Language Difference vs. Disorder — Bilingual EB

The Core Distinction — What You Are Determining

🌐 Language Difference

A language difference reflects the student's language learning environment and history — not an intrinsic deficit in the language acquisition system. Expected features of language difference include:

Limited English proficiency consistent with length of exposure and instructional context
Code-switching — fluid, purposeful alternation between languages; linguistically sophisticated, not disordered
Transfer features — phonological, syntactic, or lexical patterns from L1 appearing in L2 (e.g., Spanish syntax influencing English sentence construction)
Sequential bilingual development patterns — L1 may temporarily regress as L2 grows
Stronger performance in dominant language; weaker in less-used language
Improving English proficiency trajectory on TELPAS or language proficiency measures over time

Key signal: Difficulties are limited to English (or the non-dominant language) and do not appear — or appear much less — in the student's stronger language. The student communicates effectively in at least one language.

Source: Stanley, TEDA 2026; Paradis et al. (2011); TAC §89.1040

🔴 Language Disorder (DLD / SLI)

A language disorder — now commonly termed Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) or Speech-Language Impairment (SLI) in Texas eligibility — reflects an intrinsic deficit in the language acquisition system that affects the student's ability to learn language regardless of the input language. Expected features of language disorder include:

Difficulties present in both L1 and L2 — not limited to the less-proficient language
Language development that is slow or atypical even in the home/dominant language
Morphosyntax errors that are inconsistent with L1 transfer patterns — errors that would not be predicted by the student's L1 grammar
Difficulty with nonword repetition — a language-universal marker of DLD not affected by language background
Narrative structure weaknesses — difficulty organizing and sequencing a coherent story in either language
Family history of language or learning difficulties
Persistent slow rate of language growth despite rich language input and quality instruction

Key signal: Difficulties appear in the dominant/home language as well as English — the disorder is not language-specific. Parents or caregivers report that the student has always been a "late talker" or communicates less effectively than same-age peers in the home language.

Source: Stanley, TEDA 2026; Bishop et al. (2017); Kohnert (2010)

Clinical Indicators — Stanley TEDA 2026 Framework

🔍 Reading the Language Profile — Indicator Analysis

No single indicator confirms difference or disorder. The determination is made from a preponderance of indicators across multiple data sources. Use the color-coding below: amber = points toward disorder · green = points toward difference · purple = requires cross-linguistic interpretation. (Indicator categories from Stanley, TEDA 2026; amber/green/purple visual presentation is a hub adaptation.)

HISTORY & DEVELOPMENT

✔ Difference indicator: Typical L1 language milestones (first words by 12–14 mo, two-word combinations by 24 mo) reported by caregiver in home language

⚠ Disorder indicator: Late language emergence or slow language development reported in home language — before significant English exposure

⚠ Disorder indicator: Family history of language delay, learning disability, or reading difficulty

✔ Difference indicator: Adequate social communication in L1 — student communicates needs, tells stories, engages in conversation effectively at home

⚠ Disorder indicator: Caregivers report difficulty following complex directions or expressing ideas even in the home language

LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY & EXPOSURE

✔ Difference indicator: Limited English exposure — recent immigration, limited English in home, few years of English instruction

✔ Difference indicator: Proficiency improving on TELPAS across years — trajectory is upward even if current level is Beginning or Intermediate

⚠ Disorder indicator: TELPAS proficiency flat or declining despite adequate years of English instruction and language-rich schooling

◆ Cross-linguistic: CLI (WMLS-R or WJ-IV OL) below average in both English and Spanish — suggests language disorder rather than proficiency difference

◆ Cross-linguistic: CLI above average in L1 but below average in L2 — suggests difference; low L2 reflects learning stage, not disorder

STRUCTURAL LANGUAGE FEATURES

✔ Difference indicator: Errors are consistent with L1 transfer — predictable based on the student's home language grammar (e.g., adjective-noun reversal from Spanish "casa grande" → "house big")

⚠ Disorder indicator: Errors are not predictable from L1 transfer — atypical morphosyntax that would not be expected from any speaker of that L1 background

⚠ Disorder indicator: Omission of grammatical morphemes (verb tense markers, plurals, articles) at a rate exceeding peers with similar language backgrounds

⚠ Disorder indicator: Difficulty with nonword repetition — a language-universal marker that is minimally affected by language background or bilingualism

✔ Difference indicator: Code-switching that is purposeful, fluent, and rule-governed — not a sign of disorder; a sign of sophisticated bilingual competence

NARRATIVE & DISCOURSE

⚠ Disorder indicator: Narrative structure weak in both languages — difficulty with story grammar (character, setting, problem, resolution) even in L1

✔ Difference indicator: Richer, more organized narrative in L1 than L2 — expected given proficiency difference

⚠ Disorder indicator: Difficulty with inferencing, retelling, and main idea identification even when content is accessible and the language is simplified

RESPONSE TO INSTRUCTION

✔ Difference indicator: Responds readily to language-rich, comprehensible-input instruction — makes growth when taught in the dominant language or with strong visual/contextual support

⚠ Disorder indicator: Persistent limited language growth despite quality bilingual or ESL instruction with fidelity — not explained by instructional quality or exposure alone

Decision rule (Stanley, TEDA 2026): The more indicators that point toward disorder across both languages, the stronger the case for DLD/SLI. The presence of a few amber indicators in English only — especially in a student with limited exposure — is expected and does not confirm disorder. The weight of cross-linguistic evidence is the determining factor.

Source: Stanley, TEDA 2026; Paradis et al. (2011); Bishop et al. (2017); Kohnert (2010)

Assessment — Tools & Cross-Linguistic Data Sources

📊 Norm-Referenced Language Measures

English oral language:

WJ-IV OL Oral Language cluster WMLS-R English CLI WIAT-IV Listening Comprehension TAPS-4 Listening Comprehension Index

Spanish / bilingual oral language:

WMLS-R Spanish CLI Batería IV COG Oral Language Batería IV ACH Oral Language TAPS-3:SBE (Spanish/bilingual)

Language proficiency context:

TELPAS (proficiency level + trajectory) WMLS-R CLI dominance comparison

SLP-administered (collaborative):

BESA (Bilingual English-Spanish Assessment) BOLT (Bilingual One-word Language Tests) CELF-5 / CELF-5 Spanish ROWPVT-4 / EOWPVT-4

📋 Informal & Caregiver Data

Developmental history interview (caregiver):

Age of first words and sentences in home language
Current communication effectiveness at home — can the child tell a story, follow complex directions, hold a conversation in L1?
Whether siblings or parents have language, reading, or learning difficulties
Changes in home language use over time — has L1 weakened as L2 increased?

Language use questionnaire: Document the proportion of daily language exposure across settings — home, school, community. Limited English exposure is a critical alternative explanation for low English proficiency scores.

Cumulative records review: TELPAS scores across years; prior speech/language referrals; bilingual/ESL teacher input; report card language notes; prior evaluation data if available.

Teacher input: How does the student communicate with bilingual peers? Does the student initiate conversation? Is communication difficulty limited to English or observed in Spanish as well?

Caregiver interview in L1: Whenever possible, conduct the caregiver interview in the family's home language — or with a trained interpreter. Caregiver report of L1 development is the most critical piece of data for ruling in or ruling out disorder.

🔍 Dynamic Assessment

Dynamic assessment — test-teach-retest — is one of the most powerful tools for differentiating difference from disorder in EB students. Static norm-referenced scores reflect what a student currently knows; dynamic assessment measures learning potential and modifiability.

How to use it:

Identify a language skill the student performed poorly on (e.g., morphosyntax, vocabulary, narrative structure)
Provide brief, targeted mediated instruction on that skill
Re-administer a comparable task and measure change

Interpreting results:

✔Responds readily to mediation with clear improvement → supports language difference; the student can learn when taught

✖Minimal or no change despite targeted mediation → supports language disorder; modifiability is limited beyond what exposure alone explains

Note: Dynamic assessment findings should be documented qualitatively in the FIE — describe the task, the mediation provided, and the student's response. This data cannot replace norm-referenced scores but is a powerful supplement to cross-linguistic pattern analysis.

Source: Peña et al. (2006); Ukrainetz et al. (2000); Stanley, TEDA 2026

Cross-Linguistic Score Interpretation

⚖️ The Four Cross-Linguistic Patterns

Compare English oral language performance to Spanish (or home language) oral language performance. The pattern across languages is the primary interpretive framework.

Pattern	English OL	Spanish OL (L1)	Interpretation
Classic Difference	Below average	Average–Strong	Language difference. Low English reflects acquisition stage, not disorder. L1 is intact. Do not refer for SLI.
Classic Disorder	Below average	Below average	Language disorder strongly supported. Both languages affected — cannot be attributed to language exposure alone. Refer to SLP for collaborative determination.
L1 Attrition	Average–Low average	Below average	Possible L1 attrition — L1 has weakened as L2 grew. Does not necessarily indicate disorder. Investigate language use history and rate of L1 decline. SLP consultation recommended.
Simultaneous Low	Low	Low	Most concerning pattern. Warrants full SLP evaluation, caregiver developmental interview, and cross-linguistic clinical analysis. May indicate DLD, but also consider inadequate input in both languages, cognitive factors, or hearing impairment.

Critical caution: Scores from English-normed batteries administered to EB students reflect both language proficiency and language ability — they cannot be cleanly interpreted as measuring only one. Always contextualize English OL scores against TELPAS level, length of English exposure, and dominant language performance. A score of SS 78 on an English OL measure from a student who arrived two years ago and speaks Spanish at home is very different from the same score on a student born in the US who has been in English-only instruction since kindergarten.

Source: Stanley, TEDA 2026; Kohnert (2010); TAC §89.1040

📐 WMLS-R CLI — Language Dominance and Interpretation

The WMLS-R Comparative Language Index (CLI) provides a language-specific proficiency estimate in English and Spanish on the same scale. It is used for both dominance determination and cross-linguistic comparison.

Dominance determination (district protocol):

CLI difference ≥15 points → dominant language identified (higher-scoring language)
CLI difference <15 points → unclear dominance; evaluate in both languages

Cross-linguistic interpretation:

Both CLIs ≥90: Adequate proficiency in both languages — low achievement scores are not explained by language proficiency
English CLI low, Spanish CLI ≥90: Language difference — English weakness reflects acquisition, not disorder
Both CLIs below average (<85): Most significant finding — supports disorder over difference; refer collaboratively to SLP
Spanish CLI low despite Spanish-dominant home: Investigate quality and quantity of L1 input; consider whether L1 attrition, limited literacy in L1, or disorder may explain the pattern

FIE documentation: Always report both CLI scores in the oral language narrative. State the dominance finding explicitly, name the assessment instruments selected based on that finding, and connect the cross-linguistic pattern to the difference/disorder conclusion.

Source: Woodcock-Muñoz Language Survey-Revised Technical Manual; TAC §89.1040; district LPAC protocol

Diagnostician Role — Collaboration with SLP

🤝 What the Diagnostician Does vs. What the SLP Does

SLI (Speech-Language Impairment) is a collaborative eligibility category in Texas. The diagnostician does not make the SLI determination alone — it requires an SLP evaluation as part of the multidisciplinary team. Understanding the scope of each role prevents duplication, gaps, and defensive eligibility decisions.

Function	Diagnostician's Role	SLP's Role
Language history & exposure	Collects caregiver developmental history; documents language use patterns; reviews cumulative records and TELPAS trajectory	Conducts detailed case history; may administer caregiver language questionnaires
Language dominance	Administers WMLS-R; calculates CLI; documents dominance finding for instrument selection	Considers dominance finding in instrument selection and norm interpretation
Cognitive and academic data	Administers cognitive battery (WJ-V, WISC-V, Batería IV COG); interprets CHC profile; administers academic achievement battery	Reviews cognitive and academic data to contextualize language findings
Oral language measures	Administers WJ-IV OL, Batería IV COG/ACH oral language clusters, WMLS-R; interprets within CHC framework (Gc, Gl)	Administers BESA, CELF-5, ROWPVT/EOWPVT, narrative samples, dynamic assessment; interprets language-specific error analysis
Cross-linguistic pattern analysis	Documents English vs. Spanish performance patterns; flags "both languages low" as a disorder indicator; notes what is and is not explained by language exposure	Conducts detailed cross-linguistic error analysis; interprets transfer vs. non-transfer errors; leads clinical language determination
Difference vs. disorder conclusion	Documents convergent data pattern and frames the question; does not make the final SLI determination independently	Leads the language disorder determination; provides clinical judgment on whether a language disorder is present
FIE documentation	Writes cognitive, academic, and oral language sections; notes whether the pattern is consistent with difference or raises concern for disorder; references SLP findings	Writes the speech-language evaluation report; documents eligibility recommendation for SLI

Referral trigger: If the diagnostician's cross-linguistic data reveals both CLI scores below average, both L1 and L2 oral language below average, or a developmental history with early language concerns in the home language — refer to the SLP immediately rather than waiting for the full evaluation to be complete. Early SLP involvement leads to a stronger, more defensible MDT determination.

Source: TAC §89.1040; Stanley, TEDA 2026; TEA SLI Eligibility Guidance

FIE Language — Documenting the Determination

📝 When Ruling Out Disorder (Difference Conclusion)

Use when cross-linguistic data supports language difference as the primary explanation. Adapt as needed.

Establish the language exposure context:
"[Student] is a [grade] student whose primary home language is Spanish. [He/She/They] arrived in the United States [X years ago / was born here but speaks Spanish at home]. Per caregiver report, [Student]'s Spanish language development followed a typical developmental trajectory — first words at approximately [age], phrases by [age], and effective communication in Spanish within the home and community. Current TELPAS proficiency level in English is [level], with [improving / consistent] performance across the past [X] years of English instruction."

Name the cross-linguistic pattern:
"On the WMLS-R, [Student]'s Spanish CLI (SS = [X]) falls in the [classification] range, while [his/her/their] English CLI (SS = [X]) reflects an earlier stage of English language acquisition. This cross-linguistic pattern — adequate proficiency in the dominant language alongside developing English proficiency — is consistent with the expected trajectory of sequential bilingual language development, not with a language disorder."

State the conclusion and connect to eligibility:
"The evaluation team concludes that [Student]'s language difficulties are best explained by the normal process of second-language acquisition rather than a language disorder. [Student]'s oral language profile is consistent with a language difference. There is insufficient evidence to support Speech-Language Impairment eligibility at this time. [Student]'s language needs are best addressed through continued quality ESL/bilingual instruction."

📝 When Raising Concern for Disorder

Use when cross-linguistic data raises concern for DLD/SLI. This language refers the question to the SLP — it does not make the SLI determination.

Document the cross-linguistic concern:
"[Student]'s oral language profile raises concern that extends beyond expected second-language acquisition patterns. On the WMLS-R, both [his/her/their] English CLI (SS = [X]) and Spanish CLI (SS = [X]) fall below average, indicating difficulty with language proficiency in both the dominant and developing language. Per caregiver report, [describe: e.g., 'concerns about language development were noted as early as age [X], before significant English exposure began']."

Name the specific indicators:
"[Student]'s language profile includes features that are not consistent with typical language difference patterns, including [describe specific indicators: e.g., 'narrative structure weakness observed in both English and Spanish during informal language sampling,' 'morphosyntax errors that are not predicted by Spanish-to-English transfer patterns,' 'limited response to language-rich instruction despite [X] years of quality bilingual programming']."

Refer and frame for the ARD:
"The convergent pattern of cross-linguistic oral language data warrants Speech-Language Pathologist evaluation to determine whether [Student]'s language difficulties reflect a Developmental Language Disorder rather than a language difference due to bilingual language acquisition. An SLP evaluation has been [requested / completed — see SLP report]. The multidisciplinary team will consider SLP findings alongside this evaluation in determining eligibility."

🤠

Texas Policy — Language Difference, SLI Eligibility, and EB Students

Under TAC §89.1040, a student may not be found eligible for special education solely on the basis of limited English proficiency. The evaluation team must rule out language difference as the primary explanation for academic or language difficulties before determining that a disability is present. This requirement applies to all eligibility categories — not just SLI — when the student is an emergent bilingual.

SLI eligibility in Texas requires evaluation by a licensed speech-language pathologist and determination by the multidisciplinary team that the student has a communication disorder that adversely affects educational performance. SLI is a collaborative determination — the diagnostician contributes cognitive, academic, and cross-linguistic data, while the SLP leads the clinical language evaluation. Neither can make the determination alone.

LPAC involvement: The Language Proficiency Assessment Committee (LPAC) must be involved in evaluation planning for EB students. LPAC documentation, TELPAS history, and any prior bilingual/ESL service records must be reviewed as part of the FIE. TAC §89.1210 and §89.1220 govern LPAC responsibilities in the special education referral process.

Instrument selection: For students whose dominant language is Spanish, the evaluation must include measures that assess ability in that language. Administering only English-normed instruments to a Spanish-dominant student does not meet the IDEA requirement for evaluation in the language most likely to yield accurate information about the student's abilities (IDEA §614(b)(3)).

Exclusionary factor documentation: The FIE must explicitly address whether language background, limited English exposure, lack of appropriate instruction, or cultural factors could account for the identified difficulties. This documentation is not optional — it is an IDEA-required component of the SLD and SLI eligibility determination for EB students.

Sources: TAC §89.1040; TAC §89.1210; TAC §89.1220; IDEA §614(b)(3)(A); TEA Guidance for Comprehensive Evaluation of SLD (January 2025); Stanley, TEDA 2026