I have no background in pedagogy, but I've never understood the point of timed, high pressure tests, especially for children. You really just want to know the child has mastered the material such that they can solve the problems correctly--why is it necessary for them to do them in under 30 seconds, or whatever the bar is? If one kid gets the test done in 20 minutes and the other one takes 2 hours, but they both get the questions right, why does it matter?

Because you can brute force multiplication by doing a LOT of addition. The test is to show that you know multiplication.

> Why does it matter?

Because accommodating every kid's needs is expensive, and society is not willing to pay for it.

even more than that - it's quite possible the one who did it too fast have just recalled most of it from his memory, but the other is likely to have found solution for himself from scratch, which is usually much more valuable. Even the perseverance to find the solution is something worthy by itself... (obviously, "mileage may vary", but still)

I had a friend in high school who proudly proclaimed that he never memorized trigonometry formulas, he would just derive them from scratch when he needed them. He would often run out of time on our regular 20-minutes long tests. Admirable but not practical.

Economics, and because of the kids that exploit lax timeframes to try to beat the system or avoid doing anything

There actually is a reason. It is to make sure that kids have mastery of fundamental skills that they will need in the future. If it takes you a long to subtract, for example, it will take you an impractically long to do long division, and eventually you will take so long with more complex concepts that you won't be able to learn effectively.

Additionally, you also want a fair number of problems in any given test to reduce the variance in the grades, and you want the student to be able to finish a significant number exercises that can truly cover the breadth of the content to learn, hopefully with more than one approach as well. If a student takes 2h to solve a problem there is no way they will be able to complete enough of a problem set.

Of course, there are outliers. But personally, especially given my shorter attention span, the ability to do math correctly and quickly was absolutely crucial, and I wouldn't have been able to pass otherwise.

Subtraction is not necessary for division.

This is a specific example, and the general point is that there a multiple ways of doing things. If a child can avoid 1 step and skip straight to the result more efficiently, that is a valid way of solving a problem.

Substraction is necessary for long division. Elementary schools force you to learn long division because later when you learn algebra, you need long division to divide polynomials, for example. You also will need substraction to do Gaussian elimination, etc...

Many school systems make difference between the ability to solve a problem, and the ability to solve a problem a certain way. Sometimes the first is all that's asked, but when that way of doing things is necessary later, then the second is asked of you.

The point is that you want to prepare the child for what they will need in the future. Sure, perhaps you are doubly exceptional and will be able to adapt on the fly in the future, but you can't design a school system around extremely uncommon students.

I say this as another 2E student that had very similar issues. There is no good way of fixing it except maybe by giving special accommodations to these students. I repeatedly failed exams exactly because I would skip steps this way, but there is no sense fundamentally changing the entire school system and hurting the majority for that.

A time limit identifies knowledge, rather than 'smarts':

An individual who has "mastered the material" can answer quickly irrespective of their smarts: they learnt both the fundamental concepts and the derivatives in preparation for the test, and can commence answering the question immediately from the derivatives.

An individual who has not "mastered the material", but is smart, can start with the fundamentals, work out the derivatives, then commence answering the question: but only given enough time.

So tests which include a time element are, or should be, knowledge tests, and not an intelligence, or 'ability to answer the question', test.

The relationship between processing speed and IQ is not so simple.

E.g. https://neurosciencenews.com/iq-decision-speed-23377/ "Researchers discovered that people with higher IQs are quicker when solving simple tasks but slower when dealing with complex problems."

I empathize with this. I’m similar to your son - no amount of practice ever made me faster or “more prepared”.

I’ve learned to accept it and manage expectations with people.

One thing I discovered about myself was for many things I have a “gut feel” that I trust unquestioningly. I might not be able to explain why something is wrong/right, but I know it is. Given a bit of time, I can explain it sufficiently and convincingly.

I’ve never had the gift of quick answers with explanations. I’m okay with that.

Any chance he might have dyscalculia and/or ADHD? Though I guess he’d might have already been tested.

Why bother? Given the breadth of diagnostic classes these days, there's a good chance you can find a practitioner[0] willing to make a diagnosis. That said, aside from getting funding for treatment or acceptance of accommodations, receiving a label of disordered often does not help, but does add harmful stigmatization. The OP's son seems normal, functioning, and isn't harming anyone. On the other hand, the diagnosing practitioner may need to be tested for Overpathologization Disorder[0].

[0]: http://www.psychologysalon.com/2012/01/overpathologization-d...

Our daughter was diagnosed with dyscalculia, and the diagnosis was very helpful, both for us and for her. She was really struggling with maths and felt like she must just be stupid. The diagnosis helped her to understand that it's just a very concrete thing that she has that affects one aspect of her functioning, and doesn't mean that she's dumb, or lazy, or whatever other story she had ended up telling herself. We are homeschooling her, and it also helped us to understand what was going on for her, and to adapt how we teach her appropriately.

> That said, aside from getting funding for treatment or acceptance of accommodations...

Both of those can also be life-changing, but you make them sound like trivial details. They are not.

It sounds like the diagnosis marked a point of positive transformation. Before the diagnosis, your daughter attributed her math challenges to global stupidity and laziness. After the diagnosis, she attributed it to a specific difficulty with math. That reframing does sound healthy and helpful. It also sounds like the diagnosis helped you accept the situation and adapt your teaching modality.

Certainly, funding for treatment and acceptance of accommodation can make a life-changing difference. That in part motivates many caring and concerned practitioners to widen diagnostic criteria, so that more people can access benefits. I can see how I came across as trivializing those benefits. Quite the contrary, though, I meant to express that yes, diagnostic labels can bring positive results, and we need to weigh those against the negative results, especially when other options exist.

> Quite the contrary, though, I meant to express that yes, diagnostic labels can bring positive results

This makes sense. By saying:

>Why bother?

You were describing how helpful a diagnosis can be.

By saying why bother, I meant to discourage diagnosis, while acknowledging its benefits and costs.

Exactly. Diagnosis is a beneficial thing that shouldn’t happen, a straightforward and common sense position to take

I agree it isn't straightforward.

Some things can lead to benefits, without themselves being beneficial.

In psychology, diagnosis is sometimes like that. It can lead to treatment, accommodation, and funding, but the diagnosis on its own may not be beneficial, may cause harm through stigma, and may not be necessary to access the benefits.

The alternative: when possible, provide the benefits without labeling the person as disordered.

Exactly! Some things can be bad or good for certain people in certain contexts, and such things should categorically be avoided. In a similar vein when I see people discussing hydration online I point out that the only way to guarantee not drowning is to not be near or consume water. While some may complain about “thirst” they ignore their lungs’ “thirst” for oxygen! Why bother?

> Why bother?

Because knowing about the presence of a condition is better than not. Depending on the severity, untreated ADHD during the years of life where a child begins to establish good study habits, management of the condition, and other tools that work for them, can lead to issue down the road and into adulthood. We have the ability to address conditions like dyscalcula with little interventions to help the student be successful.

Just because something is imperfect doesn’t mean it should disregarded completely if the benefits (academic, social, and career success) outweigh the drawbacks of being untreated. The stigma argument is just FUD and letting that take over decision making for the well-being of a child is a bad path to go down.

There are often, unknown to the parent, invisible scars that the child with a non-neurotypical condition will carry for the of their life after having found out about a condition they’ve had since birth and was not addressed during the most critical time of their life when early treatment could have greatly reduced the harm caused by this disorder.

I agree that knowing about something, and accepting it, is better than the alternative. Does that mean we need to diagnose it as a disorder? For instance, I have an introverted personality, and I accept that, even though I didn't receive a diagnosis of introverted. On a more serious note, I have friends who I know and accept as gay, but I don't consider them disordered. The diagnostic and statistics manual used to include gay as a disorder; removing it as a disorder reduced the stigma, and I don't think it reduced the societal or self-acceptance of gay people. Quite the opposite. So like you I love self-knowledge; I only take issue with "diagnosis" as the way to gain it.

You make a good point about the benefits of receiving treatment. I personally have received training in social skills, goal setting, relaxation exercises, and realistic thinking. I learned those skills to overcome specific challenges. I had some anxiety, like every normal person does, so I learned a skill for that. I had trouble dating, so I learned skills for that. I felt overwhelmed, so I learned goal setting for that. I thought I was stupid, so I learned realistic thinking to avoid overgeneralizing and labeling. Throughout that process, I brought my challenges to a psychologist, and the psychologist taught me skills. That approach offers a way to help people without diagnosis, by suggesting treatments for specific challenges.

Can we keep the early treatment and drop the diagnosis?

There are people who genuinely struggle with these things because their brains literally don’t work the same as everyone else. I have ADHD and struggle to be on time to things and god forbid even early. Getting a diagnosis was a life saver because at least I don’t beat myself up for not trying harder.

A diagnosis isn’t a “label”, but understanding of how someone works. It is like being diagnosed with myopia: it explains why your kid can’t keep up in school because they literally can’t see the chalkboard (me, had glasses before finishing 1st grade).

So, no we can’t drop the diagnosis. Chances are you may have something too and not realize it. Does that make you less human? No. It just means you think a little different.

Assuming you grew up in a loving home with stability, in theory you learn life skills as a kid that you don’t need training as an adult for. However, most people don’t have loving parents that stay together, love each other, and can teach you every skill. Some don’t know they have a brain that is different, and need specialized training that works with them. Because of childhood trauma and ADHD, I have had to learn other techniques to handle my life and executive dysfunction. Finally approaching 40 I’m starting to put it together.

So no, we can’t discard the diagnosis. It isn’t a label or problem, but an explanation and scientifically proven reason for the problematic behaviors seen.

That in itself disproves your point though. That’s talking about a specific characteristic: mislabeling. It is really the symptom of someone talking about something they don’t know enough about to be talking about it.

Some people say ADHD for example is overdiagnosed. Perhaps that is true so college kids can get drugs or kids can be calmed down, but it is like saying people who don’t always wear glasses don’t need them and shouldn’t bother.

Quite interesting neurologically wise..