Hello and welcome to the What in the World is Dyscalculia podcast.
This podcast is presented by Educalclearning hosted by me, Dr. Honora Wall.
If you have questions about what this is or how to help your child or student who has
this or if you are an adult with this, please visit our website, educalclearning.com or
email me, Honora at educalclearning.com and I'd be happy to talk with you directly about
your specific questions.
In today's podcast episode, I want to talk about the deficit model of diagnosing any
learning disability or any learning disorder, including dyscalculia.
And there's a lot of thoughts about the deficit model and whether or not we should continue
using it.
I think we should change the terminology, but I think we should follow the model.
So let's talk about what all of this means.
Using a deficit model is the common term to talk about how we use testing to identify
learning challenges that are not temporary, something that has to do with atypical neurodevelopment
such as dyslexia, dyscalculia, dysgraphia, high functioning autism versus something that
is a temporary condition.
Low numeracy, having a weak math foundation, a lot of times students in low socioeconomic
communities are not considered to have a learning disability because having a low SES environment
is something that can be overcome through interventions.
So we use this model to identify when we have a specific type of concern that needs to be
addressed differently.
A lot of people don't like using the term deficit model because they think it focuses
on weaknesses rather than strengths.
And certainly as educators and as math coaches and interventionists and as parents, we want
to focus on student strengths because they all have strengths and that's where we begin
building future success from that base of the strength.
But we also want to know where we have problem areas, concerns, issues that need to be addressed
and supported in a certain way.
So the deficit model came about historically by giving a battery of test, IQ test, working
memory test, processing speed test, reading and computational ability test, etc., etc.,
administered by trained licensed psychologists or neurologists who are trained in administering
and interpreting the scores from these tests.
And within those results, we look to see is there a difference between a person's performance
and what we assume their performance should be based on the rest of their scores.
So when we find a student who has higher scores in most areas of the different battery of test
and yet there's a significantly lower score in reading or in math or in writing, then
we know that we're looking at a potential atypical neurodevelopment, some sort of specific learning
disorder.
So that's where the term came from.
We're looking to see where's the difference, where are the low points that we are surprised
by because the rest of the scores have higher points.
So there's nothing negative in that system.
But in that wording, saying that we're using a deficit model, that's where we run into
trouble and people really have a problem with that wording.
Sounds like we're focusing on the wrong thing.
And I can agree with that.
I would say let's try calling it a discrepancy model instead.
A discrepancy is a more neutral term.
We're seeing a difference that we don't expect to see.
And it shows us that we need to look further into a certain area.
So we're not focusing on weaknesses and we're not saying that a person has something wrong
with them.
We're saying we didn't expect to see this score.
This person should be scoring higher.
Let's take a further look and see what we can do to support them in this area.
But that kind of model is very important and very useful for identifying student needs,
which is the point of going through testing.
It's very important that we look at neuropsychological evaluations for students before we decide whether
or not they have a specific learning disorder like dyscalculia.
And the discrepancy is really a key feature of what we're looking for in that battery
of tests.
So first I'm going to focus on the tests and why that discrepancy is important.
And then I'm going to look at some other methods that people sometimes use and why I don't
think they are as comprehensive as neuropsych evals.
So first of all, if we have a neuropsychological evaluation, we get a complete picture of the
student.
This gives us a lot of information and having very low scores in math, which would identify
dyscalculia, reading, which would identify dyslexia, or writing skills, which would identify dysgraphia.
That's really key because some of our students have very fast processing speed or they have
great working memory skills or they have superb executive function skills.
And those skills cause them to have higher performance in the majority of the tests that
we give them.
And yet we can see a discrepancy in those key content areas, math, reading, or writing.
I had a student a few years ago, and this was such an interesting case to me.
The student was very, very driven and had extremely fast processing speed and very high
working memory scores.
She also very clearly had ADHD and dyscalculia.
She was able to support herself through elementary, middle, and high school, got really strong
grades in everything except for math, had really strong test scores in every area except
for math, and was able to be accepted into an Ivy League university.
This was great.
She was very excited.
She was also struggling through her math classes at this Ivy League school because she did
not have any accommodations of any kind.
And it was very difficult for her to get accommodations that were useful for her dyscalculia.
So in an effort to explain more of her needs to the school and to help her get the support
she needed, her parents got her an updated neuropsych evaluation.
Well the interpretation came back as saying that she did not have dyscalculia because
her math scores were in the high 30s, maybe low 40th percentile, which is outside our
typical range of looking at that tail end of the bell curve and saying, oh, 25th percentile,
that's where we're going to have an issue.
However, every other score in every other part of this very comprehensive battery of
tests, the student scored in the 99th percentile.
The only place where she scored less than the 99th percentile was in math.
So she did not show a deficit in math abilities, but she showed a huge discrepancy between
her math performance and the expected performance based on all of her other testing.
So if we had used a discrepancy model, if the psychologist who administered the test
had looked through that lens, this would have been clear.
And instead, it wasn't, and those results did not help the student get any accommodations.
So moving away from just having that deficit idea in our head, but acknowledging discrepancies
is really important.
I also like the discrepancy model for students who have gone through a period of time where
they've worked with a trained dyscalculia specialist because my students, after a year or two,
sometimes only one year of tutoring work, going through the program and using the accommodations
that Educate Learning recommends, they end up scoring in the 36th percentile on Iowa
Test of Basic Skills, on most of their neuropsychological evaluations, on their state mandated testing.
They're hitting a high level two, low level three, and this shows that they have growth.
It can be interpreted to look like they've moved on away from having dyscalculia, and
that's not true.
Just because they've moved away from a deficit standard, they still have a discrepancy standard
where their math performance is lower than performance in other key areas.
These students still need their accommodations, and they still need to have the right support,
where those scores are going to go right back down to where they were before we did some
interventions.
The classroom grades, however, are not likely to go back down.
I have not seen that with my students looking at longer term results.
I have not done a full longitudinal study, so this is anecdotal information, but our
students maintain their ability to perform very well in class, engage in math, think
of themselves as mathematical thinkers, and do very well until they get to a standardized
test that does not allow for accommodations.
Then they kind of hit a ceiling of about that 35th-ish percentile.
We see that discrepancy, and I highly encourage educators to focus on those discrepancy areas.
If you're a psychologist or a neurologist listening, think about this when you're interpreting
results.
There's a discrepancy that is significant, not only a deficit as compared to a dry percentile.
That's what happens when we look at the full battery of diagnostic testing, which I always
prefer.
I'm always very happy when I get a neuropsych evaluation on a student because I have a lot
of information to work with, and I know exactly where to jump in with the work.
A student who has fast processing speed needs a different approach than a student who has
slower processing speed.
We need different types of support.
Same is true for working memory skills and for visual spatial skills.
We just don't get that kind of information if we look at a response to intervention program
or if we're simply looking at report card grades or standardized test scores on those
state mandated tests.
The issue I have with using an RTI or just classroom-based performance as a way to screen
for dyscalculia is that we have no idea whether or not the student has a learning disorder,
the math learning disability that we're talking about, they might just have low numeracy or
weak foundation.
They might just have severe test anxiety.
Maybe they freeze.
We're not going to know that until we see more information from a more complete battery
of testing.
If we're just looking at whether or not a student responded to Tier 2 or Tier 3 interventions,
we don't know why and we don't know if we've done the right intervention work to support
their needs.
So we could very well have been giving the wrong prescription glasses and wonder why the
student still can't see to use one of my favorite analogies.
So we need to know about the discrepancies between a student's performance in a specific
area, math reading or writing, as compared to what we expect based on the rest of their
battery of tests.
So there is a lot of talk about moving away from a deficit model and that conversation
turns into throwing out neuropsychological evaluations and saying, oh, we're going to focus
on student's strengths, put them into an RTI or some other intervention-based program,
and we're going to just use these tiers of support to move them into strength.
The problem is we have no idea what's causing the problem for the student, so we have no
idea if we're using the right interventions or not.
All we know is that things aren't working and we can't figure out why.
So if you have the choice, and a lot of times we don't, these evaluations are costly and
not all schools are in a position to administer them.
They may or may not have a school psychologist on staff.
They may or may not have the funding for this kind of testing, or they may or may not understand
the importance of this kind of testing and the difference between a full battery of test
versus the intervention programs they're doing.
And this can be hard for parents.
Yes, you can go get your own evaluation done, but not all insurance is covered.
They can be very expensive.
But if you have the opportunity, getting an evaluation from a licensed psychologist or
neurologist definitely gives us the most information.
Ask the test administrator if they work from a discrepancy model.
Talk to them about that.
How do they interpret those scores and what are they looking for when they look for learning
disorders or other disabilities, and have that conversation.
When you get those scores back, take a look at the percentile ranks in many different
areas and see where there are discrepancies.
Not deficits, but discrepancies, a difference in what we expect then in how the student
performed.
That's our key bit of information for determining the best support for students.
If you have a neuropsych evaluation and you're not sure what all of this means, please reach
out to me at Hanora H-O-N-O-R-A at educaalclearning.com.
And I'll be happy to talk with you about the results and what that might mean for your
student or for your child.
If you are a school or a school district wanting to do more training for your teachers in how
to interpret these evaluations and what kind of support should be put into place based on
discrepancies that come up in these evaluations, please reach out.
I've done a lot of reviewing and analyzing and making recommendations for schools in
different parts of the country and for parents who want to know more about their student
and how their brain works.
And I'm happy to help you out with that as well.
You can also go to the website, educaalclearning.com, go through our blog post, go through some
of our information where we touch on different areas of the diagnosis process and what that
means and how you can use those results to put a great plan into place.
This is how the students who use the educaalclearning model find their path to success.
We use all the data we can find to create the best path forward and we let that drive
our initial interventions and accommodations.
And then we tweak when we find out what works best for the student.
We get rid of things that aren't working as well and we try to move them away from being
pulled out of their classroom, away from being pulled out of a brick and mortar school, trying
to give them as many options as they can with their local public school if that's the family's
choice and really just give that information, make it useful for the student and for the
school.
So to sum up, if you hear someone talking about a deficit model, they're really just
talking about what kind of evaluations are we using and how do we interpret them.
Don't think of it as deficits.
Think of that as looking for discrepancies, looking for areas that catch our attention
because we expected a different level of performance based on the other test.
Let those discrepancies guide you towards the best path for supporting students.
Thank you for listening to What in the World is Dyscalculia and I will speak with you again
soon.
I'm Dr. Honora Wall signing off.