Update on Smiley

This post involves the medical condition/academic evaluation of Smiley; if that doesn't interest you, kindly skip it. I hate reading about medical conditions just about as much as I hated writing this one,  so I'll understand.

A very confusing day regarding Smiley:

We had an in-home visit by a cognitive researcher, whatever that is, to determine how much his hearing problems have inhibited his learning. That was what I was told the visit was about, but in actuality it also seemed to judge his overall learning potential and intelligence.

Basically the lady showed up, plopped herself down on my living room rug and ran Smiley through a series of tests. He took to her quickly and seemed at ease. He did well at first but within a few minutes seemed to lose his way.  

According to the woman's vernacular he acted according to his 'own agenda'.

The results are confusing, with Lisa coming away with a more positive outlook than I did, and both of us drawing different conclusions from the same statements.

Overall he tested at average to slightly below average learning ability, although the researcher admitted his attention span played a role in that verdict. She termed his attention span very low but did not slap a label on it, having made clear that ADD is in her opinion 'very over diagnosed' in children. She admitted some of it could just be due to an 'off' day, and some could be because he has yet to be exposed to an organized classroom.

She said he was very behind on his speech and could not put two words together, whereas by his age he should (at a minimum) be putting 3 or 4 together.

She deemed him in need of medical/therapeutic 'intervention'. We asked if it was something that, left untreated, would have cleared up by itself so that he was 'normal' by YaYa's age.

"Oh, no," she said. "He needs some help"

Remember that Montessori school we were so happy he was accepted into? The researcher, although she has no say in it, said it was completely the wrong environment for him. If he bounces back enough to attend in the fall she recommended a different, more structured classroom setting.

Here's an odd thing: she told us to forget about toilet training. She said it went hand in hand with his speech development and that it would be taken care of by any educational program he was put in over the summer.

That was my interpretation: Lisa believes it to be more positive, pointing to the fact that even given his attention span today he ranked as 'average' or close to it and seemed to do well on many of the tests, esp. those involving building. She also points out that he was able to ID many items and colors and followed decently complicated directions.

"You're just upset that he isn't a Danny," Lisa said later. "But that isn't the end of the world. He'll be fine."

The speech pathologist was supposed to do her gig today too but rescheduled for tomorrow afternoon, which SUCKS, as I'd cleared today's schedule and had obligations Thursday.

Then, while on the road, Lisa called me. She was upset because a different cognitive researcher had called and said she would attend the speech evaluation tomorrow. Apparently woman #1 called her and recommended a second opinion based on some questionable 'test results'.

A whole lot of confusion and questions errupted. In response woman #1 called back and reitterated that she evaluates potential, whearas the second woman checks current ability.

Seems redundant, given I can't imagine they use different tests, but whatever. I'm begining to distrust the process in my conservative core; the 'welfare state' is rarely your ally.

But we'll see what the folks tomorrow say, and then what the big panel review on next Wednesday deems the best course of action.

Tags: Smiley