Several controversies continue to surround the differentiation between the socially maladjusted (SM) and seriously emotionally disturbed (SED). Central to the controversy is the interpretation of social maladjustment. At one extreme, some restrict the definition of SM to include (a) the socialized aggressive and (b) adjudicated delinquents.
At the other extreme, SM is construed broadly and includes (a) Conduct Disorder (group type, solitary aggressive, and undifferentiated), (b) Oppositional Defiant Disorder, and (c) antisocial personality. An intermediate position presented herein argues for the inclusion of the socialized aggressive and unsocialized aggressive under the rubric of SM. Given that those in the anxious-withdrawn-dysphoric group are viewed as both SM and SED, they should be eligible for special education services assuming adverse educational impact is evident.
Several unresolved issues continue to surround efforts to distinguish the social maladjusted (SM) from the seriously emotionally disturbed (SED). This article addresses definitional concerns about social maladjustment. Some authorities have argued that the distinction between these two terms is unfounded and unnecessary. Bower (1982), for instance, contended that the emotionally disturbed child is socially maladjusted in school. Other authorities do enforce distinctions between the two terms. Among those distinguishing between the two terms there is lively debate as to how narrowly or broadly Requests for reprints should be sent to Harvey F. Clarizio,