News article printed in Providence-Journal Bulletin 10/15/70

For a number of years we have worked with children who have been labeled neurologically handicapped, hyperactive, and more than not are said to have minimal brain damage. There are now many vague terms being used for this group of children neatly wrapped under a heading of "Learning Disabilities." Such a heading being vague in itself adds to the existing confusion. More appropriate it seems to me would be strike at the heart of the matter and name the whole unfortunate crisis - NEGLECT OF CHILDREN. It is ironic that millions of American parents live with the guilt of having been over-permissive parents in an age when our children have been punished because they are not all born equal. I have been unable to grasp this phenomenon because I never believed democracy and respecting human differences as incompatible. there are some facts that must be squarely faced and resolved before the "children and drugs" issue is plainly understood.

Since our children are not born equal we in America where we have the resources and know how to try to extend an equal education opportunity to every child. To do otherwise is to practice discrimination which is not democratic. In order to understand individual differences men carry on research and find ways that make the idea of allowing each child to maximize his potential a greater reality.

When children differ from the "average," special services are provided for them. It should be obvious that to expect a very retarded child to reach his potential without some kind of attention given by a teacher trained to understand such a child is absurd. Equally absurd is to demand the teacher of an average class to be able to give additional services to the exceptional child.

Who are the exceptional children? I believe the definition given by William M. Cruickshank is one few professionals would not accept. "Essentially, an exceptional child is one who deviates intellectually, physically, socially, or emotionally so markedly from what is considered to be normal growth and development that he cannot receive maximum benefit from a regular school program and requires a special class or supplementary instruction and services.

Most people recognize what is meant by children who are mentally retarded, brain injured, crippled, have speech, hearing or visual handicaps but when we refer to children of high mental ability the confusion begins. Anyone with concern for children and society should recognize the benefits of special consideration given a child regardless of the classification of his exceptionality. It should be however, of the greatest concern to the informed American that by discriminating against the child with the kind of superior intelligence necessary to solve human problems is a loss of the greatest consequence for individuals and for the nation.

Why don't we know more about the creative child? It appears it is a very unpopular classification - there is evidence that programs have to "go underground" when we want to do for the gifted.

Many of our foundation children were put on drugs as referred to in the news article. They have the characteristics that creative children exhibit - these same characteristics also may be similar to the disability that the drugs are meant to correct or control. Until we include the gifted child in the exceptional category and provide him special home and school environment, the problem will be disguised. Men have reminded me that the culture stresses conformity and mediocrity. Perhaps the drugs enable a child to better tolerate the wrong learning environment. If such is our culture there is even more urgent need to have a change of attitude because America's heritage lies in the recognition of individual differences. It is no less undemocratic to deprive the gifted child his heritage than it is the retarded child.

There is colossal evidence that the refusal to act in behalf of gifted children has been a source of great concern to many perceptive American leaders.

The National Defense Education Act of 1958 certainly pointed to the need of identifying the gifted child. President Eisenhower's sentiments are mentioned in the book - "Teaching the Bright & Gifted" by Cutts & Mosely "Because of the critical situation, President Eisenhower in 1956 set up a Committee for the Development of Scientists and Engineers to "foster the development of more highly qualified technological manpower." To this committee he appointed leaders from the fields of engineering, science, education, industry, labor, government, and the humanities.

When I found the overall ignorance toward this need in Rhode Island, I made every possible attempt to educate people. I gave materials and information to many parents in the hope of organizing effective action. There were incredible obstacles to overcome; political interference presented a power I never anticipated. I, naturally, believed any man in political office, regardless of his party affiliation, would want to help an organization such as I encouraged. It also became apparent that the professional people worked to disguise the problem.

Each time I suffered new defeat I would seek new ways to overcome the resistance. We have professional leadership in order to begin to clear the issue.

Knowing that a state ignored the very existence of gifted and creative children had to have children whose mental health had been damaged, I sought assistance from the doctors. It was then I began to learn about the drugs and children. One child psychologist informed me the people weren't ready for these children! This is a paradoxical statement! - America in 1970 with untold problems needing creative leadership for solutions yet, we're not ready for the creative child! Nor will I any longer accept "the people aren't ready." The American people are humane and they will not object to this deplorable rejection of gifted children. They are not aware of the truth.

If a doctor feels drugs for the child is beneficial since the special proper education and teachers are not available, why aren't they using their professional status to overcome ignorance and prejudices.

Many of our parents of creatively gifted children are told by doctors their children have minimal brain damage which causes hyperactivity. Why can't it be understood that a highly creative child who is exceptional exhibits certain different behavior because he is creative?! - racy, inquiring mind, high sensitivity - extra active - unwilling to take time out for sleep. Could he appears to have visual perception problems because he sees things in a new way! Creativity - NEW?

Drugs just for the sake of delaying the need to identify these children and provide them their heritage is absolutely the height of folly. We have youngsters on various drugs for all sorts of reasons. Some were put on drugs by order of an individual who had never seem the child. Others just have the dosage doubled because of a call by parent registering a complaint. School systems refuse to keep a child unless parents increase drug dosage. Something is very much awry!!!

Therefore, it seems irrelevant to begin what promises to be a long series of debates because some doctors approve and some doctors don't. Before we have the task forces and study commissions please let us all admit that America needs to accept the creative children and admit we have to do something for them.

There is a reference made in William Cruickshank's book, "EDUCATION OF EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN AND YOUTH," on his chapter dealing with the brain injured child that adds to the confusion. "The tendency to deviate from standard meaning is not necessarily considered negatively so fare as the brain injured child is concerned. To the contrary, these responses often give one the impression of dealing with an ingenious and creative individual. The fact, however, that brain damaged children often perceive a detail of the object and on the basis of this detail modify the essential meaning of the object, frequently means that standard meanings of things as accepted by society and the culture may be overlooked and in the process of this deviation the brain injured child is misunderstood in his behavior and misjudged in his ability. The fact of the matter is, of course, that he is deviating from the way his culture conceptualizes things and in doing so sets himself apart. This is not, however, an indication of mental retardation per se. It is an indication of inadequate concept formation as compared with the cultural norm."

What force in America has the power to encourage professional groups to continue to cloud such a vital issue? is the power so great and so unyielding that we have to drug our children rather than starts a caring for them in more humane ways?

Working with these children is an awesome, beautiful, almost spiritual experience. But only by accepting them will you be able to experience this joy.

Perhaps this spiritual revolution we are living through is the beginning to the end of this rejection of our creative minority. these are the children our nation needs so desperately. They are the people who can solve our problems. Those who have studied their characteristics find them to be very democratic, haters of injustices, lovers of peace, and willing to work for mankind for other than material gain.

It would seem our professional would urge immediate understanding. Our political leaders should make this issue their main concern. To continue to stifle creative offerings is to deny God's greatest gift to mankind!

Everyone who has worked with children should have Dr. Fritz Redl's book, "When We Deal With Children." I urge every educator, doctor, and religious leaders and parents to read and re-read and then read again what this compassionate, perceptive humane child psychologist has to say.

As for our political leaders - take time out from your boring rhetoric dealing with your personal differences and the political comedies - "Look what I did" or "I can Do It Better." Why not become creative yourself and deal with what the American people are eager to hear? What do you plan to do for our children - all our children. You have done nothing and our children and nation suffer. Our children are every American's problem.

Marie Friedel
Wawick, RI

-3-

In February, 1972, a journal reporter did a series of articles on the children and drugs issue in Rhode Island. Randall Richard did confer with me and read our packet. I believe the work he did helped to slow down the drugging of children in Rhode Island. Richard did quote me on how I felt about this deplorable situation:

"The reason for the drugging", Mrs. Friedel asserted, "is that school departments are so rigid and inflexible that the drugs may be used on sensitive children in order to manage their behavior. When a child is free and not under such pressure( as in the summer ), they do not need drugs.", she added.

Randall Richard said : "Mrs. Friedel, executive director of the National Foundation for Gifted and Creative Children, a tax-exempt foundation operated from her Warwick home, has been one of the most outspoken critics of drug therapy for hyperactive children."

In spite of many articles and angry reactions by many to the drugs and children, I am finding that the practice has spread far and wide. We must remember that the entire research that started the idea, that children would learn better while on drugs, occurred in our State of Rhode Island.

In the magazine, AMERICAN EDUCATOR (1978), Summer edition, there is an article by Dr. Steven Box. It made me realize that we must con- tinue to fight to overcome this problem of children on prescription drugs. The title of his writing is: A QUESTION OF ETHICS- -HYPERACTIVITY: THE SCANDALOUS SILENCE.

Dr. Box ends his article by saying: "It may be difficult to turn away such a gift-horse. and clearly government officials have not been able to do so. But, if we are to stem the steady slide not towards 1984 but BRAVE NEW WORLD, then we must end the psychological violence many school children are suffering due to the educational authorities' direct refusal to come to grips with the problems faced by many of their pupils. What they need is not drug therapy, but the opportunity to live their lives more fully. That requires a rethinking of the entire purposes and functions of compulsory education and the place of medical and psych- iactric care within it."

I wrote to Dr. Box and told him I am not silent--if you would like to contact him, you may write to the University of Kent, Canter- bury, Kent.

Marie Friedel, August 1979