The fear is very real, because adults can’t watch kids and teens every moment of every day. The possibility of repercussions — such as even worse bullying — for reporting bullying behavior reinforce the fear and cycle of bullying.

That’s why it’s so refreshing and gives us hope to have come across this video the other day by 16-year-old Canadian Megan Landry. Join over 105,000 others (as of this writing) who’ve already watched and give a view below.

Luckily, Megan is reaching out to share the video with sites like ours:

Hi, I’m 16, I wrote this because I was bullied. I did the video myself too. I hope my song will give other kids the power “to look right over their heads.”

[...] I know it’s making a difference because of all the comments.

Just incredible. We think it’s making a difference too, and are honored to share it with our readers here.

Homegrown projects like this — that are so moving and sharp — gives us hope that we can turn the tables on bullying. We imagine it will give other teens hope as well.

We had a brief email exchange with Megan, a single child, to learn more about the video, and I asked her what inspired her and her friends to create this video.

I was bullied in grade 8 and grade 9 by a group of mean girls. It was a tough time because if anyone was nice to me, the bullies would be mean to them, so I was alone a lot.

I’m now in grade 11 and it’s over. You never though totally trust again. I wrote the song and asked a good friend Caroline to bring a couple of her friends so they could be in my video. If you Google “Megan Landry” Stronger you will see how much people have shared it.

This means the most to me because I hope other kids will be able to be strong and grow from it and not let it hurt them. I want to write music that will make a difference.

Sometimes those with innate musical talent, as I believe Megan has, underestimate their own abilities. When asked if she had an agent or any professional interest, she replied, “No, I don’t think I’m that good yet.”

“I’ve been playing piano since I was four, self-taught up to age nine then I got lessons. I wrote my first song when I was eleven. ”

I believe Megan has shown in this video alone that she has a lot of potential and is a rising teen star to watch.

Subscribe to Megan’s YouTube channel.

Colleges and university are cutting back on their involvement with ADHD, primarily due to abuse of the psychiatric medications — stimulants like Ritalin — prescribed to treat the disorder. Students — whether they are malingering the symptoms or actually have it — are prescribed a drug to treat ADHD (sometimes from different providers in different states), then sell a few (or all the) pills on the side. Profit!

Now universities are becoming wise to the epidemic nature of the problem, as some studies have suggested up to a third of college students are illicitly taking ADHD stimulants.

This might help curb the abuse problem, but will it also make it harder for people with actual ADHD to receive treatment?

The short answer is, yes, of course. Students with a pre-existing diagnosis of attention deficit or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder will still often be able to get their prescriptions filled while at school. The university just doesn’t want to do the diagnosing of ADHD any longer.

I’ve long wondered at the wisdom of universities getting into the ADHD business in the first place. University counseling centers generally shrug off long-term treatment of serious mental illness. So it’s never been clear to me why they were comfortable prescribing medications for ADHD.

The New York Times notes — in a well-written take on this issue by Alan Schwarz — that the changes are sweeping campuses throughout the country:

Lisa Beach endured two months of testing and paperwork before the student health office at her college approved a diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Then, to get a prescription for Vyvanse, a standard treatment for A.D.H.D., she had to sign a formal contract — promising to submit to drug testing, to see a mental health professional every month and to not share the pills. [...]

The University of Alabama and Marist College, like Fresno State, require students to sign contracts promising not to misuse pills or share them with classmates. Some schools, citing the rigor required to make a proper A.D.H.D. diagnosis, forbid their clinicians to make one (George Mason) or prescribe stimulants (William & Mary), and instead refer students to off-campus providers. Marquette requires students to sign releases allowing clinicians to phone their parents for full medical histories and to confirm the truth of the symptoms.

“We get complaints that you’re making it hard to get treatment,” said Dr. Jon Porter, director of medical, counseling and psychiatry services at the University of Vermont, which will not perform diagnostic evaluations for A.D.H.D. “There’s some truth to that. The counterweight is these prescriptions can be abused at a high rate, and we’re not willing to be a part of that and end up with kids sick or dead.”

Not everyone is convinced:

“If a university is very concerned about stimulant abuse, I would think the worst thing they could do is to relinquish this responsibility to unknown community practitioners,” Ms. Hughes [CEO of CHADD, an advocacy organization] said. “Nonprescribed use of stimulant medications on campus is a serious problem that can’t just be punted to someone else outside the school grounds.”

She has a point. The 2010 suicide death of Kyle Craig, who abused Adderall prescribed by his local physician at home and not by the university he attended, suggests the problem is more wide-ranging than perhaps some university officials understand.

However, this sort of effort on the part of Fresno State is amazing and should be applauded:

And in a rare policy among colleges, students receiving prescriptions to treat A.D.H.D. must see a Fresno State therapist regularly — not for a cursory five-minute “med check” but for at least one 50-minute session a month.

Psychotherapy required for ADHD treatment? Nice — finally an institution that listens to the research and understands that medications are, for most, not a life-long answer.

I think that, by and large, this is a measured response to a very serious problem of stimulant abuse among college students. Students have long enjoyed free healthcare on campus, with counseling an additional free service they receive. But student counseling centers mostly refer students with serious, ongoing mental health or mental illness to local providers in the community — they’re simply not well-equipped to treat people with such concerns. I see no reason why ADHD should be an exception.

What this does for the colleges that are mostly getting out of the ADHD business is to limit the overall amount of prescriptions floating around for these stimulant meds. That should drive down supply, drive up prices, and make it less attractive as a “study” option for students without ADHD.

As for the students who actually have attention deficit disorder? I think they will still be able to get the treatment they need. Having seen people at community mental health centers, I know that if there’s a will, people will find a way to pay for mental health services.

Read the full article: Colleges Tackle Illicit Use of A.D.H.D. Pills

With social media a major part of teens’ lives, it’s important they have a healthy relationship with the Internet. What does this look like?

According to Udall-Weiner, it resembles any healthy relationship: It has boundaries.

It also shouldn’t have to meet all their needs, including emotional, social, intellectual and spiritual, she said. For instance, sites like Facebook, Twitter and Pinterest should never replace face-to-face interactions, she said. Instead, they should supplement them. That’s because online interactions lack the emotional depth and support of real-time relationships. “…[I]t’s hard to know whether someone is trustworthy, loyal, and invested in your well-being.”

The Internet also lets people keep a comfortable distance from others. Udall-Weiner cited MIT professor Sherry Turkle, who believes the Internet provides “the illusion of companionship, without the demands of friendship,” and “people are comforted by being in touch with a lot of people, whom they also keep at bay.”

Fortunately, parents can teach their kids to use the Internet in healthy ways. Below, Udall-Weiner shared five strategies.

What Parents Can Do

In Udall-Weiner’s experience, parents approach Internet use with extremes: “they either prohibit it, or they pretend it doesn’t exist, since they’re quite terrified to find out what their child is really doing online.” Instead, she suggested communicating with your kids and teaching them to be more aware of how they use the Internet.

1. Talk to your teen about their time online.

Talking to your kids about how they use social media and technology helps them break out of autopilot and become more mindful of their actions and reactions, Udall-Weiner said. “[This] is an important skill when it comes to developing emotional competence.” It’s important for teens to understand how being online affects them (such as their mood).

She suggested asking your kids these questions: “Which websites do you often visit?  How do you feel emotionally, both during and after using these sites? Have you ever had any uncomfortable experiences online, or seen anything upsetting? Do you believe that there are any downsides to viewing the sites you regularly visit, or to using the Internet in general?”

2. Teach your teen to be media literate.

A mistake parents often make, according to Udall-Weiner, is that they don’t teach their kids about media literacy. But it’s vital for kids to understand that what they see isn’t what they get online. For instance, “Parents need to actively remind their children that images are not reality—that no one is as thin, perfectly-muscled, unwrinkled, or flawless as that person in the ad.” She suggested visiting Media Smarts for more information.

3. Set time limits on Internet use.

Teens are still developing their executive functions, which include monitoring behavior, organizing information and setting goals, she said. Plus, spending too much time on sites like Facebook can make teens feel worse. “My clients regularly tell me that they become very upset after looking at Facebook, since everyone looks happier, thinner, or more popular than they feel.” So parents might need to set restrictions on Internet use.

4. Surrender all phones before bedtime.

“This is a way to ensure that kids aren’t up late texting or surfing the web, rather than getting precious sleep,” Udall-Weiner said. This rule also applies to parents’ phones, “since kids emulate what they see.”

5. Know the research about Internet use.

Research has suggested that looking at images of thin models — which are splashed all over the Internet — may be associated with various negative consequences. “After seeing these images, people report things like decreased self-esteem, poor body image, depression, guilt, shame, stress, and an urge to engage in eating-disordered behavior, such as restricting food intake,” said Udall-Weiner. She also specializes in body image and eating disorders and founded ED Educate, a website with resources for parents.

Research also has suggested that the Internet makes us feel more disconnected from others, she said. “It’s important for teens to know the research on Internet use.” Talk to your kids about these findings.

Udall-Weiner shares more information and tips on supervising your child’s Internet use in this video.

But do you know what else kids need parents for? Want to guess? Whatever you’re thinking is probably true, but I doubt it’s the answer I’m thinking of.

Kids need parents to restrict their freedom.

What?! That sounds like heresy in a freedom-loving culture.

Shouldn’t we all have freedom to follow our desires? To do what we want? To venture down the road we find most appealing? Isn’t that what our social movements (civil rights, women’s movement, gay liberation) have been about? Remove the restrictions! We want the freedom to indulge in our inclinations!

So why not kids? Why shouldn’t kids participate fully in the freedom movement? And, especially during the teen years, why shouldn’t parents capitulate to their kids’ desires?

Here’s why: To live in a world with few external restrictions, you need to have the ability to say “no” to your momentary impulses and passions. And kids (except for the most conscientious kids) do not have that ability.

Left to their own devices, how many kids do you know who will choose to eat a healthy meal over devouring dessert for dinner? How many do you know who would choose to do homework rather than indulge in video games? How many do you know who would voluntarily say “it’s time for me to go to sleep”?

The dream of “freedom from” works only if you know how to handle the “freedom to” part. You may think you’re really lucky if you have total freedom. But if you’re unable to create a viable balance between freedom and restraint, you’re not lucky at all. Witness all the grossly obese people, the crazy-in-debt people, the chronically sleep-deprived people, the addicted people. And these are adults who should have more control over their impulses than kids.

So what happens when kids are free to do as they please? Do you think their nobler instincts typically triumph over their baser ones? If so, you are a dreamer. For most kids have no idea how to handle an excess of freedom, even though they’re demanding it.

It’s natural for kids to lobby for fewer restrictions. And it’s natural for parents to ease up on restraints as kids get older. But if parents make a wholesale capitulation to endless and insistent demands for more freedom, the results typically are appalling.

Here’s the end result when kids get to run the household: They eat only what they want to eat. They watch an inordinate amount of TV. They play an endless amount of video games. They go to sleep when they damn well please. They cuss out their parents. They don’t take care of their things. They demand that their parents buy them whatever they want. They have no frustration tolerance. Their wants become their needs. Their needs must be met. Their needs supersede everyone else’s.

And that’s just a description of pre-adolescent behavior. Once adolescence hits, teens without restraints command the household, defining their most outrageous activity as acceptable because it could always be worse:

“I can’t get up today; I’m too tired. I’m not going to school. Get out of my room and leave me alone!”

“I’m having a keg party this weekend. I don’t care if I’m underage. You know it’s better if I drink at home than to be out on the street drinking.”

“Yes, I’m hooking up with a lot of girls. That’s good. You always told me not to get serious with any one girl ’til I’m older.”

“It’s only pot. I could be using heroin or cocaine like lots of other kids.”

Kids need parents to restrict their freedom, to narrow their choices and to put pressure on them to meet their obligations. Kids may not appreciate all this restraint. But they need it. And parents need to step up to the plate and provide it, even when it’s so much easier to just give in to the incessant complaining and demanding.

Nobody taught me how to study this way. It was just something I did through trial and error in trying and discarding multiple techniques. For instance, I tried highlighting, but it did little for me.

Of course, psychologists and other scientists have been testing effective study techniques now for decades. Being far more clever than I, they’ve actually run such techniques through the research ringer, and have come out with some effective study strategies.

Just last month, another group of researchers decided to take a look at all of that research, and boil down what we know about the most effective methods for studying. Here’s what they found.

Researchers led by John Dunlosky (et al. 2013) from Kent State University decided to take a critical look at the 10 most common learning techniques available to students and see whether they had strong or little backing in the research literature. The study methods examined were:

1. Elaborative interrogation — Generating an explanation for why an explicitly stated fact or concept is true
2. Self-explanation — Explaining how new information is related to known information, or explaining steps taken during problem solving
3. Summarization — Writing summaries of to-be-learned texts
4. Highlighting/underlining — Marking potentially important portions of to-be-learned materials while reading
5. Keyword mnemonic — Using keywords and mental imagery to associate verbal materials
6. Imagery for text — Attempting to form mental images of text materials while reading or listening
7. Rereading — Restudying text material again after an initial reading
8. Practice testing – Self-testing or taking practice tests over to-be-learned material
9. Distributed practice – Implementing a schedule of practice that spreads out study activities over time
10. Interleaved practice — Implementing a schedule of practice that mixes different kinds of problems, or a schedule of study that mixes different kinds of material, within a single study session.

So unbeknownst to me at the time, I was engaging in a combination of the above learning techniques while in school — summarization, rereading, and practice testing. I also tried to distribute my studying over time, and not try and cram right before a test (although I probably was only marginally successful in adhering to that desire).¹

At least one of my techniques was deemed effective by the researchers — practice testing. The other technique that received across-the-board high grades was distributed practice.

According to the researchers, both techniques have been shown to boost students’ performance across many different kinds of tests, and their effectiveness has been repeatedly demonstrated for students of all ages.

Some common study techniques used by most students didn’t receive such high marks for effectiveness:

In contrast, five of the techniques received a low rating from the researchers. Interestingly, these techniques are some of the most common learning strategies used by students. Such ineffective strategies include: summarization, highlighting and underlining, and rereading.

“I was shocked that some strategies that students use a lot — such as rereading and highlighting — seem to provide minimal benefits to their learning and performance,” Dunlosky said. “By just replacing rereading with delayed retrieval practice, students would benefit.”

Indeed, students probably relay on tasks like highlighting and rereading because they are the easiest to do while actively studying. It’s so easy to whip out a highlighter and believe that by actively marking a passage, it’s somehow seeping into your brain cavities like syrup does into those little waffle compartments.

Sadly, that’s not the case. You might as well just sniff the highlighter for all the good highlighting does in helping you study.

Other techniques that got mixed but generally positive reviews include interleaved practice, self-explanation and elaborative interrogation. Mnemonics are likely helpful for some key concepts (you can’t get through medical school without them), but not as a general study technique.

And rereading (which 65 percent of college students admit to using) can’t hurt you if the material is dense and difficult and you didn’t quite get it the first time around. But don’t kid yourself into believing that rereading is as good as taking a practice test or spreading studying over time. (And generally, you only need to re-read a text passage once; multiple rereading efforts don’t usually help with comprehension.)

So there you have it — focus on practice testing and studying evenly over the course of the entire semester. Those techniques are going to be the most time-effective and the best use of your brain cells.

Read the full article: What Study Strategies Make the Grade?

Reference

Dunlosky, J. Rawson, K.A., Marsh, E.J., Nathan, M.J. & Willingham, D.T. (2013). Improving Students’ Learning With Effective Learning Techniques: Promising Directions From Cognitive and Educational Psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14, 4-58.

1. As an aside, I always thought it somewhat ironic looking over the birth, publishing, and digestion of a book, it goes from an idea in an author’s head, into a book outline, then a chapter outline, then the actual text to fill out each chapter outline. Then the publisher publishes this fleshed-out text. Then students digest it by breaking all that text down back into an outline — probably not so dissimilar from the one the author originally used before he wrote the book!

But there is a new perspective emerging as to what psychotherapy can offer. Positive psychotherapy (PPT) is a strengths-based approach that is directly aimed at offering a more comprehensive perspective of a client and his or her life circumstances. It is becoming known as an evidence-based standpoint that explores both strengths and weaknesses to achieve greater well-being and functioning.

We are moving from looking at what is wrong to looking at what is strong.

The emphasis on symptom reduction has dominated psychotherapeutic interventions and practice. The result is a deficit-oriented assessment, which asks: “What is wrong with you?”

What we are left with is a negative bias. We look at what is wrong and believe that treating it makes us well. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual 5 due to be released this year, is a compendium of what is not okay with us. The manual will again only give us only half the picture and skews our thinking about human strengths.

This perspective is so embedded that in the DSM-IV that altruism is noted as a coping mechanism to deal with feelings of guilt — and traits such as anticipation, affiliation and humor are labeled as defense mechanisms (American Psychiatric Association, 2000, p. 752).

Really?

The research showing that PPT may be an important new direction is mounting — and compelling. The emphasis is on using well-documented positive interventions. The shift is toward understanding what our strengths are, using them, and highlighting and valuing positive interactions.

The focus on strengths is key and serves as the foundation to initiating this shift. The Values in Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS) is a free online questionnaire that will assesses your top five strengths. It was developed by two of the leading figures in positive psychology, Chris Peterson and Martin Seligman, as a proposed complementary approach to the DSM and mental health that focuses on human strengths and potential.

Studies have shown that by understanding what your strengths are and using them more regularly in your daily life it will not only decrease your symptoms of depression, but improve your well-being. To learn more about the VIA-IS check out Ryan Niemiec’s blog on character strengths here at Psych Central. He is VIA’s director and you can tap into the latest research on using strengths.

The research on using PPT is gaining more attention in the clinical sector. Consider one of the studies in positive psychotherapy conducted in a group therapy format. Forty mild to moderately depressed University of Pennsylvania students were divided into a treatment and a non-treatment group. The treatment condition consisted of two groups of 8-11 participants seen for 6 weeks for two-hour sessions.

The session was comprised of half a discussion of the exercise assigned from the previous week, and an introduction to the new exercise. The participants carried out homework assignments and reported back each week on their progress.

The first week participants were asked to take the VIA-IS survey and use their top five strengths more often in their day-to-day lives. Week two involved writing down three good things that have happened during the day and why you think they occurred. The third week participants were asked to write a brief essay on what they want to be remembered for the most: A biography or obituary, if you will, of having lived a satisfying life. The next session involved composing a letter of gratitude to someone they may never have thanked adequately and reading that letter to them in person or by phone.

During the fifth session the members were asked to respond very positively and enthusiastically each day to good news received by someone else. The final session involved savoring daily events in our life that we normally do not take the time to enjoy, and journaling how this experience differed from our normally rushed occurrence. Time was also spent during this last session on tailoring the exercises for their use following the end of the study.

Six sessions: Twelve hours.

As you might expect the group PPT participants did better than the no-treatment group on assessments of depression and satisfaction with life.

But there is a powerful finding beyond this positive change. The gains made by the PPT groups were maintained with no other intervention by the researchers throughout a one-year follow-up, while the baseline levels of depression for the non-treatment group remained unchanged.

Six sessions and twelve hours: With no booster sessions during the year. This is very unusual in the study of depression and highlights how the use of these exercises involved self-maintaining features that served the participants beyond the intervention.

Positive psychology is a new direction that is generating a great deal of excellent research and PPT is emerging as one of the most important ways in which the findings from this new subfield can be applied.

Further Reading

American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-IV TR. American Psychiatric Association, Washington D.C., U.S.A. (2000).

Duckworth, A. L., Steen, T. A., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Positive psychology in
clinical practice. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1:629–651.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook
of classification. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rashid, T., & Ostermann, R. F. (2009). Strength-based assessment in clinical practice.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65:488–498.

Seligman MEP, Rashid T, Parks AC. Positive psychotherapy. American Psychologist 2006;61:774–788.

Strong woman photo available from Shutterstock

Take, for example, the lowly red marking pen.

Long used by teachers, professors, copyeditors and others to highlight wrong answers or problems that need correcting on a paper, a test, or something else submitted for approval, the red pen has been ubiquitous.

But red is an emotional color. People respond strongly to it, either negatively or positively. So using it can evoke unintended emotions where none are required (or worse, interfere with the feedback loop).

So does the color red interfere with feedback in the real world, when professors are grading college papers? Let’s find out.

The study of 199 undergraduate sociology students was designed with a simple objective in mind:

The purpose of our research is to investigate the effect of the color of the grading pen on student evaluations of the teaching and learning process. Research shows that the color red can create strong affect that might interfere in the communication of cognitive feedback to students.

Participants were given one of “four versions of a vignette that presents an essay question, an answer to it by a hypothetical student named Pat, comments on the essay by a hypothetical instructor, and a grade.”

Essays were either high quality or low quality, and the comments by the instructor were either in the color blue or red. Participants were then asked for their reactions after reading one of the four different essays, using five Likert-type items.

The researchers found little support for the idea that the pen color of comments mattered — except in one case. Subjects who read a high-quality essay graded in a blue pen felt the instructor likely had a better rapport with students, was enthusiastic in teaching and generally nicer than those who graded in a red pen.

The pen color had no impact, however, on subjects’ views of the instructors instrumental teaching skills — for instance, is the professor knowledgeable and organized?

The researchers did not find that grading with a red pen made the grade or comments seem more harsh. Nor did the red pen reinforce positive comments on a high-quality essay, or amplify the criticism of a weaker quality essay.

So the evidence is mixed at this stage. Previous research found some impact that red pens can make. For instance, one study found that college students posing as teachers using red grading pens resulted in more errors being found on a fictitious essay given to them to grade.

When in doubt, it’s probably best to leave your creative red side be and grade papers in a neutral color. That seems to be the safest choice, if one doesn’t want to accidentally say more than they had intended.

Reference

Dukes, R.L. & Albanesi, H. (2012). Seeing red: Quality of an essay, color of the grading pen, and student reactions to the grading process. The Social Science Journal. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2012.07.005

Of course there are exceptions, but it appears that the idea of leaving the nest immediately following college graduation is long gone.

The current economy makes establishing financial independence a difficult feat. From a sociological perspective, extended mooching off Mom and Dad seems to be trending. Many young adults either are saving the money they do have, basking in domestic convenience, or simply waiting for the right living opportunity.

Overall, it seems they’re just not ready to take the next step.

A 2010 article in the New York Times Magazine features insight from Jeffrey Jensent Arnett, a psychology professor at Clark University. Arnett deems the 20s as a stage called “emerging adulthood.” He points to cultural shifts that led to the creation of this new phase of life: young people feeling less rushed to marry because of the acceptance of premarital sex; young women delaying pregnancy due to more career options and reproductive technology; the need for additional education in our information-based economy; and fewer entry-level jobs available after all those years of schooling.

“Approximately 51 million Americans live in multigenerational households,” stated a May 2012 article in Forbes.

“Twenty-nine percent of 25-34 year-olds have taken shelter Chez Mom and Dad during the Great Recession and with almost 80% satisfied with this arrangement, the impetus to get their own pad ASAP just isn’t there.”

According to the Forbes piece, moving out has become a phenomenon that needs to be approached with caution. Alice Karekezi, a writer for Salon, asserts that living at home longer is now viewed as a practical choice.

“Now to become a qualified professional, many middle-class American kids are going to have to spend many years in completely unpaid internships,” Karekezi said. “So they finish college, or in the course of going to college, they spend years upon years working in jobs that used to pay money and don’t anymore because this market is so crowded. You’ve got to live some place. So in households that can afford it, parents are making it possible for their kids to gather credentials that will allow them someday — they hope — to launch at the level they’re expecting.”

However, since 50 percent of college grads are unemployed or underemployed, a change may not be on the horizon in the near future.

A June 2012 article in the New York Post cites 20-somethings who are still living at home, even if they’re capable of striking out on their own. Jason Siegel graduated from LaFayette College a couple of years ago and was able to secure a job in Manhattan starting at $50,000. Although he’s well employed (and has a serious girlfriend, who could be a potential roommate), he still chooses to stay where he is. “I didn’t want to start a new job and move at the same time,” he said. “It was too much transition, two huge changes at once.”

Convenience appears to be an additional rationale for not running out the door as readily. Another “gainfully employed” 23-year-old told the Post that living at home simply spawned a higher quality of life. “I can travel without worrying about money. I can go out to not the cheapest dinners often. I don’t have to think, ‘Is this dinner next week’s rent?’”

Living at home longer seems to be a sociological trend within “emerging adulthood,” as well as a byproduct of our times and how the Gen Y’s are coping with its unpredictability. To put a positive spin on the pattern, I’ll even say this 20-something generation is patient. It takes patience to achieve financial independence and patience to create a well-thought-out plan before leaving.

In “Occupy Mom and Dad’s House,” personal trainer Amanda Shugar stated that she’s been mentally preparing herself for moving out. “It’s a scary thing,” she said.

It is indeed, especially when all the pieces haven’t fallen into place just yet.

Young woman at home photo available from Shutterstock

But the recent suspension — and possible expulsion — of San Francisco high school student, Courtni Webb, is a fine example of how not to deal with suspected school violence.

Ms. Webb was suspended, according to news reports, for writing a poem about the Newtown killings, which apparently violated the school’s policy against threats of violence.

Poets, of course, have been deemed a threat to society ever since Plato banned them from his ideal “Republic.” Poetry, Plato argued, spoke to the heart, not the mind — and thus encouraged rebellion against the natural order of things.

But having heard Ms. Webb read her poem in its entirety, I found little in the way of violent rebellion, and certainly no overt threats to her classmates. Yes, the poem might be called self-absorbed — but isn’t that part of normal adolescence?

When Ms. Webb writes, “When you don’t feel loved/ you hate the world,” she could easily be expressing the feelings of thousands of alienated young people from time immemorial. Most of the poem seems to be an attempt to express her personal frustrations, and to understand the motivation of the Newtown shooter — not to threaten new violence.

We would be fortunate, as a society, if more lonely and alienated young people expressed their feelings in poetry, and fewer, through acts of violence.

We have yet to create a well-validated “profile” of those who carry out acts of so-called targeted violence, such as school shootings. The evidence to date suggests that perpetrators of such attacks tend to have very low self-esteem, a “persecutory/paranoid” outlook, depressive symptoms, narcissistic traits, and feelings of rejection. Perhaps one can find intimations of a few of these characteristics in Ms. Webb’s poem.

But as my colleague, Dr. James Knoll, has pointed out, focusing too heavily on these factors by “profiling” students would deluge school officials with “false positives.” Profiling alone — in the absence of careful, on-site assessment — casts far too broad a net to be useful.

Furthermore, as Prof. Eric Madfis of the University of Washington at Tacoma has pointed out, “zero tolerance” policies with mandatory arrests, suspensions and expulsions appear to do little to thwart targeted violence in schools.

Rather, schools do best by heeding the early warning signs of planned, targeted violence, such as when a would-be perpetrator “leaks” elements of the plan to another classmate, or posts threats on a website. Indeed, research from Finland found that adolescents aged 3-18 who expressed “massacre threats” online were a riskier group than adolescents who expressed the threats offline — for example, those who made online threats had often begun making actual preparations for the attack.

Of course, utilizing these early warning signs presupposes that knowledgeable peers or family members are willing to come forward to school authorities or police — and this happens all too rarely. As Prof. Madfis has noted, there is often a “code of silence” among adolescents that discourages coming forward with such information — which is widely regarded as “snitching.”

Nevertheless, the recent case of Blaec Lammers, in Bolivar, Missouri, shows that timely, personal intervention can make a huge difference. The young man’s plans for an Aurora-style movie theater massacre were thwarted when his mother reported him to local police.

Perhaps the most sensible recommendations for preventing targeted violence in schools come from the Interdisciplinary Group on Preventing School and Community Violence, writing in the aftermath of the Newtown, CT shootings. Among their conclusions was that the most effective way of preventing violence targeted at schools is by

“…maintaining close communication and trust with students and others in the community, so that threats will be reported and can be investigated by responsible authorities.”

The group did not endorse the use of “profiling” or checklists of personality traits. Rather, they urged the use of trained staff members who would investigate specific instances of apparent threats. Of course, schools strapped for funding will find it hard to implement such staff training — yet arguably, this may be more effective in preventing violence than posting armed guards at all our schools.

I also believe that greater cooperation between school health personnel and outside mental health specialists is sorely needed. For example, the school nurse or school psychologist could meet periodically with family physicians and psychiatrists in the community, to discuss students believed to be at high risk for targeted violence. This could be done via anonymous case presentations that would protect the privacy of potentially innocent students — and without simplistic “profiling.”

Some of these adolescents might be tugged off the path of violence through appropriate, voluntary counseling or mental health intervention. In cases of extreme or imminent threats of violence, involuntary treatment might be required, via appropriate judicial processes.

What will not help, in my judgment, is targeting students like Courtni Webb, who engage in acts of poetic expression, rather than savage violence.

References and Further reading    

Sankin A:  Courtni Webb, San Francisco High School Senior, Suspended For Writing Poem About Sandy Hook Shooting. Accessed at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/28/courtni-webb_n_2376833.html

Dibble L: 3Qs: Analyzing and preventing school shootings. Accessed at: http://www.northeastern.edu/news/2012/03/madfis/

Zarembo A: Plotters of school killings tend to tip off someone in advance. Los Angeles Times, Dec. 23, 2012. Accessed at: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/23/nation/la-na-massacre-prevention-2012122

Interdisciplinary Group on Preventing School and Community Violence.  Accessed 12/20/12: http://curry.virginia.edu/articles/sandyhookshooting

Knoll JL: Mass Shootings: Research & Lessons. Psychiatric Times (in press).

Knoll J: Mass Shootings and the Ethic of the Open Heart. Medscape Psychiatry Dec 20, 2012. Accessed at: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/776427

Nina L, Atte O, Eila S, Riittakerttu KH: Adolescents expressing school massacre threats online: something to be extremely worried about? Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health., 2012; 6(1):39.

In fact, the biggest myth about ADHD and girls is that girls don’t have the disorder in the first place. However, ADHD affects both girls and boys at roughly the same rate, said Stephanie Sarkis, Ph.D, a psychotherapist and author of several books on ADHD, including Making the Grade with ADD and Adult ADD: A Guide for the Newly Diagnosed.

Boys with ADHD tend to have a more obvious and classic presentation. They typically exhibit hyperactivity and impulsivity. In short, they stand out more.

Girls, however, are harder to spot because they internalize their symptoms and usually don’t exhibit behavioral problems at school, said Matlen, also author of Survival Tips for Women with AD/HD.

Girls “are more likely to be daydreaming, staring out the window, twisting their hair,” Matlen said. They might even be seen as airheads, she said. They might be labeled as lazy or a poor student who doesn’t try hard enough, she said.

“Parents hear, ‘If she’d only try harder. She has the ability [but] she just chooses not to use it,” Matlen said. But ADHD has nothing to do with laziness or lack of effort.

Quite the opposite, “these girls are bright students who are simply very distracted by their rich, inner lives,” she said.

“Girls with ADHD are generally not diagnosed until much later if they are smart, if they have structure and support from family [and] if they are inattentive,” according to Sari Solden, LMFT, a psychotherapist and author of Women with Attention Deficit Disorder and Journeys Through ADDulthood.

In fact, they might not be diagnosed until college or when they start working or have a family, she said. That’s because these girls try to overcompensate by overworking, she said.

“At some point they hit a wall and are unable to meet the increased demands on their attention or executive functioning, [and] their compensations break down.” Still, even then, their ADHD may remain undiagnosed.

Solden noted that because these girls’ symptoms may not fit the typical ADHD profile, they might instead be diagnosed with “the resulting depression and anxiety.”

Myths About Girls with ADHD

Myths about girls with ADHD abound. Here are three more myths followed by the facts.

1. Myth: If girls do have ADHD, they only have the inattentive type.

Fact: The inattentive type of ADHD does seem to be more common in girls with ADHD. But, as Matlen said, “they are out there!” “They might instead be considered “tomboys,” as they cartwheel their way to school and climb trees after school,” she said.

Socialization may explain why girls don’t exhibit hyperactivity in the classroom, according to Sarkis. “It is thought that one reason girls exhibit less hyperactivity in class may not have to do with the disorder itself – rather, girls may have been socially conditioned to speak out less in class and be less ‘disruptive,’” she said. Matlen agreed. “Society allows for girls to be passive and quiet,” she said.

It’s also important to note that “[inattentive] girls suffer as much as hyperactive boys who, with their external behaviors, are picked up more quickly by school staff and parents,” she added.

2. Myth: Girls with the inattentive type of ADHD don’t need stimulants.

Fact: Many medical professionals think that stimulants only treat hyperactivity, Matlen said. However, stimulants can help with symptoms of inattention and distractibility, she said. Treating any disorder with medication requires careful consideration. But it’s important for parents and practitioners to know that stimulants can successfully treat these very disruptive symptoms of ADHD.

3. Myth: Girls are less likely to have oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) than boys.

Fact: According to Sarkis, there is actually a 50 percent rate of co-occurrence between ODD and ADHD. And “that rate is the same regardless of gender,” she said. For instance, she cited this study, which found no gender differences for ODD – and no differences for general anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, dysthymia and separation anxiety disorder.

Warning Signs in Girls with ADHD

Because ADHD can manifest differently in girls, Matlen shared several warning signs that a girl might have the disorder.

At school, girls might excessively daydream; have poor grades even though they’re capable of better work; and forget or not finish up assignments, especially projects that have many parts. Hyperactive girls might exhibit “Chatty Cathy” behaviors, such as “non-stop talking and bossiness.”

Girls might also have few friends and be described as “loners.” They might easily tune out and be “spacey,” she said. They might have a messy bedroom and experience more emotional outbursts than kids their age. They’re also more likely to “feel overwhelmed and internalize that into anxiety [and] fears,” Matlen said.

While there’s been much progress in understanding and treating girls with ADHD, there’s still more work to be done. Whether you’re a teacher, parent or mental health professional, getting educated on how ADHD manifests in girls can help you provide truly helpful support.

You can send your kids off to the movies — and they may get shot. Or they might go to hang out at the mall — and risk getting shot. Or to high school or college — where they might get shot. Kids get kidnapped on their way home from school and abducted out of their beds.

Now 20 first graders have been gunned down in their first grade classrooms.

In the last few years, our national sense of safety has been repeatedly shaken. We can’t take it for granted that when innocent kids do innocent, everyday things, they will risk nothing more than a belly ache from eating too much popcorn or an argument with a friend.

What do we tell ourselves? What do we tell the kids? For the last few days the networks have been turning to psychiatrists and psychologists for advice. They emphasize that we need to remember that such events as the shooting in Newtown, Conn. are rare. They tell us to put aside our own fear and be there for our kids. It’s wise advice but it is easier said than done.

These tragedies no longer seem so “rare.” Statistical probability is cold comfort when watching yet another clip of anxious and grieving parents on TV. We may do our best to hide our horror and grief but kids are sensitive little creatures who get even more anxious when they think we’re hiding something. Navigating ourselves and our children through such senseless and horrible news isn’t easy.

To the words of advice coming over the airwaves, I can only add these reminders:

Turn off the TV. Little kids don’t understand that they are seeing the same event over and over and over. Three news stories of those kids running from their school may seem to them like three different groups of kids under attack, which makes the world seem even more unsafe. Repeatedly watching the news may not be so good for the adults either. Another viewing probably won’t help you make any more sense of a senseless event. It may even trigger more grief and anger and pain.

Think carefully about what you are going to tell your kids. An explanation this important deserves some preparation. Tell kids only what they are ready to hear and what you know they can manage. Most teens can certainly handle the whole truth. They’re going to be reading about it and may need your help to sort through their feelings. But little kids under age 10 need us to be sensitive to what they can and can’t process. It’s enough for most to say that a very bad man killed some kids and everyone is very, very sad and mad. You don’t need to tell them the specifics of how the children were killed and how many were lost. You don’t need to go into details as they come through the news. When in doubt, take your cues from what the kids want to know. Give them only the information they ask for.

Emphasize stories of survival. One teacher hid her kids in closets and the kids stayed very quiet. Other kids ran away. Still others held each other’s hands to help themselves stay calm. Let your children know that even little kids can be brave and helpful.

Share your feelings. It’s okay to let kids see some of our tears and our anger. It’s important that they understand that crying about sad things and being mad about bad things is both appropriate and a way to get through. Children need help in naming their feelings and managing them. You are an important role model for doing so.

But stay in control of your feelings. Our kids need the grownups to be their most grown up at times like these. They need us to show them that even when we are sad, we are there for them first. When adults acknowledge what is happening but manage to stay calm and in control, the kids can relax.

Compartmentalize. Neither you nor your children can sit with those feelings all the time. After talking about what happened, suggest that enough has been shared for now and that it is time to do something to get everyone’s mind off it for awhile. Let the kids know you are willing to talk about it again later if they want to but it’s important to take a break. (Do keep that promise.) Then suggest something you can all do together that reaffirms normal life. Make cookies. Go for a walk. Read some stories.

Reassure. Help the children understand that when tragedies do happen, the story is very big because it is very bad. If you live in a community where such things are in fact rare, remind the kids that they are lucky to live in a place where people are usually safe. If, however, you live in a community where children have been abducted or harmed, do let them know all the ways you and the people around them are working to protect them.

Go over safety rules. Finally, this is a good time calmly to review the rules of safety. Brainstorm with the kids all the things you do with them to keep them from harm. Doors get locked at night. Children who are home alone shouldn’t answer the door. Wearing a seatbelt in the car and a helmet when riding a bike isn’t optional. There are rules about where they can go by themselves. There are rules about how often to check in with you when they are out or they have been left home alone. Tone is important. This isn’t a time for lecturing or scolding about rules. It’s a time for helping our children feel secure in a world that isn’t always predictable or safe.

This time, the shooting involved not random people in a movie theater, or young adults on a college campus who unfortunately were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

This time, the shooting involved 20 elementary school-aged children. At school. As well as another 6 or 7 adults.

To even begin to wrap your mind around it causes most of us emotional pain and anguish.

In short, how do we make sense of such tragedy?

Making sense of a senseless tragedy of this nature is difficult. In the days to come, we’ll see news organizations trying to piece together the puzzle of Adam Lanza, the alleged shooter. We’ll see people looking for the tell-tale clues of someone about to commit one of the most horrific murders of all time in this country. We’ll see “experts” and pundits who conclude, without a doubt, that we could’ve prevented this incident, if only X, Y or Z happened.

Gun-control advocates will use the incident to forward their agenda. Gun lobbyists will use the incident to forward their agenda. Nobody will bat an eyelash as they hold their press conferences pushing their political viewpoints. Everything will be carefully scripted and well-choreographed.

And yet, still, none of it will make sense.

Because a tragedy of this proportion can’t fit into any rational container. It is a purely irrational, criminal act that has little explanation. It happens so rarely that, like most random terrorist acts, it cannot be prevented. The signs we would look for from this single individual would do little to help us with the next person — who will act in a way quite unique to their own upbringing, history, and psyche.

That’s frustrating to most of us, and even adds to the senselessness.

So here’s the container to put this tragedy — and incidents like it — into. Some acts that a human being commits bear no resemblance to some of the core things that make us human — compassion, empathy, an ability to feel, to be selfless, to care, and to look out for others in our community.

The person who committed this act of violence and murder is human. But somewhere along the way, he lost his humanity. He lost the basic social contract we all hold one another to… that we don’t take the enormous gifts we have of our lives, souls, and community, and blow them all up.

Not all things happen for a reason.

Our hearts and prayers go out to the families of Newtown, CT.

Realtime Google coverage of Newtown, CT shooting

Edited to reflect male identity of the alleged shooter.

Unfortunately, for many, the answer is a resounding “no.” Hordes of college grads have not acquired any skills that will enable them to get a decent job. And if that weren’t bad enough, they’re saddled with a mountain of debt that will be an albatross around their neck for decades to come.

With no prospects for the future, is it any wonder that so many college grads feel lost? This isn’t the way it was supposed to be. Higher education was supposed to be the best investment one could make to guarantee a solid future. Often they feel cheated, left asking “now what?”

Dumped into adulthood, with no job prospects, many decide to double down on their education. Go to grad school. Get an advanced degree. But will more education pay off? Or will it simply dig a deeper debt hole? No guarantee. Even many with graduate degrees are unemployed or underemployed.

The importance and value of a college education has been sacrosanct. But things change. It takes a while for people to get used to the change. Remember when owning a home was the guaranteed path to building financial security? Paying rent was supposed to be throwing money down the drain. Then came the housing bubble. And we all know how that story turned out for scores of homeowners.

Might it now be time to openly question the value of a college education? With the walloping nonstop increase in tuition costs, it sure seems like we’ve entered an education bubble. It’s likely to leave many in mega-debt, with no prospect for even a ho-hum career. Latest reports indicate that 53 percent of recent college grads are either unemployed or working at a job that does not require a college degree. There are more than 100,000 janitors in the U.S. with college degrees and 16,000 parking lot attendants.

Clearly, many families need to consider other types of post-secondary education for their kids. Perhaps learning a marketable trade is the way to go. There will always be a need for auto mechanics, electricians, carpenters, beauticians, makeup artists, and workers with other hands-on skills. These jobs will not disappear and cannot be shipped overseas. Or, one might consider investing in a small business or franchise. Become an entrepreneur. Pursue your culinary skills. Follow your artistic dreams. Or, don’t attend college as a four-year vacation with beer parties, drug parties, hooking up and easy courses as the main attraction. Instead, pursue your degree with the primary goal of learning marketable skills.

But what about the idea of education for education’s sake? Isn’t that what college is supposed to be about – making you smarter, more savvy, more cosmopolitan? Ideally, yes. However, in today’s world, anyone who wishes to become smarter and savvier does not need to attend college. The Internet can provide you with an amazing low-cost or free education. Several companies, including Coursera and Khan Academy, offer lectures taught by world-class professors. You can learn at your own pace, test your knowledge, and reinforce concepts through interactive exercises. Curious about what makes good people do bad things? Go online to TED talks for free lectures from top researchers in the field. Get started with a talk by Dr. Phil Zimbardo and you’ll be hooked.

Even Ivy League schools offer free courses. Yes, prestigious universities like Stanford, Yale, Princeton and MIT offer the same courses with the same professors that college students spend thousands of dollars to take. For free.

The catch? You don’t get college credit. But you will get an education. And you can use the money that would have been spent on getting a degree to launch your career and move out of your parents’ house before you turn 30

There are choices to be made, folks. Don’t automatically assume that going into debt for a college education is the only or best way to create a first-class future. There are many options out there. Consider them before deciding what to do.

It could be a component of a mental disorder, according to a study out of Brown University and presented today at the American Academy of Pediatrics annual meeting.

After analyzing responses from a parent survey, the researchers found that those who were considered bullies were more than twice as likely to experience depression, anxiety and attention deficit disorder (ADD or ADHD).

Bullying is a problem in many schools. But we need to realize that bullying isn’t always just plain ‘ole bad behavior. Sometimes there are other factors at play.

Because of the survey nature of the study, the researchers couldn’t say whether the mental health problems might be a contributing causal factor of bullying, or whether such disorders are a result of someone who engages in bullying behavior.

All too often, society focuses on the victim of bullying. Little help may be offered to the bully, who may also be suffering from concerns that could benefit from treatment (or at the very least, parental attention):

Some experts agreed, adding that it is also important for parents, clinicians and teachers to identify the root of the children’s anger, and to help the children channel their aggression in a better way.

“Parents of bullies who are made aware of their child’s behavior should take the concerns seriously and seek help and treatment for their child, hopefully in the earlier stages so that alternative behaviors can be taught and reinforced before some of the more negative ones become entrenched,” said Hilfer.

Previous research has found that both bullies and their victims suffer from suicidal thoughts more than 3 times as often as other children.

Bullying and being bullied also has been found in a 2007 study to result in a greater risk of adult mental disorders. The disorders suffered tended to be either an anxiety disorder or antisocial personality disorder.

Over the summer, we also noted a new tool to help profile school bullies. This tool could allow schools to help better identify potential bullies and help them before they turn in to actual bullies.

Bullying is never an excusable behavior. Studies like this help shed light on the complicated dynamics at play with this behavior, and offers parents and professionals ideas on how to help reduce it.

Read the full entry about the new study over at ABC News: Bullies Nearly Twice as Likely to Have Mental Health Disorder

The other month we looked at unsuccessful strategies for adults with ADHD.

This month experts reveal fruitless tactics for kids with ADHD. Some of these approaches aren’t just ineffective; they can exacerbate symptoms or impede progress.

Whether you’re a parent, loved one or teacher of a child with ADHD, here’s what doesn’t work — and a few tips that do.

1. Unsuccessful strategy: Assuming ADHD is a motivation problem.  

Some people assume that kids with ADHD are lazy or don’t have the motivation to work hard, according to Mark Bertin, MD, a board certified developmental behavioral pediatrician and author of The Family ADHD Solution. “There’s a subtle — or not so subtle — message that if [kids] tried harder or just got their act together, everything would be fine,” Dr. Bertin said.

However, as he said, ADHD is “no less volitional than someone with a learning disorder, a physical disability or even asthma or diabetes.” ADHD affects executive function, hindering impulse control, organization, focus, planning and time management, he said.

In fact, kids with ADHD often are working harder than others. “In reality, both parents and children managing ADHD are probably exhausted from the near constant effort to compensate.”

2. Unsuccessful strategy: Not using the term ADHD.

Some parents worry that using the term ADHD will somehow hurt or stigmatize their child, according to Roberto Olivardia, Ph.D, a psychologist who treats ADHD and a clinical instructor in the department of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. “On the contrary, if you do not explain to them what ADHD is, someone else will,” he said. And, unfortunately, there are many damaging myths surrounding ADHD.

3. Unsuccessful strategy: Lowering your expectations.

Kids with ADHD aren’t doomed or destined to be unsuccessful. As Olivardia said, “What would have happened if Michael Phelps’s mother lowered her expectations as to what her son could achieve? What if Thomas Edison’s parents followed his teachers’ advice that he was ‘too stupid to learn’?” Kids with ADHD can be successful students and have productive careers, he said. “The key is being mindful and strategic, getting proper treatment and support, and guiding them toward their passions.”

4. Unsuccessful strategy: Expecting kids to fix themselves.

Kids with ADHD have a difficult time with decision-making and planning. So it’s unhelpful to expect a child to just figure it out, Bertin said. It’s important for kids – teens included — and parents to work together. For instance, therapy interventions that exclude parents may decelerate progress, he said. “Parents don’t cause ADHD and they aren’t doing anything wrong just because a child misbehaves, yet they are the driving force for change,” he said.

5. Unsuccessful strategy: Removing recess or time outside.

Sometimes parents and teachers will punish kids with ADHD by restricting recess or outdoor time. But this is a bad idea. When a child is hyperactive or misbehaving, running around outside actually helps, Olivardia said. Research has found that when kids with ADHD spend time in natural environments, they’re calmer, can concentrate better and follow directions.

6. Unsuccessful strategy: Relying on medication as a cure-all.

Medications are highly effective for treating ADHD. But they don’t work for everyone. “Some people’s bodies don’t tolerate them, and others don’t want to take them,” Bertin said. Comorbid diagnoses – which are common in ADHD — such as anxiety disorders or learning disabilities don’t respond to these medications, he said. They also don’t eliminate executive function issues. “Only a comprehensive, multidisciplinary approach to ADHD fully addresses the effects of this complex medical disorder,” he said.

7. Unsuccessful strategy: Believing everything you read (or hear).

Myths about ADHD abound. And they can be harmful. For instance, the myth that poor parenting causes ADHD might dissuade parents from seeking treatment, Bertin said. “They avoid treatment because they are worried they’ll be judged for ‘medicating’ their children — although no one says families ‘medicate’ their kids when they treat an infection with antibiotics; even word choice matters,” he said.

8. Unsuccessful strategy: Telling a child to stop fidgeting.

Fidgeting actually helps kids with ADHD focus, Olivardia said. For instance, maybe your child chews gum or shakes their leg, he said. “Finding a fidget that does not disrupt others should be the goal, not eliminating the fidgeting all together,” he said. Olivardia mentioned the book Fidget to Focus, which reveals the science of fidgeting.

9. Unsuccessful strategy: Ignoring your needs.

ADHD doesn’t just affect the person diagnosed. It affects the entire family, Bertin said. “Parents of children with ADHD report higher levels of stress, anxiety, depression, marital strife, divorce, and lack of confidence in their own parenting skills,” he said. Practice good self-care and seek professional help when you need it, he said. “We need to take care of ourselves to be able to maintain long-term behavioral plans, flexible decision making, and to remain as wise and calm as possible throughout the day.”

Strategies that Do Work for Kids with ADHD

Educate kids about ADHD.

Let them know that this is simply how their brain is wired, Olivardia said. “It carries with it strengths, but also carries weaknesses and pitfalls, like any brain,” he said. Let them know about successful people with ADHD.

Focus on executive function.

According to Bertin, contrary to its name, ADHD goes beyond attention, hyperactivity or impulsivity. Again, it’s a disorder of executive function. (He’s written an extensive piece on this.) That’s why when thinking about a child’s challenges, he suggested asking the question: “How might executive function be involved?” “From not handing in projects to being overly reactive when angry, all the way to sleep problems or overeating, recognizing the impact of ADHD allows for targeted and more effective planning,” he said.

Focus on the positive.

Positive feedback is important for fostering a healthy self-image in kids, Bertin said. Praise kids for small successes, engage them in enjoyable activities and stress reward systems over punishment, when possible, he said. This doesn’t mean ignoring inappropriate behavior, not correcting problems or not guiding kids through certain tasks. But it does mean emphasizing positivity. “Meeting a child where they are developmentally [and] emphasizing positive experiences increases their motivation in the long run and cultivates both confidence and well-being,” Bertin said.