New Here, Q's about Kindergarten - Tips from those who've been there???

[Jaime]

Hi. :) I'm new to this board and I've seen some old posts about
kindergarten readiness, whether to hold/not to hold back, etc. I
haven't seen anything newer, though. Forgive me if I glossed over
this in FAQs, but I didn't see my questions. (Rambling...)

We recently moved to an area where kindergarten is either part or full
day. To get full day kindergarten, you pay for it. (I'm originally
from New York City and it never occured to me that some areas make
parents PAY for kindergarten!!)

My question is: what's the difference? Has anyone had experience with
a school district where some of the kids go full day and some don't?
It smacks of inequity to me (what are the kids doing the other half of
the day and won't the kids whose parents can't afford it be at a major
disadvantage in the 1st grade??) Or is it basically day care?

I've called the school and someone will supposedly get back to me in a
couple of weeks. I'm kind of looking for the straight dope, so to
speak.

Thanks in advance!! :D

P.S. This seems like a really great board. I've been reading for a
bit, half afraid to post something silly.

[Claire Petersky]

"Jaime" > wrote in message
m...

> My question is: what's the difference? Has anyone had experience with
> a school district where some of the kids go full day and some don't?

Our school district has free half-day, and you pay for full-day.

> It smacks of inequity to me (what are the kids doing the other half of
> the day and won't the kids whose parents can't afford it be at a major
> disadvantage in the 1st grade??) Or is it basically day care?

There are many opinions about this. I had heard from at-home moms in our
area that "of course" the kids that would be in the full-day program would
be the rowdy, peer-driven,
always-been-dumped-in-day-care-by-neglectful-parent types, where the
respectful, future-asset-to-society types would be in half-day. I would
regret having my child in a full-day program because when she came out of
it, she'd turn into a mouthing-off mini-teen-wannabe.

I had also heard that the kids that would be solely in half-day K were those
in low income families where the kids were at an aunty's or grandma's place
all day watching TV while mom worked, and had never been in any structured
program, and so they wouldn't even know their colors, (unless they had
picked it up from watching Sesame Street), and would be totally clueless
about how to properly behave in group situations. Meanwhile, the kids who
were in full-day would be those who parents had placed them in highly
educational pre-school programs since they were two, and would already
reading and in ready-to-learn shape upon arrival the first day.

>From my observations, though, the above opinions reflect various parental
biases not grounded in reality. All sorts of kids are in full-day and
half-day K, for various family reasons and values.

Bottom line: I didn't see any difference among all the kids once we hit
first grade.

Our experience in our school is that the full-dayers had quiet time, recess,
and then a specialist (PE, art, music, or library) that the half-dayers
didn't get. In other words, it wasn't that they missed out on academics, but
they did miss out on sort of the fun extras.


--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
Please replace earthlink for mouse-potato and .net for .com
Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
Books just wanna be FREE! See what I mean at:
http://bookcrossing.com/friend/Cpetersky

[Elizabeth Gardner]

In article >,
(Jaime) wrote:

> Hi. :) I'm new to this board and I've seen some old posts about
> kindergarten readiness, whether to hold/not to hold back, etc. I
> haven't seen anything newer, though. Forgive me if I glossed over
> this in FAQs, but I didn't see my questions. (Rambling...)
>
> We recently moved to an area where kindergarten is either part or full
> day. To get full day kindergarten, you pay for it. (I'm originally
> from New York City and it never occured to me that some areas make
> parents PAY for kindergarten!!)
>
> My question is: what's the difference? Has anyone had experience with
> a school district where some of the kids go full day and some don't?
> It smacks of inequity to me (what are the kids doing the other half of
> the day and won't the kids whose parents can't afford it be at a major
> disadvantage in the 1st grade??) Or is it basically day care?


Our district does this, too, at least in the largest elementary school.
They call the afternoon program "enrichment," and are careful to specify
that the kids don't cover any material that the morning-only kids don't.
It just gets reinforced. Our program was part daycare (i.e., supervised
free play), part planned fun stuff, sometimes reinforcing what happened
in the morning class but fairly non-academic as best I could tell. I
think it was a lot for the convenience of working parents who could then
sync up whatever after-school arrangements they had for their older
kids. Our district gives the choice of going three afternoons or five,
so that parents who want a mix can get it.

I must say that two years later, I don't have the faintest recollection
of who was in enrichment and who wasn't. I think the kids who were
might have had an easier time segueing into a full-day first grade
program, but they were all pretty well with the program by the second
month of first grade. But in our community, there isn't a lot of income
inequity--it's more a matter of whether the moms work or stay home. The
ones who stayed home in our K year often had arranged lessons or
playdates for the kids in the afternoons.

[Kevin Karplus]

In article >,
Elizabeth Gardner wrote:
> In article >,
> (Jaime) wrote:
>> We recently moved to an area where kindergarten is either part or full
>> day. To get full day kindergarten, you pay for it. (I'm originally
>> from New York City and it never occured to me that some areas make
>> parents PAY for kindergarten!!)
>>
>> My question is: what's the difference? Has anyone had experience with
>> a school district where some of the kids go full day and some don't?
>> It smacks of inequity to me (what are the kids doing the other half of
>> the day and won't the kids whose parents can't afford it be at a major
>> disadvantage in the 1st grade??) Or is it basically day care?
>
> Our district does this, too, at least in the largest elementary school.
> They call the afternoon program "enrichment," and are careful to specify
> that the kids don't cover any material that the morning-only kids don't.
> It just gets reinforced. Our program was part daycare (i.e., supervised
> free play), part planned fun stuff, sometimes reinforcing what happened
> in the morning class but fairly non-academic as best I could tell. I
> think it was a lot for the convenience of working parents who could then
> sync up whatever after-school arrangements they had for their older
> kids. Our district gives the choice of going three afternoons or five,
> so that parents who want a mix can get it.

Our school had half-day kindergarten until this year, when they went to
3/4 day (ending an hour earlier than the 1st graders). This change to
the program was made possible by the School Board's decision to move
the sixth graders to the middle school, freeing up 2 classrooms.
Previously, with only 2 kindergarten classrooms and 80 kindergartners,
only half days were possible.

They just this month added after-school care for the kindergartners,
paid for by the parents who use it. They got a great teacher for it
also, who has had something like 20 years of experience in early
childhood education and was looking for a part-time job. My son had
had him as one of his preschool teachers for a few months, so I know
he's good.

There was already an after-school program for the older kids, but the
program was not suitable for the kindergartners, and did not start
until an hour after their classes ended.

Our school has a very wide range of incomes, but I don't think that
there is much correlation between income and whether the students do
the after-school programs---it has more to do with whether there is
anyone to pick the kids up when school ends.

Because I was on sabbatical for a couple of months while my son was in
kindergarten, he experienced both half-day and full-day kindergarten.
Both worked out well for my son. My wife liked the full-day better,
as it gave her more time to do other things.


--
Kevin Karplus http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~karplus
life member (LAB, Adventure Cycling, American Youth Hostels)
Effective Cycling Instructor #218-ck (lapsed)
Professor of Computer Engineering, University of California, Santa Cruz
Undergraduate and Graduate Director, Bioinformatics
Affiliations for identification only.

[Beth Kevles]

Hi -

Our school had 1/2 day K when our older son was in, with an optional,
pay-as-you-go complement to complete the school day. And full day K for
our younger son.

We sent our older son to the complement 3 days per week. I spent the
other two days with him; we played, rested, had music lessons, that kind
of stuff.

Comparing the two kids' experiences, I'd say:

1. If you only do half day your child doesn't make as many friends at
school. (Our school didn't have recess during the half day; that
only happened in the complement.) Since kids go to school primarily
to see their friends, the complement was a real boon. But three
days was enough for us.

2. THe child who went for a full day learned a LOT more than his
brother during kindy. (BUt the older child already knew a lot of
the kindy curriculum, so for him it was less of an issue.) The
teachers are marvelling at how much more the full day K kids know
even by midyear than the 1/2 day K kids did. BUT the complement
focused on social skills and play, not on academic skills. So no
significant academic difference in the kids in the complement
vs. not.

3. I observed little difference among the middle class kids in our
neighborhood among those who did the complement and those who
didn't. I DID observe a huge academic difference AND social
difference among those kids whose parents were poor, or unskilled
parents (for whatever reasons) etc. between the full and half day
kids, both academically and socially.

Our district is gradually implementing full day K, starting with the
schools that have the greatest number of impoverished kids and moving
towards the wealthier schools. They're already seeing a payoff.

In other words:

Full day K lets your kids make more friends at school.
If you're an active parent, there is probably no other difference
between full day and half day results, because as a parent you're
filling out the curriculum yourself. For a poor parent (who can't
afford enrichment) or an inactive parent, full dayK is a real boon.

Hope I'm not too disjointed.
--Beth Kevles

http://web.mit.edu/kevles/www/nomilk.html -- a page for the milk-allergic
Disclaimer: Nothing in this message should be construed as medical
advice. Please consult with your own medical practicioner.

NOTE: No email is read at my MIT address. Use the AOL one if you would
like me to reply.

[Scott]

I'm not sure there's much I can add to the good responses so
far. Both DD and DS had full-day kindergarten, DD with
I think 16 kids in her class, DS has 14. It was the only
choice in the school they go to...had they gone to the
school at the church we attend, they'd have had 1/2 day
kindergarten (with 24 kids in the class), which we didn't
like because it was only 3 hours long, at most. So just
about the time the kids settle in, they might start to
think it's time to go home.

Scott DD 10.5 & DS 7.9

[H Schinske]

wrote:

>It smacks of inequity to me (what are the kids doing the other half of
>the day and won't the kids whose parents can't afford it be at a major
>disadvantage in the 1st grade??) Or is it basically day care?

Our school has a half day program and a full day program. The full day program
is more popular and is generally filled with siblings of older students in the
school (well, not 100%, but a significant proportion of those seats). The
half-day is easier to get into and tends to have the kids who live outside the
school's reference area and therefore don't get first choice.

We were in the latter case when our twins were small, so they went to the
half-day program and filled in with an enrichment program at the onsite
daycare. At that time I actually liked the enrichment program better than the
academic one, myself! It seemed more developmentally appropriate and they had
cooler projects and stuff.

My son is in the full-day program now. He seems to be getting very much the
same academic stuff that his sisters did. He could already read, so it is a
little difficult to tell whether the children are learning that any better.

There is such a wide range of normal developmental levels in kindergarten that
it is pretty difficult to assess how well the class is functioning by looking
at classwork (except for the usual stuff, you don't want to see all the papers
looking just alike, with all the cotton balls glued in the exact same places,
that kind of thing). Mostly you look for a place that will make your child
happy and safe, and that is most likely a place where s/he can learn well, too.

--Helen

[Beth Gallagher]

> My question is: what's the difference? Has anyone had experience with
> a school district where some of the kids go full day and some don't?
> It smacks of inequity to me (what are the kids doing the other half of
> the day and won't the kids whose parents can't afford it be at a major
> disadvantage in the 1st grade??) Or is it basically day care?
>
> I've called the school and someone will supposedly get back to me in a
> couple of weeks. I'm kind of looking for the straight dope, so to
> speak.

I think that whether full- or half-day is best for the child (as opposed to
for the parent) will vary a lot by district. Our public school dictrict
offers only half-day K, but the state government is trying to raise money to
fund full-day K throughout the state. I shudder at the thought. My DD does
an awful lot of worksheets and often doesn't even get recess. (School is
only 2.5 hours long, but recess is where they get to know the other kids.)
If they're going to make the kids go to school full-time at 5 (or 6 or 7!),
IMO they need to make it much more creative, fun, social, and relaxed. Other
responses on this thread would indicate that many districts that offer
full-day K do have better K programs than ours, or at least that they make
sure the afternoon is not too academic.

So I guess the straight dope is that it'll depend on the program itself, and
also on your idea of what a child that age needs most.

[Iowacookiemom]

First of all welcome, and I hope you stay around. It's great to see a new
face!

As to your question, I echo what others have said. IMO the most important thing
about kindergarten is that the child has a good experience that predisposes
him/her to feel good about school overall. So I'd take into consideration what
the child's friends are doing, what you hear about teachers in both programs,
etc.

Along the same lines, consider what you know about your child -- will s/he be
more comfortable with the transition one way or another? Our child had been in
a curriculum-based daycare since infanthood -- it would have been a backward
step in some ways for him to go to 1/2 day K.

I've read some research (it's been a while, this was 2 or 3 years ago when it
was an issue in our district) that there are academic benefits. I'm guessing
that's mostly true for kids with less educated, less involved parents. I'm
guessing anyone who is involved enough and cares enough to post the question to
a newsgroup is going to provide sufficient supplemental learning at home so
that it won't make a difference.

Go with your gut and whatever you can find out from folks who have been through
it at *your* school. Good luck, and again -- welcome to the group!

-Dawn
Mom to Henry, 11

[Sandi Jones]

Schools have changed. Kindergarten was OPTIONAL in most states when I
was a kid. Now it is required in most states, and the focus is now
academic, not social. Study after study has found that 5 year old little
boys are not ready to sit down, shut up, and keep both feet flat on the
floor. With the change of focus of kindergarten, more little boys are
being prescribed Ritalin and other drugs in order to enable them to cope
with an academic environment that they are not developmentally ready to
handle. My oldest son, now 18 went through a full day program. His 5
year old little brother would NOT be able to deal with a full day of
school. (He's a YOUNG 5, having an August birthday, he is in the high
risk group, males born late July- early Sept sent to school at 5) There
are boys who are ready. There are girls who are not, but as the biggest
hurdle to Kinder is the social norming of being able to follow
directions consistently throughout the day. Females have more of a knack
for social interaction, and that that age are more likely to try to
please the teacher. As for my 18 year old who did full day, that was in
a private school. I don't know of any public schools in my area that do
full day kindergarten.

Sandi

Jaime wrote:
> Hi. :) I'm new to this board and I've seen some old posts about
> kindergarten readiness, whether to hold/not to hold back, etc. I
> haven't seen anything newer, though. Forgive me if I glossed over
> this in FAQs, but I didn't see my questions. (Rambling...)
>
> We recently moved to an area where kindergarten is either part or full
> day. To get full day kindergarten, you pay for it. (I'm originally
> from New York City and it never occurred to me that some areas make
> parents PAY for kindergarten!!)
>
> My question is: what's the difference? Has anyone had experience with
> a school district where some of the kids go full day and some don't?
> It smacks of inequity to me (what are the kids doing the other half of
> the day and won't the kids whose parents can't afford it be at a major
> disadvantage in the 1st grade??) Or is it basically day care?
>
> I've called the school and someone will supposedly get back to me in a
> couple of weeks. I'm kind of looking for the straight dope, so to
> speak.
>
> Thanks in advance!! :D
>
> P.S. This seems like a really great board. I've been reading for a
> bit, half afraid to post something silly.
>

[David desJardins]

Sandi Jones writes:
> Schools have changed. Kindergarten was OPTIONAL in most states when I
> was a kid. Now it is required in most states, and the focus is now
> academic, not social.

I believe that kindergarten attendance is still optional in most states.
However, attendance rates are much higher than they were a generation
ago.

> Study after study has found that 5 year old little boys are not ready
> to sit down, shut up, and keep both feet flat on the floor. With the
> change of focus of kindergarten, more little boys are being prescribed
> Ritalin and other drugs in order to enable them to cope with an
> academic environment that they are not developmentally ready to
> handle.

It seems to me that "sit down" and "shut up" are not inherent to the
"academic environment"; they are just aspects of how schools choose to
teach. It's perfectly possible to teach lots of "academic" content to
children who don't consistently "sit down" and "shut up". (After all,
it wouldn't be hard to teach all of the same "academic" material to
those same children, one-on-one, at home.) It's just that the schools
don't have the resources, or perhaps the inclination, to do that. They
have to teach large *numbers* of small children, with limited resources,
and that's why the focus on "mature" behavior becomes so important.

David desJardins

[Sandi Jones]

In the state of Ohio, it went mandatory when my oldest son, now 18
turned 5. He was among the first year of compulsory kindergarten in
Ohio. When I home schooled my younger 3 boys, most of the states that I
ran into other HSers in online also had compulsory kindergarten. For a
reasonably up to date list of which states have compulsory kindergarten
see: http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/29/21/2921.pdf

Some states are considering mandating preschool. Head Start has been
pushing to pull children from their homes younger and younger. (Research
Florida 2002 "Voluntary Universal Pre-Kindergarten Education") I don't
see where taking children from the parents at younger and younger ages
will be good for society, or children. People claim that they don't
trust the government with this and with that, yet they trust them to
take their children? How many things does government do right? You want
them messing with your kid's head?

Public schools have limited resources? With their monopolistic control,
their segment of the economy has had the highest inflation in our
economy, higher than health care! What were class sizes when you were a
kid? What are they now? How many more illiterates pour out of the poor
system now?


Sandi Jones - I just looked at my kindergarten picture, all 35 kids!

David desJardins wrote:

> I believe that kindergarten attendance is still optional in most states.
> However, attendance rates are much higher than they were a generation
> ago.

>
> It seems to me that "sit down" and "shut up" are not inherent to the
> "academic environment"; they are just aspects of how schools choose to
> teach. It's perfectly possible to teach lots of "academic" content to
> children who don't consistently "sit down" and "shut up". (After all,
> it wouldn't be hard to teach all of the same "academic" material to
> those same children, one-on-one, at home.) It's just that the schools
> don't have the resources, or perhaps the inclination, to do that. They
> have to teach large *numbers* of small children, with limited resources,
> and that's why the focus on "mature" behavior becomes so important.
>
> David desJardins
>

[Chris Himes]

Sandi Jones > wrote in message >...
> In the state of Ohio, it went mandatory when my oldest son, now 18
> turned 5. He was among the first year of compulsory kindergarten in
> Ohio. When I home schooled my younger 3 boys, most of the states that I
> ran into other HSers in online also had compulsory kindergarten. For a
> reasonably up to date list of which states have compulsory kindergarten
> see: http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/29/21/2921.pdf

If you read the document closely, many states have compulsory
attendance ages of 6 or 7. Attendance in kindergarten is not required
in those states, although schools may be required to offer it.

Chris

[Robyn Kozierok]

In article >,
Sandi Jones > wrote:
>
>Some states are considering mandating preschool. Head Start has been
>pushing to pull children from their homes younger and younger. (Research
>Florida 2002 "Voluntary Universal Pre-Kindergarten Education") I don't
>see where taking children from the parents at younger and younger ages
>will be good for society, or children.

For children who would otherwise be at home with attentive, reasonably
educated parents, or in high quality daycares, that may indeed be true.
For children who would otherwise be in mediocre daycare or home with
less attentive parents, free preschool programs can be a fantastic
benefit.


Robyn (mommy to Ryan 9/93 and Matthew 6/96 and Evan 3/01)
--
For a challenging little arithmetic puzzle for kids and adults alike,
check out http://cgi.wff-n-proof.com/MSQ-Ind/I-1E.htm

[Scott]

Sandi Jones wrote:

> Public schools have limited resources? With their monopolistic control,
> their segment of the economy has had the highest inflation in our
> economy, higher than health care! What were class sizes when you were a
> kid? What are they now? How many more illiterates pour out of the poor
> system now?

I think I had 20 in my kindergarten class, back in 1965 (!!!!)

That was more than DD had (16) or DS (13). I don't know how
many illiterates pour out of the school system here in WI,
but I think that about half of DD's and DS's classes were
illiterate when they started kindergarten, and maybe 25% of
them spoke no English. And now they all read at or above grade
level. I think that's a success.

And if you want to blame the cost of schooling on something, I
suggest you start with all the unfunded mandates that pour
out of the state and national Capitols. Leave no child
behind....yeah, right.

Scott, DD 10.5 and DS 7.9

[David desJardins]

Sandi Jones writes:
> For a reasonably up to date list of which states have compulsory
> kindergarten see: http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/29/21/2921.pdf

Which certainly matches what I said: only 14 mandatory, out of 50.

> I don't see where taking children from the parents at younger and
> younger ages will be good for society, or children.

I think maybe you haven't met enough parents with, let's say, very
questionable parenting skills, or even lack of interest in parenting.
Homeschoolers are obviously a very different population. I think it's
entirely consistent to think that parents who want to teach their
children at home can often do a better job than the schools can, and
also to think that most children (whose parents have no interest in
that) would do better with earlier preschool attendance.

> Public schools have limited resources? With their monopolistic control,
> their segment of the economy has had the highest inflation in our
> economy, higher than health care! What were class sizes when you were a
> kid? What are they now? How many more illiterates pour out of the poor
> system now?

I don't believe any of these claims, except the illiterates. (Which is
a symptom of a problem with parents, and the growing gap between rich
and poor in this country, not really a problem with the schools imho.
If someone's child is really not learning to read, the parent has to be
doing something very wrong, regardless of what's happening or not
happening in school.) Public schools in most of the US have less
resources than they did 1-2 generations ago (compared to the wealth of
the country---we are overall much wealthier, but that doesn't help
service economies like teaching). But class sizes are smaller than they
were. Certainly here in California. What is your data? I can't find
historical figures on US education spending, right now, but I can't
believe it's gone up significantly, as a fraction of GDP. (In the same
period that health care has gone up dramatically.)

David desJardins

[Iowacookiemom]

>If someone's child is really not learning to read, the parent has to be
>doing something very wrong, regardless of what's happening or not
>happening in school.

Oh, my. You're a person who backs up your statements with research, David.
Surely you don't mean that the way it came out.

If a child is not learning to read, any number of things may be going wrong,
independent of parental effort and initiative. Our son is an only child of two
highly educated parents who read to him daily from infancy and did everything
everyone tells you to do, and he still struggled to learn to read and it really
didn't click until this year (5th grade). It's taken a considerable amount of
effort, tutoring and diagnostics to get him on track (he now gets A's in
reading, it is his best subject).

-Dawn
Mom to Henry, 11, who struggled with reading for years but who will not accept
that it had anything to do with her parenting skills.

[David desJardins]

Dawn writes:
> If a child is not learning to read, any number of things may be going
> wrong, independent of parental effort and initiative. Our son is an
> only child of two highly educated parents who read to him daily from
> infancy and did everything everyone tells you to do, and he still
> struggled to learn to read and it really didn't click until this year
> (5th grade).

That seems to support my point. The point was that, if children are
*leaving* the school system *illiterate* (as Sandi Jones said), the
parents are doing something wrong. Your child isn't going to be an
illiterate high-school dropout, and that's because of your decisions and
actions.

David desJardins

[Iowacookiemom]

>Dawn writes:
>> If a child is not learning to read, any number of things may be going
>> wrong, independent of parental effort and initiative. Our son is an
>> only child of two highly educated parents who read to him daily from
>> infancy and did everything everyone tells you to do, and he still
>> struggled to learn to read and it really didn't click until this year
>> (5th grade).
>
>That seems to support my point. The point was that, if children are
>*leaving* the school system *illiterate* (as Sandi Jones said), the
>parents are doing something wrong. Your child isn't going to be an
>illiterate high-school dropout, and that's because of your decisions and
>actions.

Thanks for clarifying. I'm sure you realize that is *not* what you said -- you
*said* that if a child isn't learning to read -- not if a child hasn't learned
to read by high school age.

Still, I think there's much more in play than parental actions. We had the
money and the independent knowledge to do something about our son's struggles.
If we did not have resources (money, health insurance that covered some of the
testing, etc) as well as knowledge and contacts with people who could advise us
independent of the school's assessment, we might have resigned ourselves to
having a child who was just not very bright.

It's not hard for me to imagine how low-income, less-educated parents might not
have been able to find the right answers. I lay the responsibility for that
with the schools, not the parents. IMNSH (and certainly not unbiased) O, Henry
is bright enough that someone, in 5 years of public schooling, should have
recognized that he was not reading well. Unless and until our schools can do
that, whole generations of differently abled low-income kids will never reach
their full potential.


-Dawn
Mom to Henry, 11

[David desJardins]

Dawm writes:
> Thanks for clarifying. I'm sure you realize that is *not* what you
> said -- you *said* that if a child isn't learning to read -- not if a
> child hasn't learned to read by high school age.

Well, I was talking about the children described in the post I was
replying to, the ones who are leaving school while illiterate. I
thought it was obvious that I was not referring to any child, of any
age, who can't read; in that case it would also apply to one year olds.
I don't expect one year olds to be able to read.

My comment also doesn't apply to some children with severe handicaps,
who aren't capable of learning to read. Probably there are other
exceptions, too.

> It's not hard for me to imagine how low-income, less-educated parents
> might not have been able to find the right answers. I lay the
> responsibility for that with the schools, not the parents. IMNSH (and
> certainly not unbiased) O, Henry is bright enough that someone, in 5
> years of public schooling, should have recognized that he was not
> reading well.

I don't doubt that, but it's hard for me to believe that the school
didn't notice. Do you mean that, in his report cards, and
parent-teacher conferences, the school claimed that he could read, when
he actually couldn't?

And certainly, the parents should realize that their child can't read,
whether or not the school does. It seems that you did realize that your
son was struggling to read, so the "recognizing" wasn't a problem in
your case.

As you say, it can happen that some parents may realize the problem, but
not do anything effective about it. I *understand* how that can happen.
But I still think that they are failing in one of their basic
responsibilities as parents.

I also understand, very well, how the schools can be unable to fix the
problem for every child. At least, it's very easy to understand here in
California, where the schools are extremely limited in their resources
these days (and it's getting worse). I think that parents have more of
an ability to direct more resources at their children's problems than
the schools do, because our society has decided that we are only willing
to allocate X tax dollars to education: the schools just don't have the
option to spend more than that. Parents can (and should) prioritize
education more highly within their own family, when there's a problem.

I think that parents may rely on the schools for what schools
do---schools are an important resource for parents---but that doesn't
relieve the parents of the primary responsibility to ensure that their
children learn, and to intervene if it's not happening. IMHO, this is
just part (a big part) of the responsibility that people assume when
they decide to become parents.

David desJardins

[Iowacookiemom]

At the risk of continuing what may well be a two-person discussion at this
point, I do think there are lessons to be learned for other parents in the
experiences I recount below.

David wrote:
>Dawm writes:
>> It's not hard for me to imagine how low-income, less-educated parents
>> might not have been able to find the right answers. I lay the
>> responsibility for that with the schools, not the parents. IMNSH (and
>> certainly not unbiased) O, Henry is bright enough that someone, in 5
>> years of public schooling, should have recognized that he was not
>> reading well.
>
>I don't doubt that, but it's hard for me to believe that the school
>didn't notice. Do you mean that, in his report cards, and
>parent-teacher conferences, the school claimed that he could read, when
>he actually couldn't?

Basically, yes. He could read a little bit and is so bright in other ways that
he had little tricks to fake his way through. He is very charming, very
personable, and used those skills plus his intelligence to get around the
reading thing. His grades (not letter grades at that point) were all in the
satisfactory range -- he was getting by and he was not a discipline problem.

In his first school, and inner-city school in a high-poverty area, he was in
the lower part of the upper half of his classmates, in other words slightly
above average. I think they had so much else going on that a kid who is making
it work at grade level schoolwork was just not a priority.

In his second school, in an affluent section of town, he was below average but
not so far below that he required intervention. I think, sadly, that race may
have come in to play in that case. He is black and was doing better than most
of the other black kids (only a handful) in that school. So I'm sure they saw
him as a success.

No one other than us seemed to think it was weird that he was so clearly among
the brightest kids when it came to classroom discussions, cognitive thinking
during class group work, and on-the-spot thinking during, say, math
instruciton... but when he had to put pencil to paper or work independently his
performance took a severe turn south. Even Henry would articulate it: "I feel
like I'm as smart as my friends, but they do so much better than me in school."

>And certainly, the parents should realize that their child can't read,
>whether or not the school does.

This assumes the parents can read. At Henry's first school that was not true
for a significant number (the school felt it might be as high as 25%) of
parents.

>It seems that you did realize that your
>son was struggling to read, so the "recognizing" wasn't a problem in
>your case.

We recognized it much earlier than we were able to convince the school of the
problem. Truthfully I'm not sure they ever acknowledged it. I think some of
them still view us as over-achiever yuppie parents who couldn't handle having
an average kid. It was never about that. It was about Henry's increasing lack
of overall confidence as he faced this incongruous situation.

Thinking back, I think this may have been largely a side effect of the reliance
on standardized tests. On the tests Henry would do just well enough to be
technically performing at grade level. If I had to guess I would say he
probably cheated on some of the tests, although I'm sure he didn't see it that
way (he was too young to do so with any other intent other than a desire to fit
in and please the adults in his life). I think our schools are currently
rewarded for keeping kids above a specific, arbitrary bar rather than helping
each kid reach maximum potential, whether that be above or below that bar.

>As you say, it can happen that some parents may realize the problem, but
>not do anything effective about it. I *understand* how that can happen.
>But I still think that they are failing in one of their basic
>responsibilities as parents.

I guess what I'm saying is that I think most parents do the best they can with
the resources they have available to them. And if they themselves didn't have
a good education, then they are ill-equipped in many ways to assist their own
child's education in the same way you and I can.

I think that as long as the educational system relies on parents as first
responders rather than as allies, we will continue to have a two-tiered system.

>I also understand, very well, how the schools can be unable to fix the
>problem for every child.

We agree there. But I do think the reliance on test scores and underfunding
are the problems -- I understand and don't necessarily blame schools as much as
I blame society/government.

>I think that parents may rely on the schools for what schools
>do---schools are an important resource for parents---but that doesn't
>relieve the parents of the primary responsibility to ensure that their
>children learn, and to intervene if it's not happening. IMHO, this is
>just part (a big part) of the responsibility that people assume when
>they decide to become parents.

Unfortunately not everyone makes that decision as intentionally as you and I
did. Again, that is true IMO due to a myriad of social and political
realities. But that's a discussion for another time ;-)

-Dawn
Mom to Henry, 11

[chiam margalit]

Sandi Jones > wrote in message >...
> Schools have changed. Kindergarten was OPTIONAL in most states when I
> was a kid. Now it is required in most states, and the focus is now
> academic, not social. Study after study has found that 5 year old little
> boys are not ready to sit down, shut up, and keep both feet flat on the
> floor. With the change of focus of kindergarten, more little boys are
> being prescribed Ritalin and other drugs in order to enable them to cope
> with an academic environment that they are not developmentally ready to
> handle. My oldest son, now 18 went through a full day program. His 5
> year old little brother would NOT be able to deal with a full day of
> school. (He's a YOUNG 5, having an August birthday, he is in the high
> risk group, males born late July- early Sept sent to school at 5)

The HIGH RISK Group? Where did that phrase come from? High risk of
what? Learning their ABCs too soon? Learning how to make a
relationship between the written and oral language?

My son, who has a very late August birthday, started full day
kindergarten at age 5 years and 6 days. He was, as you claimed, a
YOUNG 5. Not only was he completely and totally kindergarten ready, he
was well beyond ready in that he was already reading and doing simple
mathematics on his own. He was socially adept after having 3 years of
full day preschool under his belt. Kindergartens test children where
we lived, and he applied to 3 different schools, all of which tested
him definately kindergarten ready.

Now, he's 11.5 years old and going to enter high school in the
upcoming school year. He's 3 years younger than most of his
classmates, and yet he's got plenty of friends, more than enough
actually. He's able to complete his schoolwork in a manner than
pleases everyone, he's able to keep up socially and is in fact a real
leader.

Being a YOUNG 5 evidentally wasn't a crisis situation for him, nor was
he ever at HIGH RISK. In fact, he and most of the other boys I know
were able to handle kindergarten just fine at 5. This tendency to
redshirt boys is, IMO, silly UNLESS your child really isn't ready. But
when my son was in kindergarten the boys ranged in age from DS as the
youngest, to another boy who was 7, a hulk, and a bully. THAT kid
caused more problems and had more issues than any of the "young 5's"
in class.

Marjorie

[chiam margalit]

(Iowacookiemom) wrote in message >...
> >If someone's child is really not learning to read, the parent has to be
> >doing something very wrong, regardless of what's happening or not
> >happening in school.
>
> Oh, my. You're a person who backs up your statements with research, David.
> Surely you don't mean that the way it came out.
>
> If a child is not learning to read, any number of things may be going wrong,
> independent of parental effort and initiative. Our son is an only child of two
> highly educated parents who read to him daily from infancy and did everything
> everyone tells you to do, and he still struggled to learn to read and it really
> didn't click until this year (5th grade). It's taken a considerable amount of
> effort, tutoring and diagnostics to get him on track (he now gets A's in
> reading, it is his best subject).

As the parent of 11.5 YO twins who got literally the same upbringing,
where one was reading at 3.5 and the other one STILL has reading
difficulties, I can hardly see that it has anything to do with me, a
chronic reader for whom voracious doesn't even come close to
describing my reading habits. Reading problems come from many
different issues, including learning disabilities that are above and
beyond any parents skill set, even if that parent is a certified
teacher (like me) and knows plenty about teaching reading. DD is never
going to be a fluent reader. She has way too many physical (eye
problem) and neurological issues working against her. I could do
EVERYTHING in the world to encourage her to read, but the fact is,
reading is *physically painful* for her, and she's never going to do
it volunrarily.

Surely you don't think this is my fault, do you?

Marjorie

>
> -Dawn
> Mom to Henry, 11, who struggled with reading for years but who will not accept
> that it had anything to do with her parenting skills.

[Robyn Kozierok]

In article >,
chiam margalit > wrote:
>Sandi Jones > wrote in message
>...
>> Schools have changed. Kindergarten was OPTIONAL in most states when I
>> was a kid. Now it is required in most states, and the focus is now
>> academic, not social. Study after study has found that 5 year old little
>> boys are not ready to sit down, shut up, and keep both feet flat on the
>> floor. With the change of focus of kindergarten, more little boys are
>> being prescribed Ritalin and other drugs in order to enable them to cope
>> with an academic environment that they are not developmentally ready to
>> handle. My oldest son, now 18 went through a full day program. His 5
>> year old little brother would NOT be able to deal with a full day of
>> school. (He's a YOUNG 5, having an August birthday, he is in the high
>> risk group, males born late July- early Sept sent to school at 5)
>
>The HIGH RISK Group? Where did that phrase come from? High risk of
>what? Learning their ABCs too soon? Learning how to make a
>relationship between the written and oral language?

Many sources consider "young for grade" boys to be at risk for poor
school outcomes. Just because you have an exceptional son who thrived
on kindergarten entry when he was barely 5 does not mean that there
isn't a strong movement out there to encourage parents to hold such
boys back, and to tell them that their sons will be at risk from being
the youngest in their class, as I imagine you experienced when your son
was 5 (and I certainly experienced when I wanted to enter my
September-born son into K at nearly 5, which was "too young" by state
guidelines, though we later found a round-about route to do that and he
too thrived).

Like you, I'm against "red shirting" when it isn't really needed because
it just makes it more likely that a young 5 who does belong in K will
find the situation more difficult.

Informed opinions on the topic are mixed. But this poster did not make
up the notion tha many consider young-for-grade boys to be at risk in
Kindergarten. For example:

http://www.academy.umd.edu/AboutUs/news/articles/11-11-01.htm

"If it's sit-still, paper-pencil, workbook ad infinitum, boys
are much more likely to have troubles," says James Uphoff, an
education professor at Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio,
and the author of Summer Children: Ready or Not for School.
"And the younger boys are most at risk."

http://www.srcd.org/sprv16n2.pdf

Studies of kindergarten teachers show that the majority endorse
later school entry for children who appear not to be ready for
kindergarten (NCES, 1997). The pressure to increase test scores
may encourage teachers to advise more parents to hold out
relatively young children, especially boys, who they consider
to be at risk of poor achievement.


(The quoted pieces are not meant to represent the full presentation of
the articles; merely to demonstrate the use of "at risk" terminology
applied to boys who would be young (relative to the rest of the class)
on kindergarten entry.)

--Robyn (mommy to Ryan 9/93 and Matthew 6/96 and Evan 3/01)
* Support a family business and learn about the technologies underlying
the Internet with the TCP/IP Guide! http://www.tcpipguide.com
* For a challenging little arithmetic puzzle for kids and adults alike,
check out http://cgi.wff-n-proof.com/MSQ-Ind/I-1E.htm
(fwiw, I have a financial interest in the first but not the second)

[H Schinske]

wrote:

>>The HIGH RISK Group? Where did that phrase come from? High risk of
>>what? Learning their ABCs too soon? Learning how to make a
>>relationship between the written and oral language?

It's another Gesell Institute thing -- they are very strong on having kids,
especially boys, be fully five and a half by kindergarten entry.

--Helen

[Leah Adezio]

Piggybacking off Marjorie's post....

om...
> Sandi Jones > wrote in message
>...

[thar be snippage here]

With the change of focus of kindergarten, more little boys are
> > being prescribed Ritalin and other drugs in order to enable them to cope
> > with an academic environment that they are not developmentally ready to
> > handle.

This is not true...but I'm sure you have the cites and statistical evidence
to support your *specific* claim, yes? Please produce it.

And moderators? I thought one of the reasons the ng is moderated was to try
to keep things like meds bashing to a minimum.

I find the attitude of this poster, with her false statement which appears
to serve no purpose but to 'Ritalin/med bash' repugnant to those of us who
have children who have been properly diagnosed and are being treated for
ADD/ADHD with a variety of techniques, including medication.

Leah

[MKM Moderation Team]

In article >, Leah Adezio > wrote:
>
>And moderators? I thought one of the reasons the ng is moderated was to try
>to keep things like meds bashing to a minimum.
>
>I find the attitude of this poster, with her false statement which appears
>to serve no purpose but to 'Ritalin/med bash' repugnant to those of us who
>have children who have been properly diagnosed and are being treated for
>ADD/ADHD with a variety of techniques, including medication.

Thanks for your question, Leah. The moderators determined that the post
you referred to is not uncivil according to misc.kids.moderated
guidelines. In general, the moderators do not reject statements of opinion
unless they are stated in an uncivil manner or phrased in a way that could
be seen as an attack or insult to specific people. Also, moderators do
not fact-check posts. We do expect and encourage other posters to question
or refute statements they consider erroneous, just as you did here.

In this particular case, about the use of ADHD medication, we felt the
original poster was not criticizing specific parents who use medication or
claiming that children never need medication, but was stating a common
perception about overall trends. M.k.m. is a ideal place in which informed
readers can address these kinds of perceptions and provide more detailed
and personal perspectives on issues like this.

The misc.kids.moderated charter and posting guidelines may be found at
http://www.misckids.org .

-- The mkm moderators

[Iowacookiemom]

(Iowacookiemom) wrote in message
>...
>> >If someone's child is really not learning to read, the parent has to be
>> >doing something very wrong, regardless of what's happening or not
>> >happening in school.
(snip)
>> If a child is not learning to read, any number of things may be going
>wrong,
>> independent of parental effort and initiative.
(snip my experience)
>
>As the parent of 11.5 YO twins who got literally the same upbringing,
>where one was reading at 3.5 and the other one STILL has reading
>difficulties, I can hardly see that it has anything to do with me, a
>chronic reader for whom voracious doesn't even come close to
>describing my reading habits.
(snip Marjorie's experiences
>Surely you don't think this is my fault, do you?

Are you suggesting that *I* suggested this was your fault? I said just the
opposite about my own experience. Something's wrong with either my ability to
express myself, your ability to understand what I'm saying, or your
attribution.

-Dawn

[Circe]

Iowacookiemom wrote:
> Marjorie wrote:
>> As the parent of 11.5 YO twins who got literally the same upbringing,
>> where one was reading at 3.5 and the other one STILL has reading
>> difficulties, I can hardly see that it has anything to do with me, a
>> chronic reader for whom voracious doesn't even come close to
>> describing my reading habits.
> (snip Marjorie's experiences
>> Surely you don't think this is my fault, do you?
>
> Are you suggesting that *I* suggested this was your fault? I said
> just the opposite about my own experience. Something's wrong with
> either my ability to express myself, your ability to understand what
> I'm saying, or your attribution.
>
I think Marjorie was agreeing with you and disagreeing with the poster to
whom you were responding (who stated that if a child isn't learning to read,
the *parent* much be doing something wrong).

Quite obviously, there are children with learning disabilities of various
kinds who will find reading difficult. That's not the fault of parents or
educators. And some children are simply not *ready* to learn to read when
the school curriculum dictates it. I know plenty of children who were
reading at a very rudimentary level (just enough to satisfy the
requirements) at the end of first grade only to suddenly "get it" in the
early parts of second grade and become voracious readers.
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [22 mos.] mom)

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
Financing for "5" years -- car dealership sign

[Circe]

H Schinske wrote:
> wrote:
>>> The HIGH RISK Group? Where did that phrase come from? High risk of
>>> what? Learning their ABCs too soon? Learning how to make a
>>> relationship between the written and oral language?
>
> It's another Gesell Institute thing -- they are very strong on having
> kids, especially boys, be fully five and a half by kindergarten entry.
>
In fairness, the curriculum is TARGETED to 5.5yo's, not just-turned-5yo's.
And while my oldest did fine for the most entering kindergarten at 5y1m,
there were some things that were more of a struggle for him than for older
boys in his class (his fine motor skills were and still are the most
noticeable issue, since he's on the slow side for them to begin with and
boys generally lag a bit behind girls in this area anyway).

Of course, in California, the kindergarten cut-off is Dec. 2, which means
you have quite a lot of kids entering kindergarten who are not yet 5.5yo,
and many who aren't even 5yo when school starts. This is the case despite an
increasingly academic curriculum that really may be too much for many
children who are only barely or not yet 5 when school starts. That's not to
say that NONE of them are ready--a high proportion are--but parents
definitely need to decide whether an individual child is ready based on more
than just a birthdate.

In our case, I'm really struggling with the question of whether to send my
daughter (5 in July) to kindergarten next fall. If she were like my son, I
wouldn't be concerned, but she has some identified delays due to what I'd
now describe as a non-verbal learning disability (specifically, she has
trouble with sequencing auditory information, which leads to all sorts of
problems with both receptive and expressive language). Ironically, I have
the sense that she'd pass the kindergarten readiness testing with flying
colors because she knows all her letters, all the number 1-10, can count to
20, knows all the colors, can spell and write her first name, etc. IOW, all
the pre-academic skills they typically look for to determine kindergarten
readiness are there and the problem she has is so subtle, most people don't
even notice it (it took her community preschool teacher 3 months before she
noticed it, for example, and I *told* her about it). No decisions need to be
made yet, of course, but I'm already weighing the options: hold out
completely, send to Montessori kindergarten and decide the following year
whether to do kindy or first grade at the public school, or send her to
kindy with an IEP. So far, I think Montessori kindergarten is the leading
contender, but that could change after I consult with her preschool teachers
(both at the developmental school and the community preschool) in March or
April.

Anyway, that was a long way of saying that the choice of whether or not the
red-shirt is *very* dependent on the individual child and not even
particularly dependent on the child's birthdate or gender. You have to weigh
all the factors. The most important thing to remember, IMO, however, is that
children who wind up repeating kindergarten fare statistically worse over
their educational careers than children who are held out a year. I think
that argues in favor of red-shirting whenever there's any question.
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [22 mos.] mom)

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
Financing for "5" years -- car dealership sign

[H Schinske]

wrote:

>The most important thing to remember, IMO, however, is that
>children who wind up repeating kindergarten fare statistically worse over
>their educational careers than children who are held out a year. I think
>that argues in favor of red-shirting whenever there's any question.

Except that many more children are held out a year *for fear of* the
possibility of retention, than would ever likely need to be retained. So
there's a question of what "any question" really *means*. And red-shirting is
not without possible damage, either.

--Helen

[H Schinske]

wrote:

>In our case, I'm really struggling with the question of whether to send my
>daughter (5 in July) to kindergarten next fall. If she were like my son, I
>wouldn't be concerned, but she has some identified delays

Actually the kindergarten teachers I've talked to lean very much towards
age-appropriate placement for kids with identified LDs, and this seems like the
same sort of thing. It's the environment they need socially, and they'll get
the help they need sooner. Would she be able to get any services at the
Montessori school, by the way?

I doubt there is much that a year out of school would fix, frankly. It isn't
immaturity that's her problem, from what you've said. The word "delay" can be
confusing because it sounds as though time could fix it, but you know there are
things that wouldn't have been fixed for her by time, she needed intervention
as well.

--Helen

[Circe]

H Schinske wrote:
> wrote:
>> In our case, I'm really struggling with the question of whether to
>> send my daughter (5 in July) to kindergarten next fall. If she were
>> like my son, I wouldn't be concerned, but she has some identified
>> delays
>
> Actually the kindergarten teachers I've talked to lean very much
> towards age-appropriate placement for kids with identified LDs, and
> this seems like the same sort of thing. It's the environment they
> need socially, and they'll get the help they need sooner. Would she
> be able to get any services at the Montessori school, by the way?
>
She would still be eligible to receive the same services she is currently
receiving through the public school district at the developmental preschool.
She is already *getting* a lot of intervention services, so whatever we do
next year won't change that.

> I doubt there is much that a year out of school would fix, frankly.
> It isn't immaturity that's her problem, from what you've said. The
> word "delay" can be confusing because it sounds as though time could
> fix it, but you know there are things that wouldn't have been fixed
> for her by time, she needed intervention as well.
>
Well, yes and no. The thing we've generally seen with Aurora is that, while
she gains skills more slowly than other children, she *does* gain them. She
may well have a non-verbal learning disability that will never go away, but
she may do better in school if we allow her skills to get closer to the
skills needed for success in school than if we push her too early,
particularly when the school in question is so academically demanding.

Honestly, if our kindergarten were a full-day program with only 20 children
per class all day, I would be less concerned because I think she would get
the attention she needs and enough time to assimilate information. But the
way it's done now, there's an overlapping morning/afternoon program, with a
period of time each day when the teacher has *40* kids to deal with at one
time. Given her difficulties in dealing with verbal instructions, I think
she may well get totally lost in that sort of environment and, during the
times when there are 40 kids, her teacher may not even realize that she's
lost.
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [22 mos.] mom)

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
Financing for "5" years -- car dealership sign

[David desJardins]

Sandi Jones wrote:
>>> With the change of focus of kindergarten, more little boys are being
>>> prescribed Ritalin and other drugs in order to enable them to cope
>>> with an academic environment that they are not developmentally ready
>>> to handle.

Leah Adezio writes:
> This is not true...but I'm sure you have the cites and statistical
> evidence to support your *specific* claim, yes? Please produce it.

To show that it's "not true", you would have to demonstrate that nowhere
in the United States is there even one "little boy" who has been put in
a more demanding environment, been less able to cope with it, and has
been given medication as a result. That seems like an impossible
standard of proof. What's your data for *your* claim?

I don't particularly agree with everything that Sandi has to say, but it
seems like just an opinion. And the opinion that Ritalin is
overprescribed is, at the least, an extremely widely held view. I don't
think it's one that you can quash just because you don't like it.

David desJardins

[Sandi Jones]

There is a BIG difference between children who are Dx'ed by Drs and
those Dx'ed by teachers. Drs have TRAINING to Dx medical disorders, and
Rx meds. Teachers DON'T, but in many states it DOES occur! A few years
back a New England state, I think Connecticut, outlawed the practice of
schools Rx'ing Ritalin, or any meds. And how about those of us who have
received the Ritalin note, with drug Rx'ed by teachers? I HAVE gotten
the Ritalin note that required Ritalin, for a condition of attendance in
a public school. The school's Dr called an Rx to a pharmacy w/o ever
having met or examined my child. {~~ Footnote this same Dr was reported
in a big news scandal about 12 years later for Rxing drugs w/o meeting
patients, and testifying about people's medical / psychologocial
conditions routinely without meeting or treating! ~~} After my son
suffered very bad side effects our pediatrician told me to remove him
from the medicine that had been prescribed by the school. The county
then proceeded to sue me. Drugs ARE prescribed to make school easier for
teachers. I told the woman that her curriculum was inappropriate for
him. I asked her to give him appropriate work to keep him busy. he was
in 1st grade, he could add, subtract, multiply, divide, add and subtract
fractions with common denominators, calculate decimals and percentages.
He was bored stiff in a class that was only doing single column
addition. They eventually tested him as gifted, but said that I had no
right to have exposed him to so much education by that age. They wanted
him drugged so that his boredom with an inappropriate curriculum would
not cause a problem. This particular teacher said that no allowances
needed to be made for any child because all children were alike whether
their parents liked to admit it or not. She was one BAD bloody egg in
her profession! Think of how bad things would be if all teachers were
alike, like her.... shudder

Sandi Jones

Leah Adezio wrote:
> Piggybacking off Marjorie's post....
>
> om...
>
>>Sandi Jones > wrote in message
>
> >...
>
> [thar be snippage here]
>
> With the change of focus of kindergarten, more little boys are
>
>>>being prescribed Ritalin and other drugs in order to enable them to cope
>>>with an academic environment that they are not developmentally ready to
>>>handle.
>
>
> This is not true...but I'm sure you have the cites and statistical evidence
> to support your *specific* claim, yes? Please produce it.
>
> And moderators? I thought one of the reasons the ng is moderated was to try
> to keep things like meds bashing to a minimum.
>
> I find the attitude of this poster, with her false statement which appears
> to serve no purpose but to 'Ritalin/med bash' repugnant to those of us who
> have children who have been properly diagnosed and are being treated for
> ADD/ADHD with a variety of techniques, including medication.
>
> Leah
>
>

[Leah Adezio]

"David desJardins" > wrote in message
...
> Sandi Jones wrote:
> >>> With the change of focus of kindergarten, more little boys are being
> >>> prescribed Ritalin and other drugs in order to enable them to cope
> >>> with an academic environment that they are not developmentally ready
> >>> to handle.
>
> Leah Adezio writes:
> > This is not true...but I'm sure you have the cites and statistical
> > evidence to support your *specific* claim, yes? Please produce it.
>
> To show that it's "not true", you would have to demonstrate that nowhere
> in the United States is there even one "little boy" who has been put in
> a more demanding environment, been less able to cope with it, and has
> been given medication as a result. That seems like an impossible
> standard of proof.

She said "many boys", not one, so you're throwing out a strawman.

>What's your data for *your* claim?

Studies done withing the past 2 years by both the NIH and NIMH that show
that ADHD is actually *underdiagnosed*, especially in urban areas where
schools don't have the resources to properly begin the process of evaluating
such students....and where specialists who are the likely candidates to turn
to for assisting with said evaluations (pediatric neurologists and pediatric
psychiatrists, for example) are less likely to be practicing.
>
> I don't particularly agree with everything that Sandi has to say, but it
> seems like just an opinion. And the opinion that Ritalin is
> overprescribed is, at the least, an extremely widely held view. I don't
> think it's one that you can quash just because you don't like it.

No, but it can be quashed because it's inaccurate.

"Perception" is not always reality.

Leah

>
> David desJardins
>

[chiam margalit]

(Iowacookiemom) wrote in message >...
> (Iowacookiemom) wrote in message
> >...
> >> >If someone's child is really not learning to read, the parent has to be
> >> >doing something very wrong, regardless of what's happening or not
> >> >happening in school.
> (snip)
> >> If a child is not learning to read, any number of things may be going
> wrong,
> >> independent of parental effort and initiative.
> (snip my experience)
> >
> >As the parent of 11.5 YO twins who got literally the same upbringing,
> >where one was reading at 3.5 and the other one STILL has reading
> >difficulties, I can hardly see that it has anything to do with me, a
> >chronic reader for whom voracious doesn't even come close to
> >describing my reading habits.
> (snip Marjorie's experiences
> >Surely you don't think this is my fault, do you?
>
> Are you suggesting that *I* suggested this was your fault? I said just the
> opposite about my own experience. Something's wrong with either my ability to
> express myself, your ability to understand what I'm saying, or your
> attribution.

Good lord, no. I was responding to David's post, which I only see
second hand as he's long since been in my kill file. I KNOW you get
it... and I know he doesn't.

BTW, Dawn, your post about Henry's experiences with reading could
easily been me writing about my daughter. Reading has always been, and
still continues to be a huge issue for this extremely bright child.
She has a number of reasons why reading is so hard. First, she has a
physical problem with her eyes in that she does not have stereoscopic
vision due to extermely poor vision in one eye (brain bleed at birth)
so that reading is physically painful for her, despite a full year of
vision therapy. Second, she has comprehension issues caused by Central
Auditory Processing Disorder, which probably was caused by chronic ear
infections as a baby. This left her with a large gap in her receptive
language learning, and once that's been missed, a child can never
catch up. It's gone forever. Third, she has a speech disorder called
cluttering, which means that her brain works much faster than her
language, both spoken and when reading. So she gets lost in what she
reads, and mixes up the chronology of stories. This not only affects
her ability to read, but also her ability to follow a plot of any
kind, in movies, on TV, and even commercials. Can you imagine what
it's like for a kid to be constantly trying to figure out chronology?

With all these issues, you would think the schools would have picked
up on her reading difficulties, right? But they didn't. I fought and
fought and fought with the two private schools she attended, both of
which insisted that she was reading right on level. Like Henry, it
didn't dawn on them that a child this bright was only reading on
level, but in an oral discussion could make very complex connections.
Sigh. Only when I put her in the public school and her teacher, a
first year VERY gifted teacher with a Stanford degree, listened to me
and observed the difficulties my daughter had with reading, did the
schools listen to me and do something about her reading difficulties.
That was the first time ever my DD actually read books.

This year marked the first time my DD actually read a book over 300
pages in length. Took her almost a month of plugging, but she did it.
Maybe next year she'll do it again. :-)

Marjorie

[Leah Adezio]

"Sandi Jones" > wrote in message
...
> There is a BIG difference between children who are Dx'ed by Drs and
> those Dx'ed by teachers. Drs have TRAINING to Dx medical disorders, and
> Rx meds. Teachers DON'T, but in many states it DOES occur! A few years
> back a New England state, I think Connecticut, outlawed the practice of
> schools Rx'ing Ritalin, or any meds.

*sigh* Schools are not, as you point out, doctors and cannot write
prescriptions for *any* medication.

Teachers *can* say to a parent things like 'I see specific behaviors in your
child that can be indicative of a number of things, including ADHD. I think
it would be in the best interest of your child to have him/her evaluated to
see if there is a problem, if so, what it might be, or if it's just a matter
of maturity/boredom/whathaveyou.'

The problem is, many parents zone in on 'ADHD' and think the teacher is
saying, 'medicate your kid'....

>And how about those of us who have
> received the Ritalin note, with drug Rx'ed by teachers? I HAVE gotten
> the Ritalin note that required Ritalin, for a condition of attendance in
> a public school. The school's Dr called an Rx to a pharmacy w/o ever
> having met or examined my child. {~~ Footnote this same Dr was reported
> in a big news scandal about 12 years later for Rxing drugs w/o meeting
> patients, and testifying about people's medical / psychologocial
> conditions routinely without meeting or treating! ~~}

So, you're telling me that you actually filled and gave your child
medication prescribed by a doctor who never met your child? Are you kidding
me? That simply reeks of poor judgement.

I'm sorry, but if that had been me, the first phone call would have been to
the school...the *second*, to an attorney. (and I'm not lawsuit happy by
any stretch of the term!)

After my son
> suffered very bad side effects our pediatrician told me to remove him
> from the medicine that had been prescribed by the school.

I'm still boggled that you gave it to him in the first place. What 'very
bad side effects' did you see?

>The county
> then proceeded to sue me.

I hope you sued them right back. I would have.

>Drugs ARE prescribed to make school easier for
> teachers.

Citations, please.

>I told the woman that her curriculum was inappropriate for
> him. I asked her to give him appropriate work to keep him busy. he was
> in 1st grade, he could add, subtract, multiply, divide, add and subtract
> fractions with common denominators, calculate decimals and percentages.
> He was bored stiff in a class that was only doing single column
> addition.

My eldest was like that too, and then some....reading and comprehending on a
7th grade level at age 6, math skills testing at a 4th grade level at the
same age. He *also* has ADHD. And......?

>They eventually tested him as gifted, but said that I had no
> right to have exposed him to so much education by that age. They wanted
> him drugged so that his boredom with an inappropriate curriculum would
> not cause a problem.

Except that's not the effect the most common medications currently used in
the treatment of ADHD *do*. In a child without ADHD/ADD, these medications
would have the *opposite* effect -- they're stimulants. A non-ADHDer would
be revved up all over the place.

>This particular teacher said that no allowances
> needed to be made for any child because all children were alike whether
> their parents liked to admit it or not. She was one BAD bloody egg in
> her profession! Think of how bad things would be if all teachers were
> alike, like her.... shudder

So, you had one bad egg teacher. Lots of folk do....that doesn't mean the
entire teaching profession is bad, or that your specific experience (which,
I have to be honest with you, I doubt is the full story....only because over
in alt.support.attn-deficit, there have been multitudes of people making the
same claims as you for *years*, and cannot provide specific proof of said
claims when asked to produce it)

You still haven't offered *any* support to *prove* your assertion that "many
boys" are given inappropriate diagnosis and inappropriate medication, btw.
All you have is *one* anecdote about *one* child.

But that's okay....I'll just sit back, hang out and wait for your citations.

Leah

[chiam margalit]

"Circe" > wrote in message news:<_QwRb.4698$fD.1079@fed1read02>...
> H Schinske wrote:
> > wrote:
> >>> The HIGH RISK Group? Where did that phrase come from? High risk of
> >>> what? Learning their ABCs too soon? Learning how to make a
> >>> relationship between the written and oral language?
> >
> > It's another Gesell Institute thing -- they are very strong on having
> > kids, especially boys, be fully five and a half by kindergarten entry.
> >
> In fairness, the curriculum is TARGETED to 5.5yo's, not just-turned-5yo's.
> And while my oldest did fine for the most entering kindergarten at 5y1m,
> there were some things that were more of a struggle for him than for older
> boys in his class (his fine motor skills were and still are the most
> noticeable issue, since he's on the slow side for them to begin with and
> boys generally lag a bit behind girls in this area anyway).
>
> Of course, in California, the kindergarten cut-off is Dec. 2,


Just as a point of information, that is not true for the entire state.
My town has a Sept 1 cutoff, and I believe SFUnified does as well. I
don't know about LAUSD, but it used to be Sept 1.


snip
>
> In our case, I'm really struggling with the question of whether to send my
> daughter (5 in July) to kindergarten next fall. If she were like my son, I
> wouldn't be concerned, but she has some identified delays due to what I'd
> now describe as a non-verbal learning disability (specifically, she has
> trouble with sequencing auditory information, which leads to all sorts of
> problems with both receptive and expressive language). Ironically, I have
> the sense that she'd pass the kindergarten readiness testing with flying
> colors because she knows all her letters, all the number 1-10, can count to
> 20, knows all the colors, can spell and write her first name, etc. IOW, all
> the pre-academic skills they typically look for to determine kindergarten
> readiness are there and the problem she has is so subtle, most people don't
> even notice it (it took her community preschool teacher 3 months before she
> noticed it, for example, and I *told* her about it). No decisions need to be
> made yet, of course, but I'm already weighing the options: hold out
> completely, send to Montessori kindergarten and decide the following year
> whether to do kindy or first grade at the public school, or send her to
> kindy with an IEP. So far, I think Montessori kindergarten is the leading
> contender, but that could change after I consult with her preschool teachers
> (both at the developmental school and the community preschool) in March or
> April.

Wow, I have a daughter with EXTREMELY similar LDs and I've never ever
known anyone who is experiencing the joys (ahem) of parenting a kid
like this. Want to take this offline and we can share war stories? My
daughter did start K at just 5, and she was fine, as her IEP soon
covered any deficiencies with language. She want to an all day
Kindergarten and held up her own just fine, ditto for first grade. Her
difficulties starting really showing up in second grade, when her
reading was obviously impaired by the chronology issues which very
much affect comprehension. Third grade was very tough, and I ended up
homeschooling her through 1/2 the year in order to get her caught up,
and then put her in an *excellent* public school that literally 'got
it' and worked with her to improve her language deficiencies. She has
never been a straight A student, and never will be, but she's always
held her own with good grades and the will to do better and better.
She's very motivated, she's very bright, and she's got extremely
difficult LDs to overcome. We're in the midst of retesting right now,
at a developmental centre that does both edpsych evals and
neurological evals and hopefully we'll learn more about whats going
on.

Marjorie
>
> Anyway, that was a long way of saying that the choice of whether or not the
> red-shirt is *very* dependent on the individual child and not even
> particularly dependent on the child's birthdate or gender. You have to weigh
> all the factors. The most important thing to remember, IMO, however, is that
> children who wind up repeating kindergarten fare statistically worse over
> their educational careers than children who are held out a year. I think
> that argues in favor of red-shirting whenever there's any question.

I think you're discussing something different than traditional red
shirting. IME, parents redshirt boys because they want them to be able
to excell at sports, and holding them back allows them to grow another
year and compete with kids younger and smaller than they are. When DS
was in K, there was a Russian kid whose dad was a really big sports
bully, and he held his son back until he was 7. The child was a
behemouth, and he was a killer at soccer. He had 2 years on most of
the other boys and it really was unfair to everyone concerned. THAT is
more typical of redshirting than holding a sped child back because she
may not be able to do the work.

[Circe]

chiam margalit wrote:
> Wow, I have a daughter with EXTREMELY similar LDs and I've never ever
> known anyone who is experiencing the joys (ahem) of parenting a kid
> like this. Want to take this offline and we can share war stories?

I'd love to, Marjorie! Interestingly, my husband has a co-worker with a
daughter who is 10yo who has very similar LDs as well, although their
daughter does not seem to have trouble with reading as yours does. Heck, we
might even strike up an e-mail cooperative!

At this point, I'm very interested in hearing from parents who've had to hoe
a similar row. Aurora is also a bright, *exceedingly* determined, and wildly
independent child, so it's going to be interesting to see how these
personality traits combined with the LDs play out in school.

I am just leaning to the side of holding her out a year because our public
kindergarten is so unremittingly academic. I just don't know if she will be
ready for that kind of rigor by the end of the summer, even with an IEP. I'm
afraid she'll be frustrated and demoralized because she doesn't understand
what's going on. I realize that the learning disabilities won't go away with
a year, but I think another year might well give her better skills in other
areas that will allow her to better compensate for them.
>> Anyway, that was a long way of saying that the choice of whether or
>> not the red-shirt is *very* dependent on the individual child and
>> not even
>> particularly dependent on the child's birthdate or gender. You have
>> to weigh
>> all the factors. The most important thing to remember, IMO, however,
>> is that children who wind up repeating kindergarten fare
>> statistically worse over
>> their educational careers than children who are held out a year. I
>> think
>> that argues in favor of red-shirting whenever there's any question.
>
> I think you're discussing something different than traditional red
> shirting. IME, parents redshirt boys because they want them to be able
> to excell at sports, and holding them back allows them to grow another
> year and compete with kids younger and smaller than they are.

LOL, I've heard that. My oldest is already one of the biggest kids in the
first grade, though, despite being one of the youngest. At 51"+ tall and
70ish lbs., most people figure he's 8, not 6.5. And, like me, he's a bit of
klutz on land, although (also like me), he's quite talented in the water. I
think being big when you are very young is not good for coordination!
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [22 mos.] mom)

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
Financing for "5" years -- car dealership sign

[David desJardins]

Leah Adezio writes:
> She said "many boys", not one, so you're throwing out a strawman.

Many is a subjective term. It might be ten, or a hundred, or a
thousand. How could you possibly prove that there aren't "many" such
people?

>> What's your data for *your* claim?
>
> Studies done withing the past 2 years by both the NIH and NIMH that
> show that ADHD is actually *underdiagnosed*

Sure, I believe that (partly because the clinical definition is so
broad, it applies to children with behaviors that I consider perfectly
normal). So what? I think it's equally true that lots of children
(both with and without ADHD, however you define it) end up receiving
medication that they wouldn't need if they were in a school that was
more responsive to their learning and developmental needs. The two
statements seem entirely consistent with each other.

David desJardins

[Hillary Israeli]

In >,
Sandi Jones > wrote:

*There is a BIG difference between children who are Dx'ed by Drs and
*those Dx'ed by teachers. Drs have TRAINING to Dx medical disorders, and
*Rx meds. Teachers DON'T, but in many states it DOES occur! A few years
*back a New England state, I think Connecticut, outlawed the practice of
*schools Rx'ing Ritalin, or any meds. And how about those of us who have

Are stating that within recent history (just prior to "a few years back,")
i was legal for schools to prescribe Ritalin or any other medication?
Could you be so kind as to produce a reference??

I really do no think it was ever legal for anyone except a physician, in
the context of a doctor-patient relationship, to prescribe medication like
that. And if I'm right in that regard, but CT still passed a law
"outlawing" it, then that just shows you what is wrong with our legal
system!

--
hillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net
"uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est."
not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large :)

[Sandi Jones]

Hillary Israeli wrote:

> Are stating that within recent history (just prior to "a few years back,")
> i was legal for schools to prescribe Ritalin or any other medication?
> Could you be so kind as to produce a reference??
>
> I really do no think it was ever legal for anyone except a physician, in
> the context of a doctor-patient relationship, to prescribe medication like
> that. And if I'm right in that regard, but CT still passed a law
> "outlawing" it, then that just shows you what is wrong with our legal
> system!

There were doctors who were more or less just rubber stamping approvals
for the drug, if the request came on school stationary, but amusingly
enough, trying to avoid prescribing it if a parent requested it. Many
Drs even had a form that parents were requested to take to the child's
teacher to fill out, about the behavior of the child. The parent's
observation was not given any credence. Personally, if it were MY name
on that Rx pad, I'd be rather concerned about what I signed on, but it
seems that some just like the fee for service arrangement. I think that
we all know how little time that the average Dr has to spend with a
patient now is so short, that they don't have time to witness ADD/ADHD
themselves. Many were relying upon the observations of others. They were
taking the opinions of teachers as diagnosticians. Scary...

With the classification of drugs that Ritalin falls in, a Dr is not
allowed to write an Rx lasting over 6 months in the US is s/he? I know
that many drugs are classed this way, and I *thought* that Ritalin fell
into the need constant monitoring category too. Is anyone familiar with
Ritalin's position, legally, on the drug spectrum?

And, back to the schools prescribing, if the school didn't have a
district Dr who would rubber stamp the edicts for drugs, parents were
given a medicate as a condition of attendance note and they were left Dr
shopping for a Dr who *Would* write the Rx.

Sandi

[H Schinske]

>I am just leaning to the side of holding her out a year because our public
>kindergarten is so unremittingly academic.

Oh, I'd definitely keep her away from *that* kindergarten! No question there.
But that's a different question entirely from whether she needs to be held out
of ANY kindergarten a year. I think a good Montessori program sounds fantastic
for her, from all I know (which of course ain't much).

--Helen

[Iowacookiemom]

> I think it's equally true that lots of children
>(both with and without ADHD, however you define it) end up receiving
>medication that they wouldn't need if they were in a school that was
>more responsive to their learning and developmental needs.

You won't get any argument from this mom of a medicated (non-stimulant
Strattera) child. I'd love to see all the schools in the US get the funding
they would need to be responsive to each child's individual learning and
developmental needs. That's why I'm involved politically.

But in the meantime, we parents of kids with these challenges need to do
whatever we find is best to help them be successful in our current system. In
our case, home schooling is not an option because Henry's difficulties are more
pronounced in a one-on-one setting than they are in a group (Homework, for
example, is one of the main instances in which his ADD is apparent). We don't
have a good private school option nearby. So medication, for our individual
child, is the best answer.

I make room for the argument that some kids are inappropriately medicated. The
difficulty for families like ours, though, is that the activists on that side
of the argument (Tom Cruise, John Travolta, et al) make such sweeping and
hurtful generalizations about the issue. It's not a black-and-white thing, and
like education, it's best handled case-by-case.

-Dawn
Mom to Henry, 11

[Hillary Israeli]

In >,
Sandi Jones > wrote:

*Hillary Israeli wrote:
*
*> Are stating that within recent history (just prior to "a few years back,")
*> i was legal for schools to prescribe Ritalin or any other medication?
*> Could you be so kind as to produce a reference??
*>
*> I really do no think it was ever legal for anyone except a physician, in
*> the context of a doctor-patient relationship, to prescribe medication like
*> that. And if I'm right in that regard, but CT still passed a law
*> "outlawing" it, then that just shows you what is wrong with our legal
*> system!
*
*There were doctors who were more or less just rubber stamping approvals
*for the drug, if the request came on school stationary, but amusingly

That was already illegal, if there was no doctor-patient relationship.

*enough, trying to avoid prescribing it if a parent requested it. Many

Prescribing at a parent's request would also be illegal, if there were no
doctor-patient relationship.

*And, back to the schools prescribing, if the school didn't have a
*district Dr who would rubber stamp the edicts for drugs, parents were
*given a medicate as a condition of attendance note and they were left Dr
*shopping for a Dr who *Would* write the Rx.

Also already illegal. So I don't get why a law would be passed outlawing
it.

--
hillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net
"uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est."
not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large :)

[Leah Adezio]

"Sandi Jones" > wrote in message
...
> Hillary Israeli wrote:
>
> > Are stating that within recent history (just prior to "a few years
back,")
> > i was legal for schools to prescribe Ritalin or any other medication?
> > Could you be so kind as to produce a reference??
> >
> > I really do no think it was ever legal for anyone except a physician,
in
> > the context of a doctor-patient relationship, to prescribe medication
like
> > that. And if I'm right in that regard, but CT still passed a law
> > "outlawing" it, then that just shows you what is wrong with our legal
> > system!
>
> There were doctors who were more or less just rubber stamping approvals
> for the drug, if the request came on school stationary, but amusingly
> enough, trying to avoid prescribing it if a parent requested it. Many
> Drs even had a form that parents were requested to take to the child's
> teacher to fill out, about the behavior of the child.

Well, yes. That's appropriate. One of the criteria for a diagnosis of ADHD
is that the behaviors that are typical of it is that they appear in more
than one setting (i.e., in home *and* in school). The doctor wants to see
if what the parents are concerned about is being seen in places outside the
home....hence, the form sent to the teacher(s) to get a sense of what the
teacher is seeing in regards to potential symptoms.

>The parent's
> observation was not given any credence. Personally, if it were MY name
> on that Rx pad, I'd be rather concerned about what I signed on, but it
> seems that some just like the fee for service arrangement.

Um, no. Not that the parents' observations are not given credence, but to
try to ascertain if the only place the behaviors are being seen is within
the home. If so, it might suggest to the doctor that what's going on with
the child isn't ADHD, but is something else. There are numerous things that
'mimic' ADHD symptoms, including childhood depression, temporal lobe
epilepsy, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, certain aspects of OCC, amongst
others. There is a growing body of research that's ongoing that indicates
that PET scans might become a valuable tool for providing brain scan proof
of ADHD in a patient, but until then, ADHD is still a 'diagnosis of
elimination'.

One of the other criteria for dignosis, btw, is that symptoms are present
prior to age 7.

>I think that
> we all know how little time that the average Dr has to spend with a
> patient now is so short, that they don't have time to witness ADD/ADHD
> themselves.

Unfortunately, *no* doctor (except one who might be a parent of an ADHDer)
can move into a child's home or spend days with a child in school. That's
why the evaluations are so important -- to get feedback from those who *do*
spend hours with a child.

Strawman.

>Many were relying upon the observations of others. They were
> taking the opinions of teachers as diagnosticians.

Not as diagnosticians, as *observers*....which would, depending on said
observations, direct a doctor as to how to proceed further.

FWIW, when my son was diagnosed, the amount of time spent with the various
personnel utilized to confirm the diagnosis was approximately 30 hours --
time spent testing with the school's child study team, time spent testing
with the school psychologist, observational time from his teacher, time
spent testing with a pediatric neurologist, time spent testing and being
observed by a pediatric psychiatrist and time spent in the hospital to have
an EEG.

Scary...

The only thing that's scary is that you're completely uninformed about all
that's involved in getting a proper ADHD diagnosis and passing your lack of
knowledge off as some sort of universal truth.
>
> With the classification of drugs that Ritalin falls in, a Dr is not
> allowed to write an Rx lasting over 6 months in the US is s/he? I know
> that many drugs are classed this way, and I *thought* that Ritalin fell
> into the need constant monitoring category too. Is anyone familiar with
> Ritalin's position, legally, on the drug spectrum?

In New Jersey and Pennsylvania (the only states with which I have first hand
knowledge), scrips as a rule could be written for a maximum of two month's
worth of medication. My son's pediatrician required a monthly scrip (and
the prescription cannot be called into the pharmacy -- a physical, paper
scrip must be obtained from the doctor)...he would only write 2 months'
worth if he knew my son was going to be away from home for over a month (if
he was, for example, going to spend part of his summer vacation with my
parents in Florida when my parents were still alive).
>
> And, back to the schools prescribing, if the school didn't have a
> district Dr who would rubber stamp the edicts for drugs, parents were
> given a medicate as a condition of attendance note and they were left Dr
> shopping for a Dr who *Would* write the Rx.

I have *never* seen a situation where medication was a condition for school
attendance...and I have no respect for parents who bypass a proper
evaluation process to 'doctor shop' to get medication -- that's a problem
with the *parent*.

Leah

[Sandi Jones]

I was stating that parents were forced to Dr shop for a Dr who is
willing to Rx Ritalin when a school district will have the child's
attendance contingent upon the child taking the drug, or a related drug.
The laws (ala CT) were written to keep schools from keeping children
out of publicly funded schools, for not taking medications that have not
been Rx'd by Drs.

Many patients are given a Dx with FAR less testing that it sounds like
you have gone through. I know people who have gotten the drive through
Dx's for their kids. (and it revolts me!)

It sounds like your child actually got an evaluation that actually took
enough time to try to screen out other possibilities. Here, in
Cincinnati, we had media ads for a medical practice that specializes in
the treatment of ADD/ADHD. If I believed the criterion given in their
ads, 99% of the population needs their care. By listening to their ads,
it sounded like they gave out Concerta, Ritalin etc like candy on Halloween!

As for my knowledge of ADD/ADHD, there WERE Drs who did claim that son
#1 did have ADHD, and others who disagreed. If he did indeed have
ADD/ADHD, I would say that he was one of the group that was better off
without the meds. I have seen a few kids well served by meds, and others
that *I* would consider abused by the use of the drugs. I have known
parents who simply find it *easier* to deal with little Jr when he is
stoned.

Well, until you have been in, or known someone whose child is forbidden
from attending a public school unless they are medicated as the
school/district sees fit, I ask you not to judge the parents who are
faced with that situation. They can do this to students without a
serious disciplinary record. (They can kick your kid out, then prosecute
you for truancy violations!)

Sandi


Leah Adezio wrote:
....I have *never* seen a situation where medication was a condition for
school
> attendance...and I have no respect for parents who bypass a proper
> evaluation process to 'doctor shop' to get medication -- that's a problem
> with the *parent*.
>
> Leah
>
>

[Leah Adezio]

"Sandi Jones" > wrote in message
...
> I was stating that parents were forced to Dr shop for a Dr who is
> willing to Rx Ritalin when a school district will have the child's
> attendance contingent upon the child taking the drug, or a related drug.
> The laws (ala CT) were written to keep schools from keeping children
> out of publicly funded schools, for not taking medications that have not
> been Rx'd by Drs.

If anyone cares, this is the text for the defintion of CT Public Act 03-221:

"In 2001, the legislature enacted Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-212b, requiring
boards to have policies prohibiting schoolpersonnel from recommending the
use of psychotropicdrugs for any child, but allowing school "medical staff"
to recommend medical evaluations for students. PublicAct 03-211 expands and
clarifies this statutory provisionby defining psychotropic drugs as
prescription medica-tions, including stimulants and anti-depressants, for
be-havioral or social-emotional concerns such as 1) ADD, 2)impulsivity, 3)
anxiety, 4) depression, and 5) thought dis-orders. The Act also replaces the
term "medical staff," with"school health and mental health personnel" and
definesthese persons to include nurses, nurse practitioners, medi-cal
advisors, school psychologists, social workers, schoolcounselors, and other
school personnel identified by aboard policy as responsible for
communicating with par-ents about a child's need for a medical evaluation.
TheAct specifies that a special education planning and place-ment team (PPT)
may also recommend a medical evalua-tion and specifically requires board
policies to addressprocedures for recommending all medical
evaluations.Boards should revise their policies to reflect the changesmade
by Public Act 03-211.In-service TrainingPublic Act 03-211 amends Conn. Gen.
Stat. 10-220a toexplicity require in-service programs on the growth
anddevelopment of exceptional children to include informa-tion on students
with attention-deficit hyperactivity dis-order (ADHD) and learning
disabilities. This requirementwent into effect July 1, 2003.Reporting
Immunizations and HealthAssessmentsPublic Act 03-211 requires health care
providers to reportto school districts when they immunize or conduct a
healthcare assessment on a child seeking to enroll, or alreadyenrolled, in a
public school. School boards must annuallydesignate a representative to
receive these reports. Healthcare providers covered by this provision
include physi-cians, registered nurses, APRNs, nurse midwives, andphysician
assistants."

Note that it says *nothing* in the text of CT Public Act 03-221 *or* Conn.
Gen. Stat. § 10-212b, (which Public Act 03-221 clarifies terminology) about
schools having the right to keep children out of school if the parent
chooses not to use medication as part of a treatment program for *several*
listed disorders, not just ADHD.

It does reinforce what is already federal law: that non-medical school
personnel may not recommend medication in any way shape or form...but that
school medical personnel *may* recommend that a student have a medical
evaluation. Period.

Teachers and other non-medical personnel have *never* had the authority to
tell a parent 'Your child needs XXX medication'. Never. And if a teacher,
for some reason, uses this phraseology, the parent should immediately go to
the principal and lodge a complaint. It's that simple.

Leah

[chiam margalit]

Sandi Jones > wrote in message >...
> Hillary Israeli wrote:
>
> > Are stating that within recent history (just prior to "a few years back,")
> > i was legal for schools to prescribe Ritalin or any other medication?
> > Could you be so kind as to produce a reference??
> >
> > I really do no think it was ever legal for anyone except a physician, in
> > the context of a doctor-patient relationship, to prescribe medication like
> > that. And if I'm right in that regard, but CT still passed a law
> > "outlawing" it, then that just shows you what is wrong with our legal
> > system!
>
> There were doctors who were more or less just rubber stamping approvals
> for the drug, if the request came on school stationary, but amusingly
> enough, trying to avoid prescribing it if a parent requested it. Many
> Drs even had a form that parents were requested to take to the child's
> teacher to fill out, about the behavior of the child. The parent's
> observation was not given any credence. Personally, if it were MY name
> on that Rx pad, I'd be rather concerned about what I signed on, but it
> seems that some just like the fee for service arrangement. I think that
> we all know how little time that the average Dr has to spend with a
> patient now is so short, that they don't have time to witness ADD/ADHD
> themselves. Many were relying upon the observations of others. They were
> taking the opinions of teachers as diagnosticians. Scary...

I find this amazingly offensive. I would gather Leah does as well, but
she's very capable of speaking for herself on this topic.

I have two children with ADHD. I have experienced the gamut of bad
schools, toxic teachers, and lousy sped departments. However, I have
NEVER seen anything like you claim. Never. I have never known of a
school system that has a doctor, never mind one that would call a
prescription into a pharmacy without seeing a child and certainly
without parental permission. That breaks so many laws it isn't funny.
Sorry, but I'm going to have to ask you to prove your claims, or I'll
dismiss them as bad dreams.

I have never experienced a doctor that would prescribe meds for any
ADHD med (and what clues me in that your claims are questionable is
your use of the word Ritalin, which says, at least to me, that you
don't have any idea of what doctors are prescribing for ADHD other
than the stuff you hear in the media, because ritalin is so out of
favor now that it's silly to even bring it up) without having parents,
teachers, and children fill out the Connors scale, and then do a full
exam. My children have been to a combination of something like 8
doctors for ADHD related issues, doctors from Harvard, Stanford, and
Mass General/McLeans. These are the TOP doctors in the country in
ADHD, probably the top in the world. I don't fool around when it comes
to my children, and I've never met any parent who does when it comes
to their child's health. In every initial appointment, doctors spent
between 45 minutes and an hour talking to me, and to my children.
There was no wham bam appointment, ever.

Finally, doctors are SUPPOSED to take what teachers say about a child
into account. That you don't understand this is scary, not that
doctors do. Teachers spend MORE TIME with children in controlled
environments than anyone else, including parents. Maybe your home is
different, but in my home there is never a time when my child needs to
sit still and pay attention to and learn new material for hours at a
time. However, they are required to do this in school, and who is
better to measure their ability than a teacher. Furthermore, teachers
are extremely important in the prescribing of meds because *they see
the child when the meds are effective*. For most parents, they really
don't know how well the meds are working because they drop their child
at school just as the meds begin their efficacy, and they pick them up
as the meds are wearing off. Teachers are an extremely important part
of the scenario when one has ADHD kids. I'm quite surprised you don't
know this. It's fairly common knowledge, Sandi.

>
> With the classification of drugs that Ritalin falls in, a Dr is not
> allowed to write an Rx lasting over 6 months in the US is s/he? I know
> that many drugs are classed this way, and I *thought* that Ritalin fell
> into the need constant monitoring category too. Is anyone familiar with
> Ritalin's position, legally, on the drug spectrum?

Yes, I sure am. First, I want to again make it clear tht Ritalin is no
longer prescribed by most physicians, but the classification the meds
prescribed for ADHD, except Strattera, is as a controlled substance.
This means that doctors must physically write each script and they MAY
NOT, BY LAW, be called into a pharmacy, which makes Sandi's story even
more outlandish. The prescriptions must be hand written on a special
RX pad for controlled substances. When you hand the script to the
pharmacist, you must also give your drivers license for a photo ID. In
addition, doctors are only allowed to write a 30 day supply. You
cannot get more meds out of a doctor, so you must return to the doctor
every 30 days where they hand you a new script. In addition, the
person who brought the script in must be the one to pick up the meds.
I can't send my children to the drug store to get the script once it's
filled, even though it's made out to them. If the script is written
one way, and the pharmacist fills it out incorrectly, then you have to
use the meds the pharmacist gives you until you get a new script. This
means if the script says 3 18 mg tabs and the pharmacy gives you
instead 1 56 mg tab, you're stuck with the 1 56 mg tabs, even if
that's NOT what you want or need. Pharmacies have no leeway on
changing or fixing a script on a controlled substance.
>
> And, back to the schools prescribing, if the school didn't have a
> district Dr who would rubber stamp the edicts for drugs, parents were
> given a medicate as a condition of attendance note and they were left Dr
> shopping for a Dr who *Would* write the Rx.

This is utter nonsense. With the insurance nightmares we have in the
US, who is shopping for doctors? You have to have a primary care
physician referral, and PCPs are't going to be giving referrals to the
competition, or to multiple doctors within the same specialty.

Sorry Sandi, but I just don't buy your claims at all.

Marjorie

[Iowacookiemom]

Seems like it was time for a subject line change...

I've been reading with great interest this spirited debate as I have an 11 yo
son who has ADD (notice no "H" there) and who takes medication for the problem.

I think it's especially interesting to read Sandi's reflections from what I
gather was some time ago -- at least 10-15 years from what I can tell from her
posts. How far we've come... in some ways perhaps a bit too far the other way.

Today, a new generation of ADHD medication is non-stimulant (brand name
Strattera). As such it is not a controlled substance and does not require the
written prescriptions each month that Marjorie described. It's much more
convenient from that perspective but of course when you are dealing with a
serious diagnosis, your child's education and mental health, convenience is not
a deciding factor.

We had some experiences to the ones Sandi describes in terms of Henry's
reactions to Ritalin-like medications (we used Adderall briefly). He had great
difficulty controlling his emotions and had what I'd describe as "rages" while
on the medication. It would not have been a long-term solution for us.

Just then, Strattera came on the market and for us it's been a godsend. Far
from the "stoned" kid that Sandi described in one post, we have our own real
child back. Even Henry says he feels more "himself" when he is on Strattera.
I'm sure some kids have similar feelings of success and growing self-confidence
on Ritalin-like meds such as Adderall. For us, the right combo has been
behavior mod and Strattera.

Incidentally, without the school's involvement I'm not sure we would have
gotten the diagnosis. We were seeing clear and maddening symptoms at home (a
simple 10 minute homework assignment that Henry had the intellectual ability to
do with ease might take 2 or 3 hours) but since he was not a behavior problem
at school they were reluctant to diagnose. Only when we asked the teacher to
complete the diagnostic ADD questionnaire did the "aha" moment come.
Sandi, I think you need to realize that times have changed. While we are truly
sorry for your experiences none of us with ADD/ADHD kids are seeing that as the
reality today. You fought the good fight for us back in the day and we are
grateful... I'm sure our kids are better off for it.

I do think the pendulum may be swinging too far in the other direction. As I
mentioned earlier, a group of celebrities (I've noticed Tom Cruise and John
Travolta, I'm sure there are others and I'm sure they are not all affiliated
with the Church of Scientology) has taken up medications for ADD/ADHD as their
"cause." It broke my heart when my 11 yo son heard Tom Cruise on Oprah Winfrey
talking disparagingly about medications for learning disabilities in sweeping
generalizations that left us both feeling as if this icon who we both admired
was basically saying that medication can never be part of a good solution for
an individual child.

And so I want to express my appreciation to Sandi for the fight she had to wage
when she fought it, but also ask her indulgence in understanding that our
situations today are very different. The new generations of medications are
safer and better, and the schools and medical communities have learned a great
deal and are, in my experience at least, more open to a myriad of interventions
-- certainly including medication but not limited to that. Please take care
when you talk about your experience that you understand that ours may be
different.


-Dawn
Mom to Henry, 11