TIMELY INFORMATION ABOUT SCHOOL & YOUR CHILD!
|
|
School Marches Along
School is in session now but how is your child doing? It’s great if your child is among the 75% who are doing well but those in the 25% who are failing are suffering. Yes, at least 25% of our students in the USA are failing in school. |
A portion of your child's system is at least 80% responsible for learning. Could that be a factor in your child's success or failure in learning? As you may guess, that system is the vision system of your child. Countless studies demonstrate the relationship between vision and learning. Go to research in vision therapy. However, the majority of schools can’t help you here, and may even hinder. They rely on outdated, ineffective school screening that picks the wrong kids.
|
|
Most school vision screening only finds kids who do well, while your child with a visually related learning problem is missed. It’s even worse. When your child passes the minimal school vision screening, you, the child’s teacher, the school principal, the pediatrician, and even the family doc think your child does not have a vision problem. You then think the learning problem has nothing to do with vision, and delay care after trying methods that don’t help.
|
|
Why is this? The school vision screening was set up in 1947 and has changed little since then. It was based on the long-held mistaken belief that if you can’t see the then chalkboard, now Prometheans in front of the classroom, you can’t learn.
|
|
|
|
This didn’t need to happen. In the late thirties, a well-respected eye doctor at Dartmouth College found those with the worst visual acuities (the only thing tested in the current CA law) were the best students. Dr. William Lancaster was the doctor who proved eye muscles are between 100 and 50 times stronger than necessary to move the eye, debunking the theory of weak eye muscles in strabismus (crossed or wandering eyes).
|
|
Why were the kids with the worst eyesight(visual acuity) the best students? They eventually realized the screening only finds the students with nearsightedness who by definition have poor visual acuities. How did they get nearsighted? It came from being good students and straining their eyes to read the books that educated them. Yes, well more than 80% of school work is at the desk where books, Chromebooks, and papers are poured over and memorized for hours.
|
|
|
|
The Dartmouth study then created two types of eye doctors. One type is the curious who wanted to solve this kink in the armor of traditional beliefs. This created developmental optometry.
The second group was those fixed in tradition and simply looked away from this valuable study. Why would the traditional docs do this? Frankly, it may be simple economics. The law identified those kids needing glasses which the traditional docs readily supplied year after year. This state law ushered young patients into their offices. It was and still is difficult to turn away such a money source. Could you or your teachers tell if this child needs a vision referral? Probably not! |
|
Wouldn’t the teachers, school principals, pediatricians, and state legislatures be more concerned about our children? Apparently, they are not. In 2020 we shut down our economy and schools for less than 2% of the populace dying from an airborne virus that minimally affected kids. The governor, teachers union, and teachers pushed Zoom learning, ruining our children's eyes and education. Further, the schools for many years received government funding for special education that has never shown much benefit other than an inflated coffer. The pediatricians found psychotropic drugs which have never been proven to help. Studies show after three years those with the drugs were behind those not given the drugs. That does not sound like officials caring for our children.
|
|
There is even more bad news. The minimal screening standard they do have is too late. The bus has already left the stop. It only detects those who already have the eye problem almost always too late to reverse the condition. The College of Optometrists in Vision Development reported school screening only covers around 3% of the vision system.
|
The above 25% figure does not count those struggling in school to remain in the 75%. Also, it totally ignores the A students who may be overworking and taxing their health and eyes.
|
|
The one hope of teacher observation is discounted, underutilized, and even discouraged. Yes, it is the ignored portion of the CA school vision screening law (Section (e) of the vision screening law, CA Education Code 4945, that requires teacher and nurse training to recognize vision symptoms that equip teachers to be informed of and observe signs and symptoms of your children exhibiting a visually related vision problem. This is the only part of minimal school vision screening that actually helps detect a visually related learning problem.
That was the bad news, now what can we do about our kids? There is a lot we can do:
1. Have a routine yearly vision examination by a developmental optometrist, which we all should do anyhow. Every exam in our office will detect a visually related vision condition.
1. Have a routine yearly vision examination by a developmental optometrist, which we all should do anyhow. Every exam in our office will detect a visually related vision condition.
2. Ask your school to do efficient cost-effective vision screenings. In the current antiquated school screening an official is hired to oversee the program. School officials’ time is also allotted to the program. People are paid to provide the screening. Notices of the results are sent out to the parents and tracked. Records are kept of the screening. This is wasted money that could be used for the three R’s.
What can be done for effective efficient vision screening to detect a possible vision condition interfering with learning? The method is simple. Base it on the child’s grades by including a simple notice with the grades:
Your child’s grades are a reflection of visually related vision conditions. You are advised to seek an eye doctor trained in visually related vision corresponding to the below grades:
1. D & F’s: definitely seek an appointment
2. C’s: hold off the appointment unless two cycles in a row
3. B: no need for the appointment
4. A: If you note your child pushing themselves
Children’s grades are at least 80% due to the vision system but do not rule other factors out. If you provide yearly routine vision exams no need for this notice is needed.
What can be done for effective efficient vision screening to detect a possible vision condition interfering with learning? The method is simple. Base it on the child’s grades by including a simple notice with the grades:
Your child’s grades are a reflection of visually related vision conditions. You are advised to seek an eye doctor trained in visually related vision corresponding to the below grades:
1. D & F’s: definitely seek an appointment
2. C’s: hold off the appointment unless two cycles in a row
3. B: no need for the appointment
4. A: If you note your child pushing themselves
Children’s grades are at least 80% due to the vision system but do not rule other factors out. If you provide yearly routine vision exams no need for this notice is needed.
3. If #2 above is not adopted insist your teacher is instructed in visually related learning signs by a trained eye doctor.
4. Request your district to return to book learning and minimize the Chromebook. We are not against digital devices. We at last count have fourteen computers in our office, not including our individual smart phones. Classroom instruction via digital devices is detrimental to eyes and education. Obviously there is nothing wrong in teaching the use of digital devices. Just don’t teach exclusively from them.
Reading books
Reading books
|
5. Get lens therapy glasses for your child prescribed by us. Dr. Henshaw as a developmental optometrist has prescribed lens therapy for decades. He also has special training in digital vision from Berkeley College of Optometry. Lens therapy is the number one thing your child can receive to stop the eyestrain from digital devices. It will also help in all desk work and prevent the worsening of eyesight.
|
|
|
|
6. Follow vision hygiene suggestions. Look in "vision hygiene to accompany Lens Therapy: seven steps to improve your vision" suggestions in Lens Therapy explained.
|
A teacher discussion on Facebook
A teacher discussing digital learning mentioned, “... 2 years ago 9 of my 24 students had ... prescription ...glasses, last year it was ... closer to 5 or 6 but that is still a lot.”
Vision conditions she was able to observe varied from 38% to 25%. We already know that 25% of our students are failing, and that stat is too many. My patients don’t show up yearly for their exams as advised. Some insurance companies advise two years, and not all do that. Some kids are prescribed glasses but don’t wear them. Thus, some of the 75% to 62% not observed to wear glasses may need them. However, the need for compensative eyeglasses (incorrectly labeled corrective) is not the only vision condition. The more common conditions are related to binocular vision. At least 60% of my patients have binocular vision difficulty.
An educator’s concern may be directed to conditions interfering with learning. The Dartmouth Study done decades ago found myopia has nothing to do with learning. The opposite is true. The good learners have the worst visual acuity. Visual acuity is the only finding our antiquated misleading school screening uses. That may be why good learners wear glasses. Binocular vision does affect learning but by about only one grade level. The one factor that is involved in learning, vision processing, isn’t even considered in school screening and is missed by many eye doctors. Vision processing difficulty can bring you from an A to an F. We haven’t even considered reduced vision fields from traumatic brain injury, much more common than thought. It is safe to say 75% of our students have a vision condition that in varying degrees interferes with their lives. Why do we want to worsen it with digital learning?
A teacher discussing digital learning mentioned, “... 2 years ago 9 of my 24 students had ... prescription ...glasses, last year it was ... closer to 5 or 6 but that is still a lot.”
Vision conditions she was able to observe varied from 38% to 25%. We already know that 25% of our students are failing, and that stat is too many. My patients don’t show up yearly for their exams as advised. Some insurance companies advise two years, and not all do that. Some kids are prescribed glasses but don’t wear them. Thus, some of the 75% to 62% not observed to wear glasses may need them. However, the need for compensative eyeglasses (incorrectly labeled corrective) is not the only vision condition. The more common conditions are related to binocular vision. At least 60% of my patients have binocular vision difficulty.
An educator’s concern may be directed to conditions interfering with learning. The Dartmouth Study done decades ago found myopia has nothing to do with learning. The opposite is true. The good learners have the worst visual acuity. Visual acuity is the only finding our antiquated misleading school screening uses. That may be why good learners wear glasses. Binocular vision does affect learning but by about only one grade level. The one factor that is involved in learning, vision processing, isn’t even considered in school screening and is missed by many eye doctors. Vision processing difficulty can bring you from an A to an F. We haven’t even considered reduced vision fields from traumatic brain injury, much more common than thought. It is safe to say 75% of our students have a vision condition that in varying degrees interferes with their lives. Why do we want to worsen it with digital learning?