I really wish scientists would come up with better titles. As a side note, I'm sick at home today, and the upside about being sick is that you can write. So - let's look at Chapter 1, "Cognitive Neuropsychology and Five Dirty Words." Now that's a better title.These are well used words that describe behavior and achievement in ways that are entirely nonproductive. But they're easy to remember and everyone gets an iconic image of what's being expressed. They are nonproductive because they're too general. They don't relay information that can help solve the problem. Understand that while I summarize what the authors, Feifer and Toffalo, are saying, I'm also adding my own reactions to the information. That said, the words are:
1. Over-Achievement. You'd think that would be an asset. We understand it to mean someone who is achieving beyond what is expected. But it can be used to explain away discrepancies in test scores, which brings us to a dirty little secret of SPED. Students taken into special education programs have to pass specific guidelines set by congress. Basically, they are discrepancy numbers between IQ and academic scores. That means, there has to be a significant difference (pretty much 15%) between what a student's IQ number is and what his school work is scored at. The dirty little secret is that all educators know that an IQ test measures only some of the many areas of intelligences of which the human being is capable. Also, the overall score gives a very vague measure of the limited areas of intelligence measured, and often neglects to provide sufficient information was to why a student has scored at that level. In other words, this is extremely limited information that can determine a child's ability to receive much needed help. So what happens if your child's IQ score is low and he's scoring normally in academic testing? Then he's an over-achiever, and probably not qualified for services, even if he's struggling. This is another example of the problem of high stakes testing. A critical area of human intelligence that IQ and academic tests typically miss is in the area referred to as "executive functioning." The intelligence that allows a person to "perceive stimuli, respond adaptively, flexibly change directions, anticipate future goals, consider consequences....." or what we would call "common sense." Feifer and Taffalo go on to point out that the person administering the test is performing all of these functions: what, where and how will the test be performed, what are the time constraints, and what will be measured. Yet executive functioning is critical to success. It can compensate for problems in academic learning. It can also destroy a student's ability to function even when academic functioning is good.
2. Potential: the IQ test is supposed to measure a person's potential. Cognitive psychology is an attempt to synthesize information from neurology, psychology, education, and medicine to produce a study of how the brain functions. Intelligence, again, is many faceted, To best intervene, to help a struggling student, we need to understand specific problems that may be the result of physical, emotional, or environmental causes. We simply can't measure (or pigeon hole) a student's potential based on test scores.
3. Discrepancy: repeat item one. Congress has mandated, and most state comply, with a discrepancy model to identify students who need intervention. Establish the IQ, compare it with academic testing scores, and the students who rank sufficiently below their IQ will get help. Problems outside of academics are also tested (emotional problems especially), but those problems have to affect academics in order to receive extra support. The authors point out that younger students may not score low enough for services, and must therefore wait for future retesting before intervention can occur. The wait and fail model means further damage (both academically and emotionally) and will require greater effort to correct later. I have personally seen students who have reached a point where they will no longer respond to help, they are so withdrawn and hostile.
4. Lazy: an easy way to blame the student. It lets a teacher off the hook. I've fallen into this trap myself if I can't get a student to respond to my efforts. But lazy is a behavioral term and therefore should respond to behavioral intervention. Why can't or won't the student respond? Is it a processing speed problem? Is it an inability to organize thought and stay on task? Is it a knowledge gap? Motivational? Distractability? Inability to initiate work? It is the authors' view that labeling a student lazy should really just open up a whole new set of why's.
5. Manipulative: my favorite. We are all manipulative. We all try to change our environment to suit us, interpret information to support our views, use the system to get what we want, and try to convince others we are justified. We all manipulate to survive by control. The student who is overtly manipulative feels a greater need to control. Many of these students don't recognize when reinterpreting information is lying. They don't understand cheating is wrong or prolonged debate is arguing. Only by understanding the underlying cause and then helping the student develop socially acceptable limits on manipulation can we help a student become successful.
There was also great information on brain function and specific regions that control areas of executive functioning. All in all - a very interesting chapter.
1. Over-Achievement. You'd think that would be an asset. We understand it to mean someone who is achieving beyond what is expected. But it can be used to explain away discrepancies in test scores, which brings us to a dirty little secret of SPED. Students taken into special education programs have to pass specific guidelines set by congress. Basically, they are discrepancy numbers between IQ and academic scores. That means, there has to be a significant difference (pretty much 15%) between what a student's IQ number is and what his school work is scored at. The dirty little secret is that all educators know that an IQ test measures only some of the many areas of intelligences of which the human being is capable. Also, the overall score gives a very vague measure of the limited areas of intelligence measured, and often neglects to provide sufficient information was to why a student has scored at that level. In other words, this is extremely limited information that can determine a child's ability to receive much needed help. So what happens if your child's IQ score is low and he's scoring normally in academic testing? Then he's an over-achiever, and probably not qualified for services, even if he's struggling. This is another example of the problem of high stakes testing. A critical area of human intelligence that IQ and academic tests typically miss is in the area referred to as "executive functioning." The intelligence that allows a person to "perceive stimuli, respond adaptively, flexibly change directions, anticipate future goals, consider consequences....." or what we would call "common sense." Feifer and Taffalo go on to point out that the person administering the test is performing all of these functions: what, where and how will the test be performed, what are the time constraints, and what will be measured. Yet executive functioning is critical to success. It can compensate for problems in academic learning. It can also destroy a student's ability to function even when academic functioning is good.
2. Potential: the IQ test is supposed to measure a person's potential. Cognitive psychology is an attempt to synthesize information from neurology, psychology, education, and medicine to produce a study of how the brain functions. Intelligence, again, is many faceted, To best intervene, to help a struggling student, we need to understand specific problems that may be the result of physical, emotional, or environmental causes. We simply can't measure (or pigeon hole) a student's potential based on test scores.
3. Discrepancy: repeat item one. Congress has mandated, and most state comply, with a discrepancy model to identify students who need intervention. Establish the IQ, compare it with academic testing scores, and the students who rank sufficiently below their IQ will get help. Problems outside of academics are also tested (emotional problems especially), but those problems have to affect academics in order to receive extra support. The authors point out that younger students may not score low enough for services, and must therefore wait for future retesting before intervention can occur. The wait and fail model means further damage (both academically and emotionally) and will require greater effort to correct later. I have personally seen students who have reached a point where they will no longer respond to help, they are so withdrawn and hostile.
4. Lazy: an easy way to blame the student. It lets a teacher off the hook. I've fallen into this trap myself if I can't get a student to respond to my efforts. But lazy is a behavioral term and therefore should respond to behavioral intervention. Why can't or won't the student respond? Is it a processing speed problem? Is it an inability to organize thought and stay on task? Is it a knowledge gap? Motivational? Distractability? Inability to initiate work? It is the authors' view that labeling a student lazy should really just open up a whole new set of why's.
5. Manipulative: my favorite. We are all manipulative. We all try to change our environment to suit us, interpret information to support our views, use the system to get what we want, and try to convince others we are justified. We all manipulate to survive by control. The student who is overtly manipulative feels a greater need to control. Many of these students don't recognize when reinterpreting information is lying. They don't understand cheating is wrong or prolonged debate is arguing. Only by understanding the underlying cause and then helping the student develop socially acceptable limits on manipulation can we help a student become successful.
There was also great information on brain function and specific regions that control areas of executive functioning. All in all - a very interesting chapter.