Just to be different, I would say "We have a variety of programs including yada, yada...." And "The group does such and such." Or "This is a group that does...." I think that when you leave off "We are", then you have the constuction of "A group that does....."I think that group would be the noun in the sentence. I am a fan of James Kilpatrick. His viewpoint on sentence constuction is that the words should fall easily upon the ear. I think that he recently had a column about the use of who, which and that. I don't remember which he preferred. I think it was a case of which word would make the sentence flow more smoothly.

My gut feeling is that "My team of seven members are located . . ." sounds better to the ear. There is flexibility in using a plural verb (are located) when the singular subject is a group (team). I found this reference at grammarbook.com: Collective nouns such as team and staff may be either singular or plural depending on their use in the sentence. Examples: The staff is in a meeting. (Staff is acting as a unit here.) The staff are in disagreement about the findings. (The staff are acting as separate individuals in this example.) The sentence would read even better as: The staff members are in disagreement about the findings.

"I am hoping this will be helpful to create an awareness of the dangers of relying on medication to solve behavioral problems. " Before even reading your position statement, my immediate reaction was that you are going into this with at least two hidden biases: - First, that the adults are relying on pills to "solve the problems" rather than mitigate the severity of the issues that cause the symptoms, or to assist the child in overcoming the problems, and - Second, that the problems are "behavioral" in nature and not medical. But after reading your stance, it seems like your position is the familiar "overdiagnosing, overmedicating, underparenting" argument. I do hope you'll dig much deeper than this. As the parent of two boys with labels, I will admit that there is some truth to your stance. But that pendulum also swings the other way, with the "overdiagnosing" argument preventing children from receiving the legitimate medical treatment that can help them succeed. My older son was diagnosed with ADHD and dyslexia, and is also gifted intellectually and artistically. Prior to his diagnoses, he struggled to learn to read and his self-esteem plummeted in response to his unexpected difficulties. I had always been an active and involved parent and had a close relationship with my son, and while he WAS very active, I did not experience ANY discipline problems at home. So when the educational psychologist I took him to (suspecting dyslexia) suggested ADHD in addition to dyslexia, I was surprised and reluctant to believe it. But teacher interviews overwhelmingly supported that diagnosis, and after considring the issue carefully, I agreed to a trial of stimulant medication. It made a significant, immediate and positive difference in his schoolwork. He was finally able to concentrate enough to benefit from his reading instruction, and caught up to 'grade level' relatively quickly. He was also able to curb his impulsiveness, which smoothed over some of his previous social and classroom difficulties. He was happier and doing well again. Then his stepmother got involved, citing the "overdiagnosed, overmedicated" argument, and his father, citing the "He's just like I was!" (therefore?) argument threatened to sue the doctor if he continued to prescribe stimulants, so I agreed to take him off the meds. DS's schoolwork began to slip and problem behaviors re-emerged, though with even more active parenting, those issues were held in reasonable check. He is still disorganized, forgetful, impulsive and very distractable, problems that were much less severe when he was medicated. Does he absolutely for-certain have ADHD? I guess I can't say for sure. Without a scientifically validated medical test, no one can say for 100% sure. But what I can absolutely say is that being on stimulant medication helped him significantly, and the "overdiagnosed / overmedicated" argument harmed him. My younger son is diagnosed with PDD-NOS, a mild form of autism, another of the "wildly overdiagnosed" conditions. There is absolutely no question in the minds of anyone who knows him that there is something going on, some disorder of some sort. What exactly that diagnosis should be is still up for discussion, among experts and parents alike, and PDD/NOS is simply the best (if imperfect) fit. But he too has been harmed by the "overdiagnosed / overmedicated" mindset. Even among treating professionals, there is a certain amount of "overanxious parent" skepticism. With some physicians you can see the skepticism when they first walk in the room, and watch it melt when they determine that there actually IS a basis-in-fact to the parent's concerns. "With this campaign, I hope to bring to light the exorbitant amount of children being diagnosed and medically treated for "disorders" like ADHD." Believe me -- this 'issue' is hardly in the dark. It is out there and being trumpeted far and wide; it needs no advocate. But please know also that this viewpoint harms some children as well as helping some of them. " It will show that many of these "disorders" can be corrected simply by a parent paying more attention, or a teacher altering the way a subject is taught. " Certainly, active, involved parenting and creative teaching strategies geared toward the needs of each individual child are good, effective tactics. But to suggest that medical biological disorders can be "fixed" by simple good parenting / good teaching are simplistic in the extreme, and harmful to the children who actually do have these problems. Now there IS good science being done that establishes how intensive behavioral patterning and effective one-on-one and small group teaching can actually change the structure of the brain, re-wiring neural pathways. (Look into dyslexia remediation strategies and Applied Behavior Analysis in treating autism.) To investigate how intensive training and instruction can actually "cure" medical disorders that originate in the brain by realigning neural pathways -- a similar but more scientific and greatly intensified approach to your 'active parenting/individualized teaching' argument -- there's some thesis material.

Interesting pronunciations, Mary. Yours are different from mine, which are, I suppose, of the west-of-the-Mississippi sort. I (and most American westerners) pronounce rather with the hard /th/ of than, the, though, not the soft /th/ of thorn, thick, thin...wrath. Does your wrath end with the hard /th/? I definitely don't rhyme rather with father. Neither do I rhyme father with water. My "water" rhymes with cotter (the closest real word that I can think of at the moment). Vee, I doubt any transcription will give you the proper idea of how Americans pronounce farther, so I suggest you visit a site with audio of American pronunciations. I can attempt it but I doubt it will do any good. However, here goes: Think of the letter R and how Americans say it (the letter itself) -- It is "Ar" with the tongue curled. Pirates supposedly say "Argh!" an awful lot -- the beginning of their word is the same as the American pronunciation of the letter R (not to be confused with the sound of every R, though -- initial, internal, or ultimate). The English I know tend to pronounce the letter R as "Ah" without curling the tongue. This is important because it is one of the primary reasons American English sounds different from English English. This one letter causes more problems and misunderstandings, I think, than any other. The English (and some American-English speakers) who cannot curl their tongues for R, or even imagine that sound, will not comprehend this, I'm afraid. Okay, here's how I would transcribe farther, keeping in mind that many (most) Americans definitely pronounce the R in the position of the way it is spelled. FAR-thur -- the AR sound is the same as in the pirate's "argh!" The /th/ is hard as in thou, and the /ur/ sounds just about identical to the Cockney pronunciation of her: 'er.Maybe that will help, but I think it's probably a matter of being very familiar with American pronunciations as compared to those of English- or British- or Australian-English. Pronunciations really need to be heard, not transcribed, but transcription will give a pretty good idea if both transcriber and reader are familiar with the same sounds and conventions.