3 ms·

The question I would have here is, what has changed in the last century or so that would make it that way? Regarding sitting in rows for most of the day, school

The question I would have here is, what has changed in the last century or so that would make it that way? Regarding sitting in rows for most of the day, school methodologies I don't think have noticeably changed; at least, from what I see, it doesn't seem like a school in 1950 would be that much different than a school today. From my perspective, the root of this is more yet another case of medicine being over-sold well beyond their intended purpose. In this case, energetic boys are the ones that get caught in the cross fire. But this seems overall like a systemic problem of current medicine, well beyond ADHD medicine... ranging from the over-prescription of antibiotics, to the roots of the opioid addiction crisis. Our medical system just plain and simple seems to dish out too many pills, even when the chances of help is marginal. I'm guessing (to be fair) that many times this is due to patient demand, I just wish doctors would sometimes push back sometimes. People are looking for easy solutions to life's problems, and don't necessarily realize the whole picture that comes from medication (side effects and whatnot). Your child is energetic and a handle sometimes, right? That's often normal. You don't need to necessarily give your child powerful stimulants, what is essentially commercialized speed, to "cure" this, unless you are really sure of the diagnosis, in my opinion.

supreme_sublime 9y ago
I think a pretty obvious starting point is the supposed decline of recess in schools. I couldn't find any numbers on how many schools had recess as a normal part of their day or rates. However it does seem as though in many schools, certainly more than ever before, there isn't any recess time. Which is sad because a very common trope (especially for young boys) is recess being their favorite "class". It is also pretty well documented to help in all kinds of behavioral issues as well as being a valuable learning environment in its own right. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/131/1/183 http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/131/1/183
- soundwave106 9y ago
  This is definitely a starting point. I'm not finding any hard numbers for a "decline" either -- the one table I found (from 2005) indicated the average was about 27 minutes a day. (https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/nutrition/tables/tab15.asp https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/nutrition/tables/tab15.asp) and this hasn't changed too much recently (see 2017 data -- https://www.aft.org/ae/spring2017/ramstetter_and_murray https://www.aft.org/ae/spring2017/ramstetter_and_murray), but I'm having trouble finding any studies with past data from, say, the 1950s and 1960s. Little nuggets of data I'm finding suggest more that the problem is inconsistency -- half an hour might be "okay", but some schools don't even implement any recess at all... which for many little children sounds like it would be awful. Most of the research out there seems to support the idea that recess or other unstructured play is quite beneficial, for quite a number of reasons, so it's quite possible that half an hour is not enough. I'd certainly suspect more recess would do a lot more good for energetic children than powerful stimulants!
  - supreme_sublime 9y ago
    Hmm, that seems like an odd way to represent how much recess time kids have. I'm not familiar with elementary schools, but I'd guess that class periods are somewhere between 30 minutes and an hour. The average kid is getting less than 30 minutes of recess time which seems to indicate that this average takes into account kids who don't get recess time at all. If recess periods for schools that have it are an hour long, then less than half of the kids actually have recess. Anyway, what a frustratingly useless statistic since I didn't know how they got it.
watwut 9y ago
Push for early academics. Girls need somewhat less physical movement on average and at that age have somewhat more developed fine motor skills and attention. The sooner you expect kids to read and write, the harder for boys it is compared to girls. Good news would be that pushing reading for later wont harm girls, but would help at least some boys.
pixl97 9y ago
>, from what I see, it doesn't seem like a school in 1950 would be that much different than a school today. Maybe it's what we don't see? Enforced truancy laws may be a possibility. If you were a 'problematic' child back in the day, it's very likely you would be kicked out and not get any education. Now schools wanting to maximize their federal payments use law enforcement to punish truant students.

supreme_sublime 9y ago

I think a pretty obvious starting point is the supposed decline of recess in schools. I couldn't find any numbers on how many schools had recess as a normal part of their day or rates. However it does seem as though in many schools, certainly more than ever before, there isn't any recess time. Which is sad because a very common trope (especially for young boys) is recess being their favorite "class". It is also pretty well documented to help in all kinds of behavioral issues as well as being a valuable learning environment in its own right. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/131/1/183 http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/131/1/183

soundwave106 9y ago
This is definitely a starting point. I'm not finding any hard numbers for a "decline" either -- the one table I found (from 2005) indicated the average was about 27 minutes a day. (https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/nutrition/tables/tab15.asp https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/nutrition/tables/tab15.asp) and this hasn't changed too much recently (see 2017 data -- https://www.aft.org/ae/spring2017/ramstetter_and_murray https://www.aft.org/ae/spring2017/ramstetter_and_murray), but I'm having trouble finding any studies with past data from, say, the 1950s and 1960s. Little nuggets of data I'm finding suggest more that the problem is inconsistency -- half an hour might be "okay", but some schools don't even implement any recess at all... which for many little children sounds like it would be awful. Most of the research out there seems to support the idea that recess or other unstructured play is quite beneficial, for quite a number of reasons, so it's quite possible that half an hour is not enough. I'd certainly suspect more recess would do a lot more good for energetic children than powerful stimulants!
- supreme_sublime 9y ago
  Hmm, that seems like an odd way to represent how much recess time kids have. I'm not familiar with elementary schools, but I'd guess that class periods are somewhere between 30 minutes and an hour. The average kid is getting less than 30 minutes of recess time which seems to indicate that this average takes into account kids who don't get recess time at all. If recess periods for schools that have it are an hour long, then less than half of the kids actually have recess. Anyway, what a frustratingly useless statistic since I didn't know how they got it.

watwut 9y ago

Push for early academics. Girls need somewhat less physical movement on average and at that age have somewhat more developed fine motor skills and attention. The sooner you expect kids to read and write, the harder for boys it is compared to girls. Good news would be that pushing reading for later wont harm girls, but would help at least some boys.

pixl97 9y ago

>, from what I see, it doesn't seem like a school in 1950 would be that much different than a school today. Maybe it's what we don't see? Enforced truancy laws may be a possibility. If you were a 'problematic' child back in the day, it's very likely you would be kicked out and not get any education. Now schools wanting to maximize their federal payments use law enforcement to punish truant students.