2012, p. 109). Informal data is doubly relevant
when working with students with visual impairments who are from CLDB. In a guide to assessing English Language Learners (ELLs), Rhodes,
Ochoa, and Ortiz (2005) suggested that informal
methods are needed to supplement the data from
normed assessments. The authors also indicated
that information from the normed assessments
might not take into consideration possible variations in dialect that could result in false assumptions that language is used in a similar way within
and across languages.
As the population of linguistically diverse
learners increases, the challenges educational
diagnosticians face with evaluating students with
visual impairments from CLDB also increase. The
use of informal assessment procedures along
with criterion-reference including curriculumbased measures is especially important for this
population of students as many times, in my experience, standardized assessments tell us more
about what the student cannot do and not so
much about what they can. Some combinations
of formal and informal assessments that I have
used in my practice when assessing visually impaired students who are from CLDB can be found
in Table 1. It is important to note that many of the
assessments with the alternative languages that
are available from the publishers may not be
readily available in school districts. In cases
where the assessments are not available in the
student's primary language, the evaluator may
have to resort to translating the assessment. This
is not ideal and should be used as a last resource; however, this may be the only alternative
available in order to get an informal estimate of
the student's current functioning level.
As part of the alternative assessment procedure, interviews with the classroom teacher and
team members, as well as collaboration and consultation with the teacher of the visually impaired
15
