Toward an Acceptable Definition of Emotional Disturbance: Waiting for the Change

Abstract

My interest in definitions grew from my experiences teaching "educable mentally retarded," "disabled reader," and "emotionally disturbed" (as they were known at that time) students. As a novice teacher, I was struck by the similarities more than differences among these students in the different selfcontained special education classrooms where I worked. As a doctoral student at the Pennsylvania State University and as a professor, I spent time studying issues in identification and assessment practices in special education. Defining Emotional Disturbance and Identifying Disturbed Behavior In special education, a definition creates a condition and identification practices bring it to life. Emotional disturbance is and has been one of the disability categories specified under the mandatory special education law that has become and been reauthorized as the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and its implementing regulations (U.S. Department of Education, 2017; Ysseldyke et al., 1982, 1992, 2000). It is currently defined as follows: i. The term means a condition exhibiting one or more of the following characteristics over a long period of time and to a marked degree that adversely affects a child's educational performance: A. An inability to learn that cannot be explained by intellectual, sensory, or health factors. B. An inability to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships with peers and teachers. C. Inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under normal circumstances. D. A general pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression. E. A tendency to develop physical symptoms or fears associated with personal or school problems. ii. The term includes schizophrenia. The term does not apply to children who are socially maladjusted, unless it is determined that they have an emotional disturbance. (CFR §300.7 (a) 9). Children who meet these criteria, as determined by a multidisciplinary team, may receive services under IDEA.

The identification of students with emotional disturbance: Moving the field toward responsible assessment practices

“…Thus, in most cases, students must be found eligible for ED through the application of vague, suspect criteria that lack sufficient clarity for their intended purpose (e.g., Gresham, ; Kauffman & Landrum, ; Merrell & Walker, ). In other words, practitioners and multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are forced to make critical decisions about students based largely on their own subjective interpretations of five dubious classification criteria and four ambiguous qualifying indicators (to review the current ED definition, see Algozzine, ). For example, a student's ability to build and maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships essentially represents a subjective judgment that is very likely to be dependent upon the characteristics of the school population from which the student is identified (e.g., Algozzine, ; Wiley, Siperstein, Forness, & Brigham, ).…”

“…In other words, practitioners and multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are forced to make critical decisions about students based largely on their own subjective interpretations of five dubious classification criteria and four ambiguous qualifying indicators (to review the current ED definition, see Algozzine, ). For example, a student's ability to build and maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships essentially represents a subjective judgment that is very likely to be dependent upon the characteristics of the school population from which the student is identified (e.g., Algozzine, ; Wiley, Siperstein, Forness, & Brigham, ). Specifically, regarding the extent to which the referred student's presenting concerns results in adverse educational impact, interpretive guidance is lacking to specify whether this indicator is intended to strictly reflect a direct compromise of one's ability to learn and/or achieve academically, or whether other aspects of the student's functioning, such as poor relationships with teachers or peers, may be considered (e.g., Gresham, ; Kavale, Forness, & Mostert, ).…”

“…Thus, in most cases, students must be found eligible for ED through the application of vague, suspect criteria that lack sufficient clarity for their intended purpose (e.g., Gresham, 1999;Kauffman & Landrum, 2012;Merrell & Walker, 2004). In other words, practitioners and multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are forced to make critical decisions about students based largely on their own subjective interpretations of five dubious classification criteria and four ambiguous qualifying indicators (to review the current ED definition, see Algozzine, 2017).…”

“…Regarding the overall identification rate of students with ED, recent data continue to demonstrate that far fewer students are being identified than estimates suggest should be. In this regard, the fall 2013 data published by the U.S. Department of Education (U.S. DOE) indicated that 0.5% of students between the ages of 6 and 21 were receiving services under the ED category (U.S. Department of Education, ), an identification rate that has remained relatively stable over time (Algozzine, ).…”

Parent and teacher perceptions of the importance of social-emotional learning in the schools

“…One such factor is the presence of a disability, as research indicates that children with disabilities face challenges regarding social and emotional competence. These disabilities include learning disabilities (Nowicki, 2003), attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (Semrud-Clikeman & Schafer, 2000), orthopedic disabilities (Yagmurlu & Yavuz, 2015), autism spectrum disorder (American Psychological Association, 2013), specific language impairment (McCabe & Meller, 2004), and emotional disturbance (Algozzine, 2017). Interventions to ameliorate social and emotional deficits include, but are not limited to, direct instruction, modeling, and prompting strategies (Guralnick, 2010).…”