Social Marladjusturbance (ED)

1261 Words3 Pages

For over four decades there has been a perplexing dilemma of what the term social maladjustment (SM) means within the federal definition of emotional disturbance (ED). An abundance of research over the years on ED and SM has created mass confusion. Due to this misunderstanding, there has been an ongoing challenge in determining whether students have ED, SM, both, or none of the above. It is clear that school systems across the United States need assistance in properly identifying those students who may be in need of special education services.
The definition of ED lies in Part 200 in the list of Regulations by the Commissioner of Education in New York, as well as in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA). Within …show more content…

ED is described in a series of characteristics including: an inability to learn that cannot be explained by intellectual, sensory, or health factors, an inability to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships with peers and teachers, inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under normal circumstances, a generally pervasive mood of unhappiness or depress, or a tendency to develop physical symptoms or fears associated with personal or school problems. After this definition, there is a social maladjustment clause, where the term makes its debut, stating that ED does not apply to students who are socially maladjusted, unless it is determined that they also have ED (The State Education Department, 2016). Determining eligibility for students with ED and/or SM has been described as being “persistently difficult given a host of controversial issues surrounding current eligibility criteria and the poor outcomes …show more content…

Just to differentiate, some internalizing problems include anxiety and irritability, while externalizing problems include aggression or defiant behaviors. It is appalling that students with either one of these diagnoses are excluded by definition from receiving services under the ED classification (Costenbader & Buntaine 1999). What is even more thought-provoking is that in a study which included students with ED and with SM, researchers found that students with ED were consistently rated as more deviant in their behaviors than students with SM. Additionally, about half the students identified as SM were incorrectly identified (Costenbader & Buntaine, 1999). So why is it statistically proven that students with ED are having more externalizing problems than their counterparts, yet still students with SM are supposedly the ones with the externalizing problems? Is it not possible for someone with Conduct Disorder, for example, to have both externalizing and internalizing problems? Who are we to say a child is not experiencing internal problems? Could it be possible that children with SM have no other opportunity to say how they are feeling, so they just act out? Rather than looking for

Open Document