From what I’ve seen- teachers who know that their students are disinterested in a subject, they bring something from the youth culture to the classroom. For an example, students can make a short song to help them memorize a physics formula to a popular tune on the radio station. That part at least gets their attention and hopefully makes it more fun. On the other hand, it does take extra effort to keep students engaged and make learning fun (what the students consider fun, may not be fun to us teachers).

In response to the ADHD prominence, over diagnoses seems most probable. Overcrowded classrooms, teachers lack of control, removal/lack of physical education among others are factors I see leading students to act out and need attention more. The students sense of self may be as though he is a misfit with special accommodations to excel in class. ADHD theory development should continue to be evolving and be evidence-based to track the full implications of advantages vs. disadvantages of treatments.

Re: Tang’s reflection

If a gifted student is basically warehoused in a mixed-ability group in order to keep them from bothering the teacher or to be an unpaid classroom assistant, then that is a problem. I don’t think that is what you did, or what most teachers do. I agree that these students need to be challenged and somehow need to get advanced instruction. However, I also feel that helping their classmates can be valuable. I know that I benefitted greatly on a personal growth level from volunteering one week each summer for over 10 years at a camp for people with developmental disabilities (the majority of the campers had Down Syndrome, but one camper had cri du chat syndrome and some older campers were undiagnosed). 

 I am an authoritative parent and belief that will come out in my teaching as well and I do not see that as a bad thing.  In a K-6 environment I feel that structured classroom and teacher centered learning can meet a majority of the needs of students in a classroom.  Time can always be build in for student led learning and other activities to challenge a student's thinking and how to problem solve in different ways.

Hleeda Her Response:
Alan, as I was reading your post, it dawned on me that most teachers are not prepared enough to handle these types of students in the classroom and often for liability purpose, as stated in the reading, teachers are constricted to following guidelines due to court rulings. Some schools set policies that rely heavily on behavior specialists to solve the problem, granted, that is the job of a behavior specialist, dean of students, or counselor, but since students spend more time with their teachers, we are the first to develop a rapport and build a trusting and respectable relationship with the students in the classrooms. We should take some ownership of that responsibility. 

I experienced this when I worked at my first school. The student was a third grader, parents were divorced, remarried and had a lot of issues at home. The student would bring all that anger with him and lash it out on his classmates and teachers throughout the week.  All his teachers tried disciplining, rewarding, creating behavior chart, giving him "breaks" and talking to him 1-1. When that didn't work, he was sent down to the office for the behavior specialist to handle the situation. He would miss class time or get suspended from school, so he probably felt like the classroom was not a place for him to belong. When he knew that he could get out of class by acting up, he began to use it to his advantage. His mother enrolled him in a counseling program outside of school, where a specialist would make weekly visits to check on his progress but that didn't stop him from continuing his disruption in class, either. 

He was getting thrown here and there, hearing different adults disciplining and counseling him. It wasn't until a new science teacher got hired during the second semester that his behavior began to change. What the science teacher did to change his behavior was amazing, in my mind. The science teacher could see that he was getting tired of the "talks." He didn't need contracts or punishment records, he needed his teachers to provide him a purpose and a sense of belonging regardless of what he has done or what he was going through. The science teacher owned a pet hamster in class and with proper procedures and approval from the parents and the school, decided that she was going to assign this student as the "care taker" of the hamster with her supervision. He helped her care for the hamster in the morning, during end of recess, and right before the end of the day when it was her prep time. Those three times served as check-ins. When he was in her class, they would talk about how to be caring and how to be responsible. She was careful not to address those issues directly at him, but taught him how to be a caring, responsible person through his job. She didn't talk about his behavior, instead she pointed out to him regularly how the happy the hamster was feeling because of his actions. His behavior improved within a month.

Our text listed several approaches to help these students such as providing structure, organizational tool, and choices. I believe those are all great approaches, but those mentioned in the text wouldn't help him much because his issue wasn't because of structure or organizational problem, or the need for losing and gaining points. What the science teacher did, leads me to believe that teachers should explore different ways to deal with emotional and behavior disorder students instead of just sticking to the "guidelines." 
In closing, what are some other ways teachers can deal with students with emotional and behavioral problems, considering the rise of violence in schools between students and teachers? What can we, as teachers do, besides just following guidelines or impose authority?

In a similar vein, gifted programs are comprised of only 8% each of both African-American and Latina/o students although they make up a much greater portion of the overall student population. Although the definition of gifted students according to The No Child Left Behind Act includes high achievement in “intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or in specific academic fields,” too often school focus too much on intellectual and academic ability. Could allowing more creative and leadership minded individuals into gifted programs help improve the proportion of students of color in gifted programs? Because students may be gifted in one area and struggle in others, it is even more important to allow students to follow their interests and possibly discover unknown gifts.

I think what many educators are actually doing is combining MI theory with learning styles (or preferences as our author prefers to call them). That musical or linguistic "intelligences" are visual or verbal learners. When I do a quick google search for learning styles, I see many that incorporate both multiple intelligences and visual/verbal/spatial learning styles. My main takeaway is that, as with pretty much every theory we have covered so far, it is not an either/or. The text states: "Intelligence is a current state of affairs, affected by past experiences and open to future changes" (p 142). There might not be a lot of quantifiable evidence that using learning styles or intelligences to adapt curriculum to students is extremely effective, but there is evidence that supports adapting curriculum to the students' needs is crucial. I think the question I'll be pondering as we head into class this week is should teachers be using MI theory? Should we be considering different learning styles? If the research does not support an advantage for using these, why do we continue to debate their merits as educators? 

------ Response to Dena ------

Dena- I was thinking about talking about the section on suicide as well. The statistics are staggering and have only gotten worse. I liked the myth debunking as well. As teachers, we are at the epicenter of many of these children's lives, and there is a real possibility that it will fall on us to see the warning signs (if we can) and to take action.

 

While I knew the actual facts already, I've heard many of the myths presented in Table 4.11 so it was good to see these myths addressed.

 

I think it is very important to know students well enough to notice marked changes in behavior, such as no longer caring about school, fun activities, or friends; giving away possessions; or talking about suicide or not being around anymore.

 

Sometimes it’s not as easy as that though. My high school friend didn’t give any of us any warnings. We didn’t know that his girlfriend had accused him of rape when her parents found out they were dating and that her wealthy parents were ramrodding his case through the system. We didn’t know that he felt he had no other options.

 

Sometimes we just have to pay attention, and sometimes we will have to say goodbye anyway.

Re Alex:
I agree with some of the criticisms, but I do think that musical and linguistic intellegences are intelligences and not talents as some critics suggest. I think some of the critics have too fine a definition of intelligence, which was Gardner's point. What it all boils down to for me is, present the information and opportunities in multiple ways so that students can interact with it in multiple ways.

Therefore, by applying the CQ benefits diverse bodies by making reasonable accommodations it will prepare them to function successfully in our society's culture.  When they are inclusive we will be able to see the range of all our student’s culture represented and have the opportunity to learn from our own community.

Additionally, I think we should support other cultural factors that may affect our students.  For example, allowing our students the ability to create their own black lives matter walk through the school, awareness when it is Ramadan and how it may affect those who celebrate. 

How do you want to incorporate CQ in your classroom/school?

Students with learning challenges, particularly ADHD, has had considerable attention in the media (pg. 156).  In all area areas of learning challenges our numbers continue to increase nationally.  There are many theories as to why: over diagnoses, we use more evaluations and testing, impacts of toxins in our environment, etc. Which ones seem to be the most probable to you?  Are children being overmedicated?  How does the label affect their sense of self?  Do we need to start moving in new directions for theory development?

In my experience, medicating is definitely a necessity to ensure some students are able to succeed due to how education is structured in our society. The school day is 7 hours and depending on how a school structures their day, students can often sit for 45 mins or more at a time. Granted, effective teaching practices try to include some movement breaks within each class period but that’s not always practical and realistic given how much curriculum we have to go over (teach to the tests!). The components of ADHD (inattention, hyperactivity, impulsivity) can strain the learning environment for all if the individual student doesn’t have coping mechanisms, and the teacher isn’t sensitive to their particular educational needs, whether those mechanisms are medication or not. Ideally, depending on the individual student of course, best option is medicating if varied instructional strategies have been insufficient for success during the school day. Once the environment isn’t so structured (i.e. home time and summer) medication hopefully would decrease or go away altogether, though that can be challenging for the family which is where additional support structures outside of school become important. 

Re: Ingrid

I think your question “Would it be possible to refer to students with Identity-First labels...once they’ve claimed such…” is where we need to be. Some prefer Identity-First and some prefer Person-First and it really is just common courtesy to ask individuals which they prefer and then use it, similar in a way to preferred pronouns. 

 

The label of a person with a hearing-impairment as our textbook suggests in contrast emphasizes what I cannot do (i.e. hear) instead of emphasizing my identity as a Deaf person. Identifying as a Deaf person shows that I am a proud member of the Deaf Community and that I use a visual language (e.g. American Sign Language). Along similar lines, I also identify as a disabled person because I am a proud member of the Disability Community and I cherish my identity. Similarly to myself, there are many individuals who identify as autistic or blind because these characteristics are such a significant aspect of who they are. Would it be possible to refer to students with Identity-First labels at least once they have claimed such an identity for themselves? 

 

In response to Sarah Jane’s post:

            I wholeheartedly agree with your point about first using varied teaching strategies to see if any of them have a positive impact on the students with ADHD and possibly others in the classroom. Should any of them be helpful for the students, then everyone in the classroom community would benefit without having to medicate the student who may be different. However, the feelings of academic, social, and emotional success are also important for students with ADHD. The answer is not simple and will probably be unique for each individual student. Even if medication is the best route for an individual student, other interventions should also be used and the student should be respected as an individual and an equal member within the classroom.