Wednesday, November 19, 2008

ADD/FDA

My blogging usually begins with a greater than usual reaction in me to something I’ve read in a newspaper or online. It immediately zips through my synapses, linking it with all manner of significant human or personal grievances.

And that’s what happened this morning. As I roamed through the newspaper, I got stuck on this article about the over prescribing and overuse of antipsychotic drugs in children and their serious consequences, including death. I think the lead sentence nailed it; these drugs are being used “far too cavalierly.” And apparently, Risperdal, is the drug of choice to quell symptoms of attention deficit disorder (ADD, ADHD), especially among elementary age boys—more on that in a minute.

The medical expert community is alarmed and says more must be done to alert physicians and parents as to the dangers in overuse of the drugs. The FDA says the use restrictions written on the labels should be made clearer. The drug companies say they can’t be made clearer than they are. Wait! What happened to the word “cavalier”? Yes, what about the psychiatrists and physicians who write the scripts to ease the parents and patients out of their offices? As the article indicates, this is not some minor glitch among medical professionals. This is life and death, and for far too many male children, social stigmatizing that can last for a lifetime. This gets me to another matter that needs clarifying.

Guess what folks! Young males and for that matter old males do not learn, do not communicate and do not “share” the same way young and old females do. Watch the boys in your care and in your classrooms. They squirm or “fidget” almost all day. And when they communicate with each other, they start by making silent physical contact. It’s bump-and-run everyday, all day. When they discover something they think is worthwhile to communicate, they will tell it and do it. They won’t share it and thoroughly contemplate it. Tell it, do it, done. That’s boys for ya. It doesn’t make them cute or beguiling. It just makes them who they are.

Maybe the old system of segregating boys and girls in the school building was not such a bad idea (although I wouldn’t have been able to fall in love at age 10 if my school had that rule). Boys are hyperactive by virtue of their gender. That’s not meant to be an excuse. It’s meant to indicate the actual world. Most boys would like to learn by walking around doing something, even if they’re writing an essay or learning geography. Sitting in rows or at tables or in movable desk-chairs contradicts the how of their learning. We who have taught would prefer that they sit down and be quiet. Yes. But that is no reason to create this false positive we flag around called ADD/ADHD.

People who push kids into further reliance on prescription drugs because those kids don’t fit snuggly into an arbitrary learning paradigm ought to be denied access to anyone’s children. Parents who give up on their kids ought to stop fretting and start observing and listening to their kids. We all should stop worrying about where these kids must be 10 years from now and worry more about where they are now.

3 comments:

Cakelet said...

I wonder if in the days of small farms in America, when a good percentage of boys of elementary school age would be helping with the animals and in the fields, if ADD/ADHD didn't exist, or took a different form. Or just went unreported. I also wonder if in the early days of our country -- all the way back to the Puritans -- if kids were able to sit still for hours in churches without squirming and fidgeting.
I'm not so sure the learning paradigm is so arbitrary. Some things can be learned kinesthetically, and improvements could be made in teaching methods to keep students engaged and alert (maybe incorporating some stretching and moving every so often, to keep the blood pumping and re-establish focus) But I think being able to sit still and pay attention and stay focused is probably something we have to actively teach our children. I don't think it comes naturally, but in our technological society, it may well be an important survival skill.

NMI said...

What's essential in our technological society is mutli-tasking, focusing on multiple items or ideas simultaneously quite often when these things are remote and /or remotely related to our ordinary understanding of the known universe. In other words, one doesn't need to sit still to pay attention and remain focused.

I'm not sure that there is "the learning paradigm." What I do know from what I've dealt with in varieties of learning environments over nearly 50 years is that people will and do learn if the "educator" has sufficiently challenged them to exert their desire to solve a problem, whether standing, sitting or doing cartwheels.

Cakelet said...

In 20 years of parenting, the best "educator" I have seen, in terms of motivating the desire to solve a problem, is World of Warcraft. (a video game. you knew that, right?) In the day that teachers can captivate the attention of their students to the extent that World of Warcraft does, there will be a great leap forward in education.