The truth about the diagnosis process VS the media.

[Daydreamer]

I think that most people would agree films and TV shows aren't always exactly accurate.

Quite often they are not, because the main purpose is to entertain. I find it amusing sometimes to see how easy TV shows make it look to get a diagnosis. Never showing any complications whatsoever, it is always a simple process on TV.

Often a one off episode, probably never mentioned again or just joked about. I know that not every show handles it like that, but I've certainly seen it a lot. Also, yes, I am aware that sometimes things really do go that smoothly.

It tends to depend on what kind of diagnosis you are pursing. More well-known conditions are generally easier to find resources for, but not always. Waiting lists are another factor. Also, how old you are.

So, why am I making a thread about this? Well, since I was eight years old, people around me have suspected that I have dyscalculia. For those unfamiliar with this condition, it is similar to dyslexia except with numbers. That's simplifying it, but I might get into it more later.

Unfortunately, it is a condition that is fairly unknown. Especially if you compare it to dyslexia. That's why it can be difficult to find testing, you have to know where to look and be persistent. Particularly in the UK, I know of Americans who have been diagnosed but no one from the UK. I'm sure that there are people out there, but I've yet to meet any or hear about them. Except in one documentary I saw, there was one woman but that's it. That alone can be disheartening.

I think that this is because there are a significant amount of people who consider dyscalculia to be a type of dyslexia. Which does make some sense, and there is a lot of overlap. However, not all dyslexics show signs of dyscalculia, and the reverse is also true. There's not a lot of support available for dyscalculics who aren't also dyslexic.

You can't go through a test for dyscalculia without going through one for dyslexia first, not in the UK anyway. I have to wonder, if I take the dyslexia test and the result is negative (aka I don't have it) does that automatically disqualify me from taking part in a dyscalculia test? The wording is often vague, using descriptions such as "If we deem it necessary, we will offer a dyscalculia test for additional cost".

If you deem it necessary? So, I could go through all that, and have you turn around and say "In your case, I don't think it's necessary, please leave now"?

That's how people tend to view it, as an additional diagnosis that gets thrown in but doesn't exist by itself. I'm occasionally not taken seriously as a result.

One time I was explaining it to an education officer, and she replied saying that if I really had the issues I have then I'd also have trouble with letters as well as spelling. I felt like sarcastically responding "Oh? So I just dreamt everything? Wow, good to know!" But I didn't.

Sadly, I'm quite used to not being believed. People tend to assume that I'm just lazy. Even when I write equations backwards apparently. I'm a bit surprised that my maths teachers never questioned why I kept making that mistake. Repeatedly. I was always crossing things out because of this.

One maths teacher in particular used to make fun of me for it. Including one lesson where she called me out in front of the class. At the time I felt humiliated. I get why she did it though, she assumed that I wasn't paying enough attention to the board out of a lack of effort. Wanted to make an example of me. I tried to explain my visual processing issues, but she wouldn't listen.

That part has been at least somewhat confirmed. I've had tests done at school to figure out if I was entitled to extra time on exams. My visual processing abilities have been tested twice, at different ages. I scored the same both times, I did poorly. Way below the average.

Some people assume that if you don't have a diagnosis from very early on, you don't truly have that condition. That's a load of rubbish. I think that there are plenty of reasons why someone gets a diagnosis later on. Especially if you're dealing with teachers who "don't believe in labels", or it's difficult to find information on testing, or you feel ashamed etc.

Is it possible that this is just maths anxiety, or potentially visual processing disorder? Maybe, but I think that it's more than that. It is a shame that I'm still undiagnosed despite having some very obvious difficulties, such as finding it difficult to tell the time sometimes. Which is incredibly annoying, because I know that I'm not an idiot, but I certainly come across that way to a few people as a result of my issues.

Personally, I find it easier to understand digital clocks. I've had this situation happen to me before:

"Hey, what time is it?"

*I look over at a clock on wall, I'm unsure of what time it says. So I get out my phone to check*

"Um, what are you doing? There's a clock right there...".

"Oh, I know, I just thought I'd use my phone, because, uh, I've been meaning to check my email anyway".

"But isn't it just easier to look at that clock?"

(Please don't do this to me. Come on).

"I, er, would just prefer to do it this way, thanks".

Usually I know what the clock says, but there are particular times that I mess up on. I've done that before and made a fool of myself. Also, I have a specific hatred for clocks with no numbers or roman numerals. I know where the numbers go, but my brain just panics for some reason and is more likely to mess up. Somehow I just freeze and my mind just thinks "????What is that??? How dare they? I can't process this!"

Except this clock. This one sums up my life. I'm usually either late, or ridiculously early because I wanted to avoid being late. Or I'm in the wrong place because I read the invite date/time/ room number wrong, either that or I'm somehow lost since my sense of direction is also terrible.

It's also a good representation of how I see numbers as well. A mess, that is.

 

[Fino]

I've never seen a diagnosis on television! What's an example of one?

 

[Nauti]

I have a milder version of what you have, by the sounds of it. Plus a kind of right and left dyslexia. I am in my 40's and I still don't have my drivers license, partly because of this weird kind of dyslexia.
With numbers, my brain kind of freezes up. I can learn basic maths, but I lose what I've learnt easily and I can't seem to progress beyond very basic math. I think I could, perhaps slowly, with lots of help, but I've never had the help so my maths is woeful.

I'm very good with words though, excellent speller, exceptional vocabulary and fast and competent reader, it's just numbers and yes, even telling the time on clocks, although, now I'm in my 40's, with a bit of extra time and focus, I can use a non digital clock, but it took me many years to develop the time telling too.

 

[BeachLife]

I've never seen a diagnosis on television! What's an example of one?

I saw two diagnosis stories on an awesome U.S drama called Parenthood. Child Max then adult male late diagnosis of a photographer character played by Ray Romano. I watched it (second time) while going through my diagnosis

 

[Pats]

Why did they test you in school if it wasn't going to change anything?

 

[Pats]

I saw two diagnosis stories on an awesome U.S drama called Parenthood. Child Max then adult male late diagnosis of a photographer character played by Ray Romano. I watched it (second time) while going through my diagnosis

I watched it after my diagnosis - not knowing anything about it. I was impressed with Romano's late self diagnosis.

 

[Daydreamer]

Why did they test you in school if it wasn't going to change anything?

In my school, if a student wanted extra time during exams, they would have to partake in a series of generalised tests for the school to determine if they actually need it or not. To stop random students claiming it without it being necessary in their case.

My parents talked to my teachers about how I might benefit from extra time.

So, I took the tests under the watchful eyes of an exam manager. The tests don't take long, but there are a lot of them. After you've finished, a few weeks later you get your results back. Then, the individual scores are used to work out the total amount in a decimal. Sixteen (16.0) or higher means you don't qualify.

My total was 15.4. Which was classified as a minor concern that should be monitored. In order to be considered, due to how it is worked out you need to score below average by a significant degree on two different categories. The first time I took the test, I did. But not the second time. This was because my writing speed improved, so my overall score did, meaning that I no longer qualified. Despite the fact that my visual processing was still in the 1st percentile (the larger/ bigger the number is the better, so uh, 1st is not good at all) I was now classified to be in the normal range.

Understandably, I had a bit of an argument about that with my second examiner. That's the problem with working out these things in averages, you get weird situations where you are clearly struggling a lot in one area but it doesn't mean much because they can't help you due to technicalities.

So, the first time it did change things because it got me extra time in exams when I was fourteen (although the actual exams took place when I was fifteen, one exam even took place at the age of sixteen on my birthday). The second time just led to an annoying situation (I was seventeen, maybe eighteen at that point).

But they insist on an updated test, just in case you don't qualify anymore.

 

[Pats]

In my school, if a student wanted extra time during exams, they would have to partake in a series of generalised tests for the school to determine if they actually need it or not. To stop random students claiming it without it being necessary in their case.

My parents talked to my teachers about how I might benefit from extra time.

So, I took the tests under the watchful eyes of an exam manager. The tests don't take long, but there are a lot of them. After you've finished, a few weeks later you get your results back. Then, the individual scores are used to work out the total amount in a decimal. Sixteen (16.0) or higher means you don't qualify.

My total was 15.4. Which was classified as a minor concern that should be monitored. In order to be considered, due to how it is worked out you need to score below average by a significant degree on two different categories. The first time I took the test, I did. But not the second time. This was because my writing speed improved, so my overall score did, meaning that I no longer qualified. Despite the fact that my visual processing was still in the 1st percentile (the larger/ bigger the number is the better, so uh, 1st is not good at all) I was now classified to be in the normal range.

Understandably, I had a bit of an argument about that with my second examiner. That's the problem with working out these things in averages, you get weird situations where you are clearly struggling a lot in one area but it doesn't mean much because they can't help you due to technicalities.

So, the first time it did change things because it got me extra time in exams when I was fourteen (although the actual exams took place when I was fifteen, one exam even took place at the age of sixteen on my birthday). The second time just led to an annoying situation (I was seventeen, maybe eighteen at that point).

But they insist on an updated test, just in case you don't qualify anymore.

Tests just make less and less sense to me. If you're having problems they should be able to see it from your work (instead of making an example of you). Again - it's like the mental status tests that were required on every patient on my floor every day and if they were from out of town and did not know what county we were in they are considered confused? No - you could tell they were confused because they didn't know they were in a hospital and was calling 911 to say they were being held prisoner. You SEE it - you don't have to test for it. Tests just irritate me.

It's like I was saying elsewhere - why do you have to be tested for autism, while depression, anxiety, etc they take your word for it? I guess we just have to prove some things while others are more believable? What is it???

 

[Daydreamer]

Tests just make less and less sense to me. If you're having problems they should be able to see it from your work (instead of making an example of you).

Well, ideally this would be true. But some teachers can be a bit oblivious.

Expected response: "Oh, you've written the questions wrong, can you see the board alright?"

Reality: "Why aren't you paying attention?"

Did she think I just couldn't be bothered to look at the board, so I made up my own questions? Perhaps she thought my mental process went like this:

"Oh wow, can't be bothered to pay attention whilst copying today, guess I'll just freestyle a bit and hope my teacher doesn't notice!"



The truth is, teachers have to deal with a lot of students. It's understandable that things go unnoticed a lot. Most of my teachers just copy and pasted the same feedback on my reports. Which is really obvious when they all say the same thing word-for-word. At one point, my name even changed mid paragraph because one teacher forgot to delete that other student's name before inserting mine.

The pronouns also keep randomly varying in some of my documents. Oh, and a few of the descriptions sound nothing like my personality at the time. It's actually kind of funny how inaccurate some of my school records are. But, I do get it, at the end of the day the main thing is that the school looks good to parents and inspectors.

You can't say "*insert name here* seems to be miserable", even if it's accurate. No, you've got to say "*insert here* is a cheerful optimistic student" because that sounds good. Also, it's one of the already made options on a drop down menu. You just have to add their name, and you're done. I know because I've watched teachers do this. Since it saves time.

I was fairly miserable during school, there was one year in particular where I would just sit alone and cry during form time. At that point I'd given up trying to hide my mental state, I just needed to cry. Not because of the maths, although that didn't help, I just had a lot going on.

At the end of that year, I got a report which said that I was always cheerful. That's just a blatant lie, and the teacher who wrote it saw me in tears a lot. I laugh about it these days.

The system doesn't really allow for enough time for personalised feedback, although a few rare teachers I've had do give that. A lot of teachers don't have much training in learning disorders, so some ignorantly assume that certain symptoms are a result of laziness or stupidity. My experiences with education have left me sceptical of the whole system itself. There are a few teachers that have had a positive impact on me though.

At the moment, I think that teachers are underpaid. Maybe that's why so many I've met hate their jobs. Granted, it's anecdotal (I know that some teachers love their jobs, so to any teachers here- please don't hate me). University lecturers certainly aren't underpaid.

I've also witnessed my fair share of teachers having breakdowns as well. Understandable, teenagers and younger children can be stressful to deal with. Teaching must be a rather mentally taxing job.