Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
This Annotated Bibliography Assignment aligns with the following Standards: INTASC
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)
Resources; Ontario Curriculum Standards does not apply in this case and Ontario Teacher
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
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
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
(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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
Research Method
This research study was Qualitative in nature as it was conducted using a review of Web-
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
Challenges such as non-existent framework, the absence of valid and reliable tools,
ambiguous policy wording, subjective enforcement and discrepancies between policy and
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
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,
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
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
As a classroom teacher, I can see how knowledge of current policies can be an important
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
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.