While reading the chapter on EBD, my mind was almost foreshadowing the discussion on social maladjustment.
I think a lot of the diagnostic criteria for EBD are extremely subjective, using terminology such as “inappropriate,” “inability,” “a tendency,” etc.
Who is to say whether behavior is inappropriate, and what’s inappropriate in one context may be appropriate in another.
I loved the example the book gave, of how hitting and knocking down peers is not okay in the classroom, but it’s the status quo in football.
There are also degrees of ability, and who defines what “a tendency” is?
Regaring the social maladjustment vs. EDB debate, I think that until we are able to read people’s minds, we will not be able to tell, clearly, whether a student chooses to engage in antisocial behaviors, or if he/she does it because of an EBD.
I thought the variability in prevalence was interesting, and to be expected.
With such subjective criteria, it’s no wonder variability exists.
I think the variability (and under-diagnosis) of EBD could, in part, be due to the differences in manifestation.
I never really thought about internalizing behaviors as behaviors associated with EBD.
I always thought of the aggressive kid who threw things and cursed, not the shy or depressed students.
I don’t know if any of my students at placement have a diagnosed EBD, but I know some students have FBAs. I went to placement today and worked with my student before he had to take PSSAs. He made such tremendous progress! We made a few small changes that seemed to really work! I also showed him his progress, which I think motivated him to do better. I think a major issue is motivation. We talked about strategies, almost as if it were a BIP, that could replace his zoning out for long periods of time. We tried coming up with a replacement behaviors that would serve the same function. I think giving him a stake in both his assessments and his behavior, he was more open to actually trying.
PSSAs were a drag. You could tell from the behaviors exhibited that the students really didn’t want to be there. My co-op had to work to settle them down and get them ready to work. It was cool to see the accommodations given. For example, every student in there could have the questions read aloud, since it was a math section. I read some questions aloud to students, and it seemed to help them understand what was being asked of them. I would venture to say that many of those students had ADHD, as I could see them fidgeting or bouncing in their seat, and even tapping a pen. I definitely saw lack of effort, oppositional behavior, and stubbornness, characteristics listed in the book of individuals with ADHD. I think my co-op handled the behaviors well, just cutting them off at the source and not really giving them attention.
I almost found it paradoxical to place the students with accommodations all in the same room. These students need fewer distractions, yet almost constantly, a teacher is reading a test question to another student, which could be a distraction in itself.
