The COVID-19 crisis and the subsequent social distancing measures have imposed numerous challenges on school psychologists balancing public health and students' right to a free and appropriate education. This article addresses one of the most contentious issues for school psychologists during the pandemic: how to ethically conduct valid psychoeducational assessments without placing anyone's health at risk. Legal guidance and regulations pertaining to special education evaluations during the pandemic are first delineated, followed by a discussion of the feasibility of tele-assessment from ethical, legal, and implementational perspectives. Lastly, based on the epidemiological knowledge of COVID-19 transmission and practices implemented in other countries, a protocol for special education assessment is introduced that aims at assisting school psychologists to conduct necessary assessments in face of the ongoing pandemic. IMPACT STATEMENTWith limitations in current online assessment options, lack of certainty with regard to a vaccine solution, and the mounting number of assessments that will befall school psychologists, this article offers an assessment protocol in light of what is currently known about the epidemiological nature of COVID-19.

This article reports on a longitudinal, quasi‐experimental comparison of two English language development (ELD) models implemented from kindergarten through Grade 3 to support oral English language development among Spanish‐speaking English language learners (ELLs). Specifically, the study examined oral English language proficiency among students who received only integrated English language development (I‐ELD; n = 39) and students who received I‐ELD with 30 minutes of daily designated ELD (D‐ELD) entailing four specific routines and strategies (n = 65). The study also compared oral proficiency with English‐only speakers (EO) from the same school (n = 47). Oral language proficiency was measured by the IDEA Proficiency Test (IPT I‐Oral; Ballard & Tighe, 2017). A repeated‐measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) across Grades 2 and 3 indicated significant (p < .001; η2 = 0.53) increases in oral proficiency for ELL students who received D‐ELD. A follow‐up analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) indicated significant positive effects (p < .001; η2 = 0.19) of the D‐ELD approach on ELL students' oral proficiency compared to only I‐ELD in Grade 3. The ANCOVA also found no significant (p > .05) differences in oral proficiency between ELL students who received D‐ELD and EO students in Grade 3, indicating similar oral English skills. The D‐ELD model's instructional strategies and practical implications are discussed.