EBD Blog

SCHOOL VIOLENCE (AND THREATS THEREOF) AND PREVENTION

Our local (Charlottesville) newspaper (Daily Progress; see www.DailyProgress.com) has carried front-page stories recently about issues involving school safety. Yesterday (5/20) the story was about 4th and 5th graders bringing guns to school in a nearby county school system. This morning’s story (5/21) is a continuation of a story about the arrest and trial of two older students (a girl, 15, and a boy, 16):

“One of two Christian school students accused of threatening classmates on an alleged hit list has had a history of bringing knives to school and recently promised “to Columbine” individuals named on a list, according to testimony from an Albemarle County police detective.”

Granted, the students have not been tried and convicted, and opinions about the students are varied. But I wonder what incidents like these say about our society and our willingness to confront the issue of prevention.

According to the newspaper story, the boy had previously brought a knife to school and held it to an other student’s face (for which the paper reports he had gotten “into trouble” (consequences unspecified). He is described by his mother as “a very gregarious and positive kid…. He’s always been a very nice kid. I relize that the way this has been presented it doesn’t seem that way.” He had been homeschooled until this year. A probation officer testified that the boy “is currently on a suspended probation period on two felony burglary charges, three petit larceny charges and one charge of vandalism.” Advocates for the girl requested “that the proceedings be closed to the media because it would involve testimony about the girl’s mental health.” The judge ordered that the hearing remain open; the girl’s attorney declined to present evidence.

Reports like these make me wonder about our attitudes toward punishment and prevention. As a society, we seem to believe that more severe punishment is more effective, but the research data do not support that notion. What is more effective is punishment that is consistent, appropriate for the age of the offender and the seriousness of the offense, and corrective (instructive). The punishment of offenders in our society, including kids who behave inappropriately in school, is often way off the mark. And then there is the matter of early and effective intervention to prevent the kind of incident that makes the news. In most cases, we find a history of troubling behavior (aggressive behavior, aggressive talk, prior offenses) that are ignored, justified by someone, and allowed to escalate to far more serious levels before parents or school personnel or anyone else takes them seriously.

But, of course, early intervention and prevention demands taking risks on the side of false positives. False positives are not desirable, but they’re probably less undesirable than false negatives. It’s the false negatives (no, this kid’s behavior is not a problem, really) that I think should worry us most. Nobody has been able to invent prevention without intervention, and nobody has been able to invent the perfectly accurate method of identification (so that there are no false positives or false negatives).

NY Times reporter Tamar Lewin described the results of a survey by Yale Child Study Center researchers examining the rates of expulsions in preschools. The results are intriguing.

The study, based on a telephone survey of 4,815 state-financed prekindergarten classrooms, found that the preschool expulsion rate was 6.7 per 1,000 children enrolled, compared with 2.1 expulsions per 1,000 students in kindergarten through 12th grade. Given the number of enrollments nationally, it is estimated that more than 5,000 preschool children are expelled each year.

The study did not gather information on why the children were expelled. But Dr. Gilliam said a wide range of behavior could lead to expulsion: aggression toward the teacher or other children; actions that violate a zero-tolerance policy, like taking a toy gun to school; or anything that might cause a teacher to worry about injury and liability, like running out of the classroom to the parking lot.

“We don’t know how the behavioral problems break down, how much is egregious versus zero tolerance,” he said. “We weren’t measuring behavioral problems, we were measuring the decisions teachers make.”

According to Levin, the researchers have many interpretations of their findings, including the need for more psychologists to support preschool teachers. To me, it sounds like a great opportunity for teaching. Someone needs to teach these children how to behave appropriately in school settings. They less likely to learn how to do so if they’re not in the situation.

Cynicism rising here: My guess is that these kids will ultimately be seen as the possesed by personality devils and called all kinds of names.

• Link to the NY Times story.
• Link to Yale’s Child Study Center

Tracy Dell’Angela of the Chicago Tribune described the likely closing of Las Casas, a special occupational program that serves adolescent students with emotional or behavioral problems.

Students land in Las Casas after years in hospitals and private institutions. A handful are autistic. Some have suffered traumatic brain injuries; others are schizophrenic or manic-depressive. They act out in extreme ways–exploding at small slights or fleeing because of perceived threats. More than 80 percent are taking psychiatric medication, school officials say.

Dell’Angela reports some parents’ concerns about losing something that has, after many years of struggle, provided their children success. She contrasts this view with concerns expressed by educators about normalization. In addition, of course, there is the matter of costs. Dell’Angela reports all of these.

According to Dell’Angela’s report, a decision about how to serve these students is slated to be made soon and without parental input. I hope someone remembers that there are almost certainly a lot of IEPs in play here. Denying students services that are stipulated in those IEPs may be actionable.

However it comes out, here’s what I’d like to know: Will the decision about future services for these students be based on any objective data, on opinion, or a combination of them? What would be the objective bases on which such things can be decided?

Link to Dell’Angela’s story.

In Boulder County’s Daily Camera, an editorial [free reg. req.] bemoans a reduction in support for mental health services in that area of Colorado (US). Although no programs expressly aimed at children and youth are described among the various services provided by the non-profit center, it is just this sort of cost cutting that undermines other programs actually providing services to children and youths.

Primarily, the loss is due to a decrease in state funding. Boulder County voters have been generous to our top-notch social services. But the bad news was summed up in a May 2 Daily Camera story: “Colorado has one of the lowest state-tax collection rates in the nation.” The repeated reduction of state income tax rates since 1998 and the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights have brought us to this point.

This matters to clients and their families, who worry what will happen if their programs are eliminated. But beyond simple compassion, taxpayers also should be concerned, because when left untreated, some clients will cost the state even more money.

Those of us concerned with special education for students with EBD should make sure that we support mental health efforts for many of those same children and youth.

The NY Times carried a story about a charter school for students with autism. It was championed by parents who were concerned that they had to take their children to distant locations simply to get ABA-based educational services.

The NY LEA expects great demand for the services.

Principal, Donna Farrell, told [parents] the school would have only one slot available for the coming year. It expects to receive 100 applications.

The city’s Department of Education says 3,788 autistic children are enrolled in the public system, 786 of them educated at private schools, with their fees paid by the city.

DISPROPORTIONAL IDENTIFICATION OF EBD

The Problem of Disproportionate Representation in Special Education for Students with EBD

Some classifications of individuals are disproportionately represented in some categories of special education. That is, in some categories of disabilities created for special education purposes, students may be either over- or under-represented based on their proportion of the school population. For example, although girls represent close to 50% of the general school population, they are disproportionately under-represented in special education for students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD). And although African-American students comprise approximately 17% of the general school population they comprise about 27% of those identified as having EBD, which means they are disproportionately over-represented. Keep in mind that slightly less than 1% of public school students are identified as having EBD.

Disproportional representation is a well-established fact in special education, and it is a serious problem. It is a more serious problem in some schools than in others. But I think it is a problem that is poorly understood and about which few reliable data, other than those demonstrating the fact of disproportionality, inform us. I have encountered myths about the problem, and I do not think the level of rational analysis related to the topic has been consistently high. One of the myths I’ve encountered is that all “children of color” (i.e., those not of white European ancestry) are over-represented in special education. The data resoundingly disconfirm this myth. Another myth is that about 27% of African-American students (mostly males) are identified as having EBD, whereas the truth is that African-Americans constitute approximately 27% of those identified as having EBD (i.e., a closer approximation is that about 0.27% of African-American students are identified as having EBD for special education purposes). African American students are about 1/4 of the students in special education who are identified as having EBD, whereas African American students are less than 1/4 of the school population. True, African-American students comprise about 27% of those receiving special education for EBD, whereas African American students are about 17% of the general student population, meaning that they are seriously disproportionately over-identified (see National Research Council, 2002).

Another mistaken notion about disproportionality in special education for EBD students is that those in some groups are identified in higher proportions than is justified by prevalence data. No group, as far as I know, is identified anywhere near the proportion of students that studies of prevalence suggest. That is, reasonable estimates of the prevalence of serious emotional and behavioral disorders run, conservatively, at about 5% of the total population of children and youth (see Kauffman, 2005 for a review), whereas no group (e.g., African Americans, boys, Latinos, American Indians) is identified anywhere close to that percentage.

Perhaps this bears repeating in a different way: Although the percentage of African American students identified as having EBD for special education purposes is higher (by about a factor of 1.5 to 2.0) than the percentage of European American students so identified, neither African American nor European American students are identified at anywhere close to the percentage of students that prevalence studies suggest have serious emotional or behavioral disorders (see Kauffman, 2005 and U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2001). The disconnect between prevalence research and the facts about disproportionality suggests to me that people are concerned about something other than identifying students for special education in the EBD category when they need it, regardless of their ethnicity or other group identity (Kauffman, 2004). You might also go to the following address for another perspective on the lack of services for students with EBD (www.kansascitykansan.com/articles/2005/04/28/news/opinion/opin1.txt). Overwhelmingly, the data suggest that students of all ethnic groups are under-identified and under-served in the EBD category.

Explanations of Disproportionality

For some cagtegories and for some disorders, we readily accept disproportionality. We readily accept the fact that not every disorder comprising those we know as EBD will be found in the general population in the same proportion. That is, if there are two types of disorders, we do not necessarily expect that each will be identified 50% of the time; if there are 10 different disorders, we do not necessarily expect that each will comprise 10% of the disorders that are identified. We understand that some disorders are more prevalent than others.

Neither do we expect that all illnesses or problems will be identified in the same proportion in all groups (that is, we recognize that they may vary with groups differing in age, gender, SES, ethnicity, or national origin). Breast cancer is found disproportionately (though not exclusively) in women. Tay Sachs and sickle cell anemia are found in some ethnic groups more often than in others. Alzheimer’s disease and vehicular deaths are both correlated with age (i.e., occur disproportionately in some age groups).

We understand that some people are at higher risk for many things than are others because of the causal factors to which they are exposed, which include genetics, a host of environmental conditions, and the individual’s own behavior. For example, we don’t consider it a mystery that people who smoke are at higher risk for lung cancer than are nonsmokers. We don’t question the link between obesity and a variety of health problems, including high blood pressure. We understand that alcoholism and obesity, as well as a variety of other problems, run in families, probably for both genetic and environmental reasons.

Most of us have no difficulty understanding why “Increasingly, dental disease is a problem of economically disadvantaged children. The amount of tooth decay, the association [American Dental Association] notes, ‘is inversely related to income level’” (Levine & Wilgoren, 2005, p. B10). Most of us accept the explanation that poor kids tend to have less and poorer dental care and dental hygiene than do kids whose families have sufficient money to buy dental care, dental insurance, healthful foods, and dental hygiene products. Consider a report of bringing poor children to Howard University to address their needs for dental care:

Last year, nearly 100 children treated during Give Kids a Smile [an American Dental Association program, with the event reported being headed at Howard University by dentist Sally Cram] needed additional work after the day was over. Cram sent referral forms home with them and followed up repeatedly.
Only five parents called to ask about making an appointment with one of the dentists willing to donate additional services.
Only one parent actually made an appointment for her child.
She never kept it. (Levine & Wilgoren, 2005, p. B10)

Although we may consider it unfortunate that some children (in this case, poorer children) have more dental problems than others, we do not consider the problems to be manufactured by the service providers. Nor do we consider it unfair that someone is providing dental care for poor children; in fact we consider it unfair that poor children do not get the dental care they need, even if they need more such care than other children. We don’t want children to have dental caries or gum diseases, but don’t want these problems to be ignored or glossed over or explained away by some sort of philosophical speculation about disproportionality. We seem to agree that dentists generally do more good than harm and that children who have serious dental problems but do not go to a dentist regularly are at a serious disadvantage, even though the children who most need dental care may be disproportionately poor or disproportionately of African descent. Our concern is not about a child’s skin color or ancestry but about his or her need for the services of a dentist.

In special education, however, we have no firm data-based explanations for disproportional identification, especially for the EBD category. We have to piece together the few data we have with a rational analysis of the problem. This means, of course, that any given “take” or position on the issue could be proven wrong by well-designed studies and replications. These facts should not keep us from using whatever cognitive powers we have to try to figure out the conditions under which disproportional representation is seen as a problem and how we might establish, through careful research, why it exists.

Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Objecting to Disproportionality

Disproportional over-representation is not objected to in cases in which the identification or inclusion in the program is assumed to be beneficial (as I just mentioned in the case of dental caries). If an activity or program is deemed beneficial (e.g., being identified as gifted or talented, achieving membership on a prestigious athletic team, being chosen for a coveted award, serving in a high-visibility role in government, receiving medical care for a disease), then it is under-representation (not over-representation) that is said to be disadvantageous. In short, I can think of no instance in which disproportionate over-representation is protested by the over-represented group if identification for and inclusion is thought to be beneficial or advantageous. Nor can I think of any instance in which disproportionate under-representation is protested by the under-represented group if identification for and inclusion is thought to be harmful or disadvantageous.

I am led to the conclusion that a necessary and sufficient condition for objection to disproportional over-representation in any program by an over-represented group is the assumption that, on balance, identification for and inclusion in the activity or program is disadvantageous. To me, it seems extremely likely that those objecting to the disproportional over-representation of African American students in the EBD category of special education raise objections based on the assumption that special education, on balance, does more harm than good–that identification for and participation in special education is disadvantageous for the students involved.

One more point needs clarification: If an individual is thought to be falsely identified for a service (e.g., if a child’s tooth is drilled unnecessarily by a dentist, an individual is treated medically for a nonexistent disease or disorder, a student is falsely identified as gifted or talented), then nearly everyone agrees that identification or inclusion in the program or treatment is disadvantageous. This is the problem of false positives–false identification. In special education for students with EBD, this is the problem of identifying for special education students who do not actually have EBD. False identification is a necessary and sufficient condition for objections to disproportional over-representation if and only if false positives occur (or are assumed to occur) in numbers sufficient to cause the disproportion.

Responses to Disproportionality

We may respond to knowledge of disproportionality in a variety of ways. Two possible responses attack disproportionality itself, seeking to arrive at proportionality simply by requiring idenfication of more or fewer of the disproportionately represented group.

First, we could place limits on the number of individuals in the disproportionately over-represented group(s), such that fewer individuals in the over-represented group(s) are identified. It is also possible to increase the identification of the disproportionately under-represented group(s), such that more individuals in the under-represented groups(s) are identified. Depending on one’s view of the consequences of being identified, the outcome may be either greater or less social justice. My personal view, based on the existing research on prevalence of EBD, is that the disproportional identification of African American students could be addressed very productively by identifying many more European American students than we now do. I suggest that this would be a good idea for two reasons: First, we have good reason to believe that many more European American students could and should be identified as having EBD; second, on balance, I think identifying students for special education does more good than harm. If I didn’t think so, I’d want to get out of the field of special education asap (I’d rather not work at something that, on balance or typically, does more harm than good, and I’d recommend against funding or promoting such a line of work). Of course, failing to identify more African American students as having EBD does nothing to address under-service to these children, and I don’t think that can actually be justified. All I’m saying is that identifying more European American students is one way, and not a bad way, to address the problem of disproportional over-identification of African American students.

Second, we could claim that whatever tests or other assessments are used to identify problems are biased against the disproportionately represented group (in the case of either over- or under-representation). Coupled with this response is the argument that individuals are misidentified (i.e., that the identification procedure produces many cases that are false positives in the over-represented group). We could also claim that the treatment offered after identification is ineffective, such that identification serves no useful purpose, resulting only in spoiled identity (only in the case of over-representation).

We might examine as objectively as possible all of the possible causes of disproportional representation. Although bias is possible in any case, it is also possible that there are other causes of disproportionate over- or under-representation. In the case of something like dental caries or HIV infection, we are likely to find causal links between such factors as poverty and the condition.

For example, the National Public Radio’s news program All Things Considered for February 7, 2005, carried a segment regarding the over-representation (compared to U.S. citizens of other ethnic groups, particularly those of European descent) of African Americans, especially female African Americans, among those who have HIV/AIDS. As the reporter noted on the program, HIV/AIDS is a stigmatizing disease, so many individuals are reluctant to admit having it or identify others as having it. Because of the stigma involved, and because of the belief that HIV/AIDS and its treatment is a plot of White Americans to further abuse or decimate Black U.S. citizens, attempts at treatment and prevention are complicated and too often rendered ineffective.

Given that the NPR story is correct about the disproportionate over-representation of Black individuals, especially females, in the HIV/AIDS population, would social justice be improved by attempts to limit the identification of persons of African descent in order to reduce their over-representation? In my opinion, certainly not; in fact, I think such nonidentification would reduce social justice dramatically. In my opinion the only socially just way to respond to the disproportional over-representation of African Americans with HIV/AIDS is to (a) offer the best possible treatment to all of those in need, regardless of the proportion of cases represented by their ethnic group and (b) address the factors that lead to HIV infection.

But, of course, identification for special education for EBD is considerably more subjective, and therefore considerably more subject to bias, than is identification of HIV (I know of no claim that testing for HIV is biased, although there may be such).

Needed Research in Special Education

We need to know more about what heightens risk of EBD. Then we need to know whether different groups of students disproportionately experience those risks. If we find that different groups of students disproportionately experience things that put them at risk for EBD, then we need to focus on how to reduce those risk factors.

We also need to know whether disproportional identification is a matter of bias. We must not assume that in the absence of other explanations bias must be the culprit, as that is to blame people by default or out of ignorance of what causes disproportionality (we did that in the case of parents’ behavior and autism, and the results were ugly caricatures of parents). However, if we do find that disproportional representation in special education is a matter of bias, then we need to find ways of eliminating that bias.

From my perspective, there are at least two possible, unacceptable conditions related to the disproportionality issue: (a) kids being identified for services they do not really need because the people doing the assessments or the instruments they use are biased and (b) kids being denied the services they need because they are in a disproportionately over-represented group (i.e., they are denied services because of their group identity).

JK

References

Levine, S., & Wongoren, D. (2005, February 5). Chipping away at poverty’s ill effect: Event gives hundreds of youths a much-needed visit to the dentist. The Washington Post, B1, B10.

Kauffman, J. M. (2004). The president’s commission and the devaluation of special education. Education and Treatment of Children, 27, 307-324.

Kauffman, J. M. (2005). Characteristics of emotional and behavioral disorders of children and youth (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice-Hall.

National Research Council (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Committee on Minority Representation in Special Education. M. S. Donovan & C. T. Cross (Eds.). Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2001). Report of the Surgeon General’s conference on children’s mental health: A national action agenda. Washington, DC: Author.

Causes of EBD: General Ideas

Besides definition and identification, another difficult question about emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) is this: Why do kids have them? In most instances, an honest answer is, “We don’t really know why this individual has EBD, but we do know some of the factors that increase the probability that an individual will get EBD.”

In my book on the characteristics of children and youth with EBD (Kauffman, 2005), I have separate chapters devoted to what I think we know about physiology, families, schools, and cultures as causal factors. The mark of the ideologue and the uninformed on this topic of causes is the assumption that a single event or factor is the cause in many or most cases. Every indication is that the causes are typically multiple and complex.

Physiology
Malnutrition, physical illness, and a variety of other biochemical processes obviously are related to behavior. Genetic factors are probably the most often obvious physiological contributors to EBD. Even in the disorders known to have a high genetic component (especially schizophrenia and depression), environmental events play an important role in triggering the disorder. However, reviews of research and commentaries based on the research literature (e.g., Gottesman’s 1991 book, Schizophrenia Genesis; Pinker’s 2002 book, The Blank Slate; Weine’s 1999 book, Time, Love, Memory) clearly indicate that nearly all patterns of behavior and internal states are heavily influenced by genetic factors (and what is EBD but a pattern of behavior and internal states?). In short, I find the literature unequivocal in suggesting that genetic factors play an important but nonexclusive role in causing EBD. True, we don’t know exactly how the genetic factors work or which genes are involved. We simply know that for some disorders (schizophrenia being the best example) genetic factors are undeniable, and we have good reason to suspect that genetic factors are involved in most or all other disorders. So, I think we can chalk one up for this statement: Physiology, especially one’s genetic endowment, contributes to the development of EBD.

Families
Family factors in EBD can’t be denied, but the idea that parenting alone causes children to be autistic, schizophrenic, depressed, or to have other disorders is, to the careful scholar, a mistaken notion contrived by psychoanalytic ideologues and those who know little of the literature. True, parents can mismanage their children’s behavior. Perhaps the work of Gerald Patterson of the University of Oregon (see especially his 1982 book, Coercive Family Process) is unrivaled at showing how parents can become involved in contributing to the very behavior they find distressing. But neither Patterson nor his research associates have demonstrated (or believe they have demonstrated) that families alone are responsible for causing their children’s EBD or that families typically are the cause. We know this: Parental mismanagement, neglect, and abuse (both physical and psychological abuse, neglect, or mistreatment) can be contributing causes in EBD.

Schools
Teachers, like parents, can contribute to the very behavior they find distressing. But something that presses my buttons for outrage is the notion that schools or teachers alone make children into EBD students. I surely realize some of the ways in which schools can and do contribute to children’s misbehavior and unhealthful emotional states. And I discuss the specifics in my text, including insensitivity to children as individuals, inappropriate expectations for behavior and performance, inconsistent behavior management, instruction in nonfunctional skills, ineffective instruction in critical skills, destructive contingencies of reinforcement, and models of undesirable conduct. Yes, schools can foster bad behavior, push students over the edge, nudge students (even inadvertently) toward EBD, and, in short, make matters worse instead of better. Sometimes, I suspect, schools and teachers do a lot to contribute to giving children and youth an EBD (and toward giving adults in the know the heebee-jeebies). But assuming that if a teacher has a problem with a student then that teacher is malevolent or incompetent is the same unwarranted mistake as assuming that if a kid has a problem it’s the parent’s fault. Good parents and good teachers can, and often do, have kids with EBD that is not of their making. Here’s what I think we know: Schools and teachers can contribute in a variety of ways to the reasons that kids have EBD.

Cultures
Finally, we know that the broader culture, not just family and school, may affect how a student behaves and feels and may contribute to causing EBD. These broader cultural factors include the peer group, the media, the community, and various parts of the community (e.g., housing, physical characteristics of the home and surroundings, church and religious institutions, opportunities for recreation and employment, government policy, etc.). I think we’re justified in concluding that cultural factors such as dangerous neighborhoods, antisocial peers, violence in the media, poverty and its attendant deprivations, and other disadvantages can contribute to causing EBD.

Conclusion
All of this leads to the conclusion that to the question of causes there are no easy answers. Probably, in every single case of EBD the causes are multiple and complex, not singular or simple. If we find something that we think is contributing to EBD, we should fix it (i.e., correct it) if we can. If we can’t change it, then we should try to work around it to make the kids’ environment, behavior, and internal states better. We can nearly always change at least one contributing cause (e.g., how we interact with the kid); some causal factors we can’t change (genetics, most obviously). It’s important to know the difference between what we can change and what we can’t and to change what we can.

Reference

Kauffman, J. M. (2005). Characteristics of emotional and behavioral disorders of children and youth (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice-Hall.

JK

Thoughts on Defining and Identifying EBD

Among the most difficult questions about emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) is this: How do we know that a child or youth has one? There are, of course, the cases about which virtually no one will argue—cases in which the individual is so well behaved and socially skilled that almost nobody would even raise the question of whether he or she has any such disorder, and those in which the individual’s behavior is so unusual and seemingly inexplicable that almost nobody questions the judgment that he or she has at least one EBD.

However, a significant percentage of cases are not so easy to judge. This is because they’re close to the criterion, whatever it is, and some people will see it one way (i.e., the child has an EBD) and some the other (no, the child does not have an EBD). In many ways, the problem is like that of calling balls and strikes or making any other judgment in which things can be very close (some pitches are clearly strikes to nearly everyone, and some pitches are just inarguably balls, but some are really close and we may agree or disagree with the ump’s call). Sometimes, we have a built-in criterion to help us make a judgment. For example, we may consider a battery dead when it produces insufficient electrical current to operate the device to which it is attached (e.g., a car starter, a flashlight, or a digital device).

For some disabilities, there is a typical or standard type of test or scale yielding a value that we rely upon heavily for definition (e.g., hearing impairment has the audiogram; visual impairment has measures of visual acuity; mental retardation has the intelligence test). For some disabilities, there is a relatively well-established cut score indicating disability. Now, it is important to realize that these measures alone are not sufficient to make the judgment that a student has or does not have the disability in question. Nevertheless, the test or score is an important indicator in definition. EBD has no such typical or standard scale, although various instruments (e.g., behavior rating scales) are often used to help people make judgments. Probably more than is true in other areas of disability, EBD is defined by the judgment of adults who are allowed to make the call—EBD/not EBD.

Three concepts are particularly important in identifying things like EBD. The first is that the definition is necessarily arbitrary. That is, we simply pick a criterion for identification. There is no inherently right or wrong criterion. We simply make the case that the criterion should be X, not X+Y or X-Y. Again, some cases will be clear (many low birth weight/not low birth weight decisions, for example). But others will be difficult because they are “borderline” cases. Controversy arises primarily around the cases that are near whatever criterion we set. Second, if we do not have a criterion or line by which to define something, then we will not have a program to address it (this is as true of EBD as it is of poverty; for example, a recent New Yorker magazine article discussed the case of a woman who was poor but not quite poor enough, by a matter of only a few hundred dollars of income per year, to qualify for financial assistance). Finally, someone has to be the designated umpire or referee—the person with the power to make the call. As a society, we may designate people of any description to make the decision about a particular matter. In the case of EBD, should physicians with training in mental disorders (i.e., psychiatrists) be trusted as the final arbiters? Who should be the judges in criminal cases (e.g., electrical engineers, people chosen at random, auto mechanics, people with training in law, or CEOs)? Sometimes we designate a group rather than an individual as the decision-maker, as is the case with a jury. Somebody has to have the power to make the call or we have a chaotic situation (whether it’s a social service, such as special education, a legal proceeding, or an athletic contest).

Two other realities are important to recognize. First, some people are better judges than are others, every judge (including every group) is less than perfect, and we cannot expect every case to have the best judge(s). Second, every possible solution—any solution having to do with the criteria for judgment and any involving the designation of a person or persons to make the call—has a downside. That is, there is no perfect solution, so we are faced with real dilemmas, which involve choosing the lesser of two evils.

I discuss definitions and identification of EBD further in my text (see citation below). However, I think the common features of all definitions have to do with persistent and significant (if not severe) problems in one or more of the following areas:

• Getting along with others, both age peers and adults
• Behaving in ways that are judged to be socially appropriate
• Achieving academically at a level consistent with ability

Probably, all of the other more specific indicators of EBD can be subsumed under these three fundamental criteria. At what point or by what standards should we judge that a child or youth has an EBD? Well, that is a difficult judgment, but if we do not give anyone the power to make the call, then we will have to just ignore the emotional and behavioral difficulties of children and youth and allow peers and adults to take whatever actions they deem best regardless of their training or motivations. Personally, I would rather not see that kind of lassie-faire attitude toward EBD.

These kids (with EBD) exist, and they need help. They’ll get help only if we’re willing to live with the realities of definition and identification, as much as we may complain that these processes are not perfect. We need to make definition and identification the best we can while getting on with life in the real and imperfect world. Striving for perfection while tolerating imperfection is a good idea. Insisting on perfection is, itself, maladaptive behavior. So is philosophical dithering in which definition and identification are reduced to mere abstract propositions.

Reference

Kauffman, J. M. (2005). Characteristics of emotional and behavioral disorders of children and youth (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice-Hall.

JK