Inappropriateness of the Federal Definition

Introduction The IDEA and Children with Mental or Emotional Disorders IDEA Identification Rates Inappropriateness of the Federal Definition An Alternative Definition Comparison of Definitions The Alternative Definition and Identification Rates Discussion Recommendations for Action Conclusion Notes Table 1: Number of children 6-21 served under part B, IDEA, compared with estimated number of children with mental disorders and functional Table 2: States' identification rates and modifications to the federal definition of emotional disturbance

The federal definition of emotional disturbance is neither clear nor comprehensive enough to determine eligibility under IDEA appropriately.33 It fails to distinguish between students with emotional disturbance and non-disabled peers and it is also at odds with prevailing wisdom in the field of special education and with accepted practice.34 It is, in the words of one expert, illogical.35

Many aspects of the federal definition have been criticized. Its main criteria (numbers 1-4 in the definition) are not supported by research on subtypes of children.36 The reference to adverse educational performance is too narrow and is interpreted as addressing only academics and failing to take into account social and behavioral factors that influence academic achievement.37 Its terminology is vague and terms are not explicitly defined.38 It has also been criticized for focusing too much on the process of assessment, emphasizing procedures to see if the child fits into one of the arbitrary five categories.39

The section of the definition cited as most inappropriate is the exclusion of children on the basis of "social maladjustment"—a term that is not defined. It has been argued that these children intentionally break rules and are more appropriately referred to the juvenile justice system.40 However, research finds no justification for a distinction between mental/emotional disorder and social maladjustment41 and even if it did exist, no valid instruments exist to make such a distinction.42 Furthermore, the reference to social maladjustment is inconsistent with other parts of the definition, as social maladjustment virtually defines the behavior of any child with significant mental/emotional disorders.43 The federal definition now incorporates criteria regarding social relationships that would identify certain children as eligible, but at the same time excludes these children because they are "socially maladjusted."44

Students with mental and emotional disorders who are excluded from special education and related services because of the social maladjustment clause are at high risk for suspension or expulsion due to the behavioral manifestations of their disorder. Yet many suspended students who have not been found eligible for special education and students with mental and emotional disorders who are in special education are often indistinguishable from each other. In fact, the majority of students who have been identified as emotionally disturbed by their school have a conduct disorder and thus exhibit some of the behaviors for which others are suspended or expelled.45 Sorting students into two groups—suspending one group and giving the other access to special education and related services—cannot be justified from the research.46

Next: An Alternative Definition