Sp. Ed. Chart

Introduction

Childhood should be a time of play, learning, and making friends, but for some children it does not contain many of these elements and will not leave pleasant memories. The time of adolescence is often a time for some conflicts and turmoil.

Emotionally Disturbed

For a small percentage of the general school population those times become more intense, frequent, and longer lasting. The emotional and behavioral problems are real and sometimes so devastating that they interfere with students' ability to learn. This is the population that the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA Improvement, 2004) define as Emotionally Disturbed (ED).

What is in a name? For years, there has been controversy over the exact terminology used to incur less stigmatization while acquiring maximum resources and interventions. There are also debates over proper identification, the best interventions, and how they will be determined according to primary handicapping conditions within this population. These unresolved issues have brought about numerous questions such as:

            Is the primary interference with learning coming from emotional issues or behavioral issues?

            How can these behaviors be accurately measured and diagnosed?

            Why is it often said that this special education population is under-identified?

History and Definitions

In order to gain a better understanding of the evolution of this category, one needs to review the history. Before the 19th century, handicapped individuals were referred to as imbeciles, morons, or idiots if they were intellectually disabled and insane if they had emotional or behavioral issues (Smith, Polloway, Patton, & Dowdy, 2004). Problems were attributed to the environment in which they lived and grew up. More recently, it has been determined that there are combinations of causal factors responsible for the emotional and behavioral problems of these types of children. Historically, the federal government had identified this group as Seriously Emotionally Disturbed (SED). In 1990, the Mental Health and Special Education Coalition (MHSEC) proposed a more functional definition of ED to replace the more ambiguous one found in the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 1990) (cf. Christle & Yell, 2009; Kauffman & Landrum, 2009); however, despite the obvious advantages of the proposed new definition and the broad support for it among special educators (Forness & Kavale, 2000), the National School Boards Association (NSBA) objected and blocked its adoption out of concern that the MHSEC's new definition would increase the numbers of students identified for services as ED and put enormous financial strain on state and local education agencies. Despite the NSBA's rejection of the proposed definition, researchers and practitioners in the field of special education have adopted the abbreviation or term EBD and its more utilitarian description of the disorder in favor of IDEA 2004's more ambiguous definition of ED (Christle & Yell).

This contemporary issue extends to the federal definition found in IDEA 2004. Leaders in the field of special education such as Forness and Kavale (2000), Kauffman and Landrum (2009), and Christle and Yell (2009) have all pointed out the inherent problems associated with IDEA 2004's definition, not the least of which includes ambiguity, misinterpretation, stigma, and a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of now-labeled EBD which often leads to inadequate legislation, confusing policies, and poorly designed interventions. Opposition argues that there is still too much margin for subjectivity in identification of these students. According to Yell, Meadows, Drasgow, and Shriner (2009), ". . . in an effort to group related behaviors and help distinguish the behavioral patterns of types of EBD, two classification systems are generally used: psychiatric and dimensional" (p. 4).

Professionals such as psychologists and psychiatrists use the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR) for definition and classification of children with emotional problems. However, the manual uses a different definition and classification system, which adds to the confusion and can contribute to fragmented services. Sometimes children can qualify as disabled through one system but not the other. This is the psychiatric system.

Educators typically use dimensional systems. One such assessment is the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) designed by Achenbach and Edelbrock (1991). This checklist places behaviors into Internalizing and Externalizing groups.

With frequent debates and changes over definition, identification, and prevalence, it is easy to see why this category may be one of the most underrepresented and underserved within special education. Therefore the prevalence of EBD is dependent on the definition of the disorder (e.g., IDEA versus MHSEC), what research or estimation methodology is used to collect the data, and the prevailing influence of social policy and economic factors (Kauffman & Landrum, 2009). Depending on the source, and the agenda behind the reporting, reasonable estimates for EBD range from 3% to 6% of the national student population. If students identified by the mental health system as having oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) or conduct disorder (CD) are included, then prevalence rates jump as high as 2% to 16% of the U.S. youth population (Eddy, Reid, & Curry, 2002).

Instruction

Instruction of the child or adolescent with emotional disturbances is not likely to be a simple matter. Researchers have only been studying this minority for about 40 years. Compared to other disability groups, students with emotional disturbances are more likely to have lower graduation rates, lower reading and arithmetic scores, and are less likely to attend postsecondary school (Kauffman, 2001).

As Kauffman and Landrum (2009) correctly point out, issues of early identification and prevention of antisocial behavior, placement options, similarities between general and special education, and training in social skills have existed for well over half a century. Today's trends in the education of children with EBD continue to focus on:

            Educating antisocial and violent students.

            Integrating a variety of services for children and their families (e.g., wrap-around services).

            Applying the most effective instruction or teaching procedures for improving academic and social skills (e.g., teaching social skills in the same manner of teaching academic skills).

            Applying functional behavioral assessment technologies to determine the purposes and goals of students' acting-out behavior and teach adaptive replacement behaviors.

            Maintaining the continuum of alternative placements mandated by the individualized education plans (IEPs) and IDEA (1990) despite the efforts of full-inclusion proponents to ignore or redefine the least restrictive environment (LRE) at the public school level.

            Helping secondary-level EBD students make a successful transition from school to work or further education.

            Ensuring the shift towards a more multicultural educational philosophy does not neglect or fail to recognize that children with EBD are human (Kauffman & Landrum, 2009; Singh, 1996).

Any teacher who has worked in the field of special education knows the staggering complexities involved in any student's academic and social learning needs. As with any student with disabilities, teachers working in the field of EBD must focus their attention only on the alterable variables found in the student's learning environment; otherwise they will feel overwhelmed, paralyzed, and ineffective; these are factors that contribute to burn-out. Alterable variables (Bloom, 1980) include such things as academic engaged time, praise, choral responding, judicious review of previously learned material, fast pacing of instruction, immediate feedback and error correction, and appropriate sequencing of activities within the lesson. Heward (2003) suggests that the four attitudes of science:

1.      Empiricism;

2.      Parsimony (i.e., focusing on simpler, logical explanations for things first instead of tackling more complex or abstract explanations);

3.      Philosophic doubt (i.e., asking to see the supporting evidence or data before adopting a practice); and

4.      Scientific manipulation (i.e., experimenting with variables to see which ones have control over positive outcomes).

will protect teachers against fads and other miracle cures commonly found on the Internet or presented at conferences, district- or state-sponsored workshops, and in-service trainings.

Conclusion

If special education teachers are to succeed in their work with children with EBD, they must view special education as a methodologically scientific profession and only select curricula and instructional tools that are research-based. Olson (1999), for example, reported on a large-scale review conducted by the American Institutes for Research that found that of 24 school-wide reform models being advanced in the field, only three of the models (Direct Instruction, Success for All, and High Schools That Work) had strong evidence of positive effects on student learning and achievement. It is important to note that the school-wide reform models of Response to Intervention (RTI) and Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) were not in place at the time of Olson's publication.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington DC: Author.

Bloom, B. S. (1980). The new direction in educational research: Alterable variables. Phi Delta Kappan, 61, 382-385.

Christle, C. A., & Yell, M. L. (2009). Introduction to emotional and behavioral disorders. In M. L. Yell, N. B. Meadows, E. Drasgow, & J. G. Shriner (Eds.), Evidence-based practices for educating students with emotional and behavioral disorders (pp. 4-21). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Eddy, J. M., Reid, J. B., & Curry, V. (2002). The etiology of youth antisocial behavior, delinquency and violence and a public health approach to prevention. In M. R. Shinn, H. M. Walker, & G. Stoner (Eds.), Interventions for academic and behavior problems II: Preventive and remedial approaches (pp. 27-51). Bethesda, MD: National Association for School Psychologists.

Forness, S. R., & Kavale, K. A. (2000). Emotional or behavioral disorders: Background and current status of the EBD terminology and definition. Behavioral Disorders, 25, 264-269.

Heward, W. L. (2003). Ten faulty notions about teaching and learning that hinder the effectiveness of special education. The Journal of Special Education, 36, 186-205.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, Pub. L. No. 101-476, 104 (1990).

Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 94-142, § 20 U.S.C. 1400 (2004).

Kauffman, J. M. (2001). Characteristics of emotional and behavior disorders of children and youth (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Kauffman, J. M., & Landrum, T. J. (2009). Characteristics of emotional and behavioral disorders of children and youth (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Olson, L (1990). Following the plan. Education Week , 29, 32.

Singh, N. N. (1996). Cultural diversity in the 21st century: Beyond E. Pluribus Unum. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 5, 121-136.

Smith, T. E., Polloway, J., Patton, C., & Dowdy, C.A. (2004). Teaching students with special needs (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Yell, M. L, Meadows, N. B., Drasgow, E., & Shriner, J. G. (2009). Evidence-based practices for educating students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Merrill/Pearson.