Rising numbers of kids expelled from preschool and diagnosed with autism: are they linked?

Two alarming news items compete for attention. The first,  a New York Times editorial entitled Giving Up on Four-Year-Olds describes a recent report showing expulsion from preschool as a form of discipline occurring in increasing numbers. A second speaks to the new CDC statistics indicating that 1 in 68 children have autism, a change from 1 in 88 just 5 years ago.

Perhaps both represent a lack of value of space and time for listening, in particular for listening to children and parents. Elizabeth Young-Breuhl might refer to both phenomena as prejudice against children. 

Each child who is expelled from preschool has a story. Similarly, every child diagnosed with autism has a story. It takes time, and a safe non-judgmental environment to bring these stories to light and so make sense of a child's behavior.

There may be witnessed domestic violence. When  a child lives in fear, he may respond to the "threat" of a child standing too close to him in line by pushing him. A reprimanding voice may lead to escalation of stress and even the development of a "fight-flight reaction." Being sent to the principal's office leads to further disorganization. 

Sensory processing challenges are often prominent. A withdrawal from social interaction makes sense from the perspective of a child who is flooded and overwhelmed by a busy classroom. Crawling under a desk may not be something "wrong" but rather an adaptive response.

Increasingly structured school environments, with little room for variation and high student:teacher ratios may exacerbate both of these problems. 

However, once we have the opportunity to hear the story, what to do to help the child becomes clear. One boy whose behavior had escalated to the point where he was throwing things at the teacher felt calm if he could start the day with a few minutes buried under the plastic balls in the ball pit. Another who would run in circles much of the day discovered music. When she was invited to sing or play an instrument she could sit calmly with the other children. Another family recognized how the level of chaos in the home was particularly problematic given their son's vulnerabilities, and took steps to change that environment.

A recent New York Times article describes a wonderful school program, Head Start Trauma Smart, an example of an innovative program that takes time to listen to the story, make sense of a child's behavior and respond appropriately. In contrast, expelling children for "acting out" may result in a cascade of worsening behavior problems.

The massive rise in autism numbers may reflect a need to name a problem with certainty, rather than taking the time to let the story unfold, to let a child grow in to himself. Perhaps if parents, teachers and clinicians had the opportunity to get a child the help he needs without pressure to name the problem, the numbers would be much lower.

Clearly there are significant differences between these two issues. But an underlying theme emerges. 

Are iPad attachments for bouncy seats and potty seats a violation of infants rights?

I was contemplating writing a blog post about the movement by the Boston-based advocacy group Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood urging Fisher-Price to recall the baby bouncy seat with an attachment for insertion of an iPad. When I then received an email from a colleague with a link for another product- a potty seat with an attachment for an iPad- there was no going back. I decided not to include the link to that product so as not to inadvertently be a source of free advertising, but it is easy to find. 

In our technology driven culture, a position maintaining that we need to put on the brakes is a challenging one to take. The force of "progress" is so powerful that one runs the risk of seeming out-of-touch or old fashioned. But in these two products I believe we have come face-to-face with exploitation of children ( and their parents) or what I have described in a previous post as a "prejudice" against children. I would even go so far as to say it is a violation of infants' rights.

In today's society, where parents are often living in a state of high stress, with little support, either practical or emotional, the appeal of these products is very understandable. The allure of the screen is equally, if not more powerful for the infant. So from a marketing perspective, from a moneymaking perspective, it is a recipe for success. 

I became aware of the concept of infants' rights in my role as a board member of the Massachusetts chapter of the World Association of Infant Mental Health. A preliminary version the Declaration of Infants' Rights, a work in progress, reads:

The young child’s capacity to experience, regulate, and express emotions, form close and secure relationships, and explore the environment and learn are fundamental to mental as well as physical and developmental health throughout the life span.

So how do these products violate these rights? Lets start with toilet training. Recently I had the opportunity to write the parent guide for a new children's book, Potty Palooza. I identify the relational nature of toilet training:

Toilet training occurs in relationships. This includes a child’s relationship with his body, as well as his relationship with you. Toilet training will occur under the influence of a child’s inborn desire for mastery in relation to his body. A normal developmental movement toward separation and independence, together with your child’s wish to be like you and to please you, will move the process forward.

I do not know what will happen if you insert a screen between parent and child as part of this process (and sitting on the potty with a book is an entirely different experience.)  It is likely that the draw of the screen will interfere with a child's ability to read his body's natural signals.  The desire for treasured "screen time" will become the motivation for sitting on the potty, replacing his natural motivation to please his parents and to gain mastery over his body in a healthy way.  

Turning to the Ipad in the bouncy seat, the possible effects are more insidious and diffuse. Sitting in the bouncy seat in kitchen watching mom or dad prepare dinner is a time of great learning; a time of significant brain development. This learning occurs both through direct interactions with adults and older siblings, as well as through observation. The iPad interferes with both. As CCFC writes:

The Apptivity Seat is the ultimate electronic baby sitter. Because screens can be mesmerizing and babies are strapped down and “safely" restrained, it encourages parents to leave infants all alone with an iPad. To make matters worse, Fisher-Price is marketing the Apptivity Seat—and claiming it’s educational—for newborns. Parents are encouraged to download “early learning apps” that claim to “introduce baby to letters, numbers and more.” There’s no evidence that babies benefit from screen time and some evidence that it might be harmful. That’s why the American Academy of Pediatrics discourages any screen time for children under two.

Extensive evidence at the interface of neuroscience and developmental psychology shows how the brain is wired in relationships, with the most rapid brain growth occurring in the first three years. Instead of making products that come between parent and infant, our focus needs to be on supporting early caregiver-infant relationships, in the form of such things as parental leave, quality childcare and screening for and treatment of postpartum depression.

ADHD at 4, Violent at 15: Are Lessons Learned?

When I write about lessons I have learned from my patients, I go to great lengths to protect their privacy by altering details and identifying information. However, as the Serpico family has so generously and bravely offered their story to the public in the New York Times, the details are available for all to see. And the story offers a very important lesson.

The focus of the article, Seeing Son's Violent Potential, But Finding Little Help or Hope is on the current situation- on how a well-insured, well-educated family is struggling to get help for their deeply troubled teenage son.

But the lesson comes early on, and is contained in this paragraph:

Lena and Robert Serpico knew something was not right before their son was in kindergarten. They had taken him and his younger brother in as foster children from a mother who used drugs, and they later adopted both. The older boy, whose name is not being published at the Serpicos’ request, was restless and impulsive from the beginning and got his first diagnosis at age 4: attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

While the amount of time this boy lived with his biological mother is not stated, if he was the older of two brothers and they were placed in foster care together, it was at least nine months. The human infant is uniquely helpless in the early weeks and months of life. His brain develops the capacity for self-regulation when the people who care for him can be present and attuned. The brain undergoes its most rapid development in the first year. A caregiver who is using drugs will be impaired in her ability to offer this attunment, significantly impacting on that child's self-regulation capacity. Separation from a primary caregiver, no matter how impaired, is itself traumatic even for a very young child.

The good news is that the brain continues to grow and change rapidly in the first 5 years. There is ample opportunity to set things on a better path even in the face of early adversity. Several evidence based interventions, such as Child-Parent Psychotherapy, can help parents make sense of a child's behavior and so set development, at the level of brain structure and function, on a better path. When early childhood educators recognize the impact of early experience, as in the Head Start-Trauma Smart program, there is opportunity to support healthy development in the classroom.

But for this child, there is no indication of any significant intervention before age 4, despite the fact that he was "restless and impulsive from the beginning." There seems to be no link made between his early developmental experience and his difficulty with self-regulation. Though the article does not address this question, I wonder how much information his adoptive parents were given about the developmental effects of his early life experience. I wonder how much support they were given in the early years of foster care and then adoption.  Was there space and time to listen to them? By labeling his constellation of behaviors at age 4 as "ADHD" and prescribing medication, the path to finding meaning in his behavior was closed off.

Because stimulant medication is so effective at controlling behavior, his impulsively subsided in the elementary school years. But given his history, it is almost inevitable that without addressing the underlying cause for the behavioral and emotional dysregulation, with the onset of adolescence symptoms would resurface. While the short term goal of sitting still and paying attention in school was achieved, valuable time was lost.  His opportunity to communicate his need for help with self-regulation was silenced by medication.

He showed an affinity for guitar during those years of relative peace. Music,  martial arts, theater athletics, and a range of other activities, both through the activities themselves as well as the relationships formed, are other ways in which children can develop emotional, attentional and behavioral regulation.  With a diagnosis made and his symptoms effectively eliminated, motivation to pursue more creative, long lasting interventions, either in addition to or instead of medication, was likely not there.

What instead followed was a string of different diagnoses and medications, with what his parents describe as a terrifying downward spiral in mental health,  in parallel with a dramatic upward spiral of health care costs.

Virtually all of the comments on the article, over 800 as I write this, focus on the Serpico's struggles to get, and pay for, appropriate care for their teenage son. Certainly that is an important issue. Early intervention will be of no use to the Serpico family now. In fact, it might be quite painful to think of missed opportunities.

But the real value of this story lies in its cautionary nature. If it can be used to advocate for recognition of the impact of early development, and for investment in preventive intervention in the early years, their story could potentially help to save a lot of grief, suffering, and money.

Women are Women where ever we birth