Nearly half the kids in my kids private have a diagnosis

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is very dismissive and abusive towards SN families. I would give a kidney and an eye for my child not to have a diagnosis and to be an NT with average everything.

Just because wealthier families are able to put their kids in privates doesn't mean these are made up diagnoses purchased for money.

Well resourced families probably have more access to diagnostics (e.g. don't have to wait 2 years on a wait list for a place that takes insurance) and specialists. They may have same average incidence of ADHD but remediate it better and have a smaller proportion of untreated/undiagnosed cases than the general population.

Speaking of dismissive: Please go ahead and donate your kidney if you think it’s so easy. Lots of families are desperately waiting for one. I guarantee anyone with a child on dialysis would gladly trade for an ADHD diagnosis instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

My kid doesn't get extra time and I don't think this is a problem. She doesn't need it, which means she has an advantage over other kids that do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is very dismissive and abusive towards SN families. I would give a kidney and an eye for my child not to have a diagnosis and to be an NT with average everything.

Just because wealthier families are able to put their kids in privates doesn't mean these are made up diagnoses purchased for money.

Well resourced families probably have more access to diagnostics (e.g. don't have to wait 2 years on a wait list for a place that takes insurance) and specialists. They may have same average incidence of ADHD but remediate it better and have a smaller proportion of untreated/undiagnosed cases than the general population.

Speaking of dismissive: Please go ahead and donate your kidney if you think it’s so easy. Lots of families are desperately waiting for one. I guarantee anyone with a child on dialysis would gladly trade for an ADHD diagnosis instead.

This is a very dumb response. It added nothing and in fact I think I am stupider for having read it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is very dismissive and abusive towards SN families. I would give a kidney and an eye for my child not to have a diagnosis and to be an NT with average everything.

Just because wealthier families are able to put their kids in privates doesn't mean these are made up diagnoses purchased for money.

Well resourced families probably have more access to diagnostics (e.g. don't have to wait 2 years on a wait list for a place that takes insurance) and specialists. They may have same average incidence of ADHD but remediate it better and have a smaller proportion of untreated/undiagnosed cases than the general population.

Speaking of dismissive: Please go ahead and donate your kidney if you think it’s so easy. Lots of families are desperately waiting for one. I guarantee anyone with a child on dialysis would gladly trade for an ADHD diagnosis instead.

DP. There is a middle ground between equating kids with lower support needs SN with medically fragile children, and outright denying diagnoses by licensed professionals of kids you've never met. Both are offensive and ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is very dismissive and abusive towards SN families. I would give a kidney and an eye for my child not to have a diagnosis and to be an NT with average everything.

Just because wealthier families are able to put their kids in privates doesn't mean these are made up diagnoses purchased for money.

Well resourced families probably have more access to diagnostics (e.g. don't have to wait 2 years on a wait list for a place that takes insurance) and specialists. They may have same average incidence of ADHD but remediate it better and have a smaller proportion of untreated/undiagnosed cases than the general population.

Speaking of dismissive: Please go ahead and donate your kidney if you think it’s so easy. Lots of families are desperately waiting for one. I guarantee anyone with a child on dialysis would gladly trade for an ADHD diagnosis instead.

DP. There is a middle ground between equating kids with lower support needs SN with medically fragile children, and outright denying diagnoses by licensed professionals of kids you've never met. Both are offensive and ridiculous.

what’s offensive is pretending like 33% of Sidwell is SN.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Data from a meeting with had with the head of school.

I say this for 2 reasons:
1. mainstreams privates do have neurodiverse kids.
2. It is CRAZY how many kids get dx now. Kids on so many meds. I know it's necessary for the most part (certainly for mine). But is it really a neurodiversity if half the population has it? Idk exactly what my thought is but would love to hear others thoughts...

It's not half the population. It's half the population of your school. Which was probably chosen by parents for those particular children as a place that will be suitable for neurodiverse kids.

This. Some people put their kids in private because they’re ultra wealthy and can afford it without blinking an eye. Others put their kids in private besides they have needs that are beyond what a less resourced public school could give them.

Where tf is this narrative that the DC elite privates are actually 2e schools coming from? As the mom of an actually 2e kid who *wouldn’t even be admitted to Lab*, please, tell me more. We have the money.

Do you think people are shelling out 40k per year per kid for smaller class sizes because their kids are thriving in a public school environment ?

I absolutely 100% do not believe that 1/3 of kids at the topflight DC private schools have developmental disabilities. Nope.

I'm not sure who you are disagreeing with because no one is citing hard numbers. People can reasonably disagree on the pervasiveness of diagnoses at elite private schools because the only people who know for sure are staff at those schools. But many parents of kids with special needs opt for private if they can because their kid wasn't getting the attention they needed in a more crowded public school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

My kid doesn't get extra time and I don't think this is a problem. She doesn't need it, which means she has an advantage over other kids that do.

+1 This. One of my kids has a diagnosis and an accommodation. The other has neither. The one with accommodations needs them badly. People who assume that kids are getting diagnoses handed out like candy to get an extra 30 minutes on a standardized test are probably not familiar with the expense and time involved in getting evaluated and the stigma of a diagnosis.

[Anonymous]

it's not about services. who cares if kids get services who need them?
it's about a complete redefinition of what and is not 'typical' and what must be 'accommodated'.
If half your class needs to be accommodated then maybe your school is wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:it's not about services. who cares if kids get services who need them?
it's about a complete redefinition of what and is not 'typical' and what must be 'accommodated'.
If half your class needs to be accommodated then maybe your school is wrong.

I kind of agree with you but this is really only true if half the class needs the SAME accommodation. If some need extra time and others need breaks and others need seating close to the teacher and others need seating somewhere else then these diagnoses/evals are actually helping folks to identify kids' individual needs and the real problem is some kids get their needs identified much later than others due to lack of access to services.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Data from a meeting with had with the head of school.

I say this for 2 reasons:
1. mainstreams privates do have neurodiverse kids.
2. It is CRAZY how many kids get dx now. Kids on so many meds. I know it's necessary for the most part (certainly for mine). But is it really a neurodiversity if half the population has it? Idk exactly what my thought is but would love to hear others thoughts...

It's not half the population. It's half the population of your school. Which was probably chosen by parents for those particular children as a place that will be suitable for neurodiverse kids.

This. Some people put their kids in private because they’re ultra wealthy and can afford it without blinking an eye. Others put their kids in private besides they have needs that are beyond what a less resourced public school could give them.

Where tf is this narrative that the DC elite privates are actually 2e schools coming from? As the mom of an actually 2e kid who *wouldn’t even be admitted to Lab*, please, tell me more. We have the money.

Do you think people are shelling out 40k per year per kid for smaller class sizes because their kids are thriving in a public school environment ?

I absolutely 100% do not believe that 1/3 of kids at the topflight DC private schools have developmental disabilities. Nope.

I'm not sure who you are disagreeing with because no one is citing hard numbers. People can reasonably disagree on the pervasiveness of diagnoses at elite private schools because the only people who know for sure are staff at those schools. But many parents of kids with special needs opt for private if they can because their kid wasn't getting the attention they needed in a more crowded public school.

again you don’t “opt for” competitive privates. they don’t admit kids with significant needs - they just do not. it is very hard to find a mainstream private that will accept a kid who needs IEP level supports. there are posts about this all the time. I assume OP is not talking about McLean, Commonwealth, Lab, or the more specialized SN privates (which, even those won’t take a kid with behavioral issues).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is very dismissive and abusive towards SN families. I would give a kidney and an eye for my child not to have a diagnosis and to be an NT with average everything.

Just because wealthier families are able to put their kids in privates doesn't mean these are made up diagnoses purchased for money.

Well resourced families probably have more access to diagnostics (e.g. don't have to wait 2 years on a wait list for a place that takes insurance) and specialists. They may have same average incidence of ADHD but remediate it better and have a smaller proportion of untreated/undiagnosed cases than the general population.

Speaking of dismissive: Please go ahead and donate your kidney if you think it’s so easy. Lots of families are desperately waiting for one. I guarantee anyone with a child on dialysis would gladly trade for an ADHD diagnosis instead.

DP. There is a middle ground between equating kids with lower support needs SN with medically fragile children, and outright denying diagnoses by licensed professionals of kids you've never met. Both are offensive and ridiculous.

what’s offensive is pretending like 33% of Sidwell is SN.

Are you a SF parent? Do you have access to personal files that detail who gets what accommodation. I think you're just making up stuff to fake some sort of outrage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is very dismissive and abusive towards SN families. I would give a kidney and an eye for my child not to have a diagnosis and to be an NT with average everything.

Just because wealthier families are able to put their kids in privates doesn't mean these are made up diagnoses purchased for money.

Well resourced families probably have more access to diagnostics (e.g. don't have to wait 2 years on a wait list for a place that takes insurance) and specialists. They may have same average incidence of ADHD but remediate it better and have a smaller proportion of untreated/undiagnosed cases than the general population.

Speaking of dismissive: Please go ahead and donate your kidney if you think it’s so easy. Lots of families are desperately waiting for one. I guarantee anyone with a child on dialysis would gladly trade for an ADHD diagnosis instead.

DP. There is a middle ground between equating kids with lower support needs SN with medically fragile children, and outright denying diagnoses by licensed professionals of kids you've never met. Both are offensive and ridiculous.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not ADHD but took adderall to help with testing. It’s crazy how much harder I can work and that I got better grades when on it. I think a lot of parents want that for their kids.

This is not something to brag about. Most people do not want their kids to abuse drugs.

When kids who need it don't take it, you can tell. Mine would much rather NOT have to take medicine every day just to have a coherent conversation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1000

First, it isn't nearly half of all humans.

Second, to later PPs, what you fail to appreciate is that the extra time is needed just to get the kid to the playing field. They are not advantaged over your kid. You are thinking of this from the perspective of the NT brain. Gosh I'd love extra time! No, extra time on an AP test when you have 2 in a day means a kid who has trouble maintaining focus needs to stay focused on a high stakes exam for nearly 9 hours. There are diminishing returns, and the struggle to focus goes on throughout the whole period. Not the advantage you think it is when keeping the brain turned on is already a problem.