Serving Troubled Youth in a Troubled Society: A Reply to Maag and Howell:

* Maag and Howell (1991) offered an interesting and, on the whole, supportive critique of our position regarding the responsibility of the public educational system to serve youths whose antisocial behavior constitutes a serious disability, yet who are excluded from special education services because of a loophole in the current federal definition of serious emotional disturbance (SED) (Nelson, Rutherford, Center, & Walker, 1991). We agree with most of Maag and Howell's points, except for two issues. The first is the extent to which professional concurrence exists regarding the view that students with social maladjustment (SM) are entitled to the protection and guidance of Public Law 94-142. The second is that a change in the definition of SED is insufficient; instead, the system needs a comprehensive restructuring. PROFESSIONAL COMMITMENT TO SERVING STUDENTS WITH ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR Maag and Howell asserted that we are preaching to the converted when we argue for changes in both the definition of SED and in assessment and identification practices. They insisted that we "are speaking to an audience already familiar with the problem." Frankly, it is difficult to understand how anyone could take such a position, given the extensive documentation that exists regarding the long-standing underservice to pupils with serious emotional disturbance. Maag and Howell indicated that the "real problem . . . is that society does not support programs for youth with behavior problems." We concur; however, professional educators are part of society, and the data clearly indicate that those regular and special educators in positions to decide who will be served have made the choice not to serve. Those who were involved in promoting the revised definition of SED passed at the recent CEC Delegate Assembly will be surprised to learn that "most professionals associated with special education" agree with our position. Maag and Howell incorrectly identified Jane Slenkovitch (1983, 1984) as our principal antagonist. She is only a spokesperson for the actual antagonist: the collective of educators and policymakers who deny these pupils access to the services they need. Maag and Howell also suggested that we have in mind insisting that "all students, regardless of the most destructive or profane behavior, must be educated in the neighborhood school." This statement, as well as those cited previously, indicate that we may not have made our meaning clear. Though we do not categorically favor the placement in the local schools of students who commit acts of violence against persons and property, neither do we categorically endorse suspension and expulsion as a disciplinary strategy for students who are offensive to some. This practice has become so ridiculous that in some schools pupils are suspended for being truant. Local schools should not be permitted to reject students whose behavior some educators find odious, or who engage in delinquent activities outside the school setting. P. L. 94-142 guarantees students with disabilities the right to an education. Students without disabilities have that guarantee through the Constitution. To exclude them from their neighborhood school without appropriate due process is an act of profound disregard. Such pupils are, in effect, "less equal" than students with disabilities--who need their own law to receive services in the public schools. For obvious reasons, some pupils with social maladjustment must be educated in segregated placements. Yet these youths are entitled to as good an education as they could receive from a comprehensive public school. In fact, their social and educational deficits demand that they should receive an education that is better than they received in their neighborhood schools. We agree with Maag and Howell that the historical responsibility of the juvenile justice system for many youths with social maladjustment has resulted in the public schools developing little ownership for them. …