Abstract

Emotional and behavioral disabilities (EBD) affect a wide range of students and as such are becoming the focus of many different researchers. There are several prevailing issues pertaining to EBD including methods of diagnosis, treatment, and inclusion in the general education environment. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA 2004) requires that students with disabilities be placed in the least restrictive environment in relation to their placement in public school facilities (Rosenberg, Westling & McLeskey, 2011). Even though this precedent has been set students with EBD are more often educated in restrictive settings, including segregated classes and facilities, when compared to any and all other disability groups (Sacks and Kern, 2007). This paper will analyze the effectiveness of the inclusion of students with EBD in the general education environment. It will also detail the diagnostic procedures in identifying students at-risk of EBD along with risk factors that can contribute to its manifestation. Ultimately, this paper will explore the least restrictive environment clause of IDEA 2004 and its validity when applied to the management of students with EBD while examining classroom practices that promote inclusion.

Definition
Defining Emotional and Behavioral Disabilities (EBD) is often cumbersome because of its broadness in scope. EBD is diagnosed when an individuals behavior or temperament is so different from cultural, ethnic, or age-appropriate norms that it impedes academic development. The response must be exhibited in at least two settings for a diagnosis to be given so that the behavior cannot be linked to the environment as a causal factor. Obviously, one of these environments would need to be in a school-related environment to be able to distinguish the students disability as adversely affecting educational performance (Rosenberg, Westling & McLeskey, 2011). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) includes several caveats that further dilute the definition of EBD. One or more of the following characteristics must be exhibited over a long period of time while also impeding academic performance: inability to learn that cannot be explained by intellectual, sensory or health factors, inability to maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships, inappropriate behavior under normal circumstances, a pervasive mood (i.e. unhappiness or depression), or the development of physical symptoms associated with personal or school problems (Rosenberg et al., 2011). This definition is somewhat problematic given its ambiguity; however, it is a good starting point in beginning to diagnose a student as potentially having EBD.

Prevalence and Demographics

Approximately 3-6% of school-age children (4-6 million) suffer from EBD which can severely disrupt their daily functioning in the home, school, and/or community (National Mental Health Association, 2004). Of the children diagnosed with EBD approximately 80% are male with approximately 60% being white, 26% African American, and 11% Hispanic (Rosenberg, Westling & McLeskey, 2011). This means that African Americans are overrepresented in this category which will be discussed later with potential risk factors for EBD. Females are underrepresented and this may largely be due to the difference in socialization between males and females, which will also be discussed further.

Risk Factors
The relationship between environmental risk factors and the development of EBD in children has been well established and not readily debated. Causes of EBD include family, school, peer groups, societal, and individual/biological. Examples of familial risk factors include violence at home, psychological abuse, and an unstable/inconsistent home. Every year 3 to 10 million children are in some way exposed to domestic violence which substantially increases their risk for abuse and neglect (Conroy & Brown, 2004). Exposure to violence at a young age, especially if it is witnessed consistently, can cause a dramatic increase in the likelihood of developing EBD. Biological risks can include genetics, chemical imbalance, etc and are really out of the individuals control. Individual causes that can be the product of environmental influences include nutrition, stress and social skills. A deficiency in nutrition or social skills or an inordinate amount of stress can also bring EBD to fruition. School risk factors can include low academic achievement, poor instruction, and an inability to interact successfully with peers.

Sometimes when the student does find a peer group it becomes the choices of peer group that can contribute as a risk factor. Being subjected to peer-pressure or the norms of a peer group that makes poor behavioral choices can also lead to the development of EBD. As previously mentioned, African-Americans are overrepresented in this category while females are underrepresented. This can largely be contributed to the final risk factor discussed, society. Societal risks can include socioeconomic status, media, and social norms. Lower socioeconomic status does not necessarily cause EBD but the two variables are correlated. About 20% of children in the United States live with families that are below the federal poverty level (The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2003). With recent economic turmoil this number continues to increase. Poverty leads to a decrease of available resources to counteract the environmental factors that contribute to the development of EBD (e.g. there are most likely fewer after-school programs available to individuals that are economically disenfranchised). Since there are a disproportionate number of African-Americans living in poverty we see them overrepresented in the population of children with EBD. Females being underrepresented can probably also be ascribed to societal influences. Males, on average, are subjected to a higher level of violence through their choices in television, movies, video games, toys, sports, etc. Females are also more prone to internalize behavior which impedes referral and diagnosis rates. Teachers tend to underrefer students with internalizing problem behaviors even when the behavior is noticed (Gresham & Kern, 2004). These cannot be the only reason that females are underrepresented but it at least contributes to explaining some of the disparity.

Characteristics

Students with EBD have behavioral characteristics that precipitate either through internalization or externalization of problematic behaviors. Examples of externalizing behaviors can include aggression, rule breaking, and noncompliance; however, these behaviors are not necessarily indicative of the presence of EBD. Approximately 95% of students engage in some form of misconduct that could warrant authoritarian involvement (Rosenberg et al., 2011). Internalizing behaviors can include depression, anxiety, and social withdrawal. It should be noted that these behaviors are in no way less severe than externalized behaviors and should be taken seriously; teacher involvement will be discussed later. These characteristics ultimately serve to the detriment of the students social and academic development.

Diagnosis
Diagnostic procedures for identifying at-risk children for EBD usually involve a multitude of data sources (Witmer, Doll & Strain, 1996). Symptoms are discussed and usually determined on a general rating scale that can be quantified and compared to other samples (Serna, Nielsen, Mattern & Forness, 2002). Arguments have been made that his kind of approach, while often useful, can have its shortcomings.
Very few definitive standards exist for school diagnosis of emotional or behavioral disorders in terms of measurements for symptoms versus functional impairment, ratings obtained from parents versus teachers, or various combinations of instruments (Serna et al., 2002, p 415).

A complete overhaul of the identification system does not seem entirely feasible; however, there are some good suggestions made in this reference. Perhaps an elevated degree of

coordination between parents and teachers is in order when rating the student. There has been debate over the validity of checklist data as questions arise about the source of the information and about who completes the checklist and/or rating scales (Serna et at., 2002). By diversifying the people recording the data (i.e. parent and teacher) this can help to eliminate error and require that the data be collected in two separate environments (home and school). The methods of diagnosis discussed have all been examples of statistically derived systems but there are also clinically derived methods available. Clinically derived models come from the work of psychologists who observed patterns of behavior among specific groups of individuals (Rosenberg et al., 2011). The most widely used is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, DSMIV-TR, developed by the American Psychiatric Association (Rosenberg et al., 2011). This is administered by clinical personnel but is available in students records.

Early Intervention Services

Researchers have found that students who exhibit significant problem behaviors in early childhood are far more likely to be rejected by peers, abuse drugs, experience clinical depression, become juvenile delinquents, drop out of school, and be identified as having EBD during adolescence (Campbell, 1994; Forness et al., 1998; Walker, Colvin & Ramsey, 1995). This means that the problematic behaviors associated with EBD can be seen at a young age and early intervention is the key to helping these young students learn the necessary skills to be successful later life. Nelson, Benner, Lane, and Smith (2004) reported that 83% of their studys sample of children (consisting of children with EBD) had a score below the norm group on a standardized reading skill test (Sutherland, Lewis-Palmer, Stichter & Morgan, 2008). They also

found that this achievement pattern was consistent across all academic subject areas. Without early intervention the achievement gap for students with EBD continues to grow as they get older. This leads to an increase in the dropout rate of students with EBD as they continue to struggle to keep up with their peers in the classroom.

Inclusion in the General Education Classroom

Historically, rates of inclusion for students with EBD have been significantly lower than for pupils with learning disabilities, mild mental retardation, and other high-incidence disabilities (Kauffman, Lloyd, Hallahan, & Astuto, 1995; U.S. Department of Education, 19902003). Inclusion has proven to be extremely difficult for students with EBD and has lead to the creation resource rooms and self-contained classroom. These methods have proven to be unsuccessful as they are not only exclusionary but stigmatizing as well (Simpson, 2004). As previously mentioned, students with EBD often lack necessary social skills to interact appropriately with their teachers and peers. If they are cast away into exclusionary rooms to learn exclusively with others that also lack those skills how can we expect them to develop organically? To adhere to IDEAs mandate of the least restrictive environment provision there must be progress made towards at least some form of pseudo-inclusion. Currently, only one-third of students with EBD are educated in general education facilities. Of this one-third that are in general education facilities, 60% of their day is spent outside general education classes (Niesyn, 2009). Some researchers have argued that there is a lack of empirical evidence to support the inclusion of students with EBD (Simpson, 2004). The argument here is that we shouldnt abide by the standard of inclusion simply for inclusions sake; however, while the

scientific evidence of inclusions effectiveness may be lacking, there is also a lack of evidence condemning it. The same argument can be made both ways. This can be debated but the deficits that many students with EBD have can be taught through structured and individualized interaction with teachers and peers in the general education environment. Full inclusion should be the goal; however, realistically, there may always be a need for a self-contained classroom to effectively manage students with EBD. For inclusion to work these strategies must be catered to the individuals needs through the collaborative efforts of general education teachers, special education teachers, parents, administrators, and other professionals involved in the students Individualized Education Plan (IEP).

Teaching Practices
As mentioned with early intervention services and inclusion in the general education class, effective teaching will need to be adapted to each students specific needs. This section will detail some strategies that can benefit many students with EBD but individualized instruction will be paramount (Ormrod, 2008). Teachers should convey an interest in the students well-being. Creating a caring atmosphere, one with an emotional contract, will help with any student, regardless of disability. Students also respond when classroom activities are relevant to their interests. This circles back to getting to know the students individually so the teacher can use the students interests to improve curriculum. Promoting self-regulation and fostering self-determination are also appropriate and proven strategies. Students with EBD need to feel that they have a certain amount of autonomy so that they can flourish. This can be achieved by creating a caring environment, providing some structure and support, and allowing

the student to make reasonable choices within particular situations (Ormrod, 2008). It is also important for teachers to show students with EBD that they can succeed and set reasonable yet challenging goals for success. Teachers promote a self-fulfilling prophecy when their standards for certain students drop and/or they stay distant from the student (Rosenberg, 2011). This can lead the student with EBD to behave in ways that are consistent with the teachers lower expectations rather than attempt to exceed them (Rosenberg, 2011). Approximately 70% of a typical school day for elementary school students is spent doing independent work (Gunter, Countinho, & Cade, 2002). Scaffolding opportunities such as handing out sheet individually or assigning shorter assignments can have a positive impact on student behavior. (Niesyn, 2009). Students with EBD often have difficulty managing behavior during independent work and these practices can have a lasting impact.

References

Conroy, M. A., & Brown, W. H. (2004). Early Identification, Prevention, and Early Intervention with Young Children At Risk for Emotional or Behavioral Disorders: Issues, Trends, and a Call for Action. Behavioral Disorders, 29 (3), 224-236 Niesyn, M. E. (2009). Strategies for Success: Evidence-Based Insturctional Practices for Students With Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 53 (4), 227-234. Ormrod, J. E. (2008) Educational Psychology: Developing Learners. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Rosenberg, M. S., Westling, D. L., & McLeskey, J. (2011). Special Education for Todays Teachers: An Introduction. Boston, MA: Pearson. Sacks, G., & Kern, L. (2007). A Comparison of Quality of Life Variables for Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders and Students Without Disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 17, 24-42 Serna, L., Nielsen, E., Mattern, N., & Forness S. R. (2002). Use of Different Measures to Identify Preschoolers At-Risk for Emotional or Behavioral Disorders: Impact on Gender and Ethnicity. Education and Treatment of Children. 25 (4), 415-437. Simpson, R. L. (2004) Inclusion of Students with Behavior Disorders in General Education Settings: Research and Measurement Issues. Behavioral Disorders, 30 (1), 19-31. Sutherland, K. S., Lewis-Palmer, T., Stichter, J., Morgan, P. L. (2008). Examining the Influence of Teacher Behavior and Classroom Context on the Behavioral and Academic Outcomes for Students With Emotional or Behavioral Disorders. The Journal of Special Education, 30 (4), 223-233.