Lazarus, P. J. (2009). Saving school psychology jobs in a time of fiscal chaos. NASP

Communique, 37(6), 1, 23-27,

 

Following that article, I am including another article that stresses the importance of school psychologists to get involved as advocates at the local, state and national level.

 

The title of this article is “You better get a seat at the table or else you may end up on the

menu” and is cited below. The major point made in this article is that unless we strongly advocate for the mental health needs of our most troubled children and show how we can make a contribution to their emotional well-being; unless we demonstrate a strong link between the mental health of all children and their academic achievement; unless we form strategic alliances with parents and community stakeholders; and unless we communicate what we do on a daily basis to impact positively on the lives of all the children we serve, we may not get invited to sit at the table for lunch when critical budget decisions are being made. In fact, unless we are proactive we may be lunch.

 

Lazarus, P. J. (2009). You better get a seat at the table or else you may end up on the

             menu. The Florida School Psychologist, 36 (2), 8-10.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Saving School Psychology Positions in a Time of Fiscal Chaos

 

On May 9, 2008, Kathleen Norona received notice that she would no longer be working as a school psychologist for Miami-Dade County Public Schools (M-DCPS) where she had been employed for the past five years. In total 41 out of 240 school psychologists were given official notice that they would be placed on surplus. That is, they would no longer be employed as school psychologists; however, if there was a position open, such as in teaching, they would be eligible to apply if they were certified, but there was no guarantee of employment.

 

The arrival of 41 surplus letters sent a shockwave throughout the M-DCPS school psychology community. Not only, did the school psychologists not know these official letters were coming, employment termination letters were sent out without consulting the administrators of School Psychological Services.

 

How did this all come about?

 

Evelyn Greer, a School Board member, sent me a letter detailing the problem. She wrote:

The Board must cut $289 million from the 2008-09 budget which will require the elimination of many programs and services and the Reduction in Force (RIF) of more than 1000 employees. The state of Florida is funding M-DCPS for 2008-09 approximately $78 million less than it did in 2007, on top of the $65 million cut this year, on top of the $20 million taxpayers cut on the January 29 “property tax reform” vote. In addition, the State is requiring that numerous unfunded requirements be paid from the reduced district funds.

 

When the majority of members of United Teachers of Dade (UTD) voted to take $36 million out of the budget to pay for health insurance instead of paying $50 per month for the increase in health insurance, the postponement of the step raise was obvious. As a result of the Budget workshop on Monday April 28, the School Board indicated that it will agree to the following: The elimination of 130 regional psychologists and social worker positions.

 

We anticipate that the State will make further budget cuts during the summer or after the elections, and when the Constitutional amendment eliminating local funding for schools is adopted in November 2008, many more positions outside the classroom will be eliminated, only causing further reduction. At that time, I believe the Board will have a further reduction in force affecting teachers and school based employees. This is what the taxpayers of Florida voted for overwhelmingly and the Board has no choice as Florida requires a balanced budget no matter how low the budget is cut.

 

Why was there such a budget shortfall?

 

From my vantage point, the problem occurred as the state of Florida lost considerable revenue due to the downturn in the economy. Florida has no state income tax and is highly dependent on sales tax and property tax to support necessary services. With the mortgage crisis impacting Florida more so than most other states, we are most vulnerable. Moreover, the difficulty selling homes has impacted the state budget as Florida receives considerable revenue each time a home is sold. Also, due to the economic slowdown fewer tourists are coming to Florida.

 

Miami-Dade County has been significantly impacted. The cost of insurance has skyrocketed in various parts of the county due to the risk of hurricanes. In some areas of the county rates have doubled over the past few years. Salaries have not increased to match inflation and families were leaving the county. Because the district is funded on a per student basis, fewer students means less money. Also last November, a property tax reduction amendment called Amendment One was placed on the ballot and passed. This reduced property taxes by approximately $240 dollars per home and consequently reduced funding for schools. Also a few years ago, the voters in Florida passed a class size amendment. This required building more schools and hiring more teachers. No longer could a district deal with a budget shortfall by putting two or three more children in each elementary school class.

 

Florida also had a cost of living differential for county funding. That is, counties where it is more expensive to live in received more funds for schools from the state. However, this changed in 2006 year and as a result Miami-Dade now gives more money back to the state than it receives. Also allegations of overspending, financial mismanagement, and failure to secure necessary special education funds that the district was entitled to contributed to the budget problem.

 

It was a confluence of forces all impinging on the county at the same time that caused this fiscal problem. School psychologists somehow were targeted more so than other employees in the system due to misguided administrative action.

Who are M-DCPS School Psychologists?

 

M-DCPS had approximately 240 school psychologists who provided services to approximately 340,000 students. The overwhelming majority of school psychologists are full time professionals though some were hired part-time or hourly.

 

According to the school district website, “over 49% of M-DCPS school psychologists are proficient in another language, which include Spanish (encompassing the majority of the bilingual staff), Haitian-Creole, French, Russian, Portuguese, Korean, Hebrew, Jamaican Patois, Hindi, Japanese, and American Sign.  Currently, school psychologists are assigned to Regional Centers, Special Programs, or the District Office.  They fill an impressive variety of positions:

 

 

How was the surplus decision made?

 

How surplus decisions were made depended on factors which included where school psychologists worked or under what funding sources they were paid. Recently hired school psychologists who worked in the downtown district office were retained; whereas some with up to nine years of experience working in the district were let go. Seniority was only one factor considered in making the surplus selection.

What were the school psychologist’s initial reactions?

 

School psychologists, especially those who were given surplus notices, were in disbelief, angry and frustrated. This was especially true because seniority was not the only consideration given in the decision- making process. Those with more seniority who were let go were initially considering legal action. Also school psychologists who were given notice were called the morning of May 9^th and told to report to their offices later on that Friday afternoon where they were told they would no longer be employed as school psychologists. Also there were rumors that the contract year would be cut, that is, school psychologists would be working fewer days and therefore making less money.   

 

M-DCPS school psychologists chose to stick together as a group and their first priority was to ensure the provision of adequate psychological services to children in need. Their second priority was to save the positions of all practitioners placed on surplus rather than focus on preventing losing work days in their contract. The President and the Executive Board of the Dade Association of School Psychologists (DASP) called an emergency meeting. The purpose was to inform the members of what was happening and what could potentially be done about it. A concern was that not only would the 41 school psychologist positions be lost but that an additional 80 more positions could go. That would mean that half of the entire original staff would lose their jobs and if seniority was one of the criteria, the cuts could go back 15 years. That is, everyone hired after 1993 would be let go. This would decimate school psychological services.

 

At the emergency meeting, everyone was given a chance to speak and discuss potential strategy. University professors from Florida International University, Barry University, and NOVA Southeastern University were invited. Area school psychology leaders were strongly discouraged from attending the DASP meeting. If the Administrative Director or area leaders took on the administration or the School Board on this issue this would be seen as an act of insubordination. A sense of threat was hanging over the entire school psychology community. School psychologists were directly told not to speak to the media.

 

Dr. Gene Cash and I were both asked to speak to the media on behalf of the M-DCPS school psychologists. School administrators could not exert any pressure on us because we were not their employees. Because I have served as the Director of the School Psychology Training Program at Florida International University since 1978 and probably trained 40 to 50% of the M-DCPS school psychologists, there was a strong trust factor, and I was asked after the meeting by DASP leadership to serve as their spokesperson. I also had experience talking to the media. However, before we began our process of challenging the surplus of school psychologists we all agreed upon working assumptions.

 

What were our working assumptions?

 

Our most important assumption was that if we were perceived as being self serving, this would hurt our credibility and influence. Our next assumption was if all decision makers had a better understanding of what school psychologists did and their critical role in serving the county’s most vulnerable and needy students then they would make better decisions.Consequently, our role was to provide the School Board and administration with the requisite information and explain the counterproductive economic impact of cutting school psychological services. This was especially true because School Psychology administrators were not consulted before the surplus decision was made.  

 

Due to the anger and frustration felt, a few school psychologists suggested picketing or going on a brief strike or “sick out” to get attention. Our leadership believed that this would put us in an unfavorable light and if we deprived students of needed services even by striking for one day this would be perceived as putting our own interests ahead of those of children. Our attitude could be characterized as always (a) focus on the welfare of children and the best interests of the county, (b) respond professionally, (c) stay on message, (d) speak truth to power, and (e) be positive, persistent and vigilant.

Though we now had our priorities in order, we knew if we were going to fight the surplus we needed a plan.

 

What were our strategies?

 

We put together a small leadership group (Gil Lopez, Peter Caproni, Jennifer Cohen, Kathleen Norona, Joan Kappus, Albert Gamarra, and Eduardo Armenteros) made up of members of the DASP Executive Board a few other school psychologists as well as Gene Cash, the current President of NASP and myself. We also outlined talking points.

 

Fact sheets were developed by DASP explaining the situation to the public, Also a document that describes all the functions of school psychologists and the consequences of the surplus on the county’s children were developed by Patricia Ortega, Christina Falcon, and Jennifer Mendez, graduate students at Florida International University. The idea was to make sure that we were all emphasizing the same points. We encouraged every school psychologist to write letters to their School Board members. Though we had talking points, we wanted all the letters to be from the heart and therefore decided not to develop a sample letter. We asked school psychologists to write about their impact on the children and communities they serve.

 

The leadership of DASP communicated with members via e-mail and through the DASP website. Any school psychologist who had a relationship with a member of the media, a significant community leader, or a school board member was urged to make immediate contact. This was especially helpful as we quickly received a call to appear on a local television station and then other media requests followed. School psychologists were told explicitly by the Administrator of School Psychological Services not to appear on camera. The station manager wanted to interview a school psychologist placed on surplus and even asked if she could speak on camera if the station altered their voices and disguised her appearance. We declined. We did not want any M-DCPS school psychologists looking like fugitives from justice.

 

However, during our first television interview I was able to get around that ban by quoting a small part of the following paragraph written by a school psychologist placed on surplus, who remained anonymous. She wrote:

 

I have assisted parents, of children who are autistic, who are desperate because

they can not run simple, everyday household tasks such as going grocery shopping with their children because they are too sensitive to the noise level or they tantrum so severely that these parents become ashamed of people staring at them and accuse them of not being able to handle their own children. I have established partnerships with parents who were not able to understand why their youngsters stopped developing normally after the age of 2 and were later on identified with a Pervasive Developmental Disorder. I have also dealt with many parents who can not assist their children with homework, not only because of a language barrier but also because they are illiterate and lost in a school system that is completely novel to them. This particular school year, I have been dealing with students who are acting out in the classroom because their families lost their homes and had no choice but to live on a shelter. I will never forget when a student came up to me asking why his brother was shot on the way to his house on the day of his birthday. I have been called many times to intervene in cases where a child loses control, throws chairs, and uses profanities in the classroom while threatening himself and others. I wonder who will be there to provide mental health and instructional support for our children and youth when I am gone.

 

In discussing the issues on television, the radio or the print media, it appeared that the public was on our side. In fact, I never had a conversation with a newspaper reporter or television broadcaster where the response was not positive. One television reporter was interested in covering the story of the loss of school psychologists but she was a crime reporter. Therefore she came at the issue by asking me questions about the potential impact of the loss of school psychological services on crime and violence in our community.

 

We also contacted Josh Lutz, the President of the Florida Association of School Psychologists for support. Both Josh Lutz and Gene Cash wrote letters of support to the School Board on behalf of FASP and NASP, respectively.

 

A number of school psychologists were able to talk to school board members and explain their position. At times, they received a sympathetic ear. Often, the response was we understand but we are 284 million dollars short and by state law need to present a balanced budget. After our contacts we had a good understanding of who would probably support rescinding the surplus and who would vote to retain the order. It appeared at first, that we only had one or two out of nine School Board members on our side.

 

Due to the dire financial circumstances, tensions within the School Board, a serious split between Superintendent Rudy Crew and some members of the School Board, the political situation became volatile. School Board members questioned each other’s integrity and verbal fights occurred among members during School Board meetings. At times, it became personal.

 

Later on in the summer, a story appeared in the Miami Herald about how watching the M-DCPS School Board meetings on television became an addiction. It was characterized as a soap opera. At times the procedures and parliamentary rules became so confusing that members were not even sure what they were voting for and meetings often lasted after midnight.

 

It soon became clear that there were two factions that split on voting on issues and their votes often related to whether or not they agreed with the Superintendent. Five members of the School Board supported the Superintendent and the other four opposed him. One member of the Board who gave us a great deal of support wanted us to support her in removing the Superintendent from office. We knew that we did not want to get off message and engage in a bi-partician conflict therefore we respectfully said no.  

 

What happened at the School Board meeting?

 

Our next task was to present our case to the School Board. We organized our talking points and speeches. According to School Board rules any individual can file a request to speak in front of the Board but they must submit this request in writing and are only permitted to speak for two minutes. We decided to ask every school psychologist in M-DCPS to put in a request to speak. Our intention was to have a number of key speakers address the significant issues and for all other school psychologists to cede their two minutes. We also decided that all attendees at the School Board meeting should wear professional attire (business suits for both men and women).

 

Our lobbying was so successful that at the School Board meeting, the superintendent announced that he was now committed to taking 14 school psychologists off the surplus list even before we had the opportunity to speak. The meeting was during the day and school psychologists took a personal day to attend. When Peter Caproni was called to speak, he asked the Board if all the school psychologists who requested to speak could cede their time to a few selected speakers and this would save time. The Chair was reluctant to do so, but asked who in the audience was on the list to speak. What happened next was dramatic. More than 100 school psychologists stood up in unity.  This gave the Board the message that we were a formidable force and the request was granted.

 

Our intention was to make our appeal emotional. The first speaker was Gene Cash. Considering that he was the President-Elect of NASPwhich has over 26,000 members and represents approximately 37,000 school psychologists in the United States, this set the appropriate tone. In addition to the key points addressed, Gene told a story of tragedy that impacted his family, he said, "When I attended public school many years ago, we did not have school psychologists, and I believe I turned out okay. The same was not true, however, for my three brothers. All three struggled academically. One is now an alcoholic, and two committed suicide. I am convinced that if school psychologists had been available then, their problems would have been identified early. They could have received the help they needed, and the outcomes might have been very different! School psychologists help to prevent disastrous mental health problems! Cutting school psychological services so drastically sends a very negative message to our children and families. As Mahatma Gandhi said, 'Our actions speak so loudly that our children cannot hear our words!'

 

I was the second speaker and said, “In interviewing potential graduate students for our program, I ask, “Why do you want to become a school psychologist? They all respond, “I want to make a difference in the lives of children.” Many tell me, “I have had a brother or a sister with a handicapping condition, and I have seen how they have struggled, how education and life has been so difficult and how much pain my family has been through.” I want to make life better for children. If you on the School Board have never had a child, a brother or sister with a disability, and have never asked yourself where do I turn, who can help this child, what can be done, then it is hard to understand emotionally the agony that so many brothers and sisters and parents experience on a daily basis.”

 

We also wanted to influence the School Board on a personal level. This was especially true because a few of them were coming up for re-election. During my remarks, I noted, “As a member of the National Association of School Psychologists National Emergency Assistance Team our team has responded to more than a dozen targeted school shootings. After these tragic events, I have looked into the eyes of children, teachers and parents and they all asked, “Why?” and “Could this have been prevented?” If we have a targeted school shooting in Miami-Dade County and if this could have been prevented by school psychologists and lives are lost, the community will remember the decision made here today.”

 

“I also led the NASP crisis response team in Florida following natural disasters as well as in Mississippi and Louisiana in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. If another major hurricane strikes south Florida and we don’t have enough school psychologists to respond to this crisis, the community will remember.”

 

After both of us spoke, members of the Board began to ask themselves, how we can transfer funds or make different decisions so that we can retain all the school psychologists placed on surplus. After a contentious discussion, it was decided that the Board would have to discuss this issue after all the speakers spoke.

 

Following the first two speakers, then selected school psychologists from M-DCPS leadership group spoke. These included Kathleen Norona, Joan Kappus, and Ed Armenteros. They coordinated their talks so that critical points were made. Some of these points had already been presented in letters to the members of the Board or made by our first two speakers. A particular emphasis was placed on how school psychologists generate special education funds for the district and by eliminating school psychology positions this would not save money, but would cost money. It appeared that members of the Board may not have understood this financial implication.

 

 

What were our critical points?

 

•         1. This will have dire unintended consequences for our county’s most vulnerable citizens—our children challenged by disabilities or impacted by poverty. Parents of these students often do not have the requisite skills to advocate for their children and some may not have the resources to get them the necessary support so that they can lead productive lives.

 

•         2. The U.S. Surgeon General has reported that one in five children and adolescents suffer from mental health problems that impede their ability to profit from education. School psychologists provide mental health prevention and intervention services including counseling, behavioral supports, and skill development that promote students’ healthy social, emotional development and reduce barriers to learning. School psychologists help prevent our most vulnerable children from becoming educational casualties.

•         3. If our children’s mental health needs are not met; if they are unable to attend to their school work because they are overwhelmed with distressing personal problems, then their achievement will suffer. Children do not learn in a vacuum—there is a direct correlation between their emotional well-being and their academic success.

•         4. If we are to close the achievement gap and ensure that no child is left behind then we must ensure that all our children have adequate access to school psychological services. These services are not a luxury; they are indispensable.

•         5. Almost every student that receives special education services has been evaluated by a school psychologist. They are the only professionals in the school system that can administer tests of cognitive abilities or provide emotional and personality evaluations of children. Without these evaluations students would be unable to be placed in special education programs or in classes for gifted students.

•         6. M-DCPS receives millions of dollars of federal and state funds for all these identified children. Therefore from a financial perspective, it can be argued that by slashing school psychological services by more than 30%, M-DCPS is losing more money than they are gaining.

•         7. The district will not be able to complete psycho-educational testing on time and will most likely be out of compliance a significant amount of time which may cause large legal fees. If they lose psychologists, there may be many lawsuits on their hands in the future.

 

•         8. School psychological evaluations demonstrably reduce disproportionality in federally mandated programs, making it less likely that the district will be vulnerable to liability in lawsuits claiming discrimination. Also, when school psychologists are members of teams which evaluate the eligibility of students suspected of having disabilities, parents are less likely to initiate expensive due process hearings.

 

•         9. Under No Child Left Behind, the progress of special education students is looked at separately. Due to these students’ disabilities, they often require behavioral intervention and mental health services provided by school psychologists that are vital in helping them reach their annual yearly goals. And unless these critical services are provided, the grade of the school may drop due to lower scores made by youngsters in special education.

•         10. School psychologists provide essential consultation to assist teachers. Unfortunately, half of all entering teachers leave the teaching profession within their first five years of being hired. The two most critical variables that determine whether or not a teacher will remain in the profession are the support received during their early years in the classroom and the belief that they have made an appreciable impact on student learning.

 

•         11. School psychologists provide this support by consulting with teachers. They help teachers develop learning strategies for struggling learners and help devise behavioral intervention plans for children with emotional and behavioral difficulties. By the nature of this consultation, teachers can often prevent minor problems from becoming major problems.

 

•         12. School psychologists certainly should shoulder their fair share of the burden of ameliorating the damaging effects of the huge, statewide budget shortfall. It is, however, potentially devastating for the safety and well-being of our children for the cuts to affect school psychologists so drastically and disproportionately.

 

•         13. We are one of the first districts in Florida to promote RtI (Response to Intervention) and we have much data to support its positive impact on student achievement. Our literacy rate has significantly increased in the inner city as school psychologists focus on all general education students. If we eliminate all programs where psychologists serve schools full time (those included as an RtI member), then we are moving backwards as a district and our students will pay the price.

•         14. The need for school psychological services has increased dramatically. To cite a few examples, there has been a 400% increase in the number of children identified as autistic within the past few decades. Children are self- mutilating in record numbers and anxiety and depression in children have become epidemic. Also, as a result of the economic slowdown, families are suffering and their children will need more assistance. School psychologists are the ones providing the essential diagnostic, crisis intervention and consultative services.

 

•         15.No one truly knows the damage that will be caused by this proposed cutback. But we know that we have never worked with a parent who told us that we need fewer psychological services in the schools; instead they say, “we need more and faster help.” Cutting psychological services, cuts our children’s future—this is especially true for those who are most needy and do not have a voice.

What was the outcome?

 

Eventually, all school psychologists placed on surplus were rehired though in some instances their roles and responsibilities changed and included the provision of counseling services to EBD students. This did not happen at once but by the beginning of the academic school year all were in place. School psychologists felt a new surge of respect and unity. I received a number of e-mails from school psychologists, I did not even know, who told me that they were never so proud to be a school psychologist.

 

Where are we now?

 

Not only were all school psychologist re-hired but all the M-DCPS interns from 2007-08 were hired in September. School psychologists had their number of work days cut, but we intend to bring this up again as the dust settles and the Board realizes that they now have a large backlog of cases that will be unable to be completed within 60 school days. The School Board member that sent me the letter lost her re-election and was replaced by new member highly sympathetic to our cause. Superintendent Dr. Rudy Crew had his contract bought out after a heated discussion as to whether or not to try to fire him for cause. It was decided that it would be too expensive to fight his termination in court, so they chose to give him a golden parachute and to move on. A new Superintendent was recently hired. Also the amendment on the November ballot to cut property tax funding for public education was ruled unconstitutional and will be taken off the ballot. Nonetheless, M-DCPS still has to deal with the reality of the 284 million dollar shortfall. The community and the media now have a new found understanding and respect for who we are and what we do. We believe that our decision to focus on the needs of children, especially those most vulnerable and challenged, and not our own jobs was critical in shaping public perception, rescinding the surplus and preventing a further reduction in force.  

 

In addition, after cutting 284 million dollars from the district’s budget, a directive was issued related to cutting another 50 to 80 million dollars. Due to our effective efforts at communicating the importance of school psychological services the issue of reducing school psychological staff was never brought up again.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Philip J. Lazarus, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor and Director of the School Psychology Training Program at Florida International University. He recently received the FASP Willard Nelson Lifetime Achievement Award and the NASP GPR Certificate of Appreciation for his advocacy efforts on behalf of the school psychologists of M-DCPS.

 

You Better Get a Seat at the Table or Else You May End up on the Menu.

 

On May 9, 2008, 41 school psychologists in Miami-Dade County Public Schools (M-DCPS) received notices that they were being placed on surplus because 284 million dollars needed to be cut from the district’s budget. The talk throughout the district was that this was only the first step as another 80 school psychologists would be placed on the chopping block when the next round of financial cuts would be implemented. Forty one school psychologists down and 80 to go. These decisions were made without consulting with the Director of Psychological Services or his staff. Budget choppers made this decision without truly understanding the economic, political and societal cost of depriving the district’s most vulnerable children of their right to timely psychological services. When this decision was made neither school psychologists nor their advocates were at the table.

 

So what did we learn from this experience? We learned a lot. Probably the most important lesson was: You better get a seat at the table or else you may end up on the menu. Now this is a tough lesson to learn but we better learn it. It was not only applicable to school psychologists in M-DCPS but to all our colleagues in the 67 districts in Florida.

 

Even when school psychologists get a seat at the table they recognize that persuading decision-makers to maintain the same level of school psychological services is not an easy task and they may feel obligated to share a proportionate part of the pain. In response to budget shortfalls school districts have come up with a number of plans. Some districts are cutting the number of contracted days that school psychologists work. Others are reorganizing their districts such as going from four areas to three and cutting the number of school psychology administrators. Many have placed a freeze on hiring. Some have stopped funding school psychology internships. A few are letting go of school psychologists or placing them on surplus. And in south Florida a recent response has been to either cut or not hire new Directors or Managers of School Psychological Services when the current ones retire.

 

In order to trim budgets, School Boards and Superintendents have to make hard choices and often do so without understanding the role and function of school psychologists and how we contribute to the mission of the district. So whose fault is this? We can blame School Boards, Superintendents and administrators—and perhaps they are at fault. Or we can blame ourselves for failing to communicate what we do and the value of our services. If we externalize the blame, we will never get invited to the table. So our only option is to communicate clearly what we do and consider how we align ourselves with the mission and priorities of the school district and show—not talk about—how we add value.

 

So how do we do this especially if we lose our leaders who are there to advocate for the profession and the children we serve? The answer is: Every school psychologist has to be an advocate. The cavalry is not coming to rescue us and if we do not get to sit at the table then we have to find another venue. If the impact is disproportionate such as the situation in Miami-Dade county then the response must be proportionate to the loss of positions. When a budget cut situation becomes grossly disproportionate then we have to crash the party—not on behalf of ourselves—but for the benefit of the county’s most vulnerable and needy children.

 

For example, in Miami-Dade county we were able to contact the media (radio, television and newspapers) to get our message out. We highlighted the impact of the cuts on the DASP web site through fact sheets and frequently asked questions (www.dasp.org). University trainers were enlisted to advocate for the cause. Letters were sent to all school board members and school psychologists met with a number of them one on one. We arrived in mass at School Board meetings to argue our case and these meetings were televised throughout south Florida which engendered community support. We worked with the PTA and parents of children with disabilities. We worked behind the scenes with major stakeholders in the county to educate, influence and change the surplus decision. 

 

Our most important assumption was that if we were perceived as being self- serving, this would hurt our credibility and influence. Our next assumption was if all decision-makers had a better understanding of what school psychologists did and their critical role in serving the county’s most vulnerable and needy students and the critical impact of positive mental health on student achievement then they would make better decisions.Consequently, our role was to provide the School Board and administration with the requisite information and explain the counterproductive economic impact of cutting school psychological services. Our attitude could be characterized as always (a) focus on the welfare of children and the best interests of the county, (b) respond professionally, (c) stay on message, (d) speak truth to power, and (e) be positive, persistent and vigilant.

 

After the Superintendent Rudy Crew was given his severance package and the new Superintendent Alberto Carvalho was hired, M-DCPS school psychologists prevailed and all the 41 school psychologists originally placed on surplus were rehired. In addition, even when another 56 million dollars needed to be cut from the budget, the idea of cutting positions of school psychologists was never brought up again. Moreover, new positions were created and all FIU interns who worked in the county were hired for the 2008-09 school year. (For a complete description of what happened in Miami-Dade county during their fiscal crisis and the how school psychologists responded to have the surplus decision rescinded see Lazarus, 2009.)

 

It appears to me that the more disproportionate the cuts are or the more outrageous the proposals are the easier it is to mount the good fight. For example, one school district suggested that they needed to cut positions and needed a plan as to the best way to do it. Their first idea was to rank school psychologists based on their level of productivity. Now, guess how they were going to determine productivity. Their solution was to rank school psychologists based on the number of psycho-educational reports that they completed the previous year. This decision seemed so poorly grounded in the reality of effective practice and so contrary to the union contract that it was easily discarded after it was proposed. So far, these position cuts have been rescinded.

 

When cuts are being proposed that appear to be fair and proportionate then our task is much harder. Yet even under these circumstances we can make a strong case for the benefit of school psychological services because of the additional emotional needs of children due to the current economic climate. In the aftermath of major natural disasters, communities require more medical and mental health professionals. Similarly, in the midst of an economic calamity, schools need more mental health professionals to deal with the aftershocks.

 

Recently I wrote letters to all school board members and the Superintendent of Schools of Palm Beach when they were planning on eliminating the position of Manager of Psychological Services. I noted “As I am writing to you, I just heard that within the past 30 days we have had 57 people killed in multiple murders across the country. Within the past six months homelessness of children in Florida has gone up more than 19 %, and foreclosures have increased 46% from this time last year. Our children are in trouble and are suffering the consequences of this downturn in the economy. In addition, they have less developed coping skills and maturity to deal with stressors brought about by the economic downfall.”

 

I continued to say, “Last week I spoke to Larry Ruble, the Coordinator of School Psychological Services in Collier County and he told me that their schools have experienced a new phenomenon. Students are not going to school because they are concerned that their homes may be foreclosed upon or the conflict in their home has escalated so much that the children do not want to leave for school as they are not sure if they will be locked out of their homes or what might happen upon their return. Therefore at this time we need to maintain our leadership and provide more rather than fewer psychological services. Our children need and deserve our support.”

 

Presently we do not know if a new manager will be hired in Palm Beach but we do know that school psychological services are much more vulnerable to the whims of administrators when there is no effective leadership. Policies, procedures and best practices can be compromised without someone to speak truth to power. School psychology supervisors help ensure that ethical and legal guidelines are followed. They coordinate a large group of school psychologists with diverse levels of training and expertise. They provide a unique service by offering guidance and direction and helping school districts avoid costly and needless lawsuits and they advocate on behalf of the profession and the standards we maintain. Unless school psychologists have a supervisor or manager who can give voice to our concerns we are like animals on the Serengeti who have the word “food” tacked on to our sides.

 

It is axiomatic that the more support we get from inside and outside of the school system the more our services will be retained or increased. It is imperative that principals, school board members as well as parents advocate for our services. One recent example is that after the fallout with M-DCPS, local DASP leaders got together with School Board members, administrators and the new Superintendent and worked together to support families during these troubling times.

 

They are now planning community workshops to help families deal with a variety of issues that impact M-DCPS’ children. They are working on developing a school psychologist/school board/superintendent/community partnership in an effort to be part of the solution. According to the DASP President Gil Lopez their thinking goes like this: We weren’t invited to their table so we are setting our own table and we will invite all the stakeholders to attend. 

 

Perhaps we might think of it this way. We get invited to a dinner party and as a gift to the hostess we bring a delicious bottle of wine or a fabulous desert. The idea is to bring the best gift and provide the most scintillating conversation so we get invited time after time. We as school psychologists have to think about what we bring to the table. Of course, we always emphasize that every student that receives special education services has been evaluated by a school psychologist. We are the only professionals in the school system that can administer tests of cognitive abilities or provide emotional and personality evaluations of children. Without these evaluations students would be unable to be placed in special education programs or in classes for gifted students. The key selling point is that the district receives millions of dollars from the state and federal government for all these identified children. We all know that money is always a great gift. But there are additional ones as well. Perhaps we bring an innovative suicide prevention program that has shown promising results, or a new reading assessment and intervention program that has reduced the number of children in the high risk category by 30 %, or a problem solving initiative that has decreased discipline referrals by 25%, or a peer tutoring initiative at a middle school that has enabled 22% more middle schoolers to pass the FCAT.

 

For us to be more effective, it is imperative that we band together. For example, when school psychologists in Miami-Dade county were threatened with a loss of personnel and the loss of contract days, their primary concern was fighting for retaining all school psychologists rather than trying to maintain their yearly salary. When school psychologists in Palm Beach county were told that a new Manager of School Psychological Services would not be hired and were asked instead to select team leaders among themselves, in solidarity no one volunteered. Another way to show strength and garner more resources, even when we have diverse opinions, is by strongly encouraging fellow colleagues to join or renew their membership in FASP. Unless we band together in common purpose then we may be so far down the buffet line that we won’t be able to see the food.

 

In these economic turbulent times we have to show our value to the school system. The RtI initiative (however it may be defined by you) has provided us with one such opportunity. I believe that by providing effective consultation, problem solving skills and empirically based interventions that school psychologists can be the second most important person (behind the building principal) in the school building. We have to show how we influence academic achievement and create effective learning environments. This is a high priority for every school system. We want schools to hire more school psychologists rather than employ more RtI specialists. Hiring RtI specialists and freezing school psychology positions has already happened in a number of school districts.

 

We need to think constantly about how we bring added value to the district and how to ensure that all financial decision-makers know what we do. In order to do so, we need to be more visible at school board meetings or perhaps work for a school board member’s campaign just to ensure access. In advocating for Miami-Dade school psychologists I found that all school board members had web sites that provided a biography and also emphasized their interests and projects. For example, if we find that a school board member founded a magnet school or had a special interest in marine biology education, then we could find ways to offer our services and support their agenda. We also need to volunteer for projects that are a high priority for the district. We need our leaders to work closely with the Superintendent and discuss ways we can work together to help families and children in distress. We need to form alliances with parents of children who have disabilities.

 

Unless we use our problem solving and consultation skills to show how we can be the second most important person in the school building; unless we strongly advocate for the mental health needs of our most troubled children and show how we can make a contribution to their emotional well-being; unless we demonstrate a strong link between the mental health of all children and their academic achievement; unless we form strategic alliances with parents and community stakeholders; and unless we communicate what we do on a daily basis to impact positively on the lives of all the children we serve, we may not get invited to sit at the table for lunch when critical budget decisions are being made. In fact, unless we are proactive we may be lunch.

 

Reference

 

Lazarus, P. J. (2009). Saving school psychology jobs in a time of fiscal chaos. NASP

             Communique, 37, (6), 1, 23-27,

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Philip J. Lazarus, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor and Director of the School Psychology Training Program at Florida International University. He recently received the FASP Willard Nelson Lifetime Achievement Award and the NASP GPR Certificate of Appreciation for his advocacy efforts on behalf of the school psychologists of M-DCPS.