EBD Blog

Ray Schmitt, a resident of Herico County (VA, US) where he lives with his daughter who has mild mental retardation and autism, wrote a critique of the recent decision by Judge Robert Payne holding Henrico County Schools culpable for failing to provide a free and appropriate public education for Reid Tutwiler. I covered the decision in a previous post on EBD Blog.

Mr. Schmitt’s concerns center in part around his self-professed belief that litigation does not help to solve society’s problems. However, he raises other concerns that have to do with the costs of Judge Payne’s decision, and the effects of such decisions on educational policy and practice.

My point here is that there are times when practicality, reality and a sense of reasonableness must factor into decisions made by parents, schools and the legal system. I went through an agonizing internal debate many years ago, wondering whether I should send my daughter to a private school and fight the county to pay for it. I chose not to because sometimes you just have to accept reality. Sometimes a child is simply unable to learn. It’s one of the most difficult things a parent will ever have to accept, but it’s something to consider.

Let’s look at it another way. I drive a Cavalier. I would love for it to perform like a Corvette. If the same theory the Tutwilers and Judge Payne have about education were applied to this situation, then it would stand to reason that my Cavalier should perform just like the Corvette. After all, both cars are made by Chevrolet. Unfortunately, no matter how much I want it to, my car never will run like a ’Vette. It just doesn’t have the components to make it so. Suing General Motors, however, will not solve the problem.

Surely, some readers will agree and some will disagree with Mr. Schmitt’s analysis. For more, please read the article. This link points to Mr. Schmitt’s comments.

Update (1 Aug 2006): Over on The Life that Chose Me Dick’s covered this, too.

Among the many fine resources available from the Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies, one is a free service for parents about parenting by Roger McIntire. Many parents, whether they are concerned about the behavior or a child with emotional and behavioral disorders or a child who doesn’t have such problems, seek advice about how to handle difficulties. Professor McIntire, author of Teenagers and Parents: 10 Steps to a Better Relationship, Raising Good Kids in Tough Times: 7 Crucial Habits for Parent Success (Amazon link), and College Keys: Getting In, Doing Well, and Avoiding the 4 Big Mistakes (Amazon link), appropriately avoids offering closely personalized consultation, but he does provide explicit and sensible advice about the general problems submitted for his review. And his recommendations are predicated on sound theory and solid evidence.

Professor David Schwebel and colleagues of the Department of Psychology and the Youth Safety Lab at the University of Alabama Birmingham (AL, US) reported that mothers’ ignoring of dangerous behavior correlates with children with externalizing behavior. These results are consistent with other research showing that parental monitoring of behavior is a component in Emotional and Behavioral Disorders.

How mothers parent their children with behavior disorders: implications for unintentional injury risk.

How mothers parent their children with behavior disorders: implications for unintentional injury risk.
J Safety Res. 2006;37(2):167-73
Authors: Schwebel DC, Hodgens JB, Sterling S
INTRODUCTION: This study was designed to test the role of parental supervision in explaining why children with behavior disorders have increased risk of unintentional injury. METHOD: Children referred to a pediatric behavior disorders clinic and their mothers were unknowingly observed in a “hazard room” environment that housed several items that appeared dangerous but actually were altered to be safe. RESULTS: Mother and child behavior in the hazard room was correlated to parent-, teacher-, and observational-reports of children’s externalizing behavior patterns, children’s injury history, and mother’s parenting styles. Maternal ignoring of children’s dangerous behavior in the hazard room was the strongest correlate to children’s injury history. CONCLUSIONS: Poor parental supervision might serve as a mechanism to explain why children with behavior disorders, and those with oppositional behavior patterns in particular, have increased risk of unintentional injury.

Link to PUBMED abstract.

Writing in the July 2006 issue of The Lancet, Professor Gillian Baird and colleagues reported the results of a population-cohort study of the prevalence of Autism in the United Kingdom. The found 38.9 cases per 10,000 and 77.2 per 10,000 for childhood autism and autism spectrum disorders, respectively, for a total of 1.16%.

Prevalence of autism and related ASDs is substantially greater than previously recognised. Whether the increase is due to better ascertainment, broadening diagnostic criteria, or increased incidence is unclear. Services in health, education, and social care will need to recognise the needs of children with some form of ASD, who constitute 1% of the child population.

in 2005, Craig Newschaffer and colleagues examined birth cohort curves based on US special education data and found that the prevalence of autism was increasing over time, with higher prevalence among younger cohorts of children. (They also report data about prevalence of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury.)

Link to the abstract of the article by Professor Baird and colleagues. Link to the earlier EBD Blog entry on Professsor Shattuck’s study. Link to Professor Newschaffer’s article in Pediatrics.

After a police officer killed a young man who apparently had Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, the Boise (ID, US) Community Ombudsman has recommended the officers receive additional training in handling unusual situations, according to a report by Aileen Simborio KTRV-TV. Ombudsman Pierce Murphy reviewed the incident in which officer Andrew S. Johnson shot Matthew Jones in December of 2004.

The 16-year-old was shot by Johnson on Dec. 18, 2004, after responding to the Jones family home at the request of Matthew’s father. Johnson shot Jones four times, killing him, after Johnson says he was attacked by Jones, who was carrying a World War Two Japanese rifle with a bayonet attached.

Murphy believes Johnson did not follow proper procedure when he responded. That’s why Murphy is recommending officers go through more training, specifically implementing what’s called a Crisis Intervention Team model which would help officers better respond to situations involving people suffering from mental illness or significant emotional disturbance.

Surely, responding to a situation such as this one is difficult for officers. They are accustomed to demanding (and obtaining) immediate compliance with orders, but most anyone who’s worked with kids with EBD knows that compliance is a common problem. Furthermore, confrontation rarely brings compliance; rather it often causes kids to escalate.

There are curricula available and in use for helping officers of the law to handle individuals with disabilities. Examples are here, here, and here; there are many others. Do you think your community should promote use of these curricula? Would using them reduce the chances of another child being killed? I hope so.

Link to Ms. Simborio’s story. She provided a link to Ombudsman Murphey’s full report, too.

Under the title “For Autistic Children, Relating to Others Is Life’s Greatest Challenge,” the American Federation of Teachers has an excerpt from Laura Schreibman’s fine 2005 book, The Science and Fiction of Autism. It’s a worthwhile read.

The 30th annual meeting of Teacher Educators of Children with Behavior Disorders will be in Tempe (AZ, US) in November. It’s a wonderful conference for those who want to learn about Emotional and Behavioral Disorders.

Shira Salamone—who is mother of a boy with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders and has documented the trials, tribulations, and joys of being the boy’s parent in a series of entries “Park your ego at the door: Links to my series ‘On raising a child with disabilities’”—has a post reflecting on the twists and turns that parenthood takes. It is, in part, a celebration of her son’s college successes.

When our son was young and giving us enough trouble to turn my husband’s hair gray and make me want to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge, I never dreamed that a day would come when we would consider ourselves to be among the lucky ones. Our son “made it.” Other people’s children did not.

But, there is much more to it than that. It’s a recommended read (look in the sidebar for a link to the “Park Your Ego” series.

Meanwhile, over on The Life that Chose Me, Dick has a quick note about the number of children identified as having Autism in Georgia (US). According to the data he presents, there was a 20% increase in prevalence over the past year.

In the US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, Judge James A. Beaty, Jr., has issued a Memorandum Opinion in a case brought by parents alleging that their child’s autism was caused by thimerosal in injections the mother received during pregnancy. Judge Beaty’s opinion addressed the question of whether experts’ testimony would be excluded from the case because the experts do not qualify as experts or used inadequate methods (“junk science”) to obtain the information. (It’s called a “Daubert analysis” and it’s explained in the judge’s memorandum; one can also learn about it from a Wikipedia entry.)

Plaintiffs John and Jane Doe 2 (“Plaintiffs”) have initiated this lawsuit based upon their contention that the thimerosal in Defendant Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc.’s (“Ortho-Clinical” or “Defendant”) biologic product RhoGAM caused their child’s autism. This matter is presently before the Court on three motions: Defendant’s Motion to Exclude All Testimony that Thimerosal-Containing RhoGAM Causes Autism (Document #63), Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs’ Expert Suzanne Parisian, M.D. (Document #65), and relatedly, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Document #94). The Court heard testimony concerning Defendant’s motions to exclude witnesses for three days at the end of May 2006. Based upon the testimony at that hearing, the Court wil grant Defendant’s Motion to Exclude All Testimony that Thimerosal-Containing RhoGAM Causes Autism. More specifically, the focus of the Court’s present Memorandum Opinion is the testimony of Plaintiffs’ expert witness, Dr. Mark Geier. Dr. Geier was the only expert offered in this case by Plaintiffs who is designated to testify as to both general and specific causation. For the reasons given by the Court herein, Dr. Geier’s testimony is specifically being excluded pursuant to Defendant’s Motion to Exclude. As such, without Dr. Geier’s testimony, Plaintiffs are unable to meet their burden to demonstrate that the thimerosal in Defendant’s RhoGAM product caused Plaintiff Minor Child Doe 2′ s autism, a result that leads directly to the failure of all of Plaintiffs’ claims. Accordingly, for the reasons detailed below, the Court will also grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

In pages 8-22 of his analysis, Judge Beaty systematically explains why he would not allow Dr. Mark Geier’s testimony. He found that Dr. Geier’s methods for establishing that thimerosal in RhoGAM could cause autism did not met the Daubert standard. In addition, Judge Beaty found that Dr. Geier’s assertion that the injections given to “Jane Doe” specifically caused the Doe child’s autism, because Dr. Geier did not have the expertise to perform a differential diagnosis nor did his diganostic study sufficiently rule out other possible causes of the child’s autism.

Judge Beaty’s memorandum is not yet linked from the court’s Web site, but an authentic-looking version of it is available here [updated 12 Jul 2006].

As I remarked in an earlier post, over on Your Mama’s Mad Tedious, a teacher who identifies herself as Miss Dennis has been recounting a dispute with an administrator, whom she calls “Puffschmuck,” about adherence to special education rules. Miss Dennis reported that she was charged with insubordinations for refusing to write IEPs for students not on her caseload.

Miss Dennis published another installment in this saga; here’s an excerpt:

The purpose of annual reviews is to discuss and write the child’s academic (and in some cases behavioral) goals for the upcoming year. Responsible parents attend these meetings and take them very seriously. High school students are also encouraged to attend their own annual review meetings. After the meeting, the agreed upon goals are entered into a legal document called the IEP (Individualized Education Plan). The child is then promoted or held back based on whether or not s/he meets these goals.
So … uh … yeah … it’s kinda important that the teachers who run this process and write the goals actually know and teach the child. Yet Puffschmuck had ordered me to conduct annual reviews and write IEPs for students I did not teach, and, in most cases. did not know in any capacity. And when I told her I could not follow through on this order because, as a special ed professional, I knew it was not in the best interests of my student s and their parents, she wrote me up for insubordination and threatened my job. When was it that Puffschmuck lost sight of the fact that she was a public educator and not a military dictator?

Miss Dennis goes on to explain some other fascinating aspects of the story, including interactions with union representatives about the insubordination charge. It’s worth reading. To get the full story, start with this post, followed by this one, and then this post (from which I’ve drawn the excerpt included here).

Some methods of addressing depression in children are more effective than others, according to an analysis of the research literature reported by Jason L. Horowitz and Judy Garber of Vanderbilt University in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. Although the overall effect sizes Professors Horowitz and Garber report are small, there are worthwhile findings. Effects were generally larger when interventions targeted particular groups than when provided to all children (often in hopes of avoiding stigma) and when the samples studied included more girls and adolescents. Here’s the abstract:

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
2006, Vol. 74, No. 3, 401– 415

The Prevention of Depressive Symptoms in Children and Adolescents: A Meta-Analytic Review
Jason L. Horowitz and Judy Garber
Vanderbilt University

Research on the prevention of depressive symptoms in children and adolescents was reviewed and synthesized with meta-analysis. When all 30 studies were included, selective prevention programs were found to be more effective than universal programs immediately following intervention. Both selective and indicated prevention programs were more effective than universal programs at follow-up, even when the 2 studies with college students were excluded. Effect sizes for selective and indicated prevention programs tended to be small to moderate, both immediately postintervention and at an average follow-up of 6 months. Most effective interventions are more accurately described as treatment rather than prevention. Suggestions for future research include testing potential moderators (e.g., age, gender, anxiety, parental depression) and mechanisms, designing programs that are developmentally appropriate and gender and culturally sensitive, including longer follow-ups, and using multiple measures and methods to assess both symptoms and diagnoses.

Link to download a PDF of the article.