Artifact #3: Annotated Bibliography Assignment

This Annotated Bibliography Assignment aligns with the following Standards: INTASC

The Learner and Learning, Standard 2: Learning Differences; Standard 3: Learning

Environments. NYS Code of Ethics Principle 1: Educators nurture the intellectual, physical,

emotional, social and civic potential of each student; NYS P-12 Common Core Learning

Standards are not applicable in this case; NYS Learning Standards, are not applicable in this

case; TEAC/CAEP Claim 1: Medaille College graduates know the subject matter in their certification

area(s); ISTE Standards for Teachers Standard 1 Facilitate and inspire student learning and

creativity, 1.a. Promote, support and model creative and innovative thinking and inventiveness;

for Students, Standard 1.b, Empowered Learner; International Literacy Association (ILA)

Professional Standards, Standard 4, Diversity; CEC Standard 4, Evidence based Practices

Resources; Ontario Curriculum Standards does not apply in this case and Ontario Teacher

Practice Standards: Commitment to Students and Student Learning.

This Annotated Bibliography was dear to my heart. As stated in my philosophy of

education, I have a passionate belief that all students regardless of age, race, socio-economic

status or ability have a right to a free, public education that takes place in an engaging, inclusive

and judgement-free environment. As we know, life isnt always fair and some students start out

on their academic path, facing a great deal of challenge and sometimes adversity.

It is for this reason that I believe strongly in the Clinical Practice and Partnerships section

of the TEAC/CAEP Standard 2 which addresses Clinical Partnerships and Practices. As this

artifact discusses, it is vitally important for teachers to be involved in sourcing resources and

program opportunities in partnership with local community organizations as an extension to the

academic resources available to these same students. As an educator, I am aware of how

complex a matter it can be attempting to source the appropriate assistance for students in need.

My knowledge of available resources through special education grants and IEP or 504 plans is

important as it demonstrates my awareness of the importance of finding the right resources for

students in need. Further to this, I have a solid understanding of how positive, collaborative

relationships with community partners and resource workers can be the pathway to help for

students who might not otherwise receive the help they need.

As evidenced in an article written by Eric Schaps Ph.D., published by the Center for The

Collaborative Classroom (2005) entitled The Role of Supportive School Environments in

Promoting Academic Success, When students find their school environment to be supportive

and caring, they are less likely to become involved in substance abuse, violence, and other

problem behaviors (Hawkins, Catalano, Kosterman, Abbott, & Hill 1999; Battistich & Hom

1997; Resnick et al. 1997). They are more likely to develop positive attitudes toward themselves

and prosocial attitudes and behaviors toward others (Schaps, Battistich, & Solomon 1997). Much

of the available research shows that supportive schools foster these positive outcomes by

promoting students sense of connectedness (Resnick et al. 1997), belongingness

(Baumeister & Leary 1995), or community (Schaps, Battistich, & Solomon 1997) during the

school day.

Connectedness, belongingness, and community all refer to students sense of being in close,

respectful relationships with peers and adults at school.

As research suggests, when students feel connected to their school and community, they

have an increased chance of success in the face of adversity. The difference makers are people
like myself and the community partners with whom I am open to collaborating in an effort to

give my students the very best that we can offer!

 Annotated Bibliography Assignment

Social Maladjustment and Special Education:

State Regulations and Continued Controversy

By: Wendy Ward

Medaille College

Author Note
This paper was prepared on November 28th, 2016 for ESP-600-U33, taught by Dr. Craig Centrie
Article Reference

Becker, S.P., Cloth, A.H., Evans, S.W., & Paternite, C.E. (2014). Social maladjustment and

special education: State regulations and continued controversy. Journal of Emotional and

Behavioural Disorders, 22, (4), 214-224. doi: 10.1177/1063426613487405

Objective/Purpose

Under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA, 2004) there

is a federal exclusion clause which states that students who have been identified as emotionally

disturbed (ED) are eligible for special education services whereas students identified as socially

maladjusted (SM) are not. The exception to this rule is if the student has been identified as both

ED and SM, that student qualifies for special education services.

According to IDEA, the term Emotional Disturbance is defined as a condition exhibiting

one or more of the following behaviors over an extended period of time and to a marked degree

which adversely affects a childs 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. Emotional disturbance includes schizophrenia but does not apply to children

who are socially maladjusted, unless it is determined that they have an emotional disturbance.

The term Social Maladjustment was described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of

Mental Disorders (2nd ed. (DSM-II); American Psychiatric Association (APA), 1968) as a

cultural conflict resulting from problems adjusting or adapting to another cultural or shared

norm. This definition has been removed from the current revised 4th edition (2000).
 The purpose of this study was to review the definitions of terminology such as Emotional

Disturbance vs. Social Maladjustment within the umbrella of Special Education services in U.S.

schools across all states. Further, this study examined school professionals reported practices as

compared to their state regulations to determine if there continues to be a discrepancy between

the state policies and school practices and the reasons why.

Target Population

The target group in this research study consisted of 1,025 special educators. Of whom

573 worked in high schools and 452 worked in a junior high school or middle school setting.

These participants were employed in 47 states. Of these participants 97% said they were

currently working directly with adolescents with emotional and behavioral problems. The

remaining 3% had a history of that type of work. Of these participants 22% worked in urban,

22% worked in rural and 46% worked in mixed urban/suburban/rural school. All participants

were volunteers who were solicited by email or postal letter and all responses were kept

confidential. All potential respondents were offered a 1 in 10 chance to win a $25 gift card

through a random drawing for their participation.

Research Method

This research study was Qualitative in nature as it was conducted using a review of Web-

Based Data and Survey Research.

In order to examine the status of the SM clause in state education regulations and policy

reports, the researchers collected web-based information which was obtained from the

Department of Education (DOE) in all 50 States and the District of Columbia (DC). This

information included committee reports, disability information and resources for parents about

ED and SM.
 Once the information from the DOE was collected from all states, the researchers

categorized the state data based on a) removing or b) retaining the SM clause.

Next, the researchers looked at the survey results from the 1,025 respondents. The

participants were asked to report their schools current practice which researchers later compared

against that states practice based on information obtained from the DOE web-based search. This

gave the researchers an indication of whether the schools practice aligned with the states

policies.

One such example in this survey read as follows:

According to the federal definition of ED, students who are socially maladjusted do not qualify

for special education services under the ED category. In your school, is this guideline adhered to

by excluding students with social maladjustment from ED classification?

Then the researchers collected the respondents data and categorized it into three groups.

1) Respondents who reported a school practice that matched their state policy 2) respondents

who reported a policy that was inconsistent with their state policy and 3) respondents who

reported not to know their school policy with regard to the clause.

Interestingly, the researchers found that there was conflicting information on different

documents within the state DOEs own website. In these cases, the official state regulatory code

was used to determine whether that state removed or retained the SM clause.

In all, 44 states kept the federal definition and criteria for ED (including the SM clause),

7% removed the SM clause; they reported doing so in order to make the criterion for ED more

inclusive.

Article Summary
 This article aimed to understand why students who are identified as SM are excluded

from special education services unless they have also been identified as ED. This practice

continues to be allowed based on an exclusion clause that exists within IDEIA, 2004. The

researchers questioned why this practice continues to occur despite the obvious lack of reliable

and valid tools for testing.

Researchers questioned whether the practice of excluding these students from special

education programs was a result of incentives to keep special education program numbers low.

Keeping these numbers low would allow schools to have more funding per special education

student and would allow the administration to retain their freedom in choosing how to deal with

students who exhibit behaviors classified under the term SM. For example, school administrators

would be allowed to suspend or expel students who were disruptive or truant if they were in

general education but would not be able to exercise those same disciplinary tactics if the student

was identified as SM and enrolled in special education.

Further, the researchers discovered that although this clause continues to exist,

there are no tools for the valid or reliable assessment of SM. The information that does exist is

open to interpretation by different school districts, administrators, teachers and IEP teams.

Therefore, two students exhibiting identical behaviors in different schools would be treated

differently based on their schools interpretation of the exclusion clause.

Results and Outcomes

Based on the information collected from the DOE web-based search, it was determined

that 44 states kept the federal definition and criteria for ED (including the SM clause) and 7

states removed the clause from their state regulations. Many of the states which elected to

remove the clause did so in an effort to broaden the criteria used to identify ED. In doing so, they
were able to make their special education programs more inclusive and available to students in

need.

Of the states that retained the SM exclusion clause, 10 states provided clarification of the

terminology used to determine assessment guidelines and program eligibility. A further 12 states

provided recommendations such as interviews, observations, behavior rating scales, impact on

functional behaviors and adaptability etc. for the assessment of ED.

In comparing the results from the web-based research and the surveys returned by

respondents, it was clear that discrepancies between policy and practice were a common

occurrence. For example, when asked whether their school adhered to the state policy regarding

the SM exclusion clause, 43% responded with an answer that was inconsistent with their state

policy of retaining or eliminating the clause. 1/3 of all respondents were aware that their school

procedures did not align with the state regulations and 25% said that they did not know

whether their school excluded students based on the SM clause.

In light of these findings, it becomes clear that a great deal of confusion exists. Educators

and administrators are aware of the need for a more accurate, valid and reliable method of

identifying ED and SM but do not have the tools to figure out how.

The fact that the federal clause was so ambiguous made it almost impossible for

practitioners to employ as a tool to effectively guide their practice. This was highlighted in the

process of this research study. One such example arose from the New Mexico DOE (2005)

website which stated that the following: Determination of ineligibility for special education for

students who are SM should be identified and the evaluator should assure that a scientifically-

based conceptual framework for defining and assessing SM was used and documented.

(http://www.ped.state.nm.us/seo/policies_procedures/index.html). This is fascinating considering

no such framework even exists. How are educators and administrators supposed to use this

information to help guide their practice if there isnt a structure in place?

Challenges such as non-existent framework, the absence of valid and reliable tools,

ambiguous policy wording, subjective enforcement and discrepancies between policy and

practice reinforce the need for change.

Despite conflicting views on this issue, the use of the SM exclusion clause has increased

in use over the past 3 decades. There is an ethical dilemma at the root of this issue which is no

wonder there hasnt been a consensus on how to revise, replace or delete the SM exclusion

clause.

This study was limited by the accuracy of the information obtained from the web-based

search of the DOE websites. It was further limited by the relatively low participation rate and the

fact that the group of respondents may not have been representative of the population of all

teachers working with kids with disabilities. The respondents also may not have had a high

degree of knowledge on their districts policies as they may not be involved in eligibility

decision meetings when placing students in special education programs.

The strength of this study however was in the participation of volunteer respondents who

represented most states and worked as special educators in a variety of settings such as rural,

urban and suburban middle or high schools in the U.S.

Classroom Application

After having considered the research topic and outcomes of this research study, I have

become acutely aware of how federal policies can either help or hinder our practice related to

special education services in the U.S.

 It is important for us as future educators to have an understanding of the policies which

govern practice in our state or province both on a federal and local level.

The policies discussed in this research study show how ambiguous wording and unclear

guidelines for procedures can leave mentally vulnerable students at risk.

As a classroom teacher, I can see how knowledge of current policies can be an important

tool in finding support services for the students in my care.

After having considered the exclusion clause for SM, I would definitely work with

officials at the local level and within my school board or district to find alternatives for students

who are denied access to special education services based on policy restrictions. If a student is

ineligible for special education services, perhaps they would be eligible for psychological

services provided by public health agencies within the community. Some SM students might

benefit from the supports of a Child and Youth Counsellor within the school board. Outside of

classroom hours, I would look into alternative programs such as Big Brothers or Big Sisters to

see if there could be a good fit for my student(s) in need. I would collaborate with a students

IEP team (if they have one) and with other professionals in the school, the district or the board.

Of course all of these supports would require the cooperation of the student and his or her family

but I do not believe that just because a student is identified as SM and disqualified from special

education services, that we should accept that as a final step in the support process.

All students struggling with mental illness deserve the opportunity to complete a free

public education and be treated with dignity and respect in the process. This research suggests a

link between students who suffer undiagnosed or unsupported treatment for ED and/or SM and

their prevalence in the youth criminal justice system. While policy makers are arguing over

wording, SM students are being sent a message that nobody wants them or knows what to do
with them. This is an especially troubling matter considering they are among the most vulnerable

sector of the student population.

Given that the aim of special education services is to help all students in need, policy

makers at the federal level should be creating legislation that is more inclusive not increasingly

restrictive.

[Back to Table of Contents]