A CONCEPTUAL MODEL FOR SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY’

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill DAVID H. REILLY

School psychology has experienced a rapid and varied growth over the past six decades. From its origins as a test-oriented specialty, i t has evolved to achieve recognition by national boards of professional psychologists, the APA, and prom- inence in the eyes of educators. During the course of this evolution, school psychology has developed a variety of approaches to the delivery of psychol- ogical services to the schools. What has not been generated to date, however, is a conceptual model or framework that encompasses the various sources of input with which a school psychologist must deal, i. e. , a process for the systematic analysis and evaluation of these inputs and an output that is both relevant and appropriate for the needs of the schools-one designed to achieve preestablished objectives.

The origins of school psychology are well known, but a brief review may be helpful to provide a perspective. School psychology began, around the turn of the century, with an emphasis on testing and diagnosis. To some extent, this role is still apparent. The input to the school psychologist was the referral, generally by a teacher, of a child who usually was suspected of being mentally retarded. The referred child was subjected to the psychologist’s black box, otherwise known as the Binet or WISC kit. After the child was exposed to this black box, a fairly predictable series of events occurred. The child usually ended up in a special education class, while the output of the process was measured by the sophistication of the psychol- ogist’s report, the number of children placed or tested, and other events equally irrelevant for the child. The validity of effectiveness of the psychologist’s recom- mendations, as they related to assisting the child to achieve a specified set of objec- tives, generally was not considered.

Fortunately, this type of service delivery has been questioned seriously. The interaction of three interdependent forces has precipitated the largest number of questions, not only about the role of testing, but also about the entire scope of the school psychologist’s activity. These three forces might be described as springing from (a) social concerns, (b) the repudiation of the “factory concept” in education, and (c) the growing maturity of school psychology.

With World War 11, which first allowed women to be liberated from the kitchen and nursery, many more alterations in the social fabric have appeared. To mention only a few, the civil rights movement, student unrest and decision-making ability, the rights of patients, ERA, and the 18-year-old vote all have added to a growing sensitivity to social needs, responsibility, and change. The import to the school of these concerns has been the need to bear a greater and greater responsibility for child-rearing, for teacher accountability, for social conduct, and even for becom- ing the vehicle that ensures equal employment and housing opportunities. Massive expenditures of federal money were provided to achieve these goals. Although neither the periods of time nor the data are adequate to justify final predictions, preliminary reports suggest that the desired changes will fall far short of the goals. We have yet to learn how to achieve positive changes for a major portion of our society.

‘A draft of this paper was presented to the Symposium on School Psychology, a t the annual meet.ing of the Southeastern Psychological Association, New Orleans, April 1973.

166 DAVID H. REILLY

As these social concerns became more evident and federal money more easily obtainable, schools began to modify both their structure and function. One of the more critical structural changes, not widely evidenced and not clearly understood by most educators, is the notion that the “factory concept’’ for the schools is invalid. This concept assumes that the teachers, as workers, process the raw material, the students, into some common mold. This concept is invalid for several reasons. First, students are not raw materials-they exert an influence on teacher behavior; second, they are not invariable-they are uniquely different, which we have said often but about which we have done little; third, we do not understand all there is to know about them-but the concept of “raw material” demands such under- standing for effective processing; and, fourth, we cannot define precisely the objec- tive for the raw material-a definition that the “factory concept” demands.

As this factory concept of education dissipates, we should see major structural changes in the educational system. One possible direction is toward an open inter- action system between teacher and student, with the basic objective of the system a complex adaptive mechanism necessary to prepare society’s members to live in a constantly and rapidly changing environment (Reilly, 1970).

This is consistent with systems theory, i. e . , the functions of a system will change before the structure, which appears to be most resistant to change. Some functional changes that have appeared are the open classroom, the voucher system, team teaching, the resource room, the advent of more special types of teachers than can be enumerated, etc.

During these social and educational changes school psychology was developing within psychology and for education. The granting of the diplomate status and APA accreditation of doctoral programs reflect its growth within psychology. For education, a number of approaches to service delivery were developed. These have been described elsewhere (Reilly, 1973) but, briefly, they can be considered as developing along two major dimensions-system-oriented and individual- or group- oriented. Typical of the system orientation are the mental health approach described by McNeil and his colleagues (1963), the social facilitation approach of Mok (1962), and the data-oriented, problem-solving-consultation approach of Gray (1963).

or small group approach are the clinical model (Bardon, 1964), the psychoeducational approach of Valett (1963), and the educa- tional programmer approach of Reger (1965). Other examples of each type could he provided.

What has not been presented to date is a conceptual framework that defines sources of input, operating procedures, and an evaluation format.

The conceptual framework presented in this paper grew out of consideration of what would be necessary to define a school psychologist, as distinct from other types of psychologists. In general, two principal ingredients seem necessary to the definition of any psychologist. These are (a) the knowledge and procedures utilized by psychologists in general, and (b) the effectiveness of this knowledge and these procedures to achieve specified objectives in a particular setting-the setting would be primarily responsible for distinguishing one type of psychologist from another.

One consideration of the first point is based on the premise that a psychologist is essentially a behavioral scientist. AS such, his operating procedures do not differ

Functionally, many changes can be seen in the schools.

Typical of the individual

A CONCEPTUAL MODEL FOR SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY 167

significantly from those utilized by scientists in other fields. These procedures might be classified, generally, as involving a process of assessment, intervention, and evaluation.

In addition to the operating procedures that identify a psychologist as a scientist, there is a particular body of knowledge, distinct from that of other sci- entific disciplines, that he is responsible for having a t his command. This body of knowledge includes, at a general level, development, personality, learning, social- ization process, and other broad categories of human concern and behavior. Thus, a psychologist is a scientist because of the methods that he employs. He is a psy- chologist because of the content base from which he works and to which he applies his methods.

The second consideration in the formulation of a conceptual framework for school psychology-the effectiveness of a psychologist in a particular setting-seems to include the variables that distinguish one type of psychologist from another: effectiveness as related to the procedures utilized, but equally dependent upon operating procedures utilized and knowledge of the schools.

These conditions formed the basis for the current conceptual framework for school psychology. This frame begins with the community, indicated in previous reports (Reilly, 1969) to be a prime source of school system variance, a fact that is critical to an understanding of the objectives and behaviors of the school system. The community serves as a source of school system variance, which in turn serves as a source of input for the school psychologist. The schools have three major sources of input for the school psychologist: from the system level, from the subunit level, and from the individual level.

Support for the notion that an understanding of the situation, or context, is important for an understanding of behavior comes from a growing body of research (Hunt, 1963). This research indicates that it is not individual differences or sit- uational differences per se, but the interaction of individuals within situations that produces variance in behavior. Thus, knowledge of the situation (in the school system, as well as in the classroom) is necessary to understand individual behavior in the school setting.

For effective delivery of school psychological services, then, input from the three sources-system, subunit, and individual-must be considered. Once an input is made to the school psychologist from any of these sources, it is processed through the black box. But now the black box has multiple input channels and we can define the processes involved in the black box.

These processes are those procedures common to most psychologists and other scientists : assessment, intervention, and evaluation.

Assessment includes two phases : data-collection procedures and problem identification and analysis. Intervention is composed of three phases : specification of objectives, design of an intervention program, and implementation of the program. Evaluation is composed of two phases: product evaluation and process evaluation.

The output of the black box is determined by the effectiveness of the inter- vention program, that is, the extent to which the evaluation data indicate that the specified objectives have been achieved.

This, then, is the basic gestalt of our conceptual model for school psychology. Knowledge of the community is essential to an understanding of school system

168 DAVID H. REILLY

variance. Knowledge of the system is essential t,o an understanding of subunit behavior, which, in turn, is essential to an understanding of individual behavior. This knowledge is essential for effective application of school psychological pro- cedures, i. e. , effectiveness of functioning will be determined by the interdependent effects of system knowledge and operating procedures as they relate to the achieve- ment of the objectives specified in the intervention phases.

At this point it may be beneficial to examine more closely the relationship of the black box t o the input sources (see Fig. 1). On the input side, sources from

Flgure I

A Conceptual Model for School Psychologica I Service Delivery

Process phases (modes of operation)

the system may include the school board, the superintendent, or director of person- nel. At the subunit level, a principal, director of special education, or director of elementary education may provide the input source while, a t the individual level, a teacher, parent, or child may do so. It is not intended that these lists be con- sidered exhaustive; they are merely examples.

Once the input has been made to the school psychologist, the general process phases described earlier are undertaken. However, there are specific process activ- itlies and necessary content areas that constitute the general process phases.

Under process activity are included such procedures as consultation, obser- vation, testing, and so on. These are utilized during specific process phases.

For each process activity, in relation to a specific process phase, there is a certain content base from which the process activity is derived. There may be more than one content base for a given process activity, and a specific content base may be applicable to more than one process phase or process activity.

I n the example shown in Fig. 2 we can assume that the input source is from the principal. I n the first process phase-data collection-the school psychologist ut,ilized consultation and testing, with content bases in knowledge of the situation, ethics, and child development.

INPUT SOURCES

n-

School Board Super intendmt Oir . of Persenn*l

SUB-UNIT

Prlnclpol D i r . Spec. Educ. D i r Elem. Edus.

INDlVl DUAL

Teacher

Chlld mrent

I. P.

4 0,

X

X

X

A CONCEPTUAL MODEL FOR SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY

E v o I ~ o l i ~ n Pr P,

0

\

x x

x x x

& AS

X

X

N.~.sslry Con- t e n t a

Knouladqa of Community

Knowladpe of S i t u a t i o n

E t h i c s Rasaorch L i te r -

GWUD Dynamics Chi ld Develop-

0 0 Aaaaarch Daiiqn Cur r I C U lum

a t u r e

men1

\ a \

X x x

x x X

x x

iment

'a'

X

X

-

169

For the second process phase-problem identification and analysis-technical assistance was required, with a content base in knowledge of research literature appropriate to the task, and child development.

In the first intervention process phase-specification of objectives-the psy- chologist utilized consultation with five areas of content base. In the specification of objectives one is concerned with what is to happen to whom, under what con- straints, and how we will know when it has happened.

For the second intervention process p h a s e t h e designing of a program-a mediational intervention strategy was decided upon, with five areas as content base. Mediational intervention is acting, through some other agency or person, to deliver the service, rather than providing the service directly.

The third intervention process phaseimplementation of the program-util- ized process intervention, with three areas of content base.

The first evaluation phase-product evaluation-consisted of research activ- ity, probably of an applied nature, with two areas of content base.

The second and final evaluation phase-process-consisted of evaluation of the mediational process intervention with two areas of content base.

The output, as indicated earlier, is measured in terms of the effectiveness of the intervention program as it relates to the extent to which the objectives specified are achieved.

In summary, school psychology is in need of a conceptual framework that will allow it to encompass the procedures of a behavioral scientist as they are applied to the school setting. An overview of one approach to such a framework has been presented.

School of Education University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, N. C.

170 DAVID H. REILLY

REFERENCES BAEDON, J. I. Problems and issues in school psychology-1964: proceedings of a conference on new

directions in school psychology. Journal of School Psychology, 1964-65, 3, 1-57. GRAY, S. W. The psychologist in the schools. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1963. HUNT, J. M. Traditional personality theory in the light of recent evidence. In E. Hollander and N.

Hunt (Eds.), Current perspectives in social psychology. New York: Oxford University Press,

MCNEIL, E. B., CUTLER, R. L., & MORSE, W. C. The school mental health program. In M. Gottsegen and G. Gottsegen (Eds.), Professional school psychology. (Vol. 11) New York: Grune & Stratton,

MOK, P. B. A view from within. New York: Carlton Press, 1962. REQER, R. School psychology. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas, 1965. REILLY, D. H. Goals and roles of school psychology: a community-based model. Journal of School

REILLY D. H. The current irrelevance and future potential of school psychology. In J. C. Brantley (Chm.), The demand for relevant training in school psychology: perspectives of community, school, and university. Symposium presented at the annual meeting of the American Psycho- logical Association, Miami Beach, September 1970.

REILLY, D. H. School psychology: view from the second generation. Psychology in the Schools, 1973,

VALETT, R. E. The practice of school psychology. New York: John Wiley, 1963.

1963, pp. 133-142.

1963, pp. 102-122.

Psychology, 1968-69, 5, 35-37.

10, 151-155.

SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST-PARENT CONTACT: AN ALTERNATIVE MODEL

GEORGE E. GILMORE

The University of Texas at Aust in

School psychologists are becoming increasingly aware of the need to work with parents. Parental contact may assist in diagnosis of the problem or be necessary for effective interventions. A parent’s permission may be required for certain remedial procedures. More importantly, the mother and/or father are frequently the most direct treatment or intervention agents who are attempting to change a child’s behavior. Psychologists recognize that learning or behavioral problems rarely are isolated in the classroom. Consequently, an attempt is made to deal with the total situation, of which the home is a vital element.

Despite this orientation the available data indicate that psychologists’ work with parents is severely limited. A survey of school psychologists in Minnesota (Dansinger, 1969) indicates that parent contacts ranked fourth among psychologists’ activities. Actual work with parents was significantly secondary to testing, staff conferences, and even paperwork. As might be expected, the respondents indicated that parental contacts should be given a higher priority. Disappointingly, the survey found that of 14 groups, including children, teachers, administrators, and varied out-of-school personnel regularly contacted, the psychologists ranked parents very low as persons with whom they could establish productive relationships. Other statewide surveys (Flax & Anderson, 1966; Keenan, 1964) generally confirm this picture of the psychologists’ involvement with parents.

The parent orientation contrasted with these severe limitations encourages the search for an alternative to the present models of psychologist-parent contact.