How do school psychologists label and identify emotional disturbance in K-12 public school settings? A critical school psychology analysis of emotional disturbance and school psychologist reflexivity.

Abstract

Here I explored how students are identified for special education under the eligibility category of emotional disturbance (ED). Five practicing or retired school psychologists were interviewed to better understand how school psychologists negotiate their reflexivity and positionality when making initial and reevaluation eligibility determinations for special education under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Improvement Act (IDEIA). Furthermore, I examined how these school psychologists negotiated the social maladjustment (SM) clause in their practice and how they navigated system barriers. The interviews were subsequently analyzed through a critical framework of school psychology (Sabnis & Proctor, 2021) and an interpretivist paradigm was employed to centralize the experiences of school psychologists working in special education systems. Interviewees consistently argued in favor of school systems engaging in effective and student centered outcomes for mental health services like multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS). The concern for stigma of the eligibility category was salient throughout interviews as well. Additionally, participants conflated the terms ED and emotional behavioral dis/abilities (EBD) due to the definitional ambiguity of the eligibility category. Lastly, reflexivity, defined as critical negotiations of participant positionality and experience, was a process that school psychologists engaged in when considering ED as an eligibility category for providing special education. Identifying the multiplicity of factors determining placement decisions for students identified under the IDEIA eligibility category of ED, provides a holistic portrait of students labeled as ED and/or those exhibiting unsafe behaviors of concern.