|
|
|
|
|
|
Advocacy for Students with
Emotional and Behavioral Disorders:
One Call for Redirected Efforts
Carl R. Smith
Note - A reformatted version of this article appeared in Behavioral Disorders, 22(2), 96-105, February 1997.
Abstract
Introduction
Misdirected Agendas
A Redirected Agenda
Assuring Appropriate and Individualized Programs
Qualified Personnel
Least Restrictive Environment Considerations
Labels and Assessment Strategies
Conclusion
References
About the Author
This article explores several topics related to advocating for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Included is a discussion of advocacy and integrity applied to the educator’s work. Various misdirected advocacy positions are critiqued and a new advocacy agenda proposed focusing on program appropriateness, qualified personnel, least restrictive environment, and meaningful classification and assessment procedures.
We have reason to be concerned about current public policy directions potentially affecting students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) and their parents. On the one hand there are indicators that the needs of these students and their families are being recognized within education, mental health, and juvenile justice as evidenced by a proliferation of activity at the national level such as national conferences, the development and dissemination of a national agenda related to these students (Osher, Osher & Smith, 1994), and daily media presentations to alert us to the implications if we fail to meet the needs of these students. Yet, we seem to be in a public policy double bind—a policy that promotes "it takes a village to raise our children" coupled with a policy of welfare reform that appears to remove many supports for our most vulnerable children and families.
Where is the voice of advocacy in our field? Many may miss the passions with which we once sought, even insisted upon, solutions to unmet needs for students with EBD. We relate to the words of William Reay (1996) who, in describing the earlier days of advocacy for children and families, states:
We had a sense of urgency; a compulsion to quickly establish the need to collectively address the necessities and desires of children and families. We sat and debriefed the problems, generated possible solutions, and did whatever was necessary to advance the interest of children who experience the debilitating influences of a serious emotional disturbance, and those families, particularly single women, who must, as a function of daily life manage their families and personal lives. In many respects, I believe those days were driven out of a sense of collective community emergency. We believed that families would truly perish without the sense of common decency that is only possible through joining together. (p. 6)
This description of an advocacy standard of behavior rings true as this author harkens back to his experiences as a teacher, child care worker, and new member of the Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders (CCBD). As this memory unfolds, I recall being driven by a sense of principles from which no apologies were offered for engaging in advocacy on behalf of children and families. As professionals we felt that we know where we ought to be going, and we acted accordingly. Covey (1991) refers to such driving principles as "life compasses." He suggests that these compasses "surface in the form of values, ideas, norms, and teachings that uplift, enable, fulfill, empower, and inspire people" (p. 19). What are the principles or life compasses to which we turn to improve services for students with EBD as we enter the 21st century?
Some may contend that "maturity" has broadened our perspective to balance the needs of the students with EBD with the needs of all students. To these our mandate to serve students with disabilities effectively will occur only if we reform the entire human service and educational systems. Unfortunately, those moving in this direction may lose their advocacy momentum as total system reform seems to be under the close scrutiny and control of those who represent the status quo and hold authority within "the" system. Can we challenge what the system is doing for students with EBD if we primarily gain our professional identities as influential members within such a system? Seymour Sarason (1990) warns us of the futility of solely relying on such "within system" approaches and concludes, "… any action that stays within the system—based only on its own resources, personnel, decision-making processes, and planning—is misconceived, parochial and likely to fail" (pp. 35-36).
Others may succumb and conclude that the multitude of social, emotional, and economic factors affecting the students and families with whom we work cannot be overcome. Is this yet another form of "selling out?" Certainly our appreciation of the interaction and complexity of critical factors is warranted. As one of this author’s mentors once quipped, "We have every right to be humble," when approaching our professional challenges. Bloom (1981) wisely warns us of the danger of "complexity shock" as we come to understand the overwhelming and unpredictable nature of our work.
Rather than giving up when faced with this task perhaps we need to heed the words of family members of students with significant emotional and behavioral difficulties shared at a recent conference on collaboration:
Our children and families have prevailed in spite of the system. They have remained strong without supports and courageous without hope. They are surviving in chaotic and distressed situations, yet they are able to find incredible ways of meeting their needs. They are persistent in obtaining resources and diligent in working their way through a number of bureaucratic mazes. They understand the impact of policies even when policy makers do not. They are respectful even when they have not been respected (Smith, Sweeney, Kay, & McInerney, in press).
Advocating for what we believe defines integrity in our professional and personal lives, Stephen Carter (1996) asserts that this process requires:
- Discerning what is right and what is wrong,
- Acting on what you have discerned, even at personal cost; and
- Saying openly that you are acting on your understanding of right from wrong. (p. 7)
In describing how integrity emerges in our lives, Carter states, "The word conveys not so much a single-mindedness as a completeness; not the frenzy of a fanatic who wants to remake all the world in a single mold but the serenity of a person who is confident in the knowledge he or she is living rightly." (p.7)
It would seem appropriate and necessary for us in the field of behavioral disorders to heed these descriptors of integrity as we try to define ethical advocacy on behalf of students and families, and that we identify our own role in the advocacy process. Can we accomplish this, and at the same time avoid any proclamation tinged with a moral superiority? I think so.
The continuing need for advocacy in our field is apparent. When we look at the "data" we see a field serving far fewer students than one would expect (McInerney, Kan, & Pelavin, 1992). We see a classification system still driven by the need to "control" numbers rather than serving students (Smith & Grimes, 1985). We see a general education structure that is concerned about being limited in the use of aversive consequences (Kauffman, 1982; Rezmierski & Rubinstein, 1982). We see programs apparently dominated by a need to control student behavior rather than teaching replacement behaviors (Knitzer, Steinberg, & Fleish, 1990; National Mental Health Association and The Federation of Families for Children’s Mental Health, 1993). Finally, we see data being reported on the results of our efforts that bother us regarding the futures of these students after leaving our programs (Osher et al., 1994).
The intent of this article is to structure a discussion presenting one viewpoint of ethical advocacy on behalf of students with EBD and their families. I will discuss several examples of current policy debates that, in my opinion, may be missing the mark. Next, an appeal is made to apply advocacy efforts on behalf of appropriate, individualized intervention programs, qualified personnel, least restrictive environment considerations, and approaches to classification and assessment. I conclude with an invitation for you to become more active in these discussions.
Our Congress, at the time of this writing, has not yet resolved a number of issues regarding the Reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). For example, it appears that major battles will continue around issues such as the extent to which students with disabilities will be held to a separate standard for their behavior as contrasted with so-called normal-age peers. And, as Stanfield (1995) points out:
In the battle over federal rules on discipline in special education, each side climbs all over the other to claim the high moral ground. Advocates for the disabled insist that they are the guardians of civil rights of the most vulnerable students. Educators respond that they are protecting the safety and learning environment of all students. (p. 2103)
Much of the fodder for the debate on separate standards for discipline of students with disabilities goes back to restrictions on schools wishing to use strategies such as suspension and expulsion with such students (Honig v. Doe, 1988). While most advocates are sincerely concerned about what will happen to students in special education if they are subjected to the same disciplinary standards as other students, this author would suggest that separate standards have not served students with EBD and their families very well. Despite my earlier admonitions regarding losing our focused advocacy efforts by being too invested in the overall "system" and authority figures within, it does seem that our advocacy efforts of preserving certain protections or rights for "some" to the exclusion of "others" is based on questionable premises. These premises include (a) the intent of our programs, (b) the extent to which we can reliably determine the relationship of a student’s disability to behaviors warranting disciplinary actions, and (c) the threshold point for differentiating an array of behavioral and emotional problems from the special education condition of EBD.
Several years ago I participated in a mediation conference involving a student, his mother, various local district personnel, and the district’s attorney. At issue was the district’s strong contention that the young man should be identified as severely behaviorally disordered; and that he needed an intensive, self-contained, instructional program based on his needs. The educational record for the student contained extensive documentation of aggressive behaviors, defiant outbursts, and an inability to follow authority directives. After a lengthy discussion, the mother agreed with the recommendations of the district and understood that her son was to be identified as behaviorally disordered and placed into an intensive program. As we were about to wrap up our "successful" mediation, the district’s attorney turned to the youth and his mother with the reminder, "You do understand that our district has a code of discipline, and you will be expected to follow this just like everyone else."
This story illustrates the importance of communicating the intent of our special education programs. In this case the district, through its attorney, was communicating an all or nothing standard in relation to its code of discipline. A response to this could have been an all or nothing advocacy position asserting that because the student was disabled, he could not be held accountable to the code of discipline at all. Rather than such a position, I would assert that compliance with aspects of this uniform discipline code is a reasonable goal for this student to which we could direct aspects of our special education program. Specialized instruction is required for the student to learn the behaviors needed for reasonable compliance with this discipline code. And, it would appear necessary that his individualized education program (IEP) directly address this learning need. Providing interventions aimed at assisting the student meet the behavioral expectations of the school setting and providing a time from during which such learning can occur, with individualized, amended consequences for transgressions, is quite different than requesting a permanent alternative code of conduct. While a permanent, different code may appear to be in the spirit of advocacy, I question the benefit of such an approach to other students, the staff, or the student with EBD.
A relatively recent twist to the "separate standards" discussion is referred to as the "manifestation determination" process. It appears that one of the primary decisions regarding the type of consequences that can be applied to a student with disabilities is the relationship between the disability condition and the offending behavior. If a casual relationship is found, schools cannot suspend or expel the student for more than 10 days without considering all of the processes necessary for a change of placement consideration (Weatherly, 1996). There is also the requirement that services be continued for the student, regardless of the offense. Multidisciplinary staffing teams are called upon to answer questions regarding casual connections between disability conditions and behaviors displayed by the student. There are high stakes related to this causality question with few, if any, agreed upon, valid, and reliable procedures for determining such relationships.
What about the substance of the manifestation determination we are being called upon to make? Can staffing teams, with any degree of reliability, make a determination about the relationship about the relationship between the student’s disability and the offending behavior? This author thinks not. We have always been limited in our ability to definitely identify causation relationships, even in our most sophisticated clinical settings. What leads us to believe that such a causal relationship can be determined (and determined reliably) across multiple staffing arrangements throughout our country? While some educators and attorneys (Hartwig & Ruesch, 1994) attempt to provide direction to school personnel in the process, it seems highly unlikely that the substance of determination decision making has any probability of exceeding our interrater capabilities across dimensions such as psychiatric diagnoses or placement decisions.
To this author, the manifestation determination quest may fall in the category of "pseudoscience," a phenomenon that has haunted us in several areas of special education. For example, our fervor in past years to answer the learning disabilities determination question by applying a performance/potential discrepancy test (McKinney, 1987; Reschly, 1996) or the application of a strict regression/recoupment formula in answering the question of which students require extended special education programming (Bales v. Clarke, 1981) do not really address the basic issues in question. In each of these instances, it seems that we are trying desperately to come up with a simple, yet objective process to answer a complex, substantive question. And, we are expecting these decisions to be made independent of the social and political pressures that may be present surrounding such deliberations.
These two issues—separate standards and manifestation determination—seem to hinge on another factor. Quite simply, as long as we persist in suggesting by our actions that there is a clear line of demarcation separating students with EBD from other students with behavioral differences, such proposed solutions will persist. Currently such a distinction carries the high stakes outcome of an array of services and protections versus limited or no services and protections.
But how confident can we be in our ability to reliably apply such threshold distinctions? Skrtic (1993) warns of our tendency to apply a pathological model in special education that requires an accounting for the presence or absence of pathological symptoms to verify the existence of an abnormal condition. In addition, Adelman and Taylor (1994) discuss the application of classification criteria in special education and conclude that a consistent problem is treating conditions as discrete entities when, in fact, we may be dealing with gradations of conditions. To this author our efforts in determining thresholds should be directed toward matching student needs with intervention options across general and special education rather than the "all or nothing" stakes described above.
Our response, as a professional community to dealing with these complex issues is critical. On the one hand, we can choose to unconditionally advocate for our students with whatever appears to provide them with the greatest protections and immediate services. We can claim that the students for whom we advocate are well deserving of a so-called "protected status" by virtue of the many misfortunes that may have come their way. This would appear to be the posture many are taking with the issues around discipline procedures with students with EBD and other disabilities. I would suggest, however, that there may be other, more pervasive and important advocacy issues that seem to be lost in current deliberations … thus, a call for a redirected agenda.
At the time of this writing it appears that the 105th Congress will be charged with starting over once again on the Reauthorization of IDEA. While this is frustrating for all who worked to reach consensus, it does offer an opportunity to reconsider what we, as professionals in the field of behavioral disorders, consider to be the priority items that could impact the quality of education received by students with EBD. This author would suggest the following directions for such efforts.
Assuring Appropriate and Individualized Programs
Perhaps the most important question that must be asked prior to disciplining a student with behavioral disorders is the extent to which the student has been provided an appropriate special education program. If such a program has not been provided, then it would not be acceptable to resort to various disciplinary standards in lieu of providing the needed programs and services for such a student. There are several models (e.g., Benson, Cessna & Borock, 1987; Peacock Hill Working Group, 1991; Sodac et al., 1988) that define various program components that could comprise such an appropriate program. As Smith and Dykstra (1988) state:
Regardless of the type of program model in which a student with behavioral disorders is served, it is imperative that a specialized program dealing with his/her behavioral difficulties be provided. While we may flinch at the idea of mandated uniformity, it does seem reasonable that our field has reached a point where we can assure our consumers (students and parents) that certain professionally generated quality elements will be provided to them (p. 5)
Regardless of the specific delineation of "appropriateness," it seems that we are at a point in our field’s development where standards of appropriateness can be assessed, and standards should be insisted upon in all programs serving students with emotional and behavioral disorders. We should advocate that each state plan (or state improvement plan) specify the process by which program appropriateness will be assured. Associated with this would be the expectation that federal and state monitoring procedures will assure that such appropriateness components are being addressed for all students. It is also important that each state’s Comprehensive System for Personnel Development (CSPD) Plan include the means by which skills to implement each program components are provided for all staff working with these students.
Inherent to the concept of appropriateness is the promise that all students’ programs, including those with behavioral disorders, are truly individualized to each student’s needs. This must be part of our advocacy agenda to strengthen substantive compliance with IEP requirements. We need to look at state proposals such as those recently adopted in California and Illinois that mandate individualized behavioral management programs to be delivered in a non-aversive manner for a broad range of students (California Code of Regulations, 1993; Illinois State Board of Education, 1994).
Individualization serves as a basic foundation in providing a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) for students with disabilities. While a detailed discussion of this topic is available elsewhere (e.g., Smith 1996), suffice it to say that true individualization may be absent for many students with EBD. At this pint it appears that appropriateness is driven by procedural expectations as defined in IDEA and a substantive requirement that the program provided is "… reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefit" (Board of Ed. v. Rowley, 1982). The judgment of this latter standard seems to hinge on the adequacy of a student’s IEP and is directly affected by the extent to which the program reflects acceptable standards of interventions as defined by the larger professional community (Osher et al., 1994).
A Professional/research standard for program appropriateness has been intensely applied to certain populations of students showing distinct behavioral patterns such as students with autism (Lovass, I., November, 1993,, Letter "To Whom It May Concern"; Sasso, 1996). Most students with EBD, however, exhibit behavioral patterns that are far less discrete than conditions such as autism and are only understood as we look at a complex array of etiological variable across biological, psychological, and sociological dimensions (Smith, Wood, & Grimes 1988). We will continue to be challenged by those who wish to limit special education services to only those who are most severe, who also would be identified within the mental health realm, or would be described as "truly emotionally disturbed." Other students, such as those displaying highly aggressive behavior without a psychiatric diagnosis, may be deemed to be unworthy of the resource allocation, special attention, or procedural protections afforded to students in special education.
In a monograph addressing eligibility and assessment issues in attention deficit disorders, this writer examined several aspects of a "deservedness" criteria that may be subtlely applied by educators as they make decisions regarding which students receive special services (Smith, 1994). Behavioral patters that may trigger the application of such a criteria
- Are not qualitatively different from "normal" behavior but may be at an intensity level that implies volitionally uncontrolled behavior.
- Do not suggest any type of biological or medical causation for the behavior of concern.
- Challenge the basic function of teacher control.
- Elicit basic emotions such as anger in the teacher working with such students.
It would seem that these criteria could reasonably be applied to many students with EBD. We may be in a social political climate committed to "downsizing" financial supports to certain targeted populations, as demonstrated by movements such as welfare reform, a climate committed to establishing less tolerance for various forms of deviant behavior (Moynihan, 1993), or a climate bracing for a perceived onslaught of violent youth referred to as "super-predators" against whom society must simply protect itself (Traub, 1996). Within this context out advocacy efforts in continuing to insist upon an appropriate special education program for such youth will be challenged by many.
By placing our focus on more stringent measures to assure appropriateness, we would be moving closer to the feasibility of implementing a unified proactive discipline policy for all set within the context of appropriate support needs being provided for students with EBD. It would seem this approach would lead to a reasonable implementation of the CCBD proposal of 1989:
The Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders favors a flexible, unified discipline policy; that is, one which applied equally to all students, disabled and nondisabled, while meeting the individual needs and situations of each student. Such an approach allows schools to set a unified standards of behavior, develop a range of instructional methods to achieve those standards, and apply a range of helpful and legal responses to the violation of those expectations. (p. 58)
A basic element in providing appropriate programs for students with EBD is the predictable availability of qualified personnel to implement these programs. To what extent are we currently meeting this need? Kauffman (1994) states:
Our training of special educators has often been so superficial and general that they have not real expertise as instructional specialists and no focus for their efforts. In attempting to prepare teachers to meet any exigency we prepare them to meet non with real competence… One of the worst mistakes we have made as special educators … is training teachers whose skills are no match for their students’ needs and whose level of expertise in instructing and managing difficult students is not significantly different from that of the modal general educator. (p. 615)
As suggested by Osher et al. (1994), the profession of teaching students with behavioral disorders may have prided itself in the past with "individualism," but it would seem at this stage that we have to be able to target those specific kills required for those working with such students all the while realizing that these needed competencies will vary across settings. The outline of such standards for training are suggested by Starr (1982) who states:
A profession, sociologists have suggested, is an occupation that regulates itself through systematic, required training and collegial discipline; that has a base in technical, specialized knowledge; and that has a service rather than profit orientation, enshrined in its code of ethics. (p. 15)
In advocating for the systematic provision of qualified educational personnel to serve students with behavioral disorders, we must first create a forum for the discussion, development, and dissemination of such training standards. This may logically be done through current structures such as The Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) and National Council of the Association of Teacher Educators (NCATE) but must be expanded in its scope to address the qualifications needed for personnel according to the severity of the students served and the settings in which they work. Such work also has significant implications for the Comprehensive System for Personnel Development (CSPD) in supplementing those particular skills that need to be provided to teachers already employed that may extend beyond that which they received in their training programs.
Least Restrictive Environment Considerations
While it is critical that we remember that the least restrictive environment (LRE) does not equate into a general classroom setting for all students with EBD, it is important to consider the extent to which LRE continues to be a specific concern for students with behavioral disorders and thus warrants our advocacy attention.
Over the past several years, I have worked with several colleges (Smith, Hendrickson, Frank, & Vance,, 1996) in determining the factors related to students being placed into segregated day school options serving students with EBD. While a comprehensive discussion of the results of this study is well beyond the scope of this paper, it is important to mention several selected factors from this study. Among the finding of this work that suggests advocacy efforts are
- The apparent disproportion of minority youth served in such programs.
- The high rate at which youth served in these programs do not receive support and supplementary services.
- The extent to which staffing team members report that these youth could be served in regular attendance centers if additional resources were available.
- The extent to which descriptions such as small classes, available therapies, supervision, family services, and flexibility were cited as the "specialness" of segregated day schools.
Findings such as these point to the many factors that still deserve our attention regarding those conditions leading to the perceived need for more restrictive settings for these students. An advocacy agenda can be pursued without having to resort to moralistic posturing that has dominated much of the rhetoric of the full inclusion for all versus segregation for most true believers in which debate may be "… reduced to superficial arguments who is moral and ethical, and who is a true advocate for children" (Simpson & Sasso, 1992).
Our advocacy efforts in behavioral disorders related to this topic need to proceed without a conclusion regarding one environment or educational setting being appropriate for all or even most of these students. Efforts need to be intensified in asking about evidence regarding the availability of a true array of services for meeting the needs of such students in all school districts. Such efforts need to be at the heart of federal and state compliance efforts. In addition to these efforts, we need leadership initiatives that demonstrate the process that needs to be followed in developing alternatives for students with EBD. We also need to carefully review the recent creation of a number of "alternative" placement options for students with EBD that are being established outside of the special education structure (Martin, R., January 8, 1996, personal communication). While it may be difficult to argue against alternatives, it is important to remember that many may provide little if any of the basic protections afforded by special education (Wood et al., 1991).
Labels and Assessments Strategies
The shortcomings of the pathological model may lead some to advocate for the total elimination of labels in our field. This author would contend, however, that such a direction is unwise. As Adelman and Taylor (1994) assert:
… classification is both a practical necessity and an ethical imperative for significant advancement of knowledge about facilitating human functioning and ameliorating problems. Conceptual and methodological differentiations among phenomena are essential to improving intervention planning, implementation, and evaluation. At the same time, the potential negative consequences of labeling raise an ethical imperative to minimize such effects and ensure that benefits outweigh costs. (p. 17)
This "ethical imperative" would seem to direct us to be even more vigilant in improving the means by which we identify and classify students with emotional behavioral disorders. It does not equate to abandoning the classification enterprise overall. Rather, it would seem that the criteria of refining and reliably applying instructionally relevant and behaviorally specific terminology and definitions is still our challenge. As Reschly (1996) so aptly states:
Current eligibility rules require educators to decide that virtually identical students have very different educational needs . These decisions are inaccurate. What is needed is a classification system that reflects the reality of student differences. A classification system based on broad dimensions with fine gradations would allow accurate description of the status of students without imposing false, either-or dichotomies. (p. 49)
Reschly goes on to advocate for a classification system that is dimensional, functional, reliable, and related to effective interventions. If implemented, such an approach seems consistent with the recommendations of CCBD regarding terminology and definitions (CCBD), 1987; Huntze, 1985). This area is not a new advocacy area for us; yet it still warrants our attention.
The alternative advocacy agenda I propose suggests a different direction from those matters that appear to be the current focus of activity in the Reauthorizaiton of IDEA. The new agenda would focus on advocating for individualized, appropriate programs in the least restrictive setting, staffed with qualified personnel, and structured on the basis of relevant and functional assessment data.
We have a responsibility to advocate for those issues that we believe truly help students with EBD and their parents. There really is no other choice. To return to the words of Seymour Sarason (1990):
Unless you enjoy wallowing in despair, railing against a world inhospitable to your ends, unwilling or unable to commit yourself to what you believe in, retreating as if you have learned nothing and there are not truths, allergic to approximations that fall far short of perfection, there is no alternative to taking a stand. From a purely personal as well as a societal perspective, there is too much at stake. To live in perilous times is not warrant for imperiling your integrity. (p. 133) (emphasis added)
Beyond the will to commit is the critical examination of the extent to which our personal and collective agendas are targeted, wise, and relevant. This paper has been one attempt to offer a focus for such efforts at a time that this author believes we are being sidetracked with issues that may not be critical in improving the education or lives of the students for whom we have a responsibility to advocate. I invite your responses, critiques, and alternative viewpoints. It would be exciting to systematically engage our professional organization, CCBD, in a broad-based discussion of our collective viewpoints on these critical issues.
Adelman, H. S., & Taylor, L. (1994). On understanding intervention in psychology and education. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Bales v. Clarke, 523 F. Supp. 1366 (E.D. Va. 1981).
Benson, D., Cessna, K., & Borock, J. (1987). Guideline handbook for educational and related services for SIEBD students. Denver, CO: Colorado Department of Education.
Bloom, R. B. (1981). The effects of disturbed adolescents on their teachers. Iowa Perspective, 6, 1-7.
Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 102 S. Cr. 1123, 94 L.Ed. 2d 690 (1982).
California Code of Regulations: Title 5 (May, 1993). Behavioral interventions for special education students. (Sections 3001 & 3052). Sacramento: CA: California State Board of Education.
Carter, S. (1996). Integrity. New York: Basic Books.
Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders (1987). Position paper on definition and identification of students with behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 13, 9-19.
Covey, S. (1991). Principle-centered leadership New York: Summit Books
Hartwig, E. P., & Ruesch, G. M. (1994). Discipline in the school. Horsham, PA: LRP Publications.
Honig V. Doe, 484 U.S. 395, 18 S. Ct. 592, L.Ed. 2d 686 (1988).
Huntze, S. (1985). A position paper of the Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 10, 167-174.
Illinois State Board of Education (June 1994). Behavioral interventions in schools: Guidelines for development of district policies for students with disabilities. Springfield, IL: Illinois State Board of Education.
Kauffman, J. M. (1982). Social policy issues in special education and related services for emotionally disturbed children and youth. In M. M. Noel & N. G. Haring (Eds.), Progress or change: Issues in educating the emotionally disturbed, Volume I: Identification and program planning (pp. 1-10). Seattle: University of Washington.
Kauffman, J. M. (1994). Places of change: Special education’s power and identity in an era of educational reform. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 610-618.
Knitzer, J., Steinberg, Z., & Fleish, B. (1990). At the schoolhouse door: An examination of programs and policies for children with behavioral and emotional problems. New York: Bank Street.
McInerney, M., Kane, M., & Pelavin, S. (1992). Services to children with serious emotional disturbance. Washington, DC: Pelavin Associates, Inc.
McKinney, J. D. (1987). Research on the identification of learning disabled children: Perspectives on change in educational policy. In S. Vaughn & C. Bos (Eds.), Research in learning disabilities: Issues and future directions. Boston, MA: College Hill Press, pp. 215-233.
Moynihan, D. P. (1993). Defining deviance down. The American Scholar, 62, 17-30.
National Mental Health Association and The Federation of Families for Children’s Mental health (1993). All systems failure: An examination of the results of neglecting the needs of children with serious emotional disturbance. Washington, DC: National Mental Health Association.
Osher, D., Osher, T., & Smith, C. (1994). Toward a national perspective in emotional and behavioral disorders: A developmental agenda. Beyond Behavior, 6, 4-17.
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, 299-313.
Reay, W. (February, 1996). The rise of the unworthy. Claiming Children. Alexandria, VA: Federation of Families for Children’s Mental Health.
Reschly, D. J. (1996). Identification and assessment of students with disabilities. Special Education for Students with Disabilities, 6, 40-53.
Rezmierski, V., & Rubinstein, M. F. (1982). To punish or to heal: The issues and dynamics of educating emotionally disturbed students. In C. R. Smith & B. J. Wilcots (Eds.), Iowa monograph: Current issues in behavior disorders - 1982 (pp. 21-36). Des Moines, IA: Iowa Department of Public Instruction.
Sarason, S. B. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform: Can we change course before it’s too late? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Sasso, G. (1996). How to choose interventions: Some issues to consider. Midwest Autism Newsletter, 1, 1-5.
Simpson, R., & Sasso, G. (1992). Full inclusion of students with autism in general education settings: Values versus science. Focus on Autistic Behavior, 7, 1-13.
Skrtic, T. M. (1993). The crisis in special education knowledge: A perspective on perspective. In Meyen, E.L., Vergason, G.A., & Whelan, R.J. (Eds.), Challenges facing special education (pp. 165-192). Denver, CO: Love Publishing, 165-192.
Smith, C. R. (1994). Identification of students with attention deficit disorders in the school setting. (ADDA Monograph Series No. 205). West Newberry, MA: National Attention Deficit Disorder Association.
Smith, C. R. (1996). Determining eligibility and program appropriateness for students with emotional and behavioral disorders: Questions and some answers. Proceedings of 17th national institute on legal issues of educating individuals with disabilities. Horsham, PA: LRP Publications.
Smith, C., & Dykstra, D. (1988). Overview of project. In D. Sodac, E. McGinnis, C. Smith, F. Wood, D. Dykstra, & N. Brees (Eds.), The Iowa program standards for interventions in behavioral disorders (pp. 3-9). Des Moines, IA: Iowa Department of Education.
Smith, C., & Grimes, J. (1985). Behavioral disorders in Iowa: An overview. In F. Wood, C. Smith, & J. Grimes (Eds.), The Iowa assessment model in behavioral disorders: A training model (pp. 3-17). Des Moines, IA: Iowa Department of Education.
Smith, C. R., Hendrickson, J., Frank, A., & Vance P. (1996, April). Factors in selecting instructional settings for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Presentation at the Annual Conference of the International Council for Exceptional Children, Orlando, Florida.
Smith, C. R., Sweeney, D. P., Kay, P. J., & McInerney, M. (in press). The challenge to improve results for children and youth with emotional and behavioral problems: Preserving the family. Proceedings of Making Collaboration Work for Children, Youth, Families, Schools and Communities: National Invitational Conference, March 1996, Washington, DC.
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. Walberg (Eds.), Handbook of special education: Research & practice (pp. 95-123). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.
Sodac, D. G., McGinnis, E., Smith, C., Wood, F., Dykstra, D., & Brees, N. (Eds.) (1988). The Iowa program standards for interventions in behavioral disorders. Des Moines, IA: Iowa Department of Education.
Stanfield, R. L. (1995, August 19). Tales out of school. National Journal, pp. 2102-2105.
Starr, P. (1982). The social transformation of American medicine. New York: Basic Books
Traub, J. (1996, November 4). The criminals of tomorrow. New Yorker, 50-65.
Weatherly, C. L. (1996). Can students with disabilities be disciplined? Proceedings of 17th national institute on legal issues of educating individuals with disabilities (pp. 1-16). Horsham, PA: ;RP Publications.
Wood, F. Cheney, C., Cline, D., Sampson, D., Smith, C., & Guetzloe, E. (1991). Conduct disorders and social maladjustments: Policies, politics and programming. Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.
CARL R. SMITH, School of Education, Drake University, Des Moines, IA
Carl Smith currently divides his time across several domains. He is a faculty member within the School of Education at Drake University, primarily teaching in the area of behavioral disorders but also teaching a professional seminar focusing on ethical and legal issues in special education which is taken by persons completing their program in special education at Drake. Carl also is Director of the Resource Center for Issues in Special Education at Drake that serves as the home base for programs such as the Drake office of the Mountain Plains Regional Resource Center and several technical assistance programs to Iowa in areas such as parent support, staff development and behavioral issues. He also occasionally serves as an Administrative Law Judge for Iowa in the special education area.
In addition to his higher ed experience at Drake and Buena Vista University, Carl served for 11 years as the state consultant in behavioral disorders for Iowa. He has also been a teacher in rural Iowa and worked within residential treatment settings in Virginia. Carl's undergraduate and master's work was completed at Virginia Commonwealth University and his Ph.D. was earned at the University of Iowa. Carl's primary writing and research interests are in the areas of assessment and policy issues affecting students with behavioral disorders. He is the father of four children (including three teenagers!) and is married to Ellen McGinnis-Smith, who spends her time outside the home administering an educational program within a residential setting and working in the area of social skills instruction.
If anyone would care to contact Carl his address is:
Carl R. Smith
Director
Resource Center of Issues in Special Education Drake University
2507 University Ave.
Des Moines, IA 50311-4505
Phone - 515-271-3936
FAX - 515-271-4185
E-mail - carl.smith@drake.edu
