|
Post by roland on Jul 23, 2009 18:05:03 GMT
Hello Parents, This evening while trawling the University of Durham's website, I came across the following report about a study that aimed to do the following: Establish evidence for or against a school-based screening programme to identify children aged 4 - 5 years with either severe inattentive, hyperactive or impulsive behaviour or a combination of these. Quantify and compare the effects of different interventions on the academic attainment, behaviour and attitudes of children with and without the behavioural problems of the type described above, over a period of two years. Estimate the impact of intervention programmes on teachers' perceptions and actions. Provide a cost benefit analysis of the screening process and interventions. Report recommendations for screening programmes, interventions and future research. Here's the link to the full report: www.cemcentre.org/Documents/PIPS/ESRCReport.pdf
|
|
|
Post by andy12345 on Jul 24, 2009 1:15:21 GMT
Hypothetically, between 8 and 17% of kids with potential adhd arghy.
Catch them young, good idea, but do they plan to give stims at that age - 5 years old?
Trouble is, environmental issues, nutritional issues, family issues, personal issues, other personality issues all come into play don't they?
Why would a 5 year old child want to be educated anyway? Surely, they would rather run around and have fun?
In america they just hand out ritalin smarties at lunchbreak lol.
I read somewhere that they want to make it much easier in the US and they want to make stimulants a free choice eventually because "who does not want the benefit of correctly dosed stims?"
Students without adhd are using stims to achieve better grades (apparently) OR, maybe they have adhd and they just sort of fall into place and take the drugs which helps their potential.
Too many unknowns to mention.
I suppose giving teachers a little bit of training on adhd would help them to push a suspect child. Years ago, "unruly" children got physically punished for their bad behaviour. Mostly though, it was obviously what we currently call AD/HD. All that suffering because those brutal teachers thought beatings were a great thing. I am glad those days are over.
Now though, it's gone the other way. What is the correct balance?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2009 2:04:18 GMT
hey andy,
i've heard estimates of around 3-7% of the population as having ADHD,
i think routine screening for ADHD and learning disorders, for all pupils entering primary education, is a great idea! we had screening for deafness, colour-blindness and eyesight. so why not these things too?
my instinct says that 5 is too young for meds, but these formative years 5-7 are vital to a childs education, i've heard 5 year olds comparing their classmates before, "sally's the worst in the class at writing" etc... so a kids sense of self worth and confidence in their own abilities can take a knock at an early age, and these feelings can last some people a lifetime.
-so compared to this outcome, the risk of medicating them may not be too bad.
-matt
|
|
|
Post by andy12345 on Jul 24, 2009 3:06:55 GMT
Hey matt,
All I can say is - your right!
Especially the formative years 5-7. That's the good thing about sharing points of view, it enables a conclusion if all parties are amicably inclined.
I actually do believe in psychological assessments for children from a young age every year. Unfortunately the initial set up of cost of training so many specialists would mean it would never be considered.
However, when you imagine the amount spent on pointless wars and other baloney sausage events, it's clear to see that catching a child before they can be warped etc (any mental issue) is worth it in the long run.....
|
|