School Psychology PhD/PsyD thread

[aagman01]

Likewise, from my observations, it can become much more difficult to complete a phd when you have more "adult" responsibilities (e.g. family if you want to go that route). folks do complete phd with families/children & other responsibilities, but it can make things more challenging. If you complete your EdS, work for a few years, and then try to go back, you could lose a number of credits in the process. Programs differ on this, though (some phd programs accept 0 transfer credits---while other phd programs will take a bulk of your eds program. it really depends). You can always work in the schools with a phd, too. 50% of phd school psychs are employed in the schools.

One thing I would recommend.........look beyond the immediate, that is beyond this year, and decide what you want to do long-term.

Good luck

Thanks for all the feedback. It's been super helpful.

It sounds like, for the most part, it'd be best to pursue the phd only if I want to have options outside of a school setting. Honestly, I do want those options, but I think I'd like to go into academia and other non-school settings only after I've worked in a school for a good handful of years.

In an ideal situation, I'd like to get the specialist degree, work in the school setting for a while, then go back to get my phd, and subsequently work in other types of settings. However, I feel like I'd end up kicking myself later for adding way more years of school than if I just got the phd in my first go around.

I'll admit, a lot of this is stemming from the fact that I'll be 25 before I can start grad school (I'm kind of itching to start my career) and I also don't really want to commit myself to a six year grad school program right now (it just seems so long and I don't really want to settle in one place for that amount of time right now). However, I also realize I'm young and have a hard time looking beyond the next year!

So, any advice?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[aagman01]

I heard the school psych program at CUNY is notorious for that. I am fairly certain you can technically do that at a majority of programs..........students just get dissuaded from that by faculty, mainly because people will take forever or will not complete dissertation in that scenerio.

Oh, there's definitely no high salary keeping me from finishing . I just decided it would be worth an extra year to get my dissertation done and a few more publications under my belt before internship. That's interesting about people in your program working as actual school psychologists before graduating though -- I'd never heard of doing that.

 

[FadedC]

Yeah it ups the amount of time that students will take to complete the program, which makes the program look bad. For that reason my school has started to dissuade people people from doing that as well. I'm not CUNY (I didn't even know they had a school psych program) but I am in NYC, so it may have to do with the fact that there are a lot of opportunities to work here.

From the perspective of the student though, it's not such a bad deal.

I heard the school psych program at CUNY is notorious for that. I am fairly certain you can technically do that at a majority of programs..........students just get dissuaded from that by faculty, mainly because people will take forever or will not complete dissertation in that scenerio.

 

[smitten]

I also don't really want to commit myself to a six year grad school program right now (it just seems so long and I don't really want to settle in one place for that amount of time right now).

Just to clarify, the 5 years + internship that I mentioned isn't a standard thing. I don't know the stats on time to completion across programs, but 4 years + internship is very common and definitely doable. More likely than not, you would be going somewhere else for internship year anyway, so you'd really only need to settle in one place for 4 years for the PhD.

 

[aya2011]

I am looking at applying to psyd programs in school psychology. I already have a masters in special ed, strong GRE scores, and about 5 years doing mental health consultation in a mental health center. I currently have a research assistant position where I will be administering the Bayley and looking at parent-child interactions.

I am on the fence though. I am anxious to get this show on the road, but need a few more prerequisite classes (I already have Basic, Abnormal, Personality). Should I do a year in a general psych program and then apply to the psyd programs, or should I do a school psychology certification masters program (3 years) and then apply? Many psyd programs will take at least 30 credits this way.

Just not sure which route to take. Does anyone have any experience with this sort of dilemma?

Thank you!

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Just to clarify, the 5 years + internship that I mentioned isn't a standard thing. I don't know the stats on time to completion across programs, but 4 years + internship is very common and definitely doable. More likely than not, you would be going somewhere else for internship year anyway, so you'd really only need to settle in one place for 4 years for the PhD.

From the 2010 APPIC Match Survey:

4th Yr applicants: 44%
5th Yr applicants: 28%
6th Yr applicants: 11%
7th Yr applicants: 02%
....etc.

It is true that a good portion of the applicants for the APPIC Match are in their 4th year, but that doesn't mean they are granted their degree in 4 + 1. Many applicants for internship are still working on their dissertations, and often struggle to finish during the internship year. As a grad student, you do not want to get stuck in limbo between internship & post-doc because your dissertation is not done.

During my intern year, I was the only intern who defended prior to internship (I was a 5th yr). My site provided protected research time for interns trying to finish their dissertations, but we were definitely the exception to the rule. Most of the people I knew who didn't defend prior to internship were stuck working on their dissertations on the weekend, and often they had to delay their post-docs until they defended. It is really important to check the outcome data for every program, because some can be 6-7+ yr to completion.

 

[smitten]

It is true that a good portion of the applicants for the APPIC Match are in their 4th year, but that doesn't mean they are granted their degree in 4 + 1. Many applicants for internship are still working on their dissertations, and often struggle to finish during the internship year. As a grad student, you do not want to get stuck in limbo between internship & post-doc because your dissertation is not done.

Absolutely. I meant to speak to the 'not wanting to settle in one place for six years' issue and shouldn't have referred to time to completion. You bring up a good point, and what you've described is the main reason I'm doing 5+1.

 

[TimeCat]

Absolutely. I meant to speak to the 'not wanting to settle in one place for six years' issue and shouldn't have referred to time to completion. You bring up a good point, and what you've described is the main reason I'm doing 5+1.

Yes! You did answer my original question which was about settling in one place. And, T4C, thanks for those stats. Both really interesting and helpful.

Though (of course), I have yet another question. I'd like to volunteer somewhere for the next year that will help my application but I don't know what type of position would be most ideal. I already have 1.5 years working as a full-time Research Assistant in addition to a couple of undergrad RA positions, 5 poster presentations, my own research study for my senior thesis, and a couple of manuscripts in progress. Should I try to find another position in research or would it be better to look for something else? If the latter, what are some other experiences that look good on school psych applications or are just helpful experiences to have?

 

[FadedC]

Though (of course), I have yet another question. I'd like to volunteer somewhere for the next year that will help my application but I don't know what type of position would be most ideal. I already have 1.5 years working as a full-time Research Assistant in addition to a couple of undergrad RA positions, 5 poster presentations, my own research study for my senior thesis, and a couple of manuscripts in progress. Should I try to find another position in research or would it be better to look for something else? If the latter, what are some other experiences that look good on school psych applications or are just helpful experiences to have?

Well it sounds like you have an extremely solid research background already. My experience has been that while research is still important in school psych, that it doesn't get quite as much focus as it does in clinical psych. More research experience is unlikely to hurt, but your likely to already have a stronger research background then most applicants.

On the flip side I'm not sure what else you could do that would strengthen your application. I worked at a crisis/suicide hotline, and I learned a lot but I'm not sure if it helped my school psychology application that much. I have had it come up during an externship interview though, where I would be dealing with people who were suicidal or in crisis. So anyway I'm not necesarily recomending that, just mentioning it.

 

[TimeCat]

Well, I suppose it's time to really start getting all revved up for the application process this year. Woo!

I've been reading the handbooks of the programs I'm interested in and most of them say that the program director assigns an advisor to each student at the beginning of the first semester. How exactly does this process work? I know for Clinical Psych, it's more important to apply to the potential advisor than the program. Is this the same for School Psych? In other words, should I be emailing potential advisors now to see if they are accepting students and make sure my application/SOP is focused mainly on that professor's field of work? Or is emailing professors unnecessary/should I just make sure to focus my application on the strengths of the overall program?

You all are the best. I do hope there are some other newbie applicants who are gaining as much from the responses to my seemingly non-stop questions as I am

 

[FadedC]

Well at my program the advisor they assign us at the beginning of our first semester is just someone who is there to help us figure out what classes to take and any other official questions we have. We don't apply to a specific lab, and it's not until our second year that we are required to pick a professor to start doing research with (though many start earlier).

If they are assigning you a advisor, then it sounds like something similar, but of course I can't say for sure. I don't know a whole lot about other programs. If your really not sure, then you may be able to ask someone at the program where you are applying.

Well, I suppose it's time to really start getting all revved up for the application process this year. Woo!

I've been reading the handbooks of the programs I'm interested in and most of them say that the program director assigns an advisor to each student at the beginning of the first semester. How exactly does this process work? I know for Clinical Psych, it's more important to apply to the potential advisor than the program. Is this the same for School Psych? In other words, should I be emailing potential advisors now to see if they are accepting students and make sure my application/SOP is focused mainly on that professor's field of work? Or is emailing professors unnecessary/should I just make sure to focus my application on the strengths of the overall program?

You all are the best. I do hope there are some other newbie applicants who are gaining as much from the responses to my seemingly non-stop questions as I am

 

[ILGirl]

Do all school psychology programs require their students to find child volunteers in order to practice test administration and scoring? Is this standard practice, or do some programs handle this differently?

 

[aagman01]

I think it depends. School psych programs that have clinics generally do not require students to find "training subjects". From my understanding, a lot of school psych programs do not have clinics attached to them and therefore frequently DO require students to find child volunteers.

Do all school psychology programs require their students to find child volunteers in order to practice test administration and scoring? Is this standard practice, or do some programs handle this differently?

 

[aagman01]

I served as student rep on the faculty committee at my program. Some research experience is DEFINATELY helpful. Research experience (at least at my school) is looked at as being more important than "clinical experiences".

With that said, clinical experiences (particularly with children/adolescents) are also quite helpful. This is the case to a greater extent, it seems to me, than is the case in clinical psych programs. Many folks admitted into competitive phd school psych programs (at my program and other programs, based on experiences relayed to me from students at other programs I have met) had experiences such as autism line provider, teaching/teacher certification (as an actual teacher for some time and/or the student teaching experiences that went into that), work as a psych assistant at a children's hospital, and other similar clinical experiences. Again, good experiences are not what we would call clinical experiences once you are in grad school, but they are formal work experiences where one develops skill sets helpful towards future professional work.

Personally, I was involved in research in undergrad (1 pub, 2 poster presentations, and had a paid undergrad RA position) and also had a variety of work experiences related to school psych work (student teacher, teacher abroad, an undergrad "internship" shadowing/providing basic clinical work with licensed clinical and school psychologists, worked as assistant director of a summer camp, etc.). So - a long response to your question. Good luck

Well it sounds like you have an extremely solid research background already. My experience has been that while research is still important in school psych, that it doesn't get quite as much focus as it does in clinical psych. More research experience is unlikely to hurt, but your likely to already have a stronger research background then most applicants.

On the flip side I'm not sure what else you could do that would strengthen your application. I worked at a crisis/suicide hotline, and I learned a lot but I'm not sure if it helped my school psychology application that much. I have had it come up during an externship interview though, where I would be dealing with people who were suicidal or in crisis. So anyway I'm not necesarily recomending that, just mentioning it.

 

[FadedC]

My school has it's own assessment center, and they still make us find our own child volunteers for our cognitive assessment class. I don't think they trust us to work professionally with paying clients yet at that point in our education. It's an entry level class.

Finding child volunteers was a pain, but not as much of a pain as finding teacher volunteers for my consulting classes. That was an absolute nightmare.

I think it depends. School psych programs that have clinics generally do not require students to find "training subjects". From my understanding, a lot of school psych programs do not have clinics attached to them and therefore frequently DO require students to find child volunteers.

 

[strad48]

Finding child volunteers was a pain, but not as much of a pain as finding teacher volunteers for my consulting classes. That was an absolute nightmare.[/QUOTE]

In the first semester of my program, I established a connection with a school psychologist who works in the district where I live. Although not part of the original intent, the contact turned out to be extremely helpful when I had assignments involving consultation and classroom-based interventions.

 

[FadedC]

In the first semester of my program, I established a connection with a school psychologist who works in the district where I live. Although not part of the original intent, the contact turned out to be extremely helpful when I had assignments involving consultation and classroom-based interventions.

Yeah that's how I ended up getting one of my teacher volunteers as well, after several other leads had dried up. Before that a bunch of us tried visiting classes in our school's education department to recruit teachers. About 20 people expressed an interest to help and wrote down their contact information. Not a single one even had the courtesy to respond to our follow up e-mails. Didn't exactly improve my opinion of education students that day!

 

[LadyLulu]

Hello! I'm new to this forum and haven't had the chance to read through the 5 pages of threads, but I have done some scanning. I am a 27 year old mother of 2 and finishing my last year as an undergrad. I am VERY interested in applying to a PsyD program in School Psychology. I really would love to work in the school setting for a while to gain experience but eventually have a private practice working with children either in addition to my school job or instead of...Although I have no work related experience with children, I know this is what I want to do. I have gone through a lot in my life and have made some mistakes along the way. They have all brought me to the place I am today. I have an incredible passion for psychology and children and feel strongly that I am meant to work with them. My GPA is strong and I will be taking my GRE in the next 6 months. My question is, I know these programs are competitive. I know that most applicants will have experience/a resume that shows they have had relevant experience either working, doing research or volenteering in the field. I am worried that I am dreaming too big by thinking I will get into one of these programs without that background. I am confident in my ability to do well on the GRE. I know I will be able to get recommendations and write a great personal statement that describes my goals, my past and how I feel I can contribute to the field of child/school psychology. So my first question for this forum is" Is a PsyD out of my league completely because I don't have any experience working in the field? Should I lower the bar and look at masters programs first (I really don't want to...)?
Any insight would be appreciated! I would love anyone to share if they relate, have been in a similar situation and gotten into a program.
Thanks so much!!

 

[YoungTrizzle]

I have recently been accepted into a Ed.s program with the intention on going on to complete a PH.d. However, i was unaware that i could do a PH.d in school psychology and do an internship to be a practicing psychologist. is there anyone who completed a masters before doing their PH.d, do you have any advice? I am also wondering if like in many other programs in psychology if an Ed.s would mean nothing if admitted to a PH.d program? Eventually i would like the option of having a private practice while working within a school system but i am not exactly sure of the best path to take.

 

[ILGirl]

I have recently been accepted into a Ed.s program with the intention on going on to complete a PH.d. However, i was unaware that i could do a PH.d in school psychology and do an internship to be a practicing psychologist. is there anyone who completed a masters before doing their PH.d, do you have any advice? I am also wondering if like in many other programs in psychology if an Ed.s would mean nothing if admitted to a PH.d program? Eventually i would like the option of having a private practice while working within a school system but i am not exactly sure of the best path to take.

Do you know what research you are interested in doing? If so, check out the school psych. PhD programs and see which programs have faculty doing the research that you are interested in doing. Then, look up those programs' transfer credit policies. (Some programs accept as few a six credits from a previously earned graduate degree; others will accept 30 or more.) You want to retake as few courses as possible.

Some states do allow private practice at the specialist level. However, many others require that you work entirely within school districts. If you are settled about where you want to live, then check out this NASP website: http://www.nasponline.org/certification/state_info_list.aspx
It will give you information about the possibility of private practice within your state (in addition to other solid information about credentialing). However, generally speaking, a PhD is the gold standard for private, independent practice.

 

[ILGirl]

I think it depends. School psych programs that have clinics generally do not require students to find "training subjects". From my understanding, a lot of school psych programs do not have clinics attached to them and therefore frequently DO require students to find child volunteers.

Thanks for the information. Had it even dawned on me during the interviews, this would have been a great question to ask. Not a fan of begging people to use their children as guinea pigs for my training in cognitive assessment.

 

[ILGirl]

Finding child volunteers was a pain, but not as much of a pain as finding teacher volunteers for my consulting classes. That was an absolute nightmare.

In the first semester of my program, I established a connection with a school psychologist who works in the district where I live. Although not part of the original intent, the contact turned out to be extremely helpful when I had assignments involving consultation and classroom-based interventions.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the information, FadedC and strad48. I think getting in touch with school psychologists is a brilliant idea. Maybe they can be a bridge.

 

[aagman01]

There are some (though not many) doctoral programs that directly take eds credits towards the phd. Two programs I remember hearing about that come to mind in that regard are Farleigh Dickinson in NJ and James Madison in Virginia. Both actually require EdS before entrance into their doctoral programs. I actually completed a year in an EdS before switching into a PhD program. I did get into a good program fully funded, but lost a few credits (not too many, fortunately). Many programs refused to take any (I didn't apply to those). If I had completed my EdS and gone to the same program I went to, I would have lost many additional credits. My advice is to either get into a straight phd if you can or, in the least, start in an EdS program housed with a PhD so that all of your credits transfer in.

I have recently been accepted into a Ed.s program with the intention on going on to complete a PH.d. However, i was unaware that i could do a PH.d in school psychology and do an internship to be a practicing psychologist. is there anyone who completed a masters before doing their PH.d, do you have any advice? I am also wondering if like in many other programs in psychology if an Ed.s would mean nothing if admitted to a PH.d program? Eventually i would like the option of having a private practice while working within a school system but i am not exactly sure of the best path to take.

 

[aagman01]

Get some experience! Its never too late - raising 2 kids is pretty good experience in and of itself.
From my knowledge, pretty much all of the psyd school psych programs are in NYC area, so I a hope you can raise a family and financially survive in that area while being unpaid or poorly paid (most psyd programs give little or no funding - the only exceptions I have heard of are Rutgers and SUNY-ALBANY). Oh, i have heard of two fairly new and unaccredited psyd school psych programs that have some funding (that at least cover tuition and provide a small stipend - they are at Kean University in northern NJ and Minnesota St/Mankato.

Hello! I'm new to this forum and haven't had the chance to read through the 5 pages of threads, but I have done some scanning. I am a 27 year old mother of 2 and finishing my last year as an undergrad. I am VERY interested in applying to a PsyD program in School Psychology. I really would love to work in the school setting for a while to gain experience but eventually have a private practice working with children either in addition to my school job or instead of...Although I have no work related experience with children, I know this is what I want to do. I have gone through a lot in my life and have made some mistakes along the way. They have all brought me to the place I am today. I have an incredible passion for psychology and children and feel strongly that I am meant to work with them. My GPA is strong and I will be taking my GRE in the next 6 months. My question is, I know these programs are competitive. I know that most applicants will have experience/a resume that shows they have had relevant experience either working, doing research or volenteering in the field. I am worried that I am dreaming too big by thinking I will get into one of these programs without that background. I am confident in my ability to do well on the GRE. I know I will be able to get recommendations and write a great personal statement that describes my goals, my past and how I feel I can contribute to the field of child/school psychology. So my first question for this forum is" Is a PsyD out of my league completely because I don't have any experience working in the field? Should I lower the bar and look at masters programs first (I really don't want to...)?
Any insight would be appreciated! I would love anyone to share if they relate, have been in a similar situation and gotten into a program.
Thanks so much!!

 

[YoungTrizzle]

There are some (though not many) doctoral programs that directly take eds credits towards the phd. Two programs I remember hearing about that come to mind in that regard are Farleigh Dickinson in NJ and James Madison in Virginia. Both actually require EdS before entrance into their doctoral programs. I actually completed a year in an EdS before switching into a PhD program. I did get into a good program fully funded, but lost a few credits (not too many, fortunately). Many programs refused to take any (I didn't apply to those). If I had completed my EdS and gone to the same program I went to, I would have lost many additional credits. My advice is to either get into a straight phd if you can or, in the least, start in an EdS program housed with a PhD so that all of your credits transfer in.

Thanks for the advice! the school im set to attend has a PHD program but it is only accredited by the NASP and not the APA which i hear is important. I almost considering completing the PHd there and then pursing a LMHC degree to be able to do the counseling so i have that under my belt if i dont get into a Program that cross trains. Is that a bad idea?

 

[aagman01]

a phd + counseling masters seems like overkill to me, personally. When you do your phd you typically take additional courses in counseling and assessment in school and clinical psych (at least in my program). More importantly, you get opportunities to get supervised experiences providing therapy/assessment outside of schools.

Doing an Eds + counseling or phd seems more logical than both phd + counseling. You can take additional counseling courses in your phd program. I would recommend, though, getting into an APA accredited program for your phd. Otherwise, your options will be severely limited. If you plan to only work in schools, though, doing a phd in a NASP accredited but APA unaccredited PHD is not as big of a difference.

Good luck!

Thanks for the advice! the school im set to attend has a PHD program but it is only accredited by the NASP and not the APA which i hear is important. I almost considering completing the PHd there and then pursing a LMHC degree to be able to do the counseling so i have that under my belt if i dont get into a Program that cross trains. Is that a bad idea?

 

[Tropical24]

Does anyone know about the quality of school psychology programs in Ohio, particularly Miami University and Cleveland State University? This is for the specialist level.

 

[TimeCat]

I thought I'd bump this thread up again to see if there is anyone else applying to school psych programs this year (I'm assuming so since there have been plenty of posts on the interview invite thread). How is everyone's process going? I hope good news!

As for me, I just finished sending in my last application last week. So far I've gotten four invites and I'm now in the midst of my interview studying/practice. It's exciting but certainly nerve-wracking.

Good luck to everyone!

 

[coldsweat]

You have company, I'm applying to school psychology programs as well! How are you preparing for your interviews, beyond reading your POIs publications repeatedly (if you're applying to PhD programs)? I'm already in a school psychology program, so I can easily answer questions about why I want to study school psychology. However, I'm worried that because I'm already in the field, the interviewers will probably have higher expectations for my answers. I'm also very familiar the controversies in the field, and have strong positions on them (for example, RtI vs. cognitive assessment approaches to LD identification). I'm wondering whether should express my opinions on these matters, as they are partly relevant to my research interests, or whether I should remain silent, for fear of distancing myself from the professor.

 

[futureapppsy2]

(for example, RtI vs. cognitive assessment approaches to LD identification)

What is your opinion on this, out of curiosity? I'm especially curious because we have a mix of faculty in our department, which has caused some oddities with our training (e.g., our academic assessment professor focused exclusively on RtI LD identification whereas some faculty in later assessment courses expected us to use the discrepancy model to rule in/out LD, which we had never been formally taught and thus had to kind of remediate ourselves in).

 

[jxmagik]

Hi I'm applying to school psych programs as well and have a couple interviews coming up. I'm nervous and really excited!! I was wondering the depth of knowledge POIs and other interviewers expect us to have on school psych subjects? I am a year out of undergrad and though I know general terms and methods of intervention and assessment, I don't have the depth of understanding of say, coldsweat. What do you guys think? Just study up like crazy?

 

[FadedC]

I was pretty clueless about school psych topics when I was applying, and thankfully nobody asked me anything specific. Things mostly focused on my research interests, reason for picking school psych, etc. I guess they figured I'd learn the specific while I was there. School psych issues aren't really covered much outside of school psych programs so there isn't really a lot of opportunity to learn about things like RTI unless you've worked in a school before (and even then it's pretty new and not every school has implemented it). It would still probably be a good idea to be familiarize yourself with the basics though.

 

[aagman01]

I think school psychs should be knowledgeable in both, so you can work in either system. Obviously, a majority of schools still use traditional approaches. Even in midwestern states where its been implemented the most - e.g. Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, a majority of districts still use traditional approach (Iowa may be an exception).

Another reason to learn the RTI approach is its applicability in other areas outside of LD. Some of the key aspects of RTI (progress monitoring and evaluation) are key aspects of work regardless. A "good" school psych making LD classification with the traditional model still utilizes RTI skills throughout their practice.

Just my take

What is your opinion on this, out of curiosity? I'm especially curious because we have a mix of faculty in our department, which has caused some oddities with our training (e.g., our academic assessment professor focused exclusively on RtI LD identification whereas some faculty in later assessment courses expected us to use the discrepancy model to rule in/out LD, which we had never been formally taught and thus had to kind of remediate ourselves in).

 

[TimeCat]

Hi I'm applying to school psych programs as well and have a couple interviews coming up. I'm nervous and really excited!! I was wondering the depth of knowledge POIs and other interviewers expect us to have on school psych subjects? I am a year out of undergrad and though I know general terms and methods of intervention and assessment, I don't have the depth of understanding of say, coldsweat. What do you guys think? Just study up like crazy?

I'm in a similar situation as you. I'm fairly new to the field so, along with reading POI research articles and the program handbooks, I've been watching webinars and reading as much as I can about various topics in school psychology (especially those that relate to my research interests).

 

[jxmagik]

I'm in a similar situation as you. I'm fairly new to the field so, along with reading POI research articles and the program handbooks, I've been watching webinars and reading as much as I can about various topics in school psychology (especially those that relate to my research interests).

Yep yep, me too. I was actually intent on clinical psychology for most of my undergrad. I think I was fixated on the name, clinical psychoogy. Fancy. But then I started looking at schools, programs, profs who actually had my research interests and I found school psychology. The inner over-achiever in me wants to read up on a couple text books too...but I think that'd be over doing it.

Also thanks FadedC, that makes me feel a lot better!

 

[aagman01]

Hi all:

If you want a thorough but fairly easy to read overview of the field, try this book. Its become the standard in 1st semester foundation seminar courses.


School Psychology for the 21st Century, Second Edition: Foundations and Practices
Merrell, Ervin, and Peacock (2011)

Yep yep, me too. I was actually intent on clinical psychology for most of my undergrad. I think I was fixated on the name, clinical psychoogy. Fancy. But then I started looking at schools, programs, profs who actually had my research interests and I found school psychology. The inner over-achiever in me wants to read up on a couple text books too...but I think that'd be over doing it.

Also thanks FadedC, that makes me feel a lot better!

 

[FadedC]

I agree, that's a good book and we had to read the previous edition of it in our first semester as well.

Hi all:

If you want a thorough but fairly easy to read overview of the field, try this book. Its become the standard in 1st semester foundation seminar courses.


School Psychology for the 21st Century, Second Edition: Foundations and Practices
Merrell, Ervin, and Peacock (2011)

 

[coldsweat]

What is your opinion on this, out of curiosity? I'm especially curious because we have a mix of faculty in our department, which has caused some oddities with our training (e.g., our academic assessment professor focused exclusively on RtI LD identification whereas some faculty in later assessment courses expected us to use the discrepancy model to rule in/out LD, which we had never been formally taught and thus had to kind of remediate ourselves in).

Personally, I prefer RtI approaches to LD identification even thought my courses and training emphasized a cognitive patterns of strengths and weaknesses approach. That's great that your academic assessment professor taught you the RtI approach, and it's strange that other professors are expecting you to use the discrepancy approach because of its outmodedness (perhaps because of your state's educational rules and regulations)?

 

[aagman01]

Ahhhh.....probably like well over 90% of districts use the traditional model approach still. Many states are beginning to dump the discrepancy formula models per se, but the traditional model perspective still predominates in the schools. Sounds like those "other professors" are being practical and getting folks ready for the real world (e.g. jobs in the schools).

Personally, I prefer RtI approaches to LD identification even thought my courses and training emphasized a cognitive processing strengths and weaknesses approach. That's great that your academic assessment professor taught you the RtI approach, and it's strange that other professors are expecting you to use the discrepancy approach because of its outmodedness (perhaps because of your state's educational rules and regulations)?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Ahhhh.....probably like well over 90% of districts use the traditional model approach still. Many states are beginning to dump the discrepancy formula models per se, but the traditional model perspective still predominates in the schools. Sounds like those "other professors" are being practical and getting folks ready for the real world (e.g. jobs in the schools).

Can a school psychologist clarify something for me....from my understanding Response to Intervention (RtI) allows for a more functional approach to enacting change and it is less about just putting students into catagories, correct? What I'm not clear on is if and/or how the initial assessment and follow-up assessment may vary under a RtI model v. a more traditional LD model. It appears that RtI involves more serial assessment (more informal? or at least not as robust) during the interventions, compared to the LD model that does a more formal assessment though with less frequency. Is that accurate?

 

[aagman01]

RTI generally uses very specific, brief assessments. This can involve very brief assessment measures of specific skills. Frequently, there are systems of brief assessments available. DIBELS is one example, put out by the U of Oregon. It is used with young children to assess for early reading skills. In the case of DIBELS, very brief (usually 1-2 minutes) assessment is conducted in the areas of phonemic awareness, alphabetic principle, accuracy and fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. If a child is found to be well below average (usually 1.5 SDs, but can vary), the child is sent to Tier 2 and, if needed, Tier 3. The same brief assessment would be used throughout, to monitor progress. A WISC or other form of "traditional assessment" would never be used in RTI.

Can a school psychologist clarify something for me....from my understanding Response to Intervention (RtI) allows for a more functional approach to enacting change and it is less about just putting students into catagories, correct? What I'm not clear on is if and/or how the initial assessment and follow-up assessment may vary under a RtI model v. a more traditional LD model. It appears that RtI involves more serial assessment (more informal? or at least not as robust) during the interventions, compared to the LD model that does a more formal assessment though with less frequency. Is that accurate?

 

[FadedC]

That seems like a reasonable description. I haven't actually worked in a school that uses RTI yet so someone else may be able to correct me if I'm wrong about some of the details. But my understanding is that all students start out in Tier 1 when they first come into school, where they recieve the same level of instruction as everyone else. During this time they recieve assessments to determine who is in danger of academic failure. Students who are in danger of failure are moved to Tier 2, which consists of evidence based interventions designed to address their particular problem.At this point they are still in their same classes, just recieving additional services. EBIs can be adjusted and retried during this time, and students who fail to respod to them are moved to Tier 3, which is more intensive special education services.

RTI doesn't really give a true positive in terms of the identification of learning disabilities. Instead people who do not repond are just assumed to have a learning disability by default. So it's definitely not geared towards classification, more towards service delivery.

Can a school psychologist clarify something for me....from my understanding Response to Intervention (RtI) allows for a more functional approach to enacting change and it is less about just putting students into catagories, correct? What I'm not clear on is if and/or how the initial assessment and follow-up assessment may vary under a RtI model v. a more traditional LD model. It appears that RtI involves more serial assessment (more informal? or at least not as robust) during the interventions, compared to the LD model that does a more formal assessment though with less frequency. Is that accurate?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

RTI generally uses very specific, brief assessments. This can involve very brief assessment measures of specific skills. Frequently, there are systems of brief assessments available. DIBELS is one example, put out by the U of Oregon. It is used with young children to assess for early reading skills. In the case of DIBELS, very brief (usually 1-2 minutes) assessment is conducted in the areas of phonemic awareness, alphabetic principle, accuracy and fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. If a child is found to be well below average (usually 1.5 SDs, but can vary), the child is sent to Tier 2 and, if needed, Tier 3. The same brief assessment would be used throughout, to monitor progress. A WISC or other form of "traditional assessment" would never be used in RTI.

My first research team actually used the DIBELS as part of a larger battery for our study, so I know it well.

 

[coldsweat]

Ahhhh.....probably like well over 90% of districts use the traditional model approach still. Many states are beginning to dump the discrepancy formula models per se, but the traditional model perspective still predominates in the schools. Sounds like those "other professors" are being practical and getting folks ready for the real world (e.g. jobs in the schools).

I agree with your statement that the majority of school districts probably continue to use the simple discrepancy approach, and therefore learning it is important, although it's extremely easy to learn. However, Zirkel & Thomas (2010) published a review of state laws regarding LD determination and 12 states require school districts to use a RtI approach to LD identification, so I'd disagree with your estimate that 90% of schools use this simple discrepancy approach.

Zirkel, P.A., & Thomas, L.B. (2010). State laws for RTI: An updated snapshot. Teaching Exceptional Children, 4, 56-63.

RTI doesn't really give a true positive in terms of the identification of learning disabilities. Instead people who do not repond are just assumed to have a learning disability by default. So it's definitely not geared towards classification, more towards service delivery.

I disagree with your statement there is no true positive in an RtI model. In the book Essentials of Specific Learning Disability Identification, Jack Fletcher published a great chapter refuting this statement. The summary of his argument is that non-response to intervention can be considered an inclusionary criteria. RtI can be geared both to service delivery and classification. There are definitely weaknesses to an RtI approach to LD identification, but compared to other approaches of LD identification, I think the RtI approach is more useful.

P.S. I don't intend my tone to be combative, sorry it sounds that way, this is just one of my favorite topics in school psychology!

 

[FadedC]

Funny...the very first chapter of that same essential book states the lack of true positive as fact. I didn't realize there was a chapter later in the book stating an opposite opinion. So I guess that's a more controversial area then I realized. And no worries about disagreeing with me, we disagree with each other all the time here!

I disagree with your statement there is no true positive in an RtI model. In the book Essentials of Specific Learning Disability Identification, Jack Fletcher published a great chapter refuting this statement. The summary of his argument is that non-response to intervention can be considered an inclusionary criteria. RtI can be geared both to service delivery and classification. There are definitely weaknesses to an RtI approach to LD identification, but compared to other approaches of LD identification, I think the RtI approach is more useful.

P.S. I don't intend my tone to be combative, sorry it sounds that way, this is just one of my favorite topics in school psychology!

 

[aagman01]

Ok. I will give you one example as to why you may be less certain than you think!

In Wisconsin, state law mandated that districts began switching over to RTI in 2008. In Madison and Milwaukee, hardly any of the schools made the mandates. So they pushed it back. Two years later, they pushed the mandate back again. Some schools in the two cities have switched over, but many many many have not.

I know there are other similar exemptions all throughout Wisconsin. I hear similar things happened in Illinois. Don't know about other places, but I am sure it is rampant.

Things aren't always as golden as one might think in a book

I agree with your statement that the majority of school districts probably continue to use the simple discrepancy approach, and therefore learning it is important, although it's extremely easy to learn. However, Zirkel & Thomas (2010) published a review of state laws regarding LD determination and 12 states require school districts to use a RtI approach to LD identification, so I'd disagree with your estimate that 90% of schools use this simple discrepancy approach.

Zirkel, P.A., & Thomas, L.B. (2010). State laws for RTI: An updated snapshot. Teaching Exceptional Children, 4, 56-63.



I disagree with your statement there is no true positive in an RtI model. In the book Essentials of Specific Learning Disability Identification, Jack Fletcher published a great chapter refuting this statement. The summary of his argument is that non-response to intervention can be considered an inclusionary criteria. RtI can be geared both to service delivery and classification. There are definitely weaknesses to an RtI approach to LD identification, but compared to other approaches of LD identification, I think the RtI approach is more useful.

P.S. I don't intend my tone to be combative, sorry it sounds that way, this is just one of my favorite topics in school psychology!

 

[aagman01]

BTW...which states were listed among the 12? I know a large block of them are midwestern states (overall, not very populous). My thought is that states like California, NY, and Texas are not among them.

Regardless, dumb dispute......we agree that folks should be learning both approaches in their program, which is what counts

I agree with your statement that the majority of school districts probably continue to use the simple discrepancy approach, and therefore learning it is important, although it's extremely easy to learn. However, Zirkel & Thomas (2010) published a review of state laws regarding LD determination and 12 states require school districts to use a RtI approach to LD identification, so I'd disagree with your estimate that 90% of schools use this simple discrepancy approach.

Zirkel, P.A., & Thomas, L.B. (2010). State laws for RTI: An updated snapshot. Teaching Exceptional Children, 4, 56-63.



I disagree with your statement there is no true positive in an RtI model. In the book Essentials of Specific Learning Disability Identification, Jack Fletcher published a great chapter refuting this statement. The summary of his argument is that non-response to intervention can be considered an inclusionary criteria. RtI can be geared both to service delivery and classification. There are definitely weaknesses to an RtI approach to LD identification, but compared to other approaches of LD identification, I think the RtI approach is more useful.

P.S. I don't intend my tone to be combative, sorry it sounds that way, this is just one of my favorite topics in school psychology!

 

[Blush]

I am wondering about the Phd programs. I had a plan to complete a special education degree, work as a special education teacher and then study to become a school psychologist at the Ed.S level. I find that the Phd will allow me to practice independently and also work in hospitals, which is what I prefer. I sometimes think with budget cuts and teachers receiving annual pink slips that the education field is not for me. Knowing I would rather work in a hospital I am not sure if I want to go ahead with the PhD program, but it seems that the requirements are much more stringent than I remember. I recall looking at a PhD as an option upon graduation from undergrad. After reading some threads here, it seems the requirements are that you have research experience and publications BEFORE you apply to the program, where I thought you worked in research and started publications while you were in the program. Also, if I complete the Ed.S and decide to continue on to a PhD, I am wondering if my credits will transfer over, cutting a 5-6 year program into a 3-4 year program. I want to make sure I am making the right decision and I am understanding my requirements as I have a lot to prepare for before application deadlines for the Spring 13' or Fall 13' semester. In general, what is sought after for PhD applicants as opposed to Ed.S applicants?

 

[TimeCat]

As I'm going through this process trying to decide if I really want to commit to a PhD program, I realize there is one big thing that keeps me hesitating. I want a PhD so I can do research and work in academia. However, I do not care as much about becoming a licensed psychologist as any practical work I'd want to do could be done with just an EdS. Therefore, I'm really concerned about committing to a PhD program and then having to get an APPIC-approved internship when I don't find it all that necessary for my career goals and I'm rather worried about not matching (particularly because there don't seem to be a lot of programs geared toward school psychology).

How important is it for school psychology students to match? More importantly, is this enough reason to believe a PhD wouldn't be a good program for me? Is it possible to work in research/academia with only an EdS--if so, what are the restrictions?

 

[FadedC]

There are some School Psych programs that place more emphasis on APA Internships, but the vast majority of School Psych Phd students will never even apply to APPIC. There are certainly reasons to go APPIC in School Psych, but if that doesn't suit your goals, then that should not be a problem at all.

As I'm going through this process trying to decide if I really want to commit to a PhD program, I realize there is one big thing that keeps me hesitating. I want a PhD so I can do research and work in academia. However, I do not care as much about becoming a licensed psychologist as any practical work I'd want to do could be done with just an EdS. Therefore, I'm really concerned about committing to a PhD program and then having to get an APPIC-approved internship when I don't find it all that necessary for my career goals and I'm rather worried about not matching (particularly because there don't seem to be a lot of programs geared toward school psychology).

How important is it for school psychology students to match? More importantly, is this enough reason to believe a PhD wouldn't be a good program for me? Is it possible to work in research/academia with only an EdS--if so, what are the restrictions?