Oppositional Defiance

This is exactly what transpired with the counselor who was handling Paul. She expected the good behavior presented during their initial week of interaction would continue, which prospectively will allow the child to interact with other children in a normal manner. However, this has not been the case and she became more concerned as the child’s behavior became more violent and disrupted over the next few weeks (McKurdy, 2009).
Upon analysis of the case scenario, there were some plausible approaches which the counselor may have carried out in order to effectually deal with the child’s behavior. Moreover, the following pages will discuss some legal and ethical issues when the counselor agreed to isolate the child when he displayed disruptive behavior (McKurdy, 2009).
First, there were some questions posed by the author at the end of the case study. The first question was if the educational needs of the child were met by the behavioral treatments given by the school administrators and the special education teachers. From my perspective, the educational needs were definitely not addressed adequately to meet the individual needs of the child. There was an excerpt where the counselor, upon the recommendation of her supervisor, placed the child on timeouts or isolation whenever he turned violent or disruptive. The child even had to spend a whole day in isolation, not being able to learn or participate in class. This punishment has even more damaging implications because the child over the next few weeks spent more time in the isolation room rather than in class (Mckurdy, 2009. Knoster, Wells, &amp. McDowell, 2007).
The second question pertained to her referral to her supervisor regarding the abrupt behavior change of Paul. The current system employed by her organization and her supervisor strictly adhered to a behavioral modification approach. As a fresh graduate who may be