Houston-area campuses reviewing curriculum to deal with the influx
July 29, 2008
By JENNIFER RADCLIFFE
Houston Chronicle
Crossroads, a small, private school near the Galleria, serves students with dyslexia, attention-deficit disorder and a handful of other learning disabilities.
It's no coincidence, experts said, that a large percentage of its students are also adopted.
Because of abuse, genetic issues and a lack of prenatal care, adoptive children are much more likely to struggle with learning disabilities, prompting their families to leave public schools in search of the extra help offered by often costly specialty schools.
While adoptive children account for 1 percent to 2 percent of the population, higher rates can be found in almost every mental health setting, including residential facilities and public school special education programs.
"It's not stigmatizing to kids to say they're getting more help. It's saying, 'We're doing the right thing for the kids,' " said Adam Pertman, executive director of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute. "Adoptive parents are being respectful and responsive."
Part of the reason for the higher rates is that adoptive parents tend to be more affluent and more willing to ask for extra help. And because they often don't have detailed information on their children's birth families, adoptive parents are usually quicker to seek advice if they spot an academic or emotional problem, experts said.
Educators at private specialty campuses say they're just starting to get a handle on the high concentrations of adoptive children — some have found adoption rates 20 times what would be expected in a typical classroom.
They said they're now paying extra attention to the counseling and curriculum they provide. They've learned that many of their children were born overseas or spent time in Child Protective Services.
"That's a large part of why they're here, not so much because they're adopted, but because of the difficult start they've had," said Gila Amoni, director of the Crossroads School.
Many of the adoptive children at Crossroads were born overseas. Other private schools report having high numbers of children placed through CPS.
Katy mother Leslie Smith sought out Houston's Gateway Academy for two of the four children she fostered and then adopted. They all had heartbreaking starts, including her 16-year-old son, Jordan, the seventh child born to a 22-year-old drug addict.
"I don't know any child in America who could go through the foster care system and not have some type of special need," Smith said. "I've intervened and fought for everything they've ever had in their lives. I'm not going to stop fighting when it comes to academic issues."
Smith got scholarships and a full-time job to afford the $50,000 a year in tuition needed to send two children to Gateway, a private high school for teens with learning disabilities.
Roughly 100,000 children were adopted in the United States last year by people other than their relatives. About half of those came through the foster care system. Some 20,000 were international adoptions, while at least 15,000 were private, domestic adoptions, said David Brodzinsky, a prominent author and researcher on adoption issues.
Sixteen-year-old Jordan said he's thrilled that his mom pulled him out of the Cypress-Fairbanks school district and found Gateway Academy last year.
"The classes are just small enough, and the teachers will help you out a lot," he said. "In Cy-Fair, they had a lot more kids. You kind of just have to survive."
Helping families adjust
Officials with Houston's specialty private schools say they're trying to be thoughtful about how they work with the influx of adoptive families.
The acceptance process regarding learning disabilities tends to be a little different for families with adoptive children, educators said. Parents who adopt, for instance, aren't forced to wonder whether they somehow caused the child's difficulties during pregnancy or handed it down through genetics.
"It's usually easier for them to accept their child's difficulties. They don't have the 'did I do something wrong in-utero?' guilt," said Shara Bumgarner, head of the Joy School, where at least 10 percent of the population is adopted.
At the same time, parents can have a difficult time adjusting their expectations for adoptive children. Some have a harder time understanding that the child may not be capable of following in their footsteps.
Adoptive parents should try to see the lack of predictability as a positive, Brodzinsky said.
"That's one of the the things they enjoy about raising adopted children: There's always surprises," he said.
When educators know they have high concentrations of adoptive children, they should seek training to make sure there's nothing in the curriculum that might be uncomfortable for an adoptive child.
"It's good information to have before a teacher jumps off and says, 'Let's do a family tree.' For some young children who know about the adoption, that might cause additional issues," said Carole Wills, head of The Briarwood School.
Whether a child is adopted and aware of the adoption are questions on Briarwood's application. At one of the school's three campuses, more than 10 percent of students were adopted.
Administrators said they plan to review adoption data again this school year to see if the statistics have changed.
"Anything, any piece of information we can learn about the child, the family, that will benefit us. It will help us educate that child," Wills said.
Bumgarner said her campus has come to expect to be a magnet for adoptive children.
"We don't even blink an eye anymore," she said.
jennifer.radcliffe@chron.com
Comments
Blame it on the natural parents
The above article really got me angry. For some reason the self-glorifying words of the Evan B Donaldson bros happen to do that to me. Without all that much evidence for what is being said, the verdict is clear: it's all the fault of the natural parents.
While I don't want to debate the fact that many children adopted from foster care have suffered abuse in their natural family, which causes many troubles later in life, it is not the only, or most prevailing reason children are adopted.
Especially children from affluent families, rich enough to send their children to costly specialty schools are least likely to have been adopted because they were out-placed because of abuse. Affluent people tend to adopt infants, most of which never experienced abuse. Many of the children adopted through foster care end up in lower and middle income families, that don't have the means to pay for expensive private education.
The article states that about half of the 100,000 children in the USA are adopted from foster care, 20,000 are adopted internationally and at least 15,000 are domestic adoptions. Doing only simple arithmatic leads to the conclusion some 15,000 children are not accounted for in the equation, which makes me wonder how accurate these figures are.Still the fact about half of the adopted children comes from the foster care system, doesn't imply half the population of adopted children on these private schools come from foster care. Most likely the figures are mostly skewed towards the children that are not adopted from foster care.
The choice in parents to quote in the article is therefore pretty biased. The article starts with Crossroads and makes the impression it is portraying a picture of that particular school, where many of the children were born overseas, living in affluent families, but the children of the two parents quoted both go to Gateway and are adopted through foster care.
The genetic issue reads to me like the age old "bad blood" debate that roared during the first half of the twentieth century:
Many personality traits are largely heriditary, but since when are learning disorders a personality trait? Intelligence is, but that doesn't count as a learning disorder, although it can be perceived as such by those adopters that want to see their adopted children following in their footsteps. So what exactly are the genetic factors the article is talking about, or are we indeed faced with the modern polite form of eugenic argumentation.
Finally the factor of prenatal care. Based on the argument many of the children in these schools are in fact adopted as infants, it is most likely the mother's in question knew about the upcoming relinquishment while being pregnant. Thi can easily lead to induced levels of stress, which as this article states: can alter the structure of her offspring's brain, particularly regions vital for emotional development. So in effect adoption can easily be and influencial factor in the formation of learning disorders, much more so than inadequate prenatal care as the article suggests in their blame it on the natural parents ideology.
The Evan B Donaldson bros are expected to preach for the adoption church, where adopters are deemed holy and beyond suspicion, so what is presented in the article is entirely biased in favour of adoption and the sanctity of adoptive parents. It largely ignores the fact that many adoptees have serious grief issues that may easily go unnoticed. It ignores trust issues adoptees face that can seriously impair their learning abilities. It ignores the fact that several adoptive families are not any safer than natural families. It is time adoptees are getting paid to do research into these topics instead of adopters that have reasons to sugar coat their own actions.
Blinking in disbelief
And the response to this interest in the adoptee? Diagnostic labels that keep the adoptee in a state of hyper-definition. Whatever would the mental-health field do without adoptees, and their abundant resource for "further study"?
Interestingly enough, it was a letter sent by PPL to Brodzinsky that made me doubt the sincere interest in the long-term needs of the adoptee. In response to the question: "Is there to your knowledge any study done about what one could call the double whammy of adoption and abuse within the adoptive family?", he offered the following:
It's this "screening (to some extent)" that should make people question just how full and factual any adoption-related screening really is. For instance, how many adoptees really have come from abusive drug-addicted/alcoholic mothers, and how many were simply sold with that story?
I find the motives behind a school that thrives on labels a very questionable and dangerous place to send any child - adopted, fostered, or not.