TRAINING PSYCHOLOGISTS FOR THE URBAN
SLUM
SCHOOL
LILLIAN
ZACH
Yeshiva
University
Three years ago the National Institute of Mental Health cooperated with
Yeshiva University in sponsoring a training program designed to prepare psy-
chologists to work with disadvantaged children in urban schoo1s.l This paper
describes several aspects of this joint project that sprang from the burgeoning need
on the part of our profession to prepare psychologists with training relevant to the
needs, interests, and current problems of the school and its community setting.
During the past decade, school psychologists have devoted a considerable
amount of energy to the task of defining their role.
It
is generally accepted that the
school psychologist is concerned with the interaction between the pupil and the
educative process (White
&
Harris,
1961).
This places the psychologist in the
dichotomous position of having to be both clinical and educational expert. Before
t,he advent of formal training programs in school psychology, there
was
no special
training for such a dual function. As a result,
it
was not uncommon to find two
different prototypes of school psychologists. One was the psychologist who was
expertly trained in the clinical procedures of behavior diagnosis and personality
development and who defined his role in terms of preventive and corrective mental
hygiene. The other prototype identified more closely with educational psychology
and frequently was originally trained as a teacher. His area of competence was
designated in terms of measurement of intellectual and achievement levels.
While both prototypes have an important contribution
to
make to the schools,
the shortcomings of this split in training have become increasingly more evident.
The clinical psychologist who comes to work in
a
school has been criticized for
bringing with him
a
bias toward seeing pathology. His training has been further
criticized as being too limited in the understanding
of
the normal development of
children attending school, of knowing too little about the planning of curriculum
and instruction for all pupils, and of demonstrating a lack
of
comprehension of the
practical problems the teacher faces. Because of these gaps in his background, a
large portion
of
his performance has been as a “trouble shooter” in relieving the
teacher from the havoc of the disturbing child. Frequently, the results of his diag-
nostic procedures have been of less help to the school then they might have been
to
a
psychotherapist or to a clinic to which the child might have been referred.
In schools having large numbers of disadvantaged children, referrals to private
therapists are limited. Waiting lists for community clinics are
SO
large that the
solution of a child’s problem is greatly impeded. Further, in schools attended by
large numbers of disadvantaged children,
it
is of questionable value to have the
psychologist devote a major portion of his efforts to individual diagnoses. The
“diagnosis”
of
so
many children is plain enough. The concept of a clinical school
psychologist wears thin in such a framework.
The expert in educational measurement, on the other hand, largely confined
himself to the role of “test-administrator.” He devoted a major portion of his time
to administering the Stanford-Binet, especially to those children suspected of
‘National Iiistitute
of
Mental Health Grant
#
MH
11102.