|
EVOLVING FUNCTIONS FOR THE SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST.* *This article is based on a keynote address
presented at the XXst ISPA colloquium in Jurmula, Latvia, August, 1998. The
theme of the colloquium was "Identity and Self-Esteem: Students,
Teachers, Family and Social Interactions." "Ah, but a man's reach should
exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for." Robert
Browning (Andrea del Sarto) Bernie Stein Ministry of Education, Jerusalem, Israel ABSTRACT The article discusses the question of the identity of school psychologists and how their feelings about themselves impinge on their ability to impact on the school system and on society. School psychologists should find more effective ways in which they can become more successful in contributing to processes aimed at turning schools into better places for children. The article will look at the historical development of school psychology and examine ways in which members of the profession can realize their strengths as they move into the next century. A more comprehensive community model of intervention will be suggested, including a more active participation in decision making processes at the political level. It is important to address the issue of the way in
which school psychologists define their profession, as we move into the new
century and confront the dramatic changes taking place in the working
environment all over the world. The profession needs to take a good, close
look at itself and rethink the ways in which it can make a more significant
contribution to the mental health of children and their families in
particular and to improving the schools in general. Some interesting questions arise. How many
members of the profession dreamed of becoming school psychologists when they were
growing up? How many made a conscious choice to enter this profession or
calling when they started their university studies? How many of their mothers
wanted them to be school psychologists? Perhaps there was a desire to enter
one of the helping professions, or even to become a psychologist and help
people to live a better life. But was school psychology a real choice, or did
many get there by default, after not being accepted to the more prestigious
(?) clinical program? And what was the effect of this on individual and collective feelings of
self-esteem? How DO we feel about ourselves? How apologetic are we? And what
can we do to overcome these “disabilities,” on the assumption that they do
indeed exist? If we were to discuss our self-esteem problems
with a psychotherapist, the presenting symptom could very well be a lack of a
clear identity and a dearth of self-confidence, and perhaps even an
inferiority complex. Our imaginary therapist might then ask: "Tell me a
bit about your background, your parents and your childhood." So we could begin by talking about our
ancestors in the mental testing movement, in the individual clinical child
mental health model, and in developmental psychology. We could then go on to
say that this narrative, like all others, comes in different versions, and
that school psychologists have been deliberating about their origins, their
identity and their roles in the educational system throughout their brief
history. In line with that, there have been changes in emphases over the
years in educational orientations, in mental health approaches, in
organizational development, in educational policy – perhaps depending on
whether the academic training was in departments of psychology or education,
or whether, as in some countries, a prerequisite to becoming a school
psychologist is to qualify as a teacher. Our history has not been smooth, and
as Jack Bardon (19 ) once said,
“school psychology has not developed but rather has accumulated.” And what
complicates the problem is that there is so much diversity and that each
country has gone its own way in developing the profession, addressing
idiosyncratic local needs and responding to economic and political pressures
as well as to periodic reforms in the educational system. Some of this vagueness in the historical identity
of school psychology is reflected in the training of so many in this field.
Many of the first school psychologists were trained as clinical psychologists
with a heavy emphasis on the Freudian psychodynamic theoretical approach,
perhaps because at the time they studied the clinical program was essentially
one of two options available at the universities, the other being academic or
experimental psychology. In-service training at a psychiatric hospital was
often the only option then available, in institutions run on medical models,
or at best with a clear Freudian orientation. The people in charge were the
psychiatrists, and after them a clear pecking order existed, which came to
the fore in weekly ward rounds led by the director of the hospital and
followed by the other psychiatrists working on the ward, then the
psychologists, then the social workers, then the nurse or male orderly, and
finally the occupational therapist. The task of the psychologist was to
administer a battery of tests (usually the WAIS, Bender, Rorschach and TAT)
to patients referred by the psychiatrists, and to write up detailed
diagnostic reports to be read (and usually later quite ignored) at weekly
case conferences in the various wards of the hospital. Eventually, after much
lobbying and persuasion, psycholgists were allowed to do psychotherapy, a
domain where entrance was only permitted to psychiatrists (who had also
usually trained as psychoanalysts). Supervision was the privilege of the
higher powers, namely, the psychiatrists, who also administered drugs and
made decisions about patients, usually without consulting other professionals
on the staff. School psychology offered psychologists an opportunity to be
more independent and to apply the knowledge they had acquired about human
behavior in more useful ways. To paraphrase Fritz Perls, they came to the
realization that "psychology is too good a thing to be wasted on the
sick." The Freudian psychoanalytic milieu at the time was
an extremely constrictive one. Their training program was long, arduous, and
very expensive. Their milieu was a place without any room for open dialogue
and debate, but rather a "religion" for which one was to be
trained, and the condition for acceptance to the Faith was total and
unconditional acceptance of the Freudian Truth. Any argument with his Torah
was of course considered to be Resistance, to be worked out in a long process
of personal analysis. School psychology in its infant years offered an
opportunity to be in charge of a team. The psychiatrists and medical doctors,
as well as other professionals, became
partners and co-consultants in dealing with an enormously wide range
of problems - social, medical, educational, etc. - and ceased to be superiors
or inferiors. This was an opportunity for empowerment, when the professionals
in the mental health fields were interested in what psychology in general,
and school psychologists in particular, had to say. At the same time there was a parallel phenomenon. The best way to phrase this is to rely on a metaphor coined by Kalman Benyamini, one of the founding fathers of modern school psychology in Israel. Describing how school psychologists choose to offer their services to schools, he drew an analogy of a groom courting his bride, offering his hand to the educational system by presenting himself as a trained professional. The schools then wanted to know details about his pedigree, and were quite relieved to discover he had a strong academic background in education, which would become the shared basis for a stable relationship between them. She (the school) was even more impressed when she found out that he also brought with him a sound knowledge of psychology, with roots in depth psychology and branches in developmental, educational and social psychology. He wanted to conquer her heart, for he greatly admired the way in which she so graciously carried the burden of educating so many deprived children and yearned to help her in this Herculean task. But even at this early phase of their courtship there was disappointment. The psychologist strove hard to cultivate in the teachers an approach to children based on the principles he had acquired in his studies, so that they would feel better, study better, and exhibit less behavior problems. The school was unresponsive, however, and said that if he wanted to prove himself worthy of her affections he had to prove that he cared for her, and this could only be done in one way: to test the children who were making life difficult for the school staff and take them away to a special school; only then would the situation in the classroom improve. “Afterwards we will see what you have to offer me,” she said. The upshot of this attitude has been that we have become largely passive, in relation to ourselves and in our attitudes toward other professionals. We tend to give power to the medical profession, ascribing knowledge to them regarding issues where they enjoy no advantage. We send children to have vague "neurological" evaluations, or accept diagnoses of conditions as yet unclearly defined, like dyslexia and ADHD. We often defer to them rather than consider them equal partners, and we do so because we suffer from feelings of inadequacy, inferiority, and lack of self-esteem. A simple, intuitive definition of self-esteem
would state that it relates to the way in which we appreciate ourselves and
our inherent worth; that we have a positive attitude toward our own
qualities; that we evaluate them highly; that we have an inner sense of our
own ability, competence and power to do what we want (and know what we want);
that we compare ourselves favorably with others; and that we can organize our
daily round of activities and performances in keeping with these feelings of
self-worth. The experience of low self-esteem implies the negative opposites
of all these positive elements and results in self-deprecation, helplessness,
powerlessness, and even depression. Low self-esteem can be treated, but the first step is to recognize it as a problem and to want change. Attaining change, however, requires us to give up something. There may be some secondary gains in belonging to a kind of professional underclass – smaller expectations, less demands, less responsibility. But also less power. When we think well of ourselves we take control of
our lives, perform our duties and behave appropriately toward others, and we
can do this on our own, without relying on crutches or resorting to neurotic
defense mechanisms. If we feel negatively about ourselves, we will tend to
withdraw into passivity, or take our hostility out on someone else, or
indulge ourselves in negative social behaviors. This passive and somewhat meek attitude amongst
school psychologists is documented in an article by Galen Alessi in Professional School Psychology,
“Diagnosis Diagnosed: A Systemic Reaction.”
His findings were quite amazing, and they are cause for us to
reconsider some of our practices and attitudes (at least in those countries
where such findings might apply). According to Alessi, when a child has a learning
or a behavior problem, the source can usually be traced to one or more of
five causes: 1.
The child may be misplaced in the
curriculum, or the curriculum may include faulty teaching routines. 2.
The teacher may not be implementing
effective teaching and/or behavioral management practices. 3.
The principal and/or other school
administrators may not be implementing effective school management practices. 4.
The parents may not be providing the
home-based support necessary for effective learning. 5.
The child may have physical and/or
psychological problems that contribute to learning problems. 50 school psychologists took part in
the survey. All agreed that these five factors, alone or together, play a
primary role in any given school learning or behavior problem. Alessi analyzed 5,000 psychological
reports written over a one-year period by these 50 psychologists. He asked
them how many reports they had written concluding that the child's learning
problem were due mainly to curriculum factors. The answer was none. All 5,000 cases examined confirmed that their
schools had somehow been fortunate enough to have adopted only the most
effective basal curricula. Next, he asked how many reports concluded that the referring problem
had primarily been due to inappropriate teaching practices. The answer was
also none. All 5,000 cases examined proved that their districts had been
fortunate enough to have hired only the most skilled, dedicated, and best
prepared teachers in the land. He then asked the psychologists how many of their reports had found
that the problem was due mainly to faulty school administrative factors. The
answer again was none. All 5,000 cases examined demonstrated that their
districts had hired and retained only the nation's very best and brightest
school administrators. When asked how many reports had concluded that parent and home factors
had been primarily responsible, the answer ranged from 500 to 1,000 (10% to
20%). These positive findings indicated that we were finally getting close
to the source of educational problems in schools. Some children just don't
have parents who are smart, competent, or properly motivated to help their
children do well in school. Finally, when asked how many reports had concluded that child factors
had been primarily responsible for the referred problem. The answer was 100%.
These 5,000 positive findings uncovered the true weak link in the educational
process in these districts: the children. If only these districts had better
functioning children with a few more supportive parents, there would be no
educational difficulties. Based on the results of these 5,000 reports prepared by school
psychologists, it would seem there is no need to improve curricula, teaching
practices, nor school administrative
practices and management. The only need somehow involves improving the stock
of children enrolled in the system, and some of their parents. In reacting to these findings, many participants in the study argued that
all five factors were indeed responsible for school problems in the cases
they had examined, but informal
school policy (or “school culture”) dictated that conclusions be limited to
child and family factors. Many felt they could lose their jobs were they to
invoke school-related factors, or that their professional lives would
certainly be made very uncomfortable. The fact remained, however, that no
school psychologist in the group had pointed to school-related factors as
reasons for existing problems. There are additional reasons for the prevailing
"child-as-the-problem" perspective of school psychologists.
Graduate school programs focus on child problems and ignore or place very
little emphasis on school-related factors. Workshops and papers presented at
school psychology conferences tend to devote most of the time to the
"child-as-the-problem" issue. Most school psychology journals focus
almost exclusively on child factors, and school psychology textbooks have a
clear "child-as-the-problem" bias. Alessi found that in "mainstream" school psychology texts
dealing with children's reading problems, school circumstances were mentioned
as a factor in between 0% and 7% of the time, while "child factors"
were held responsible for reading problems between 90% and 100% of the time.
Books on reading disabilities seldom deal with the connection between reading
problems and school factors and focus mainly on "child factors,"
and the "child-as-the-problem" bias also pervades school psychology
research and practice. Alessi referenced one work that presented an extensive
review of the research on learning disabilities. Out of approximately 1,000
studies reviewed, not one examined the relation between school factors and
learning disabilities. Organizational set-ups
could play a part in regard to this issue. In Israel, for instance, when the
Israeli Ministry of Education set up SHEFI, the Psychological and Counseling
Services, a conscious decision was taken to employ school psychologists
through local municipalities rather than through the schools, so as to avoid
the potential conflict of interests between the psychologist and the school
principal as employer. The psychologist comes to the school as a child
advocate, representing the community rather than the educational system. The famous Polish educator, Janus Korchak, once said: “There are no bad children – there are only bad
conditions.” Carole Ogilvy (who comes from Scotland) suggests this
context in an article published in School
Psychology International in 1994, and provides a refreshing
alternative to Alessi’s rather disconcerting findings. She claims that the controversy
surrounding the issue of specific learning disabilities may be attributed
partly to the inappropriate application of the medical model of diagnosis and
treatment to an educational context. The focus on a within-child deficit
detracts from a consideration of important systemic factors such as the
contribution of the school context (the teaching, the curriculum, the
organization of the school and its policies) to the child’s learning
difficulties. Furthermore, the emphasis on remediation detracts from the
broader issue of preventing reading failure in all children. She further
maintains that
the most important factors in terms of helping us to understand the child’s
difficulties and how to resolve them are to be found in the school context.
Learning is a reciprocal activity and for every child who is failing to
learn, there is a teacher who is failing to teach him. The effect of
within-child diagnosis is to explain away the child’s failure and to absolve
the teacher from any blame. Learning difficulties arise from a specific
interaction between the child, the teacher and the demands of the school curriculum.
The “problem,” therefore, is as much that of the teacher and the school as it
is that of the child. If the problem is to be tackled in any meaningful way,
it has to be approached systemically, looking at the whole context of
teaching and learning and working to improve this to the benefit of all
children. And the same obviously applies to behavior problems. Over the past forty years, there have been many articles and position papers stressing the crucial importance of developing a broad community and systemic approach to replace the individual, pupil-focussed approach. Both NASP and the APA have been rather prolific on this issue in recent years. So why are we not doing what we seem to be saying is what we should be doing in order to have more of an impact on the school system? Why do we persist in spending so much of our time in schools on testing and individual consultation? Is this the easy way out, the least threatening way to work? Is less accountability demanded from us if we close ourselves up in a room and hide from questioning eyes with an individual client in a one-on-one situation? Is it true that when psychologists walk into a school and are not sure about what they have to do they take out their WISC and find a child to test? (Daniel Goleman called them WISC-jockeys). According to Gresham & Witt in a 1997 article in School Psychology Quarterly, school psychologists administer between 1.5–1.8 million intelligence tests a year in the US, and the typical school psychologist spends approximately two-thirds of his or her time in special education eligibility determination. Perhaps deep down, we still wish to become clinical psychologists trying to realize our basic dream of working with individuals? A study of first-year psychology students in Israel by Amiram Raviv asked them how they would like to see themselves in the future -- he found that the vast majority of them envisioned themselves doing psychotherapy in a classic one-on-one situation. Later, when they seek work in the field, their attitudes tend to change, for they begin to witness the limitations of the individual clinical approach and realize the enormous advantages entailed by a broader community conceptualization. It is
interesting, albeit sad, to note that the bulk of messages to the NASP
listserve deals with testing and diagnosis, reflecting the central concerns
of practitioners in the field. True, the mandate we were given historically
was for testing and placing children, a position ensuring a power base for
most school psychologists. Yet this may also be the root of our demise,
unless we define the school and the community as our client, rather than the
individual pupil. Already in many countries there is an angry backlash
against school psychologists, for cooperating with educational authorities by
identifying pupils to be excluded and placed in special frameworks. Clearly, the interests of children and those of the school system do
not always coincide, a situation giving rise to ethical questions. And
whenever there is a clash of interests, school psychologists face the taxing
choice of deciding whether they work for the schools or for the children –
how should psychologists balance the rights of those who pay for their
services against those who receive their services? Are school psychologists
labeling children and thereby in effect helping schools to escape efforts to
improve faulty educational practices? Or should they rather help schools
improve faulty educational practices and avoid labeling children? As many
educational systems become more committed to children’s rights, school
psychologists should spend more energy in helping school systems create
environments that will be able to accommodate diversity, which of course
implies less individual testing and far more involvement with broader
systemic questions. Psychology is still highly rated in many
occupational surveys, and still attracts some of the best and brightest
students ensuring that, barring some unforeseen development, it will also be
so in the future. Most comparative studies also find that
psychologists report high levels of satisfaction with their work, and these
findings were confirmed in an extensive survey carried out in 1996 of all
school psychologists working in the Israeli system. 1700 psychologists were
then working in 240 school psychology services throughout the country, and
response rates to a detailed questionnaire exceeded 90%. The picture that
emerged pointed to a high degree of job satisfaction, and there was also a
feeling that their work was appreciated by the people they worked with –
children, parents, teachers, principals and public officials. When asked what gives them satisfaction in their
work, the following variables rated high:
·
Good interpersonal relationships with their
colleagues.
·
Good working relationships with
professionals in other fields, both in schools and in the community.
·
Good relations with teachers.
·
Good relations with principals.
·
Opportunities for in-service training and
further education.
·
Opportunities for professional advancement. The
following variables were mentioned as causing dissatisfaction with their
work:
·
Too many demands on their limited time.
·
Too little time allocated for the tasks
they were given.
·
Lack of support from their professional
organizations.
·
Poor university training that did not
prepare them for the realities of their work. A major source of positive feelings were good
interpersonal relationships with other staff members, and an excellent
supervision and support system. The system of ongoing supervision is thus
revealed as one of the greatest professional assets – it encourages
psychologists to be non-defensive, bring doubts and uncertainties into the
open and discuss them with a supervisor or a peer. (It is most probably true
that teachers could probably benefit greatly from the adoption of a similar
model, inviting their superiors or colleagues into the classroom to observe
them and give them feedback. Since the only outsider entering a classroom is
usually the school superintendent, whose main function is to judge and
appraise the teacher for tenure or promotion, the system only leads to
tension and aversive behavior, because teachers are wary about revealing
flaws to a person judging them.) At about the same time a survey was conducted of school
principals in Israel, asking them
what they thought about the psychological services that were provided to
them. The questionnaire of this survey was sent to every one of the 2,928
elementary and secondary schools in the country; 53% of the principals
responded. (The kindergartens, which are administered separately from the
schools, were not included in the survey, and it should be borne in mind that
the school psychological services give priority to this age-group). Results were very positive, as the following
findings show: 49.2% of the principals said they were very
satisfied or satisfied with the psychological service provided to the school. 36.7% expressed moderate satisfaction. 14.6% said they were very dissatisfied or
dissatisfied with the service. A major factor which explained dissatisfaction was the small number of hours of psychological service provided to the school, stemming in most cases from lack of financial resources. TABLE 1 – Distribution of Principals’ Satisfaction
with the School Psychology Service
*The question asked was: “What is your level of
satisfaction with the psychological service you receive at your school?”
Answers were on a scale of 1 (very dissatisfied) to 6 (very satisfied). A further, and perhaps a most vital, finding of
this survey was that 89% of the principals expressed a desire to increase the
number of hours in which the psychologist worked in the school, while only ½
% stated they wanted to reduce the
number of hours of the psychologist in the school. Psychology in Israel is one of the most difficult
faculties to enter at the BA level at universities, demanding very high
matriculation and psychometric (SAT) scores. Admittance to an MA program in
clinical or school psychology is even more difficult, with only about ten
percent rates of acceptance, and requiring very high grades at the
undergraduate level. After completing six years of study, psychologists do an
internship in one of the applied fields like school, clinical, developmental,
or rehabilitation psychology for at least two years, at the end of which they
have to present a written case study and undergo a rather tough oral
examination. One would expect that, after such a grueling process, those who
make it would feel themselves members of a privileged elite, entitled to
professional respect and rightfully expecting adequate material reward. But
psychologists in Israel are one of the lowest paid professional groups in the
country, and their physical working environments are of rather poor quality. And
this, again, illustrates the problem of our own attitude to ourselves and to
the ways in which we approach power in general, and our own use of it in
particular. In April, 1998, school psychologists in Israel
initiated a series of sanctions in an attempt to raise salaries. Sanctions
entailed the cessation of all testing for special education and school
readiness, and a refusal to participate in placement committees for special
education (which are a legal requirement – children cannot be placed in a special
education framework or removed from one without their case being discussed in
a mandatory forum that must include a school psychologist). The decision to
embark on a militant struggle was taken after much soul searching and
hesitation as to the possible reactions. What if nobody noticed they were not
working? What if the educational system found an alternative to our services?
True, the law was in their favor, but laws can be changed or bypassed. A year
ago, clinical psychologists went on strike for about three months. Their sole
achievement was a rather vague agreement reached with the authorities on a
legal process of arbitration, which is still awaiting resolution. During the
strike, many of their duties and positions were taken over by psychiatrists
and social workers. But it turned out that the actions taken by school
psychologists received an amazing amount of support from schools, parents,
politicians, and many others. After less than two months they achieved their
goal and forced the government to enter into an impartial legal arbitration
about salaries and working conditions, all having agreed that these require
radical improvement. The response of the authorities during the strike
was to threaten the school psychologists with privatization. Here, too, they
were successful in lobbying at several political levels (parliamentary
committees, the Ministry of Education, parent organizations) and in proving
that privatization would boil down to testing and placement, throwing them
back fifty years and, in the long run, cost the national economy more money.
They were able to show how their comprehensive school and community-based
system had been beneficial both to individual pupils with special needs and
to the educational system as a whole. (One of the facts that worked in their
favor was that their approach had reduced the percentage of pupils in special
education frameworks from 8.6% to 2.9%). The sanctions they embarked on illustrate the
pitfalls of the professional plight of school psychology. Unfortunately, and
perhaps paradoxically, the power we have is the mandatory testing and
placement of pupils in special education frameworks, whereas our professional
pride stems from the excellent community-based system we have developed over
the past thirty years. Unquestionably, more sound research is needed to
show that what we are doing in the schools actually has an effect and
influences the academic, social, and emotional behavior of the pupils and the
teachers. We need good data to show that our intervention programs contribute
to the alleviation of negative behavioral phenomena such as violence, drug
abuse, sexual molestation, etc., and that school climate improves in schools
where there is a psychologist dealing actively with these parameters. A recent long-term study undertaken by the
research and evaluation department at
the Israeli Ministry of Education on “effective schools” (Shield,
1998) was able to identify such institutions and to differentiate them from
less effective schools. Effective schools were found to be characterized by
the following elements: 1.
Clearly defined and specific goals. 2.
Outstanding educational and pedagogical
leadership (a good principal). 3.
High expectations from all pupils. 4.
A positive school climate, a safe and
organized environment. 5.
In-service training for teachers as a group
rather than individually. 6.
Ongoing monitoring of pupils’ academic
achievements. 7.
A planned and challenging curriculum. 8.
Parental and community involvement and
cooperation. Effective schools were those where there was
little discrepancy between policy declarations and the reality of the school,
better relations within the staff, better relations between teachers and
pupils, and a positive emotional and social climate as described by pupils
and parents. Let us take a closer look at some of the findings of this study: Table 2 – Attitudes Differentiating Effective and
Non-Effective Schools
One important question was not asked: “Were there
school psychologists in the schools?" Yet we, as school psychologists,
have much to offer on all the variables mentioned as aspects of the effective
school. If we shift the focus from the individual pupil and see the school as
our client, we can involve ourselves as consultants whose main goal is to
work with the principal and the staff on attaining greater effectiveness. A major contribution is to help the schools deal
with change and to cope with the tensions that arise out of any attempt at
innovation. Schools seem to have an inborn resistance to
allying themselves with any outside agency that is not of their own flesh and
blood – and this is true not only with regard to psychologists. Sarason once
said that schools are allergic to change, and experience often seems to prove
him right. We could help challenge this statement. To succeed, new programs
need to involve the entire system, from the principal down, including
parents and pupils in a constant dialogue. We can facilitate this process. We
have the necessary skills to make a significant and measurable difference in
schools and to improve educational opportunities for children. Instead of
coming into a school and asking what they want from us, we could adopt an
attitude expressed in some way like: “I have tools and skills to give you
which could make you a more effective teacher, improve your school, create a healthier learning and social
environment…” We have not always been good at selling ourselves,
and even the use of this language when applied to primary care professionals
sounds inappropriate to some of our colleagues. But ignoring the world we are
living in is not a good recipe for succeeding within it, and unless we manage
to market ourselves with far more foresight than we have done so far, we may
indeed find ourselves left behind. A
central “sales pitch” should be that, as primary care professionals in the
schools and the community, we can make a significant contribution to the
treatment of social problems that could result in much more onerous economic
burdens if left untouched. To return for a moment to the metaphor coined by Kalman Benyamini, it would seem that even though it has not been an easy courtship, psychologists in many countries have slowly become part of the school system, and there is no longer a stigma attached to consulting with them. Teachers have become more psychologically minded, have assimilated these concepts and apply them in their interactions with pupils. So we must continue with our courting and constantly seek out new gifts to give to the schools, to remain in an open dialogue and discuss problems that are not yet solved, or new ones that periodically emerge. What are the problems we face when entering
schools? We confront a generation that is brought up in freedom, where many
are lost and do not know how to make choices. They mature late, are puers and
puellas, marry late, and divorce with great ease and frequency. In less
fortunate parts of the world, children grow up in utter and abject poverty,
disease and misery, threatened by crime and war. Many young people are
unemployed, their prospects are bleak, and drugs and violence are all around.
The future may sometimes seem quite daunting. Technological and scientific advances are radically changing our lives. We will live longer, with replaceable body parts, and we face a generation of kids who come to first grade and are more computer and video literate than their teachers. Yet the generation gap is not a twentieth century invention, as the following quote may attest: “I
see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on the
frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond
words….When I was a boy, we were taught to be discreet and respectful of
elders, but the present youth are exceedingly wise and impatient of
restraint.” The author is Hesiod, eighth century BC. So can we offer any new insights in dealing with problems that appear to be timeless? The educational process assumes that all children
can learn, that abilities are not rigid and can potentially change given the
right conditions. We have tools to help children realize this potential, and
to help schools transform themselves from grading and sorting frames into
flexible systems that recognize each pupil’s special needs and provide the
best possible learning environment for them to flourish. Not all children are
born equal, and certainly not all six-year olds are emotionally and
physiologically mature enough to learn to read at that age, which is why so
many do not learn to read in first grade and later become “problems” that are
referred to us. What are the implications of this approach for the
training of the next generation of school psychologists? A more definite move
is required from the classical clinical/medical model that has dominated our
thinking and practice for so long onto a model of normal development and
prevention. We also need to develop a more comprehensive model of true
community psychology, far more proactive than our present ones. Universities
must include courses that will give our future colleagues the necessary tools
to become more active in educational reform, both at the political
decision-making level as well as at the local school level. Other subjects
that will have to be taught at the universities are:
·
Early child development, so that our
services can start working with children at an earlier age rather than wait
until they enter school to start dealing with problems.
·
Prevention programs, so as to deal more
effectively with issues of drug abuse, violence, sexual behavior, eating
disorders, as well as life skills training and the advancement of well-being.
·
Community services and interdisciplinary
teamwork.
·
School team development.
·
Educational policy making.
·
Politics and economics. How to raise money
and seek alternative financing, how to deal with a market economy.
·
Computers and multimedia.
·
Biology, neurology, pharmacology. In concluding, I would like to offer a blueprint,
a map, as it were, which we can hold in our hands as we charter our steps. We
are faced with many threats, but we can also see these as opportunities to
use our strengths and overcome our weaknesses. A tentative mission statement
could be formulated along the following lines (this is an elaboration of the
mission statement mentioned in Stein, 1997): The development and delivery of
services (intervention and application) and the marketing of comprehensive
solutions that are holistic, interdisciplinary, multi-faceted, and variegated
in the field of psychology and education; for the local government, the
educational system, community services and educational frameworks (age 0-18,
and perhaps beyond); for the advancement and
development of mental health and psychological wellbeing, the realization of
individual potential, and the improvement of quality of life and of the
learning process at the systemic, community and individual levels; training multidisciplinary staff,
initiating innovative psycho-educational processes, and actively
participating in the planning, monitoring and evaluating of programs; showing respect for the
individual and acting within a code of professional ethic. This model has the following implications: 1.
Identifying potential clients and their
needs and the development of programs for a broader spectrum of potential
clients. 2.
Marketing our skills at various levels – to
individuals (pupils, parents), schools (principal, teachers), communities
(policy makers, local political functionaries, health and welfare services),
and governmental and ministerial agencies (educational policies and changes).
We need to show that our services are value relative to cost, and investment
in the present will save money in the future. 3.
Ongoing research to evaluate the
effectiveness of our programs and interventions, monitoring client
satisfaction. There is no better way to convince others of our effectiveness
than to show them good data on our past successes. 4.
Ongoing in-service training programs for
school psychologists to keep abreast of professional, economic and political
developments and the effects on the market situation. 5.
Ongoing dialogue with university training
programs. We have a sound scientific basis of knowledge and
have accumulated many years of experience, much of it highly successful, in
making a significant contribution to improvements in the educational systems
of many countries. In so doing we have enhanced the psychological wellbeing
of countless children and helped transform their school environments into
better and more humane places. We have provided teachers with better tools with
which to relate to their pupils. We have enabled school principals to improve
the social and emotional climate of their schools. We have helped parents
relate more effectively to their children and, hopefully, have convinced them
that the use of punishment, often violent, is not an effective educational
measure. We have created better systems for dealing with children that have
special needs. And the list can go on and on....Many of these innovations are
taken for granted today, and we tend to forget that, over the years, we have
succeeded in getting schools to accept much of what we have to give them, and
incorporate our contributions into their daily language. We have come a long way from our original function
as testers and placers - evaluating the intellectual capacities of children
and referring them to special, segregated, learning frameworks. We can now
relate more to the school and the community as our client, and less to the
individual child. We have become more active politically in attempts to influence
policy makers at the local and national levels. The time has come to recognize that we have gained
the respect of those to whom we provide services. The time has come to start
translating this respect into power,
to be used wisely and with caution. We will become more effective by
extending our mandate of operation beyond the confines of the schools - both
as participants in bodies that develop educational policies, and also as part
of interdisciplinary mental health teams, especially in setting up mechanisms
to deal with crises at various levels. James Thurber wrote a short story called “The Girl and the Wolf.” One afternoon a big wolf waited in a dark forest
for a little girl to come along carrying a basket of food to her grandmother.
Finally a little girl did come along and she was carrying a basket of food.
“Are you carrying the basket to your grandmother,” asked the wolf. The little
girl said yes, she was. So the wolf asked her where her grandmother lived and
the little girl told him and he disappeared into the wood. When the little girl opened the door of her
grandmother’s house she saw that there was somebody in the bed with a
nightcap on. She had approached no nearer than twenty-five feet from the bed
when she saw that it was not her grandmother but the wolf, for even in a
nightcap a wolf does not look any more like your grandmother than the
Metro-Goldwyn lion looks like Calvin Coolidge. So the little girl took out an
automatic pistol out of her basket and shot the wolf dead. Moral: It is not so easy to fool little girls nowadays as
it used to be. A moral can perhaps be drawn in the spirit of this article: No matter how old the story, no matter how many times it has been told, no matter how many people tell you they know who you are and what you should be doing, you can always change the narrative and make yourself into what you believe you are. Because it is not as easy to fool school psychologists as it used to be. Prospero, at the end of Shakespeare’s Tempest, explains what he has done in order to bring the characters out of their ignorance and into a new consciousness: Our revels now are ended. These our actors, As I foretold you, were all
spirits, and Are melted into air, into thin
air: And, like the baseless fabric of
this vision, The cloud-capp’d towers, the
gorgeous palaces, The solemn temples, the great
globe itself, Yea, all which it inherit, shall
dissolve, And, like this insubstantial
pageant faded, Leave not a rack behind. We are
such stuff As dreams are made on; and our
little life Is rounded with a sleep. We are
indeed such stuff as dreams are made on. Our dreams are stories too. They
lift us away from the literal and into the realm of once upon a time, the
realm “where wishing once worked” – and if we are open to it, still does. The
chasm between daily ordinary life and the ineffable realm of archetype, pure
form, and symbol is bridged by story and by dream (Lindley, 1995). It is very
difficult to predict the future, so it may be easier to invent it, and it is
our dreams that will inspire our inventions. REFERENCES Alessi, G. (1988) ‘Diagnosis Diagnosed: A Systemic Reaction’, Professional School Psychology 3: 145-151. Bardon, J.I. (1983) ‘Psychology Applied to Education, American Psychologist, 38: 185-196. Cobb, C.T. (1990), ‘School Psychology
in the 1980’s and 1990’s: A Context for Change and Definition’, in T.B.Gutkin
& C.R.Reynolds, The Handbook of School
Psychology, 2nd edition, pp. 21-31. N.Y: Wiley. Erhard, R. (1996a), ‘Report on the Survey of School Psychologists in the Israeli Schools’, Jerusalem: Shefi, Ministry of Education. (In Hebrew). Erhard, R. (1996b), ‘School Counseling and Psychological Services in the Educational System,’ Jerusalem: Shefi, Ministry of Education (In Hebrew). Gresham, F.M. & Witt, J.C. (1977) ‘Utility of Intelligence Tests for Treatment Planning, Classification, and Placement Decisions: Recent Empirical Findings and Future Decisions’, School Psychology Quarterly 12: 249-267. Lindley, D.A. (1995) ‘The Girl Without Hands – the Redeeming Power of Story’, in M. Stein, and L. Corbett, L. (eds.) Psyche’s Stories, Vol. III, pp. 51-64. Wilmette, Illinois: Chiron Publications. Mecca, A.M., Smelser, N.J., & Vasconcellos, J. (eds.) (1989) The Social Importance of Self-Esteem. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Ogilvy, C.M. (1994) ‘What is the Diagnostic Significance of Specific Learning Difficulties?’, School Psychology International, 15: 55-68. Shield, G. (1998) The Educational System: A Perspective Mirrored by Evaluation. Jerusalem: Ministry of Education. (In Hebrew). Stein, B. (1997) ‘Community Reactions to Disaster: An Emerging Role for the School Psychologist’, School Psychology International, 18: 90-118. Wiggins, J.G. (1994) ‘Would You Want Your Child to be a Psychologist?’, American Psychologist, 49: 485-492. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Links |
[Home Page] [About us] [Members] [Training
program] [Links]
[Psychotherapy
school] [For The Public] [Society's Journal] [Contact us]