The role of the school psychologist: Teachers' preferences as a function of personal and professional characteristics

Journal of School Psychology 1979 • Vol. 17, No. 4

0022-4405/79/1600-0372500.95 © 1979 The Journal of School Psychology, Inc.

SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGICAL

SERVICES

MARCIA SHAFFER, ASSOCIATE EDITOR

THE ROLE OF THE SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST: TEACHERS' PREFERENCES AS A FUNCTION OF PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL CHARACTERISTICS JULIAN D. FORD University of Delaware MARGARET MIGLES De Le Warr School District Summary: Teachers were surveyed concerning the importance of 12 potential roles for school psychologists (e.g., counseling, case or program consultation, community liaison, psychodiagnostics). Results showed that direct and remedial services which did not require the school psychologist to intrude on the teacher's prerogatives were in general considered to be most important. However, teachers who reported using "open education" methods were significantly more likely to value more indirect, preventive, and collaborative school psychology services than their colleagues. Grade level taught, gender, experience, and teaching specialty had virtually no effect on respondents' ratings of the school psychologist roles. School psychologists are called upon to perform a variety of roles, including psychometrist, psychodiagnostician, therapist, remedial instructor, administrator, researcher, educational programmer, consultant, trainer, organizational facilitator, preventive screening agent, and liaison to community organizations. Although in the professional literature there has been a noticeable shift away from a remedial or clinical model and toward a preventive/facilitative or consultation model, considerable attention continues to be directed toward empirically delineating both the actual and the ideal roles of the school psychologist. Toward this end, researchers have surveyed school psychologists (Barbanel & Hoffenberg-Rutman, 1974; Cook & Patterson, 1977; Fridsma, 1973; Gilmore & Chandy, 19'73b; Roberts, 1970; Farling & Hoedt, Note 1), supervisors of school psychologists (Kirschner, 1971; Lesiak & Lounsbury, 1977), school principals (Lambert, Sandoval, & Corder, 1975; Lesiak & Lounsbury, 1977; Waters, 1973), school superintendents (Kaplan, Clancy, & Chrin, 1977), and school teachers (Baker, 1965; Gilmore & Chandy, 1973a, 1973b; Lambert et al., 1975; Styles, 1965; Waters, 1973). The cooperation of the teachers and administrators of the De La Warr School District is gratefully acknowledged. Address reprint requests to Julian D. Ford. 372

Ford and Migles

373

Surveys of school psychologists and their supervisors have shown that case consultation (Caplan, 1970), in-service training, and preventive screening are the most highly valued roles, although testing and psychodiagnosis are reported to be the primary job responsibilities in actual practice for most school psychologists. Counseling with individual students, program evaluation, remedial instruction, administration, and gram consultation are less valued than the case consultation, training, and preventive roles, but equally often required in practice. When the consumers of school psychological services (i.e., teachers and principals) are surveyed, consultation and prevention services are valued, but counseling of students and parents is seen as equally, if not more, important. Diagnostic services are considered equally desirable as well, if action-oriented recommendations, rather than abstract labels, are provided as feedback to teachers. The three studies that directly contrasted the views of school personnel versus school psychologists tend to confirm the notion that these groups differ in their goals for school psychological services (Gilmore & Chandy, 1973b; Lesiak & Lounsbury, 1977; Roberts, 1970). The consumers evaluated psychometrist, psychodiagnostician, and therapist role functions consistently more highly than did the psychologists. Although both groups agree on the importance of case consultation, psychologists attach more importance to preventive screening and training than do teachers and principals. This study is designed to address several unanswered questions concerning teachers' preferences for school psychology services. Specifically, what are the effects of (a) teaching at different grade levels, (b) experience level, (c) teaching different content areas, (d) gender, and (e) using "open education" methods (cf., Silberman, 1975), on teachers' requirements for the school psychologist?

METHOD

Sample. Teachers (N=150) from all five schools in the De La Warr School District in New Castle, Delaware, were surveyed. The school district is located in a suburban area which has a high percentage of low income families (40%) and a minority population (primarily black) that represents 53% of the total population. All grades from K through 12 were represented. Forty percent (N=60) of the faculty returned the completed survey questionnaire. Three of the returned questionnaires could not be scored, leaving a total sample of 57 teachers for the data analyses. Instrument. The psychological services questionnaire developed by Sandoval and Lambert (1977) was modified for this study so that it consisted of 12 paragraph-length descriptions of a school psychologist's roles. For example: The school psychologist conducts personal and professional development workshops for teachers and serves as a resource person and facilitator at teachers' staff meetings. The respondent is asked, "How valuable are the following services to you as a teacher? Please rate each service as: (1) unimportant, (2) mildly important, (3) moderately important, (4) important, and (5) very important." Respondents were also asked to indicate the grade level(s) at which they teach, the subjects they teach, how many years they have been teaching, their gender, and to what extent they use "open education" methods (i.e., very much, much, some, little, not at all).

374

Journal of School Psychology R E S U L T S AND D I S C U S S I O N

Results from this study must be interpreted with caution for two reasons. First, a substantial proportion of teachers did not return the questionnaire, thus possibly producing a biased sample. However, the ratio of returned to distributed questionnaires was constant at approximately .40 for both genders and all grade levels except 7-8 (where it was approximately .30). This suggests that the sample may have been relatively representative despite the low return rate. Secondly, and as with most surveys of this nature, only one school district is represented. The results cannot be considered to be generalizable to other types of school districts (e.g., urban, suburban with higher income levels). Although replication is thus called for, the results are applicable to the many school districts which are comparable to the present one. As a group, teachers showed a strongest preference for the school psychologist to provide screening services that would facilitate the placement of pupils into optimal special education programs for the gifted, emotionally disturbed, mentally retarded, and visually and physically handicapped (Table 1). Also considered important were the roles of psychodiagnostician (with or without recommendations for educational programming), pupil counselor, and remedial case consultation to aid teachers in most effectively working with children who are displaying personal and learning problems.

Table 1 Importance Ratings by Teachers of School Psychologist Roles Role of the School Psychologist

Mean Teacher Rating ~

SD

1. Screening for and coordination of placement of

3.97

1.1

4.21

0.9

4.04

1.0

3.97

1.1

3.81

1.2

3.75

1.3

3.74

1.1

3.41 3.39 3.33 3.16 3.04

1.3 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.4

2. 3. 4. 5.

pupils in special education programs Screening for placement of pupils in special education programs Psychodiagnostic testing: In-depth testing with findings reported in writing to teachers Counseling Pupils: Results reported to teacher in writing at the conclusion of counseling Psychodiagnostic testing with specific recommendations for remedial educational

programming 6. Remedial Case Consultation: Collaboration with

the teacher to program remedial procedures for pupils 7. Counseling pupils and remedial case consulation with teachers 8. Liaison to community service programs 9. Preventive case consultation 10. Program consultation 11. In-service training 12. Counseling lJarents and consultation to teachers

concerning the conduct and use of parent conferences a5 = very important, 4=important, 3 =moderatelyimportant, 2 = mildlyimportant, 1=unimportant.

Ford and Migles

375

Teachers were relatively consistent as a group in rating these school psychologists' roles, as indicated by the standard deviations shown in Table 1. The remaining school psychologist roles were rated somewhat lower in importance, although average ratings were all at or above the level of "moderately important." The roles of serving as a liaison to community service programs (e.g., mental health, family counseling, alcohol and drug programs), providing preventive case consultation (i.e., assisting teachers in working with children at-risk), and program consultation were all viewed as being somewhere between moderately important and clearly important by the teachers. Teachers also showed somewhat greater variance in these ratings, compared to ratings of the more highly preferred roles. Two roles were evaluated as distinctly less important than the rest: in-service trainer and group facilitator for the teachers, and counselor of parents and consultant to teachers regarding parent conferences. While still rated on the average as slightly more than moderately important, teachers showed a great deal of variance in rating these roles. One third of the teachers gave ratings that were either more or less than the mean by as much as, or more than, 1 1/2 points. These results are very consistent with the priorities reported by previous surveys of teachers and principals and with the actual job responsibilities of school psychologists that have been reported by past investigations. These teachers' preferences also converge with the preferred roles reported by school psychologists in previous surveys, in that screening and case consultation services are highly valued, and program consultation is relatively devalued. However, there are notable divergences from earlier survey results. Counseling parents and consulting to teachers concerning parent conferences comprise a role which was highly valued in past surveys of teachers (Lambert et al., 1975), but which was the lowest priority for the current teachers. This is, however, consistent with the results for Title I teachers in the Gilmore and Chandy (1973b) survey. Also, where in, service training and preventive services other than screening are given high value by school psychologists (Roberts, 1970), the teachers in the present survey considered these to be relatively low in priority. The results suggest that teachers place greatest value on school psychology services which have two basic characteristics. First, immediately observable relief is provided in aversive and problematic situations, hence the preference for direct (e.g., screening for placement, diagnostic testing) rather than indirect (e.g., training or liaison functions), and remedial rather than preventive services. Second, a minimal degree of intrusion on the teacher's territory and prerogatives is desired, hence the greater preference for psychodiagnostics without, rather than with, educational programming, and the low value placed on training, program consultation, and work with parents. An implication is that school psychologists must be careful not to infringe, without explicit invitation, upon the teacher's turf. Grade Level and Preference for School Psychologist Roles. Teachers were placed into four groups based on the grade(s) which they reported teaching: K-3, 4-6, 7-8, 9-12. The four grade levels correspond to four relatively distinct groups of pupils: early primary, advanced primary, junior high school, and senior high school. Twelve one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted, each time with grade level as the independent variable and ratings for one of the school psychologist roles as the dependent variable. The analyses indicated that teachers of different grade levels did not differ significantly in their ratings of the 12 roles. However, in three cases there was a trend

376

Journal of School Psychology

(p =.09) for high school teachers to value a role less than teachers at other grade levels. High school teachers rated the following school psychologist roles as less important than did other teachers: remedial case consultation, pupil counseling plus remedial case consultation, and parent counselor and consultant to teachers regarding parent conferences. Thus, high school teachers tend to be especially strong in their emphasis on professional autonomy, although all teachers value having their own territory. Teacher Gender and Preference for School Psychologist Roles. In comparing the preference ratings of men versus women, only teachers from grades 4-12 were used, because only one of the K-3 teachers was a man. When t tests were conducted comparing male versus female teachers' ratings on each of the 12 roles, no significant differences were found. Use of Open Education and Preference for School Psychologist Roles. Respondents were divided into two groups based on their answers to the question concerning their use of "open education" methods. Teachers who reported using "open education" methods some, much, or very much were placed in one group ("users"), and the remaining teachers formed the second ("nonusers") group. Users were compared to nonusers on their ratings of the 12 roles with t tests. Results showed that users gave significantly stronger endorsements of several school psychologist roles. Screening for, and coordination of, special education placement, preventive case consultation, and program consultation were all evaluated as more important by users than nonusers (p<.01). Remedial case consultation, inservice training and facilitation, and counseling of parents or consultation concerning parent conferences were also more strongly endorsed by users than by nonusers (p<.05). Clearly, open education users have a significantly stronger preference for the school psychologist as an active co-participant or collaborative consultant than do other teachers, in keeping with the emphasis in "open education" on team-teaching, utilizing all available teaching resources, and providing for experiential learning so as to maximize students' long-term growth (Silberman, 1975). Interestingly, further analyses showed that, in the present sample, gender, experience level, teaching specialty, and grade level all had no significant effect on the use of "open education" methods. It appears that "open education" is equally valued and used by all kinds of teachers and that these users show a markedly greater desire for certain nontraditional school psychology services. Experience Level and Preference for School Psychologist Roles. Teachers were assigned to one of three groups based on their level of experience: 0-6 years teaching experience; 7-12 years; 13 or more years. Twelve ANOVAs were computed with experience level as the independent variable and ratings of the roles as the dependent variables. There were no significant differences among the teachers at different experience levels in their ratings of each school psychologist role. Teaching Specialty and Preference for School Psychologist Roles. Respondents were divided into four groups based on the curriculum areas in which they reported specializing: teachers responsible for all academic topics (includes "special education" teachers); math and/or science teachers; English, social studies, and/or reading teachers; and nonacademic or specialty area teachers (physical education, industrial arts, home economics, art, music, business). The results of 12 ANOVAs, one for each role and with topic grouping as the independent variable, uniformly indicated that curriculum area was not a significant determinant of teachers' preferences for school psychologist roles.

Ford and Migles

377

CONCLUSION This study has shown that teachers on the average, and particularly at the high school level, place the greatest value on school psychology services that are direct and immediate in benefit, remedial, and nonintrusive. One subgroup of teachers was identified whose preferences ran somewhat counter to this norm: users of "open education" methods tended to value indirect, preventive, and collaborative services more than did their colleagues. This implies that while school psychologists generally would do well to provide timely remedial services "at a distance," they must also be prepared to offer collaborative and preventive services to teachers who make use of an "open education" approach. It appears that school psychologists must not only be capable of carrying out several role functions, but that tailoring the services they offer to the differing needs of different teachers is also of the essence. An important direction for future research will be to further delineate the determinants of teachers' goals for school psychology services. Factors such as extent of actual use of school psychological services, satisfaction with past contacts with the school psychologist, specific goals for students (e.g., emotional growth versus memorizing information), and specific preferred teaching strategies, among others, merit empirical evaluation. REFERENCE NOTE 1. Farling, W. H., & Hoedt, K. C. National survey of school psychologists. Project No. 9E-150, U.S. Dept. of Health, Education & Welfare, Grant OE G-5-70-009 (010), 1971. REFERENCES Baker, H. L. Psychological services: From the school staff's point of view. Journal of School Psychology, 1965, 3, 36-42. Barbanel, L., & Hoffenberg-Rutman, J. Attitudes toward job responsibilities and training satisfaction of school psychologists: A comparative model. Psychology in the Schools, 1974, 11, 425-429. Caplan, G. The theory and practice of mental health consultation. New York: Basic Books, 1970. Cook, V. J., & Patterson, J. G. Psychologists in the schools of Nebraska: Professional functions. Psychology in the Schools, 1977, 14,371-376. Fridsma, N. B. The role of the school psychologist in Michigan as perceived by school psychologists and directors of special education. Michigan Association of School Psychologists, 1973, 3, 3-4. Gilmore, G. E., & Chandy, J. Teachers' perceptions of school psychological services. Journal of School Psychology, 1973, 11, 139-147. (a) Gilmore; G. E., & Chandy, J. M. Educators describe the school psychologist. Psychology in the Schools, 1973, 10, 397-403. (b) Kaplan, M. S., Clancy, B., & Chrin, M. Priority roles for school psychologist as seen by superintendents. Journal of School Psychology, 1977, 15, 75-81. Kirschner, F. G. School psychology as viewed by the supervisors of school psychological services. Journal of School Psychology, 1971, 9, 343-346. Lambert, N. M., Sandoval, J., & Corder, R. Teacher perceptions of school-based consultants. Professional Psychology, 1975, 6,204-216. Lesiak, W. J., & Lounsbury, E. Views of school psychological services: A comparative study. Psychology in the Schools, 1977, 11, 185-188. Roberts, R. Perceptions of actual and desired role functions of school psychologist by psychologists and teachers. Psychology in the Schools, 1970, 7, 175-178.

378

Journal of School Psychology

Sandoval, J., & Lambert, N. Instruments for evaluating school psychologists' functioning and service. Psychology in the Schools, 1977, 14, 172-179. Silberman, C. (Ed.). The open education reader. New York: Vintage, 1975. Styles, W. A. Teachers' perceptions of the school psychologist's role. Journal of School Psychology, 1965, 3, 23-27. Waters, L. G. School psychologists as perceived by school personnel: Support for a consultant model. Journal of School Psychology, 1973, 11, 40-45. Julian D. Ford Assistant Professor Department of Psychology University of Delaware Newark, Delaware 19711

Margaret Migles Guidance Counselor De La Warr School District Wilmington, Delaware 19899

Received: February 21, 1978 Revision Received: April 27, 1978

STATEMENT OF OW~IRSHIP, M~NI~EMIEN7 AND CIH~A.ILATION

................. -..-.,72

~ f ~

~,,~.

~" = = ' ~ "

~ ....... H ~

~..~..

Vn~

v.~na •

7~ '

''%;T;;

"'°"

lOOll

~i.w V.~k

w~feh

Argue

B

9ni~.

504

T'-'("

s~

York.

New

York

of TeXas Austin:

~X

i0011 78712

I

! I

"^"~ i , ,oN CQ..L~r,ON . ~ . O . . ~ O . ~ T O ~ A . , Z * , ' O N . . ~ . O . , Z , O

¢ T O T A L PAID CI"C"LATIO" (J-- a' '0~ J ~

~I)

,°uT.on~.mo¢¢~.~ I" OF'I¢I ~ "

~*,

TC . A , L AT , ' , C , * ~ R . ~ , * , ' . . ~ . , . J , , ~ " ,

kit T OVI'" V N A C C O V n T I ~ m ' & I m

3675

33OO

I~oIle

none

1854

2824

7834

2824

'

1916

:

1759

i

2906 394

none

none

3~7~

3300

•