I was doing a biography of Dr. Keirsey for a class (who comes up with such lame assignments as 'do a biography of a famous counselor' for graduate school, anyway?) and I was reading his papers on how ADD is not really a mental disorder but merely the result of a certian temperament that has not been properly channeled. Only, he hasn't produced an peer-reviewed work, so one could not really use his theories for back-up in any arguments against medicating children for ADD. So, this has sparked a research frenzy and I have even designed a few experiments that could be implemented to test the theory out, because I think the old guy is right.
I mean, 'attention' is not an observable phenomenon, it is a cognitive state. And people are making a lot of assumptions in saying children want to pay attention, if only they could. Um, is it possible the child doesn't really care about the topic at hand, or cannot understand the way its being taught, and the child is just looking for something more fun to occupy his time? Sure, you ask a kid why he hasn't done his homework and he says 'because I cannot concentrate'. The teacher assumes this comes from a real effort on the child's part, but perhaps it is simply a kid with a spontaneous personality, but a concrete mind, who cannot be forced to be interested, and therefore does not do well with tasks. So, schools push heavy addictive drugs that have been proven to stunt brain growth and function to treat 'symptoms' that aren't symptoms at all, only vague assumptions. Sure, the kids could use some conditioning, maybe better structure, and some study skills; they may go a long way towards academic success.. but drugs? When does that make sense?