of concerns predating English instruction
📊 Score Comparison: Batería vs English WJ-V
When both Batería and English WJ-V are administered, comparing profiles is clinically meaningful. Look for: which battery yields higher cognitive scores (suggests that is the student's stronger academic language), whether achievement deficits appear in both languages (disability indicator), and whether the pattern is consistent across batteries.
Do not directly compare standard scores between Batería and English WJ-V as if they are equivalent — they use different norm samples. Instead, compare patterns of relative strengths and weaknesses, and note which battery appears to better represent the student's actual ability.
🧪 Phonological Processing in EB Students
The CTOPP-2 is normed on English speakers. For Spanish-dominant students with limited English, CTOPP-2 scores may be suppressed by language background rather than true phonological deficit. However, phonological processing deficits in dyslexia are language-general — if the student also demonstrates phonological deficits in Spanish (via BESA phonology subtests or informal tasks), that cross-language pattern is strong evidence of a true phonological processing disorder.
Spanish phonological processing tasks to consider in consultation with SLP: syllable segmentation, phoneme isolation, rhyming in Spanish. These are not standardized in the same way as CTOPP-2 but provide meaningful clinical information and can be documented as informal observations.
FIE Documentation Language
Sample phrases and paragraph templates for documenting language background, instrument rationale, and validity considerations in the FIE. Adapt to the individual student — never use boilerplate without modification.
📋 Language Background Documentation
Language background — general opening
[Student] is an emergent bilingual student whose primary home language is Spanish. According to parent report and review of the Home Language Survey, Spanish is the language most frequently spoken in the home and the language first spoken by [Student]. [Student] has received [ESL/bilingual dual-language] instruction since [grade/year]. Current TELPAS composite proficiency is [level], with domain scores in Listening ([level]), Speaking ([level]), Reading ([level]), and Writing ([level]).
Dominant language determination
Based on review of language proficiency data, parent interview, teacher input, and observation of [Student] during the evaluation, [Student]'s dominant language for conversational purposes is estimated to be [Spanish/English/balanced bilingual]. For academic tasks, [Student] demonstrated [greater comfort with / relatively equal performance in] [language]. This language profile informed instrument selection and score interpretation as described below.
Ruling out language difference as primary cause
Prior to determining eligibility, the evaluation team considered whether [Student]'s academic difficulties are primarily attributable to limited English proficiency, lack of appropriate instruction, or cultural/economic factors, per TAC §89.1040. [Student] has received [describe instruction — bilingual/ESL/appropriate sheltered instruction] since [year]. When compared to peers with similar language backgrounds and educational experience, [Student]'s performance is significantly below expectations, suggesting that language acquisition alone does not account for the observed difficulties. Deficits were identified in [both English and Spanish / across language-reduced cognitive tasks / phonological processing tasks], further supporting a disability hypothesis over a language-difference explanation.
Referral timing — documenting why evaluation was initiated now
This evaluation was initiated in [grade/year] based on [describe: teacher concerns, RTI data, screening results, parent request]. The evaluation team did not delay referral pending further English language development, consistent with research and TEA guidance that timely evaluation using appropriate bilingual instruments is preferable to waiting for English proficiency, and that delayed referrals for emergent bilingual students are associated with identification under accumulated academic failure conditions rather than timely support. Assessment was conducted using instruments appropriate for [Student]'s language profile as described herein.
🔬 Instrument Rationale Phrases
Rationale for using WJ-V Batería
Given [Student]'s Spanish language dominance and [Beginning/Intermediate] English proficiency, cognitive and academic assessment was conducted using the Woodcock-Johnson V Batería III, which provides Spanish-normed cognitive and achievement measures. Administration in [Student]'s stronger language was prioritized to obtain the most accurate estimate of cognitive ability and academic skill development.
Rationale for using KABC-II (MPI)
Due to [Student]'s limited English proficiency and to minimize the confound of language background on cognitive assessment results, the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, Second Edition (KABC-II) was selected. The Mental Processing Index (MPI) was used as the primary cognitive estimate, as it excludes subtests with high cultural and language loading (the Knowledge/Crystallized scale), providing a more equitable measure of cognitive processing ability for students with limited English proficiency.
Rationale for using both Batería and English WJ-V
To obtain a comprehensive picture of [Student]'s cognitive and academic functioning across both languages, both the WJ-V Batería III (Spanish norms) and the Woodcock-Johnson V (English norms) were administered. This cross-language comparison allows for identification of whether academic deficits are language-specific or present across both languages, which is essential for differentiating language difference from learning disability.
Batería ACH — limited Spanish literacy instruction caveat
It is noted that [Student] has had [limited/no] formal Spanish literacy instruction. WJ-V Batería ACH reading and writing subtests require prior literacy instruction in Spanish to be valid indicators of reading/writing disability. Low scores on Spanish literacy subtests should therefore be interpreted with caution and may reflect limited instructional exposure rather than a reading or writing disability in Spanish.
Subtests with significant verbal-language demands (including [list subtests, e.g., Gc composites, VCI]) should be interpreted with caution, as [Student]'s limited English proficiency may have suppressed performance on these measures. These scores are likely an underestimate of [Student]'s actual ability in the areas measured and should not be interpreted as reflecting cognitive deficits in the absence of corroborating evidence from language-reduced or L1 measures.
Interpreter use caveat
Portions of this evaluation were conducted with the assistance of a qualified interpreter. While every effort was made to maintain standardized administration procedures, the use of an interpreter may affect the standardization and validity of scores obtained. All results should be interpreted within the context of this limitation and considered alongside nonverbal performance and qualitative behavioral observations.
General EB score interpretation qualifier
All assessment results are interpreted within the context of [Student]'s bilingual background. Scores on measures with high verbal and cultural loading may not provide a fully accurate reflection of [Student]'s cognitive or academic abilities due to the influence of language proficiency and cultural factors. Results are most meaningfully interpreted alongside behavioral observations, language-reduced tasks, and comparison to peers with similar language backgrounds.