Students with learning disabilities who use African American Vernacular English (AAVE) in addition to Mainstream American English bring rich cultural and linguistic strengths shaped by their experiences across home, school, and community contexts. However, special education processes may overlook these strengths, influencing how students are understood as communicators and learners. This article examines how language in Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) can better reflect the communicative practices of bidialectal students with learning disabilities while addressing their disability-related needs. A framework for IEP development is introduced that integrates five anchors and a four-step reflective protocol to support alignment across present levels, goal statements, and progress monitoring. The anchors function as lenses for interpreting student communication, while the protocol guides teams in examining and revising IEP language. Practical examples illustrate how this approach supports more accurate, strength-based documentation and more meaningful opportunities for communication and literacy development.
AnnammaS. A.ConnorD. J.FerriB. (2013). Dis/ability critical race studies (DisCrit): Theorizing at the intersections of race and dis/ability. Race Ethnicity and Education, 16(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2012.730511
2.
Baker-BellA. (2020). Linguistic justice: Black language, literacy, identity, and pedagogy. Routledge.
3.
BroughtonA. J.PrzymusS. D.OrtizA. A.CruzB. J. S. (2023). Critical consciousness in decision-making: A model for educational planning and instruction with bilingual/multilingual students with disabilities. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 55(5), 338–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/00400599221145112
4.
ClaràM. (2014). What is reflection? Looking for clarity in an ambiguous notion. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(3), 261–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114552028
5.
DiehmE. A.HendricksA. E. (2021). Teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogical beliefs regarding the use of African American English. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 52(1), 100–117. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_LSHSS-19-00101
6.
DrayB. J.WisneskiD. B. (2011). Mindful reflection as a process for developing culturally responsive practices. Teaching Exceptional Children, 44(2), 28–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/00400599110440010
7.
FloresN.RosaJ. (2017). Unsettling race and language: Toward a raciolinguistic perspective. Language in Society, 46(5), 621–647. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404517000562
8.
GarcíaO.WeiL. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Palgrave Macmillan.
9.
Gatlin-NashB.ChowJ. C.EvansI. (2022). Addressing the needs of nonmainstream dialect speakers with learning disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 59(1), 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/10534512221130066
10.
GonzálezN.MollL. C.AmantiC. (Eds.). (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Routledge.
11.
GreenL. J. (2002). African American English: A linguistic introduction. Cambridge University Press.
12.
HymesD. (1972). On communicative competence. In PrideJ. B.HolmesJ. (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected readings (pp. 269–285). Penguin Books.
13.
JiménezR. T. (2000). Literacy and the identity development of Latina/o students. American Educational Research Journal, 37(4), 971–1000. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312037004971
14.
KelleyM. H.EvansI.ChowJ. C. (2025). Collaboration to increase cultural relevance for African American English speakers with disabilities. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 57(4), 294–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/00400599231159850
15.
LightJ.McNaughtonD. (2014). Communicative competence for individuals who require augmentative and alternative communication: A new definition for a new era of communication?AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 30(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2014.885080
16.
MarshL. T. S.WalkerL. J. (2022). Deficit-oriented beliefs, anti-Black policies, punitive practices, and labeling: Exploring the mechanisms of disproportionality and its impact on Black boys in one urban “no-excuses” charter school. Teachers College Record, 124(2), 85–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/01614681221141757
17.
OtheguyR.GarciaO.ReidW. (2015). Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: A perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review, 6(3), 281–307. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2015-0014
18.
ParisD. (2019). Humanizing pedagogies in youth participatory action research. In ParisD.WinnM. T. (Eds.), Humanizing research: Decolonizing qualitative inquiry with youth and communities (pp. 95–116). Sage.
19.
PrivetteC.SaechaoK. R. (2025). Black languaging is translanguaging: We not just talkin’ bout it, we bout it bout it!Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 10(1), 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_PERSP-23-00297
20.
TranL. M.LoberJ.PattonJ. R. (2021). Enhancing culturally and linguistically responsive features of individualized education programs (IEPs) for speech-language pathologists (SLPs). Seminars in Speech and Language, 42(2), 147–161. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1725137
21.
WehmeyerM. L.ShogrenK. A.LittleT. D.LopezS. J. (2017). Development of self-determination through the life course. Springer.
22.
YellM. L.CollinsJ.KumpieneG.BatemanD. (2020). The individualized education program: Procedural and substantive requirements. Teaching Exceptional Children, 52(5), 304–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059920906592
23.
YuanC.Hart BarnettJ. E. (2024). Developing quality IEP goals in the age of artificial intelligence. Teaching Exceptional Children, 58(3), 156–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/00400599241239311
