Is it possible a child has a low IQ?

marina

Sun, Jul 03 2016, 1:50 am

There are many ways of explaining IQ. Here is one I often used: IQ is comprised of two main areas: verbal reasoning and visual spatial reasoning. Memory and processing speed direct to what extent the person can display their IQ to the world. So if you have very high verbal and visual reasoning but very low processing speed, you will actually be very bright but will have a difficult time displaying it to the world because you will be processing and responding to information slowly.

There are different disorders so I'm not sure what processing disorder you are referring to, but maybe what I wrote helps you understand that IQ has different components.

FranticFrummie

Sun, Jul 03 2016, 2:02 am

Marina nailed it.

My DD is way more than two standard deviations above the norm for language, but well below two standard deviations for math and processing. I was told that her IQ was 115, but if her math skills were at age level, she would be well into the genius category.

She struggles with cause and effect, social skills, executive planning, gross motor skills, and auditory processing. She is often misunderstood by schools, because they keep thinking "Why is this so hard for you? You're so SMART! You must not be trying."

Is she delayed, or is she brilliant? These are the kids who are called "Twice Exceptional" (Google it).

amother

Blue

Mon, Jul 04 2016, 2:30 pm

Jeanette wrote:

If the point is bragging rights, then yeah, not everyone can be a genius. But if your point is to help your child function better, then it's important to know your child's areas of strength and weakness so they can be targeted. As other posters said, each child can be successful and even brilliant in their own way.

I guess my point is that I think that someone who has a language processing or auditory processing disorder will ultimately have the same consequences as someone with a low iq. They will both struggle academically, not understand instructions well, won't understand what they read properly, and struggle socially. It seems the reason we use the term "processing disorder" instead of "low iq" is because: a) its much less offensive and b) it helps the parents feel better about things as it gives false hope that its a fixable problem. A low iq can't really be fixed but a processing disorder is fixable. However, the truth is that a processing disorder is very unlikely to be fixed. Most young teens with processing disorders were diagnosed years ago and here they are years later struggling with the same problems. The only solutions are the same as with low iq which is put these children in a remedial class and give them easier work. This puts unfair and unreasonable expectations on the teachers and schools because now they are supposedly working with a fixable problem and its their job to fix it.

amother

Purple

Mon, Jul 04 2016, 2:40 pm

amother wrote:

I'm no expert but I think this is untrue .

My daughter has processing issues and attends a remedial school. They only accept children with a normal iq for the very reason that processing disorders can be addressed. They might not "fix" the problem but teach the child skills in order to function in a main stream class.
In these schools , 95 percent of the kids can mainstream and cope in a normal school environment. They teach them in a different way with wonderful results. These kids don't fit into the school system but a lot of then are super smart and will excel with the right input.

My daughter is an example of this. She is intelligent, insightful, sociable and has a brilliant memory. She also has a processing problem. I would not say she is in the same category as a child with a low iq.
It seems like the remedial teachers you have come into contact with are not properly trained??

marina

Mon, Jul 04 2016, 3:53 pm

amother wrote:

A processing disorder is something you can teach kids to compensate for, a low iq is not.

But it seems like you have other issues, like complaints about PC or how much work teachers have to do or something like that.

amother

Blue

Mon, Jul 04 2016, 4:04 pm

marina wrote:

Maybe I'm wrong, I hope so. My dh works in a school for developmentally delayed students. It's a high school. He always says that the school waters down the work to make it appear that the students are thriving. They get good grades and the parents are happy. The only problem is when they graduate and its time to apply to college and take the SAT they are hopelessly behind and exposed. The parents are confused as to why their son who was doing so well in so many subjects is bombing on the SAT's.

PassionFruit

Mon, Jul 04 2016, 4:26 pm

I don't believe in IQ at all actually. I like the types of intelligence's as a better gauge of HOW your child is intelligent. http://skyview.vansd.org/lschm.....e.htm
The idea is that all people are intelligent in some way, and if a teacher cannot reach a child, it is because the teacher does not have the tools to reach them in traditional methods. MOST kids do well when you teach them in THEIR intelligence. Humans have an innate desire to learn. Some kids have issues with listening, true, but they have other strengths that the teacher should learn!
There are those who do have actual "learning disabilities" but the intelligence still apply and they will have a meathod that is BEST for them.
I am so fed up with how single minded teachers are these days. (meaning, for the most part, shut up and listen and take notes and spit it back)

Jeanette

Mon, Jul 04 2016, 5:09 pm

amother wrote:

Well maybe the mistake is pretending that the HS is preparing them for college instead of something else. At some point during HS each student should get some kind of career counseling to figure out the best track for them. College is not a given for everyone. And if the students really are determined and motivated to go to college they should have a sense of what the requirements of college will be (what type of college) and what they need to do to prepare.

debsey

Mon, Jul 04 2016, 5:22 pm

amother wrote:

Untrue - they are completely distinct categories. A child with a normal fluid reasoning abilities and poor auditory processing (what some would call a "visual learner") can be helped to learn to process auditory information properly, until their disability is completely ameliorated. That child will then be no different than anyone else (except that this child will probably always favor the visual mode of learning over the auditory one).

A child with a low IQ will generally have a low IQ across the board. IQ is normally distributed across the population, which means that of course there are some kids with a low IQ out there. You generally find them in special education environments.

Because IQ is a conglomerate score of many individual domains, the child with poor auditory processing or poor language processing, but above-average fluid reasoning (or the converse - the child with nonverbal learning disorders) will actually test as having an "average" IQ (because the low and high will average out to - well, average) this is an oversimplification, but essentially correct.

The child with a true learning disability in only one domain of functioning should not be an undue burden on the teacher. That's what we have LDTCs, speech-language therapists, and the like for! Those children should be handled based on the recommendations of the professionals in their respective field. If the disorder is severe enough, then yes, a self-contained classroom environment is best.

The SCHOOL is not being asked to fix it. The school is being asked to comply with the professionals. It's the professional's job to "fix" it, or at least, ameliorate some of its effects. I'm sure you don't mean to come across this way, but your attitude sounds like a throwback to the resistance special educators had in the early years of the field. I'm sure it's coming from frustration, but as the mom of a child with learning disabilities who is successfully mainstreamed (thanks to a really dedicated team of special educators, including a reading specialist, kriyah specialist, OT, speech therapist, etc) I find some of your assumptions to be hurtful.

marina

Mon, Jul 04 2016, 7:09 pm

amother wrote:

I guess I'm being a little to honest. Bottom line, what % of children with dyslexia or processing disorders end up becoming doctors, lawyers, nurses, accountants, engineers or other fields that require schooling and the ability to read and understand? I would imagine very few. That's why I feel that children with these issues are academically no better off than low iq students because the end result is the same.

You're not being too honest. You're being too uneducated. Plenty of pple with dyslexia or processing disorders become professionals. They just learn to compensate.

I recently met a medical resident who has severe dyslexia. He always had a hard time reading so all his books were on tape. Except he learned to compensate and listens to audio at 4x the speed- it's incomprehensible to anyone else, but he hears and understands it just fine. He took the classes and exams and did well. And in real life he's a fine doctor.

Your husband's school might be doing a crappy job of educating the kids, but there's no reason to equate all disabilities with cognitive delay.

debsey

Mon, Jul 04 2016, 7:59 pm

amother wrote:

1) Do you have a learning disability? Because your spelling is a bit.....below average. Sorry if that was too direct, but you're really getting under my skin.

2) You mean people like, oh say, Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison,(who had, respectively, Asperger's Disorder and learning disabilities)? Or do you mean such illiterates as William Butler Yeats or Agatha Christie? (Who were both dyslexic)? Or do you mean a scientist like Carol Greider (winner of the Nobel Prize in microbiology and dyslexic)? You have GOT to be kidding me!

3) In short - the ones who don't come across educators with your attitude do very well.

4) There is a difference between honesty and invincible ignorance.

Excuse me while I go upstairs to hug and kiss my son!

amother

Royalblue

Mon, Jul 04 2016, 8:40 pm

marina wrote:

Sure, there are some disabilities that are in some instances clearly distinguishable from cognitive weakness. But those are the exception rather than the rule. It is fairly obvious to everyone when a kid is brilliant but can't read, that it might be dyslexia. It might be obvious to a therapist in other circumstances where lay people would not pick up on it. But what OP seems to be referring to, which I observe all the time, is a bunch of lay people spouting buzzwords that explain how every single kid is equally smart but some of them are "sensory" or "visual" or "gluten sensitive". That is clearly not true.