![](https://csdnimg.cn/release/download_crawler_static/19913390/bg1.jpg)
518
Psychology
in
the Schools, October,
1978,
Vol.
16,
No.
4.
GLASS, G.
V.
Educational knowledge use.
Educational Forum,
1971,
36,
21-29.
GOWIN,
D.
B.
Can educational theory guide practice?
Educational l’heory,
1973,
15.
PIAGET,
J.
The
origins
of
intelligence in children.
New York: International Universit,ies
Press,
1952.
SHORT,
C.
Knowledge production and utdization in curriculum:
A
special case of the general phe-
SKINNER,
B.
F.
Science and human behavior.
New York: MacMillan,
1953.
THORNDIKE,
E.
L.
Fundamentals
of
learning.
New York: Teachers College, Columbia University,
WALTERS, L.
G.
School psychologists
as
perceived by school personnel: Support for a consultation
nomenon.
Review
of
Educational Research,
1973,
@,
237-301.
1932.
model.
.Tarnal
of
School P,sychology,
1973,
2,
40-46.
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY-
WHY
IS
THE PROFESSION DYING?
MABEL
E.
HAYES THEODORE
NAT
CLAIR
University
of
Southern California
San Mdeo County
Om
of Education
The state
of
the profession is addressed
as
it relates to training, ractice,
certification, and
its
professional identity.
It
is suggested that deati of the
profession is imminent unless the profession is upgraded and a new image and
role
are surfaced. One
of
the probiems
is
that since the passing of current
judicial and legislative acts PL
93-380
and
94-142,
the traditional role
of
psychologists is no longer tenable, and new ways of behaving are required
which have implications for training and practice. Survival through rebirth
can occur, and new directions are suggested for the profession to consider
in reassessing its new and changing
role.
School psychologists may soon become relics in schools geared to mainstreaming
exceptional children. Educators who are heavily endowed with federal and state
monies often exclude school psychologists when developing master plans for meeting
the needs of exceptional children. Thus, school psychologists may find that their
jobs and roles have been supplanted by
a
new breed of educator known as program
specialist, the resource teacher, and educational planners.
The previous reasons for the school psychologist’s existence and traditional
role are no longer tenable. Trained to be experts in testing with instruments which
are now in disrepute (the WISC-R and Stanford-Binet)
,
psychologists have found
themselves unable to use their “sacred” assessment techniques to label and place
exceptional children. One may ask why the profession has not kept pace with
societal changes and concerns. One may also ask why the profession has been
caught “off guard” concerning mainstreaming.
Although there were early signals for school psychologists to undertake self-
evaluation, they have functioned without need to justify their services in the past.
Now they can no longer be exempt from this process, the pressure from their
critics is too strong. Instead, they must subject themselves to self-evaluation and
professional growth to meet the challenge of social changes (Sandoval
&
Lambert,
1977).
New directions in school psychology are needed. Considering the purported
criticism and loss of credibility characterizing school psychology,
it
is timely for
the profession to accept this challenge and opportunity to redeem themselves.
Requests
for
reprints should be sent to Mabel
E.
Ha
w,
Teacher Education Dept., University
of Southern California, University Park,
Los
Angeles,
8A
90007.