ARTICLES FOR SEPTEMBER

____________________________________________________________________________________________

ARTICLES FOR AUGUST

August 24, 2006 -- Just in time for the new school year, the city Department of Education has been slapped with a

class-action lawsuit that alleges a new policy cheats disabled students of required services.

The complaint, filed Tuesday in Brooklyn federal court, charges that the agency last year began illegally cutting off

services to disabled students when disputes about the services arose between parents and the department.

According to the complaint, federal law requires that disabled students continue with their education program

pending the outcome of a dispute. Last year saw more than 5,000 such disputes.

But Gary Mayerson, lawyer for the plaintiffs, said the new policy requires parents to request a departmental hearing

to ensure that their child continues to receive the services.

Education spokeswoman Kelly Devers said she could not comment on pending litigation.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

areas of the brain.

In people with autism, the brain areas that perform complex analysis appear less likely to work together during

problem solving tasks than in people who do not have the disorder, report researchers working in a network

funded by the National Institutes of Health. The researchers found that communications between these

higher-order centers in the brains of people with autism appear to be directly related to the thickness of the

anatomical connections between them.

In a separate report, the same research team found that, in people with autism, brain areas normally

associated with visual tasks also appear to be active during language-related tasks, providing evidence to

explain a bias towards visual thinking common in autism.

"These findings provide support to a new theory that views autism as a failure of brain regions to communicate

with each other," said Duane Alexander, M.D., Director of NIH's National Institute of Child Health and Human

Development. "The findings may one day provide the basis for improved treatments for autism that stimulate

communication between brain areas."

The studies and the theory are the work of Marcel Just, Ph.D., D.O. Hebb Professor of Psychology at Carnegie

Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Nancy Minshew, M.D., Professor of Psychiatry and Neurology

at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and their colleagues.

The research was conducted by the Collaborative Program of Excellence in Autism, a research network funded

by the NICHD and the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders.

People with autism often have difficulty communicating and interacting socially with other people. The saying

"unable to see the forest for the trees" describes how people with autism frequently excel at details, yet struggle

to comprehend the larger picture. For example, some children with autism may become spelling bee champions,

but have difficulty understanding the meaning of a sentence or a story.

An earlier finding by these researchers described how a group of people with autism tended to use parts of the

brain typically associated with processing shapes to remember letters of the alphabet. A news release detailing

that finding appears at http://www.nichd.nih.gov/new/releases/final_autism.cfm.

Participants with autism in both current studies had normal I.Q. There were no significant differences between the

participants with and without autism in age or I.Q.

The first of the two new studies recently was published online in the journal Cerebral Cortex. In that study, the

researchers used a brain imaging technique known as functional magnetic resonance imaging, or fMRI, to view

the brains of people with autism as well as a comparison group of people who do not have autism. All of the study

participants were asked to complete the Tower of London test. The task involves moving three balls into a specified

arrangement in an array of three receptacles. The Tower of London is used to gauge the functioning of the prefrontal

cortex.

This brain area, located in the front, upper part of the brain, deals with strategic planning and problem-solving. The

prefrontal cortex is the executive area of the brain, in which decision making, judgment, and impulse control reside.

A little further back is the parietal cortex, which controls high-level visual thinking and visual imagery, supporting the

visual aspects of the problem-solving. Both the prefrontal and parietal cortex play a critical part in performing the

Tower of London test.

In the normal participants, the prefrontal cortex and the parietal cortex tended to function in synchrony (increasing and

decreasing their activity at the same time) while solving the Tower of London task. This suggests that the two brain

areas were working together to solve the problem.

In the participants with autism, however, the two brain areas, prefrontal and parietal, were less likely to function in

synchrony while working on the task.

The researchers made another discovery, for the first time finding a relationship between this lower level of synchrony

and the properties of some of the neurological "cables" or white matter fiber tracts that connect brain areas.

White matter consists of fibers that, like cabling, connect brain areas. The largest of the white matter tracts is known

as the corpus callosum, which allows communication between the two hemispheres (halves) of the brain.

"The size of the corpus callosum was smaller in the group with autism, suggesting that inter-regional brain cabling is

disrupted in autism," Dr. Just said.

In essence, the extent to which the two key brain areas (prefrontal and parietal) of the autistic participants worked in

synchrony was correlated with the size of the corpus callosum. The smaller the corpus callosum, the less likely the two

areas were to function in synchrony. In the normal participants, however, the size of the corpus callosum did not appear

to be correlated with the ability of the two areas to work in synchrony.

"This finding provides strong evidence that autism is a disorder involving the biological connections and the coordination o

f processing between brain areas," Dr. Just said.

He added, however, that the thickness, or extent, of connections between brain areas may not be the basis for the disorder.

Although the neurological connections between the prefrontal cortex appear to be reduced in autism, the brains of people

with autism have thicker connections between certain brain regions within each hemisphere.

"At this point, we can say that autism appears to be a disorder of abnormal neurological and informational connections of

the brain, but we can't yet explain the nature of that abnormality," Dr. Just said.

In the second study, published online in the journal Brain, the researchers examined the extent to which brain areas involved

in language interact with brain regions that process images. Dr. Just explained that earlier studies, as well as anecdotal

accounts, suggest that people with autism rely more heavily on visual and spatial areas of the brain than do other people.

In this study, the researchers used fMRI to examine brain functioning in participants with autism and in normal participants

during a true-false test involving reading sentences with low imagery content and high imagery content. A typical low imagery

sentence consisted of constructions like "Addition, subtraction, and multiplication are all math skills." A high imagery sentence,

"The number eight when rotated 90 degrees looks like a pair of eyeglasses," would first activate left prefrontal brain areas

involved with language, and then would involve parietal areas dealing with vision and imagery as the study participant mentally

manipulated the number eight.

As the researchers expected, the visual brain areas of the normal participants were active only when evaluating sentences

with imagery content. In contrast, the visual centers in the brains of participants with autism were active when evaluating both

high imagery and low imagery sentences.

"The heavy reliance on visualization in people with autism may be an adaptation to compensate for a diminished ability to

call on prefrontal regions of the brain," Dr. Just said.

The second study also confirmed the observations in the first study-that the prefrontal and parietal brain regions of the cortex

in people with autism were less likely to work in synchrony than were the brains of normal volunteers. The second study also

confirmed that the extent to which the two parts of the cortex could work together was correlated with the size of the corpus

callosum that connected them.

Dr. Just and his colleagues are conducting additional studies to ascertain the nature of the abnormality of the connections in

the brains of people with autism.

The NICHD sponsors research on development, before and after birth; maternal, child, and family health; reproductive biology

and population issues; and medical rehabilitation. For more information, visit the Web site at http://www.nichd.nih.gov/.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) — The Nation's Medical Research Agency — includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is

a component of the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. It is the primary federal agency for conducting and

supporting basic, clinical, and translational medical research, and it investigates the causes, treatments, and cures for both

common and rare diseases. For more information about NIH and its programs, visit http://www.nih.gov.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Using a Parent Provided Sensory Integration Program to Lesson

school districts to rely on that method, allowing districts to find other ways to determine which children are eligible for

extra help.

It was the final step in the federal government’s repudiation of the old approach, which had come under severe

criticism from advocates for children with disabilities, testing experts and eventually federal officials themselves.

Advocates for those children applauded the change.

“If you talk to principals and special ed directors, there is pent-up demand for better ways to serve struggling kids

than waiting until they crash and burn in third and fourth grade,’’ said James H. Wendorf, executive director of the

National Center for Learning Disabilities. The new rules also require schools to alert parents as they begin exploring

whether children may need special education, another change that won praise from advocates for children with disabilities.

The regulations come after Congress updated laws covering special education for some six million schoolchildren

nationwide in late 2004.

Comparing intelligence tests with academic achievement, known as the discrepancy model, came under intense

criticism in the debates over the law and over special education.

Federal officials and advocates for children with disabilities contended that the practice of waiting for children to fall

behind on tests in third or fourth grade before getting them extra help consigned them to failure, and opened the way

for the disproportionate numbers of poor and minority children to be labeled as needing special education.

The 2004 law abandoned reliance on that approach. And the new regulations favor alternative methods of identifying

children who need services, like evaluating the response of struggling children to extra help before the third grade.

The 2004 law also streamlined procedures and reduced the paperwork involved in providing children special education

services, and relaxed burdens on schools when children with disabilities had behavioral problems.

A draft of the regulations published in June 2005 prompted an outpouring of 5,500 letters and comments to the

Education Department from advocates for children with disabilities, as well as parents, teachers’ unions, and state,

district and local education officials.

The department posted the final regulations on its Web site today, along with answers to each of the comments it

received. The final regulations will be published in the Federal Register on Aug. 14, and will take effect 60 days later.

In unveiling the new rules, Education Secretary Margaret Spellings said her priority was “that we not lose our vigilance

for educational attainment for every child.”

Advocates for children with disabilities said they were disappointed that the regulations did not address some

problems they saw in the 2004 federal law.

For example, the law says that instead of reviewing each disabled child’s educational plan every year automatically,

schools could review them only once every three years, provided parents agree to the change. The regulations do not

help ensure parents are properly notified, advocates said.

“But who is going to make sure that parents now know what they’re giving up if they agree to that?” said Ricki Sabia,

associate director of the National Down Syndrome Society Policy Center. “The department could have made clear

what constitutes that agreement.”

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Almost one in 10 Cincinnati Public School District children is considered overweight by the time

they enter kindergarten, and even more have moderate to serious dental problems.

Those statistics come from a first-time analysis of health screening data of district kindergartners

who took the state's literacy readiness test in 2005-06.

"That could affect their ability to be successful in school in later years," Stephanie Byrd, executive

director of Success By 6, said.

Success By 6 is an initiative of the United Way of Greater Cincinnati.

"Our goal is to identify those issues early on and connect them to services so we minimize the gap

and provide early intervention," Byrd said.

The screenings are part of a larger effort by Success By 6 to improve children's school readiness.

The agency supports voluntary preschool for all children and more guidance to parents.

Success By 6 provided Cincinnati Health Department nurses with scales, body mass index calculators

and other gear to conduct the screenings.

Of the 2,820 students screened for body mass index, 275 were overweight and another 301 were at

risk of being overweight for their height.

Of the 2,612 students who had dental screenings, 310 had moderate to severe dental problems,

necessitating referral for a dental visit within 24 hours because nurses saw an abscess or significant decay.

Success By 6 is driven to improve children's health by stark statistics.

Results of the state's kindergarten readiness test showed that more than half of Cincinnati Public Schools'

kindergarten students did not have basic literacy skills by the time they entered school in 2005-06, the

first year the test was required statewide. Some children could not recognize letters, name rhyming

words or identify sounds.

The next step for Success By 6 is to determine why some schools showed higher rates of overweight

children and instances of dental problems, or why some communities were successful in minimizing

those problems before children started school, Byrd said.

For instance, more than 22 percent of students screened at Rockdale Academy in Avondale and

almost 37 percent at William H. Taft School in Mount Auburn were considered overweight.

None of the 32 screened at Clifton School was overweight.

At Clifton School, almost 97 percent of the 30 students examined for dental problems had a normal

screening. At Rockdale Academy, just over 43 percent of the 30 children examined had a normal

screening, and almost 57 percent (17 students) had moderate to severe dental problems.

After more data is collected, Success By 6 plans to examine the results to determine whether

there's a correlation between obesity rates, dental problems and low scores on the literacy

readiness test.

In the meantime, Cincinnati Public Schools is trying to improve student health, said Deborah

Bradshaw, the district's director of early childhood education.

The school system has a new wellness policy that cuts down on sugar and fatty foods offered

in schools. The district also contracts with a dental van to provide screenings at its

headquarters in Corryville and at neighborhood schools.

"The earlier that we catch obesity or tooth decay, the easier it is to remedy the problem,"

Bradshaw said. "And it gives us more opportunities to build better habits for families and children."

Other agencies also are trying to improve children's health before they get to school.

One program is Every Child Succeeds, launched in 1999 by Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical

Center, Cincinnati-Hamilton County Community Action Agency and United Way of Greater Cincinnati.

It offers parenting tips and home visits to first-time mothers.

The organization has served more than 10,000 families through more than 200,000 home visits, and

participants have a lower infant mortality rate than local and national averages, said Judy Van Ginkel,

president of Every Child Succeeds.

"It's nice to know someone is coming to check up on you and your child," said Nicholas Leonard, 24,

of Walnut Hills. Leonard's 1-year-old son, Ski'lr, and the boy's mother, Ashley Marshall, 22, are in the

program.

A family support worker comes to Marshall's Avondale home one or two times a month to talk to her

about child nutrition, safety tips, medical issues and other topics.

"It's been a big help," Marshall said.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

ARTICLES FOR JULY

State schools should learn lesson from private sector, says

uneven quality” of many districts’ implementation. “We are prepared to take significant enforcement action,” she said.

At the California Department of Education, Diane Levin, the state’s No Child Left Behind administrator, said she had

assumed that California was on solid ground because a federal review of its enforcement of the law was ending positively.

But then California received a letter from Ms. Spellings’s office demanding extensive new documentation by Aug. 15 on

the transfer programs in the state’s 20 largest districts. Officials warned California that if the documentation proved

inadequate, the government would withhold part of the $700 million the state was to receive this fall for high-poverty

schools, said Ms. Spellings’s spokesman, Kevin Sullivan.

Ms. Levin said California felt whipsawed. “We’re doing everything the law asks us to do,” she said, “which in a state this

size is a huge amount of work, and we’re treated like we’re doing nothing.”

Dozens of other states have also felt the tougher enforcement.

In May, federal officials ruled that nine states were so far from meeting the teacher qualification provision that they could

lose federal money. Ms. Spellings said she would decide on the penalties after August, when states must outline plans for

getting 100 percent of teachers qualified.

At the end of June, Henry L. Johnson, an assistant secretary of education, wrote to 34 states, including New York and

New Jersey, saying that their tests had major problems and that they must provide new documentation during a period of

mandatory oversight.

Dr. Johnson warned some states that federal money might be withheld. And he rejected the testing programs in Maine and

Nebraska. His letter to Maine said $114,000 would be withheld unless the state could change Washington’s mind.

Nebraska is the only state allowed to meet the testing requirements with separate exams written by teachers in its 250

districts rather than with one statewide test.

Dr. Johnson’s letter to Nebraska said that although locally written tests were permissible, the state had not shown it was

holding all districts to a high standard.

Before announcing that decision, Dr. Johnson visited the Papillion-La Vista School District, south of Omaha.

Harlan H. Metschke, Papillion’s superintendent, said he had told Mr. Johnson that Nebraska’s tests helped teachers focus

on students’ learning needs, unlike standardized tests, which compared students from one school with another.

“But federal officials have the mentality that there has to be one state test,” Mr. Metschke said.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

‘No Child Left Behind'

Monday, July 24, 2006

Michael F. Shaughnessy
Eastern New Mexico University
Delia Stafford
Haberman Foundation

Biography of Roderick R. Paige, Ed.D.
U.S. Secretary of Education (2001-2005)

During his tenure at the U.S. Department of Education from 2001 to 2005, Secretary Roderick R. Paige was a fierce and

innovative champion of education reform who led the way in setting new standards of achievement for all students in our

education system. He spearheaded the implementation of the historic No Child Left Behind Act, with its goal of reinvigorating

America's education system.

Dr. Paige has devoted his life to transforming the state of education by improving the way that children learn on all levels,

a passion that has manifested itself most recently when he founded the bi-partisan Chartwell Education Group, LLC. This

group is a consulting firm devoted to offering solutions to the 21 st Century challenges faced by the public and private sector

enterprises that focus on pre-K, K-12 and post-secondary education, both in the United States and throughout the world.

Prior to his time at Chartwell, and after he left the administration in 2005, Dr. Paige served as a Public Policy Scholar at the

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. There he was able to explore a more global perspective of education.

As he said: “Civilizations rise and fall depending upon the quality of education.”

His appointment by President George W. Bush as the seventh U.S. Secretary of Education, and the first school

superintendent to serve in this position, was a signal honor for Dr. Paige, the son of a principal and a librarian in the public

school system. Born in 1933 in segregated Monticello, Mississippi, Dr. Paige's accomplishments speak of his commitment to

education. He earned a Bachelor's degree from Jackson State University in his home state. He then earned both a Master's

and a Doctoral degree from Indiana University.

Dr. Paige began his career as a teacher and coach. He served for a decade as dean of the College of Education at Texas

Southern University (TSU), working to ensure future educators receive the training and expertise necessary to succeed in

the classroom. He also established the University's Center for Excellence in Urban Education, a research facility that

concentrates on issues related to instruction and management in urban school systems.

Elected to the Board of Education of the Houston Independent School District (HISD) in 1989, Dr. Paige was a trustee and

an officer until 1994, when he became Superintendent of HISD, the nation's seventh largest school district. Inside Houston

Magazine named him as one of “Houston's most powerful 25 people” for helping guide the city's growth and prosperity. He

was also honored as an outstanding educator by the Council of the Great City Schools (2000) and the National Association

of Black School Educators (2001). His innovative practices also led Dr. Paige to being named the National Superintendent

of the Year by the American Association of School Administrators in 2001.

What impact do you think ‘No Child Left Behind' has had?

I think that the No Child Left Behind Act was a turning point in public education in America and the most significant change

in federal public education policy since the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

It allows us to see what is really going on in the classroom and to focus in an effective manner on closing the achievement

gap among students by setting measurable standards for them and their teachers and making them all accountable for

getting results.

Furthermore, by requiring disaggregation of data, performance can no longer be hidden in “averages.” Standards must be

met by each and every child, their teachers and their schools and progress reports must show what is being done to

improve the quality of the system for everyone. Thus, NCLB allows us to see more clearly into a system that had been

opaque.

Do you think the initiative and the impetus will continue?

NCLB is already indelibly etched into our nation's education system and the public will not allow us to turn back the clock.

As we go forward the more information about student and school performance that is made available will make it more

difficult for the system not to operate in an effective and efficient manner; the public will not stand for it. As a result, no

child in this country – no matter his economic standing – will be deprived of the opportunity to receive a quality education.

Could you please describe your new company affiliation and what exactly you're going to be doing?

Chartwell Education Group was created to help improve the abilities of those in the field of education in the United States

and throughout the world, both in the private and public sectors, to deliver education services more effectively, efficiently

and successfully. Thus, we provide experienced counsel and advice to schools and school systems, businesses that

operate in the field of education, philanthropic organizations and foreign governments and institutions seeking to raise

standards for education in their nations.

With the help of my former Chief of Staff at the U.S. Department of Education, John Danielson, we've been able to assemble

an extraordinarily talented and experienced group of professionals at Chartwell – individuals who know education and are

also experienced in business. They are passionate about what we are doing and help our clients create solutions that work

for them and the students they serve.

What do you perceive as the major reasons why school districts become failing school districts? What's going on in those

districts?

I think the first place to look is at the top. If a school district is not performing or under performing the fault usually lies at the

administrative level. And so, you need to look at how the big decisions are made, how the leadership was chosen and

established, how resources are allocated and what policies are in place. You must also determine whether or not the district

has a strong and focused commitment to student achievement.

Does No Child Left Behind address the needs of the increasing number of kids with exceptionalities, disabilities, whatever

politically correct word you want to use?

The No Child Left Behind Act is focused on ALL children, which includes children with disabilities. In fact, it is one of the

important elements of this act. NCLB is intended to make sure children with disabilities get the attention that they need and,

contrary to what some people think, failure to measure the progress of children with disabilities is a major barrier to their

improvement.

So, the No Child Left Behind Act helps to make certain that these children get the attention they need and deserve.

We're on the same page now because the differences between I.D.E.A. and the ‘No Child Left Behind' has often been

referred to the ‘clash of the titans.'

I think that is because they are two different laws and require some coordination. There are many similarities and many

differences between NCLB and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) that need to be examined more closely

so that we might create more effective synergies. Also, we don't want the two acts bumping into each other.

What are you most proud of in terms of your accomplishments via a vis the No Child Left Behind?

I'm very proud of the role I played in implementing the No Child Left Behind Act, an important idea with a noble purpose that

President Bush offered to the nation. The success of this law will help all of the citizens of the United States by allowing all

of our children access to a quality education.

There have always been pockets of excellence across the United States and we have rightfully bragged about the

contributions made by those students who have been allowed to excel and succeed. That's because their success has

been a product of the effectiveness of our education system. Now we need to give all of our kids the chance to succeed,

including a whole subset of students who are not being effective but have the ability to improve. Until now they have been

essentially invisible.

The No Child Left Behind Act let's us see these children and to identify and fulfill their needs. This process is particularly

effective as the result of the law's disaggregation clause because it sheds light on needs that are not being fulfilled and so

I'm proud of that. And, I'm proud of, as I indicated earlier, the change of direction we've taken, the change of culture we have

effected and the whole idea of accountability.

I think some of the finest people in our nation are those who lead our schools and who teach our children. And, I feel

confident that these wonderful, committed and capable people, who are our nation's educators, will come to view NCLB

as a much needed, long overdue enhancement of the American system of education.

We have to commend you for trying to change a very entrenched culture, and you leave a legacy for the history books

in American Education. How do you want to be remembered?

I guess I would like to be remembered as someone who permitted himself to pursue an important mission and that's the

mission of the education of all of our children. My specific interest was in closing the achievement gap in education,

which I think is our nation's greatest social issue and maybe even it's most important economic issue. The United States

needs all of the resources it can muster in order to successfully deal with the new realities of Global Economics. If we

empower all of our children to succeed we, as a nation, will succeed.

The fact is that if we don't change the dynamics of our education system to allow equal opportunity for all of our children to

be successful in life no matter what their ethnic or economic backgrounds may be, we will be doing a great disservice to

our nation.

What question have we neglected to ask you about No Child Left Behind?

You have not asked about the opposition NCLB has faced and there has been a lot of opposition, much of it stemming

from the law's intent. Some of it has been deliberate and some of it has been simply the result of people not knowing

enough about the law and its potential for making America a better place for all of us.

But, in a sense this is good because it has made us work harder and understand more clearly how change works in a

complex society such as that in United States. Just because it is the right thing to do, or just because it's the best thing to

do, it does not necessarily mean that it's going to get done. People have to be convinced that it's the best thing to do!

You have to be convinced that it works. So, as we go forward we will see more and more people come to the realization

that the No Child Left Behind Act is the most significant educational endeavor undertaken by the federal government

since1965.

What last words of wisdom or what do you want to end up saying to the teachers of America?

I would just repeat what General Omar Bradley said: “The teacher is the real soldier of democracy. Others can defend it,

but only he can make it work.”

When I use the term, teacher, I use it broadly to include social workers, nutritionists, and administrators because they are a

part of a system that needs both attention and recognition. These individuals are some of the smartest people in the world.

They are in our schools and they are managing our schools day to day.

The system of education that was put into place during the first two decades of the last century is not suited to the

needs of the 21 st Century—not for our children and not for our society. Thus, it needs to embrace change if our

children and our nation are to prosper and I believe that the No Child Left Behind Act is a catalyst for that change.

I believe it is a positive influence not just for the students that will benefit from the law, but for educators as well.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

BLACKSBURG, Va. – The college classroom scene is a familiar one:

young adults in flip-flops and baseball caps, some scribbling notes,

others napping.

July 18, 2006

Education v. Pearl Murphy and Theodore Murphy. The question the Court decided in Arlington v. Murphy was

whether the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) authorizes parents who win an action (“prevail”)

under the due process provisions of IDEA to recover fees they paid to experts during the case. Many parents find it necessary to hire private experts to observe and evaluate their child and then testify in an action challenging a school or district’s decision regarding their child’s IEP.

Justice Alito wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy

and Thomas. The majority opinion states that IDEA does not authorize the reimbursement of expert fees. Justice

Ginsberg agreed with this result but wrote a concurring opinion because she disagreed with some of the other

statements in the majority opinion. Justice Breyer wrote the dissenting opinion and was joined by Justices

Souter and Stevens. The dissenting Justices argue that IDEA does authorize the reimbursement of these fees.

The full text of Arlington v. Murphy can be found at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-18.pdf.

IDEA states that “in any action or proceeding brought under this section, the court, in its discretion, may award

reasonable attorneys’ fees as part of the costs to the parents of a child with a disability who is the prevailing

party.” The majority opinion rejects the argument that “costs” includes the reimbursement of expert fees. This

conclusion is reached in spite of the fact that the 1986 Conference Report for IDEA clearly states that Congress

intended the term “attorneys’ fees as part of the costs” to include reasonable expenses and fees of expert

witnesses and the reasonable costs of any test or evaluation which is found to be necessary for the preparation

of the case. According to the majority opinion, the intent of Congress is not the key issue in this case. Instead,

the focus is on whether the language in IDEA gives clear notice to the states that by accepting IDEA funds they

might be liable to reimburse prevailing parents for expert fees. The majority of the Court concludes that “the

terms of the IDEA fail to provide the clear notice that would be needed to attach such a condition to a State’s

receipt of IDEA funds”.

The Justices offering the dissenting opinion disagree with the rest of the Court’s decision to ignore the intent of

Congress. They also argue that IDEA’s basic purpose further supports interpreting the provision’s language to

include expert fees. IDEA guarantees a “free” and “appropriate” public education for “all” children with

disabilities and the expense of paying experts to secure an appropriate education undermines this guarantee.

Parents have the right to become involved in their child’s education and IDEA encourages their participation. The

dissenting Justices point out that parents are assured by IDEA that they may question a school district’s

decisions about what is “appropriate” for their child and in doing so, they may secure the help of experts. The

dissent concludes that “the practical significance of the Act’s participatory rights and procedural protections may

be seriously diminished if parents are unable to obtain reimbursement for the costs of their experts” and that

experts are necessary because “the vast majority of parents whose children require the benefits and protections

provided in the IDEA lack knowledge about the educational resources available to their child and the

sophistication to mount an effective case against a district-proposed IEP.”

The preceding quote in the dissenting opinion for the Murphy case comes from Justice Ginsberg’s dissenting

opinion for the Shaffer v. Weast case in 2005. In a prior information bulletin we explained that Shaffer v. Weast

places the burden of proof on the party (usually a parent) who is challenging the appropriateness of an IEP,

unless there is a state statute placing the burden of proof on the district. The fact that most parents must now

prove the inappropriateness of the district-proposed IEP, increases the need for experts.

The combined effect of these two Supreme Court cases is to discourage parents from filing a due process

complaint because of the economic impact on their families. NDSS encourages parents to try to resolve

disagreements at the school and district level using non-adversarial forms of dispute resolution. However,

sometimes parents end up having to choose between filing a complaint or forfeiting their child’s educational

rights under IDEA.

As a result of the Shaffer and Murphy cases it is more important than ever for parents to be well informed about

their child’s rights, to develop effective advocacy strategies and to access the free and low cost resources that

are available in their communities. The NDSS website (www.ndss.org) and local NDSS affiliates are great sources

of information and support. If you need help contacting an affiliate, call NDSS at 800-221-4602. In addition, every

state has organizations that are funded to help parents, such as Parent Training and Information Centers (PTIs),

Community Parent Resource Centers (CPRCs) and Protection and Advocacy agencies (P&A’s). A directory of

PTIs and CPRCs can be found at http://www.taalliance.org/centers/index.htm

A directory of P&As can be found at http://www.napas.org/aboutus/0603PA_CAP.htm

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

ARTICLES FOR JUNE 

Reading Gains Slowing, Study Says

A No Child Left Behind report's author says that states inflate progress. California's gap between state and

federal scores is among the smallest.

By Mitchell Landsberg, Times Staff Writer

number of states since enactment of the federal No Child Left Behind Act, a study by researchers at UC

Berkeley says.

The report, scheduled for release Wednesday, also finds that the goal of the federal education initiative — to

ensure that all students are proficient in core subject areas — has been muddied by wide disparities in the

definition of "proficient."

A spokesman for the federal Department of Education called the study "flawed and misleading."

The report echoes the results of an analysis this month by the Civil Rights Project at Harvard University. That

study found that No Child Left Behind had not led to gains in math or reading achievement, nor had it achieved

another major goal: reducing the gaps in achievement among racial and economic groups.

Since enactment of No Child Left Behind in 2002, "a lot of governors and a lot of state school chiefs have

celebrated and claimed significant progress in terms of reading and math achievement," said Bruce Fuller, a

professor of education and public policy at Berkeley and lead author of the new report.

But, he said, "in many cases — including in California — state officials seem to be exaggerating progress that

has been made in children's basic reading skills."

For instance, though 80% of the fourth-graders in Texas are considered proficient readers according to state

tests, only about 30% earn that ranking in the National Assessment of Educational Progress, which is the federal

benchmark. The gap in math scores is smaller, but still vast — over 80% score proficient on state tests, but only

about half that many on national tests.

In Massachusetts, by contrast, the state figures have consistently been within 10 percentage points of the

national test scores in math and reading.

Of the 12 states included in the study, California had one of the smallest gaps between state and federal test

scores. In an interview Thursday, Fuller praised California Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell for

being "courageous in setting that bar quite high."

California was also unusual in that its fourth-graders had improved their reading scores on the national

assessment at a greater rate since 2002 than in the decade before. Most of the states examined by Fuller's group

showed a slowdown in reading gains after passage of the act, the centerpiece of President Bush's education

policy.

Math scores have tended to improve at a quicker pace since 2002.

Rick Miller, a spokesman for O'Connell, said California might simply be ahead of other states because it adopted

a test-based system of accountability before No Child Left Behind.

Miller said it was premature to say the federal program was not working.

The Harvard study suggested that the act was not accomplishing its goals. A summary of the study concluded

that "the national average achievement remains flat in reading and grows at the same pace in math after NCLB

than before." Like the Berkeley report, it based its conclusions on the National Assessment of Educational

Progress.

Kevin Sullivan, the Department of Education spokesman, acknowledged the discrepancy between federal and

state test results, but said that should ultimately lead to states raising their standards. "The fact that state scores

have risen more quickly than NAEP scores does nothing to diminish the gains we have seen on both state and

NAEP scores," he said in an e-mail.

Sullivan said that Fuller's group, Policy Analysis for California Education, "has a track record of putting out flawed

State may soften its tone on MCAS Underperforming' tag

riles schools

By Cristina Silva, Boston Globe Staff | June 28, 2006

MALDEN -- Schools with declining test scores may no longer have to fear getting the label ``underperforming."

Instead, they could get a less harsh tag and become known as either a ``priority" or ``new beginning" school

under a state proposal to soften the blow for struggling schools.

Sign up for: Globe Headlines e-mail | Breaking News Alerts Superintendents and teachers at schools with low

MCAS scores for several years have sent in complaints by the dozen that the state's ``underperforming school"

label gave them a stigma and scared away good teachers.

``They didn't like being called underperforming," Board of Education chairman James Peyser said yesterday

after the board's meeting. ``If softening some of the labels helps move us in that direction of improvement, I'm for it."

Changing the labels for schools with low MCAS scores was one of several measures the board proposed yesterday

as part of its strongest push for school accountability since the state began identifying such schools five years ago.

The board will vote on the proposal in October.

The board members also proposed identifying low-performing schools immediately, rather than waiting at least six

months. The state would also begin requiring such schools to hire third parties to work with them for up to five years to

help boost test scores.

For years, state officials and educators, including Governor Mitt Romney, have called for tougher measures against

schools with persistently low test scores. They say state education officials take too long to identify low-performing schools.

State education officials said they are unsure of the total cost of the proposal, though Mass Insight Education, a nonprofit

education-research group, estimated the Legislature would have to set aside $25 million to cover the costs of the first year.

Some education research groups heralded the proposal as a way of uniting management teams with educators, while

some public school officials said they opposed the idea and thought the proposal would do little to help.

``Changing the labels, that is just PR, it doesn't mean anything," said Glenn Koocher , executive director of the

Massachusetts Association of School Committees.

© Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company.
 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

NEWS ALERT

On Monday, June 26, the U. S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in Arlington Central School District Bd of Education v.

Pearl Murphy, et. al. (548 U. S. __ (2006)

The question presented in Arlington v. Murphy was whether the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act authorizes

prevailing parents to recover fees for services rendered by experts in IDEA actions.

Justice Alito, author of the majority decision, wrote,"We hold that it does not." Justice Breyer wrote the dissent and was joined

by Justices Souter and Stevens.

Analysis of Arlington v. Murphy by Pete Wright

After Pete attended oral argument in Arlington v. Murphy on April 19, 2006, he wrote, "After listening to oral argument, it was

my sense that the Supreme Court will decide that the word 'costs' does not include reimbursement for expert witness fees."

Read U. S. Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument to learn why Pete predicted a 5-4 or 6-3 vote.

In his Analysis of Arlington v. Murphy, Pete summarizes the majority and dissenting opinions.

He provides an overview of the background of the case and describes the different roles that lay advocates and expert

before initiating litigation - not a bad thing."

"If parents have taken the appropriate steps, they will use evidence from the psycho-educational evaluation by the private

sector expert to support their position that the school's educational program is not appropriate and needs to be changed."

"It is unlikely that parents will fail to take the necessary steps to prepare for litigation because they do not expect to recover

fees for their 'expert witness.'"

Wrightslaw Note: Analysis of Arlington v. Murphy by Pete Wright may be photocopied and distributed.

 
URL: http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/art/arlington.murphy.pwanalysis.htm

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Tuesday, September 13, 2005
Michael F. Shaughnessy
Eastern New Mexico University
Portales, New Mexico 88130

1) Recently, there was a 6.7 million dollar settlement against the Manhattan Beach Unified School District.

What were the main issues, in your opinion, regarding this case?

The main issue was the repeated failure and refusal of the school district to provide the student with an

appropriate educational program, despite having been ordered to do so by a hearing officer after an

administrative hearing and again by the California Department of Education ("CDE"). Moreover, the CDE

failed to take appropriate action to assure compliance, even after it issued an order directing the school district to do so.

2) Apparently, this case dragged on for more than five years. What was the hold up or what were the central issues?

The case began with an administrative decision in favor of the parents in June 1999. The parents tried for a year to

get the school district to comply with the administrative decision, but in the fall of 2000 they were forced to file a federal

court complaint to seek an enforcement order. The first federal Judge to whom the case was assigned, dismissed the

case on the grounds that the parents first had to "exhaust" by asking the CDE to enforce the administrative order against

the school district. After the dismissal, the parents did request the CDE to enforce it but, as noted, the CDE was a paper

tiger - it issued a compliance order in March 2001 that had no teeth and the school district continued to flaunt the law. At

the same time, the parents appealed the dismissal order to the Ninth Circuit, and in October 2002, finally obtained a ruling

that they could proceed directly in federal court. Porter v. Bd. of Trs. of Manhattan Beach Unified Sch. Dist ., 307 F.3d 1064

(9th Cir. 2002). The parents then re-filed their case in federal court, and a period of discovery followed. The parents filed a

motion for summary judgment in July 2004 and obtained a favorable decision in December 2004. They reached a settlement

agreement in principle at the end of April 2005, but it took several months to iron out the details.

3) The family has asked that the child not be identified by name, but have indicated autism spectrum disorder as the impairment.

Surely there are national experts who could have consulted with the school system over the past five years to help this young

individual?

Absolutely. The problem was not lack of experts or even lack of resources. It would have cost a small fraction of the final

settlement amount for the school district to do what it had been ordered to do in 1999. In fact, the school district actually paid

for an expert evaluation in spring 2001, then completely ignored the recommendations in the assessment. The problem here

was lack of will.

4) Was the issue one of placement- in other words did the parents want the child in a regular education class, and the school

want the child in a special education class?

Not really. In the original due process case, the issue did relate to an inappropriate placement. However, the real problem

arose over the school district's failure to provide the educational remediation for its having failed to properly place him in the past.

5) Judge Feess found both the Manhattan Beach USD and the California Department of Education "equally culpable". How

can the courts hold the entire California Department of Education culpable for what transpires in a relatively small school system?

The CDE has the statutory responsibility to ensure compliance by school districts with special education law. It has a

compliance complaint procedure established and when it receives a complaint of non-compliance it is supposed to investigate

and issue a compliance report that includes specific corrective actions that the school district must take, if appropriate. As

discussed above, the CDE did conduct such an investigation in this case, found the school district out of compliance, issued

corrective actions that were supposed to assure compliance, and then took no further action even after they were put on notice

that the school district still did not comply.

By the way, the corrective actions were totally inadequate as they basically consisted of requiring the school district to write a

letter saying it would comply. The school district did that, but still did not comply. The CDE took the position that the school district

took the corrective actions they were ordered to take - i.e. wrote the letter promising compliance - so that was the end of the matter.

Judge Feess found that this was a complete abdication of the CDE's statutory responsibility to assure compliance.

6) The child's education will now be supervised by a "Special Master", who has a Ph.D. Is this what special education may

someday become? Or is this the result of a school system ignoring the California Special Education Hearing Office?

This is a very unusual and unique remedy. It was ordered because of the school district's past misconduct.

7) I am wondering about the judge's assessment that the failure to provide services resulted in "permanent damage to the

students's academic, physical and social well being, and has impaired his ability to function at the level at which he could have

reasonably been expected to function". How was this measured and how can one even attempt to predict and measure all of this?

The special master retained several experts to assess the student. Based on the student's ability level and level of achievement

as documented in previous assessments and school records, the experts believed that he could have made much more progress if

he had received the appropriate educational program when it was originally ordered. Moreover, with autistic children, there is a good

deal of literature that makes it clear that the earlier the intervention, while the brain is still malleable, the more successful it is likely to

be. For example, in the area of socialization, and older student will have developed coping patterns and mechanisms - such as

mimicking and parallel behavior - as substitutes for lack of socialization skills. These patterns become entrenched as the child

matures, and it is very difficult to change them at a later date.

8) I guess I am naïve, but how can a school system "not comply with the SEHO decision to provide appropriate reading and

language instruction and socialization interventions?"

Frankly, we kept asking ourselves the same question. The pleadings filed by the school district mostly tried to blame the parents

by asserting that they would never consent to anything the school district offered. This was patently untrue, as Judge Fees found.
However, that was a pattern of response that the school district adopted early on. We believe that part of the problem was caused by

the fact that the mother in this case is a community activist on behalf of special education students in the school district. There was

a substantial amount of overt hostility expressed towards her by school board members and district staff. Maybe it was just

arrogance.

9) What important question have I neglected to ask?

It looks like you covered the main issues!

10) What implications does this specific case have for regular education and specifically special education?

Ideally, both this school district and others will get the message that stonewalling parents is not an appropriate tactic.
 
 

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Study Casts Doubt On the 'Boy Crisis'
Improving Test Scores Cut Into Girls' Lead

By Jay Mathews
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, June 26, 2006; Page A01

A study to be released today looking at long-term trends in test scores and academic

success argues that widespread reports of U.S. boys being in crisis are greatly overstated

and that young males in school are in many ways doing better than ever.

Using data compiled from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, a federally

funded accounting of student achievement since 1971, the Washington-based think tank

Education Sector found that, over the past three decades, boys' test scores are mostly up,

more boys are going to college and more are getting bachelor's degrees.

Although low-income boys, like low-income girls, are lagging behind middle-class students,

boys are scoring significant gains in elementary and middle school and are much better

prepared for college, the report says. It concludes that much of the pessimism about young

males seems to derive from inadequate research, sloppy analysis and discomfort with the

fact that although the average boy is doing better, the average girl has gotten ahead of him.

"The real story is not bad news about boys doing worse," the report says, "it's good news

about girls doing better.

A number of articles have been written over the past year lamenting how boys have fallen

behind. The new report, "The Truth About Boys and Girls," explains why some educators think

this emphasis is misplaced and why some fear a focus on sex differences could sidetrack

federal, state and private efforts to put more resources into inner-city and rural schools,

where both boys and girls need better instruction.

"There's no doubt that some groups of boys -- particularly Hispanic and black boys and boys

from low-income homes -- are in real trouble," Education Sector senior policy analyst Sara Mead

says in the report. "But the predominant issues for them are race and class, not gender."

Black and Hispanic boys test far below white boys, the report notes. The difference between

white and black boys in fourth-grade reading last year was 10 times as great as the improvement

for all boys on that test since 1992. Still, the report notes, the performance of black and Hispanic

boys is not getting worse. The average fourth-grade reading scores for black boys improved more

than those of whites and Hispanics of both sexes.

Craig Jerald, an educational consultant who has analyzed trends for the federal government

and the newspaper Education Week, said that "Ed Sector is right to call foul on all the crisis

rhetoric, and we should stop using that word, though there are a few troubling statistics and

trends that deserve further investigation." He noted a huge gap in writing skills between girls

and boys, bad results in reading among older boys, and a sharp drop in high school seniors'

positive feelings toward school that is worse among girls than boys.

Michael Gurian, a best-selling author who says boys are in trouble, said in reaction to the

report: "I truly don't mind if everyone took the word 'crisis' out of the dialogue." But he said

he thought the report "missed the cumulative nature of the problems boys face." The federal

education data it cites, he said, are "just a small piece of the puzzle."

According to the report, reading achievement by 9-year-old boys increased 15 points on a

500-point scale between 1971 and 2004, and girls that age increased seven points, remaining

five points ahead of boys. Reading achievement for 13-year-olds improved four points for boys

and three points for girls, with girls 10 points ahead. Among 17-year-olds, there was almost no

change in reading achievement, with girls up one point, boys down one point and girls 14 points

ahead.

In mathematics achievement between 1973 and 2004, 9-year-old boys gained 25 points and girls

gained 20 points, with boys ending up three points ahead. Thirteen-year-old boys increased 18

points and girls 12 points, with boys three points ahead. Among 17-year-olds, boys lost one point,

girls gained four and boys were three points ahead.

The report notes that boys are far more likely to be diagnosed with learning disabilities.

Two-thirds of students in special education classes are male. But, it notes, "the number of girls

with disabilities has also grown rapidly in recent decades, meaning this is not just a boy issue."

To some, however, it's all about the boys. "At every level of education, they're falling behind,"

Newsweek reported.

Esquire proclaimed: "We're faced with the accrual of a significant population of boys who aren't

well prepared for either school or work."

The Detroit News said that "every year, women increase their presence on campuses nationwide,

while men do not."

Some of today's focus on boys might be backlash to legal remedies such as the 1972 Title IX law

set up to ensure equality in education for girls, critics say. For several decades, school systems have

worked to steer girls into more skilled math and science classes. Now girls in high school appear to

be better prepared for college than boys, the report said. But, it adds, both sexes are taking more

college-level courses, such as calculus, than ever.

More men are enrolling in college, and the share of men ages 25 to 29 with a college degree, 22

percent, is significantly higher than that of older men. The study did note that women are enrolling

and graduating from college at higher rates than men.

The "boy crisis," the report says, has been used by conservative authors who accuse "misguided

feminists" of lavishing resources on female students at the expense of males and by liberal authors

who say schools are "forcing all children into a teacher-led pedagogical box that is particularly

ill-suited to boys' interests and learning styles."

"Yet there is not sufficient evidence -- or the right kind of evidence -- available to draw firm

conclusions," the report says. "As a result, there is a sort of free market for theories about why boys

are underperforming girls in school, with parents, educators, media, and the public choosing to give

credence to the explanations that are the best marketed and that most appeal to their pre-existing

preferences.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

An Interview with David Palmer: About I.Q.

And Parents Understanding of Intelligence
 

Monday, June 12, 2006
Michael F. Shaughnessy
Eastern New Mexico University
Portales , New Mexico

                                                                           

1) What prompted you to write a book about Intelligence and I.Q. Testing?

As a school psychologist and a parent who had been through the testing process with my own child I saw there was a

lot of misinformation out there. Parent who need to understand giftedness or gifted programming often do not

understand IQ testing or what gifted education is about. And many parents are reluctant to ask questions - maybe

for fear of coming across as pushy or overly concerned. Yet, parents need to understand how the system of testing

and special programming for gifted kids work so they can make informed decisions. Some gifted kids can do well in a

regular program - but some need a special program to blossom. My feeling is that parents should be just as informed

as teachers, psychologists, or anyone else when it comes to recognizing their child's learning needs and understanding

how to find the right educational programs for their children.

2) I must compliment you. I have not seen such a thorough book since John Glover's book back in the 1980's. How long

did it take to write this book?

Working on the book part time, it took about two years from conception to the final edit.

3) Why should parents know about intelligence and I.Q. testing?

IQ testing is pervasive in most school districts - and it's often used as a main criteria to make important decisions about our

kids. Parents should be aware of their uses and limitations - what these tests measure and what they can't measure. They

should also be aware of how to interpret the results so that they come to the table with enough background knowledge to

make informed decisions about their kid's education.

4) Why should teachers know about intelligence and I.Q. Testing?

For the same reasons as above. Teachers are also advocates for the children they teach. Sometimes they'll have a child

that doesn't seem to fit in with the other kids - does not respond to the curriculum or perhaps is showing social difficulties

that can't be easily explained. Teachers should understand IQ testing and know how to recognize giftedness - and learning

disabilities in otherwise capable kids - so they can better advocate for the students they teach and help them get the

services they need.

5) Why and what should administrators know about intelligence and I.Q. Testing?

One important thing to know is that some gifted kids may not do well on IQ tests - particularly the group tests often used with

whole classrooms of children as one of the screening devices used to select kids for a more comprehensive, individual

evaluation. For this reason, most districts use multiple screening methods to identify those kids who qualify for gifted

programs.

6) Most teachers know about the WISC-IV and the Stanford Binet 5. But why would a test like the K-ABC-II be given or the

Reynolds or the Leiter?

While IQ tests measure certain skills that have been found to be strongly related to school achievement, each test publisher

goes about measuring those skills in a different way, and may even measure quite different aspects of learning ability. The

specific cognitive skills measured by each of these publishers may also change a bit every few years, as they periodically

revise their tests to reflect current research and new ideas. The WISC and the Stanford Binet are the most commonly used

tests in the schools - but there are several others that are well-standardized and accepted. What test is given really just

depends on what test the district has adopted.

Some districts that have a large bilingual population may choose to use a nonverbal IQ test such as the Leiter or the

Universal Nonverbal IntelligenceTest so that kids just learning English are not put at a disadvantage.

7) How can a good I.Q. test be helpful to parents of children with learning disabilities? To parents with kids who are

hyperactive or have attention deficit disorder?

One way IQ tests are used is to get an idea of the student's learning "potential." The idea is that if a child does well on an IQ

test then he or she should be able to do well in school - since IQ tests measure many of the same skills, such as memory

and problem solving, needed to do succeed academically. So if a parent discovers that their child's IQ is average or above -

and their child is still doing poorly in one or more school subjects - that can be an indication that there is a "specific learning

disability" getting in the way of learning. In other words an average or above IQ test score can let us rule out that the child is

doing poorly in school due to a general lack of ability and allow us to focus on specific problems - like an attention or memory

or language processing - that may be getting in the way of learning.

10) How concerned should parents be when there is a lot of " scatter " or variance among subtests?

An individually administered comprehensive IQ test is made up of many different "subtests," usually 10 or so. It is not

unusual for there to be a lot of variance among and between these scores. In fact, most gifted kids show quite a bit of

"scatter." Some may be exceptionally bright in verbal areas for example - and not as gifted in visual or perceptual problem

solving. Others may show quite different patterns. Ellen Winner in her book, "Myths of Giftedness" talks about this.

However, if there is an unusual amount of scatter - that is if the child does extremely well in one or more areas and has

scores significantly lower in others that may be an indication of a specific learning disability. There are lots of bright kids

with learning problems out there - these kids are often referred to as "2E" kids - or "twice exceptional." I have a special

section in Parents' Guide to IQ Testing and gifted Education that deals with identifying and finding support for these kids.

11) In this age of No Child Left Behind, is I.Q. testing becoming more or less important?

I'm not sure that the prevalence of IQ testing has been affected by the No Child Left Behind era. IQ tests are usually given to

assess kids for gifted programs or special education programs. I know that standardized testing overall has become much

more prevalent. And it can be argued that standardized tests like high school exit exams, state achievement tests, and

certainly college entranced exams are just different versions of IQ tests.

12) What about I.Q. testing for kids whose first language is not English. What are the problems there?

Comprehensive individually administered IQ tests used in the schools are made up of both verbal and nonverbal subtests.

A child with a second language who has not mastered English would of course be at a disadvantage on the verbal portion of

these tests. For this reason, districts may only use the nonverbal portions of the tests when assessing for eligibility for

special programs - or they may use a completely nonverbal test such as the Leiter or the Universal Intelligence test.

13) Should parents ask for a formal written report when their child is given an IQ.test?

It depends. Many districts do not do a formal write up on an IQ test if the test was given for the purpose of assessing for a

gifted program. There are no federal laws stating that parents must be given a written report of a gifted assessment.

However, since there is a federal law governing special educating evaluation procedures, parents will receive a formal write

up if the test was done to assess for special education eligibility. Also, most private practitioners will develop a written report

with the test results that the parent can keep or give to the school to help in the assessment process.

14) Does I.Q. change from say age, six to sixteen?

It definitely can. IQ scores tend to be pretty stable after age seven or so - but before this scores can change dramatically.

This is because younger kids can show great differences in the rate of cognitive skills developments - with some taking

longer for all the "wires" to get connected. By the time a child is eight or so many of the neurological puzzle pieces are in

place. If a child is testing before age seven, he or she should probably be tested again later in the elementary years to

confirm the first test scores.

15) What other books would you recommend for parents and teachers to read?

Other notable books which expand on topics covered in Parents' Guide to IQ Testing and Gifted Education:

Gifted Children; Myths and Realities by Ellen Winner-Explores traditional misconceptions about giftedness and gifted

children.

Frames of Mind by Howard Gardner-The book that introduced the idea of multiple intelligences.

Magic Trees of the Mind by Marian Diamond and Janet Hopson-A look at how a child's abilities can be nurtured through

early experiences.

Misdiagnoses and Dual Diagnosis of Gifted Children and Adults by James Webb, Edward Amend, Nadia Webb, Jean

Goerss, Paul Beljan, and F. Richard Olenchak.

Considers similarities between giftedness and such conditions as ADHD, mood disorders, Asperger's disorder,

Autism, and certain emotional problems.

16) Do you have a web site where parents can get more information? Or an 800 number?

Yes - parentguidebooks.com. This site includes a question and answer page - parents can email me questions which I try to

answer within a week. Some of these questions and answers are then posted on the site.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 

Published: June 21, 2006

US high school dropout rate: high, but how high?
By Gail Russell Chaddock | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON – The national dropout rate is notoriously hard to pin down, and the latest effort to do so -

showing alarmingly low graduation rates in some parts of America - is likely to intensify the statistics wars.

Nearly 1 in 3 high school students in the Class of 2006 will not graduate this year, the Editorial Projects in

Education (EDE) Research Center reported Tuesday.

The picture is worse for urban school districts, especially those serving poor students, the new study shows.

Graduation rates in the largest school districts range from 21.7 percent in Detroit and 38.5 percent in Maryland's

Baltimore County to 82.5 percent in Virginia's Fairfax County.

It's the first in an annual Graduation Project series, supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The most

detailed analysis covers the 2002-03 school year, using the most recent data available. A feature of the new study

makes it possible for readers to create a report for each district, including comparisons with state and national figures.

"Our research paints a much starker picture of the challenges we face in high school graduation. When 30 percent of

our ninth-graders [ultimately] fail to finish high school with a diploma, we are dealing with a crisis that has frightening

implications for our ... future," says Christopher Swanson, director of the EDE Research Center.

The trouble is, it may not be accurate.

Some education groups praised the study as an important contribution to the field of dropout statistics. "It's going to help

people understand that we can't deny or ignore this crisis anymore," says Ross Wiener of the Education Trust.

Others, who see such studies as overblown, were as quick to denounce it. "Swanson's measure is seriously inaccurate,"

says Larry Mishel of the Economic Policy Institute and author of another study on dropout rates. "It's ... inappropriate for

comparisons across states and school districts, the reason being that his formula is very much affected by how much

grade retention there is in ninth and 10th grade. Any school that retains students in ninth grade is automatically going to

look worse, whether graduation rates really are lower [there] or not," he said of the new report.

His own report, based on the US Education Department's National Educational Longitudinal Study, suggests that in 1992,

78 percent of students received a regular diploma, rising to 83 percent by 1994. For African-American students, whose

graduation rates lag behind the US average, the figure rose from 63 percent to 74 percent over that period.

In fact, education experts say, none of the existing dropout-rate data gives a full picture. Governors are making changes

that will yield better counts within a few years, they add.

Accurate reporting is important because so much education policy now turns on statistics. Misleading data can do harm,

says Jack Jennings of the Center on Education Policy. "If you raise doubts about the effectiveness of the schools, you

can put into disrepute people's efforts to reduce dropout rates. If you use less dramatic data, you can lull people into

complacency." Accurate numbers are needed, he says, "before we can fashion some solution."
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Child mental health disorders have soared, says report

· Some conditions doubled over 30 years
· Alcohol, diet and family decline could be causes

Sarah Hall, health correspondent
Wednesday June 21, 2006
The Guardian


The number of children with certain types of mental health disorders has more than doubled in the past 30 years, with a

million experiencing problems at any one time in England, doctors' leaders warned yesterday. About one in 10 children

will experience a clinically recognized mental health disorder between the ages of one and 15, says the report by the

British Medical Association's board of science.

Factors such as the decline of the family, alcohol abuse and diet are cited as potential causes of the rise.

The report, Child and Adolescent Mental Health, reveals that 9.6% of children aged between five and 16 experience some

kind of mental health disorder such as eating, emotional or behavioural problems. The study finds that in the 11-16 age

group, 12.6% of boys and 10% of girls suffer from a mental disorder.

Launching the publication, the child psychiatrist David Skuse said there had been "a convincing increase" in conduct

disorders (extreme behaviour such as bullying and fighting), which usually affects boys, and in emotional disorders

(including phobias and depression), which are more prevalent in girls.

Professor Skuse, who is professor of behavioural and brain science at the Institute of Child Health, Great Ormond Street,

London, said: "There does appear to have been a real increase over time which isn't due to increased recognition. There

was around a 50% increase between the early 70s and mid 80s, and another 50% since the mid-80s in conduct disorders

in boys."

The report notes that poorer children, asylum-seeker youngsters, those in care and those who had seen domestic

violence were particularly susceptible to mental health problems, but, said Prof Skuse, the rise in emotional and conduct

disorders had occurred "across the board".

He said: "It's something that affects children as a whole." The risk might increase with family break-ups but the problems

could be linked to housing changes, or diet or alcohol abuse, he said.

The BMA board called for adequate backing for child and adolescent mental health teams and improved services for

children in care. Sir Charles George, chair of the board, said that only about a third of children excluded from school were

referred to mental health specialists.

A Department of Health spokeswoman said that from 2002 to 2005 the number of child mental health cases seen had

risen by more than 40%.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

New York asks curb to shocks at school
Canton methods are under scrutiny
By Scott Allen, Globe Staff | June 20, 2006

ALBANY, N.Y. -- New York regulators recommended severe limits yesterday on the use of electric

shock and other painful punishments at a Massachusetts school for students with mental retardation,

autism, and emotional problems.

A committee of the New York Board of Regents voted 7 to 1 to ban the use of shocks, food deprivation,

and other punishments on students from New York, unless the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center in

Canton can prove that the treatment is justified for individual students. The full board is expected to accept

the recommendation today.

Though the rules would apply only to New York students, that state provides nearly two-thirds of the 250

students at the school, where half wear electroshock devices 24 hours a day, so that teachers can control

aggressive or self-injuring behavior.

A report last week by New York investigators found that students were receiving two-second shocks for

even relatively minor offenses such as nagging or swearing.

Separately, the Massachusetts Legislature is considering a bill that would ban shock treatments for all students.

``This is an extreme form [of punishment] that is not acceptable except in unusual circumstances," said Merryl

H. Tisch, cochairwoman of the committee that recommended the limits on so-called aversive therapy.

If the full Board of Regents accepts the committee recommendation, the restrictions would take effect on Friday.

Though the rules apply to all schools attended by New York students, only the Judge Rotenberg Center uses

shock treatment.

More than 50 supporters of the Rotenberg school, including many parents of students, packed the meeting room,

prompting one board member to complain that they had not been allowed to speak.

Dozens of parents have said that the discipline of the school saved their child's life by stopping dangerous

behavior.

``If you end [shock treatments], I'm done, because my son needs aversive treatments," said Marie Washington,

who said her son, Jacques, was prone to violent, unprovoked attacks. ``At the Judge Rotenberg Center, he has a

life. I love the life he has."

Michael Flammia, lawyer for the school, predicted that ``you're going to see a lot less educating going on" if the

school has to dramatically reduce aversive therapy.

But New York Education Department officials argued that the Rotenberg Center is too quick to punish and e

mploys some techniques that no one should endure. Under the regulations, the school would no longer be able

to physically restrain students while administering shocks, and they could not use a device that automatically

delivers shocks at timed intervals.

The regulations do not ban shocks or other aversive therapies. However, the Rotenberg Center would have to

submit a plan to the state showing how the school will strive to use the least pain possible for the least possible

time.

Then school officials would have to seek an exemption from the ban on aversive therapy for each individual

student who they believe requires aversive therapy. Local school districts sending the student to Rotenberg

would be required to use a three-member panel of specialists to review each case.

The Rotenberg Center is required to get court and parental approval to administer shocks or other severe

punishments.

``The children of New York have won a great victory. My only questions is: What took so long?" said Kenneth

Mollins, a lawyer for the family of a New York teenager that is suing the state of New York for the 79 shocks the

boy is reported to have received while at the Rotenberg Center.

But board member James R. Tallon Jr. said his vote for the rules was a ``close call."

Tallon also said he had great sympathy for the families of the Rotenberg students. ``We're dealing with among

the most challenging family circumstances that people can face," he said.

Scott Allen can be reached at allen@globe.com.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________
How Schools Pay a (Very High) Price for Failing to

Teach Reading Properly
 

By BRENT STAPLES
Published: June 19, 2006
Imagine yourself the parent of an otherwise bright and engaging child who has reached the fourth

grade without learning to read. After battling the public school bureaucracy for what seems like a lifetime,

you enroll your child in a specialized private school for struggling readers. Over the next few years, you

watch in grateful amazement as a child once viewed as uneducable begins to read and experiences his

first successes at school.

Most parents are so relieved to find help for their children that they never look back at the public schools

that failed them. But a growing number of families are no longer willing to let bygones be bygones. They

have hired special education lawyers and asserted their rights under the federal Individuals With Disabilities

Education Act, which allows disabled children whom the public schools have failed to receive private

educations at public expense.

Federal disability law offers public school systems a stark choice: The schools can properly educate

learning-disabled children — or they can fork over the money to let private schools do the job.

The instructional techniques for helping those children are well documented in federally backed research

and have been available in various forms from specialized tutors and private schools for more than 50 years.

Even so, few public schools actually use the best practices.

The fear of being bankrupted by private school tuition costs has pushed some school systems to get a

move on. But this sense of urgency seems to have bypassed the school system in our nation's capital,

which offers the worst reading instruction in the United States.

Not surprisingly, Washington's school system is being eaten alive by soaring special education costs.

This problem was underscored in an eye-opening investigation by The Washington Post, which recently

reported that the District of Columbia is spending 15 percent of its public school budget to send about

4 percent of the student body to private schools.

Poor management and budgetary practices are partly to blame. But special education costs are inevitably

connected to a school system's failure to teach struggling readers effectively. These children, who arrive at

school unprepared to learn, make up a significant part of any urban system's enrollment. Nearly all of them

can learn to read when given teachers who have been trained to reach readers who do not catch on

automatically.

Yet many of these struggling children end up labeled "learning disabled" even when there is nothing clinically

wrong with them.

National reading scores suggest that Washington is a prime place for this kind of problem. When judged in

terms of fourth grade reading scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, for example, the

city ranks last among the big urban districts — with three-quarters of its low-income students reading below the

basic level.

This can't be explained by poverty alone, since low-income children in Washington lag well behind similarly

situated students in places like New York and Boston. The obvious conclusion is that other cities know

something about teaching disadvantaged children that Washington does not.

The District of Columbia's reading deficit is surprising given that the city played a central role in the large

federally backed research program carried out during the 1990's that is widely credited with laying out the

blueprint for reaching struggling readers. Financed by the National Institute of Child Health and Human

Development, the early intervention study followed students at nine high-poverty schools in the District

for five years, while experimenting with reading instruction.

The study debunked the widely held view that children learn to read "automatically." On the contrary,

researchers found that struggling and poorly prepared children needed direct and intensive instruction to

learn the sounds associated with the letters of the alphabet and the syllables in words.

The most successful program included extensive teacher training — and gave the children a great deal of

work on vocabulary, writing and reading comprehension.

The early intervention study was so successful that it later became a partial basis of the sound reading

provision written into the No Child Left Behind law. But researchers who worked in Washington at the time

now say that they could barely get an audience with the school system's leadership, which appears to have

been invested in unproved strategies and business as usual.

Some severely disabled children will always need be educated outside the public system. But many of the

so-called learning-disabled children who flee public schools for private education are victims of disastrous

reading instruction.

Nearly all of these children could be reached through methods like those that have been used for decades

at specialized schools or that have recently been touted in the research literature. It won't be easy to put

these programs in place. But with the dollar costs of special education spiraling upward — and the dangers

of mass illiteracy painfully clear — there's no time like the present to get started.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Mismanagement of Reading First: Summary

of Evidence

This is Part 1 of two parts.  June 16, 2006

Executive Summary

In 2002, the U.S. Congress appropriated $1 billion per year for Reading First, an ambitious program intended to place

“proven methods of early reading instruction” in low-performing schools. Yet in practice, this intention was ignored by the

U.S. Department of Education administrators who instead promoted the use of commercial textbook programs lacking any

scientific evidence of effectiveness. Many of the key consultants entrusted with program management have serious conflicts

of interest involving the very textbooks and training programs that have benefited from Reading First funding.

This document summarizes evidence assembled by the Success for All Foundation, a nonprofit organization that

disseminates one of the research-proven reading programs that was largely excluded by Reading First. The summary

focuses on six key questions:

1. Did the U.S. Department of Education promote use of certain reading programs?

Overwhelming documentary evidence shows that the Department of Education promoted use of five traditional, commercial

basal textbooks, in violation of federal local control laws. In particular, state Reading First applications proposing anything

other than these textbooks were rejected – and state funding was denied - until the states proposed to emphasize them or

use them exclusively.

2. Did the U.S. Department of Education promote the use of DIBELS?

Again, overwhelming evidence documents the promotion by the federal government of a single reading progress assessment,

called DIBELS, in preference to other assessments. Largely unknown before Reading First, DIBELS is effectively mandatory

in Reading First-funded schools.

3. Did the U.S. Department of Education promote specific experts to provide professional development?

In the process of reviewing state applications, the U.S. Department of Education forced most states to use professional

development services from a small group of selected individuals connected to Reading First leaders.

4. Did the U.S. Department of Education promote the use of the three-tier model of instruction?

The three-tier model is a reading instruction plan promoted by the three technical assistance centers funded by the U.S.

Department of Education. Although it lacks any evidence of effectiveness and was mentioned in only three state’s proposals,

it has been aggressively promoted among Reading First schools nationally, pushing out alternative models with far better

evidence of effectiveness.

5. Has the U.S. Department of Education fulfilled the Reading First Act’s emphasis on scientifically-based reading research?

Although Reading First administrators and consultants speak about the importance of “scientifically-based reading research”

(SBRR), research has in fact played almost no role in programs or practices promoted by Reading First. To the contrary,

Reading First has promoted the use of commercial basal textbooks, supplementary texts, assessments, and professional

development with little or no evidence of effectiveness in preference to well-researched alternatives. Important references to

research have been interpreted to mean only the report of the National Reading Panel, from which five “key elements” of

reading instruction were derived. These five elements (phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and

comprehension) are present in virtually any reading program.

6. Have there been conflicts of interest among Reading First leaders and consultants?

The implementation of Reading First has been substantially influenced by a small group of consultants, many of whom earn

s

ubstantial income from the publishers of programs promoted by Reading First. Reid Lyon, a key architect of Reading First,

recently left government to join a company that made enormous profits from Reading First. Former Secretary of Education

Rod Paige, who ran the Department of Education while the Reading First program was developed, has joined the same firm.

Congress created Reading First to direct significant resources to serve at-risk children with scientifically validated programs.

Instead, these funds have been substantially diverted to forcing states and districts to purchase the products of large

publishing companies that lack any evidence of effectiveness. Congress and the Department of Education must take

immediate action to reform Reading First to enable it to fulfill what Congress intended the program to accomplish.


Note: This version extends and fully replaces earlier drafts of this paper.


Overview

In 2001, the U.S. Congress passed President George W. Bush’s signature education initiative, No Child Left Behind (NCLB).

The legislation called for the use of science to inform practice, recommending “scientifically-based research” as a basis for

practice and policy more than 100 times.

One centerpiece of NCLB is Reading First, a $1 billion per year program that is providing grants to thousands of schools and

districts to implement “scientifically-based reading practices” in grades K-3 in mostly high-poverty schools. Congress was

very clear about what Reading First was supposed to do: “(4) To provide assistance to State educational agencies and local

educational agencies in selecting … programs, learning systems, and strategies to implement methods that have been

proven to prevent or remediate reading failure within a State.”

The Reading First Guidance (U.S. Department of Education, 2002) likewise states:

“Quite simply, Reading First focuses on what works, and will support proven methods of early reading instruction in

classrooms. The program provides assistance to States and districts in selecting or developing effective instructional

materials, programs, learning systems, and strategies to implement methods that have been proven to teach reading.”

Further, the Guidance defines in detail what is meant by “scientifically-based reading research. The definition requires

“systematic, empirical methods that draw on observation or experiment” and acceptance by a “peer-reviewed journal or

panel of independent experts.” The guidance details how states and districts should review research on programs to ensure

that it is scientific.

Given the clear focus of the legislation, it was widely expected that Reading First schools would adopt programs and

practices with strong evidence of effectiveness. And the US Department of Education has continued to talk about science.

For example, in a February 2006 Report to Congress, the US Department of Education wrote, “One of the most notable

aspects of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) is its emphasis on the use of scientifically based research to ensure

that Federal funds are targeted to educational programs and practices that have evidence of their effectiveness. NCLB aims

to end the use of unproven practices and methods that may actually be harmful to students and detrimental to student

achievement. Prior to NCLB, educational fads were often the driving forces behind the selection of programs and practices.

The law’s focus on scientifically based research is helping to prevent the use of untested practices in our Nation’s

classrooms….” Yet the reality is exactly the opposite.

In practice, the U.S. Department of Education and its contractors administering Reading First have not only ignored

programs with strong evidence of effectiveness, they have actively worked to exclude the few reading programs that do have

strong evidence. In particular, two programs have suffered under Reading First: Our own non-profit Success for All program,

and Direct Instruction. (Direct Instruction (DI) uses a textbook, Reading Mastery, that is published by McGraw-Hill, and

supplements it with extensive professional development, usually from the nonprofit National Institute for Direct Instruction

(NIFDI). Reading Mastery, the book, has been allowed under Reading First, but the full DI program has not.)

Success for All and Direct Instruction are by far the most extensively and successfully evaluated of all reading programs.

The Comprehensive School Reform Quality Center at the American Institutes for Research (CSRQ, 2005) recently gave

Success for All and Direct Instruction its highest ratings for evidence of effectiveness among 22 comprehensive school

reform models, rating 31 studies of SFA and 10 studies of DI as “conclusive.” A 2003 article in the Review of Educational

Research (RER) by Borman, Hewes, Overman, & Brown identified 46 rigorous experimental-control comparisons evaluating

Success for All and an essentially identical program called Roots & Wings, of which 29 were third-party evaluations. The

RER review found 40 experimental-control studies of Direct Instruction, of which 38 were third party (also see Adams &

Engelmann, 1996). Most recently, a national randomized evaluation once again found substantial positive results of Success

for All on reading outcomes (Borman et al., 2006). Many of these studies of both programs were published in the most

selective journals in education. Published reviews by Herman (1999), Traub (1999), and others have also concluded that

Success for All and Direct Instruction have solid, replicated evidence of effectiveness for the specific populations targeted by

Reading First. In fact, the Florida State Technical Assistance Center, which reviewed evidence on programs other than the

traditional basals, concluded that there is substantial evidence supporting the effectiveness of SFA

Yet these programs have been substantially shut out of Reading First. Instead, Reading First funds have overwhelmingly

gone to support traditional basal textbooks—Scott Foresman, Macmillan/McGraw-Hill, Harcourt, Houghton-Mifflin, and Open

Court. Schools are also adopting commercial supplemental materials, including Voyager Passport. Even though Success for

All and Direct Instruction are theoretically eligible for Reading First funding in many states (they appear on many state lists

of “approved” reading programs), only two schools (out of almost 4800 schools funded) have used Reading First funds to

adopt Success for All. About 3% of Reading First grants have gone to schools already using Success for All. Even this

modest proportion is being eroded as Reading First personnel pressure schools to drop SFA in order to keep their Reading

First funding (see below).

There is a very limited research base for the achievement effects of traditional basals. Of the five top-selling basal textbook

programs, only Open Court has ever been evaluated in a published study. Yet when the U.S. Department of Education

selected a state to feature in a White House celebration of Reading First, it selected Michigan – a state that listed these top

five commercial basal series as its core reading programs for Reading First, without even pretending to review their scientific

basis. Michigan’s application was among the first to be accepted by the Department of Education, sending a clear signal to

all other states: Reading First is about commercial basals, not science.

Why did the Department of Education violate the clear intent of Congress to have Reading First grantees use programs with

strong evidence of effectiveness? One clue appears in a recent interview with Reid Lyon, a principal designer of the program

(Salvato, 2006):

"What we originally wanted in Reading First was that if you want to buy a program with federal money, it should have gone

through clinical trials to be sure it was effective. But there weren’t enough programs that went through that level of rigor…only

a limited number of programs would be available. The Department of Education made the decision to make the criteria more

general.”

The programs Lyon mentions that had “been through clinical trials” could only have been Success for All and Direct

Instruction. What he was saying is that because too few programs had been rigorously evaluated, Reading First had to

greatly loosen the criteria. What is a mystery, however, is why the Department then failed to highlight the few programs that

did meet their original standard of evidence, and in fact appears to have instead directed grantees toward the unresearched

basal series produced by the large commercial publishers.

One reason may be that the Reading First program has been compromised by its reliance on several key leaders with

significant connections to textbook publishers. Among three technical assistance centers charged with management of the

program, two were led by individuals who were both authors of the 2007 Scott Foresman basal and members of the design

team for Voyager Passport. The company that produced Voyager, estimated to be worth $5 million before Reading First, was

recently sold for $380 million. Reid Lyon himself, who was reported to have personally forced New York City to adopt

Voyager or risk losing its Reading First funding, later left government to work for the entrepreneur who founded Voyager.

Secretary of Education Rod Paige, in office during the implementation of Reading First, also has now joined this same

company. Reading First virtually mandated use of a reading assessment called DIBELS created by a leader of one of the

technical assistance centers. Individuals with conflicts of interest were sent as technical advisors to states revising their

Reading First proposals. Publishing companies with ties to these individuals were given special opportunities to ensure that

their materials qualified for Reading First funding. These and many other conflicts of interest are far beyond what is normal

in government, and are deeply troubling.

After the state awards were made, things went from bad to worse. Reading First national staff and technical assistance

centers strongly promoted specific instructional practices to be used at the classroom level. In the jargon of Reading First,

this is called a “three tier” model. The Department of Education continues to promote this model nationwide, strongly

suggesting that schools receiving Reading First funding must implement it, even though nothing in the authorizing legislation

said anything about it. The model involves teaching children using basal texts (tier 1), assessing their progress, giving

additional instruction if needed, and then providing a 30-minute small group remedial instruction program for children who do

not meet standards (tier 2). Those who still do not succeed are given more extensive intervention and ultimately referred to

special education (tier 3).

While there is nothing wrong with the idea that struggling students need additional instruction, the 3-tier model promoted to

Reading First is very specific about grouping strategies, use of group rather than one to one remediation, and many other

particulars. This 3-tier model provides one way of structuring instruction, but there is no evidence that it enhances children’s

achievement. The outcomes of the three-tier model have never been evaluated in comparison to control groups. Before even

a single experimental study has been published, Reading First technical assistance contractors have been promoting the

three-tier model nationally, making Reading First, which was supposed to focus on proven programs, instead a

$6-billion-dollar pilot test. Because the Success for All program uses a somewhat different structure – notably, it combines

“tier 1” and “tier 2” so that children who struggle or fall behind receive help immediately - in state after state, Reading First

schools using the Success for All program are being pressured to drop or eviscerate it in favor of a basal program, even in

circumstances when the schools have made substantial gains on their state assessments and on DIBELS, the assessment

favored by Reading First.

It is difficult to imagine that reading outcomes for at-risk children will magically improve because schools use traditional basal

texts – in most cases, simply more recent versions of the ones they’ve always used. In the long run, reading outcomes will

only improve when teachers receive high-quality professional development on programs that are known from rigorous

research to improve student achievement. Reading First is a giant step backward. It is being used not to achieve the noble

goals of the NCLB legislation but to instead substitute unresearched products of commercial publishers for programs that are

truly scientifically validated.

This paper updates the evidence collected by the Success for All Foundation to document the mismanagement of Reading

First.

Sources of Information

Information on the administration of Reading First comes from many sources. The most useful are as follows.

• State Reading First Proposals

We have obtained the final Reading First proposals from most states, as well as initial drafts in selected states.

• Reviews of Successive Drafts of State Reading First Proposals

We obtained Department of Education reviews of successive drafts of almost all state Reading First applications. Most states

had to submit their RF applications many times; Rhode Island submitted six versions over an 18-month period. We obtained

each of the successive drafts of Reading First proposals from several states, and matched them to their reviews.

• Reading First Monitoring Reports

Under a Department of Education contract, the American Institutes for Research carries out annual reviews of

implementations of Reading First, including subgrants to individual districts and schools as well as programs implemented at

the school level. Reading First has rescinded funding to districts and schools based in large part on these reports, so they

are taken very seriously.

• RMC’s Funded Proposal to Create the Technical Assistance Centers

RMC was the only bidder who responded to an RFP to set up the RF technical assistance centers at the University of

Oregon, University of Texas, and Florida State. The proposal approved by the Department of Education provides a clear

 blueprint for the later stages of program implementation.

• Articles in General and Education Publications

Investigative articles on Reading First have appeared in USA Today (Toppo, 2005 a, b), Education Week (Manzo, 2005 a, b,

c), Title I Monitor (Brownstein & Hicks, a, b) and Education News (Salvato, 2006). These include interviews with Department

of Education offices, ED contractors, state RF leaders, and many others, as well as reviews of many documents.

• PowerPoint Slides, Binders, and Handouts from Reading First Academies and Other RF Events

Materials distributed by the U. S. Department of Education cover topics such as selecting instructional materials, defining

scientifically based reading research, and the three-tier model.

• Financial and Outside Employment Disclosure Forms for RF Consultants

Dr. Edward Kame’enui, now Assistant Commissioner for Special Education Research in the U.S. Department of Education,

was required to file a financial disclosure form. Dr. Sharon Vaughn, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin, is

required to file annual notices of external employment. We were informed that Reid Lyon was exempt from this policy. The

University of Oregon, which employed Drs. Simmons and Kame’enui, refused to provide any financial disclosure

documentation.

• Information from Web Sites for Technical Assistance Centers, Publishers, and Other Organizations

These include materials ratings, information on the three-tier model, and membership of Reading First consultants on design

 teams for commercial products as well as links to those commercial products.

• Emails To and From State RF Officials

Under the Freedom of Information statutes of each state, we obtained emails relating to Reading First from state RF leaders

and others.

This document draws on these and other sources to answer a set of questions we, and others, have raised about the

Reading First program. In addition, the Success for All Foundation continues to press the US Department of Education for

additional documents relevant to the operations of the Reading First program.

Did the Department of Education Promote Use of Certain Reading Programs?

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 prohibits the Department of Education from promoting particular curricula or textbooks:

"(b) LOCAL CONTROL.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to—‘(1) authorize an officer or employee of the Federal

Government to mandate, direct, review, or control a State, local educational agency, or school’s instructional content,

curriculum, and related activities;" PL 107-110, sec. 9526, General Prohibitions

From the beginning, Department of Education officials have claimed that there is no sponsored or approved list of reading

programs for use in Reading First, and they have maintained this position over time. In 2005, in a letter to Senator Richard

Lugar (R-Indiana), Assistant Secretary Ray Simon stated, “It is clear that Congress did not intend for the federal government

to decide which scientifically based reading programs would be used with Reading First, and we have strongly supported the

core principle that States, districts, and schools make these decisions” and "We have repeatedly stated that the Department

does not approve reading programs….” The ED Web site repeats this assertion: “Just like every other aspect of No Child

Left Behind, states and local communities maintain control.

• States and local schools have the flexibility to determine how reading programs are selected, as long as the selected

program has been scientifically proven to work.

• There is no federally prescribed reading program.

• States are responsible for the quality of the local programs they fund, and for ensuring that these programs rely on

scientifically based reading research." http://www.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/nclb-reading-first.html

Yet the evidence is overwhelming that there is indeed a list of favored reading texts. It consists of the six top-selling

commercial basals, as follows:

Basal: Publisher
Scott Foresman: Pearson
Harcourt Trophies: Harcourt
Macmillan: McGraw Hill
Houghton-Mifflin: Houghton-Mifflin
Open Court: McGraw Hill
Reading Mastery: McGraw Hill

Other basal texts and reading programs are used in various states, but the numbers are comparatively small. For example,

approximately 3% of schools received RF funding to continue implementation of Success for All, and a few other programs

are also used in isolated schools.

How Did the Department Promote Its Favored List of Textbooks?

From comparing the state proposals to the federal reviews, reading interviews reported in the press with state officials

involved with Reading First, and speaking with individuals who served as federal reviewers, the process that led states to

end up with this list of basal series has become clear. The federal reviewers made it very difficult for state proposals to be

funded. They made detailed critiques in each of many areas, including materials, assessments, and professional

development, and states had to pass in each area separately to receive funding. Most, and perhaps all states had to revise

and resubmit their proposals at least once, and some had to do so up to six times. Each resubmission meant delay in funding

and the possibility that states would never be funded, so the pressure on state proposal writers was intense. Some state

officials were fired or transferred when their proposals were not accepted. At one point, then-Undersecretary Eugene Hickok

threatened states that if they did not quickly submit acceptable proposals, their funding would be redistributed to other states

whose proposals had been accepted.

After each unsuccessful evaluation, top state officials had a telephone conference with Chris Doherty, the federal Reading

First director. It was in these conversations, we believe, that states were pushed toward the favored basals and assessments.

There is no indication that Doherty specified textbooks by name, but we have been told that he did recommend that state

officials “look at the Oregon list” (i.e., the six textbooks) or “look at the Michigan list” (five of the six). For example, a North

Dakota State Department official was quoted by Brownstein & Hicks (2005a) as saying, “Even though there was no approved

list of assessments or core programs, you don’t get approved unless you have certain assessments or core programs. There

must have been a list somewhere.” Although the reviewers never suggested specific basal textbooks, as soon as a state

limited itself to a set of basals from the above list, and excluded all others, reviewer criticism in the “materials” category

ceased. Even after their proposals were approved, several state departments, including Massachusetts, Illinois, Maine, and

Kentucky, were contacted by Doherty and told to reduce their list of recommended basals to remove programs other than the

favored six.

Again, although rumors abound, we have no independent reason to believe that the Department has ever published a list of

the basal programs favored by Reading First. However, it has engaged in a consistent set of practices that have had the

same effect. These are as follows.

1. In the initial presentations where states learned about the requirements of Reading First, known as the Secretary’s

Reading Leadership Academies, presentations on selecting instructional materials showcased basal textbooks (specifically,

Harcourt Trophies, Houghton-Mifflin, and Open Court) and state adoption lists (California and Texas) as examples of

acceptable materials. These examples were given in a binder distributed to all participants in the first Reading Leadership

Academy. In 2002, the Association of American Publishers questioned the U.S. Department of Education on the provision of

these “examples.” Although ED, approximately 4 months later, published a letter on its web site clarifying that programs cited

in meetings were intended only as “examples,” the agency never took serious action to counter the widely held public

perception that the basal programs mentioned, or standard commercial basals in general, were intended to be used in

Reading First schools. Some states referred to “the USED approved list of materials” in their Reading First proposals. States

that chose the any of the six favored basals were never criticized for doing so. Although ED has stated many times that there

was no “approved list,” the similarity of programs both approved and in use across states seems to indicate that states and

districts understood that they should propose to use basal textbooks listed by the Department itself as exemplars

(see Manzo, 2005 a, b).

2. Shortly after the Reading First legislation was approved, the Florida Center for Reading Research (FCRR), which later

became one of the three technical assistance centers, produced a review of the research based behind various reading

programs. It gave high ratings to Success for All and Direct Instruction. Soon thereafter, it removed these ranks from its web

site. Instead, its web site provided narrative reviews of various programs, including information on the research behind each.

However, it stated that six basals, the same ones favored on the Oregon List and favored by reading First in all of its

practices, did not need to be reviewed. These are: Harcourt, Houghton-Mifflin, MacMillan, Scott Foresman, Open Court, and

Reading Mastery. Although the narrative reviews gave high marks to Success for All and Direct Instruction for their research

support, the statement that the six favored basals did not need to be reviewed for their research base clearly indicates that

these are “safe” choices, while others require a level of evidence that the favored basals do not need (and, not incidentally,

do not possess).

Significantly, one of the basals, Scott Foresman, was included on the “safe” list only if it included a supplement designed to

fill in apparent gaps. No other program was permitted to submit a supplement to improve its rating, and the exact Florida list,

with its requirement for the supplement, appears verbatim and in the same order on several approved state applications.

3. Although the Department of Education never told any state in writing that it must use a basal, according to media reports,

several state directors were told this verbally by Chris Doherty, the director of Reading First. In general, ED referred to the

above list by referring states to the “Oregon review,” or the “Oregon website.” In practice, the Oregon review produced a list

of the six basals listed above. Originally, there were seven programs ranked highly by the Oregon review; Success for All was

listed fifth. Yet states that adopted or referred to the Oregon list invariably listed the six textbook programs, omitting SFA. In

2004, without any additional review, the Oregon list was “updated” to rank SFA seventh, but this was after all Reading First

grants had been made to the states.

The Oregon list, which generated complaints from the Association of American Publishers, among others, for its lack of a

transparent review processes (Brownstein & Hicks, 2005b), was created by a state panel dominated by researchers from the

University of Oregon, who later became the leadership of the University of Oregon’s RF technical assistance center. The

University of Oregon was the home of one of the programs, Reading Mastery. Three of the University of Oregon researchers

were authors of the Scott Foresman 2007 basal and two of them were authors of an earlier Scott Foresman remedial program.

Three were members of a four-member external design team for Voyager (the fourth member was Sharon Vaughn, from the

University of Texas, who also is extremely influential within Reading First – see below).

Why was the Oregon list, and no other, supported by Reading First? There were several other states that carried out equally

extensive analyses of reading programs, including a coalition of the States of Washington, Idaho, Montana and Alabama that

considered research on program outcomes; this review was even available earlier than the Oregon list. As noted earlier, in

2002-03, the Florida Center for Reading Research (FCRR) at Florida State University carried a detailed review of reading

programs that did consider evidence of effectiveness for programs other that six favored basals. Both the Washington

coalition and the FCRR gave very positive ratings to Success for All and Direct Instruction, because of the extensive research

behind them. The Oregon review did not consider research on program effectiveness. Yet to our knowledge, ED never

directed states to look at the Washington coalition or Florida research reviews, nor at any other state reviews. Absent other

evidence, it appears that Oregon is emphasized because unlike the Washington Coalition or other states its list corresponds

exactly to the list of the six top-selling commercial basals, which the Department has promoted under Reading First.

4. The Michigan proposal was among the first state RF proposals to be funded, and it was the first state to distribute funds to

districts and schools. Michigan did not carry out its own review of the degree to which various textbooks reflected principles of

scientifically-based reading research, but instead simply listed the five top basal series. The quick approval of the Michigan

proposal sent a powerful message to other states, that Reading First is intended for use with commercial basal series,

regardless of evidence. Later, in a celebration of Reading First at the White House and in an address with Reid Lyon at NIH,

President Bush highlighted the Michigan Reading First program as an exemplar.

5. The research base for the basal programs proposed for use in each state was of no consequence in ED reviews of state

RF applications. States such as Michigan, Wisconsin, and Rhode Island simply designated the top five basals, without any

pretense of reviewing research on these programs or on the principles they incorporate. In fact, in describing its process of

reading program selection, Michigan wrote that its procedure was simply “to place phone calls to all major publishers

requesting examination copies for review.” In the case of Rhode Island, discussed below, reviewers did not ask for any

justification for the basals on the Michigan list that Rhode Island adopted verbatim under pressure, although they repeatedly

asked for detailed and rigorous reviews of evidence on any basal not on the Michigan list. California specified just the two

basals on its state adoption list, and many other states also simply designated their state adoption lists, drawn up according

to completely different standards that had nothing to do with SBRR, as their approved lists for Reading First. These state

adoption lists primarily consist of the top five basals, produced by large companies with the resources to go through the state

adoption processes.

6. Oklahoma proposed to fund RF schools to adopt programs that had at least three years of longitudinal data, a procedure

entirely consistent with the definition of “scientifically based research” in the Reading First legislation. Through two drafts

with versions of this provision, Oklahoma was criticized on the basis that this restriction would limit schools to a small number

of programs. When Oklahoma dropped this language, but instead limited schools to traditional basals from its state adoption

list, the criticism on this topic ceased, and the fourth draft was approved for funding.

7. Rhode Island had to submit six revisions of its Reading First application. We obtained all six versions and the corresponding

reviews. They make it clear how the Department forced states to use the favored commercial basals, and nothing else.

In its first two proposals, Rhode Island would have required that LEAs purchase "high-quality reading programs that meet the

test of having a scientific research base and are “comprehensive" and "systematically and explicitly address all of Reading

First’s five…essential components of reading…."

Federal reviewers rejected this proposal, on the basis that it "does not include the rigorous and clearly defined standards the

State will use to evaluate the research base of instructional programs and strategies."

In its third draft, Rhode Island inserted the Michigan list of commercial basals: Houghton-Mifflin, Harcourt, Open Court,

Macmillan, and Scott Foresman. The Rhode Island list was obviously copied from Michigan; it is in the same font, and includes

a requirement that Scott Foresman be supplemented with additional material on fluency, as was the case in the successful

Michigan proposal (and first suggested on the FCRR web site). However, Rhode Island’s third draft also allowed districts to

propose other programs if they justified them based on SBRR.

The federal reviewers again rejected this formulation. In its fourth draft, the “Instructional Strategies and Programs” section

was virtually identical to that in Draft 3, except that it deleted one sentence:

"LEAs that use other high-quality programs…" This section was finally accepted. As soon as Rhode Island limited its schools

to the five basals from the Michigan proposal (which Michigan itself accepted with no scientific review whatever), the reviewers

 had no further concerns about their reading programs.

8. Wisconsin had to submit four revisions of its Reading First proposal before it was accepted. We obtained all four drafts. The

 progression is a mirror image of Rhode Island’s experience. In its first two submissions, Wisconsin proposed a process of

allowing districts to justify the choice of any core reading program according to SBRR. Reviewers criticized this as not specific

enough. Finally, the state imported verbatim into its proposal the Michigan list. As in Rhode Island, the list is in the same font

as the Michigan proposal and, like Michigan, requires Scott Foresman to provide a fluency supplement.

Wisconsin schools could theoretically apply to implement programs not on the list, but if they did so, they had to submit their

own Consumer’s Guide ratings and take a substantial chance that their proposals would be rejected if they made the wrong

choice. Clearly, the safe option for schools was to propose to use any of the five basals.

9. In its approved Reading First application, Maine did not specify specific basals. However, after the proposal was approved,

Chris Doherty discovered that the state was restricting schools to two basals, Scott Foresman and Rigby. He wrote to the

Maine Commissioner to tell her that Rigby "does not appear to be aligned with scientifically based reading research." The

state substituted Houghton-Mifflin for Rigby, and this was accepted with no review of Houghton-Mifflin (or of Scott Foresman).

10. Maryland simply adopted the Oregon list, in this case including Success for All. It had a panel do "Maryland annotations"

on the Oregon list. The "Maryland annotations" criticized Success for All because the grades 2-3 materials had been revised

since the Oregon review. Maryland’s review team was so constrained by the Oregon review that it would only approve the

older edition, solely on the basis that this is what Oregon reviewed.

11. Vermont’s approved application included a suggestion that districts "give careful consideration" to programs recommended

by other states. It gave the Michigan, California, and Washington lists as examples. As noted earlier, neither Michigan nor

California even pretended to do scientific reviews of their recommendations. Michigan’s list was simply the top five basals, and

California’s was Open Court and Houghton-Mifflin. This aspect of the Vermont proposal was accepted without comment by

federal reviewers.

12. Among the states from which we received all drafts of state proposals, several did not specify a list of permitted or

recommended textbooks. Yet the ultimate effect of limiting schools to textbooks on the favored list was the same. Georgia

Reading First school applicants were required to review the language arts textbooks they had just adopted from the Georgia

state adoption list according to their fit with SBRR. That list included all of the Michigan list basals (Harcourt, Houghton Mifflin,

MacMillan, Scott Foresman, Open Court). As happened in many states, the Georgia state adoption list became the de facto

Reading First list, even though state adoption processes never consider evidence of effectiveness. A virtually identical

process took place in Indiana, where applicants could keep the textbooks they had just adopted from the state’s adoption list,

as long as they submitted a review of their already-adopted basal using the Consumer’s Guide.

13. The states described above are only unique in that these are the states from which we had access to all proposal drafts.

In other states, however, we have the reviews of each successive proposal and the final proposal, and the pattern is equally

clear. The federal reviewers kept complaining until the state settled on any subset of the top commercial basals, or settled on

a process that would have the same result.

14. In multiple federal reviews of state proposals we obtained for almost every state, there is not a single criticism of any state

for restricting RF grants to schools using any of the favored basals. In contrast, criticism for states suggesting other programs

is constant. Similarly, annual monitoring reports criticize schools that chose programs other than these basals, and never

criticize schools for choosing any of the six basals.

15. The State of Illinois initially approved a long list of reading materials for use under Reading First funding. According to

correspondence between ED and Illinois, and e-mails internal to the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE), ED officials

pressured Illinois to significantly reduce its list of approved texts. After working with the University of Oregon, Illinois agreed to

limit schools to the same five basals adopted by Michigan. Districts that had not initially adopted one of these programs were

informed, in writing, that their grants would terminate unless they switched programs. Districts were notified that they could

pay for reviews of programs not on the list of five, and such requests were made by districts wanting to implement Success for

All. However, ISBE never honored –or even acknowledged- any of these requests.

16. States whose initial Reading First applications were not approved (in practice, nearly all states) were assigned “technical

assistance consultants,” many of whom were affiliated with basal textbooks or related programs. For example, the Kentucky

Commissioner complained to ED about a consultant who is a certified DIBELS trainer (Brownstein & Hicks, 2005a). The Illinois

consultant was a trainer for the Sopris West publishing company. Because these consultants were assigned to states after

their initial applications had been rejected, the consultants had great influence on state officials anxious to receive their

Reading First funding.

17. According to the funded technical assistance proposal submitted by the RMC Research Corporation, ED was complicit in

the pressure that states were under to use basal textbooks. In its application to establish the Reading First technical

assistance centers, RMC proposed to develop professional development strategies to support the products of “major

publishers.” This was apparently accepted without comment by the Department of Education.

18. Since 2003, Reading First has been aggressively promoting a “three-tier model.” The three-tier model involves teaching

using a basal reader, then providing a supplemental program (tier 2) for students who do not succeed in core “tier 1”

instruction. In many states, Success for All and other programs are being forced out of Reading First schools because of a

perceived “lack of fit” with the three-tier model. About one third of all Success for All schools that once received Reading First

funding have been forced to drop Success for All or risk losing their RF funding. The Reading First emphasis on the three-tier

model has had the effect of promoting the use of commercial basal series, and of commercial supplemental texts, such as

Voyager Passport and the Scott Foresman Early Reading Intervention.

The Department of Education denies that the three-tier model is mandatory under Reading First, claiming that states choose

their own models of instruction. Overwhelming evidence shows that it is heavily promoted, however. The three-tier model has

been extensively presented at all of the national Reading First conferences, as well as to national gatherings of the state

Reading First directors. It is described in detail on the websites of the University of Texas and University of Oregon technical

assistance centers. Schools and districts that deviate in any way from the elements of the three-tier model are criticized in the

annual monitoring reports, and can lose their Reading First funding on this basis. New Mexico, after receiving two consecutive

negative monitoring reports, developed – in close consultation with ED – a list of "non-negotiables" under Reading First. This

list of non-negotiables, which every RF site had to sign an assurance that it would follow, requires the three-tier model.

The RMC proposal to establish the RF technical assistance centers stated that it would introduce and disseminate the

three-tier model as the core of its professional development plan for Reading First. The three-tier model, which has never

been evaluated in even a single published study in comparison to a control group, has become the de facto instructional

program for thousands of schools, yet it was unheard-of before Reading First and would likely, absent this level of promotion,

never have been adopted by these schools.

Because the three-tier model promotes the use of standard commercial basal and supplementary textbooks and opposes the

use of programs such as Success for All and Direct Instruction that use different instructional strategies, it is one more means

by which Reading First supports use of unresearched commercial programs in preference to scientifically proven programs.

19. In a 2003 speech in New Jersey, Reid Lyon, the NICHD official who was an architect of Reading First, stated in response

to a question that states and schools would be wise to use any of the favored commercial basals in their Reading First

applications, and gave several examples. Presumably, he presented similar opinions in many speeches elsewhere, as various

state documents indicate his frequent speaking engagements regarding Reading First.

20. A 2005 article in an Ohio newspaper noted how at McGraw-Hill, publisher of three of the six “Oregon list” basal texts,

“business was booming” due to No Child Left Behind, and they added 500 employees in Ohio alone. As noted earlier,

Voyager, whose design team was primarily composed of individuals who were later involved central in Reading first technical

assistance centers, increased in value from about $5 miillion before Reading First to $380 million in 2005. A the same time,

since Reading First began, the staff of the nonprofit Success for All Foundation has been cut by 60%. Whether by intention or

not, Reading First has had an unequivocal effect in increasing the use of commercial programs lacking evidence of

effectiveness and reducing the use of non-traditional programs that do have strong evidence of effectiveness – exactly the

opposite of what the law requires.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________
 

 
Eye-catching system helps students read. Dozens of Miami-Dade

schools are diagnosing reading problems by using infrared

goggles that chart how students' eyes move.

BY MATTHEW I. PINZUR
mpinzur@MiamiHerald.com

BARBARA P. FERNANDEZ / FOR THE MIAMI HERALD IN FOCUS:

Ann Cindhy, 18, uses a new reading program that measures how she reads by using hi-tech goggles to

track their eye movements, at Krop Senior High in North Miami. More Interactive | Explore the reading program

Most readers' eyes plow through sentences cutting from left to right, from top to bottom.

But for many struggling students, it is a chaotic dance. Their eyes dart around the page, a Brownian stagger in every

direction, sometimes careening across many lines in a second, sometimes dragging over the same word three or four times.

Those students may have no problem with phonics, no problem with vocabulary or main idea or analogies.

The problem for many is the physical act of reading.

''I know how to read; I know how to pronounce everything,'' said Rhiannon Chavez, who failed to graduate last month from

Michael Krop Senior High in Northeast Miami-Dade because she has not passed the state's reading exam. ``The problem is

that when I finished, I wouldn't know what I just read.''

Rhiannon and dozens of her classmates are now enrolled in a program known as Reading Plus, which uses infrared

goggles and customized software to track their eyes and train their brains.

The same program is being used in many of Miami-Dade's lowest-performing schools -- as well as a handful in Broward

and Palm Beach counties -- and administrators are crediting it with impressive gains.

Rhiannon, 17, went from reading 103 words per minute to 345, and she correctly answers 80 percent of the questions on

the material. When she takes the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test again later this month, she is confident she will

pass and earn a diploma.

EXERCISING THE EYES

Reading, her teachers believe, is a bit like exercising -- an athlete can learn all about fitness, but he still has to build up

muscles over time.

'I can't say to a student, `Sweetheart, next time you read, please use better binocular vision,' '' said Karen Feller, the

contractor who Miami-Dade schools hired to bring the Reading Plus system into 65 schools last year.

The heart of the system is the Visagraph, which looks like a pair of science-lab goggles for a cyborg. Sensors in the

goggles track eye movements as the student reads a 100-word passage, measuring the number of times the student stops

and backs up, as well as how their eyes move around the page and the duration of every pause.

A computer screen uses a red dot to show teachers where the student's eyes landed -- and the results can be dizzying for

struggling readers.

''I really did start getting physically nauseous,'' said Enid Weisman, a Miami-Dade regional superintendent, referring to one

student's readout. ``The kid who was reading it probably did, too.''

Weisman plans to expand the program in her area of Northeast Miami-Dade.

Feller's company has not done research to explain why students read so haphazardly, but educators have their suspicions.

Many poor readers get little practice at home during formative years, and they play video games or watch channels with

news tickers and other graphics.

''They're rewarded for darting all around the screen,'' said Kathleen Caballero, one of Weisman's deputies. ``It's like we're

training them to be ADD [attention-deficit disorder].''

A computer maps the eye movements, analyzes the results and creates a customized lesson plan on the Reading Plus

software.

That software uses a few tools to train the student's reading habits. Some lessons flash a word on a computer screen for a

split second; others reveal a few words at a time. Short quizzes throughout the exercise ensure that the students are

absorbing the information they read.

As the student progresses, the words come faster and the vocabulary becomes more complex. The program pinpoints

specific problem areas -- such as difficulty understanding a main idea or how inferences work -- and produces work sheets

written at the student's own level.

Teachers and administrators can monitor individuals, a full class or an entire school, and can easily break down results by

ethnic group, gender or other demographics. It can also flag teachers when a particular student advances to a higher level

or shows a sudden drop.

That has made it particularly popular in elementary schools, where teachers hope to encourage strong readers and quickly

diagnose weak ones. Under state law, third-graders who fail the FCAT in reading cannot advance to fourth grade.

As students get older, reading plays an increasingly crucial part in math, science and other subjects.

Weisman said Reading Plus was a big part of success at Norland Elementary, 19340 NW Eighth Ct., where 77 percent of

third-graders were considered proficient readers this year -- up from 55 percent last year.

''It does what the teacher cannot do -- force the child to fluently read,'' Feller said.

Her target is students like Deandre Brown, a Norland second-grader. His eyes stopped an amazing 380 times and backed

up 130 times while reading a 100-word passage -- normal for a child his age is about 175 stops and 40 backups.

''He's probably taking in almost every letter independently, rather than taking in a whole word and moving on to the next

word,'' Feller said.

The software will attack that problem by showing Deandre sentences with a word missing, then flashing the missing word

for a fraction of a second. He will have to learn to read the entire word at once.

The impact of Reading Plus is difficult to measure because it was one of many interventions that produced some dramatic

gains at Miami-Dade's most struggling schools.

But one statistic stands out: Of the 22 consistently low-performing elementary schools in the School Improvement Zone, 21

had improved reading scores for third-graders. The only exception, Opa-locka, was the only elementary that failed to use

Reading Plus regularly. ''We know it has been really, really powerful,'' Weisman said.

But the program has its limits. Clearly, it cannot replace teachers, either for explaining the mechanics of reading or igniting

a passion for it. Its quizzes do not approach higher-order thinking, such as connecting the information to other subjects, and

do not test how well students retain the information over time.

COSTS OF PROGRAM

It is not cheap, though Feller is letting some schools try the program free this summer. The software costs about $16,000

per school, Feller said, depending on the number of students. For another $2,000 to $3,000 per year, the school can put

the program on its website, allowing students to complete extra lessons at home.

The goggles cost another $2,400 per pair, but most schools only need one pair, because students only need to use them

once every 20 to 40 lessons.

Altogether, the Miami-Dade district has paid nearly $1 million to Feller, who holds the exclusive South Florida distribution

rights from Taylor Associates, the New York company that developed Reading Plus.

Many schools reward students for making progress. At Krop, students can win American Express gift cards. But those

students are also old enough to use the program for its own sake.

'I was thinking, `Another reading thing -- it's not going to work,' '' said Ann Cindhy, 18, who failed the FCAT numerous times

and did not receive a diploma this spring, but whose reading rate has jumped from 122 to more than 300 words per minute

since she began using Reading Plus recently. ``If I was to do the FCAT now, I'd have more time to finish it and go back and

reread.''

She wants to go to college in California or New Jersey, and perhaps study medicine during the day while working as a

model at night.

For her shot, she needs that diploma.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Rescuing Kids: Don't Shortchange

Childhood! CE Disclosures

Tammy C. Tempfer, MSN, RN-C, PNP
June 8, 2006

Don't Shortchange Childhood

Childhood encompasses a short period in life. The typical lifespan in the United States is 77 years and only

18 of those years constitute childhood. Children should not be responsible for raising siblings, taking charge

of running the house, or shouldering their parent's problems. When robbed of childhood, children grow up to

be incomplete adults who never fully understand what it is they're missing.

Mary Muscari, PhD, CPNP, APRN-BC, CFNS, Professor, Department of Nursing, University of Scranton,

Scranton, PA, presented "Let Kids Be Kids! Rescuing Childhood." Muscari discussed the rights of childhood.

These 14 rights include love, attention, family, health, safety, uniqueness, unstructured play, creativity,

communing with nature, joyful noise, spirituality, heroes, youthful innocence, and citizenship.[1]

Love and Attention.

Children who are deprived of love are more likely to have low opinions pf themselves

and others, tend to be lower academic achievers, and may suffer from a greater number of physical and

emotional problems. Attachment affects people's well-being in profound and enduring ways across the lifespan.

Securely attached kids feel free to explore their world.

Children need and want their parents' attention and time. Spending time together is a prerequisite of protecting

and enriching a child's life by showing love and attention. Children learn what parents value by observing how

they spend their time, and they learn that they are loved and valued when parents give them what matters

most -- time, love, and attention. To show love and attention most effectively, parents must cultivate closeness.

Closeness grows through physical proximity, eye contact, conversation, and touch, and it can occur during

everyday activities as well as during scheduled events.

Family.

Family problems and parenting difficulties can increase the risk of children joining gangs. Many of these

kids come from troubled middle-class families with both biological parents at home. They look for the acceptance,

 love, companionship, leadership, encouragement, recognition, respect, role models, rules, security,

self-esteem, structure, and the sense of belonging that is nonexistent in their own households.

Adults within families are responsible for their children's growth, development, and behavioral outcomes.

Regardless of structure, all families are expected to perform certain tasks including providing for the physical

safety and economic needs of family members and creating a sense of family loyalty and an emotionally healthy

 environment for individual and family well-being. Families need to develop adaptive coping strategies including

working together to develop solutions to stressors and realizing that some stress is temporary and may be

positive.

Health.

Our increasingly complex environment brings with it childhood morbidities such as school and learning problems,

child and adolescent mood and anxiety disorders, the alarming increase in adolescent suicide and homicide,

firearms in the home, school violence, drug and alcohol abuse, HIV/AIDS, and the effects of media on violence,

obesity, and sexual activity.

Obesity now ranks as the most common childhood nutritional disorder in the United States. The percentage of

school-age children who are overweight more than doubled between 1970 and 2000. Childhood obesity increases

the risk of developing diseases such as diabetes and high blood pressure.[2] Obesity unleashes the potential for

poor self-esteem, negative self-image, withdrawal from peers, and depression.

Safety. Today's children live with new perils including Internet predators, abduction, date violence, weather

disasters, and school shootings. And the old perils, such as physical and emotional abuse, vehicles, fire, water,

poisons, and drugs, continue to threaten children.

General abuse prevention strategies:

Teach parents child development, parenting skills, self-control, and anger management;

Provide respite care for stressed parents, and help then access supports -- housing, food, healthcare,

transportation, counseling, and community resources;

Teach children self-protection; and

Provide support, counseling, and other needed services (emergency care, foster placement) for abuse victims.

Uniqueness. Children who appreciate their uniqueness have healthy self-concepts. They know who they are in

the world and they can distinguish themselves as separate individuals with strengths and weaknesses.

They acknowledge their emotions and find productive ways to bring meaning to life. They can handle life's

realities and problems with appropriate coping behaviors.

To be truly unique, children need to:

Know that there is something special about them;

Express themselves in their own voice;

Use their imagination and creativity skill; and

Respect themselves and take pleasure in being different.

Unstructured Play. Play is critical for children's health. It increases peer interaction, releases tension, and

advances thinking. It promotes exploration and provides a safe haven to explore potentially dangerous situations.

It's just plain fun and the essence of childhood.

Recommend that parents and care providers:

Go low tech-high energy;

Keep it simple -- minimize the complicated toys; and

Encourage recess and play!!

Creativity. Creativity should be viewed as a process in children that generates ideas. Creativity helps children

grow and view things in a different light. Creativity differs from intelligence and talent, and creative kids are

often viewed as strange or unproductive.

Cultivating creativity:

Give creativity equal footing with intellect and rule-following;

Be supportive of children's creativity;

Resist the temptation to overcrowd children with organized activities;

Tolerate the unusual. Let children be messy!

Encourage active pursuits and create movement; and

Parents should be role models. Recommend they stay open to new ideas and experiences, and share their

creative interests with children.

Communing With Nature. Outdoor experiences are important to the development of autonomy and independence.

Early experiences with nature link positively with the development of imagination and the sense of wonder,

which are important motivators for lifelong learning. Children who play regularly in natural environments have

more positive feelings about each other; show more advanced motor fitness, including coordination, balance,

and agility; and get sick less often. Nature buffers the impact of life's stressors and helps children deal with

adversity.

Joyful Noises. Older children use vulgar language for a number of reasons: get attention, express anger, exert

power, provoke someone, shock someone, emphasize feelings, fit in with or impress peers, and acquire social

status. If obscenities are tolerated or ignored, children often move on to other, more harmful acts such as open

defiance or physical violence. Young children acquire foul language pretty much the same way they learn other

language skills -- by imitation.

Cultivating joyful noises:

Model positive language and behavior;

Help children understand that racial, ethnic, and sexual slurs express prejudice and hate, and forbid their use;

Advise parents not to overreact, act shocked, or get agitated when young children experience with profanity;

Set household rules for avoiding foul language and set consequences when rules are broken;

Counteract the negative aspects of television. Promote the safe use of technology; and

Teach children values -- kindness, respect, courtesy, and compassion.
Spirituality. Spiritual wellness entails the capacity for compassion, love, altruism, forgiveness, joy, and fulfillment,

and is the antidote to fear, anxiety, self-absorption, anger, cynicism, and pessimism. Spirituality transcends

individuals to become a common bond between people. Regardless of their cultural or religious background,

children feel a profound desire to understand the universe and their place in it.

Cultivating spirituality:

Model your spiritual self;

Encourage quiet reflection time, especially at night, to give children a chance to reflect upon their day;

Some families may wish to pray or practice their faith together. Shared prayer is one of the most intimate and

deepest forms of communication;

Recommend that parents foster a sense of community by volunteering with their children; and

Make each day a new beginning.

Heroes. Children need heroes to show them how to behave during tough situations, to inspire them to see

beyond times of struggle or disappointment, and to serve as guides to solving problems and helping others.

They need true heroes who sacrifice for the benefit of others. Heroes live in books, on the big screen, in the

community, and right in the living room. They can be as super as Spiderman, as athletic as Michael Jordan, as

furry as Fido, as regular as Mom and Dad.

Children's choices of heroes tend to follow predictable patterns based on their level of moral development.

Young children frequently choose their parents or teachers as heroes because they see their immediate

caretakers as having the greatest moral authority. As children grow, they begin to see peers as heroes, usually

someone who has attained a level of celebrity as a sports figure or rock star. Older teens value people who think

for themselves.

Youthful innocence. The sexual exploitation of children has become so common that it can be difficult to

recognize. One in 5 children is sexually solicited on the Internet.

Methods to maintain youthful innocence:

Advise parents to talk to kids about sex, developing their own comfort level on sexual issues;

Teach Internet safety and keep the computer in a visible location; and

Minimize children's exposure to negative sexual messages.

Citizenship. Good citizens recognize that they have duties and responsibilities and that bad behavior, including

indolence, disrespect, and violence, has a detrimental effect on fellow citizens.

Fostering citizenship:

Volunteer and cultivate values; and

Foster respect and responsibility for the community.

Childhood Is the Foundation of Adulthood

Embrace the concept that children are not just small adults. Encourage parents to enrich the childhood

experience. Dr. Muscari presented 14 important elements of childhood and recommended how clinicians might

best guide parents. She emphasized, "Childhood is a once in a lifetime opportunity. When it's gone, it's gone.

LET KIDS BE KIDS!"[3]

References

Muscari M. Let kids be kids! Rescuing childhood. Program of the National Association of Pediatric Nurse

Practitioners 27th Annual Conference; March 30-April 2, 2006; Washington, DC.

The Center for Health and Health Care in Schools. Childhood Obesity. Available at:

http://www.healthinschools.org/sh/obesityfs.asp. Accessed May 11, 2006.

Muscari M. Let Kids be Kids: Rescuing Childhood. Scranton, Penn: University of Scranton Press; 2006.

Available at: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/189262.ctl. Accessed May 11, 2006.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________


Identifying Childhood Depression CE
Disclosures

Tammy C. Tempfer, MSN, RN-C, PNP
June 8, 2006

Depression in Children: Developmental Perspectives

Depression is a common and persistent illness in childhood, affecting 2% of elementary school-age children and

5%-10% of adolescents. The rates of prepubertal depression are similar for boys and girls; however, depression

rates double in girls after puberty. An estimated 10%-20% of adolescents have had at least 1 major depressive

episode by age 18 years.[1] One study of 9863 students aged 10-16 years found that 29% of American Indian

youth exhibited symptoms of depression, compared with 22% of Hispanic, 18% of Caucasian, 17% of

Asian-American, and 15% of African-American youth.[2]

"The symptoms of irritable mood and anxiety are more typical of children than adults," explained Vanya Hamrin,

MS, RN, APRN, BC, Assistant Professor, School of Nursing, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.[3] Younger

children are more likely to present with somatic complaints. They may complain of vague gastrointestinal

symptoms or headaches. Depressed children are irritable, have temper tantrums, and display other behavior

problems including diminished interest in play. Depressed adolescents often exhibit more sleep and appetite

disturbances and are prone to reckless behavior, delusions, suicidal ideation, and impairment of overall functioning.

Manifestations of depression occur at all developmental stages and include a persistently sad expression, lack of

enjoyment in usual activities, and irritability or oppositionality. Other symptoms are typical of particular

developmental stages:

Infants and Toddlers. Worrisome signs may include failure to thrive or rumination, or delays in speech and gross

motor development. Infants with warning sign of depression may avert their gaze from adults, have

expressionless faces, or fail to develop normal attachment to their parents.

Preschoolers may have enuresis or encopresis. Their playing may be aggressive, reckless, destructive or show a

preoccupation with morbid themes. They may engage in repetitive behavior such as rocking or be prone to

frequent accidents.

School-aged children may lag behind their classmates in social skills and academic competence. These deficits

may be reflected in school phobia, social isolation, low self-esteem, poor grades, and antisocial behavior such as

stealing or lying.

Older children and adolescents may say they feel sad, although more often they describe feeling "bored" or

"empty." They may experience severe mood swings, act out their feelings in dangerous activities, be more

influenced by peers or new romantic or sexual relationships, and be more ambivalent about separating from their

parents. Substance abuse, running away, stealing, and lying are all red flags for depression in adolescence.[4]

Warning Signs and Risk Factors

Warning signs include:

Running away from home

Emotional outbursts, boredom

Lack of interest in playing with friends

Substance abuse

Increased irritability

Difficulty with relationships

Recklessness, low self-esteem

Neglect of hygiene or appearance

Risk factors for depression are varied, including:

Family history of depression and/or alcoholism

Parental psychopathology and or criminality

Family instability

Female gender

Recent stressful events

Loss of a loved one

Break up of a romantic relationship

Chronic illness or trauma


Abuse or neglect

Assessing Depression in the Office Setting

The following are recommendations for assessing depression in children in the primary care setting:

Interview child and parents separately

Include recent losses and chronic personal, family, and sociocultural stresses in the history

Ask about family psychiatric history

Examine the child's mental status, with particular attention to mood, functioning in daily activities, suicidal ideas,

and risk taking

Do a complete physical examination

Order basic laboratory tests if depressed mood and the history and physical suggest an associated medical

condition such as hypothyroidism, Lyme disease, or chronic infection

Check for substances that can produce secondary depression, including medications such as oral contraceptives,

methylphenidate, and clonodine; environmental toxins including lead; or alcohol and recreational drugs

Consider depression secondary to chronic illness

Criteria for Major Depression

The diagnosis of depression is based on clinical signs and symptoms. Criteria include 5 or more of the following

symptoms presenting in the same 2-week period and representing a change from previous functioning:

Depressed mood most of the day nearly every day. In children, this can present as an irritable mood.

Marked diminished interest in pleasure most of the day nearly every day

Weight loss of more than 5% of body weight in 1 month

Insomnia and hypersomnia

Psychomotor agitation or retardation nearly every day

Fatigue or loss of energy nearly every day

Feelings of worthlessness or excessive guilt nearly every day

Poor concentration and indecisiveness

Recurrent thoughts of death, suicidal ideation, attempt, or plan[5]

Treatment of Childhood Depression

Effective, first-line treatment options for depression in children include cognitive behavioral therapy,

interpersonal psychotherapy, antidepressants, psychosocial intervention, or a combination of the above. The

appropriate level of intervention needs to be determined by the healthcare provider in consultation with the

healthcare team, including mental health professionals. Most depressed children and adolescents are treated

as outpatients. Indications for hospitalization include safety concerns related to suicidal or aggressive potential

and the presence of psychosis.

References

Costello EJ, Mustillo S, Erkanli A, Keeler G, Angold A. Prevalence and development of psychiatric disorders in

childhood and adolescence. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2003:60:837-844. Abstract

Saluja G, Iachan R, Scheidt PC, Overpeck A, Sun W, Giedd J. Prevalence of and risk factors for depressive

symptoms among young adolescents. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2004;158:760-765. Abstract

Hamrin V. Childhood depression. Program of the National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners 27th

Annual Conference; March 30 - April 2, 2006; Washington, DC.

Moldenhauer Z. Mood disorders. In: Melnyk B, Moldenhauer Z, eds. The KySS Guide to Child and Adolescent

Mental Health Screening, Early Intervention and Health Promotion. Cherry Hill, NJ; NAPNAP; 2006. Information

available at http://www.napnap.org/index.cfm?page=198&sec=221&ssec=482 Accessed May 30, 2006.

Varley C. Don't overlook depression in youth. Contemp Pediatr. 2002:19:70-76.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________


Bullying or Teasing: When Do You Draw the Line? 
 

Michelle A Beauchesne, DNSc, RN, CPNP
June 8, 2006

Bullying and Violence

Youth violence in the United States has been documented as a public health epidemic. [1] Violence manifests

itself in many ways -- homicides, suicides, gang fights, and date rape. It crosses all social classes and geographic

boundaries. Although not all children directly experience overt violence, Judith A. Vessey, PhD, CRNP, MBA,

FAAN, Lelia Holden Carroll Professor in Nursing, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, believes that

many children do experience a more covert form of violence -- bullying.[2] Bullying among youth is a significant

problem; . A study of 15,686 students in grades 6 through 10 in schools throughout the United States who

completed the World Health Organization's Health Behaviour in School-aged Children survey indicated that 29.9%

reported moderate or frequent involvement in bullying, as a bully, one who was bullied, or both.[3]

Statistics indicate that bullying has serious consequences for the victim, often leading to psychological and

mental health problems. Vessey reports that 40% of kids miss at least 1 day of middle school because they are

afraid of being bullied. And being a bully is associated with other violent and criminal behaviors -- vandalism,

stealing, use of illicit substances, and murder.[4] Without intervention, bullying can have a lasting impact on

children's growth and development.

When Teasing Becomes Bullying

Vessey acknowledges that she began her extensive research on this topic when she witnessed the impact

bullying had on children. She emphasized that teasing and bullying are often thought of on a continuum.[5]

Teasing is defined as "dynamic social interactions comprised of a set of verbal and/or non verbal behaviors that

occur among peers and that is humorous and playful on one level but may be annoying to the target child on

another level."[2]

Some amount of teasing is a normal part of childhood and may actually promote an exchange between children

rather than a one-sided dose of intimidation.[6] However, it is not easy to determine when teasing exceeds the

norm. Experts suggest it may be a matter of degree, defining bullying as "repetitive persistent patterns of

conduct by one or more children that deliberately inflict physical, verbal, or emotional abuse on another child."[2]

The most common idea of a bully is someone who engages in harmful physical behavior toward another,

including hitting, punching, hair pulling, or kicking. Physical bullying is more obvious with the bully identified

more frequently. Yet, there are many types of bullying that are not so obvious and are more difficult to detect.

Emotional bullying, both verbal and nonverbal, is actually more common than physical bullying and more subtle,

often involving shunning the victim, spreading rumors, name-calling, or even threatening the victim. This form of

bullying is more prevalent among female bullies, whereas male bullies tend to take the physical form.[2] A

relatively new but increasing phenomenon is cyber bullying. As the name suggests, this form of bullying surfaced

when kids started to become savvy with electronic communication and used this new technology to harass

victims at all hours, in wide circles, and at incredible speeds.[6]

Bully or Victim of Bullying?

Bullies pick on other children as a way of dealing with their own problems. Children who turn to bullying often

have low self-esteem and an artificial sense of self worth. They have a lot of superficial friends but no true

dependable friend. They are lonely and often suffer from anxiety/depression. Bullies particularly target other

children who have some characteristic that deviates from the norm. These differences may be related to

physical appearance, personality traits, environmental factors, or school-related factors.

Two victim profiles have been identified: The first includes victims who are submissive, insecure, or fearful. The

second victim profile consists of victims who are provocative in nature, highly aggressive themselves, and

demonstrate unusual acting out behaviors. Children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) often fit

this profile.[2]

Dealing With Bullying

Vessey suggests that most bullying occurs "below the radar," implying it is often undetected. She describes

many adults, including parents and teachers, as being "clueless," oblivious to the less obvious signs of bullying.

"According to available data, approximately 10% of the United States school-age population, from late elementary

through high school, are chronically bullied or teased, but not to the point where adults know something is wrong.

Those are the kids we have to reach."[5]

The first step in treating the situation is identifying the problem. In addition to watching for the obvious physical

injuries, adults need to watch for the manifestation of new behaviors that may provide hints or clues that a child is

suffering from being bullied or being a bully. These signs include inventing mysterious illnesses to avoid school;

missing belongings or money; changes in appetite, sleep or daily routine; bedwetting; irritability; poor

concentration, and changes in school performance.[6] In addition to observing individual children more closely

and becoming more attuned to the clues, entire communities need to be made aware of the problem. Pediatric

providers should disseminate accurate information about bullying in a variety of ways[2]:

Fact sheets can be distributed to parents

Posters can be hung on examining room walls

Articles can be published in clinic/school newsletters

PTA presentations or staff in-services on bullying can be offered

Helpful online resources include:

Bullying Online
http://www.bullying.co.uk/

KidsHealth
http://www.kidshealth.org/parent/kh_misc/about.html

National Crime Prevention Council
http://www.ncpc.org/

Stop Bullying Now
http://www.stopbullyingnow.com/

Bullying is a major problem among today's youth. It is a common occurrence on playgrounds and within schools

across the United States. Although some forms of bullying are more obvious, most go undetected for long

periods of time, resulting in negative consequences to the child's mental health and development.

There are resources available to help parents, teachers, and community leaders intervene more quickly and

prevent further sequelae. One such resource, the Stop Bullying Now Campaign, is a national endeavor to help

raise awareness about bullying, prevent and reduce bullying behaviors, identify appropriate interventions, and

foster and enhance linkages among other partners.[2] There are practical strategies that healthcare providers

can implement easily within many settings to "increase the radar" and enlighten the community.

References

Youth violence: an overview. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Available at:

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/yvfacts.htm. Accessed May 15, 2006.

Vessey JA. "…of sticks and stones:" recognizing and helping kids at psychosocial risk from teasing and bullying.

Program and abstracts of The National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners (NAPNAP) 27th Annual

Conference; March 30 - April 2, 2006; Washington, DC.

Nansel TR, Overpeck M, Pilla RS, Ruan WJ, Simons-Morton B, Scheidt P. Bullying behaviors among US youth:

prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. JAMA. 2001;285 2094-2100.

Selekman J, Vessey JA. Bullying: It isn't what it used to be. Pediatr Nurs. 2004;30:246-249. Abstract

Sim S. Extra Credit, Boston College Chronicle. Available at:

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/rvp/pubaf/chronicle/v10/n15/extracredit.html. Accessed May 15, 2006.

Bullying and your child. Available at: http://kidshealth.org/PageManger.jsp

dn=KidsHealth&lic=1&ps=107&cat_id=146&article. Accessed May 15, 2006.

Recommended Reading

Muscari, M. Violence. In: Melnyk B, Moldenhauer Z, eds. The KySS Guide to Child and Adolescent Mental Health

Screening,

Early Intervention and Health Promotion. Cherry Hill, NJ; NAPNAP; 2006. Information available at

http://www.napnap.org/index.cfm?page=198&sec=221&ssec=482 Accessed May 30, 2006.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Self-Injurious Behaviors in Adolescents  
 

Elizabeth Hawkins-Walsh, DNSc, CPNP
June 8, 2006

Incidence and Significance of Self-Injurious Behaviors

The wide range of mental health problems seen in pediatric practice was evident by the presentation

"Hurting on the Outside; Self-Injurious Behaviors" by Dr. Carol Savrin, CPNP, FNP-C from Case Western Francis

Payne Bolton School of Nursing. Savrin described these behaviors as including "any volitional act to harm one's

body without any intention to die as a result of the behavior."[1]

Self-injurious behaviors may be categorized as: (1) major -- those causing severe permanent injury, which are

very rare and are often associated with delusional states; (2) stereotypic -- probably organic driven, often

associated with mental retardation involving head banging, biting, and slapping; (3) compulsive -- hair pulling and

nail biting often associated with obsessive-compulsive disorder; and (4) impulsive. The focus of Savrin's address

was on those acts characterized as "impulsive" -- primarily repetitive skin cutting in a variety of forms being

reported in increasing frequency in adolescents.

Many adolescents report using razor blades or other sharp instruments to cut themselves while others burn

themselves with heated metal objects such as paper clips or hair pins. Adolescents often cut themselves in

areas where it is not likely to be visible, thereby "hiding" their distress. Savrin advised the audience that unless

one performs a careful and complete physical examination, it is easy to overlook the physical stigmata of this

behavior. She reminded practitioners of the importance of good interviewing skills and the use of normalizing

generalizations when asking adolescents directly about these practices.

Savrin reported that the existence of "cutting" is certainly not new or unique to this country. The incidence of this

often hidden behavior is unknown but has been reported as occurring in 1 in 30-200 adolescents and is believed

to occur 3 times as frequently in girls compared to boys.[2] While usually beginning in the teenage years, there is

evidence that for many, the behavior continues well into the early adult years as well.

A community-based survey of over 6000 15 and 16 year olds recently found important gender differences and

great variability in reasons for self-cutting.[2] Yet there are numerous difficulties in some of the research

regarding this phenomenon. In some epidemiological studies, adolescents who were "cutters" were not

separated from others who engaged in self-injurious activities and were thought to be suicidal. There does

appear to be a growing recognition that a great number (if not the majority) of these primarily adolescent cutters

do not wish to die.[2] Rather, the act of cutting may represent an impulsive act that is carried out to cope with

painful emotions and in an attempt to regulate emotional distress.

Adolescents who injure themselves describe a wide range of reasons for resorting to cutting. Some report that

the act of cutting is a means to get relief from great tension, while others report that they are numb and it is only

cutting that allows them "to feel."[1] Others who resort to cutting describe the relief of dealing with pain that they

can control themselves as opposed to the emotional pain that they experience over which they feel no control

and no hope of escaping. For these teens, acts of self-inflicted harm are an attempt to make life endurable, not an

attempt to escape from life.

Treatment and Resources for Teen "Cutters"

Research has indicated associations with several other negative psychological experiences and diagnoses

including sexual abuse, depression, anxiety, eating disorders, and personality disorders. However there

continues to be a lack of understanding regarding the etiology of this behavior or evidence of effective

management techniques.

Medication, group therapy, individual psychotherapy, journaling, and art therapy have all been used with limited

success. Both cognitive and behavioral techniques may also be used. Adolescents who wish to stop this

behavior may benefit from some of the same techniques and activities successful in changing other targeted

behaviors. For example, reframing thinking patterns, challenging and changing negative thoughts, changing the

cues that may trigger the behavior ritual, and planning alternative activities at those times of day when the

adolescent is most susceptible may all be helpful.

While there is a lack of consensus regarding a specific targeted treatment for adolescents who use cutting as a

means to cope with painful emotions, there is general agreement that providers must recognize these signs of

distress in adolescents and encourage alternative methods of managing emotional distress, such as problem

solving and improving communication, and seek responsive referral resources for these patients. A common

problem experienced by those who seek help is difficulty in finding skilled therapists who are knowledgeable

about this disordered behavior and are comfortable working with these patients. A well-known treatment facility

that offers a national hotline and resources for providers, families, and patients is SAFE (Self Abuse Finally Ends)

Alternatives.

References

1. Savrin C. Hurting on the outside: Self injurious behaviors. Program and Speaker Handouts of The National

Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioner 27th Annual Conference; March 30- April 2, 2006; Washington, DC.

Session 413.

2. Rodham K, Hawton K, Evans E. Reasons for deliberate self-harm: comparison of self-poisoners and self-cutters

in a community sample of adolescents. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2004;43:80-87. Abstract

____________________________________________________________________________________________________


New Mental Health Concerns in Pediatric Primary Care  
 

Elizabeth Hawkins-Walsh, DNSc, CPNP
June 6, 2006

Mental Health: Focus in Pediatric Primary Care Settings

There is growing awareness of the mental health issues being seen in pediatric primary care and this was readily

apparent in the choice of presentations at the National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners' (NAPNAP)

Annual Meeting. Multiple sessions focused on this top priority in children's healthcare and a pre-conference

session brought pediatric nurse practitioners' concerns to Capitol Hill. NAPNAP's "Keep your children/yourself

Safe and Secure (KySSsm) Program" aims to promote attention to the mental health of children and improve

the knowledge and skills of pediatric nurse practitioners (PNPs) in the prevention, assessment, and early

intervention of mental health concerns in children and adolescents.

Evaluating Children for Drug-Drug Interactions

The demands on PNPs to deal with the growing complexities of pediatric mental health problems was evidenced

by the large audience who enrolled in the session titled "Psychiatric Medications and Polypharmacy in

Pediatrics" by Naomi Schapiro, MS, CPNP, Associate Clinical Professor at the University of California at San

Francisco.[1] A faculty member who teaches pediatric pharmacology and is also an experienced pediatric and

adolescent nurse practitioner, Shapiro understands well the needs of pediatric primary care providers to be

prepared to accurately assess the likelihood of potential drug interactions in their patients.

An increasing number of children and adolescents are presenting to primary care providers with complex

medication histories. A study published recently in Ambulatory Pediatrics found that the overall frequency of

prescribing antipsychotic medications in the United States to children in 2001-2002 was 5 times higher than the

rate in 1995-1996.[2] Almost one third of those prescriptions were written by non-mental health specialists such

as pediatricians or family medicine physicians.

Even those primary care providers who choose not to prescribe these medications themselves need to

understand the potentially lethal drug interactions involving psychiatric medications. Simultaneously, the

growing use of xenobiotics (foreign compounds including herbals, over-the-counter, and prescribed medications)

further complicates the problem. While adult practitioners may have had more experience taking complicated

drug histories, it is a relatively new issue for those in pediatrics outside the area of specialty care.

Shapiro reported that it is the interaction between drugs that is responsible for 3% to 5% of all adverse drug

reactions and the subsequent removal from the market in recent years of several popular medications such as

cisapride and terfenadine. The US Food and Drug Administration is aggressively bringing attention to the

importance of drug interactions through the use of its Web site,

http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/drugReactions/default.htm.

Cytochrome P450

Major advances have been made in the past 20 years in the classification of enzymes involved in the metabolism

of drugs. While ongoing, these advances now allow better prediction of drug interactions that may complicate

treatment. Shapiro addressed the growing body of knowledge regarding the impact of the cytochrome P (CYP)

system on the transformation and elimination of medications from the body. This superfamily of enzymes (a large

collection of related but structurally different enzymes with similar function) facilitate both the oxidative and

reductive reactions in phase 1 metabolism. While recognized more than 50 years ago, it is only recently that

molecular biology has allowed the classification of enzymes based on the similarity of their DNA sequencing.[3]

Identification of the particular CYP pathways laid the groundwork for discovering which drugs specifically induce

or inhibit the activity of these enzymes. Induction generally results in increased production of the enzyme which

then leads to dropping drug levels while inhibition leads to decreased production of enzymes and increased drug

levels.

Being forewarned about the particular pathways used in the metabolism of a drug may assist the provider in

making a better and safer choice. Drugs that are recognized as inhibitors or inducers will not only affect their own

level, but will also induce or inhibit levels of other drugs that use the same pathways. Other substances besides

drugs act as CYP inducers. Cigarette smoke, St. John's Wort, and ethanol are inducers that may render

medications ineffective, while grapefruit juice is a CYP3A inhibitor.

Drug-Drug Interactions

When considering the potential for interactions, the medications that are likely to be of concern to the practitioner

include those metabolized through the liver, H2 blockers, macrolide antibiotics, psychiatric medications,

anti-epileptic drugs, and oral antifungals.

Consideration of the drug's half-life as well as the pathways inhibited or induced is essential. For example,

fluoxetine (Prozac, Eli Lilly & Co.) has a half-life of 48-72 hours, uses numerous pathways, and is a potent inhibitor

of its own metabolism, as well as the metabolism of other medications on the CYP 2D6 pathway (theophylline,

macrolide antibiotics [such as azithromycin and erythromycin], beta blockers, codeine). Central serotonin

syndrome is an iatrogenic complication from use of a drug or dietary supplement with CNS 5-HT (serotonin)

activity. It may result from the use of 2 drugs in combination such as fluoxetine and dextromethorphan.

Providers have long been concerned about screening for possible cardiac side effects (prolonged QT interval)

before initiation of some medications (tricyclic antidepressants, macrolides, antipsychotics). The addition of a

second drug with similar effect on the QT interval or an increase in dosage should prompt concern.

Genetic Variability in Drug Metabolism

Multiple cytochrome pathways may be involved in the metabolism of a particular drug. More variability in the

speed of reaction is found in particular pathways (CYP2D6, CYP2C19). Unexpected differences in the speed with

which an individual patient metabolizes a particular drug may be attributed to polymorphic gene variants.

Enzymatic polymorphism is relatively common in the CYPs. It may be inherited and responsible for differences

that exist between individuals as well as between ethnic groups. About 7% of the population is deficient in

CYP2D6, which is required to metabolize codeine into its active metabolite, morphine, rendering it an ineffective

analgesic for a significant group. While genetic testing for individuals is not yet easily available, it is anticipated

that it will soon be a clinical tool to better predict likely patient response to pharmacologic treatment.

Tackling Potential Drug Interactions

Shapiro walked the audience through the step-wise approach to tackling potential drug interactions

recommended by The US Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. The process begins with a thorough

medication history that includes attention to allergy medications, over-the-counter drugs, vitamins, and herbs as

well as a family history of problems with medications.[4] The practitioner is advised to check at least 2 sources

for current knowledge regarding recognized warnings and potential interactions. Shapiro suggested several

computer programs that can be downloaded to personal digital assistants (PDAs) or used in a clinic setting as

well as other subscription-based periodicals, such as the Prescriber's Letter (http://www.prescribersletter.com)

and The Medical Letter (http://www.medicalletter.org).

These programs allow the provider to enter the medications in question and quickly provide answers about

possible interactions. Medscape provides a similar

tool.[5]

Finally, the speaker reminded the audience to establish a relationship with a pharmacist who is available to

advise when questions persist. Recognizing the need to access accurate information in a timely manner in the

clinical setting, she advised the audience that with the development of a routine, they would soon become adept

at searching and finding the necessary answers in 5-10 minutes. Finally, Shapiro reminded the audience that the

field of knowledge regarding the safety of pediatric psychopharmacology is an evolving one that requires

constant attention by practitioners.

References
 

Shapiro N. Psychiatric medications and polypharmacy in pediatrics. Program of The National Pediatric Nurse

Practitioner 27th Annual Conference; March 30-April 2, 2006; Washington, DC. Session 409.

Cooper WO, Arbogast PG, Ding H, Hickson, GB, Fuchs, DC, Ray WA. Trends in prescribing of antipsychotic

medications for U.S. children. Ambul Pediatr. 2006;6:79-83. Abstract

Tredger J, Stoll S. Cytochromes P450-their impact on drug treatment. Hosp Pharmacist. 2002;9:167-173.

US Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cder. Accessed May 10, 2006.

Medscape Drug Interaction Checker. Available at http://www.medscape.com/druginfo/druginterchecker?cid=med.

Accessed May 10, 2006.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________


Mothers With Depression: Care for the Mom to Double the

Outcome 
 

Michelle A Beauchesne, DNSc, RN, CPNP
June 6, 2006

Reframing the Pediatric Visit

Pediatric providers have long known that the child cannot be treated in isolation. Children need to be cared for

within the context of their family, community, and external environment. A recent study supported this intuitive

practice, noting that when mothers with depression are effectively treated, their children's mental health

improves as well.[1]

These findings underscore the need for pediatric nurse practitioners (PNPs) and other pediatric providers to

consider the mother's health as well as the child's at every opportunity, but especially during the 10 well-child

visits recommended from birth to 3 years of age.

Emily Feinberg, ScD, CPNP, Dorchester House Multiservice Center, Boston, Massachusetts, and her colleague,

Jennifer Goldman Fraser, PhD, MPH, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, began

their presentation by suggesting pediatric well-child visits need to be reframed to include caring for the mother.

They discussed the role of the PNP in the assessment of maternal depression in the primary care setting and

provided evidence that pediatric providers can improve the mental health outcomes for both mothers and their

children.[2]

Maternal Depression: The Facts

Depression is a major public health problem. It is the leading cause of disability in women in developing and

developed regions and, after childbirth, it is the leading cause of hospitalizations in all women aged 18-44

years.[3] According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth edition (DSM-IV) criteria

for diagnosis of depression, individuals must exhibit either anhedonia or a depressed mood and at least 4 of the

following symptoms for a minimum of 2 weeks: sleep disturbance, interest/pleasure reduction, energy

changes/fatigue, concentration/attention impairment, appetite/weight changes, guilt/feelings of worthlessness,

psychomotor disturbance, and suicidal thoughts.

Even mild depression may result in serious impairment in functional abilities. Postpartum depression (PPD)

occurs in 13% of women and differs from chronic depression only by the timing -- it must present within 4 weeks

of giving birth.[4] Perinatal mood disturbances, often called "The Baby Blues," are due to hormonal fluctuations

and are very common, occurring in 60% to 80% of new mothers with an onset 3 to 12 days after delivery.

In contrast to PPD, the baby blues are associated with very little functional impairment and resolve within 2 weeks.[2]

Previous studies have shown maternal depression to have a significant impact on the child's health and

well-being.[5] Peterson and colleagues studied 7677 combinations of mothers and children, noting that poverty

and maternal depression have a negative effect on young children, slowing their cognitive development and

leading to behavioral problems. Chronic depression had a greater effect than short-term depression on early

childhood development.[6]

Tronick[7] designed The Still Face Study Video Assessment and demonstrated that even small infants detect

changes in mothers' emotions, with infants of depressed mothers displaying sadness, anger, and helplessness

by losing postural control, withdrawing, and resorting to self-comfort.

A very recent ongoing study by Weissman and colleagues is following 151 children of mothers who were being

treated for depression. Findings indicate that infants and young children of depressed mothers have greater

rates of emotional and behavioral disorders, which often continue into later childhood. Of significant note,

children of mothers who are successfully treated for depression have less psychopathology. Furthermore, not

only did remission of depression have positive effects on both the mother and child, but also the reverse was

found to be true -- untreated maternal depression results in increased psychopathology of childhood.[1]

Indications for Pediatric Primary Care

These studies support the need for addressing maternal health when caring for children. Feinberg and Goldman

Fraser emphasize that earlier assessment and intervention result in greater benefit for both the mother and

child.[2] Neurodevelopment in early childhood is an organic, rapid process dependent on positive interaction

with the environment. Optimal brain development in infancy and early childhood occurs in the context of

sensitive and caring care. In the simplest terms, babies are born with the capacity to attach but need a caring

environment to enhance the skills for regulating their emotions and navigating the world around them.[2]

It logically flows that caring for the infant is dependent on a caring functional caregiver. For these reasons,

experts agree that maternal and infant health risks associated with major depression outweigh the risks

associated with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, the most commonly prescribed antidepressants in

pregnant and nursing mothers.[1,2]

Screening for Depression in Pediatric Settings

Feinberg and Goldman Fraser conclude that most pediatric providers lack the skills in assessment of maternal

depression and express concern about lacking the time needed to perform a formal assessment. In addition, they

emphasize that screening for depression in pediatric settings is not enough. Accurate diagnosis, effective

treatment, and appropriate follow-up must be available in any setting that screens for maternal depression. These

experts describe one useful strategy employed in their health clinic, which provides both assessment and

management opportunities.[2]

Project E-Smart. The goal of this electronic medical record system is to implement a process of care to identify

and manage maternal depression among ethnically diverse, low-income women in a community health center

pediatric setting.[2] On the basis of a previously used brief intervention that demonstrated success in identifying

and treating substance abuse in primary care settings, Project E-Smart provides a practical and cost-effective

approach to screening and management of depression in mothers of children seen at these settings. This brief

intervention uses a logarithm characterized by 4 steps beginning with the letter A: Ask, Assess, Advise, and

Arrange.

The first step, A for Ask, consists of screening by using the Patient Health Questionnaire -2,[8] which consists of

asking, "Over the last 2 weeks, how often have you been bothered by having little interest or pleasure in doing

things," and/or "Over the last 2 weeks, how often have you been feeling down, depressed, or hopeless," as well

as 1 question from the 10-item Edinburgh Depression Scale, "Over the last 2 weeks, how often have you been

scared or panicky for no good reason?"[9]

When the survey indicates evidence of postpartum depression, the PNP proceeds to step 2, A for Assessing, by

gathering the history of depression, duration, severity of symptoms, and safety risk. The next step, A for Advise,

consists of providing education regarding the relationship between depression and the impact on the child's health.

Then, the PNP proceeds to Step 4, A for Arrange, where appropriate referrals or follow-up care recommendations

are made collaboratively using the electronic facilitated protocol.

In summary, maternal depression is a significant health problem that has an impact on the health of both mothers

and children. PNPs need to screen for depression in mothers at every well-child visit. Research has shown that

treating the mother improves the mental health of the child. Useful and practical strategies such as Project

E-Smart exist that can facilitate screening in primary care settings and lead to optimum care for both the mother and child.

References
Weissman MM, Pilowsky DJ, Wickramaratne PJ, et al. Remission in maternal depression and child

psychopathology: A STAR*D Child Report. JAMA. 2006;295:1389-1398. Abstract

Feinberg E, Goldman Fraser J. Improving mental health outcomes for young children: the PNP's role in

addressing maternal depression in pediatric sessions. Program and abstracts of The National Association of

Pediatric Nurse Practitioners (NAPNAP) 27th Annual Conference; March 30 - April 2, 2006; Washington, DC.

Kessler RC. Epidemiology of women and depression. J Affect Disord. 2003:74;5-13. Abstract

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV). Washington DC: The American

Psychiatric Association; 1994.

Olson AL, Dietrich AJ, Prazar G, et al. Two approaches to maternal depression screening during well child visits.

J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2005;26:169-176. Abstract

Peterson S, Albers A. Effects of poverty and maternal depression on early child development. Child Dev.

2001;72:1794-1813. Abstract

http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/maternal depression/video.html. Accessed May 15, 2006

Cox JL, Holden JM, Sagovsky R. Detection of postnatal depression: development of the 10-item Edinburgh

Postnatal Depression Scale. Br J Psychiatry. 1987;150:782-786. Abstract

Kroenke K, Spitzer RI, Williams JB. The Patient Health Questionnaire-2: Validity of a two-item depression

screener. Med Care. 2003;41:1284-1292. Abstract

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Special-Ed Tuition a Growing Drain on D.C. Basic Needs Take a Hit

to Cover Costs of Sending Kids to Private Schools

By Dan Keating and V. Dion Haynes
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, June 5, 2006; A01



The District spent $118 million last year on the tuition of special education students attending private schools, an expense

that has increased 65 percent since 2000, and officials have covered the rising costs by transferring tens of millions of

dollars a year from public school programs, records show.

The huge expenditures have become a major financial drain on a troubled school system that has cut programs and

struggled to keep classrooms supplied. Although the 2,283 students sent to private facilities represent 4 percent of the

system's enrollment, they are consuming 15 percent of its budget.

Under federal law, students with physical, emotional or learning disabilities are guaranteed a free education in an

appropriate setting, and public school systems that cannot meet their needs must pay to send them to a private school that

can. That happens often in the District, with hearing officers usually ordering the private school placements in response to

parents' complaints about the services their children receive in public school. About one of every five special education

students in the District attends a private school, compared with one in 11 in Prince George's County and one in 27 in

Montgomery County.

Records show that D.C. school officials have regularly approved budgets that drastically understate the tuition payments, a

pattern that has obscured the program's true cost. In the past five fiscal years, the tuition program has overspent its budget

by a total of $173 million. To make up the shortfall, school officials have routinely frozen other spending in the middle of the

year and taken money that was supposed to go to public schools for textbooks, teacher hiring, technology upgrades,

building maintenance and other basic needs.

City and school officials said they could not fully account for the growth in the tuition spending, in part because their

record-keeping is deficient.

"That's the thing that's so frustrating with special education: We've accepted dysfunctionality as a way of being," said school

board Vice President Carolyn N. Graham, who recently chaired a board committee that studied special education. "We don't

know how much we've paid. We don't know what we paid for."

D.C. school officials have promised repeatedly over the past decade to improve and expand public school programs for

disabled students, which would cut the number of children placed in the expensive private facilities. But many administrators

and teachers throughout the system say they fear that the spending trends are becoming self-perpetuating: As the tuition

payments grow, there is less and less money to hire the teachers, therapists, social workers and other specialists needed to

make the public programs more acceptable to parents and hearing officers hired by the school system.

That pattern has created some glaring inefficiencies in spending. At Lafayette Elementary School in Northwest Washington,

for example, Principal Gail Lynn Main said 12 to 15 students have been sent to private academies over the past three years

since she lost one of her two special education teachers during system wide budget cuts and could no longer meet the

students' needs. Based on the average tuition bill, the school system could have avoided spending $600,000 to $750,000 a

year if it had given her the $42,000 she needed to hire the extra teacher.

In addition to the tuition bills, the District is responsible for reimbursing parents' legal fees when it loses a case before a

hearing officer. Those two categories of expenses make up more than half of the District's special education budget,

compared with one-third in fiscal 2000. And special education's share of the total D.C. school budget has grown from

one-fifth to one-third during that period.

An analysis of spending records and a review of recent internal audits show the scope of the problems:

· The school system budget has underestimated tuition spending each of the past five years, under funding it by $11 million

to $59 million. School finance officials said they lacked accurate spending figures from previous years when those budgets

were prepared, resulting in the faulty projections. For the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, private tuition is budgeted

at $105 million and is projected to run more than $20 million over that amount.

· To cover the overruns, school officials have tapped whatever funds were available in other parts of the operating budget,

usually transferring the money without leaving any record of where it came from. The records that do exist show that millions

of dollars were shifted from accounts used for classroom supplies, teacher hiring and the school system's own special

education programs.

· The school system does not have a complete and accurate database of special education students -- a list of their names

and the services each is entitled to -- which makes it difficult to check the accuracy of the bills that private schools submit.

After looking at a sample of $10 million of payments, an audit by the city's chief financial officer found that $1 million involved

cases in which the student's identity could not be confirmed or the list of required services was missing. School officials are

planning to hire a consultant for $500,000 to identify the students whose tuition is being paid.

· There are no contracts between the school system and private schools, although several audits over the past five years

have recommended that school officials negotiate such agreements to set limits on what the facilities can charge. The

school board asked the D.C. Council this year to give the superintendent legal authority to set rates for services.

"The way it works now is a helter-skelter situation," said Ben Lorigo, who works in the office of the city's chief financial

officer and oversaw two audits of the tuition payments. He said the city has been unable to control costs, hold private

schools accountable or keep accurate spending records. Even after completing the audits in January, he could not be sure

of the true amount spent on private tuition, he said.

The tuition spending figures in this story are based on a Washington Post database of payments made by the D.C.

government since 2000 to each of the private schools that enroll D.C. students.

Lack of Resources

Children with learning disabilities make up nearly half of the District's more than 11,000 special education students. The

next largest categories are emotionally disturbed, speech-impaired and mentally retarded children.

Like many school systems, the District has a goal of putting special education students in regular classes to the greatest

extent possible. But such integration requires teacher training and support staff that D.C. public schools have not been able

to provide. That has led many parents to seek enrollment in specialized private schools, where their children will be more

isolated but are likely to receive far better services, children's advocates say.

"We have a lot of students who don't want to go to private schools, who want to go to their neighborhood schools," said

Susan E. Sutler, an advocate who runs a law clinic. But "teachers don't have training or resources," she said. "They have a

classroom with children with a variety of disabilities, and the classes are so big. They cannot meet the needs of the kids."

Miranda Brown felt the pain of being integrated into classes in which she had no chance to succeed. Brown, 16, who has a

hearing impairment and learning disability, moved to the District when she was in seventh grade and was put in regular

classes at Evans Middle School for several subjects. Unable to hear the teacher, she fell hopelessly behind. As her grades

dropped, she became frustrated and eventually was suspended for fighting and outbursts, she said.

"They'd put me out of the class and send me to the principal," Brown said. "The school didn't give me a lot of help."

Explaining that they were short-staffed, officials at Evans never held a meeting to set up the individual education plan that

all disabled children are entitled to receive, said Brown's mother, Mary Parker. So Parker filed a complaint, and a hearing

officer ordered the District to send Brown to Accotink Academy in Springfield.

Brown, who has a shy smile and wants to be a beautician, is finishing her second year at the private school, where her

grades have improved. She is in classes of no more than five or six students, compared with 20 at Evans, and has a

one-on-one aide at all times. The District has spent $133,100 on her education at the academy, an unusually high figure

because of how far behind she was and the amount of help she needs, Accotink officials said.

Herbert Douglas also was sent to Accotink after nearly completing 12th grade at Ballou Senior High School in Southeast.

Douglas, a learning-disabled student, discovered that because Ballou had not given him instructors certified to teach the

core subjects, he was far short of the credits needed for graduation.

A hearing officer found that the city wasn't providing the services called for in his learning plan and placed him at Accotink,

where he received his diploma two years later at a cost to taxpayers of more than $53,800.

Since getting his diploma, Douglas, 22, has done office work and studied graphic arts at the University of the District of

Columbia. He is now the plaintiff in a lawsuit alleging that many special education students who should be receiving

diplomas are not given the chance to take the necessary courses.

Top-Level Facilities

The District has been under federal court supervision for a decade for violating the law that gives disabled children the right

to a free and appropriate education. One class-action lawsuit involves the school system's failure to provide children with

timely assessments, instructional plans and other educational services, and a second suit covers problems with bus

transportation and timely payment of tuition bills.

A total of 118 private schools enroll D.C. special education students, with two-thirds of the facilities in the Washington area.

About 85 percent of the students are in day programs, and the rest are in residential facilities.

The best of these schools offer computer labs on every floor, small classes, high-salaried teachers and behavioral

specialists throughout the building -- most of it financed by D.C. taxpayers.

Rock Creek Academy rents five floors of a glistening office building on Connecticut Avenue NW. Its 251 students attend at

the District's expense, and Rock Creek has received $25 million in D.C. funds over the past two years, more than any other

private school.

Almost every inch of Rock Creek's bright white walls is covered with painted murals featuring the faces of students. The

school recently created shiny new workbooks for a literacy program that uses hip-hop music as the basis for reading and

writing exercises. While the city's public schools are cutting back on the arts, Rock Creek is teaching special education

students to play drums and guitars and design artwork with the latest professional graphics programs.

"We find that a lot of our kids do well in the arts and music classes, more so than in academics," said Richard K. Henning,

Rock Creek's president and owner.

Need for Limits on Costs

At Rock Creek and several other private schools, the District has little control over what it's being charged.

Maryland has established rates for private providers of special education services. In Virginia, the providers set their rates

and school systems contract with them. The District has done neither.

A school doing business with Maryland or Virginia will not charge a higher rate for D.C. children. But about 25 percent of

D.C. students enrolled in private schools are in facilities with no Maryland or Virginia children, and D.C. school officials have

been warned in several audits about the need to establish limits on what they will pay.

School Superintendent Clifford B. Janey said past efforts to negotiate contracts failed because the private schools knew that

the District could not easily remove students from a facility after hearing officers had placed them there. Instead, Janey and

the school board have asked the D.C. Council for the legal authority to set rates, as Maryland does, believing that this will

give the city more leverage.

The absence of contracts and rate-setting has contributed to the overruns in the tuition budget that have left school officials

scrambling to pull tens of millions of dollars annually from other programs.

In response to a Freedom of Information Act request, the city's financial office provided documents for $41 million in transfers

that occurred in 2003 and 2004. The records show that most of that money came from a general account that pays for

supplies, equipment and maintenance at individual schools. About $2.1 million was taken from Ballou, for example.

"They were so overbudget that they took it from whatever budget was available," said school board President Peggy

Cooper Cafritz, who, like other board members, said she had been unaware of the transfers. "It's the biggest scam in

America."

For most of the $173 million shifted over the past five years, no records show where the funds came from.

The school system's chief financial officer, John Musso, who works for D.C. finance chief Natwar M. Gandhi, said that

because the tuition payments were being made under court supervision, the financial office had to use whatever money it

could find at the end of the fiscal year to pay the bills. Generating records would have resulted in delays, he added.

Musso said the office has compiled more accurate tuition spending figures this year because of better policies and training,

which should alleviate the annual problem of severe under budgeting.

Students Still Waiting

Meanwhile, the backlog of public school students waiting for special education services keeps growing. As of March, 2,521

students were awaiting services ordered by hearing officers, compared with 300 five years ago, according to figures that

school officials provided to the judge overseeing one of the class-action lawsuits.

In December, after years of failing to meet the court's standards for delivery of services, the city signed a consent decree in

which it agreed to spend $7.3 million above the school budget to hire 70 additional psychologists, social workers and

therapists. School officials said they hope most of the employees will be hired by this summer.

Janey said the school system is paying a national search firm $100,000 to try to fill other vacancies in the special education

department. Part of the problem is salary, educators said. Top pay for a special education aide in the District is $18,300,

compared with an average salary of $32,000 for a "para-educator" in Montgomery.

The larger issue, Janey and other school officials said, is that the D.C. school system is classifying too many children as

disabled, especially in the early grades, rather than giving them the extra attention that would allow them to succeed without

that designation. More than 18 percent of the city's public school students are in special education, compared with 11

percent in Prince George's, for example.

"Special education is a mask for the real fix that's needed with regular education," said Janey, who took over as

superintendent in September 2004.

In a school system that is 84 percent black, blacks account for 90 percent of the special education population and 84

percent of the students sent to private schools.

In addition to a lack of resources, turnover among top administrators has kept the school system from solving the chronic

problems, educators and lawyers say. The system has had five superintendents in the past decade. New leaders launch

initiatives to reform special education, then quit before seeing them through.

The most recent head of special education, Ray Bryant, left in March 2005 and has not been replaced. Janey said he has

yet to find the right candidate.

"Nobody can stay in that job more than a couple of years because of the whole crisis mode of the thing," said Main, the

Lafayette Elementary principal, who worked under Bryant's predecessor. So many parts of the special education system are

broken, she said, that "everything is a top priority" and any issue left unaddressed -- personnel vacancies, missing

information, program shortages -- erupts into a crisis demanding immediate attention.

"There's very little time to be proactive, [to do] future planning," she said.

Cafritz and other school officials said the District may have no choice but to make a much larger investment in public

programs while still paying the private tuition -- financing both special education systems long enough for the reforms in the

public system to take root.

"We can get to the point where we can spend a normal amount [on special education], but we need to have a normal school

system first," Cafritz said

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

WHISTLEBLOWER MAGAZINE
THE WAR ON FATHERS
 

How the 'feminization of America' 
destroys boys, men – and women

Posted: June 2, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com


In honor of Fathers Day, the June edition of Whistleblower magazine is a mega-eye-opener exploring one of the most crucial

but little-reported phenomena of modern America – what WND calls "THE WAR ON FATHERS."

The evidence of this almost unthinkable scenario is everywhere:

SCHOOL: In public school classrooms across America, in every category and every demographic group, boys are falling

behind. Girls excel and move on to college, where three out of five students are female, while young boys – who don't

naturally thrive when forced to sit still at a desk for six hours a day – are diagnosed by the millions with new diseases that

didn't exist a generation ago. To make their behavior more acceptable, they are compelled to take hazardous

psycho-stimulant drugs like Ritalin.

Boys are more than 50 percent more likely to repeat elementary school grades than girls, a third more likely to drop out of

high school and twice as likely to have a "learning disability." And the suicide rate among teen boys is far higher than that of

girls.

"What we have done," explains Thomas Mortenson, senior scholar at the Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher

Education, "is we have a K-12 school system that seems to work relatively well for girls and does not work for a very large

share of boys."

HOME: It's well known that roughly half of America's marriages end in divorce, but not nearly as well known that two out of

three of those divorces are initiated by the wives. Moreover, America's family court system is scandalously biased in favor of

the mother in child custody disputes. Fathers get custody of children in uncontested cases only 10 percent of the time and

15 percent of the time in contested cases. Meanwhile, mothers get sole custody 66 percent of the time in uncontested cases

and 75 percent of the time in contested cases.

"Where you have minor children, there's really no such thing as no-fault divorce for fathers," says Detroit attorney Philip

Holman, vice president of the National Congress for Fathers and Children. "On the practical level, fathers realize that divorce

means they lose their kids."

Unfortunately, this loss by children of their fathers' influence is directly responsible – far more than any other cause – for the

modern national scourges of gang life, crime and much more.

CULTURE: Fifty years ago, "Father knows best" was a hit TV show, in which insurance agent Jim Anderson (actor Robert

Young) would come home from work each evening, trade his sport jacket for a nice, comfortable sweater, and then deal with

the everyday growing-up problems of his family. He could always be counted on to resolve that week's crisis with a

combination of kindness, fatherly strength and common sense.

Today, television virtually always portrays husbands as bumbling losers or contemptible, self-absorbed egomaniacs.

Whether in dramas, comedies or commercials, the patriarchy is dead, at least on TV where men are fools – unless of course

they're gay. On "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy," the "fab five" are supremely knowledgeable on all things hip, their life's

highest purpose being to help those less fortunate than themselves – that is, straight men – to become cool.

As this issue of Whistleblower shows, experts like Ph.D. scholar Christina Hoff Sommers, author of "The War Against Boys,"

agree: "It's a bad time to be a boy in America." Sommers provides example after example of what can only be called an

all-out anti-male campaign:

"The carnage committed by two boys in Littleton, Colorado," declares the Congressional Quarterly Researcher, "has forced

the nation to reexamine the nature of boyhood in America." William Pollack, director of the Center for Men at McLean

Hospital and author of the best-selling "Real Boys: Rescuing Our Sons from the Myths of Boyhood," tells audiences around

the country, "The boys in Littleton are the tip of the iceberg. And the iceberg is all boys."

In fact, Sommers reveals, it has become fashionable in elitist circles to conspire to change boys' very identity:

There are now conferences, workshops, and institutes dedicated to transforming boys. Carol Gilligan, professor of gender

studies at Harvard Graduate School of Education, writes of the problem of "boys' masculinity … in a patriarchal social order."

Barney Brawer, director of the Boys' Project at Tufts University, told Education Week: "We've deconstructed the old version

of manhood, but we've not [yet] constructed a new version." In the spring of 2000, the Boys' Project at Tufts offered five

workshops on "reinventing Boyhood." The planners promised emotionally exciting sessions: "We'll laugh and cry, argue and

agree, reclaim and sustain the best parts of the culture of boys and men, while figuring out how to change the terrible parts."

"Terrible"? As this edition of Whistleblower shows, there is nothing wrong – and a very great deal right – with boys and

masculinity. As maverick feminist Camille Paglia courageously reminds her men-hating colleagues, masculinity is "the most

creative cultural force in history."

"The problem," said David Kupelian, managing editor of WND and Whistleblower, "is that misguided feminists, intent on

advancing a radically different worldview than the one on which this nation was founded, have succeeded in fomenting a

revolution. And that revolution amounts to a powerful and pervasive campaign against masculinity, maleness, boys, men and

patriarchy."

Issue highlights include:

"Banning 'mom' and 'dad,'" by Joseph Farah, who exposes the latest in bizarre and dangerous legislation by the California

legislature.

"The fathers' war" by Stephen Baskerville, a troubling look at how increasing numbers of America's military men risk all to

serve their nation in wartime, only to be divorced by their wives and lose their children.

"What's really behind the 'feminization' of America," by David Kupelian, an in-depth exploration of the war on men and boys.

"Has the bias pendulum swung against men?" Fewer college-bound, higher suicide rates, shorter life spans suggest males

getting shaft.

"Paternity fraud rampant in U.S.," showing how 30 percent of men assessed for court-ordered child support are not actually

the fathers of the children receiving the support.

"'Shared parenting' seen as custody solution," a look at bills in New York that would require courts to treat mom and dad

equally.

"Resolving the boy crisis in schools" by Jeffery M. Leving and Glenn Sacks, showing how today's public schools are

profoundly unsuited for the genuine needs of boys.

"Child support gold-diggers" by Carey Roberts, who shows how frequent fraud results in fathers being victimized by the

justice system.

"Hating our fathers, hating ourselves" by Bob Just, a penetrating look at the high cost of resenting the fathers and husbands

in our lives.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

ARTICLES FOR MAY 2006

Teach me to read & write!

22-year-old sues city for education

BY JORDAN LITE
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

When her twin sister boldly asked then-President Bill Clinton on national TV why Alba Somoza couldn't learn in a

regular classroom with her, the attention got the disabled girls their wish.

That was 13 years ago. Now 22-year-old Alba claims her New York City public education was a sham and is

demanding extra schooling to teach her to read and write.

Today, Alba - granddaughter of one-time Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza - will ask an administrative judge

to force the Education Department to pay for two more years of personalized instruction that educrats say she

has no right to because she's older than 21.

"Now when ... in a couple more years [she] could be ready to go on to a vocation or continue her education truly

at the college level, they're pulling the plug because she's aging out," said Mary Somoza, Alba's mother.

Although Alba read at a fourth-grade level, she graduated from the School of the Future with Regents honors,

because, her petition claims, the Education Department "fabricated transcripts to show grades at a high level,"

including an 85 in English and a 90 in math.

In 2003, when it became clear that Alba was unprepared for the classes in which she had enrolled at Queens

College, the department agreed to cover three years of extra services at a cost of $1.2million to get her up to

speed, the documents say.

"They realized they had done a truly shabby job educating Alba, so they paid this as hush money," said her mom.

A spokeswoman for the Education Department declined to comment on the case.

Alba and her twin, Anastasia, were born with quadriplegia and cerebral palsy. Their plight inspired Clinton to

strengthen the equal education rights of disabled children.

Anastasia just completed her junior year as a political science major at Georgetown University in Washington.

Alba cannot speak. She communicates by tapping her chin on a computerized device. She needs two more years

of school to improve her literacy enough to hold a job, said Mary Somoza, who lives with Alba in Manhattan.

"She'll be able to point to the diploma she got at the Board of Education as a real reflection of her abilities. What was a

phony diploma will become a real diploma," said Alba's lawyer Salem Katsh.

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

May 24, 2006, 12:47AM
 

Reading not a science for many teachers
 

National council says colleges often don't focus on the

systematic method


By MATTHEW TRESAUGUE
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle

Most education schools do a poor job of training aspiring teachers in reading instruction, according to a new

study.

The National Council on Teacher Quality, which issued the report this week, examined course syllabi and

required texts from 72 randomly selected education programs and found only 11 colleges, including Texas A&M

University, teaching all elements of the science of reading. No other Texas schools were included in the survey.

The report comes more than five years after the National Reading Council endorsed scientifically based

approaches to reading, which federal officials define as grounded in the systematic teaching of phonics and

related skills.

Still, the new study found that college educators consider the science-based instruction just one approach among

many and rarely require future teachers to write lesson plans that apply the tools of reading instruction in a

classroom setting.

"The decision about how best to teach reading is repeatedly cast as a personal one, to be decided by the aspiring

teacher," the report's authors wrote.

"All methods are presented as being equally valid, and how one teaches reading is merely a decision that works

best for the individual teacher."

As a result, roughly one-third of public school fourth-graders read below basic levels, according to the report.

"The bottom line is, there is a lack of rigor in teacher preparatory courses, and we need to do something about

it," said Barbara Foorman, director of the University of Texas Center for Academic and Reading Skills in Houston.


Opinions on instruction

The debate over how children learn to read has long divided the educational world. Some prefer to teach children

to recognize words in the context of stories, known as "whole language" instruction, over more explicit

instruction in letters and sounds.

At Texas A&M, the College of Education and Human Development has placed emphasis on scientifically based

reading instruction, interim Dean Douglas Palmer said.

"We're really interested in the translation of research into practice, into effective instruction for children in

schools," he said.

Texas A&M received high marks in the national study for the amount of lecture time devoted to the science of

reading and for the quality of the textbooks used.

Testing teachers

Kate Walsh, one of the study's authors and president of the teacher quality group based in Washington, D.C., said

the report attempted to show how teachers were trained.

What is unclear is how much they learned, Walsh said. The group wanted to see how students performed on final

exams, but researchers assumed not all schools would supply that information.

To improve reading instruction, the report recommends states develop licensing tests based on strong reading

standards and the federal government require elementary teachers to pass a test in reading to achieve "highly

qualified teacher" status.

matthew.tresaugue@chron.com