neuro scores differ

I feel that IQ for the LD population can change over time. My kids have. If you are doing the evaluation on your own you have the option to decide if you what the school to see the results or not.

Helen

Actually a higher IQ can make things easier since there then may be a higher spread between academic performance and potential (as measured by IQ tests). Our son scored borderline (84) at age 5 and 99 at age 7. This made life much easier for us because it was hard for them to make excuses (his low IQ) for his inability to read.

But Helen is right—you don’t have to share with the school if you don’t want.

And LD kids IQ scores can improve because deficits (like auditory processing) which impact testsing are remediated.

Beth

Testing for diagnosis of learning problems and testing to classify a child for services are two different things; if your child still struggles in school and has achievement scores considerably below the average IQ, then push for classification and services. An IQ range of 90-110 is average; we have been told that scores may vary a bit with each testing; these scores are solidly average, the verbal IQ both times was average; I assume that in your state the achievement testing must have qualified your child(or other factors).

Much depends on the subtest scores and whether there was spread there — and also on other test scores, since IQ is *not* the only score in town. It sounds like some *really* good things have happened as far as being able to figure out how to tackle the performance kinds of problems. This actually happens a fair amount in bright kids — I’ll bet that three years ago he was fairly clueless about some of the tests… but this time he used some of that left-brain analytical thinking to figure out ways to get more things right. And, if in three years, he’s learned to approach tests and/or challenges with a “let’s figure it out” attitude… that’s more important than lots of other skills!

However, being eligible could be tougher to prove — but you can stress that the disability that caused the split before is still there, just masked by things he’s learned to do to compensate… but then you need to have lots of specific examples of how those compensation skills *aren’t* enoguh for the academic demands that he’s bright enough to handle.

This is not especially uncommon- particularly if your son is young. Cognitive growth is as variable as any other developmental factor in young children…
Robin

Isn’t the idea of not sharing information about your child just a little unfair to your child, the school and the people whom you expect to be working with your child? Schools have a legal obligation to be forthright with information with parents and when they are not they are spending an enormous amount of time and money in court defending their stupidity…I am very unhappy to think that parents would deliberately withhold information like this just to play numbers- it seems dishonest. And before I get the raft of emails about how poorly schools treat parents and kids- it strikes me that when one is dealing with bullies that little is gains by descending to the bullie’s level…
Robin

Robin,

I have always shared all the private testing we’ve done with the school. My son has CAPD which is not recognized by the district for classification purposes. It doesn’t matter legally because he is classified as having a specific language disability. I don’t think the information I have shared has impacted his services but has helped build a better understanding of his problems.

On the other hand, a parent is within their legal right to not share information. Why they might do so–there are probably as many reasons as their are parents.

Beth

My son took the stanford binet when he was 3 1/2, and although there were gaps in the subtest scores the lowest score was average. Verbally his scores were superior/gifted, Abstract Visual were average/high average, Quantitative average. His short term memory was superior. His composite score was 94th percentile.

When his school did some screening 6 months ago (WISC?) they also found superior verbal, high average non-verbal . But the results of a recently performed neuropsych eval showed lower scores across the board on the wechsler. . Same gaps but just lower test scores ie, verbal 117 (87th percentile) , Perf 87 (19th percentile), and a full scale IQ of 103 (58th percentile).

We’ve also identified anxiety as one of his problems, and I am wondering if that could impact his testing. It doesn’t really matter since the pattern is consistent, but we are curious to understand how these tests work. THANKS!

forgot that part!

Certainly anxiety can be an issue- but the nature of the tasks changes to a certain extent as kids get older also. In addition- that variability in development holds true in terms of things leveling out as well as improving. Rapid development in certain areas will eventually slow down and become a bit more stable. This may look like a decline but in fact it is not- it is a leveling of performance. Verbal scores are classic here- kids with enriched backgrounds and big vocabularies tend to score very well in the early years- and there is likely to be some decline in their scores as they become older- not because they are becoming less capable than they were but because their performance is leveling off relative to the rest of their age peers- which is what norming is all about.

Generally speaking-and all other things being equal- learning capacity does not decline unless there has been some form of trauma to the brain.(There are always exceptions)Performance does level out however and is impacted by environment,attentional issues, instruction and emotional stuff. The conventional wisdom is that the numbers you get are a snapshot of an individual’s level of function and it is accurate within a certain range (Standard Error of Measurement). Beyond that it can be as variable as picking NCAA winners- there are a myriad of factors that can affect performance. It is usually more stable the older the individual which is why many professionals shy away from really early assessment- and it is usually advisable to have at least two sets of scores that are reasonably similar-several years apart- before you decide that you have a definitive picture of someone’s profile. And even then….

It isn’t the school’s fault about the CAPD- it is not in the Federal Regs which are what they have to abide by…I know you know this:)

And I did not intend that post to be a slap at you and I hope you didn’t take it that way- but it is disheartening to me as a professional to see parents deliberately plan to withhold information in order to play number games with eligibility. It is as wrong as what schools do to many students- especially those who skate on the eligibility border. I know it is their right but exercising that right for those reasons does not seem to be a good way to move the process forward and out of the mire of garbage that it is in at the present. Ah well… someday we will all grow up. Hope the weather forecast for FLA stays as nice as it looks as we are venturing down your way from VT this coming week! Without the laptop:)

Robin

Your child’s intelligence did not decline; testing before age 7 or so is not super-accurate…certainly testing twice 3-4 years apart after age 7rs. is apt to give the most accurate picture; the SB is not commonly used to look at school age children’s IQ, it does give high scores - parents like it to show that their child is gifted. As kids get older to get higher performance scores on the WISC III, they need to get the bonus points for speed, so it’s not that the child is losing skills, but not going faster on the performance items. Ask whomever did the testing for an explanation of the specifics.

I’m sorry, this just struck a raw nerve with me. My school has played so many games with me on eligibility to an extent that they lied, cheated and fabricated test results so that my child wouldn’t qualify. I caught them and thus they were forced by district,however, they do absolutely minimal, so in the end my child still lost and we resort to homeschooling after school syndrom.

I was and still am so appalled by the example that they are leading. Initially, it would NEVER occur to me to withhold any private testing. I have shared all private testing with my school - they completely disregard it. From now on, I am forced to play the game they made the rules for. If the parent feels the school will use the information against them, I say DON”T SHARE IT.

What I failed to mention is that my son has extremely low processing speed, and in fact he did not get any bonus points . The tester did discuss this in her report, but your analysis made the impact of that fact more meaningful in terms of how it affected his score. So thanks!

My son has low processing speed and the school Psych. report stated because of visual-motor problems the VIQ should be considered the IQ that best measured his ability.

Helen

I just got conirmation from the Medical Center on a date for neuro testing. Being a parent that fully believes that full disclosure of all information on my daughter is the best strategy, I went in to talk to the school psychologist and let her know that the testing was being done, who was doing the testing and to let her know that all the information that had been given to me by the school would be given to my private physician. I had assumed that the school psycologist would have had a better reaction to the news that I was taking additional steps. WRONG!!! I was very surprised to immediately be told that the school had the choice about whether to accept any new information. In fact, she said that the school’s policy was to NOT accept any change in the IQ information. Of course at this point, my radar goes up…and I immediatley feel as though they are simply trying to protect the validity of their testing and their decision that my daughter did not qualify for any special programs. In the Woodcock Johnson her standard scores ranged form a low of 77 (Math Calculation Skills) to a high in the 95-99 range (Basic Reading, comprehension and Written Expression).. I still question why her Math reasoning scores are in the 98-99 range and her calculation skills were so low….but I won’t even go there. In the wechsler her scores were Verbal=91, Performance=81, full scale=85 In the individual Achievement Test her scores were Math reasoning=90, numerical operations=92 and Math Composite=89. All of this said…the teacher is still reporting that Mary (now at the end of 2nd grade) is performing at the beginning first grade level. So as a responsible parent..I am now doing testing to determine what is going on and how to help her. Apparently, according to the school psycologist, regardless of the testing, they probably won’t accept any other test scores. She said that IQ will not change,and that we should probably wait two more years before we do any other testing. Let’s see..by that time my daughter will have possibly advanced to being 4 years behind. So..Interestly I now come full circle to my point…I would be more than willing to share information with the school, but I have already been told that they really have not intention of using the information to change or alter her education program. I actually envy to individuals that live is a school district where they may actually pay attention to the scores. Gee I wonder If my insurance company realizes that they are about to pay $1700 for tests that won’t make any difference to the school. They will make a difference to me…

It is beautiful out!!! Come enjoy!!

I realize your remarks are not personal and I know districts are not required by federal law to recognize CAPD but in FL at least, many do. There is a paper written by the state education department explicitly addressing how to manage such cases. My son though was classified before we knew about the CAPD.

This may sound terrible but if I had private testing down which might make my son inelgible for services he was currently receiving and benefiting from, I wouldn’t share it. I think there are lots of kids who fall through the cracks–who could benefit but don’t qualify and thus really struggle. I wouldn’t knowingly help throw my son into that pile (he struggles enough with the meager services he receives) . Call it what you want—I think it is just mother lion instinct.

Beth

I posted above that I believe that testing to answer why is my child learning slowly, or to confirm a diagnosis of LD is different from the school’s testing to classify a student in order to receive services. Sometimes these purposes overlap, but many times they don’t. Start by asking the outside evaluator questions you’d like answered about your child. Certainly outside evaluators shouldn’t repeat the same tests more than every 2-3 years(they are invalid), but there are usually other tests that can be done to get the same info.(ie for IQ instead of the WISC III the Kaufman can be used or the cognitive part of the WJIII). Or what we did was to take all of the school’s testing over 3-4 years to a private psychologist for another interpretation. This was very helpful; no, it didn’t make the school classify our child, but we are continuing private tutoring and know much more about our child, and what to expect in the future. I believe the school evaluators’ weakest point was explaining the testing results to us; and that was the private psychologist’s strength!

Also… kids with anxiety/emotional issues tend to have much more variance in any scores, period.

I was reading about a study where one group of testees was told an IQ test was an ability test, the other group that it was a “problem solving” test. The second group did significantly better. To me that says we’re really giving kids hangups about the importance of “ability” - especially when so much of “ability” really *is* about having a “problem-solving” approach.

Believe it or not,and BELIEVE me you will have to educate your educators on this. But if he doesn’t qualify for special education services under IDEA he can qualify under 504.

What amazes me is how comprehensive 504 actually is. If you look at the law itself it contains just about everything IDEA contains. As far a him going into special ed classes exclusively no,but at 110 IQ I would be willing to guess what your looking for is an inclusive setting anyway.

For example,under 504 they must develop a plan. They must provide accomodations,they must provide,HELLO,a Free and Appropriate Public Education.

Thing is most educators think 504 accomodations lists,and that is all,they do not realize that 504 is a BIG law. It is a law of antidiscrimination,of providing your son and appropriate education along side his nondisabled peers.

Subpart D of 504

§ 104.33 Free appropriate public education.

(a) General. A recipient that operates a public elementary or secondary education program or activity shall provide a free appropriate public education to each qualified handicapped person who is in the recipient’s jurisdiction, regardless of the nature or severity of the person’s handicap.

(b) Appropriate education. (1) For the purpose of this subpart, the provision of an appropriate education is the provision of regular or special education and related aids and services that (i) are designed to meet individual educational needs of handicapped persons as adequately as the needs of nonhandicapped persons are met and (ii) are based upon adherence to procedures that satisfy the requirements of §§ 104.34, 104.35, and 104.36.

(2) Implementation of an Individualized Education Program developed in accordance with the Education of the Handicapped Act is one means of meeting the standard established in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section.

(3) A recipient may place a handicapped person or refer such a person for aid, benefits, or services other than those that it operates or provides as its means of carrying out the requirements of this subpart. If so, the recipient remains responsible for ensuring that the requirements of this subpart are met with respect to any handicapped person so placed or referred.

(c) Free education — (1) General. For the purpose of this section, the provision of a free education is the provision of educational and related services without cost to the handicapped person or to his or her parents or guardian, except for those fees that are imposed on non-handicapped persons or their parents or guardian. It may consist either of the provision of free services or, if a recipient places a handicapped person or refers such person for aid, benefits, or services not operated or provided by the recipient as its means of carrying out the requirements of this subpart, of payment for the costs of the aid, benefits, or services. Funds available from any public or private agency may be used to meet the requirements of this subpart. Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve an insurer or similar third party from an otherwise valid obligation to provide or pay for services provided to a handicapped person.

Soo,regardless of whether his IQ is too high to meet elgibility criteria under IDEA,he is ,or has the right to FAPE under 504.

§ 104.34 Educational setting.

(a) Academic setting. A recipient to which this subpart applies shall educate, or shall provide for the education of, each qualified handicapped person in its jurisdiction with persons who are not handicapped to the maximum extent appropriate to the needs of the handicapped person. A recipient shall place a handicapped person in the regular educational environment operated by the recipient unless it is demonstrated by the recipient that the education of the person in the regular environment with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. Whenever a recipient places a person in a setting other than the regular educational environment pursuant to this paragraph, it shall take into account the proximity of the alternate setting to the person’s home.

They must provide the most appropriate educational setting.

§ 104.35 Evaluation and placement.

(a) Preplacement evaluation. A recipient that operates a public elementary or secondary education program or activity shall conduct an evaluation in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section of any person who, because of handicap, needs or is belived to need special education or related services before taking any action with respect to the initial placement of the person in regular or special education and any subsequent significant change in placement.

(b) Evaluation procedures. A recipient to which this subpart applies shall establish standards and procedures for the evaluation and placement of persons who, because of handicap, need or are believed to need special education or related services which ensure that:

(1) Tests and other evaluation materials have been validated for the specific purpose for which they are used and are administered by trained personnel in conformance with the instructions provided by their producer;

(2) Tests and other evaluation materials include those tailored to assess specific areas of educational need and not merely those which are designed to provide a single general intelligence quotient; and

(3) Tests are selected and administered so as best to ensure that, when a test is administered to a student with impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills, the test results accurately reflect the student’s aptitude or achievement level or whatever other factor the test purports to measure, rather than reflecting the student’s impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills (except where those skills are the factors that the test purports to measure).

(c) Placement procedures. In interpreting evaluation data and in making placement decisions, a recipient shall (1) draw upon information from a variety of sources, including aptitude and achievement tests, teacher recommendations, physical condition, social or cultural background, and adaptive behavior, (2) establish procedures to ensure that information obtained from all such sources is documented and carefully considered, (3) ensure that the placement decision is made by a group of persons, including persons knowledgeable about the child, the meaning of the evaluation data, and the placement options, and (4) ensure that the placement decision is made in conformity with §104.34.

They must draw upon all areas of suspected need,they must do this under IDEA too. Which by the way means not just uses his IQ,as the sole determining factor of eligibility.

§ 104.36 Procedural safeguards.

A recipient that operates a public elementary or secondary education program or activity shall establish and implement, with respect to actions regarding the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of persons who, because of handicap, need or are believed to need special instruction or related services, a system of procedural safeguards that includes notice, an opportunity for the parents or guardian of the person to examine relevant records, an impartial hearing with opportunity for participation by the person’s parents or guardian and representation by counsel, and a review procedure. Compliance with the procedural safeguards of section 615 of the Education of the Handicapped Act is one means of meeting this requirement

They must have in place procedural safeguards to allow parents to participate in the process,just as they do under IDEA.

§ 104.43 Treatment of students; general.

(a) No qualified handicapped student shall, on the basis of handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any academic, research, occupational training, housing, health insurance, counseling, financial aid, physical education, athletics, recreation, transportation, other extracurricular, or other postsecondary education aid, benefits, or services to which this subpart applies.

(b) A recipient to which this subpart applies that considers participation by students in education programs or activities not operated wholly by the recipient as part of, or equivalent to, and education program or activity operated by the recipient shall assure itself that the other education program or activity, as a whole, provides an equal opportunity for the participation of qualified handicapped persons.

(c) A recipient to which this subpart applies may not, on the basis of handicap, exclude any qualified handicapped student from any course, course of study, or other part of its education program or activity.

(d) A recipient to which this subpart applies shall operate its program or activity in the most integrated setting appropriate.

§ 104.44 Academic adjustments.

(a) Academic requirements. A recipient to which this subpart applies shall make such modifications to its academic requirements as are necessary to ensure that such requirements do not discriminate or have the effect of discriminating, on the basis of handicap, against a qualified handicapped applicant or student. Academic requirements that the recipient can demonstrate are essential to the instruction being pursued by such student or to any directly related licensing requirement will not be regarded as discriminatory within the meaning of this section. Modifications may include changes in the length of time permitted for the completion of degree requirements, substitution of specific courses required for the completion of degree requirements, and adaptation of the manner in which specific courses are conducted.

(b) Other rules. A recipient to which this subpart applies may not impose upon handicapped students other rules, such as the prohibition of tape recorders in classrooms or of dog guides in campus buildings, that have the effect of limiting the participation of handicapped students in the recipient’s education program or activity.

AND,they must provide adjustments to his setting so in order to aquire the same benefit,meet the same goals as nondisabled peers.

So always remember if he winds up not qualifying under IDEA he does under 504 and he does have rights…

Now for the catch. The agency that enforces complaince is the office of civil rights. The state department of education must ensure complaince,but the agency that would force the district to comply with this law would be the OCR.

To qualify for a 504 I believe the student needs a diagnosis of a disability; the scores originally posted were average IQ, perhaps further testing will reveal a SLD. The federal regs are posted on the new site www.TeachingLD.org(listing the disability categories).

Hmm,I believe this child is regarded or was regarded as having an impairment.
Specificly it states has a record of or a misclassification of an impairment.

(j) Handicapped person — (1) Handicapped persons means any person who (i) has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities, (ii) has a record of such an impairment, or (iii) is regarded as having such an impairment.

(2) As used in paragraph (j)(1) of this section, the phrase:

(i) Physical or mental impairment means (A) any physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more of the following body systems: neurological; musculoskeletal; special sense organs; respiratory, including speech organs; cardiovascular; reproductive, digestive, genito‑urinary; hemic and lymphatic; skin; and endocrine; or (B) any mental or psychological disorder, such as mental retardation, organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and specific learning disabilities.

(ii) Major life activities means functions such as caring for one’s self, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.

(iii) Has a record of such an impairment means has a history of, or has been misclassified as having, a mental or physical impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.

(iv) Is regarded as having an impairment means (A) has a physical or mental impairment that does not substantially limit major life activities but that is treated by a recipient as constituting such a limitation; (B) has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits major life activities only as a result of the attitudes of others toward such impairment; or (C) has none of the impairments defined in paragraph (j)(2)(i) of this section but is treated by a recipient as having such an impairment.