Younger children are more likely to be hyperactive than their older counterparts.

Currently, there is a trend to mainstream these hyperactive children together with normal children in the classroom. Is this the best or most effective possible situation? Let us consider the issues:

It may be marginally helpful for hyperactive children to observe the behavior of normal children - although they can certainly see normal children outside of the classroom.

It may arguably be a somewhat positive experience for normal children to observe others in their classroom. It is doubtful, however, whether this experience is important enough to compensate for the hyperactive child's outbursts and negative behaviors. Those experiences are likely to waste the study time of the normal childtren in the class.

The hyperactive child will almost certainly be an unnecessary burden on an already harried teacher - especially if she has to deal with several hyperactive children in an overcrowded "normal" class.

It is also likely to be a burden for the principal and the parents, who will be helpless when trying to deal with a hyperactive child who is acting "normally" - according to his own criteria.

What is our goal in placing hyperactive children in a regular classroom? Are we merely trying to save money by not opening up appropriate classes? Are we trying to see how much we can push the teachers before they burn out?

The teacher in a heterogeneous class already has to deal with children with different abilities or backgrounds. The added burden of hyperactive children in an otherwise normal, heterogeneous class may be stretching the teacher's abilities beyond the limits of fairness.

Does the overall picture seem positive?

I didn't think so.