Problems Related to Underservice of Students with Emotional or Behavioral Disorders

Abstract

Data suggest that students with emotional and behavioral disorders (fBD) are underidentified and underserved for a variety of reasons. In response to this problem, the authors identify misinformation and provide evidence-based information regarding prevalence; discuss the role of stigma and exclusion from the fBD category and appropriate responses to them; identify and refute negative attitudes toward special education, especially for students with fBD; examine the evidence for false identification; and suggest how research on identification of fBD might be done. Conclusions and recommendations are provided.

Difficulties associated with the coding and categorization of students with emotional and behavioural disabilities in Alberta

“…A checklist is used to pathologize and discipline children, often without asking the child why they engaged in a particular behaviour. A focus on behaviours in diagnosis leads to false positives whereby students are incorrectly identified, classified or labelled as having a disability (Kauffman, Mock, and Simpson 2007). While false positives in severe categories lead to increased levels of funding, this model often places value on a set of learned behaviours.…”

When a Student Does Not Qualify For Special Education: Issues and Recommendations

“…This is a perplexing event because students who are referred, by definition, struggle with learning and behavior, however if they DNQ the opinion is that they did not meet the threshold required for identification. For example, a student referred for behavior problems may have resolved whatever the underlying reason for the behavior which triggered the referral or the behavior in question was considered episodic and not considered a chronic condition (Kauffman, Mock, & Simpson, 2007). For students suspected of learning disabilities, meeting the eligibility criteria is based on arbitrary cutoff points using standard scores (Kavale, Holdnack, & Mostert, 2006).…”

Addressing Public Stigma and Disparities Among Persons With Mental Illness: The Role of Federal Policy

“…1–6 Stigma is a complex construct with four social-cognitive processes (i.e., cues, stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination) that may be directed by others toward those with mental illness (i.e., public stigma) and may occur within an individual with mental illness (i.e., self-stigma). To examine the role of federal policy in improving disparities resulting from the stigma process, we first provide a brief overview of stigma and highlight how federal legislation only directly addresses one of its components—discrimination resulting from public stigma.…”

“…Similarly, antidiscrimination legislation in education and employment settings cannot protect disabled children whose parents are resistant to having their child labeled with a psychiatric disability, or job applicants and employees who are reluctant to disclose their mental health status to an employer. 6,34 …”