Social maladjustment and students with behavioral and emotional disorders: Revisiting basic assumptions and assessment issues

While much of the current focus in special education remains on reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1997, disparities in the identification of children with serious emotional disorders continue to plague special educators and school psychologists. Several years after the issue of social maladjustment and its relationship to serious emotional disturbance was discussed and debated, little appears to have changed. Children, adolescents, and families are subjected to widely varying philosophies, assessment procedures, and services based on questionable criteria used to determine whether a student “qualifies” for services under the Serious Emotional Disturbance (SED) designation. In this paper, we address how this issue has significantly affected access to services for students with serious emotional disturbances. Faulty assumptions regarding the relationship of social maladjustment to emotional disturbance in children/adolescents are identified and the implications of these assumptions for children are described. The lack of research supporting specific tools developed to assess social maladjustment in the context of a serious emotional disorder and the impact of this current practice on children is addressed from a practical and ethical standpoint. The role of the school psychologist as gatekeeper is contrasted to that of the more positive role as facilitator. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Much of the current focus on reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997 (IDEA; 1997) has centered on issues associated with assessment, learning disabilities, and discipline practices for students with disabilities. Seemingly overlooked in the current discussion are important concerns associated with identification and education of students with serious emotional disturbance (SED) and behavior disorders (BD). School psychologists and special educators who work with at-risk students continue to find themselves in the often untenable position of determining whether a student meets criteria for special education services on the basis of what has been described by many as vague, poorly defined, and professionally indefensible criteria (Skiba, Grizzle, & Minke, 1994). Specifically, problems associated with the use of social maladjustment (SMA) as an exclusionary concept have continued to plague those charged with responsibility for assessment, eligibility determination, and provision of services to students with emotional and behavioral difficulties across the nation. Indeed, the situation has been described by some as “the special education trap” (Murray & Myers, 1998), where a whole class of students with conduct and behavior problems may potentially be denied services based on an interpretation of a definition used in their particular jurisdiction, state, or school district. The present situation offers an excellent opportunity to revisit the assumptions, assessment practices, and outcomes of over 30 years of practice based on guidelines offered by federal regulations and to offer suggestions for future consideration.