Nearly half the kids in my kids private have a diagnosis

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have ADHD and my kid does too and I often have the thought that maybe none of this is actually "neurodiversity" but just that society is set up for a certain type of brain and everyone else either struggles or needs outside assistance to cope. Like I know ADHD is real, I have experienced it, but sometimes I question whether it's actually a divergence from "typical" neurology or if actually it's fairly typical but just not optimal for a society structured the ways ours is.

I also think it's highly likely that my dad and my DH have undiagnosed ADHD but I think especially with my dad it looks different because he had a SAHM who ran his life for most of his working years so he looked brilliant and high functioning but if he'd had to pay his bills and dress himself and feed himself and take care of his kids and god forbid learn how to use email and text and remember 700 passwords he would have absolutely lost it

Just a thought

I think you’re right about all of this. Definitely applies to low support needs autism too. I’m a lawyer, and A LOT of my law school class would get an autism diagnosis if we took an assessment, I’m certain. But black and white thinking works out ok as a lawyer, and you can get away with having subpar social skills when everyone blames it on you being super smart (I went to Yale Law). It all depends on context.

Oh come on. People who make it to Yale Law, with some very few exceptions, do not actually have developmental disorders that seriously impact their ability to learn or socialize. The ones who do actually have ADHD or autism visibly struggle - drop out; get kicked out; or are the one kid who mysteriously cannot get a job. Being awkward and rude doesn’t mean you are autistic. Possibly they would nevertheless get a diagnosis today - but for those of us who actually have 2e kids whose behaviors and challenges mean they would never be accepted to a mainstream private, it’s extremely grating to hear these kinds of claims. (And yes, we have worked with private school admissions consultants who have told us this, so we know.)

op - my point is that the criteria for diagnosis is changing such that diagnoses are becoming wildly common among kids who in many ways blend in neurotypically.

Ie, they actually are neurotypical. There’s research on this: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34077611/

This is an opinion piece.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have ADHD and my kid does too and I often have the thought that maybe none of this is actually "neurodiversity" but just that society is set up for a certain type of brain and everyone else either struggles or needs outside assistance to cope. Like I know ADHD is real, I have experienced it, but sometimes I question whether it's actually a divergence from "typical" neurology or if actually it's fairly typical but just not optimal for a society structured the ways ours is.

I also think it's highly likely that my dad and my DH have undiagnosed ADHD but I think especially with my dad it looks different because he had a SAHM who ran his life for most of his working years so he looked brilliant and high functioning but if he'd had to pay his bills and dress himself and feed himself and take care of his kids and god forbid learn how to use email and text and remember 700 passwords he would have absolutely lost it

Just a thought

I think you’re right about all of this. Definitely applies to low support needs autism too. I’m a lawyer, and A LOT of my law school class would get an autism diagnosis if we took an assessment, I’m certain. But black and white thinking works out ok as a lawyer, and you can get away with having subpar social skills when everyone blames it on you being super smart (I went to Yale Law). It all depends on context.

Oh come on. People who make it to Yale Law, with some very few exceptions, do not actually have developmental disorders that seriously impact their ability to learn or socialize. The ones who do actually have ADHD or autism visibly struggle - drop out; get kicked out; or are the one kid who mysteriously cannot get a job. Being awkward and rude doesn’t mean you are autistic. Possibly they would nevertheless get a diagnosis today - but for those of us who actually have 2e kids whose behaviors and challenges mean they would never be accepted to a mainstream private, it’s extremely grating to hear these kinds of claims. (And yes, we have worked with private school admissions consultants who have told us this, so we know.)

op - my point is that the criteria for diagnosis is changing such that diagnoses are becoming wildly common among kids who in many ways blend in neurotypically.

Ie, they actually are neurotypical. There’s research on this: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34077611/

Oh and it doesn't say anyone is neurotypical.

[Anonymous]

op - I guess my point is that I do wonder if we are slightly pathologizing 'normal' - or rather my point is more nuanced. I come from a different country and I've noticed that Americans have super high expectations of behavior and self regulation from kids. Where I come from, at school, kids are way more 'rambunctious' when younger - playground scuffles, lots of crying from 5-8, lots of mean words, lots of staring out of the window when should be buckling down. And teachers deal with it in different ways depending on the teacher and the school. But WAY fewer diagnoses. Now you could 100% argue that is a bad thing and I think largely that is correct. But I do think we are reaching a crunch point. Either we change our entire understanding of neurology to multiple different neurotypes instead of just 'normal' or 'autism' or 'adhd' (basically the only choices for kids) and start setting ALL humans up to understand their unique learning and communication style, OR we change the parameters for diagnoses and separate them from health insurance criteria (which is an insane yardstick to be using for a lifelong diagnosis).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:op - I guess my point is that I do wonder if we are slightly pathologizing 'normal' - or rather my point is more nuanced. I come from a different country and I've noticed that Americans have super high expectations of behavior and self regulation from kids. Where I come from, at school, kids are way more 'rambunctious' when younger - playground scuffles, lots of crying from 5-8, lots of mean words, lots of staring out of the window when should be buckling down. And teachers deal with it in different ways depending on the teacher and the school. But WAY fewer diagnoses. Now you could 100% argue that is a bad thing and I think largely that is correct. But I do think we are reaching a crunch point. Either we change our entire understanding of neurology to multiple different neurotypes instead of just 'normal' or 'autism' or 'adhd' (basically the only choices for kids) and start setting ALL humans up to understand their unique learning and communication style, OR we change the parameters for diagnoses and separate them from health insurance criteria (which is an insane yardstick to be using for a lifelong diagnosis).

What does it mean that we are reaching a "crunch point"? Too many kids are getting supports?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:op - I guess my point is that I do wonder if we are slightly pathologizing 'normal' - or rather my point is more nuanced. I come from a different country and I've noticed that Americans have super high expectations of behavior and self regulation from kids. Where I come from, at school, kids are way more 'rambunctious' when younger - playground scuffles, lots of crying from 5-8, lots of mean words, lots of staring out of the window when should be buckling down. And teachers deal with it in different ways depending on the teacher and the school. But WAY fewer diagnoses. Now you could 100% argue that is a bad thing and I think largely that is correct. But I do think we are reaching a crunch point. Either we change our entire understanding of neurology to multiple different neurotypes instead of just 'normal' or 'autism' or 'adhd' (basically the only choices for kids) and start setting ALL humans up to understand their unique learning and communication style, OR we change the parameters for diagnoses and separate them from health insurance criteria (which is an insane yardstick to be using for a lifelong diagnosis).

I agree with you that our modern parenting and school expectations are a huge problem. It didn't used to be this way. We/Americans used to know that children are children and not mini-adults but we seem to have forgotten. Is it the increase in small families with 1 or 2 children or childless/child free adults and the disappearance of large families with lots of children? So there's a lack of knowledge and experience of children?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have ADHD and my kid does too and I often have the thought that maybe none of this is actually "neurodiversity" but just that society is set up for a certain type of brain and everyone else either struggles or needs outside assistance to cope. Like I know ADHD is real, I have experienced it, but sometimes I question whether it's actually a divergence from "typical" neurology or if actually it's fairly typical but just not optimal for a society structured the ways ours is.

I also think it's highly likely that my dad and my DH have undiagnosed ADHD but I think especially with my dad it looks different because he had a SAHM who ran his life for most of his working years so he looked brilliant and high functioning but if he'd had to pay his bills and dress himself and feed himself and take care of his kids and god forbid learn how to use email and text and remember 700 passwords he would have absolutely lost it

Just a thought

I think you’re right about all of this. Definitely applies to low support needs autism too. I’m a lawyer, and A LOT of my law school class would get an autism diagnosis if we took an assessment, I’m certain. But black and white thinking works out ok as a lawyer, and you can get away with having subpar social skills when everyone blames it on you being super smart (I went to Yale Law). It all depends on context.

Oh come on. People who make it to Yale Law, with some very few exceptions, do not actually have developmental disorders that seriously impact their ability to learn or socialize. The ones who do actually have ADHD or autism visibly struggle - drop out; get kicked out; or are the one kid who mysteriously cannot get a job. Being awkward and rude doesn’t mean you are autistic. Possibly they would nevertheless get a diagnosis today - but for those of us who actually have 2e kids whose behaviors and challenges mean they would never be accepted to a mainstream private, it’s extremely grating to hear these kinds of claims. (And yes, we have worked with private school admissions consultants who have told us this, so we know.)

op - my point is that the criteria for diagnosis is changing such that diagnoses are becoming wildly common among kids who in many ways blend in neurotypically.

Ie, they actually are neurotypical. There’s research on this: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34077611/

This is an opinion piece.

It’s a journal article by one of the world’s to autism researchers, noting that diagnosis is so broad now as to make it useless for research purposes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have ADHD and my kid does too and I often have the thought that maybe none of this is actually "neurodiversity" but just that society is set up for a certain type of brain and everyone else either struggles or needs outside assistance to cope. Like I know ADHD is real, I have experienced it, but sometimes I question whether it's actually a divergence from "typical" neurology or if actually it's fairly typical but just not optimal for a society structured the ways ours is.

I also think it's highly likely that my dad and my DH have undiagnosed ADHD but I think especially with my dad it looks different because he had a SAHM who ran his life for most of his working years so he looked brilliant and high functioning but if he'd had to pay his bills and dress himself and feed himself and take care of his kids and god forbid learn how to use email and text and remember 700 passwords he would have absolutely lost it

Just a thought

I think you’re right about all of this. Definitely applies to low support needs autism too. I’m a lawyer, and A LOT of my law school class would get an autism diagnosis if we took an assessment, I’m certain. But black and white thinking works out ok as a lawyer, and you can get away with having subpar social skills when everyone blames it on you being super smart (I went to Yale Law). It all depends on context.

Oh come on. People who make it to Yale Law, with some very few exceptions, do not actually have developmental disorders that seriously impact their ability to learn or socialize. The ones who do actually have ADHD or autism visibly struggle - drop out; get kicked out; or are the one kid who mysteriously cannot get a job. Being awkward and rude doesn’t mean you are autistic. Possibly they would nevertheless get a diagnosis today - but for those of us who actually have 2e kids whose behaviors and challenges mean they would never be accepted to a mainstream private, it’s extremely grating to hear these kinds of claims. (And yes, we have worked with private school admissions consultants who have told us this, so we know.)

op - my point is that the criteria for diagnosis is changing such that diagnoses are becoming wildly common among kids who in many ways blend in neurotypically.

Ie, they actually are neurotypical. There’s research on this: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34077611/

Oh and it doesn't say anyone is neurotypical.

when 30% of an elite private school claims to be neurodiverse the term has lost all meaning. that’s the point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:op - I guess my point is that I do wonder if we are slightly pathologizing 'normal' - or rather my point is more nuanced. I come from a different country and I've noticed that Americans have super high expectations of behavior and self regulation from kids. Where I come from, at school, kids are way more 'rambunctious' when younger - playground scuffles, lots of crying from 5-8, lots of mean words, lots of staring out of the window when should be buckling down. And teachers deal with it in different ways depending on the teacher and the school. But WAY fewer diagnoses. Now you could 100% argue that is a bad thing and I think largely that is correct. But I do think we are reaching a crunch point. Either we change our entire understanding of neurology to multiple different neurotypes instead of just 'normal' or 'autism' or 'adhd' (basically the only choices for kids) and start setting ALL humans up to understand their unique learning and communication style, OR we change the parameters for diagnoses and separate them from health insurance criteria (which is an insane yardstick to be using for a lifelong diagnosis).

I think it’s both. And I think families with the money and connections to get their kids into top privates are both more demanding of their kids, and also more likely to believe they need to extract every possible advantage from the system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:op - I guess my point is that I do wonder if we are slightly pathologizing 'normal' - or rather my point is more nuanced. I come from a different country and I've noticed that Americans have super high expectations of behavior and self regulation from kids. Where I come from, at school, kids are way more 'rambunctious' when younger - playground scuffles, lots of crying from 5-8, lots of mean words, lots of staring out of the window when should be buckling down. And teachers deal with it in different ways depending on the teacher and the school. But WAY fewer diagnoses. Now you could 100% argue that is a bad thing and I think largely that is correct. But I do think we are reaching a crunch point. Either we change our entire understanding of neurology to multiple different neurotypes instead of just 'normal' or 'autism' or 'adhd' (basically the only choices for kids) and start setting ALL humans up to understand their unique learning and communication style, OR we change the parameters for diagnoses and separate them from health insurance criteria (which is an insane yardstick to be using for a lifelong diagnosis).

What does it mean that we are reaching a "crunch point"? Too many kids are getting supports?

not at ALL.
supports for any kid who needs it is the goal.
but when nearly half of all humans start to be considered 'neurodiverse' it begs a question about categorization

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:op - I guess my point is that I do wonder if we are slightly pathologizing 'normal' - or rather my point is more nuanced. I come from a different country and I've noticed that Americans have super high expectations of behavior and self regulation from kids. Where I come from, at school, kids are way more 'rambunctious' when younger - playground scuffles, lots of crying from 5-8, lots of mean words, lots of staring out of the window when should be buckling down. And teachers deal with it in different ways depending on the teacher and the school. But WAY fewer diagnoses. Now you could 100% argue that is a bad thing and I think largely that is correct. But I do think we are reaching a crunch point. Either we change our entire understanding of neurology to multiple different neurotypes instead of just 'normal' or 'autism' or 'adhd' (basically the only choices for kids) and start setting ALL humans up to understand their unique learning and communication style, OR we change the parameters for diagnoses and separate them from health insurance criteria (which is an insane yardstick to be using for a lifelong diagnosis).

I agree with you that our modern parenting and school expectations are a huge problem. It didn't used to be this way. We/Americans used to know that children are children and not mini-adults but we seem to have forgotten. Is it the increase in small families with 1 or 2 children or childless/child free adults and the disappearance of large families with lots of children? So there's a lack of knowledge and experience of children?

I think a big piece of it is the rise of 'professionalism' which America and China are the leaders in. 'Professionalism' - aka absolute emotional regulation, efficiency of output and communication and conformity to strict behavioral standards are probably tacitly considered to be the 'benchmark' by which human success is measured and that translates into expectations of our children. There is no room for even a nt person to deviate substantially from this archetype and so we are holding our children to - essentially - junior corporate standards. That's one theory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:op - I guess my point is that I do wonder if we are slightly pathologizing 'normal' - or rather my point is more nuanced. I come from a different country and I've noticed that Americans have super high expectations of behavior and self regulation from kids. Where I come from, at school, kids are way more 'rambunctious' when younger - playground scuffles, lots of crying from 5-8, lots of mean words, lots of staring out of the window when should be buckling down. And teachers deal with it in different ways depending on the teacher and the school. But WAY fewer diagnoses. Now you could 100% argue that is a bad thing and I think largely that is correct. But I do think we are reaching a crunch point. Either we change our entire understanding of neurology to multiple different neurotypes instead of just 'normal' or 'autism' or 'adhd' (basically the only choices for kids) and start setting ALL humans up to understand their unique learning and communication style, OR we change the parameters for diagnoses and separate them from health insurance criteria (which is an insane yardstick to be using for a lifelong diagnosis).

What does it mean that we are reaching a "crunch point"? Too many kids are getting supports?

not at ALL.
supports for any kid who needs it is the goal.
but when nearly half of all humans start to be considered 'neurodiverse' it begs a question about categorization

So this is an issue of semantics? That doesn't sound like a "crunch point" at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:op - I guess my point is that I do wonder if we are slightly pathologizing 'normal' - or rather my point is more nuanced. I come from a different country and I've noticed that Americans have super high expectations of behavior and self regulation from kids. Where I come from, at school, kids are way more 'rambunctious' when younger - playground scuffles, lots of crying from 5-8, lots of mean words, lots of staring out of the window when should be buckling down. And teachers deal with it in different ways depending on the teacher and the school. But WAY fewer diagnoses. Now you could 100% argue that is a bad thing and I think largely that is correct. But I do think we are reaching a crunch point. Either we change our entire understanding of neurology to multiple different neurotypes instead of just 'normal' or 'autism' or 'adhd' (basically the only choices for kids) and start setting ALL humans up to understand their unique learning and communication style, OR we change the parameters for diagnoses and separate them from health insurance criteria (which is an insane yardstick to be using for a lifelong diagnosis).

I agree with you that our modern parenting and school expectations are a huge problem. It didn't used to be this way. We/Americans used to know that children are children and not mini-adults but we seem to have forgotten. Is it the increase in small families with 1 or 2 children or childless/child free adults and the disappearance of large families with lots of children? So there's a lack of knowledge and experience of children?

I do think that the increase in child free adults is part of it (I don't think smaller families is a factor because often behavior expectations are higher or stricter in large families because otherwise it's chaos, whereas in a family with 1 or 2 kids there is more capacity for kids to display childish behavior).

But I also think there's been a shift in expectations and behavior from parents. People expect to be able to do more adult things with their kids. People take kids out to eat, to the movies, to concerts and parties, and traveling way more than they did a generation ago. There are more kids in places like restaurants and airports and hotels than there used to be. But there are also lots of child free adults in these places. It creates an untenable situation where kids pretty much have to behave like adults because they are in a place where that is the expectation.

But this does not explain why these expectations have extended to schools, one of the few places in our society that are meant to be designed for children. I have noticed a trend of fewer and fewer teachers having kids of their own -- could that be a factor? Or maybe it's everything teachers are now expected to do with the trends towards mainstreaming kids with more severe SNs and the lack of support from administrators and parents? It's one thing that people expect kids in a restaurant to be quiet and sit still, but now kindergarten teachers have high expectations for this. Kindergarten! And at the same time kindergarten and even preschool have become more academic.

It just feels like a perfect storm with a lot of decisions made by adults that are putting more and more kids in the position of losing spaces in childhood where they can be wild and energetic and silly and just... kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:op - I guess my point is that I do wonder if we are slightly pathologizing 'normal' - or rather my point is more nuanced. I come from a different country and I've noticed that Americans have super high expectations of behavior and self regulation from kids. Where I come from, at school, kids are way more 'rambunctious' when younger - playground scuffles, lots of crying from 5-8, lots of mean words, lots of staring out of the window when should be buckling down. And teachers deal with it in different ways depending on the teacher and the school. But WAY fewer diagnoses. Now you could 100% argue that is a bad thing and I think largely that is correct. But I do think we are reaching a crunch point. Either we change our entire understanding of neurology to multiple different neurotypes instead of just 'normal' or 'autism' or 'adhd' (basically the only choices for kids) and start setting ALL humans up to understand their unique learning and communication style, OR we change the parameters for diagnoses and separate them from health insurance criteria (which is an insane yardstick to be using for a lifelong diagnosis).

I agree with you that our modern parenting and school expectations are a huge problem. It didn't used to be this way. We/Americans used to know that children are children and not mini-adults but we seem to have forgotten. Is it the increase in small families with 1 or 2 children or childless/child free adults and the disappearance of large families with lots of children? So there's a lack of knowledge and experience of children?

I think a big piece of it is the rise of 'professionalism' which America and China are the leaders in. 'Professionalism' - aka absolute emotional regulation, efficiency of output and communication and conformity to strict behavioral standards are probably tacitly considered to be the 'benchmark' by which human success is measured and that translates into expectations of our children. There is no room for even a nt person to deviate substantially from this archetype and so we are holding our children to - essentially - junior corporate standards. That's one theory.

This has a ring of truth to it. I think of how emotionality is treated in society and how large shows of emotions (even positive emotions) are often frowned upon. I also think of the rise in anxiety generally among both kids and adults and wonder how much of that is just repressed emotion that people are afraid of expressing in appropriate ways for fear of being deemed insufficiently controlled and logical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:op - I guess my point is that I do wonder if we are slightly pathologizing 'normal' - or rather my point is more nuanced. I come from a different country and I've noticed that Americans have super high expectations of behavior and self regulation from kids. Where I come from, at school, kids are way more 'rambunctious' when younger - playground scuffles, lots of crying from 5-8, lots of mean words, lots of staring out of the window when should be buckling down. And teachers deal with it in different ways depending on the teacher and the school. But WAY fewer diagnoses. Now you could 100% argue that is a bad thing and I think largely that is correct. But I do think we are reaching a crunch point. Either we change our entire understanding of neurology to multiple different neurotypes instead of just 'normal' or 'autism' or 'adhd' (basically the only choices for kids) and start setting ALL humans up to understand their unique learning and communication style, OR we change the parameters for diagnoses and separate them from health insurance criteria (which is an insane yardstick to be using for a lifelong diagnosis).

What does it mean that we are reaching a "crunch point"? Too many kids are getting supports?

not at ALL.
supports for any kid who needs it is the goal.
but when nearly half of all humans start to be considered 'neurodiverse' it begs a question about categorization

So this is an issue of semantics? That doesn't sound like a "crunch point" at all.

It’s a “crunch point” when you basically have to get accomodations because the playing field is not level anymore. If 1/3 of the kids get extra testing time, extra time to complete assignments, then there reaches a crunch point where it becomes unfair to the other 2/3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:op - I guess my point is that I do wonder if we are slightly pathologizing 'normal' - or rather my point is more nuanced. I come from a different country and I've noticed that Americans have super high expectations of behavior and self regulation from kids. Where I come from, at school, kids are way more 'rambunctious' when younger - playground scuffles, lots of crying from 5-8, lots of mean words, lots of staring out of the window when should be buckling down. And teachers deal with it in different ways depending on the teacher and the school. But WAY fewer diagnoses. Now you could 100% argue that is a bad thing and I think largely that is correct. But I do think we are reaching a crunch point. Either we change our entire understanding of neurology to multiple different neurotypes instead of just 'normal' or 'autism' or 'adhd' (basically the only choices for kids) and start setting ALL humans up to understand their unique learning and communication style, OR we change the parameters for diagnoses and separate them from health insurance criteria (which is an insane yardstick to be using for a lifelong diagnosis).

I agree with you that our modern parenting and school expectations are a huge problem. It didn't used to be this way. We/Americans used to know that children are children and not mini-adults but we seem to have forgotten. Is it the increase in small families with 1 or 2 children or childless/child free adults and the disappearance of large families with lots of children? So there's a lack of knowledge and experience of children?

I think a big piece of it is the rise of 'professionalism' which America and China are the leaders in. 'Professionalism' - aka absolute emotional regulation, efficiency of output and communication and conformity to strict behavioral standards are probably tacitly considered to be the 'benchmark' by which human success is measured and that translates into expectations of our children. There is no room for even a nt person to deviate substantially from this archetype and so we are holding our children to - essentially - junior corporate standards. That's one theory.

This has a ring of truth to it. I think of how emotionality is treated in society and how large shows of emotions (even positive emotions) are often frowned upon. I also think of the rise in anxiety generally among both kids and adults and wonder how much of that is just repressed emotion that people are afraid of expressing in appropriate ways for fear of being deemed insufficiently controlled and logical.

I feel this!
I work in a corporate setting and basically feel like I am ‘acting’ all day. It is a real problem for my mental health. Professionalism means controlling all your emotions and having them come out in only a few ways as narrowly acceptable. I see the school training my kid in this same way and having that expectation and it’s so hard to meet! I talked to a mom the other day of an 8 yo at the school who was getting all this feedback about his lack of frustration tolerance and inability to accept losing a game and inflexibility and I was thinking ‘the school is trying to tell you they think your kid has asd’ bc I know how this goes now seeing it over and over. But these things are connected - not sure if I’m expressing myself well