WRH College Prep is focused on helping neurodiverse students prepare for the SAT and ACT. We always suggest that students with differences beyond basic ADHD or ASD, or students with a PSAT score below take the paper ACT, we work with all kinds of students with all kinds of learning profiles. There are lots of things, we, as tutors, do to help our students, but for families who cannot afford tutoring or want some tips to start at home early, we have included some things you can do without a tutor’s help!

Dedicate time each week

Set aside a specific time each week for studying for the SAT or ACT. At WRH College Prep, we do not vary our session time each week (unless there’s an emergency) because we want to make sure students are prepared for this dedicated time. They know exactly when homework needs to be completed, and they are ready with their standardized test brain at that time each week.

Only study for one test (SAT or ACT)

The strategies vary greatly between the two tests and the math content varies significantly. Don’t muddy the waters, choose one to prep for. You can always take both along the way or switch directions. However, don’t spend time studying the strategies and content for both.

Use Quality Study Guides

Avoid the big box content and definitely avoid any mock tests not developed by the ACT or College Board. That means you should only be using mocks from the big red ACT book or from College Board’s Bluebook App. When looking for quality practice material, use materials in the format that your child will be taking the test. For instance, we highly recommend No BS Test Prep for the SAT because it’s web-based and follows the format your student will see on test day. On the other hand, since all ACT test takers should be taking the paper test, all practice materials should be in book or paper form. We suggest Marks Education ACT Math Workbook, Erika Meltzer’s English and Reading books, and Robin Slatty’s Science prep guide.

Focus on the Basics

It seems counter-intuitive, but the score rises and falls based on the easy questions, not the difficult ones. Until students can get the basic questions correct 90% of the time, without hesitation and struggle, should you focus on learning new things.

Keep an error log

Keep a list of content mistakes that are being made on mock tests. Focus on studying the “high yield” concepts (the ones you’re missing the most of), then once you lower the error rate on that concept move on to the 2nd most missed. Don’t try to fix everything at once.

Start early and take your time

This process is a marathon, not a sprint. Neurodiverse students don’t typically start seeing significant results from working with a tutor until around 14 hours of tutoring (about 30 hours of total studying including homework), and neurotypical students don’t start seeing significant results until about 10 hours of tutoring (about 20 hours of total studying including homework). Self-studying usually takes even longer to see results.

And remember, if all else fails, hire a professional tutor. Tutors who dedicate their time to studying the nuances of these tests are more expensive than the neighborhood tutor you find through Wyzant, but a professional tutor tends to yield higher increases in shorter amounts of time. Look for tutors like those at WRH College Prep who are dedicated to their craft and part of professional organizations like NACAC and the National Test Prep Association.

This month’s blog post comes from guest contributor Dr. Scott Hamilton, a licensed clinical psychologist at Understanding Minds in Atlanta, GA. We asked Dr. Hamilton to explain the “discrepancy approach” to diagnosing Learning Differences and why many organizations will no longer accept that methodology when applying for accommodations.

For many years, the “discrepancy approach” had been the gold standard in the diagnosis of learning disabilities. This approach typically involves comparing a student’s academic achievement to their cognitive abilities (i.e., “IQ”), with the theory that a significant gap between the two indicates the presence of a learning disability. However, this method presents several shortcomings, leaving it an unsound basis for diagnosis. In fact, many states (including Georgia) no longer allow the discrepancy approach in the identification of learning disabilities in public schools.

There are myriad reasons why the discrepancy approach is unsound. For one, the discrepancy approach relies heavily on standardized testing. Standardized tests may not accurately reflect a student’s true abilities or potential due to various factors including test anxiety, cultural bias, and socioeconomic disparities. Many students who struggle academically do not have a corresponding low IQ score, which means they may be overlooked for necessary interventions despite facing significant barriers to learning.

Secondly, imagine a scenario where Student A with a 130 Full Scale IQ has reading scores around 95 (the 37th percentile). This is more than a two-standard deviation “discrepancy” under the old ways, which may have been flagged as signs of a learning disability. The reality is that Student A’s reading score is still normatively average. Now, take Student B, with a full-scale IQ of 92 (30th percentile), but reading scores

around 82 (12th percentile). This may not have been seen as a severe enough “discrepancy” to qualify as a student with a learning disability. But which student truly needs the resources more? Under the old system, there was the potential that Student B would be denied, and Student A would receive services.

Additionally, the discrepancy model fails to account for the dynamic nature of learning and development. Learning disabilities can manifest differently depending on the context and the specific skills being measured. A student may exhibit strengths in certain areas while struggling in others, and a static comparison of IQ and achievement does not capture these nuances. A rigid classification can lead to misdiagnosis and inappropriate educational placements, depriving students of the tailored support they need.

More troubling, relying on cut-off scores to determine eligibility for services can be arbitrary and exclusionary. For instance, a student who scores just below the threshold may be denied the help they require, while another student with a similar level of need but a slightly lower discrepancy might receive support. This creates an inequitable system that does not address the individualized nature of learning challenges.

While the discrepancy approach has been a traditional method for diagnosing learning disabilities, it has notable limitations. Neuroscience would tell us that students need comprehensive and holistic assessment strategies. The movement in recent years has been towards consideration of multiple factors, such as performance in the classroom, teacher observations, and a profile analysis of a student’s strengths and challenges.

Using a holistic approach that considers multiple factors will result in more accurate diagnoses and better educational outcomes for students facing learning challenges. If you see a psychoeducational assessment that talks about “discrepancy” between cognitive abilities and academic achievement scores, you should immediately question that psychologist’s knowledge and experience with the latest methods to identify learning disorders.

Dr. Scott Hamilton

Understanding Minds, PC

scott@understandingmindsatl.com