When Is It More Than Learning English? Five Questions Every Educator Should Ask

by David Burns

In the previous article, They’re Not Random, I argued that Multilingual Learners' language patterns often reflect predictable aspects of language development rather than random mistakes. Understanding these hidden patterns helps educators avoid interpreting typical multilingual development as a disability.

However, there is another mistake that can be just as harmful.

Sometimes Multilingual Learners (MLLs) genuinely have developmental language disorder (DLD), dyslexia, or another learning difficulty. When educators assume a child’s struggles are simply part of learning English, children who need additional support may wait months—or even years—before receiving the intervention they need.

How can educators tell the difference?

Consider the following two students.

Imagine two first-grade MLLs, Sofia and Mateo. Both were born and raised in the United States, with Spanish as the primary language spoken in their homes.

During class, both occasionally say things like:

• I have 6 years. 

• I cot el papel. (I cut the paper.)

• The boy play a lot. 

• We goed to the playground. 

Both also struggle to read simple CVC words despite several months of strong Tier 1 literacy instruction. Their teacher faces a difficult question: Are Sofia and Mateo displaying the expected patterns of learning English, or are their struggles signaling something more?

At first glance, the two students appear remarkably similar. Yet there simply is not enough information to reach a confident conclusion.

Fortunately, the five questions introduced at the end of They’re Not Random provide a useful framework for thinking through cases like these (see table below). As we work through each question, Sofia and Mateo’s seemingly similar profiles will gradually begin to tell two very different stories.

A Five-Question Framework for Evaluating MLLs
Question	Considerations
Is this pattern expected given the languages the student knows?	Consider similarities and differences between the student's languages. Systematically comparing the two languages through contrastive analysis can help distinguish expected transfer patterns from areas of genuine concern.
Is this pattern typical given what we know about language development?	Consider whether the student's errors and language patterns are consistent with the typical developmental sequence of second-language acquisition. Many grammatical structures emerge predictably over time.
Has the student had sufficient opportunity to learn?	Consider the student's opportunities to develop language and literacy in both languages, including exposure at home, preschool, school, and other meaningful language and literacy-based experiences.
Are similar difficulties present across languages?	Consider whether similar patterns are evident across both languages in oral language and literacy. Difficulties occurring across languages provide an important source of evidence that should be considered alongside other assessment information.
How does the student respond to high-quality instruction?	Consider whether the student is receiving evidence-based intervention and whether they demonstrate meaningful progress when provided with explicit instruction, appropriate supports, and sufficient instructional time.

Question 1

Is this pattern expected given the languages the student knows?

One of the first questions educators should ask is whether a student's language pattern reflects cross-linguistic influence.

In the case of Sofia and Mateo, several of their errors are entirely consistent with what we would expect from Spanish-speaking learners of English. For example, the sentence I have 6 years reflects transfer from the Spanish expression Tengo seis años ("I have six years"), which is the conventional way to express age in Spanish.

Likewise, pronouncing cut as cot may reflect differences between the English and Spanish vowel systems. The English short u /ʌ/, as in cut, does not exist in Spanish's phonological inventory. As a result, Spanish-speaking learners often perceive and produce this unfamiliar vowel using the closest vowel category available in their native language. In addition, the vowels in cot and cut are articulated very similarly—the primary difference is the degree to which the jaw lowers during production. Consequently, even many monolingual English-speaking children initially confuse these two vowel sounds during reading and spelling activities.

Taken together, these examples illustrate an important principle: MLLs naturally draw upon the language knowledge they already possess when learning an additional language. Understanding how languages interact allows educators to recognize predictable transfer patterns rather than mistakenly interpreting them as evidence of a disability.

At this point, the evidence suggests that at least some of Sofia and Mateo's language patterns can be explained by the languages they already know.

However, cross-linguistic influence does not explain every error. To better understand their profiles, we must consider a second question.

Question 2

Is this pattern typical given what we know about language development?

As we discussed in They’re Not Random, MLLs actively construct an interlanguage—a developing language system shaped by the languages they already know, the new language they are learning, and their own attempts to make sense of how that new language works. As this system develops, research in second-language acquisition has consistently shown that some grammatical structures emerge before others.

Consider another one of Sofia and Mateo’s sentences:

The boy play a lot.

At first glance, the missing third-person singular -s may appear concerning. However, this type of error is remarkably common among learners of English and, by itself, is not evidence of a language disorder. As discussed in the previous article, third-person singular -s typically develops later because it places relatively high processing demands on learners, requiring them to coordinate grammatical information across different parts of the sentence (Pienemann, 1998).

The same principle applies to Sofia and Mateo’s use of goed. Rather than demonstrating confusion, this error suggests that they have discovered an important grammatical pattern: English typically forms the past tense by adding -ed to verbs. Their mistake lies not in failing to learn the rule, but in applying it too broadly.

With continued exposure to English, both students will gradually learn that some verbs follow irregular patterns. In the meantime, explicit instruction and timely corrective feedback can help Sofia and Mateo notice these exceptions, strengthening both their conscious understanding of English grammar and their ability to use irregular forms accurately over time.

At this point, the evidence suggests that Sofia and Mateo’s remaining errors are also consistent with typical multilingual language development. Once again, the important question is not whether errors exist. All MLLs make errors as they construct a new language system. The question is whether those errors align with what we know about typical development.

To interpret their profiles more confidently, however, we must consider another possibility: Have Sofia and Mateo had similar opportunities to learn English?

Question 3

Has the student had sufficient opportunity to learn?

Opportunity to learn matters.

Not all MLLs have the same opportunities to develop language and literacy. Researchers distinguish between simultaneous bilinguals, who begin acquiring two languages from birth or very early in childhood, and sequential bilinguals, who begin learning an additional language after their first language is already established. While this distinction is important, it is equally important to recognize that even simultaneous bilinguals can have dramatically different experiences with each language.

Educational experiences matter as well. Some children have abundant opportunities to develop language and literacy through preschool, shared book reading, meaningful conversations, and other rich literacy experiences in one or both languages. Others have far fewer opportunities to hear, use, and develop academic language before entering school.

Before interpreting assessment results, educators should therefore ask:

• How long has the student been learning English?

• What opportunities has the student had to develop language and literacy in each language?

• How much meaningful exposure does the student receive in English outside of school?

• Has instruction been consistent and of high quality?

Gathering this information through family interviews, home language surveys, and reviewing prior educational records provides essential context for interpreting student performance.

Back to Sofia and Mateo

Sofia and Mateo are both simultaneous bilinguals. However, a closer look at their language experiences reveals important differences.

During a parent interview, Sofia's teacher learns that Spanish is the primary language spoken at home. Although Sofia has had regular exposure to English since infancy through television, digital media, interactions in the community, and occasional conversations with English-speaking relatives and neighbors, she did not attend an English-speaking daycare or preschool. As a result, she had relatively few opportunities to participate in structured English language or early literacy experiences before entering kindergarten.

Mateo's parents, on the other hand, explain that although Spanish is also the primary language spoken at home, Mateo began attending an English-speaking daycare at a very young age. He later attended preschool, where he participated daily in read-alouds, letter-name and letter-sound activities, songs, and other experiences designed to build oral language and early literacy. In addition, he regularly interacts with English-speaking peers in his neighborhood.

Based on these experiences alone, educators might reasonably expect Mateo to demonstrate somewhat stronger English language and literacy skills than Sofia because he has had substantially greater opportunities to hear, use, and learn English. Yet despite these differences in language exposure and educational experiences, both students continue to exhibit remarkably similar difficulties.

This observation does not tell us that Mateo has a language or reading disorder. However, it does suggest that differences in language exposure alone may not fully explain his performance. To better understand what is happening, we need to gather another important piece of evidence.

Question 4

Are similar difficulties present across languages?

Oral Language

One hallmark of developmental language disorder is that it affects language learning in general, rather than only one of a learner’s languages.  Consequently, whenever possible, educators should gather information about a student's abilities in both languages.

Ideally, the process of identifying whether difficulties are present across languages includes assessment using measures that have been developed and normed for bilingual populations. For Spanish-English bilinguals, the Bilingual English Spanish Assessment (BESA; Peña et al., 2014) is one example of a standardized measure designed to help differentiate typical bilingual language development from developmental language disorder.

In practice, however, assessment across languages is not always straightforward or possible. As Geva and Wiener (2015) point out, MLLs often have language experiences that differ substantially from the populations on which standardized assessments were normed. A child born in the United States may not possess the same vocabulary or academic language as peers educated in their family's country of origin. In many languages, appropriately normed assessments simply do not exist, and schools may lack qualified bilingual professionals to administer them. These realities underscore the importance of gathering evidence from multiple sources rather than relying on any single assessment.

Reading

Difficulties associated with dyslexia or other reading disorders often extend across languages as well, although the specific ways they manifest can differ depending on the characteristics of each writing system (Verhoeven & Perfetti, 2017). Examining literacy skills in both languages can therefore provide valuable information about whether a student's reading difficulties are likely related primarily to learning a new language or whether they may reflect a more pervasive difficulty acquiring literacy.

High-quality reading screeners help educators identify students who may be at risk for future reading difficulties, allowing schools to provide support before problems become entrenched. Universal screeners often include measures that are highly predictive of later reading success, such as phonological awareness, letter-sound knowledge, decoding, spelling, rapid automatized naming, oral reading fluency, vocabulary, and listening comprehension (Gaab et al., 2020).

Again, caution is warranted when interpreting MLLs’ performance on English-only screeners. MLLs often perform below their monolingual English-speaking peers on measures that depend heavily on English language knowledge (Durán et al., 2026). Whenever possible, literacy screening should therefore also be done in the home language. This is particularly informative for students who have had meaningful opportunities to develop literacy in their home language, whether through shared reading and literacy activities at home, preschool, or formal instruction.

For students with little or no prior literacy experience in their home language, L1 literacy screeners may not be as informative and results should be interpreted cautiously, recognizing that limited opportunity to learn may influence performance.

Taken together, literacy data from both languages often provide a much richer picture of a student's reading development than English screening alone. Several commonly used screening systems—including Acadience, FastBridge, mClASS, and STAR CBM—offer measures in both English and Spanish.

Back to Mateo and Sofia

Looking at Sofia and Mateo's oral language and literacy skills across both languages provides another important piece of the puzzle. At the beginning of the school year, both students were identified as at risk on the school's English universal reading screener. They scored below benchmark on measures of phonological awareness, word-reading fluency, and nonsense word reading.

These results prompted the school's problem-solving team to investigate each student's literacy and language development more closely. The team reviewed Spanish literacy screening data collected during kindergarten. Sofia performed within the expected range on the Spanish phonological awareness measure, although she continued to demonstrate weaknesses in letter knowledge and decoding. Mateo's profile told a different story. His difficulties with phonological awareness, letter knowledge, and decoding were evident in both languages.

The team then turned to each student's oral language. As we have seen, both students produced similar patterns in English. However, when Sofia was assessed in Spanish using the Bilingual English Spanish Assessment (BESA), her language skills fell within the range expected for a bilingual child with her language background. Although she occasionally made age-appropriate developmental errors, she did not demonstrate persistent weaknesses across the core domains of language.

Mateo's oral language profile again looked different. In both conversational language and formal assessment, he demonstrated persistent grammatical difficulties in Spanish as well as English. For example, he inconsistently marked subject-verb agreement (nosotros comió instead of nosotros comimos) and occasionally omitted grammatical elements such as articles (lávate dientes instead of lávate los dientes). These types of morphosyntactic difficulties have been consistently documented in both monolingual Spanish-speaking children and Spanish-English bilingual children with developmental language disorder (Castilla-Earls et al., 2020; Castilla-Earls, 2021).

Importantly, none of these findings alone establishes a diagnosis. However, the fact that similar patterns emerge across both languages suggests that Mateo's difficulties may not be explained solely by learning English and therefore warrant further investigation.

This convergence of findings is not surprising. Developmental language disorder and reading disorders frequently overlap because successful reading depends heavily on oral language. For example, Catts and colleagues (2005) found that approximately 20% of children identified with developmental language disorder in kindergarten later met criteria for dyslexia in second, fourth, and eighth grades.

Again, in Mateo's case, these findings do not establish a diagnosis. Instead, they provide another important piece of evidence that should be considered alongside language history, classroom performance, parent interviews, classroom observations, and other assessment data.

Question 5

Even after considering cross-linguistic influence, developmental expectations, opportunity to learn, and performance across languages, uncertainty may still remain. At this point, one of the most informative questions educators can ask is:

How does the student respond to high-quality instruction?

Historically, MLLs have too often been subjected to a wait-and-see approach. Because educators rightly recognize that learning English takes time, supplemental intervention is sometimes delayed until students become more proficient in English.

Unfortunately, this approach can be especially harmful for MLLs who genuinely have reading or language difficulties. We have known for decades that early intervention substantially improves outcomes for students at risk for reading difficulties (Torgesen, 1998). Rather than postponing support until a diagnosis is confirmed, schools should provide evidence-based intervention while carefully monitoring how students respond. In an RTI/MTSS framework, intervention is not simply something that follows identification—it is an essential part of the identification process itself.

Research provides clear guidance regarding what effective intervention for MLLs should include. Foundational reading skills—including phonological awareness, letter-sound knowledge, decoding, spelling, and fluent word reading—should be taught explicitly, systematically, and intensively. At the same time, intervention should strengthen vocabulary, listening comprehension, and oral language to support reading comprehension and the development of academic language.

Effective intervention is typically delivered in small, relatively homogeneous groups and occurs daily over sustained periods of time (Vaughn et al., 2006). Instruction should actively engage students in meaningful language use while incorporating practices that have proven especially beneficial for MLLs, including gestures, visuals, preview-review routines, repetition, and abundant opportunities for guided practice. Importantly, instruction should build on students' existing knowledge—including knowledge developed in their home language—and include frequent progress monitoring so instruction can be continually refined to meet students' changing needs (Paradis et al., 2021).

Back to Sofia and Mateo

Instead of waiting, both students begin this type of intensive supplemental instruction. They participate in a small-group intervention five days each week focused on phonological awareness, decoding, spelling, connected reading, vocabulary, and oral language. Throughout the intervention, their progress is monitored regularly.

After four months, the two students begin to look very different.

Sofia continues to make occasional oral language errors, such as omitting the third-person singular -s during conversation—a perfectly typical developmental pattern—but her phonological awareness, decoding, spelling, and oral reading fluency improve steadily. She responds well to instruction, and her reading development begins to resemble that of other MLLs with similar language backgrounds.

Mateo, however, tells a different story. Despite excellent attendance, active participation, and high-quality instruction delivered with fidelity, he makes minimal progress in phonological awareness and decoding. Learning new letter-sound correspondences remains unusually difficult, and his growth consistently falls below what educators would expect.

Notice what happened.

The intervention itself provided another important piece of evidence.

At the beginning of the year, Sofia and Mateo appeared remarkably similar. Four months later, educators have a much richer understanding of each student's learning profile. Sofia's progress suggests that her initial difficulties were largely consistent with the normal process of learning to read in an additional language. Mateo's limited response does not establish a diagnosis of dyslexia or developmental language disorder. However, it does provide strong evidence that a comprehensive evaluation is warranted.

This again illustrates one of the central principles of RTI/MTSS mentioned above:

Intervention should not be viewed as something that happens after identification. Rather, high-quality intervention is often one of the most valuable components of the identification process itself.

The Goal Is Not to Wait

Supporting MLLs requires avoiding two equally harmful mistakes.

We do not want to mistake typical multilingual development for a disability. But neither do we want to mistake a disability for typical multilingual development.

Rather than waiting and hoping for the best, we should begin gathering evidence as early as possible. That means understanding how languages interact, recognizing predictable developmental patterns, considering students' opportunities to learn, examining performance across languages whenever possible, and providing high-quality instruction while carefully monitoring how students respond.

In the end, educators should not have to choose between waiting and labeling. By using a systematic framework and acting with a sense of urgency, schools can begin providing appropriate language and literacy support long before every question has been answered. When educators understand that MLLs’ errors are often systematic—and that thoughtful instruction is itself an important source of evidence—they are far better equipped to provide the right support at the right time.

A Five-Question Framework for Evaluating MLLs
Question	Considerations	Selected Resources for Further Exploration
Is this pattern expected given the languages the student knows?	Consider similarities and differences between the student's languages. Systematically comparing the two languages through contrastive analysis can help distinguish expected transfer patterns from areas of genuine concern.	-Contrastive Analysis Resources (Bilinguistics and The Reading League) -Phonemic Inventories and Cultural and Linguistic Information Across Languages (ASHA)
Is this pattern typical given what we know about language development?	Consider whether the student's errors and language patterns are consistent with the typical developmental sequence of second-language acquisition. Many grammatical structures emerge predictably over time.	-How languages are learned (5th ed.) (Lightbown and Spada) -Unpacking Terms: Developmental Sequences Video -Language Acquisition: An Overview (Colorín Colorado)
Has the student had sufficient opportunity to learn?	Consider the student's opportunities to develop language and literacy in both languages, including exposure at home, preschool, school, and other meaningful language and literacy-based experiences.	-Home Language Survey Example (New Hampshire Department of Education) -Family Interview for MLLs -English Learner Toolkit (U.S. Dept of Ed)
Are similar difficulties present across languages?	Consider whether similar patterns are evident across both languages in oral language and literacy. Difficulties occurring across languages provide an important source of evidence that should be considered alongside other assessment information.	-Dual Language Development & Disorders (Paradis, Genesee, & Crago) -Literacy & Dyslexia Revealed through Bilingual Brain Development (IDA) -English Learners and Dyslexia (IDA)
How does the student respond to high-quality instruction?	Consider whether the student is receiving evidence-based intervention and whether they demonstrate meaningful progress when provided with explicit instruction, appropriate supports, and sufficient instructional time.	-Academic Interventions ‘Critical Components’ Checklist (Intervention Central) -RTI: Considerations for ELLs (National Center on Response to Intervention) -Response to Intervention in Reading for English Language Learners (Vaughn & Ortiz)

References

Castilla-Earls, A., Auza, A., Pérez-Leroux, A. T., Fulcher-Rood, K., & Barr, C. (2020). Morphological errors in monolingual Spanish-speaking children with and without developmental language disorders. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 51(2), 270–281.

Castilla-Earls, A., Pérez-Leroux, A. T., Fulcher-Rood, K., & Barr, C. (2021). Morphological errors in Spanish-speaking bilingual children with and without developmental language disorders. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 52(2), 497–511. https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.13641320

Catts, H. W., Adlof, S. M., Hogan, T. P., & Weismer, S. E. (2005). Are specific language impairment and dyslexia distinct disorders? Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR, 48(6), 1378–1396. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2005/096)

Durán L, Siebert JM, Zegers M, Gutiérrez N, Pei F, Catts H, Petscher Y, Gorno-Tempini ML. Comparing the Performance and Growth of Linguistically Diverse and English-Only Students on Commonly Used Early Literacy Measures. J Learn Disabil. 2026 Jan-Feb;59(1):20-36. doi: 10.1177/00222194251339470. Epub 2025 May 28. PMID: 40433898.

Gaab, N., Turesky, T. K., & Sanfilippo, J. (2020). Early identification of children at risk for reading difficulty: Neurobiology, screening and evidence-based response, and educational technology. In J. A. Washington, D. L. Compton, & P. McCardle (Eds.), Dyslexia: Revisiting etiology, diagnosis, treatment, and policy (pp. 44–56). Paul H. Brookes.

Geva, E., & Wiener, J. (2015). Psychological assessment of culturally and linguistically diverse children and adolescents: A practitioner’s guide. Springer.

Paradis, J., Genesee, F., & Crago, M. B. (2021). Dual language development & disorders (3rd ed.). Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Peña, E. D., Gutiérrez-Clellen, V. F., Iglesias, A., Goldstein, B. A., & Bedore, L. M. (2014). BESA: Bilingual English–Spanish Assessment. AR-Clinical Publications.

Pienemann, M. (1998). Language, processing and second language development: Processability theory. John Benjamins.

Torgesen, J. K. (1998). Catch them before they fail: Identification and assessment to prevent reading failure in young children. American Educator, Spring/Summer, 1-8. 

Vaughn, S., Mathes, P., Linan-Thompson, S., Cirino, P., Carlson, C., Pollard-Durodola, S., Francis, D. (2006a). Effectiveness of an English intervention for first-grade English language learners at risk for reading problems. The Elementary School Journal, 107(2), 153-180. https://doi.org/10.1086/510653