Division of School Psychology

Editorial
School Psychology is Not What it Used to Be:
Thoughts from the New Editor Concerning our “Futures” and
School Psychology Quarterly
Rik Carl D'Amato
University of Northern Colorado

It is both a great challenge and a great joy to serve as Editor of School Psychology Quarterly (SPQ), the official journal of the American Psychological Association (APA) Division of School Psychology. My enthusiasm for serving as editor emanates from my belief that the generation, dissemination, and preservation of new knowledge is the first step on the journey that leads to improved academic and social functioning for all children and families, and to systemic change and the renewal of teachers. When I was a school psychology student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1979, my advisor and mentor, Raymond S. Dean, asked me to explain how I planned to contribute to our field. After I gave a detailed, but rather naive, explanation of how I would help individual children, Ray challenged me to commit to service as a scientist impacting generations of children, families, and teachers. We have all seen the impact that quality school psychology research and comprehensive school psychology training can have on society. I believe, as C. F. Kettering said, “Research means that you don’t know, but are willing to find out.” Scientific research and practical experiences have shown that school psychologists can impact the world through the provision of ecologically valid psychological services.

When I reflect on my “role” as a school psychologist throughout the last quarter of a century, I see that it has changed considerably; overall, I view these professional transitions as quite positive (Gutkin & Conoley, 1990). Obviously, it is important for us all to change with the field. In November of 2002, school psychology trainers, practitioners, and students gathered for a “Futures” conference (Cummings, Miller, Stoner, & D’Amato, 2003). The School Psychology Futures Conference used interactive technology to link 30 remote sites scattered across the U.S. and the globe with the on-site participants in Indianapolis; I attended at the University of Northern Colorado, one of the distance sites. The February 2003 National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) Communiqué featured a variety of articles concerning the conference. We were challenged by the remarks of keynote speakers including Drs. Michael Curtis, Robert Sternberg, Deborah Crockett, and Sandra Christenson. Futures reminded us not only of our obligations to children, families, schools, and society, but also of the importance of taking collective ownership of our future. The sponsorship of the eight major associations reflected the spirit of cooperation demonstrated at Indianapolis and throughout the other sites, where groups of school psychologists gathered to discuss critical issues and the opportunities we face as school psychologists. As a field, we have the opportunity to make important changes. How will we use this opportunity? We learned from the Thayer conference, and more recently from the Olympia conference and Spring Hill symposium, that it is critical to transform the spirit and ideas of the conference into actual plans for change if we are to impact the field (Cutts, 1955; Brown, Cardon, Coulter, & Meyers, 1982; D’Amato & Dean, 1989a; Ysseldyke & Weinberg, 1981). As a field, we must embrace the ultimate challenge of the conference, which is to use its exchange of ideas as a springboard for improved services to all children. It is my hope that futures will help us realize the promise of school psychology. In light of this, I plan to collaborate with several outstanding school psychology journal editors, in an effort to connect both across and among journals and psychology associations, to achieve a kind of professional cross-pollination. Initially, dissemination of the “primary proceedings” will take place in School Psychology Review and SPQ, and we will link to special issues that are planned for Psychology in the Schools and the Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation. Through these avenues, we plan to build upon and continue the momentum of the conference by publicizing and extending the scholarly efforts of those who gathered for what was the first webcast conference of school psychologists. I hope this is the first of several vital cross-journal collaborations that will impact our field.

As I begin my editorial term, I would like to thank the past Editors and Editorial Board Members for their diligence, school psychology scientists for their innovation, school psychology practitioners for their commitment, and school psychology students-in-training for their vision. Our efforts make possible the type of societal change that school psychologists champion (Conoley & Gutkin, 1995; Gutkin & Reynolds, 1999; Sheridan & Gutkin, 2000). SPQ strives to enhance these efforts by exposing its readership to the latest developments of the profession. In our ever changing, dynamic, but problem-saturated society, change comes from dedicated people working collaboratively to further a cause. SPQ has been, and will continue to be, a leader in our field for individuals who want to contribute comprehensively to the change process.

Commanding the helm of a ship is made easy once the course has already been charted. SPQ has historically had phenomenal leadership, beginning with Drs. Tom Kratochwill and Joe Witt, and guided most recently by Terry Gutkin. As such, my goal is not to substantially change the direction of SPQ but to continue along the course set by the previous editors and leaders of Division 16 of the APA. Accordingly, I have continued the majority of policies, practices, and traditions of SPQ. You will find that many of my thoughts about SPQ and the future of school psychology are similar to or even the same as those expressed by Editor-in-Chief Terry Gutkin (1998) in his SPQ editorial introduction. With his permission, I will be reprinting, with slight modification, some of his seminal ideas. Therefore, I want, at the onset, to acknowledge his impact and influence on my policies, and plans for the future of SPQ. For example, SPQ will continue the tradition of mentoring school psychology students and will maintain its Student Editorial Board.

APA, the “Specialty” of School Psychology, and SPQ

Psychology, as a field, and school psychology, as a professional specialty, are in a state of accelerating change. To remain relevant, SPQ must be responsive to the needs of school psychology's shareholders. As you know, we in the Division of School Psychology are pleased and proud to be part of the American Psychological Association (APA) family. Together, we are APA, the largest group of psychologists in the world. APA represents psychologists who impact society and the world through training, research, and practice. The Division of School Psychology has been putting children first for more than 50 years! SPQ rests on the foundation of “School Psychology” as defined by the Division of School. Psychology Division of the APA (reprinted with modifications from the Archival Description of the Specialty School Psychology, see http:// www. indiana. edu/~div16/G&O.htm. School psychology is the general practice and health service provider specialty of professional psychology that is concerned with the science and practice of psychology with children, youth, and families, learners of all ages, and the schooling process. The basic education and training of school psychologists prepares them to provide a range of psychological assessment, intervention, prevention, health promotion, and program development and evaluation services, with a special focus on the developmental processes of children and youth within the context of schools, families, and other systems.

School psychologists are prepared to intervene at the individual and system levels, and to develop, implement, and evaluate preventive programs. In these efforts, they conduct ecologically valid assessments and intervene to promote positive learning environments for children and youth from diverse backgrounds. These efforts enable equal access to effective educational and psychological services for the promotion of healthy development. Although some argue that school psychology has focused primarily on children, youth, families, and the adults who serve children, in light of Division 16’s broad definition of school psychology, SPQ welcomes data based manuscripts pertaining to populations across the life span. Likewise, in addition to its emphasis on the educational enterprise, SPQ looks forward to the submission of manuscripts addressing school psychological services in nontraditional settings (D’Amato & Dean, 1989b).

Future Directions for SPQ

Perhaps the most obvious strength of the school psychology field is its diversity. Diverse research, diverse trainers, diverse scientists, and diverse practitioners comprise our field. The relationship of SPQ to the Division of School Psychology of the APA, however, gives it a unique role among scholarly outlets. Like previous editors, it is my belief that SPQ should be the flagship scholarly journal in our field. With this in mind, I have selected some of the most prominent leaders in our field to serve as Associate and Section Editors. I paid attention to three strategic criteria during my selection process: (1) Our editors had to be some of the preeminent leaders of our field. If SPQ is to excel, we need the best and brightest leadership possible; (2) If SPQ is to reach out to all of you, we need scholars representing varied theoretical paradigms (e.g., behavioral, neuropsychological) and a full range of statistical methodology (e.g., qualitative, small-N). I did not want the editors to look like me (and I am sure they are glad of that); (3) I wanted leaders representing a variety of stages of career development. Although we needed some of the wisest and most accomplished school psychology veterans, we also required innovation and energy. It is with great pride that I introduce to you Associate Editors Melissa A. Bray (University of Connecticut), Beth Doll (University of Nebraska Lincoln), John Kranzler (University of Florida), Cecil R. Reynolds (Texas A & M University), Ann C. Schulte (North Carolina State University), and Section Editor Robyn S. Hess (University of Colorado at Denver). I hope you notice that the assortment of Editors represents a wide range of prominent approaches to our field and these talented Editors have full editorial authority. My goal is for SPQ to be your journal, representing the variety and complexity of all scientists and practitioners. Together we will work to present you with scientifically sound research that is both comprehensive and inclusive in its coverage. Five objectives follow, which appear to be crucial to the future of school psychology and SPQ.

1. School Psychology Quarterly Should Strengthen the Relationship Between School Psychology and Broad-Based Psychological Science.

Clearly, generating school psychological knowledge in union with the scientific disciplines of psychology will enhance both our science and practice. Some mechanisms for achieving this goal include the following:

• The editorial policy of SPQ will favor works explicitly connected to psychological theory rather than those strictly limited to raw empiricism.
  
  
• I plan to seek papers for SPQ authored by eminent psychology scholars who are not school psychologists themselves, but whose research has direct significance to school psychology.
  
  
• Regarding expansion of SPQ's role in promoting empirically based school psychology practice, I have worked with Robyn Hess to create a new section in the journal entitled: Changing Practice, Changing Schools: Reviews of Programs, Books and Tests. This section will feature reviews of grant projects, internships, or training programs and intervention descriptions (implemented across a school system) that reflect innovative, psychologically based, empirically supported approaches to solving problems of practice. Additionally, this section will review books, computer programs and tests that describe and support these approaches. Our primary goal is to examine programs and materials that help to inform and enhance our practice as school psychologists, trainers, and scientists. We envision this section as one that considers more systemic methods for meeting the needs of children, families, schools and communities and one that clearly communicates the variety of skills and expertise that school psychologists bring to their settings.
  
  
• In addition to including many of the finest scientists and scholars in school psychology on the journal's editorial board, I will infuse a diverse group of distinguished scholars who are not school psychologists. It is my hope that these individuals will bring outside expertise to SPQ in foundational and theoretical areas of direct interest to school psychology (e.g., teacher education, early childhood, reading, educational leadership). The range and depth of their psychological knowledge should complement the expertise traditionally found on school psychology editorial boards.
  
  
• I hope to bring together the Editors of all school psychology journals (Journal of School Psychology, Psychology in the Schools, School Psychology Review, Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, School Psychology International for increased collaboration. I believe that together, we can do more to help all of our journals succeed and at the same time contribute to the future of our field. I do realize that some of my goals are quite ambitious and require the support of others. I hope the other school psychology journal editors will join me in making this vision a reality.
  

2. The Mission of School Psychology Quarterly Should be Congruent with the "Petition for Reaffirmation of the Specialty of School Psychology" Approved by the American Psychological Association.

By initiating a process that recognizes specialties and proficiencies within psychology, the APA has helped school psychology renew itself. The Division of School Psychology, in cooperation with other school psychology organizations (e.g., NASP, Council of Directors of School Psychology Programs, American Academy of School Psychology, American Board of School Psychology), submitted a petition to "reaffirm” the specialty of school psychology (Petition for Reaffirmation of the Specialty of School Psychology, 1997). Within this document, ten “Assumptions Underlying the Specialty of School Psychology” have emerged, each likely to form the foundation of our field in the future. Work published in SPQ should provide scholarly insights relevant to this developing vision of our profession. Given that space limitations preclude a discussion of each point, I will focus on those considered crucial.

• Science and Practice are Integrated. A primary mission of SPQ will be to promote and publish scientific studies that nourish effective school psychological practice. Thus, while it is vital that science and practice inform each other, I do not view SPQ as the most appropriate outlet for basic psychological science that is lacking practical implications. In an effort to help bridge the gap between research and practice, I have appointed a number of “Senior Practitioners” who serve on the Editorial Review Board. These seasoned scientist-practitioners will add an important dimension to all SPQ reviews. My goal is to have at least one Senior Practitioner and one Student Editorial Board Member contribute to each manuscript reviewed by SPQ. It is only when we meld research with substantive practice issues and let our research lead us that we can offer the field a comprehensive picture of current practice, future directions, and the need for renewal. I believe that is the foundation from which our scientist-practitioner model developed.
  
  In a surprising but desirable change, President Bush signed into law the Educational Sciences Reform Act of 2002 establishing a new federal unit to connect evidence-based interventions and educational outcomes to public policy, research, and public school services. This new branch, entitled The Institute of Educational Sciences replaced The Office of Educational Research and Improvement. The website reports that with this change, the President and Congress plan to advance the field of educational research using evidence-based practices (see http://www.ed.gov/offices/IES/). This essential but strategic shift illustrates that science and practice must be wed if we are to serve children and society effectively. Obviously, school psychology is not the only profession presently undergoing renewal.
  
  
• Human Development is the Result of a Transactional Process. School psychological services should be viewed from an interactional, systemic perspective. All human behavior and school psychological services occur within a variety of contexts--whether they be family, school, community, culture, or others. To a reasonable extent, research published in SPQ should address questions of interest within their natural, systemic contexts.
  
  
• Effective and Cost-Effective Educational, Psychological, and Other Health Care Services to Children, Youth, and Families Must Emphasize Prevention and Health Promotion. While SPQ must continue to focus on research addressing remedial and compensatory psychological services, substantial emphases must also be placed on issues pertaining to prevention. By focusing primarily on children and youth, the profession of school psychology is tied inescapably to preventive psychological and health services. It is my hope that SPQ will prove to be a major outlet for scholarship addressing prevention within a psychological context.
  
  
• Effective Services are Sensitive to Cultural, Gender, Life-Style, and Ethnic Differences. While the school psychology diversity research base has grown substantially in recent years, not all of our goals have been met. Given the changing demographics of America and our nation's schools, this poses a significant challenge to our field. We need significant improvement in this regard, and I will work with my editors to increase our sensitivity to cultural, gender, life-style, and ethnic differences. We will consider these important dimensions in all of the manuscripts we review, and we will also work to ensure the diversity of the Editorial Board.
  
  
• Learning Occurs Across the Life Span and in a Variety of Settings. While services delivered to children and youth in school settings will remain the core of work appearing in SPQ, it is crucial not to exclude more extensive visions of school psychological theory and research. As such, the editorial philosophy of SPQ will remain aligned with Jack Bardon's (1983, 1989) notion of a “Psychology of Schooling” in place of the more traditional view of our field as “Psychology in the Schools.” We will continue to encourage school psychological research involving populations other than children that takes place in settings other than schools--helping to support the expanding definition of our field as detailed in our Reaffirmation Petition.
  

3. School Psychology Quarterly Should Be Comprehensive in Its Coverage of Our Field.

Papers appearing in SPQ must be comprehensive in relationship to the breadth of scientifically valid theory, research, and practice associated with school psychology. Comprehensive means that SPQ will be more practitioner friendly. Indeed, a goal of mine is to enhance practitioner participation and utility of information published. You will also find a more international focus in SPQ. We are linked to the world, and we need to focus more closely on these “connections.” As editor I will be both inclusive and expansive in terms of the range of content areas addressed. I believe the strongest school psychology programs cover all assessment for intervention paradigms and the most prominent journals do the same (D’Amato & Rothlisberg, 1992/1997). At a very basic level, SPQ must be a forum for scholarly dialogue among divergent points of view. You will find that articles and Special Issues of SPQ will not just represent my views and beliefs, but will represent all of our goals and beliefs. If you join us, you will find articles that represent your research interests in SPQ. It is my hope that the editorial directions I am establishing will encourage the broadest possible array of scholars to send us their best work. As Editor I will strive to publish articles that are both of the highest possible quality and which capture the full richness and diversity of contemporary school psychology practice and thought.

4. School Psychology Quarterly Should Encourage and Support Intensive Scholarly Analysis of Important Topics.

Sufficient journal space will be allocated for important pieces of work, even if that means publishing fewer papers in each issue. While there is a place for competent, rather concise studies in the school psychology literature, I do not see SPQ as that forum. As becomes a flagship journal, SPQ can best serve its readership by addressing critical scholarly issues in sufficient depth rather than limiting the scope of analysis for the purpose of getting a few more articles into each issue. This does not mean, of course, that excessive verbiage should be a goal for each submission; nor does it preclude submission of concisely focused pieces. We also welcome proposals for “Special Issues” on important topics in our field.

5. School Psychology Quarterly Has a Responsibility to Help Socialize the Next Generation of School Psychology Scholars.

The shortage of school psychology practitioners and academicians has been well documented. I believe that SPQ can and should play a constructive role in this dilemma. Working closely with other school psychology journal editors, as previously detailed, we will cosponsor issues concerning Futures, and SPQ has already accepted a Special Issue focusing on the training of school psychology trainers. SPQ will continue to be the only school psychology journal with a Student Editorial Board. Every article submitted to SPQ will be reviewed by at least one student in school psychology who serves on that Student Editorial Review Board. These students will have SPQ Editorial Board mentors who will shepherd them through the review process. By systematically incorporating our most gifted students into the review process, we can initiate and reinforce their socialization as future scholars in school psychology.

SPQ Values and Policies

As Editor, it will be my goal to maintain rigorous standards while simultaneously ensuring that everyone who interacts with SPQ comes away with a valuable experience. I know that a great deal of time and energy goes into every article submitted for review to a refereed journal. As such, members of the SPQ Editorial Board will be instructed to be sincere and comprehensive in their critiques of submitted works. I will also expect them to respond in a constructive and timely manner and be appreciative of the effort that authors have put into each submission. Likewise, although it is clear that very conflicting points of view exist within our field both in research and in practice, I believe that we should operate with grace and mutual respect. To serve our readership best, you will find that we have room for all points of views and we will not shy away from controversial issues. When we consider controversy we will strive to serve as models of fairness and acceptance.

Every submission to SPQ (excluding those in the reviews section) will undergo an objective, independent, and thorough blind review prior to a publication decision. This policy will apply equally to invited or unsolicited manuscripts, as well as to all papers in special issues or mini-sections. In those instances in which individuals involved in our editorial structure (i.e., the Editor, an Associate Editor, a Guest Editor, a member of the Editorial Board) submit their own work to SPQ, those individuals will be removed entirely from the review process. Maintaining the highest possible standards along these lines will ensure that every article appearing in SPQ has demonstrated outstanding scholarly merit by satisfying a demanding and impartial review process.

The purpose of SPQ’s blind review process will be twofold. Obviously, one function will be to assist the editors in determining whether a manuscript should be accepted for publication. An equally important goal will be to furnish authors with useful scholarly insights pertaining to their submissions and ideas for future research efforts. In light of this goal, I plan to continue a procedure by which authors can provide feedback to SPQ, regarding the quality of the review process as they experienced it. These data will provide the Editors and members of the Editorial Board with evaluation data so that we can improve our own work as an editorial team.

I would like to issue an invitation to all who read SPQ to communicate with me regarding your vision and thoughts pertaining to the future directions of our journal. I trust that you will share your ideas, and provide honest and constructive feedback when appropriate. Our editorial team stands ready to work diligently on your behalf; we will need your assistance and counsel if we are to succeed.

My Vision for SPQ

As I hope you can sense, serving as Editor of School Psychology Quarterly is a challenge that I approach with verve and a growing sense of humility. While we all have areas of expertise, being a journal editor propels one to stretch his or her boundaries. My hope is that you will enable SPQ to become a beacon of change in our field. I look forward to engaging as many people as possible in active roles, helping me shape an exciting and ambitious future for SPQ. I believe that exceptional editors should display a style of interaction with individuals and systems that is supportive and collaborative but concomitantly challenging and inspiring. If we are to make needed modifications to school psychology roles, practitioners, trainers, and editors must work together as proactive advocates who welcome change.

When my son, Michael, was about to complete kindergarten, he explained to one of his friends that when the school year was over he was looking forward to spending time at home. Since Michael’s friend would be attending daycare he did not believe that Michael would be home. The first day of summer vacation arrived. Early that morning, I heard Michael’s friend call from outside “Michael, are you really there?” He thought Michael had been exaggerating the truth about being home. I feel the same way about being editor of SPQ, is it the truth? Please feel free to conduct a reality check with me. Ask, “Rik, are you really there?”

I hope you will choose to share in the vision I've articulated for School Psychology Quarterly. It was Henry Ford who said, “Coming together is a beginning; keeping together is progress; working together is success.” Join the SPQ team and me in forging new futures for SPQ and school psychology. We appreciate your faith and hope for your support.

References:

Bardon, J. I. (1983). Psychology applied to education: A specialty in search of an identity. American Psychologist, 38, 185-196.

Bardon, J. I. (1989). The school psychologist as an applied educational psychologist (pp. 185-209). In R. C. D’Amato and R. S.
Dean (Eds.). The school psychologist in nontraditional settings: Integrating clients, services, and settings. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Brown, D. T., Cardon, B. W., Coulter, W. A., & Myers, J. (Eds.). (1982). The Olympia Proceedings [Special Issue]. School Psychology Review, 11.

Conoley, J. C., & Gutkin, T. B. (1995). Why didn’t--why doesn’t--school psychology realize its promise? Journal of School Psychology, 33(3), 209-217.

Cummings, J. A., Miller, D., Stoner, G., & D’Amato, R. C. (2003, February). Introduction to the School Psychology Futures Conference. In J. A. Cummings (Chair), School Psychology Futures. Symposium conducted at the 6th annual meeting of the Council of Directors of School Psychologists (CDSPP), Deerfield Beach, FL.

Cutts, N. E. (Ed.). (1955). School psychologists at mid-century. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

D’Amato, R. C., & Dean, R. S. (1989a). The past, present, and future of school psychology in nontraditional settings (pp. 185-209). In R. C. D’Amato and R. S. Dean (Eds.). The school psychologist in nontraditional settings: Integrating clients, services, and settings. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

D’Amato, R. C., & Dean, R. S. (Eds.). (1989b). The school psychologist in nontraditional settings: Integrating clients, services, and settings. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

D’Amato, R. C., & Rothlisberg, B. A. (Eds.). (1992/1997). Psychological perspectives on intervention: A case studies to prescriptions for change New York: Longman. Reprinted by Waveland Press: Prospect Heights, IL.

Gutkin, T. B. (1998). School psychology quarterly: A vision for the future from the new editor. School Psychology Quarterly, 13, 1-7.

Gutkin, T. B., & Conoley, J. C. (1990). Reconceptualizing school psychology from a service delivery perspective: Implications for practice, training, and research. Journal of School Psychology, 28(3), 203-223.

Gutkin, T. B., & Reynolds, C. R. (Eds.) (1999). The handbook of school psychology (3rd Ed.). New York: Wiley.
Petition for Reaffirmation of the Specialty of School Psychology. (1997, March 5). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Sheridan, S. M., & Gutkin, T. B. (2000). The ecology of school psychology: Examining and changing our paradigm for the 21st century. School Psychology Reviews, 29, 485-502.

Ysseldyke, J. E., & Weinberg, R. A. (Eds.). (1981). The future of psychology in the schools: Proceedings of the Spring Hill Symposium. School Psychology Review, 10.