Eligibility, Assessment, and Educational Placement Issues for Students Classified with Emotional Disturbance: Federal and State-Level Analyses

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to contribute to an understanding of how state education authorities conceptualize and utilize the construct of emotional disturbance (ED) within the special education system. Specifically, this study examined variability across state definitions of ED and the extent to which such differences in definition are associated with ED identification and educational placement rates. Relevant literature and publicly disseminated documentation at the federal and state levels were reviewed. Results indicated that most state definitions of ED did not differ from the federal definition, although 20% of states broadened the federal ED definition to make it more inclusive. States with broader definitions did classify more students with ED, relative to states using either the federal or a more narrow definition, although rates of restrictive and mainstream placements did not differ as a function of definition. Results also suggest that use of a ''social maladjustment'' exclusion criterion contributes to variation not only in state-level definitions of ED, but also in students' access to mental health and special education services. Recommendations for future research are provided.

What Can We Learn From School‐based Emotional Disturbance Assessment Practices? Implications for Practice and Preparation in School Psychology

“…Beyond the problems inherent in the social maladjustment clause, several other serious concerns and deficiencies associated with the federal definition are evident, and these have been enumerated and discussed in detail over the years since Pub. L. 94–142 was enacted (Becker et al, ; Clarizio, ; Forness & Kavale, ; Hanchon & Allen, in press; Merrell & Walker, ; Skiba & Grizzle, ). The major criticisms have focused on the lack of empirical support for the eligibility criteria; the vague, ambiguous, and outdated language included in the definition; and the failure to successfully lobby for changes to the law.…”

Identifying Students With Emotional Disturbance: School Psychologists’ Practices and Perceptions

“…Given the vagaries of the language contained in the federal law, which is similar to most states’ definitions (Becker et al., ), identifying students who rightfully qualify to receive special education services under the ED category is an arduous endeavor, to the extent that Knitzer () referred to these vulnerable students as America's ‘unclaimed children.’ Although the decision of whether to classify a child as ED is ultimately made by the multidisciplinary team, typically the brunt of the identification process falls upon the shoulders of the school psychologist. Given this context, an important and germane question to ask is “How are school psychologists translating the federal guidelines into practice as they identify students under the ED category?”…”

Differentiating Social Maladjustment From Emotional Disturbance: An Analysis of Case Law

“…The Department of Education (DOE) did not define SM, leaving it up to states and local educational authorities to decide which behaviors, emotions, or mental states constitute SM, and even whether to include the SM exclusion. Prior researchers have attempted to describe and quantify the variability among state definitions of ED (Becker et al, 2011;Olympia et al, 2004;Skiba, Grizzle, & Minke, 1994), but none of them identified by citation the laws or regulations supporting their conclusions.…”

“…As we attempt to distinguish SM and ED, it is important to remember that special education categories represent administrative labels, not diagnoses, determined by education policy (Becker et al, 2011). A student with ED does not necessarily have a mental disorder as defined in the psychiatric nosology.…”

“…A student with ED does not necessarily have a mental disorder as defined in the psychiatric nosology. Indeed, the concept of ED is wholly specific to schools (Becker et al, 2011) and exists only in special education policy. Even when the term emotional disturbance is used by other federal agencies, it has a different meaning than it does under special education law (e.g., under the Public Health and Welfare section of 42 U.S.C.…”