Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Twice Exceptional Slope

Would anything in this article help make a case?
https://www.nagc.org/sites/default/...s%20Receive%20Appropriate%20Services.pdf
Does the PsyD have 2E expertise?

It's difficult enough trying to advocate in an educational setting. I don't envy your situation. If the other parent is open (:/), sometimes relying on someone with expertise to do the explaining can help mitigate ego fallout.

The importance of the RCI is in determining whether this child's relative standing compared to his peers has changed between the first and second administration. If the RCI is not significantly different, it means his growth relative to his peers has been relatively similar. If he was behind before, he has not caught up. If he was ahead, he has maintained that lead. In this case, even though the RCI is considered not significant, it is still negative, so it means that, although his rate of growth has been a bit slower than that of his peers, it is only somewhat slower, not enormously slower. (The conventional RCI cutoff for significance is an arbitrary number; I've seen numbers from 1.645 to 1.96. Even if his RCI is below that cutoff, it still means something.)

If his reading comprehension level now isn't significantly different relative to his peers than it was in 2011, I'm curious:

Has he been given remediation for his dyslexia? (I'm guessing he has?) If he's been in a program where he's been receiving remediation, you'd expect his functioning relative to his peers to be at a higher level now. (I think - but I'm just a parent, not a professional, so take my questions and advice with a huge bottle of salt ).

From my totally non-professional point of view, I'd think that the fact that his reading comprehension is measuring at low average is the important point to make here, and that it points to lack of adequate remediation - unless his other cognitive abilities measure at low average too.

Sorry I'm not much help - I hope things go well for you at the hearing!

Best wishes,

polarbear

The takeaway from his RCI is that he has not caught up. Instead, the gap is slowly widening between him and his peers. Because it is widening slowly, rather than rapidly, the RCI is not > 1.96 (the admittedly arbitrary figure for significance), but it is still quite a bit bigger in magnitude than 0, and, more importantly, it is negative. Whatever remediation he has been receiving for the past several years has not closed the gap, because if it had resolved his impediments to reading comprehension, his RCI would now be positive, indicating that he had acquired more effective tools for developing reading comprehension skills than the ones he had in 2011.

Thank you aeh and polarbear...

If I am understanding correctly you are looking to explain that he is falling further behind his peers rather than catching up - right? And that even if he is only slightly further behind than he was 4 years earlier that is still significant.

The best way I have seen it worded in layman terms - you need to see more than a year's progress in a year's time or they will never catch up.

His peers are presumably gaining each year - if he gains an equal amount he will always remain behind. If he makes less than a year's progess in a year's time he will continue to lose more ground. Each year's loss may be incremental but each of those incremental losses add up to being further and further behind his peers.

Proper remediation CAN close the gap. If he is further behind his peers today than he was 4 years ago the remediation has not been successful. For example my DD went from decoding below grade level to decoding at grade level to decoding above grade level during that same time period. That's demonstrative of successful remediation.

Thank you Pemberley... I know this sounds so silly to go into this fine detail of a micro-argument. The good new is that when I finally get to the District... I'll be prepared....