The proportion of pupils with English as an Additional Language (EAL) has steadily risen in recent years in the UK. The figures for 2021 show that 1.56 million EAL pupils are attending schools, which constitutes just under one in five of all pupils aged 5-16, speaking a total of over 365 languages (Department for Education [DfE], 2021a). Despite Educational Psychologists’ (EPs) practice being concerned with the removal of barriers for allowing children to fully access education (Cameron, 2007), a review of the Educational Psychology literature offers a limited account of EPs’ response to the linguistic diversity increasingly presented by their client group. According to Cline (2011), this is also reflected in a lack of national policy guidelines on the competencies EPs need for their work with these students and families. The accepted professional codes of standards and ethics specify the need for EPs to demonstrate certain competencies, specific knowledge and understanding, pertinent to communicating with different ethnic, socio-cultural and faith groups (British Psychological Society [BPS], 2009, 2015; Health and Care Professions Council [HCPC], 2015, 2016). However, there is no clear and shared understanding of precisely what these competencies are, especially in the development of psychological advices for children with Special Educational Needs who also have EAL. Therefore, it becomes important to explore and define the competencies required by EPs to address the language needs of this population (Athanasopoulos, 2016; Johnson et al., 2012). In an attempt to address this knowledge gap, I used a three-round Delphi method to identify competencies required by EPs when working with linguistically diverse populations. Round 1 consisted of one open-ended e-questionnaire presented to a panel of experts or ‘informed individuals’ in the field of language diversity. The panel was asked to advise on competencies needed for effective practice when supporting the language needs of EAL children and empowering them and their families within their practice. The responses from Round 1 were analysed through content analysis and the competencies operationalised in terms of knowledge, skills, and personal qualities (McAllister et al., 2010). These statements were presented to EPs (N=20) in Round 2, asking them to rate their v Information Classification: CONFIDENTIAL perceived relevance for their practice, as well as inviting EPs to provide additional relevant competencies and comment on the possible applicability of the framework. In Round 3, EPs (N=19) evaluated their response to statements that had not met consensus after Round 2, considering the group’s opinion overall, and also rated additional competencies collated from participants in the previous round (Round 2). At the end of Round 3, out of a possible 103 statements, 90 statements were deemed as key features for EP practice with EAL students and families, which is presented as a guiding framework for practice. Statements that did/did not meet consensus were considered, and implications for EP practice were discussed.