We first need to start with information that is relevant to the case. Certain information like the race of the student is not relevant as we are dealing with linguistic and cultural issues that span across races. Many people in the United States are very biased against certain races therefore that information should not be included in the report. Secondly, a qualified interpreter or bilingual staff person should have been provided for a face-to-face communication between B’s aunt/uncle and school personnel. Furthermore, any forms to be completed or written information given to the parents should have been provided in their native language or language of the home. Although B. learned and spoke English in Nigeria, the first assessment should not have been an assessment of her current level of intellectual functioning if it was not previously determined that she understood American English. To see which language was dominant her CALP level should have been determined and a language test should have been administered such as the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT-III) which is a wide-range measure of receptive vocabulary for standard English, and a screening test of verbal ability. Then the Expressive Vocabulary Test (EVT-2) should have been administered which is a measure of expressive vocabulary and word retrieval for Standard American English. These tests would have at least given the evaluator an idea of whether or not the student actually understood the teacher. Many students exhibit language or communicative difficulties as a normal aspect of the process of second language acquisition, resulting in misdiagnosis of speech, language, or learning disorders.
Next, the evaluator should have taken into account her distinct obstacles such as cultural and interactive differences that may have made her appear to have a disability. The more familiar and culturally appropriate the content of the stimulus materials, the more likely B. would have demonstrated...