CONTROVERSY

A great deal of controversy exists among special education professionals over what the definition of what a seriously emotionally disturbed (SED) student is. (Bower, E.M. (1982). Defining emotional disturbance: Public policy and research. Psychology In the Schools, 19 (1), 55-60.) This controversy centers around the difference between what is an emotional condition, a personality and social maladjustment, a behavior disorder, or simple a conduct problem. However, defining SED is open to subjective interpretation and such evaluation then necessitates that special public funds be appropriated to address the problem. This intersection of emotional disturbance, psychology, money, politics, and education makes a complex problem loom large as it creates still further controversy. Therefore, we cannot treat SED in any cursory way, and all those involved should examine the laws, the history, and attempts at objective evaluations.

The Laws

The array of problems associated with SED can be seen in the legislation that created special education services-known as public Law 94-142. In that 1975 legislation known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the law defines what constitutes an emotional disturbance, but distinguishes it from a social maladjustment. Unfortunately for educators and mental health professionals, the law does not define what a social maladjustment is. (Council on children With Behavioral Disorders. (1984). Position Paper on substituting "Behaviorally Disturbed" for "Seriously Emotionally Disturbed" as a descriptor term for children and youth handicapped by behavior. Behavioral Disorders, 100), 167-174.)

The definition of serious emotional disturbance (SED), itself is not clearly defined and is open to interpretation and court rulings. In 1977 the federal government, in an effort to clarify the problem further, defined SED (Federal Register 1977), though each state has since then come up with its own definition.

According to one recent survey (Elliott, Robert W., 1988. Non published paper. Behavior Disorder or Serious Emotional Disturbance? Robert W. Elliott, Ph.D., South Bay Union High School District.), states use a total of 17 different terms that address the federal definition of "seriously emotionally disturbed." Ranging from "seriously behaviorally disturbed" to "severe behavior handicap", "emotional conflict", and "emotionally maladjusted." In this study 60% of the states reported using terms SED or ED; 23% use terms signifying behavioral or emotional disorders and 17% use terms signifying emotional or behavioral disorders. Close to half (45%) of the states use the modifier "seriously."

If there is a disagreement between parent and school, there is a procedure in the special education law for "due process." Due process refers to one's specific right to take any dispute you have with your child's school district -- whether a disagreement about an assessment, eligibility or any part of the IEP, including the specific placement and related services -- to a neutral third party to help you resolve your dispute. These rights are unique; parents of children who are not in special education do not have them (20 U.S.C. ß1415; 34 C.F.R. ßß300.500-517).

BACKGROUND AND THE LAW

In 1975, President Gerald Ford signed the education of the handicapped act, Public Law 94-142. (Federal Register. (1993, February 10). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 7938.)

With some revisions it is now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA. In the shorthand of bureaucracy, the process is called "Special Education." In its essential form, it guarantees to children with disabilities, a "free appropriate public education" with "related services", if necessary, in the "least restricted environment." The purpose of this law is to provide handicapped students meaningful access to education. The age range of applicable children is birth to twenty-two. President Ford signed the bill with misgivings and spoke of the "vast array of detailed, complex and costly administrative requirements" and "authorization levels." Forness, S.R., & Knitzer, J. (1992). A new proposed definition and terminology to replace "serious emotional disturbance" in Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. School Psychology Review, 21, 12-20.

For most of our nation's history, schools were allowed to exclude and often did exclude certain children, especially those with disabilities. Since the 1960s, however, there has been a great deal of Federal legislation that relates directly or indirectly to individuals with disabilities, particularly children and youth. (Forness, ibid)

IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, mandates that eligible children with disabilities have available to them special education and related services designed to address their unique educational needs. The IDEA, and most especially the provision of special education, has its roots in the past. The laws from which the present-day IDEA has sprung include:

o P. L. 89-10, The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA).

Provided a comprehensive plan for re-addressing the inequality of educational opportunity for economically underprivileged children. It became the statutory basis upon which early special education legislation was drafted.

o P. L. 89-313, The Elementary and Secondary Education Act Amendments of 1965.

Authorized grants to state institutions and state operated schools devoted to the education of children with disabilities. It was the first Federal grant program specifically targeted for children and youth with disabilities.

o P. L. 89-750, ESEA Amendments of 1966.

Established the first Federal grant program for the education of children and youth with disabilities at the local school level, rather than at state-operated schools or institutions. It also established the Bureau of Education of the Handicapped (BEH) and the National Advisory Council (now called the National Council on Disability).

o P. L. 90-247, Elementary and Secondary Education Act Amendments of 1968.

Final Federal special education legislation of the 1960s, established a set of programs that supplemented and supported the expansion and improvement of special education services. These programs later became known as "discretionary."

o P. L. 91-230, The Elementary and Secondary Education Act Amendments of 1970, which included Title VI, the Education of the Handicapped Act.

Established a core grant program for local education agencies, now known as part B, and it authorized a number of discretionary programs.

o P. L. 93-280, The Education Amendments of 1974.

Established two laws. One was the Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1974, which was the first to mention an appropriate education for all children with disabilities. It also reauthorized the discretionary programs. The second law, the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act, gave parents and students over the age of 18 the right to examine records kept in the student's personal file.

o P. L. 94-142, The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975.

Mandated a free appropriate public education for all children with disabilities, ensured due process rights, and mandated IEPs and LRE. As such, it is the core of Federal funding for special education. This law was passed in 1975 and went into effect in October of 1977 when the regulations were finalized.

Bills of note after the birth of the great IDEA of 1975 include:

o P. L. 98-199, Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1983.

Reauthorized the discretionary programs, established services to facilitate school to work transition through research and demonstration projects; established parent training and information centers; and provided funding for demonstration projects and research in early intervention and early childhood special education.

o P. L. 99-457, Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1986.

Mandated services for preschoolers and established the Part H program to assist states in the development of a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary, and statewide system of early intervention services for infants.

o P. L. 101-476, The Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1990.

Renamed the law the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. It reauthorized and expanded the discretionary programs, mandated transition services, defined assistive technology devices and services, and added autism and traumatic brain injury to the list of categories of children and youth eligible for special education and related services.

o P. L. 102-119, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1992.

Primarily addressed the Part H (Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities) Program.

o P. L. 105-17, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997.

The current law!

("P. L." stands for Public Law. The first set of numbers stands for the session of Congress during which the law was passed. The second set of numbers identifies what number the law was in the sequence of passage during that session. Thus, P. L. 94-142 was the 142nd public law passed, and signed by the President, during the 94th session of Congress.")

The education of the handicapped act or (as it is commonly known PL 94 142, Federal Register. 1993, February 10. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 7938.) is the United States statute or code which covers special education. It is the purpose of this law to provide handicapped students meaningful access to education the code of federal regulations to see that far defines those students who qualify as handicapped. The Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) defines those students, who qualify as emotionally handicapped. Under this law, one disability is Seriously Emotionally Disturbed (SED). Section 34 CFR 300 .5 P. 8 and it attempts to set forth the requirements for qualification as seriously emotionally disturbed. Accordingly, the definition of emotional disturbance consists of three major components:

1. As an emotional condition

2. As a set of three limiting criteria, all of which MUST be met prior to classification,

3. As a set of five characteristics, at least one of which must be met prior to classification.

The following definition is from the Federal Government (Federal Register 1977), though each state has its own definition. According to the U.S. Government (34 C.F.R. 300.5(b)(8): Education of Handicapped children, Federal Register, Section 121.a.5, 1977), "seriously emotionally disturbed" is defined as follows: "The term means a condition exhibiting one or more of the following characteristics over a long period of time to a marked degree, which adversely affects educational performance:

(a) An inability to learn which 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; or

(e) A tendency to develop physical symptoms or fears associated with personal or school problems."

The term seriously emotionally disturbed includes children who are schizophrenic or autistic, but the term does not include children who are socially maladjusted, unless it is determined that they are seriously emotionally disturbed.

SED AS A SET OF THREE LIMITING CRITERIA

PL 94-142 dictates that the following characteristics of the emotional disturbance be exhibited for the classification to trigger public funds. The evidence must occur:

(1) Over a Long Period of Time

A long duration of demonstrated SED characteristics is necessary in order to rule out a number of temporary adjustment reactions, such as reactions to developmental changes (e.g., puberty), or temporary reactions to marked increases in psycho-social stressors (e.g., divorce, death of a parent or sibling, etc.).

The duration of demonstrated characteristics should be a minimum of six (6) months in length, following extensive and comprehensive efforts at behavioral intervention and change during the six-month period.

(2) To a Marked Degree

(3) Adversely Affects Educational Performance

In order for a child to be classified as SED, he or she must meet all three of the limiting criteria described above and at least one of the five specific characteristics discussed above (a-e).

WHO IS ELIGIBLE? - THE COURTS

Federal law specifically excludes students who are "socially maladjusted." In 1982, the Council for Exceptional Children proposed that the term seriously emotionally disturbed be changed to Children with Behavioral Disorders (CCBD). (Council on children With Behavioral Disorders. (1984). Position Paper on substituting "Behaviorally Disturbed" for "Seriously Emotionally Disturbed" as a descriptor term for children and youth handicapped by behavior. Behavioral Disorders, 100), 167-174) In response, in 1985, Congress supported a Congressionally mandated study of the impact of a terminology change (Tallmadge et al, 1985). The study concluded a change would not be warranted. In 1985, CCBD's most recent position paper (1988) calls for the use of the term behavioral and emotional disorders. In 1987, the first case involving SED criteria vs. social maladjustment went into federal court in California. In Doe v. Sequoia U.H.S.D (ND CA, 1987), the court supported the school in holding that the student did not exhibit a serious emotional disturbance, as defined in the federal regulations. Rather said the court, the student exhibits social maladjustment. The court, in this case, defined social maladjustment, as:

a child who has a persistent pattern of violating societal norms with truancy, substance abuse, a perpetual struggle with authority, is easily frustrated, impulsive, and manipulative. ( Doe v. Board of Education of the State of Connecticut, Oct. 24, 1990);

In Doe v. Sanders, the Illinois State Board took the position that children whose functioning was impaired by reason of dependency or addiction to alcohol or other substances were not "maladjusted" and therefore not eligible for special education funding. The term "maladjusted" was not defined in the school code, but is commonly defined in the dictionary as poorly or inadequately adjusted; lacking harmony with one's environment from failure to reach a satisfactory adjustment between one's desires and the conditions of one's life. This definition has evolved over the years. In 1947 "maladjusted children" meant children who were "truant, incorrigible, delinquent or in need of special education facilities designed to prevent their becoming truant, incorrigible, or delinquent." In 1961, the definition was changed to include children "who because of social or environmental problems are unable to make constructive use of their school experience and require the provisions of special services designed to promote their educational growth and development." Doe v. Sanders, 189 Ill. App. 3d 572 (September 29, 1989).

Court Cases: Finding of Eligibility

West Chester Area School District, 18 IDELR 802 (March 21, 1992).

The parents of a thirteen-year-old student with anxiety and separation disorders was found to be seriously emotionally disturbed. The hearing officer determined that her disability did not substantially limit a major life activity (most notably learning). Experts on both sides stated that she needed individual therapy in order to maintain regular attendance, but there was no proof that she needed individual instruction. Therefore, she was eligible under section 504 to receive the necessary related services, but she was not eligible under IDEA.

Township High School District #211, 24 IDELR 1059 (June 3, 1996).

Parents of a high school student unilaterally placed their child in a residential placement and were seeking reimbursement from the district. The district refused to pay because she was not seriously emotionally disturbed, according to their test results. However, the residential placement staff found that she was in fact SED. The overwhelming evidence was that she was either unhappy or depressed over a considerable length of time, that this mood affected all of her behavior, and that her emotional state affected her scholastic performance. The review officer affirmed the decision requiring the district to pay room and board from January 23, 1996 until it is shown that a less restrictive environment is appropriate.

Cornwall Central School District Board of Education, 17 EHLR 10239 (June 6, 1991).

The parent of a fourteen-year-old child appealed a decision that their child was not seriously emotional disturbed. The review officer held that the child's emotional difficulties had, in fact, impacted significantly on his education performance even though the child had not failed any courses. The child also experienced physical symptoms at school. The hearing officer determined that the child met the criteria for SED but due to the fat that no observations had been done in the classroom, a final decision on his eligibility would have to wait until the observations were complete. These observations would provide information about the child's learning style, his educational strengths and his weaknesses enabling the school to develop an appropriate individualized educational plan ("IEP").

Findings of Ineligibility

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit recently found a conduct-disordered child not eligible for special education services. (Springer v. Fairfax County School Board, 27 IDELR 367, 1998). The parents of an eleventh grader requested reimbursement for their unilateral placement of their child. The hearing officer spoke that their son's truancy, alcohol and drug problems were related to his conduct disorder, not to an emotional disturbance. Three separate psychologists examined their son and all three stated he was not seriously emotionally disturbed. His parents testified that he got along well with everyone, and it was determined his failing graders were related to his truancy and drug use, not his inability to learn. The court held that a "bad conduct" definition of serious emotional disturbance might include almost as many people in special education as it excluded. Therefore, this court upheld the decisions of the hearing officer and the district court, denying the parents the reimbursement they sought.

In other instances the hearing officer has overruled the labeling of a child as SED. In the City Sch. Distr. Of NYC, 20 IDELR 727 (December 6, 1993), the parents of a child request a due process hearing to challenge the school district's classification of their daughter as SED. The state review officer held that a classification of emotionally disturbed cannot be basis for excluding health factors as a source of the child' academic difficulties. It was ordered that within thirty days a physical examination must occur and a new recommendation as to classification and placement be made.

More often than not, the schools and then the hearing officers find the child does not qualify as seriously emotionally disturbed because they are only "socially maladjusted." Therefore, no services are provided for those students. The following cases summarize the holding of some of those decisions.

Morgan Hill Unified Sch. Dist., 19 IDELR 557 (November 5, 1992).

The parent of a twelve-year-old student wanted their son placed in a residential setting. However, their son was found to be learning disabled, not emotionally disturbed. The hearing officer found the child did not met the criteria of SED because he was socially maladjusted and therefore not entitled to special education services. The hearing officer rejected the district's proposal and directed the IEP team to meet and determine an appropriate day treatment program that would include therapeutic individuals as well as family counseling.

Corpus Christi Independent Sch. Dist., 18 IDELR 1281 (August 7, 1992).

The parent of an eighteen-year-old student wanted their son placed residentially because he was SED. The hearing officer held for the district because it was determined the child was learning disabled and socially maladjusted, not emotionally disturbed. The officer stated that if a child is SED and socially maladjusted, then he qualifies as SED, and his social maladjustment does not preempt the SED as a qualifying disability for special education and related services. The duty of special education is not to force socially maladjusted children to school by residentially placing them if they chose to remain truant. Therefore, the child (should he choose to attend school) would have his needs met through the proposed IEP.

Fauqueir County Pub. Sch., 20 IDELR 579 (August 11, 1993).

The parents of nine-year-old wanted their daughter classified as seriously emotionally disturbed so she could receive special education services. The hearing officer held for the district and denied placement in special education. The hearing officer found that the child did exhibit rage and behavioral problems as home and was categorized as "asocial" but she was making significant progress in school. The officer also found her to be well adjusted in the school setting. Therefore, the child was benefiting from the regular education program and this is where she would remain.

Bessemer City Board of Education, 19 IDELR 652 (December 16, 1992).

The parent of a student who was expelled form school for fighting brought this action claiming their son was "socially maladjusted" and therefore could not be expelled from school. The school said that even if the child was socially maladjusted, he would have to meet the IDEA criteria for SED before becoming ineligible for expulsion. The hearing officer then found that the child did not meet the definition of socially maladjusted, therefore, he was not protected by the state law guarantees for exceptional children, and his expulsion had not been improper.

A. E. v. Independent School District #25 of Adair County, Oklahoma (10th Cir. June 10, 1991; 17 EHLR 950).

Parents of a child sought to have their daughter classified as emotionally disturbed so she could receive special education services. This court affirmed the ruling of the trial court in finding the child was not emotionally disturbed. The testimony present in the case supported the finding that A.E. suffered from a conduct disorder, but was not SED within the federal definition. A.E. would continue to receive services for her learning disability in math, but not services for the SED diagnostic category.

Doe v. Board of Education of the State of Connecticut, (D. Conn. October 24, 1990; 17 EHLR 37).

The parents of a child with emotional problems brought an appeal from the hearing officer's decision. Although it was confirmed the child had some emotional difficulties, it was determined that these did not impede or adversely affect his educational performance. The district court affirmed the decision of the state board of education that Doe was not SED and therefore was not entitled to special education services.

HISTORY OF BEHAVIOR AND THE SCHOOLS

No one person "invented" the psycho-educational approach to students with emotional and behavioral problems. Rather, psycho-education evolved from different, albeit related, philosophies and strategies for working with troubled individuals.

Psycho-education finds its earliest roots in the thinking of humanitarians such as Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi (1746-1827), Jean-Marc Gaspard Itard (1775-1838), Dr Samual Gridley Howe (1801-1876), and others. However, it was not until the mental hygiene movement attained prominence in the first part of the 20th century that psycho-education truly gained a foothold. This movement began in response to community mental health problems and was eventually extended to the schools.

In the 1870s, an Italian psychiatrist named Cesare Lombroso argued that delinquency was caused by genetics. (Elliott, Robert W. (1988). Non published paper. Behavior Disorder or Serious Emotional Disturbance? Robert W. Elliott, Ph.D., South Bay Union High School District.) His theory was evidenced by Dugdale's (1877) study of criminals in New York State where he traced 140 convicts to one family line (Craren, 1978). This was still the main theory for delinquency in America when two important events occurred. First, Sigmund Freud had developed a theory that purported to explain the reasons for aggression and juvenile delinquency in terms of childhood experiences. Second, in 1925, R.A. Fisher published Statistical Methods for Research Workers in which he identified an effective experimental paradigm that included control groups and inferential statistics. Freud's theory and Fisher's paradigm provided a basis so that mental health professionals could initiate studies to identify specific causes for aggression and delinquency. (Elliot, ibid)

In 1891 one of the first programs for students with disturbing and upsetting behaviors was established in New Haven Connecticut to help students with "truant, disobedient and insubordinate" behaviors (Kauffman, J.M., Lloyd, J.W., Cooke, L., Cullinan, D., Epstein, M.H., Forness, S.R., Hallahan, D., Nelson, C.M., Polsgrove, L., Strain, P., Sabornie, E.J., & Walker H.M. (1991). Problems and prospects in special education and related services for children with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 16, 299-313.) The early emphasis in school history tended to focus on children who broke the rules and who did not conform to the norms of the classroom environment (Hewitt 1980).

In the early 1900s, Freudian theory became known in America as it was introduced and used in court systems for juveniles and adults. Dr. William Healy, a British psychiatrist who moved to Chicago in 1909, identified social factors outlined in Freud's theory as the cause of delinquency rather than heredity. He began working in the juvenile court system and soon thereafter became the director of the Judge Baker Guidance Center affiliated with Harvard University. (Bower, ibid)

In 1918 August Aichhorn (1878-1949), a schoolteacher turned psychoanalyst, founded the Vienna School for delinquent boys. He admitted boys who had been severely deprived and brutally abused. His book Wayward Youth was first published in 1925. A significant Austrian innovation recognized and appreciated by Maxwell Jones was from August Aichhorn. Aichhorn (1878-1949), a Viennese schoolteacher put in charge of reformatory schools, had to deal with a group of violent young men between the ages of 17 and 20.

In this country, Aichhorn's influence came through Anna Freud, F.G. Lennhoff, a fellow refugee educator and Otto Shaw at Red Hill School. Certainly Shaw's work influenced Marjorie Franklin, David Wills, and the Planned Environmental Therapy Movement. Anna Freud, recognizing the importance of Aichhorn's work, encouraged him into analysis with Paul Federn. His pioneering book Wayward Youth, published in 1925 was translated in 1935.

One of the most creative and influential psychoeducators was Dr. Fritz Redl (1902-1988), an Austrian who emigrated to the United States before World War II. Redl had trained in psychoanalysis and had worked with August Aichorn, author of Wayward Youth. Redl quickly learned English and established himself at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan.

Redl is perhaps best known for two books that he wrote with David Wineman, first his student and later his colleague. Now classics in the field, Children Who Hate (1951) and Controls from Within (1952) described the personality characteristics of troubled youth and offered innovative approaches to their treatment. The books were later published as one volume under the title The Aggressive Child.

Dr. William C. Morse is internationally reknown in special education for his contributions to our understanding of emotional disturbance. He is responsible for extending Redl's treatment strategies to the school and classroom, and is co-author of a classic textbook in special education, Conflict in the Classroom. Now affiliated with the special education department at the University of Southern Florida, he continues to share his wisdom with the field. Morse coauthored Conflict in the Classroom with Nicholas Long, a former student of his at the University of Michigan. Through his work at the Rose School in Washington, D.C., and in conjunction with his appointments at The American and Georgetown Universities, Dr. Long developed great sophistication working with students with emotional and behavior disorders.

Bower (ibid) noted that after the turn of the 20th century there was a shift in emphasis in educational research papers from social maladjustments to emotional factors. In this shift came the understanding that not all behaviors were willful and environmentally caused. There were behaviors that had a emotional and uncontrolled basis - which are the foundations to the special education classification of Seriously Emotionally Disturbed.

EDUCATION AND PSYCHOLOGY

There are articles by psychologists psychiatrists and specialists telling schools which is the correct diagnoses for seriously emotionally disturbed. There are also reports from juvenile probation officers at and court appointed psychologists written to school districts to inform them that a particular student was seriously emotionally disturbed and to requests placement and a particular kind of educational setting. All these attempts to help the child are well intended though unfortunately many are ill-informed.

One of the biggest mistakes made by many professionals, is they believe because a student has a behavior problem he has an emotional problem, and therefore qualify as seriously emotionally disturbed under EHA.

Unfortunately, this is not true, to qualify as having an EAA, each serious emotional disturbance this student must come within the definition as set forth under the law. The EHA is an educational law, not a social law. The law specifically does not include children who are socially maladjusted. Some experts claim you will not find a properly labeled seriously emotionally disturbed student who is in trouble with the law or who is an acting out student. (Jane E. Slenkovich - editor The Schools Advocate (The Special Education Law Reporter Emphasizing Legal Advice for Schools). February 1988, vol. 3, No. 2)

Students not Eligible for Special Education Services

Not all students who experience difficulty in school meet the state eligibility requirements for special education. Students may not be eligible if: (Council On Children, ibid)

o The student's educational needs are due primarily to maturational, environmental, cultural, or economic factors.

o Excessive absence from school or limited school experience is the main basis for the referral.

o A temporary physical disability exists; that is, a disability incurred while a pupil was a regular education student and which, at the termination of the temporary physical disability, the student can, without special intervention, reasonably be expected to return to his or her regular education class.

o The sole basis for referral and/or assessment is the student's limited or non-English language status.

o Social maladjustment is the main basis for the referral.

California law, in accordance with Public Law 101-476, specifically excludes for special education services those students who are "socially maladjusted" and who do not qualify under any other disabling condition.

It is not surprising to find that similar efforts to define emotional disturbance from a clinical or psychiatric perspective have encountered difficulties (Kauffman, 1977, ibid). Part of the difficulty in psychologists, social works and other who are outside of the educational setting lies in the difference in conceptual models of emotional disturbance. From an educational perspective, the criteria are limited and not all children who require therapeutic intervention fit the definition of "emotional disturbance" - educationally.

Since there is no single criteria for emotional health (Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry, 1966), distinguishing what is a disturbance is almost impossible, since one is always defining disturbance under it's own standard. There is no reference point to compare it to. Precisely because of this inability to define mental or emotional health, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV), of the American Psychiatric Association, which is the primary reference source for psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers clearly states:

"....there is no satisfactory definition that specifies precise boundaries for the concept 'mental disorder"

While they can't define it precisely, they do state:

"...a clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual and that is typically associated with either a painfully symptom (distress) or impairment in one or more important areas of functioning (disability). In addition, there is an inference that there is a behavioral, psychological or biological dysfunction, and that disturbance is not only in relationship between the individual and society."

(http://www.sbceo.k12.ca.us/~sbsdweb/Welcome.html)

There is certainly no problem for a mental health worker with a client who hears voices or for a teacher facing a child with unpredictable behaviors such as intense rage - or a parent with an obviously autistic child. Definitions are usually clear and concise at the extreme conditions. But, as one moves from the extreme of the condition toward the mean, one reaches a point where the water is sufficiently unclear to cause problems and definition. And if these problems of definition were left to only to the scholars it would be merely an academic problem. However these definitional problems are not merely for the academics, they are significant for the children, the teacher, the families, and the school systems. This is especially true where the defining body is the United States government and several state legislatures. This problem has many facets as indicated by the following quotes:

"Mental health specialists may identify the behavior disorder as an emotional disturbance just as the clergy may identify the behavior disorder as a moral and a judge may identify the individual as a juvenile." (Kirk, S Educating Exceptional Children, Boston, Houghton Mifflin, Co. 1972)

"There has been quite a bit of literature written about a variety of behavior disorders, but frequently the diagnosis will depend on the particular orientation of the agency or person making the diagnosis." (Kirk , ibid)

DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY

Determining which children are actually "emotionally disturbed" is no easy task, often relies heavily on the definition and criteria used, and is not always the same in every case. Almost everyone exhibits some variety of inappropriate behavior. However, the frequency, intensity, duration, and context must be considered in determining the presence of an emotional disturbance. Many teachers would say that 10% to 20% of their students have "emotional problems" while the actual number of those with severe and or chronic problems is closer to 2% to 3% of the school age population. Currently less than one-half that number are formally identified and receive special education services.(Robert H. Zabel, ERIC Digest #454 Emotional Disturbances; ERIC Clearinghouse on Handicapped and Gifted Children, Reston, VA.)

Determining eligibility includes five problematic criteria (Forness, 1992a, b):

1) An inability to learn which cannot be explained by intellectual, sensory or other health factors. This characteristic is designed to ensure that a comprehensive and differential assessment is performed which would rule out any non-SED reasons for the child's inability to learn (adverse educational performance). It requires that a child be so severely emotionally disturbed that he or she cannot learn, despite appropriate educational interventions and the efforts of the child.

An "inability to learn," often confuses the ED definition with the learning disability (LD) definition. In the statement "an Inability to learn," problems arise when a teacher or a parents sees that as the same as "the student is behind in his work", or the "student daydreams in class", or the student won't do his homework", or the student is getting failing grades". What this provision does require is that the student actually be unable to learn. He must be so emotionally disturbed that he CANNOT learn. (Slenkovich, Jane E.. P.L. 94-142, As Applied to DSM III diagnoses. Kinghorn Press, Inc, 1988)

These considerations are interpreted either behaviorally, psychologically or legally. Thus, for any child to be considered for SED classification, there must be a serious emotional condition from which any behavioral or emotional characteristics stem. (Slenkovich, ibid)

Isolated behaviors or expressions of emotionality per se do not constitute a serious emotional disturbance. While many handicapped children may demonstrate one or more of the characteristics outlined in the educational definition of SED, this does not automatically define them as seriously emotionally disturbed (Slenkovich, ibid).

2) The second is an "inability to build or maintain satisfactory relationships with teachers or peers" (i.e., social adjustment problems); but the definition subsequently confuses matters by excluding children whose problems are considered merely "social maladjustment."

Under (b) which states an Inability to build or maintain satisfactory Interpersonal relationships with peers and teachers; it does not say "the student does not have any friends; nor does it say the student's relationship with the teacher is bad,; nor, "all the student's friends are socially undesirable; nor is the student's behavior is so bad nobody likes him."

What this provision does require is that the student actually be unable to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships. He must be so emotionally disturbed that he CANNOT enter into relationships (Slenkovich, 1988). Under (c) which state "inappropriate types of behaviors or feelings under normal circumstances", it does not say "the students behavior is 'unacceptable', 'neurotic', 'hyperactive', 'compulsive', or 'immoral'." Inappropriate behavior can be laughing at a funeral. It cannot be shyness, poor self Image, anxiousness, nervousness, anger, overactive behavior, or violation of social norms.

3) Inappropriate types of behavior or feelings," "pervasive mood of unhappiness," Under (d)'a general pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression'. It does not state that the "student gets depressed", 'blue, sad, hopeless, or down'.

The definition of serious emotional disturbance as contained in the California Master Plan comes directly from PL 94-142. Each of the terms used in the SED definition has a specific meaning but, at the same time, tends to be global rather than operational in nature. Thus, specific interpretation and application of the terms used in the definition are left to the subjective judgment of local educational agency (LEA) staff. This has led to a wide variability between LEA's as to who can be considered eligible for SED services.

Many special education programs receive pressure from various sources to serve students who exhibit only social maladjustment. However, the law specifically excludes "socially maladjusted" students from special education services unless the student can also be shown to be emotionally disturbed. Students who are socially maladjusted (or more precisely "Oppositional Defiant" or "Conduct Disordered") typically display a persistent pattern of willful refusal to meet even minimum standards of conduct. (Elliott, ibid) Their behavior and values are often in conflict with society's standards. They exhibit a consistent pattern of antisocial behavior without genuine signs of guilt, remorse, or concern for the feelings of others. These students often engage in simulations of these behaviors but typically display them only when there is an immediate consequence for the absence of such displays. Their antisocial behavior is most frequently seen as resulting from their tendency to place their own needs above those of all other people and the immediate gratification that such behavior brings them. These students are not in chronic distress (one of the criteria for emotional disturbance under the law) although they can exhibit situational anxiety, depression, or distress in response to certain isolated events - particularly facing the consequences of their own actions. These students do not typically respond to the same treatment interventions that benefit emotionally disordered students." (Elliott, ibid)

If it is determined that a student is "socially maladjusted" and not "emotionally disturbed" then the student is not eligible for special education services. Research suggests that those programs that provide a high degree of structure, clear limits, precise rules, and immediate, meaningful and impartial implementation of consequences present the greatest potential for long-term change in the socially maladjusted student. Special education programs are not designed to provide this kind of treatment. (Knitzer, Jane., Steinberg Z., Fleisch, B. (1990). At the Schoolhouse Door. An examination of Programs and Policies for Children with Behavioral and Emotional Problems. Bank Street College of Education. 610 W. 112th St. New York, New York 10025.) The presence of the socially maladjusted student in the emotionally disturbed classroom typically impedes the progress of the emotionally disturbed students while failing to benefit the socially maladjusted student. Socially maladjusted students are often seen as social predators with emotionally disturbed students viewed as their prey. Placing these two kinds of disturbed students in the same classrooms is a nightmare for both the emotionally disturbed students and the staff.

States also define emotional disturbance and specify the criteria to be used by local school districts in the identification of children with this disability. Although they must specify criteria that are not inconsistent with the Federal definition, states interpret that definition based on their own standards, programs, and requirements (Tallmadge, G., Gumd, N., Munson, R., & Hanley, T. (1985). Special study on terminology, comprehensive review and evaluation report (Report No. Mv-85-01). Submitted to the U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC, by SRA Technologies, Mountain View, CA. (Available from the Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC 20202.). In fact, many States have adopted their own specific terminology and criteria (Tallmadge, Gund, Munson, & Hanley, 1985; Swartz, Mosley, & Koenig-Jerz, 1987; Gonzalez, 1991). Local variation may affect the ability of Federal authorities to monitor the impact of the IDEA Amendments of 1997. According to a 1992 report, "The resulting differences in definition and eligibility criteria make it difficult to evaluate the identification rates of children with serious emotional disturbance" (Talmadge, ibid).

For example, students identified as having conduct disorder are eligible for services in some states, but not in others. Conduct disorder is a persistent pattern of anti-social, rule breaking, or aggressive behavior, including defiance, fighting, bullying, disruptiveness, exploitiveness, and disturbed relations with both peers and adults (Forness, ibid). Research suggests that conduct disorder frequently co-occurs with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), reading disabilities, anxiety disorders, and depression (Clarizio, 1992; Hinshaw, Lahey, & Hart, 1993; McConaughy & Skiba, 1993; Zoccolillo, 1992). The literature also suggests that there are no valid theoretical or empirical grounds for differentiating between conduct disorders and other behavioral and emotional disorders and that there are no reliable or socially validated instruments for making such a distinction (Elliott, ibid).

Children with emotional disturbance may also be socially maladjusted, but to receive services under IDEA, they must satisfy additional requirements. Since IDEA excludes social maladjustment without emotional disturbance from the definition of emotional disturbance, some State definitions and eligibility requirements serve to exclude students with conduct disorder (Forness, ibid). Alternatively, some research has indicated that students with conduct disorder constituted the largest percentage of students with emotional disturbance in day schools and residential schools (Forness, 1992). Children with conduct disorder were the largest diagnostic group in the National Adolescent and Child Treatment Study (Silver et al., 1992). That study was co-sponsored by the National Institute for Disability and Rehabilitative Research (OSERS/NIDRR) and the National Institute of Mental Health. Its purpose was to "describe. . . children with (emotional disturbance) and their families" (Forness, 1992). Students with conduct disorder were also the largest group served at the 31 sites of the CMHS (Comprehensive Mental Health Services for Children and Their Families program, Doucette, 1997).

In general, the literature documents varying orientations to children with different patterns of behavior. While some of these students are "provided access to therapeutic services, and considered victims of their disorders . . . students who are considered antisocial or socially maladjusted are usually blamed for their aversive and maladaptive behavior patterns and exposed to control, containment, or punishment strategies"

HOW ARE THE TERMS SOCIAL MALADJUSTMENT, BEHAVIOR DISORDER, CONDUCT DISORDER DISTINGUISHED FROM EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCES?

The distinction between "socially maladjusted" "behaviorally disordered" and "seriously emotionally disturbed" children is hard to determine at first glance. As stated in the opening of this paper, this controversy, although can be defined, it cannot be universally agreed upon. Probably the best way around this controversy is to breath the definition down into Behavioral Chacteristics and use a behavioral approach. The lists below are an attempt to overcome the definitional problem.

Local agencies in a study done by CASP (California Association of School Psychologists, Educational Diagnostic Manual for the Seriously emotionally Disturbed, Millbrae, California, 1984) described the following behaviors (which appeared more indicative of behavioral disturbance than serious emotional disturbance) as characteristic of a serious emotional disturbance. However, it should be remembered that such behavioral indicators may be reflective of internal distress, and further evaluation and assessment should be undertaken to determine whether a serious emotional disturbance is in fact present.

Behavior's Associated with SED

(Roberts-Palmquist, Joyce. (1987). Non published paper. The Continuing dilemma of SED vs SBD. Coordinator, Special Services, Alum Rock Union Elementary School District.)

1) AN INABILITY TO BUILD OR MAINTAIN SATISFACTORY RELATIONSHIPS WITH PEERS AND TEACHERS

o Has no friends in home, school or community settings

o Is extremely fearful of teachers and peers

o Avoids communicating with teachers and peers

o Does not play, socialize, initiate or engage in recreation with others

o Avoidance of others or severely withdrawn behavior

o Incapable of maintaining interactive behaviors with others

o Avoids interactions with students or teachers

o Views others as objects

o Fails to participate verbally or physically in group situations

o Unresponsive to and unrelated to people

o Pervasive social problems in home and school settings

o Peer relationships short-lived, anxiety-provoking and even chaotic

o Has difficulty in establishing and/or maintaining group membership

o Peers often alienated by intensity of child's need for attention

o Conflict and tension in almost all social relationships

o Forms rapid, intense, engulfing relationships

2) INAPPROPRIATE FEELINGS OR BEHAVIORS UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES

o Catastrophic reactions to everyday occurrences

o Extreme mood liability

o Lack of appropriate fear reactions

o Unexplained rage reactions or explosive, unpredictable behavior

o Flat, blunted, distorted or excessive affect

o Manic behavior

o Inappropriate affect (e.g., laughing, crying or displaying anger or fear in inappropriate ways)

o Peculiar posturing

o Bizarre ideas or statements

o Belief that others are conspiring against the student

o Hallucinations (auditory or visual)

o Delusional thinking (e.g., feelings of being controlled, thought broadcasting, persecutory ideas, etc.)

o Demonstrates sudden or dramatic mood changes

o Demonstrates behaviors not related to immediate situations (e.g., laughs or cries without reason)

o Has unrealistic plans for self

o Excessive or inappropriate feelings of doubt or guilt

o Repetitive, ritualistic, stereotyped motions

o Distorted use of body or bodily parts

o Marked illogical thinking, incoherence, loosening of associations or magical thinking

o Disorientation in time or place

o Lack of contact with reality

o Excessive or unnecessary body movements

o Involuntary physical reactions

o Self -stimulatory behaviors

o Non-human quality to actions or behaviors

o Habitual confusion

o Reality sense is distorted without regard to self-interest

o Inability to adapt or to modify behaviors to different situations

3) GENERAL PERVASIVE MOOD OF UNHAPPINESS OR DEPRESSION

o Fails to demonstrate an interest in special events or interesting , activities

o Loss of interest in usual activities

o Prominent and persistent feelings of depression, hopelessness, sadness or irritability

o Insomnia or hypersomnia,

o Excessive fatigue or loss of energy

o Poor appetite or significant weight loss

o Feelings of poor self-worth

o Exhibits unwarranted self-blame or self-criticism

o Inadequate self-concept (e.g., blames self for inadequacies, real or imagined)

o Engages in self -destructive behavior

o Recurrent thoughts of death or suicide

o Fails to demonstrate a sense of humor when appropriate

o Makes verbal statements of unhappiness or depression

o Lack of capacity for pleasure

o Rarely experiences truly satisfied feelings

o Has trouble giving or receiving affection

o Outbursts of overactivity

4) TENDENCY TO DEVELOP PHYSICAL SYMPTOMS OR FEARS ASSOCIATED WITH PERSONAL OR SCHOOL PROBLEMS

o Physical symptoms without organic findings

o Persistent irrational fears resulting in avoidance of a specific object

o Panic reactions

o Complaints of physical discomfort

o Child is intensely and generally anxious and fearful

Behavior associated with Conduct Disorder

Conduct Disorder

o Has no consistent internal value system

o Truant

o Rebellious towards authority

o Mistrustful of others

o Runaway

o Must have immediate gratification

o Needs immediate rewards

o Disregards consequences to self

o Blames others for failures or difficulties

o Engages in inappropriate sexually related behaviors

o Is absent or tardy without legitimate reason

o Is preoccupied with drugs or alcohol or uses them at school

AGGRESSION

o Makes derogatory comments or inappropriate gestures to others

o Takes things that belong to others

o Blames others or materials for own failure or difficulty

o Does not obey teachers' directives or classroom rules

o Deliberately makes false statements (persistent, deliberate)

o Uses obscene or profane language

o Makes inappropriate noises

o Destroys property (e.g., books, lockers, etc.)

o Difficulty complying with adult authority

o Can be destructive to property without remorse

INADEQUATE MATURITY

o Intense need for attention

o Over-reliance upon adults

o Lack of independence

LANGUAGE

o Context of language often bizarre

o Uses excessive sexual talk

o Talks to self

o Incessant talking, rambling, not conversational

o Delayed or decreased vocabulary

o Speech disorganized

o Preservation on particular object or subject

o Fragmentation of language

o Flattened tone

o Irrelevancy of context

o Inappropriate rhythm

o Lack of pragmatic communication skills

DEVELOPMENTAL ISSUES

o Early onset of problems

o Delayed developmental milestones

o Failure to master developmental tasks

o Marked psychomotor retardation

o Large gaps in developmental areas

OTHER

o Previous mental health referrals prior to involvement with school personnel

IMPULSIVITY

o Exhibits off-task behaviors frequently

o Careless performance

o Easily distracted from tasks

o Poor task completion skills

o Attention and concentration appear impaired

SOCIALLY MALADJUSTED STUDENT

SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SOCIALLY MALADJUSTED STUDENT

o The inability to learn is due to rejection of school values, not from emotional interference with the learning process.

o The student is able to learn in areas relevant to his subculture.

o Rejects schools values and norms (i.e., often tardy, truant, rebellious, unmotivated)

o Violates major behavioral norms

o May be aggressive (violence/thievery) or passive (work refusal, sleep, substance abuse)

o Often in conflict with authority figures

o Unwilling to comply, does not want help

The inability to have satisfactory relationships is due to the unwillingness to maintain relationships rather than the inability:

o Capable of forming and maintaining peer relationships within subculture

o Street smart, enjoys high status among peers, projects a good front.

o Hurts others as a means to gain something

o Appears emotionally shallow, egocentric, manipulative

o Inappropriate types of behaviors are disturbing but do not stem from an emotional disturbance.

o Relatively good reality contact

o Often violates the rights of others; often in conflict with persons in authority

o I want what I want when I want it.

o Blames others in conflict situations

o Appears not to learn from mistakes or punishment does not change behavior

o Over time, denials and rationalizations of misbehaviors become part of the personality

o Not necessarily disturbed by his or her behaviors

o If depression is present, it is situational and reactive. It is not a pervasive, chronic depressive state.

o There is no inner conflict

o Counseling is seen as irrelevant

o If anxiety is present, it is realistic and due to the impending consequences of the behaviors, not from guilt or incapacitating phobias.

CONCLUSION

Ever since first major study was financed by the California State Legislature in 1957 (Definition of Emotional Disturbance). Eli M. Bower, School of Education, University of California, Berkeley conducted a study comprised of approximately 75 school districts to define and clarify emotional disturbance. The study revealed that the distinction between social and behavioral traits and those of emotional ones are not clear and distinct and would be very difficult if not impossible to define.

Congress estimated it cost 40 percent more to educate the disabled. When Congress passed IDEA in 1975, they promised to provide the additional 40 percent in 1982. They never have. Over the years, Federal funds for IDEA have averaged about 12 percent. Currently they provide 14.8 percent.

Special educators have renewed their debate over how to define children with emotional disturbances who qualify for special education when the new IDEA was proposed. The new IDEA did drop the word "serious" from emotionally disturbed but this change will not have an effect on the definition. Until an entirely new definition is created listing specific behaviors that can be observed in interviews and in social settings, this area of law will continue in the direction of denial of services.

In summary it is clear from the problems I have reviewed here the solution to the controversy is not in agreeing in the definition but in the results of the definition, the behavior. It is clear from my research that a practical approach, no a definitional consensus needs to take precedent. By focusing on the behavior (what is visible) and no on the emotion (what is invisible) we can begin to work with this problem in a manner that will not be so disruptive to our schools, our students, and our parents. Such an approach could begin to put limits back into our special education classrooms.

Bibliography

References

Algozzine, R., Schmid, R., Conners, R. (1978). Toward an acceptable definition of emotional disturbance. Behavioral Disorders, 4(1), 48-52.

Bower, E.M. (1982). Defining emotional disturbance: Public policy and research. Psychology In the Schools, 19 (1), 55-60.

California Association of School Psychologists (1984). Educational Diagnostic Manual for the Seriously emotional] Disturbed, Millbrae, California.

Council on children With Behavioral Disorders. (1984). Position Paper on substituting "Behaviorally Disturbed" for "Seriously Emotionally Disturbed" as a descriptor term for children and youth handicapped by behavior. Behavioral Disorders, 100), 167-174.

Duncan, B.B., Forness, S.R., & Hartsough, C. (1995). Students identified as seriously

emotionally disturbed in day treatment classrooms: Cognitive, psychiatric and special

education characteristics. Behavioral Disorders, 20, 238-252.

Elliott, Robert W. (1988). Non published paper. Behavior Disorder or Serious Emotional Disturbance? Robert W. Elliott, Ph.D., South Bay Union High School District.

Federal Register. (1993, January 21). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 5501.

Forness, S.R. (1992). Legalism versus professionalism in diagnosing SED in the public schools. School Psychology Review, 21(1), 29-34.

Forness, S.R., Kavale, K.A., King, B.H., & Kasari, C. (1994). Simple versus complex conduct disorders: Identification and phenomenology. Behavioral Disorders, 19(4), 306-312.

Forness, S.R., & Knitzer, J. (1992). A new proposed definition and terminology to replace "serious emotional disturbance" in Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. School Psychology Review, 21, 12-20.

Kauffman, J.M., McCullough, L.L., & Sabornie, E.J. (1984). Intergrating exceptional students: Special problems involving the emotionally d1sturbed/behavlorally disordered. B.C. Journal of Special Education, 8(3), 201-210.

Kauffman, J.M. (1994). Characteristics of behavior disorders of children and youth, fifth edition. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Kauffman, J.M., Lloyd, J.W., Cooke, L., Cullinan, D., Epstein, M.H., Forness, S.R., Hallahan, D., Nelson, C.M., Polsgrove, L., Strain, P., Sabornie, E.J., & Walker H.M. (1991). Problems and prospects in special education and related services for children with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 16, 299-313.

Kirk, S Educating Exceptional Children, Boston, Houghton Mifflin, Co. 1972

Knitzer, J., Steinberg, A., & Fleisch, B. (1990). At the schoolhouse door: An examination of programs and policies for children with behavioral and emotional problems. New York: Bank Street College of Education.

Kazdin, A.E. (1990). Premature termination from treatment among children referred for antisocial behavior. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 31, 415-425.

Roberts-Palmquist, Joyce. (1987). Non published paper. The Continuing dilemma of SED vs SBD. Coordinator, Special Services, Alum Rock Union Elementary School District.

Slenkovich, Jane E. (February 1988). The Schools' Advocate. The Special Education Law Reporter. Vol.3, No. 2. Jane E. SlenkovIch, Editor.

Slenkovich, Jane E. (1988). P.L. 94-142 As Applied to DSM III diagnoses. Kinghorn Press, Inc

Springer v. Fairfax County School Board, 27 IDELR 367, 1998

Tallmadge, G., Gumd, N., Munson, R., & Hanley, T. (1985). Special study on terminology, comprehensive review and evaluation report (Report No. Mv-85-01). Submitted to the U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC, by SRA Technologies, Mountain View, CA. (Available from the Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC 20202.

Zabel, Robert H. Eric Digest #454. Emotional Disturbance: Eric Clearinghouse on the Handicapped and Gifted Children, Reston, VA