AS ANY PARENT OR TEACHER PROBABLY KNOWS, the number of children diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) has skyrocketed—by 33 percent from 1997 to 2002. Prescriptions of stimulant medications such as methylphenidate (Ritalin) and amphetamines (Dexedrine) have risen as well, especially for preschoolers. From 2000 to 2003, spending on ADHD drugs for children under five rose 369 percent.
Scientists have yet to definitively explain the trend. Some critics say the reporting might be skewed—that ADHD may have been with us all the time but called by other names or missed entirely. Another theory is that the disorder might be overdiagnosed; pharmaceutical companies have intensely marketed medications, and school officials often urge parents to seek treatment for disruptive children.
Still, the disorder is real. One suspected cause of ADHD symptoms is overstimulation, especially from television viewing. But another significant factor in the ADHD phenomenon—and a potential treatment—could be as close as our own backyards.
Children diagnosed with ADHD have trouble paying attention, listening, following directions, and focusing on tasks. They may also be aggressive, antisocial, and susceptible to academic failure. Based on high-tech images of the brain, some scientists report that ADHD children show altered levels of some neurotransmitters and slight shrinking in the part of the cerebral cortex that governs attention and impulse control. But scientists are not clear whether those differences indicate a cause for the disorder, perhaps due to a genetic defect, or are simply manifestations of another cause or causes.
In ongoing studies by the Human-Environment Research Laboratory at the University of Illinois, researchers have discovered tantalizing evidence for a new view of the syndrome. In a 2004 study published in the American Journal of Public Health, the laboratory found that children as young as five showed a significant reduction in ADHD symptoms when they engaged with nature.
article continues at link:
http://www.oriononline.org/pages/om/05-4om/Louv.html
Nature and ADHD
I liked the description of “directed focus”. It seems like that is the area in which the “ADHD” children we are raising have difficulty. It’s not an inability to focus, it’s an inability to continually focus on something they are directed to do by someone else. I have also found that unstructured time, particularly oudoor time, is extremely beneficial to our kids. They do great at outdoor school, campouts, sports, etc. but have a great deal more difficulty when constrained to be indoors. This is a big concern for all of us when we consider that schools across America are shortening or eliminating recess in favor of “instructional time.” This would mean more “directed focus” and less spontaneous activity, which is bad news for the kind of child that tends to get the ADHD label.
Re: Nature Deficit
While I do not think the condition we know as ADHD can be reduced to any one single factor, I can’t help but agree with you Steve that the changing nature of elementary ed is pushing children too hard before they are developmentally ready, and that part of today’s problem is the backlash from this.
I recall being in lower grades and having a morning, lunch and afternoon recess where we got to blow off steam. I also recall that we had way less bookwork than my own kids did, and yet somehow we outscored them on comparative testings.
While I have no doubt whatsoever that ADHD is a valid medical condition (how can we not have neurological problems with the shere mass of known toxins women of childbearing age have in their blood?) I do think that some cases are contrived because a great many little boys do not have the ability to sit still for long periods of time like a great many little girls can. Teachers way back in the dinosaur age when I went to school knew that, and took us outside to the playground to break up the day.
One comment I read in the email forum from whence I got this piece was interesting… The poster asked if it was truly the “green time” which improved the kids or was it that NOT going outside left the child inside to eat more sugar-charged junk food, playing over-stimulating (usually violent) video games while breathing the PDBE’s being given off by the carpeting, drapes and electronics was getting worse.
It will be interesting to see how peer review goes for this study, and even more so if someone else can replicate the findings.
hey...girls are just as rambunctious as the boys...
I agree with Dad about the changing tide of elementary ed being directly linked with the rise of ADHD and related “disorders”. School for my daughters is so vastly different than it was for me…they don’t get a recess AT ALL in the elementary school they currently attend. It just isn’t natural to expect ANY child to sit still for those long extended periods!
I do, however, respectfully disagree with Dad’s observation that little girls can sit still for longer periods than little boys. One of my daughters, who isn’t so little anymore, could NEVER sit still, was kind of a little wild thing, and she STILL chases the boys around on the playground. What a joy to watch she is!
Recess
I think it is child abuse to have a whole day of school with no recess. I think it should be illegal! Even adults in factories get coffee breaks and lunch breaks. It’s absolutely INSANE!
Re: Nature Deficit
I didn’t say all little girls can sit still for extended periods, I said a great many can ;)
At my children’s elementary they were given exactly 45 minutes for lunch break (15 minutes to eat and 20 minutes to run around) with no morning or afternoon breaks. Oh yes, during their 20 minutes they had to choose what activity they wanted to do and then were stuck with their choice.
As I said, I am not convinced that this preliminary report is indeed correct; peer review and replication still await. It is rather intriguing however if for no other reason than it seems to point away from the increasing emphasis on longer hours of harder work for small children that so many of our administrators seem to be leaning towards.
Time will tell.
Need for recess is obvious!
It doesn’t take a research scientist to figure out that kids need time to do their own activities and to move their bodies around and soak up nature. It’s basic human nature. Only people dedicated to denying the reality of what children or human beings are can even think about denying them recess. It’s pure child hatred, not science. Why do we have to prove they need recess? Why don’t the child-haters need to prove that they don’t?
It’s strange to me that the authors equate exposure to nature with interacting with a “green” environment. In the small town where I grew up, all the children interacted with nature constantly but it certainly was not green as it was in the middle of the desert. Come to think of it, I have often wondered at the miracle that some of the boys I grew up with actually became adults who could read, write and do math. Perhaps the lack of green was behind their lack of focus…..