Smart Kids With LD

Although most states have enacted anti-bullying laws, Congress is now considering a federal layer of protection through the Safe Schools Improvement Act. Introduced this fall by Senators Robert Casey (D-Pa) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill), the provision requires schools and districts that accept federal funds to establish codes of conduct that prohibit bullying and harassment for any reason. In addition, the legislation calls for states to track and report incidents of bullying to the Department of Education for oversight by Congress.

According to an article in Education Week the legislation, currently in committee, has garnered the support of 32 members of Congress, though it is facing opposition from some who question the role of the federal government in what they maintain is a local education matter.

While bullying impacts students from all sectors of the school population, it is a particular concern for students with disabilities who are often the victims. As noted in our article, Bullying: Kids with LD Are Easy Targets:

School bullying is a widespread problem throughout the United States. Research shows that at least 20% of children in U.S. schools experience frequent bullying. And while specific data is hard to come by, it is widely acknowledged that children with special needs make up a significant proportion of that group because of their unique vulnerabilities and challenges. Read more

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released a new report from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) showing that formal parent training is an effective intervention for improving the behavior of preschool children at risk for developing ADHD. The report further notes that there is scant evidence to suggest drug therapies are effective for this age group (children under 6 years old).

According to a summary article of the report at Medical News Today, “strong evidence supports the effectiveness of formal parenting interventions, also called parent behavior training or PBT, for children below the age of 6 years. The interventions are free of complication and not harmful, but parents who drop out of the therapy program jeopardize successful results.”

In conjunction with new guidelines from the American Pediatric Association (APA) stating that it is now possible to diagnose ADHD in children as young as age 4, parents of young children that exhibit impulsive, aggressive, noncompliant behaviors have the opportunity to address these challenges at an earlier age. The APA’s guidelines also call for behavior modification as the first line of treatment for the very young.

Medications for Older Children with ADHD

The AHRQ report also found that common ADHD drug therapies Ritalin and Strattera are generally safe and effective for children older than age 6 years. The analysis noted, however, that little is known about the long-term effects of these medications on younger children, as few studies have been conducted beyond 12 to 24 months.

The full AHRQ report can be accessed at: http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ehc/products/191/818/CER44-ADHD_20111021.pdf

If you think your child is getting too much screen time, you’re probably right.

The independent non-profit organization, Common Sense Media, recently released findings from their national study, Zero to Eight: Children’s Media Use in America, and the results are stunning—for better or worse:

Among children 8 years and younger…

• Half have access to a mobile device such as a smartphone, iPod, iPad, or other tablet
• On any given day 11% use a mobile device for media consumption, spending an average of 43 minutes doing so
• Average first use of computers is 3.5 years old
• Half have played video games, with average first use just under age 4
• Among 5-8 years olds, 17% play video games at least once a day
• Kids under 2 spend twice as much time watching TV and videos as they do having books read to them
• 30% of 0-1 year olds have a TV in their bedroom; 44% of 2-4 year-olds have one; and 7% of 5-8 year-olds have one.

Digital Divide

What all this screen time may mean for child development is yet to be evaluated, however one aspect of the issue is indisputable: The research found that a substantial digital divide continues to persist among children of the haves and the have-nots:

• 72% of kids 8 and under have a computer at home, but access ranges from 48% among those from low-income families (less than $30,000 a year) to 91% among higher-income families (more than $75,000 a year).

According to the report:

In addition to the traditional digital divide, a new “app gap” has developed among young children. Among lower-income children, 27% have a parent with a smartphone, compared to 57% for higher-income children. One in 10 (10%) of lower-income children has a video iPod or similar device in the home, compared to one in three (34%) upper-income children. And just 2% of lower-income children have a tablet device such as an iPad at home, compared to 17% of higher-income children.

Thirty-eight percent of lower-income parents say they don’t even know what an app is, compared to just 3% of higher-income parents. Only 14% of lower-income parents have ever downloaded apps for their children to use, compared to 47% of higher-income parents.

You can read the full report and let us know if you think young children are getting too much screen time.

A couple of weeks ago we posted a blog asking you to tell your U.S. Senator to vote no on the Isakson Amendment, which would have lowered academic expectations for students with disabilities.

Thanks to those of you who took action—along with a coalition of concerned constituents, including Wrightslaw and the Council for Exceptional Children—the controversial amendment was roundly rejected in committee by lawmakers. The proposed amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA, currently known as No Child Left Behind) would have allowed students with disabilities to be assessed differently than their peers.

Although No Child Left Behind has been controversial on many levels, one aspect most disabilities advocates came together around was the provision requiring schools to be held accountable for the performance of children with disabilities on the same tests as other students.

In a letter to Congress, the Council for Exceptional Children laid out their concern to the Isakson Amendment: “When a student with a disability takes a different assessment than a student without a disability, there is no way to compare their performance, no way to accurately measure achievement gaps, and no way to know how well they have grasped the grade-level content. Importantly, neither the data, which indicates that the students who benefit from an alternate assessment are far less than one percent, nor best practice supports placing more students into different assessments.”

While savoring this win for the moment, some advocates are concerned that the Isakson Amendment will resurface when the full Senate considers the ESEA bill in the coming weeks.

Pete and Pam Wright produce the Wrightslaw special education website, books, and newsletter, and conduct advocacy training programs for parents around the country. Pam is a psychotherapist; Pete, a prominent attorney, won the 1993 landmark Shannon Carter case before the U.S. Supreme Court, benefiting children with disabilities. In an interview with Smart Kids’ Sheryl Knapp, the couple went on the record about the increasingly pervasive trend to intervene first and then evaluate—a strategy promoted by IDEA 2004 known as Response to Intervention (RTI).

SK: Are you finding that schools are doing a better job interpreting and implementing RTI than they were when it first was introduced?

Pete: We are seeing more emphasis on the concept of RTI, but what does that really mean? Many school districts tell parents, “No, we cannot do a comprehensive evaluation of your child until we have tried RTI.” Children are spending months—or years in RTI.

That’s like saying, because you have a stomachache, I will tell you to take two aspirin a day, and if that doesn’t work a week later we’ll try 10 aspirin a day, and if that doesn’t work we’ll try a bottle a day… and once we know that none of these work, we’ll do a comprehensive diagnostic assessment with a gastroenterologist specialist.

SK: Are the schools using RTI as a diagnostic tool in itself then?

Pete: More like a delay tactic, used to postpone evaluations.

Pam: In theory RTI sounds good: We’ll give an intervention and after two weeks we’ll measure. But the success depends upon having teachers who are proficient in understanding and measuring progress, skills, and reading methods—and that’s not happening. That’s going to take a lot of time to happen. I think that’s the real Achilles heel of this program.

SK: So you don’t think that RTI is making schools implement more research-based practices?

Pete: I think that’s certainly the intent, and there may be districts that are doing that, but those aren’t the districts we hear about. We hear about districts that use RTI to delay doing a comprehensive evaluation to see what the kid’s needs are.

Pam: Change in schools takes a lot of time. I always think about trying to turn the Queen Mary around in the middle of the ocean; you don’t just turn her on a dime. For RTI to work, millions of teachers will need to learn how to use research-based teaching methods and how to measure and monitor student progress. School districts have no desire to do these necessary things. That’s a huge problem.

Join the conversation by sharing your experiences with RTI.

Racial disparities in education have long been a topic of debate, but rarely does the discussion include what’s going on in Special Ed programs across America. A recent article in Education Week titled Keeping Special Ed in Proportion lifted the veil on the issue of minority overrepresentation.

By the Numbers

Citing 2008 mapping data, the Equity Alliance at Arizona State University concluded that African-American students are twice as likely as their Caucasian peers to be classified with emotional or intellectual disabilities. Federal data compiled in 2007 found that while Black students make up approximately 17% of enrollment nationwide, they comprise more than 20% of the children classified with learning disabilities. For Hispanic students the ratios are similar: they represent 20% of enrollment, but 24% of those classified with LD.

As the Education Week article noted:

Interpretations of such figures vary. But for many school-equity experts, they point to the troubling conclusion that large numbers of struggling minority students are being classified for special education even though they don’t have true disabilities.

“The data are clear that when you look at the representation of minorities in special education, there’s something going on behind the scenes,” said H. Richard Milner IV, an associate professor of education at Vanderbilt University and the author of Start Where You Are, But Don’t Stay There: Understanding Diversity, Opportunity Gaps, and Teaching in Today’s Classrooms. “In other words, there are kids who are placed in these programs because educators either don’t want to deal with them, don’t know how to deal with them, or don’t know how to be responsive to them.”

Fixing the Problem

Experts suggest the discrepancy is correctable, and the article puts forth a number of recommendations for local school systems including:

• Create opportunities for open dialogue to explore the issue
• Mine school-level data to develop a better understanding of the extent of the problem
• Examine the curriculum for inconsistencies and inadequacies that put struggling students at further risk
• Provide professional development aimed at preparing teachers to work with diverse needs
• Monitor classroom progress frequently to identify students who are not keeping pace
• Intervene early to support students at risk for falling behind
• Respond wisely to discipline problems, which are a primary factor in minority special ed referrals

For more information, access Keeping Special Ed in Proportion in Education Week at http://www.edweek.org/tsb/articles/2011/10/13/01disproportion.h05.html?intc=fall11_tsbem

According to a recent statement released by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), ADHD can be diagnosed in children as young as age 4:

Emerging evidence makes it possible to diagnose and manage ADHD in children from ages 4 to 18 (the previous AAP guidelines, from 2000 and 2001, covered children ages 6 to 12). The new guidelines describe the special considerations involved in diagnosing and treating preschool children and adolescents. They also include interventions to help children with hyperactive/impulsive behaviors that do not meet the full diagnostic criteria for ADHD.

The revised guidelines were released in mid-October at the AAP’s national conference in Boston. In them, the group proposes treating preschool children (ages 4 and 5) first with behavioral interventions (e.g., applying behavior management techniques). If children are not improving with the first-line treatment, the group notes that medications may be used for youngsters exhibiting moderate to severe symptoms.

Mark Wolraich, MD, FAAP, the lead author of the new report underlines the importance of early intervention: “Treating children at a young age is important, because when we can identify them earlier and provide appropriate treatment, we can increase their chances of succeeding in school.”

To learn more about the new guidelines, the AAP has published an updated consumer resource book entitled “ADHD: What Every Parent Needs to Know.” Parent information is also available at www.healthychildren.org/adhd.

This fall brings three new titles to bookshelves that are of particular interest to Smart Kids readers:

My Dyslexia
Philip Schultz
W.W. Norton & Co., New York
128 pages (hardcover)

My Dyslexia by Pulitzer Prize-winning poet, Philip Schultz is a highly readable memoir of his struggle growing up with undiagnosed dyslexia. Reading this brief (128 pages), but beautifully rendered self-portrait is both heartbreaking and inspiring. But most of all, it’s enlightening, providing insights into how dyslexia impacts the way those who have it process information and navigate their world.

The Good School: How Smart Parents Get Their Kids the Education They Deserve
Peg Tyre
Henry Holt & Co., New York
256 pages (hardcover)

In The Good School, award-winning education journalist Peg Tyre goes beyond the headlines to help parents understand what makes some schools great while others fail. Tyre has done the heavy lifting, sifting through mounds of research and piles of reporting to provide parents with smart ways to assess their child’s classroom experience and engage school personnel in finding appropriate and better options.

The Dyslexic Advantage: Unlocking the Hidden Potential of the Dyslexic Brain
Brock L. Eide, M.D, M.A. and Fernette F. Eide, M.D.
Hudson Street Press, New York
304 pages (hardcover)

In their eminently readable new book, The Dyslexic Advantage, LD specialists Brock and Fernette Eide dispel once and for all the notion that dyslexia is a handicap. In fact, argue the Eides, the opposite is true: the way the dyslexic brain is wired is actually advantageous. Identifying particular strengths, the authors offer concrete ways for parents and schools to nurture these talents. This book is manna for families fighting to help their children stay afloat in a world that frames learning disabilities as a “problem” that stands in the way of success.