The majority of students with emotional disturbance continue to receive most of their services in environments that separate them from students who do not have emotional disturbance. Between 1984-85 and 1994-95 the percentage of students receiving services in special classes, day schools, and residential facilities ranged from 54 percent to 57 percent. The restrictiveness of these environments contrasts with the environments of most students with disabilities. This is particularly true for students who, in the absence of appropriate school or community-based services, had to receive services in residential settings or at home. During 1995-96, 4.78 percent of students with emotional disturbance were served in residential settings, in hospitals, or at home, in contrast to 1.22 percent of all students with disabilities. The percentage of students with emotional disturbance reported to be receiving the majority of their education, special education, and related services in regular classrooms increased from 12 percent in 1984-85 to 23 percent in 1995-96. Figure II-11 displays the percentages of students with emotional disturbance served in resource rooms or regular classes from 1987-88 to 1995-96.

The diminished use of resource rooms may be significant because, although some students can succeed in regular classes, research suggests that many of these students and their teachers do not currently receive the supports that they need to succeed in regular class environments, particularly at a time of rising academic and behavioral standards (Eber & Nelson, 1994; Lewis et al., 1994). According to the NLTS, of the students with emotional disturbance who were served in regular education environments, only 11 percent had behavior management plans. In the same study, just 6 percent of the regular education teachers serving students with emotional disturbance received the support that teachers identify as being most important--a reduced teacher-student ratio (Marder, 1992; Wagner, 1995). Three key provisions in the IDEA Amendments of 1997 address these issues. The first provision is that regular educators and general education must be included in the development of individualized education programs (IEPs). The second is that IEP teams must explore the need for strategies and support systems to address any behavior that may impede the learning of a child with a disability or that of his or her peers. The third provision requires States to address the needs of in-service and preservice personnel, as they relate to the development and implementation of positive intervention strategies.

Some schools achieve high outcomes for students with emotional disturbance. During the winter of 1997-98, OSEP and the Safe and Drug Free Schools (SDFS) program in the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education collaboratively supported a research project to identify such schools and synthesize information that could help other schools replicate effective programs. The results of the study were included in a special report titled Safe, Drug-Free Schools, and Effective Schools for ALL Students: What Works! (Quinn, Osher, Hoffman, & Hanley, 1998). These schools have high behavioral and academic expectations and provide students and staff with the support needed to achieve those standards. They combine schoolwide prevention efforts with early intervention for students who are at risk of developing emotional disturbance, and individualized services for students already identified with emotional disturbance. These schools also provide students with positive behavioral supports, offer ongoing training and support to staff, collaborate with families, and coordinate services (Mayer, 1995; Nelson, Crabtree, Marchand-Martella, & Martella, 1998; Quinn et al., 1998; Sugai & Horner, in press).

Unfortunately, in some other schools, the support services that students and teachers receive are often fragmented, inadequate, or inappropriate (Grosenick, George, & George, 1987; McLaughlin, Leone, Warren & Schofield, 1994; Smith & Farrell, 1993). Some schools unintentionally set the stage for or reinforce inappropriate behavior (Gunter, Denny, Jack, Shores, & Nelson, 1993; Shores, Gunter, & Jack, 1993). Staff may emphasize behavioral management and a "curriculum of control" instead of engaging students’ interests and supporting their emotional needs (Knitzer et al., 1990; Zabel, 1988). Some programs frequently fail to address students’ individual needs (Cessna & Skiba, 1996; Dunlap & Childs, 1996; Reiher, 1992; Neel, Alexander, & Meadows, 1997), or use strategies that are not empirically supported (Scheuermann, Webber, Partin, & Knies, 1994; Smith & Farrell, 1993). In sum, services for students with emotional disturbance often do not provide them with the supports that would enable them to succeed: tutoring, counseling, schoolwide behavior support plans, and collaboration with families and other service providers (Cheney & Osher, 1997; Eber, 1996; Marder, 1992; McLaughlin, Leone, Meisel, & Henderson, 1997; Myles & Simpson, 1992; Nelson & Colvin, 1996; Quinn, Gable, Rutherford, Nelson, & Howell, 1998; Valdes, Williamson, & Wagner, 1990; Wagner, Blackorby, & Hebbeler, 1993).

Results

Not surprisingly, many students with emotional disturbance experience poor academic results. They fail more courses, earn lower grade point averages, miss more days of school, and are retained at grade more than students with other disabilities (Wagner, Blackorby, & Hebbeler, 1993). Fifty-five percent leave school before graduating; only 42 percent graduate (Wagner, 1995). School factors such as a lack of academic and social supports, reactive teaching styles, and frequent placement changes contribute to poor results (Kortering & Blackorby, 1992; Mayer, 1995; Munk & Repp, 1994; Osher & Hanley, 1996; Rumberger & Larson, 1994).

Gender, race, and poverty mediate service provision and results for students with emotional disturbance. (Kortering & Blackorby, 1992; Osher & Hanley, 1995; Valdes et al., 1990). Males, African Americans, and students with family income under $12,000 are more likely to be placed in restrictive settings, less likely to receive counseling in school, less likely to graduate, and more likely to drop out of school than their female, White, and more affluent counterparts. For example, students with family incomes under $12,000 are almost 2.5 times more likely to drop out of school than those whose families earn over $25,000 (Osher & Osher, 1996).

Failure to address the needs of students with emotional disturbance is a portent for poor community results as well as poor academic results. Researchers conducting the NLTS found that within 3 to 5 years of leaving school, 48 percent of young women with emotional disturbance were mothers, as compared to 28 percent of young women with other disabilities. Fifty-eight percent of the students with emotional disturbance had been arrested, versus 19 percent of those with other disabilities. And 10 percent of youth with emotional disturbance were living in a correctional facility, halfway house, drug treatment center, or "on the street"--twice as many as among the students with other disabilities (Wagner, 1995; Wagner, Blackorby, Cameto, Hebbeler, & Newman, 1993).