Recommendations for Action

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

This study and the earlier research cited above indicate that changing the federal definition (either in law or regulation) to reflect the national groups' recommendations would likely improve identification of children with mental and emotional disorders. However, such a change would need to be accompanied by other actions to remove barriers to identification if states are to ensure appropriate, early identification of children with significant mental and emotional disabilities who need the services and supports of the IDEA. For example, the federal government could foster greater collaboration between schools and public mental health systems, provide significantly more technical assistance for states and schools regarding childhood mental disorders and monitor more closely the rate of identification of children with emotional disturbance.

The federal government should:

• adopt the alternative definition recommended by national groups, since the states have generally been slow to make such changes;
• at a minimum, drop the social maladjustment exclusion in the federal definition and make the four other changes most commonly made by the higher-identification states (dropping reference to diagnosis, addressing social and behavioral issues, considering cultural issues and ensuring that pre-referral services have been furnished);
• monitor identification rates for children with mental and emotional disorders and encourage states to addresses weaknesses in their identification procedures in order to raise these rates until they are more closely aligned with the 5 percent estimated prevalence rate of mental disorders causing extreme functional impairment;
• monitor rates of identification for minority students more closely and work with states that are identifying a disproportionate number of some minorities or showing under-representation of certain cultural groups;
• develop programs and materials to assist states in making more accurate assessments so as to correctly identify students with emotional disturbance in order to provide appropriate services and to encourage earlier identification, including identification of preschoolers and very young children; and
• seek corrective action in states whose dropout, suspension and expulsion data reflect inappropriate identification and intervention policies and practices regarding students with emotional or behavioral disorders.

States do not need to wait for federal action. States should:

• adopt the alternative definition recommended by national groups;
• at a minimum, drop the social maladjustment exclusion in the federal definition;
• assess their own programs to ensure that children of all cultural and ethnic groups are being appropriately identified by all schools; and
  improve assessments of very young children.

In addition, state education agencies and local schools should collaborate with mental health agencies to design coordinated systems of care that use resources from both systems to meet the comprehensive needs of children with mental and emotional disorders, including those identified as emotionally disturbed under the IDEA.

Next: Conclusion