Chuck Archer, MA
NASP Delegate
Research Psychologist
Zanesville City Schools
archer@zanesville.k12.oh.us
NASP just concluded its Fall Leadership Meeting 2020 Sept. 15. In addition to the monthly eblast, there were some things shared that I thought you should know.
The NASP Convention in February planned for Salt Lake City, Utah, will be virtual due to the Coronavirus restrictions. The actual platform has not been decided upon just yet as negotiations are being finalized, but expect more information soon. The expectation is that there will be a mix of ‘live’ presentations and pre-recorded ones. There will be a Poster/Paper section as well as a Marketplace with vendors. Cost may be a little less, but don’t expect deep discounts as the cost for presenters is the same for virtual or face-to-face.
Membership is up by 3% overall compared to last year’s numbers at this time: Early Career 1st year up by 13%; student up 9.7%; regular up 4.8%; and Early Career 2nd year up 3%.
Demographics of membership - 85% female, 76% white, 9% black. This is fairly steady and NASP is actively promoting more diversity, especially in leadership positions.
Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Implementation Task Force will be quite active. Kathy McNamara is a member of this group, which will work through June 2021 with Celeste Malone (up for election as president-elect this election cycle) and Sheila Desai acting as chairs. Social Justice is emphasized as critically important and should be part of all standards within NASP.
Continued concern over APA’s Health Services Master’s Level practitioner proposal exists. There have been at least two direct conference calls with NASP, so two-way communication exists. Currently, APA has their training standards up for public comment through Oct. 9 until 5 p.m. This is NOT a credentialing proposal, but focuses on establishing APA-approved training proposals leading to credentialing. NASP noted and complimented the 19 state associations that have already provided feedback on the initial proposal (we were one), and asked that any associations that have not yet responded and individuals who wish to comment should do so before this deadline. NASP will continue to monitor this initiative.
There was a first reading of the Position Statement on Promoting Equity in Special Education and School Discipline that was well received. A vote is expected by the time the third reading is submitted to the membership assembly.
A third reading of the Position Statement on SLD Determination did not go nearly as well. It was in fact rejected and returned back to the writing team and leadership to figure out a way to move forward. This has been a contentious issue and the existing Position Statement is three years past its seven-year cycle in which all of NASP’s position statements are revised, renewed, or sun-setted as no longer of concern. Many felt that a White Paper on this topic makes more sense than a Position Statement. Consensus was reached that Ability-Discrepancy was bad, RTI/MTSS was good, but there was mixed support for Patterns of Strength and Weakness as a methodology or practice. More will follow to be sure, but this particular discussion went on for hours.
The roll out of the NASP Practice Model Standards is being heavily promoted with social media hashtags and challenges. This will continue, especially with School Psychology Awareness Week approaching. Easier to roll out a wheel than a pyramid or a flow-chart, I gotta admit.
Finally, the Regional Leadership Meeting and the Assistance to the States professional development has been “decoupled” from the Convention and will also be held virtually, just independently. NASP is asking state leaders to keep April 16-18, 2021, free for providing this opportunity. (Those are a Friday through Sunday in hopefully a much better year.)
Summer Convention
The Summer NASP Convention slated for late July in Cincinnati was sadly canceled due to obvious reasons. Many were looking forward to the site and hopefully it will be chosen once again sooner, rather than later.
Baltimore’s NASP Convention was a BLAST and extremely informative once again. I shared a summary of my experiences and the sessions I attended through the OSPA Listserv. I learned a new term, LIEM, which means Limited Income, Economically Marginalized. Once an acronym is coined, it becomes a real thing.
I would like to make a suggestion before the 2021 NASP Convention in Salt Lake City, Utah, Feb. 23–26, 2021: Let us post on the OSPA Listserv all those trainers and students who are making live presentations or posters at the convention. While the NASP Event Phone App is awesome in personally scheduling desired sessions, there is an overwhelming amount of information and opportunities vying for our attention. If we know beforehand that these topics are being presented by our Ohio brain trust, that would be very beneficial.
The Model Policy is entering its final death spiral, I mean stage, with voted approval by the leadership expected in May of this year. (Spoiler Alert: the visual graphic will be a wheel. Pyramid supporters are aghast.)
Of particular interest to me is the piece about re-specialization. NASP’s position is that this is a state-by-state affair, with licensing being the purview of each state. They also envision university programs working in tandem with the state’s licensing authority in developing regulations and guidelines as to how folks from allied fields might be eligible to receive additional training and eventual licensing to provide School Psychology services in our schools within your state.
The big problem here is obviously when do universities and trainers find time to make this so? The Model Policy has already backed away from increasing the current ratio (1:12) of trainer to student as impractical for many reasons, the most pertinent being the shortage of trainers and the reluctance of universities to take on expanding programs as cost prohibitive.
So there is not going to be a lot of specific direction from NASP along these lines. Which is a good thing, IMHO. Our experience with shortages in Ohio falls along the lines of historic or chronic shortages, that short-term solutions probably will not solve. And any solution should really be locally driven as opposed to national directives in many different arenas.
Which brings me to a request of all of you. How pertinent/effective/useful is NASP to you? I’m not trying to spread blasphemy or insurrection here, but my sense is that for the past two years, and most likely longer, NASP has been consumed with updating the Model Policy. I worry that this has taken the organization away from what it does best: namely providing timely information that is needed (which includes being nimble enough to see needs before they become overwhelming); and advocating for the marginalized like the new Social Justice emphasis on LIEM, but which can also include the practice of School Psychology. (The current state of pandemic certainly has not affected NASP’s role in relaying much needed and pertinent information with its Covid-19 Resource Center page which is accessible by all. To see it, go here: https://www.nasponline.org/resources-and-publications/resources-and-podcasts/covid-19-resource-center)
Most of us ‘live’ somewhere between existing standard operating procedures and best practices. And a lot of our work is spent in trying to move our work experience along the spectrum to “nirvana,” or at least making enough successive approximations to keep us happy where we are at. If we try to move too fast, we get push back. And if we aren’t successful with moving forward, we look for greener pastures.
NASP has taken up the ASPIRATIONAL mantle at the expense of PRACTICALITY, to my way of thinking (e.g., the newly adopted ratio of 1:500). That ratio is not achievable in a very large area all around our country, and I do not see that improving any time soon. We are currently ‘enjoying’ an emphasis on the need to increase and improve access to mental health services for school children, but there are MANY who believe they can provide an answer to this need who ARE NOT School Psychologists. If we embrace aspiration at the expense of practicality, we risk not only missing a great opportunity to advance our profession, but we also jeopardize our status as ‘essential workers’ in any given school district.
It wasn’t all that long ago that many were fearing that RTI and other changes to our practices would portend our profession’s doom, and the jobs available for school psychologists would dry up. We would effectively be thrown onto the scrap heap of history. That did not happen as schools found that we were excellent problem solvers and could assist any district in data analysis through focusing on instructional interventions rather than just test administration and eligibility decisions.
Could we be at a cross road again with the emphasis on the need for mental health service provision for children without being able to supply the personnel? Almost always, when we dissect crisis intervention usage, we hear school personnel, not community-based or clinically trained outsiders, are most often requested by teachers and administrators as they are trusted folk who know and respect school culture. And are thereby MOST effective at delivering mental health services. But if we build up the need without supplying the personnel, deciders (read legislators and top school administrators) will look elsewhere. I have found this group to be decidedly “risk averse” when it comes to sustained concentration and attention, most especially where funding might be required. Their goal is to maintain their positions by not losing voter or school board support.
So from your point of view, how pertinent/effective/useful do you currently find NASP in your practice of School Psychology?
And just to reassure you that some things NEVER change, it is time to renew your NASP membership.
APA Initiative
Recently, the American Psychological Association (APA) asked for public feedback on their initiative to promote master’s level programs in psychology being recognized as Health Services Psychology allowing licensure to practice and receive compensation for their services. The three areas being promoted as meeting this criteria were Clinical Psychology, Counseling Psychology, and School Psychology. As you might imagine, NASP had a reaction to including school psychology here, and created a committee to best respond to this new foray into our profession. After almost a year of study and gathering information, this committee had recommendations for both group and individual responses to be posted to the APA website asking for public feedback. As is almost always the case, recommended responses were given with the expectation that they would be edited and modified to make the feedback both locally valid, and not just cut-and-paste. The issue most affirmed is that the title and training for School Psychology has an already established process and long history of use. Any new programs adopting the name of school psychology should follow our existing and successful prescriptions; namely following the more stringent requirements typically found in an Educational Specialists Degree which requires more hours of study and a full school year of supervised internship. Below is what was posted on behalf of OSPA, with guidance from NASP, in response to APA’s proposal:
The Ohio School Psychologists Association (OSPA), made up of practitioners, students, and university trainers in the field of School Psychology, admires the proposal of the American Psychological Association (APA) to recognize the value and importance of master’s level Health Service Psychologists (HSP). Nationwide, there is a tremendous need for more and better mental health service delivery to students, families, and school staff in addition to the larger community in which we reside. Hopefully, this initiative will also make sure to strike a balance between the need to expand services while maintaining both accountability and high standards for the practice of School Psychology. In an effort to do both, our association recommends the following actions and areas of concern noted in specific areas of the content sections.
Section I, C.2 -Program Context and Resources: Length of Degree, Delivery Method, and Design
In the absence of collaboration and cooperation with existing organizational standards to train and credential those hoping to work in the field as a School Psychologist such as those established and revised over the course of many years by the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP), this initiative will surely result in confusion for many. Prospective students in the field, stakeholders and parents, credentialing bodies usually organized by each state, and potential employers could be faced with three different tiers of School Psychologists with Master’s from new HSP programs, Specialist Level trained graduates as is currently the norm throughout the country adhering to existing NASP standards, and Doctoral graduates that are currently following either NASP or APA standards (or a combination of both). Such confusion will most likely not result in improved mental health care nor will it promote the profession and could jeopardize the maintenance of ethical standards of practice.
(Fly proud and free in paradise, oh ocean bird of prey…)
Section II, B.3.a - Required Clinical Training Elements
Existing standards for training and credentialing School Psychologists at the Specialist degree level require a minimum of a 1200-hour supervised internship. This direct experience within a school setting is critically important to being effectively prepared to do this work. In Ohio, anything less would not qualify for a license to practice without meeting this requirement and could end up precluding students in an HSP Mater’s program from gaining employment in any public schools in the state.
All told, our training standards leading to credentialing as a School Psychologist require a minimum of 2 years of full-time graduate studies with 1 year of full-time internship. This results in a 60 graduate semester hour commitment with an entire school year of fulltime internship or a total of three years of university training.
Section II, D.3 - Documenting and Achieving Outcomes Demonstrating Program’s Effectiveness
We maintain that the specialist-level degree in school psychology represents the entry-level degree to work as a school psychologist in the United States. The specialist-level degree is distinct from the traditional master’s degree. A specialist-level degree, by definition, requires a minimum of 60 graduate semester hours, including a full-year immersive and integrated internship experience, and often takes a minimum of 3 years of full-time study. The comprehensive range of services described can only be provided by those who receive direct instruction and supervised experience in the delivery of these services in the school setting, as is required by most, if not all School Psychology programs around the country. We also maintain that those providing school psychological services in schools should meet the credentialing requirements to work as a School Psychologist by the appropriate state credentialing agency, and they should use the title “School Psychologist.”
Absent a clear and universal definition of "master’s degree" or "master’s level," the requirement for preparing students to enter the field should be consistent with already established entry-level recommendations for practice. Currently, the specialist-level degree or equivalence goes beyond the requirements of a traditional master’s degree and assures maintenance of the current standards for practice and credentialing by states in the country. Without this assurance, APA risks creating confusion for students considering the profession, as well as consumers of our skills and abilities.
NASP continues to provide TONS of information, webinars, position statements, and of course advocacy opportunities during these unsettling times. Reacting to political and societal forces and upheaval makes preparing for the upcoming school year and continuing to provide necessary services to students, staff, families, and ourselves becomes more difficult than ever before.
Having access to information, the best "names" in the field, recommendations for planning, and just commiseration with colleagues, is more necessary now than ever before. By maintaining our linkages to each other, we can most easily meet our goals and truly know that "we’re all in this together’.
(Joy in Technicolor right here folks.)