Handbook of psychology volume 7 educational psychology

444

School Psychology

will choose SPPs in view of the current average beginning

school psychology salaries of $30,000 to $40,000. 

Graduate Program Standards

and Accreditation-Approval 

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

Blueprint (Ysseldyke et al., 1997), are data-based decision

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

Communique. According to the NASP Web site cited previ-

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. 

Summary

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

Psychology, Psychology in the Schools, Journal of Psycho-

educational Assessment, and School Psychology Quarterly.

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

PITS

1964

6

1,300

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

PITS

ϭ Psychology in the Schools; JPA ϭ Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment; JSP ϭ Journal of School Psychology; SPQ ϭ School Psychology

Quarterly; and SPR

ϭ School Psychology Review.

b

First volume refers to the first year the journal was published. 

c

PITS increased the number of issues per year

from 4 to 6 with the 1999 volume. 

d

JSP increased the number of issues per volume from 4 to 6 with the 2001 volume. 

e

Estimated circulation is based on the total

paid and/or requested circulation item in the U.S. Post Office form Statement of Ownership, Management, and Circulation published typically in either the first

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.

Disability Determination and Special

Education Placement

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

Figure 17.3

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

TABLE 17.3

Prevalence of Disabilities in U.S. Schools, Ages 6 –17

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

Note. Based on U.S. Department of Education (2001), Tables AA3, AA4, and AA11.

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.