school psych

[50960]

It seems like everytime I run up against a school psychologist I get annoyed. I see them using regression analysis to determine a measure of difference in WISC scores, or they use tests they in no way are trained to interpret, and methods that have no scientific bases to determine their outcomes. My view is that their job is to keep kids from getting services they probably need using pseudoscience...and they get all summer off with pay. 😕

 

[Psyclops]

I have no idea what a school psychologists does, what is their scope of practice? Can anyone give a good synopsis. They seem to be the one sub division that escapes regulation, they don't necissarily have to have a doctorate, or even master's. I'm not sure what purpose they serve...somebody please enlighten me.

 

[Neuro-Dr]

This actually brings up a side issue that effects both psychologists and school psychologists. The impact of the "discrepency" analysis obscures a far more pervasive problem.

Most psychologists do not understand federal law or its implications and even though they mean well in their assessments, they fail to appreciate their own role within a school environment. The discrepency analysis itself would have a much smaller impact if those performing the evals (school or otherwise) understood the law.

I hear just as many problems from psychologist working with incomplete or frankly inaccurate data and creating just as many problems with access to services. Many of these psychologists mean well and yet their lack of understanding only contributes to the very problems they wish to help solve.

The more recent IDEIA (2004) was a replacement to the 1997 IDEA act specifically to address the lack of research proven methods with the implimentation of teaching models.Niether the original nor the improvement act specified any type of mathametical equation to establish a discrepency between IQ and achievement, they simply defined LD as a severe discrepency. In fact the language specifically stated that this decision must come from a multi-disciplinary team and could not rely soly on one source of data (your opinion/testing included).

In an effort to clarify the law, many states adopted their own recommendations, several including some magic number and all states in so doing, violate federal law. These recommendations general hovered around 17-20 points between IQ and TWO achievement tests, but as stated by pscipsci, a regression equation was applied to allow for a higher number in children with a higher FSIQ and a lower score for children with a lower FSIQ, which frankly Sattler, Kaufman and others psychologists have also applied so let's not get persnickety. Many of these state models had other provisions for when these guideline were not met.

Having said that, the equation, as most logical people know, is laughable. The major problem with many of these state recommendations if that numerous schools and graduate programs perceived these recs as LAW even after repeated attempts to state otherwise by state DOE. Clinical folks never got the word, because, let's face it, by in large achievement testing and LD are not routinely covered in any depth by most programs (before you say, "mine did" I have data on this and they really don't). Thus clinical psychologists found ourselves in an even worse position to understand the implications of what we recommended.

Congress responded to this problem in IDEIA, by saying that a local school need not consider whether a child had a severe discrepency between IQ and achievement, but rather consider whether the child would respond to scientically research based interventions as part of the evaluation process.

As of July 1, 2005 IDEIA stated that while a school may consider discrepencies, they can't specifically use them in the determination of LD and in fact LD as defined by IDEIA has nothing to do with it, it is not prohibited, but it is not an authority expressly given to any school.

This creates another interesting dilemma, technically if a psychologist or a physician made a DIAGNOSIS of LD, this would not suffice for IDEIA law because it would mean the reliance on sole sources. However, without it, the school may not have enough criteria if the student is sort of muddling along. This is what makes the psychologist role so critical, but is also why school sdo not and are expressly forbidden from relying on your word as the sole justification for treatment.

So, while school psychologists may be annoying in terms of thier limited psychological sophistication, in many laws, they are really psych techs for the IEP team and in that capacity are adaquately trained.

As a public service announcement, this law is pretty critical and recently changed and all psychologists working in this area should know it. In addition, I understand why school psychologists become so frustrated with the clinical folks complete ignorance of school educational law.

 

[PublicHealth]

What's up with these certificate programs?:

http://www.fielding.edu/psy/snro/index.asp

Is this "Board" recognized by Division 40?:

http://www.absnp.com/

 

[Neuro-Dr]

What's up with these certificate programs?:

http://www.fielding.edu/psy/snro/index.asp

Is this "Board" recognized by Division 40?:

http://www.absnp.com/

The fielding faculty are generally boarded through ABCN, ABPN and ABPdN, but there is no recognition of this as a specialty or supspecialty within professional psychology.

As for the other one, I hate to say negative things, but I would feel comfortable backing this one up with data. This is a "vanity board" started by Phillip DeFina, who has been thrown out of one NP board and is essentially in a money making endevour.

 

[schooldoc]

It seems like everytime I run up against a school psychologist I get annoyed.

Let me take a moment out of my busy schedule of pseudoscientific practice to apologize for the annoyance that the practitioners of my chosen psychological specialty have caused you, and to respond to your post. First, the wording of your post is curious. "Run up against"? In what context are you running up against annoying school psychologists all the time? California must be absolutely lousy with them for you to bother getting worked up about this.

I see them using regression analysis to determine a measure of difference in WISC scores...

I assume you mean the WISC-IV. Practitioners still using the WISC certainly deserve your ire. "Measure of difference"? I assume that you are referring to discrepancy analysis here. Neuro-Dr made several good points regarding the often contradictory policies that school psychologists encounter in practice. Neuro-Dr is also absolutely correct in stating that it violates students' civil rights to set standards for identification that define disabilities in a manner so narrow as to preclude identification of students who would otherwise meet criteria (although even with the new regs, discrepancy models can still be used – just not as the sole criterion for eligibility and/or to the exclusion of response to intervention methods). News flash: districts (and state departments of education – let’s not let them off the hook!) have done this in the past and continue to do so, civil rights violation or no. We know that psychologists are ethically bound to interpret testing data in a manner consistent with research, to avoid misuse/misinterpretation of data, etc. Some school psychologists do not. I have seen plenty of reports written by school psychologists that I find absolutely appalling. I have also seen many reports from licensed psychologists (both clinical and school) in private practice that not only reflect incredibly outmoded clinical thinking and practice, but also have clearly been written by someone with no idea what the educational implications of assessment results might be. A psychological report can be technically sound, but if it is not meaningful for use in designing interventions, then it’s not meaningful to an IEP team, period.

...or they use tests they in no way are trained to interpret...

I am curious to hear which tests you think I am "in no way... trained to interpret.” I hold a Ph.D. from an APA-accredited school psychology program (although I gather, based on your posts on the wacky multicultural activist APA, that you may find this irrelevant), which required, as one would expect of a doctoral-level psychology program, extensive assessment coursework and practica. Certainly, there are tests and assessment techniques with which I am not familiar. Certainly, there are tests and assessment techniques with which you are not familiar. Care to elaborate on how the clinical model of assessment training is superior in this regard?

...and methods that have no scientific bases to determine their outcomes...

Would it surprise you to know that school psychologists have long fought against the use of the aforementioned discrepancy model on the grounds that it is… wait for it… not empirically validated or supported? Or that school psychologists have been instrumental in advocating for the changes in educational law that encourage the use of research-based practices in assessment? Or that lots of folks – both academic school psychologists and practitioners – are involved in applied research initiatives – intervention testing, efficacy monitoring, etc. – as well as in more traditional forms of psychological research? Sure, there are those who never pick up a journal… but they represent an ever-shrinking minority in this field.

My view is that their job is to keep kids from getting services they probably need using pseudoscience...and they get all summer off with pay. 😕

Can’t wait to sit around on the couch all summer, reading pseudoscientific periodicals and twirling my Snidely Whiplash mustache as I plot future malpractice and mayhem … except I will be assessing children, helping the schools with which I work to design inservices on best practices in education for new teachers, and teaching a course or two. (And, alas, I don’t have a mustache.) Oh, what a sucker I am!

I have no idea what a school psychologists does, what is their scope of practice?... They seem to be the one sub division that escapes regulation, they don't necissarily have to have a doctorate, or even master's.

School psychologists can be trained at the doctoral level or at what is sometimes called the “specialist” or “master’s/certification” level – generally an approx. 60-credit academic program comprising coursework, practica, and a year-long internship. If I am remembering correctly, one of the APA Div. 16 publications indicated earlier this year that the split among practitioners is roughly 1/3 doctoral (but that some of these individuals hold doctorates in educational, rather than psychological, fields) and 2/3 master’s-level. The title “school psychologist” and the accompanying credential for practice are generally awarded to folks who have met state department of education criteria for certification. However, doctoral-level school psychologists who meet criteria for licensure as psychologists often hold both credentials for practice. A number of states have made provisions for “emergency certification” of individuals as school psychologists, much as they do for teachers in underserved communities – but no professional organization (most notably the National Association of School Psychologists, which supports practice at the master’s-plus level) or reputable school psych program supports this, as it clearly represents a violation of professional ethics. Not surprisingly, the “master’s vs. doctorate” debate continues to rage in school psych, just as it does in other areas of psychology.

 

[Psyclops]

Ahhh, such fond memories of the master's vs. doctorate debate.....sigh. Thanks for the updates schooldoc, it's good to have more viewpoints representin' around here.

 

[50960]

I run up against them because I am a child psychologist who does alot of testing, and they request my reports, data etc. The purpose of any clinical psych report is to clarify a Dx and to make treatment recommendations, not to adhere to some arbitrary set of guidelines that determine school based services. I did not mean to offend, and was hoping to get some dialogue from other clinical psychologists/students who interact with school psychologists and their systems. In Ca there are alot of problems with education. This is reason I posted on this clinical psychology forum.

 

[vesper9]

if you really hadn't meant to offend you would have (or should have?) written your post in another way

 

[50960]

I do not spend my time choosing my words based upon who I may or may not offend. This is a clinical psych forum, and I had no idea a school psych would even be on the forum. Again my point was to hear from others in my shoes.

 

[MeghanHF]

This thread has the feel of my experience working with school psych folks – disjointed, lots of rule quoting, and general animosity on both sides. If I try to put myself in school psych shoes, I think it would be annoying to get all kinds of data and recommendations from a clinical psychologist that I can’t use because I have to work within the frame of education laws. On the other hand, in clinical psych shoes it’s frustrating to run up against rules that seem arbitrary when a kid could clearly benefit from supportive services at school. And there’s a huge difference between working with someone with an emergency credential and someone who has graduated from an APA accredited program and is well versed in testing. In general it seems the system is not set up for positive collaboration and different view points, dialog, venting and even offending the other side seem par for the course.

 

[MeghanHF]

sorry...duplicate post

 

[schooldoc]

Hey psisci, no real offense taken here. I was actually pointed in the direction of this forum a while back by a clinical psych student (see, in real life I do play well with y'all!), and I have enjoyed reading the discussions here. I am proud of my profession, and know lots of folks who do great work. I don't think of my choice of specialty as either inferior or superior to clinical psych (and please note that I am not saying that anyone who has posted in this thread feels that way either), and have no desire to see this turn into one of those conversations. However, I would love to see more top-notch students consider school psych. So when I saw comments disparaging the field, the training, practitioner competence, etc. on a forum that potential students visit in order to explore further study in psychology, I thought I'd chime in. There are a lot of great opportunities for psychs in school settings. I love that I am able to provide the same services to children and families living below the poverty line as to those who could easily pay me out of pocket, without having to worry about insurance contracts, sliding scales, etc. It's wonderful to be able to follow the progress of a child over years instead of weeks. And I love that the school setting lends itself to primary prevention as well as intervention -- that was the deciding factor for me in choosing school psych in the first place.

If I try to put myself in school psych shoes, I think it would be annoying to get all kinds of data and recommendations from a clinical psychologist that I can?t use because I have to work within the frame of education laws. On the other hand, in clinical psych shoes it?s frustrating to run up against rules that seem arbitrary when a kid could clearly benefit from supportive services at school.

In some ways, the reasoning behind the stringent requirements for eligibility is sound (i.e., you don't want kids being tossed out of a regular education environment just because they have minor learning difficulties, annoy the teacher, etc.) but the application can be problematic. If "supportive services" are defined solely within the context of special education, then yes, a lot of kids are likely to miss out because they don't meet the criteria... and that is frustrating to everyone (except, maybe, the people who actually do enjoy the gatekeeper role). The thing is, supportive services shouldn't just be limited to special education, and not every child who may need some adaptations, modifications, or interventions put in place needs to have that done through special education. Despite this, in too many places, students don't get services without an IEP because of scarcity of resources, inertia, misunderstanding of special ed law, etc. I am cautiously optimistic that the push toward implementation of intervention strategies prior to assessment (particularly the decision to make funds that were previously earmarked for special education alone available for these broader initiatives) will blur the regular vs. special education distinction, and make service delivery more flexible. Until then, I guess we can all keep on making recommendations that may or may not be implemented. That's something we have in common, anyway!

 

[oceandrive3]

School psychologists can be trained at the doctoral level or at what is sometimes called the “specialist” or “master’s/certification” level – generally an approx. 60-credit academic program comprising coursework, practica, and a year-long internship. If I am remembering correctly, one of the APA Div. 16 publications indicated earlier this year that the split among practitioners is roughly 1/3 doctoral (but that some of these individuals hold doctorates in educational, rather than psychological, fields) and 2/3 master’s-level. The title “school psychologist” and the accompanying credential for practice are generally awarded to folks who have met state department of education criteria for certification. However, doctoral-level school psychologists who meet criteria for licensure as psychologists often hold both credentials for practice. A number of states have made provisions for “emergency certification” of individuals as school psychologists, much as they do for teachers in underserved communities – but no professional organization (most notably the National Association of School Psychologists, which supports practice at the master’s-plus level) or reputable school psych program supports this, as it clearly represents a violation of professional ethics. Not surprisingly, the “master’s vs. doctorate” debate continues to rage in school psych, just as it does in other areas of psychology.

I am interested to find out what the criteria are for doctoral level school psychologists to practice as "psychologists?"

 

[FadedC]

I am interested to find out what the criteria are for doctoral level school psychologists to practice as "psychologists?"

I believe they are fairly similar to the requirements for licensure for somebody with a phd in clinical psychology. A fairly large percentage of people with doctorates in school psychology do not in fact work in schools, but do work similar to that done by clinical psychologists. Needless to say though they still tend to work with children and adolescents.