Let's Modify the Children!
The King Prawn ·
October 10, 2012 at 6:23am
From the New York Times:
“We’ve decided as a society that it’s too expensive to modify the kid’s environment. So we have to modify the kid.”
Dr. Anderson is one of the more outspoken proponents of an idea that is gaining interest among some physicians. They are prescribing stimulants to struggling students in schools starved of extra money — not to treat A.D.H.D., necessarily, but to boost their academic performance.
So, if kids do poorly in school because they have terrible home lives the solution is to pharmaceutically enhance their learning capabilities? I couldn't read it all. Please help me digest this.
- Comment (49)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (7)
Comments:
Dec '10
Re: Let's Modify the Children!
As noted on NRO's Human Exceptionalism blog, since Medicaid probably pays for a lot of these drugs it could be fraud as well.
More to the point: DocJay and other physicians, is it unethical to prescribe a medication for other than its intended and professionally recognized uses?
Sep '11
Re: Let's Modify the Children!
I'm not surprised. A whole bunch of people have observed that it has become commonplace to label kids (especially boys, and--according to some people in the black community, black boys in particular) as ADHD and prescribe drugs.
The drug companies support the idea--that's big revenue. The teachers (elementary school teachers, where this racket starts, are overwhelmingly female) are in favor of it, because it keeps the boys from being boisterous. And the school districts love it, because all of those drug-addled ADHD boys represent additional Special Ed funding from the state and federal government.
What's the public school term for three ADHD kids "mainstreamed" in a regular classroom, with a minimum-wage aide to "support" them?
"Profit center."
Doping the poor kids just expands the scope of the program.
Sep '11
Re: Let's Modify the Children!
The King Prawn:
More to the point: DocJay and other physicians, is it unethical to prescribe a medication for other than its intended and professionally recognized uses?
It's called "off-label" prescribing, and it's legal.
Probably the best-known case was a heart medication in large-scale drug trials that turned out to have an, um, interesting side-effect: Viagra.
Dec '10
Re: Let's Modify the Children!
John Murdoch: What's the public school term for three ADHD kids "mainstreamed" in a regular classroom, with a minimum-wage aide to "support" them?
"Profit center."
Doping the poor kids just expands the scope of the program. · 2 minutes ago
To quote the Mythbusters, "Well there's yer problem!" It may be only dicey for doctors to participate in this, but for school officials, whom we trust with our children, to run what is essentially a fraud with our children as medical guinnea pigs is entirely criminal.
Jul '11
Re: Let's Modify the Children!
Why any self respecting person trusts their children to the government (school) is beyond me.
Apr '11
Re: Let's Modify the Children!
One of the early NASA ergonomics guys was quoted as saying, "In nine cases out of ten we can make the machine fit the man. In the tenth case we have to make the man fit the machine."
Jun '12
Re: Let's Modify the Children!
My wife and I didn't feel we could home school, so we kept very close tabs on our children in public school. We knew their teachers, followed their homework, etc. We never missed a parent-teacher conference and rarely missed a sporting event. I have always taken jobs that have allowed me to be there for games and conferences.
The biggest problem with all of this appears to me to be just a basic lack of good parental discipline. When my kids came home with a note from the teacher, or if we got a call, the kids knew they were in for serious trouble.
Spare the rod and spoil the child is so true.
Our liberal society is reaping what it sows.
Jul '11
Re: Let's Modify the Children!
@Kieth -
Understood. However I feel strongly about this. Participation pretty much means support. Each one of us "revolts" the government incursion in our own ways. My stance starts with participating in the public school system. If we could get 30-40% of the public not participating in public schools, we may have something :-D.
Dec '10
Re: Let's Modify the Children!
Barkha Herman: @Kieth -
Understood. However I feel strongly about this. Participation pretty much means support. Each one of us "revolts" the government incursion in our own ways. My stance starts with participating in the public school system. If we could get 30-40% of the public not participating in public schools, we may have something :-D. · in 0 minutes
The problem is the funding mechanism. 30-40% of us can't afford to involuntarily fund public schools and voluntarily fund private ones at the same time. For many we simply make the best we can of a bad situation.
Apr '12
Re: Let's Modify the Children!
The King Prawn:
More to the point: DocJay and other physicians, is it unethical to prescribe a medication for other than its intended and professionally recognized uses? · 1 hour ago
I'd focus it a bit differently: is it unethical to prescribe medication for something that is not a problem?
Isn't this just steroids for study?
(not to mention possibly human experimentation on little boys)
Jan '11
Re: Let's Modify the Children!
John Murdoch wrote:"The drug companies support the idea--that's big revenue. The teachers (elementary school teachers, where this racket starts, are overwhelmingly female) are in favor of it, because it keeps the boys from being boisterous. And the school districts love it, because all of those drug-addled ADHD boys represent additional Special Ed funding from the state and federal government."Speaking as a nurse working in several different public school districts over the last decade, there are a whole lot of assumptions being made and broad-brush-painting being done here.
Nov '11
Re: Let's Modify the Children!
As Aldous Huxley would say, it's a Brave New World.
Dec '10
Re: Let's Modify the Children!
As one with first hand, professional experience with this throw us some info. I know my school district will do whatever it takes to label a child as Title I.
Jun '12
Re: Let's Modify the Children!
Barkha Herman: @Kieth -
Understood. However I feel strongly about this. Participation pretty much means support. Each one of us "revolts" the government incursion in our own ways. My stance starts with participating in the public school system. If we could get 30-40% of the public not participating in public schools, we may have something :-D. · 1 hour ago
If I was starting again, I might consider things differently for 2 reasons:
The small school where the kids attended since 2001 is really a great school in a small community of under 1,000 that still has a lot of what could be considered old-fashioned values. It's still a K-12 in one building school, the older kids mentor the younger kids, and Music, Sports and Theatre are an important part of the school. I don't really agree with Federal control of schools, either, (I was a Ron Paul Delegate to the MN Republican State Convention) but, our local school is really not run like the schools up in the Twin Cities.
Peace!
Jan '11
Re: Let's Modify the Children!
The King Prawn
As one with first hand, professional experience with this throw us some info. I know my school district will do whatever it takes to label a child as Title I. · 1 hour ago
Title 1 refers to low income children, not special education, I believe. The assumptions I see being made regard "teachers are in favor of it....and school districts love it." Who are these teachers? Which school districts? Is there any evidence for this? I've never met any teacher who wants to wholesale drug her male students. And districts receive funding for special education, yes, but they also spend a lot on those students: speech therapy, smaller classrooms, resource help, meeting LEA and IDEA requirements, etc.
Dec '10
Re: Let's Modify the Children!
Title I is for "disadvantaged" children. My youngest receives speech therapy, and the school is very adamant about us filling out the paperwork each year. The title covers a lot of categories, and any reason the school can find to classify a child they will use.
Nov '10
Re: Let's Modify the Children!
Thanks for bringing this up, Nicegrizzly. I've overwhelmingly seen focused efforts to help children in the public school where I am a regular sub.
Apr '11
Re: Let's Modify the Children!
It's worth noting, though, that ADHD by itself is not sufficient for IDEA funding. If they're wrongly getting ADHD meds, that won't be enough in itself to get more funding.
I say this merely to channel the outrage, not to deny it.
Sep '11
Re: Let's Modify the Children!
Since we're comparing CVs, I'm the father of a child with Down syndrome; the brother of a special ed supervisor in Maryland; the former chairman of a regional agency coordinating funding, programs, and child-find activity for pre-schoolers; a trained parent advocate; a member of a regional task force on transition planning for high school students; and a twenty-year volunteer with a therapeutic program for severely-disabled youth and adults.
I've been heavily involved with two school districts, including participating in budget planning for each. And I'm part of an ad hoc committee working with state legislators trying to resolve funding issues for people with special needs in Pennsylvania.
Now let's do some math. What's the base state subsidy for a child with a "developmentally-delayed" diagnosis? If you can tag three kids with that label, and "mainstream" them into a classroom with a minimum-wage aide, does the district make money?
Hell yes, they do.
Sep '11
Re: Let's Modify the Children!
If you'd rather not discuss the math, try this: the Romney campaign is--explicitly--proposing to voucher Special Needs kids. Make the federal money follow the child; make the state money follow the child.
If school districts thought Special Ed was a money-loser, you'd see the NEA and the NSBA applauding. You won't--they will scream, and they will fight this like cats. I can tell you--absolutely--that the fastest route to escalating an IEP meeting to lawyers is demanding that the local district pay to place your child in the Catholic schools.
It's not because of religion. (Not to tell tales out of school, but the Special Ed classrooms I've been in have a very high percentage of Christians among the staff.) It's because of the money.
And I've heard both a director of pupil services for a regional agency say that, and (separately) heard a superintendent say exactly the same thing.
Edited on October 10, 2012 at 5:32am