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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Something that’s taken off in recent years is this wonderful idea that we should celebrate neurodiversity. And it is exactly how you describe. Your child has strengths and weaknesses.

Yes, even the C student who doesn’t have a diagnosis has strengths and weaknesses.

My child has dyslexia/dysgraphia. She has strengths and weaknesses. I love to think about her particular intelligence profile is a gift. But reality is she has deficits. ALL KIDS WITH LDS DO. It’s not so much that she thinks differently (neurodiversity). She does. But she also has a brain defect. And that is never going to go away.

We are happy that she is improving upon her weaknesses and her strengths shine, but I don’t pretend she’s any different from an average student when she performs in an average way.

There will always be a bell curve. Most kids with LDs fall somewhere in the middle because they get supports. Without them they would be at the tail end. Im not sure why this is being debated. That is how you get an LD diagnosis. Sure kids can have strengths that fall far above that. But the deficits were or still are painfully and obviously low.

OP here. This is my beef as well. It seems ridiculous to pretend that someone who is performing at a mediocre level because of an LD is somehow superior to someone who is performing at a mediocre level due to a "flat iq profile". Either way they are both mediocre and both would do better with extra help. Fact is both have something going on with their brain that keeps them from achieving at a higher level.

Someone who has the capacity to perform at a higher level, except for a particular deficiency, is different from someone who just tops out at a lower level. Not everyone is the same, academically, athletically, artistically.

If we issued everyone one-on-one tutors and trainers for everything, everyone will perform better. But my artistic ability is never going to be that of someone with actual talent; my upper limit might have been stretched beyond what it is with no training, but it's still going to be more limited than someone with actual talent. We're not all the same.

But, if my problem was that I'm naturally right handed, but had a stroke and could only use my left hand, therapy might indeed serve some purpose and allow me enough mastery over my left hand in order to be able to more closely express my natural abilities. Should we deny therapy to the person with the stroke, because there are people like me who aren't good at art, and so the person with the stroke should just accept that they are now average like the rest of us not-good-at-art people?

It is also true that UMC kids have more access to things that let them get closer to their top potential than people without access to extra money. Money is a big help. And working class people have more access than poor people. And rich people have more access than UMC people.

But my DD's dyslexia doesn't make her an "average" intellect. It makes her a smart kid, with a deficit that affects a broad range of her academic life. Provide her with audio books instead of text books, allow her to narrate or use a computer, and suddenly her academics are significantly improved. She still has a limit - she's not a genius, she's an average smart kid. So sure, one-on-one tutoring probably would have allowed her to take Calc in 9th grade instead of 11th, but her taking it in 11th isn't because of a deficit in how her brain works. So school's not going to provide her with a one-on-one tutor just to make sure she can perform to the very peak of her potential, but they will provide accommodations like audio books and extra time for written work or using a computer, so that she can demonstrate her actual ability.

I'd also bet you run into more "above average" academically UMC kids (with and without LDs), because my understanding is they're more likely to come from intact homes, with parents who have post-high school education, and we know those two things are a huge benefit for how kids perform academically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous[b wrote:]It cost $3000 to have a qualified doctor do the testing for accommodations and you have to do it every 3 years to get accommodations.[/b]

Ok, so if every C student had the ability to get private testing by a doctor, would they all come out with some sort of label? My guess is yes. At a minimum they would get adhd-inattentive.

BS.

Seriously? You really think this is BS?? Pretty much every struggling kid, who is evaluated gets ADHD-inattentive if no other issue can be found. The descriptors for it are so broad that it can apply to almost anyone who is not high functioning.

[Anonymous]

Is slow processing speed considered a LD or just low intelligence? What if the kid has a high scores in all other areas except processing speed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Something that’s taken off in recent years is this wonderful idea that we should celebrate neurodiversity. And it is exactly how you describe. Your child has strengths and weaknesses.

Yes, even the C student who doesn’t have a diagnosis has strengths and weaknesses.

My child has dyslexia/dysgraphia. She has strengths and weaknesses. I love to think about her particular intelligence profile is a gift. But reality is she has deficits. ALL KIDS WITH LDS DO. It’s not so much that she thinks differently (neurodiversity). She does. But she also has a brain defect. And that is never going to go away.

We are happy that she is improving upon her weaknesses and her strengths shine, but I don’t pretend she’s any different from an average student when she performs in an average way.

There will always be a bell curve. Most kids with LDs fall somewhere in the middle because they get supports. Without them they would be at the tail end. Im not sure why this is being debated. That is how you get an LD diagnosis. Sure kids can have strengths that fall far above that. But the deficits were or still are painfully and obviously low.

OP here. This is my beef as well. It seems ridiculous to pretend that someone who is performing at a mediocre level because of an LD is somehow superior to someone who is performing at a mediocre level due to a "flat iq profile". Either way they are both mediocre and both would do better with extra help. Fact is both have something going on with their brain that keeps them from achieving at a higher level.

Someone who has the capacity to perform at a higher level, except for a particular deficiency, is different from someone who just tops out at a lower level. Not everyone is the same, academically, athletically, artistically.

If we issued everyone one-on-one tutors and trainers for everything, everyone will perform better. But my artistic ability is never going to be that of someone with actual talent; my upper limit might have been stretched beyond what it is with no training, but it's still going to be more limited than someone with actual talent. We're not all the same.

But, if my problem was that I'm naturally right handed, but had a stroke and could only use my left hand, therapy might indeed serve some purpose and allow me enough mastery over my left hand in order to be able to more closely express my natural abilities. Should we deny therapy to the person with the stroke, because there are people like me who aren't good at art, and so the person with the stroke should just accept that they are now average like the rest of us not-good-at-art people?

It is also true that UMC kids have more access to things that let them get closer to their top potential than people without access to extra money. Money is a big help. And working class people have more access than poor people. And rich people have more access than UMC people.

But my DD's dyslexia doesn't make her an "average" intellect. It makes her a smart kid, with a deficit that affects a broad range of her academic life. Provide her with audio books instead of text books, allow her to narrate or use a computer, and suddenly her academics are significantly improved. She still has a limit - she's not a genius, she's an average smart kid. So sure, one-on-one tutoring probably would have allowed her to take Calc in 9th grade instead of 11th, but her taking it in 11th isn't because of a deficit in how her brain works. So school's not going to provide her with a one-on-one tutor just to make sure she can perform to the very peak of her potential, but they will provide accommodations like audio books and extra time for written work or using a computer, so that she can demonstrate her actual ability.

I'd also bet you run into more "above average" academically UMC kids (with and without LDs), because my understanding is they're more likely to come from intact homes, with parents who have post-high school education, and we know those two things are a huge benefit for how kids perform academically.

You're kid's dyslexia is part of her intelligence. It's a function of the way her brain works.

[Anonymous]

It's sad that this is even being debated. While a person with a learning disability can certainly have an average IQ, it is a different situation.

Are people here seriously stating that a child with dyslexia shouldn't receive accommodations that could help them learn to read and spell? Or that a child with documented ADHD shouldn't be allowed to test in a room without distractions? Or that a child with autism shouldn't receive some help with social cues and executive functioning which can lead to anxiety, depression, and school failure?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is slow processing speed considered a LD or just low intelligence? What if the kid has a high scores in all other areas except processing speed?

The way we calculate and value intelligence is by speed of processing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Something that’s taken off in recent years is this wonderful idea that we should celebrate neurodiversity. And it is exactly how you describe. Your child has strengths and weaknesses.

Yes, even the C student who doesn’t have a diagnosis has strengths and weaknesses.

My child has dyslexia/dysgraphia. She has strengths and weaknesses. I love to think about her particular intelligence profile is a gift. But reality is she has deficits. ALL KIDS WITH LDS DO. It’s not so much that she thinks differently (neurodiversity). She does. But she also has a brain defect. And that is never going to go away.

We are happy that she is improving upon her weaknesses and her strengths shine, but I don’t pretend she’s any different from an average student when she performs in an average way.

There will always be a bell curve. Most kids with LDs fall somewhere in the middle because they get supports. Without them they would be at the tail end. Im not sure why this is being debated. That is how you get an LD diagnosis. Sure kids can have strengths that fall far above that. But the deficits were or still are painfully and obviously low.

OP here. This is my beef as well. It seems ridiculous to pretend that someone who is performing at a mediocre level because of an LD is somehow superior to someone who is performing at a mediocre level due to a "flat iq profile". Either way they are both mediocre and both would do better with extra help. Fact is both have something going on with their brain that keeps them from achieving at a higher level.

Someone who has the capacity to perform at a higher level, except for a particular deficiency, is different from someone who just tops out at a lower level. Not everyone is the same, academically, athletically, artistically.

If we issued everyone one-on-one tutors and trainers for everything, everyone will perform better. But my artistic ability is never going to be that of someone with actual talent; my upper limit might have been stretched beyond what it is with no training, but it's still going to be more limited than someone with actual talent. We're not all the same.

But, if my problem was that I'm naturally right handed, but had a stroke and could only use my left hand, therapy might indeed serve some purpose and allow me enough mastery over my left hand in order to be able to more closely express my natural abilities. Should we deny therapy to the person with the stroke, because there are people like me who aren't good at art, and so the person with the stroke should just accept that they are now average like the rest of us not-good-at-art people?

It is also true that UMC kids have more access to things that let them get closer to their top potential than people without access to extra money. Money is a big help. And working class people have more access than poor people. And rich people have more access than UMC people.

But my DD's dyslexia doesn't make her an "average" intellect. It makes her a smart kid, with a deficit that affects a broad range of her academic life. Provide her with audio books instead of text books, allow her to narrate or use a computer, and suddenly her academics are significantly improved. She still has a limit - she's not a genius, she's an average smart kid. So sure, one-on-one tutoring probably would have allowed her to take Calc in 9th grade instead of 11th, but her taking it in 11th isn't because of a deficit in how her brain works. So school's not going to provide her with a one-on-one tutor just to make sure she can perform to the very peak of her potential, but they will provide accommodations like audio books and extra time for written work or using a computer, so that she can demonstrate her actual ability.

I'd also bet you run into more "above average" academically UMC kids (with and without LDs), because my understanding is they're more likely to come from intact homes, with parents who have post-high school education, and we know those two things are a huge benefit for how kids perform academically.

You're kid's dyslexia is part of her intelligence. It's a function of the way her brain works.

Agreed. And my bad eyes are just how my eyes work. Should we deny me vision correction so I can drive? It's just how my eyes work.

[Anonymous]

The only specific learning disabilities are Dyslexia, dysgraphia, dyscalculia, and auditory processing disorder. ADHD is not considered an LD.

Low processing speed refers to an index score on the wheschler intelligence tests. So, yes, it is part of what makes up one’s IQ. Lower processing speed will lower one’s FSIQ, though not by a whole lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's sad that this is even being debated. While a person with a learning disability can certainly have an average IQ, it is a different situation.

Are people here seriously stating that a child with dyslexia shouldn't receive accommodations that could help them learn to read and spell? Or that a child with documented ADHD shouldn't be allowed to test in a room without distractions? Or that a child with autism shouldn't receive some help with social cues and executive functioning which can lead to anxiety, depression, and school failure?

And that a child who is deaf shouldn't be allowed access to cochlear implants. And that a child with poor vision shouldn't have access to glasses. And that a child with diabetes shouldn't have access to insulin. And a child missing a limb shouldn't be allowed a prosthetic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Something that’s taken off in recent years is this wonderful idea that we should celebrate neurodiversity. And it is exactly how you describe. Your child has strengths and weaknesses.

Yes, even the C student who doesn’t have a diagnosis has strengths and weaknesses.

My child has dyslexia/dysgraphia. She has strengths and weaknesses. I love to think about her particular intelligence profile is a gift. But reality is she has deficits. ALL KIDS WITH LDS DO. It’s not so much that she thinks differently (neurodiversity). She does. But she also has a brain defect. And that is never going to go away.

We are happy that she is improving upon her weaknesses and her strengths shine, but I don’t pretend she’s any different from an average student when she performs in an average way.

There will always be a bell curve. Most kids with LDs fall somewhere in the middle because they get supports. Without them they would be at the tail end. Im not sure why this is being debated. That is how you get an LD diagnosis. Sure kids can have strengths that fall far above that. But the deficits were or still are painfully and obviously low.

OP here. This is my beef as well. It seems ridiculous to pretend that someone who is performing at a mediocre level because of an LD is somehow superior to someone who is performing at a mediocre level due to a "flat iq profile". Either way they are both mediocre and both would do better with extra help. Fact is both have something going on with their brain that keeps them from achieving at a higher level.

Someone who has the capacity to perform at a higher level, except for a particular deficiency, is different from someone who just tops out at a lower level. Not everyone is the same, academically, athletically, artistically.

If we issued everyone one-on-one tutors and trainers for everything, everyone will perform better. But my artistic ability is never going to be that of someone with actual talent; my upper limit might have been stretched beyond what it is with no training, but it's still going to be more limited than someone with actual talent. We're not all the same.

But, if my problem was that I'm naturally right handed, but had a stroke and could only use my left hand, therapy might indeed serve some purpose and allow me enough mastery over my left hand in order to be able to more closely express my natural abilities. Should we deny therapy to the person with the stroke, because there are people like me who aren't good at art, and so the person with the stroke should just accept that they are now average like the rest of us not-good-at-art people?

It is also true that UMC kids have more access to things that let them get closer to their top potential than people without access to extra money. Money is a big help. And working class people have more access than poor people. And rich people have more access than UMC people.

But my DD's dyslexia doesn't make her an "average" intellect. It makes her a smart kid, with a deficit that affects a broad range of her academic life. Provide her with audio books instead of text books, allow her to narrate or use a computer, and suddenly her academics are significantly improved. She still has a limit - she's not a genius, she's an average smart kid. So sure, one-on-one tutoring probably would have allowed her to take Calc in 9th grade instead of 11th, but her taking it in 11th isn't because of a deficit in how her brain works. So school's not going to provide her with a one-on-one tutor just to make sure she can perform to the very peak of her potential, but they will provide accommodations like audio books and extra time for written work or using a computer, so that she can demonstrate her actual ability.

I'd also bet you run into more "above average" academically UMC kids (with and without LDs), because my understanding is they're more likely to come from intact homes, with parents who have post-high school education, and we know those two things are a huge benefit for how kids perform academically.

You're kid's dyslexia is part of her intelligence. It's a function of the way her brain works.

It's actually not part of intelligence.

If you tell somebody a complicated concept and they understand it but when they read it they don't .... that is how dyslexia was discovered ... a very intelligent student was having problems reading concepts but when told the concept he performed at a higher level than the rest of the students.

It has nothing to do with IQ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is slow processing speed considered a LD or just low intelligence? What if the kid has a high scores in all other areas except processing speed?

The way we calculate and value intelligence is by speed of processing.

So is that a yes or a no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Something that’s taken off in recent years is this wonderful idea that we should celebrate neurodiversity. And it is exactly how you describe. Your child has strengths and weaknesses.

Yes, even the C student who doesn’t have a diagnosis has strengths and weaknesses.

My child has dyslexia/dysgraphia. She has strengths and weaknesses. I love to think about her particular intelligence profile is a gift. But reality is she has deficits. ALL KIDS WITH LDS DO. It’s not so much that she thinks differently (neurodiversity). She does. But she also has a brain defect. And that is never going to go away.

We are happy that she is improving upon her weaknesses and her strengths shine, but I don’t pretend she’s any different from an average student when she performs in an average way.

There will always be a bell curve. Most kids with LDs fall somewhere in the middle because they get supports. Without them they would be at the tail end. Im not sure why this is being debated. That is how you get an LD diagnosis. Sure kids can have strengths that fall far above that. But the deficits were or still are painfully and obviously low.

OP here. This is my beef as well. It seems ridiculous to pretend that someone who is performing at a mediocre level because of an LD is somehow superior to someone who is performing at a mediocre level due to a "flat iq profile". Either way they are both mediocre and both would do better with extra help. Fact is both have something going on with their brain that keeps them from achieving at a higher level.

Someone who has the capacity to perform at a higher level, except for a particular deficiency, is different from someone who just tops out at a lower level. Not everyone is the same, academically, athletically, artistically.

If we issued everyone one-on-one tutors and trainers for everything, everyone will perform better. But my artistic ability is never going to be that of someone with actual talent; my upper limit might have been stretched beyond what it is with no training, but it's still going to be more limited than someone with actual talent. We're not all the same.

But, if my problem was that I'm naturally right handed, but had a stroke and could only use my left hand, therapy might indeed serve some purpose and allow me enough mastery over my left hand in order to be able to more closely express my natural abilities. Should we deny therapy to the person with the stroke, because there are people like me who aren't good at art, and so the person with the stroke should just accept that they are now average like the rest of us not-good-at-art people?

It is also true that UMC kids have more access to things that let them get closer to their top potential than people without access to extra money. Money is a big help. And working class people have more access than poor people. And rich people have more access than UMC people.

But my DD's dyslexia doesn't make her an "average" intellect. It makes her a smart kid, with a deficit that affects a broad range of her academic life. Provide her with audio books instead of text books, allow her to narrate or use a computer, and suddenly her academics are significantly improved. She still has a limit - she's not a genius, she's an average smart kid. So sure, one-on-one tutoring probably would have allowed her to take Calc in 9th grade instead of 11th, but her taking it in 11th isn't because of a deficit in how her brain works. So school's not going to provide her with a one-on-one tutor just to make sure she can perform to the very peak of her potential, but they will provide accommodations like audio books and extra time for written work or using a computer, so that she can demonstrate her actual ability.

I'd also bet you run into more "above average" academically UMC kids (with and without LDs), because my understanding is they're more likely to come from intact homes, with parents who have post-high school education, and we know those two things are a huge benefit for how kids perform academically.

You're kid's dyslexia is part of her intelligence. It's a function of the way her brain works.

Agreed. And my bad eyes are just how my eyes work. Should we deny me vision correction so I can drive? It's just how my eyes work.

Can we refrain from silly analogies? The pp is making the point that dyslexia is a function that of her general intelligence. Do you agree? I don’t think anyone has argued to take away her special accommodations or tutoring.

The debate is how a diagnosis of an LD changed the perception of that student. The dyslexic student goes from “average intellect” to “smart kid, with a deficit that affects a broad range of her academic life.” While another average child is perceived as “topping out”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's sad that this is even being debated. While a person with a learning disability can certainly have an average IQ, it is a different situation.

Are people here seriously stating that a child with dyslexia shouldn't receive accommodations that could help them learn to read and spell? Or that a child with documented ADHD shouldn't be allowed to test in a room without distractions? Or that a child with autism shouldn't receive some help with social cues and executive functioning which can lead to anxiety, depression, and school failure?

Should a kid with a flat iq score of 90 be able to get accomodations that help them perform better as well?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's sad that this is even being debated. While a person with a learning disability can certainly have an average IQ, it is a different situation.

Are people here seriously stating that a child with dyslexia shouldn't receive accommodations that could help them learn to read and spell? Or that a child with documented ADHD shouldn't be allowed to test in a room without distractions? Or that a child with autism shouldn't receive some help with social cues and executive functioning which can lead to anxiety, depression, and school failure?

Should a kid with a flat iq score of 90 be able to get accomodations that help them perform better as well?

Kids with a low flat IQ score do not benefit from accommodations. If a kid like this is working at their full potential, and they get say, extra time, their scores will not demonstrably go up. Because they flat out do not know it.

That is the difference between a child with a higher IQ and a LD. . .and a child with a flat low IQ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Something that’s taken off in recent years is this wonderful idea that we should celebrate neurodiversity. And it is exactly how you describe. Your child has strengths and weaknesses.

Yes, even the C student who doesn’t have a diagnosis has strengths and weaknesses.

My child has dyslexia/dysgraphia. She has strengths and weaknesses. I love to think about her particular intelligence profile is a gift. But reality is she has deficits. ALL KIDS WITH LDS DO. It’s not so much that she thinks differently (neurodiversity). She does. But she also has a brain defect. And that is never going to go away.

We are happy that she is improving upon her weaknesses and her strengths shine, but I don’t pretend she’s any different from an average student when she performs in an average way.

There will always be a bell curve. Most kids with LDs fall somewhere in the middle because they get supports. Without them they would be at the tail end. Im not sure why this is being debated. That is how you get an LD diagnosis. Sure kids can have strengths that fall far above that. But the deficits were or still are painfully and obviously low.

OP here. This is my beef as well. It seems ridiculous to pretend that someone who is performing at a mediocre level because of an LD is somehow superior to someone who is performing at a mediocre level due to a "flat iq profile". Either way they are both mediocre and both would do better with extra help. Fact is both have something going on with their brain that keeps them from achieving at a higher level.

Someone who has the capacity to perform at a higher level, except for a particular deficiency, is different from someone who just tops out at a lower level. Not everyone is the same, academically, athletically, artistically.

If we issued everyone one-on-one tutors and trainers for everything, everyone will perform better. But my artistic ability is never going to be that of someone with actual talent; my upper limit might have been stretched beyond what it is with no training, but it's still going to be more limited than someone with actual talent. We're not all the same.

But, if my problem was that I'm naturally right handed, but had a stroke and could only use my left hand, therapy might indeed serve some purpose and allow me enough mastery over my left hand in order to be able to more closely express my natural abilities. Should we deny therapy to the person with the stroke, because there are people like me who aren't good at art, and so the person with the stroke should just accept that they are now average like the rest of us not-good-at-art people?

It is also true that UMC kids have more access to things that let them get closer to their top potential than people without access to extra money. Money is a big help. And working class people have more access than poor people. And rich people have more access than UMC people.

But my DD's dyslexia doesn't make her an "average" intellect. It makes her a smart kid, with a deficit that affects a broad range of her academic life. Provide her with audio books instead of text books, allow her to narrate or use a computer, and suddenly her academics are significantly improved. She still has a limit - she's not a genius, she's an average smart kid. So sure, one-on-one tutoring probably would have allowed her to take Calc in 9th grade instead of 11th, but her taking it in 11th isn't because of a deficit in how her brain works. So school's not going to provide her with a one-on-one tutor just to make sure she can perform to the very peak of her potential, but they will provide accommodations like audio books and extra time for written work or using a computer, so that she can demonstrate her actual ability.

I'd also bet you run into more "above average" academically UMC kids (with and without LDs), because my understanding is they're more likely to come from intact homes, with parents who have post-high school education, and we know those two things are a huge benefit for how kids perform academically.

You're kid's dyslexia is part of her intelligence. It's a function of the way her brain works.

It's actually not part of intelligence.

If you tell somebody a complicated concept and they understand it but when they read it they don't .... that is how dyslexia was discovered ... a very intelligent student was having problems reading concepts but when told the concept he performed at a higher level than the rest of the students.

It has nothing to do with IQ.

My kid’s dyslexia affects her intelligence or I guess it’s the other way around. But she has visual processing deficits that are clearly visible on intelligence tests. It’s not just, “my child struggles with spelling”. It’s so much broader and far reaching than that.