I’ve re-read what I wrote yesterday, and something got lost in the ramblings. What gets me isn’t solely in regard to my son in particular. What gets me is that the “experts” insist that their tests measure everything, to the point that if many autistic children display a skill that would be lauded in neurotypical kids, they decide the skill indicates a problem with the autistic children rather than that their tests might not give valid results. They know – by their own testing and labeling – that these children are not typical, and yet insist upon using tests designed for neurotypical kids and applying the results as though pervasive neurological differences wouldn’t affect the results. To me, that seems ridiculous on the face of it.
Maybe I’m oversimplifying, but it seems to me that if you have a group of children who read very early but get low scores on standard intelligence tests, then the obvious conclusion should be that there’s a problem with the tests as applied to those kids. But instead I’ve heard “no, the tests scores are low, so therefore the reading must indicate a problem.” Huh?
Or maybe it’s a problem with “boxed” thinking.
How can reading early EVER be an indication of a problem? That is nonsensical in the extreme! (Says the woman with a 300 sq ft appt and books lining 3 walls)
Look up “hyperlexia“.
Looked it up, and it still makes no sense to me. *shrugs* Good thing I’m not a psychologist.
That’s precisely my point. It doesn’t make sense. It simply means the child reads early, and that shouldn’t be a “condition”. It’s a skill.