Re: Funding for ADD kids and...

[Guest guest]

School nurses dispense medications prescribed by doctors that parents

send to school. School nurses cannot prescribe Schedule II

stimulants. In fact, they are required to keep them under lock.

I do believe there were cases where CYS did threaten to take kids if

parents didn't medicate them but I have no links. However, my friend

whose children go to a school district that regularly reports parents

to CYS for imagined " abuse " has never has never been forced by CYS to

medicate her children. Teachers can report anything they want, the

state finds many of their complaints " unfounded " .

> The school nurse doles it out but in many states a teacher used to

be able

> to label a child and then if the parents didn't comply, call the

state to

> take

> the child along with siblings.

>

> A law just passed preventing that for stimulant drugs but the new

> Strattera is a failed SSRI gone ADHD med, it actually is not covered

> by the law.

>

> Jim

>

>

>

> Under what auspices does the federal government fund children on

> Ritalin??? And it is illegal for a teacher to distribute any

medication.

> Ritalin

> must be administered by a registered nurse.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I'm not going to disagree with you that school officials regularly

violate the laws and regulations. They can and do because no one is

willing to stop them. The agencies who are suppose to oversee the

schools are likely to serve the schools, not the students.

What I disagree with is the allegation that schools receive federal

funds for every kid on a stimulant.

> > The school nurse doles it out but in many states a teacher used to

> be able

> > to label a child and then if the parents didn't comply, call the

> state to

> > take

> > the child along with siblings.

> >

> > A law just passed preventing that for stimulant drugs but the new

> > Strattera is a failed SSRI gone ADHD med, it actually is not covered

> > by the law.

> >

> > Jim

> >

> >

> >

> > Under what auspices does the federal government fund

children on

> > Ritalin??? And it is illegal for a teacher to distribute any

> medication.

> > Ritalin

> > must be administered by a registered nurse.

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Well, for starts, Goals 2000 stopped being funded in 2001 and ended

completely on Dec. 31, 2002.

A quick check located the Eagle Forum site which linked the diagnosis

of ADHD with IDEA and Ritalin as the quick fix. As a few of us

suspected, the federal funding isn't for kids taking Ritalin per se,

but for kids who are special ed student under IDEA which can include

kids diagnosed with ADHD.

> The first time I heard of it, it was part of Goals 2000.

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: Sara

> What I disagree with is the allegation that schools receive federal

> funds for every kid on a stimulant.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I know all about IDEA. I have a full copy of the regulations sitting

right here next to me. And I've read most of it, all of the parts

that pertain to students.

> > > The school nurse doles it out but in many states a teacher used to

> > be able

> > > to label a child and then if the parents didn't comply, call the

> > state to

> > > take

> > > the child along with siblings.

> > >

> > > A law just passed preventing that for stimulant drugs but the new

> > > Strattera is a failed SSRI gone ADHD med, it actually is not covered

> > > by the law.

> > >

> > > Jim

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Under what auspices does the federal government fund

> children on

> > > Ritalin??? And it is illegal for a teacher to distribute any

> > medication.

> > > Ritalin

> > > must be administered by a registered nurse.

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

No, WE were trying to say that ADHD = Ritalin = IDEA identification,

qualifying it that ADHD identified children do not HAVE to be on a

stimulant in order for the school districts to get special ed funds

for them. Some here were saying there was a pure payout to school

districts for putting kids on Ritalin without regard to IDEA

identification. That is not a true statement.

To call that semantics is about as honest as the drug companies

calling suicide attempts " depression " or homicide attempts

" hostility " .

> > The first time I heard of it, it was part of Goals 2000.

> > ----- Original Message -----

> > From: Sara

> > What I disagree with is the allegation that schools receive

federal

> > funds for every kid on a stimulant.

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

I stand by my statement that schools are not given funding for putting

children on Ritalin as claimed by the glitter ( " The schools receive

$500 a kid for each one dx'd with some kind of ADD/ADHA. " http://

health./group/SSRI medications/message/17569 ) and

Starris ( " The school district in Rancho Cordova, CA, gets $873 in

federal funds for every child on ritalin. " http://health.groups.

/group/SSRI medications/message/17587 )

Those statements are not true. It is not semantics.

IDEA does not require that children be on medication to get services

or enable schools to order parents to give their children drugs. In

fact, the recent amendment specifically prohibits it for one class of

drugs, oddly the one under discussion. Nor does it say that any child

taking medication for any reason automatically qualifies them for

IDEA.

We have an obligation to be honest and not repeat misinformation,

something we are very critical of the medical industry for doing.

> > > The first time I heard of it, it was part of Goals 2000.

> > > ----- Original Message -----

> > > From: Sara

> > > What I disagree with is the allegation that schools receive

> federal

> > > funds for every kid on a stimulant.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

I stand by my statement that schools are not given funding for putting

children on Ritalin as claimed by the glitter ( " The schools receive

$500 a kid for each one dx'd with some kind of ADD/ADHA. " http://

health./group/SSRI medications/message/17569 ) and

Starris ( " The school district in Rancho Cordova, CA, gets $873 in

federal funds for every child on ritalin. " http://health.groups.

/group/SSRI medications/message/17587 )

Those statements are not true. It is not semantics.

IDEA does not require that children be on medication to get services

or enable schools to order parents to give their children drugs. In

fact, the recent amendment specifically prohibits it for one class of

drugs, oddly the one under discussion. Nor does it say that any child

taking medication for any reason automatically qualifies them for

IDEA.

We have an obligation to be honest and not repeat misinformation,

something we are very critical of the medical industry for doing.

> > > The first time I heard of it, it was part of Goals 2000.

> > > ----- Original Message -----

> > > From: Sara

> > > What I disagree with is the allegation that schools receive

> federal

> > > funds for every kid on a stimulant.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Exempting IDEA identified children from standardized tests is more

difficult since No Child Left Behind came into being. They keep

records on IDEA identified children as well as non-identified

children. Only 1% of the students can be exempted from NCLB testing.

State testing laws differ from state to state as does state funding.

Generally, the money received from the federal government no where

near reaches the level of expenditures for idenified children. The

paperwork and meetings alone probably eat up most of the funding, at

least in the districts which do thing according to the regulations.

(I lived in one that sent prewritten generic IEPs home with kids and

promised pizza parties if they got their parents to sign them as

written and returned the next day with none of the required meetings

being held. Pizza parties are cheaper than having school personnel

spend their time meeting with parents.) IDEA is underfunded by the

federal government.

However, after years of reading multiple internet boards where parents

of IDEA identified children post, I have to say that I believe that

many of the children with the most expensive accomodations -- often

special schools including residental treatment -- and most expensive

administrative expenses -- due process hearings, mediation, multiple

IEP meetings every year, detailed psychological testing -- are for

children who are taking antidepressants and stimulants, children whose

identified disabilties seem to get worse the longer they are in

treatment. [sarcasm] Hmmmmmmmm. I wonder why????? [/sarcasm]

Trying to get kids IDEA identified with alleged ADHD, then placed on

stims to make them passive in the regualar classroom without expensive

accomodations might seem like an easy way to rake in extra money from

the feds. But in the long run, the slippery slope they will start

down by triggering additional behavioral problems when they give those

kids stims is going to use up more funding than they receive. It will

take just one kid being triggered in behavior that lands him in a RTC

or alternative placement to eat up all the extra few hundred dollars

they get for each kid the get labeled ADHD.

> > > > The first time I heard of it, it was part of Goals 2000.

> > > > ----- Original Message -----

> > > > From: Sara

> > > > What I disagree with is the allegation that schools receive

> > federal

> > > > funds for every kid on a stimulant.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

Exempting IDEA identified children from standardized tests is more

difficult since No Child Left Behind came into being. They keep

records on IDEA identified children as well as non-identified

children. Only 1% of the students can be exempted from NCLB testing.

State testing laws differ from state to state as does state funding.

Generally, the money received from the federal government no where

near reaches the level of expenditures for idenified children. The

paperwork and meetings alone probably eat up most of the funding, at

least in the districts which do thing according to the regulations.

(I lived in one that sent prewritten generic IEPs home with kids and

promised pizza parties if they got their parents to sign them as

written and returned the next day with none of the required meetings

being held. Pizza parties are cheaper than having school personnel

spend their time meeting with parents.) IDEA is underfunded by the

federal government.

However, after years of reading multiple internet boards where parents

of IDEA identified children post, I have to say that I believe that

many of the children with the most expensive accomodations -- often

special schools including residental treatment -- and most expensive

administrative expenses -- due process hearings, mediation, multiple

IEP meetings every year, detailed psychological testing -- are for

children who are taking antidepressants and stimulants, children whose

identified disabilties seem to get worse the longer they are in

treatment. [sarcasm] Hmmmmmmmm. I wonder why????? [/sarcasm]

Trying to get kids IDEA identified with alleged ADHD, then placed on

stims to make them passive in the regualar classroom without expensive

accomodations might seem like an easy way to rake in extra money from

the feds. But in the long run, the slippery slope they will start

down by triggering additional behavioral problems when they give those

kids stims is going to use up more funding than they receive. It will

take just one kid being triggered in behavior that lands him in a RTC

or alternative placement to eat up all the extra few hundred dollars

they get for each kid the get labeled ADHD.

> > > > The first time I heard of it, it was part of Goals 2000.

> > > > ----- Original Message -----

> > > > From: Sara

> > > > What I disagree with is the allegation that schools receive

> > federal

> > > > funds for every kid on a stimulant.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

Schools believe that doctors with their drugs have all the answers.

Lawmakers believe {believed?} that all school officials are motivated

by nothing more than their love for their students.

That is a very dangerous combination.

> I see exactly what you are saying and I completely understand. It

doesn't

> make sense

> for a school to persue IDEA for a child being drugged already BUT I

have

> seen 5 cases

> in the last three years where that's exactly what has happened.

>

> The scenario is a teacher or counselor really wants a kid on drugs,

the

> school kicks

> in the IDEA and goes through the IEP for the kid for the money,

whether they

> actually get any, from what you are saying, is another question.

The

> schools appear to go " well the kids getting drugged, lets make some

cash " or

> " well lets drug em and then go for the cash " .

>

> I know it doesn't make sense financially. I agree with you, but in

the real

> world this kind of thing does happen, I have the cases. And these

are the

> people that really, really don't want their

> kid drugged, so I'm sure it happens more than 5 every 3 years.

>

> Anyways I don't disagree with anything you've said, it all makes

sense

> except for one small

> fact and that is that I have cases where this is exactly what did

happen.

>

> Now whether the schools actually made any money for doing it, you

have got

> me thinking.

> But they have done it and probably will again. It doesn't have to be

smart

> for them to do it.

>

> We have had several cases where getting the IDEA into the picture

stopped

> the insistance for drugging but we had to stack the parents deck

with their

> own psychologists that had other solutions for the drugs.

>

> Thanks for all the discussion, I had not thought that it wouldn't be

> finacially sound for the schools to do this kind of thing because I

have

> seen them do it. I had assumed that they did it for the money and

that it

> was lucrative, so now I'm thinking they just do it, when they do it,

just to

> do it.

>

> Jim

>

>

>

>

>

> By definition, a child is not labeled until they are

identified

> under

> IDEA now. It used to be 94-142. I've been involved at both state

department

> of education and school district level advocate for exceptional

children. I

> am telling you what it takes to be included in the count (student

> population)

> to get funds. You may have beliefs that the system is abused, I

would agree

> medicating children without serving happens. It is the easy way out

for the

> classroom teacher, principal, etc. Do they get federal funds for

it, no.

> The only way would be if a district falsely represents that

they are

> serving a child, the child has an IEP, has gone through the

identification

> process. Has this ever happened, possibly, but it would be

difficult.

> Parental

> signatures and all kinds of documents have to be forged. School

districts

> are

> audited for this, files are checked both by state and federal

agencies for

> appropriate documentation in the file. And quite frankly the

federal

> dollars

> generated per child, would not cover the cost of falsifying the

documents.

> Again the motivation is to get the parent to medicate the

child and

> avoid the system.

>

> Now CHADD that is a different story. CHADD has been

organized by

> professionals pushing their own services, usually in 'centers' for

> treatment. And

> funded by some drug companies. It has catered to parents who want

the ADHD

> label without any accompanied specific learning disabilities. As an

> advocate I

> never saw a child that when tested wasn't both. Not saying it can't

happen,

> but in reality I never saw any. But many parents prefer not to have

the LD

> label, seeing it as a learning problem, i.e. below level, as opposed

to a

> specific

> deficit in one neurologic ability. It is a status thing. Hence

CHADD

> people

> want nothing to do with LDA, which is primarily parent organized

without

> much

> outside funding support.

>

>

>