A month or so back I wrote that one of the first neuroplasticity programs, Arrowsmith, was about to be dropped by the Toronto Catholic District School Board fo reasons of cost. It’s a little more complicated than that. The Board had asked Arrowsmith to waive their fees over the next two years while the Board conducted a study to see specifically if the program made a difference to subjects in the classroom. There is a similar program using Cogmed Working Memory Training currently running at Sick Children’s’ Hospital in Toronto under the auspices of Rosemary Tannock. Arrowsmith refused and the Board dropped it. Well now it seems that the parents of the children who were enrolled in the program, there are about 70 of them, are taking the Board to court to get them to reverse the decision saying, according to an article in the Toronto Sun, that “the children enrolled in the program will be irreparably harmed.” Named in the suit are: Education Minister’s provincial supervisor Norbert Hartmann, associate supervisor Norm Forma and the Toronto Catholic District School Board. Michael Watson, a partner at Gowling, Lafleur, Henderson LLP, speaking on behalf of the parents said, the case, which has yet to be proven in court, isn’t about money, it’s about helping those children. ” Parents can disagree with decisions of the board … what’s really different about this case is we say this decision was made completely unlawfully and contrary to various provisions of the regulations under the Education Act and beyond the jurisdiction of the supervision team,” Mr Watson says that this team has interfered with and meddled in a very important special education program of the board under the guise of a budget matter. He went on to say that the parents fundamentally believe in the Arrowsmith Program and that it has achieved results.
Simultaneously with the Toronto Catholic District School Board axing the Arrowsmith Program, four other neuroplasticity programs are being considered for adoption by the non-sectarian Toronto District School Board. The four are Arrowsmith, Cogmed Working Memory Training, Fast ForWord and Wasdell SMaRts. Two of the programs, Cogmed and Fast ForWord are being used in Toronto schools now. Arrowsmith has been employed in the Catholic Board for the last ten years and had previously participated in a number of studies of effectiveness although none of these studies measured changes in the actual classroom.
Another study assessing Cogmed is scheduled to start this fall under the supervision of Toronto’s Hospital for Sick Children researcher Rosemary Tannock. This study in Ontario’s demonstration school will track 120 students who are severely learning disabled. According to Tannock, “The big question is not just whether Cogmed can improve working memory but will it really improve classroom performance.” A further study using Cogmed is set to begin with students at the University of Toronto.
I have mentioned several times in past posts that I do marketing work for Cogmed in Canada but this simple description does not really do the relationship justice and I thought it timely to revisit the topic. I chose Cogmed. I went looking for them. That journey began when my most skeptical friend who works for Psychological Services for one of the largest school boards in the country first told me about Cogmed with an enthusiasm he rarely displays and I thought we might together acquire a license. From my first contact with their head office in Stockholm, to my first visit with a practice in Canada I was impressed with their professionalism and integrity.
We didn’t meet Cogmed’s fairly strict requirements for a license and so I decided to offer my services to build their brand in Canada and to further public understanding of the concept of neuroplasticity, which is necessary to understand how Cogmed works or that it should work at all. That is one of the reasons I started this blog. The blog though, as anyone who has been reading it will understand, is very much a personal view. Am I biased towards Cogmed? Yes, is the short answer. I am biased because I know their working memory training does what they say it’s supposed to to. I have a bias towards Cogmed because of their professional and thorough approach to the commercialization of research conducted by the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm and I am biased towards them because I know their product is backed by solid, ongoing and peer-reviewed, validation studies.
I do work for Cogmed because they pay me to do it but also because I have an intense and personal fascination with the concept of neuroplasticity and the role of working memory in so many mental health issues. For some time I was quite depressed about how my own life had been shaped by what has turned out to be problems with working memory and I was determined that somehow this could be have some meaning if I could make others aware of the role of working memory in mental health disorders and the fact that it can be improved.
Only you the reader can decide whether I have made a dent in that objective. I hope you will post a comment or two on this blog, from time to time, and let me know if you, or someone you know, has problems such as those discussed in the blog and if what is published here has been helpful.
I also hope your journey can be as interesting and exciting as mine has been and continues to be.
Even though almost everything we know about the brain has changed in the last decade or so, there is still much misinformation out there and this was the subject of an article on the SharpBrains web site dated June 20th by CEO Alvaro Fernandez which included the Top Ten Brain Training/Cognitive Health Myths. You will find the article on the SharpBrains site here.
The myths are:
1. Genes determine the fate of our brains.
2. Aging means automatic decline.
3. Medication is the main hope for cognitive enhancement.
4. We will soon have a Magic Pill or General Solution to solve all our cognitive challenges.
5. There is only one “it” in “Use It or Lose it”.
6. All brain activities or exercises are equal.
7. There is only one way to train your brain.
8. We all have something called “Brain Age”.
9. That “brain age” can be reversed by 10, 20, 30 years.
10. All human brains need the same brain training.
One that stands out for me is number three. SharpBrain’s response to this myth is, “Non-invasive interventions can have comparable and more durable effects–side effect free.” I was diagnosed with ADHD Primarily Inattentive. My understanding is that this subtype is not usually that responsive to stimulant medication and if it is at all it is usually at low doses. This was the case for me but my low dose was almost too low to have any beneficial effect at all.
The other myth that stands out for me is number seven and SharpBrain’s response to this one is, “Brain functions can be impacted in a number of ways: through meditation, cognitive therapy and cognitive training.”
For those that struggle with medication to temporarily improve working memory, what can be accomplished by cognitive training, meditation and other options is good news but I despair at those out there who are still operating as if the SharpBrain myths were true.
On June 30th, The Toronto Catholic District School Board (TCDSB) will decide whether to renew its contract with the Arrowsmith Program. The TCDSB had invited Arrowsmith to waive its fees for two years while the Board conducted a review of the effectiveness of, Arrowsmith, as well as other programs designed to improve cognitive functioning in learning disabled students. Arrowsmith declined in a letter to the Board dated May 27th, 2009.
The Arrowsmith Program was developed at the Arrowsmith School in Toronto and has been available in the TCDSB for about a decade. The goal of the Arrowsmith Program, according to Arrowsmith: “is to help students strengthen the weak cognitive capacities underlying their learning dysfunctions. The Arrowsmith Program deals with the root causes of the learning disability rather than managing its symptoms.” It was one of the first programs for learning disabled students to apply the principles of neuroplasticity.
A memo from the Director of Education for the TCDSB to the Committee of the Whole for the Board indicated that the cost of delivery of the Arrowsmith Program to each student is roughly $14,000. Costs of delivery include yearly salaries for one full time teacher and one assistant at each school. The site license fee from Arrowsmith for the seven schools delivering the program is $174,000. For the TCDSB the issue if both program effectiveness and cost.
Currently, there are 70 students in the TCDSB enrolled in the program.