When Universal Approaches and Prevention ServicesAre Not Enough: The Importance of Understandingthe Stigmatization of Special Education for Students

with EBDA Response to Kauffman and Badar

Thomas W. FarmerVirginia Commonwealth University

We want people to care about youngpeople's EBD and to see EBD as undesirablebut to see it as a treatable condition and tosupport more effective ways of treating it.

—Kauffman and Badar, 2014, p. 26

I This quote from Kauffman and Badar'spaper titled "How We Might Make SpecialEducation for Students with Emotional orBehavioral Disorders Less Stigmatizing" iscentral to their discussion and provides acritical message to the field of special educa-tion for students with emotional and behav-ioral disorders (EBD). Implicit in this sentenceare two concepts one might think go withoutsaying: (a) youth who experience EBD have acondition that negatively impacts developmentand contributes to long-term adjustment prob-lems; and (b) there is a need for intensiveand comprehensive intervention to help fosteradaptation and promote more positive out-comes in youth with EBD. Further, a logicalextension of these two concepts is that pro-grams designed to effectively support theeducation and treatment of youth with EBDare desirable and provide an important servicethat enhances the lives of these students andtheir families. Yet, as Kauffman and Badarsuggest in the title and summarize in thearticle, identifying youth as having EBD andproviding treatment for them is viewed to bestigmatizing by many people, which, in turn,has constrained both the support and use ofspecial education and related services for EBD.

I began working with children and youngadults with disabilities and EBD in the early1980s. When I first began, I thought this wasdifficult and emotionally demanding work, butI also found it to be highly rewarding andpersonally satisfying. Most notably, I thoughtthis was very important work—the kind of workthat makes a meaningful difference in the lives ofothers and the kind of work that others view as

both extremely necessary and invaluable. Overthe years, I've found many aspects of being in thefield of special education for youth with EBD tobe challenging, but I have remained steadfast inmy sense that this is important work. However, Ino longer think many others outside of the fieldhold this work in high esteem. Eurther, I havebeen mystified by events, practices, and policiesthat, in the name of protecting youth with EBDfrom stigmatization, have resulted in creatingadditional obstacles and challenges for childrenand adolescents 1 view as being highly mis-understood and vulnerable to extremely pooroutcomes. In their article, Kauffman and Badartake the issue of stigmatization head-on andinstead of trying to avoid it or act like it should goaway, they help us to see why we need tounderstand and systematically work to reduce itsimpact on special education for youth with EBD.

In this commentary, 1 build from Kauffman andBadar's article to examine the issue of stigmatiza-tion from four perspectives. First, 1 consider howefforts to avoid stigmatization may be related tocurrent approaches to address emotional andbehavioral problems in the general population.Second, I summarize my views of what has beenlost in the field of special education by efforts toavoid stigmatizing youth with EBD. From thisbackdrop, I explore how the suggestions offered byKauffman and Badar can help realize the promiseof special education for students with EBD. 1conclude with a discussion of the need to bridgethe constructs of research and caring within theconcept of community in treating youth with EBD.

Avoiding Stigmatization byAddressing EBD as a GeneralPopulation Issue

In the past few decades, several advanceshave been made that are related to under-standing the development of EBD. Further,

32 / November 2013 Behavioral Disorders, 39 (1), 32-42

there has been considerable progress in termsof the establishment of effective interventionsto prevent and reduce the impact of emotionaland behavioral problems within the generalpopulation by improving behavioral and men-tal health support services in school settings.These advances are highly welcomed andprovide an important foundation for enhancingthe treatment of students with EBD. However,in some ways, progress in the field may besupported by concerns about stigmatization,and these concerns and corresponding effortsto avoid stigma may have an unintendedconsequence of leveraging attention and re-sources away from students with chronic EBDand the intensive treatment they need.

Developmental Psychopathology andPreventive Interventions to Reduce EBD

Developmental psychopathology is thestudy of the interplay between biological,psychological, and social-contextual aspectsof normal and abnormal development (Cichetti& Toth, 2009). Typically, research in develop-mental psychopathology uses longitudinal an-alytic frameworks to clarify processes andpathways that contribute to maladaptive out-comes over the life course, and that alsodistinguish problematic outcomes from adap-tive ones (Bergman & Magnusson, 1997; Robins& Rutter, 1992). By identifying factors thatcontribute to adjustment problems and eluci-dating how these factors come together andcan be modified in development, research indevelopmental psychopathology provides astrong foundation for the establishment ofinterventions to prevent and treat EBD (Cic-chetti & Toth, 2009; Walker & Sprague, 1999a).

Research on risk factors and pathways thatlead to EBD have been incorporated intoprevention programs, but less work has fo-cused on using developmental frameworks toguide treatment for youth who meet criteriafor EBD (Forness, 2003; Walker & Sprague,1999b). Leveraging developmental informa-tion to prevent rather than treat EBD involvesa less complex level of intervention. Mostprevention programs build from a cascademodel which posits that the development ofdisorder involves multiple factors operatingacross multiple systems such that EBD emergesas problems accumulate and spread to otherfactors and systems (Masten & Cicchetti,2010). From this vantage, intervention shouldstart early in the developmental pathway to

prevent the cumulative consequences of riskby stopping the spread of problems prior to themanifestation of disorder (Mrazek & Haggerty,1994; Reid, 1993). With cascade models ofprevention, the goal of intervention is to identifyrisks for EBD prior to or as they emerge and tointervene before they become chronic disorders(e.g.. Conduct Problems Prevention ResearchGroup, 1999; Dunlap et al., 2006; Jones,Brown, & Aber, 2011; Walker et al., 2009).

In many respects, the concept of preven-tion is a hopeful one and suggests thepossibility of promoting adaptation. In con-trast, treatment may be viewed as acknowl-edging that a child has a chronic disorder.Researchers and practitioners may view pre-vention as preferable to treatment and may beconcerned about identifying a child for EBDservices. This concern may build from threecomplementary views: (a) identifying a childfor services may result in a stigmatizing label,(b) being identified and receiving specialeducation services for EBD may constrainopportunities for growth, and (c) identifyingthe child for treatment means giving up hopefor future adjustment. In some ways, this typeof thinking builds from a cascade model ofdevelopment and does not recognize thepotential for developmental adaptation acrossthe life course even in youth who experiencedisorder. Although the cascade model is anextremely valuable conceptualization of de-velopment and is appropriate for guiding theprevention of EBD, special educators andrelated service providers need to be aware ofother models of development. Alternativemodels are needed to guide treatment thatfosters positive adaptation and affirms thepotential for special education services topromote more productive and desirable out-comes for youth with EBD.

Schoolwide Positive BehavioralIntervention Supports and School-basedMental Health

In recent years, there has been consider-able progress related to supporting students'school adjustment. In response to disciplinepolicies linked to the 1997 reauthorization ofthe Individual with Disabilities Education Act,Schoolwide Positive Behavioral InterventionSupport (SWPBIS) programs have been estab-lished to create universal policies, structures,and practices aimed at promoting and reinforc-ing positive behavior throughout the school

Behavioral Disorders, 39 (1), 32-42 November 2013 / 33

Community. Based on applied behavior analy-sis, universal screening, the integration ofbehavioral and education practices, and amultitiered prevention model, SWPBIS is anorganizational framework and set of interven-tion approaches aimed at enhancing a school'scapacity to promote positive behavior in allstudents (Homer, Sugai, & Anderson, 2010).Large-scale evaluations show that SWPBISprograms reduce student discipline referralsand suspensions (e.g., Bradshaw, Mitchell, &Leaf, 2010). Further, tiered models that mergeuniversal SWPBIS with more selective andindividualized interventions show promise forreducing emotional and behavioral difficultiesin youth who do not respond to universalapproaches (Reinke et al., 2014; Woodbridgeétal., 2014).

In addition to SWPBIS programs, there hasbeen a recent emphasis on school-basedmental health services (Evans & Weist, 2004;Eorness, 2011). Sometimes embedded withinor designed to complement SWPBIS, school-based mental health programs may take avariety of forms. Such programs may involveplacing mental health resources and profes-sionals in schools to ensure their availabilityfor all youth (e.g.. Cappella, Frazier, Atkins,Schoenwald, & Glisson, 2008), reframing theroles of school counselors and school socialworkers to include support for universal andselective mental health services for students(see Mellin, 2009). These programs may alsouse school and community mental healthprofessionals to provide consultation and coach-ing interventions to help teachers improve theclassroom social interactions between studentswith behavioral difficulties and their classmates(e.g.. Cappella, Jackson, Bilal, Hamre, & Soule,2011).

Schoolwide Positive Behavioral Interven-tion Support and school-based mental healthprovide a critical base for a comprehensivesystem of services to meet the emotional andbehavioral needs of all youth. Consistent witha prevention framework, universal aspects ofsuch a system serve as a foundation to reducerisk factors for emotional and behavioralproblems. Universal services not only impactthe general population, they provide a struc-ture and culture that is supportive of studentswho experience emotional and behavioralproblems (i.e., students who need Tier 2 orTier 3 strategies) and they help facilitate thedelivery of intensive interventions. On thisscore, SWPBIS and school-based mental

health have the potential to be core compo-nents of intensive treatment for students withEBD.

However, when a cascade model ofprevention is paired with SWPBIS andschool-based mental health services, andwhen concerns about stigmatization are addedto the mix, a potential outcome is that youthwho need comprehensive and intensive inter-ventions will not be identified for specialeducation services. One contributing factor tothe nonidentification of students for specialeducation is that school professionals mayview SWPBIS and school-based mental healthas sufficient alternatives for special educationservices for EBD. A second contributing factoris that emotional and behavioral problems maybe viewed as transitory issues to be preventedor "fixed" rather than as a chronic disorderwith a developmental trajectory that needs tobe realigned with carefully coordinated ser-vices (see Farmer & Farmer, 2001). A thirdcontributing factor is the stigmatization ofbeing identified as having EBD and the alliedconcern that many EBD programs are noteffective may result in the belief that placing astudent in a special education program will bemore harmful than helpful for her or his long-term developmental adjustment and corre-sponding adulthood outcomes. When theseviews converge, it is possible that key stake-holders will avoid identifying youth with EBDfor special education.

Casualties in the Pursuit ofAvoiding Stigmatization

Kauffman and Badar provide a thoroughdiscussion and analysis of problems related tothe stigmatization of special education servicesfor EBD. To highlight what is in the balance,I outline three complementary casualties ofefforts to avoid stigmatization that I believecoalesce to truncate EBD services and con-tribute to problematic outcomes for youth whoneed them.

The Identification of Students who NeedEBD Services

As Kauffman and Badar point out, aperpetual issue in the field involves thediscrepancy between the number of youthidentified for special education for EBD anddata on the prevalence of serious and chronicdisorders (see Forness, Freeman, Paparella,

34/ November 2013 Behavioral Disorders, 39 (1), 32^2

Kauffman, & Walker, 2012). Beyond historicalconcerns about the substantial underidentifi-cation of youth for EBD services, in the pastdecade there has been a significant decline inthe identification of students for EBD. Annualstatistics on the number of youth served inspecial education show that after the passage ofIDEA, 283,000 students were identified for EBDservices in 1976 (NCES, 2013). By 2005, thisnumber grew to 489,000 which marked a 73%increase and an annual growth rate of 2.5%.Since 2005, the number of students has steadilydropped, and by 2012 only 373,000 youth wereserved for EBD, which represents a 25%decrease and an annual decline rate of 3%.

Part of this decline may reflect themovement of youth from the EBD classifica-tion to new IDEA disability categories (i.e..Autism, Other Health Impaired). However, toput this decline in perspective, it should benoted that only 90,000 more students areserved now than when the field began in the1970s, and during this period there has beenan increase of about 5 million students in thegeneral population. Although it is possible thatfewer youth have EBD, epidemiological datado not support this view (Forness et al., 2012).A more parsimonious explanation is thatschool districts are increasingly hesitant toidentify youth for EBD special educationservices. In the past two decades, my researchteam has worked in hundreds of schools acrossthe United States. When we talk with schoolpersonnel about their special education ser-vices it has become increasingly common fordistricts to say they rarely or no longer identifystudents for EBD. School leaders often refer toconcerns about stigma and they indicate thatas alternatives they use SWPBIS and school-based mental health services or they identifystudents for other disability classifications andprovide noncategorical services.

To illustrate this point, in a national studyof over 7,000 rural high school students(including 512 with LD, 70 with EBD), weidentified configurations of youth with distinctpatterns of teacher-rated school adjustment.Students with EBD were overrepresented inmultirisk (62%: aggressive with multiple aca-demic, social, and emotional problems) con-figurations, while students with LD wereoverrepresented in both multirisk (23%) anddisengaged (28%: nonaggressive with multipleacademic, social, and emotional problems)configurations (Farmer et al., 2011). Further,830 nondisabled students (13%) were identi-

fied in the multirisk configuration. In compan-ion work with a subsample that included78 students with EBD and 352 nondisabledmatched control classmates, we comparedstudents on their self-reports of school belong-ing and school valuing and teacher ratings oftheir academic performance and expectededucational attainment, including perceivedlikelihood of completing high school andcontinuing their education (Farmer et al., inrevision). Girls with EBD and girls in multiriskconfigurations were lower on teacher-ratedacademic performance than all other girls,multirisk girls had lower levels of schoolbelonging than all other girls, and girls withEBD had lower levels of teacher expectationsfor educational attainment. Boys with EBD andboys in multirisk and disengaged configura-tions had lower school belonging than otherboys, boys with EBD and boys in multirisk werelower on teacher-rated academic performance,and boys with EBD and boys in multirisk andtough (i.e., popular-aggressive) configurationswere lower than other boys on teachers'expectations for educational attainment.

Together, these two studies demonstratethat youth with EBD have significant adjust-ment problems in high school, struggle aca-demically, and are at risk for not completingschool and not continuing their education afterhigh school. Further, these studies suggest thatmany students with learning disabilities andmany nondisabled students have school ad-justment problems that are highly similar toyouth with EBD and are also at risk for pooroutcomes. Therefore, while these findingssuggest that many youth with EBD need moreintensive services to support their schooladjustment, they also suggest that many youthwho have similar adjustment difficulties are notbeing identified for special education servicesfor FBD and also appear to need more intensiveand comprehensive services to promote theiradaptation and productive outcomes.

Fostering Adaptation and ProductiveFutures of Youth with EBD

Kauffman and Badar point out that someopponents of special education for EBD arguethat such services are both stigmatizing andunnecessary because, the opponents claim,problem behavior is culturally defined, social-ly constructed, and not a disability. The viewthat chronic adjustment problems are notdisabilities reflects a critical misunderstanding

Behavioral Disorders, 39 (1), 32-42 November 2013 / 35

of the role of behavior in development. Deve-lopmental science indicates that youth devel-op as an integrated whole with a synthesis ofcontributions from behavioral, biological, psy-chological, and social-ecological subsystems(Cairns, Elder, & Costello, 1996). These sub-systems work together as a coactive system inwhich no single factor operates as a cause inthe developmental process (Gottlieb, 1996).However, behavior functions as a leading edgein development by serving as a conduitbetween various subsystems and aligningfactors internal and external to the individual(Cairns, 2000). The offshoot of this process isthat behavior is the mechanism that facilitatesadaptation. When youth have chronic adjust-ment problems these problems indicate diffi-culty in the capacity of the subsystems to alignin positive ways and the ability of behavior tofoster productive adaptation and reorganiza-tion of the developmental system (Farmer &Farmer, 2001).

The implication for special education foryouth with EBD is that sustained adjustmentproblems reveal a disability in one of theprimary features of human functioning—theability of the individual to synchronize his orher abilities and needs with the resources anddemands of the ecology in which he or she isembedded. Simply put, EBD is a disability inthe capacity to adapt. Chronic emotional andbehavioral problems are not simply culturaldifferences, inappropriate demands ofthe envi-ronment, or poor learning. Instead, they reflect asystem of correlated risks across multipledevelopmental subsystems that constrain be-havior patterns and maintain stability in eachother (Farmer, Quinn, Hussey, & Holahan,2001). As suggested above in the discussion ofdevelopmental psychopathology, there is clearevidence that chronic EBD and associated pooroutcomes are products ofthe dynamic interplaybetween neurobiological, behavioral, ecologi-cal, psychological, and sociological subsystems(Bergman & Magnusson, 1997; Cairns & Cairns,1994; Cicchetti & Toth, 2009; Robins & Rutter,1992). However, differences in conceptualframeworks about how these subsystems worktogether to contribute to disorder can impact ourunderstanding about the treatment of EBD andthe potential for enhancing students' outcomes.

To facilitate more effective treatment andto promote more positive outcomes for youthwith EBD, it is necessary to distinguishbetween two models of the development ofdisorder. As discussed above, a cascade model

of development posits that risks factors accu-mulate over the course of development andspread to other levels and subsystems until adisorder is manifested (Masten & Cicchetti,2010). This metaphor provides an image of awaterfall and gives a sense that interventionneeds to occur before problems become sopervasive the child's development passes apoint of no return—the development of disor-der. The cascade model is helpful for under-standing the processes and pathways of thedevelopment of disorder and provides anexcellent guide for creating preventive inter-ventions. However, this model does not depicthow the developmental processes experiencedby youth with EBD can help guide treatment tofoster their developmental adaptation andcorresponding productive outcomes.

A developmental synthesis/correlated con-straints perspective (Cairns & Cairns, 1994)offers an alternative to the cascade model andis particularly well suited for guiding effortsto treat EBD. From this perspective, multiplesubsystems operate together in a coalescedsystem so each subsystem bidirectionallyinfluences the features of the others (Sameroff,1995). In this way, development tends to beconservative and promotes continuity in thecharacteristics of the developmental subsystemsand stability in behavioral patterns (Magnusson& Cairns, 1996). However, a paradox of thedevelopmental synthesis perspective is thatthe mechanisms that promote continuity in thesystem and in behavior also promote change inboth. This is because these subsystems arebidirectionally aligned with each other sochange in one factor can foster developmentaladaptation by promoting change in the entiresystem. For this to occur, change in a subsystemmust promote change in behavior, and changein behavior must promote change in one ormore other subsystems and facilitate the even-tual reorganization ofthe developmental system(Farmer et al., 2001 ). An important aspect of thisperspective is that the potential for majoradaptation can occur even after significantproblems are manifest as EBD.

The cascade and correlated constraintmodels are not competing perspectives. Rath-er, they are complementary theories thatcollectively explain the development of disor-der from the presence of general risks to themanifestation of chronic syndromes and, assuch, serve as a guide for the development of asystem-of-care ranging from universal preven-tion to comprehensive multiagency treatment

36/ November 2013 Behavioral Disorders, 39 (1), 32-42

services (Farmer, Farmer, Estell, & Hutchins,2007). Specifically, the cascade model focuseson intervening before one or more risks becomea catalyst that promotes the negative reorgani-zation of the developmental system (i.e., themanifestation of disorder), whereas the corre-lated constraints model provides a frameworkto guide interventions aimed at reorganizing thedevelopmental system when a child experienc-es problems across multiple subsystems thatreflect the presence of EBD (Farmer & Farmer,2001).

A correlated constraint model providesinsight into developmental processes that canbe leverage points in treatment. From thisperspective, the development and mainte-nance of EBD involves coalesced contributionsof difficulties in a combination of subsystemsthat may include neurophysiological problems(Gatzke-Kopp, Jetha, & Segalowitz, 2014), emo-tional/behavioral regulation problems (Beau-chaine et al., 2013), social-cognitive deficits(Dodge, 2009), trauma-related sequelae (Burrus,2013), coercive family processes (Patterson,1982), coercive interactions with teachers orpeers (Shores & Wehby, 1999; Wehby, Symons,& Shores, 1995), and problematic social rolesand affiliations (Farmer & Hollowed, 1994). Toaddress these problems, it is critical to havestrong behavioral interventions that focus onboth the proximal functions (Umbreit, Ferro,Liaupsin, & Lane, 2007) and the social functionsof behavior (Farmer, Lane, Lee, Hamm, &Lambert, 2012).

Although behavioral interventions arenecessary, for many students such interven-tions may be insufficient without other formsof treatment (see Farmer et al., 2001; Forness,2011). Unitary behavioral interventions maybe most effective when behavior problemshave not been manifested as EBD and thestudent experiences a developmental systemcomprised primarily of positive correlatedconstraints that fits within a cascade model ofintervention (Farmer & Farmer, 2001). How-ever, youth with EBD have neurophysiologicaldifficulties that may impact their processing ofrewards and the outcomes of some forms ofbehavioral intervention (see Gatzke-Kopp et al.,2009). Eurther, because the developmentalsystem of youth with EBD is composed of avariety of problematic subsystems that collec-tively constrain and support problems in eachother, intervention should be carefully coordi-nated to promote behavioral change, change inpotentially malleable factors, the reorganiza-

tion of the developmental system, and theeventual realignment of the youth's develop-mental trajectory (see Beauchine, Neuhaus,Brenner, & Gatzke-Kopp, 2008; Farmer & Farmer,2001; Gatzke-Kopp, Greenberg, Fortunato, &Coccia, 2012). This is likely to be a very long,intensive, and dynamic process, and for manyyouth it may require services and supports intoadulthood (Farmer et al., 2007). Yet, withcareful coordination and sustained supportsinvolving evidence-based services within asystem of care, the impact of EBD may bereduced and youth may establish productiveadult roles and lifestyles.

Categorical Services and Training forEBD Specialists

Since the 1990s, special education teachertraining, professional development programs,and school-based services have become in-creasingly noncategorical. Further, in thepast decade, many preparation programs forgeneral education teachers infuse training onthe characteristics and instructional needs ofdiverse learners including students with dis-abilities. Collectively, these changes are de-signed to help create a general context that issupportive of all students regardless of theirdisability status and learning difficulties. Therationale for such changes include concerns ofequity, perceived advantages of creating uni-versal social ecologies that promote diversityand tolerance of differences, and the beliefthat the concept of accessibility should spanall levels of human functioning and not justphysical barriers. However, as Kauffman andBadar suggest, the proliferation of genericservices also reflect concerns about stigmaand the view that special education is in someway less effective and less desirable thangeneral education.

Although the concept of universal servicesand inclusive school ecologies are significantadvances in education, I do not believegeneric special education services coupledwith universal SWPBIS and school-basedmental health services can replace the typesof supports necessary to address intensive,complex, and multifactored intervention needsof students with chronic EBD. In noncatego-rical university courses I have recently taughton behavior management, I am not able toprovide coverage at a level I believe is ade-quate preparation for teachers who will workwith students with EBD. In addition, as

Behavioral Disorders, 39 (1 ), 32-42 November 2 0 1 3 / 3 7

compared to preservice students I taught incategorical programs in the 1990s, students innoncategorical training programs have less of abackground in the theory and characteristics ofEBD and do not have the foundation necessaryto learn about how to conduct and coordinateintensive and comprehensive interventionsstudents with chronic EBD need. The com-plexity of the problems students with EBDexperience and the corresponding types ofinterventions they need requires the supportsof highly trained specialists who can workacross a range of strategies and contexts.Reducing stigma should not occur at the costof the intensive services that are necessary toenhance the adaptation and outcomes of youthwith EBD or the preparation of the types ofprofessionals who have the skills to providesuch interventions.

Realizing the Promise ofMinimizing Stigma: TheSuggestions of Kauffman andBadar

Kauffman and Badar identify four ways inwhich special education for students with EBDcan be made less stigmatizing. First, theysuggest that, as a field, we talk about diff-erences in plain language. They contend thatefforts to find the "right" word or to "rebrand"a particular phenomenon with a less stigma-tizing label is likely to have little sustainedimpact over time as people come to under-stand that the new word represents the sameconstruct as the less favorable word it replaces.Further, they suggest that euphemisms fordisabilities can cause harm when it is per-ceived that the goal is to conceal the shameassociated with the term that is avoided.Instead, they argue for changing people'sminds about the referent and helping themsee it in a positive light. To do this, Kauffmanand Badar maintain that words to describe anddiscuss disability should reflect directness andpromote the publics' understanding of thecondition, and they argue that empirical workis needed to clarify how different approachesimpact perceptions of EBD.

I agree that the focus should be on"plainness and understandability" and I con-cur that research can help to elucidate how topromote productive perceptions of EBD. How-ever, I offer one caveat: plainness and direct-ness should not be confused with simple. The

development of EBD is a complex process, butthe problematic emotions and behaviors thatcharacterize EBD are seen in all children. Suchconcepts as frequency, intensity, and durationhelp distinguish between a transitory problemand a disorder. Our understanding of the diff-erences between the two in terms of etiologyand development are now much clearer thanwhen special education began. I contend weneed plain, direct language to make thedevelopmental complexity of EBD understand-able, and to help promote public awarenessthat when effective treatment is provided,adaptive pathways for youth with EBD canbe fostered and positive outcomes can berealized.

Kauffman and Badar's other three sugges-tions come together to consider how a focuson reducing stigma involves enhancing specialeducation services for students with EBD. First,Kauffman and Badar propose we accept thereality of what EBD means for education andthey argue that educators should not treat allstudents the same despite differences thatimpact their learning, but instead need tounderstand the implications of distinct studentcharacteristics that are meaningful for instruc-tional and educational practices. They empha-size that to reduce stigma, the field mustaccept that youth with EBD do not have typicalinstructional needs and ordinary services willnot improve their lives or educational out-comes. 1 strongly agree with these points, but Ibelieve we need to take our understanding ofdifferences a step further. Differences are notsimply in students' learning characteristics andsocial behavior. I contend the field must alsorecognize that interventions for EBD shouldinvolve a different approach from those thatare effective with youth who are on a typicaldevelopmental trajectory. We must acknowl-edge that a system of problematic correlatedconstraints (i.e., the manifestation of EBD)requires treatment that: (a) fosters rather thanprevents reorganization of the developmentalsystem of youth with EBD; and (b) promotesrather than prevents the realignment of theirdevelopmental trajectories.

Next, Kauffman and Badar suggest that thefield should emphasize benefits and the skillsneeded to provide them. Here they argue thatbetter research is needed to understand andclarify the benefits of special education servic-es for youth with EBD, and to identify the typesof skills that teachers need to best realize thesebenefits. They contend the stigma of special

38 / November 2013 Behavioral Disorders, 39 (1), 32-42

education for students with EBD can bereduced when we make clear why it is needed,we document benefits students experience byreceiving it, and we emphasize the uniqueskills teachers need to promote positive out-comes in students with EBD. Again, I concurwith Kauffman and Badar's points and I agreewith their contention that it is not appropriate togauge the effectiveness of outcomes of studentswith EBD by comparing them to outcomes ofstudents in other groups. As they imply in thisdiscussion, we need more realistic definitionsand measures of what constitutes success forstudents with EBD. As I argue above, I believestudents with chronic EBD have a disability inthe capacity to adapt. The very nature of thisdisability is that it constrains adjustment andassociated success in typical functioning. Thisdoes not mean youth with EBD cannot adaptand achieve positive outcomes, but it doesmean they are likely to need continued supportsand a range of services that focus on meetingtheir dynamic developmental needs and corre-sponding iterative assessments of success tohelp guide them toward achievable productiveoutcomes.

Kauffman and Badar's final point is that weneed to try to make special education forstudents with EBD what it should be. Here theyacknowledge the need for improvement in allof special education and they assert that, as aconcept, special education is an appropriateresponse to the needs of students with EBD butthe services are not always what they shouldbe. They emphasize that concerns about whois identified for EBD services and who is notshould be reframed with the view of providingyouth who have emotional and behavioralproblems the types of instructional and schoolexperiences that are scientifically supported tobe most effective for them. As they suggest, thisis an ongoing process of research and refine-ment of the scientific evidence to make theprocess and delivery of special educationservices align with the treatment needs ofyouth with EBD. A major point here is that thestigmatization of EBD services will be reducedwhen they are perceived to be effectiveapproaches that enhance the lives of youthwho need and receive them. This is a criticalpoint and implicit in this view is that we mustrecognize our efforts as being an ongoingprocess that should be continually guided byadvances in science. On this score, my ownview is that while we continue to makeadvances in the field, we are, in some ways.

too limited in our focus with an overemphasison strict applied research that centers onvalidating intervention approaches at the costof more basic research on the developmentalprocesses that impact the effectiveness of suchapproaches. Tremendous advances have beenmade in developmental science/developmen-tal psychopathology that have direct implica-tions for the education and treatment ofstudents with EBD. We not only need to learnand build from such advances, we should alsobe part of the conversation on basic research toensure that our knowledge and understandingof working with youth with the most significantand chronic disorders is effectively included inresearch to clarify the processes that contributeto EBD.

Conclusion: A Community ofResearch and Caring for Youthwith EBD

The issues and considerations raised byKaufman and Badar bring to the forefront thepotential impact of the stigmatization ofspecial education for students with EBD. Thisincludes the likely underidentification of stu-dents who experience EBD as well as theunderutilization and truncated delivery oftheservices that students with EBD need to enhancetheir adjustment and long-term outcomes. Butthe issues go beyond this. Specifically, with thefocus on providing generic universal servicesand avoiding categorical approaches to specialeducation services, we are not only not prepar-ing the types of professionals that are needed,we are also not moving the field forward interms of taking advantage of research on thedevelopment and maintenance of emotionaland behavioral problems and the correspondingprocesses that lead from emerging difficulties tothe manifestation of disorder. Much has beenlearned over the last three decades. However,special education has been slow to incorporatefindings from developmental science and de-velopmental psychopathology into the estab-lishment and delivery of services to studentswith EBD. Likewise, the field can benefit byembedding this knowledge into preservice andprofessional development training for specialeducation teachers and related services providers.

Kauffman and Badar are forcefully tellingus we must accept EBD for what it is. It is achronic disorder in the ability to adapt andit has the potential to have an extremely

Behavioral Disorders, 39 (1 ), 32-42 November 2013 / 39

debilitating impact on individuals across theirlife course. However, they are also telling usthat EBD does not need to have devastat-ing consequences and special education isuniquely well situated to help ameliorate theseconsequences. But most importantly, Kauff-man and Badar are encouraging the field to becognizant of the need to systematically focuson reducing the stigmatization of specialeducation services for students with EBD byensuring the provision of effective services andconducting research to not only improve suchservices but to also identify ways that reducethe stigma of these services.

In reading this article, I repeatedly hadstrong feelings I previously had over twodecades ago when my wife and I weretreatment foster parents for an early adolescentwith severe EBD. During the years he was withus, we routinely struggled with peoples'perceptions about three things that are relevantto the present discussion. First, people wecame in contact with (the public, friends, andrelatives) routinely had difficulty understand-ing that this child was not like everybody elseand that he needed very different types ofsupports than most youth his age. Second,others (i.e., nonprofessionals) would oftenthink positive changes in his behavior in theshort-run meant he was cured and no longerneeded intensive services. Third, everyone(both nonprofessionals and professionals)looked at this youth from the perspective ofhow to make the present moment work,whereas we were constantly thinking abouthis future and considering how what we didnow might impact his adaptation into adult-hood. As I look back now at those feelingsthrough the lens of this article, 1 realize that wewere constantly fighting a battle betweenstigmatization, misperceptions, and our ownstrong desires to the right thing and make adifference when it wasn't always clear to uswhat the right thing was.

Kauffman and Badar are telling us that thisbattle continues, but they are offering us amessage and a pathway. The message is that itis up to us as a community of professionals toaddress concerns about stigmatization andcorresponding misperceptions, and to clarifyfor both ourselves and the public how whatwe do makes a difference. The pathway isconversation and research. The conversationneeds to be both among the community ofprofessionals including teachers, other relatedservice providers, program directors, research-

ers, and university faculty and between thecommunity professionals, our students andtheir families, and the public. The conversa-tions need to be about perceptions and solu-tions, but it also needs to be about successesand it needs to have at its core a sense ofcaring—a sense that youth with EBD need thecare of a community. The research aspect ofthe pathway needs to involve the systematicexamination of stigma and how to reduce it.But this goes beyond the explicit focus onunderstanding stigma and includes an agendaof continual improvement in special educationby conducting both basic and applied researchthat enhances our knowledge about thedevelopment and treatment of EBD.

REFERENCESBergman, L. R., & Magnusson, D. (1997). A person-

oriented approach in research on developmentalpsychopathoiogy. Deveiopmentai Psychopathoi-ogy, 9,291-319.

Beauchaine, T. P., Gatzke-Kopp, L., Neuhaus, E.,Chlpman, J., Reid, M. J., & Webster-Stratton, C.(2013). Sympathetic- and parasympathetic-linked cardiac function and prediction ofexternalizing behavior, emotion regulation,and prosocial behavior among preschoolerstreated for ADHD. Journai of Consulting andClinical Psychology, 81, 481-493.

Beauchine, T. P., Neuhaus, E., Brenner, S. L., &Gatzke-Kopp, L. (2008). Ten good reasons toconsider biological processes in prevention andintervention research. Development and Psy-chopathoiogy, 20, 745-774.

Bradshaw, C. P., Mitchell, M. M., & Leaf, P. J. (2010).Examining the effects of schoolwide positivebehavior interventions and supports on studentoutcomes: Results from a randomized controlledeffectiveness trial In elementary schools. Journaiof Positive Behavior interventions, 12, 133-148.doi:10.11 77/1098300709334798

Burrus, C. (2013). Deveiopmentai trajectories ofabuse: An hypothesis for the effects of earlychildhood maltreatment on dorsolateral prefron-tal cortical development. Medicai i-lypotheses,81, 826-829.

Cairns, R. B. (2000). Developmental science: Threeaudacious implications. In L. R. Bergman, R. B.Cairns, L.-G. Nilsson, and L. Nystedt (Eds.),Developmental science and the holistic ap-proach (pp. 49-62). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.

Cairns, R. B., & Cairns, B. D. (1994) Lifeiines andrisks: Pathways of youth in our time. New York,NY: Cambridge University Press.

Cairns, R. B., Eider, G. H., Jr., & Costello, E. J. (Eds.).(1996). Deveiopmentai science. Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press.

Cappella, E., Frazier, S. L., Atkins, M. S., Schoen-wald, S. K., & Glisson, C. (2008). Enhancing

4 0 / November 2013 Behavioral Disorders, 39 (1), 32-42

schools' capacity to support children in poverty:An ecological model of school-based mentalhealth services. Administration and Policy inMental Health and Mental Health ServicesResearch, 35, 395^09.

Cappella, E., Jackson, D. R., Bilal, C, Hamre, B. K.,& Soule, C. (2011). Bridging mental healthand education in urban elementary schools:Participatory research to inform interventiondevelopment. School Psychology Review, 40,586-508.

Cicchetti, D., & Toth, S. L. (2009). The past achieve-ments and future promises of developmentalpsychopathology: The coming of age of a disci-pline. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,50, 16-25.

Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group.(1999). Initial impact of the Fast Track preven-tion trail for conduct problems: I. The high-risksample. Journal of Consulting and ClinicalPsychology, 67, 631-647.

Dodge, K. A. (2009). Mechanisms of gene-environ-ment interaction effects in the development ofconduct disorder. Perspectives on PsychologicalScience, 4, 408-414.

Dunlap, G., Strain, P. S., Fox, L., Carta, J. J., Conroy,M., & Smith, B. J.... & Sowell, C. (2006). Preven-tion and intervention with young children'schallenging behavior: Perspectives regarding cur-rent knowledge. Behavioral Disorders, 32, 29^5.

Evans, S. W., & Weist, M. D. (2004). Implementingempirically supported treatment in the schools:What are we asking? Clinical Child and FamilyPsychology Review, 7, 263-267.

Farmer, T. W., Byun, S.-Y., Hutchens, B. C, Hall, C.M., Wilson, N., & Meece, J. L. (under revision).Family characteristics and school adjustment ofstudents with emotional and behavioral disor-ders and students without disabilities in ruralhigh schools.

Farmer, T. W., & Farmer, E. M. Z. (2001).Developmental science, systems of care, andprevention of emotional and behavioral prob-lems in youth. American Journal of Orthopsy-chiatry, 71, 171-181.

Farmer, T. W., Farmer, E. M. Z., Estell, D., &Hutchins, B. C. (2007). The developmentaldynamics of aggression and the preventionof school violence. Journal of Emotional andBehavioral Disorders, 15, 197-208.

Farmer, T. W., Hall, C. M., Weiss, M. P., Pétrin,R. A., Meece, J. L, & Moohr, M. (2011). Theschool adjustment of rural adolescents with andwithout disabilities: Variable and person-cen-tered approaches. Journal of Child and FamilyStudies, 20, 78-88.

Farmer, T. W., & Hollowell, J. L. (1994). Socialnetworks in mainstream classrooms: Socialaffiliations and behavioral characteristics ofstudents with EBD. Journal of Emotional andBehavioral Disorders, 2, 143-155, 163.

Farmer, T. W., Lane, K. L., Lee, D. L., Hamm, ]. V., &Lambert, K. (2012). The social functions ofantisocial behavior: Considerations for schoolviolence prevention strategies for students withdisabilities. Behavioral Disorders, 37, 149-162.

Farmer, T. W., Ouinn, M. M., Hussey, W., &Holahan, T. (2001). The development of disrup-tive behavior disorders and correlated con-straints: Implications for intervention. BehavioralDisorders, 26(2), 11 7-130.

Forness, S. R. (2003). Barriers to evidence-basedtreatment: Developmental psychopathology andthe interdisciplinary disconnect in school men-tal health practice. Journal of School Psycholo-gy, 41, 61-67.

Forness, S. R. (2011). Special education and the newmental health: A response to new direction ofCCBD? Behavioral Disorders, 37, 41-51.

Forness, S. R., Freeman, S. F. N., Paparella, T.,Kauffman, J. M., & Walker, H. M. (2012).Special education implications of point andcumulative prevalence for children with emo-tional or behavioral disorders. Journal of Emo-tional and Behavioral Disorders, 20, 4-18.

Gatzke-Kopp, L. M., Beauchaine, T. P., Shannon,K. E., Chipman, J., Fleming, A. P., & Crowell,S. E.... & Aylward, E. (2009). Neurologicalcorrelates of reward responding in adolescentswith and without externalizing behavior disorders.Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 118, 203-213.

Gatzke-Kopp, L. M., Greenberg, M. T., Fortunato,C. K., & Coccia, M. A. (2012). Aggression as anequifinal outcome of distinct neurocognitiveand neuroaffective processes. Developmentand Psychopathology, 24, 985-1002.

Gatzke-Kopp, L. M., Jetha, M. K., & Segalowitz, S. J.(2014). The role of resting frontal EEG asymme-try in psychopathology: Afferent or efferentfilter? Developmental Psychobiology, 56, 73-85.

Gottlieb, C. (1996). Developmental psychobiologytheory. In R. B. Cairns, G. H. Elder, & E. J.Costello (Eds.). Developmental science (pp. 63-77). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.

Homer, R. H., Sugai, G., & Anderson, C. M. (2010).Examining the evidence base for school-widepositive behavior support. Focus on ExceptionalChildren, 42, 1-14.

Jones, S. M., Brown, J. L., & Aber, J. L. (2011). Two-year impacts of a universal school-based social-emotional and literacy intervention: An experimentin translationai developmental research. ChildDevelopment, 82, 533-554.

Kauffman, J. M., & Bader, J. (2013). How we mightmake special education for students with emo-tional or behavioral disorders less stigmatizing.Behavioral Disorders, 39, 25-36.

Magnusson, D., & Cairns, R. B. (1996). Develop-mental science. Toward a unified framework. InR. B. Cairns, G. H. Elder, & E. J. Costello (Eds.).Developmental science (pp. 7-30). Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press.

Behavioral Disorders, 39 (1 ), 32^2 November 2013 / 41

Masten, A. S., & Cicchetti, D. (2010). Developmen-tal cascades. Development and Psychopatholo-gy, 22, 491-495.

Mellin, E. A. (2009). Responding to the crisis inchildren's mental health: Potential roles for thecounseling profession. Journal of Counselingand Deveiopment, 87, 501-506.

Mrazek, P. G., & Haggerty, R. J. (Eds.). (1994).Reducing risks for mentai disorders: Erontiers forpreventive intervention research. Washington,DC: National Academies Press.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2013).Digest of Education Statistics: Participation inpublic school services. Institute of EducationSciences, US Department of Education; Wash-ington, D.C.

Patterson, G. R. (1982). The coercive family process.Eugene, OR: Castilia.

Reid, J. B. (1993). Prevention of conduct disorderbefore and after school entry: Relating interven-tions to developmental findings. Developmentand Psychopathoiogy, 5, 243-262.

Reinke, W. M., Stormont, M., Herman, K. C, Wang,Z., Newcomer, L., & King, K. (2014). Use ofcoaching and behavior support planning forstudents with disruptive behavior within auniversal classroom management program. Vour-nal of Emotionai and Behavioral Disorders1063426613519820, first published on Febru-ary 7, 2014 as doi:l 0.1177/1063426613519820

Robins, L., & Rutter, M. (Eds.). (1992). Straight anddevious pathways from childhood to adulthood.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Sameroff, A. J. (1995). General systems theory anddevelopmental psychopathoiogy. In D. Cicchetti& D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopa-thoiogy, vol. 1, theory and methods (pp. 659-695). New York: Wiley & Sons.

Shores, R. E., & Wehby, 1. H. (1999). Analyzing theclassroom social behavior of students with EBD.Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders,7, 194-199.

Umbreit, |., Ferro, |., Liaupsin, C, & Lane, K. (2007).Eunctional behaviorai assessment and function-based intervention: An effective, practical ap-proach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Walker, H. M., Seeley, J. R., Small, J., Severson, H. H.,Graham, B. A., & Feil, E. G.... & Forness, S. R.(2009). A randomized controlled trial of the FirstStep to Success Early Intervention: Demonstra-tion of program efficacy outcomes in a diverse,urban school district. Journal of Emotional andBehavioral Disorders, 17, 197-212.

Walker, H. M., & Sprague, J. R. (1999a). The pathto school failure, delinquency, and violence:Causal factors and some potential solutions.Intervention in Schooi and Clinic, 35, 67-73.

Walker, H. M., & Sprague, J. R. (1999b). Longitudi-nal research and functional behavioral assess-ment issues. Behavioral Disorders, 24, 335-337.

Wehby, J. H., Symons, F. J., & Shores, R. E. (1995). Adescriptive analysis of aggressive behavior inclassrooms for children with emotional and behav-ioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 20, 87-105.

Woodbridge, M., Sumi, C, Yu, J., Rouspil, K., Javitz, H.,Seeley, J., & Walker, H. M. (2014). Imple-mentation and sustainability of an evidence-basedprogram: Lessons learned from the PRISM appliedto First Steps to Success. Journal of Emotional andBehavioral Disorders 1063426613520456, firstpublished on February 6, 2014 as doi:10.1177/1063426613520456

AUTHORS' NOTE

Dr. Thomas Farmer, Professor, Department ofSpecial Education and Disability Policy,School of Education, Virginia CommonwealthUniversity, 1015 W. Main Street, P.O. Box842020, Richmond, VA 23284-2020, tfarmer@vcu.edu.

MANUSCRIPT

Final Acceptance: 1/27/14

42 / November 2013 Behavioral Disorders, 39 (1 ), 32-42

Copyright of Behavioral Disorders is the property of Council for Children with BehavioralDisorders and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listservwithout the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,download, or email articles for individual use.