Write your blues away

Aruna Sankaranarayanan

Psychologists suggest that writing about life experiences can have cathartic effects and promote well-being.

Each day, your anxiety ratchets up a few notches as you await your exam results. Being one of the few who were not recruited during campus placements, your morale is at an all-time-low. Over the past few weeks, you have been having frequent skirmishes with your parents who are equally worried about your future. You try and keep your cool, but, sometimes, life can be overwhelming, and stress can take a toll on your physical and mental well-being.

But what can you do when circumstances are beyond your control? Talking with your parents and peers only seems to stress you out further. You do not want to present a sour face to your friends who are doing well, and your parents are too agitated themselves to counsel you. So, how do you deal with the gnawing tension that is simmering within you? The answer is so simple that it almost seems nonsensical — write about your problems. Yes, you read it right. Research by psychologists suggests that writing about life experiences can have cathartic effects and can promote well-being. Sounds far-fetched? Read on.

Words can heal

Psychologist James Pennebaker has been investigating the therapeutic power of writing for over two decades. In a 1997 article in Psychological Science, where he provides an overall review of various studies, he claims that individuals who pen down their thoughts about emotional experiences, show “significant physical and mental health improvements.” Most studies follow a basic paradigm where individuals are asked to write about a given topic for 15 to 30 minutes for three to five consecutive days. Those who write about emotional events require fewer visits to the doctor than they did prior to the writing exercise; this effect was found to last for up to six months to a year in different studies. By contrast, a control group that writes about superficial topics does not show similar gains in health. Likewise, writing about upsetting events, while initially distressing, promotes well-being in the long term. Interestingly, students who were in the emotional writing group got better grades in the months right after the study.

The body responds

In another overview of expressive writing studies, published in 2005 in Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, authors Karen Baike and Kay Wilhelm list specific health benefits like better lung and liver function, lower blood pressure and enhanced immune functioning. Other benefits involve less absenteeism from work, enhanced performance in sports and better working memory, which refers to the amount of information a person can hold in his or her mind so that it can be manipulated if required.

In order for expressive writing to have positive outcomes, you must ensure that what you write remains confidential as you do not want to be judged by it. Further, do not worry about the technical aspects of writing like spelling, grammar and punctuation. What is important is that you process your deepest feelings and thoughts about emotional issues that have impacted you.

Impact

While all of the above studies used a similar writing paradigm of asking subjects to record their heartfelt and intense responses, there is another form of journalling that is also associated with beneficial outcomes. In a paper published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in 2003, Robert Emmons and Michael McCullough found that people who maintained a weekly gratitude journal, where they listed five things, either great or small, that they were thankful for, were more optimistic about their life. Further, when participants did this exercise daily, they were more likely to report that they helped another person. In another study, published in the Journal of Writing Research in 2009, Steven Toepfer and Kathleen Walker examined the impact of writing three letters of gratitude over an eight-week period. Participants, who were all college students, were asked to write letters to people who they felt grateful to in a significant way. The researchers found that students who engaged in this exercise experienced greater subjective well-being.

Keep a diary

Now that the evidence has been presented for you, perhaps it is time to make those diary entries and write more ‘thank you’ letters. For the next few weeks, try maintaining a journal where you jot down what you are grateful for. It could be anything from the lofty to the mundane. Or, surprise a family member or close friend with a letter where you voice your heartfelt appreciation. If you feel your well-being improves as a result, it won’t take much to keep up these exercises. However, if you feel that your miseries and misgivings are causing mental mayhem and preventing you from acting in positive ways, don’t hesitate to seek professional help.

Courtesy  http://www.thehindu.com/features/education/write-your-blues-away/article6452823.ece

    (Accessed on 29.9.14) 

State can’t impose mother tongue on pvt primary schools: SC

State can’t impose mother tongue on pvt primary schools: SC

New Delhi: Expanding the right to freedom of expression and speech, the Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that no state can impose the language considered to be the mother tongue there as the medium of instruction in primary schools, and gave children of lingustic minorities the liberty to choose their medium of instruction, reports Dhananjay Mahapatra.
    However, it clarified that the state could impose its official language as the medium of instruction in government and government-aided and recognized primary schools. But private unaided schools and linguistic as well as religious minority educational institutions would remain outside the purview of ‘mother tongue’ as medium of instruction, it said. Parents or children to choose medium: SC
    We hold that a child or, on his behalf, his parent or guardian, has a right to freedom of choice with regard to the medium of instruction in which he would like to be educated at the primary stage in school,” said a constitution bench comprising Chief Justice R M Lodha and Justice A K Patnaik, Justice S J Mukhopadhaya, Justice Dipak Misra and Justice F M I Kalifulla.
    Upholding a Karnataka HC judgment striking down the state’s decision to impose Kannada as medium of instruction in primary schools from Classes I to IV, the bench said right to freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution included the right of the child or, on his behalf, his parent or guardian to choose the medium of instruction at the stage of primary school.
    Writing the judgment on behalf of the bench, Justice Patnaik said, “It is the parent or the guardian of the child who will decide what is the mother tongue of the child.” He said the Constitution-makers did not intend to empower the state to impose restrictions on a citizen’s fundamental right to freedom of expression.

http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=Archive&Source=Page&Skin=TOINEW&BaseHref=TOICH/2014/05/07&PageLabel=1&EntityId=Ar00105&ViewMode=HTML

RTE Act not applicable to minority institutions

‘RTE Act not applicable to minority institutions’

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that Right to Education (RTE) Act guaranteeing free education to students from disadvantaged and weaker sections in the neighbourhood applied in full vigour to private unaided schools but not minority educational institutions.
    A five-judge constitution bench comprising Chief Justice R M Lodha and Justice A K Patnaik, Justice S J Mukhopadhaya, Justice Dipak Misra and Justice F M I Kalifulla said the 2009 Act intended to achieve the constitutional goal of equality of opportunity through inclusive elementary education to all.
    “It also intended that private schools which did not receive government aid should also take the responsibility of providing free and compulsory education of satisfactory quality to children from disadvantaged and weaker sections,” said Justice Patnaik, who wrote the judgment.
    The court referred to Section 12(2) of the Act which provided that a private school admitting neighbourhood students from disadvantaged and weaker sections would be reimbursed at the rate of perchild expenditure incurred by the state or the actual fees charged from the child, whichever was less.
    “Thus, ultimately, it is the state which is funding the expenses of free and compulsory education of the children belonging to weaker sections who are admitted to a private unaided school,” the bench said.
    “We, therefore, do not find any merit in the submissions made on behalf of non-minority private schools that Article 21A (right to free and compulsory education) of the Constitution and the 2009 Act violate their right under Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution,” it said.
    However, the constitution bench exempted minority schools. It said minority schools could not be put under a legal obligation to provide free and compulsory elementary education to children who were not members of the minority community which had established the school. 

courtesy :

http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=Archive&Source=Page&Skin=TOINEW&BaseHref=TOICH/2014/05/07&PageLabel=14&EntityId=Ar01403&ViewMode=HTML

Centre’s guidelines propose restricting junk food in and around schools

Centre’s guidelines propose restricting junk food in and around schools across the country

Necessary for children’s health
    The Centre’s proposal to restrict the sale and consumption of junk food in and around schools across the country is an important measure in the fight against rising lifestyle diseases. In guidelines framed, the government proposes to restrict items such as chips, fries, colas, chocolates, burgers and samosas inside school canteens and within 50m of school premises. Simultaneously, it pitches for a uniform education policy to encourage children to switch over to a healthier diet. Given the enormity of the challenge, restricting junk food in schools is a necessary first step.
    There’s no denying that children today are continuously bombarded with a range of processed food items that are high on unhealthy fats, sugar and salt. Fast food retailers devise clever marketing techniques to specifically target children and push their products. However, excessive consumption of junk food has led to a global childhood obesity problem. An estimated 17.6 million children under the age of five are overweight worldwide. This in turn has heightened the risk of cardiovascular diseases, Type-II diabetes, hypertension and certain forms of cancer. Several studies show a high intake of junk food diminishes a child’s mental growth and learning abilities. Add to this WHO’s recent recommendations advocating drastic cuts in sugar products for both children and adults.
    Of course, it’s not possible to completely cut out children’s access to junk food. However, restricting unhealthy processed foods in schools is an effective way to educate children about their harmful effects. In this context, it’s welcome that the government’s guidelines prescribe a review of labelling regulations to categorise packaged food items according to their nutritional value. This will help parents make an informed choice about their children’s diet. Meanwhile, school health teams comprising teachers, parents and students can monitor strict implementation of the guidelines, making the fight against junk food comprehensive.
Who will monitor this? Chandan Nandy
    Banning sale of junk food in schools is not a justifiable response to prevent child obesity and other associated risks like juvenile diabetes. Regardless of their level of hunger or preferences, children primarily consume foods, whether healthy or unhealthy, which are easily available or promoted in their immediate environments. Children’s environments at home and in neighbourhoods they live, where regulation levels are low, provide more opportunities than in schools to consume junk food, including aerated and sugary soft drinks, candy bars, burgers and fries. A ban on junk food cannot solve problems which originate in children’s homes and communities.
    The ban will serve no purpose because there is nothing to suggest that the sale of unhealthy food or snacks within or outside school campuses can be adjudicated properly and followed strictly. Even if a ban is enforced, it will be a logistical nightmare for school authorities to check whether students sneak in junk food from home, which reinforces the point that childhood experiences and home environments profoundly affect children’s dietary habits. Besides, classifying what snacks constitute junk food, given India’s diverse cultures, is problematic. Do syrupy jalebis or deep fried samosas and bread pakoras qualify as junk food? Just because they are Indian snacks does not mean they are less harmful than conventional junk food.
    Surely, school principals are not expected to abandon their primary responsibility of educating their pupils and focus instead on the time-consuming and pointless exercise of classifying what constitutes nutritious or unhealthy food. Instead of limiting students’ choices schools, and more importantly parents, should educate them on taking the right decisions about healthy eating habits. Children’s sweet tooth, for example, is notorious. Totally banning foods high in sugar for them – as that’s supposed to lead to obesity – is pointless. Such a ban is bound to be observed in the breach more than anything else.

Courtesy: accessed on 19.3.14 http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=Search&Source=Find&Key=TOIM/2014/03/15/18/Ar01802.xml&CollName=TOI_MUMBAI_DAILY_2009&DOCID=1056123&Keyword=%28%3Cmany%3E%3Cstem%3Esugar%29&skin=TOINEW&AppName=1&PageLabel=18%20&ViewMode=HTML