Already there. My sister bristles if I call someone "special" meaning slow.

I feel like this is like trying to make casual names for women. The b-word is highly unacceptable with a lot of people, but some don't mind it being applied where (by definition) it shouldn't be. Others replace the word with "female," but some women have a problem with that. Some prefer ma'am and others hate it, some like "Miss Lady" but one girl didn't like that either...people will get insulted by just about anything, depending on their individual idiosyncrasies. I'm all for banning words that are blatant insults, no one word is going to gain universal popularity.

But there's also a real danger in not diagnosing someone at a young age, and not giving that child/young adult the type of educational support that they need (through IDPs, etc.). I have a couple of special education professionals in my family (including one who's very well-respected in the field), and they feel pretty strongly that the ability to diagnose early has been a big positive. Now, if it's a faulty diagnosis, or it's done by someone who has no knowledge in the field, that's a whole other issue...

I'm not saying this is the case with your friends, but I'll flip your statement a little - as I see it, there is a problem with parents who don't want to admit that their child is on the spectrum, or has some learning disability, etc. Whether it's because they blame themselves, or because they don't want to see their children as anything less than "perfect," I think parental resistance is a bigger issue than early diagnosis.

I think, in ways, you're both right. I've seen major issues with parental resistance. You're right that when you're talking about the autism spectrum, the earlier the diagnosis the better. But it doesn't help if you have random people who (1) don't really know what they're talking about or (2) aren't in a proper position (teacher, school counselor) to be offering that kind of advice.

One of the girls who is having this issue with her daughter is a teacher herself with a Masters' degree. Part of the problem is they're in a rural area and the (small) school district, basically, wants to throw her into the learning disabled area, get the extra $$ from the state and be done with it. They don't want to keep working with her or testing her.

Also, I think that the increased awareness of autism has made parents & teachers more easily believe that children have it. Kinda like reading the Merck Manual and then thinking you have some horrid disease because you have one or two of the symptoms.

I hear people accuse schools of doing this but it doesn't make sense in my experience. If you label the kid, you create a legal obligation to deliver appropriate services. It's hard to see how a system is going to make money on that deal. Sure, some systems fight giving kids expensive services that the parents might want, but the parents can take them to court and sue using the diagnosis the system gave the kid. By testing and identifying the kid, you're creating an obligation that you wouldn't otherwise have.

I don't see how it's a good idea from the system's perspective, unless you really think the kid needs services that you can deliver.

I agree that more kids are identified today absolutely, and I suppose that can seem suspicious. However, I can't figure out why schools would do it except that they really think the kid has a disability and can benefit from services. I don't think any systems actually profit from their special ed programs bringing in more funding than they cost.

I see. and yep . . . that's a problem in lots of ways.

It's the new ADHD -- throw a label on it and -- presto -- problem solved. :rolleyes:

(And I say that as the dad of a kid diagnosed, by very competent diagnosticians, with both ADHD and Asperger's.)

I could see that side of it - if the relevant people in the school district aren't educated on the subject, then definitely, early intervention can have its drawbacks. I think that just speaks to a larger issue, that school districts need qualified people to be making these assessments.

Yes, but "appropriate services" is more elastic than Granny's underpants. Like I said, this is a rural area. They don't have the option of putting her in another school like they would if they were here in the city, unless they want to drive her an hour plus one way twice a day. They stick her in the learning disabled classes, which may or may not meet her needs or help her condition, and then don't have to deal with her anymore.

I look back at kids I was in school with and some of them most likely did have an undiagnosed disability, and wonder how much they might have achieved with early intervention. Honestly I don't know which is worse - too much or not enough.

All labeling comes with a good and bad.

The good that comes with testing people early on is that they will get the necessary services.

The bad is that they will be "tracked." "Tracking" has more cons than pros, including convincing a kid and others that she/he will never do more than what she/he has been diagnosed as capable of.

This is why I appreciate school systems that minimize "tracking." I went to a high school graduation where the autistic and mentally and physically handicapped students were never tracked out of their classes. They were taught in the same classes as the rest of the students, but given different materials when needed and had people assisting them when needed. So, when they walked across that graduation stage, their graduating class gave them a standing ovation because they knew these students. They weren't the "crazy kids in the room with no windows."

And while I'm no expert on the full spectrum of intellectual disabilities, I can imagine cases where one with an intellectual disability is not retarded. Off the top of my head, I pose dyslexia. Dyslexics have an intellectual disability (or "challenge", if you prefer), but most are NOT retarded. Some autistic individuals, IIRC, have intellectual disabilities, but are not retarded. Others are.

So lumping them all together to make a case for social engineering based on labels is, in my mind, somewhat suspect. It seems a case of finding "facts" to "prove" something.

Exactly - from what I've heard about autism, many people who have it are anything BUT retarded and often have very high IQs. It's sharing the knowledge with the world in general that is the problem.