Navigation

Search

Categories

On this page

Archive

Blogroll

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are my own personal opinions and do not represent my employer's view in anyway.

RSS 2.0 | Atom 1.0 | CDF

Send mail to the author(s) E-mail

Total Posts: 154
This Year: 0
This Month: 0
This Week: 0
Comments: 280

Sign In
Pick a theme:

 Friday, June 09, 2006
Friday, June 09, 2006 10:06:09 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) ( )

The first paragraph in this article reinforces something I've known to be true. And the public schools have played a major role in making this happen.

My son, Adventure Boy, was born in 1993. As soon as he hit the public schools we were under pressure to drug him. The teachers started it, then brought in the school psychologist and staff and administration. Yup, there was serious pressure. All couched within the context of what was "best for the child".

Bullshit.

They wanted what was best for the school. On multiple fronts.

  1. Boys tend to have high energy. And with our no-new-taxes governor and cut-your-taxes president the fact is that schools have less and less money. So what gets cut? Physical Education. Recess. My kids have substantially less time to run around, get exercise and burn off energy as I did when I was their age. So kids are now spending more time sitting still in classrooms - no wonder they exhibit high energy behavior.
  2. Schools get extra funds for every kid on a special plan. To get a kid on a special plan they must be diagnosed with something. Take any high energy kid and you can easily find a doctor willing to diagnose them with ADD/ADHD/etc. And the school is eager to help. They provided us with references to doctors known to give these diagnoses, and provided documentation to help the doctor realize just how critical it was to get this kid drugs. That $$ is critical for the school's shrinking budget!
  3. Teachers are dealing with ever increasing class sizes (see the tax thing above). Couple that with the lack of exercise periods and they are dealing with more and more kids with more and more energy. Of course they want to drug any kid they can. The more kids that are drugged, the fewer kids they have to keep quiet.

Now don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that some kids don't need help. There's no doubt that some kids do need drugs or other special help. Nor am I saying that the teachers are evil - though I do think many are woefully misguided.

But is it realistic to consider that kids born in 1993 and later are FIVE TIMES more likely to be ADD/ADHD than kids born in 1992 and earlier?

Well let's think about that. What happened in 1993, on a national level, that could have triggered this. Was it a bio-weapon, or bio-accident that contaminated the water or food for the entire nation (and still does)? Doubtful. Was it a nuclear explosion or fallout of some sort that has caused continual mutations starting in 1993? I don't recall any such big-booms, but I suppose it is possible (the government DID do all those secret experiments in the 1950's... :) ).

Basically, there are two options. Either you buy into some kooky conspiracy theory saying that an external factor has triggered a radical change in the genetics of American babies since 1993, or you consider that American society is shaped by money more than any other single thing.

  1. Schools are pressed for money - ever more pressed.
    • Every student diagnosed to get these drugs means more money for the school.
  2. Big companies make big bucks from these drugs.
    • Every student diagnosed to get these drugs means more money for the corporations.
  3. Teachers are faced with increasing class sizes of increasingly fidgety kids, so they work a LOT harder for their meager salaries.
    • Every student diagnosed to get these drugs is calmer and easier to manage, making it easier to earn a living.

Having successfully resisted the concerted efforts of the schools to drug my kids over the past several years, it is not a surprise to me that the number of kids on drugs has increased more than fivefold since 1993...

Comments [7] | | # 
Saturday, June 10, 2006 8:18:14 AM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Interesting read... I've long been suspicious of all the ADHD diagonoses given out, though I have to think there are a lot more contributing factors than just schools and drug companies:
1. Parents are ever more under pressure and have less patience and more stress; thus less time spent with junior (I'm putting this as my number 1 point since I think we as parents need to shoulder the responsibility for my following points)
2. Video games and tv time has dramatically increased in this time period leaving less time to be outside AFTER school and on the weekends. I just saw some study that said (I can't find it and also found it hard to believe) the average kid in America watches 6 hours of tv PER DAY!)
3. Kids are allowed to eat and drink foods that I as a kid would have never been allowed for multiple reasons: 1. My parents didn't want me having that much sugar. 2. We couldn't afford it. 3. Snacks / pop were considered more of a treat back then opposed to our fast food generation of today where it seems a healthy meal would be considered more of a treat.

My suspician for a long time has been that diet plays a HUGE role in the diagnoses of ADD/ADHD and so we have been anal retentive about what we let our kids eat / drink. You will absolutely not see my 6 year old with a can of coke in his hand. He may get a sip from time to time, but never a can of caffinated soda or even a can full of sugar. Every once in a while we will give him a special treat, but I can tell you it is amazing how hyper he can get if we just gave him 2 glasses of chocolate milk instead of one.

We also limit their total screen time (tv, video games and computer time combined) per day and encourage them to get outside and play. I think kids today just have too much stuff and too much stimulation without enough time to just use their imagination like we did as kids. (This gets compounded by the guilty parent syndrome that we have from not having enough energy to spend time with our kids when we get home).

One other comment; It would have been nice to seen the source of the data in that article for one to see if it was a reliable survey and see the margin of err; also to see if they took it any further if they had any supporting data to see why they think that is. But alas, funded studies can be bent to give any number of reasons and be made to look good... the beauty of statistics :)
Saturday, June 10, 2006 5:26:21 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Where did you find the 5-fold increase statistic? NIMH reports that while there was an increase in medication usage etween 1987-1997, the rate of medication has remained fairly constant since then, and the rate of medication is at 2.9% for children, which is below the estimated 3-8% prevalence rate for the disorder.

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/press/adhdmedsuse.cfm

Oh, and the money that schools are given for special needs children is accompanied by requirements that they increase their spending for special education classes. The reason why that money is handed out was to avoid what's called an "unfunded mandate" with regards to special education legislation. The legislators wanted to ensure, when they required schools to devote money and resources to special education, that these costs would not be bourne entirely by the school district. Had they not done so, parents everywhere (including possibly yourself) would have been screaming at congress for requiring schools to spend more money on these things without actually funding it.
A nonny mouse
Sunday, June 11, 2006 4:54:28 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
For openers, the language used in the article is not one to give a reader a feeling that he is dealing with a reasonable or objective analaysis of the situation.

Next: were this my child and I was not convinced of the analysis, I would seek an outside medical opion rather than one given by the school.

Ifg I was convinced that the schools were "palyhing this game," I would try home schooling.
Sunday, June 11, 2006 8:33:06 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Dear Fred,

Regarding part one of your comment:

When someone is messing with your kid, and forcing him into an inappropriate catagory and trying to force you to give him inappropriate medical treatment, it is difficult to use language that is reasonable or objective. Also, as this is his personal blog, I see no reason why he should have to be so...neither did he claim to be objective. What does objective have to do with it? It's his personal experiance. If you don't think he experianced what he says he did...that's your decision.


Regarding part two:
Actually, we consulted outside medical opinion agreed with the school one hundred percent, and wrote a perscription for the drug in question after looking at the school's paperwork.

Funny, every evaluation filled out by a school district employee had our child at the top of the scale for every single ADD/ADHD trait...evaluations filled out by Sunday school teachers, grandparents, martial arts insrtuctors, and the violin teacher put him solidly in the "average" range...if not in the below average range for those traits. The school and the doctor dismissed these evaluations as "anomalous".

We were told that our child would likely become anti-social, suicidal, that his grades would plummet, and he would become a social outcast without medical intervention. (eight years have passed now, and counting...still happy, still well-adjusted, still has a galloping social calender, still well abreast of grade level, still described as "delightful" by anyone who works with him).

Of course, this is the same school district that said he had a first grade reading level at the end of fourth grade, and an eight grade reading level at the beginning of fifth grade, and tried to give credit for his amazing progress (over the summer) to the "temporary" remidial program that they had him in for four years. Despite the fact that we had been reporting him reading much more advanced material at home for years.

We DID consider homeschooling, but why should we have to? We pay for the fracking public schools. We're happy to spend hours educating our children about things that we consider to be important that the schools don't address...and to give advice, encouragement and answer questions regarding homework as well as suppliment what the schools do in the way of provideing a vast home library and learning-rich environment.

Just because the school is doing something we disagree with, our kids should be denied a public education? What sort of brain dead suggestion is that? Those are our schools. If they are dealing with our kids improperly, we make them stop...we don't just hang our heads like a couple of victims and let them chase us out of our schools.

Would you suggest that a parent of a child who legitamatly needed these interventions, and could not get them from the school, "try homeschooling?". I would guess not. I suspect that you bring a little bias of your own to this subject...but seem to be not as forthcoming as Rocky about the basis for YOUR bias's so it is impossible to evaluate them with any kind of generosity of spirit.


kemaris
Thursday, June 15, 2006 9:39:34 AM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
I'm on board with the first comment posted. Much of the increased, IMHO, is related to 1) diet and 2) exercise. You can't ignore the genetics either, but I think the genetics become more prevalent when 1) and 2) are not adhered to properly.

I think back to when I was a kid growing up in No.St.Paul; we were outside playing every day from sunup to sundown in the summer time, and during most of our free time in the other seasons. Had I not had the opportunity to be that active, I could have easily been diagnosed with ADHD. I know that much about myself now.

IMHO, these kids have very strong synaptical firings in their brains. Could this be an indication of a creative individual with not enough creative opportunities?

Good article.
Red5
Monday, June 19, 2006 5:13:02 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
nonny mouse points to the idea that the increased funding for schools goes to special programs. That's true, but what isn't clear unless you get involved with your school is just how many kids are in "special programs". Some of the brightest kids in our school system have personal education plans - which means they are in a "special program" and thus are eligable for special funding.

From the tone of your post nonny, I am guessing you either have an exceptionally ethical school district, or that you haven't taken the time to get involved to see what is really going on. Any system devised by man can (and will) be exploited by man - it is a simple law of human nature...
Monday, June 19, 2006 5:15:42 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
I don't dispute the idea that lack of exercise and different foods are likely contributing factors. That makes a great deal of sense to me.

However, I don't discount genetics and changing societal expectations either. My oldest son is very, very much like I was at his age - always lost in my own thoughts, always thinking about everything except what I was supposed to focus on, etc. I had terrible grades and school experiences up to grade 8 when it all just came together. Literally. I finally understood that math was needed to explain how stars work, and understanding that leads to the creation of the universe and Earth, and that leads to chemistry having value, which leads to biology. Then to express all this in any meaningful sense one needs language skills in terms of writing and speaking.

The one area that never did click until just a few years ago was history. It turns out that history doesn't have to be dry and fact-fact-fact... Though I suppose it DOES have to be that way in public schools, because making history interesting (and useful) entails drawing conclusions from past experiences. And conclusions are subject to ideology, and so there you go...

But I digress.

The point is, I grew up in a different time, when it was _expected_ that boys would be out to have rough-and-tumble fun, and that they'd have difficulty focusing. What was odd about me was that I'd get lost in my imagination when I wasn't being rough-and-tumble, while the "normal" boys (from what I could tell) had no imagination beyond figuring out ways to be cruel to others.

Still, there's no doubt in my mind that in today's schools, where kids get a fraction of the exercise I got as a kid, and many times the sugar, I would have also been diagnosed with something to get me "under control"...
Comments are closed.