education classes. [AR 411], Plaintiffs fifth-grade teacher said that plaintiff was making “some progress” in reading and math. Plaintiff took the WRAT again in fifth grade. He tested at grade levels 2.4,1.9, and 3.5 in the three areas measured. [AR 354], In 1978, when plaintiff was 10 years old, a school official noted that he did not know how to write his last name. A recommendation was made for academic evaluation. [AR 358]. Plaintiffs sixth-grade teacher noted that plaintiffs school work was about fourth grade level. He had “trouble with children” and “does not follow school rules.” [AR 354], Plaintiffs testimony about his educational history and his school records do not provide substantial evidence for ignoring or rejecting his verbal IQ of 63. See Christner, 498 F.3d at 792, 794 (<HOLDING>); Markle v. Barnhart, 324 F.3d 182, 183-184,
holding that the alj erred in finding that the claimants mental retardation did not manifest itself before age 22 where the claimant attended special education classes dropped out of school in ninth grade had trouble with reading writing and math and had frequent fights with other children holding that completing sixth grade and a limited ability to read were not inconsistent with a valid iq score of 68 holding that a retiree with a sixth grade education who was given little time to review the terms had stated a claim holding a higher grade than the employee being searched holding that the record did not belie the claimants iq of 58 where he attended special education classes did not live independently and dropped out of school at a low grade either in the sixth or eighth grade