Sandy Hook

Surprising that this topic has not a thread. On 21 Nov 2014, State of Connecticut released their report on Adam Lanza. A fascinating study of the history and mental condition of Adam. No one smoking gun is identified as the 'reason'. In fact, the report does not try to point blame. Instead it notes the many mistakes, missed warnings, and the many potential reasons that made Sandy Hook possible.

One glaring fact is a failed strategic objective promoted by Nancy Lanza who was more interested in shaping a world to fit Adam rather than shape Adam to fit the world. Who did this, in part, because others who should have known better, instead, conceded to her beliefs. A school system that entertained her demands rather than address the problem. A Yale Child Study Center that identified the problem but that was mostly ignored by the Lanzas and by school experts. And a mentally accomplished child that, well, it make interesting reading on a kid who had serious mental problems and yet was not psychotic.s

Do you have a link to the report?

The CNN article wrote:

The report singled out a period of homebound education during which Lanza was taken out of school during his eighth-grade year as an especially dangerous health care decision that contributed to his isolation and deterioration.

"The level of isolation, disconnect and socialization that we know kids enjoy as part of their education becomes totally lost and that's a piece of what we see in AL's life," said Faith VosWinkel, an assistant child advocate and co-author.

The report concluded that Lanza's homebound placement was "inappropriate and nontherapeutic" and recommended a review of homebound status education and asked the state to consider an audit of existing homebound practices.

This bit pisses me off. Clearly Lanza's mother was making bad decisions from the beginning, and his home environment was no doubt unhelpful to the situation, but I am also 100% certain that school for Adam did not involve "socialization that kids enjoy as part of their education." That's exactly the kind of bullshit understanding of middle school that a "child advocate and author" would have.

Being home was terrible for him. But I am quite sure that being at school would have been just as terrible for him.

Yeah, that's complete bullshit. My middle school experience was a damn horror. He needed something better but the placement he opted out of probably wasn't it.

Presented without comment.

link

Clodfobble;914975 wrote:

Being home was terrible for him. But I am quite sure that being at school would have been just as terrible for him.

Appreciate a common thread to the entire problem. They kept trying to adapt the world to Adam rather than adapt (ie fix) Adam to the world.

His problems became most apparent as soon as he transistioned from elementary school to junior high school. Adam did not adapt to change (which may also be why he shot his mother and others after learning she was planning on moving).

Rather than treat Adam (of a problem they apparently did not have the skills to understand), the school and community psychiatrist conceded to what Nancy Lanza wanted. And did not properly follow up on his homebound condition (which is specifically different from home schooled).

His father also deferred all decisions to Nancy Lanza except once. At one point he pushed to have Adam diagnosed by the Yale Child Study Center. They, in turn, recognized the seriousness of Adam's mental disease. Including a need for Adam to take drugs. Nancy Lanza resisted because Adam would refuse. Most of what Yale recommended never happened.

Yale recommended that the community psychiatrist (who was better located to do so) take the lead. This Yale decision meant that even work by Yale and conversations with local authorities were ignored; not even in files of local authorities.

School assembled special teams for Adam composed of all his teachers and associated professional advisors. Teams were quite responsible and agressive in addressing Adam's problems. But they had one problem. They did not understand. A problem made worse by bogus strategic objective. They were more interested in Adam's education rather than his psychological conditions and treatment. Since that was what Nancy Lanza wanted. In part, because Nancy Lanza clearly had no idea of a problem she was stuck with. Nancy Lanza eventually took a most evil attitude also explained in a song that is just as irresponsible. "Don't worry. Be happy". Somehow she expected things would resolve themselves.

Finally, one key point not entirely obvious in the report. Adam may have been bullied repeatedly. Report implies that teachers either did not know about bullying or (as so many teachers do) ignored it. That does not say bullying did or did not exist. Only that the report says bullying could have existed and they have no idea whether it did or did not happen.

Pamela;915114 wrote:

Presented without comment.

link

I wouldn't be overly concerned about a universal mental health screening. Schools don't have the funding to take care of kids with known issues... unless Pearson publishes the screening, then all bets are off.

tw wrote:

Rather than treat Adam (of a problem they apparently did not have the skills to understand), the school and community psychiatrist conceded to what Nancy Lanza wanted. And did not properly follow up on his homebound condition (which is specifically different from home schooled).

To be fair, legally the school does not have the right to treat the child. They are not in any way allowed to diagnose or even mention the possibility of a diagnosis. All they can do is say "X behavior prevents him from being in the classroom" and recommend evaluations with community psychiatrists. You are correct though, homebound is different from homeschooled, I didn't catch that the first time. I've never seen an effective long-term homebound situation, myself.

tw wrote:

School assembled special teams for Adam composed of all his teachers and associated professional advisors. Teams were quite responsible and agressive in addressing Adam's problems. But they had one problem. They did not understand. A problem made worse by bogus strategic objective. They were more interested in Adam's education rather than his psychological conditions and treatment. Since that was what Nancy Lanza wanted.

These special teams are assembled, again by law, for every single special needs student who runs outside of the ordinary in any way, even mild dyslexia. And the strategic directive is always the student's education, even when the parents beg for help in other arenas. Even if the school could force the child into particular medical treatment, which they can't, they don't have the money to provide those psychiatrists or therapists or anything else. They will tell you that a nonverbal child who is unable to walk doesn't qualify for speech or physical therapy, because they are currently able to meet their academic goals (which were arbitrarily decided upon by that same committee.)

The school failed Adam Lanza, I fully agree. What I'm telling you is this is not some isolated case; the schools fail 99% of their special needs children.

The 99% failure rate doesn't match with what I've seen at least in early education in New York State. My kids with speech delays and milder autistic tendencies can succeed given motivated parents and professionals. They tended to be ahead of their age-mates when they hit kindergarten, but without support could easily be lost after that. Unfortunately, the movement away from individualization under Common Core does seem likely to push us toward that 99% number rather than away from it.

Oh I didn't mean 99% of the kids fail; many have motivated parents and motivated individual teachers that ultimately result in success. But those teachers are often acting against the bureaucratic rules in place. That child I referred to who was denied physical therapy, for example--I happen to know that whenever possible the teacher sent her along with another child who did manage to secure a physical therapist, thanks to an aggressive parent, and had the room aide casually copy whatever the therapist was doing with the first child.

I just mean "the school" as an institution (which includes the legislators that refuse to properly fund it) fails to hold up its end of the deal in 99% of cases, forcing children to rely more than is fair on those parents and individual teachers. And if the parents suck, as in Adam Lanza's case, you're almost guaranteed a bad outcome for the child.

Parents are so much more important than any other factor.

Griff;915133 wrote:

Parents are so much more important than any other factor.

Nancy Lanza was fully involved in helping Adam. Problem was inactive attempts to address his problem. Even money does not appear to be a deciding issue. Problem was knowledge. Adam Lanza apparently had problems detected at the age of three. But the 'powers that be' did not associate or fully understand what that problem (symptom) meant.

Only institution that appears to have identified his problem and potential solutions was the Yale Child Study Center. Even their recommendations for meds was all but ignored. In part because Nancy Lanza was trying to adapt the world to Adam rather than fix Adam so he could adapt to the world. The report suggests a more confrontational approach was necessary.

'Powers that be' in that school system did not even include Yale's analysis and recommendations in their files. Despite numerous conversations. It is not stated why. But that school officials did not understand what Yale was recommending might be a possible explaination.

In desperation, Nancy Lanza tried home schooling. In desperation, Adam was later reintegrated into tenth grade. This was done with extensive effort by all including Nancy Lanza, teachers, and other school professionals. Again, it is not for lack of money or for trying. The system did not really understand his problem AND - this is most important - used a defective strategic objective.

Once Adam left school, then all desperately needed support evaporated. His degradation appears to have been greatest between 18 and 20 years old. By this point, he even rejected all attempt by his father to contact him.

This report takes great effort to note its does not cast blame on anyone. It cites the many technical reasons why Adam was where he was. It also says "why Adam did what he did" is completely unknown. We know how he got where he was. We have nothing but speculation as to why he did what he did.

One final point from the report are facts proven by research: "The conclusion that access to guns drives shooting episodes far more than the presence of mental illness is inescapable. Those countries that have tight gun controls in general experience less overall gun violence and have fewer episodes per capita of mass shootings. ...
We also know the period during which a shooter must reload provides an opportunity for others to stop the shooter or to escape. ... The smaller the capacity of the clip, the more reloading episodes there will be, and the greatest the opportunity for escape or rescue by law enforcement."

That is not just common sense. That is well documented by research.

tw;915154 wrote:

Nancy Lanza was fully involved in helping Adam.

She allowed him to isolate himself in his room (he didn't leave for the last three months he was alive except to commit the shooting,) she allowed him to refuse to eat (he was anorexic and weighed 110 pounds at his death,) and she gave him access to guns. I'm sorry, but those are not the actions of a fully involved parent. Experienced parents of mentally ill children have locks on the knives in the kitchen, and guns are completely out of the question. Honestly I suspect Nancy Lanza had mental issues of her own, because nothing else makes any sense.

Nancy Lanza created a monster and got what she bargained for. It's a tragedy there was collateral damage from her experiments.

Clodfobble;915158 wrote:

Experienced parents of mentally ill children have locks on the knives in the kitchen, and guns are completely out of the question.

This. Speaking from experience.

sexobon;915159 wrote:

Nancy Lanza created a monster and got what she bargained for.

Nancy Lanza was doing what most of us do.

In a parallel example, many switch on a light bulb; see it fail. Then conclude power cycling a bulb causes failure. Power cycling incandescent bulbs does nothing to cause failure. Conclusion is a classic example of junk science created by using observation.

Nancy Lanza was doing same. Solutions such as meds and pushing Adam into school would increase his symptoms, anxiety, and other autistic and complusive behavior. She was doing what diminished his anguish. She was using observation to make conclusions.

Yale Child Study Group strongly encouraged treatment that would make Adam's symptoms become worse. They strongly encouraged doing things that Adam refused to do. That is the point. They wanted to address his problem. Others were only trying to cure his symptoms by making conclusions only from observation. They tried to get him through school - to minimize his pain and anxiety.

So many do this. For example, how many know an SUV is safer only because its four wheel drive can get the vehicle unstuck. SUVs are some of the most dangerous vehicles especially in slippery weather. But a conclusion only based in observation says otherwise.

How many know throwing more people in jail will reduce crime? Facts say otherwise – especially since most (one in 100 Americans) in jail are there for drug offenses such as marijuana.

How many just knew Saddam was evil. And that proved he was a threat to America.

How many foolishly put more fans into their computer on a myth about excessive heat? They feel it is hot. That proves heat must be bad? No. Heat only causes defective semiconductors to fail. Heat is only how to find defective hardware; does not create defective hardware. But most know otherwise because a conclusion was based in observation.

Nancy Lanza was doing same. She was only doing what most of us do. She was trying to address only what she observed. Her support (ie community psychiatrist) was simply facilitating that misguided direction.

Report say it does not cast blame on anyone. Sandy Hook was due to a much larger problem. A perfect storm created by many factors. The many we should all learn from by not making conclusions from sound byte logic.

tw;915207 wrote:

Nancy Lanza was doing what most of us do. ...

... She was only doing what most of us do. ...

You make this statement and then you repeat it even after Clod and Ortho have already refuted it.

No. Most of us don't advocate training mentally impaired people in the use of deadly weapons; or, give them access to guns.

The scope of the report was deliberately limited so as to not cast blame. That's because under the circumstances of this case, it might be counterproductive to do that as it might discourage people from participating in future cases like it. That can't be extrapolated to hold Nancy Lanza, who was the ultimate authority on actions affecting her son, harmless from the ramifications of those actions just so that YOU could put the blame on guns (since you were able to find a report designed to not blame any people). You're trying to redirect this mental health issue in support of another agenda ... gun control ... and diminishing the actions of the key player is crucial to that objective.

Most of us hold people responsible for their own actions as is the case with Nancy Lanza. Only a handful like you want to nullify the people to blame inanimate objects. You've always had difficulty seeing the trees from the forest. Maybe you should learn not to extrapolate individual case studies into generalities.

sexobon;915214 wrote:

No. Most of us don't advocate training mentally impaired people in the use of deadly weapons; or, give them access to guns.

Read what was posted rather than what you want to see. Nobody said we advocate training mentally impaired people in the use of deadly weapons. Apparently you read a few sentences, jumped to a wild conclusion, and then stopped reading.

Nancy Lanza created a monster and got what she bargained for.

Most of us don't advocate training mentally impaired people in the use of deadly weapons; or, give them access to guns. Therefore, Nancy Lanza was not doing what most of us do.

Apparently, you're incapable of separating the various issues in this complex situation so you simplify your ideas in overgeneralized statements.

Your contention that "Nancy Lanza was doing what most of us do" is false. The things she did differently from what most of us do are directly related to the ensuing tragedy. You don't get to pick and choose which of her actions will be considered, which actions won't, and then make blanket statements about the entire case.

Get a handle on it or you're just you're just a waste of time. People get tired of having to explain this to you because you can't read, can only write.

Well said sexobon

sexobon;915221 wrote:

Apparently, you're incapable of separating the various issues in this complex situation so you simplify your ideas in overgeneralized statements.

As usual, a wacko extermist uses personal attacks because he could not even understand what was posted. It was too complex for him.

Sexbon - please stop posting what you wanted to see. I knew the minute reality about guns was quoted from the research, then you would start posting cheapshots. And not see what was really written. As an extremist, you are predictable.

The report was so long and complex that you could not read it. You did not know they cited guns as a reason for so many unnecessary deaths. But now that the executive summary mentions it, you want to kill the messenger. Wackos extremists are so predicatable. Will even attack others rather than comprehend what was actually posted. Comprehend as in you should understand what was written before attacking it.

Some adults will always remain children.

My analysis of your MO was spot on. True to form, you returned to your real agenda - gun control. The tragedy you introduced and manipulated, seen through by others in their replies, was just an attention grabber. No doubt a method gleaned from your father. When contradicted by rational thoughts from anyone else here, you either ignore them or you deny, deny, deny and counter-accuse. You can't be trusted to not manipulate information in support of your agendas, you never could be, you never will be. That is perhaps the most unfortunate aspect of your developmental impairment second only to the poor communication skills. Logic fails you; so, every thread you post in becomes your Kobayashi Maru and the cheating never ends. You have my sympathy. I hope the spirit of the upcoming holidays helps reduce your turmoil.

Griff;915124 wrote:

I wouldn't be overly concerned about a universal mental health screening. Schools don't have the funding to take care of kids with known issues... unless Pearson publishes the screening, then all bets are off.

[strike]FERPA[/strike] Thanks Obama!

Data mining in education can't raise any red flags, its not like the NSA uses its data for anything but fighting terrorism.

Good, I'm glad the government is keeping tabs on those whippersnappers, to protect us exemplary citizens from their shenanigans. :crone:

It may be time to watch Gattica again.