Including EBD Students in the Regular Education Classroom
This paper examines the challenges and implications of including students diagnosed with Emotional/Behavioral Disorders (EBD) in regular education classrooms. It reviews the troubling academic and post-school outcomes associated with EBD, including high dropout and arrest rates. The paper critiques the current IDEA definition and medical-model identification process, which contributes to significant under-identification of eligible students. It then explores how classroom dynamics — including teacher-student relationships, instructional engagement, and behavioral challenges — create barriers to effective inclusion. The author argues that addressing both academic and behavioral deficits simultaneously, rather than treating them as separate concerns, is essential for improving long-term outcomes for students with EBD.
- Overview of Outcomes for Students with EBD: Dropout, arrest, and post-school outcome statistics
- Current State of Inclusive Services: IDEA definition gaps and under-identification problem
- Academic and Behavioral Challenges in the Classroom: Dual academic and behavioral deficits facing teachers
- Teacher–Student Interaction Patterns: Negative relational cycles between teachers and EBD students
- General Education Teacher Perceptions and Practices: Teacher attitudes toward inclusion and accommodations
- Conclusion: Call for inclusion as essential to student success
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper opens with striking statistical evidence — dropout rates, arrest rates, and graduation gaps — that immediately establishes the urgency of the topic and grounds the argument in documented outcomes.
- It moves logically from systemic policy failures (IDEA definition and under-identification) to classroom-level dynamics (teacher behavior, interaction patterns), showing how macro and micro factors compound one another.
- The paper challenges a false dichotomy by arguing that practitioners must address both academic and behavioral deficits simultaneously, which demonstrates nuanced analytical thinking rather than a one-sided advocacy position.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper effectively uses research synthesis to build a layered argument. Rather than citing single studies in isolation, the author draws on multiple sources (Sutherland et al., Henricsson & Rydell, Lewis et al.) to construct a coherent picture of how policy, teacher behavior, and student outcomes interact. This technique — weaving evidence from several studies into a unified analytical narrative — is a hallmark of well-structured literature-based essays in education.
Structure breakdown
The paper follows a funnel structure: it begins with broad population-level outcomes, narrows to federal policy and identification failures, then focuses on classroom-level teacher-student dynamics, and closes with a brief advocacy conclusion. Each section builds on the previous one, creating a logical chain from systemic causes to interpersonal consequences. This organizational approach suits an evidence-based policy argument in special education.
Overview of Outcomes for Students with EBD
Outcomes for the majority of children and youth identified with Emotional/Behavioral Disorders (EBD) have been well documented. Half of students labeled EBD drop out of school — the highest dropout rate among all disability categories. Of those who remain in school, only 42% graduate with a diploma, and they overall earn lower grades than any other group of students with disabilities. Twenty percent of students with EBD are arrested at least once before they leave school, over half are arrested within a few years of leaving school, and a staggering 70% of those who have dropped out have been arrested (Van Acker, 2004). The post-school prospects for students with EBD are bleak, as many face unemployment, substance abuse, and poor social support (Wagner et al., 2005).
Current State of Inclusive Services
A significant challenge in providing educational support for students with EBD is the current Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) definition and the traditionally accepted evaluation model, which seeks to determine a diagnosis based on behavioral characteristics that are supposed to represent an underlying mental illness. IDEA clearly states that children found eligible for special education services must not be benefiting from the general education curriculum because of a suspected disability. However, a medical model is used in the identification process to determine EBD eligibility. The continued reliance on a non-educational model for eligibility is rooted in the current federal definition of serious emotional disturbance (SED).
Unfortunately, the continued reliance on a restrictive medical model definition and evaluation process has led to significant under-identification of children and youth in need of services. Currently, less than 1% of students across the United States are identified as having an EBD. Estimated prevalence rates offered by special education and mental health professionals can vary from 2% to 20% of the school-age population; however, the generally accepted expected prevalence rate among K–12 students is 5%–7%. If we apply the current incidence of children and youth being served under IDEA within the SED category against the low end of the estimated prevalence of 5%, then approximately 2,810,149 students who might otherwise be eligible are not receiving services under the SED category (Lewis et al., 2010).
Academic and Behavioral Challenges in the Classroom
Many students with EBD display both learning and behavioral problems that make it difficult for teachers to provide effective instruction. In turn, a lack of exposure to effective instruction contributes to poor academic and behavioral outcomes.
Traditionally, both researchers and practitioners have focused their intervention efforts on EBD students' disruptive behaviors and social skills deficits. However, the poor academic progress displayed by students with EBD — as well as the bleak post-school outcomes associated with the resulting school failure — has led to an increasing focus on academic deficits. Exclusive efforts to bolster EBD students' academic skills may be misplaced and may not lead to long-term gains in either academic achievement or behavior (Sutherland et al., 2008). That is, an either/or choice may be a false dichotomy. Instead, it may be important for practitioners to focus intervention efforts on both the academic and behavioral deficits of students with EBD, because a multitude of factors influence their social, emotional, and academic development, and there is inconsistent evidence about the directionality of effects between learning and behavior problems. Consequently, understanding the impact of various factors — such as instructional delivery and classroom context — on academic achievement and behavior is difficult.
Both students with EBD and their teachers can experience the classroom as an aversive environment. Researchers have documented that students identified with behavior problems spend less time attending and complying with group directions, exhibit higher rates of aggression, out-of-seat behavior, and noise-making, and engage in an overall higher rate of negative interactions with teachers. The impact of these high rates of problem behaviors can establish negative patterns of interaction between teachers and students. One characteristic of these patterns is a low rate of instructional engagement, which can further undermine a student's academic progress. Thus, a teacher's behavior — such as whether to provide a student with an opportunity to respond to a question — can have strong associations with that student's behavior, including whether the student continues to be disruptive (Sutherland et al., 2008).
Conclusion
It seems apparent that there are a number of significant issues creating barriers for students with EBD, and more needs to be done to create a better understanding for all. Inclusion is imperative if these students are to have any chance of becoming successful, productive adults in our society.
References
Cooley, E. L., & Triemer, D. M. (2002, December). Classroom behavior and the ability to decode nonverbal cues in boys with severe emotional disturbance. Journal of Social Psychology, 142(6), 741–751.
Henricsson, L., & Rydell, A. (2004, April). Elementary school children with behavior problems: Teacher–child relations and self-perception. A prospective study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50(2), 111–138.
Lewis, T. J., Jones, S. E. L., Horner, R. H., & Sugai, G. (2010, April–June). School-wide positive behavior support and students with emotional/behavioral disorders: Implications for prevention, identification, and intervention. Exceptionality, 18(2), 82–93.
Solar, E. (2011, September/October). Prove them wrong. Teaching Exceptional Children, 44(1), 40–45.
Sutherland, K. S., Lewis-Palmer, T., Stichter, J., & Morgan, P. L. (2008, Winter). Examining the influences of teacher behavior and classroom context on behavioral and academic outcomes for students with emotional or behavioral disorders. Journal of Special Education, 41(4), 223–233.
Van Acker, R. (2004). Current status of public education and likely directions for students with emotional behavioral disorders. In L. M. Bullock & R. A. Gable (Eds.), Quality preparation in emotional/behavioral disorders: Current perspectives and future directions. Denton, TX: Institute for Behavioral and Learning Differences.
Wagner, M., Kutash, K., Duchnowski, A. J., Epstein, M. H., & Sumi, W. C. (2005, Summer). The children and youth we serve: A national picture of the characteristics of students with emotional disturbances receiving special education. Journal of Behavioral Disorders, 13(2), 79–96.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.