Re: [AlwaysLearning] FW:Attention-deficit risk linked to young kids' TV time,...
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/5/2004 8:46:23 AM Central Standard Time,
stephanie.elms@... writes:
I am getting ready to write my reply to this and would love to hear
input from you all. My basic feeling is that I would want to know more
about the environment of the kids who did develop adhd (was tv the only
thing available etc)...
~~~
Most likely, ALL the kids in the study went to SCHOOL after they watched TV
as a young baby.
That's got to be one contributing factor that the scientists didn't consider.
I'm not saying that SCHOOL caused their ADD, but that it all factors
combined, did.
Tuck
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
stephanie.elms@... writes:
I am getting ready to write my reply to this and would love to hear
input from you all. My basic feeling is that I would want to know more
about the environment of the kids who did develop adhd (was tv the only
thing available etc)...
~~~
Most likely, ALL the kids in the study went to SCHOOL after they watched TV
as a young baby.
That's got to be one contributing factor that the scientists didn't consider.
I'm not saying that SCHOOL caused their ADD, but that it all factors
combined, did.
Tuck
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/5/2004 7:46:44 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
stephanie.elms@... writes:
Now a major Seattle-based
study shows that very young children who spend hours in front of the
tube risk having attention problems when they reach school age.
-------------
The dumber kids are in school the more interesting school will seem.
If the child already HAS a bunch of that information, he's more likely to be
restless. If he's seen six hours of color programming on migratory birds and
can tell males from females, and identify nests, how intently will he be
willing to work on a worksheet with the words "bird"and "nest" and their hoping he
will just color the bird brown and not ask any questions?
I don't acknowledge that ADHD is something a child "gets." It's a way a
child responds to an environment. Making the rest of his life dull so school
will seem sparkly by comparison is insanity IF the goal is learning.
BUT TADAA!!! The goal is not learning.
The goal is acceptable behavior in school.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
stephanie.elms@... writes:
Now a major Seattle-based
study shows that very young children who spend hours in front of the
tube risk having attention problems when they reach school age.
-------------
The dumber kids are in school the more interesting school will seem.
If the child already HAS a bunch of that information, he's more likely to be
restless. If he's seen six hours of color programming on migratory birds and
can tell males from females, and identify nests, how intently will he be
willing to work on a worksheet with the words "bird"and "nest" and their hoping he
will just color the bird brown and not ask any questions?
I don't acknowledge that ADHD is something a child "gets." It's a way a
child responds to an environment. Making the rest of his life dull so school
will seem sparkly by comparison is insanity IF the goal is learning.
BUT TADAA!!! The goal is not learning.
The goal is acceptable behavior in school.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sylvia Toyama
One thing that occurred to me is that since the goal of the study was to prove a link between TV watching and ADD, they likely had kids watch with no adult interaction -- just the kid and a TV for 2 hrs at a stretch. Add to that, sadly, most toddlers in America are already in daycare -- a very schooly environment -- and most will go on to pre-school by age 3 or so, they've already been very steeped in schoolishness before they get to elementary school for ADD screening.
Also, our experience with TV and kids -- my kids have always watched more TV than is supposed to be okay for them -- is that it often encourages stream of consciousness style leaps in their thoughts. Whether or not we watch with them, they talk to us about what they've been watching -- and we listen and talk about it. Stream of consciousness thinking is important because that's where real connections are made, where they learn about comparison, metaphors, and contrasts -- and it usually gets us talking about stuff from our childhood with them. Really very cool when I think about it.
I can see where encouraging TV would be a no-no for the school establishment. School doesn't want stream of consciousness leaps. They needs kids to be limited to thinking only what they're told, when they're told, until it's time to think about something else. They can't risk that kids will be thinking about color patterns when it's time to add, or fantasizing about flight when it's time to talk about spelling words. And then they need kids to stop thinking about that and think about the next thing, on an external command; not because it makes sense, but because someone else tells you now it's time to open your math book.
Deb's right, the average teacher can't begin to compete with TV, so it's easier to just convince parents that TV is evil and should be avoided. I'd like to know who really paid for that research.
Syl
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Also, our experience with TV and kids -- my kids have always watched more TV than is supposed to be okay for them -- is that it often encourages stream of consciousness style leaps in their thoughts. Whether or not we watch with them, they talk to us about what they've been watching -- and we listen and talk about it. Stream of consciousness thinking is important because that's where real connections are made, where they learn about comparison, metaphors, and contrasts -- and it usually gets us talking about stuff from our childhood with them. Really very cool when I think about it.
I can see where encouraging TV would be a no-no for the school establishment. School doesn't want stream of consciousness leaps. They needs kids to be limited to thinking only what they're told, when they're told, until it's time to think about something else. They can't risk that kids will be thinking about color patterns when it's time to add, or fantasizing about flight when it's time to talk about spelling words. And then they need kids to stop thinking about that and think about the next thing, on an external command; not because it makes sense, but because someone else tells you now it's time to open your math book.
Deb's right, the average teacher can't begin to compete with TV, so it's easier to just convince parents that TV is evil and should be avoided. I'd like to know who really paid for that research.
Syl
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
24hrmom
<< Sandra wrote:
I don't acknowledge that ADHD is something a child "gets." It's a way a
child responds to an environment. Making the rest of his life dull so school
will seem sparkly by comparison is insanity IF the goal is learning.
BUT TADAA!!! The goal is not learning.
The goal is acceptable behavior in school. >>
Exactly. It's the environment, not the kid.
I believe that "ADHD" is not acquired, it is innate. It's part of the wiring / personality that a child is born with. So any child who is free to self-select from a broad range of activities and who chooses a high input activity like TV, video games, multiple, simultaneous activities etc. is selecting for him/herself an appropriate living / learning environment.
And as adults they can pick careers / jobs where this personality is an asset, not a "deficit". High and variable input jobs like emerg doctor, paramedic, outside sales, entrepreneurial - practically anything that is not repetitive and deskbound. If they do not understand themselves and they try to "fit in" taking a corporate desk job, they are not likely to succeed there either and continue to feel like the failure they felt like in school; especially compared to the guy in the next cubicle who did well at school, loves to follow his job document and revels in checking off his daily tasks. One person is not better than the other - just different.
So as a young child they are free to select a compatible environment (unless they have very restrictive parents), and as an adult they are free to pick a compatible work environment, but during those in-between years the kids really have no choice but the school environment (except, obviously, homeschoolers). And therein lies the problem. School is definitely repetitive and deskbound.
And in the limitations of the study they acknowledge just that (in another article about the study): "Also, there is no way to know whether the children already had attention problems early on that attracted them to TV viewing, though symptoms don't appear that early, it said."
Yeah, right. They had "attention problems" early on (i.e. they were born that way!), but which aren't seen that early, only starting around age 7 (when the school environment is introduced and creates the "problem"). And these "problems" will continue into their adult life unless they understand and accept themselves, see their personality, not as a "deficit", but as an asset, and choose life paths that match their personality.
Yuck ... I hate these studies.
Pam L
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I don't acknowledge that ADHD is something a child "gets." It's a way a
child responds to an environment. Making the rest of his life dull so school
will seem sparkly by comparison is insanity IF the goal is learning.
BUT TADAA!!! The goal is not learning.
The goal is acceptable behavior in school. >>
Exactly. It's the environment, not the kid.
I believe that "ADHD" is not acquired, it is innate. It's part of the wiring / personality that a child is born with. So any child who is free to self-select from a broad range of activities and who chooses a high input activity like TV, video games, multiple, simultaneous activities etc. is selecting for him/herself an appropriate living / learning environment.
And as adults they can pick careers / jobs where this personality is an asset, not a "deficit". High and variable input jobs like emerg doctor, paramedic, outside sales, entrepreneurial - practically anything that is not repetitive and deskbound. If they do not understand themselves and they try to "fit in" taking a corporate desk job, they are not likely to succeed there either and continue to feel like the failure they felt like in school; especially compared to the guy in the next cubicle who did well at school, loves to follow his job document and revels in checking off his daily tasks. One person is not better than the other - just different.
So as a young child they are free to select a compatible environment (unless they have very restrictive parents), and as an adult they are free to pick a compatible work environment, but during those in-between years the kids really have no choice but the school environment (except, obviously, homeschoolers). And therein lies the problem. School is definitely repetitive and deskbound.
And in the limitations of the study they acknowledge just that (in another article about the study): "Also, there is no way to know whether the children already had attention problems early on that attracted them to TV viewing, though symptoms don't appear that early, it said."
Yeah, right. They had "attention problems" early on (i.e. they were born that way!), but which aren't seen that early, only starting around age 7 (when the school environment is introduced and creates the "problem"). And these "problems" will continue into their adult life unless they understand and accept themselves, see their personality, not as a "deficit", but as an asset, and choose life paths that match their personality.
Yuck ... I hate these studies.
Pam L
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]