Addressing the shortage of school psychologists: A summative overview

Abstract

Background In 1964, the New York Academy of Sciences held a conference on asbestos that was to promote the slow decline in the fortunes of asbestos. It brought together a Who's Who of international scientists who had conducted and reported on experimental and human studies of the effects of asbestos. Very little new data were presented at the conference, but by bringing together a compendium of knowledge of the adverse effects of asbestos, it served further notice to asbestos‐using industry of the major public health problem that they had created. With the assistance of its employees and certain scientists, industry mounted public relations exercises to counter the adverse publicity of lung cancer and malignant mesothelioma. Attempts were made to minimize the impact of these diseases by suggesting that their alleged associations with asbestos were spurious, and by diversionary ad hominem attacks on Professor Irving J. Selikoff who had played an important role in the organization of the conference. Methods Consideration of the contents of the meeting program, other previously published information and documents revealed through legal discovery by Chase Manhattan Bank provide the sources on which this paper is based. Conclusions Today, asbestos is no longer seen as a material indispensable on technical grounds and a mainstay of industry and the economy. Its progressive banning in developed countries may be seen as the consequence of the momentum initiated in New York in 1964. Am. J. Ind. Med. 43:543–552, 2003. © 2003 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

Administrative Pressure to Practice Unethically and Burnout Within the Profession of School Psychology

“…Concern has been expressed over the potentially adverse impact that this shortage may have on students with academic and emotional difficulties, as well as on school psychologists’ much desired role expansion beyond the more traditional responsibilities of “gatekeeper” (Tharinger & Palomares, ). More specifically, researchers have speculated that a paucity of school psychology personnel may result in the reduced capacity of the field for involvement in an array of service provision activities, including those related to comprehensive mental health promotion (Davis, McIntosh, Phelps, & Kehle, ). Thus, despite school psychologists championing a broader conceptualization of professional practice that capitalizes on their range of expertise, a dwindling workforce and higher student‐to‐psychologist ratios threaten to limit the diversity of support that can be offered to students and their families.…”

Undergraduate Student Preferences for Graduate Training in Psychology: Implications for School Psychology

“…Lack of exposure to information about school psychology might also account for misconceptions about the specialization that others have. In fact, misconceptions about school psychology are prevalent among parents, teachers, students, and others such as guidance or school counselors (Davis, McIntosh, Phelps, & Kehle, ). Gilman and Handwerk () also reported that psychology majors believed that clinical psychologists performed a much wider range of psychological service delivery than did school psychologists.…”

Creating University‐community Alliances to Build Internship Programs

“…Historically, approximately 25% of doctoral psychology students delay graduation for a year or more to obtain an accredited internship (APPIC, 2014). Poor time-to-degree rates are also a hindrance to the field, given a national shortage of school psychology practitioners (Davis, McIntosh, Phelps, & Kehle, 2004) and academics (Little & Akin-Little, 2004;Manz, Tobin, & Schmitt, 2015).…”