Next step if appeal is denied?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You take some steps back and try to accept your kid for who she or he is and enjoy your child and do what is best for your child NOT

your EGO. You get some perspective. You understand a kid can be bright, but may be better suited for General ed than AAP. You get over yourself.

That's only if you think the folks in charge of AAP admissions are actually competent enough to identify all kids correctly without even meeting them. Which I don't believe they are. And based on my son's WISC score and GBRS, I know he belongs.

+1. I'm trusting a psychologist who met my child over a committee of public school employees who have not.

Why exactly would a psychologist be particularly well suited to determining whether a kid was considered gifted?

Also, is this a psychologist you were paying and who knew you were seeking an opinion on giftedness? Given that factors a psychologist would "assess" are quite fuzzy, I could certainly see how bias creeps into the "analysis."

A psychologist is more suited because 1. they give an actual IQ test vs an aptitude test 2. they're trained to do so 3. it's 1:1 vs a group test which can scew unfavorably for gifted children and 4. they're objective. That your paying them doesn't matter they care more about their license than your kids. And it's not as if its a repeat use so them given you a false high score gets them nowhere, it's not like you will come back for more. Plenty of people pay them seeking an opinion on giftedness and get a "not gifted" or <130 score. There is nothing fuzzy about a WISC or SB so I have no idea what you think creeps into the analysis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You take some steps back and try to accept your kid for who she or he is and enjoy your child and do what is best for your child NOT

your EGO. You get some perspective. You understand a kid can be bright, but may be better suited for General ed than AAP. You get over yourself.

That's only if you think the folks in charge of AAP admissions are actually competent enough to identify all kids correctly without even meeting them. Which I don't believe they are. And based on my son's WISC score and GBRS, I know he belongs.

+1. I'm trusting a psychologist who met my child over a committee of public school employees who have not.

Why exactly would a psychologist be particularly well suited to determining whether a kid was considered gifted?

Also, is this a psychologist you were paying and who knew you were seeking an opinion on giftedness? Given that factors a psychologist would "assess" are quite fuzzy, I could certainly see how bias creeps into the "analysis."

A psychologist is more suited because 1. they give an actual IQ test vs an aptitude test 2. they're trained to do so 3. it's 1:1 vs a group test which can scew unfavorably for gifted children and 4. they're objective. That your paying them doesn't matter they care more about their license than your kids. And it's not as if its a repeat use so them given you a false high score gets them nowhere, it's not like you will come back for more. Plenty of people pay them seeking an opinion on giftedness and get a "not gifted" or <130 score. There is nothing fuzzy about a WISC or SB so I have no idea what you think creeps into the analysis.

+100. Whoever said fuzzy and bias with regards to the WISC is a moron.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You take some steps back and try to accept your kid for who she or he is and enjoy your child and do what is best for your child NOT

your EGO. You get some perspective. You understand a kid can be bright, but may be better suited for General ed than AAP. You get over yourself.

That's only if you think the folks in charge of AAP admissions are actually competent enough to identify all kids correctly without even meeting them. Which I don't believe they are. And based on my son's WISC score and GBRS, I know he belongs.

+1. I'm trusting a psychologist who met my child over a committee of public school employees who have not.

Why exactly would a psychologist be particularly well suited to determining whether a kid was considered gifted?

Also, is this a psychologist you were paying and who knew you were seeking an opinion on giftedness? Given that factors a psychologist would "assess" are quite fuzzy, I could certainly see how bias creeps into the "analysis."

I seriously hope you are joking and are not actually that ignorant about standardized tests and qualifications of a psychologist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Choose better the next time you buy a house?

That way you will be happy with your kids home elementary no matter what happens.

AAP is just a short window of time OP

AAP is NOT a short window of time.

If your DC doesn't get in for 3rd grade, you can still refer and try for 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Choose better the next time you buy a house?

That way you will be happy with your kids home elementary no matter what happens.

AAP is just a short window of time OP

It's more about the MS than the ES. MS is where AAP matters.

I disagree.

Elementary is more important than middle school for AAP.

In elementary there are larger discrepancies in ability between fast burners and the slow and steady kids.

By middle school most of them start to even out. There is far less of a need for AAP in middle than elementary.

AAP shouod be an elementary program only.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Choose better the next time you buy a house?

That way you will be happy with your kids home elementary no matter what happens.

AAP is just a short window of time OP

It's more about the MS than the ES. MS is where AAP matters.

I disagree.

Elementary is more important than middle school for AAP.

In elementary there are larger discrepancies in ability between fast burners and the slow and steady kids.

By middle school most of them start to even out. There is far less of a need for AAP in middle than elementary.

AAP shouod be an elementary program only.

The difference in middle school is the driving focus in MS is often peers rather than pleasing. In ES, the kids typically want to please the teachers/parent. In MS, they want to fit in with the peers. An AAP peer group will be more driven to excel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You take some steps back and try to accept your kid for who she or he is and enjoy your child and do what is best for your child NOT

your EGO. You get some perspective. You understand a kid can be bright, but may be better suited for General ed than AAP. You get over yourself.

That's only if you think the folks in charge of AAP admissions are actually competent enough to identify all kids correctly without even meeting them. Which I don't believe they are. And based on my son's WISC score and GBRS, I know he belongs.

+1. I'm trusting a psychologist who met my child over a committee of public school employees who have not.

Why exactly would a psychologist be particularly well suited to determining whether a kid was considered gifted?

Also, is this a psychologist you were paying and who knew you were seeking an opinion on giftedness? Given that factors a psychologist would "assess" are quite fuzzy, I could certainly see how bias creeps into the "analysis."

A psychologist is more suited because 1. they give an actual IQ test vs an aptitude test 2. they're trained to do so 3. it's 1:1 vs a group test which can scew unfavorably for gifted children and 4. they're objective. That your paying them doesn't matter they care more about their license than your kids. And it's not as if its a repeat use so them given you a false high score gets them nowhere, it's not like you will come back for more. Plenty of people pay them seeking an opinion on giftedness and get a "not gifted" or <130 score. There is nothing fuzzy about a WISC or SB so I have no idea what you think creeps into the analysis.

+100. Whoever said fuzzy and bias with regards to the WISC is a moron.

An anecdotal report with DD shows that, even an IQ test can be biased. My DD has ADD. She was 16 when diagnosed -- as part of a neurosych evaluation. In it, they gave her two distinct IQ tests -- one with 5 minute breaks every 30 mintues and one without them. She scored 25 point higher with the breaks: 110 without, vs 130 with. (we are using this info for the 504).

So, there are circumstances in some kids where the scores can be fuzzy, but they will typically be biased down. Note DD's loss of focus mostly impacted working memory where she went from 38% to 98% between the tests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Choose better the next time you buy a house?

That way you will be happy with your kids home elementary no matter what happens.

AAP is just a short window of time OP

It's more about the MS than the ES. MS is where AAP matters.

Only in math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You take some steps back and try to accept your kid for who she or he is and enjoy your child and do what is best for your child NOT

your EGO. You get some perspective. You understand a kid can be bright, but may be better suited for General ed than AAP. You get over yourself.

That's only if you think the folks in charge of AAP admissions are actually competent enough to identify all kids correctly without even meeting them. Which I don't believe they are. And based on my son's WISC score and GBRS, I know he belongs.

+1. I'm trusting a psychologist who met my child over a committee of public school employees who have not.

Why exactly would a psychologist be particularly well suited to determining whether a kid was considered gifted?

Also, is this a psychologist you were paying and who knew you were seeking an opinion on giftedness? Given that factors a psychologist would "assess" are quite fuzzy, I could certainly see how bias creeps into the "analysis."

A psychologist is more suited because 1. they give an actual IQ test vs an aptitude test 2. they're trained to do so 3. it's 1:1 vs a group test which can scew unfavorably for gifted children and 4. they're objective. That your paying them doesn't matter they care more about their license than your kids. And it's not as if its a repeat use so them given you a false high score gets them nowhere, it's not like you will come back for more. Plenty of people pay them seeking an opinion on giftedness and get a "not gifted" or <130 score. There is nothing fuzzy about a WISC or SB so I have no idea what you think creeps into the analysis.

+100. Whoever said fuzzy and bias with regards to the WISC is a moron.

An anecdotal report with DD shows that, even an IQ test can be biased. My DD has ADD. She was 16 when diagnosed -- as part of a neurosych evaluation. In it, they gave her two distinct IQ tests -- one with 5 minute breaks every 30 mintues and one without them. She scored 25 point higher with the breaks: 110 without, vs 130 with. (we are using this info for the 504).

So, there are circumstances in some kids where the scores can be fuzzy, but they will typically be biased down. Note DD's loss of focus mostly impacted working memory where she went from 38% to 98% between the tests.

I agree that if there is any bias it is always one that ends up lowering the score. However, I would be very careful using any score that was received if they didn't administer the test the way it was intended and designed. They probably invalidated the test if they really gave breaks every 5 min. There is a reason these tests are standardized and administered on thousands of kids. Including special populations like ADHD. They have actually looked at the cognitive profile of these kids: "Children with ADHD demonstrate relatively preserved verbal comprehension and perceptual reasoning scores, with lower performance on auditory working memory and processing speed (Hale et al., 2012; Mayes, Calhoun, Chase, Mink, & Stagg, 2009; Mayes, Calhoun, Mayes, & Molitoris, 2012; Wakkinen, 2008; Wechsler, 2012; Zieman, 2010). These weaknesses are reflected in lower Cognitive Proficiency Index scores in relation to General Ability Index scores, although this discrepancy is also found in other clinical groups (Devena & Watkins, 2012)."

This is what should be highlighted and spoken to them n the report.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You take some steps back and try to accept your kid for who she or he is and enjoy your child and do what is best for your child NOT

your EGO. You get some perspective. You understand a kid can be bright, but may be better suited for General ed than AAP. You get over yourself.

That's only if you think the folks in charge of AAP admissions are actually competent enough to identify all kids correctly without even meeting them. Which I don't believe they are. And based on my son's WISC score and GBRS, I know he belongs.

+1. I'm trusting a psychologist who met my child over a committee of public school employees who have not.

Why exactly would a psychologist be particularly well suited to determining whether a kid was considered gifted?

Also, is this a psychologist you were paying and who knew you were seeking an opinion on giftedness? Given that factors a psychologist would "assess" are quite fuzzy, I could certainly see how bias creeps into the "analysis."

A psychologist is more suited because 1. they give an actual IQ test vs an aptitude test 2. they're trained to do so 3. it's 1:1 vs a group test which can scew unfavorably for gifted children and 4. they're objective. That your paying them doesn't matter they care more about their license than your kids. And it's not as if its a repeat use so them given you a false high score gets them nowhere, it's not like you will come back for more. Plenty of people pay them seeking an opinion on giftedness and get a "not gifted" or <130 score. There is nothing fuzzy about a WISC or SB so I have no idea what you think creeps into the analysis.

+100. Whoever said fuzzy and bias with regards to the WISC is a moron.

An anecdotal report with DD shows that, even an IQ test can be biased. My DD has ADD. She was 16 when diagnosed -- as part of a neurosych evaluation. In it, they gave her two distinct IQ tests -- one with 5 minute breaks every 30 mintues and one without them. She scored 25 point higher with the breaks: 110 without, vs 130 with. (we are using this info for the 504).

So, there are circumstances in some kids where the scores can be fuzzy, but they will typically be biased down. Note DD's loss of focus mostly impacted working memory where she went from 38% to 98% between the tests.

I agree that if there is any bias it is always one that ends up lowering the score. However, I would be very careful using any score that was received if they didn't administer the test the way it was intended and designed. They probably invalidated the test if they really gave breaks every 5 min. There is a reason these tests are standardized and administered on thousands of kids. Including special populations like ADHD. They have actually looked at the cognitive profile of these kids: "Children with ADHD demonstrate relatively preserved verbal comprehension and perceptual reasoning scores, with lower performance on auditory working memory and processing speed (Hale et al., 2012; Mayes, Calhoun, Chase, Mink, & Stagg, 2009; Mayes, Calhoun, Mayes, & Molitoris, 2012; Wakkinen, 2008; Wechsler, 2012; Zieman, 2010). These weaknesses are reflected in lower Cognitive Proficiency Index scores in relation to General Ability Index scores, although this discrepancy is also found in other clinical groups (Devena & Watkins, 2012)."

This is what should be highlighted and spoken to them n the report.

And if the bias and "fuzzy" ends up lowering the score than the point remains it's still a better indicator than NNAT, CogAT, and GBRS. Breaks every 5 mins sounds like like an invalid test and a reputable psych would note how many breaks were taken and how often. Also, scores within an IQ test can have a 5 point swing up or down, so if you score a FSIQ of 135 if you take the SAME test after A YEAR you can score anywhere from 130-140. TWO DIFFEENT tests can have wider swings beause different IQ tests focus on different things so if you take a WISC and score FSIQ 135, you could take SB and get 125-145. This is known by psychologists and often also mentioned in reports as you are supposed to tell them whatever tests you took in the past and usually provide then with the scores of the earlier test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Choose better the next time you buy a house?

That way you will be happy with your kids home elementary no matter what happens.

AAP is just a short window of time OP

It's more about the MS than the ES. MS is where AAP matters.

I disagree.

Elementary is more important than middle school for AAP.

In elementary there are larger discrepancies in ability between fast burners and the slow and steady kids.

By middle school most of them start to even out. There is far less of a need for AAP in middle than elementary.

AAP shouod be an elementary program only.

The difference in middle school is the driving focus in MS is often peers rather than pleasing. In ES, the kids typically want to please the teachers/parent. In MS, they want to fit in with the peers. An AAP peer group will be more driven to excel.

I'm with whomever said it matters more in MS. I agree due to the peer group. I want my kids in classes with kids who want to learn, that's easy to find in ES, not so easy in MS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You take some steps back and try to accept your kid for who she or he is and enjoy your child and do what is best for your child NOT

your EGO. You get some perspective. You understand a kid can be bright, but may be better suited for General ed than AAP. You get over yourself.

That's only if you think the folks in charge of AAP admissions are actually competent enough to identify all kids correctly without even meeting them. Which I don't believe they are. And based on my son's WISC score and GBRS, I know he belongs.

+1. I'm trusting a psychologist who met my child over a committee of public school employees who have not.

Why exactly would a psychologist be particularly well suited to determining whether a kid was considered gifted?

Also, is this a psychologist you were paying and who knew you were seeking an opinion on giftedness? Given that factors a psychologist would "assess" are quite fuzzy, I could certainly see how bias creeps into the "analysis."

A psychologist is more suited because 1. they give an actual IQ test vs an aptitude test 2. they're trained to do so 3. it's 1:1 vs a group test which can scew unfavorably for gifted children and 4. they're objective. That your paying them doesn't matter they care more about their license than your kids. And it's not as if its a repeat use so them given you a false high score gets them nowhere, it's not like you will come back for more. Plenty of people pay them seeking an opinion on giftedness and get a "not gifted" or <130 score. There is nothing fuzzy about a WISC or SB so I have no idea what you think creeps into the analysis.

+100. Whoever said fuzzy and bias with regards to the WISC is a moron.

An anecdotal report with DD shows that, even an IQ test can be biased. My DD has ADD. She was 16 when diagnosed -- as part of a neurosych evaluation. In it, they gave her two distinct IQ tests -- one with 5 minute breaks every 30 mintues and one without them. She scored 25 point higher with the breaks: 110 without, vs 130 with. (we are using this info for the 504).

So, there are circumstances in some kids where the scores can be fuzzy, but they will typically be biased down. Note DD's loss of focus mostly impacted working memory where she went from 38% to 98% between the tests.

I agree that if there is any bias it is always one that ends up lowering the score. However, I would be very careful using any score that was received if they didn't administer the test the way it was intended and designed. They probably invalidated the test if they really gave breaks every 5 min. There is a reason these tests are standardized and administered on thousands of kids. Including special populations like ADHD. They have actually looked at the cognitive profile of these kids: "Children with ADHD demonstrate relatively preserved verbal comprehension and perceptual reasoning scores, with lower performance on auditory working memory and processing speed (Hale et al., 2012; Mayes, Calhoun, Chase, Mink, & Stagg, 2009; Mayes, Calhoun, Mayes, & Molitoris, 2012; Wakkinen, 2008; Wechsler, 2012; Zieman, 2010). These weaknesses are reflected in lower Cognitive Proficiency Index scores in relation to General Ability Index scores, although this discrepancy is also found in other clinical groups (Devena & Watkins, 2012)."

This is what should be highlighted and spoken to them n the report.

And if the bias and "fuzzy" ends up lowering the score than the point remains it's still a better indicator than NNAT, CogAT, and GBRS. Breaks every 5 mins sounds like like an invalid test and a reputable psych would note how many breaks were taken and how often. Also, scores within an IQ test can have a 5 point swing up or down, so if you score a FSIQ of 135 if you take the SAME test after A YEAR you can score anywhere from 130-140. TWO DIFFEENT tests can have wider swings beause different IQ tests focus on different things so if you take a WISC and score FSIQ 135, you could take SB and get 125-145. This is known by psychologists and often also mentioned in reports as you are supposed to tell them whatever tests you took in the past and usually provide then with the scores of the earlier test.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You take some steps back and try to accept your kid for who she or he is and enjoy your child and do what is best for your child NOT

your EGO. You get some perspective. You understand a kid can be bright, but may be better suited for General ed than AAP. You get over yourself.

That's only if you think the folks in charge of AAP admissions are actually competent enough to identify all kids correctly without even meeting them. Which I don't believe they are. And based on my son's WISC score and GBRS, I know he belongs.

+1. I'm trusting a psychologist who met my child over a committee of public school employees who have not.

Why exactly would a psychologist be particularly well suited to determining whether a kid was considered gifted?

Also, is this a psychologist you were paying and who knew you were seeking an opinion on giftedness? Given that factors a psychologist would "assess" are quite fuzzy, I could certainly see how bias creeps into the "analysis."

A psychologist is more suited because 1. they give an actual IQ test vs an aptitude test 2. they're trained to do so 3. it's 1:1 vs a group test which can scew unfavorably for gifted children and 4. they're objective. That your paying them doesn't matter they care more about their license than your kids. And it's not as if its a repeat use so them given you a false high score gets them nowhere, it's not like you will come back for more. Plenty of people pay them seeking an opinion on giftedness and get a "not gifted" or <130 score. There is nothing fuzzy about a WISC or SB so I have no idea what you think creeps into the analysis.

+100. Whoever said fuzzy and bias with regards to the WISC is a moron.

An anecdotal report with DD shows that, even an IQ test can be biased. My DD has ADD. She was 16 when diagnosed -- as part of a neurosych evaluation. In it, they gave her two distinct IQ tests -- one with 5 minute breaks every 30 mintues and one without them. She scored 25 point higher with the breaks: 110 without, vs 130 with. (we are using this info for the 504).

So, there are circumstances in some kids where the scores can be fuzzy, but they will typically be biased down. Note DD's loss of focus mostly impacted working memory where she went from 38% to 98% between the tests.

I agree that if there is any bias it is always one that ends up lowering the score. However, I would be very careful using any score that was received if they didn't administer the test the way it was intended and designed. They probably invalidated the test if they really gave breaks every 5 min. There is a reason these tests are standardized and administered on thousands of kids. Including special populations like ADHD. They have actually looked at the cognitive profile of these kids: "Children with ADHD demonstrate relatively preserved verbal comprehension and perceptual reasoning scores, with lower performance on auditory working memory and processing speed (Hale et al., 2012; Mayes, Calhoun, Chase, Mink, & Stagg, 2009; Mayes, Calhoun, Mayes, & Molitoris, 2012; Wakkinen, 2008; Wechsler, 2012; Zieman, 2010). These weaknesses are reflected in lower Cognitive Proficiency Index scores in relation to General Ability Index scores, although this discrepancy is also found in other clinical groups (Devena & Watkins, 2012)."

This is what should be highlighted and spoken to them n the report.

The point with my daughter's test was not to get an IQ test, but rather to figure out what was going on. That is why they did what they did. They wanted to see the role mental fatigue has on her. Now, because of this, she will get breaks when taking the SAT's. Suck on that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You take some steps back and try to accept your kid for who she or he is and enjoy your child and do what is best for your child NOT your EGO. You get some perspective. You understand a kid can be bright, but may be better suited for General ed than AAP. You get over yourself.

My child has a 140 IQ. So no, my kid is more than bright and not better suited for Gen Ed. So you can get over youself.

My kid also has 140 iq and didn’t get into our county’s advanced program but I can see why. IQ is only one part of the picture.

Well I can't see why and IQ is more an indicator than an aptitude test and a subjecting rating. Sorry you can't advocate for your child. I feel badly for him or her.

Typical DCUM a$$hole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You take some steps back and try to accept your kid for who she or he is and enjoy your child and do what is best for your child NOT

your EGO. You get some perspective. You understand a kid can be bright, but may be better suited for General ed than AAP. You get over yourself.

That's only if you think the folks in charge of AAP admissions are actually competent enough to identify all kids correctly without even meeting them. Which I don't believe they are. And based on my son's WISC score and GBRS, I know he belongs.

+1. I'm trusting a psychologist who met my child over a committee of public school employees who have not.

Why exactly would a psychologist be particularly well suited to determining whether a kid was considered gifted?

Also, is this a psychologist you were paying and who knew you were seeking an opinion on giftedness? Given that factors a psychologist would "assess" are quite fuzzy, I could certainly see how bias creeps into the "analysis."

A psychologist is more suited because 1. they give an actual IQ test vs an aptitude test 2. they're trained to do so 3. it's 1:1 vs a group test which can scew unfavorably for gifted children and 4. they're objective. That your paying them doesn't matter they care more about their license than your kids. And it's not as if its a repeat use so them given you a false high score gets them nowhere, it's not like you will come back for more. Plenty of people pay them seeking an opinion on giftedness and get a "not gifted" or <130 score. There is nothing fuzzy about a WISC or SB so I have no idea what you think creeps into the analysis.

+100. Whoever said fuzzy and bias with regards to the WISC is a moron.

An anecdotal report with DD shows that, even an IQ test can be biased. My DD has ADD. She was 16 when diagnosed -- as part of a neurosych evaluation. In it, they gave her two distinct IQ tests -- one with 5 minute breaks every 30 mintues and one without them. She scored 25 point higher with the breaks: 110 without, vs 130 with. (we are using this info for the 504).

So, there are circumstances in some kids where the scores can be fuzzy, but they will typically be biased down. Note DD's loss of focus mostly impacted working memory where she went from 38% to 98% between the tests.

I agree that if there is any bias it is always one that ends up lowering the score. However, I would be very careful using any score that was received if they didn't administer the test the way it was intended and designed. They probably invalidated the test if they really gave breaks every 5 min. There is a reason these tests are standardized and administered on thousands of kids. Including special populations like ADHD. They have actually looked at the cognitive profile of these kids: "Children with ADHD demonstrate relatively preserved verbal comprehension and perceptual reasoning scores, with lower performance on auditory working memory and processing speed (Hale et al., 2012; Mayes, Calhoun, Chase, Mink, & Stagg, 2009; Mayes, Calhoun, Mayes, & Molitoris, 2012; Wakkinen, 2008; Wechsler, 2012; Zieman, 2010). These weaknesses are reflected in lower Cognitive Proficiency Index scores in relation to General Ability Index scores, although this discrepancy is also found in other clinical groups (Devena & Watkins, 2012)."

This is what should be highlighted and spoken to them n the report.

The point with my daughter's test was not to get an IQ test, but rather to figure out what was going on. That is why they did what they did. They wanted to see the role mental fatigue has on her. Now, because of this, she will get breaks when taking the SAT's. Suck on that.

My kid won't need to take breaks to take the SATS so why would I suck on anything??? My two older ones didn't and scored well enough to go to the colleges of their choice. My youngest should be the same.