Intelligence Quotient Quotient

Yesterday was Diminutive One's weekly therapist appointment. We took a bit of a break over the summer, which was nice, but it was good to be back in her cheerfully serene waiting room once again. Though getting there and back during rush hour is an exercise in insanity, I have come to look upon that hour as a welcome respite from life's chaos and calamity.

They have good magazines there. Current ones. InStyle, Redbook, Entertainment Weekly, Time, Newsweek. Each month I work my way through the new editions, reveling in the indulgence of being completely inert for a full hour. There are no distractions to prick my conscience and prod me into productivity. There are no children demanding my time or attention. I can't multitask or network or interface.

So I sip my coffee or soft drink, settle into the commodious sofa and read to my heart's content.

To be quite honest, I usually start with the girly mags. They are a pleasure I don't often afford myself. But this week, an article in Newsweek caught my attention. I have a close friend whose six year old son is Autistic, so when I saw the article titled "The Puzzle of Hidden Ability" by Sharon Begley, I was intrigued. The article discusses the enigmatic issue of IQ and intelligence in autistic children, and challenges conventional testing protocols.

These protocols commonly require the test subject to engage with another individual. Since difficulty with social interaction is one of the more pronounced characteristics of Autism, one researcher asserts that it is like "giving a blind person a test that requires him to process visual information."

In a recent study, Austic children were given two tests to assess intelligence. One, the more commonly administered Wechsler test, requires the test subject to perform a variety of skills, reasoning and verbal comprehension exercises, almost exclusively in response to questions posed by the administrator of the test, who in many cases is a stranger, thereby compounding the problem. On the second test, the Raven's Progressive Matrices test, they were given brief instructions and then went on to perform a series of tasks on their own.

The disparity in test results was amazing. On the Wechsler test, the average score was in the 30th percentile, which is considered "low average" intelligence. On the RPM, the average score was in the 56th percentile. On the Wechsler scale, none of the test subjects scored in the "high intelligence" range, while on the RPM scale, fully a third of them were classified as such.

One child, who was classified as mentally retarded using the Wechlser scale, scored in the 94th percentile on the RPM scale.

Think about that.

That means that thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of autistic children since the advent of the autism spectrum disorder classification, have been treated and taught (or not taught, as the case may be) as if they were mentally deficient, when in fact, many of them have harbored a keen intelligence buried deeply inside the labyrinth of their puzzling and complex brains.

Countless sparks of genuine potential were never fanned into the flames of realization.

That is simply astounding. And deeply disheartening.

What's interesting is that the Wechler test measures "crystallized intelligence"; what one has already learned, while the RPM measures "fluid intelligence"; the ability to reason, solve problems, process information, and focus.

Does it surprise any of you that the RPM test is a more accurate indicator of intelligence? It doesn't surprise me. But what does surprise me, is that it's taken so long for someone to question conventional test methods and indicators of intelligence.

Throughout history there have been countless individuals who, despite not being considered intelligent by traditional descriptors or perceptions, have accomplished amazing things that have changed the course of human history. Why? Because intelligence is so very hard to quantify, classify and explain.

It was an eye opening article, and if you get the chance, you should read it.

As I read, I experienced a rising excitement that I didn't really understand. But the very last sentence made the hair stand up on the back of my neck, and brought everything into focus with such clarity that I actually felt tears spring to my eyes.

"It makes you wonder how many other children, whose intellectual potential we're too blind to see, we've also given up on."

Many of you know how my Diminutive One (who is not autistic, but does have ADHD) struggles terribly in school, despite the fact that he is incredibly smart, fantastically creative, and hungry to learn. And this...this seems like the beginnings of an answer for him and kids like him.

Are academics and educators finally figuring out that a one size fits all approach to learning is alienating and defeating a huge percentage of children? Are they finally figuring out that children who are not equipped to learn within in the narrowly confined and defined classroom setting...are simply giving up and falling through the cracks?

Could it really be?

Time will tell if those responsible for educating our nation's children will heed the advice of clinicians and researchers, but I choose to be hopeful.

I went on to read some lighter fare, but I couldn't stop thinking about the article. When Dr. A and Diminutive One emerged, she, always perceptive, asked me what was wrong. Wordlessly, I handed her the article and pointed to the quote at the bottom.

She beamed her shiny faced smile over Diminutive One's head but said nothing. She didn't have to. She knows that hope is what keeps me going, and that it can sometimes be in very short supply. She knows that I take it where I can find it.

Yesterday it was a single sentence in a magazine article. Today, it might be uncharacteristic enthusiasm about a school project. Maybe tomorrow it will be the reality of substantial and far reaching education reform.

I sure hope someone in Washington reads Newsweek.