In more brutal prior days, there was corporal punishment - I was frequently caned and variously otherwise bodily punished as a child, because I was a habitual miscreant - were I a decade younger, I probably would have been drugged.

Personally, I’ll take the memories of violence over being medicated for life any day of the week.

Oh, and it generally worked - fear of retribution is quite the motivator.

My anecdotal experience was also that corporal punishment worked ... until I grew too old for it.

Having spent my formative years being motivated by avoiding beatings, rather than seeking praise, made it very difficult to adjust to adulthood in a world that relies on positive reinforcement for motivation.

For every "...and I turned out just fine", there are many who didn't. Your "memories of violence" aren't the alternative to "being medicated for life", they're often the very cause of it.

Gentle reminder that in the good old times of beatings, these kids were more likely to end up in jails, being violent, more likely to end up addicted to drugs and so on.

Not that current time is perfect, but statistically it has better results.

Better for what ? Suicide rates in young population are going up for example. But even so - if your only goal is to prevent negative outcomes might as well put everyone in a coma and tube feed them - bound to get 0% crime, violence, addiction.

Hard to judge quantitatively - but TBH as fucked up as my childhood was I wouldn't want to grow up in the modern system and working with the zoomer generation I'm not impressed with the outcome.

You would had to really show more for me to believe the suicide rates go up because kids are not beaten enough. Extraordinary claim requires some proof.

> if your only goal is to prevent negative outcomes might as well put everyone in a coma and tube feed them - bound to get 0% crime, violence, addiction.

This is fairly absurd jump.

Also, beating kids into obeisance makes them more likely to beat others onto obeisance. Which has no repercussions if against a kid, but has large ones if against adults. And even if not physical, leads to bullies. The more authority they get, the more coercive bullying happen.

I doubt regular beatings work, but having authority over your child, even if it takes physical punishment to obtain is one thing I see extremely lacking with my peers who are parents.

But my point was more about comparing generations, I feel like a lot of struggles like having to learn how to control your temper or focus, are wiped away with drugs, and in general society is very good at removing historic hardships you had to overcome. On the flip side a lot of artificial stress and challenges are introduced with modern life (grade chasing since preschool, social media) - I don't feel like this would have felt meaningful to me so I don't envy the current generation of children.

It was the beatings? Just last week people like you were telling us it was all leaded gas's fault. Make up your mind.

Maybe that is one place were we could spend more resources. Even if separating them from other kinds might sound wrong. It might be for best. That is move them to smaller groups with specialised teachers who have adequate support in place.

It is harsh, but clearly trying to integrate all of them to general population is not working for anyone, but administrators...

I'm not arguing the ethics of it, just stating that (at least to the best of my understanding) there is a culture of that thing happening.

I would say drugging young kids with stimulants that have lifelong dependency implications as a kind of sacrifice for the greater good of the larger class is just morally reprehensible.

Let's keep treatment focused on healing the individual, not drugging them into compliance. We are talking about kids here.

What do you mean with "lifelong dependency implications"? I take such medication and whenever I stop taking it for a time period, all of the side effects of the medication completely vanish. This type of medication is not addictive, actually it's a bit unpleasant, I don't think anyone would get addicted to it. And it's not like people with ADHD are rendered completely useless if they're not on their medication. We grow up like everyone else, and take on the responsibilities of becoming an adult. Granted, maybe a bit slower than everyone else but still.. there are no such dependency implications as you claim.

Have you tried researching the long term effects of these medications? There is plenty of scientific literature available.

Be sure to consider the age which the treatment starts. A major aspect of concern for all drug use is how it affects developing minds.

The catch is that unmedicated ADHD outcomes aren't good.

I worked with the same group of students for a 2.5 year period of pre-K and kindergarten. Low self esteem, anxiety and depression and to a less extent conduct disorder were plain to see in the majority of the low executive function students by the end of Kindergarten. I saw these negative outcomes develop as a direct consequence of difficulty managing behavior in class and keeping up with peers.

Particularly for kids with combined inattentive hyperactive ADHD symptoms it's nearly impossible for them to get through the day while keeping up academically AND keeping their behavior inside the realm of "acceptable classroom behavior". Lacking a robust support system for students with extra needs (think an additional teacher or teaching assistant in classroom at all times) there is a very finite limit to how much you can assist without creating issues for the progress of the class as a whole.

The reason that I am careful to use low executive function (EF) as the label at this age is that even for experts in this area it's incredibly difficult to predict who will "grow out" of their lower than average EF issues and who plateaus with maturity.

I think the current consensus that diagnosis and especially medication for ADHD is too difficult prior to 6 or 7 is correct. I've seen too many students have seeming miraculous gains in EF and catch up with peers in a matter of weeks to think that preschool is the appropriate time to diagnose and treat ADHD.

The students who continue to lag behind in EF are substantially behind in basic grade level knowledge when they set foot in primary school. The amount of catch up they have to do is substantial even for neurotypical students by time that a formal diagnosis and medication is an option.

Now add in the fact that a large portion of the parents of ADHD kids have a parent with ADHD or less than average EF skills. They are less able than most to give their children the extra out of classroom help they need.

Getting kids on medication ASAP once a diagnosis is confirmed and a well tolerated treatment is found is a no brainer. By the time that this comes into play you are already in educational triage. We're talking about 1st graders that can't read simple consonant vowel consonant words in some cases.

The obvious solution is putting in a low EF safety net in pre-k and kindergarten. Extra teachers in classrooms, extra help with literacy. Making sure all parents are aware that their child is has an elevated risk for ADHD diagnosis later down the road, so they can familiarize themself with the diagnosis and treatment options-- and more importantly so that people are assessing and testing to see if they catch up in EF function.