English Learners can have significant cultural and linguistic differences than other students who are evaluated for special education services.  Schools must include professionals with training and expertise in second language acquisition and an understanding of how to differentiate between the student’s limited English proficiency and the student’s disability. You will see that in every disability category, the presence of a second language or cultural factors are exclusionary factors that must be considered. 

Often, these students’ cultures and languages are not well-represented in the normative samples of the formal instruments we have available to use.  Because of this, any scores obtained from those tests would be invalid and therefore cannot be reported. Another factor is that students need to be assessed in their primary language, which means utilizing an interpreter in the majority of these cases, unless the examiner speaks that language.  Scores cannot be used to determine a student’s eligibility for special education when an interpreter is used for the assessment.  

So, how do we conduct evaluations for students with culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds?  

While many times standardized tools are still administered along with other informal procedures, in order to reduce biases, a student’s performance on a standardized assessment tool might simply be utilized as qualitative information to help determine strengths and weaknesses to plan appropriate programming.  Because the scores are already invalid, examiners can take the liberty to conduct a more dynamic assessment process. This dynamic assessment is done by testing a student’s limits by administering items below the basal and above the ceiling. They may also provide the student with more explanation or pre-teach a concept before administering certain items to see how that impacts the student's performance on the subtest.  These testing modifications need to be outlined in the evaluation plan pwn and then described again in the evaluation report.  

Another way that examiners can reduce bias during testing is to gather informal assessment data and place a higher emphasis on this type of information rather than standardized tools. This might include comparing a student’s skills to that of students with similar language and cultural background versus the general population.  You might also note the presence of similar patterns in a student’s behavior or performance with patterns noted in students with disabilities. Finally, the presence of significant needs would be another factor that should be considered. 

Instead of relying on scores to address parts of the disability criteria typically used, professionals should use all other information gathered to make a comprehensive professional decision.