Handbook of psychology volume 7 educational psychology

440

School Psychology

SWD), is operationalized by classification criteria that re-

quire a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and

achievement. The exact criterion or criteria for the discrep-

ancy varies by state with some establishing relatively less

(e.g., 1 SD) and some relatively more (1.5 or 2.0 SD) stringent

standards. The use of an IQ test, however, is nearly always re-

quired to implement the SLD classification criteria—a prac-

tice that may be changing. Likewise, in MR an IQ test nearly

always is required by states to determine the child’s status on

the intellectual functioning dimension of the MR disability

category.

IQ testing often is done routinely as part of a compre-

hensive evaluation for other suspected disabilities such as

emotional disturbance or autism, although the classification

criteria for these disabilities rarely mention intellectual func-

tioning specifically. For many school and child psycholo-

gists, an IQ test is an essential part of an overall evaluation

(Sattler, 2001). This view appears to be changing as more

emphasis is placed on accountability for child outcomes in

special education legislation and practice (see this chapter’s

section on future trends). 

Trends in Legal Requirements 

The EHA-IDEA legal requirements and their state counter-

parts have evolved gradually over the last 25 years, with

changes primarily in the realm of further specification of re-

quirements or inclusion of broader age ranges in the mandate

to serve SWD. IDEA (1991, 1997, 1999) represented a mod-

est break with the prior trends; the greater emphasis was on

accountability for academic and social outcomes for SWD

and the use of regulatory powers to focus greater attention on

positive outcomes. Prior to 1997, IDEA-EHA legal require-

ments focused on process, inclusion, and extending services

to all eligible children and youth. Compliance monitoring

prior to 1997 involved checking on whether the mandated

services were provided without cost to parents in the least re-

strictive environment feasible and were guided by an individ-

ualized educational program and an evaluation that included

essential features; procedural safeguards followed rigorously.

The missing element in this array of legal requirements was

outcomes—that is, what tangible benefits were derived by

children and youth from participating in special education

and related services programs?

The greater emphasis on outcomes in special education

legal requirements follows the national trends in the late

1980s and 1990s toward greater accountability through

systematic assessment of student achievement (McDonnell

et al., 1997). Several additions were made by Congress to the

IDEA regulations (1991, 1997, 1999) to ensure greater

accountability in special education. Among these require-

ments are the strong preference for SWD to remain in the

general education curriculum, to participate in local and state

assessment programs (including the standardized achieve-

ment testing that is done at least annually in nearly all states),

and to have individualized educational programs that are de-

veloped around general education curriculum standards.

The effects of this legislation on SWD are not clear yet,

but the accountability demands influence school psychology

in a number of ways. First, evaluations must include content

from the general education classroom and curriculum in

order to provide the information needed for planning the spe-

cial education program. More emphasis on curriculum-based

measurement is highly likely (Shapiro, 1996; Shinn, 1998)

along with other direct measures of classroom performance.

Second, the portions of reevaluations involving progress in

achieving goals must in most cases include a general educa-

tion context as well as the results of the child’s performance

in the school’s accountability program. These areas are be-

coming essential components of annual reviews of progress

and triennial reevaluations of disability eligibility and special

education program placement. Third, school psychologists

are involved frequently in judgments about the alterations in

standardized testing procedures that are needed in order for

SWD to participate, without undermining the essential pur-

pose of the assessment. Finally—and most important—the

work of school psychologists is increasingly examined in

relation to outcomes for children, leading to scrutiny of the

value of standardized tests and other assessment procedures

in facilitating positive outcomes for SWD (discussed later in

this chapter; Reschly & Tilly, 1999).

IDEA (1991, 1997, 1999) also placed more emphasis on

the delivery of effective interventions for social and emo-

tional behaviors that might interfere with academic perfor-

mance or that lead to placement in more restrictive education

settings for SWD. A positive behavior support plan is re-

quired in every IEP if social or emotional behavior interferes

with learning—a frequent occurrence for SWD. Moreover,

before disciplinary action can be taken against SWD, a

functional behavior analysis must be conducted with inter-

ventions implemented (Tilly, Knoster, & Ikeda, 2000), a re-

quirement that focuses more attention on outcomes and

draws heavily on the expertise that some school psycholo-

gists have with applied behavior analysis.

Summary of Legal Requirements

It is this author’s thesis that legal requirements are the great-

est influence on the existence and work of school psychol-

ogists. The close association of school psychology with

School Psychology Infrastructure

441

special education emerged in the early twentieth century, de-

veloped rapidly over the last 25 years, and continues to

evolve. The legal requirements themselves are, of course, the

outgrowth of societal trends that placed great value on the

rights of each individual—including persons with disabili-

ties—to educational services. Further changes in legal re-

quirements should be expected with concomitant further

influences on school psychology.

SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE

The infrastructure for school psychology includes the body of

knowledge claimed by the profession, graduate programs,

standards, professional associations, and credentialing mech-

anisms (including licensing and state education agency certi-

fication). The school psychology infrastructure grew rapidly

over the last 25 years in parallel with the legal requirements

necessitating the employment of school psychologists and

the rapid increase in the numbers of school psychologists.

Professional Associations

School psychology professional associations exist in the

United States, Canada, most nations of the European Com-

munity, and selected other nations throughout the world.

There is an International Association of School Psychologists

that holds an annual summer seminar, usually in Europe or

North America. In addition, all states have school psychology

associations, as do most Canadian provinces. The two major

national school psychology organizations in the United

States are discussed in this chapter. Readers interested in the

international association are encouraged to consult their Web

site (http://www.ispaweb.org/en/index.html).

Division 16 of the APA

The oldest national school psychology organization in the

United States is Division 16 (School Psychology) of the

APA (http://education.indiana.edu/~div16/). Division 16 was

founded in the late 1940s when the APA was reorganized and

the divisional structure was established. Many of the other

divisions such as Educational Psychology (Division 15) and

Clinical Psychology (Division 12) were established at the

same time. Full membership in the APA requires a doctoral

degree, rendering ineligible for full membership the vast

majority of practicing school psychologists who have

specialist-level graduate education. For that and perhaps other

reasons the membership of Division 16 is a relatively small

percentage of the overall school psychology community,

dominated principally by university faculty. The membership

of Division 16 is composed of 174 fellows, 1,392 members,

and 226 associates (associates generally are graduate students

or nondoctoral affiliates of the APA).

Division 16 plays a vital role in representing school psy-

chology in the broader realm of American psychology and pro-

fessional psychology. Division 16 is very powerful when it can

align its interests with those of the much larger APA (over

84,000 members). Major activities of this Division are

publishing a journal (School Psychology Quarterly) and a

newsletter (The School Psychologist), the developing of stan-

dards documents, advocating for school psychology services,

and maintaining school psychology as one of the four officially

recognized areas of professional psychology in APA (along

with clinical, counseling, and industrial-organizational). Divi-

sion 16 organizes a program at the annual APA conventions

that includes awards to outstanding members, symposia, in-

vited addresses, and poster sessions.

National Association of School Psychologists

The NASP (http://www.nasponline.org/index2.html) was es-

tablished in 1969 to represent the interests of all school psy-

chologists, with special attention to the interests and needs of

most practitioners who were at that time primarily at the mas-

ter’s level of graduate preparation. The NASP admitted all

persons certified or licensed to practice in a state as a school

psychologist as well as graduate students in school psychol-

ogy to full membership. Today NASP is the largest school

psychology organization in the world with approximately

22,000 members, of whom about 5,000 have doctoral-level

graduate preparation. Although it might have been accurate

to characterize Division 16 and NASP in the 1970s and 1980s

as representing the interests of doctoral- and nondoctoral-

level school psychologists, respectively, it now is clear that

about four times as many school psychologists with doctoral

degrees are in NASP as in APA. NASP maintains a headquar-

ters in the Washington, DC area and has an executive director

and a growing staff that conducts the organization’s business,

provides membership services, and advocates for school psy-

chological services.

NASP publishes a journal (The School Psychology Re-

view), a newsletter (NASP Communique), and a variety of

monographs such as Best Practices (now in a fourth edition), a

graduate training directory, and reports of innovative practices

in such areas as intervention techniques and models (Shinn,

Walker, & Stoner, 2002). NASP also publishes graduate

program standards and provides a program approval service

through an affiliation with the National Council on Accred-

itation of Teacher Education (NCATE). NASP program

442

School Psychology

approval is especially influential at the specialist level,

whereas APA accreditation dominates at the doctoral level. A

national credential with increasing recognition by the states

was established by NASP in the early 1990s, the National Cer-

tificate in School Psychology (NCSP). Close relationships are

maintained with nearly all of the state associations of school

psychologists through a variety of cooperative and service-

oriented programs. Over the past decade, NASP has become

increasingly active and influential in shaping federal policies

that affect school psychologists—especially the IDEA (1991,

1997, 1999) legislation.

The principal disagreement between APA Division 16 and

NASP is the appropriate entry level for the independent,

unsupervised practice of school psychology in public and

private settings. NASP advocates the specialist level, and

Division 16—in line with APA policy—promotes the doc-

toral level. The dispute over entry level has been intense and

divisive at different times in the history of school psychology

(Bardon, 1979; Brown, 1979; Coulter, 1989; Hyman, 1979;

Trachtman, 1981), although (with a few exceptions) it has not

been a prominent issue at the national level for the two orga-

nizations in recent years. Intense struggles over this issue

sometimes still occur at the state level drawing in the national

leadership, but these events have been rare in the 1990s.

The outcome of the debate over entry level is relatively

clear in most states. The entry level for practice in the schools

is the specialist level, whereas the entry level for the private,

independent practice of school psychology generally is the

doctoral level. When school psychologists at the specialist

level do attain the authority to practice privately without su-

pervision by a doctoral-level professional, that practice typi-

cally is limited to a narrow range of services. 

Increased cooperation on the many common interests that

exist between NASP and APA has been the prevailing pattern

during the 1990s, although the official policies of the organi-

zations continue to differ sharply on the graduate preparation

required to use the title school psychologist. For reasons dis-

cussed in the next section, it is highly unlikely that school

psychology practitioners will reach the doctoral level for sev-

eral decades into the future. The APA and NASP cooperation

is in the best interests of both organizations and consistent

with both organizations’ commitment to expanding and

improving psychological services for children and youth

(Fagan, 1986a).

Graduate Programs

Graduate programs in school psychology have been studied

with increasing intensity over the last 35 years (Bardon,

Costanza, & Walker, 1971; Bardon & Walker, 1972;

Bardon & Wenger, 1974, 1976; Bluestein, 1967; Brown &

Lindstrom, 1977; Brown & Minke, 1984, 1986; Cardon

& French, 1968–1969; Fagan, 1985, 1986b; French &

McCloskey, 1979, 1980; Goh, 1977; McMaster et al., 1989;

Pfeiffer & Marmo, 1981; Reschly & McMaster-Beyer, 1991;

Reschly & Wilson, 1997; Smith & Fagan, 1995; Thomas,

1998; White, 1963–1964). The early studies were restricted

to a listing of the available programs with meager analyses of

the characteristics or the nature of the programs. Beginning

with the NASP-sponsored graduate programs directories led

by Brown and colleagues (Brown & Lindstrom, 1977; Brown

& Minke, 1984) and then continued by others (McMaster

et al., 1989; Thomas, 1998), a more complete picture of

school psychology graduate education has emerged. 

Two levels of graduate education are prominent in school

psychology. The specialist level typically involves 2 years of

full-time study in an organized school psychology program,

the accumulation of 60 semester hours at the graduate level in

approved courses, and a full-time internship during a third

year, usually with remuneration at about a half-time rate

for a beginning school psychologist. Specialist-level pro-

grams typically are designed around NASP standards for

graduate programs in school psychology (NASP, 2000). Most

specialist-program students complete their programs in

3 years. The overwhelming majority of specialist-program

graduates are employed in public school settings as school

psychologists.

Doctoral programs involve at least 3 years of full-time

study on campus, followed by a full-time internship that usu-

ally is paid but at a level well below beginning salaries for

psychologists, and a year for dissertation completion. Stu-

dents occasionally complete doctoral degrees in 4 years, but

5–6 years is much more common in school psychology

programs. Doctoral requirements typically follow APA

accreditation standards (APA, 1996). Career paths of doctoral

program graduates are highly variable. Many work in non-

school settings such as medical clinics or community mental

health, whereas others go into teaching and research roles in

universities. Perhaps 40% of doctoral graduates work in pub-

lic school settings as school psychologists or as program

administrators.

The specialist level dominates school psychology gradu-

ate education and practice, and it is likely to continue to do

so. Specialist-level graduate students constitute about 70%

of all graduate students and 80% of all graduates of pro-

grams. The latter is, of course, the most accurate predictor

of the future composition of the school psychology work-

force. For many reasons that are well known to students and

School Psychology Infrastructure

443

faculty, doctoral programs require a longer period of study

(5–6 years) compared to specialist programs (3 years), not to

mention the all-too-common occurrence of doctoral degree

candidates’ delaying or failing to complete the degree be-

cause of the dissertation. For these and other reasons, there

always will be a higher proportion of doctoral students than

program graduates.

The number of institutions actively engaged in school psy-

chology graduate education has remained stable for a decade,

at about 195. Surveys sometimes list as many as 210–220 in-

stitutions, but closer examination indicates that about 195

institutions have active programs that admit and graduate

students each year. Approximately 90% of the institutions

offer specialist-level degrees; however, only 40% offer doc-

toral degrees (Thomas, 1998; Reschly & Wilson, 1997). A

limitation in the movement to the doctoral level is that about

60% of the institutions that offer school psychology graduate

programs are not authorized by their governing boards

or state legislatures to offer doctoral degrees (Reschly &

Wilson, 1997). The Carnegie Foundation classifies most of

these institutions as comprehensive institutions, meaning

that they offer undergraduate degree programs in a wide va-

riety of areas and master’s or specialist degrees in selected

areas. They are not authorized to offer doctoral degrees,

and—in the current higher education climate—it is highly

unlikely that very many of them will acquire the authority to

offer doctoral degrees in the future.

In a development that most professional psychologists did

not anticipate, master’s-level practice of counseling and clin-

ical psychology has strengthened over the last decade due at

least in part to the influences of managed care and other fac-

tors. The strong pressure that existed from APA Division 16

in the 1970s and 1980s appears to have diminished as a result

of the dominance of managed care in the private-practice

market and other developments (Benedict & Phelps, 1998;

Phelps, Eisman, & Kohout, 1998).

The actual graduate education of specialist- and doctoral-

level school psychologists overlaps significantly—especially

in terms of preparation for practice in the school setting

(Reschly & Wilson, 1997). Doctoral training is different pri-

marily in (a) domains of supervised practice in nonschool set-

tings; (b) specialization with a particular population, kind of

problem, or treatment approach; and (c) advanced prepara-

tion in measurement, statistics, research design, and evalua-

tion. These findings suggest that doctoral-level graduates are

better prepared for broader practice roles, including evalua-

tion of treatment and program effects and provision of ser-

vices in nonschool settings. It is crucial to presenting an

accurate picture to emphasize a high degree of overlap be-

tween specialist and doctoral graduate education as well as

the large amount of variation across specialist programs and

doctoral programs. 

The only development on the horizon that might lead

to a change in the largely specialist-level character of school

psychology practice is the recent emergence of school psy-

chology PsyD programs at the freestanding schools of

professional psychology (SPP). There are approximately

25 SPPs in the United States today that have been devoted

almost exclusively to training clinical psychologists. The

SPPs are noted for being expensive, for offering little stu-

dent financial aid other than loans, and for graduating large

numbers of students compared to more traditional univer-

sity-based programs. Today these 25 schools of professional

psychology graduate twice as many clinical psychologists

as do the approximately 185 university-based clinical pro-

grams (How Do Professional Schools’ Graduates Compare

with Traditional Graduates?, 1997; Maher, 1999; Yu et al.,

1997). Clearly the SPPs have shown the capacity to train

and graduate large numbers of persons. Due to changes in

managed care as well as the rapid increase in the numbers of

clinical psychologists—especially those from the SPPs—the

market demand for doctoral-level clinical and counseling

psychologists has diminished, as have the number of appli-

cations for admission to clinical and counseling graduate

programs.

The SPPs are tuition driven—that is, they depend directly

and primarily on student-paid tuition and fees to support the

institution. They also are entrepreneurial. The weakening

demand for clinical psychologists has led some of the SPPs

to enter new areas of training. One of the California SPPs

has initiated a teacher education program, and the SPPs in

Fresno, CA and Chicago have announced plans to initiate

PsyD programs in school psychology. Clearly, these an-

nouncements represent entrepreneurial efforts to maintain fi-

nancial viability rather than a long-standing commitment to

these new areas. If the other SPPs enter school psychology

training and graduate large numbers of persons, the current

supply-demand picture and the dominance of the specialist

level could change over the next decade. 

I am very skeptical about the SPPs’ role in school psy-

chology training as well as their attractiveness to prospective

school psychologists. An SPP graduate education is enor-

mously expensive in view of realistic expectations for post-

graduate salary levels; moreover, the typical SPP graduate

acquires enormous debt. Recent conversations with training

directors at several of the SPPs suggest that the average

graduate school debt of 1999 graduates was in the

$80,000–$100,000 range. I doubt that very many students