EB / Bilingual Evaluation Checklist — Texas IDEA

1️⃣

Pre-Referral: LPAC Involvement & Data Review

Before consent is sought — LPAC must be involved from the start

0 / 0

LPAC Requirements

LPAC representative has been notified and is involved in the referral process 19 TAC §89.1220

LPAC involvement is required throughout the evaluation process for any EB student — not just at the ARD. If student's parents have denied bilingual services, LPAC is still required.

LPAC documentation reviewed — student placement history, language program model, and instructional interventions provided

LPAC is required to meet annually. Review minutes and records for language proficiency levels, program decisions, and any prior concerns about academic progress.

Home Language Survey reviewed — native language confirmed, language(s) spoken at home documented

Required data source per TEA Dyslexia Handbook Figure 3.3. Confirms what language(s) to assess in.

Language Proficiency Data

TELPAS scores reviewed for all four domains: Listening, Speaking, Reading, Writing Handbook Fig. 3.3

Note current proficiency level (Beginning, Intermediate, Advanced, Advanced High) and trajectory over time. A student who has plateaued despite instruction may have a disability rather than just a language difference.

Student's language of instruction documented — type of program model recorded (dual language, transitional bilingual, ESL pull-out, ESL content-based, LOTE)

This determines which language(s) assessment should be conducted in and what instructional context scores must be interpreted against.

Oral language proficiency assessed or documented in BOTH languages — English and native language TEC §29.056

Even if prior formal proficiency data exists, the Dyslexia Handbook requires additional oral language proficiency assessment as part of the dyslexia evaluation due to its importance for interpretation.

Schooling History

Previous schooling history documented — including any schooling outside the United States Handbook Fig. 3.3

Interrupted schooling, schooling in a different language, or late entry to US schools significantly affects interpretation of academic achievement scores.

Literacy skills in native language documented — can student read and write in L1?

A student who is literate in a transparent orthography (Spanish, Italian, German) may show different dyslexia indicators than one reading English. Key for cross-linguistic interpretation.

⚠ Confirmed: difficulty is present in BOTH languages, not just English

Difficulty only in English may reflect language acquisition, not disability. Difficulty in both languages — especially in phonological awareness and reading — is a stronger indicator of dyslexia. Document evidence in each language.

Phase 1 Notes

2️⃣

Cumulative Data Gathering

All data sources required before or concurrent with formal evaluation

0 / 0

Academic & Intervention History

Classroom reading assessments reviewed in language of instruction (English and/or native language)

Include universal screening results (TEC §38.003 / §28.006), benchmark assessments, and any reading instruments from K–2 or grade 7.

Intervention history documented — type, language, duration, frequency, and student response Handbook Fig. 3.2

RTI/MTSS cannot be used to delay evaluation, but documenting what interventions were provided and how the student responded is essential context for interpretation.

Instructional strategies provided documented — including ESL strategies and ELPS implementation 19 TAC §74.4

Work samples collected — both timed and untimed, in English and native language if available

Environmental & Contextual Factors

Environmental, cultural, and socioeconomic factors documented and considered Handbook p. 27

These must be ruled out as the primary cause of academic difficulty. Document what factors are present but note that co-occurrence with a disability is possible — presence of an exclusionary factor does not automatically rule out SLD.

Parent/guardian input obtained — includes early language development, home literacy environment, language(s) spoken at home, family history of reading difficulties

Vision and hearing screenings current and on file

School attendance reviewed — irregular attendance documented and considered in interpretation

Phase 2 Notes

3️⃣

Instrument Selection & Administration Planning

Select instruments appropriate for the student's language background

0 / 0

Non-Discriminatory Assessment 34 CFR §300.304

Assessment administered in student's native language or other mode of communication unless clearly not feasible 34 CFR §300.304(c)(1)

Document why it is or is not feasible to assess in the native language. "Not feasible" must be justified — it is not simply that no Spanish instrument is available.

Instruments selected and administered in a manner that is not racially or culturally discriminatory

Evaluator has knowledge of first and second language acquisition theory and cross-linguistic interpretation Handbook p. 30

Required per the Dyslexia Handbook. Document in the FIE that the evaluator has this training/knowledge. If not, a qualified bilingual professional should be consulted or co-evaluate.

Cognitive Assessment

Cognitive battery selected with language demands in mind — consider language-reduced or nonverbal index

Options: KABC-II NVI or MPI (language-reduced approach, strong for EB students), WISC-V NVI, WJ-V COG with attention to Gc tasks that penalize limited English vocabulary. Document rationale for battery chosen.

If using KABC-II: rationale for NVI vs. MPI vs. FCI documented — note language-reduced approach in FIE narrative

Academic Achievement

Academic achievement assessed in the language(s) of instruction — English battery AND Spanish battery if applicable

Batería IV (Spanish WJ) for Spanish-dominant or dual language students. BESA for younger students (PreK–6). Do not interpret English-only academic scores as valid indicators of overall academic ability for a Spanish-dominant student.

Reading assessment includes measures of phonological awareness, decoding, fluency, and comprehension in language of instruction

Phonological Processing

Phonological awareness assessed — note that Spanish phonological awareness deficits may be less pronounced than in English Handbook Fig. 3.6

In transparent orthographies (Spanish), fluency is often a better indicator of dyslexia than decoding accuracy. Examine blending AND analysis skills separately — a deficit in one area can limit reading progress even if composite is average.

Rapid automatized naming (RAN) assessed — relevant across both English and Spanish profiles

If no standardized instrument is available in native language: informal measures documented (e.g., word reading list, listening comprehension in native language) Handbook p. 30

Oral Language

Oral language proficiency assessed in both languages for dyslexia evaluation purposes — even if prior TELPAS data exists Handbook p. 30

The Handbook specifically requires additional oral language assessment as part of a dyslexia FIIE — prior TELPAS data alone is not sufficient for this purpose.

Phase 3 Notes

4️⃣

Score Interpretation & Cross-Linguistic Analysis

Scores must be interpreted in linguistic and cultural context — not in isolation

0 / 0

TELPAS results interpreted in relation to academic achievement and cognitive scores Handbook p. 30

A student with Advanced High English proficiency who is still showing reading deficits is in a different interpretive context than a Beginning-level student. Proficiency level must frame every score interpretation.

Cross-linguistic profile considered — compared performance in English vs. native language across academic and cognitive domains

Deficits that appear in both languages are more likely to reflect a genuine learning disability. Deficits only in English are more likely to reflect language acquisition differences.

Written language system of native language considered in interpreting reading scores Handbook Fig. 3.5

Transparent orthographies (Spanish, Italian, German): decoding may be adequate but fluency is impaired. Opaque (English): early and marked word-level reading difficulty. Adjust what you look for accordingly.

Phonological awareness subtest scores examined individually — not just composite Handbook p. 33

A deficit in even one phonological skill (blending or analysis) can limit reading progress. Do not rely solely on composite scores to rule out phonological deficits.

Strengths and weaknesses identified across the full profile — including areas that may reflect language acquisition vs. disability

⚠ Confirmed: limited English proficiency is not the primary cause of the academic difficulties observed

Required exclusionary factor analysis under IDEA. However, language difference can co-exist with an SLD — the presence of limited proficiency does not automatically rule out disability. Document your reasoning.

⚠ Confirmed: cultural factors and lack of appropriate instruction have been considered and are not the primary cause

Phase 4 Notes

5️⃣

Dyslexia Identification — EB-Specific Considerations

Apply Figure 3.7 questions with cross-linguistic context

0 / 0

Data shows characteristics of dyslexia: difficulty with accurate and/or fluent word reading, poor spelling, poor decoding Handbook Fig. 3.7

For Spanish: fluency is often a stronger indicator than decoding accuracy. Spelling errors may be fewer than in English but still more than non-dyslexic peers.

Difficulties typically result from a deficit in the phonological component of language — confirmed across linguistic contexts

Average phonological composite scores alone do not rule out dyslexia. Examine subtest-level scores. RAN deficits alongside fluency difficulties support identification even when decoding composites are near-average.

Difficulties are unexpected in relation to the student's other abilities and provision of effective, linguistically appropriate instruction

"Unexpected" must be evaluated relative to the student's overall profile, language background, and quality of instruction received — not just age/grade norms.

No fixed waiting period applied — student has not been required to complete a set number of years in bilingual/ESL before referral Handbook FAQ Ch. 3 Q.15

There is no required number of years in bilingual/ESL instruction before evaluation. If the team suspects dyslexia, evaluate.

LPAC representative included on the ARD committee for eligibility determination Handbook p. 33

Phase 5 Notes

6️⃣

FIE Report Documentation

Required language and documentation elements in the written report

0 / 0

FIE documents student's language background, TELPAS levels, program model, and schooling history

FIE documents rationale for instrument selection — why each battery was chosen given the student's linguistic background

FIE includes cross-linguistic interpretation — scores contextualized within the student's language proficiency and orthographic background

Do not simply report standard scores without framing them within the student's English proficiency level and native language literacy context.

FIE documents exclusionary factor analysis — language difference, cultural factors, and lack of instruction ruled out as primary causes

FIE documents strengths and weaknesses across the full profile, not only areas of deficit

FIE recommendations address language of instruction for any dyslexia services — consistent with student's current program model Handbook p. 44

Dyslexia instruction for EB students must incorporate ELPS (19 TAC §74.4). The ARD committee will determine language of instruction for SDI in accordance with the student's program model.

PWN provided to parents in their native language or mode of communication 34 CFR §300.503

FIE report copy provided to parents at no cost, in accessible language

Phase 6 Notes