Forgive me, because my memory is fuzzy and I don't have a link to the article, but there was a recent article reporting that there was a specific difference in brain development between those with ADHD and those without, but that these differences were no longer evident by the age of 16. There were no significant academic differences found between ADHD kids on and off medications. The difference that was found: kids on meds had a higher propensity for later substance abuse.

This is my absolute favorite quote from this article: “I think these may become landmark findings, forcing us to ask whether these acting-out kinds of problems are secondary to the inappropriate maturity expectations that some educators place on young children as soon as they enter classrooms,” said Sharon Landesman Ramey, director of the Georgetown University Center on Health and Education. "Inappropriate maturity expectations" of some educators . . . I love it.

I disagree with the conclusions made in the paper from the Developmental Psychology. That paper attempted to isolate three qualities of students in the early school years that the researchers thought would be indicative of good performance in the later school years. Those qualities were: math, reading, and attention. The conclusions of that paper are that kids who are good in math and reading in the early school years continue to be good in these subjects in later years, regardless of whether they happen to be attention deficient, or not. The problem arises when, as was my case, a student with attention deficit also has a non-verbal learning disability (NVLD for short). People with the NVLD are bad in math but compensate through prodigious memory. They also often have ADD/ADHD. In the early school years, their math and reading problems are not noticeable because they are excellent with rote memory; in later school years, when abstract thinking is required, they fail math. If the conclusions in the paper were correct as applied to the class of people like myself, I'd have excelled in math and reading in the middle school, despite lack of (sufficient) attention. To the contrary, I failed in all three areas, particularly in math.

"Both studies will confound experts in the field who've long claimed that ADHD kids were basically screwed for life and that they would develop poorly and be problems forever."

As nationally certified school psychologist who has been practicing for 8 years in the public school system and who has worked with numerous children who have been diagnosed with ADHD, I would like to know who, exactly, has claimed the above. I don't know anyone in the field who practices with the belief that these children are "screwed for life." We espouse the exact opposite. We believe that these children have amazing potential and creativity, however, due to differences in brain functioning, are not able to demonstrate their full potential in the same fashion as their peers who do not have ADHD. By discovering their learning styles and strengths and teaching them in ways that emphasize these strengths, these children can develop strategies to help them compensate for the weaknesses they are experiencing due to the ADHD and thus have the opportunity to demonstrate their potential and be successful.

There have been studies that have shown achievement differences between students with ADHD who are on medication versus those who are not, with those medicated showing higher achievement. These differences aren't differences in the ability to understand academic concepts, but differences in their ability to demonstrate their understanding. ADHD symptoms typically do not impede learning (unless a learning disability is co-occurring) but can impede performance. Some children with ADHD benefit from medication, however, as everyone is different, medication is not the solution for all children. Furthermore, research results regarding ADHD meds and later substance abuse are inconsistent.

In my practice, I have seen children with ADHD achieve success, and I have seen children with ADHD who have been less than successful, regardless of whether or not they took medication. Many factors are involved in success. As such, I have seen children who do NOT have ADHD fall significantly short of achieving success.

Question for Erin:

What medications have you, or your colleagues, prescribe for ADD (w/o the hyperactivity component), OTHER THAN the stimulants and Strattera? It's not often on a blog that I run into a professional specializing in the ADD field.

Erin,

These sentences you posted strike me as odd:

"I don't know anyone in the field who practices with the belief that these children are "screwed for life." We espouse the exact opposite. We believe that these children have amazing potential and creativity, however, due to differences in brain functioning, are not able to demonstrate their full potential in the same fashion as their peers who do not have ADHD."

You really seem to believe that due to differences in brain functioning people labeled as having adhd are not able to demonstrate their full potential. I'm curious about several things, among them - Why do you think that having a difference in brain functioning that causes a person not to be able to demonstrate their full potential is different from "being screwed for life?" and do you think everyone's brain should function in exactly one way, that there is only one normal way to perceive? and the obvious, in what way are you qualified to determine when someone has or not reached their "full potential?"

Erin, would you share with us the approximate percentage of your ADHD patients who are put on medication? I agree with Sally. Being saddled with a psychiatric label, especially one as arbitrary as ADHD, is indeed a life sentence. Any thoughts on what might be driving this continent-wide "neurological" epidemic?

>and do you think everyone's brain should function in exactly one way, that there is only one normal way to perceive?

No, but when the PERSON feels that their arrangement of neurons is impairing them ...

>and the obvious, in what way are you qualified to determine when someone has or not reached their "full potential?"

The PERSON is. They're the ones who are seeking help.

Inattention has messed up my life. Intelligent use of dopaminergics has saved it.

How dare you minimize me like this.

ADHD is not a disease or a disorder, except insofar as the power entity can declare anything at all a disorder within its boundaries of authority. So a judge will shout "order in the court" and those who do not comply, that is, be quiet, sit down, stop fidgeting and look forwards, are therefore out of order or disordered, and they can be removed from the courtroom by the man with the gun, also known as the bailiff.

If, as Thom Hartman has suggested, ADD & ADHD are the "hunter gatherers", those with genes that would have been advantageous in by gone eras, then a good student of anthropology and history would know that the barbarians, against which cities built walls for protection, were in fact the hunter gatherers who would not adapt to settled, agricultural living, and sought to hunt and gather in the cities, as easily huntable and gatherable food was no longer available. Agriculture only began in response to a dwindling supply of huntable and gatherables.

So then those with ADD/ADHD are barbarians.

Now, to understand that this is not a disorder, but a political construct, imagine a civilzed, agricultural town in cental India sometime around 7000 BC. Things are going swimmingly until the barbarians arrive (India has had a long history of barbarism). In the ensuing conflict, the barbarians win, and subjugate the more docile agricultural people. Now the barbarians make the rules, and the agricultural people work to feed and cloth and generally enrich the barbarians.

How would ADD/ADHD be a disadvantage for these barbarians. In this case it was of great advantage, and it was even to their advantage that the docile agriculturalists could stay on task and bring in the harvest, and generally make useful tools and furniture.

If on the other hand the barbarians had lost, then we could say that ADD/ADHD was disadvantageous to them, as perhaps they could not focus as well in battle, or we could say that if they had become settled farmers, they never would have come into conflict anyway.

Because we in the modern nations and cultures have created an environment in which success is measured in dollars of net worth, and because we have created a knowledge based society, the inability to focus on academic subjects in school is a disadvantage. It is a disadvantage, but not a disorder or disease. Let 'em take Ritalin or Adderall if they want to, but is it fair to keep others from Ritalin, who may want the advantage towards higher net worth that they may get from the drugs?

Is this a kind of socialism where we only allow the slow thinkers and the poor concentrators to have these performance enhancing drugs? What benefits might we, as a nation, be losing out on by not having our best and brightest take Ritalin also?

I think the reason this controversey is a controversey is because few people have read or understand Nietzsche, especially his book "On The Geneology of Morals". If one takes their education to at least this level, one comes to understand a great deal about word games, and one will have to admit that there really is no right or wrong, only desirable and advantageous versus undesirable and disadvantageous.

Throughout all human history, everyone has been to some degree a dominator, and to some degree a slave. Some have been all dominator, such as Kings, Emperors, Dictators and the like, while others have been all slave, like for instance, slaves.

When parents talk about wanting their child to live up to his/her "potential", they are using deceptive language. What they really mean is "I want my child to have as high a net worth as possible, for my sake in my old age". And we can't blame such a parent, as we are think the same. Who want's a loser for a child? Yuchh.

I want my child to be rich, rich, rich, and to throw huge Holiday parties, preferably with live musicians, perhaps a string quartet. And my child, when he is older (he is three now) will have access to Ritalin, with or without a prescription.

Yes, I love money. I love it. And I love successful children!!!! I just love them. And hopefully when my child one day stuffs me away in some assisted living facility, it will be a really nice one with a pool. Yeah! Hopefully he will come by from time to time and take me for a drive in the countryside in his Lexus!

Let 'em have their Ritalin!! But let's not pretend it's a disorder or disease. We are not created equal - we know from evolutionary science that that could never happen - there would never be any evolution if creatures were created equal, as in carbon copies of each other. The differences aid evolution, and within a given evolutionary frame, allow for various degrees of domination and submission, which itself is necessary for political evolution.

Thank you for your time.

Erin,
As a special education teacher I have to ask: if the problem with ADD/ADHD isn't learning and/or comprehension of material but merely the issue of being able to *demonstrate* same, why wouldn't the solution be to make adaptations to the means of demonstration to allow that child to demonstrate his/her learning instead of modifying the child's neurology? It seems to me that if is able to learn, but unable to demonstrate that learning that there may be a problem with the means of demonstration, not the learner.

I have watched ADD/ADHD in my lifetime go from not existing, to being extremely rare but something children usually outgrow to being a rampant condition that carries on into adulthood. I totally disagree with your assertion that educators believe it's not a lifelong condition. Just look up "adult ADD/ADHD" and you'll see the current trend.

To be honest, most educators are so hard pressed to get through today that they aren't thinking much about the child's future. But I certainly didn't ever hear anyone in any school I've ever worked in talking about the child's ADD/ADHD improving at some future date.