The field of emotional and behavioural difficulties (EBD) is challenging and controversial. When we try to make sense of the field in an international perspective, it becomes almost puzzling. Cross-national developmental, economical, educational, political and scientific conditions underlie conceptualizations of EBD as well as estimated prevalence levels, evaluation/diagnosis and intervention. Moreover, as Winzer mentions in the last edition of this Handbook, āā¦comparative study in special education is not an active domain of studyā (2005: 22).
Fortunately, in the last decade the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, an organization that produced a large number of studies over a significant number of countries e.g. OECD, 2005, 2008, 2009, 2010) providing researchers, practitioners and politicians invaluable cross-national information about EBD categories or their corresponding labels (whenever they exist). Still, an in-depth understanding of this complex information must take into account a number of critical issues that underlie scientific and political decisions about EBD conditions (how many conditions, which conditions, etc.). The developmental level of the country, the role of culture, compulsory schooling and school inclusion are some of these important issues that must be taken into account.
EBD and the Developmental Level of Countries
When we take a close look at countries with well-designed taxonomies and categorizations of EBD, it becomes apparent that these countries show some of the best developmental indexes in the world. The relation is not perfect, however. The United States, for instance, despite being the country where most research on EBD is produced and where most discussion over taxonomies and categorizations is being conducted, is listed fourth in the human developmental index (HDI = 0.910) (Klugman, 2011). Norway, ranked first (HDI = 0.943), holds a more classical categorization system and adopts more restrictive solutions for students with emotional, behavioural, or developmental problems. Also, the number of students identified with disabilities in Norway (around 6 per cent) is much lower than in the United States (around 20 per cent) (Cameron et al., 2011).
When we compare countries across developmental levels, other and more important differences and tendencies become apparent. One of the differences has to do with the availability of information about EBD students. While countries with very high human development indexes (Cameron et al., 2011) usually provide international agencies with extensive information about identification procedures, categories, support systems, funding, etc., countries with medium or with low human development indexes typically show difficulties in gathering, or cannot even get, the information required by those agencies (OECD, 2005).
Most likely, the information is not available because some countries do not have a clearly established special education system (or an implemented system to support EBD and other problematic children) and/or do not have an effective information gathering system. This is, of course, a general effect of poverty. Some of these countries struggle to provide basic items like food and water; therefore, they are not in a position to make choices about educational issues. Others that are in a development process allocate their limited resources to basic education and cannot provide enough support to special students, namely EBD. As Donald (1994) states: āthe irony in this is that the incidence of disability, and therefore of special education needs, in such contexts is estimated to be considerably higher than in more developed contextsā (1994: 5).
Another difference between countries with different levels of development has to do with the acceptance of the concept of EBD itself. Even if it is true that only some countries with very high levels of human development adopt the concept of EBD, it is also clear that countries above those levels of development rarely identify categories of problems other than the most evident: deafness, blindness, mental retardation, autism, etc. (OECD, 2005). The concept of EBD is therefore not internationally recognized ā quite the contrary. The fact that some of the countries where the concept is well-established and where most of the research on EBD, special education, special education needs, etc., is conducted, gave the concept of EBD a visibility that doesnāt have a corresponding recognition in most other countries.
Mazurek and Winzer (1994) compared the special education systems of 26 countries and grouped them into countries with ālimited special educationā, countries with āemerging special educationā, countries with āsegregated special educationā, countries with āapproaching integrationā and countries with āintegrated special educationā.
Countries with limited special education are those in which āspecial education, training and rehabilitation remain an elusive dreamā(Mazurek and Winzer, 1994: 3). The second group integrates populous countries that are extremely diverse in geographical and ethnic terms. These countries differ mainly from the former group in that they also are fighting for universal access to school but are planning already to provide educational services for disabled, disordered, or disadvantaged persons (which, for the former, are still a ādreamā). It is estimated that 80 per cent of disabled people in the world live in countries in this second group. These countries, influenced by international guidelines, have developed national legislation for special people. Countries with āsegregated special educationā, āapproaching integrationā, or with āintegrated special educationā usually share fairly or highly well-established special education systems.
Overall, we can say that only a small, but rather influential, number of countries have developed and implemented taxonomic systems that include the EBD category. As leaders of published research and organizational developments, their models of EBD and special education seem to be inspiring other countriesā developments in the field (Donald, 1994; Lorenzo, 1994; Agrawal, 1994). This does not mean, however, that in the long run all countries will inevitably follow the same path. In fact, even countries with very high developmental indexes do not share the same concepts about EDB and special education. Eventually, countries will share a number of foundation concepts and statements about EBD and special education, but organizational variability will remain.
Terminology(ies)
It is quite clear that the field of EBD and of problems or disorders that may be included under the umbrella of EBD suffer from widespread cross-country variability. Related concepts, such as āspecial educationā, āspecial education needsā, ādeficitsā, ādisordersā, ādisabilitiesā, etc., make international comparisons even more difficult.
Special education is usually considered a subsystem of the general educational system, integrating students that show some kind of adaptation problem to the regular education system; however, there is a considerable cross-national variation in the scope of special education. One of the main reasons for this variation may be that special education is an organizational system that results from national political ...
