Well-child checks for Phoebe and Miriam

Rachel went to the doctor today. She has the flu, poor thing.

I also took Miriam and Phoebe to the doctor at the same time...just here in Georgia! 

I need to remember to ask to not see Dr. Z. She was okay at Zoë's appointment in May (though I need to remember to take Zoë back in for a COVID shot) but was rather pessimistic about homeschooling today. 

First, I should mention that Miriam was hoping to have gained at least an inch since her last visit. Instead she learned that they mis-measured her at her last visit, so she not only didn't grow. She's shorter than she thought. 

So it was already a ho-hum visit.

At Phoebe's visit, the doctor insisted she couldn't understand Phoebe very well and that Phoebe thus needs speech therapy. I told the doctor that was ridiculous. 

Actually I said, "Respectfully, I'm going to disagree with your assessment. I'm a trained linguist. I'm currently getting a PhD in children's literacies. I'm around children a lot. And I don't think Phoebe is behind her peers at all. She's made significant improvements from last year—if you recall, she was fronting all of her sounds, couldn't say /k/ or /g/, but now she can say words with /k/ and /g/ and she has mastered several consonant blends and..."

"I'm pretty fluent in toddler myself. I should be able to understand 90 to 100% of what she's saying and I simply can't. Early intervention is key!"

"Yes, but she's making fine progress by any metric," I countered.

Guys, listen—the doctor is working from old standards. 

Newer studies indicate that the "General rules of thumb for intelligibility of multiword utterances, based on data for the lowest performing typical children, are as follows: (a) By 4 years, children should be at least 50% intelligible to an unfamiliar listener; (b) by the 5 years, children should be at least 75% intelligible to an unfamiliar listener; and (c) by just over 7 years, children should be 90% intelligible to an unfamiliar listener" (see further, less erudite discussion here).

Now, I wouldn't say that Phoebe is among the lowest performing typical children range. In fact, I think she speaks rather clearly and that her vocabulary is rather impressive.

For example, consider Benjamin and his "ucky, mucky augie." 

True, he was only three when he first said that. But he was still saying "augie" instead of "water" far past that age. And I know he went into kindergarten still saying "sukey me" instead of "thank you," which honestly is incredible. 

I still don't know if he did that because we often say "shukran" in our home or if the "sukey" came straight from "thank." And why the me instead of you? I mean, who knows? 

It's such an odd thing to say. 

Anyway, my point is that...Phoebe is not my worst talker at this age (she can at least say "water" and "thank you," although the latter sometimes still comes out as "fank you"). I don't think she's behind her peers. And I do think that unfamiliar listeners understand her at least 50% of the time (though, in fact, I think they understand her much more than 50% of the time). 

The doctor asked her what she had for lunch. 

"A meat and cheese and mustard sandwich," Phoebe responded. 

And the doctor understood all of that, but she's more concerned about unsolicited speech. Because, see, if the doctor is asking the questions then she's already primed for the answers and will understand more easily. Can she understand spontaneous speech, however? Alas, no, she doesn't think she can.

What kid is going into the doctor's office and just speaking spontaneously?! 

Mine clam up.

However, when we were in Miriam's appointment, we were discussing schedules and calendars and things (more on that later) and Phoebe interjected to tell the doctor that "We have advent calendars at our house!"

And the doctor understood that. 

But it still wasn't spontaneous. It was on topic. So of course we understood. 

Like...?

I just don't know what she wants from us (besides to not homeschool—she seemed very frustrated that I was going to keep Phoebe home in the fall rather than enroll her to pre-K). 

As for Miriam, the doctor is concerned that the semester schedule is developmentally inappropriate for a high school student. It doesn't offer students enough exposure to a subject...which is weird because my high school (Highwood High) was on a semester schedule when I started high school. We only took core classes for half the year. It was...fine. I mean, did I decide high school was a drag and opt to take my core classes through the Alberta Distance Learning Center so I could work at my own pace instead? Yes. But was it semester based? Yes. 

So instead of being impressed that Miriam is managing a full load of college classes, she raised concerns that Miriam won't absorb as much content in a semester-based course as she would in a year-long course (which is not evidence-based). She's also worried that Miriam only ever interacts with people older than her (despite Miriam telling her she attends two seminary classes with her peers, as well as a church youth group, game nights, fire nights, stake dances, and so forth). 

It's fine. 

I might print out some articles to take to our appointments next time...but it's fine.