Saturday, May 10, 2014

People with milder forms of autism struggle as adults — SFARI.org - Simons Foundation Autism Research Initiative

People with milder forms of autism struggle as adults — SFARI.org - Simons Foundation Autism Research Initiative



Contrary to popular assumption, people diagnosed with so-called mild forms of autism don’t fare any better in life than those with severe forms of the disorder. That’s the conclusion of a new study that suggests that even individuals with normal intelligence and language abilities struggle to fit into society because of their social and communication problems.
In fact, people diagnosed with pervasive developmental disorder-not otherwise specified (PDD-NOS) are no more likely to marry or have a job than those with more disabling forms of autism, according to a Norwegian study published online in June in the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders1.
Early intervention has the potential to alter this trajectory, say experts. But until today’s children with autism reach maturity, it will be hard to say how much behavioral intervention at a young age can alter the course of their lives.
“The implication of our findings is that the consequences of having an autism spectrum disorder with profound difficulties in communication skills and social impairment can’t be compensated for by either high intellectual level or normal language function,” says lead investigator Anne Myhre, associate professor of mental health and addiction at the University of Oslo in Norway.
These findings provide support for the proposed merging of pervasive developmental disorder into the autism spectrum in the DSM-5, the edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) set to be published in 2013, the researchers say.
The new edition of the manual takes a spectrum approach, absorbing the separate categories of childhood disintegrative disorder, Asperger syndrome and PDD-NOS into the broad category of autism spectrum disorder. The draft guidelines note that symptoms must appear in early childhood and affect everyday functioning.
“I’m glad that the authors see this as support for the DSM-5 proposed definitions,” says Sally Rogers, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of California, Davis’ MIND Institute. Rogers is a member of the neurodevelopmental working group revising the diagnostic criteria for autism.

Single and disabled:

Myhre’s team investigated marital status, mortality and criminal records, and disability pension awards for 113 individuals who would meet contemporary criteria for autism. Of that number, 39 fall into the PDD-NOS category. More than half the participants — including 23 of the 39 with PDD-NOS — have an intelligence quotient (IQ) of 70 or less.
All were treated in the children’s unit at the National Centre for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry in Oslo, Norway, between 1968 and 1988. The researchers tracked these participants using government-issued identification numbers.
They found that by age 22, 96 percent of the group had been awarded a disability pension from the government. Nearly all were unmarried — 99 percent of those with autistic disorder, compared with 92 percent of those with PDD-NOS. The crime rate for the group as a whole was little more than half that of the general population, although more individuals with PDD-NOS than autism had been convicted of a crime.
The study’s comparatively bleak findings are a surprise, say experts.
“The PDD-NOS group is generally better functioning, at least in childhood, so we would expect them to do better as adults,” says Sigmund Eldevik, associate professor of behavioral science at the Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, who was not involved with the study.
In July, Eldevik reported that young children with autism who receive behavioral interventions in preschool have higher IQs and adaptive behavior scores than those who do not receive the intervention2.
However, the individuals in Myhre’s study grew up during a time when autism was typically diagnosed later in childhood, and there were few early intervention programs.
For example, autism was not classified as separate from schizophrenia until the release of the third edition of the DSM in 1980. And Asperger syndrome and PDD-NOS were not included until the DSM-IV’s release in 1994.
To address the diagnostic changes, the researchers used detailed descriptions of symptoms, psychological test results, school performance and other records to retroactively diagnose autism or PDD-NOS in the study participants according to DSM-IV criteria.
Eldevik says the changes in DSM subcategories would probably not affect the study’s findings, however, as clinicians in Norway generally use the International Classification of Diseases (ICD).
“The PDD-NOS diagnosis from DSM-IV is very similar to the ‘Atypical Autism’ diagnosis from ICD-10, which we are using in Norway,” he says.
What’s more, other studies of individuals with PDD-NOS have turned up similar results. A 2009 European study reported that few individuals with PDD-NOS, autism or Asperger syndrome live independently3. That study found that antisocial personality disorder and substance abuse are more common in the PDD-NOS group, together with the mood and anxiety disorders shared by all the subgroups. Although all 122 people in the study have normal IQs, only 40 percent were employed at the time of the study, and 84 percent had never been in a long-term relationship.

Limited opportunities:

Relatively few long-term studies report on individuals with PDD-NOS but, in general, research on social and employment prospects for people on the autism spectrum are not encouraging.
For example, a study published earlier this year found that in the U.S., young adults on the spectrum who do not have an intellectual disability are in some ways worse off than those who do, as there are fewer programs to support their needs. They are at least three times more likely to have no structured daytime activities, for example4. Another study by some of the same researchers showed that 70 adults with Down syndrome enjoy higher levels of independence, more social opportunities and receive more services compared with 70 adults who have autism5.
This picture of limited opportunity for social engagement and growing isolation in adulthood for those on the spectrum is replicated by a study in April, which showed that more than half of young adults with autism had not gotten together with friends in the previous year6. Another study in February found that close to 40 percent of young adults with autism in the U.S.receive no services whatsoever after high school graduation.
In Norway, people on the spectrum are eligible for a government disability pension at age 18. Although only 5 percent of the Norwegian population as a whole receives this pension, 89 percent of individuals with autism in the new study receive it, as do 72 percent of the PDD-NOS group. 
The higher level of intellectual disability in the autism group may explain the lower levels of disability awards in the PDD-NOS group, says Rogers. “This suggests that interventions that increase intellectual abilities will lead to better outcomes,” she says. Although most studies suggest that those with higher IQs don’t necessarily fare better in life, those individuals did not benefit from the kind of targeted early interventions now available, which address both intellectual and social functioning, she says.
High-quality early intervention is the only treatment that has shown improvement in intellectual functioning in people with the disorder, Rogers says. As more individuals with the disorder are diagnosed and receive treatment early on, future generations may face better outcomes.
Early intervention is already leading to markedly better intellectual functioning in children with autism, says Amy Wetherby, professor of communication science and disorders at Florida State University.
“The whole landscape of autism is changing because we are better at identifying the cognitively higher-functioning individuals,” she says. “With good early intervention, most end up within normal limits [on intelligence tests].”

Thursday, May 8, 2014

Leawood boy heading to L.A. to watch “Judge Judy” taping - KansasCity.com

Leawood boy heading to L.A. to watch “Judge Judy” taping - KansasCity.com



We wish we could be there on Tuesday when 10-year-old Elijah Nessel of Leawood walks into Judge Judy’s courtroom to watch the show.
We really wish we could be there when they go to lunch together later, on her dime.
Elijah owes his dad, Jeff Nessel, extra hugs for this treat.
He and Elijah have watched Judy Sheindlin’s show – daytime TV’s No. 1 show with more than 10 million daily viewers – for a couple of years now.
“He just fell in love with her voice, the New York accent, throwing people out of the courtroom, the whole nine yards of it,” says Jeff, a financial adviser.
Soon Elijah, who goes to Leawood Elementary, was talking like Judge Judy.
“The education in this country is going into the toilet,” he likes to say in a New Yawk accent.
He even quotes Judge Judy at school. Hearing someone say “Umm” to the teacher, Elijah has been known to note: “Umm is not an answer.”
So when Jeff saw that the show was having a Facebook contest for fans, he entered for Elijah. (“Sarah isn’t the only writer,” laughs Jeff, whose wife is a former Kansas City Star columnist.)
Jeff’s essay began: “When my son Elijah was born 10 years ago, I like any father, thought about bonding with him while watching the Super Bowl or playing 18 holes on a sunny afternoon.
“When he was diagnosed as being on the autism spectrum, those hopes, as petty as they now seem, were forever dashed.
“However, a new bonding vehicle was created, watching Judge Judy together. With the help of a DVR, we watch together as Judge Judy dispenses justice, with Elijah commenting, ‘I don't like plaintiff! Will Judge Judy send the defendant out?’ and rewinding to watch again when the Judge opines ...
“I just love the fact that he can laugh and have so much happiness while watching the show. And I had to laugh when my wife brought home the wrong kind of milk and my son said, ‘Mom, you made a mistake! You got the wrong milk for me! I am plaintiff and you are defendant!’”
Jeff entered the contest and forgot about it until one day in March when he received a congratulatory email.
Thousands of people sent in videos and photos and essays, says show spokesman Gary Rosen. But Judge Judy was particularly struck by Jeff’s words. “It was quite a moving essay,” says Rosen.
Jeff didn’t tell Elijah that he’d won an all-expenses-paid trip to Los Angeles to see Judge Judy, and it’s a good thing. A show rep called back with bad news: Contest winners had to be at least 16.
Since Jeff had entered on Elijah’s behalf, they would have to forfeit.
Jeff accepted the news graciously, but asked if the show could send Elijah an autographed photo of Judge Judy to hang on his bedroom wall next to his “Monsters, Inc.” pictures.
The next day the rep called back. “The judge wants to meet Elijah,” he said.
Consulting with their lawyers, producers decided to declare Jeff the winner and allow him to take Sarah to the show taping as his personal guest.
And Elijah? He will be Judge Judy’s personal guest in the courtroom on Tuesday.
“It told me a lot about her and what kind of a person she is,” says Jeff. “I think that was really, really great.”
When Jeff finally told Elijah the good news, he just wanted to know one thing: “Is she going to pick us up at the airport?”

Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Baby Monkeys Develop Autism Symptoms After Being Vaccinated : Body, Mind, Soul & Spirit – UPDATED DAILY! | BodyMindSoulSpirit.com

Baby Monkeys Develop Autism Symptoms After Being Vaccinated : Body, Mind, Soul & Spirit – UPDATED DAILY! | BodyMindSoulSpirit.com



Following a recent study conducted by scientists at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania which revealed that many infant monkeys given standard doses of childhood vaccines as part of the new research, developed autism symptoms, question marks over the ultimate safety of vaccines have come to the fore.
The groundbreaking research findings presented at the International Meeting for Autism Research (IMFAR) in London, England, have revealed that young macaque monkeys given the typical CDC-recommended vaccination schedule from the 1990s, and in appropriate doses for the monkeys’ sizes and ages, tended to develop autism symptoms. Their unvaccinated counterparts, on the other hand, developed no such symptoms, which points to a strong connection between vaccines and autism spectrum disorders.
This development which deconstructs mainstream myth that vaccines are safe and pose no risk of autism, was brought on by after studies on the type of proper safety research on typical childhood vaccination schedules that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) should have conducted — but never has — for such regimens.
Included in the mix were vaccines containing Thimerosal, a toxic, mercury-based compound that has been phased out of some vaccines, but is still present in batch-size influenza vaccines and a few others.
Baby Monkeys Develop Autism Symptoms Afer Being VaccinatedAlso administered was the controversial measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine, which has been linked time and time again to causing autism and various other serious, and often irreversible, health problems in children.
“This research underscores the critical need for more investigation into immunizations, mercury, and the alterations seen in autistic children,” said Lyn Redwood, Director of SafeMinds, a public safety group working to expose the truth about vaccines and autism.
“SafeMinds calls for large scale, unbiased studies that look at autism medical conditions and the effects of vaccines given as a regimen.”
Adding to the sentiment, Theresa Wrangham, president of SafeMinds called out the CDC for failing to require proper safety studies of its recommended vaccination schedules. Unlike all other drugs, which must at least undergo a basic round of safety testing prior to approval and recommendation, vaccinations and vaccine schedules in particular do not have to be proven safe or effective before hitting the market.
“The full implications of this primate study await publication of the research in a scientific journal,” said Wrangham. “But we can say that it demonstrates how the CDC evaded their responsibility to investigate vaccine safety questions. Vaccine safety oversight should be removed from the CDC and given to an independent agency.”

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Lee's Summit R-7 School District: Local School Boards Should be Abolished | Missouri Education Watchdog

Lee's Summit R-7 School District: Local School Boards Should be Abolished | Missouri Education Watchdog



I’m all for local educational control.  Authentic local control.  We do not have authentic school board control in Missouri and I wager than many school districts in other states don’t have local control either.  School districts must adhere to federal and state mandates and autonomy is eradicated and discouraged for local school boards.  An entity to watch and research in Missouri and your state is your state school board association, a private association which uses tax dollars for its existence.  You might find (as we are discovering in Missouri) that these associations do not protect taxpayers, but rather, they assume control that is not granted to them but is wielded over school board members.
Missouri school board members must undergo training to understand what their duties are and most boards look to the Missouri State Board Association (MSBA) for this information.  Increasingly it seems as if MSBA is writing policy for school boards instead of being an advisory organization.  Research your state school board association and determine its function for your school districts.  It has become more of a regulatory association instead of training school board members to be effective voices for the citizenry which elected them.  Tax dollars are spent for this training with this private organization.  From a previous post:
You can see how much your district pays to belong to MSBA here.  The amount is based on the budget of your school district.  My district (Kirkwood) pays approximately $10,000 for MSBA’s direction and policy decisions.  Why do we need a school board anymore?  Maybe the education reformers are right.  Just turn it over to private organizations directing how tax money is to be used.  School board members increasingly are figureheads for private organizations funded by local taxpayers who think they are actually voting for members who set/direct policy for their districts.

The education reformers are increasingly calling for the demise of the local school boards.  Local school boards don’t really do much other than hire/fire teachers and maintain physical property.  If school board policy is being written by MSBA and the board members are following along adopting all the policies MSBA writes, then why do school boards exist?
The following article from American Spring shows the power MSBA has over school board candidates and school board policy in Camdenton, MO.  From Camdenton, Missouri School Board Elections About Local Control:
Recently, the Lake Sun asked candidates for Camdenton school board their qualifications and asked a couple of questions. The responses to the first of those questions are noteworthy, as it deals with a fundamental change to the way the public is ‘allowed’ to interact with board members.
From the Lake Sun:
Do you think the current school board policy regarding public participation allows for sufficient opportunity for the public’s voice to be heard? Do you support the current policy or if elected would you seek to make changes to the policy?
This policy represents a fundamental shift of the tax paying public’s ‘role’ in school affairs. It plainly seeks to use a questionable interpretation of law to stifle public input to the board, requiring an approval process that filters communications meant for the board through both school administration and school attorneys. This, to many parents, represents another step in a silent coup, preformed under the assumption of authority neither the administration, nor the school attorneys, have. A concerted effort has been made to reinforce the false logic that our representatives should somehow be ‘protected’ from hearing from the public and parents they serve.
Part of the new public comment policy, as recommended during an August visit from an MSBA lawyer, appears below. Camdenton adopted a policy that restricts the public from having open discussions with the board about their concerns, if those requests aren’t ‘approved’ by administration and attorneys.
7. Only items from the posted agenda may be discussed. If an individual seeks to address an issue that is scheduled to be discussed by the Board in closed session, the Board may require the person to hold his or her comments until closed session.
8. The Board may vote to suspend or amend these rules in extraordinary circumstances. The Board may impose additional rules as it deems necessary and reserves the right to alter the above rules depending on the circumstances. The Board reserves the right to cancel, reschedule or delay the public comment period at any time or delay comment on a particular topic. The Board may refuse to hear comments on a particular topic if advised to do so by legal counsel.
Paul Ellison writes how four of the five candidates support the MSBA’s policies of shutting down dialogue from the community:
On January 14, 2014, in an article in the Lake Sun announcing the email policy, Assistant Superintendent Roma France announced the implementation of Camdenton’s email accounts for board members.
France made the following statement:
“Protocol would be for the Board president and/or superintendent to respond to the patron on behalf of the district.” She went on to say, “If several questions come in on the same topic, then the item may be placed on the next board agenda.”
The Lake Sun described the email procedures, as laid out for them by France:
” Then, she told the board that emails would go to a mail distribution group, board@camdentonschools.org, which would be sent to each board member along with the superintendent or a designee. “
And that: ” In most cases, the superintendent or administration will be the one to respond. “
The guidelines adopted for the district’s email policy contain restrictions that mirror, in practical application, those inserted into the inappropriately named ‘public comment policy’. The guidelines offered the Lake Sun by Camdenton’s administration, read as follows:
1. If you are providing Board members an e-mail address, all Board members by policy must sign the Authorized User Permit that staff and students must sign and Board member must agree to the same terms as staff and students.
This first policy restriction would allow, presumably, for the unfettered monitoring of emails between themselves and their constituents. It creates an environment worthy of the NSA in the Camdenton school district. It would allow complete access to all board member’s accounts, without cause, without warrant. Camdenton’s version of Big Brother, it can reasonably be assumed, is manned by school administration and the districts lawyers, the firm of Mickes, Goldman and O’Toole.
Also from the Camdenton administration’s ‘guidelines’:
4. When information is sent via the generic Board@camdentonschools.org, the protocol is for the superintendent or Board president to respond on behalf of the district and to cc the Board the response so that the Board knows the patron has been corresponded with and what was said. If a Board member disagrees with the response or has questions, he or she is encouraged to immediately notify the superintendent and the Board president of that fact.
The last sentence in this ‘guideline’ is one that gives us pause, particularly when we consider the access and latitude granted the administration and its lawyers in regard to the distribution of emails in the first place. This assumption of authority, of determining which emails reach the board, is reemphasized throughout these ‘rules’ created by administration and their attorneys.
Number five of these ‘guidelines’ ensures that, even a board member can be denied the ability to add a topic or concern to the agenda.

5. Any Board member may ask that a subject is added to the Board’s agenda at the next meeting for discussion. The Board as a whole will ultimately vote when approving the agenda to determine if the issue will be discussed.
The last sentence of ‘rule’ #5 is particularly offending:
However, Board members are free to direct questions or concerns to the superintendent or Board president.
Number six in the list of guidelines:
6. A Board member who is not the Board president may correspond individually with a patron, but is required to indicate that the opinions expressed are his or her own and not the Board’s. A Board member is prohibited from using a district-provided e-mail address contrary to district policy or law or to violate district policy or law.
The key words and phrases in ‘rule’ number six are distressing. “Board member”, “prohibited”, “contrary to district policy” and “violate district policy”. These are words that place control of our school, not in the hands of our elected representatives, but into those of administration and attorneys. Many of these policies were crafted, approved and suggested by the attorneys for our school district and district administration. They are not rules of law, nor are should they be.
Rules nine and ten completes the usurping of power from the citizens in the Camdenton school district. They clearly illustrate the ongoing efforts to eliminate ‘local control’ over our school districts.
9. The superintendent or Board president in their discretion may not respond to messages from the same sender that are repetitive, or messages that are threatening or that use profane language.
10. The superintendent or Board president will not directly respond to messages involving litigation, potential or pending litigation, or a situation on appeal pursuant to district policies or the law.
In addition, the superintendent or Board president may not respond to messages if advised by the district’s attorney not to do so. However, the superintendent or Board president will acknowledge receipt of the message and notify the sender of the rules.
These policies, designed to remove, control and suffocate the input of parents and tax payers, are the opposite of Barbour’s claims.
“Yes, I believe the recently-updated school board policy facilitates engaged communications with our students, parents and patrons. We truly want to hear from our public. It’s their school. We recently enhanced this school board policy with an email address so our patrons can access all board members at exactly the same time from our school district’s web site.
Yes, I support this policy. We will be monitoring its progress. We also will continue to be cognizant of new technology as it emerges to communicate with the public exemplifying transparency and participation.”
She also invited the public to “peruse” the school web site. Perhaps Ms. Barbour should have perused a dictionary for both the correct definition of transparency. To her credit however, Ms. Barbour didn’t dive under her desk like partner-in-crime, Jackie Schulte. Ms. Schulte used the question regarding the public comment policy shift to beat the drums of fear mongering. This fear mongering is based on the flawed legal interpretation that, somehow, the school board could be held liable for what a citizen says to them. This laughable notion is parroted by Schulte.
“Board members are responsible for protecting our staff and students; allowing anyone to speak on impulse could open the district to possible legal repercussions.”
Read about how the Board members are apparently working for the superintendent, not the other way around.  The Board is supposed to represent the taxpayers who voted them in, not acquiesce to the superintendent….who the Board hires!  Since when does a board take orders from an employee of the District?
Read about conflict of interests between board members and companies performing services for the district.  Read about the law firm that represents and advises Camdenton School Board and decide if you think board policies are supporting the taxpayers or special interests.  Read how this board is adopting policy written by the law firm that may very well be illegal.  Read more here.
Call your school district and find out which law firm is representing your district.  Determine if your board policies are copyrighted and directed by MSBA.  If most of your policies have been written by MSBA and suggested by your legal representative to be adopted, ask your board members if they are aware of the implications of denying citizens freedom of speech.
Policies written by private organizations supported from tax dollars are developing/directing educational policy for local school boards.  Sounds like the NGA/CCSSO writing Common Core standards, doesn’t it?  We might as well abolish our school boards and state educational agencies and just shovel the taxpayer dollars to private organizations and forget this charade of local control because it doesn’t exist.


Sunday, April 20, 2014

Feds To School: Retaliation In IEP Process Not OK - Disability Scoop

Feds To School: Retaliation In IEP Process Not OK - Disability Scoop



The San Carlos School District in San Carlos, Calif. retaliated against the parents of a child with special needs by making allegations that resulted in a sheriff’s deputy visiting their house, a letter sent to the family by the U.S. Department of Education concludes.
The March 6 letter was sent in response to a complaint the parents submitted last year after a district official contacted the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office in October 2012 and claimed the child’s father secretly taped a meeting with district educators. The name of the family was blacked out from a copy of the letter obtained by The Daily News.
Although the parents weren’t charged with any crimes, the allegation of criminal behavior, the deputy’s visit and the veiled possibility of arrest and prosecution “are all sufficiently adverse since one or all of them would be reasonably likely to deter a parent from advocating on behalf of their child,” the federal agency’s letter states.
According to facts outlined in the letter following an investigation by the agency’s Office for Civil Rights, the student was in the second grade during the 2012-2013 school year and received special education services because of a health impairment and a speech or language impairment. The parents were “proactive” in seeking special services for their child, sometimes “questioning determinations made by the district.”
On Sept. 27, 2012, after an individualized education program meeting between the district and family to discuss the student’s needs, a teacher informed the school principal — who had not attended — that she believed the student’s father had recorded the meeting. The father wanted to record a meeting before that one and was told the district did not allow recordings without 24 hours notice. He had recorded an earlier meeting but was not told then about the district’s policy.
The principal informed the district’s director of student services about the suspected recording, according to the federal agency’s letter. On Oct. 3, the student displayed “significant behavioral issues” at school and the parents sent an email to the principal seeking a consultation with the school psychologist. Later that same day, the director of student services, who is not named, made a report to the Sheriff’s Office, according to the letter.
On Oct. 13, a deputy went to the family’s home, was told that no one recorded the meeting and closed the investigation, stating in a report that there was “no proof a crime was committed.”
The timing of the district’s actions, relative to the parents’ advocacy, “warrants an inference that the adverse action was caused by the protected activity,” the federal agency’s letter states.
During the Office for Civil Rights probe, the director of student services told investigators that she spoke to the district’s lawyer, schools Superintendent Craig Baker and the school board about her intention to call the Sheriff’s Office to report the alleged illegal recording. But “she never met or spoke with the complainants about the allegation or attempted to obtain their version of events,” the letter states.
Calling law enforcement “undoubtedly has a deterrent and chilling effect on parents and their willingness to actively participate in their own children’s education and advocate on their behalf,” the letter adds. For that reason, a call should be made only when the harm is sufficient enough to warrant such involvement.
The student services director told investigators that the school district’s attorney advised her state law says it’s illegal to record conversations without the prior knowledge and consent of everyone. But state law does not apply to IEP meetings, the federal agency’s letter notes.
To resolve the matter, the district signed off on an agreement that, among other things, requires it to distribute a memo to staff warning against illegal retaliation against families of students in special education and offering to provide training. The agreement, signed by Baker, states that the district does not admit any violation of the law.
In a written statement to The Daily News, school board President Adam Rak said the district is “committed to fair, non-retaliatory treatment of all students and families and it respectfully disagrees with the characterization of facts and conclusions” in the Office for Civil Rights report.