Unless otherwise noted, the publisher, which is the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association

(ASHA), holds the copyright on all materials published in Perspectives on Culturally and
Linguistically Diverse Populations, both as a compilation and as individual articles. Please see
Rights and Permissions for terms and conditions of use of Perspectives content:
http://journals.asha.org/perspectives/terms.dtl

Assessment 360˚: A Panoramic Framework for Assessing

English Language Learners
Nancy Lewis
Nancy Lewis & Company
Boulder, CO
Nancy Castilleja
Pearson Products
San Antonio, TX
Barbara J. Moore
Anaheim Union High School District
Anaheim, CA
Barbara Rodriguez
The University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM

Abstract
This issue describes the Assessment 360˚ process, which takes a panoramic approach to
the language assessment process with school-age English Language Learners (ELLs). The
Assessment 360˚ process guides clinicians to obtain information from many sources when
gathering information about the child and his or her family. To illustrate the process, a
bilingual fourth grade student whose native language (L1) is Spanish and who has been
referred for a comprehensive language evaluation is presented. This case study features
the assessment issues typically encountered by speech-language pathologists and
introduces assessment through a panoramic lens. Recommendations specific to the case
study are presented along with clinical implications for assessment practices with
culturally and linguistically diverse student populations.

English Language Learners

It is estimated that, by the year 2030, nearly 40% of children in the United States will
learn a minority home language and English as their second language (U. S. Department of
Education & National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (U. S. DOE & NICHD),
2003). Nearly 80% of these children will speak Spanish as their native language (Zehler,
Fleischman, Hopstock, Stephenson, Pendzick, & Sapru, 2003). Table 1 displays the five most
common languages spoken by ELLs during the 2000-2001 school year, along with the relative
percentages of ELL students who are speakers of these languages.

37

Downloaded From: http://pubs.asha.org/ by University of Cincinnati - Medical Bookstore, Amy Hobek on 11/16/2015
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 Table 1. Top five languages spoken by ELLs in public schools in 2000-2001
Source: Kindler, A.L., Survey of the States’ Limited English Proficient Students and Available Educational Programs and
Services 2000-2001 Summary Report (2002)

Languages Commonly Spoken Language ELL Students % of Limited English

by ELLs in U.S. Schools Proficient Students

1 Spanish 3,598,451 79.045%

2 Vietnamese 88,906 1.953%

3 Hmong 70,768 1.555%
4 Chinese, 46,466 1.020%
Cantonese
5 Korean 43,969 .966%

For clinicians working in public school settings, the demographic reports of increasing
diversity among the general population serve only as a confirmation of what is witnessed in
classrooms across the nation. Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) are often among the “first
responders” when a student who is an ELL is struggling academically. As first responders,
SLPs need to be prepared as a resource to the student, his or her family, and the school
community.

The Importance of Accurate Assessment and Service Delivery

The long-term communicative, academic, and social outcomes for children with
communication disorders have been well-documented (e.g., Catts, 1993; Cantwell & Baker
1997; Catts, Fey, Tomblin, & Zhuang, 2002). Recently, a group of Canadian researchers
reported the results of a 20-year longitudinal study, the Ottawa Language Study, which
followed a group of children with speech and/or language disorders, as well as a group of
typically developing children, from kindergarten to age 25 (Johnson, Beitchman, & Brownlie,
2010). A total of 244 participants (112 with communication disorders and 132 typically
developing) were initially identified at the age of 5 and subsequently followed at the ages of 12,
19, and 25 in order to describe the family, educational, occupational, and quality of life
outcomes of individuals with communication disorders.
Their results indicated that a history of language impairment resulted in poorer
outcomes in communication, educational attainment, cognitive/academic, and occupational
status than for those without language impairment or with speech impairment alone. Nearly
75% of the children with early-detected language disorders showed continued disorder in
young adulthood, along with increased risk of long-term adverse outcomes in communication,
academic, cognitive, and social/behavioral areas of development. For many of the children with
language disorders, there was a higher tendency for high school failure and dropping out, a
reduced likelihood of post-secondary school attendance, and a higher risk for legal problems.
For the children with early speech-only disorders, less than 50% demonstrated continuation of
a mild speech disorder and were at minimum risk for negative outcomes in communication,
academic, cognitive, or social/behavioral areas. The strength of an individual’s social network
was associated with the measure of well-being. That is, there was no significant difference
between the three groups (those with language impairment, speech impairment, and without
communication disorder) in well-being.
Though the Ottawa Language Study and other research reports do not provide outcome
data specific to bilingual populations with communication disorders, one may hypothesize that
the outcomes reported may be similar for a bilingual population. In fact, outcomes for school-

38

Downloaded From: http://pubs.asha.org/ by University of Cincinnati - Medical Bookstore, Amy Hobek on 11/16/2015
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 While clinicians recognize that reliance on a single test score does not constitute a
“comprehensive assessment,” in practice there is a heavy reliance on a test score that provides
a single piece of information about a student’s language skills. For every student assessed, the
clinician’s mission is to collect a body of evidence about the student that helps answer the
following diagnostic question: “Is the child manifesting characteristics of second language
acquisition, or does the student have a communication problem due to an intrinsic language
related learning impairment?” (Gonzáles, 2006, 2007).
Every child who is referred for a speech-language assessment presents a unique
combination of language patterns influenced by home, school, and culture. For students who
speak two languages, it is important to assess skills in each language and to use the all the
tools we have in our assessment toolkit, not just standardized assessments, to collect the
evidence we need to help us determine if a student is demonstrating language abilities typical
of a second language learner or if the student has characteristics indicating a language
disorder. Lewis and Cheng (2008) refer to the concept of “cultural due diligence,” in which
clinicians investigate available information about the student’s language and culture as well as
developmental, family, and educational history to identify factors that can support or refute
hypotheses about a child’s language abilities. Conducting cultural due diligence, that is,
assembling relevant, accurate information about a student, yields a body of evidence that will
assist you to make recommendations for intervention.
As SLPs, we are actually detectives. As skillfully described by Lilly Cheng in “Lessons
from the DaVinci Code: Working with Bilingual/Multicultural Children and Families,”
When working with culturally and linguistically diverse children and families, SLPs
must function like Seracini—as inquisitive diagnosticians using a range of tools to
decode the meaning of verbal, nonverbal, and socio-cultural messages with the intent of
providing a clinical chart. The methods are not the same as Seracini's, but the process
of uncovering the codes is equally fascinating. (Cheng, 2006)
Following Dr. Cheng’s suggestion that SLPs must use a range of methods to uncover a
student’s communicative strengths and weaknesses, we propose a framework, GRASP IT,
which is intended to guide clinicians in conducting comprehensive and integrative
assessments. GRASP IT is based upon the principles discussed by Cheng that focus on
gathering information about a student’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats
(SWOT) and doing so by reviewing, interviewing, observing, and testing (RIOT).

41

Downloaded From: http://pubs.asha.org/ by University of Cincinnati - Medical Bookstore, Amy Hobek on 11/16/2015
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 the classroom teacher and the educational team is to question if there is “something else” going
on with the student and to begin to inquire as to whether the student may need to be
considered for special education.
Although it may seem that a referral for the assessment of a student who is
experiencing school failure is a logical recommendation, the bigger picture provides disturbing
evidence that many ELL and CLD students have been identified and placed in special
education at a significantly disproportionate rate. Concerns about the over- or under-
identification of students from racial minority and ELL backgrounds have been expressed by
Congress in both the 1997 and 2004 reauthorizations of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA; Moore & Montgomery, 2008; Moore, 2008). As a result of these concerns,
states and school districts are monitored through compliance requirements for identification of
students in these categories. School districts that are found to be disproportionate in
identification of students from racial-ethnic and/or language minority groups will be required
to use 15% of their special education funds in early intervening services to address the issue of
disproportionality (Moore).
A school district and individual professional also must take into account the academic
history of the CLD student being referred for assessment. Freeman, Freeman, and Mercum
(2003) suggest that ELLs generally can be classified into one of three types: students with
formal academic learning, students with limited formal schooling, and long-term English
learners. Recognizing students’ previous educational and linguistic experiences is increasingly
seen as a crucial consideration in the analysis of their educational benefit. Failing to recognize
the differences in students’ educational and linguistics experiences and not accounting for the
variability in students’ background may lead to inaccurate interpretation of diagnostic results.
What does this mean, then, for the ELL who is struggling academically? How does an
SLP or an assessment team ensure that an assessment is truly warranted and that the student
truly has language or learning disability and is not struggling due to second language
development? Assessment teams must work through complex questions that have plagued
professionals and diagnosticians for decades:
1. Are the student’s struggles due to a language difference or a language/learning
disability?
2. Has the student had adequate and consistent instructional opportunities that support
his/her English language development?
3. How will the educational team make these determinations, especially if the team
consists of individuals who do not speak the native language of the student?
4. If the assessment results show that the student does not show academic prowess in L1,
but the student has not received academic instruction in L1, does that indicate that the
student has a learning or language disability?
5. Is it ever acceptable to only assess in English, especially if the student has not received
any instruction in his/her native language?
6. What are the linguistic patterns of second language acquisition that need to be
considered so that students are not inappropriately identified as having a disability,
when, in fact, the student is experiencing and demonstrating the impact of bilingual
language development?
We will return with answers to these questions at the conclusion of our case study.

GRASP IT

40

Downloaded From: http://pubs.asha.org/ by University of Cincinnati - Medical Bookstore, Amy Hobek on 11/16/2015
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 While clinicians recognize that reliance on a single test score does not constitute a
“comprehensive assessment,” in practice there is a heavy reliance on a test score that provides
a single piece of information about a student’s language skills. For every student assessed, the
clinician’s mission is to collect a body of evidence about the student that helps answer the
following diagnostic question: “Is the child manifesting characteristics of second language
acquisition, or does the student have a communication problem due to an intrinsic language
related learning impairment?” (Gonzáles, 2006, 2007).
Every child who is referred for a speech-language assessment presents a unique
combination of language patterns influenced by home, school, and culture. For students who
speak two languages, it is important to assess skills in each language and to use the all the
tools we have in our assessment toolkit, not just standardized assessments, to collect the
evidence we need to help us determine if a student is demonstrating language abilities typical
of a second language learner or if the student has characteristics indicating a language
disorder. Lewis and Cheng (2008) refer to the concept of “cultural due diligence,” in which
clinicians investigate available information about the student’s language and culture as well as
developmental, family, and educational history to identify factors that can support or refute
hypotheses about a child’s language abilities. Conducting cultural due diligence, that is,
assembling relevant, accurate information about a student, yields a body of evidence that will
assist you to make recommendations for intervention.
As SLPs, we are actually detectives. As skillfully described by Lilly Cheng in “Lessons
from the DaVinci Code: Working with Bilingual/Multicultural Children and Families,”
When working with culturally and linguistically diverse children and families, SLPs
must function like Seracini—as inquisitive diagnosticians using a range of tools to
decode the meaning of verbal, nonverbal, and socio-cultural messages with the intent of
providing a clinical chart. The methods are not the same as Seracini's, but the process
of uncovering the codes is equally fascinating. (Cheng, 2006)
Following Dr. Cheng’s suggestion that SLPs must use a range of methods to uncover a
student’s communicative strengths and weaknesses, we propose a framework, GRASP IT,
which is intended to guide clinicians in conducting comprehensive and integrative
assessments. GRASP IT is based upon the principles discussed by Cheng that focus on
gathering information about a student’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats
(SWOT) and doing so by reviewing, interviewing, observing, and testing (RIOT).

41

Downloaded From: http://pubs.asha.org/ by University of Cincinnati - Medical Bookstore, Amy Hobek on 11/16/2015
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 Figure 3. GRASP IT!

GRASP IT! refers to the following procedures:

• Gather: Become a detective to gather the necessary information. This may take
some digging, yet it is an essential component.
• Review: Continually examine what you find and determine what else is needed; you
may decide to gather missing information.
• Ask: Interviewing teachers, family members, and/or members of the community will
provide vital information that can help you determine the significance of assessment
results.
• See: Observe the student in multiple settings with different partners to obtain
information about the student as a communicator.
• Proceed: Determine the next step: Do you have the information you need to design
effective instructional strategies? Does the student need additional support for
English language development? Is it appropriate to refer the student for a full and
comprehensive evaluation?
• Integrate: Analyze the data you have gathered. Has the student had adequate
support in acquiring English to ensure that the instructional material has been
comprehensible? Have you conducted cultural due diligence in order to correctly
interpret the data that you have? Are there aspects of the student’s academic
program that have not been investigated? Integrate all relevant data that has been
gathered and reviewed. Once the need for assessment has been determined, the
next obvious step is when formal testing begins.
• Test: Formal and informal assessment measures will complete the picture.
The steps in the Assessment 360˚ process are not linear. You may gather data and,
upon review, discover that you need to go back to the source to dig a little deeper. Though we
often think of standardized testing when we think of assessment, the gathering of data,
observations of the student in different contexts, the interviews conducted with relevant family
members, the review of the academic history, and the administration of formal tests are all
valid components of a panoramic assessment process that will build a body of evidence. These
steps are essential to the understanding of a student and his/her particular language and
learning needs.

42

Downloaded From: http://pubs.asha.org/ by University of Cincinnati - Medical Bookstore, Amy Hobek on 11/16/2015
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 Assessment Toolkit
What tools should be part of our Assessment 360˚ toolkit? A detailed developmental and
academic history, parent and teacher interviews, language sampling, observation of the child in
the classroom and with peers, dynamic assessment, and norm-referenced assessment (when
the normative group is appropriate) each add specific information to the body of evidence we
gather to make our determination of language difference versus language disorder.
Figure 4

Type of Assessment Evidence Provided

Developmental history Information about acquisition of early language and

non-language targets
like/unlike siblings
Typical developmental milestones
Medical history that could affect speech and language
development
Frequent hospitalizations
Ear infections
Academic history Information about the child’s academic instruction
U.S./non-U.S. academic settings
Stable or interrupted
Instruction in English or Spanish
Information about the supports that have been in
place for 2nd language acquisition
Supportive/non-supportive environment

Academic progress similar/not similar to ELL peers

Parent interview Home language information
Use of primary and secondary language at home with
parents, siblings, extended family, and friends
Language preferences in different settings or for different
activities
Dynamic assessment Ability of child to learn new tasks in structured teaching
environment.
Assists in differentiating a child who has not had the
opportunity to learn a language skill from one who has
difficulty learning new skills
Language sampling Child’s connected speech in less structured, more
social/interactive language tasks
Mean length of utterance
Narrative structure
Pragmatic language skills
Observations of the child in Child’s connected speech in social (low structure) vs.
the classroom and with peers academic settings (high structure)
Pragmatic language patterns
Language preferences
Norm referenced assessment Quantitative comparison of the child’s language skills to
typically developing peers
Generally assessed in highly structured, school-like tasks
In a typical clinical or public school setting, it is unlikely that a clinician would be able
to gather evidence for every student; however, it is important that multiple data points are
gathered for each student along with a combination of assessment tools that provide an
accurate picture of the student’s abilities. Each bit of “evidence” you obtain about a student
adds information that helps you differentiate between the child with a language difference (a

43

Downloaded From: http://pubs.asha.org/ by University of Cincinnati - Medical Bookstore, Amy Hobek on 11/16/2015
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 child who is in the process of acquiring a second language and exhibiting the normal language
patterns associated with learning a second language) from a child with a language disorder.
With multiple data points, a pattern emerges that enables you to make a recommendation that
is tailored for each student’s needs. Does most of the evidence suggest a typically developing
child with good social language in English who is struggling academically? Are the child’s
academic needs addressed in the general education classroom? Is the student showing
significant deficits that require specialized intervention? We will examine this further in the
context of the case study below.

Case Study
The following case study demonstrates the application of the Assessment 360˚ process
in a public school setting. It illustrates the type of information clinicians are encouraged to
collect in order to complete a comprehensive and integrative assessment. As we know, school-
based SLPs often are required to accomplish evaluations under strict time constraints dictated
by workloads. Completing a variety of assessments, gathering and reviewing information,
interviewing family members, and uncovering aspects of the student’s academic history are
time-consuming activities by their very nature. In reality, however, an investment of time is
required to construct the body of evidence that will allow you to begin to answer the “language
difference or language disorder” question. The panoramic approach detailed in the GRASP IT
framework may serve as a navigational tool that will direct the assessment process. Remember,
as good diagnosticians, we are active detectives!
Background Information
Belen is a 9 year, 6 month old bilingual (English-Spanish) girl in the fourth grade. Belen
was born in the United States and has attended public school in a large metropolitan district
since kindergarten. Belen lives with her mother, father, two older brothers, and a younger
sister. Her parents are from Mexico and there are extended family members currently living in
Mexico.
Belen has received all academic instruction in English. The school district where Belen
attends school does not have any bilingual programs and has struggled with a staffing shortage
for English language development/ESL teachers. Currently, Belen’s school is comprised of 34%
Hispanic students. Belen has been referred to her school’s problem-solving team due to
persistent difficulty with literacy and poor academic performance.
Following are responses to questions about Belen’s family history.
• How long has the family been in the United States? 11 years
• How many years has the student been enrolled in this school district? Five years
• What is the family’s country of origin and native language? Mexico/Spanish
• Where was the student born? U.S.
• How frequently does the family/student visit their native country? 1-2 times per
year
• How does the student’s communication skills compare to others in the family?
Mother reports that Belen had some articulation problems in Spanish as a young
child, but now Mom feels she communicates as she expects. Belen’s mother knows
that she has a hard time reading and that she “doesn’t know that much English.”
Mom knows that Belen is a good student and works hard.

44

Downloaded From: http://pubs.asha.org/ by University of Cincinnati - Medical Bookstore, Amy Hobek on 11/16/2015
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 Figure 5. Languages spoken in the home
Family Member Relation to Age (if sibling) Language(s) Spoken Language(s) Spoken to the Student?
Name Student
Marta Mother Spanish Spanish
Sergio Father Spanish Spanish
Eduardo Brother 16 Spanish & English English
Manuel Brother 12 Spanish & English English & Spanish
Yolanda Sister 3 Spanish Spanish

Belen lives with her mother and father, two older brothers, and a younger sister. Her
mother and father speak Spanish, with limited use of English. Belen and her older brothers
speak English and Spanish, and her young sister, age 3, speaks only Spanish. English is the
language that the school-age siblings primarily use at school and at home. They all speak
Spanish with their parents, though sometimes Belen asks for assistance from one of her
brothers to convey her message to her parents in Spanish.
Figure 6. Literacy level in the home

Family Member Name Read/Write in Native Read/Write in English?

Language?
Mother & Father Yes; functional literacy No
Eduardo No Yes
Manual No Yes, receives literacy support in school
Belen No Yes, with support
Yolanda No No

Belen and her older siblings do not read in their native language of Spanish and do not
have leisure reading material in Spanish at home. Belen’s mother completed the sixth grade in
her home town in Mexico and has a functional reading ability in Spanish. She does not read in
English. Belen’s father completed the third grade in Mexico and currently works in the
construction industry. One of Belen’s brothers is receiving has been identified as learning-
disabled and receives special education support in schools.
Following are responses about Belen’s home life.
• How do family members assist the student with homework? Belen’s mother
attempts to help with homework; at times, Belen’s oldest brother helps. Both of her
brothers have stronger English proficiency than Belen.
• What responsibilities/chores does the student have after school? Belen helps with
her younger sister and offers to help her mom with cooking and cleaning. She is
eager to complete her homework.
• How does the student spend his/her free time? Belen likes to draw and to write
stories. She watches T.V. (English and Spanish stations) and likes crafts.
• Are there concerns regarding the student’s home environment? No, there are no
concerns.
• Are there behavioral, social, or emotional concerns with this student? No, there are
no such concerns, Belen is a responsible student. She puts forth tremendous effort
in her school work.

45

Downloaded From: http://pubs.asha.org/ by University of Cincinnati - Medical Bookstore, Amy Hobek on 11/16/2015
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 Following are responses to questions about Belen’s health and developmental
information.
• Were there any complications during pregnancy or at birth? No, there were none.
• Has the student’s health and development been different from those of his/her
siblings? Belen had a few isolated articulation errors as a younger child. Her older
brother was identified with Specific Learning Disability.
• Does the student have a history of a medical condition that has required
hospitalization? No, she does not.
• Has the student ever been seriously injured in an accident or suffered a head
injury? No, she has not.
• Does the student have a history of ear infections? Yes, she does.
• If yes, please explain: Until the age of 4, Belen had 1-2 ear infections a year.
Figure 7. Hearing and vision screening

Screening Date: Feb 2010 Right Left

Hearing: 25 dB 25 dB
Vision: 20/20 20/20
Generally speaking, Belen’s development milestones were met within normal limits.
According to her mother, Belen had isolated articulation errors with the “r” sounds in Spanish.
Mother reported that Belen had ear infections as a toddler that resolved by the age of four.
Language Proficiency
The English Language Assessment (ELA) Proficiency Test is a standardized test
administered to students whose home language is other than English. It is designed to observe
and report gains in English proficiency in the areas defined as listening, speaking, reading, and
writing. Federal and state mandates require the annual assessment of English language
proficiency, The ELA provides a score from 1-5 on the four areas assessed, with 1 indicating
the lowest level of proficiency and 5 indicating fully proficient. An overall proficiency level is
reported as well. The overall proficiency levels are:
• Level 1 = Non-English Proficient or NEP 1
• Level 2 = Non-English Proficient or NEP 2
• Level 3 = Limited English Proficient or LEP 1
• Level 4 = Limited English Proficient or LEP 2
• Level 5 = Fully English Proficient or FEP

46

Downloaded From: http://pubs.asha.org/ by University of Cincinnati - Medical Bookstore, Amy Hobek on 11/16/2015
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 Figure 8. English acquisition scores

School Speaking Listening Reading Writing Overall Proficiency Level

Year Proficiency Proficiency Proficiency Proficiency
Level Level Level Level
09-10 3 2 1 2 NEP 2
08-09 2 2 1 2 NEP 2
07-08 3 2 1 1 NEP 1
The Spanish Language Proficiency Language Assessment Scales (LAS; DeAvila &
Duncan, 1990) is the instrument used by Belen’s school district to assess Spanish proficiency
in the native Spanish-speaking students who have been referred for a comprehensive
evaluation. As used by this school district, the instrument provides an extremely limited
thumbnail sketch of basic speaking and listening abilities in Spanish, given that it has not
been administered in its entirety and the most recent edition was not used. The LAS is scored
on a 1-5 rating scale. The ratings on the LAS are as follows:
• 1 = Non-Spanish Proficient
• 2= Limited Spanish Proficient 1
• 3= Limited Spanish Proficient 2
• 4= Near Fluent Spanish Proficiency
• 5= Fully Fluent Proficiency
Figure 9. Spanish proficiency score

Feb 2010 Level for Speaking and Listening

LAS-Spanish 4
Near Fluent Spanish Proficiency
Belen’s results indicated “near fluent” Spanish proficiency. This instrument does not
capture academic language proficiency. According to Belen, Spanish and English are “equal”
for her, though she reported that Spanish was easier to speak and understand and that
English was easier to read and write. She said that she speaks English with her friends and
Spanish with her family.
Academic History
The following chart provides a brief description of the general education instruction that
Belen has received for the last 3 years.
Figure 10. Educational history

Language of Individualized Instruction for

School Year School ESL Interventionists Involved
Instruction Literacy
Fourth Grade MLK English 60 mins./day Reading support Yes
Third Grade MLK English 45 mins./day Reading support No
Second Grade MLK English Consult No No
First Grade No records

Belen’s support for acquiring English has been inconsistent throughout her school
career. No information regarding English language acquisition instruction is available in
Belen’s records prior to second grade. When Belen was in second grade, her ESL support is

47

Downloaded From: http://pubs.asha.org/ by University of Cincinnati - Medical Bookstore, Amy Hobek on 11/16/2015
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 recorded as “consult as needed.” In the third grade, Belen received ESL support for 45 minutes
daily. There are no records of language objectives or progress. Belen’s ESL teacher described
the class as “large and diverse (more than 30 students) in a tight space, and many students
with special needs.” Her teacher noted that, although Belen was a hard worker and dedicated
student, she was the only student who did not make basic progress. Currently, Belen receives
ESL instruction in a small group of students who scored in the “non-English proficient”
category on the ELA. According to her teacher, the other students are either recent arrivals to
the United States or students with special needs.
Upon review of records written by Belen’s teachers, her performance on statewide
standardized tests, and Belen’s report cards for the last 3 years, certain themes emerged. One
consistent theme was that Belen was a hard-working student with a very positive attitude
towards school work. Throughout second, third, and fourth grades, Belen’s teachers attributed
her low academic performance to “limited language acquisition rather than any disability.” On
the statewide standard assessment administered annually from third through tenth grade,
results categorize students into one of four performance levels: unsatisfactory, partially
proficient, proficient, or advanced. Belen’s performance was categorized as “unsatisfactory” in
third and fourth grades for the three content areas tested: reading, writing, and math. On the
assessments administered at her school, Belen’s reading and writing levels were reportedly at
the primer and first grade level. On Belen’s most recent report card, she received an A in
Reading, a B in Writing, and Cs in Math, Science, and Social Studies.
In the school-based problem-solving team, Belen’s second, third, and fourth grade
teachers discussed their concerns regarding Belen’s limited progress. Below is a summary from
each grade:
Second Grade:
• Very low oral language skills (English)
• No progress in reading
• Struggles with academic language
• Low comprehension and story retelling
• Question memory issues
• Hard-working
Third Grade:
• Difficulty memorizing math facts and sight words
• Errors indicating struggle with knowledge of English grammar
• Difficulty attending to text
• Rarely self-corrects
• Poor decoding skills
• Slow reading fluency: 49 words per minute with third grade text
• Hard-working
Fourth Grade:
• Struggles with decoding; meaning is lost
• Knows all sounds

48

Downloaded From: http://pubs.asha.org/ by University of Cincinnati - Medical Bookstore, Amy Hobek on 11/16/2015
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 • Uses pictures to aid with comprehension
• Difficulty recognizing sight words
• “Understands English well”
• Slow reading fluency: 68 word per minute with first grade text
• Diligent
Currently, the problem-solving team is concerned that Belen continues to score as a
“non-English proficient” student on the ELA, with little growth in reading and writing. She
continues to have difficulty with most aspects of literacy, in spite of extra support. Her
classroom teacher reported that she has difficulty following multi-step directions and doesn’t
use correct grammar when speaking and writing. Reading comprehension and story retell skills
are extremely low, and Belen continues to struggle with decoding.
The school SLP wonders if Belen has a speech-language impairment, given her limited
English language acquisition, and asked “If she does not have a language disorder, why does it
seem she is not learning English at the same rate as her peers?”
Summary of Body of Evidence
Because Belen has been at the same school for 3 years, we have a lot of information
about her academic performance, work style, and ESL support. Her mother provided useful
information about Belen’s family and communication in the home. If we examine the evidence
that we have thus far, it may look like Figure 11.

Figure 11

Type of Evidence Provided Evidence Evidence Evidence

Assessment Supports Supports a Supports a
Possible Possible Possible
Normal Speech and Learning
Processes of Language Disability
2nd Language Disability
Acquisition
Developmental Information about acquisition of
history early language and non-language
targets
Like siblings
X
Matches typical developmental
X
milestones
Medical history that could impact
speech and language development
* hospitalizations: none
* early, frequent ear infections X X

Academic history Information about the child’s

academic instruction
US academic settings X X
Stable X X
Instruction in English with limited X
Spanish support
Information about the supports

49

Downloaded From: http://pubs.asha.org/ by University of Cincinnati - Medical Bookstore, Amy Hobek on 11/16/2015
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 that have been in place for 2nd
language acquisition
*Non-supportive environment: X
supports are limited and are provided
“as needed”
Academic progress not similar to ELL
peers X X

Parent interview Uses primary and secondary X

language at home with parents,
siblings, extended family, and friends
Language preferences in different
X
settings or for different activities:
varies by setting
Dynamic • No current dynamic assessment
assessment results
Language • No current language sampling
sampling results
Teacher • Academic achievement not X X
interview(s) and comparable to peers with similar
reports background
• Academic achievement below
X
grade level
X X
• Motivation/effort: High
• Participation in class activities:
Satisfactory X X

Observation of the • No current observations of the

child in the child in the classroom or with
classroom and peers
with peers

Norm referenced English Language Assessment (ELA): X

assessment Non English proficient
Language Assessment Scales
(LAS): Near fluent Spanish proficiency
(test does not capture academic
X
proficiency)
Statewide standard assessment of
reading, writing and math: X
Unsatisfactory

Formal Testing
With the information we currently have, there is ample evidence that Belen’s difficulties
are a function of learning a second language in an environment that has not previously
provided much in the way of support for transitioning to English. However, there is also
evidence that Belen is struggling in the classroom and has not acquired English at the same
rate as her peers in the same academic environment. In addition, there is a family history of
learning disability.
The assessment team includes a school psychologist and SLP (both English-speakers)
and a Spanish-speaking interpreter who administers the assessments under their supervision.

50

Downloaded From: http://pubs.asha.org/ by University of Cincinnati - Medical Bookstore, Amy Hobek on 11/16/2015
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 The interpreter has received extensive training in establishing rapport with the students, test
administration, cueing, and recording the student’s responses.
Cognitive and speech-language assessments were conducted in Spanish and in English.
Portions of the WISC-Fourth Edition English and the WISC-IV Spanish were administered. The
only composite score calculated in English was for the Verbal-Comprehension Index. Belen’s
composite score on this index in English was 77, which corresponds to the 6th percentile. The
Verbal-Comprehension Composite Score in Spanish was 89, which corresponds to the 23rd
percentile. All of Belen’s composite scores in Spanish were between 84 and 89, with the
exception of the Processing Speed Index. The composite score for this index was 78, which
corresponds to the 7th percentile.
The CELF-4 English and Spanish Editions were administered. Figure 12 CELF-4
English and Spanish scores
Subtest Scaled Score Scaled Score
CELF-4 English CELF-4 Spanish
Edition Edition
Concepts and 5 8
Following Directions
Sentence Repetition 1 7
Formulated Sentences 1 7
Word Classes 5 7
Language samples in each language indicated age-appropriate pragmatic language
skills. Belen’s Spanish language sample included code-switching throughout. In English, the
language sample reflected her status as “non-English proficient”—her productions contained
errors typical of English language learners.
Following the additional assessment procedures, here is how the evidence can be
summarized:
Figure 13. Revised evidence summary
Type of Evidence Provided Evidence Evidence Evidence
Assessment Supports Supports a Supports a
Possible Possible Possible
Normal Speech- Learning
Processes of Language Disability
2nd Language Disability
Acquisition
Developmental Information about acquisition of
history early language and non-language
targets
Like siblings X
Matches typical developmental X
milestones
Medical history that could impact
speech and language development
hospitalizations: none
early, frequent ear infections X X
Academic history Information about the child’s
academic instruction
*US academic settings X X
*Stable X X
*Instruction in English with limited X
Spanish support
Information about the supports
that have been in place for 2nd
language acquisition

51

Downloaded From: http://pubs.asha.org/ by University of Cincinnati - Medical Bookstore, Amy Hobek on 11/16/2015
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 *Non-supportive environment:
supports are limited and are provided X
“as needed”
Academic progress not similar to ELL
peers X X
Parent interview Uses primary and secondary
language at home with parents,
siblings, extended family, and friends X
Language preferences in different
settings or for different activities:
varies by setting X
Dynamic No current dynamic assessment
assessment results
Language Language sample results
sampling Spanish: appropriate language X
structures and pragmatic skills
English: errors typical of ELL
students
Teacher Academic achievement not X X
interview(s) and comparable to peers with similar
reports background
Academic achievement below grade X
level
Motivation/effort: High X X
Participation in class activities:
Satisfactory X X
Observation of the No current observations of the child
child in the in the classroom or with peers
classroom and
with peers
Norm referenced English Language Assessment (ELA):
assessment Non English proficient X
Language Assessment Scales
(LAS): Near fluent Spanish proficiency
(test does not capture academic X
proficiency)
Statewide standard assessment of
reading, writing and math: X
Unsatisfactory
WISC-IV English: Verbal
Comprehension Index: Standard X
score 77; percentile rank: 6
WISC-IV Spanish: Standard score 89;
percentile rank: 23 X
Other composite scores: Standard
scores of 84-89 X
Processing speed index: Standard X
score: 78, percentile rank: 7
CELF-4
English: Standard scores of 1-5 X
Spanish: Standard scores of 7-8

Other Recent hearing and vision X

screening: within normal limits

Special Education Eligibility Determination

The educational team determined that Belen qualified as having a Specific Learning
Disability, with an emphasis on reading difficulties. As the team reviewed the data from the last

52

Downloaded From: http://pubs.asha.org/ by University of Cincinnati - Medical Bookstore, Amy Hobek on 11/16/2015
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 3 years, the impact of the inconsistency in instruction in English language acquisition became
apparent. Given Belen’s performance in Spanish on the verbal aspects of the cognitive
assessments and her performance on the CELF-4 Spanish Edition and Spanish language
sample, in concert with the entire body of evidence collected through the Assessement 360˚
process, a speech-language impairment was ruled out.

Summary
The case study provides a summary of some of the aspects of a 10-year, 6-month-old
bilingual girl in the fourth grade. Each assessment instrument was not reported here and the
brief review of the formal test results is not intended to represent the full battery of
assessments that are required to determine eligibility for special education. Equally as
important as the standardized assessments, this case illustrates the importance of a deep and
thorough investigation of all relevant educational, developmental, and social data to contribute
to the final eligibility determination.
Belen was selected for this case study because her profile is a common one. She is a
bilingual student with compromised proficiency in both languages. She is not a proficient
English speaker, especially in the use of academic language. Furthermore, she has not had the
benefit of developing her Spanish language skills, including reading and written language
skills, through academic instruction in her native language. In spite of her Non-English
Proficient status on the standardized English Language Assessment, she communicates in
English conversationally and commonly code-switches. Since her entire academic instruction
has been in English, her Non-English Proficient status suggests that much of the curriculum
may have been inaccessible to her and her performance and progress on academic measures in
English may be compromised as a result. Her standardized test results in English show how
her skills compare to a sample mostly comprising children who speak English. Her test results
demonstrate that, while she has acquired social language skills, she does not process or use
the linguistic concepts and structures in English like her English speaking classmates. This
has a clear impact on her ability to keep up in the classroom when all her academic instruction
is in English. Expressive language errors in English are typical of a student learning English as
a second language. Belen’s difficulty in acquiring English may be the result of many factors,
given the inconsistent delivery of English language acquisition instruction. She has not
developed strong academic or abstract Spanish language skills because her academic career
has been in schools with English instruction. Belen’s skills in Spanish are in the low-average
range, suggesting that she could use support over and above that needed by her Spanish-
speaking peers in the classroom.
Here are the questions posed earlier in the article with the answers specific to Belen’s
case:
1. Are the student’s struggles due to a language difference or a language/learning
disability? Although Belen has struggled to acquire English proficiency, by gathering
extensive data from multiple sources, it was determined that Belen demonstrated a
learning disability.
2. Has the student had adequate and consistent instructional opportunities that support
his/her English language development? Belen did not receive adequate and consistent
instructional opportunities to support English language development. Relevant to her
case, however, when compared to her linguistic peers at the same school, her difficulty
in acquiring English was significant.
3. How will the educational team make these determinations, especially if the team
consists of individuals who do not speak the native language of the student? Although
the SLP and school psychologist were monolingual English speakers, they each
completed the formal testing with a trained interpreter.

53

Downloaded From: http://pubs.asha.org/ by University of Cincinnati - Medical Bookstore, Amy Hobek on 11/16/2015
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 4. If the assessment results show that the student does not show academic prowess in L1,
but the student has not received academic instruction in L1, does that indicate that the
student has a learning or language disability? Belen had not received the benefit of
academic instruction in Spanish or the benefit of enhancing her Spanish language
skills through reading and writing. Though her social language skills in Spanish were
typical, academic language skills in Spanish could not be formally assessed.
5. Is it ever acceptable to only assess in English, especially if the student has not received
any instruction in his/her native language? In Belen’s case, if the assessment team had
conducted testing only in English and had considered only the academic performance
data derived from the curriculum in English, the team may have concluded that Belen
demonstrated evidence of speech-language impairment with cognitive concerns.
6. What are the linguistic patterns of second-language acquisition that need to be
considered so that students are not inappropriately identified as having a disability,
when, in fact, the student is experiencing and demonstrating the impact of bilingual
language development? Belen demonstrated typical errors of a speaker of English as a
second language. Additionally, however, when compared to her linguistic peers, Belen
demonstrated significantly more difficulty in her acquisition of English than did her
fellow ELL students.

Closing Thoughts
As SLPs, we are charged with the task of determining the presence of speech-language
impairment for an increasingly diverse student population. Assessment frameworks that
acknowledge the complexities in accurately identifying typically developing children who are
ELLs from those who are experiencing difficulties as a result of intrinsic impairments are
crucial to accurate identification. Assessment issues are quite complex, because linguistic
differences may mask, mimic, or be mistaken for symptoms or characteristics of a specific
disorder (e.g., Anderson, 2004; Schiff-Myers, 1992; Wong-Fillmore, 1991). ASHA (2004)
recognizes this difficulty and has provided guidelines stating that to provide ethical and
appropriate services, professionals must possess knowledge about and be responsive to
culturally and linguistically diverse populations. Unfortunately, most SLPs are not prepared to
work with children from this population (e.g., ASHA, 2008; Hammer, Detwiler, Detwiler, Blood,
& Qualls, 2004). In numerous surveys, SLPs have reported a lack of confidence in assessing
and treating speech and/or language disorders in children from CLD backgrounds. Many of
these surveys indicate that the causes probably include a lack of appropriate training and
insufficient knowledge of cultural and linguistic differences.
The GRASP IT process provides a framework for clinicians to take a panoramic view in
the assessment process when assessing culturally and linguistically diverse students. When an
ELL student is struggling academically, deciphering the impact of a multitude of factors on the
student’s performance is a challenging task. Through cultural due diligence, we know the level
of investigation that must be conducted that will allow us to gather enough of the right
information to address the complexity of issues with integrity. In truth, it is not easy to answer
the burning question of “language difference or language disorder.” However, as demonstrated
in our examination with Belen, by establishing a thorough and diverse body of evidence, we
can begin to find answers.
Assessment of ELL students is complex and multifaceted. In many cases, we find that
ELL students’ skills vary, depending on the communication partner, communication setting,
and communication expectations. We cannot expect that evidence obtained from a single
observation or assessment will provide the information needed to differentiate students who are
exhibiting normal phenomena of second language acquisition from those exhibiting a language-
learning disability. As educators, we have a responsibility to make recommendations for

54

Downloaded From: http://pubs.asha.org/ by University of Cincinnati - Medical Bookstore, Amy Hobek on 11/16/2015
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 appropriate services, whether it is to (a) support a normal language learner within the
classroom setting so that he or she does not join the ranks of students who drop out of school
early or (b) provide appropriate services for individuals needing intervention for a language
disability. For this reason, the Assessment 360˚ process approach: Gather, Review, Ask, See,
Proceed, Integrate, Test. A panoramic view of the student’s skills will provide the information
needed to make appropriate recommendations that will maximize the potential for a positive
outcome for each and every student.

References
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2004). Knowledge and skills needed by speech-
language pathologists and audiologists to provide culturally and linguistically appropriate services
[Knowledge and Skills]. Available from www.asha.org/policy
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2008). Schools survey report: Workforce and work
conditions trends 2000-2008. Rockville, MD: Author.
Anderson, R. T. (2004). First language loss in Spanish-speaking children: Patterns of loss and
implications for clinical practice. In B. A. Goldstein (Ed.), Bilingual language development and disorders in
Spanish-English speakers (pp. 187-212). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Cantwell, D. P., & Baker, L. (1997). Prevalence and type of psychiatric disorder and developmental
disorders in three speech and language groups. Journal of Communication Disorders, 20, 151-160.
Catts, H. (1993). The relation between speech-language impairments and reading disabilities. Journal of
Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 948-958.
Catts, H. W., Fey, M. E., Tomblin, J. B., & Zhang, Z. (2002). A longitudinal investigation of reading
outcomes in children with language impairments. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45,
1142-1157.
Cheng, L. (2006, September 26). Lessons from the Da Vinci Code: Working with bilingual/multicultural
children and families. The ASHA Leader. Retrieved from
http://www.asha.org/Publications/leader/2006/060926/060926f.html
DeAvila, E., & Duncan, S. (1990). Language assessment scale. CTB/McGraw-Hill, LLC: Monterey, CA.
Freeman, Y., Freeman, D., & Mercuri, S. (2003). Helping middle and high school age English Language
Learners achieve academic success. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 1(1), 110-122.
Gonzalez, D. (2006). Identification of bilingual phenomena: Determining a communication difference vs a
communication disorders. Houston, TX: Region 4 Education Service Center.
Gonzalez, D. (2007). Evaluating bilingual students for eligibility as speech/language impaired. Houston,
TX: Region 4 Education Service Center.
Hammer, C. S., Detwiler, J. S., Detwiler, J., Blood, G. W., & Qualls, C. (2004). Speech-language
pathologists’ training and confidence in serving Spanish-English bilingual children. Journal of
Communication Disorders, 37, 91-108.
Johnson, C., Beitchman, J., & Brownlie, E. (2010). Twenty-year follow-up with and without speech-
language impairments: Family, educational, occupational, and quality of life outcomes. American Journal
of Speech-Language Pathology, 19, 51-65.
Kindler, A. L. (2002). Survey of the L.E.P. students and available educational programs and services, 2000-
2001 survey report. Washington, D.C.: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and
Language Instruction Educational Programs. Retrieved from
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/policy/states/reports/seareports/0001/sea0001.pdf
Lewis, N., & Cheng, L. (2008). Cultural due diligence: Reducing the bias in service delivery across cultures.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Chicago,
IL.
Moore, B. (2008). Using early intervening services and rtI to address disproportionality. ASHA Web
Workshop.
Moore, B., & Montgomery, J. (2008). Making a difference for America’s children: Speech-language
pathologists in public schools (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

55

Downloaded From: http://pubs.asha.org/ by University of Cincinnati - Medical Bookstore, Amy Hobek on 11/16/2015
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 Moore-Brown, B., Huerta, M., Uranga-Hernandez, Y., & Peña, E. (2006) Using dynamic assessment to
evaluate children with suspected learning disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41, 209–271.
Pew Hispanic Center. (2003). Hispanic youth dropping out of U.S. schools: Measuring the challenge.
Washington, D.C.: Authors.
Schiff-Myers, N. (1992). Considering arrested language development and language loss in the assessment
of second language learners. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 23, 28-33.
The League of United Latin-American Citizens (LULAC). (2003). The LULAC democracy initiative: A latino
youth and young adult voter and advocacy project. Washington, D.C.: LULAC.
The Tomas Rivera Policy Institute & National Hispanic Caucus of State Legislators. (2003). Closing
achievement gaps: Improving educational outcomes for hispanic children. Los Angeles, CA: TRPI.
Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2000). Languages spoken at home. Retrieved February 10, 2010, from
http://www.census.gov
U.S. Department of Education, & National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2003).
National symposium on learning disabilities in English language learners. Symposium summary.
Washington, DC: Authors.
U.S. Department of Labor (2003). Futurework: Trends and challenges for work in the 21st Century.
http://www.dol.gov/asp/programs/history/herman/reports/futurework/conference/trands/TrendsI.htm
U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee. The Congressional Hispanic
Caucus. The U.S. Senate Democratic Hispanic Task Force. (2002). Keeping the promise: Hispanic
education and America’s future. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Senate.
Wong-Fillmore, L. (1991). When learning a second language means losing the first. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 6, 323-346.
Zehler, A., Fleischman, H., Hopstock, P., Stephenson, T., Pendzick, M., & Sapru, S. (2003). Policy report:
Summary of findings related to LEP and SPED-LEP students (Report submitted to U.S. Department of
Education, Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement of
Limited English Proficient Students). Arlington, VA: Development Associates

56

Downloaded From: http://pubs.asha.org/ by University of Cincinnati - Medical Bookstore, Amy Hobek on 11/16/2015
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx