Defining emotional disturbance public policy and research

Abstract

The legal definition of “emotional disturbance” proposed by the Federal Government under PL 94–142 is Bower's 1957 definition with some modifications. The modifications do serious damage to the integrity of the research and conceptual base from which the definition is drawn. The difficulties inherent in a definition of this type of handicapped are delineated. It is suggested that where policy makers and researchers join together, such relationships are best enhanced when each respects the assumptions and concepts of the other.

School-Wide Positive Behavior Support and Students with Emotional/Behavioral Disorders: Implications for Prevention, Identification and Intervention

“…The educational definition of emotional disturbance has been met with controversy and criticism since it was first introduced in Public Law 94-142 in 1975 (Forness & Knitzer, 1992). Minimal changes to the law have resulted in continued controversy over defining and identifying emotional and behavioral disorders for the past 30 years (Bower, 1982;Forness & Knitzer, 1992).…”

Epidemiology and Assessment of Mental Health in Poverty Populations: Implications for Head Start

“…Figures and statistics vary greatly in the relevant literature. For example, Bower (1982) stated that approximately 10% of all students have moderate to serious emotional problems, while Brandenburg, Friedman, and Silver (1990) suggest that at least 7% of all students may have emotional problems serious enough to warrant treatment. A U.S. Government report for the nation as a whole reports that fewer then 1% of all children are currently served under the category of Seriously Emotional Disturbed which is mirrored with a paucity of referrals for mental health services (Division of Educational Services, 1990).…”

Broadening the Cultural-Organizational Perspective in Exclusion of Youth with Social Maladjustment

“…Thus, social maladjustment is both included in special education and simultaneously excluded! Exclusion of social maladjustment is further compromised by the fact that the original five SED criteria were taken from a study in which children were actually selected on the basis of their social and emotional problems in school (Bower, 1982). It is also widely assumed, as indicated earlier, that the original intent of Congress was to exclude only adjudicated youth (Weinberg & Weinberg, 1990) and that prior regulations in federal special education law, at or before that point, actually refer to the term socially and emotionally maladjusted (Cline, 1990).…”