Seriously Emotionally Disturbed or Socially Maladjusted? A Critique of Interpretations

Abstract

Vast differences exist among the states regarding the percentage of special education students served as seriously emotionally disturbed (SED). These percentages vary from a low of less than 1 % in Mississippi and Missouri to a high of 25% in Utah (U.S. Department of Education, 1988). The tremendous disparity among the percentages served as seriously emotionally disturbed apparently stems from varying interpretations of the federal regula tions implementing the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA, 1975) which specify criteria for qualifying students as seriously emotionally disturbed. The EHA Regulations (1977) list five specific characteristics, any one of which qualify a student as seriously emotionally disturbed. This characteristic must be exhibited over a long period of time, to a marked degree, and adversely affect educational performance. Characteristics which qualify students as seriously emotionally disturbed are: 1. an inability to learn which cannot beexplained by intellectual, sensory, or other health factors; 2. an inability to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships with peersand teachers; 3. inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under normal circumstances; 4. a general pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression; and 5. a tendency to develop physical symptoms or fears associated with personal or school problems. In addition, the term seriously emotionally disturbed includes children who are schizo phrenic. It does not, however, include children who are socially maladjusted, unless it is determined they are also seriously emotionally disturbed. While there is considerable ambiguity in the federal definition of seriously emotionally disturbed, one of the most troubling aspects of the definition (CCBD, 1984,1987) is that it specifically excludes students who are socially maladjusted from receiving special educa tion services unless it can be shown that they meet the criteria on grounds totally independ ent of their social maladjustment. What socially maladjusted means, however, is not defined in the statute nor have there been any federal policy opinions or court decisions shedding light on the meaning of this term. To complicate matters further, 27 states have definitions of seriously emotionally disturbed in their state special education statutes which do not specifically exclude from special education service socially maladjusted students who are notalsoseriouslyemotionallydisturbed (NASDSE, 1986). Consequently, the view taken by one state or local education agency as to who legitimately qualifies as seriously emotionally disturbed versus who does not qualify or who is socially maladjusted is frequently based on the views of those who have published and promoted their positions in this area. This article will critique some of the interpretations which purport to distinguish between seriously emotionally disturbed and socially maladjusted (e.g., DeYoung, 1984; Kester, 1983; Slenkovich, 1983; Tibbetts, Pike, & Welch, 1986) in order to show that these views are untenable, thereby excluding children from receiving special education services as seriously emotionally disturbed on specious grounds. An interpretation of social mal adjustment will be put forth which is based on a concept of social deviance. This view of social maladjustment provides a clearer basis by which to distinguish those students who should qualify as seriously emotionally disturbed from those who should not.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 26 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.