Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women

"Gini" wrote in message
...

"TeacherMama" wrote
..............................
I worked at a school one time where the parents every child who did
not fit nicely into the "good student" mode, or displayed "over active
tendencies", were requested to take the child for an "evaluation" for
ADHD. You should have seen how many of those children were on
medication! (This was a very wealthy area, and a private school) I say
we should go back to letting kids be kids, give them the opportunity
to be active in the exploration of their world, instead of just
automatons in desks--and save the meds for those who *really* need it!
==
My cynicism begs: Do you think schools put kids in special programs
just to increase federal funds for their schools or to prevent having
federal funds reduced because they used less than awarded?
==

Both. In my state the funding formulas allow additional money going to the
schools based on extra weighting of children with special needs. Where the
"normal" student counts as one, additions are made for special education
(1.00), English language learners (.50), pregnant and parenting (1.00),
Poverty (.25), and Foster care/neglected and delinquent (.25).

So where a "normal" student (1.00) is worth about $5,500 per year in state
funds, a children with ADHD (2.00) is worth $11,000. The more children the
schools can get diagnosed with ADHD, the more funding they can get from the
state/federal funds budget.

The other scam is for the schools to "recruit" children with Hispanic
surnames for their English as a Second Language Program. Children who speak
perfectly good English, but live in homes where Spanish is spoken, are then
counted with a 1.50 factor making them worth $8,250 per year.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
link.net...

"Gini" wrote in message
...

"TeacherMama" wrote
..............................
I worked at a school one time where the parents every child who did
not fit nicely into the "good student" mode, or displayed "over active
tendencies", were requested to take the child for an "evaluation" for
ADHD. You should have seen how many of those children were on
medication! (This was a very wealthy area, and a private school) I say
we should go back to letting kids be kids, give them the opportunity
to be active in the exploration of their world, instead of just
automatons in desks--and save the meds for those who *really* need it!
==
My cynicism begs: Do you think schools put kids in special programs
just to increase federal funds for their schools or to prevent having
federal funds reduced because they used less than awarded?
==

Both. In my state the funding formulas allow additional money going to
the
schools based on extra weighting of children with special needs. Where
the
"normal" student counts as one, additions are made for special education
(1.00), English language learners (.50), pregnant and parenting (1.00),
Poverty (.25), and Foster care/neglected and delinquent (.25).

That is upsetting....

So where a "normal" student (1.00) is worth about $5,500 per year in state
funds, a children with ADHD (2.00) is worth $11,000.

This is REALLY upsetting to me as my son has ADHD. The town where he started
school NEVER told me to have him evaluated. They asked me to do 'extra' work
with him at home to help his academics, and I did. When we moved here the
school nurse all but told me I had to have him evaluated and praised Ritalin
as if it were a miracle in disguise. Now I think I understand better WHY
they were on my case so much until I finally did have him evaluated. They
convinved me the reasons for staying on my case was for my son, now I think
it was for the money. Don't get me wrong I am glad that I did have him
evaluated because he feels alot better with medication, he can concentrate
better etc. but the underlying truth is disheartening.

The more children the
schools can get diagnosed with ADHD, the more funding they can get from
the
state/federal funds budget.

The other scam is for the schools to "recruit" children with Hispanic
surnames for their English as a Second Language Program. Children who
speak
perfectly good English, but live in homes where Spanish is spoken, are
then
counted with a 1.50 factor making them worth $8,250 per year.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
link.net...

"Gini" wrote in message
...

"TeacherMama" wrote
..............................
I worked at a school one time where the parents every child who did
not fit nicely into the "good student" mode, or displayed "over active
tendencies", were requested to take the child for an "evaluation" for
ADHD. You should have seen how many of those children were on
medication! (This was a very wealthy area, and a private school) I say
we should go back to letting kids be kids, give them the opportunity
to be active in the exploration of their world, instead of just
automatons in desks--and save the meds for those who *really* need it!
==
My cynicism begs: Do you think schools put kids in special programs
just to increase federal funds for their schools or to prevent having
federal funds reduced because they used less than awarded?
==

Both. In my state the funding formulas allow additional money going to
the
schools based on extra weighting of children with special needs. Where
the
"normal" student counts as one, additions are made for special education
(1.00), English language learners (.50), pregnant and parenting (1.00),
Poverty (.25), and Foster care/neglected and delinquent (.25).

That is upsetting....

So where a "normal" student (1.00) is worth about $5,500 per year in state
funds, a children with ADHD (2.00) is worth $11,000.

This is REALLY upsetting to me as my son has ADHD. The town where he started
school NEVER told me to have him evaluated. They asked me to do 'extra' work
with him at home to help his academics, and I did. When we moved here the
school nurse all but told me I had to have him evaluated and praised Ritalin
as if it were a miracle in disguise. Now I think I understand better WHY
they were on my case so much until I finally did have him evaluated. They
convinved me the reasons for staying on my case was for my son, now I think
it was for the money. Don't get me wrong I am glad that I did have him
evaluated because he feels alot better with medication, he can concentrate
better etc. but the underlying truth is disheartening.

The more children the
schools can get diagnosed with ADHD, the more funding they can get from
the
state/federal funds budget.

The other scam is for the schools to "recruit" children with Hispanic
surnames for their English as a Second Language Program. Children who
speak
perfectly good English, but live in homes where Spanish is spoken, are
then
counted with a 1.50 factor making them worth $8,250 per year.

"Gini" wrote in message ...
"TeacherMama" wrote
..............................
I worked at a school one time where the parents every child who did
not fit nicely into the "good student" mode, or displayed "over active
tendencies", were requested to take the child for an "evaluation" for
ADHD. You should have seen how many of those children were on
medication! (This was a very wealthy area, and a private school) I say
we should go back to letting kids be kids, give them the opportunity
to be active in the exploration of their world, instead of just
automatons in desks--and save the meds for those who *really* need it!
==
My cynicism begs: Do you think schools put kids in special programs
just to increase federal funds for their schools or to prevent having
federal funds reduced because they used less than awarded?
==

Here we don't get extra money for children in special programs--we get
the same ada for each child. ADHD/ODD children don't qualify for
special services just because of their ADHD/ODD in any case. And
children who have another language spoken in the home only qualify for
English learner services if they do not pass their English proficiency
test. Maybe it is different other places.

"Gini" wrote in message ...
"TeacherMama" wrote
..............................
I worked at a school one time where the parents every child who did
not fit nicely into the "good student" mode, or displayed "over active
tendencies", were requested to take the child for an "evaluation" for
ADHD. You should have seen how many of those children were on
medication! (This was a very wealthy area, and a private school) I say
we should go back to letting kids be kids, give them the opportunity
to be active in the exploration of their world, instead of just
automatons in desks--and save the meds for those who *really* need it!
==
My cynicism begs: Do you think schools put kids in special programs
just to increase federal funds for their schools or to prevent having
federal funds reduced because they used less than awarded?
==

Here we don't get extra money for children in special programs--we get
the same ada for each child. ADHD/ODD children don't qualify for
special services just because of their ADHD/ODD in any case. And
children who have another language spoken in the home only qualify for
English learner services if they do not pass their English proficiency
test. Maybe it is different other places.

But is that the message they are getting?

TeacherMama wrote:

Mel Gamble wrote in message ...
Below...

TeacherMama wrote:

Dealing with an ADHD/ODD child is difficult under the best of
circumstances. You are correct in your statement that consistency is
of key importance. In my classroom, I make it clear what choices are
acceptable, and the consequences of both acceptable and unacceptable
choices. If the child chooses outside of the acceptable area, the
promised consequences will follow, as the night, the day. The idea is
not punishment--it is to establish that choices bring predictable
results--and it is to help the ADHD/ODD child begin to learn self
discipline. I don't think that Ronni is punishing her son based on her
anger. "Now you're making me mad, do you need a time out" seems to be
the words she uses consistently to help him reevaluate his choices.

But that makes the "acceptableness" of his actions dependent on whether
mom is getting mad - makes his choices grey instead of black-and-white.
It may not be a totally wrong thing for her to do, but it certainly
makes it more difficult for the boy to see the cause-and-effect results
of his actions and the consequences if they are "wrong" actions.

In my classroom, I always say "I am not happy with your choices." This
gives the child a chance to change his choice before the inevitable
consequence falls.

Why not "(child's name), do you think (whatever action) is a good choice
or can you think of a more positive choice?"

Actually, Mel, I do have a reason for wording it the way I do. I want
the child to recognize their unwise choice.

If you tell them you are not happy with their choice, that is not the
same as telling them it's a wrong choice, unless you have set yourself
up in their minds as godly. Correct choices should exist outside of
your - or ronnie's - emotional state. Correct choices should (and
probably do) exist as seperate and complete ideas within each child's
mind, regardless of outside influences such as your emotional state or
even whether you are present or not. The child needs to learn NOT to
satisfy YOUR emotional needs, but rather to make correct choices for
their OWN benefit, regardless of the environment in which the choices
are being made. If a correct choice is made because it makes YOU happy,
what is the motivation for making that same choice when you are not
present?

If I always tell them
what action I want them to change, they are not learning the valuable
lesson of stopping and thinking about their actions for themselves.

Likewise, if you are suggesting that they make those choices because YOU
are not happy with alternatives, what is their incentive for making
correct choices when they are outside you sphere of influence?

It
would be far easier for me to say "Don't do A, do B or C instead."

Granted...

But the whole purpose is to create a pattern where the child stops,
thinks, and chooses better--at the moment guided from the outside,
but, eventually, guided from the inside.

But why must the outside guidance be to satisfy another's changing
moods, rather than to do what is "right" (presumably, an unchanging
standard)?

You mentioned in an earlier posting that environment plays a role in
working with ADHD children. Of course it does.

Not sure that I made that statement. What I did state was that I think
WAY too many kids are displaying inappropriate behavior that is a
reaction to environment - kids who would be displaying appropriate
behavior if their environment was different - but being diagnosed as
having a chemical problem that requires medication. I know this happens
for a fact. I've watched a perfectly decent little boy's environment
change drastically and within less than a year he was on "meds"...and
mom was getting that extra "disability" check every month.

And it helps if
everyone involved with the child in a supervisory way is on the same
page and uses the same consequences. But even the best environment
will not "cure" a truly ADHD/ODD child.

No argument there, just with the percentage of "diagnosed" ADHD/ODD
cases that are a result of environment and the attempt at treating them
by changing the kid instead of changing the environment.

The child still needs time to
internalize the cpoing skills that will help him deal with his
difficulties.

One of the problems faced by those who are dealing with true ADHD
children is the popularity of the term. I have had parents bring their
little darling to my classroom, explaining that he is ADHD, but the
doctor doesn't want to give him medicine. Then when the child acts up
to the point that I bring the parents in, they say "But we *told* you
he is ADHD!" As if that gives him leave to do anything he wants
without no consequence.

That's what I'm trying to say. There are far too many adults ready to
holler "ADHD" because it's much simpler to shove a pill down junior's
throat twice a day than it is to go through the difficulty of changing
his behavior by changing their own.

I worked at a school one time where the parents every child who did
not fit nicely into the "good student" mode, or displayed "over active
tendencies", were requested to take the child for an "evaluation" for
ADHD. You should have seen how many of those children were on
medication! (This was a very wealthy area, and a private school) I say
we should go back to letting kids be kids, give them the opportunity
to be active in the exploration of their world, instead of just
automatons in desks--and save the meds for those who *really* need it!

AMEN!!! There is a large percentage of an entire generation of (mostly)
boys being raised by medications instead of parents. Short of war, I
see it as one of the saddest and most destructive set of circumstances
for a child to grow up in. At some point, society is going to reap the
result of all these young men being medicated into submission and not
learning proper self-discipline. That point is going to come when those
kids are no longer minors and there is nobody left to shove pills down
their throats. As I've written, I am very familiar with 2 such boys. I
really have my concerns as to whether they will even survive their first
couple of years on their own. I have much less doubt that at least one
of them - and more and more it's looking like both - will spend
significant time in jail or prison. I have no doubt at all that both
will continue to be a drain on society rather than contributors. And my
daughter has to live with them as "examples"....

Mel Gamble

But is that the message they are getting?

TeacherMama wrote:

Mel Gamble wrote in message ...
Below...

TeacherMama wrote:

Dealing with an ADHD/ODD child is difficult under the best of
circumstances. You are correct in your statement that consistency is
of key importance. In my classroom, I make it clear what choices are
acceptable, and the consequences of both acceptable and unacceptable
choices. If the child chooses outside of the acceptable area, the
promised consequences will follow, as the night, the day. The idea is
not punishment--it is to establish that choices bring predictable
results--and it is to help the ADHD/ODD child begin to learn self
discipline. I don't think that Ronni is punishing her son based on her
anger. "Now you're making me mad, do you need a time out" seems to be
the words she uses consistently to help him reevaluate his choices.

But that makes the "acceptableness" of his actions dependent on whether
mom is getting mad - makes his choices grey instead of black-and-white.
It may not be a totally wrong thing for her to do, but it certainly
makes it more difficult for the boy to see the cause-and-effect results
of his actions and the consequences if they are "wrong" actions.

In my classroom, I always say "I am not happy with your choices." This
gives the child a chance to change his choice before the inevitable
consequence falls.

Why not "(child's name), do you think (whatever action) is a good choice
or can you think of a more positive choice?"

Actually, Mel, I do have a reason for wording it the way I do. I want
the child to recognize their unwise choice.

If you tell them you are not happy with their choice, that is not the
same as telling them it's a wrong choice, unless you have set yourself
up in their minds as godly. Correct choices should exist outside of
your - or ronnie's - emotional state. Correct choices should (and
probably do) exist as seperate and complete ideas within each child's
mind, regardless of outside influences such as your emotional state or
even whether you are present or not. The child needs to learn NOT to
satisfy YOUR emotional needs, but rather to make correct choices for
their OWN benefit, regardless of the environment in which the choices
are being made. If a correct choice is made because it makes YOU happy,
what is the motivation for making that same choice when you are not
present?

If I always tell them
what action I want them to change, they are not learning the valuable
lesson of stopping and thinking about their actions for themselves.

Likewise, if you are suggesting that they make those choices because YOU
are not happy with alternatives, what is their incentive for making
correct choices when they are outside you sphere of influence?

It
would be far easier for me to say "Don't do A, do B or C instead."

Granted...

But the whole purpose is to create a pattern where the child stops,
thinks, and chooses better--at the moment guided from the outside,
but, eventually, guided from the inside.

But why must the outside guidance be to satisfy another's changing
moods, rather than to do what is "right" (presumably, an unchanging
standard)?

You mentioned in an earlier posting that environment plays a role in
working with ADHD children. Of course it does.

Not sure that I made that statement. What I did state was that I think
WAY too many kids are displaying inappropriate behavior that is a
reaction to environment - kids who would be displaying appropriate
behavior if their environment was different - but being diagnosed as
having a chemical problem that requires medication. I know this happens
for a fact. I've watched a perfectly decent little boy's environment
change drastically and within less than a year he was on "meds"...and
mom was getting that extra "disability" check every month.

And it helps if
everyone involved with the child in a supervisory way is on the same
page and uses the same consequences. But even the best environment
will not "cure" a truly ADHD/ODD child.

No argument there, just with the percentage of "diagnosed" ADHD/ODD
cases that are a result of environment and the attempt at treating them
by changing the kid instead of changing the environment.

The child still needs time to
internalize the cpoing skills that will help him deal with his
difficulties.

One of the problems faced by those who are dealing with true ADHD
children is the popularity of the term. I have had parents bring their
little darling to my classroom, explaining that he is ADHD, but the
doctor doesn't want to give him medicine. Then when the child acts up
to the point that I bring the parents in, they say "But we *told* you
he is ADHD!" As if that gives him leave to do anything he wants
without no consequence.

That's what I'm trying to say. There are far too many adults ready to
holler "ADHD" because it's much simpler to shove a pill down junior's
throat twice a day than it is to go through the difficulty of changing
his behavior by changing their own.

I worked at a school one time where the parents every child who did
not fit nicely into the "good student" mode, or displayed "over active
tendencies", were requested to take the child for an "evaluation" for
ADHD. You should have seen how many of those children were on
medication! (This was a very wealthy area, and a private school) I say
we should go back to letting kids be kids, give them the opportunity
to be active in the exploration of their world, instead of just
automatons in desks--and save the meds for those who *really* need it!

AMEN!!! There is a large percentage of an entire generation of (mostly)
boys being raised by medications instead of parents. Short of war, I
see it as one of the saddest and most destructive set of circumstances
for a child to grow up in. At some point, society is going to reap the
result of all these young men being medicated into submission and not
learning proper self-discipline. That point is going to come when those
kids are no longer minors and there is nobody left to shove pills down
their throats. As I've written, I am very familiar with 2 such boys. I
really have my concerns as to whether they will even survive their first
couple of years on their own. I have much less doubt that at least one
of them - and more and more it's looking like both - will spend
significant time in jail or prison. I have no doubt at all that both
will continue to be a drain on society rather than contributors. And my
daughter has to live with them as "examples"....

Mel Gamble

Unfortunately, schools are in it for the money - at least at the upper
levels...

Gini wrote:

"TeacherMama" wrote
..............................
I worked at a school one time where the parents every child who did
not fit nicely into the "good student" mode, or displayed "over active
tendencies", were requested to take the child for an "evaluation" for
ADHD. You should have seen how many of those children were on
medication! (This was a very wealthy area, and a private school) I say
we should go back to letting kids be kids, give them the opportunity
to be active in the exploration of their world, instead of just
automatons in desks--and save the meds for those who *really* need it!
==
My cynicism begs: Do you think schools put kids in special programs
just to increase federal funds for their schools or to prevent having
federal funds reduced because they used less than awarded?
==

In oregun, we have a lot of "alien" children whose home language is not
English (primarily mexicns). California has proven that the quickest
way to get these kids to learn and use English is "deep emersion" (???),
where they are quickly taught to understand and work in English. It
takes about a year and the kids do very well in English-only classes
after that. But in oregun, the state contributes a certain amount
per-student from state taxes and the rest comes from local property
taxes. The state contribution comes out to about half the total cost on
a per-student basis. But for ESL (English as a second language)
students, the state contribution DOUBLES, so the school districts have a
financial incentive to PREVENT kids from understanding and working in
English. Needless to say (unfortunately) oregun schools are dead-set
against the "deep emersion" idea - they'd rather keep the kids
handicapped by trying to learn and think in two languages than get the
kids up-to-speed in English and lose the double-funding from the state.
It's a sad commentary on the attitudes of those who control the schools
in this state.

Mel Gamble

Unfortunately, schools are in it for the money - at least at the upper
levels...

Gini wrote:

"TeacherMama" wrote
..............................
I worked at a school one time where the parents every child who did
not fit nicely into the "good student" mode, or displayed "over active
tendencies", were requested to take the child for an "evaluation" for
ADHD. You should have seen how many of those children were on
medication! (This was a very wealthy area, and a private school) I say
we should go back to letting kids be kids, give them the opportunity
to be active in the exploration of their world, instead of just
automatons in desks--and save the meds for those who *really* need it!
==
My cynicism begs: Do you think schools put kids in special programs
just to increase federal funds for their schools or to prevent having
federal funds reduced because they used less than awarded?
==

In oregun, we have a lot of "alien" children whose home language is not
English (primarily mexicns). California has proven that the quickest
way to get these kids to learn and use English is "deep emersion" (???),
where they are quickly taught to understand and work in English. It
takes about a year and the kids do very well in English-only classes
after that. But in oregun, the state contributes a certain amount
per-student from state taxes and the rest comes from local property
taxes. The state contribution comes out to about half the total cost on
a per-student basis. But for ESL (English as a second language)
students, the state contribution DOUBLES, so the school districts have a
financial incentive to PREVENT kids from understanding and working in
English. Needless to say (unfortunately) oregun schools are dead-set
against the "deep emersion" idea - they'd rather keep the kids
handicapped by trying to learn and think in two languages than get the
kids up-to-speed in English and lose the double-funding from the state.
It's a sad commentary on the attitudes of those who control the schools
in this state.

Mel Gamble

You asked my opinion - now you're going to get it : )

First off, I think a lot of these "it's the easy way out" diagnosis' are
accepted by parents who are too busy or too lazy to deal with the REAL
issues that are contributing to the unacceptable behavior that leads to
the diagnosis in the first place. I say "easy way out" because after a
child's discipline has been allowed to deteriorate to the point where
such a diagnosis CAN be made, "fixing" the problem the correct way is
HELL compared to "fixing" it by shoving pills down the kid's throat.

"Too busy" applies to parents who are so consumed with earning a
lifestyle that they just "don't have time" to deal with respect,
discipline, and teaching a child that actions have consequences. It
ALSO applies to parents - 2 or 1 - who are so busy with their own
personal pursuits that they just don't want to deal with junior's
issues. The least that MIGHT be said for these parents is that they are
trying to provide "the best" for these same kids and they just "don't
realize what they are doing" to those same kids.

I don't think some of the regular posters here will appreciate my
definition of "too lazy", because it includes a lot of single mothers
who are using welfare and other "easy-outs" to make their way in this
world. It takes a while to let a kid get to the point where such a
diagnosis can be made. It takes a lot of work to get those kids back
on-track and I'm sad to say that I believe a lot of those mothers just
don't think it's worth the effort.

And then there's the financial incentive, which I've mentioned before.
Every kid diagnosed as ADHD or whatever, so long as it equates to
"emotionally disabled", is worth an added $400/month to the custodial
parent of that kid.

"Do you think that these people truly don't see what is in front of
them..." NO. In most cases, I just don't think they care enough about
their kids to question the diagnosis or try to fix the problem in a
non-medicated way.

Mel Gamble

Tiffany wrote:

Mel Gamble wrote in message
...
Below...

TeacherMama wrote:

Dealing with an ADHD/ODD child is difficult under the best of
circumstances. You are correct in your statement that consistency is
of key importance. In my classroom, I make it clear what choices are
acceptable, and the consequences of both acceptable and unacceptable
choices. If the child chooses outside of the acceptable area, the
promised consequences will follow, as the night, the day. The idea is
not punishment--it is to establish that choices bring predictable
results--and it is to help the ADHD/ODD child begin to learn self
discipline. I don't think that Ronni is punishing her son based on her
anger. "Now you're making me mad, do you need a time out" seems to be
the words she uses consistently to help him reevaluate his choices.

But that makes the "acceptableness" of his actions dependent on whether
mom is getting mad - makes his choices grey instead of black-and-white.
It may not be a totally wrong thing for her to do, but it certainly
makes it more difficult for the boy to see the cause-and-effect results
of his actions and the consequences if they are "wrong" actions.

In my classroom, I always say "I am not happy with your choices." This
gives the child a chance to change his choice before the inevitable
consequence falls.

Why not "(child's name), do you think (whatever action) is a good choice
or can you think of a more positive choice?"

You mentioned in an earlier posting that environment plays a role in
working with ADHD children. Of course it does.

Not sure that I made that statement. What I did state was that I think
WAY too many kids are displaying inappropriate behavior that is a
reaction to environment - kids who would be displaying appropriate
behavior if their environment was different - but being diagnosed as
having a chemical problem that requires medication. I know this happens
for a fact. I've watched a perfectly decent little boy's environment
change drastically and within less than a year he was on "meds"...and
mom was getting that extra "disability" check every month.

And it helps if
everyone involved with the child in a supervisory way is on the same
page and uses the same consequences. But even the best environment
will not "cure" a truly ADHD/ODD child.

No argument there, just with the percentage of "diagnosed" ADHD/ODD
cases that are a result of environment and the attempt at treating them
by changing the kid instead of changing the environment.

The child still needs time to
internalize the cpoing skills that will help him deal with his
difficulties.

One of the problems faced by those who are dealing with true ADHD
children is the popularity of the term. I have had parents bring their
little darling to my classroom, explaining that he is ADHD, but the
doctor doesn't want to give him medicine. Then when the child acts up
to the point that I bring the parents in, they say "But we *told* you
he is ADHD!" As if that gives him leave to do anything he wants
without no consequence.

That's what I'm trying to say. There are far too many adults ready to
holler "ADHD" because it's much simpler to shove a pill down junior's
throat twice a day than it is to go through the difficulty of changing
his behavior by changing their own.

Mel Gamble


Wow....I must agree with you Mel. Though there are the situation where the
child isn't in a environment advocating such behavior but has ADHD/ADD, in
my experience (and I am dealing with parents who talk about their home lives
and kids and husbands) it is highly an environmental issue. From things such
as diet, the parents relationships, that the parents are highly medicated or
have substance abuse issues, ect. Do you think that these people truly don't
see what is in front of them or that doctors have so many people so
brainwashed?

T