Why are so many UMC average students "Learning Disabled"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We test students at my school after what seems like a long time of no or little to no progress. Most of them don’t have a disability. They just have a lower than average IQ which explains the slow progress. Somebody has to be on the left of the bell curve.

If those kids were privately tested almost all of them would come away with a diagnosis. If you give enough tests something will come out high and something will be low. When you pay 3 to 5 thousand dollars, you get a diagnosis. A psychologist in private practice has a vested interest in diagnosing something because if they are conservative and say the kid is working up to his potential and there is no LD, the parents would get mad and not refer others and/or give out bad reviews. My sister-in- law is a psychologist in another state working in a city with plenty of families willing and able to pay for testing. I asked her if she ever tested and found nothing - no diagnosis whatsoever and she said no.

My insurance paid for testing at KK and received no diagnosis. I was relieved! I really doubt those students had any disability. They are slow learners but that is not a disability. They learn at a slower rate than the average.

If insurance paid then something was coded as a diagnosis. Insurance wouldn't pay if there wasn't some diagnosis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It makes the parents feel better about having a rather stupid child.

Bingo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can have an LD and still be stupid, a bad student, or a C student. You can have ADHD and still get Cs and still be a below average student.

What is this fixation with calling children stupid?

Calling other people’s kids stupid makes her feel better about her own mediocre kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We test students at my school after what seems like a long time of no or little to no progress. Most of them don’t have a disability. They just have a lower than average IQ which explains the slow progress. Somebody has to be on the left of the bell curve.

If those kids were privately tested almost all of them would come away with a diagnosis. If you give enough tests something will come out high and something will be low. When you pay 3 to 5 thousand dollars, you get a diagnosis. A psychologist in private practice has a vested interest in diagnosing something because if they are conservative and say the kid is working up to his potential and there is no LD, the parents would get mad and not refer others and/or give out bad reviews. My sister-in- law is a psychologist in another state working in a city with plenty of families willing and able to pay for testing. I asked her if she ever tested and found nothing - no diagnosis whatsoever and she said no.

My insurance paid for testing at KK and received no diagnosis. I was relieved! I really doubt those students had any disability. They are slow learners but that is not a disability. They learn at a slower rate than the average.

Your child tested negative, so he’s probably just a slow learner as you said. Other children, some brighter than yours, test positive for ADHD or dyslexia .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We test students at my school after what seems like a long time of no or little to no progress. Most of them don’t have a disability. They just have a lower than average IQ which explains the slow progress. Somebody has to be on the left of the bell curve.

If those kids were privately tested almost all of them would come away with a diagnosis. If you give enough tests something will come out high and something will be low. When you pay 3 to 5 thousand dollars, you get a diagnosis. A psychologist in private practice has a vested interest in diagnosing something because if they are conservative and say the kid is working up to his potential and there is no LD, the parents would get mad and not refer others and/or give out bad reviews. My sister-in- law is a psychologist in another state working in a city with plenty of families willing and able to pay for testing. I asked her if she ever tested and found nothing - no diagnosis whatsoever and she said no.

This exactly. At a minimum the kid will be labeled adhd-inattentive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can have an LD and still be stupid, a bad student, or a C student. You can have ADHD and still get Cs and still be a below average student.

What is this fixation with calling children stupid?

I’m just using the words used by posters on this thread. A pp before my original post said something like, “if we didn’t find out dd was dyslexic people would just assume she were stupid.”

I don’t like the word, stupid, for kids. But a few posters have used it to describe kids who struggle in school and don’t have a diagnosis. That’s terrible! My original post was meant to point out that just because your kid has a diagnosis it doesn’t magically make them no longer struggle in school. It’s not some excuse. An average student is an average student with or without a diagnosis.

Most kids with LDd are still below average students. That’s just a fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can have an LD and still be stupid, a bad student, or a C student. You can have ADHD and still get Cs and still be a below average student.

What is this fixation with calling children stupid?

I’m just using the words used by posters on this thread. A pp before my original post said something like, “if we didn’t find out dd was dyslexic people would just assume she were stupid.”

I don’t like the word, stupid, for kids. But a few posters have used it to describe kids who struggle in school and don’t have a diagnosis. That’s terrible! My original post was meant to point out that just because your kid has a diagnosis it doesn’t magically make them no longer struggle in school. It’s not some excuse. An average student is an average student with or without a diagnosis.

Most kids with LDd are still below average students. That’s just a fact.

So you call LD kids stupid ima number of times. After people reply and point out that some kids with diagnoses are likely smarter then your own slow kid, you get all butthurt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can have an LD and still be stupid, a bad student, or a C student. You can have ADHD and still get Cs and still be a below average student.

What is this fixation with calling children stupid?

I’m just using the words used by posters on this thread. A pp before my original post said something like, “if we didn’t find out dd was dyslexic people would just assume she were stupid.”

I don’t like the word, stupid, for kids. But a few posters have used it to describe kids who struggle in school and don’t have a diagnosis. That’s terrible! My original post was meant to point out that just because your kid has a diagnosis it doesn’t magically make them no longer struggle in school. It’s not some excuse. An average student is an average student with or without a diagnosis.

Most kids with LDd are still below average students. That’s just a fact.

So you call LD kids stupid ima number of times. After people reply and point out that some kids with diagnoses are likely smarter then your own slow kid, you get all butthurt.

DP. Case in point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can have an LD and still be stupid, a bad student, or a C student. You can have ADHD and still get Cs and still be a below average student.

What is this fixation with calling children stupid?

I’m just using the words used by posters on this thread. A pp before my original post said something like, “if we didn’t find out dd was dyslexic people would just assume she were stupid.”

I don’t like the word, stupid, for kids. But a few posters have used it to describe kids who struggle in school and don’t have a diagnosis. That’s terrible! My original post was meant to point out that just because your kid has a diagnosis it doesn’t magically make them no longer struggle in school. It’s not some excuse. An average student is an average student with or without a diagnosis.

Most kids with LDd are still below average students. That’s just a fact.

. Please provide a link that backs your assertion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We test students at my school after what seems like a long time of no or little to no progress. Most of them don’t have a disability. They just have a lower than average IQ which explains the slow progress. Somebody has to be on the left of the bell curve.

If those kids were privately tested almost all of them would come away with a diagnosis. If you give enough tests something will come out high and something will be low. When you pay 3 to 5 thousand dollars, you get a diagnosis. A psychologist in private practice has a vested interest in diagnosing something because if they are conservative and say the kid is working up to his potential and there is no LD, the parents would get mad and not refer others and/or give out bad reviews. My sister-in- law is a psychologist in another state working in a city with plenty of families willing and able to pay for testing. I asked her if she ever tested and found nothing - no diagnosis whatsoever and she said no.

My insurance paid for testing at KK and received no diagnosis. I was relieved! I really doubt those students had any disability. They are slow learners but that is not a disability. They learn at a slower rate than the average.

If insurance paid then something was coded as a diagnosis. Insurance wouldn't pay if there wasn't some diagnosis.

I didn't pay a thing other than the $20 copay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We test students at my school after what seems like a long time of no or little to no progress. Most of them don’t have a disability. They just have a lower than average IQ which explains the slow progress. Somebody has to be on the left of the bell curve.

If those kids were privately tested almost all of them would come away with a diagnosis. If you give enough tests something will come out high and something will be low. When you pay 3 to 5 thousand dollars, you get a diagnosis. A psychologist in private practice has a vested interest in diagnosing something because if they are conservative and say the kid is working up to his potential and there is no LD, the parents would get mad and not refer others and/or give out bad reviews. My sister-in- law is a psychologist in another state working in a city with plenty of families willing and able to pay for testing. I asked her if she ever tested and found nothing - no diagnosis whatsoever and she said no.

My insurance paid for testing at KK and received no diagnosis. I was relieved! I really doubt those students had any disability. They are slow learners but that is not a disability. They learn at a slower rate than the average.

Your child tested negative, so he’s probably just a slow learner as you said. Other children, some brighter than yours, test positive for ADHD or dyslexia .

Nope. He is the opposite of a slow learner but scattered. He scored in the 98th percentile overall on the SSAT and got into one of Baltimore's top private high schools. His symptoms slowly disappeared as he aged so he doesn't seem so scattered/disorganized anymore. Sometimes intelligent people present that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can have an LD and still be stupid, a bad student, or a C student. You can have ADHD and still get Cs and still be a below average student.

What is this fixation with calling children stupid?

I’m just using the words used by posters on this thread. A pp before my original post said something like, “if we didn’t find out dd was dyslexic people would just assume she were stupid.”

I don’t like the word, stupid, for kids. But a few posters have used it to describe kids who struggle in school and don’t have a diagnosis. That’s terrible! My original post was meant to point out that just because your kid has a diagnosis it doesn’t magically make them no longer struggle in school. It’s not some excuse. An average student is an average student with or without a diagnosis.

Most kids with LDd are still below average students. That’s just a fact.

. Please provide a link that backs your assertion.

By definition 50% kids are below average. Most kids with LDs are struggling students. I know there is a popular narrative among UMC parents that says kids with LDs are actually bright kids who are only average because of an LD, but that only exists in the UMC world. More than half of kids with LDs are struggling at the bottom of the class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can have an LD and still be stupid, a bad student, or a C student. You can have ADHD and still get Cs and still be a below average student.

What is this fixation with calling children stupid?

I’m just using the words used by posters on this thread. A pp before my original post said something like, “if we didn’t find out dd was dyslexic people would just assume she were stupid.”

I don’t like the word, stupid, for kids. But a few posters have used it to describe kids who struggle in school and don’t have a diagnosis. That’s terrible! My original post was meant to point out that just because your kid has a diagnosis it doesn’t magically make them no longer struggle in school. It’s not some excuse. An average student is an average student with or without a diagnosis.

Most kids with LDd are still below average students. That’s just a fact.

. Please provide a link that backs your assertion.

She has no evidence. Her own kid has no LDs and that means all kids with LDs are dumb.

[Anonymous]

I think it would be really interesting to see statistics about what percentage of students who receive private testing for disabilities, come away with some sort of diagnosis. My hunch is just about all of them. I don't believe it's for any sort of nefarious reason. It's just if the parent is concerned enough to pay thousands of dollars for testing, they obviously think there's some sort of problem that would have a label. And I honestly think if you dig deep enough with just about anyone you would be able to find something that could have a label placed on it. I think we are starting to pathologize differences that just fall within the norms of human behaviors and abilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can have an LD and still be stupid, a bad student, or a C student. You can have ADHD and still get Cs and still be a below average student.

What is this fixation with calling children stupid?

I’m just using the words used by posters on this thread. A pp before my original post said something like, “if we didn’t find out dd was dyslexic people would just assume she were stupid.”

I don’t like the word, stupid, for kids. But a few posters have used it to describe kids who struggle in school and don’t have a diagnosis. That’s terrible! My original post was meant to point out that just because your kid has a diagnosis it doesn’t magically make them no longer struggle in school. It’s not some excuse. An average student is an average student with or without a diagnosis.

Most kids with LDd are still below average students. That’s just a fact.

. Please provide a link that backs your assertion.

By definition 50% kids are below average. Most kids with LDs are struggling students. I know there is a popular narrative among UMC parents that says kids with LDs are actually bright kids who are only average because of an LD, but that only exists in the UMC world. More than half of kids with LDs are struggling at the bottom of the class.

I am the OP and as I stated previously my daughter is a struggling student, we will most likely have her tested, and I'm guessing that she will walk away with a label. But I'm pragmatic enough to realize that what this actually means that she is just not as bright as others - at least in some areas.