QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

The questions I have received have been about the proposed revisions to the APA Model Licensure Act. If elected, I promise to devote all the necessary resources to ensure that non-doctoral level school psychologists will not be called professionals formerly known as school psychologists.

Question 1: I am concerned about the implications of the APA Model Licensure Act on the practice of school psychology. What impact could this have on our profession?

What arguments is NASP currently making against this Act? From: eluaces@bellsouth.net
 
Answer: If the APA Model Act for State Licensure of Psychologists (Model Licensure Act) were passed as currently proposed by APA’s Council of Representatives and were to be enacted in its entirety by state legislatures, this could seriously curtail the provision of school psychological services to children and prohibit non-doctoral school psychologists from using the terms “psychologist” or “psychological.” It could have a significant, negative impact on the emotional well-being of our nation’s youth and a chilling effect on the specialty we currently refer to as school psychology. However, there are a number of big “ifs” involved. Even if the currently proposed revisions are adopted by APA, unless state legislatures adopt those revisions into statute, the role, title, function and services of school psychologists would remain the same. The problems in title and practice would only occur if individual states take action as a result of the revisions to the APA Model Licensure Act.
 
The National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) strongly opposes the proposed revisions by the APA Model Act Task Force to the American Psychological Association’s Model Act for State Licensure of Psychologists. NASP has taken a strong stand against the APA Model Act and has written a position paper entitled Implications for School Psychological Services: Proposed APA Model Act for the Licensure of Psychologists (2009). It can be accessed at
 
 
In the position paper, NASP outlines four areas of primary concern.
 
  1. There is an improper restraint of trade. This prevents qualified and appropriately credentialed school psychologists from practicing their profession. It also prevents them from providing school psychological services and using the title “school psychologists” granted to them in their valid credentials from state boards of education.
  1. There is the potentially unconstitutional claiming of exclusive property rights to the title and terms, “psychologist,” “psychological,” and “psychology.”
  1. There would be a denial of well-established practice of school psychology by properly credentialed specialist level and doctoral level school psychologists. According to NASP, there have been 50 years of practice in schools, during 30 of which, APA has acknowledged the title and practice through exemption in the Model Act. Currently, more than 90% of state education credentials use the title of school psychologist.
  1. There is a potential for unnecessary, unfounded recommendations to state legislative bodies about changes in well-established and effective state departments of education credentialing practices. As a result, this would cause conflicts with existing state departments of education regulations and procedures and harm to the public due to confusion about school psychology. Most importantly, this would reduce access to needed services. Moreover, there is already a shortage of school psychologists nationally, and it would take states years to overcome the disruption of services.
 
I firmly believe that state boards of education can be a significant source of support to advocate against the removal of the exemption for school psychologists practicing in schools from the APA Model Licensure Act. We in Florida have already met with our Department of Education (DOE) to solicit their assistance. We explained to key members of the DOE the implications that passage of this Act could have on Florida’s youth. As a result of our advocacy, administrators in the DOE wrote letters to APA arguing against the removal of the exemption from this Act.
 
I think that state legislatures may be reluctant to adopt the removal of the exemption for school psychologists if it is removed from the Model Licensure Act because of its potential to be unconstitutional. Also based on my experience working with the Florida legislature in the 1980’s over a similar licensure issue, they are reluctant to get involved in what they may perceive as a fight over the use of title and role and function of two professional groups trying to get a larger piece of the economic pie. Unfortunately, these struggles could cause legislators to perceive psychologists as being self-serving and not necessarily looking out for the public good.
 
In addition, case law has affirmed the right and benefit to the public of school psychologists credentialed by their state boards of education to practice in the schools. We have no evidence of any harm coming to school-age children as a result of non-doctoral school psychologists practicing in the schools. In fact, the evidence suggests otherwise. Under IDEA, school psychologists help ensure that students with disabling conditions get the requisite services they need to function effectively in school.
 
My opinion is that currently we, as a society, have a new emphasis on trying to increase access to health care, including mental health care, to more people in our country.  Passage of this revised Act would seriously curtail access to needed psychological services and would have a significant impact on the less financially fortunate and those who do not have access to private psychological services. Also, most insurance companies do not pay for or pay only a fraction of the costs for school psychological evaluations when they are conducted by private practitioners.
 
Probably the best argument against removal of the exemption from the APA Model Licensure Act is that, if enacted, it would significantly reduce revenues to schools. Presently almost all children who receive special education services have been evaluated by a school psychologist. This generates enormous revenues to school districts to support special education. If non-doctoral school psychologists could no longer offer legally mandated evaluative and consultative services in the schools, then the economic consequences would be devastating. I have been a member of the Florida Association of School Psychologists Legislative Committee for over 20 years. The one thing I have learned over those years is that state legislators understand money. If they understand—and it will be our obligation to help them understand—the financial ramifications of enacting the APA Model Licensure Act, I believe they will not take any action that could potentially harm school-age students and decrease federal revenues to schools. 
 
Question 2: I am a school psychology student in Florida and have been told that Florida has responded to the Model Licensure Act. How is this different from the NASP response? From arodriguez601@dadeschools.net
 
Answer: The Florida Association of School Psychologists (FASP) commented on the Model Act from a state perspective. I believe every state should have a position on this issue relative to their specific concerns. The Florida response is online and can be accessed at
 
We noted that FASP represents over 2000 school psychologists practicing in Florida. We stated that the removal of the exemption from APA’s Model Act does not appear to serve the best interests of Florida’s children, parents and teachers and would not protect them from unqualified practice. Instead the proposal would entail preventing hundreds of qualified school psychologists from providing school psychological services. Such services are mandated by federal and state law to be provided by qualified professionals with the title of “school psychologist.” The proposed modification to the exemption would shift the responsibility to the few (approximately 500) who are licensed as school psychologists and to those with a doctorate in psychology who are credentialed by the Florida Department of Education (less than 100), not all of whom are available to work in the schools.
 
We also stated that there are not nearly enough licensed psychologists in Florida who are trained as school psychologists or who are willing to re-specialize for work in the schools, particularly not in rural districts. In terms of the current state of practice and training, we commented that less than 25% of Florida’s 2084 school psychologists are trained at a doctoral level, leaving a significant number of non-doctoral school psychologists who would be ineligible for delivering psychological services in the schools.
 
We emphasized that NASP recommends a school psychologist to student ratio of 1 to 1000 and that our current ratio in Florida is 1 to 1970. The idea that licensed doctoral level psychologists could fill the void is frankly untenable, not only because they would be practicing in a specialty area for which they may not be qualified, which is unethical and prohibited by statute, but also because there are not enough of them available in many areas of the state. We further discussed the lack of psychologists in rural areas of Florida and noted that seven counties have no licensed psychologists at all.
 
An important part of our response was focused on the needs of children. We commented that missing from the rationale for the changes in the Model Licensure Act is any mention of how the restrictions on non-doctoral, school-based psychologists would impact children, families and schools. The 2003 President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health reported that the vast majority of children diagnosed with a mental disorder do not receive counseling or support for their problems. This conclusion has been bolstered by more recent studies, such as that of the Columbia University’s National Center for Children in Poverty (2006). The Commission further emphasized that of those children who do receive services, the majority are recipients within the school setting only. Eliminating non-doctoral school psychologist will mean even larger numbers of children will not receive psychological services of any sort—a consequence that could result in higher levels of learning and behavioral problems and lower levels of academic success among our children. It can also be predicted that shortages would not be distributed equitably, as children in poor urban neighborhoods or rural areas and from culturally diverse or minority backgrounds are more likely to rely on schools as the sole provider of psychological services and school support services. 
 
With regard to increasing minorities into the profession of psychology, both FASP and NASP are making strides in enhancing diversity in the workplace. Current data in the field at the national level indicate that of the 7.3% of practicing school psychologists who are ethnic minorities, 7 out of 10 hold non-doctoral degrees. Removing the exemption for non-doctoral school psychologists would have a devastating effect on the retention of ethnic minorities in the field of school psychology and on the delivery of services to minority students.
 
Question 3: If this Model Licensure Act is passed, what should we do at the state and national level? From arodriguez601@dadeschools.net
 
Answer: If the Model Licensure Act passes as currently proposed, we at NASP, in collaboration with state school psychology associations, will have to confront the potential impact on a state-by-state basis. More populated states tend to have more economic resources than those with smaller populations. I believe we at NASP are well-equipped to fight against any actions by state departments of education or state legislatures to enact rules or laws based on provisions in the Model Licensure Act, if the appropriate resources are provided. We may have to provide more support to states with fewer resources. If elected as NASP President-Elect, I will make it my highest priority to fight against enacting provisions in the Model Licensure Act in any state which would detrimentally impact the provision of school psychological services.
 
Because you are from Florida, at our state level, there is good news. We have established a strong and positive relationship with the Florida Department of Education and the Florida Department of Health. As you may know, in Florida graduates of our training programs are certified to practice in the schools by the Department of Education after completing their degree and passing the subject area exam in school psychology. After three years of successful supervised practice, they can obtain state licensure from the Department of Health to practice in the private arena by documenting their experience, paying the appropriate fees and passing the private practice licensure exams.
 
We will continue to make our colleagues in the Department of Education and the Department of Health aware of all the issues and our strong opposition to taking any action affecting school psychology if the Model Licensure Act is passed. We will hold meetings as necessary with officials in both departments and work with our lobbyists to oppose any legislative act in either the Florida House of Representatives or the Florida Senate. In fact, because of the vicissitudes of the legislative process, as long as the Model Licensure Act contains the provision for the removal of the exemption, we will vigorously oppose opening the Florida licensure act, that is, Chapter 490 of the Florida Statutes, for modifications of any sort.
 
My personal opinion is that we as school psychologists need to operate from a position of strength. If by any chance Chapter 490 is opened up for revision, then we should propose that for any school psychological report to be accepted by the school system, the practitioner submitting the report should have and should be able to document that they have a minimum of 1000 hours working with school-age children. If Chapter 490 is brought up for revision, we need to play both offense and defense. We should not be in the position of having to accept reports from psychologists who are acting outside of their area of training and expertise. This is especially true if our ability to call ourselves school psychologists or practice our art and science in the schools is restricted.
 
At the national level, many state school psychology associations have already taken similar actions to Florida. Each state may have unique issues related to the credentialing or licensure of school psychologists. We can learn from each other through effective communication and adopt strategies that have been proven to work.
 
It will be imperative that we at NASP vigorously oppose implementing the Model Licensure Act in any state if APA passes the proposed revision eliminating or modifying the school psychology exemption. I will support the allocation of significant resources to challenge any state department of education or any state legislative body that tries to implement the Model Licensure Act by removing the exemption. Our Government and Professional Relations Committee is well versed in this area and can provide considerable guidance. We also have a great deal of legislative and public policy expertise at the NASP office.
 
We may also wish to consider developing our own NASP Model Licensure Act. With the current impetus to provide more and better access to health coverage, especially for those who are uninsured, a strong case can be made for the private practice licensure of school psychologists in states that currently do not license school psychologists at the non-doctoral level.
 
We as school psychologists need to consider ourselves mental health care providers. We desperately need more school psychological services, not fewer. I believe we will prevail through united action, even if the APA Model Licensure Act passes as proposed. We will not be known as the profession formerly known as school psychology.
 
Question 4: Thank you for your answers to the questions about the APA Model Licensure Act. I need a bit more clarification. I am doing my school psychology internship in Immokalee, Florida. This is a poor rural area where the students are on free and reduced lunch. Many of the students in our school district are migrants and a large majority of them have been retained. We certainly do not have any doctoral level practitioners living in the area and most of the teachers live at least a half hour away and drive into the town only to work. Also, I am of Haitian-American descent and we have a number of Haitian-American students in Immokalee. No one has either my qualifications or background to serve these students. If I cannot provide services to these children, then who will if this Act is passed? Would I be able to provide services even if I cannot call myself a school psychologist? From josie_cine@yahoo.com
 
Answer: I can see where you would need more clarification, as the details from APA are most confusing. Before I respond to your question, I need to provide further information proposed by APA related to the exemption.
 
On March 6, 2009, the APA released some revisions to their proposed rules. What follows are the revisions by APA related to removal of the exemption that allows specialist level school psychologists to use the title school psychologist. You can find more information about the revisions to their proposed rules at this address:
 
Presently, individuals who provide school psychological services in public schools are credentialed by state education agencies. These individuals are not required to have a doctoral degree to provide school psychological services and typically, the state education agency grants these individuals the use of the title “school psychologist” for use while providing services in the public schools. This proposed alteration to this draft revision would allow licensed psychologists as well as only those individuals with a doctoral degree in psychology who are credentialed to practice in public schools to use the title in those settings (regardless of their psychology licensure status). Individuals who do not hold a doctoral degree in psychology would not be permitted to use the title under this change but the state education agency could still credential such individuals (albeit with a different title) and the individuals could still provide services in public school settings.
 
According to the information presented in italics, APA is proposing that only doctoral level school psychologists or doctoral level psychologists from other specialty areas who hold any credential from a department of education can call themselves school psychologists. The original exemption was accepted in 1977 and upheld in a subsequent review in 1987. APA is trying to couch this new change as merely a change in title. However, according to Mark Neely, FASP President-Elect, this is likely to have significant consequences for the practice of school psychology. APA also has a definition of the practice of psychology. This definition follows:
 
Lines 101-106: 3. Practice of psychology is defined as the observation, description, evaluation, interpretation, and modification of human behavior by the application of psychological principles, methods, and procedures for the purposes of (a) preventing [or eliminating], eliminating, evaluating or assessing symptomatic, maladaptive, or undesired behavior; [and] (b) evaluating or assessing and /or enhancing individual, group and /or organizational effectiveness including personal effectiveness, interpersonal relationships, work and life adjustment, health, and individual, group and /or organizational performance, or (c) assisting in legal decision-making.
 
To me, this sounds like what school psychologists do every day in schools. By removing this exemption, it would or could essentially prohibit anyone from performing any of these activities unless they were licensed as a psychologist. The only allowance would be for doctoral level psychologists working in schools. Approximately 75% of school psychologists working in the schools are at the specialist level. I believe the removal of this exemption is unacceptable and can be considered a restriction of trade.
 
To answer your question, if this revision of the MLA is enacted then, no, you could not call yourself a school psychologist. Perhaps like Prince, you could call yourself a “person formerly known as a school psychologist” or an educational diagnostician, or an educational consultant. In the APA exemption section, it notes …“the state could still credential such individuals (albeit with a different title) and the individuals could still provide services in public school settings.”  What those services could be are not clarified or explicitly expressed. Therefore you could provide services, but your services could become much more restricted. However, a lot of things would have to happen before any changes are made. In the meantime, I would just continue with your good work providing high quality psychological services to children in need.