Debate Central | Free Debate Resources

“Trump Budget Would Slash Education Dept. Spending, Boost School Choice,” (Education Week, May 23, 2017), looks at changes proposed in federal education spending, but notes the largest:

Grants for special education, which also go out by formula, get $12.7 billion in Trump’s budget, a decline of about $112 million from the amount in the fiscal 2017 budget deal.

Federal funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) goes mostly to Part B, section 611 which:

authorizes grants to state and local education agencies to offset part of the costs of the K-12 education needs of children with disabilities …  Part B, section 611 authorizes funding to students age 3-21 …

For the 2014-2015 school year:

total IDEA funding was $12.50 billion, of which $11.47 billion is dedicated to IDEA Part B Section 611 state grants. When advocates say that IDEA programs are under-funded, they are most often referring to Part B Section 611 state and local grant aid.

Would federal IDEA Part B Section funding be better applied for general education funding? In Washington State’s King County special education classes have five adults for ten children.

“How Teacher Training Hinders Special-Needs Students,” (The Atlantic, March 1, 2017) looks at efforts to “mainstream” special education students and the challenges this places on teachers:

The need for teachers who have both the knowledge and the ability to teach special-education students is more critical today than ever before. A national push to take students with disabilities out of isolation means most now spend the majority of their days in general-education classrooms, rather than in separate special-education classes.

“California moves to bring special education students ‘into the fold’ of mainstream education,” (EdSource, March 14, 2016) looks at California programs and emphasizes the role of federal mandates tied to federal funding:

Ordered by the federal government to elevate academics for students with disabilities, and by the state to raise low-income student achievement, the California Department of Education is working to create a unified system that will do both, …

Long an island in mainstream education because of its complex federal mandates and funding streams, special education is not explicitly named an area of focus in California’s school finance system. But 70 percent of students with disabilities are members of the high-needs groups that are intended to benefit from the new student supports,

But here is a key issue with special education. It is a broad and getting broader term. Are students numbers increasing for state and federally-funded special education programs because a) autism and other learning disorders are increasing, or b) because definitions of those qualifying for special education programs are being stretched (each student qualifying brings new state and federal funding for a school and school district, plus allows school testing scores to be raised by excluding more students who qualify for special needs instruction), or perhaps c) instructional changes leave more students with learning challenges, or maybe d) more time with video games somehow contributes to classroom cognitive problems?

Amazingly, according to the EdSource article above for students now labeled as requiring special education, “90% have no cognitive impairment”:

The effort is driven by low achievement rates of special education students, 90 percent of whom have no cognitive impairment. Speech and language impairment is the largest category of students in special education, followed by students with learning disabilities.

What kind of “speech and language impairment”? An in-depth article from special education debates in Connecticut (below) may shed some light. But first, it should be emphasized that state/federal special education disputes are widespread.

“What Texas did to its special-education students,” (September 18, 2016) notes federal special education challenges across a number of states:

For example, the Connecticut State Department of Education said last month that the two largest school districts in the state — Hartford and Bridgeport — were not meeting federal and state laws in regard to providing students with disabilities an appropriate education, according to the CT Monitor.

The Iowa Department of Education recently cited more than 100 incidents of noncompliance with federal laws and regulations in the Iowa City school district’s special-education program, according to the Gazette.

Michigan Radio just published a story saying that special-education funding in the state is so complicated that nobody can say categorically how much it costs to educate a special-education student…

“Number of U.S. Students in Special Education Ticks Upward,” (Education Week, April 19, 2016) reports students qualified for federal special education support has been increasing since 2011, after declining in earlier years:

After years of steady decline, the nationwide count of school-age students covered under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act has shown an upswing since the 2011-12 school year based on the most recently available federal data, driven by rapid growth in such disability categories as autism.

The count of students ages 6-21 with disabilities fell to a low of 5.67 million in fall 2011, but had risen to 5.83 million by fall 2014, the most recent year for which statistics are available.

A third of the nationwide increase in 2014-15 came from one state, New York. The reasons …

Education Week lists increasing autism (and the state of New York) as the main cause. CT Mirror has a special page for special education news in Connecticut, which includes link to “Troubled schools on trial: Special education driving costs and controversies,” (CT Mirror, December 14, 2016):

The rate at which students are identified for special education varies drastically across school districts, and school officials differ on whether that’s because districts are over- or under-indentifying students. But they agree the rising cost to educate these students has outpaced inflation and crowds out other supports for students.

This article on special education costs in Connecticut begins with a long-standing debate over how best to teach children how to read: whole language vs. phonics:

This stalemate over reading methods persists even though reading deficiencies are the top reason children without autism or biological disabilities are being referred to special education – and as special education costs skyrocket throughout Connecticut.

“My opinion is the vast majority of kids are not disabled; they’re instructionally disabled,” said Cohn. “The thinking is, ‘There must be something wrong with you,’ not ‘let’s change the system.’”

For more on the whole language/phonics debate, see “Whole Language and Phonics: Can They Work Together?” (Education World, 1997, 2016?) which argues there is room for both in education:

In a recent International Reading Association (IRA) position statement — a statement that shocked many in the reading community who, rightly or wrongly, had seen the IRA as a bastion of the whole language movement — the organization took a stance supporting phonics within a whole-language program. [link to IRA: The Role PHONICS Reading Instruction pdf here.]

No easy answers for state and federal special education funding, expenditures, and priorities, but the lack of date makes the challenge harder.  “Do We Spend Too Much On Special Education?” (Education Commission of the States, July 27, 2016) reports that states spend $19 billion on special education programs and the federal government adds $11.5 billion. That’s where the money comes from, but apparently no one knows what the these funds are actually spent on.

There is little information available about how much school districts in the U.S. are actually expending on the education of students with disabilities. Most states don’t require districts to report their special education expenditures, and those states that do tend not to require that they provide detailed financial information.

The article argues:

Without better data we can’t determine if we’re spending too much or too little on special education. One thing state policymakers could do is look at requiring schools to report their actual expenditures on special education students

Federalism seems a natural approach for education reform, as it might for transportation policy reform. The great majority of commutes to and from work by road or rail are within state borders, so why not have state and local government administer or regulate most roads and rail?

Similarly, nearly all trips to and from schools are within state borders, so why not have states and local governments administer or regulate schools? Why would the federal government be involved in education issues that involve families in single communities within single states?

One plausible federal role would be to address injustice. Southern states prevented minority students from attending neighborhood schools which they reserved for white children. These were democratic policies, that is policies that at the time majorities and their elected representatives favored. So the federal government stepped in and mandated schools be integrated.

Are there similar state and local education injustices today that harm minority or low-income students and could or should be addressed by federal government policy?

One justice issue, or procedure, reform calls for restorative justice in schools. The Centre for Justice and Reconciliation (a Christian Organization) advocates restitution or restorative justice reforms for the criminal justice system:

Restorative justice repairs the harm caused by crime. When victims, offenders and community members meet to decide how to do that, the results can be transformational.

Similar restorative justice reforms are advocated for public schools. Critics point out that disciplinary actions in public schools impact minority students at higher levels than other students (see, for example, “Yes, Schools Do Discriminate Against Students Of Color — Reports,” (HuffPost, March 13, 2014). Restorative Justice in schools looks to address and repair this disparity.

“When Restorative Justice in Schools Works,” (The Atlantic, December 29, 2015), explains:

In traditional school-discipline programs, students face an escalating scale of punishments for infractions that can ultimately lead to expulsion. But there is now strong research that shows pulling students out of class as punishment can hurt their long-term academic prospects. What’s more, data shows that punishments are often unequal. Nationally, more black students are suspended than white students, for example.

As a result, alternative programs like restorative justice are gaining popularity in public schools from Maine to Oregon. Early adopters of the practice report dramatic declines in school-discipline problems, as well as improved climates on campuses and even gains in student achievement.

The article notes there has been some federal involvement:

In addition to the growing body of research supporting the benefits of alternative campus discipline programs, there is now federal pressure for districts to rethink their practices: schools may face sanctions if discipline policies are found to unfairly target minority students.

(Though this “federal pressure” might no longer be current administration policy.)

“​​​​​​​Is Discipline Reform Really Helping Decrease School Violence?,” (The Atlantic, June 28, 2016), reports incidents of bullying in New York City schools, and is sceptical reforms have been effective:

Schools are also turning to social-reform programs such as those that embrace the restorative-justice model, an approach that emphasizes bringing together the perpetrators and victims of misconduct through meetings and discussions.

But a lack of hard data and conflicting views on safety measures make it difficult to assess whether school violence is in fact increasing—and whether those measures are actually effective. Some observers worry that the absence of concrete information and confusion over the amount of violence in schools are hindering efforts to reduce violence and bullying.

There are disagreements on how best to measure school violence (as with other violence), in part because not all incidents are reported to authorities, and because what counts as violence varies:

At the local level, statistics on school violence can vary depending on the source. Walden pointed to state statistics showing that the number of violent episodes in New York City schools rose 23 percent from the 2013-14 school year to the one that ended in June 2015. But the New York City school administration uses police data showing that crime in the city’s schools declined 29 percent from the 2011–12 school year to the 2014–15 year. Some observers have said that the state data does not make a distinction between minor disciplinary problems in schools and more serious acts of violence and bullying. Critics also emphasize that the state data isn’t verified.

Nationally schools are safer than they were twenty years ago, and according to this scholar, “schools are much safer than the communities around them”:

“In general, schools are far safer now than they were 20 years ago,” said Dewey Cornell, a clinical psychologist and education professor at the University of Virginia. “Every major study in recent years has shown that schools are much safer than the communities around them. Students are much more likely to be injured in restaurants than on school grounds.”

After citing data showing school violence and bullying are underreported, the article says:

While many school districts are embracing restorative justice, there’s little hard data to show the approach is effective in reducing violence. Anecdotal evidence suggests that restorative justice can reduce violence in schools through exercises like group discussions that build empathy among students, Gregory said, but she and other education researchers are quick to say that there have been few carefully designed studies to back up these claims.

So maybe the federal government could focus on funding more research on what works in addressing violence and bullying in public schools. An earlier post quoted a Brookings Institution study on the history of federal involvement in education:

For most of the nation’s history, Washington confined itself to collecting data on school systems and disseminating information on the progress of education. Until 1965, when the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was passed, federal support for K-12 education was minimal.

Collecting information about restorative justice as an alternative to zero-tolerance and school expulsions would seem worthy information to disseminate.

See also “An Effective but Exhausting Alternative to High-School Suspensions,” (New York Times Magazine, September 7 2016).

This  2014 neaToday article, “NEA and Partners Promote Restorative Justice in Schools,” begins:

Educators cannot stand by as tens of thousands of African-American, Latino, and other students get pushed out of school for minor disciplinary infractions, said NEA President Dennis Van Roekel, who on Friday helped release a new toolkit that aims to end the “school-to-prison pipeline” through the use of restorative policies and practices.

The article features this chart of alternative school justice systems:

Debaters looking to reform federal education funding or regulations should know where federal education dollars flow now. “Federal Education Funding: Where Does the Money Go?,” (US News, January 14, 2016), provides a recent overview with helpful charts.

First US News notes that federal education spending “education has surged over the last decade and a half,” up over 36% since 2002, ” from $50 billion to $68 billion…”

Pell Grants provide college tuition for low-income students, are are “by far” the federal government’s biggest education expense: “fiscal 2016, the government is spending $22 billion to fund Pell Grants, twice what was spent in 2002.”

Next are grants for school districts with low-income students, and grants for special education, both of which have risen significantly:

known as Title I. Funding for the program also saw a big increase since 2002, going from $10.4 billion to $14.9 billion this year, an increase of 43 percent. 

Special education was another big winner, with funding now at $11.9 billion – an increase of nearly 60 percent since 2002.

The US News article lists other federal K-12 programs where funding has increased significantly since 2002. And starting with 2002 is useful because the last 15 years encompasses both the Republican Bush Administration and the Democratic Obama Administration, showing bipartisan support for increased federal education spending.

The Brookings Institution, a center or center-left think tank, makes the case for federal K-12 funding reform. “Why federal spending on disadvantaged students (Title I) doesn’t work,” (November 20, 2015). The study recommends increased federal funding, but also calls for reforms to guide more research to learn what works and how to better direct funds to low-income students:

Efforts to reauthorize the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) have generated contentious debates about annual testing and accountability. Both the Senate and House versions, now headed to conference, maintain annual testing and push accountability back to the states.

Curiously missing from the debates has been the evidence of whether or not ESEA achieves its objectives.

At the college level, critics of increased federal spending argue these funds have pushed college tuition higher (more on this claim below). Also, since the “Great Recession” state funding for college education has fallen while federal funding has surged.

State funding was 65% higher than federal funding from 1987 to 2012, according to “Federal and State Funding of Higher Education,” (Pew Charitable Trusts Issue Brief, July 11, 2015) but that changed:

… this difference narrowed dramatically in recent years, particularly since the Great Recession, as state spending declined and federal investments grew sharply, largely driven by increases in the Pell Grant program, a need-based financial aid program that is the biggest component of federal higher education spending. 

The study also looks at overall federal support for higher education:

Though only about 2 percent of the total federal budget, higher education programs make up a large share of federal education investments. For example, about half of the U.S. Department of Education’s budget is devoted to higher education (excluding loan programs). Higher education funding also comes from other federal agencies such as the U.S. Departments  of Veterans Affairs and Health and Human Services, and the National Science Foundation.

“Impact of Pell Surge: Federal spending has overtaken state spending as the main source of public funding in higher education,” looks at the implications of increased federal spending alongside reduced state funding for higher education:

Federal and state funds have different missions. The majority of state funding is used to fund specific public institutions, whereas federal funding is generally awarded through student aid and research grants. State funding goes primarily to public institutions, while federal funding goes to students at public, private and for-profit colleges, and to researchers at public and private universities.

Critical of increased state and federal funding for higher education is economist Richard Vedder’s 2004 book, Going Broke by Degree. Vedder’s Forbes column, “Are We Still Going Broke By Degree?,” (November 1, 2016) his research:

From 1980 to 2014, by contrast, tuition fees rose sharply relative to people’s income, leading to a soaring student loan debt burden (actually, the reverse probably is more true: the availability of low interest loans induced colleges to raise tuition fees aggressively). This reflected both soaring tuition fees and a slowing of the growth in incomes, especially since 2000.

Vedder reports Census Bureau data showing that though median incomes are up significantly over the last two years, college tuitions have not risen as fast:

For two year schools, the increase was similar to four year public institutions, 1.7 percent. Yet the Census Bureau indicated that the inflation-adjusted increase in median household income in 2015 was over five percent. Income increases were accelerating, tuition hikes were declining.

Vedder then argues colleges divide into three categories he compares with cars (Mercedes/Lexus, Chevy/Toyota, and Used Cars) and looks at tuition increases and student demand for each.

See also Vedder’s “Seven Ways the Department of Education Has Made Higher Ed Worse,” (James G. Martin Center,October 28, 2015) which notes the New York Times May 22, 1979 editorial opposing federal control of education:

The idea [of the Department of Education] remains as unwise as when it was first broached in a Carter campaign promise to the National Education Association…. It has always been American policy…to deliberately avoid centralizing education in a way that requires direction and financing by a national ministry…. We believe that diversity of direction has served American education well and that it will continue to do better without a central bureaucracy, even a benign one.

New technologies have opened the door for new opportunities for getting a college education. “WHY FREE ONLINE CLASSES ARE STILL THE FUTURE OF EDUCATION,” (Wired, September 26, 2014) looks at the late, great MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses):

THE MOOC WAS The Next Big Thing—and then it was written off for dead. But for Anant Agarwal, one of the founding fathers of this online reboot of university education, it’s only just getting started. …

Online education was overhyped in the beginning:

In 2012, The New York Times hailed “the year of the MOOC,” and it seemed that not a day went by that there wasn’t a news story about how edX—and similar companies like Coursera and Udacity–were poised to radically change and democratize education. But then came the inevitable backlash. Critics pointedly accused these companies of overstating their potential.

Still, according to Wired, it may be time for MOOC 2.0:

This week, a team of researchers out of MIT, Harvard, and China’s Tsinghua University—all schools that offer MOOCs—released a study showing that students who attended a MIT physics class online learned as effectively as students who took the class in person. What’s more, the results were the same, regardless of how well the online students scored on a pre-test before taking the class.

The expansion of online education blurs the line between high school and college education. Debaters research federal K-12 programs will overlap other debaters researching federal higher education reforms.  The Wired article discusses edX:

More recently, edX found yet another application for its courses: college prep. In an effort to cut their budgets, school districts across the country have cancelled advanced placement courses, even as students increasingly look to those courses as a way to cut down on college tuition costs. EdX is now hoping to fill that gap by allowing students to take those courses online.

A previous post (Informal Schools in the U.S. and Developing World) looked at many alternatives for students to earn college credit during high school years, including Tribr in India, and more in “AP, DC, DE, IB: An A–Z Guide to College Credit in High School”:

There are lots of different programs for students eager to get started with college work — Advanced Placement (AP), dual credit (DC), dual enrollment (DE), and International Baccalaureate (IB).

MIT’s OpenCourseWare website is here. Federal funding is available for online education. “Federal Student Aid for Online Learning Programs,” (Peterson’s, June 21, 2016) explains:

You can access up-to-date information about federal financial aid programs at the U.S. Department of Education’s Web site, www.studentaid.ed.gov, or by calling 1-800-4-FEDAID. You’ll see that much of what is available to non-traditional students is similar, if not identical, to the resources available to traditional students.

“FACT SHEET: Expanding College Access Through the Dual Enrollment Pell Experiment,” (U.S. Department of Education, May 16, 2016). One way to expand opportunities for low-income students is to let them escape the limitations of their school through dual-enrollment, earning college credit from home or school:

Dual enrollment, in which students enroll in postsecondary coursework while also enrolled in high school, is a promising approach to improve academic outcomes for students, particularly those from low-income backgrounds. Selected experimental sites are required to ensure Pell-eligible students are not responsible for any charges for postsecondary coursework after applying Pell Grants, public and institutional aid, and other sources of funding. About 80 percent of the sites are community colleges, and the Administration continues to place a strong emphasis on offering responsible students the opportunity to pursue an education and training at community colleges for free.

“Indiana teen is graduating college — before she gets her high school diploma,” (USA Today, May 3, 2017) reports on Raven Osborne:

Osborne, who has been taking college classes part-time, is about to graduate from college — before she gets her high school diploma.

And now she is going to be a teacher at the same high school.

Osborne, a senior at the 895-student 21st Century Charter School in Gary, will earn a bachelor’s degree in sociology with a minor in early childhood education from Purdue University Northwest on May 5, then graduate from high school on May 22.

See also this 2015 USA Today story: “More students getting college degrees in high school.”

College isn’t for everyone, and certainly not for everyone in high school or junior high, but why not allow wider choice for interested students. “College classes for middle school students? It’s happening in Hayward,” (EdSource, January 25, 2016) begins:

The students giggle, squirm and whisper to each other as their instructor gets ready to begin. It’s the start of a typical middle school class except for one thing: these 12-year-olds are taking a college course.

The program’s goal is to expose students without family experience with college education to the opportunity early:

The district wanted to use after-school time to propel students ahead, rather than focusing only on remediation or support for classroom work, Wu-Fernandez said. “We thought, ‘What better way to promote college and career readiness?’”

Doctors have diagnosed increased Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in students, but critics suggest reduced school recess is a cause and increasing recess time is a better alternative to ADHD drugs.

“Ritalin vs. Recess: Are Drugs Really the Answer to the ADHD Epidemic?” (takepart, January 19, 2015) looks at the debate:

Today, more than 11 percent of kids in the U.S. are diagnosed with ADHD, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That’s up from 3 percent in 1997. For boys, it’s closer to 16 percent. Physicians in the U.S. wrote 48.4 million prescriptions in 2011, a jump of nearly 40 percent in four years.

Evidence that higher ADHD rates are cultural comes from Europe:

Historically, ADHD rates in the U.S. have been far higher than in Europe, where, until recently, diagnoses hovered around 1 or 2 percent.

Psychology Today has a series of ADHD in France articles, beginning with “Why French Kids Don’t Have ADHD: French children don’t need medications to control their behavior.” (March 8, 2012), followed by a “French Kids DO Have ADHD,” (November 4, 2015) and “France Is Great, But Their Kids Have ADHD Too,” (October 15, 2016), in response to “bizarre post on psychology and parents”: “Enough Is Enough Series Part 5: ADHD Is Exposed: The French got this one right.” (September 16, 2016).

This 2013 article, “When ADHD has Nowhere to Hide,” (Psychology Today, May 17, 2013) looks at the ADHD/culture debate:

The ongoing debate about whether attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) children require drugs or discipline can’t be resolved by examining prescribing practices cross-culturally. Dr. Marilyn Wedge asserts that in the US, at least 9% of school children have been diagnosed with ADHD, and are taking medications for it, whereas in France, it is less than 0.5%. She further goes on to suggest that irregular meals, lack of structure, and weak disciplinary practices are to blame.

The article argues that reduced recess and physical education in school puts all students and especially ADHD students at a disadvantage:

Increasing demands are made on our children that put kids with ADHD at a massive disadvantage. For example, when I was a kid, we had regular recess times, long lunch breaks, and daily physical education classes. Many schools have done away with these opportunities for antsy kids to release a bit of their energies in favor of more classroom time to prepare for standardized exams. Being expected to sit at a desk for six hours can be hard for any kid, and torture for one with ADHD.

A wider range of classes and activities within a school, or a wider range of school choices can help. “How a Change in Schools Transformed My ADHD Son’s Educational Path,” (HuffPost, August 28, 2014) tells one story. Plus this 2010 article “Experiences of ADHD-Labeled Kids Who Leave Typical Schooling,” (Psychology Today, September 9, 2010).

Better food at schools may play a role as well. “Seeking an alternative to medication, parents tinker with diet to treat ADHD,” (STAT, May 2, 2017)

It’s the kind of diet — low in fruits and vegetables, high in carbs — that a doctor like herself might caution against. But it’s also low in milk, sugar, and artificial food additives — all things Carey believes worsen 10-year-old Mark’s attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, symptoms. Twice a day, in the morning at their home in Newburgh, Ind., and from the school nurse at lunch, he takes a vitamin and mineral supplement, which helps make up for the lack of veggies.

It’s been six months on this diet, which Carey researched herself and tested out on Mark, and in that time he has transitioned off his ADHD medication. It wasn’t all smooth sailing; there were fights in the candy section of the grocery store, and Carey struggled to find quick, high-protein breakfasts. “But honestly, I would never go back,” she said.

For more on food, the microbiome, and behavior, see “Gut, Autism, and ADHD,” (Psychology Today, January 7, 2016) and “The Gut-Brain Connection in Complex Kids,” (ImpactADHD, May 23, 2016)

More on recess benefits: “Why some schools are sending kids out for recess four times a day,” (Washington Post, September 13, 2016) quotes from an American Academy of Pediatrics’ Council on School Health publication “The Crucial Role of Recess in School” (pdf):

Recess serves as a necessary break from the rigors of concentrated, academic challenges in the classroom. But equally important is the fact that safe and well-supervised recess offers cognitive, social, emotional, and physical benefits that may not be fully appreciated when a decision is made to diminish it. Recess is unique from, and a complement to, physical education — not a substitute for it. The American Academy of Pediatrics believes that recess is a crucial and necessary component of a child’s development and, as such, it should not be withheld for punitive or academic reasons.

Also, “Recess Makes Kids Smarter: The benefits of recess are clear. Why are so many schools cutting back?,” (Scholastic, Date?):

Torres, 42, still lives in the same neighborhood she grew up in. Back then, kids had recess twice a day. “It taught me how to get along with others — whites, African-Americans. Nowadays, kids don’t know how to socialize among other groups,” she says.

There was no recess at her children’s school until last year when Torres and others lobbied and got a 10-minute break for the kids once a day. “They need to have a chance to burn off some energy,” she says. Being able to run around and swing on the monkey bars helps kids better focus in the classroom, maintains Torres — and research backs that up.

Increasing federal standards and testing requirements are part of the reason for reducing recess. “Seattle Kids Used To Get 95 Minutes Of Lunch And Recess,” (KUOW, October 1, 2015) and “Recess Shrinks At Seattle Schools; Poor Schools Fare Worst,” (KUOW, May 14, 2014), note shrinking recess times, especially for low-income schools.

There are no state or federal laws protecting recess time, either. Nor is there clear data on how much time students get for recess across the state or the U.S.

But Group Health pediatrician and childhood obesity researcher Paula Lozano said there is a known nationwide disparity in the amount of recess and PE disadvantaged students receive.

The initial article above, “Ritalin vs. Recess: Are Drugs Really the Answer to the ADHD Epidemic?,” includes the a story on the too-easy path to ADHD medication, even at an early age:

Emma was too young, at age four, to receive a sure diagnosis of ADHD, according to the American Psychiatric Association’s standards at the time. Her pediatrician suggested occupational therapy, which Emma did. But a few years later, the doctor referred Emma to a specialist—a developmental pediatrician—for a firm diagnosis. Kate was taken aback when she suggested Ritalin, especially since Emma had seen positive results from the occupational therapy. “She only met our daughter twice,” Kate recalled. “[Emma’s] occupational therapist, who she saw on a weekly basis for four years, told us medication was ridiculous.”