Pam, unless you are the most gifted LD tutor since time began, I question why you claim results for diabled learning that no others have been able to consistantly produce. And yes, they all push the dyslexic kids to the front.
I have every reason to believe that you are passionate about what you do, but without any substantive evidence of these claims (which would favor your business model I might add), they are just that, claims.
How does linking inteligence to "getting the material" grate you? Again you seem to be skirting the issue. Do you or do you not believe in "intelligence"? Or would that go counter your sales pitch? Do you have dyslexics with high math aptitude? You said that they could probably dance circles around me. Does that mean I have a lower math aptitude? Do you have dyslexics that are more intelligent than other dyslexics?
Regarding your last paragraph about detecting math aptitude...
"No, what you are detecting is a lifetime of success or failure, with all the emotional baggage that entails. If you want to tell me you can detect authentic mathematical aptitude in an elementary student, when they have not yet even been exposed to math beyond arithmetic, then that is ridiculous. Even Einstein's teachers thought he wouldn't amount to anything when he was in elementary school, because, by his own admission, he wasn't particularly good at arithmetic."
Either I am reading this very wrong, or what you think is "math" is very different than what I think is "math". Maybe reading is more your "thing" but I don't think that is sufficient excuse to make a bold statement that "math aptitude" does not exist in elementary school! Also note that I did not say you could detect if a kid did not have math aptitude, only that you could detect if they did have it. Yes, some kids show it later. But detecting it is not hard to do. It seems that you have a conditioned response to the word "aptitude", but seriously, at some point I would like you to resolve your idea that you cannot detect math aptitude at that age with the various math clubs and high achievment that absolutely do occur at that age.
> First let me say, yes, I'm emotional about this > topic, and I make no apologies for that. I wish more > teachers would get emotional in defense of their > students. Robert, as a newer poster here you may not > know - I am an LD specialist, teaching primarily > reading, sometimes arithmetic, to students with > dyslexia and other LDs. I am quite successful at > this, turning so-called "low aptitude" students into > "high aptitude" students. > > > Pam, I don't think anyone here ever said that high > IQ > > = academic success. Regardless of what you want to > > fashion the "purpose of IQ testing into" the fact > > remains that there is a proven high correlation > > between IQ and "getting it" when it comes to > > academics. These arguments about Flynn and Purpose > > are like parlor tricks to confuse people. > > No, there is a high correlation between IQ and > "getting it" when "getting it" means continuing with > the status quo. In other words, an educational > program that isn't working very well for that > particular student. > > The Flynn effect has little relevance to the > appropriate use of IQ scores. More important is the > Matthew Effect, a term coined by Keith Stanovich, a > psychologist studying reading disorders, to describe > the decrease we see in IQ scores as a child ages, > when he/she is not taught to read. With instruction > appropriate to the child's needs, the Matthew Effect > disappears. > > > > > As I asked the other poster, are your proposing > that > > intelligence is not real? > > It is the popular understanding of what intelligence > is that I find so problematic. > > > Or that IQ tests are not > > the best way to measure intelligence? > > > > Absolutely not, it is not what they are designed to > do. They are designed to provide some (imperfect) > measure of success, thus far, in school. At the > outer reaches, there is certainly a difference in the > ability to learn. Someone with a measured IQ of 40 > is going to have significant challenges compared to > someone with an IQ of 140. In between, though, is a > whole lot of gray area. > > > Personally, I think intelligence is best measured > by > > how well the student gets the material. > > THIS is what grates on me so much! What a horrible, > defeatist, inaccurate measure. Thinking back, I > realize my views were formed at a very young age. > When I was in elementary school, I was such an > n exceptional student my teachers didn't quite know > what to do with me. I give them credit, because I > was quiet and calm, and would have sat quietly after > I finished my work, but they were conscious of > keeping me busy and challenged. So not only did they > allow me to work at my own pace - especially in math > I was self-taught - but because I still finished my > work so quickly, they asked me to help the lowest > performing kids. I loved it, it was the one thing > that really challenged me in school. Having to slow > and deconstruct my own thought processes so I knew > how to explain it to the other students was the first > big challenge, then figuring out where their glitch > was, what prevented them from getting what came so > easily to me, was the next and most fascinating > challenge. Not once, even at such a young age, not > once did I think the other students could not be as > good at math as I was, if only I could find that key > to unlock whatever was holding them back. > > And I still believe it, and live it, and prove it day > by day. If ever someone finds that I have prejudged > a student's future potential to "get" a subject based > on how well they are "getting" it now, then throw me > in shackles. I'd deserve nothing better. We all > have our limiting characteristics, but Robert's idea > of innate intelligence is the least of those. > > > But I am > > not driven in any way to even suggest that IQ tests > > have any use in schools. > > Of course they have a use in school, when used as > designed. Let me give you an example. I think of IQ > tests as a screening, the first indication of what > else we need to look at. I rarely look at full scale > IQ - that is essentially meaningless when there are > significant gaps between subtest scores and between > indexed scores, as is almost always the case with > kids who have LDs. If I see that a student has a VCI > (Verbal Comprehension Index on the WISC-IV) score of > 120 and a PRI (Perceptual Reasoning Index) score of > 90, I know there is a problem, and I have some ideas > of what the problem may be. We see that sort of gap > when students have visual-spatial processing > weaknesses, a possible indication of a Nonverbal > Learning Disorder, or when students are particularly > slow processors, needing to mull things over slowly > but often quite deeply. (Subtests included in VCI > are not timed, subtests included in PRI are timed.) > The discrepancy may also indicate some > e self-confidence issues and adaptability to novel > situations. Discrepancies in indexed and subtest > scores may even be an indication of emotional > disorders, such as bipolar and borderline personality > disorder, a connection researchers are looking into. > So it is not the overall IQ, but the discrepancies > s in scores that interest me. People with dyslexia > often have the opposite pattern of high PRI scores, > sometimes in the superior range, with significantly > lower VCI. Those discrepancies then need to be > explored with further testing. > > IQ scores are most helpful to me in understanding a > diagnosis, and after that I mostly forget about them. > But they can inform my teaching by identifying > g strengths and weaknesses, my mantra being "use the > strengths, remediate the weaknesses." > > > They measure a very general > > aspect of intelligence. I am more interested in > > REALIZED INTELLIGENCE, not probable. My agenda is > > that if a kid shows high aptitude in actual > subjects, > > be it math or literature or what ever, that they be > > afforded the opportunity to be taught to the > fullest. > > I agree with you, except I would exchange "aptitude" > for "strong interest and attitude", a far more > predictive measure of success. While recognizing > that interest generally follows aptitude (which is > subject to change) and vice versa. > > I'll admit I sometimes have a hard time empathisizing > with those of you fighting to get "gifted" kids > academic needs recognized, because I grew up and > currently reside in a district that uses tracking, > grade skipping, and cross grading in ways that work > fairly well. And by that I mean there is movement > between levels and freedom of choice and separation > of subjects. Teachers recommend tracks and grade > levels, but ultimately it is the choice of students > and their parents. Each subject is considered > individually, such that most high school students > graduate with some classes at the standard level, > some accelerated, some honors, and some students may > also skip ahead a grade in a particular subject but > not the others. > > > I know damn well that we can detect authentic > > mathematical aptitude > > No, what you are detecting is a lifetime of success > or failure, with all the emotional baggage that > entails. If you want to tell me you can detect > authentic mathematical aptitude in an elementary > student, when they have not yet even been exposed to > math beyond arithmetic, then that is ridiculous. > Even Einstein's teachers thought he wouldn't amount > t to anything when he was in elementary school, > because, by his own admission, he wasn't particularly > good at arithmetic. > > Pam