Archived Information

SECTION II

STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS

Modules

1\. Children Ages Birth Through Five Served Under IDEA

2\. Students Ages 6 Through 21 Served Under IDEA

3\. The Racial/Ethnic Composition of Students with Disabilities

4\. Gender as a Factor in Special Education Eligibility, Services, and
Results

5\. Students with Emotional Disturbance

Children Ages Birth Through Five Served Under IDEA

Purpose: To report the number of children served in both the Part C
Program and the Preschool Grants Program and the settings in which these
children receive services.

The infants and toddlers program, Part H of IDEA, was adopted by
Congress in 1986.[^1] The 1997 reauthorization of IDEA moved the
legislation to Part C of the Act. The program is designed to address the
needs of infants and toddlers with disabilities ages birth through 2
through "a statewide, comprehensive, coordinated, multidisciplinary,
interagency system that provides early intervention services for infants
and toddlers with disabilities and their families." (20 U.S.C.
1431(b)(1)) All States ensured full implementation of the Part C program
for infants and toddlers with disabilities by September 30, 1994.

Since FY 1992, all States have been required to make a free appropriate
public education (FAPE) available to all children with disabilities ages
3 through 5, in order to be eligible for an award under the Preschool
Grants Program under Section 619 of IDEA and other IDEA funds targeted
to children ages 3-5 with disabilities. Five States (Iowa, Maryland,
Michigan, Minnesota, and Nebraska) and six jurisdictions (American
Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Federated States of
Micronesia, Guam, Palau, and Puerto Rico) provide FAPE from birth, and
Virginia does so at age 2 (deFosset & Carlin, 1997). All other States
provide FAPE beginning at age 3.

The Number of Children Served Under IDEA, Part C

Over the past 5 years, the number of infants and toddlers served under
Part C has steadily increased from 145,179 on December 1, 1992, to
187,348 on December 1, 1996 (see figure II-1 and table AA14, on page
A-44). This small but consistent annual increase resulted in an overall
increase of 29 percent over the 5-year period, as States improved their
ability to count children served while eliminating duplicate counts.
During this same time period, the population estimates decreased from
11,911,554 to 11,382,432, reflecting a 4 percent decrease.

From December 1, 1995, to December 1, 1996, the total number of infants
and toddlers served in the 50 States and the District of Columbia rose
from 177,286 to 187,348, an overall increase of 6 percent. However, 18
States reported a decline in the numbers of infants and toddlers served,
while 33 States reported an increase in their counts.

Among the States that reported a decline in the number of children
served, several attributed the decrease to changes in data collection
methods. Several States have begun using improved data collection
systems that will result in the reporting of unduplicated counts.

Among the States that reported an increase in the number of children
served, several cited program expansion as a primary reason for the
increase. In part, agencies are now providing individualized family
service plans (IFSPs) to children previously served under other State
programs. Other States noted that increases were related to improved
public awareness efforts. These public awareness efforts probably helped
the agencies find more eligible children.

Figure II-1

Number of Infants and Toddlers Served Under IDEA, Part C, 1992 Through
1996

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs, Data Analysis System
(DANS).![](media/image1.wmf){width="3.748611111111111in"
height="3.0993055555555555in"}

The percentage of the population ages birth through 2 served under Part
C rose slightly from 1.54 percent in 1995 to 1.65 percent in 1996 (see
tables AA14, p. A-44, and AF2, p. A-222). During this same period, the
total population of children in that age group decreased 1.6 percent,
from 11,570,316 to 11,382,432. In 1996, the majority of States (33)
served 1 to 2 percent of their birth to 2 population under IDEA; 6
States served less than 1 percent; 9 States served 2 to 3 percent; and 3
States served more than 3 percent (see table AH1, p. A-228). Looking at
the 5-year trend, the percentage of the population served under Part C
increased from 1.21 percent in 1992 to 1.65 percent in 1996 (see tables
AA14, p. A-44, and AF2, p. A-222).

Early Intervention Environments for Infants and Toddlers with
Disabilities

OSEP currently uses eight different settings to collect data on where
infants and toddlers with disabilities receive services. These settings
are early intervention classroom, family child care, home, hospital
(inpatient), outpatient service facility, regular nursery school/child
care, residential facility, and other. However, not every State reports
or uses each category. States' use of the reporting categories for where
infants and toddlers were served varies, as shown in table AH4 in
Appendix A. OSEP collects data only on the primary setting (that is, the
setting where the majority of services are provided to a child); many
infants and toddlers receive services in multiple settings. Some States
report zero (0) for a number of services, indicating that the category
is valid in the State, but that no infants and toddlers were served
there. States also use a period (.) to report missing data, indicating
that the State does not use that placement category. During 1995-96,
home was the category with the most valid responses. Only three Outlying
Areas did not use this setting to provide services. Residential
facilities were not a recognized setting for infants and toddlers in 12
States; an additional 16 States reported no services provided in this
setting.

Figure II-2

Number of Infants and Toddlers Served in Different Settings, 1992-93 and
1995-96

![](media/image2.wmf){width="4.155555555555556in"
height="2.8444444444444446in"}

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS).

States' use of these categories also reflects the unique service
delivery pattern for Part C. For example, Massachusetts served all
children in the home setting, while Puerto Rico reported serving all
children in outpatient service facilities. California reported an equal
number of children in two settings, early intervention classroom and
home.

Consistent with the findings above, it is not surprising that the
largest number of infants and toddlers were served in the home (90,275
or 53 percent), followed by early intervention classroom (47,896 or 28
percent), and outpatient service facility (17,655 or 10 percent). The
remaining settings totaled 13,940 or approximately 8 percent of the
total population served. Comparing the placement data from 1992 to 1995,
home has been the most frequently used setting. In 1992, home was
followed by the outpatient service facility setting and then early
intervention classroom setting. However, the percentage of children
served at home has increased by 120 percent from 1992 to 1995, and the
percentage served in early intervention classrooms rose 31 percent
during the same period. The percentage of children served in outpatient
service facilities has decreased by 52 percent (see figure II-2).

Figure II-3

Number of Children Ages 3-5 Served Under the Preschool Grants Program,
1992-93 - 1996-97

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs, Data Analysis System
(DANS).![](media/image3.wmf){width="3.748611111111111in"
height="3.0993055555555555in"}

The Number of Children Served Under the Preschool Grants Program

The Preschool Grants Program, authorized under Section 619 of IDEA, Part
B, was established to provide grants to States to serve preschool
children with disabilities.

Over the past 5 years, the number of children served under the IDEA
Preschool Grants Program increased from 455,449 during the 1992-93
school year to 559,902 during the 1996-97 school year. The steady
increase that occurred during this 5-year period resulted in a total
increase of 23 percent. During the 1996-97 school year, there was a
modest increase of 2 percent over the 548,441 children served the
previous year (see figure II-3).

Based on the estimated resident population of children ages 3 through 5
in the 50 States and the District of Columbia, 4.6 percent of the
children in this age group were served under the IDEA Preschool Grants
Program. The District of Columbia served the lowest percentage of its
resident population (1.5 percent), and Hawaii the second lowest (2.5
percent). Kentucky served the highest percentage (9.5 percent). The
remaining States served between 3.2 percent and 7.9 percent (see table
AA10, p. A-33).

Educational Environments for Preschoolers with Disabilities

Six different categories and two subcategories (private and public) are
used to collect data on preschoolers with disabilities who are served
under IDEA. They are regular class, resource room, separate class,
separate school (public and private), residential facility (public and
private), and homebound/hospital. These categories were developed with
school-aged children in mind and, consequently, may not reflect
educational environments for preschoolers. Therefore, OSEP provides
optional instructions to States for reporting counts of preschoolers in
each of the categories. Table II-1 includes a definition of each
category as it applies to preschoolers with disabilities.

Table II-1

Educational Environments for Preschoolers with Disabilities

Regular class includes children who receive services in programs
designed primarily for nondisabled children, provided the children with
disabilities are in a separate room for less than 21 percent of the time
receiving services. This may include, but is not limited to, Head Start
centers, public or private preschool and child care facilities,
preschool classes offered to an age-eligible population by the public
school system, kindergarten classes, and classes using co-teaching
models (special education and general education staff coordinating
activities in a general education setting).

Resource room includes children who receive services in programs
designed primarily for nondisabled children, provided the children with
disabilities are in a separate program for 21 to 60 percent of the time
receiving services. This includes, but is not limited to, Head Start
centers, public or private preschools or child care facilities,
preschool classes offered to an age-eligible population by the public
school system, and kindergarten classes.

Separate class includes children who receive services in a separate
program for 61 to 100 percent of the time receiving services. It does
not include children who received education programs in public or
private separate day or residential facilities.

Separate school (public and private) includes children who are served in
publicly or privately operated programs, set up primarily to serve
children with disabilities, that are NOT housed in a facility with
programs for children without disabilities. Children must receive
special education and related services in the public separate day school
for greater than 50 percent of the time.

Residential facility (public and private) includes children who are
served in publicly or privately operated programs in which children
receive care for 24 hours a day. This could include placement in public
nursing care facilities or public or private residential schools.

Homebound/hospital includes children who are served in either a home or
hospital setting, including those receiving special education or related
services in the home and provided by a professional or paraprofessional
who visits the home on a regular basis (e.g., a child development worker
or speech services provided in the child's home). It also includes
children 3-5 years old receiving special education and related services
in a hospital setting on an inpatient or outpatient basis. However,
children receiving services in a group program that is housed at a
hospital should be reported in the separate school category. For
children served in both a home/hospital setting and in a
school/community setting, report the child in the placement that
comprises the larger percentage of time receiving services.

Source: OSEP Data Dictionary, 1997, Office of Special Education
Programs, U.S. Department of Education.

During the 1995-96 school year, 51.6 percent of children with
disabilities ages 3-5 were served in regular classes, approximately a 1
percent increase over the percentage served in regular classes during
the previous year. Comparing the data from the 1992-93 school year to
the 1995-96 school year, the percentage of children served in regular
class, separate class, and home/hospital environments increased, while
the percentage of children served in the remaining settings decreased
(see figure II-4).

Figure II-4

Number of Children Ages 3-5 Served in Different Educational
Environments, 1992-93 and 1995-96

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS).

Summary

In both Part C and the Preschool Grants Program, the number of children
served increased steadily over the past 5 years. Also, over this same
period, there was an increase in the use of the home setting and in the
use of early intervention classrooms for infants and toddlers. In the
Preschool Grants Program, more preschoolers are being served in regular
class settings than in any other setting. The number of children being
served in the resource room category has declined.

![](media/image4.wmf){width="6.397222222222222in"
height="5.133333333333334in"}

References

deFosset, S., & Carlin, M. (1997). Section 619 profile, eighth edition.
Chapel Hill, NC: National Early Childhood Technical Assistance System.

Students Ages 6 Through 21 Served Under IDEA

Purpose: To describe students served under IDEA during the 1996-97
school year and compare data on the number of students served over the
past 10 years.

Children with disabilities ages 6 through 21 have been receiving
services through Part B of IDEA for more than 20 years. This module
discusses the changes in the total number of children served, the age
distribution of students served, the disability distribution of students
served, and the disabilities distribution across age groups. The
information is based on State-reported data required under Section
618(b) of IDEA. Through this requirement, States report data annually to
OSEP on the number of children served under Part B of the law.

Changes in Numbers of Students Served

Over the past few years, the number of school-age students (i.e., ages 6
through 21 years old) with disabilities served has increased at a higher
rate than the general school enrollment. During the 1996-97 school year,
5,235,952 students ages 6 through 21 with disabilities were served under
IDEA, a 3.1 percent increase over the previous year. The prekindergarten
through 12th grade total school-age enrollment figures[^2] showed an
increase of 1.2 percent between 1995-96 and 1996-97 (see table AF6, p.
A-226). The resident population showed an increase of 1.7 percent. The
increase in the number of school-age children served under IDEA over the
previous year was slightly more than the increase in the number of
preschool students ages 3 through 5 served (2.1 percent) and slightly
less than the increase in the number of infants and toddlers served (5.7
percent) (see table AA14, pp. A-43 to A-45).

Age Distribution of Students Served

The number of school-age students served under IDEA has consistently
increased since the inception of P.L. 94-142 in 1975. Dividing students
served into three age groups, the number of students with disabilities
ages 6-11 served increased 25.3 percent, the number of students with
disabilities ages 12-17 increased 30.7 percent, and the number of
students with disabilities ages 18-21 increased 14.7 percent over the
past 10 years.

The relative percentages in each of these age groups has remained stable
over the past 10 years. Figure II-5 shows the age composition of
students with disabilities in 1996-97. These percentages differ slightly
from the average over the 10 years, which was 51.8 percent for children
ages 6-11, 43 percent for those ages 12-17, and 5.2 percent of students
ages 18-21 served under IDEA (see table AA14, pp. A-43 to A-45).

Disabilities Distribution of Students Served

Under IDEA, there are 12 disability categories\--specific learning
disabilities, speech or language impairments, mental retardation,
emotional disturbance, multiple disabilities, hearing impairments,
orthopedic impairments, other health impairments, visual impairments,
autism, deaf-blindness, and traumatic brain injury\--by which to report
students served. However, more than 90 percent of the school-age
students served under IDEA in 1996-97 were classified in one of four
disability categories:

Figure II-5

Percentage of Students with Disabilities Served Under IDEA, Part B by
Age Group in 1996-97

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs, Data Analysis System
(DANS).![](media/image5.wmf){width="5.093055555555556in"
height="4.509027777777778in"}

learning disabilities (51.1 percent or 2,676,299 children);

speech or language impairments (20.1 percent or 1,050,975 children);

mental retardation (11.4 percent or 594,025 children); and

emotional disturbance (8.6 percent or 447,426 children).

Figure II-6 shows the change in the number of students served under IDEA
for each of these four disabilities from 1987-88 to 1996-97. The rate of
increase for students with learning disabilities was greater than for
students with other high-incidence disabilities. The number of students
with learning disabilities has increased by 37.8 percent over the past
10 years, as compared with an increase of 10.2 percent for students with
speech or language impairments and 20.1 percent for students with
emotional disturbance. The number of students with mental retardation
decreased by 0.8 percent between 1987-88 and 1996-97. (See also table
AA14, p. AA-43 to AA-45.)

Figure II-6

Number of Children Ages 6-21 Served Under IDEA, Part B From 1987-88 to
1996-97: High-Incidence Disabilities

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs, Data Analysis System
(DANS).![](media/image6.wmf){width="6.4in" height="4.644444444444445in"}

Figure II-7 shows the number of children served for six of the
low-incidence disability categories. Between 1987-88 and 1992-93, the
average annual increase for students with other health impairments was
7.5 percent. Between 1992-93 and 1996-97, the average rate more than
tripled to 25.0 percent (see table AA14, p. A-45). This is in contrast
to the more gradual increases in numbers of students served under IDEA
in other disability categories. Table II-2 shows the number of students
ages 6-21 served under IDEA in all 12 disability categories in 1987-88
and 1996-97 (see table AA14, p. A-45).

States' most common explanation for the increase in the number of
children served under the other health impairments category was
increased identification of and service to children with attention
deficit disorder (ADD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD). Other large increases occurred in the newest disability
categories of autism and traumatic brain injury.[^3] However, the
disability categories of autism and traumatic brain injury accounted for
less than 1 percent of the students served in 1996-97. Explanations for
increases in these categories generally include improvements in
reporting and reassignment to the new disability categories during the
reevaluation process. An increase in the category of other health
impairments, however, has occurred simultaneously with the separate
reporting of students with autism and traumatic brain injury, many of
whom may have previously been counted under the other health impairments
category.

Figure II-7

Number of Children Ages 6-21 Served Under IDEA, Part B From 1987-88 to
1996-97: Low-Incidence Disabilities

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs, Data Analysis System
(DANS).![](media/image7.wmf){width="6.4in" height="4.717361111111111in"}

The increase in the number of students with other health impairments
since 1992-93 may in part be a response to a 1991 Department of
Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
(OSERS) memorandum that explained that students with ADD (and
inclusively, ADHD) should be included in the other health impairments
category when ADD is a chronic or acute health problem resulting in
limited alertness that adversely affects educational performance.[^4]
Consequently, the growth in the other health impairments category may be
a combined result of increased identification of students with ADD and
the reporting of children with ADD in the other health impairments
category. Prior to this time, students with ADD may have been reported
in other disability categories.

Table II-2

Number of Children Ages 6-21 Served Under IDEA by Disability: 1987‑88
and 1996‑97

  ----------------- ----------- --------- ----------- --------- ----------- ---------
  Disability        1987-88               1996‑97               Change      

                    Number      Percent   Number      Percent   Number      Percent

  Specific Learning 1,942,304   47.1      2,676,299   51.1      733,995     37.8
  Disabilities                                                              

  Speech or         953,568     23.1      1,050,975   20.1      97,407      10.2
  Language                                                                  
  Impairments                                                               

  Mental            598,770     14.5      594,025     11.4      -4,745      ‑0.8
  Retardation                                                               

  Emotional         372,380     9.0       447,426     8.6       75,046      20.2
  Disturbance                                                               

  Multiple          79,023      1.9       99,638      1.9       20,615      26.1
  Disabilities                                                              

  Hearing           56,872      1.4       68,766      1.3       11,894      20.9
  Impairments                                                               

  Orthopedic        46,966      1.1       66,400      1.3       19,434      41.4
  Impairments                                                               

  Other Health      46,056      1.1       160,824     3.1       114,768     249.2
  Impairments                                                               

  Visual            22,821      0.6       25,834      0.5       3,013       13.2
  Impairments                                                               

  Autism            .^a^        .         34,101      0.7       34,101      .

  Deaf‑Blindness    1,454       \<0.1     1,286       \<0.1     \(168\)     ‑11.6

  Traumatic Brain   .           .         10,378      0.2       10,378      .
  Injury                                                                    

  All Disabilities  4,120,214   100.0     5,235,952   100.0     1,115,738   27.1
  ----------------- ----------- --------- ----------- --------- ----------- ---------

[a]{.underline}/ Reporting on autism and traumatic brain injury was
required under IDEA beginning in 1992-93.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS).

The distribution of students by disability varies across age groups.
Specific learning disabilities is the largest single category for each
of the three age groups, accounting for 41.2 percent of students ages
6-11, 62.3 percent of students ages 12-17, and 51.7 percent of students
ages 18-21. The percentage of students with speech or language
impairments decreases dramatically among older children; 35.1 percent of
the students ages 6-11 were identified as having speech or language
impairments, while only 5.0 percent of students in the 12-17 age group
and 1.8 percent of the students in the 18-21 age group with this
disability were served. Conversely, the incidence of mental retardation
is more prevalent among older children. This may be in part because
students with mental retardation tend to stay in school longer than
students with other disabilities. Nearly one-fourth (24.4 percent) of
the students ages 18-21 were classified as having mental retardation.
This percentage drops to 12.6 percent for students ages 12-17, and drops
again to 9.0 percent for students 6-11. Emotional disturbance is most
common among teenagers; 5.7 percent of students ages 6-11 were
identified with emotional disturbance compared with 11.7 percent of the
12-17 age group and 9.7 percent of the 18-21 age group.

Summary

Services to students with disabilities have continued to grow. Among the
reasons for this growth are increases in the population and improvements
in the identification of students with special needs. The year-to-year
increase in the number of school-age children receiving services has
been gradual, and increases have occurred at various rates across the
disability categories. The largest percentage increases occurred in
other health impairments, orthopedic impairments, and specific learning
disabilities. There was a reported decline in two disability categories,
mental retardation and deaf-blindness.

The Racial/Ethnic Composition of Students with Disabilities

Purpose: To present data on the number of minority students with
disabilities receiving services and the disabilities of these students.

In the recent reauthorization of IDEA (P.L. 105-17), Congress expressed
concern about the disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic
minorities in special education and poor educational results for
minority students. Congress encouraged the Federal Government to be
responsive to the growing needs of an increasingly diverse society, to
ensure a more equitable allocation of resources, and to provide an equal
educational opportunity for all individuals. In reauthorizing IDEA,
Congress found that between 1980 and 1990, the rate of increase in the
number of White Americans was 6 percent, while the rates of increase for
racial and ethnic minorities were much higher: 53 percent for Hispanics,
13.2 percent for African Americans, and 107.8 percent for Asians. By the
year 2000, nearly one of every three Americans will be African American,
Hispanic, Asian American, or American Indian. As a group, minority
children are comprising an increasing percentage of public school
students. (§601(c)(7)(B), (C), and (D))

Congress wrote in the IDEA Amendments of 1997 that "greater efforts are
needed to prevent the intensification of problems connected with
mislabeling . . . among minority children with disabilities."
(§601(c)(8)(A)) More African American children are served in special
education than would be expected given the percentage of African
American students in the general school population. IDEA also notes,
"although African Americans represent 16 percent of elementary and
secondary enrollments, they constitute 21 percent of total enrollments
in special education." (§601(c)(8)(D)) "Poor African American children
are 2.3 times more likely to be identified by their teacher as having
mental retardation than their White counterpart." (§601(c)(8)(C)) In
addition to being identified with specific disabilities at different
rates than White, non-Hispanic students, minority students are also more
likely than White students to be served in less inclusive settings
(Singh, Ellis, Oswald, Wechsler, & Curtis, 1997).

Congress also noted in IDEA that minority youth with disabilities are
more likely to drop out of high school: "The drop out rate is 68 percent
higher for minorities than for Whites. More than 50 percent of minority
special education students in large cities drop out of school" (20
U.S.C. 1401(c)(8)(f)). Dropout rates for Hispanic youth with
disabilities are particularly high: 36.9 percent compared to 31.2
percent for Whites and 30.4 percent for African Americans (Valdes,
Williamson, & Wagner, 1990).

In response to these concerns, Congress required States to submit
special education child count, educational environment, exiting, and
discipline data by race and ethnicity starting in the 1998-99 school
year. The race/ethnicity data required under the IDEA Amendments of 1997
will better enable Congress and OSEP to monitor the disproportionate
representation of racial and ethnic minorities in special education and
dropout rates for minority youth.

Under IDEA, local educational agencies are required to use racially and
culturally nondiscriminatory tests and other evaluation materials for
identifying students as eligible for special education. Tests must be
administered in the child's native language or other mode of
communication, unless it is not feasible to do so. Each State is also
required to collect and examine data to determine if race is the basis
of significant disproportionality in the identification of students with
disabilities or the placement of children with disabilities in
particular educational settings. If the State determines that
significant disproportionality exists, it must provide for the review
and, if appropriate, revision of policies, procedures, and practices
used to identify or place students to ensure that they meet the
requirements of IDEA.

Race/Ethnicity in Special Education

The disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic minorities in
special education is a highly complex issue because it is difficult to
isolate the effects of poverty, limited English proficiency, residence
in inner cities, and race/ethnicity on special education
eligibility.[^5]^,^[^6]

For many years, OCR has collected data from a sample of school districts
and schools within these districts on the race/ethnicity of students
with selected disabilities\--mild, moderate, and severe mental
retardation; specific learning disabilities; and emotional disturbance.
This module presents data for students with those disabilities from the
1994 OCR Elementary and Secondary School Compliance Reports on
race/ethnicity.

Discrepancies in disability prevalence and service provision across
racial/ethnic categories are most apparent in the mental retardation
category. A total of 2.6 percent of Black, non-Hispanic students were
identified as having mental retardation. In contrast, 1.2 percent of
White, non-Hispanic students were identified as having mental
retardation. Hispanic students were less likely than White, non-Hispanic
students to receive special education to address mental retardation.

White, non-Hispanic students; Black, non-Hispanic students; and Hispanic
students were equally likely to receive services to address specific
learning disabilities. American Indian students were considerably more
likely to receive such services, and Asian/Pacific Islanders were less
likely to do so (see table II-3).

Overall, 0.8 percent of the student population received services for
emotional disturbance. The rate was slightly higher for Black,
non-Hispanic students than for White, non-Hispanic students and was
considerably lower for Hispanic students and Asian/Pacific Islander
students.

It is often difficult to distinguish between the effects of poverty and
the effects of race on special education eligibility because, in the
United States, poverty and race are correlated. Poor children are more
likely than wealthier children to receive special education (Wagner,
1995). African American children are more likely than White or Asian
children to receive special education under some disability categories.
While both poverty and racial/ethnic background may contribute to
minority representation in special education, data from the National
Longitudinal Transition Study suggest that race/ethnicity was not the
primary contributor to the overrepresentation of African Americans in
special education. Rather, the overrepresentation of African Americans
was driven by the overrepresentation of very poor students in special
education, at least for most disability categories (Wagner, 1995). This
suggests that while some of the disproportion may be addressed through
improvements in unbiased and more discriminate assessment, attention
must also focus on the broader issue of child poverty.

Table II-3

Number and Percentage of Students in Special Education by Race/Ethnicity
and Disability: 1994

+-----------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+
|           | White,  | Black, | Hi     | Am     | Asian/ | Total   |
|           | non-H   | non-Hi | spanic | erican |        |         |
|           | ispanic | spanic |        | Indian | P      |         |
|           |         |        |        |        | acific |         |
|           |         |        |        |        | Is     |         |
|           |         |        |        |        | lander |         |
+-----------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+
| Learning  | 5.7%    | 5.7%   | 5.7%   | 7.3%   | 2.0%   | 5.5%    |
| Dis       |         |        |        |        |        |         |
| abilities | 1,      | 4      | 3      | 32,413 | 31,968 | 2,      |
|           | 587,918 | 07,848 | 08,136 |        |        | 368,283 |
+-----------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+
| Mental    | 1.2%    | 2.6%   | 0.9%   | 1.6%   | 0.5%   | 1.4%    |
| Re        |         |        |        |        |        |         |
| tardation | 350,699 | 1      | 50,091 | 7,152  | 8,197  | 607,024 |
|           |         | 90,885 |        |        |        |         |
+-----------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+
| Emotional | 0.8%    | 1.1%   | 0.5%   | 0.9%   | 0.2%   | 0.8%    |
| Di        |         |        |        |        |        |         |
| sturbance | 214,442 | 80,253 | 25,514 | 4,227  | 2,786  | 327,222 |
+-----------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+
| Total     | 28,     | 7,1    | 5,4    | 4      | 1,5    | 42,     |
| Student   | 039,068 | 93,038 | 25,976 | 45,105 | 88,124 | 691,311 |
| P         |         |        |        |        |        |         |
| opulation |         |        |        |        |        |         |
| by        |         |        |        |        |        |         |
| Race/     |         |        |        |        |        |         |
| Ethnicity |         |        |        |        |        |         |
+-----------+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, 1994
Elementary and Secondary School Compliance Reports.

Summary

The disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic minorities in
special education has been an issue for educators for more than 25
years, yet African American students continue to be overrepresented in
programs for students with mental retardation. Furthermore, relative to
White, non-Hispanic students, Asian students are underrepresented in all
four of the disability categories for which the OCR collects data. It
has been postulated that poverty, rather than race/ethnicity, may
account for some of the overrepresentation of minorities in special
education programs. Therefore, without attention to poverty and its
effects on children, the use of unbiased assessment alone will not
eradicate the disproportionate representation described.

References

Singh, N., Ellis, C.R., Oswald, D.P., Wechsler, H.A., & Curtis, A.J.
(1997). Value and address diversity. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral
Disorders, 5, 24-35.

Valdes, K.A., Williamson, C.L., & Wagner, M.M. (1990). The National
Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students. Menlo Park,
CA: SRI International.

Wagner, M. (1995). The contributions of poverty and ethnic background to
the participation of secondary school students in special education.
Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Gender as a Factor in Special Education Eligibility, Services, and
Results

Purpose: To discuss differences in the characteristics of male and
female students with disabilities, special education services provided
to males and females with disabilities, and postschool results by
gender.

Although males and females comprise equal proportions of the school-aged
population, males account for approximately two-thirds of all students
served in special education (Doren, Bullis, & Benz, 1996; Wagner et al.,
1991). In many cases, it is not clear if females are underidentified for
special education, if males are over-identified, or if real differences
exist in the prevalence of disability between males and females.

Much of the research on disability has stressed commonalities among
individuals with disabilities rather than addressed differences based on
gender (Fine & Asch, 1988). Consequently, little is known about the
different characteristics and experiences of males and females with
disabilities.

Special Education Eligibility

More than two-thirds of all students receiving special education
services are male (Doren et al., 1996; Wagner et al., 1991). Among
secondary-aged students with disabilities, males constitute the largest
proportion of each disability category except deaf-blindness, which is
almost evenly divided between males and females (see table II-4). The
disproportionate representation of males in special education seems
greatest in the learning disability and emotional disturbance
categories, which are often considered the disability categories with
the most broadly defined eligibility criteria (Kratovil & Bailey, 1986).

Tables II-4 and II-5 show the percentage of males and females in
different disability categories. Table II-5 includes elementary and
secondary school students in three disability categories; table II-4
reports data in 11 disability categories for secondary-aged students
only.

Table II-4

Gender of Secondary-Aged Students with Disabilities, by Disability
Category

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Disability                           Percentage Male   Percentage Female
  ------------------------------------ ----------------- -----------------
  Learning Disability                  73.4              26.6

  Emotional Disturbance                76.4              23.6

  Speech Impairment                    59.5              40.5

  Mental Retardation                   58.0              42.0

  Visual Impairment                    55.6              44.4

  Hearing Impairment                   52.0              48.0

  Deafness                             54.5              45.5

  Orthopedic Impairment                54.2              45.8

  Other Health Impairment              56.0              44.0

  Multiple Disabilities                65.4              34.6

  Deaf/Blindness                       49.5              50.5

  All Disabilities                     68.5              31.5
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: Valdes et al. (1990). The National Longitudinal Transition Study
of Special Education Students: Statistical almanac (Vol. 1). Menlo Park,
CA: SRI International.

Not only are females less likely than males to be identified for special
education, but the characteristics of identified females differ from
those of identified males (Richardson et al., as cited in Gottleib,
1987). For example, girls in special education score lower on IQ tests
than boys. The average IQ for secondary-aged females with disabilities
was 74.4; the average for males was 81.6 (Gottleib, 1987; Wagner et al.,
1991). According to parent reports, a greater percentage of
secondary-aged females in special education began having difficulties
indicative of a disability at very young ages, which may also suggest
more severe disabilities (Valdes, Williamson, & Wagner, 1990). Because
learning disabilities and emotional impairments are not typically
associated with below-average intelligence, the over-representation of
males in these categories may skew the mean IQ of males in special
education.

Possible Causes of Disproportionate Representation

Researchers and advocates offer several hypotheses for the fact that
more males than females participate in special education. It is likely
that no single explanation accounts for all of the disproportion but
that combinations of factors result in the distribution previously
described. First, physiological or maturational differences between
males and females may cause higher rates of disability among school-age
males. Second, differences in the behavior of male and female students
may predispose males to the identification of a disability. For example,
female students may adapt better to the predominant school culture and
norms. Teachers may also react differently to male and female students,
which can result in higher rates of referral and classification for male
students. Third, methods used to identify students with learning
disabilities, emotional disturbances, and speech and language
impairments may be biased and, as such, may contribute to the
disproportionate representation of males and females in special
education (Harmon, Stockton, & Contrucci, 1992).

Table II-5

Gender of Elementary and Secondary-Aged Students with Disabilities, by
Disability Category^a^

  ----------------------------------- ----------------- -----------------
                                      Male              Female

  Specific Learning Disability        69.3              30.8

  Mental Retardation                  59.0              41.6

  Emotional Disturbance               79.4              21.0
  ----------------------------------- ----------------- -----------------

[a]{.underline}/Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding or
reporting errors.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, 1994
Elementary and Secondary School Compliance Reports.

Physiological/Maturational Differences. Some researchers cite
physiological or maturational differences between males and females as a
cause for some disproportionate representation. For example, girls are
believed to have fewer birth defects and more rapid maturation than
boys. Females may be less prone to disability because they have two X
chromosomes, and one of the X chromosomes may compensate for a defect in
the other. Because males have one X and one Y chromosome, they may be
more susceptible to disabilities associated with chromosomal
abnormalities, such as hemophilia and fragile-x syndrome, which can
cause mental retardation (Harmon et al., 1992). Some researchers
theorize that differences in the structure of male and female brains may
also contribute to differences in disability prevalence. They speculate
that male brains are more lateralized than female brains, meaning that
one hemisphere is more dominant than the other (Hayden-McPeak, Gaskin, &
Gaughan, 1993). For example, functional magnetic resonance imaging
(FMRI) shows that phonological processing in men engages the left
inferior frontal gyrus in the brain. In women, phonological processing
activates both the left and right inferior frontal gyrus (Shaywitz,
1996). Parts of the corpus callosum, which connects the two hemispheres,
are also more extensive in females. The exact relationships between
these biological differences and disability are unclear (Hayden-McPeak
et al., 1993).

Research on differences between young boys and young girls suggests that
girls mature more rapidly than boys (Harmon et al., 1992). Many
preschool programs stress impulse-control, small-muscle development, and
language skills, but many young girls are competent in these areas
before arriving in preschool. The preschool experience may raise boys'
language achievement scores, thus narrowing the gap between girls and
boys (Larson & Robinson, 1989). However, maturational gaps could lead to
inflated referrals of males for special education evaluation.

To determine if there are differences in vulnerability to learning
failure among young children, Karlen, Hagin, and Beecher (1985)
administered a series of tests to all kindergartners and first graders
in a sample of elementary schools. The study showed very small or
insignificant differences between the percentage of males and females at
risk of school failure in urban, rural, and independent schools.
However, for unknown reasons, the differences were significant in
suburban schools; 31 percent of the boys and 20 percent of the girls
were at risk.

Shaywitz, Shaywitz, Fletcher, and Escobar (1990) found significant
differences in the percentages of boys and girls identified by their
schools as having reading disabilities but found no differences based on
achievement and IQ test scores. They also found that children who were
identified by their schools as having a reading disability but who did
not meet objective criteria for reading disabilities were more likely to
exhibit difficulties in behavior, attention, fine-motor skills, and
language skills. Conversely, children who were not identified as having
a reading disability despite meeting eligibility criteria were likely to
have no perceived problems with behavior. When students with learning
disabilities also have attention deficit disorder (ADD), their learning
disabilities may be more severe and resistant to intervention. Because
ADD is more prevalent in males than in females, males may be more likely
than females to be identified by their schools as having learning
disabilities (Felton & Wood, 1989; Lubs et al., 1991; Lyon, 1996).

School Bias. Males may be referred and found eligible for special
education at higher rates than females because of gender differences
between female teachers and male students or differences between the
dominant school culture and male behavior (Kedar-Volvodas, 1983). Women
outnumber men in the general education teaching force (87 percent to 13
percent), particularly at the elementary level, when most students are
referred for special education (Cook & Boe, 1995). As long ago as 1976,
evidence suggested a bias in teachers' evaluation of students' need for
special education based on the student's gender. In a historic study,
when given identical descriptions of individual children, teachers were
more likely to refer boys for evaluation than girls (Gregory, 1977).
Female teachers may be more likely to identify boys' behavior and
learning styles as indicative of a disability, inflating the referral of
boys for special education evaluation (Gottleib, 1987).

Other researchers speculate that some educators may have higher
expectations for boys than for girls. If boys do not perform to expected
levels, teachers may refer them to special education in greater numbers
than girls, for whom they have lesser expectations (Gottleib, 1987).
However, data suggest that boys are more likely than girls to be
referred for special education based on their behavior and that girls
are typically referred for concerns about academic performance (Clarizio
& Phillips, 1986). This finding may contradict the hypothesis that
disproportion is due to differing academic expectations.

Assessment Bias. The disproportionate representation of males in
programs for students with emotional disturbances may reflect a bias in
the ways emotional disturbance is defined and/or the instruments used to
identify students as eligible under those definitions. Some assessment
tools that schools use to evaluate students do not capture depression,
suicidal ideation, or suicide attempts (Caseau, Luckasson, & Kroth,
1994). Adolescent girls experience a higher rate of depression than boys
(Boggiano & Barrett, 1992; Kazdin, 1990; Peterson, Sarigiani, & Kennedy,
1991), but the eligibility criteria for services under the emotional
impairments category, or teachers' tolerance of the withdrawal or
depression exhibited by young women, may reduce females' referral for
evaluation and eligibility (McIntyre, 1990). Those girls who receive
services for emotional impairments usually exhibit the externalizing
behaviors typically associated with boys (Casau et al., 1994).

Table II-6

Percentage of Secondary-Aged Students with Disabilities Who Received
Different Types of Services, by Gender

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Services                                      Male          Female
  --------------------------------------------- ------------- ------------
  Job Training                                  63.2          56.8

  Speech/Language Therapy                       36.6          43.1

  Personal Counseling/Therapy                   34.6          33.7

  Occupational Therapy/Life Skills Training     28.9          46.8

  Tutor, Reader, Interpreter                    32.9          32.2

  Physical Therapy, Mobility Training           8.5           12.5

  Help with Transportation                      13.0          18.5
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: Valdes et al. (1990). The National Longitudinal Transition Study
of Special Education Students: Statistical almanac (Vol. 1). Menlo Park,
CA: SRI International.

Services for Males and Females with Disabilities

Once students are identified as eligible for special education, the
services they receive do not differ greatly by gender, and teachers
appear to consider an individual student when selecting instructional
techniques (Leinhardt, Seewald, & Zigmond, 1982; Wagner et al., 1991).
No significant differences exist in the amount of funds expended on
special education and related services for males and females (Singer &
Raphael, 1988).

Few significant gender differences were identified in secondary
course-taking for students with disabilities, although higher rates of
home economics and life skills instruction for females and a higher rate
of vocational education for males were noted (Wagner et al., 1991).
Secondary-aged females with disabilities were more likely than males to
receive some support services (see table II-6). The disproportion fell
particularly in occupational therapy/life skills training,
transportation, and speech therapy (Cameto, 1993).

Educational Results for Males and Females with and without Disabilities

One way to evaluate whether education services are effective in meeting
students' needs is to examine student results. These may include
in-school results, such as grades and dropout rates, or postschool
results, such as employment, wages, and postsecondary education.

In-School Results

Overall, girls with and without disabilities had better in-school
results than boys with and without disabilities. They received better
grades, were more likely to graduate from high school, and were less
likely to be suspended or expelled. Boys did as well as girls on many
standardized achievement tests and scored slightly better than girls on
12th grade math achievement.

Test Scores and Grades. Much has been made of perceived differences
between males and females in verbal and quantitative skills. Studies of
achievement test scores indicate no consistent, sizable differences in
verbal ability between boys and girls (Hyde & Linn, 1988). Results on
reading achievement, one aspect of verbal skills, are unclear. The
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and the National
Education Longitudinal Study show girls performing better than boys on
reading tests. The High School and Beyond Survey shows boys performing
better than girls on reading and vocabulary. Differences in results may
reflect the different ages sampled in each survey or differences in the
tests given. All three surveys show very small differences in
achievement between boys and girls (American Association of University
Women \[AAUW\], 1992), except in writing; data from NAEP show girls
performing consistently better than boys on writing tasks (Mullis, Owen,
& Phillips, 1990).

Gender differences in math achievement appear to be small and shrinking
(Friedman, 1989; Mullis, Dossey, Owen, & Phillips, 1991). A recent NAEP
administration showed few differences between boys and girls in math
ability at grades 4 and 8 apart from a slight advantage for boys in
measurement and estimation. By 12th grade, some differences arose, and
boys showed a small advantage in each area except algebra (Mullis et
al., 1991).

In general education, girls typically receive better end-of-year and
end-of-course grades than boys (AAUW, 1992). Again, it is not clear if
girls work harder at mastering classroom material, if they have longer
attention spans that permit them to acquire knowledge and skills more
effectively, or if they are rewarded by teachers for good behavior.
Whatever the reason, this pattern of grade accomplishment holds for
students in special education as well as in general education. Despite
their lower mean IQ scores and the relatively early onset of their
developmental difficulties, on average girls in special education
receive higher end-of-year and end-of-course grades than boys. Grade
point averages for secondary-aged females with disabilities are
significantly better than grade point averages for their male
counterparts (see figure II-8).

Figure II-8

Percentage of Secondary-Aged Students with Disabilities with Different
Grade Point Averages, by Gender

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to
rounding.![](media/image8.wmf){width="5.881944444444445in"
height="3.8368055555555554in"}

Source: Valdes et al., (1990). The National Longitudinal Transition
Study of Special Education Students: Statistical almanac (Vol. 1). Menlo
Park, CA: SRI International.

High School Completion. Females with disabilities are slightly more
likely than males to graduate from high school and are less likely to be
suspended or expelled (see figure II-9). This is also true for females
without disabilities (AAUW, 1992). Although females with disabilities
drop out of school at about the same rate as males, the reasons differ.
Parents report that 23 percent of female dropouts leave school because
of marriage or parenthood, compared with only 1 percent of male dropouts
(Valdes et al., 1990; Wagner, as cited in Wagner et al., 1991). Both
male and female dropouts report disliking school and doing poorly in
school (Valdes et al., 1990).

Figure II-9

School Exit Status of Youth with Disabilities, by Gender

Source: Valdes et al., (1990). The National Longitudinal Transition
Study of Special Education Students: Statistical almanac (Vol. 1). Menlo
Park, CA: SRI
International.![](media/image9.wmf){width="6.427083333333333in"
height="4.1875in"}

Postschool Results

Despite their better academic performance, females with disabilities
have less positive postschool results than their male peers.[^7] They
are less likely to be employed, have lower wages, and are less likely to
enroll in postsecondary education or training.

Employment. Young men with disabilities are more likely than young women
to be employed and to earn more money (Frank, Sitlington, & Carson,
1991; Hasazi, Johnson, Hasazi, Gordon, & Hull, 1989; Kranstover,
Thurlow, & Bruininks, 1989; Sitlington & Frank, 1990; Wagner, 1992).
After being out of high school for 3 to 5 years, 65.9 percent of males
and 48.6 percent of females report having been employed in the past
year. When controlling for other factors, young men with disabilities
earn \$1,814 more per year than young women with disabilities (Wagner,
Blackorby, Cameto, & Newman, 1993). Young men earn higher hourly wages
than young women and, on average, men work more hours (Sitlington,
Frank, & Carson, 1992; Wagner, 1992). The wage gap between men and women
is not restricted to those with disabilities, however. In general, women
make up 45 percent of the work force, but they work primarily in
clerical, service, or professional positions (Fullerton, 1989; Taeuber,
1991). Even when women have the same level of education as men, they
earn less.

Several other factors may contribute to the lower incomes earned by
women with disabilities. First, many young women with disabilities have
children and, consequently, do not work full time. Three to five years
after leaving high school, 41 percent of women with disabilities have
children of their own, compared with 28 percent of same-aged women in
the general population (Wagner, 1992). As described in the next section,
young women with disabilities are less likely than young men to enroll
in vocationally oriented courses in high school, which may also limit
their level of job competitiveness. In addition, young women with
disabilities are less likely than men to pursue additional education,
training, and rehabilitation after high school.

Postsecondary Education, Training, and Rehabilitation. Fewer women than
men with disabilities participate in postsecondary education and
training in the years shortly after high school. A larger percentage of
women take postsecondary courses at 4-year colleges while a larger
percentage of men enroll in job training programs and 2-year colleges
(Valdes et al., 1990). This is also true for youth without disabilities;
54 percent of all beginning postsecondary students are female (U.S.
Department of Education, 1996). Women with disabilities are also less
involved with vocational rehabilitation services than men; this may
contribute further to women's economic disadvantage (Gragg, 1997; Menz
et al., 1989). Studies have found that the rehabilitation system is more
helpful for men who are under 45 years of age, White, better educated,
middle class, articulate, aggressive, and motivated (Kirchner, 1987;
Stone, as cited in Fine & Asch, 1988). Women who receive vocational
rehabilitation services are more likely than men to have their cases
closed while not earning wages (Vash, as cited in Fine & Asch, 1988),
and women are more likely than men with similar skills and aptitudes to
be directed toward traditionally female occupations (Packer, as cited in
Fine & Asch, 1988), which often pay low wages.

Independent Community Living. Living independently, marrying, and having
children are other aspects of the transition from adolescence to
adulthood. Three to five years after leaving high school, almost
one-third of young women with disabilities are married, compared with 15
percent of young men. Due to their marital status, young women with
disabilities are more likely than young men to live apart from their
parents. However, their lower rates of employment and greater social
isolation limit their overall independence (Wagner, 1992).

Compliance with community norms and laws is another measure of
adjustment. Three to five years after leaving secondary school, 15.8
percent of males and 4.2 percent of females with disabilities have been
arrested (Valdes et al., 1990). While in school, males with disabilities
are 2.4 times more likely than females to be arrested, controlling for
other variables (Doren et al., 1996).

Summary

It is not clear why males are disproportionately represented in special
education, although it appears that the disproportion is greatest among
those with learning disabilities and emotional disturbance. Maturational
gaps between boys and girls may inflate referrals of boys for special
education evaluation. It is also possible that although learning
disabilities are equally prevalent among males and females, ADD, which
can exacerbate the effects of a learning disability, is more prevalent
in males than in females. As a result, males with learning disabilities
may be more likely than females to be identified by their schools
(Felton & Wood, 1989; Lubs et al., 1991; Lyon, 1996). Criteria for
eligibility under the emotional disturbance category may also contribute
to the overrepresentation of males in special education (Caseau et al.,
1994). Consequently, in addition to enrolling fewer females in special
education, those females identified with disabilities have a different
disability distribution from males in special education.

Girls in special education receive more support services than boys, with
the exception of job training. Girls with and without disabilities have
better grades in secondary school than boys and are more likely to
enroll in 4-year colleges. Boys with disabilities are more likely than
girls to enroll in occupationally oriented vocational education in high
school and in postsecondary vocational training or 2-year college
courses. In the years after high school, young men with and without
disabilities are more likely to be employed than young women, work more
hours, and earn higher wages. A larger percentage of young women than
young men with disabilities live independently, primarily because many
women marry shortly after leaving school. Three to five years after
leaving high school, almost one-third of young women with disabilities
are married, and 41 percent have children. This likely contributes to
their reduced employment and wages.

Issues Remaining

Many questions remain about the relationship between gender and
disability. Why do female special education students receive better
grades than male students, despite having more severe disabilities? To
what extent, if at all, are young women with disabilities discouraged
from enrolling in training and rehabilitation programs that would
prepare them for higher paying jobs? Are males and females treated
differently in rehabilitation programs, and, if so, what is the basis
for that differential treatment? To what extent do physiological
differences between males and females relate to the disproportionate
representation of males in special education?

Disaggregated Data on Males and Females with Disabilities

Some steps are being taken to address these issues. Researchers in
special education are beginning to recognize the need for analyses that
are disaggregated by gender. General and special education research
shows that males and females may experience school differently and, as a
result, may react differently to interventions or instructional
strategies (AAUW, 1992). Consequently, data regarding the issues of
gender and disability are gradually becoming available.

Sensitivity to Gender Issues in Education

Many educators are now aware of research showing differences in
teacher-student interaction based on gender. Males are more often called
on in class and are asked more probing questions by their teachers
(Sadker & Sadker, 1994). Increased sensitivity to gender issues in
schools will likely affect special education as well as general
education. For example, teacher bias in overreferring male students for
special education evaluation may be targeted as one aspect of a school's
gender-related self-study. Likewise, schools may examine gender biases
in counseling; enrolling more female students in vocational education
classes may improve their employment and wages.

Issues related to gender in special education are closely tied to
understanding gender issues in general education and contemporary
culture. Understanding the differences between the behaviors of males
and females and culturally defined gender roles is challenging.
Awareness of the issues surrounding gender and special education is the
first step in making necessary changes in educational practice.

References

American Association of University Women. (1992). How schools
shortchange girls. Washington, DC: Author.

Boggiano, A.K., & Barrett, M. (1992). Gender differences in depression
in children as a function of motivational orientation. Sex Roles, 26,
11-17.

Cameto, R. (1993). Support services provided by secondary schools. In M.
Wagner (Ed.), The secondary school programs of students with
disabilities (pp. 6:1-6:42). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Caseau, D.L., Luckasson, R., & Kroth, R.L. (1994). Special education
services for girls with serious emotional disturbance: A case of gender
bias? Behavioral Disorders, 20(1), 51-60.

Clarizio, H.E., & Phillips, S.E. (1986). Sex bias in diagnosis of
learning disabled students. Psychology in Schools, 23, 44-53.

Cook, L.H., & Boe, E.E. (1995). Who is teaching students with
disabilities? Teaching Exceptional Children, 28, 70-72.

Doren, B., Bullis, M., & Benz, M.R. (1996). Predicting the arrest status
of adolescents with disabilities in transition. Journal of Special
Education, 29(4), 363-380.

Felton, R.H., & Wood, F.B. (1989). Cognitive deficits in reading
disability and attention deficit disorder. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 22, 3-13.

Fine, M., & Asch, A. (Eds.). (1988). Women with disabilities: Essays in
psychology, culture, and politics. Philadelphia: Temple University
Press.

Frank, A.R., Sitlington, P.L., & Carson, R. (1991). Transition of
adolescents with behavioral disorders\--Is it successful? Behavioral
Disorders, 13, 180-191.

Friedman, L. (1989). Mathematics and the gender gap: A meta-analysis of
recent studies on sex differences in mathematical tasks. Review of
Educational Research, 59, 185-213.

Fullerton, H. (1989). New labor force projections spanning 1988 to 2000.
Monthly Labor Review, 112, 2.

Gottleib, B.W. (1987). Gender differences in cognitive profiles among
urban children placed in special education. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 387 972)

Gragg, F. (1997). A review of the effects of the Rehabilitation Act
Amendments of 1992. Rockville, MD: Westat.

Gregory, M.K. (1977). Sex bias in school referrals. Journal of School
Psychology, 15(1), 5-8.

Harmon, J.A., Stockton, T.S., & Contrucci, V.J. (1992). Gender
disparities in special education. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of
Education.

Hasazi, S.B., Johnson, R.E., Hasazi, J.E., Gordon, L.R., & Hull, M.
(1989). Employment of youth with and without handicaps following high
school: Outcomes and correlates. Journal of Special Education, 23,
243-255.

Hayden-McPeak, C., Gaskin, S.T., & Gaughan, L.K. (1993, April). Bad
boys, good girls: A review of the research on gender differences in
preschoolers and a reexamination of assessment, child rearing, and
educational practices. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the
Council for Exceptional Children, San Antonio, TX. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 363 030)

Hyde, J., & Linn, M. (1988). Gender differences in verbal ability: A
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 53-69.

Karlen, A., Hagin, R.A., & Beecher, R. (1985). Are boys really more
vulnerable to learning disability than girls? Academic Psychology
Bulletin, 7, 317-325.

Kazdin, A.E. (1990). Childhood depression. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 31, 121-160.

Kedar-Volvodas, G. (1983). The impact of elementary children's school
roles on teacher attitudes: An interactional analysis. Review of
Educational Research, 53(3), 415-437.

Kirchner, C. (1987). Assessing the effects of vocational rehabilitation
on disadvantaged persons: Theoretical perspectives and issues for
research. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Society for the Study
of Chronic Illness, Impairment, and Disability, 1984-85. Salem, OR:
Willamette University Press.

Kranstover, L.L., Thurlow, M.L., & Bruininks, R.H. (1989). An analysis
of the employment outcomes of young adults with mental retardation. In
P. Wehman & J. Kregel (Eds.), Supported employment for persons with
disabilities: Focus on excellence (pp. 257-267). New York: Human
Sciences Press.

Kratovil, J., & Bailey, S. (1986). Sex equity and disabled students.
Theory into Practice, 25(4), 250-256.

Larson, J., & Robinson, C. (1989). Later effects of preschool on
low-risk children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 4, 133-144.

Leinhardt, G., Seewald, A.M., & Zigmond, N. (1982). Sex and race
differences in learning disabilities classrooms. Journal of School
Psychology, 74(6), 835-843.

Levine, P., & Edgar, E. (1994). An analysis by gender of long-term
postschool outcomes for youth with and without disabilities. Exceptional
Children, 61(3), 282-300.

Lubs, H.A., Duara, R., Levin, B., Jallad, B., Lubs, M., Rabin, M.,
Kushch, A., & Gross-Glenn, K. (1991). Dyslexia subtypes: Physiologicals,
behavior, and brain imaging. In D.D. Duane & D.B. Gray (Eds.), The
reading brain: The biological basis of dyslexia (pp. 89-177). Parkton,
MD: York Press.

Lyon, G.R. (1996). Learning disabilities. The Future of Children, 6(1),
54-76.

McIntyre, L.L. (1990). Teacher standards and gender: Factors in special
education referral? The Journal of Educational Research, 8(3), 166-172.

Menz, F.E., Hansen, G., Smith, H., Brown, C., Ford, M., & McCrowey, G.
(1989). Gender equity in access, services, and benefits from vocational
rehabilitation. Journal of Rehabilitation, 55, 31-40.

Mullis, I., Dossey, J.A., Owen, E.H., & Phillips, G.W. (1991). The state
of mathematics achievement: NAEP's 1990 assessment of the nation and the
trial assessment of the states. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing
Service.

Mullis, I., Owen, E., & Phillips, G. (1990). Accelerating academic
achievement: A summary of 20 years of NAEP. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education.

Peterson, A.C., Sarigiani, P.A., & Kennedy, R.E. (1991). Adolescent
depression: Why more girls? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 20,
247-271.

Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at fairness. New York:
Touchstone.

Shaywitz, S.E. (1996). Dyslexia. Scientific American, 275(5), 98-104.

Shaywitz, S.E., Shaywitz, B.A., Fletcher, J.M., & Escobar, M.D. (1990).
Prevalence of reading disability in boys and girls. JAMA, 264(8),
996-1002.

Singer, J.D., & Raphael, E.S. (1988). Per pupil expenditures for special
education: To whom are limited resources provided? Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 302 024)

Sitlington, P.L., & Frank, A.R. (1990). Are adolescents with learning
disabilities successfully crossing the bridge into adult life? Learning
Disability Quarterly, 13, 97-111.

Sitlington, P.L., Frank, A.R., & Carson, R. (1992). Adult adjustment
among high school graduates with mild disabilities. Exceptional
Children, 59, 221-233.

Taeuber, C. (Ed.). (1991). Statistical handbook on women in America.
Phoenix: Oryx Press.

U.S. Department of Education. (1996). Descriptive summary of 1989-90
beginning postsecondary students: Five years later. Washington, DC:
Author.

Valdes, K., Williamson, B., & Wagner, M. (1990). The National
Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students: Statistical
almanac (Vol. 1). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Wagner, M. (1992). Transition: Changes, challenges, cautions. In M.
Wagner, R. D'Amico, C. Marder, L. Newman, & J. Blackorby (Eds.), What
happens next? Trends in postschool outcomes for youth with disabilities
(pp. 8:1-8:14). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Wagner, M., Blackorby, J., Cameto, R., & Newman, L. (1993). What makes a
difference? Influences on postschool outcomes of youth with
disabilities. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Wagner, M., Newman, L., D'Amico, R., Jay, E.D., Butler-Nalin, P.,
Marder, C., & Cox, R. (1991). Youth with disabilities: How are they
doing? Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Students with Emotional Disturbance[^8]

Purpose: To characterize the population of children with emotional
disturbance, present eligibility requirements for their participation in
special edcuation, discuss the placements of and services provided to
these students and the results that follow for them, and describe
OSEP\'s efforts to improve results for them.

Children and youth with emotional disturbance are a heterogeneous group
of young people with a variety of strengths and needs. Much is known
about the school and community factors that place young people at risk
for developing emotional disturbance and about what must be done to
improve school and community results for them. This knowledge has been
incorporated into OSEP's National Agenda for Achieving Better Results
for Children and Youth with Serious Emotional Disturbance (U.S.
Department of Education, 1994), which has framed OSEP's recent research
and development efforts.

Unfortunately, a gap exists between what is known and what is done to
identify and address the strengths and needs of these young people and
their families. OSEP is addressing the gap through its Research to
Practice efforts, which support the exchange and effective use of
research-based knowledge on how to improve results for children and
youth with emotional disturbance.

The first section of this module addresses eligibility for services and
the characteristics of children with emotional disturbance. The second
discusses the educational environments of and services provided to these
students and the results that follow for them. The final section
presents an overview of what OSEP is doing to improve results for
children and youth with emotional disturbance.

Eligibility and Characteristics

Children and youth with emotional disturbance frequently require and
receive services from a variety of agencies that apply different
eligibility criteria. These young people are also quite diverse in terms
of their needs and strengths. The students present with a complex range
of disabilities, from conduct disorder to schizophrenia. Within this
statistically and diagnostically diverse population, females appear to
be underrepresented, and African Americans appear to be overrepresented.
The following paragraphs elaborate on service eligibility for and the
characteristics of these students.

Eligibility for Services

Emotional disturbance is 1 of 12 disability categories specified under
IDEA. It is defined as follows:

"(i) The term means a condition exhibiting one or more of the following
characteristics over a long period of time and to a marked degree that
adversely affects a child's educational performance:

\(A\) An inability to learn that cannot be explained by intellectual,
sensory, or health factors.

\(B\) An inability to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal
relationships with peers and teachers.

\(C\) Inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under normal
circumstances.

\(D\) A general pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression.

\(E\) A tendency to develop physical symptoms or fears associated with
personal or school problems.

\(ii\) The term includes schizophrenia. The term does not apply to
children who are socially maladjusted, unless it is determined that they
have an emotional disturbance" (CFR §300.7 (a) 9).

Children who meet these criteria, as determined by a multidisciplinary
team, may receive services under IDEA. Children under the age of 9 who
exhibit delays in social or emotional development may receive services
under the developmental delay category.

Other Federal agencies use different eligibility criteria for youth with
emotional disturbance. Their definitions cover a broad array of mental
health conditions, some of which may also lead to eligibility under
IDEA:

The Center for Mental Health Services' (CMHS) definition covers children
under 18. This definition requires the presence of a diagnosable mental,
behavioral, or emotional disorder of sufficient duration to meet
diagnostic criteria specified within the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4^th^ ed.), and which results in
a functional impairment that substantially interferes with or limits the
child's role or functioning in family, school, or community activities
(Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 1993).

The Social Security Administration's (SSA) definition of eligibility for
the children's Supplemental Security Income program is the presence of a
mental condition that can be medically proven and that results in marked
and severe functional limitations of substantial duration.

Children identified under these two definitions may be eligible for
services under IDEA or under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973. However, eligibility is not automatic. A child must meet the
requirements of the Department of Education's regulatory definition of
emotional disturbance to receive services under IDEA (or must meet the
requirements of other IDEA eligibility categories). Therefore,
identification of a child as emotionally disturbed under the CMHS or SSA
definitions does not necessarily lead to identification under IDEA.

States also define emotional disturbance and specify the criteria to be
used by local school districts in the identification of children with
this disability. Although they must specify criteria that are not
inconsistent with the Federal definition, States interpret that
definition based on their own standards, programs, and requirements
(McInerney, Kane, & Pelavin, 1992). In fact, many States have adopted
their own specific terminology and criteria (Tallmadge, Gund, Munson, &
Hanley, 1985; Swartz, Mosley, & Koenig-Jerz, 1987; Gonzalez, 1991).
Local variation may affect the ability of Federal authorities to monitor
the impact of the IDEA Amendments of 1997. According to a 1992 report,
"The resulting differences in definition and eligibility criteria make
it difficult to evaluate the identification rates of children with
serious emotional disturbance" (McInerney et al., 1992, p. 46).

For example, students identified as having conduct disorder are eligible
for services in some States, but not in others. Conduct disorder is a
persistent pattern of anti-social, rulebreaking, or aggressive behavior,
including defiance, fighting, bullying, disruptiveness, exploitiveness,
and disturbed relations with both peers and adults (Cohen, 1994;
Forness, 1992; Forness, Kavale, & Lopez, 1993). Research suggests that
conduct disorder frequently co-occurs with attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), reading disabilities, anxiety disorders,
and depression (Clarizio, 1992; Hinshaw, Lahey, & Hart, 1993; McConaughy
& Skiba, 1993; Zoccolillo, 1992). The literature also suggests that
there are no valid theoretical or empirical grounds for differentiating
between conduct disorders and other behavioral and emotional disorders
and that there are no reliable or socially validated instruments for
making such a distinction (Cohen, 1994; Nelson, 1992; Nelson &
Rutherford, 1988; Skiba & Grizzle, 1992; Stein & Merrell, 1992).

Children with emotional disturbance may also be socially maladjusted,
but to receive services under IDEA, they must satisfy additional
requirements. Since IDEA excludes social maladjustment without emotional
disturbance from the definition of emotional disturbance, some State
definitions and eligibility requirements serve to exclude students with
conduct disorder (Gonzalez, 1991). Alternatively, some research has
found that students with conduct disorder constituted the largest
percentage of students with emotional disturbance who were served in day
schools and residential schools (Forness, 1992; Forness, Kavale, King, &
Kasari, 1994; Sinclair & Alexson, 1992). Children with conduct disorder
were the largest diagnostic group in the National Adolescent and Child
Treatment Study (Silver et al., 1992). That study was co-sponsored by
the National Institute for Disability and Rehabilitative Research
(OSERS/NIDRR) and the National Institute of Mental Health. Its purpose
was to "describe. . . children with \[emotional disturbance\] and their
families" (Greenbaum et al., 1998, p. 21). Students with conduct
disorder were also the largest group served at the 31 sites of the CMHS'
Comprehensive Mental Health Services for Children and Their Families
program (Doucette, 1997).

In general, the literature documents varying orientations to children
with different patterns of behavior. While some of these students are
"provided access to therapeutic services, and considered victims of
their disorders . . . students who are considered antisocial or socially
maladjusted are usually blamed for their aversive and maladaptive
behavior patterns and exposed to control, containment, or punishment
strategies" (Walker, Stieber, & O'Neill, 1990, p. 62).

Student Characteristics

Students with emotional disturbance who are eligible for services under
IDEA typically exhibit mood disorders, anxiety disorders, ADHD, conduct
disorders, or other psychiatric disorders (Forness et al., 1994;
Mattison & Felix, 1997). Comorbidity of emotional and behavioral
disorders is common (Caron & Rutter, 1991; Friedman, Kutash, &
Duchnowski, 1996). In addition, the co-occurrence of emotional
disturbance and other disabilities may intensify students' behavioral
problems and further compromise academic performance. Many students with
emotional disturbance are at great risk for substance abuse disorders
(Capaldi & Dishion, 1993; Leone, 1991; Leone, Greenberg, Trickett, &
Spero, 1989) and negative encounters with the juvenile justice system
(Gilliam & Scott, 1987; Leone, 1991). These problems may exacerbate the
impact of emotional disturbance and of any co-occurring disabilities.

In comparison with other students, both with and without disabilities,
children with emotional disturbance are more likely to be male, African
American, and economically disadvantaged. They are also more likely to
live with one parent, in foster care, or in another alternative living
arrangement (Cullinan, Epstein, & Sabornie, 1992; Marder, 1992; Wagner,
1995). Students with emotional disturbance are particularly vulnerable
to environmental changes such as transitions and to a lack of positive
behavioral support during transitions. These students' presenting
behavior, as well as its intensity, is episodic, subject to change over
time (Strayhorn, Strain, & Walker, 1993), and may serve to direct
attention away from underlying issues such as depression (McCracken,
Cantwell, & Hanna, 1993; Wehby & Symons, 1996; Wehby, Symons, & Shores,
1995). These variations in behavior often result in students with
emotional disturbance being blamed for disability-related behavior or
subject to negative reactions from their peers and teachers (Forness,
Kavale, MacMillan, Asarnow, & Duncan, 1996; Lewis, Chard, & Scott,
1994).

Identification

IDEA requires each State to have in effect a policy ensuring all
children with disabilities the right to a free appropriate public
education (FAPE) (20 U.S.C. 1412 (1)). Thus, it is the obligation of
State educational agencies (SEAs) and local educational agencies (LEAs)
to evaluate a child who is suspected of having a disability in order to
determine his or her need for special education and related services
(Davila, Williams, & MacDonald, 1991). But research suggests that the
identification process, as implemented, is often reactive, subjective,
limited by a local lack of culturally and linguistically appropriate
assessment tools, driven by institutional needs, and constrained by
parental concerns about pejorative labels (U.S. House of
Representatives, 1997) and inappropriate placement, as well as by the
inability of some professionals to collaborate with families or with
each other (McInerney et al., 1992; Osher & Hanley, 1996; Smith, 1997).

Nationally, the identification rate for emotional disturbance has
remained stable at approximately 0.9 percent since OSEP began collecting
these data in 1976 (Oswald & Coutinho, 1995). This rate is significantly
less than the predicted prevalence of emotional disturbance within
schools. For example, the U.S. Department of Education's Second Annual
Report to Congress on the Implementation of P.L. 94-142 estimated a
prevalence rate of 2 percent for students with emotional disturbance
(U.S. Department of Education, 1980). Similarly, many experts believe
that an identification rate of 3-6 percent would be more accurate (Eber
& Nelson, 1994; Friedman et al., 1996; Grosenick & Huntze, 1980;
Institute of Medicine, 1989; Kauffman, 1994; Smith, Wood, & Grimes,
1988). In fact, mental health epidemiological studies suggest even
higher rates of diagnosable psychological and psychiatric impairments in
youth (Costello et al., 1988; Friedman et al., 1996; McInerney et al.,
1992). There is also great variation in State and local identification
rates. One example is the 33-fold difference between the lowest and
highest State identification rates of school-aged youth for the 1996-97
school year (see figure II-10 and table AA13, p. A-40, which presents
the actual rates).

Identification rates are lower for girls and young women among students
identified with emotional disturbance (U.S. Department of Education,
1994). In the National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS), more than
three-fourths (76.4 percent) of secondary students with emotional
disturbance were male, the highest proportion of males to females in any
of the disability categories (Marder & Cox, 1991). Lower identification
rates among females have been attributed to an assessment and
identification process that is subjective (Walker & Fabre, 1988; Wehby,
Symons, & Hollo, 1997), and largely driven by how schools operationalize
behavioral norms and standards (Gerber & Semmel, 1984; Talbott, 1997;
Walker & Severson, 1990). Some researchers and theorists have proposed
that the apparent underidentification of girls and young women may also
be due to the different ways in which emotional disturbance is
manifested in females (Zahn-Waxler, 1993). Girls and young women are
more likely to exhibit internalizing problems such as anxiety and
depression that do not usually interfere with classroom management,
while males are more likely to demonstrate the externalizing behaviors
that do disrupt the classroom. Other possible explanations include the
gender-specific expectations of teachers and evaluators (Caseau,
Luckasson, & Kroth, 1994; Talbott & Lloyd, 1997) and a lack of
gender-appropriate diagnostic criteria (Zoccolillo, 1993). Although some
screening and assessment tools are available to aid in the
identification of withdrawn, isolated students and others who
internalize their problems, those tools are used infrequently. Teachers,
the primary gatekeepers in the identification process, are more likely
to identify students who exhibit externalizing behaviors (Boggiano &
Barrett, 1992; Caseau et al., 1994; Gresham, MacMillan, & Bocian, 1996;
Kazdin, 1990; Walker & Severson, 1990). Interestingly, a new assessment
tool (Epstein & Cullinan, 1998), incorporating national norms derived
from students with emotional disturbance and from their nondisabled
peers, explicitly addresses the specific, multiple characteristics of
emotional disturbance in the IDEA definition. The instrument also
incorporates a subscale on social maladjustment, providing for
distinctions between emotional disturbance with or without social
maladjustment, and vice versa.

Figure II-10

Students Ages 6-21 Identified as Having Emotional Disturbance in the 50
States and the District of Columbia

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS).

Table II-7

Percentage of Students with Disabilities Identified as Having Emotional
Disturbance (1995-96)

+-------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Age         | 6-7    | 8-9    | 10-11  | 12-13  | 14-15  | 16-17  |
|             |        |        |        |        |        | years  |
|             | years  | years  | years  | years  | years  |        |
+-------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Percentage  | 3.5%   | 5.6%   | 7.3%   | 10.2%  | 13.1%  | 13.0%  |
+-------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS).

While females appear to be underrepresented among students identified
with emotional disturbance, African Americans appear to be
overrepresented. Research suggests that the high identification rates
for African Americans may be due both to teacher expectations regarding
normative behavior (Horowitz, Bility, Plichta, Leaf, & Haynes, 1998;
McLaughlin & Talbert, 1992; Metz, 1994) and to a paucity of culturally
sensitive and linguistically appropriate assessment instruments (Harry,
1994). Culturally competent approaches are needed to work effectively
with racially and ethnically diverse students and families (Cross,
Bazron, Dennis, & Isaacs, 1989; Comer, 1996; Isaacs-Shockley, Cross,
Bazron, Dennis, & Benjamin, 1996). Culturally relevant and responsive
techniques can increase the efficacy of both primary prevention efforts
(Comer, 1996) and targeted prereferral strategies (Zins, Coyne, & Ponti,
1988).

Although many children with emotional disturbance exhibit problems at an
early age (Knitzer, 1996; Marder, 1992), students with this disability
are usually identified later than those with other disabilities, despite
the availability of valid and reliable screening tools. Research
suggests that behavioral and emotional problems identified during
adolescence can often be linked to early childhood behavioral patterns
(Hinshaw et al., 1993; Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey, 1995; Walker, Shinn,
O'Neil, & Ramsey, 1987; Walker et al., 1990). Early intervention appears
to be both possible and cost effective (Forness et al., 1996; Hinshaw,
Han, Erhardt, & Huber, 1992; Knitzer, 1996; Walker, 1995; Zigler,
Taussig, & Black 1992).

Table II-7 shows the percentage of students with disabilities who were
identified as having emotional disturbance in 1995-96 by age.

Educational Environments and Services

Once identified, students with emotional disturbance are served in a
variety of settings, with placement rates varying by States and
localities. For example, in 1994-95, 80 percent of Iowa's students with
emotional disturbance and 78 percent of Vermont's were served in regular
schools. In contrast, some other States served less than 20 percent of
their students with emotional disturbance in such environments. In
general, educational environment and service decisions are often driven
by the availability of resources (Hallenbeck, Kauffman, & Lloyd, 1995;
Kauffman & Smucker, 1995).

The majority of students with emotional disturbance continue to receive
most of their services in environments that separate them from students
who do not have emotional disturbance. Between 1984-85 and 1994-95 the
percentage of students receiving services in special classes, day
schools, and residential facilities ranged from 54 percent to 57
percent. The restrictiveness of these environments contrasts with the
environments of most students with disabilities. This is particularly
true for students who, in the absence of appropriate school or
community-based services, had to receive services in residential
settings or at home. During 1995-96, 4.78 percent of students with
emotional disturbance were served in residential settings, in hospitals,
or at home, in contrast to 1.22 percent of all students with
disabilities. The percentage of students with emotional disturbance
reported to be receiving the majority of their education, special
education, and related services in regular classrooms increased from 12
percent in 1984-85 to 23 percent in 1995-96. Figure II-11 displays the
percentages of students with emotional disturbance served in resource
rooms or regular classes from 1987-88 to 1995-96.

Figure II-11

Percentage of Children with Emotional Disturbance Ages 6-21 Served From
1987-88 Through 1995-96 in Regular Classes and Resource Rooms

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS).

The diminished use of resource rooms may be significant because,
although some students can succeed in regular classes, research suggests
that many of these students and their teachers do not currently receive
the supports that they need to succeed in regular class environments,
particularly at a time of rising academic and behavioral standards (Eber
& Nelson, 1994; Lewis et al., 1994). According to the NLTS, of the
students with emotional disturbance who were served in regular education
environments, only 11 percent had behavior management plans. In the same
study, just 6 percent of the regular education teachers serving students
with emotional disturbance received the support that teachers identify
as being most important\--a reduced teacher-student ratio (Marder, 1992;
Wagner, 1995). Three key provisions in the IDEA Amendments of 1997
address these issues. The first provision is that regular educators and
general education must be included in the development of individualized
education programs (IEPs). The second is that IEP teams must explore the
need for strategies and support systems to address any behavior that may
impede the learning of a child with a disability or that of his or her
peers. The third provision requires States to address the needs of
in-service and preservice personnel, as they relate to the development
and implementation of positive intervention strategies.

Some schools achieve high outcomes for students with emotional
disturbance. During the winter of 1997-98, OSEP and the Safe and Drug
Free Schools (SDFS) program in the Office of Elementary and Secondary
Education collaboratively supported a research project to identify such
schools and synthesize information that could help other schools
replicate effective programs. The results of the study were included in
a special report titled Safe, Drug-Free Schools, and Effective Schools
for ALL Students: What Works! (Quinn, Osher, Hoffman, & Hanley, 1998).
These schools have high behavioral and academic expectations and provide
students and staff with the support needed to achieve those standards.
They combine schoolwide prevention efforts with early intervention for
students who are at risk of developing emotional disturbance, and
individualized services for students already identified with emotional
disturbance. These schools also provide students with positive
behavioral supports, offer ongoing training and support to staff,
collaborate with families, and coordinate services (Mayer, 1995; Nelson,
Crabtree, Marchand-Martella, & Martella, 1998; Quinn et al., 1998; Sugai
& Horner, in press).

Unfortunately, in some other schools, the support services that students
and teachers receive are often fragmented, inadequate, or inappropriate
(Grosenick, George, & George, 1987; McLaughlin, Leone, Warren &
Schofield, 1994; Smith & Farrell, 1993). Some schools unintentionally
set the stage for or reinforce inappropriate behavior (Gunter, Denny,
Jack, Shores, & Nelson, 1993; Shores, Gunter, & Jack, 1993). Staff may
emphasize behavioral management and a "curriculum of control" instead of
engaging students' interests and supporting their emotional needs
(Knitzer et al., 1990; Zabel, 1988). Some programs frequently fail to
address students' individual needs (Cessna & Skiba, 1996; Dunlap &
Childs, 1996; Reiher, 1992; Neel, Alexander, & Meadows, 1997), or use
strategies that are not empirically supported (Scheuermann, Webber,
Partin, & Knies, 1994; Smith & Farrell, 1993). In sum, services for
students with emotional disturbance often do not provide them with the
supports that would enable them to succeed: tutoring, counseling,
schoolwide behavior support plans, and collaboration with families and
other service providers (Cheney & Osher, 1997; Eber, 1996; Marder, 1992;
McLaughlin, Leone, Meisel, & Henderson, 1997; Myles & Simpson, 1992;
Nelson & Colvin, 1996; Quinn, Gable, Rutherford, Nelson, & Howell, 1998;
Valdes, Williamson, & Wagner, 1990; Wagner, Blackorby, & Hebbeler,
1993).

Results

Not surprisingly, many students with emotional disturbance experience
poor academic results. They fail more courses, earn lower grade point
averages, miss more days of school, and are retained at grade more than
students with other disabilities (Wagner, Blackorby, & Hebbeler, 1993).
Fifty-five percent leave school before graduating; only 42 percent
graduate (Wagner, 1995). School factors such as a lack of academic and
social supports, reactive teaching styles, and frequent placement
changes contribute to poor results (Kortering & Blackorby, 1992; Mayer,
1995; Munk & Repp, 1994; Osher & Hanley, 1996; Rumberger & Larson,
1994).

Gender, race, and poverty mediate service provision and results for
students with emotional disturbance. (Kortering & Blackorby, 1992; Osher
& Hanley, 1995; Valdes et al., 1990). Males, African Americans, and
students with family income under \$12,000 are more likely to be placed
in restrictive settings, less likely to receive counseling in school,
less likely to graduate, and more likely to drop out of school than
their female, White, and more affluent counterparts. For example,
students with family incomes under \$12,000 are almost 2.5 times more
likely to drop out of school than those whose families earn over
\$25,000 (Osher & Osher, 1996).

Failure to address the needs of students with emotional disturbance is a
portent for poor community results as well as poor academic results.
Researchers conducting the NLTS found that within 3 to 5 years of
leaving school, 48 percent of young women with emotional disturbance
were mothers, as compared to 28 percent of young women with other
disabilities. Fifty-eight percent of the students with emotional
disturbance had been arrested, versus 19 percent of those with other
disabilities. And 10 percent of youth with emotional disturbance were
living in a correctional facility, halfway house, drug treatment center,
or "on the street"\--twice as many as among the students with other
disabilities (Wagner, 1995; Wagner, Blackorby, Cameto, Hebbeler, &
Newman, 1993).

Improving Results

In the past two decades, researchers and practitioners have developed an
extensive knowledge base about children with emotional disturbance.
These intensive research efforts suggest that results for students with
emotional disturbance can be improved through interventions that are
sustained, flexible, positive, collaborative, culturally appropriate,
and regularly evaluated. These interventions should have multiple
components tailored to individual needs; they should build on the
strengths of youth and their families, address academic as well as
social concerns, be implemented by trained and supported practitioners,
and be continually evaluated (Carpenter & Apter, 1988; Clarke et al.,
1995; Eber, Nelson, & Miles, 1997; Epstein, Nelson, Polsgrove, Coutinho,
Cumblad, & Quinn, 1993; Huntze, 1988; Knitzer, Steinberg, & Fleisch,
1990; McLaughlin et al., 1994; Nelson & Rutherford, 1988; Peacock Hill
Working Group, 1991; Stroul & Friedman, 1996; Sugai, Bullis, & Cumblad,
1997).

OSEP continues to play an active role in developing and applying
knowledge to improve results for young people with emotional
disturbance. OSEP-supported research projects like the National Needs
Assessment in Behavior Disorders and the NLTS have helped pinpoint
problem areas in these students' development and have made significant
contributions to the development of promising approaches to early
intervention and school discipline (e.g., Walker et al., 1995). OSEP
research investments have developed tools such as functional behavioral
assessments to identify and address the needs of individual students
(Horner, 1994; Umbreit & Blair, 1997; Wehby et al., 1997). OSEP has also
supported demonstration projects that build on research in children's
mental health (e.g., Stroul, Lourie, Goldman, & Katz-Leavy, 1992) to
create flexible, results-driven, family responsive services and
comprehensive education and support systems to reduce the need for
restrictive out-of-home placements (Petr, 1994; Stroul & Friedman,
1996).

This knowledge base was influential in the development of The National
Agenda for Achieving Better Results for Children and Youth with Serious
Emotional Disturbance (U.S. Department of Education, 1994). To create
this agenda, OSEP garnered extensive input from researchers,
practitioners, and families (Smith & Coutinho, 1997) to "focus the
attention of educators, parents, advocates, and professionals from a
variety of disciplines on what is needed to be done to encourage,
assist, and support our nation's schools in their efforts to improve the
educational process to achieve better outcomes for children and youth
with serious emotional disturbance" (Osher, Osher, & Smith, 1994). The
agenda featured seven interdependent targets: expanding positive
learning opportunities and results, strengthening school and community
capacity, valuing and addressing diversity, collaborating with families,
promoting appropriate assessment, providing ongoing skill development
and support, and creative comprehensive and collaborative systems (U.S.
Department of Education, 1994).

The National Agenda has served as the basis for State planning and
evaluation efforts such as the Serious Emotional Disturbance Network
(SEDNET, 1996). It is also the foundation of Federal interagency
collaboration on issues of concern to children with emotional
disturbance and their families. In a cooperative effort, the Department
of Health and Human Services and the Department of Justice, OSERS, the
Head Start Bureau, the Children's Bureau, CMHS, and the Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) co-sponsored an
invitational conference entitled "Making Collaboration Work for
Children, Youth, Families, Schools and Communities." This project
brought together youth and their families with researchers,
practitioners, administrators, and public officials. The meeting
highlighted exemplary programs and documented the extent to which all
service areas work simultaneously to serve children and families. The
conference also delineated what is necessary to ensure effective
interagency collaboration (Bullock & Gable, 1997; U.S. Department of
Education, 1996; U.S. Department of Education, 1997). In the same vein,
OSEP has joined with OJJDP and CMHS to fund collaborative research and
technical assistance efforts on education's role in systems of care and
in the prevention of juvenile delinquency.

OSERS has made the National Agenda the basis for targeting OSEP's
research to practice investments in the field of childhood and youth
emotional disturbance. OSEP currently funds projects that focus on
prevention, positive approaches to learning, cultural competence, and
assessment of children with emotional disturbance. In fiscal year 1998,
the National Agenda became a Focus Area under OSEP's Model/Demonstration
priority, and three new awards were granted to support comprehensive
programs that implement services in conformance with the seven target
areas of the Agenda.

OSEP continues to address the gap between research and
practice\--between what is known and what is done. The Center for
Effective Collaboration and Practice, housed at the American Institutes
for Research, was created to promote a national reorientation toward
fostering the development and adjustment of children with or at risk of
emotional disturbance. The Center engages in strategic activities
intended to help family members, practitioners, administrators,
researchers and policy makers collaborate effectively in the efficient
production and use of knowledge to improve results for children with or
at risk of emotional disturbance. In the summer of 1998, the Center
teamed with the National Association of School Psychologists, in a
special collaborative project jointly led by the Departments of
Education and Justice and in response to President Clinton's directive,
to produce Early Warning\--Timely Response: A Guide to Safe Schools,
which was disseminated to all American schools in the fall. The guide
emphasized the importance of child-centered and school- and
community-supported prevention and intervention approaches.

Summary

Children and youth with emotional disturbance have a variety of needs
and receive services that vary by State. Nationally, these students
often realize poor school and community results. Such results tend to
reflect fragmented, inappropriate, inadequate, and tardy interventions
that frequently fail to address the complex factors that contribute to
emotional disturbance.

Fortunately, a great deal is known about how to improve results for
students with emotional disturbance. OSEP is working to promote
culturally appropriate, child-and family-centered, sustained, flexible,
collaborative, positive, data-based interventions with multicomponent
treatments. These interventions should be built on the strengths of
youth and their families, be subject to ongoing evaluation, and be
tailored to students' individual needs. The accumulated knowledge base
created and refined through various OSEP-sponsored projects is reflected
in The National Agenda for Achieving Better Results for Children and
Youth with Serious Emotional Disturbance. OSEP has used this agenda to
target research to practice investments and as the foundation for
collaboration with other Federal partners.

References

Boggiano, A.K., & Barrett, M. (1992). Gender differences in depression
in children as a function of motivational orientation. Sex Roles, 26,
11-17.

Bullock, L.M., & Gable, R.A. (Eds.). (1997). Making collaboration work
for children, youth, families, schools, and communities. Reston, VA: The
Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders.

Capaldi, D.M., & Dishion, T.J. (1993). The relation of conduct problems
and depressive symptoms to growth in substance use in adolescent boys.
Eugene, OR: Social Learning Center. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 356 077)

Caron, C., & Rutter, M. (1991). Comorbidity in child psychopathology:
Concepts, issues, and research strategies. Journal of Child
Psychopathology and Psychiatry, 32, 1063-1080.

Carpenter, R.L., & Apter, S.J. (1988). Research integration of
cognitive-emotional interventions for behaviorally disordered children
and youth. In M.C. Wang, M.C. Reynolds, & H.J. Walberg (Eds.), Handbook
of special education: Research and practice: Vol. 2. Mildly handicapped
conditions (pp. 155-169). New York: Pergamon.

Caseau, D.L., Luckasson, R., & Kroth, R.L. (1994). Special education
services for girls with serious emotional disturbance: A case of gender
bias? Behavioral Disorders, 20(1), 51-60.

Cessna, K.K., & Skiba, R.J. (1996). Needs-based services: A responsible
approach to inclusion. Preventing School Failure, 40(3), 117-123.

Cheney, D., & Osher, T. (1997). Collaborate with families. Journal of
Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 5(1), 36-44.

Clarizio, H.F. (1992). Social maladjustment and emotional disturbance:
Problems and positions II. Psychology in the Schools, 29, 331-341.

Clarke, S., Dunlap, G., Foster-Johnson, L., Childs, K.E., Wilson, D.,
White, R., & Vera, A. (1995). Improving the conduct of students with
behavioral disorders by incorporating student interests into curricular
activities. Behavioral Disorders, 20(4), 221-237.

Cohen, M.K. (1994, July). Children on the boundary: The challenge posed
by children with conduct disorders. Alexandria, VA: Project FORUM,
National Association of State Directors of Special Education.

Comer, J.P. (1996). Rallying the whole village: The Comer process for
reforming education. NY: Teacher's College Press.

Costello, E.J., Edelbrock, C., Costello, A.J., Dulcan, M.K., Burns,
B.J., & Brent, D. (1988). Psychopathology in pediatric primary care: The
new hidden morbidity. Pediatrics, 82, 415-424.

Cross, T., Bazron, B., Dennis, K., & Isaacs, M. (1989). Towards a
culturally competent system of care: A monograph on effective services
for minority children who are seriously emotionally disturbed.
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Child Development Center, National
Technical Assistance Center for Children's Mental Health.

Cullinan, D., Epstein, M.H., & Sabornie, E.J. (1992). Selected
characteristics of a national sample of seriously emotionally disturbed
adolescents. Behavioral Disorders, 17(4), 273-280.

Davila, R.R., Williams, M.L., & MacDonald, J.T. (1991). Memorandum to
chief state school officers: Clarification of policy to address the
needs of children with attention deficit disorders within general and/or
special education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Doucette, A. (1997, December). Profiling preliminary results
family-research collaboration: The CMHS evaluation. Paper presented at
the Comprehensive Community Mental Health Services Program for Children
with Serious Emotional Disturbances Project Director's Meeting, New
Orleans, LA.

Dunlap, G., & Childs, K.E. (1996). Intervention research in emotional
and behavioral disorders: An analysis of studies from 1980-1993.
Behavioral Disorders, 21(2), 125-136.

Eber, L. (1996). Restructuring schools through wraparound planning: The
LADSE experience. In R.J. Illback & C.M. Nelson (Eds.), School-based
services for students with emotional and behavioral disorders
(pp.139-154). Binghamton, NY: Haworth.

Eber, L., & Nelson, C.M. (1994). Compendium digest special education and
related services for students with serious emotional disturbance.
Unpublished paper.

Eber, L., Nelson, C.M., & Miles, P. (1997). School-based wraparound for
students with emotional and behavioral challenges. Exceptional Children,
63(4), 539-555.

Epstein, M.H., & Cullinan, D. (1998). Scale for assessing emotional
disturbance. Austin: Pro-Ed.

Epstein, M.H., Nelson, C.M., Polsgrove, L., Coutinho, M., Cumblad, C., &
Quinn, K. (1993). A comprehensive community-based approach to serving
students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Emotional
and Behavioral Disorders, 1(2), 127-133.

Forness, S.R. (1992). Legalism versus professionalism in diagnosing SED
in the public schools. School Psychology Review, 21(1), 29-34.

Forness, S.R., Kavale, K.A., King, B.H., & Kasari, C. (1994). Simple
versus complex conduct disorders: Identification and phenomenology.
Behavioral Disorders, 19(4), 306-312.

Forness, S.R., Kavale, K.A., & Lopez, M. (1993). Conduct disorders in
school: Special education eligibility and comorbidity. Journal of
Emotional and Behavior Disorders, 1, 101-108.

Forness, S.R., Kavale, K.A., MacMillan, D.L., Asarnow, J.R., & Duncan,
B.B. (1996). Early detection and prevention of emotional or behavioral
disorders: Developmental aspects of systems care. Behavioral Disorders,
21(3), 226-240.

Friedman, R.M., Kutash, K., & Duchnowski, A.J. (1996). The population of
concern: Defining the issues. In B.A. Stroul & R.M. Friedman (Eds.),
Children's mental health: Creating systems of care in a changing society
(pp. 69-96). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Gerber, M., & Semmel, M. (1984). Teacher as imperfect test:
Reconceptualizing the referral process. Educational Psychologist, 19,
137-148.

Gilliam, J.E., & Scott, B.K. (1987). The behaviorally disordered
offender. In R. Rutherford, C. Nelson, & B. Wolford (Eds.), Special
education in correctional education. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Gonzalez, P. (1991). A comparison of state policy of the federal
definition and a proposed definition of "serious emotional disturbance."
Washington, DC: National Association of State Directors of Special
Education.

Greenbaum, P.E., Dedrick, R.F., Friedman, R.M., Kautash, K., Brown,
E.C., Lardieri, S.P., & Pugh, A.M. (1998). National Adolescent and Child
Treatment Study (NACTS): Outcomes for children with serious emotional
and behavioral disturbance. In M.H. Epstein, K. Kutash, & A. Duchnowski
(Eds.), Outcomes for children and youth with behavioral and emotional
disorders. Austin: Pro-Ed.

Gresham, F.M., MacMillan, D.L., & Bocian, K. (1996). Behavioral
earthquakes: Low frequency, salient behavior events that differentiate
students at-risk for behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 21(4),
277-292.

Grosenick, J.K., George, M.P., & George, N.L. (1987). A profile of
school programs for the behaviorally disordered: Twenty years after
Morse, Cutler, and Fink. Behavioral Disorders, 13, 108-115.

Grosenick, J.K., & Huntze, S.L. (1980). National needs analysis in
behavior disorders: Human resource issues in behavior disorders.
University of Missouri-Columbia, Department of Special Education.

Gunter, P.L., Denny, K., Jack, S.L., Shores, R.E., & Nelson, C.M.
(1993). Aversive stimuli in academic interactions between students with
serious emotional disturbance and their teachers. Behavioral Disorders,
18(4), 265-274.

Hallenbeck, B.A., Kauffman, J.M., & Lloyd, J.W. (1995). When, how, and
why educational placement decisions are made: Two case studies. Journal
of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 1, 109-117.

Harry, B. (1994). The disproportionate representation of minority
students in special education: Theories and recommendations. Alexandria,
VA: Project FORUM, National Association of State Directors of Special
Education.

Hinshaw, S., Han, S., Erhardt, D., & Huber, A. (1992). Internalizing and
externalizing behavior problems in preschool children: Correspondence
among parent and teacher ratings and behavior observations. Journal of
Clinical Child Psychology, 21(2), 143-150.

Hinshaw, S.P., Lahey, B.B., & Hart, E.L. (1993). Issues of taxonomy and
comorbidity in the development of conduct disorder. Development and
Psychopathology, 5, 31-49.

Horner, R.H. (1994). Functional assessment: Contributions and future
directions. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27(2), 401-404.

Horowitz, S.M., Bility, K.M., Plichta, S.B., Leaf, P.J., & Haynes, N.
(1998). Teacher's assessments of behavioral disorders. American Journal
of Orthopsychiatry.

Huntze, S.L. (1988). Cooperative interface of schools and other child
care systems for behaviorally disordered students. In M.C. Wang, M.C.
Reynolds, & H.J. Walberg (Eds.), Handbook of special education: Research
and practice: Vol. 2. Mildly handicapped conditions (pp. 195-217). New
York: Pergamon.

Institute of Medicine. (1989). Research on children and adolescents with
mental, behavioral, and developmental disorders: Mobilizing a national
initiative. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Isaacs-Shockley, M., Cross, T., Bazron, B.J., Dennis, K., & Benjamin,
M.P. (1996). Framework for a culturally competent system of care. In
B.A. Stroul (Ed.), Children's mental health: Creating systems of care in
a changing society (pp. 23-40). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Kauffman, J.M. (1994). Characteristics of behavior disorders of children
and youth, fifth edition. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Kauffman, J.M., & Smucker, K. (1995). The legacies of placement: A brief
history of placement options and issues with commentary on their
evolution. In J.M. Kauffman, J.W. Lloyd, D.P. Hallahan, & T.A. Astuto
(Eds.), Issues in educational placement: Students with emotional or
behavioral disorders (pp. 21-44). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kazdin, A.E. (1990). Premature termination from treatment among children
referred for antisocial behavior. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 31, 415-425.

Knitzer, J. (1996). The role of education in systems care. In B.A.
Stroul (Ed.), Children's mental health: Creating systems of care in a
changing society (pp. 197-213). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Knitzer, J., Steinberg, Z., & Fleisch, B. (1990). At the schoolhouse
door: An examination of programs and policies for children with
behavioral and emotional problems. New York: Bank Street College of
Education.

Kortering, L.J., & Blackorby, J. (1992). High school dropout and
students identified with behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders,
18(1), 24-32.

Leone, P.E. (1991). Alcohol and other drug use by adolescents with
disabilities. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 340 150)

Leone, P.E., Greenberg, J.M., Trickett, E.J., & Spero, E. (1989). A
study of the use of cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana by students
identified as "seriously emotionally disturbed." Counterpoint, 9(3),
6-7.

Lewis, T.J., Chard, D., & Scott, T.M. (1994). Full inclusion and
education of children and youth with emotional and behavioral disorders.
Behavioral Disorders, 19(4), 277-293.

Marder, C. (1992, April). Secondary school students classified as
seriously emotionally disturbed: How are they being served? Paper
presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, San Francisco, CA.

Marder, C., & Cox, R. (1991). More than a label: Characteristics of
youth with disabilities. In M. Wagner, L. Newman, R. D'Amico, et al.
(Eds.), Youth with disabilities: How are they doing? The first
comprehensive report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study of
Special Education Students. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Mattison, R.E., & Felix, B.C. (1997). The course of elementary and
secondary school students with SED through their special education
experience. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 5(2),
107-117.

Mayer, G.O. (1995). Preventing antisocial behavior in the schools.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28(4), 467-478.

McConaughy, S.H., & Skiba, R.J. (1993). Comorbidity of externalizing and
internalizing problems. School Psychology Review, 22(3), 421-436.

McCracken, J.T., Cantwell, D.P., & Hanna, G.L. (1993). Conduct
disordered depression. In E. Klass & H.S. Koplewica (Eds.), Depression
in children and adolescents (pp. 121-132). New York: Harwood Academic
Publishers.

McInerney, M., Kane, M., & Pelavin, S. (1992). Services to children with
serious emotional disturbance. Washington, DC: Pelavin Associates, Inc.

McLaughlin, M.J., Leone, P.E., Meisel, S., & Henderson, K. (1997).
Strengthen school and community spirit. Journal of Emotional and
Behavioral Disorders, 5(1), 15-23.

McLaughlin, M.J., Leone, P.E., Warren, S.H., & Schofield, P.F. (1994).
Doing things differently: Issues and options for creating comprehensive
school linked services for children and youth with emotional or
behavioral disorders. College Park, MD: University of Maryland at
College Park, The Center for Policy Options in Special Education.

McLaughlin, M.W., & Talbert, J.E. (1992). Social constructions of
students: Challenges to policy coherence. Paper presented at the
American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Washington,
DC.

Metz, M.H. (1994). Desegregation as necessity and challenge. Journal of
Negro Education, 63(1), 64-76.

Munk, D.D., & Repp, A.C. (1994). The relationship between instructional
variables and problem behavior: A review. Exceptional Children, 60,
390-401.

Myles, B.S., & Simpson, R.L. (1992). General educators' mainstreaming
preferences that facilitate acceptance of students with behavioral
disorders and learning disabilities. Behavioral Disorders, 17(4),
305-315.

Neel, R.S., Alexander, L., & Meadows, N.B. (1997). Expand positive
learning opportunities and results. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral
Disorders, 5(1), 6-14.

Nelson, C.M. (1992). Searching for the meaning in the behavior of
antisocial pupils, public school educators, and lawmakers. School
Psychology Review, 21(1), 35-39.

Nelson, C.M., & Colvin, G. (1996). Designing supportive school
environments. Special Services in the Schools, 11, 169-186.

Nelson, C.M., & Rutherford, R.B., Jr. (1988). Behavioral interventions
with behaviorally disordered students. In M.C. Wang, M.C. Reynolds, &
H.J. Walberg (Eds.), Handbook of special education: Research and
practice: Vol. 2. Mildly handicapped conditions (pp. 125-153). New York:
Pergamon.

Nelson, J.R., Crabtree, M., Marchard-Martella, N., & Martella, R.
(1998). Teaching good behavior in the whole school. Teaching Exceptional
Children, 30(4), 4-9.

Osher, D., & Hanley, T.V. (1996). Implications of the national agenda to
improve results for children and youth with serious emotional
disturbance. In R.J. Illback & C.M. Nelson (Eds.), Emerging school-based
approaches for children with emotional and behavioral problems: Research
and practice in service integration (pp. 7-36). Binghamton, NY: Haworth.

Osher, D., & Hanley, T.V. (1995). Troubling data and promising
practices: The role that research can play in implementing the SED
national agenda. SED Quarterly, 2(1), 1-6.

Osher, D.M., & Osher, T.W. (1996). The national agenda for children and
youth with serious emotional disturbance (SED). In C.M. Nelson, R.B.
Rutherford, Jr., & B.I. Wolford (Eds.), Comprehensive and collaborative
systems that work for troubled youth: A national agenda (pp. 149-164).
Richmond, KY: Eastern Kentucky University, National Juvenile Detention
Association.

Osher, D., Osher, T., & Smith, C. (1994). Toward a national perspective
in emotional and behavioral disorders: A developmental agenda. Beyond
Behavior, 6, 4-15.

Oswald, D.P., & Coutinho, M.J. (1995). Identification and placement of
students with serious emotional disturbance. Part I: Correlates of state
child-count data. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 3(4),
224-229.

Peacock Hill Working Group. (1991). Problems and promises in special
education and related services for children and youth with emotional or
behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 16(4), 299-313.

Petr, C.G. (1994). Crises that threaten out-of-home placement of
children with emotional and behavioral disorders. Families in Society:
The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 195-203.

Quinn, M.M., Gable, R.A., Rutherford, R.B., Nelson, C.M., & Howell, K.H.
(1998). Addressing student problem behavior: An IEP team's introduction
to functional behavioral assessment and behavior intervention plans.
Washington, DC: Center for Effective Collaboration and Practice.

Quinn, M.M., Osher, D., Hoffman, C.C., & Hanley, T.V. (1998). Safe,
drug-free schools, and effective schools for ALL students: What works!
Washington: DC: Center for Effective Collaboration and Practice,
American Institutes for Research. Available online:
http://cecp.air.org/.

Reiher, T.C. (1992). Identified deficits and their congruence to the IEP
for behaviorally disordered students. Behavioral Disorders, 17(3),
167-177.

Rumberger, R.W., & Larson, K.W. (1994). Keeping high-risk Chicano
students in school: Lessons from a Los Angeles middle school dropout
prevention program. In R.J. Rossi (Ed.), Schools and students at risk:
Context and framework for positive change (pp. 141-162). New York:
Teachers College Press.

Scheuermann, B., Webber, J., Partin, M., & Knies, W.C. (1994). Level
systems and the law: Are they compatible? Behavioral Disorders, 19,
205-220.

Shores, R.E., Gunter, P.L., & Jack, S.L. (1993). Classroom management
strategies: Are they setting events for coercion? Behavioral Disorders,
18(2), 92-102.

SEDNET. (1996). SED Network annual report. State Advisory Board to the
Multiagency Network for Students with Severe Emotional Disturbance,
Florida Department of Education.

Silver, S.E., Duchnowski, A.J., Kutash, K., Friedman, R.M., Eisen, M.,
Prange, M.E., et al. (1992). A comparison of children with serious
emotional disturbance served in residential and school settings. Journal
of Child and Family Studies, 1, 43-59.

Sinclair, E., & Alexson, J. (1992). Relationship of behavioral
characteristics to educational needs. Behavioral Disorders, 17(4),
296-304.

Skiba, R., & Grizzle, K. (1992). Qualifications v. logic and data:
Excluding conduct disorders from the SED definition. School Psychology
Review, 21(1), 23-28.

Smith, C.R. (1997). Advocacy for students with emotional and behavioral
disorders: One call for redirected efforts. Behavioral Disorders, 22(2),
96-105.

Smith, C.R., Wood, F.H., & Grimes, J. (1988). Issues in the
identification and placement of behaviorally disordered students. In
M.C. Wang, M.C. Reynolds, & H.J. Walberg (Eds.), Handbook of special
education: Research and practice: Vol. 2. Mildly handicapped conditions
(pp. 95-123). New York: Pergamon.

Smith, S.W., & Coutinho, M.J. (1997). Achieving the goals of the
national agenda: Progress and prospects. Journal of Emotional and
Behavioral Disorders, 5(1), 2-5.

Smith, S.W., & Farrell, D.T. (1993). Level system use in special
education: Classroom intervention with prima facie appeal. Behavioral
Disorders, 18(4), 251-264.

Stein, S., & Merrell, K.W. (1992). Differential perceptions of
multidisciplinary team members: Seriously emotionally disturbed vs.
socially maladjusted. Psychology in the Schools, 29, 320-330.

Strayhorn, J.M., Strain, P.S., & Walker, H.M. (1993). The case for
interaction skills training in context of tutoring as a preventative
mental health intervention in schools. Behavioral Disorders, 19(1),
11-26.

Stroul, B.A., & Friedman, R.M. (1996). A system of care for children and
youth with severe emotional disturbances, revised edition. Washington,
DC: Georgetown University Child Development Center, CASSP Technical
Assistance Center.

Stroul, B.A., Lourie, I.S., Goldman, S.K., & Katz-Leavy, J.W. (1992).
Profiles of local systems of care for children and adolescents with
severe emotional disturbances, revised edition. Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Child Development Center, CASSP Technical
Assistance Center.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (1993).
Definition of mental illness and emotional disturbance in children.
Federal Register, 58(96), 29422-29422.

Sugai, G.M., & Horner, R. (in press). Antisocial behavior, discipline,
and behavioral support: A look from the schoolhouse door. Archives of
Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine.

Sugai, G., Bullis, M., & Cumblad, C. (1997). Provide ongoing skill
development and support. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders,
5(1), 55-64.

Swartz, S.L., Mosley, W.J., & Koenig-Jerz, G. (1987). Diagnosing
behavior disorders: An analysis of state definitions, eligibility
criteria and recommended procedures. Chicago, IL: Council for
Exceptional Children.

Talbott, E. (1997). Reflecting on antisocial girls and the study of
their development: Researchers' views. Exceptionality, 7(4), 267-272.

Talbott, E., & Lloyd, J.W. (1997). Raters' views of the problems and
competence of adolescent girls. Exceptionality, 7(4), 229-243.

Tallmadge, G., Gund, N., Munson, R., & Hanley, T. (1985). Special study
on terminology, comprehensive review and evaluation report (Report No.
MV-85-01). Submitted to the U.S. Department of Education, Washington,
DC, by SRA Technologies, Mountain View, CA.

Umbreit, J., & Blair, K.S. (1997). Using structural analysis to
facilitate treatment of aggression and noncompliance in a young child
at-risk for behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 22(2), 75-86.

U.S. Department of Education. (1997). Making collaboration work for
children, youth, families, schools, and communities: The town meeting
\[Video\].

U.S. Department of Education. (1996). Making collaboration work for
children, youth, families, schools, and communities: The video
conference \[Video\].

U.S. Department of Education. (1994). National agenda for achieving
better results for children and youth with serious emotional
disturbance. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Education. (1980). Second annual report to Congress
on the implementation of Public Law 94-142: The Education for All
Handicapped Children Act. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. House of Representatives (1997). Report No. 105-95. Washington, DC:
Author.

Valdes, K.A., Williamson, C.L., & Wagner, M.M. (1990). The National
Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students. Menlo Park,
CA: SRI International.

Wagner, M. (1995). Outcomes for youths with serious emotional
disturbance in secondary school and early adulthood. The Future of
Children: Critical Issues for Children and Youths, 5(4), 90-112.

Wagner, M., Blackorby, J., Cameto, R., Hebbeler, K., & Newman, L.
(1993). The transition experiences of young people with disabilities.
Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Wagner, M., Blackorby, J., & Hebbeler, K. (1993). Beyond the report
card: The multiple dimensions of secondary school performance of
students with disabilities. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Walker, H.M. (1995). The acting out child: Coping with classroom
disruption. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Walker, H.M., Colvin, G., & Ramsey, E. (1995). Antisocial behavior in
school: Strategies and best practices. New York: Brooks/Cole.

Walker, H.M., & Fabre, T.R. (1988). Assessment of behavior disorders in
the school setting: Issues, problems, and strategies revisited. In N.
Haring (Ed.), Measuring and managing behavior disorders. Seattle, WA:
University of Washington Press.

Walker, H.M., & Severson, H.H. (1990). Systematic screening for behavior
disorders user's guide and administration manual. Longmont, CO: Sopris
West.

Walker, H.M., Shinn, M.R., O'Neill, R.E., & Ramsey, E. (1987). A
longitudinal assessment of the development of antisocial behavior in
boys: Rationale, methodology, and first year results. Remedial and
Special Education, 8(4), 7-16.

Walker, H.M., Stieber, S., & O'Neill, R.E. (1990). Middle school
behavioral profiles of antisocial and at-risk control boys: Descriptive
and predictive outcomes. Exceptionality, 1(1), 61-78.

Wehby, J.H., & Symons, F.J. (1996). Revisiting conceptual issues in the
measurement of aggressive behavior. Behavioral Disorders, 22(1), 29-35.

Wehby, J.H., Symons, F.J., & Hollo, A. (1997). Promote appropriate
assessment. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 5(1), 45-54.

Wehby, J.H., Symons, F.J., & Shores, R.E. (1995). A descriptive analysis
of aggressive behavior in classrooms for children with emotional and
behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 20(2), 87-105.

Zabel, R.H. (1988). Preparation of teachers for behaviorally disordered
students: A review of literature. In M.C. Wang, M.C. Reynolds, & H.J.
Walberg (Eds.), Handbook of special education: Research and practice:
Vol. 2. Mildly handicapped conditions (pp. 171-193). New York: Pergamon.

Zahn-Waxler, C. (1993). Warriors and worriers: Gender and
psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 79-89.

Zigler, E., Taussig, C., & Black, K. (1992). Early childhood
intervention: A promising preventative for juvenile delinquency.
American Psychologist, 47(8), 997-1005.

Zins, J.E., Coyne, R.K., & Ponti, C.R. (1988). Primary prevention:
Expanding the impact of psychological services in schools. School
Psychology Review, 17(4), 542-549.

Zoccolillo, M. (1993). Gender and the development of conduct disorder.
Development and Psychopathology, 5, 65-78.

Zoccolillo, M. (1992). Co-occurrence of conduct disorder and its adult
outcomes with depressive and anxiety disorders: A review. Journal of the
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 31, 547-556.

[^1]: Throughout the rest of this report, the infants and toddlers
    program will be referred to as Part C.

[^2]: The enrollment counts are fall membership counts collected by the
    National Center for Education Statistics. The enrollment figures
    include children in prekindergarten through 12th grade.

[^3]: These disability categories were first reported separately as an
    option in 1991-92 and as a requirement in 1992-93 as a result of
    P.L. 101-476, the 1990 Amendments to IDEA.

[^4]: OSERS. (1991). Clarification of policy to address the needs of
    children with attention deficit disorders with general and/or
    special education. Memorandum to Chief State School Officers.
    Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, OSERS.

[^5]: See the 19th Annual Report to Congress for modules on poverty and
    disproportionate representation of racial/ethnic minorities in
    special education.

[^6]: OSEP intends to include a module on limited English proficiency in
    a future report.

[^7]: One study (Levine & Edgar, 1994) noted few significant differences
    in postschool results for men and women with disabilities, except
    for parenting.

[^8]: This module reports on work conducted by the Center for Effective
    Collaboration and Practice, one of several research centers funded
    by OSEP.