Good point. Things happen slightly differently here, there is more interconnectedness in our state-funded education, so expenditure in one area isn't considered a waste if the child is transferred to another state-based school, anywhere in the state. And in general, our states are bigger than yours.
Another problem to watch for in school-based testing - they have a vested interest in finding the child to be functioning well. It is not in their interests to find problems. So the school psychologists are taught to average out the sub-scores to give a final IQ score, IN ALL CASES even though the rtests temselves state that where there are large discrepancies in sub-scores, they shouldn't be averaged out.
If you have akid who is gifted but learning disabled (a common finding in Pervasive Developmental Disorder (PDD)) then you can 'fudge' the test results and make the child seem more normal, by using the high score areas to mask the low score areas.
Example - difficult child 3 scored about 17 in some areas of the test, and 6 in others. Since a child can't fake a high test result, the high score indicates his potential, what he would be capable of given support and maybe didn't have the autism. The low score indicates the extent to which his disability is having an impact on his ability to do the test. The wide gap indicates the degree of frustration he willconstantly experience, due to the odd combination of problems. Meanwhile his classroom performance in tests was near the top of the class, in most subject areas. However, his classroom performance was woeful. His ability to stay on task was shocking.
The school counsellor presented me with the above results with the following statement: "He's really doing remarkably well, considering his IQ is only a little above average. I scored him as being about 110 IQ. So considering he came 2nd in Maths, I think we can relax a bit and not stress about him needing so much support."
She had conveniently ignored a very recent test (copy given to her only two months earlier, so she should never had re-tested him, as I would have told her if she had asked for my permission to test, as she was required to do). The recent test had been conducted as part of a research project into finding ways to test kids with autism. They had only applied tests which were likely to not be compromised by factors related to the autism. Where some sub-tests were going to be a problem, these researchers found alternative tests and applied those. Their report made it clear that what they were after was a more accurate picture of the child's 'real' IQ, taking into account the likelihood of the child scoring low on the more standard tests in some areas. The report made it clear that more detailed testing would show the child's deficit areas, but their aim was to develop a more accurate testing procedure overall for Pervasive Developmental Disorder (PDD) kids. And on that test, difficult child 3 scored about 140 (confidence limits plus or minus 5). I'm working from memory here, I could be out a few either way.
A big difference between 110, and 140. Because at 110, a kid is marginally above average, in maybe the top 40% of the population. But at 140, a child is in the top 1%. At 140, the school needs to support the child with extension in the high sckill areas, regardless of whether there are any associated learning problems. But where there ARE learning problems (as clearly identified in the low scores the school counsellor had found, and then tried to hide by averaging everything) then this doubles their work - they have to not only extent, they have to pprovide remedial support in the deficit areas.
Much easier to just whitewash the lot and say, "there's no problem here." Then of course they're dealing with a frustrated kid who is struggling in some areas, bored in others.
It really doesn't take much, just some individual assessment and consideration, to help a kid like this and make a big positive difference. But to alarge school, suchindividual attention requires input of time, effort and often some cost in terms of personnel man-hours. If this cost is nnot likely to see any valid return, r if there is a chance that such effort's need will be challenged by some penny-pioncher in an office miles away who never sees the light of day but just sits at a desk and pushes numbers around, then I can understand the school counsellor doing what she did.
Doesn't mean I agree with it, or like it. But they are often trapped in their employment situation, they have to toe the line or get knuckles rapped.
So whenever you're dealing with officials, always try to keep in mind - what is THEIR motivation? Who provides their pay check? What for? Where do their loyalties lie?
Because when the chips are down and you desperately need some support from the people who tested your child, you don't want to have to ask for help from someone who is paid by the people you're arguing with.
Marg
