Building a Linguistic Profile to Plan for Non-Discriminatory Assessment of Multilingual Learners

---

A Linguistic Profile provides a holistic understanding of an individual’s language use by capturing the full range of a learner’s language abilities, including proficiency, usage, and contexts (Grosjean, 2010). The concept of language dominance focuses on one language, potentially overlooking valuable and unique skills that Multilingual Learners develop naturally (Birdsong, 2014).

Multilingualism is dynamic. Language proficiency is fluid and context-dependent, meaning that perceived dominance can shift over time (Bialystok, 2018).  A linguistic profile allows for tracking changes in language skills across different domains (Grosjean & Li, 2013).

Multilingualism is an asset that serves an important function. Multilingual people use different languages for different purposes (e.g., home vs. school), which a linguistic profile captures (Grosjean, 1982). Language dominance may not reflect actual communicative abilities in specific contexts (Valdés, 2001).

Building a Linguistic Profile helps multidisciplinary teams more effectively understand a child’s linguistic assets. Prioritizing dominance can lead to misjudging a learner’s linguistic competence (Flores & Rosa, 2015). A linguistic profile values all languages equally, promoting linguistic diversity and inclusion (García, 2009).

---

A Linguistic Profile is essential for ensuring a non-discriminatory and individualized Special Education evaluation for Multilingual Learners (MLs). While federal regulations [34 CFR § 300.304(c)(ii)] require assessments in a student’s native language, a blanket approach is not always appropriate—especially in areas where the student has not received instruction. By analyzing existing data and gathering additional insights, a Linguistic Profile helps teams assess the student’s full linguistic repertoire, guiding decisions on how to evaluate their abilities accurately. In some cases, it may also clarify whether a native language assessment is necessary, ensuring a fair and culturally responsive evaluation process.

1. Distinguishing Language Difference from Disorder

A linguistic profile helps differentiate between language differences due to multilingualism and actual language-related disabilities. MLs often develop proficiency in their home language(s) and the language of instruction at different rates. MLs follow unique developmental trajectories that may include temporary lags in second language (L2) skills, which are normal and not indicative of a disability (Pradis, Genesee, Crago, 2021). MLs can exhibit developmentally appropriate behaviors such as limited vocabulary, grammatical errors, or slower processing in their second language (L2) (Klingner, Artiles, 2003). Without this context, typical patterns of multilingual language acquisition may be misidentified as deficits (Ortiz, 2014). 

2. Understanding Language Proficiency in Context

Assessing a learner's proficiency across linguistic domains (reading, writing, speaking, and listening) and in each of their languages provides insight into their abilities and the contexts in which they use those languages (Cummins, 2000). This is important because cognitive and academic challenges might seem to manifest in one language due to limited exposure, not due to an inherent disability (Kohnert, 2010). A linguistic profile provides insight into how the student uses language at home, in school, and in the community, revealing strengths and challenges that may not be apparent in one context alone (García & Wei, 2014).

3. Avoiding Misinterpretation of Assessment Data

Standardized tests are often normed on monolingual, dominant-language-speaking populations, making them less valid and reliable for MLs. Moreover, this makes it more challenging to accurately interpret the data gleaned from these assessment tools. A linguistic profile allows evaluators to interpret assessment results more accurately by considering the learner’s unique linguistic background (Restrepo & Morgan, 2020; Solando-Flores, 2008).

4. Informing Interventions

Understanding a student’s linguistic strengths and needs enables the development of more targeted and effective interventions. For example, knowing whether a student struggles in all languages or their native language(s), or just in English can guide decisions about whether the difficulty is due to a Specific Learning Disability (SLD) or limited linguistic exposure (Genesee, 2016).

5. Legal and Ethical Compliance

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires special education evaluations to be nondiscriminatory and conducted in the child’s native language whenever feasible. Developing a linguistic profile ensures compliance with these legal standards and avoids misidentification (34 CFR § 300.304(c)(ii)).

6. Exclusionary Factors

Exclusionary factors (34 CFR 300.311(a)(6), 34 CFR 300.309(b) must also be considered when evaluating a child for Specific Learning Disability (SLD). The special education team must consider and discuss whether the student’s limited English proficiency is the primary cause of the student’s learning difficulty. If so, the student would not be considered eligible for special education under the category of SLD.

7. Guiding Assessment Planning and Interpretation

A linguistic profile helps the team select appropriate assessments and interpret results in the context of the student’s language development (Abedi, 2006). At the conclusion of the evaluation, this process will also promote a stronger understanding and alignment with a student’s instructional strengths and needs.

---

---

Step 1: Review existing data

English Language Proficiency (ELP) must be taken into consideration when evaluating Multilingual Learners (DCL Boals, 2021). Multidisciplinary team members should collaboratively review ELP data including but not limited to:

• WIDA screener data
• Most recent ELP Assessment (ACCESS for ELLs) data 
• Rate of progress toward ELP using ACCESS for ELLs scale scores
• Observations of the student’s language use in social and academic contexts
• Reviewing Academic Transcripts
• English Core Content Instructional data
• READ Act assessment data (if applicable)
• Informal data (i.e. student portfolios, presentations, journals, etc)
• Like-Peer Comparative Data

Multidisciplinary team members should collaboratively review Home or Preferred Language Proficiency data including but not limited to:

• Formal testing
• informal testing 
• Reviewing Academic Transcripts
  • For assistance with requesting transcripts for students from Mexico, please see the Office of Migrant Education’s Binational Initiative Resources Page
  • For information on how international transcripts can be interpreted, please see the New York Department of Education’s Evaluating Foreign Transcripts: The A-Z Manual
• Understanding past Language Instruction Education Program (LIEP) models
• READ Act assessment data (if applicable)
• Informal data (i.e. student portfolios, presentations, journals, etc)
• Native Language Core Content Instruction (applicable to bilingual program models)
• Family interviews about language use in the home, academic history, and prior or ongoing instruction in the home or preferred language.
• Like-Peer Comparative Data

The team should work with the family to understand how the student uses their home or preferred language(s), with whom, and in which contexts. By reviewing transcripts and interviewing the family, the team can gain a greater understanding of their proficiency in their home or preferred language. Care should be taken to understand what information the family has already provided the school before planning an additional interview.

---

Step 2: Gather Additional Language and Communication Information From the Family

Conducting a family interview is essential in developing a Linguistic Profile for a Multilingual Learner (ML) because families provide critical insights into the student’s language use, exposure, and development across different settings. They can clarify which languages the student uses at home, in social settings, and in academic contexts, as well as any shifts in proficiency over time. Understanding cultural influences, prior education experiences, and potential external factors (such as interrupted schooling or trauma) helps the multidisciplinary team differentiate between language acquisition challenges and potential disabilities. Engaging families ensures a more accurate and culturally responsive evaluation, reducing the risk of misidentification and guiding appropriate instructional and assessment decisions. The following questions and associated resources can support teams in developing a strategic family interview.

• What language does each family member generally use when communicating with the student? 
• What language does the child generally use to communicate with each family member?  
• What languages does the child appear the most confident speaking and/or writing, and understanding and/or reading? 
• What language does the child appear to prefer to use at home? 
• Does the child use one language more than another at home? 
• What language(s) does the child generally use when communicating with extended family members and/or community members? 
• Has the child attended school outside of the United States? 
• In what language(s) was instruction provided in each educational experience? 
• Was the student enrolled in any special programming (i.e. early intervention, special education, gifted education, etc?) 
• Was there any interruption to the student’s schooling? (Suggestion: map out a visual timeline with the family) 
• Describe the child’s prior experiences in schooling. 
• Request and review any transcripts, educational evaluations, or health records provided by the family (if appropriate)? 

Helpful School-Family interviewing resources:

Culturally Responsive School-Based Family Interviewing: Engaging in Empathic Family Partnerships

Also see ML Family Interview Questions and Entrevista con Las Familias de los MLs.

---

Step 3: Conduct an Interview with the Student

Interviewing a multilingual student about the languages they use is crucial for developing an accurate linguistic profile because it provides direct insight into their language exposure, usage patterns, and personal experiences, which standardized tests alone cannot fully capture. This process reveals critical details such as the contexts in which each language is spoken (e.g., home, school, or social settings), the frequency of use, and the student’s perceived proficiency or comfort level, all of which shape their linguistic abilities and identity. For instance, understanding code-switching habits (the ways in which a student might communicate drawing from each or both of the languages in their repertoire to be understood by others) or language proficiency can inform educators about potential strengths or areas needing support, especially in academic settings where language demands are high. Research highlights that such qualitative data complements quantitative assessments, offering a more holistic view of multilingual competence (Grosjean, F., Bilingual: Life and Reality, Harvard University Press, 2010). Additionally, interviews can uncover cultural and emotional factors tied to language use, which are vital for tailoring educational interventions effectively (Genesee, F., et al., Dual Language Development & Disorders, Brookes Publishing, 2011). Without this personal input, a linguistic profile risks being incomplete or misaligned with the student’s actual abilities and needs.

IEP teams can use the following tool to build a comprehensive linguistic profile of the student in question. Understanding the student’s relative linguistic proficiency across languages will minimize the over-testing of a student by helping teams anticipate the degree of probability that a state assessment administered in one language may incorrectly represent a student’s true abilities as a Multilingual Learner.

Student interviewing Questions List: 

• Student Interview Questions - coming soon!

Linguistic Profile Data Sources

---

Step 4: Analysis of Data

After gathering sufficient information through data reviews, formal and informal assessments, observations, and interviews, the team is now prepared to compile and analyze the implications of the student’s Linguistic Profile for further assessment and instruction. The multidisciplinary team should meet to review the collected data and determine which language(s) the student should be evaluated in, as well as the areas of concern, taking into account the student’s relative language abilities across each language and domain.

The team may conclude that the student should be evaluated entirely in their native language(s), or that they are capable of demonstrating the full range of their abilities in English. In many cases, however, the team will determine that a combination of languages should be used in the evaluation, aligned with the student’s linguistic strengths.

For example, a student may have lower writing skills in English but demonstrate strong English-speaking abilities while excelling in writing in their native language(s). Based on this, the team might decide that instruction can be delivered in English, but the student should be allowed to produce written content in their native language(s) to eliminate language as a barrier to accurately demonstrating their skills and knowledge.

Ultimately, this process helps the multidisciplinary team identify the languages and domains in which the student shows relative strengths, while also affirming the valuable asset of multilingualism.

---

Step 5: Planning for Assessment in Areas Related to Suspicion of Disability

If the student has Non-English Proficiency (NEP) or limited English Proficiency (LEP) in English, the IEP team must evaluate the student in the areas of concern in their “native language (home or preferred language) or other mode of communication most likely to yield accurate results of what the student knows and can do” [34 CFR § 300.304(c)(ii)].  

The extent to which the student should be evaluated in their native language(s) will vary based on the student’s unique linguistic profile. This can be ascertained by comparing English language proficiency with that of the other language(s) the child uses. Teams should collaborate with families to learn more about the child’s language use at home, with the nuclear and extended family, and with friends in the community.  An educator knowledgeable about language acquisition and acculturation should also be consulted to understand the child's degree of proficiency in English across all four domains. Whenever possible, the school can administer formal and informal language assessments in the student’s home or preferred languages. Teams may encounter a number of the following scenarios

• The student demonstrates greater proficiency and preference for the home or preferred language(s) 
  • across modes or in certain modes of language
  • and across contexts or in certain contexts.
• The student demonstrates equal proficiency and preference for the home or preferred language(s)
  • across modes or in certain modes of language
  • and across contexts or in certain contexts.
• The student demonstrates greater proficiency and preference for English than their home or preferred language(s) 
  • across modes or in certain modes of language
  • and across contexts or in certain contexts.

Teams should carefully select assessment tools based on the Linguistic Profile that will accurately reflect a student's abilities. If, for example, a student has not received formal instruction in their native language, an academic assessment in the home or preferred language may not reflect their true abilities by itself. In this case, a Dynamic Assessment approach could be used to determine the student’s potential to learn new skills and knowledge. Furthermore, the student should be evaluated by a trained professional(s) who is bilingual to account for any misunderstandings of the assessment task in a given language and to be able to most accurately interpret student responses that could be made bilingually (code-switching). If such an evaluator cannot be found, this should be documented in the evaluation report, and evaluation methodologies to account for language proficiency should be clearly described, such as the use of an interpreter for certain measures. It is the responsibility of the AU to hire appropriate staff to provide services to all students. If a staff member or contractor is providing bilingual services

---

Additional Tools:

• SOLOM Protocol
• Culturally Responsive School-Based Family Interviewing: Engaging in Empathic Family Partnerships

---

Abedi, J. (2006). Psychometric issues in the ELL assessment and special education eligibility. Teachers College Record, 108(11), 2282–2303.

Artiles, A. J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J. J., & Higareda, I. (2005). Within-group diversity in minority disproportionate representation. Exceptional Children, 71(3), 283–300.

August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth.

Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism.

Bedore, L. M., & Peña, E. D. (2008). Assessment of bilingual children for identification of language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 51(4), 820–841.

Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition.

Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Multilingual Matters.

Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition.

Fishman, J. A. (1991). Reversing language shift: Theoretical and empirical foundations of assistance to threatened languages.

García, O., & Kleifgen, J. A. (2018). Educating emergent bilinguals: Policies, programs, and practices.

García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Palgrave Macmillan.

Genesee, F. (2016). Educating English language learners: A synthesis of research evidence. Cambridge University Press.

Genesee, F., Paradis, J., & Crago, M. B. (2011). Dual language development & disorders: A handbook on bilingualism & second language learning (2nd ed.). Brookes Publishing.

Genesee, F., Paradis, J., & Crago, M. B. (2011). Dual language development and disorders: A handbook on bilingualism and second language learning. Brookes.

Gopaul-McNicol, S.-A., & Armour-Thomas, E. (2002). Assessment and culture: Psychological tests with minority populations. Academic Press.

Grosjean, F. (1982). Life with two languages: An introduction to bilingualism.

Grosjean, F. (2010). Bilingual: Life and reality. Harvard University Press.

Hakuta, K., Butler, Y. G., & Witt, D. (2000). How long does it take English learners to attain proficiency?

Hornberger, N. H. (2003). Continua of biliteracy: An ecological framework for educational policy, research, and practice in multilingual settings.

Klingner, J. K., & Artiles, A. J. (2003). When should bilingual students be in special education? Educational Leadership, 61(2), 66–71.

Klingner, J. K., Artiles, A. J., & Barletta, L. M. (2014). English language learners who struggle with reading: Language acquisition or LD? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(2), 108–128.

Kohnert, K. (2010). Language disorders in bilingual children and adults. Plural Publishing.

Kohnert, K. (2013). Language disorders in bilingual children and adults. Plural Publishing.

Lidz, C. S., & Peña, E. D. (2009). Dynamic assessment: An alternative approach to the identification of gifted culturally and linguistically diverse learners. Educational Psychology Review, 21(1), 55–69.

MacSwan, J. (2017). A multilingual perspective on translanguaging.

Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational change.

Orellana, M. F., Martínez, D. C., & Hernáiz, K. M. (2018). Bilingual assessment and special education: Navigating the challenges. Bilingual Research Journal, 41(2), 200–220.

Ortiz, A. A. (1997). Learning disabilities occurring concomitantly with linguistic differences. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(3), 321–332.

Ortiz, A. A. (2000). English language learners with special needs: Effective instructional strategies. Theory Into Practice, 39(4), 241–248.

Ortiz, A. A. (2020). Considerations in the assessment of English learners for special education services. In J. M. Kauffman, D. P. Hallahan, & P. C. Pullen (Eds.), Handbook of special education (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Paradis, J. (2007). Bilingual children’s acquisition of past tense: A usage-based approach.

Paradis, J., Genesee, F., & Crago, M. (2021). Dual language development & disorders: A handbook on bilingualism and second language learning (3rd ed.). Brookes Publishing.

Restrepo, M. A., & Kruth, K. (2000). Grammatical morphology in Spanish-speaking children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43(6), 1504–1517.

Restrepo, M. A., & Morgan, G. P. (2020). Assessment practices for culturally and linguistically diverse students. In S. L. Odom, M. McLean, B. A. Bailey, & M. Wolery (Eds.), Handbook of developmental disabilities (pp. 211–231). Guilford Press.

Snow, C. E. (2008). Theoretical framework for the study of literacy development and instruction.

Solano-Flores, G. (2008). Who is the test taker? Moving beyond the individual in assessment. Educational Researcher, 37(3), 148–153.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires that the Colorado Department of Education (CDE) fully inform Administrative Units of Part B requirements and monitor the implementation of these requirements, with an emphasis on ensuring that all IDEA-eligible children in Colorado receive a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. Pursuant to its responsibility for general supervision, the CDE provides this guidance to support Administrative Units in satisfying their obligations under the IDEA. Administrative Units are encouraged to review their policies and procedures for alignment with this guidance and make changes, as needed. This guidance is not binding and should not be construed as legal advice. For legal advice, Administrative Units should consult their legal counsel