I am a 2E kid, now adult. I was a C-D student until we figured out that I process information verbally, I have to talk out what I am reading and doing. The process of talking it out forced me to slow down, I stopped skipping steps, and I completed questions properly. I went from a C average Freshman year to graduating in the top 10% of my class with a 4.0 GPA (AP classes) by Senior year.

I was tested with LDs in first grade but my ADHD wasn't diagnosed until I was in graduate school. ADHD was a new thing in the 80s and mainly diagnosed in boys.

The estimates that I have read is that about 15% of the population has some type of LD. 15% of the population has ADD of some sport (impulsive, hyperactive, or plain old ADD). The numbers reported seem to be 10-20% so I am averaging the two.

I think that it is bullshit that some parents are looking for people to diagnose their kids for an advantage and highly unethical that there are clinicians who are willing to give a BS diagnosis. For those of us with legit issues, those accommodations allow us to demonstrate that we have learned the material and that we have met the mark. It can make a huge difference for a kid who is struggling. You realize that you might learn differently but that you are able to learn and grow. You are not stupid or lazy. It can be massively important.

The schools are reluctant to provide services for kids who do have LDs or ADHD who are on grade level because services are expensive. The problem is that a bright kid, a 2E kid, might be able to stay on grade level or even be advanced based on raw intelligence but not dealing with the LD or ADHD early on sets up problems in Middle School and High School when learning is no longer based purely on raw intelligence. Parents notice that their child is struggling in specific areas, the school says they won't test or provide services, and parents have to get private tests and fight for 504 plans or IEPs.

But there are parents and kids who are gmaing the system. They hurt kids like me because they make it harder for people to see my issues as legitimate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You need to get your facts straight. The SAT test administrators used to allow kids with ADHD to have extra time years ago. Many of those children with ADHD also have comorbidities like slow processing, working memory issues, dyslexia, dysgraphia, etc. But many of them are highly intelligent, their brain just works differently. Unfortunately, now they have tightened up the policies so badly that kids who truly need the extra time have to go through so many more hoops in order to get the extra time. It often involves ensuring that you have a recent neuropshych exam that proves the slow processing (costs thousands of dollars) and proving that the child has been receiving the extra time accommodation in regular school. Just having an ADHD diagnosis does not qualify you for the extra time allowance.

You're proving the point. They made the changes because there were too many kids getting accommodations, and too many cases seemed questionable. It's totally going to backfire, though. Wealthy people who are only gaming the system to get their kids an advantage will still be able to do everything needed to get extra time. It's only the kids with an actual disability who will find it difficult to jump through all of the hoops to get the extra time. Once again, people gaming the system are ruining things for the people who have an actual need.

I am PP you quoted, and agree with everything you just wrote. I just didn't want anyone to have the impression that all kids with ADHD or another special need can ask for extra time and get it, or that ADHD kids cheat on SATs because they get extra time. Few actually get the extra time and they have to prove they truly need it. Unfortunately, those kids need to have parents who can afford expensive private testing, because schools don't always catch "slow processing."

Anonymous wrote:
I’m the PP quoted and don’t necessarily have my own definition of kids who “shouldn’t be there” but see it mentioned by others, I think from the idea pushy parents get in children some think don’t belong which if that happens is a fault of the process more so than the parents. Or if it means hothoused, prepped kids...getting rid of referrals or appeals doesn’t impact that either. But I tend to think you may be right about lowering in-pool. For reference I have one of those over 130 WISC kids (GMU WISC so IMO legit) who was just barely NOT in pool.

I don't at all blame parents for referring their above average kids. I blame the system for admitting them. I'd honestly like to see the system stay the same, but with harsher guidelines for accepting kids. A 120-ish CogAT with a packet indicating that the kid is a bright average, mildly advanced, good student shouldn't be enough to get in (but it is! At least 4 kids in the neighborhood got in with exactly this profile).

I'd love to see them get rid of the entire review process altogether and instead have a purely numerical system. FSIQ or GAI of 98th percentile or higher = IN, or average the percentile scores from both an achievement test (MAP test? something else) and the CogAT. 95th percentile or higher on the combined tests = IN. They could even still allow some sort of portfolio or packet review for kids who don't have the scores, but admissions via the packet review route should be quite rare.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There is really no data here to support that parent referrals or appeal get in kids who shouldn’t be there. Maybe that is worth looking into but this data doesn’t delve into that enough to draw any conclusions. And really, I see no reason a kid who gets a legitimate high WISC should not be in, it’s a better measure than NNAT or COGAT. I doubt those are the kids “watering down” AAP.

It depends on how you define whether a kid "shouldn't be there." Lots of parent referrals are bright average, privileged kids who are decent students. They haven't taken a WISC, or if they did, the kid had an IQ around 115-120. Should those kids be in AAP?

I'm not at all concerned about eliminating parent referrals, since they also mentioned lowering the pool threshold. I bet a lot of the parent referrals with high WISCs would have been in-pool if the pool were 125 and not 132. I am concerned with not allowing WISC or not using that as a way to allow (rare) parent referrals. To me, a 130+ WISC means the kid is legitimately gifted and should be automatically in.

I’m the PP quoted and don’t necessarily have my own definition of kids who “shouldn’t be there” but see it mentioned by others, I think from the idea pushy parents get in children some think don’t belong which if that happens is a fault of the process more so than the parents. Or if it means hothoused, prepped kids...getting rid of referrals or appeals doesn’t impact that either. But I tend to think you may be right about lowering in-pool. For reference I have one of those over 130 WISC kids (GMU WISC so IMO legit) who was just barely NOT in pool.

Anonymous wrote:

You need to get your facts straight. The SAT test administrators used to allow kids with ADHD to have extra time years ago. Many of those children with ADHD also have comorbidities like slow processing, working memory issues, dyslexia, dysgraphia, etc. But many of them are highly intelligent, their brain just works differently. Unfortunately, now they have tightened up the policies so badly that kids who truly need the extra time have to go through so many more hoops in order to get the extra time. It often involves ensuring that you have a recent neuropshych exam that proves the slow processing (costs thousands of dollars) and proving that the child has been receiving the extra time accommodation in regular school. Just having an ADHD diagnosis does not qualify you for the extra time allowance.

You're proving the point. They made the changes because there were too many kids getting accommodations, and too many cases seemed questionable. It's totally going to backfire, though. Wealthy people who are only gaming the system to get their kids an advantage will still be able to do everything needed to get extra time. It's only the kids with an actual disability who will find it difficult to jump through all of the hoops to get the extra time. Once again, people gaming the system are ruining things for the people who have an actual need.

Anonymous wrote:
There is really no data here to support that parent referrals or appeal get in kids who shouldn’t be there. Maybe that is worth looking into but this data doesn’t delve into that enough to draw any conclusions. And really, I see no reason a kid who gets a legitimate high WISC should not be in, it’s a better measure than NNAT or COGAT. I doubt those are the kids “watering down” AAP.

It depends on how you define whether a kid "shouldn't be there." Lots of parent referrals are bright average, privileged kids who are decent students. They haven't taken a WISC, or if they did, the kid had an IQ around 115-120. Should those kids be in AAP?

I'm not at all concerned about eliminating parent referrals, since they also mentioned lowering the pool threshold. I bet a lot of the parent referrals with high WISCs would have been in-pool if the pool were 125 and not 132. I am concerned with not allowing WISC or not using that as a way to allow (rare) parent referrals. To me, a 130+ WISC means the kid is legitimately gifted and should be automatically in.