Teen Screen: Normal Kids Labeled Mentally Ill

[TimeBomb]

I think American schools have been changed to "dumb down" and to program "stay in line and don't question the status quo".

"Program", is right. If you don't think like the masses, and you don't act like them, you are defective, and need help, right?

And the whole idea that it's not possible to learn without being spoonfed... that's a huge load of horse shit.

If it's imaginary bullshit, it's imaginary bullshit that sure works--with a happy, mainstreamed kid rather than a scared, isolated, overcompliant, or traumatized one.

Julie, I can't really speculate on Katie's specific situation, but the keyword that stands out here, for me anyway, is "mainstreamed". The idea that a kid would have to be traumatized by not being like everyone else is more than a little disturbing. Apparently, Einstien, Edison, Beethoven, Louis Pasteur, Woodrow Wilson, Winston Churchill -- and the list goes on -- all had learning "disabilities". One of the things that people miss, is that "genius" is really the ability to see things in a different way than most people. Perhaps, the learning pathways that most people have are just not quite as effective.

I've also noticed that a lot of people expect the schools to teach their kids all the fundemental skills. The parents do little or nothing, and wonder why their kid isn't learning anything.

My son (the one who takes ADD meds because HE says they help him) also hates high school, is totally bored there, doesn't have to work very hard at it and also hates the social b.s. you mentioned. He refers to the place as "daycare," and I think that's a pretty accurate name for it.

So, he has to take drugs, so he can tolerate being in "daycare", and that's socially acceptable. WTF is going on?

When I was in 2nd grade, my dad made an appointment to take me to a shrink. This was all about not doing well in school, not paying attention, being disruptive, etc. We sat in the waiting room while I practiced my handwriting. I remember showing my dad what I had done. He looked at how good it was, smiled, and said "let's get the hell out of here". He probably saved my ass.

This whole subject just irritates the hell out of me. And the trouble I had in school was what started the whole chain of events that landed me in Bethel, and then LIFE, and that really robbed me of a huge chunk of my life, all because I just wanted to be free. Putting so much pressure on kids to conform, and laying a huge guilt trip on them if they don't, or even telling them they have a disorder, or a disability. I'm sorry, but I just can't see why school is important enough to crush a person's spirit if they aren't cut out for it.

I'd be willing to bet that if the parents would actually take the time to help the kids learn the basics, and help them find a real world interest, the rest would take care of itself. My dad taught me how to read and write before I ever went to school, and he also noticed my interest in aviation, and chartered a small plane when I was in kindergarten, and took me and a friend of my mine for a ride. As much of an asshole as he was in other areas, those are a couple of the big things that really stuck with me.

So, even though I never really even completed the 7th grade, I lived on my own at 16, got a private pilot's license at 23, and now, in my 30s, I work in a field where many of my peers have advanced degrees in computers and engineering, and they come to me on a regular basis to solve complex problems that they don't even know how to approach.

The ability to think for yourself is not a flaw! Not everyone can go to the library or the internet and learn more than they can in school, like Niles. The kid that takes meds to tolerate "daycare" is probably bored to death. This whole concept that you're going to be an absolute falure without being educated by an institution sounds very much like the "dead, insane, in jail" crap that the programs preach.

No wonder kids are going on shooting rampages at school.

Anyway. I usually don't say much, but I'm always lurking.

[Anne Bonney]

Anyway. I usually don't say much, but I'm always lurking.

You should more often.  That was great.  

I'd be willing to bet that if the parents would actually take the time to help the kids learn the basics, and help them find a real world interest, the rest would take care of itself. My dad taught me how to read and write before I ever went to school, and he also noticed my interest in aviation, and chartered a small plane when I was in kindergarten, and took me and a friend of my mine for a ride. As much of an asshole as he was in other areas, those are a couple of the big things that really stuck with me.

So, even though I never really even completed the 7th grade, I lived on my own at 16, got a private pilot's license at 21, and now, in my 30s, I work in a field where many of my peers have advanced degrees in computers and engineering, and they come to me on a regular basis to solve complex problems that they don't even know how to approach.

Yep.  Same here.  My dad gave me a connection to the water and boating.  Now my husband and I make a living in the field, mostly him but it's been getting busier so, so am I.  I'm a high school drop-out (well, pulled out to go in Straight) and always given a hard time for not going back to school.  I just couldn't, especially after that place.  Then I was pushed to get a 'real job'.  Office job, 9-5.  I did.  I was miserable.  I'm finally happy now and that didn't happen until the last few years when I was finally able to let go of what everyone else wanted me to do and be.  I fought so hard for so long to try and fit into their image of what I should do with my life, and I failed miserably, I seriously believe it damn near killed me.  When I did finally turn loose of the chains I turned out ok.  

That's what I mean when I harp on this adolescence is not a pathology stuff I keep throwing around.  What else is there really to talk about?  Programs are going to keep popping up as soon as one gets shut down until this changes.

[Anonymous]

That's what I mean when I harp on this adolescence is not a pathology stuff I keep throwing around.

Adolescence is not a pathology, but other things are. Sometimes therapy and/or medication helps, and sometimes those same things are abused by those who are supposed to be dispensing them competently and caringly. So what do we do, get rid of it all -- the mental health field and its drugs -- to make sure no one can possibly be harmed by incompetence?

[Anne Bonney]

No, of course not.  I'm not a fanatic, I do believe that meds have their place.  But I think it's gotten so far out of hand now.  In my admittedly limited experience with ADD/HD kids, they've all been friends' kids or my kids' friends but there have been A LOT that carry a dx for it, there wsa one kid out of about 15 who I would have even considered for even looking into it.....and they were all, ALL of them doped.   It just seems like most of it is so unnecessary and done for kids to fit the molds of what their parents and society have set up for them.   Again, just a layman's unscientific observation

[Deborah]

***Adolescence is not a pathology, but other things are.

Yes, like real medical diseases. Behaviors and learning challenges aren't diseases, although they can manifest as sympton of real disease. Children shouldn't have to be "labeled" and drugged in order to receive accomodations for their differences/preferences.

***So what do we do, get rid of it all -- the mental health field and its drugs -- to make sure no one can possibly be harmed by incompetence?

Not "we", but they, could start by admitting that there is no science to support their claims and that the drugs "cure" nothing. "We don't know what 'causes' ADHD, but we've noticed that speed seems to have a desirable effect on children who can't conform to oppressive environments, particularly young boys". Schools could stop requiring a dx/drugs in order for a child to attend or receive special accomodations. They should also be required to inform parents of the risks associated with the drugs they recommend, like Ritalin carries the same risks associated with cocaine- enlarged heart, stunted growth, brain shrinkage. Antidepressants- increase risk of suicide/homicide, addicting with severe withdrawal symptoms, long-term effects unknown.

[Oz girl]

What i dont understand about drugging kids is that on one hand the "war on drugs" tells people that illegal drugs are really societys worst ill, yet kids are being drugged so easily. Is there no concern about the mixed message that this sends? Surely kids should be encouraged to think that medication is only one answer because it is for genuine illness.

[Anonymous]

In response to schools having to "dumb down"...

While I have don't know much about public schools CURRENTLY... during the 90's I was in junior high and high school, both at public and private schools.

And I have not seen that "8th grade test from the early 1900's", I must say that in consideration of all that has been learned and discovered since that time, of course test questions will change!  Kids have so much more to learn today about biology, chemistry, computers, ect...  We cannot even compare it to schools of an earlier time.

[Anonymous]

In response to schools having to "dumb down"...

Kids have so much more to learn today about biology, chemistry, computers, ect...  We cannot even compare it to schools of an earlier time.

Very true. Kids have not only have much more to learn, but they have to learn it at a younger age than in decades past, and the expectations of knowlege & skills in the modern economy are much higher.

But it also seems to be true that schools "dumb down" to the lowest common denominator, so the really smart kids are bored to death, and yet there are still so many who struggle, barely make it through or drop out.

Seems to me a kid who is bored is more likely to get in trouble and get labeled with 'behavioral issues.'

[Anonymous]

It's called "learning disability" but a more correct term is probably learning differences.

The latter term reeks too much of political correctness to gain acceptance.

All kids learn in the same general range, unless their brain is terribly damaged.  They learn somewhere along a curve relative to each other, but in the same ballpark we call "humanity."

All kids have brain and body development that affects when they're ready to learn specific things.  For example, they teach cursive when they do because of the average rate of development of fine motor skills.

Average.

Most kids are in that average land on brain and body development, pretty much across the board.  They're ready to learn certain tasks by a certain age.

In Katie's case, it's not that she can't write, it's that her ability to write smoothly has lagged behind other kids.  Some things she does better than average.  On writing, she's on a different development timetable.  Her fine motor skills are developing to handle writing.  Her ability and willingness to form the letters other people's way instead of insisting on making up her own--which wasn't working out very well for her--are developing.

She's stubborn, but she's maturing into making better decisions about what to be stubborn about.

I don't know exactly why she couldn't write small or on the line without extreme labor compared to other kids, but she couldn't.  She's catching up, and as her handwriting becomes more automatic and she doesn't have to concentrate on the mechanics so much, the content of what she writes is improving.

I don't know why it takes her longer to learn how to spell, but I do know that that's not uncommon and it's not uncommon for kids' spelling to catch up, mostly, when it finally clicks.

It's not that she's unable.  It's just that her mind is putting a priority on different talents and tasks, putting "written expression" on a different timetable.

If the mass of kids were on that same timetable, everybody, on average, would still graduate high school knowing the same stuff they do now---the curriculum would just be oriented towards that "average" development pattern and a kid who meets todays "average" would be lagging in something else.

It really is a learning difference, instead of a disability---all PC crap aside.

But a rose by any other name---what the label gets the kid and the parent is a curriculum rewritten to the timetable that's "average" for that subset of kids, with careful attention paid to further tailoring the rate of instruction and techniques emphasized to whatever best helps the kid learn.

There's a very real set of differences these "learning disabilities" describe.  The specialized curricula and teaching techniques work.

It's a Washington thing.  If you call it a "disability" you can explain to taxpayers why they need to pay more money for it.  If you call it a "difference" those rotten little brats can damned well conform.

The truth?  It's a difference, but it always costs more to do small lot specialty jobs than big, industrial production runs.  Schools are run a lot like factories.  The average kid can get a good education, if the parents are paying attention, in the present, mainstream system.  However, then you have all the kids who don't exactly match up with that average, and it's counterproductive to fail a kid a whole grade when he's passing everything else, and a year ahead in language arts and reading, just because he's trying but flunking math.  It also doesn't work to pass him anyway and leave him sitting in a class that is teaching math that's way over his head.

The LD kids cost more money to teach because they're the small, specialty production runs.

But if we don't pay more and educate them anyway, we all pay the price down the line when Johnny can't read or figure, or drops out and can't do any of it very well.

Taxpayers will pay to educate kids with disabilities.

Taxpayer: Aw, poor kid.  Here's a quarter.

Taxpayers will not pay to educate kids whose readiness to learn different skills is out of kilter from average.

Taxpayer: The little brat can fall in line, stand up straight, and work harder, dammit.  The very idea!

Whaddya want more, accuracy in labelling or kids actually learning?  Can't seem to have both.

Julie

[Deborah]

Yeh, it always boils down to money with the system.
Truth being, the 'system' is flawed from the foundation up.
Read about Montessori. There's no reason we can't have Montessori in our public schools. It would eliminate this problem all together.
The daughter of the woman who owned the M school (K-12) my sons attended couldn't spell until she was in her 20s. She wasn't labeled or criticized/humiliated for 12 years, or singled out for special services.  M allows for differences, in fact applauds kids uniquenesses. They also believe that every person develops at their own rate and doesn't compare children's abilities. No test except to see where a child may need extra attention. No grades. Brilliant kids who are self motivated to learn.
We 'do' have options that are more humane. More aware of and sensitive to children's real needs. Why does the system insist on continuing to do what clearly doesn't work?
Gatto addresses that well.

An essay that kinda summarizes his thesis "Against Schools":
http://www.wesjones.com/gatto1.htm
 
Read the entire book "Underground History of American Education" online here:
http://www.rit.edu/~cma8660/mirror/www. ... /index.htm
 
2-1/2 hours of video lecture broken up into 19 topics that were covered in the book. Really good:
http://www.edflix.org/gatto.htm

[Anonymous]

The sad, unfortunate fact is that we CANNOT depend on the public school system to educate our young.  

I have seen too many kids "fall through the cracks", myself included.  I recall my girlfriend's 12th grade AP English teacher FAILED her simply because she had "too many unexcused absences", although she did all her work and had earned a B+ in the class.  Because of this, my friend was not allowed to graduate with her high school class.  

Anyway, what I remember most about public school was being treated like a herd of unruly animals.  

BTY, I did find that "8th grade test" online somewhere.  It features such questions as "Name 10 rules for the use of Capital letters".  It reminds me of my early years of Catholic school education-  petty minded and impractical.

[Anonymous]

In response to schools having to "dumb down"...

And I have not seen that "8th grade test from the early 1900's", I must say that in consideration of all that has been learned and discovered since that time, of course test questions will change!  Kids have so much more to learn today about biology, chemistry, computers, ect...  We cannot even compare it to schools of an earlier time.

The test is on the basics that apply to any degree or any further knowledge and would be necessary for any career.  The year is 1895:
http://people.moreheadstate.edu/fs/w.wi ... grade.html

On the news last night they had a piece on how far behind American kids are from European kids, with both given the same test and to different grade levels.  At 4th grade, Americans scored the highest at above average.  By high school, Americans scored in the 40 percentile, while the Europeans were at 76%.  In both places, they utilized top performing kids in top performing schools.

One mother interviewed had a 16-year-old son in public schools who was reading at grades 1-4.  She was angry at the schools for not teaching him.

My wonder and amazement was that she had not self-taught her son by age 16 to read, but put the entire blame on the schools.  I know if my son wasn't doing well in grade school, I'd be trying something different, and I'd certainly be involved in teaching him myself if I felt he wasn't getting it from school.

By 8th grade, my son was well ahead of the class and bored stiff.  I took him out of public schools from 9th grade on, and put him in a new charter school that was just beginning.  His class size dropped from 1,400 to 25!  This alone made a huge difference, and the charter school had different curriculums, more interests, and  more hands-on learning and teaching.

[Anonymous]

In that news report I talked about in the last post, the public schools were paying $10,000 per child per year.  Some of the private and charter schools had costs as low as $3,000 per child, and they had higher performing kids, more of them, and less "left behind" than did the public schools.  Educators in these facilities said money is not the cure, it's how you use it.  Teachers in these facilities were also paid a higher salary than the public schools.

In Europe, the schools compete for kids.  Parents pick which school and the "state" sends the payment to the schools based on enrollment.  If the parents or the kid doesn't like the school, they pick and go to another one.  Due to this, bad schools end up going by the wayside.

[Deborah]

Some interesting facts from Stosell's Stupid in America, that aired last night: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/stor ... 857&page=1

It's not about money.
And while many people say, "We need to spend more money on our schools," there actually isn't a link between spending and student achievement.

Jay Greene, author of "Education Myths," points out that "If money were the solution, the problem would already be solved ? We've doubled per pupil spending, adjusting for inflation, over the last 30 years, and yet schools aren't better."

He's absolutely right. National graduation rates and achievement scores are flat, while spending on education has increased more than 100 percent since 1971. More money hasn't helped American kids.

Money is wasted:
Here's just one example from New York City: It took years to fire a teacher who sent sexually oriented e-mails to "Cutie 101," a 16-year-old student. Klein said, "He hasn't taught, but we have had to pay him, because that's what's required under the contract." (United Federation of Teachers)

Only after six years of litigation were they able to fire him. In the meantime, they paid the teacher more than $300,000. Klein said he employs dozens of teachers who he's afraid to let near the kids, so he has them sit in what are called rubber rooms. This year he will spend $20 million dollars to warehouse teachers in five rubber rooms. It's an alternative to firing them. In the last four years, only two teachers out of 80,000 were fired for incompetence. Klein's office says the new contract will make it easier to get rid of sex offenders, but it will still be difficult to fire incompetent teachers.

Unionized monopoly, no competition, parents don't have a choice.
Chavous, who has worked to get more school choice in Washington, D.C., said, "Choice to me is the only way. I believe that we can force the system from an external vantage point to change itself. It will never change itself from within. ? Unless there is some competition infused in the equation, unless that occurs, then they know they have a captive monopoly that they can continue to dominate."

Competition inspires people to do what we didn't think we could do. If people got to choose their kids' school, education options would be endless. There could soon be technology schools, science schools, virtual schools where you learn at home on your computer, sports schools, music schools, schools that go all year, schools with uniforms, schools that open early and keep kids later, and, who knows what else. If there were competition, all kinds of new ideas would bloom.

[Anonymous]

We do have such schools, Deborah.  They're called private schools.