Can everyone turn into a genius? (about Genius in All of Us, by David Shenk)

November 19, 2010 by Leave a Comment

I must say up front that I have not read The Genius in All of Us: Why Everything You’ve Been Told About Genetics, Talent, and IQ Is Wrong, by David Shenk. I’m only writing about the Talk of the Nation NPR show “Not Too Late To Tap Into ‘Genius In All Of Us‘” discussing it.

I really liked the following statement:

“Having high expectations is always crucial. Another is that (and I do not envy the teacher in this) that the critical thing in a classroom of 20 kids or 30 kids or, God forbid, more than 30 kids is trying to find out the level of all these different kids and hit all of them just slightly above their level – not too far above, because that’s going to be discouraging to anyone, certainly not too far below because that’s going to feel really boring and be discouraging for a different reason, and also trying to find, in each of these distinct personalities, what gets them going.”

I wish David Shenk elaborated on the “discouraging for a different reason” piece, but overall he did say he does not talk much about education in his book. Too bad…

It is nice to tell the kids they all can be who they want to be and reach for the stars. I assume that this is what Genius in All of Us is saying.

But what about the kids who are very smart but whose passion for learning (and whose advanced synaptic connections) are killed by teachers forcing them to stay way below their level of ability?

Filed Under: Education, Intelligence, Uncategorized

My other child

June 3, 2010 by 3 Comments

Looking at all the back posts I noticed I have not really mentioned my other child — my daughter, who is about five years younger than my son. I was hoping, hoping so hard, she would be typical. But she isn’t…

I should have known better. Yet, her challenges are different than those of my son. She does carry the same diagnosis as my son — PDD-NOS, but she “presents” (as the psychiatrists like to say) very differently. She’s far more social than he ever was, she has good memory for faces and names, and she recognizes social connections pretty fast (she learned pretty fast who is whose mommy or daddy at daycare). On the other hand, she stimms (she lays down flat on her belly and twitches), she has a tendency to line up things, she can get upset when plans are changed, and she gets upset when her clothes get wet or dirty and when her hands get wet or sticky.

She also has been diagnosed with apraxia of speech, a condition I was wholly unfamiliar with, because my son’s language, despite initial delay, was pretty well developed by the time he was three. My daughter talks very haltingly, cannot pronounce certain syllables, and has a hard time repeating words, especially words that are longer than two syllables. She tries, she tries very hard, but it just is not coming out right. Her pronunciation is very hard to understand.

Is she twice exceptional as my son? I don’t know yet. I seem to have been discounting her intelligence because her “output” is so poor, but the other day she was playing “point to a shape” game and I was floored that at three she knows what a hexagon is, and sees the difference between a square and a rectangle. She does seem to have pretty good visual memory, like my son. She’s very good at card memory games and seems to remember events that happened a long time ago. So she might be smart… Yet, I worry that just as I still sometimes do, others will also discount her intelligence because she.. well… she just doesn’t sound very smart.

Filed Under: Apraxia of speech, Intelligence, Personal Information

The IEP Process – Special Education Advice for Parents (Part I – The Beginning)

March 8, 2009 by 3 Comments

Learning about special education is a daunting journey. I’ve been doing it for over four years now and I’m still learning. I can barely remember the very beginning and how confusing it all was. That’s why when I read a call from Karen Nowicki (an integrative coach) for tips for parents with children on IEPs, I responded, even though it was tough to make my response so brief to meet the 100 words limit.

Karen was gathering responses for an article for Root & Sprout (a site I’ve never heard of until then) and has published her piece on IEPs just recently (update on December 3, 2009 – the site seems to have gone defunct since then).

When the article was posted, Karen wrote to me to let me know she received a lot of responses, and could not possibly include all of them, so I’m more than flattered that she did quote parts of my submission and included a link to this blog, even though I’m not anonymous any more. (I was planning to “go public” soon anyway, although I probably would not have published my name, just give the readers enough information that they would be able to find who I am.)

I’m also happy to be in the company of www.weddingsx3.blogspot.com, by Debbie Yost writing about mothering, family life & Down syndrome awareness; www.motheringautism.blogspot.com, by Pam Walsh, and on the same page that mentions www.wrightslaw.com, by Pete & Pam Wright, William & Mary Law School, Education Law Clinic & Special Ed Advocates, and www.LDpodcast.com, by Whitney Hoffman.

The first tip on how to prepare

Preparing for an IEP will require you to read everything made available to you by the school and everything else you can get your hands on to support your child’s rights to special services.

Is similar to what I wrote to her as well

Read, read, read – You have to know the law, your rights, and what the school is obliged to do for your child. There are several very good books on IEPs out there. My absolute favorite: Wrightslaw: From Emotions to Advocacy: The Special Education Survival Guide

The “Top Ten IEP Tips” from Carrie Gilmer and “Parent IEP Tips” from Eileen Mullin, are great too.

All that said, I tried to read this article as if I were a parent just starting out in this journey, and I’m afraid I probably would still not know what IEPs are all about and how to start the whole process, especially if my child was not in school yet and I did not know any staff from the district yet.

Most likely I would not understand the advice “Know and use IDEA 2004 laws and proper IEP procedure,” especially given the fact that the article does not explain what IDEA 2004 laws are. It is, of course, everyday language for parents of children with disabilities and in special education, but typical parents usually have never heard of IDEA (the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), unless they work in Special Education themselves. And if they go searching for the term, they are most likely to get to the U.S. Department of Education web site, which is not very “beginning parent” friendly. (as I commented on in “IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) U.S. Department of Education Web Site” from December 31, 2008)

The advice “Become an expert on your child’s disabilities” while extremely important, also assumes a parent knows what the child’s disability is. At the beginning of the journey, many parents may not even have a diagnosis yet and don’t know what to search for. In our case, the specialists disagreed on a diagnosis for quite a while. (as I complained in “Personal Introduction“ from September 2007)

So here comes:

Advice for Parents of Preschool-Age Children

When nearly four years ago my son’s private daycare teachers politely told us they won’t be able to “meet his needs” the following year when the number of children in the classroom was going from nine to fifteen and advised us to contact the local school district to see if he qualifies for special education services, I had to call a couple of places in the district before I found the right person to talk to. By the way, at that age “special education services” meant an “integrated” preschool with a comparatively low number of kids and a high number of teachers in the class, who can keep good tabs on everyone.

I know now that the place to start may not necessarily be called “Special Education Office.” In Massachusetts that’s usually called “Pupil Services.” If a district is large, the main office might refer a parent to a local school’s special education coordinator.

Whoever you talk to in that office will probably ask why you think your child should be evaluated and will ask for copies of any paperwork that would support that. They might ask for letters from the pediatrician and/or current teachers. It wouldn’t hurt if you wrote a letter too, listing all of your concerns, with examples. (I like to say things like “I am concerned about my son’s x y and z, because I have observed that …. Because of the concerns mentioned above, I am asking for ….”)

Starting the Binder

The day you first call the “Special Education” department at school is also when you should start a binder to document everything and where you start filing all paperwork, including the logs of phone calls.

I learned about the binder idea in a workshop “Getting Organized” presented to our local Special Education Parent Advisory Council by the Federation of Children with Special Needs. Until then I had been just simply keeping files in my file cabinet. But just about the same time I went to the workshop I found out I routinely ended up taking the files out of my file cabinet and lugging them to various appointments and meetings, where inevitably I was asked if these are originals or copies. I had to say “these are originals,” at which point they’d go and make copies, and sometimes, not often but it did happen once or twice, a page or two from the original would get lost.

Now I still keep the originals in the file cabinet, but as soon as I get any paperwork, I make at least three copies of the originals for the binder, one of which serves as the “pseudo-original” for copying, the other one is an extra copy I can just give out if necessary, and the third one is a “mark-up” copy where I write my comments.

I learned about the phone call log from what I consider one of the best books on special education — Wrightslaw: From Emotions to Advocacy: The Special Education Survival Guide, by Pam Wright and Pete Wright, founders of the Wrightslaw web site, which is packed with useful information. Until then it never occurred to me to create a written record of meetings and phone call conversations, but it’s a great idea, because couple months down the road you may not remember the day you called, who initiated the phone call, even if you remember who you talked to, the reason for the meeting or the call, and exactly what was discussed.

What I do now is a bit different than what the Wrights suggest — I write a follow up e-mail to the person I met with starting with “Thank you for taking the time to meet with me (talk to me) on (date) to discuss x, y, and z.” and including all the pertinent information about the conversation, especially if something was decided or agreed to during the conversation. I then print the e-mail and put it in the binder in the “Correspondence” section.

My son’s binder currently has the following sections, separated by labeled tab dividers (like the Avery(R) Write-On Tab Dividers With Erasable Laminated Tabs, 5-Tab, White):

  • Current grade work by date (the work he does at school that is being sent home)
  • Current year’s correspondence by date
  • Current year’s IEP
  • Current year’s progress reports, meeting notes, and data
  • Current year’s report cards
  • Last year’s correspondence by date (for the first couple of months of meetings in a given school year, after that I file it in an “archival” binder)
  • Last year’s IEP
  • Last year’s progress reports, meeting notes, and data
  • Last year’s report cards
  • Extra copies of documents (for photocopying, each in a separate plastic sleeve)

First meeting with the school (pre-IEP)

During the first meeting the school will probably hand you a lot of forms to sign consenting to various testing. The testing is supposed to assess the child “in all areas of suspected disability.” (IDEA Statue, Title I, B, 614, b, 3, B) The typical testing at preschool age usually includes

After all the testing is done, the school will (should) send the parents all results, with raw data and an explanation and recommendations for the future, and schedule a meeting to develop an IEP. At that point the school usually also asks (should ask) the parents to write a “Vision Statement” and “Parent or Student Concerns.”

The thing is – without knowing any information beyond the basic “Procedural Safeguards” and “Special Education Guides” that the school hands out, figuring out what to include in the “Vision Statement” and “Parent Concerns” might turn out to be a tricky homework. But that’s a huge topic, probably deserving a separate blog entry. I’ll try to get to it soon. (I’ve been very busy recently, hence the decline in the number of posts.) But I hope the above, nearly two-thousand word-overview somewhat covers the “What to Expect” part covering the very beginning of the process.

By the way, the tips I narrowed down to 100 words or fewer that I sent to Karen were as follows:

1. Don’t despair. Join a parent networking group if your district has one. In some states a Special Education Parent Advisory Council is mandated by law. It may be very active and working closely with the school administration or it may not. But it’s a great place to meet other parents who understand what you’re dealing with.

2. Read, read, read! You have to know the law, your rights, and what the school is obliged to do for your child. There are several very good books on IEPs out there. My absolute favorite: Wrightslaw: From Emotions to Advocacy: The Special Education Survival Guide.

I see networking and knowledge as crucial to the whole process. You need to learn about what you’re dealing with and since you’re not the first person starting on this daunting journey (even though it might feel like it at the beginning), connecting with other parents who’ve been doing it for a couple of years usually turns out to be very helpful for several reasons.

Filed Under: Education, Intelligence, Other Blogs, PDD-NOS, Personal Information, Special Education, Testing, Unwrapping the Gift of ADD series

Connection between levels of fetal testosterone and autistic traits

January 28, 2009 by Leave a Comment

I wanted to title this post “Would you want to know if your child might be autistic?” but after reading in the Guardian Prof. Simon Baron-Cohen’s response article titled “Our research was not about prenatal screening for autism,” I have decided to give my post a different, more neutral title, and closer to the title of the original research article.

I am talking here about a discussion in the Guardian spurred by Professor Simon Baron-Cohen’s research published in the February 2009 issue of the British Journal of Psychology, titled “Fetal testosterone and autistic traits.”

On January 12, 2009, the Guardian published a front-page article “New research brings autism screening closer to reality,”by Sarah Boseley (health editor), which was accompanied by a double-page spread inside the paper titled “Disorder linked to high levels of testosterone in womb”  (also by Sarah Boseley).

The articles resulted in several comments. The same day, January 12, 2009, Michael Fitzpatrick published “Toxic treatments for autistic children” with a sub-headline “Worrying about antenatal testing is premature — there are dangerous procedures being performed on children now.”

Then on January 14, Anya Ustaszewski published “I don’t want to be ‘cured’ of autism, thanks” and Marcel Berlins published “Newton and Einstein may have been autistic. But is their genius an argument against a screening test?“(which generated 113 comments by the time the comments were closed).

Finally, on January 20, 2009, the Guardian published a response from Simon Baron-Cohen I mentioned above — “Our research was not about prenatal screening for autism,” with a sub-headline “We merely aimed to understand what causes differences in autistic traits” in which he slams the January 12, 2009 articles’ headlines and captions as “inaccurate.”

Baron-Cohen explains

The new research was not about autism screening; the new research has not discovered that a high level of testosterone in prenatal tests is an indicator of autism; autism spectrum disorder has not been linked to high levels of testosterone in the womb; and tests (of autism) in the womb do not allow termination of pregnancies.
[...]
The Guardian was reporting on our new study in the British Journal of Psychology that found a correlation between levels of foetal testosterone (FT) and the number of autistic traits a child shows at the age of eight. The study was not about prenatal screening for autism, and indeed did not even test children with autism.

Interestingly, before Sarah Boseley’s articles appeared in the Guardian, on January 7, 2009 the paper published “A prenatal test for autism would deprive the world of future geniuses,” by James Randerson, referring to Simon Baron-Cohen’s article on the BBC web site”Autism test ‘could hit maths skills’” in which he says

Research is not yet at the stage where autism can be detected prenatally using a biological test [...] But assuming such a test is developed, we would be wise to think ahead as to how such a test would be used.

I must say that while I find Baron-Cohen’s research fascinating, and liked his Guardian article and like the tone of this article overall as well, I have a huge problem with a statement

If reducing the testosterone in a foetus helped that baby’s future social development, we would all be delighted.

Frankly, I for one would not be delighted if people started meddling with babies’ “future social development” by manipulating fetal testosterone levels or in any other way. I don’t think we should be getting into the business of controlling future generations’ personalities. Do you think we should?

(Added January 28, 2009 — I found a blog, alisonleary.com, (which seems to have closed since then) with an entry on the same subject — “Testosterone Levels Linked to Autistic Traits,” which provides a link to the Autism Research Centre at Cambridge University, which in turn provides a link to the original, 22-page, article “Fetal testosterone and autistic traits” published in the British Journal of Psychology.)

Filed Under: Asperger Syndrome, Autism, Intelligence, PDD-NOS, Studies and Trials, Therapy and Treatment

Labeling kids

January 10, 2009 by Leave a Comment

Way back in December a Washington Post article “Montgomery Erasing Gifted Label” caught my eye and I’ve been planning to write about that.  (“Montgomery Erasing Gifted Label: Implications Concern Some School Parents” by Daniel de Vise, December 16, 2008)

Of course this is old news by now, and covered widely by various blogs, including, naturally, the Gifted Exchange blog, which asks “Does the ‘Gifted’ label matter?” .

I like Laura Vanderkam’s point that although “what matters is that kids’ needs are met,” yet “when districts do label kids, then that at least creates pressure to do something for those with the label.”

That’s certainly true on the other side of the scale, and as I and many of my friends with kids on IEPs know, even the label doesn’t guarantee that kids’ needs are met.

The Washington Post article reports that

“Officials plan to abandon a decades-old policy that sorts second-grade students, like Dr. Seuss’s Sneetches, into those who are gifted (the Star-Belly sort) and those who are not. […] Montgomery education leaders have decided that the practice is arbitrary and unfair.”

Don’t even get me started on fair… As long as the quality of education a child gets depends on the income of that child’s parents and their ability to buy a house in the best school district, there is no “fair” in American education.

Gifted programs at least promise to give a chance for better education to smart kids from families who are not rich. Whether they deliver on that or not, that’s another matter.

Another reason given for scrapping the label is that

“the approach [sorting kids into gifted and not gifted] slights the rest of the students who are not so labeled. White and Asian American students are twice as likely as blacks and Hispanics to be identified as gifted.”

Interestingly, the officials do admit that “the practice is arbitrary” and their “formula for giftedness is flawed.” Well, then they should look at their identification and eligibility methods and revamp them!

Oh and apparently “A school that tells some students they have gifts risks dashing the academic dreams of everyone else.”

What about the gifted kids’ academic dreams? Why aren’t they allowed to dream of being challenged?

A lot of these kids are very excited to go to Kindergarten because they love learning and think it’s going to be so much fun learning new stuff all the time.

But then, even if they know how to add fractions, they get stuck recognizing patterns for a year or two (you know – circle, circle, square, circle, … what goes next?) And even if they can read chapter books, they are lucky if their “advanced reading group” reads four- to six-page books and when they skip forward while their classmates slowly decode the words on the page, the teacher frowns upon them.

No wonder a lot of these kids have pretty much lost their enthusiasm for learning by third grade and think the school is boring.

But, no need to worry — apparently “losing the label won’t change gifted instruction, because it is open to all students.”

I don’t get it. If gifted instruction is open to all students, then how does it differ from regular instruction? Gifted education is not what the kids are being taught, it is how they are being taught.

The thing about scrapping the label is that even though “educators have become more nimble in deciding who needs accelerated instruction” it doesn’t mean they are actually going to provide accelerated instruction. The fact that “teachers codify children’s math and reading levels with frequency and precision unknown in previous decades” doesn’t really mean anything.

Sure, at my son’s school they can “codify” that his math and reading levels are above grade. So what? There’s no gifted mandate in Massachusetts, so they don’t have to do anything about it. The only thing they care about is that he meets the curriculum requirements, which he does.

I have no doubt that “Principals and teachers say they don’t miss” the gifted identification program. It’s probably easier that way. No more fighting with parents over whether little Johny III will get into the program or not. No more proving to parents that they differentiate.

And as far as the gifted label setting “up a kind of have and have-not atmosphere at your school”… Looking at it from the SPED point of view, are then the kids with IEPs “don’t-even-dream-about-it-have-nots”?Or would the school like to scrap that label too to not make the SPED kids feel bad?

Incidentally, just as some parents fight to get their child labeled “gifted,” some parents don’t want their child labeled “SPED” and will not request or even deny testing. As a result a child is not getting the services she or he needs… But that’s a topic for an entirely different post.

Filed Under: Education, Gifted and Talented, Intelligence, Maryland, Special Education, Testing

Non-verbal Autism and Intelligence – some myths debunked

April 28, 2008 by Leave a Comment

The idea that non-verbal autistics have low IQ in general and are unaware of their surroundings is a myth that has to be debunked.

Consider Amanda Baggs, featured in the article “The Truth About Autism: Scientists Reconsider What They Think They Know” by David Wolman in the March 2008 issue of Wired Magazine.

The 27-year-old Amanda Baggs is autistic and “non-verbal” – she cannot speak, but that does not mean she does not communicate. If it wasn’t for technology, nobody would know what she’s thinking, how she’s feeling, and, quite frankly, that she’s a pretty amazing person. Luckily, she can communicate through the DynaVox VMax computer and through her very powerful YouTube videos and her blog Ballastexistenz, has become an advocate for human rights for the disabled and for the acceptance of people like her.

(As a sidenote, I have linked to the “About” page on Amanda Baggs’ blog because that’s where she explains the title of the blog and refers to the “German eugenics movement against disabled people — which, for reference, predated Nazism” and “was heavily influenced by American ideas.” By the way, Stephen Murdoch, the author of IQ: A Smart History of a Failed Idea also wrote about the eugenics movement in his book.)

Baggs’s “In My Language” video, “is a statement about what gets considered thought, intelligence, personhood, language, and communication, and what does not.” I hope you’ll watch it.

David Wolman’s piece also mentions an article by Michelle Dawson, Isabelle Soulières, Morton Ann Gernsbacher, and Laurent Mottron, titled “The Level and Nature of Autistic Intelligence” published in the August 2007 issue of the Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, published by Blackwell Publishing.

You can’t see the full text of the article unless you are a member of the Association for Psychological Science or have a subscription to the journal, but you can see the abstract.

The first author of the article, Michelle Dawson, is autistic as well. In her blog entry about the article being accepted for publication she writes “there should be a lot more caution than is currently the case, when making assumptions about what autistics can or can’t do. Some serious rethinking is necessary, about intelligence in autism and possibly intelligence in general.”

Current APS President, Morton Ann Gernsbacher, the Vilas Research Professor and Sir Frederic C. Bartlett Professor of Psychology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and a co-author of “The Level and Nature of Autistic Intelligence” wrote for the April 2007 issue of the Observer (also published by the APS) an article titled “The True Meaning of Research Participation” which is worth reading as well.

Filed Under: Autism, Communication, Intelligence, Testing

IQ: A Smart History of A Failed Idea, by Stephen Murdoch

April 1, 2008 by 1 Comment

I have just finished reading IQ: A Smart History of a Failed Idea, by Stephen Murdoch, published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. in June 2007.

I first heard of this book on July 3, 2007 when I was listening to the interview with the author (New Book Raises Questions About IQ Test) on the National Public Radio’s program “Talk of the Nation.”

When I exchanged e-mails after the show with one of the callers I know, who primarily deals with gifted children and who earns her living in part by administering various tests, she said she wished she could have said more because the author was “spewing so much misinformation it was amazing.” That made want to read the book myself.

Overall, the book does not say much about the gifted part of the population and how the IQ tests affect them, except for a couple of places.

Chapter 1 titled “The Problem with Testing” describes a well-off, highly educated family from Washington, DC who were terrified that their 3-year-old son scored very poorly on an IQ test because that meant he would not get into one of the elite private schools in DC his daddy went to. The child got some speech therapy and occupational therapy while in preschool and went to a public kindergarten. He was tested again at five, at six, and at seven. While he scored in the 34th percentile when he was five, by the time he was seven he scored in the 98th percentile and was finally accepted at the school his father went to. Murdoch doesn’t say whether the child was “prepped” for the test by the overanxious parents. He probably was and that might explain the score difference. The author does make a strong point that although the most often used IQ tests claim to measure “intelligence,” they really measure learned information and can definitely be prepped for.

Chapter 10 talks about the eleven-plus tests in the United Kingdom and how this one test, supposedly again measuring “intelligence,” but according to the author heavily relying on educational knowledge gained in the elementary school, determined to what school a child would be sent at eleven years of age. So a child who went to a crappy elementary school that did not teach to the test and who had no private tutoring was highly unlikely to score well on the eleven-plus.

Other than that, Murdoch mostly writes about how the IQ tests were misused to mistreat people with low IQ scores, those on the left side of the bell curve. He describes how in the 1920s the U.S. began forced sterilization of the “feeble minded” which apparently continued until 1970s, and how the Nazi Germany carried the idea of not allowing the “feeble minded” to procreate into euthanasia, or basically murder. It’s truly terrifying.

I’m not a psychologist or a professional test administrator, so I cannot say if, and how much, misinformation there is in this book, but overall, I found it quite interesting and informative. And it did make me wonder about this whole IQ test business and whether it really measures anything meaningful adequately (which seems to be the main thesis of the book). Murdoch does make a good point that someone’s IQ score and a difference of a point off the scale can have too much weight in some situations—whether a murderer is executed or spends life in prison, whether a person with low IQ qualifies for a subsidy from the government, or whether a child gets into the gifted program or not. He also makes a good point that someone with high IQ scores will not necessarily have a great and successful career and happy life.

This brief description of the book is of course just a (very small) nutshell and does not really do justice to the book. Go read it for yourself. It really is interesting. Here’s the table of contents.

By the way, in the chapter titled “Alternatives to IQ” Murdoch writes about Howard Gardner’s idea of multiple intelligences, proposed in Frames Of Mind: The Theory Of Multiple Intelligences, published in 1983; Emotional Intelligence, written by Daniel Goleman, and published in 1995, and Robert Sternberg’s Successful Intelligence published in 1997. So, my list of “books to read” has just expanded.

Filed Under: Book Reviews, Gifted and Talented, Intelligence, Testing

Gifted and Talented (GT or GAT) 101: A (Basic) Definition

November 5, 2007 by Leave a Comment

When people say someone is “talented” or “gifted” they usually mean that person has exceptional and highly developed abilities in arts or sport, music, singing, dancing, drawing or painting, running, jumping, pitching, and so on. The word “talented” in everyday language is rarely connected with someone’s intellectual abilities.

In the world of education, though, the definition of “gifted and talented (GT or GAT)” is connected to the Intelligence Quotient (IQ).

The average IQ as measured by standardized tests is around 100. Majority of people (statistically, 68.27% of the population) would score somewhere between 85 and 115, or again, “statistically” within one standard deviation from the mean. And most people (95% of the population) would score between 70 and 130 — within two standard deviations from the mean.

Those who are visual and who like graphs can see that on the IQ bell curve:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IQ_curve.svg

I also like the standard deviation graph, showing the percentages corresponding with the scores.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Standard_deviation_diagram.svg

Those scoring more than two standard deviations from the mean, below 70 or above 130, are highly unusual—people in each group make up only about 2.5% of the population.

Mensa, a society “for bright people” grants membership only to those who score above the 98 percentile on standardized tests of intelligence. Statistically, from among a hundred of one’s acquaintances, only two would qualify to be Mensa members.

It’s lonely at the end of the bell curve.

Filed Under: Gifted and Talented, Intelligence

Personal Introduction

September 20, 2007 by Leave a Comment

My son is twice exceptional — he is both academically gifted and special needs, or the other way around, depending on how you look at it.

There are times when I’m amazed at his intellectual abilities. Even since he was little, he could always figure out very fast how toys are operated and what he has to do to make it move. When he was two he could do quite complicated puzzles, the type for preschoolers. His daycare teachers were borrowing games from the preschool class especially for him. I also noticed he had an amazing memory and could remember events and places for a long time afterward.

Now, at nearly six, he can read fluently, is pretty good at math, knows all the planets in the solar system, etc, etc. Some of his favorite TV shows are the typical stuff that smart, geeky kids like: the PBS shows Cyberchase, Fetch!, Super Why, and Curious George; the Discovery Kids shows Popular Mechanics for Kids and Crash! Bang! Splat!, and Magic School Bus. But he also watches such shows as How It’s Made shown on the Science Channel and Brainiac shown on G4.

The popular belief out there about gifted kids is that these kids’ parents are pushy and “train” the kids to be gifted.

I admit, we have always tried to read a lot to him (if he’d sit and listen). And we have been trying our best to answer the never ending stream of questions he’s been asking over the years, starting from “What does this word say?” to, most recently, “Why are the red blood cells red?” and “What is infinity divided by two?”.

Our son also attended a Montessori preschool for two years and they have wonderful educational materials that, in my opinion, help kids learn how to read, write, and do math much faster than the conventional methods teachers use. I believe that academically he progressed at that Montessori school much faster than he would have at a regular preschool (but he also progressed faster than his peers in his Montessori class).

And yes, if we made him watch the Cartoon Network instead of letting him watch the Discovery Science Channel, he would not know more about the solar system and the universe than I do.

But giftedness, or as some call it “raw intelligence,” is not something that can be “trained” or”taught.” I suppose if we kept our son locked up in a dark cellar he would not know as much as he knows, but I have a feeling he would figure out his way out of there anyway.

When he was two and started daycare, his teachers wrote in a monthly report that he likes exploring the room and that in his explorations he has dismantled the faucet above the kids’ sink. They had not known that the faucet could be taken apart because no other child before had tried to do it.

That ties into our son being special needs.

As much as I love him and admire his gifts, there are times when I’m absolutely sure a diagnosis of ADHD is just a matter of time. He’s always on the go, touching everything, pushing all the buttons he sees, opening all the drawers and doors, or at least trying to do that, no matter where we are, at home, in the doctor’s office, at the grocery store, or anywhere we are. He can’t eat a meal sitting down, he has to stand and fidgets all the time. When he sits down, he still fidgets, and sometimes he falls down and appears truly surprised he fell down. On the other hand, when we send him to the bathroom to brush his teeth, and go in after ten minutes to check on him, more likely than not he is has gotten distracted and is just playing with water, and of course has completely forgotten why he went there in the first place.

There are also times when I’m afraid he will end up heavily medicated or worse, institutionalized. Because even though for the most part he’s a sweet and loving kid, there are times when he licks the back of the seat in front of him, his hands, or the window and does not understand why I am so opposed to him doing it. There are times when he goes in his pants because he is too absorbed in doing something and is “too busy” to go to the bathroom. He also does not seem to understand why he should not do that. And there are times when he just spins or seems to be in his own world, ignoring or not hearing what we are trying to tell him.

And then, not very often, but every now and then, especially after a long weekend full of him being wild and unresponsive, the medication route looks very enticing.

If only I knew what is the right thing to do…

There are days when I am completely exhausted from dealing with him and originally I wrote here that there are times when I wished he were institutionalized or medicated, but I’ve decided to change that. The truth is, even on those days, after he goes to bed and I have had a chance to sit and think and calm down, all I really want is to know how to help him have a happy life.

By the way, our son does not have a clear cut diagnosis. He’s been evaluated by three different specialists, each from a very renowned clinic or center, specializing in child development and various mental, neurological, and developmental disorders. And each of them told us a different thing and recommended a different course of action to help him.

When was three, we were told by an MD, MPH specializing in developmental and behavioral pediatrics from the Developmental Medicine Center at the Children’s Hospital in Boston that he has a Developmental Coordination Disorder. That was also when the tests confirmed he’s gifted.

When he was five, an MD specializing in Autism spectrum disorders, attentional difficulties, learning disabilities and school problems at the Learning and Developmental Disabilities Evaluation and Rehabilitations Services (LADDERS) center said that he has PDD-NOS.

Shortly after that, we were told by a PhD in psychology specializing in Autism and Developmental Disabilities at the Center for Child and Adolescent Development that he’s “just a plain old bright fun kid.”

Both my husband and I are very committed to helping him. We always attend the IEP meetings together. I’ve also been reading a lot of books, scouring the Internet for information. But, as my husband says, it’s hard to help him, if we don’t know what it is we’re dealing with and what the best course of action would be. This blog is intended to be my record of what we’ve tried, what we’ve learned, and any progress (or lack thereof). I can already see it will also be therapeutic for me to write about our son. And if anyone happens to find any useful information here, that would be an added benefit.

Filed Under: ADHD, Autism, Gifted and Talented, Intelligence, PDD-NOS, Personal Information, Special Education