Trainers of School Psychologists San Antonio TX February

Trainers of School Psychologists San Antonio, TX February 20, 2017 A Century of School Psychology Training: Personal Perspectives on our Past and Future Tom Fagan University of Memphis

About the Presentation • • Dedications The Field When I Entered What the Field Needed Important Events Training Models Market Concerns Prospects for the Future

Past (and Some “Passed”) Trainers who Influenced My Career… …and directly or indirectly your careers. I have been privileged to know them and written about their lives and contributions.

The Field When I Entered (Late 1960 s) • Perhaps 100 training programs, mostly Non-doc 30 -40 hour Master’s degrees with some field experience. • 5, 000 practitioners with varied titles • About 3% doctoral, few specialist level • Primary Tests: 1960 Binet, 1949 WISC, WRAT, PPVT, Bender, DAP, Leiter, Projectives, Vineland Social Maturity Scale • Div. 16 was the primary national organization (perhaps 2000 members) • JSP and PITS the only journals • No ABEPP (now ABSP), No Program Accreditation

The Field When I Entered • • • No category of Learning Disability No Federal Special Education Law (e. g. , IDEA) No FAPE, IEP, FERPA No required parent permission No required reevaluations M. R. (now ID) started at minus 1 standard deviation (IQ of 84 or 85); school exclusions too • No required adaptive behavior assessment

General Conditions for Trainers in Late 1960 s • Credentialing standards from APA-D 16 but no national consensus on training • SDE credentialing was already widespread but training and titles varied considerably • About 20 school psychology state associations • No geographically representative organization for school psychology • From a regulatory perspective, the field held more state than national recognition

General Conditions, Late 1960 s • A very attractive job market for trainers and practitioners; many practitioners became trainers. • About 100 training programs in 32 states; Varied administrative locations for programs. • No national directory of training programs except survey data in JSP, PITS, D-16 Newsletter • Local & state trainer groups but not national

What Trainers Needed in Late 1960 s • A separate identity: What was school psychology compared to educational, clinical, counseling psychology and other pupil personnel workers? • Minimum standards for doctoral and nondoctoral training • A means of enforcing any training standards • A national organization to represent trainers • A directory of program data and locations • We had JSP & PITS, but needed greater communication resources • More doctoral graduates for a growing academic marketplace.

A Chronological Chart of School Psychology’s Development • Though our practice dates to the 1890 s, the field’s professional accomplishments are more recent. • In general, training and its regulation emerged following practice and its regulation. • The chart identifies several of these accomplishments (e. g. , 1 st state association, accreditation, journals).

Estimated Numbers of School Psychologists • • • • 1920 1940 1950 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 2004 2010 2014 200 500 1, 000 3, 000 4, 000 5, 000 8, 000 10, 000 15, 000 22, 000 25, 000 29, 367 in public schools (CQ, March 2005) 37, 893 licensed & certified “ “ “ 35, 561 (1, 383: 1 ratio for 49, 306, 000 Public Ss. 42, 593 (35, 561 school-based extrapolation by Castillo, Curtis &Tan for all settings)

School Psychology Growth

Program Development • • • • 1890 -1920 0 1920 -1930 1 1930 -1940 2 1940 -1950 10 1955 28 1964 -1965 79 1968 96 1972 153 1977 203 1984 211 1986 -1987 203 (231 identified) 1996 -1997 218 2005 NASP Database study = 244 institutions (See BP-V, Vol. 1, Appx. VII). • 2013 NASP Database study = 240 (BP 2014)

Training Program Growth

Trends in Graduate Preparation 69 -70 80 -81 89 -90 99 -00 2004 -05 2009 -10 Masters 93 62 40. 8 41 32. 6 25. 06 Specialist 1. 8 22 29. 1 28. 2 34. 9 45. 76 Doctorate 3. 4 16 28. 1 30. 3 32. 4 24. 17 2015 20% 55% 25%

Important Events and Developments • • Boulder Model and VA Internships (Late 1940 s) APA Code of Ethics (1953) NCATE Founded (1954) NCATE “accredits” school psychology (1960 s) APA/NCATE Overlapping Authority Conflicts APA/NASP Task Force, IOC (1978 -2002) Trainers Meetings lead to TSP (Bill Vosburgh, URI, early 1970 s) • CDSPP emerges (Late 1970 s) • APA Training Conferences & Expansion of COA • Evolution of “practitioner model (Vail), ” Psy. D. , nontraditional training programs.

APA & Div. 16 Training Accomplishments • Division 16, established in 1945, was mainly for practitioners, then trainers & students. • Thayer Conference and Model (1954) • Peabody Internship Conference (1963) • ABEPP in School Psychology (1968) • Built a Network of Trainers and Programs • Published Surveys of Training Programs • Training Standards for Non-Doctoral and Doctoral Programs (1971, 1972); attempts at accrediting two training levels. • First Program Accreditation (1971)

Training Benchmarks in NASP’s Development • • • NCATE Affiliation circa 1972 NCATE Constituent Membership, 1976 Training Guidelines, 1972, 1977, and Revisions Training Program Directories, 1970 s, Revisions, Online APA/NCATE Joint Accreditation Project, early 1980 s NASP/NCATE Program Approvals, 1988 NASP recognition of APA Accredited Programs Shift from 48 to 54 sem. hrs. plus internship=60+hrs. Structure, process, and content areas shift to competency outcomes and assessments linked to Blueprint documents.

Early Training Models Most are familiar with the Boulder Conference on Clinical Psychology (1949) and the “Boulder Model” of the Scientist. Practitioner. But what about the “Thayer Model. ”

The Boulder Model • Largely for clinical psychology training and practice (other areas would claim this too) • Doctoral level of training (Ph. D, Ed. D) • Balance of traditional (scientist) and applied (practitioner) content • Practica and internship • Connections to credentialing at state level • Provided an evaluation system for VA and others • Would further the need for program accreditation and licensing legislation

Thayer Model: Major Recommendations • Definition of School Psychologist: • A school psychologist is a psychologist with training and experience in education. He uses his specialized knowledge of assessment, learning, and interpersonal relationships to assist school personnel to enrich the experience and growth of all children and to recognize and deal with exceptional children (Cutts, 1955, p. 174).

Thayer Model: Major Recommendations • Comprehensive Services With Mental Health Emphasis • Ethics (adapting 1953 code to school practice) • Professional Development: – – – Continuing Education ABEPP State Associations Journals Training Programs • Levels of Training, Credentialing (teaching experience? ), & Practice • Accreditation

Little Recognized Agreement In effect, the Thayer Model (i. e. , its main recommendations), embraced the two-levels of training, credentialing, and practice that have been contested between APA and NASP for decades. The issues have long been titles, settings, and supervision! The most recent Model Licensing Act is a joint recognition by APA and NASP of these issues; a policy detente.

Emerging Non-Traditional Training Models 1. Free-standing professional schools expanding to offer degrees in school psychology (mostly Psy. D. , some Nondoctoral) 2. On-line Programs (e. g. , Argosy, Capella, Walden) 3. On-line courses by traditional and non-traditional programs 4. Strong sources for continuing education and professional development 5. What is the future for these models? Expansion, Accreditation, Acceptance by Credentialing Agencies, Threat to traditional programs?

Concern for Overregulation In 50 years we have gone from no formal national regulation of training programs to a largely prescriptive regulation of the specialist programs and we are approaching that in doctoral programs. Program content is regulated by credentialing agencies and accreditors employing similar standards and the Praxis and EPPP. APA Self-Studies are about 700 pages with an additional site review NASP Approval procedures serve with CAEP blessings and requirements and limited site review; if the outcomerelated assessments are so important, please create a set that can be minimally applied.

Concern for Overregulation I recall a CDSPP winter meeting where APA accreditation representatives reported wanting documentation of the qualifications of persons teaching certain courses. I have observed accreditation concerns over the content of syllabi and the texts chosen by the instructor. Have our programs become significantly better as a result of all the regulation? Do you think training models and resulting standards could be useful for more than ten years! The next go around is coming soon. What will the next “Blueprint” and 2020 NASP standards look like?

What has become of… • …our concern for the quality of students admitted, the accomplishments of the faculty, and the process of education. • …the autonomy of the institution and its faculty to guide the training of school psychologists. • We are externally controlled in an apparent atmosphere of distrust. • Recall Ed Shapiro’s 2016 Warning about stifling creativity

The Times Have Changed • We are victims of our own success: We wanted standards and now we are drowning in them. • Perhaps we should give doctoral accreditation completely to APA while NASP manages the Ed. S programs. Who will handle the lesser programs? Are they out there? Or the emerging nontraditional programs? • And perhaps it is time for us to pay the price of accreditation separate from CAEP. Develop assessment instruments that have a high consensus and apply them to our requirements.

Probable Future • • Fairly stable number of program institutions Small increase in doctoral programs Continued increase of combined doctoral programs Continued Importance of APA Accreditation at the doctoral level and NASP/CAEP for the nondoctoral level. Continued outcome-based emphases, then a retreat to earlier benchmarks Persistent faculty shortages threaten expansion and quality Increased acceptance of on-line courses and nontraditional degree program options Persistent APA-NASP, doctoral-nondoctoral policy conflicts; TSP and CDSPP can alleviate this.

The Challenging Faculty Marketplace • In 2013 -2014, 53 program institutions searched for 59 positions. 10 unfilled. • In 2014 -2016, 59 program institutions searched for 67 positions. • In 2015 -2016, 52 program institutions searched for 60 positions. • In 2016 -2017, already *46 programs search for 51 positions. • Several programs are listed in consecutive years, suggesting difficulty in hiring. • Perhaps less than 20% of doctoral students seem interested in academic careers.

If The Future of Training Is In Jeopardy, the Future of School Psychology is Too.

The impact of trainers… 1. More than 1000 memberships in APA and/or NASP; 2. We submit most of the convention programs to APA and NASP; We do most of the workshops. 3. We submit the manuscripts to APA and NASP journals and newsletters…and then pay to read them! 4. We distribute APA and NASP membership materials to students and sign student member applications. 5. We endorse and verify NCSP applications…with the same form as in 1989. 6. We purchase APA and NASP products for training. 7. We produce APA and NASP products for publication. 8. WE DO NOT HAVE TO DO THESE THINGS BUT WE DO BECAUSE WE ARE DEDICATED!

NASP Presidents Who Were Trainers (50%) 1969 -1978 1979 -1988 1989 -1998 1999 -2008 2009 -2017 4 7 5 2 6

What can be done? • Get more trainers in the field’s leadership, at the state level too. • TSP and CDSPP should join forces to bring concerns to the leadership of APA & NASP. • This is no time for complacency or reactive posture. It is a time for action. • Trainers control the future of school psychology as much as any other constituent group. The external regulators need to better understand this.