Handbook of psychology volume 7 educational psychology
Download 9.82 Mb. Pdf ko'rish
|
- Bu sahifa navigatsiya:
- School Psychology Infrastructure 445
- School Psychology Scholarship
- TABLE 17.2 Citation Rates and Circulation of the Major School Psychology Journals
- Disability Determination and Special Education Placement
- Contemporary and Future Challenges 447
- TABLE 17.3 Prevalence of Disabilities in U.S. Schools, Ages 6 –17
444 School Psychology will choose SPPs in view of the current average beginning school psychology salaries of $30,000 to $40,000.
APA and NASP provide graduate program standards and program accreditation or approval services (Fagan & Wells, 2000). The NASP standards are preeminent for specialist- level programs, whereas the APA standards clearly dominate at the doctoral level. The NASP Standards for Training and Field Placement Programs in School Psychology (hereafter NASP Standards) first appeared in 1972, and the most recent revision was published in 2000. Copies are available at http://www.nasponline.org/index2.html. The NASP Stan- dards are applicable to both doctoral and specialist programs; however, the main influence is at the specialist level. The specialist-level standards require a minimum of 60 semester hours, 2 years of full-time study in an organized program, coverage of essential content, a supervised practicum, and a full-year supervised internship in the 3rd year. The domains of graduate training in the NASP Standards, based on the
making and accountability, consultation and collaboration, effective instruction and development of cognitive-academic skills, socialization and development of life skills, student diversity in development and learning, school and system org- anization, policy development, and climate, prevention, crisis intervention, and mental health, home-school-community collaboration, research and program evaluation, school psychology practice and development, and information technology. Standards also are published for practicum experiences during the on-campus part of the program and for the full-time internship (NASP, 2000). NASP Standards are implemented through a folio review process involving submission of an extensive array of documents (course syllabi, practicum and internship contracts, etc.). There is no on-site component of the program approval process, weakening the evaluation of a program’s implementation of the standards. NASP pub- lishes a list of approved programs biannually in the NASP
ously, 125 institutions are approved at the specialist level of graduate education in school psychology. Overall, the NASP Standards and the program approval process have stimulated improved graduate education at the specialist level—leading to more faculty in programs, more coherent training, and improved supervised experiences. The NASP approval process could be strengthened with an on-campus site visit component. The APA Guidelines and Principles for Accreditation of Programs in Professional Psychology (hereafter APA Stan- dards; APA, 1996; http://www.apa.org/) are the most recent iteration of APA program accreditation services that can be traced to 1945. APA accredits doctoral-level programs only, in three of the four areas of professional psychology— clinical, counseling, and school. The fourth area of profes- sional psychology, industrial-organizational, has never sought program accreditation. Recent APA policies permit the expansion of accreditation to new areas of professional psychology (e.g., developmental psychology), but so far no institutions with programs in the nontraditional areas have been accredited. Unlike the NASP Standards, the APA Stan- dards are generic in the sense that they are designed to apply to all areas of professional psychology—not a single area such as school psychology. The APA Standards require the institution to specify a training model and then organize experiences that produce the outcomes consistent with that model. Despite the appear- ance of a system that allows maximum freedom in the design of graduate education, the APA Standards specify essential domains in which “all students can acquire and demonstrate understanding of and competence . . .” The domains listed are biological bases of behavior, cognitive and affective as- pects of behavior, social aspects of behavior, history and sys- tems of psychology, psychological measurement, research methodology, techniques of data analysis, individual differ- ences in behavior, human development, dysfunctional behav- ior or psychopathology, professional standards and ethics, theories and methods of assessment and diagnosis, effective interventions, consultation and supervision, evaluation of the efficacy of interventions, cultural and individual diversity, and attitudes essential to lifelong learning and problem solv- ing as psychologists. Obvious overlap exists in the NASP and APA Standards; however, the NASP Standards are more spe- cific to the training of school psychologists, whereas the APA Standards are more generic and pertain to the graduate edu- cation across areas of professional psychology. APA has accredited graduate programs in school psychol- ogy since 1971 (Fagan & Wells, 2000). Currently there are 66 institutions with accredited programs in school psychol- ogy or school psychology and another area (combined ac- creditation in either school and clinical or school and counseling). The institutional location of about 80% of the APA-accredited school psychology programs is a college of education, often a department of educational psychology or a department of counseling and school psychology. The col- lege and department profile of counseling and school psy- chology is almost identical. In contrast, APA-accredited clinical programs are usually located in departments of
School Psychology Infrastructure 445 psychology in arts and sciences colleges (about 80%; Reschly & Wilson, 1997) or in freestanding SPPs. A signifi- cant proportion of the graduate education in professional psy- chology occurs in colleges of education, usually within a broader context of educational psychology or a context that is significantly influenced by educational psychology. APA accreditation processes involve a self-study, submis- sion of documents to APA, and a site visit by a three-person team over a 2- to 3-day period. The site visit is rigorous, and most programs seeking initial accreditation receive either conditional accreditation or are rejected. Most apply again and eventually gain full accreditation. It is extremely rare for a program that is fully accredited to lose its accreditation, al- though a few programs have managed to do so.
Clearly, APA accreditation is the oldest and most prestigious of the mechanisms whereby a school psychology graduate program is endorsed by an authoritative body. APA accredita- tion is, however, available only to doctoral programs that ac- count for less than half of all school psychology graduate programs. The recent development of the NASP approval process is a significant milestone in improving specialist- level graduate education. It is highly likely that dual accreditation-approval mechanisms in school psychology will be needed far into the future unless an unlikely break- through occurs in the current APA and NASP disagreement on the appropriate level of graduate education required for in- dependent school psychology practice. School Psychology Scholarship Improvements in school psychology scholarship are apparent in a number of developments over the last three decades. Over that period a significant number of books and mono- graphs have been devoted to school psychology thought and practice. The references for some of the most prominent contemporary resources are Fagan and Wise (2000); Reschly, Tilly, and Grimes (1999); Reynolds and Gutkin (1999); Shinn et al. (2002); and Thomas and Grimes (2002). NASP publishes monographs relevant to school psychology and co- operates with other publishers in marketing books and other materials that are relevant to school psychology. Some of the books developed by APA publications also are relevant to school psychology (e.g., Phelps, 1998). The major U.S. refereed journals in school psychology that publish content directly or closely related to school prac- tice are School Psychology Review (SPR), Journal of School
Information on these journals appears in Table 17.2. SPR, published by NASP, is the leading journal in the discipline based on its circulation (approximately 22,000) and on the number of citations to articles published in the journal—that is, the number of times a particular article is cited by other scholars. The other school psychology journals have much lower circulation ( Ͻ 2,500) and lower citation rates. It is im- portant to note, however, that valuable content is published by each of the school psychology journals, and conscientious scholars need to examine the contents of each. The Federal Department of Education, especially the Office of Special Education Programs, is the major source of funding for school psychology research and personnel prepa- ration. Other important sources of support are the Federal Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Innovation, the National Institute of Health (particularly the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development), and private foundations. Research awards are provided by the Society for the Study of School Psychology (SSSPS), Divi- sion 16 of APA, and NASP. SSSPS provides approximately $65,000–$90,000 in small grants to school psychology inves- tigators annually. TABLE 17.2 Citation Rates and Circulation of the Major School Psychology Journals Title
a First Volume b Issues/Page Size per Year c Estimated Circulation e Number of Articles in 1998 1998 Total Citations f
1964 6
35 370
JPA 1983
4 500
15 190
JSP 1963
6 d 1,500 25 338
SPQ 1986
4 2,500
21 220
SPR 1972
4 22,000
31 739
Notes. From Journal Citation Reports (http://www.isinet.com/isi/products/citation/jcr/) a
ϭ Psychology in the Schools; JPA ϭ Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment; JSP ϭ Journal of School Psychology; SPQ ϭ School Psychology
ϭ School Psychology Review. b
c
from 4 to 6 with the 1999 volume. d
e
or last issue of each volume. Personal correspondence with the current editor was used to confirm this information. f 1998 total citations is the total number of times that an article from the journal was cited in 1998 in the journals included in the comprehensive Social Sciences Citation Index (1999). 446 School Psychology CONTEMPORARY AND FUTURE CHALLENGES School psychology has grown at a rapid pace over the last three decades (see Figure 17.3). The rapid growth was tied directly to the expansion of special education legal mandates. These mandates have the most influence on the existence of school psychologists and the services they provide, and it is highly likely that the legal influences will be crucial to school psychology in the future. There are, however, a number of problems in this relationship and with contemporary practice that likely will prompt significant changes in school psychol- ogy practice in the future.
As noted previously, the practice of school psychology today is closely tied to special education eligibility determination and placement. The tie to special education is supported by special education legal requirements, the federal and state requirements for the legally mandated full and individual evaluation, and current conceptual definitions and classifica- tion criteria for educationally related disabilities. The disabil- ities that consume the most time for school psychologists are SLD, MR, and ED. Changes in the conceptual definitions or classification criteria for any of these disabilities—especially for SLD due to the large numbers in that category—could have a significant impact on school psychology. It is likely that such changes will occur. What happens to school psychology if the intellectual functioning requirement is removed from the SLD classifica- tion criteria? What if states and the federal government adopt noncategorical conceptions of high-incidence disabilities (SLD, MR, ED) with disability classification based on low achievement and insufficient response to high-quality inter- ventions, as recommended by a recent National Academy of Sciences Report (Donovan & Cross, 2002)? Recommendation SE.1: The committee recommends that federal guidelines for special education eligibility be changed in order to encourage better integrated general and special education ser- vices. We propose that eligibility ensue when a student exhibits large differences from typical levels of performance in one or more domain(s) and with evidence of insufficient response to high-quality interventions in the relevant domain(s) of function- ing in school settings. These domains include achievement (e.g., reading, writing, mathematics), social behavior, and emotional regulation. As is currently the case, eligibility determination would also require a judgment by a multidisciplinary team, in- cluding parents, that special education is needed. (Donovan & Cross, 2002, p. ES-6) While an IQ test may provide supplemental information, no IQ test would be required, and the results of an IQ test would not be a primary criterion on which eligibility rests. Because of the irre- ducible importance of context in the recognition and nurturance of achievement, the committee regards the effort to assess stu- dents’ decontextualized potential or ability as inappropriate and scientifically invalid. (Donovan & Cross, 2002, pp. 8–23) These changes have occurred in some states (e.g., Iowa) and in some school districts across the United States in which functional assessment—emphasizing direct measures of skills in relevant domains such as academic skills, social be- haviors, and emotional regulation—are used instead of stan- dardized tests (Reschly et al., 1999). School psychologists have flourished in the few places that have changed disability classification significantly, but large continuing education efforts were required to support those changes (Ikeda, Tilly, Stumme, Volmer, & Allison, 1996; Reschly & Grimes, 1991). In discussing the issues related to disability determination and the likely future challenges for school psychologists it is crucial first to understand that enormous variations exist across the states in disability definitions, classification crite- ria, and prevalence. Table 17.3, constructed from the most recent federal child-count data, demonstrates unequivocally that there are few generalizations that can be made about
Growth of school psychology, 1977–1978 to 1998–1999. From the U.S. Department of Education (2001). 0 5,000 10,000 15,000
20,000 25,000
30,000 Year Number 1977–78
1999–00 1997–98
1995–96 1993–94
1991–92 1989–90
1987–88 1985–86
1983–84 1981–82
1979–80 Contemporary and Future Challenges 447 disability identification other than that it varies significantly across states (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). For example, Minnesota identifies about 20 times more students as ED as does Arkansas, Rhode Island identifies three times more in LD as does Kentucky, and so on. The common de- nominator for virtually all SWD is significant achievement problems—often further complicated by behavior problems. The categories per se do not mean very much (Bocian, Beebe, MacMillan, & Gresham, 1999; Gresham, MacMillan, & Bocian, 1998; MacMillan, Gresham, & Bocian, 1998). Disability classification across states and districts within states is unreliable (Gottlieb, Alter, Gottlieb, & Wishner, 1994; Gottlieb & Weinberg, 1999). An even more fundamental problem is the validity of clas- sification in terms of the identification of groups of students with unique needs and the relationship of disability group membership to treatment or intervention decisions. There is considerable skepticism about the reliability and validity of three of the disability categories with relatively high preva- lence (SLD, MR, and ED; Reschly & Tilly, 1999; Tilly, Reschly, & Grimes, 1999). These disabilities are a large part of the typical school psychology caseload. Determining an ability-achievement discrepancy is crucial in most states as part of the SLD classification criteria and constitutes a major part of the current role of most school psy- chologists. The appropriateness of the discrepancy method of determining SLD eligibility is criticized with increasing stri- dency by persons associated with the reading disability re- search centers funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (Lyon, 1996). The major criticisms are that IQ-achievement-discrepant and nondiscrepant poor readers do not differ in the instructional interventions needed or in responsiveness to that instruction. Moreover, the dis- crepancy criterion often delays treatment until third or fourth grade, when in fact the vast majority of children that will be identified later as SLD in the area of reading can be accurately identified in kindergarten with relatively straightforward mea- sures of phonological awareness. Delaying treatment allows reading problems to worsen and causes enormous frustration for children, teachers, and parents. Fletcher et al. (1998) sum- marized this case: Classifications of children as discrepant versus low-achievement lack discriminative validity. . . . However, because children can be validly identified on the basis of a low-achievement definition, it simply is not necessary to use an IQ test to identify children as learning disabled. . . . For treatment, the use of the discrepancy model forces identification to an older age when interventions are demonstrably less effective. (Fletcher et al., 1998, pp. 200–201) Changes in the SLD classification criteria involving either the elimination of the discrepancy requirement through a noncategorical scheme or other alternative classification cri- teria will present enormous challenges to school psycholo- gists. SLD accounts for over half of the disabilities identified in the public schools; it is therefore a significant part of most school psychologists’ roles. Changes in SLD will almost in- evitably require acquisition of new skills and the develop- ment of competencies more related to early identification of specific skills and the design of effective treatments. Models exist for the successful transition of school psychologists to
Number Age Number Age Total
Percent with Percent of Disability a 6–11 12–17 Number
Disabilities b Population c Variations Between States d SLD
1,113,465 1,603,190 2,716,655 50.5%
5.73% 3.1% (KY) to 9.6% (RI) Factor of 3.1 ϫs Sp/L 955,505 126,317
1,081,822 20.1%
2.28% 0.9% (DC) to 3.7% (WV) Factor of 4.1 ϫs MR 238,323 308,106
546,429 10.2%
1.15% 0.3% (NJ) to 2.87 (WV) Factor of 9.6 ϫs ED 159,691 283,452
443,143 8.2%
0.94% 0.1% (AR) to 2.0% (MN) Factor of 20 ϫs Low incidence 326,445 268,515
594,960 11.1%
1.26% — All disabilities 2,793,429 2,589,580 5,383,009 100.1%
11.36% 9.2% (CA) to 16.5% (RI) Factor of 1.8 ϫs
a SLD
ϭ specific learning disabilities; Sp/L ϭ speech and language disabilities; MR ϭ mental retardation; ED ϭ emotional disturbance; Low incidence ϭ combined total of multiple disabilities, hearing impairments, orthopedic impairments, other health impairments, visual impairments, autism, deafness, blind- ness, traumatic brain injury, and developmental delay. b Refers to the composition of the population with disabilities; for example, of all students aged 6–17, slightly more than half are in the category of SLD. c Refers to the risk level for each disability in the student population. For example, 5.73% of all students aged 6–17 in the general student population have SLD. d Provides the lowest and highest prevalence of each disability by state and the multiplicative factor by which they occur. |
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling