Presented at ISEC 2000

Including Children With Deviant Behavior (Cdb) In Public Schools Of Athens

Drossinou H. Maria

E-mail: mdros@pi-schools.gr

Abstract

The aim of this article is to provide an overview of difficulties to including Children with Deviant Behavior (CDB), enrolled in, special classes in public schools. We investigated psychosocial factors of deviance that may be related to Child Deviant Behavior (CDB) in the minor ages (4,6-10 years old). The Child Deviant Behavior (CDB) has some characteristics as oppositional Deviant Disorder is an enduring pattern of negativistic, hostile, and defiant behaviors in the absence of serious violations of social norms or rights of others, and aggression to people and some times in the animals. Data (N: 248) were collected from public schools in the historical and degrading center of Athens, by examining the records of 148 pupils in 18 elementary school units (6 nursery and 6 primary 6 special classes). From them, we were focused in a) 20 Deviant Children (CDB: ages 4, 6-10) and their parents and in b) 20 non-deviant children (ages 4, 6-10 years old) and their parents and c) 128 records from Children with Deviant behavior (CDB) in language, and in mathematics whose had taken part in remedial special education programs in the past school elementary years and 20 volunteer parents. Our findings are consistent with previous research showing that the attitudes with the individual education programs in special classes help in including children with deviant behavior (CDB). Additional, we discriminate Deviant Behavior elements in the factors included family habits, school interests, and domestic violence. With help of the bibliography and clinical practice in the supporting programs of special classes (seven years, from 1987 to1994), we conclude that the mainstreaming school envisage with success Deviant Children with behavior problems. The intervention with individual supporting educational programs showed the impact of parents' communication repeating with Child Deviant Behavior and there was a causal relationship between repeating such material and subsequent development antisocial behavior.

KEY WORDS: Deviant Child Behavior (CDB), Special Classes, Inclusion Annual Programs

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this paper is to describe recent empirical research findings about including pupils with deviant child behavior (CDB) in public schools of Athens (Greece). We investigated psychosocial factors of deviance that may be related to deviant child behavior (CDB) in the minor ages (4,6-10 years old). The Deviant child behavior (CDB) has some characteristics as oppositional deviant disorder is an enduring pattern of negativistic, hostile, and defiant behaviors in the absence of serious violations of social norms or rights of others, and aggression to people and some times in the animals (Bootzin et al. 1993, Farrelll 1995, Yule 1998, Gilligan 2000). Also, within the last decade a number of studies have explicated the kinds of acceptability of child treatment techniques as alternative attitudes for deviant child (Kazdin, 1980; 1981; 1984).

Sociologists, psychologists, and psychotherapists refer to behavior that is regarded as wrongdoing, which generates negative reactions in individuals who witness or hear about it, deviant behavior (Winnicott 1971, Dolto 1989, Synodinou 1985). Both deviant behavior and traits or conditions of Deviance that generate a similar condemnatory, rejecting reaction in others are called social deviance or simply deviance. The public image or stereotype of deviance may bear a very loose relationship to what we would find if we were to take a closer look at it (Goode, 1994).

METHOD- Subjects

Data (N: 248) were collected from public schools in the historical and degrading center of Athens, Greece, by examining the records of 148 pupils in 18 elementary school units (6 nursery and 6 primary 6 special classes) and sixty parents. The children were recruited from the nursery and primary public schools in the historical and degrading center of Athens, (boys n=129, girls n=19). From them, we were focused and divided into three groups. a) Twenty of them had a deviant behavior and who took part in a Deviant Child Behavior (DCB) group (Table), and their ages were between 4,6 and 10 years (M= 8 years). After a psychomedical diagnosis, the majority of these children have supported in a special educational program in mainstreaming. These parents have a contract with the director of school and the special teacher, to take care their including child.

b) In a second group (n=20), the subjects who take part in a Control Child Behavior (CCB) group and their ages were between 5 and 10 years (M=7 years).

c) 128 records from Children with Deviant behavior (CDB) in language, and in mathematics whose had taken part in remedial special education programs in the past school elementary years and their ages were between 5 and 10 years (M=9 years) without they focused to included schools ideas.

Parents (n=60) of the above target children (mothers, n=49; fathers, n=11) were divided in three groups: a) Parents (n=20) with Deviant Child Behavior group (PDCB) and their ages were between 24 and 51 years (M mothers=34 years, M fathers 39 years). They have problems with their children school; b) Parents (n=20) with Control Child Behavior (PCCB) group with ages between 28 and 56 years (M mothers 35 years, M fathers=40 years). They have very good children. They evaluate as excellent students without obvious behavior problems and they have not any support from the special education and; c) Volunteers Parents (n=20) with Deviant Child Behavior group in the Past (PDCP) (n=20) and their ages were between 28 and 57 years (M mothers 38, M fathers = 41 years). They had supported during elementary school years with special education programs.

Instruments

There were questionnaires, daily, weekly and monthly records and audiotapes records from the meeting with children and their parents. Two questionnaires measuring Child Deviant Behavior (CDB), which were used to assess the level of deviance and the interactions during the interview. The first was the child questionnaire, tested if there is no clinically significant general delay in spoken or receptive language or cognitive development, if there are qualitative abnormalities in reciprocal social interaction. For these there were thirty questions, which had as target to identify probable deviant behavior. The second was the parent questionnaire tested the relationships of psychosocial factors between characteristics of Deviance and child. For these there were thirty questions, which had as target to identify probable deviant behavior. Daily, weekly and monthly records and audiotapes records from the meeting with children and their parents measure the new school ideas about the inclusion or exclusion and the interactive interaction of every day school life. Data records were analyzed statistically performing t-test between the answers of the above mentioned target groups with a computerized statistical program (Systat, Evanston, Illinois, USA).

RESULTS

Our findings are consistent with previous research showing that the attitudes with the individual education programs in special classes help in including children with deviant behavior (CDB). Additional, we discriminate Deviant Behavior elements in the factors included family habits, school interests, and domestic violence. With help of the bibliography and clinical practice in the supporting programs of special classes (seven years, from 1987 to1994), we conclude that the mainstreaming school envisage with success Deviant Children with behavior problems. The intervention with individual supporting educational programs showed the impact of parents' communication repeating with Child Deviant Behavior and there was a causal relationship between repeating such material and subsequent development antisocial behavior.

The data were analyzed examining the answers and the impacts of subjects and evaluated the relations of different groups' answers. Comparison the inclusion between children with Control Child Behavior (CCB) group answers and Children with Deviant behavior (CDB) group answers gives statistically significant difference. Especially, comparison the answers of the factor 'child' and Deviance (Cooper 1999) showed the impact on child behavior and there was a causal relationship between school and family antisocial behavior.

Comparison the inclusion between CCB answers and PCC group answers did not given statistically significant difference with the below results for each one of psychosocial factors. From these results, we see that parents and their children with CCB have positive feelings and doings on the impact from, school programs and the their between relationships in the family construction system. Only two children and their parents from this category were found to agree with the exclusion criteria and it was a problem for the researchers (table 2).

Comparison the inclusion between children with Deviant behavior (CDB) and parents with Deviant child behavior (PDC) group answers did not give statistically significant difference with the below results for two of three below psychosocial factors. More analytically, we could see that the factors agree with the hypothesis in which the Inclusion effect in the Child Deviant Behavior (table 1, 2). In which the parents and their children with deviant behavior expressed the same impact from between relationships with the same attitudes for the feelings and doings, fact which means that the impact of Inclusion between parents and their children with DCB was recognised from the two groups as independent element of deviant construction.

DISCUSSION

Parents and Children with Deviant Behavior in inclusion are faced by a range of different behavioral difficulties. These may include disruptive and aggressive behaviors, self - injury, over - activity, poorly developed self - help skills, and lack of self - occupation. Desciption of Child Deviant Behavior (CDB) in communication skills, in social skills and in imagination give us the opportunity to indicate the needs for help, to escape from stressful situations, to obtain desired objects, to protest against unwanted events and to obtain stimulation.

In a functional analysis approach to include, the focus is very much on changing the deviant child' s behavior, so that they can learn to communicate their special educational needs more effectively and more socially acceptable means. However, in normal daily life, successful including intervention will also necessitate changes to other deviant child's behaviors.

Teachers have developed successful management strategies to bring problem deviant behaviors under control, the next stage is to try to help the deviant child in inclusion gain more effective self control. Although there are obviously times when including intervention has to concentrate on the elimination of unwanted deviant behaviors, on the whole a focus on building up the child's alternative skills results in a more positive and often more effective approach to educate (Varma 1993, Coode, 1994, Kaplan & Saddock 1995, Arora 1996, McManus 1997, Cooper 1999). There is a little point on inclusion in designing complex special educational programs to minimize self-stimulatory deviant behaviors if the child has no access to other behaviors that can, functionally, take their place.

Non verbal forms of communication, such as pictures, photographs, charts, lists, can help the deviant child to make more sense of his or her environment, and can make day to day in school and home activities more predictable and hence easier to cope with.

REFERENCES

Achenbach T.M. (1977). What is normal? What is abnormal? Developmental perspectives on behavioral and emotional problems, p.93-114. In Luthar S., Burack J.A., Cicchetti D. Weisz J.R. (1997) Developmental psychopathology. Perspectives on adjustment, risk, and disorder. Cambridge University Press. United Kingdom.

Arora, C. M. J. (1996). Defining Bullying. School Psychology International, 17, 317-329, Bootzin, R. R., Acocella, J. R., Alloy, L. B. (1993). Abnormal psychology, current perspectives. New York: McGraw-Hill,

Cooper P. (1999). Understanding and Supporting Children with Emotional and Behavioral Difficulties. Jessica Kingsley Publishers. London.

Dolto, F. (1989). Seminaire de psychanalyse d'enfants, Tom.1, 2 ,3. Seuil. Paris.

Farrell, P. (1995). Children with Emotional and Behavioral Difficulties. Strategies for Assessment and Intervention. Falmer Press.London

Fogell, J., Long, R. (1997). Emotional and Behavioral Difficulties. Spotlight on Special Educational Needs. NASEN Publication. London.

Gilligan J. (2000). Violence. Reflections on our Deadliest Epidemic. Jessica Kingsley Publishers. London.

Goode, E. (1994). Deviant behavior. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Howlin P., Baron-Cohen S., Hadwin J.(1999). Teaching Children with Autism to Mind - Read. A Practical Guide. Wiley. New York.

Itard, J. (1978). Memoire sur Victor de l' Aveyron. Paris, 10/18.

Jordan R. (1999). Autistic Spectrum Disorders. An indroductory Handbook for practitioners. David Fulton Publishers. London.

Kazdin, A. E. (1980). Acceptability of time out from reinforcement procedures for disruptive child behavior, Behavior Therapy, 11, 329-344.

Kazdin, A. E. (1981). Acceptability of child treatment techniques: The influence of treatment efficacy and adverse side effects. Behavior Therapy, 12, 493-506.

Kazdin, A. E. (1984). Acceptability of aversive procedures and medication as treatment alternatives for deviant child. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 12, 289-302.

McManus, M. (1997). Troublesome behavior in the classroom : Meeting individual needs. Second edition. New York. Routledge.

Synodinou, C. (1985). Approche therapeutigue de l' autisme infantile. Paris: Universite Paris VII, Montaigne.

Varma, V. P. (1993). Managements of behavior in Schools. London. Longman.

Winnicott, D. W. (1971). La consultation therapeutique et l' enfant. Paris: Gallimard.

Yule W. (1998). Post -Traumatic Stress Disorders. Concepts and Therapy. Wiley. New York.

Table 1. Inclusion and Groups of Research.

Table 2. Inclusion and Children with Deviant Behavior (CDB), from the past school years: Annual supporting Programs of special classes (Data from the empirical research 1987-1994),

Table 3. Children with Deviant Behavior (CDB) in Inclusion, from the past school years: Annual-supporting Programs of special classes. (Data from the empirical research 1987-1994),

Table 4. Including Children with Deviant Behavior (CDB) problems in language, from the past school years: Annual-supporting Programs of special classes. (Data from the empirical research 1987-1994),

Table 5. Including Children with Deviant Behavior (CDB) problems in mathematics, from the past school years: Annual-supporting Programs of special classes. (Data from the empirical research 1987-1994),

Table 6. Including Children with Deviant Behavior (CDB) problems, from the past school years: Annual-supporting Programs of special classes. (Data from the empirical research 1987-1994),

Index