Revising this to give an update!

So, we discussed this BASC at the meeting. I got some answers and, in my opinion, the teacher's responses and clarification basically invalidate her BASC-2 rating. The meeting was recorded so I can play the recording and/or submit the recording to the ADHD evaluators.

For the one that she answered "always" "Fails to complete tests" She said she read that as "tasks" so that was a mistake. (uh okay). For the "always" "disrupts other children's work," and "always" "disrupts other children's activities" those type questions she explained (and totally corroborated my stance that this is just *not* DS. In fact she said that pretty clearly and directly) that he doesn't purposely bother other children and burst into their work and activities and disrupt them, he doesn't try to get reactions out of people, seek to disrupt others, etc... It's just that his inattentiveness, his 'get lost in the steps' behaviors and his fidgeting is *cause for disruption* in the class. I simply clarified and did not get upset with her or argue but I really do not think that is what the question was trying to elicit at all. The question did not ask if DS's behaviors are a cause for disruption the questions asked 'does student disrupt other's work' and 'does student purposely bother other students.' I think more than one even says "purposefully." The observations also show what is going on in the classroom and they show a kid who is basically kind-of spaced out at times and missing multistep transitions and directions. Not a student being purposefully disruptive, "always" acting "out of control," calling out crazy stuff just for a laugh, bothering people and disobeying just for the heck of it, ect. And there are SEVERAL observations. They also show that he is not "always" inattentive or "never" listens/pays attention. It that about "a quarter of the time" particularly during the transitions he has trouble keeping up and staying on the task of transitioning and number of days/observations it was a little as 15%. So not "always" and not "never" - once on task, he usually stays on task.

And catch this, for the social ones where she put "always picked last" and "always excluded" Apparently this isn't actually happening she is just assuming it would happen. She actually uses sticks to make teams/partners or just assigns them. I mean, is that a valid thing to do on the BASC? Make an assumption like that? How can she put "always" "picked last for teams" when she assigns teams? She doesn't see him at out-door recess or lunch so she doesn't see him playing with the friends he tells me about and the ones that come over our house. I think all of that is colored by her negative impression of him. DS feels himself to have friends so I guess that is the important thing. But how valid is this BASC?

I also felt I heard negative halo effect. For example, in one observation that the school psych did she said she was observing DS playing a math game with his advanced math group. She said she heard him say "danger zone' a few times during the game and was wondering what he was talking about. She said two other students joined the game (you join the game once finished your work) and she heard them go off and ask the teacher (who was still helping other kids doing work what the "danger zone" was. Teacher said that she didn't know. Psych told us (made an assumption) "he had the word "danger zone" in his head, it was totally irrelevant and only in *his* head and he just couldn't get it out." She added something like "and that's okay but stuff like that looks weird to his peers and it is atypical for a second grader." Well, DS is indeed a quirky kid. But I promise you he is NOT that weird. I can assure this had something to do with the game and some one else was involved. I asked her if she had asked him about it and of course she didn't because why would we ask the actual kid what is going on his head? Let's all just make an assumption that he is "atypical" because it is so much fun. Well, I asked DS about the "Danger Zone" that night. He said it was something about which only the boys were knowledgeable. He explained that, during the first round of the game, he and some other boys decided "to try to make the entire board the 'danger zone' with the angry blue guys." He said for second round, he was suggesting it again as angry blue guys filled the screen but he came to realize that the others did not seem to want to do it the second time. He insisted it was something that some other boys playing the game had been involved in as well and that the students who were questioning the meaning of it "were probably girls" (and perhaps they were not involved the first time around?) Although he is definitely quirky, he's usually not quite that completely 'out there' that he would imagining all that or it was just some random thing stuck in his head that he couldn't stop saying. Why didn't she just ask him rather than make an assumption that it was a completely some sort of "atypical-type behavior."

Last edited by Irena; 02/02/14 08:52 AM.