An Expanding Role For School Psychologists

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

Molly Freie

University of Northern Iowa

Leadership: An Expanding Role for School Psychologists in Today’s Changing Schools

In 1981, the National Association of School Psychologists held the Olympia Conference to examine issues influencing school psychology into the 21st century. Discussion groups at the Olympia Conference made world, nation, society, education, and school psychology predictions of the future. Cardon (1982) identified several of these characteristics of the future that would be particularly important for practice within the field of school psychology. Cardon writes of increases in technology that would impact all aspects of society, as well as increases in percentages of minorities and handicapped children. Education would undergo major changes as regular and special education would merge, and roles of educators would change dramatically. Now, here we are in the 21st century, and many of the predictions that came out of that conference have become realized.

The Blueprint for Training and Practice III describes several trends in today’s school, many of which exemplify success and promise (Ysseldyke et al., 2008). More students are going to school graduating than ever before. These students are being instructed according to core content standards and progress monitored with assessments aligned with those standards. Schools are also using objective data and systematic interventions to assist at-risk students. In addition to increasing provision of mental health services via the school system, schools are shifting to the use of widespread preventive programs in an effort to address both academic and social-behavioral risk factors. Throughout all of this, schools are progressively using research-based practices that are much more widely accessible. Schools’ efforts are seeing results in the narrowing of achievement gaps between ethnic minority and majority groups and in the achievement levels of students with disabilities as more are being included in instruction in the general education curriculum. School resources are more coordinated and flexible in their use to address student needs. Schools are also facing up to challenging the inequalities that remain for many students in today’s schools (Ysseldyke et al., 2008).

Schools have experienced countless changes since the education of children first began in the United States. Many of these changes have been brought about because of educators’ desire to improve the academic and social-behavioral outcomes of all the children served in the education system. The changes occurring in today’s schools also reflect major societal shifts in addition to public policy initiatives and legislation (Ysseldyke, et al, 2008). Societal changes related to diversity, economics, and racial and social classes have influenced areas related to education that include educational options (e.g. charter and home schooling options), funding distribution, and inequalities within the education system. The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation of 2001 has brought about an era of significant changes as this legislation now holds schools significantly more publicly accountable for student performance and outcomes. Efforts to monitor this accountability are also required and reported annually. Along with increased accountability has come a need for preventive practices and alignment of assessment and intervention – incorporated emphases within the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 2004. As society in the United States continues to change and progress, schools will do the same. An understanding of the way that changes occur within schools is needed.

Schools as Systems

A school is a social system because it consists of "an orderly combination of parts that interact to produce a desired outcome or product" (Curtis, Castillo, & Cohen, 2008, p. 888). A school has component parts (e.g. students, teachers, school psychologists, parents, administrators, and other school staff) that are organized and interact for the purpose of producing outcomes (e.g. student academic achievement). Healthy systems are capable of analyzing problems and solving them in order to reach its goals. Some systems are not able to solve problems effectively, creating an atmosphere of tension. A high enough level of tension can result in a crisis that demands some type of change within the system. According to Adelman & Taylor (2007) systemic change "involves modifications that amount to a cultural shift in institutionalized values (i.e., reculturalization) (p. 57). When a change occurs within a school system, one must recognize the culture of the school and the operations and the networks that contribute to making decisions about fundamental changes and how those changes will be implemented.

A school is part of a larger system (i.e. school district) and also contains several systems within it (e.g. grade-level team and problem-solving teams). Changes in one part of a system will cause changes in all other parts and will influence the performance of the system as a whole (Curtis, Castillo, & Cohen, 2008). For example, changes at the school district level impact individual schools, as well as individual teachers and students. Changing the way we do business is no easy task though. For schools, reform may seem daunting. It is evident that efforts at organizational interventions can make an organization more effective (Glisson, Dukes, & Green, 2006) and findings suggest that educators involved in such efforts perceive them as valuable (Ervin, Schaughency, Matthews, Goodman, & McGlinchey, 2007).

The process of change has four major phases that must be addressed (Adelman & Taylor, 2007). The first phase is creating readiness by boosting the motivation and capability of the critical stakeholders involved in order to develop a climate conducive for change. The second phase, initial implementation, involves using a well-designed framework that will provide guidance and support while beginning to carry out the proposed change. Institutionalization, the third phase, uses an infrastructure to maintain the change. Last, ongoing evolution and creative renewal uses various means to improve the quality of the change and provide continuing support to the stakeholders involved (Adelman & Taylor, 2007).

Adelman & Taylor (2007) point out that in order for school improvement to occur, a clear framework and a plan for changes must be established. Knoff (2008) recommends that schools as systems address four fundamental areas to guide their course of improvement. First, according to Knoff, schools should evaluate the design and methods of delivering an evidence-based academic and instruction system that improves students’ rates of learning while addressing the diverse needs of learners. Second, schools as systems must design and deliver an evidence-based positive behavioral support system that builds social skills, creates a safe environment, maximizes student motivation while monitoring this system with approaches that are ecologically based and culturally sensitive. Third, school systems must increase parent and community outreach and involvement in order to motivated and involved in activities that support students’ education. Fourth, these areas must be integrated and unified in the education system while incorporating data-based assessment and problem solving to guide decision-making (Knoff, 2008). NCLB requires that schools use evidence-based practices and implement reforms that are driven by scientifically based research to ensure that efforts will improve outcomes for children. "Better research and evidence, when combined with sound professional judgment, can help guide the way toward solid and sustained improvement. However, educators, policymakers, and the public cannot be expected to do "what works" until they actually know what works (Comprehensive School Reform Quality Center, 2006, p. 4).

A Need for Leadership and Support Throughout Change

If a school system is not a healthy system, it may not be able to solve problems, adapt to increasing demands, and implement change on its own. When significant changes are required within a school system "there is a need for a strong science base, leadership, and adequate resources for capacity building" (Adelman & Taylor, 2007, p. 56). Schools may need help at any of the four phases of change described by Adelman & Taylor.

To assist schools, school psychologists can serve as agents of change. "To be an agent is to intentionally make things happen by one’s actions" (Bandura, 2001, p.2). The core features of human agency include making choices (acting intentionally to produce outcomes), making action plans (using forethought to anticipate likely consequences of actions and to motivate behavior that will lead to desirable outcomes), being a self-regulator (monitoring one’s pattern of behavior and the conditions under which it occurs), and being self-reflective (reflecting upon oneself and the adequacy of one’s thoughts and actions) (Bandura, 2001).

Rogers (2003) identifies seven functions for change agents. These seven functions are: (1) develop a need for change, (2) establish an information exchange relationship, (3) diagnose problems, (4) create intent to change, (5) translate intent into action, (6) stabilize adoption and prevent discontinuance, and (7) achieve a terminal relationship. Organizational change agents work with intervention teams, administrators, key staff, and other stakeholders (Glisson & Schoenwald, 2005). Change agents participate in activities to aid in desired organizational development.

A Change in Role for School Psychologists

"School psychologists can be the change agents that are so urgently needed in today’s vivacious but child-toxic society" (Sheridan & D’Amato, 2003, p. 353). With all of the changes in the nation’s schools come implications for the practice of school psychologists serving these schools. While "long-term change at a school or district-wide level is very possible" (Shapiro, 2006, p.264), school psychologists can be a part of this change. It "may finally be right for the field of school psychology to fully refocus its efforts toward prevention" (Shapiro, 2006, p. 261). As the field shifts in this direction, school psychologists should be prepared to support systemic changes and offer their unique and varied set of knowledge and skills.

"Restructuring a system means a change in the relationships, roles, and behavioral regularities of the system" (Carlson, Pavola, and Talley, 1995, p.199). Individuals within a system, including school psychologists, need to see their roles differently in order to generate new behaviors so that change can occur successfully. As school psychologists begin to see their roles differently, they are challenged with helping other educators change their attitudes and behaviors as well. This task, according to Sheridan & Gutkin (2000) is "perhaps the most significant task facing school psychologists in their daily school-based practice" (p. 490).

Schools are also in need of someone to turn to in order to know what works. School psychologists appear to be perfectly poised to fill this role. In order to fill this role though, school psychologists must have an understanding of how, through that role, they can help schools become more effective. Knoff (2008) describes seven effective interdependent components of schools that stem from his work with Project ACHIEVE, a comprehensive school reform process focused on helping schools deal effectively with at-risk and underachieving students. "School psychologists need to think about the ways that their role and function and their skills and expertise fit into these seven components:

Strategic planning and organizational development

Problem-solving, teaming, and consultation processes

Effective school, schooling, and professional development

Academic instruction linked to academic assessment, intervention, and achievement

Behavioral instruction linked to behavioral assessment, intervention, and self-management

Parent and community training, support, and outreach

Data management, evaluation, and accountability" (Knoff, 2008, p. 906)

Preparing for This Changing Role

Taking into account Knoff’s (2008) recommendations for guiding school improvement along with the seven components of effective schools, the contemporary role and training of a school psychologist should be examined. Sheridan and Gutkin (2000) analyzed the traditional practice of school psychology. These authors concluded that the traditional model of service delivery in school psychology was "inherently unresponsive to the contemporary and future needs of our field" (p. 488). Sheridan and Gutkin go on to advocate a change in role conceptualization and professional behaviors for school psychologists. More than twenty years after the Olympia Conference, the Multisite Conference on the Future of School Psychology in 2002 signified a "tipping point" for school psychologists, as those within the field are increasingly expected to adjust and perform to new roles (Dawson et al., 2003).

At the same time that school psychologists are trying to formulate their modern identity, critical policy and legislative decisions have also occurred (e.g. reauthorization of IDEA in 2004; passing of NCLB in 2001). Also, prevention efforts have occurred through the development of school-wide positive behavioral support (SWPBS; Sugai & Horner, 2002). Such efforts require supportive systems to be in place if these practices are to become institutionalized and sustained (Sugai & Horner, 2002). It is recognized that current school psychologists, as well as those entering the field, need to possess necessary skills for their roles. Without proper training, the field will not be able to adapt to a changing education system (Dawson et al., 2003). "As schools become more systemic and preventive in their orientation, school psychologists are hired to fill more diverse roles" (Ysseldyke et al., 2008, p. 40). The Blueprint III calls for an expanded vision of the field of school psychology. In the field, one must employ a systems perspective, as described in the domains of the Blueprint III.

Knoff (2008) describes four primary areas in which school psychologists must have expertise and skills in order to direct and aid in school-based organizational changes and the planning process: (a) the evidence-based practices underlying effective school practices; (b) the data-based problem-solving and decision-making process; (c) the ways to guide or support the strategic planning process for school improvement; and (d) the consultation skills to facilitate change. More specific skills noted by Knoff that are needed in order to succeed in those primary areas include: "effective functional assessment and data-based problem-solving skills; system, school, and classroom ecological or environmental assessment and intervention skills; system, staff, and student instructional, academic, and behavioral intervention skills at the prevention strategic intervention, and intensive need levels; and action research and program evaluation skills" (p. 905).

Being a leader or supportive member within an organization clearly involves a solid knowledge base and particular skills that school psychologists need to have if they are to be a change agent. Currently, school psychologists are being trained to deal with the changes occurring within today’s schools. Since the Futures Conference, Ysseldyke et al. (2008) have written the Blueprint III, highlighting the training areas of focus for school psychologists.

Training programs must move toward an orientation that considers not just student performance data but also the integrations of data for intervening and monitoring outcomes at individual and systems levels. As school psychology practice increasingly addresses safe and healthy environments for all students, training program culture will similarly need to reflect consideration of systems-based service delivery. (Ysseldyke et al., 2008, p. 50)

Ysseldyke et al. (2008) lay out successes and promising trends in the training and practice of school psychologists within the Blueprint III. Graduate programs increasingly conform to high professional training standards. School psychologists can become recognized as Nationally Certified School Psychologists (NCSP), meeting the National Association of School Psychologists’ (NASP) high standards for training and continuation of professional development – a reflection of the "highly qualified" requirement included in No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Increasingly employed in districts utilizing a problem-solving model, schools psychologists are increasingly engaging in comprehensive services to affect students in more significant ways. While a shortage of school psychologists persists, lower service ratios may be leading to prevention and intervention focused practices rather than the school psychologist’s traditional role of determining special education eligibility (Ysseldyke et al., 2008).

The model for school psychology training and practice outlined in the Blueprint III includes eight domains of competence that are both foundational and functional in nature and developed through training and practice (Ysseldyke et al., 2008). A school psychologist in the field requires a firmly established knowledge base in (1) enhancing the development of cognitive and academic skills, (2) enhancing the development of wellness, social skills, mental health, and life competencies, (3) data-based decision making and accountability, and (4) systems-based service delivery. In addition, they must have an ability to apply the scientific method practical delivery of that knowledge base using (1) professional, legal, ethical, and social responsibility, (2) technological application, (3) diversity awareness and sensitive delivery, and (4) interpersonal and collaborative skills (Ysseldyke et al., 2008). Given the recommendations of Knoff (2008) and Ysseldyke et al. (2008), there seems to be consensus on the variety of skills and expertise needed by school psychologists in order to be effective professionals within the present educational system.

As presented in the model in the Blueprint III, school psychological services are delivered via a three-tiered service delivery system of universal, targeted, and intensive levels (Ysseldyke et al., 2008). Through this delivery system school psychologists work towards two major outcomes for schools: (1) the building of capacity of systems and (2) improved competencies for all students. It is becoming increasingly important for school psychologists to play a role in building the capacity of they systems in which they work. Logically, a system of greater capacity would be better able to improve competencies for students. Thus, systemic change is inevitably a domain that is in need of well-qualified leadership – and school psychologists may well be the leaders that are needed. Shapiro (2006) believes that "shifting to systemic ways of thinking are critical to our future" as school psychologists (p.260).

How School Psychologists Can Help School Systems Through Changes

Ysseldyke et al. (2008) assert that school psychologists are poised to accept the expanded roles involved in systems-level work – roles that many in the profession have long desired to fill. While school psychologists have long sought to distance themselves from a narrow role of assessment expert in regards to intelligence testing, the current high-stakes era of testing has provided school psychologists with an opportunity to redefine their assessment role and promote best practices (Shriberg, 2007). While little research has examined school psychology directly within the context of high-stakes education (Shriberg, 2007), leadership has emerged as an important, although not well-defined, component of effective practice (Ysseldyke et al., 2008).

In regards to advocating for legislation, public policy, and educational practice innovations, the discipline of school psychology has assumed a large leadership role. "The leadership of our major professional organizations routinely provides testimony to inform public policy and shape regulatory language. In addition, these organizations frequently join with other professional associations to establish coalitions to maximize their influence on public policy" (Ysseldyke et al., 2008, p. 40).

In a case of particular interest, changes in policies have occurred at the state level in Iowa regarding the special education service delivery system. In Iowa, educators across the state have shifted from the traditional special education service delivery system to a problem-solving delivery system (Grimes, Kurns, & Tilly, 2006). School psychologists in Iowa have likely been integral participants in the change to this new system. When advocating new practices, such as in Iowa, Grimes et al. stress that it is important for school psychologists to consider the system involved. School psychologists can take note of recommendations made by these authors who have been involved in the changes in Iowa at Heartland Area Education Agency (Heartland AEA). As professionals within Heartland AEA, Grimes et al. (2006) give suggestions on how to implement and sustain effective practices in broad-based reform:

First, create a state of readiness, laying the groundwork for the innovation and new

practices with needs assessment and the formulation of shared commitment to guiding principles. Second, begin initial implementation by developing a model with quality standards to clearly guide practice, formulating operational procedures to guide professional series, provide staff development, and direct resources towards agency priorities. Third, institutionalize by embedding new practices into all aspects of the system, including those structural functions of the organization that provide support and contingencies to those doing the work, and realign agency policies to support new directions. To promote depth of implementation, professional development with feedback on implementation is essential. Fourth, based on ongoing data collection of results, set a course for ongoing evolution of the innovation through continuous improvement. Finally, going to scale involves changes in norms, principles, beliefs, and ownership. Collectively, this process represents a shirt in the agency’s culture and how its members interact. (Grimes, Kurns, & Tilly, 2006, p. 241).

School psychologists are in an influential position when it comes to implementation of practices especially through support for those doing the implementing. "As school psychologists, we are often in the position of seeing a situation, a system, or a common strategy for working with students that might be approached from a different perspective. Knowing this ourselves is rarely good enough, though; we work in teams and as consultants to teachers and parents who generally work most closely with the students" (Jones, 2011, p.16). Consultation is one way that school psychologists can apply their skills and expertise at a system-level.

Curtis, Castillo, and Cohen (2008) describe a school psychologist’s primary role in system-level change as that of a consultant. As consultants, school psychologists work towards the goals of (1) helping clients solve the problem at hand while (2) empowering clients to be more effective at solving similar problems in the future. School psychologists work towards these same goals when consulting at a systems level. A school psychologist’s "primary goal is to facilitate the development of the system as an effective problem solver" (Curtis, Castillo, & Cohen, 2008).

As consultants, school psychologists may not always understand how breakdowns can occur when a suggestion is not implemented (Jones, 2011). The challenge for a school psychologist lies in bringing about support for the implementation by being authoritative and collaborative simultaneously. In order to shift people’s understandings and bring about support for different, more effective practices, the role of a school psychologist requires "effective communication and professional advocacy skills that are grounded in a genuine expertise on a topic, an understanding of the current perspective of the people involved, and deep respect for the importance of their role in promoting success for students" (Jones, 2011, p.16).

As in one-to-one consultation, collaboration is essential in facilitating system-level change, as well as strong interpersonal relationships and problem-solving framework. Collaboration is "two or more people working together, using systematic planning and problem-solving procedures, to achieve desired outcomes" (Curtis, Castillo, & Cohen, 2008, p. 890). Therefore, as consultants, school psychologists must possess both the interpersonal and problem-solving skills necessary to affect change at the system level (Curtis, Castillo, & Cohen, 2008).

Knoff (2008) recognizes that "one common denominator determines all levels of improvement and success: the positive, collaborative relationships that exist among the individuals actually implementing the strategically planned evidence based initiative" (p. 904). Schools may be able to choose an evidence-based improvement program on their own, but the implementation of that program may lack integrity, enthusiasm, commitment, collaboration, and consistency (Knoff, 2008). Knoff lists seven Cs for successful processes of school improvement: communication, caring, commitment, collaboration, consultation, consistency, and celebration.

With two real-life examples, Shriberg (2007) describes case studies of two school psychologists who exemplify the leadership opportunities available to school psychologists. In these case studies, "both school psychologists described assuming a transformative role where the school psychologist is involved not only in working with high stakes data, but in analyzing school assessment procedures more broadly and working towards processes that have the potential to impact all students (Shriberg, 2007, p. 165). Both school psychologists stressed the importance of developing relationships with others and using data as an ally when working as change agents within a complex system where obstacles and resistance are to be expected (Shriberg, 2007).

In a case study of two schools that successfully implemented a school-wide positive behavior interventions, school psychologists emerged as an important facet of a small group of key leaders made up of various staff (George, White, & Schlaffer, 2007). School psychologists "became involved in all aspects of the change efforts" (George et al., 2007, p. 47). As part of this leadership team, school psychologists were involved in day-to-day implementation activities and provided support through mentorship to staff. George et al. assert that small groups of leaders such as this are critical components of successful long-term implantation of system-wide change efforts.

George et al. (2007) give an even more in-depth description of the role that school psychologists played in the case study of school-wide positive behavior interventions implementation. In one of the schools, an alternative school, the school psychologist took on a more active role in the change process by spending time conducting classroom observations, directly consulting with teachers, and assessing the implementation of school-wide and class-wide procedures necessary for the system change. This particular school psychologist largely gave up the traditional roles and functions of screening and assessments in order to fill that role while also providing professional development in important areas relevant to the system change, for example, progress monitoring, functional behavior assessments, using data for making instructional decisions, among others.

The school psychologist at the elementary school in George et al.’s (2007) case study similarly changed their role to suit the immediate needs of the school system. George et al. describe this school psychologist’s role as one of providing greater support to children and teachers alike. Challenging students received more of the school psychologist’s attention, as the school psychologist was more involved within various classrooms instead of helping with referrals in primarily the main office of the school as was the practice before the system’s implementation of the change.

In these instances of leadership within the school psychology field, school psychologists have to examine their roles within the system they work and realize how they can use the unique skill set and knowledge base that they have developed throughout their training and practice in order to bring about sustainable change for greater outcomes for the children served in schools. For school psychologists who have provided leadership and support for systems throughout change, it is likely that they have done so from a theoretical model, even if it may have not been done consciously. A selection of various models of leadership for school psychologists is presently described.

Models of Leadership for School Psychologists

The role of a leader or supportive professional in systemic change can vary depending on perspective. Shriberg (2007) has identified leadership models and ideas that have the most direct meaning for those in the field of school psychology, especially in an era of a high-stakes testing and other significant societal and legislative changes. These models include: (a) situational leadership, (b) transformational leadership, (c) social power and influence, and (d) organizational development/systems change.

Situational Leadership

The situational leadership model is based on the idea that there is no single style of leadership that can be applied across situations with equal effectiveness, and leadership should instead be based on the interaction between task behavior, relationship behavior, and the readiness level of followers (Hersey, 2006). Task behavior refers to the amount of guidance and direction a leader gives, while relationship behavior is the amount of social/emotional support that a leader provides. Followers exhibit a readiness level in relation to the task at hand.

From this perspective, a school psychologist may respond in one of four ways – directing, coaching, supporting, or delegating – depending on the situation shaped by the level of followers’ readiness that is determined by the need for direction and support (Blanchard, Zigarmi, & Zigarmi, 1985). Shriberg (2007) explains that within this perspective, a school psychologist should be able to adjust their leadership style depending on the factors of knowledge and motivation of those with whom they interact. "Followers may move back and forth along the situational leadership continuum. The essential point of a situational leadership model remains that effective leadership involves assessing the competence and motivation of others and then adjusting one’s behavior accordingly" (Shriberg, 2007, p. 154).

In thinking about the seven components of effective schools and the four recommended fundamental areas to guide system improvement described by Knoff (2008), a school psychologist working from the situational leadership perspective should assess the knowledge, skills, and motivation of those involved in systemic change in schools including teachers, administrators, parents, improvement team members, school board members, etc. A school psychologist may need to adjust their role accordingly as Shriberg (2007) describes. This assessment will determine how much directing, coaching, supporting, and delegating needs to be done by the school psychologist.

Transformational Leadership

Transformational leadership is characterized by a strong commitment between parties involved accompanied by a shared objective of improvement (Burns, 1979). Within the context of school psychology, Shriberg’s (2007) explanation of this model relates to the desired outcomes of the work of school psychology – building capacity of systems and improving competencies for all students as described in The Blueprint (Ysseldyke et al., 2008). "A school psychologist operating from a transformational leadership approach would be actively involved in working to improve academic performance not simply because schools will be penalized if student scores on high stakes exams do not continuously increase (although this reality is acknowledged), but because the school psychologist is committed to supporting innovations and changes that support success in all students, families, and educators regardless of their ability and previous performance" (Shriberg, 2007, p. 155).

Social Power and Influence

"Social influence is defined as a change in the beliefs, attitudes, or behaviors of a target of influence, which results from the action or presence of an influencing agent. Social power is the potential for social influence to occur" (Erchul & Martens, 2010, p. 43-44). Social influence and social power are important for school psychologists who attempt to bring about change at the system level. "Obtaining social power and influence within the school setting is an important mechanism for achieving real change" (Shriberg, 207, p. 155).

The model of social power and influence developed by French and Raven is based on six dimensions (French & Raven, 1959; Raven 1965). These six dimensions are: (1) expert power based on knowledge and competence; (2) referent power based on relationships and personal drawing power; (3) legitimate power imparted by a formal institution; (4) reward power that is exhibited by offering and withholding types of incentives; (5) coercive power shown by forcing someone to comply via threat of punishment; and (6) informational power based on one’s persuasive presentation of material or logic. Koslowsky, Schwarzwald, and Ashuri (2001) divide these six into "hard power" and "soft power" dimensions. The "hard power" bases are techniques that rely on a combination of coercive, blatant, and forceful methods, while the "soft power" bases are the more subtle processes.

A study by Erchul, Raven, and Whichard (2001) revealed that both teachers and school psychologists agreed that informational and expert powers are the most effective bases of power in the consultation process. Also important, the teachers in the study considered informational, expert, legitimate, and referent power as most influential. School psychologists have repeatedly been found to view the use of soft power bases as more effective and resulting in greater teacher compliance than the use of hard power bases (Erchul, Raven, & Ray, 2001; Erchul, Raven, and Wilson, 2004).

When trying to bring about a desirable change, a school psychologists should consider their power bases. Raven (1993) describes a process by which one should do so. First, an agent should consider his or her motivation to influence another party (e.g. to attain extrinsic goals, to satisfy intrinsic needs, to achieve a desired status, to satisfy role requirements set forth by a higher authority). Then, the available power bases should be assessed. A school psychologist may not possess some of the power bases or may have more of one power base than another. In assessing the available power bases, an agent should also consider factors such as cost and effort, secondary gains and losses, norms and values, relation to self-perception, and time. The influencing agent should then set the stage for the influence attempt, which may include emphasizing or enhancing power resources or diminishing opposing influencing agents. Next, the manner or tone in which the influence attempt will be delivered is made, and influence is then attempted. The agent must assess the success of the influence attempt and decide if the desired change was brought about or if power bases should be reevaluated and another try should be made (Raven, 1993).

In the case study of the two schools that implemented school-wide positive behavior interventions, George et al. (2007) state that the school psychologists involved in the systemic change had previously established legitimate power as an administrative type of figure through their close work with school administrators. They also held expert power through their knowledge of behavioral interventions that was respected by various stakeholders involved. According to George et al., both legitimate power and expert power helped school psychologists to be accepted in their new roles by the teachers that they consulted with. Consulting with administrators, school psychologists again used their legitimate power and expert power, and consequently had strong impact on the school-wide initiatives as they were strong advocates for the changes being made.

Organizational Development/Systems Change

Given that school psychologists typically work within the a larger organizational structure, it is not surprising that Shriberg (2007) has identified organizational development/systems change as the model most represented within school psychology leadership literature. As noted earlier, within school systems school psychologists are in positions to be agents of change. In order to be in the position for others to view them as experts to lead systems change, school psychologists can follow the action steps recommended by Knoff (2000) based on his experiences with the Project ACHIEVE program. Knoff recommends that school psychologists understand the full extent of the problem at hand and conduct a comprehensive needs assessment. They should then explore the creation of a coalition of resource people for initiating district-level discussion. A school psychologists should summarize in a briefing paper a description of the goals and objectives of the proposal, a sequence of events, the people and resources needed to accomplish the objectives, and specific outcomes that will demonstrate success of the initiative. They should then outline and begin the administrative process. This is a long-term process, likely to take place over the course of a year or more (Knoff, 2000).

Miller, et al. (2005) concluded that the area of organizational consultation presents the most important role for school psychologists in systems change. In this study by Miller, George, and Fogt, initially reluctant teachers eventually implemented a change (i.e. the use of physical restraints) in an alternative day school for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. The teachers recognized three factors as influential in overcoming their initial resistance – early, small-scale success of the change, the use of data, and the practical, positive impact on working conditions. This study shows that school psychologists should work smarter rather than harder and start small but think big. For change to occur, key stakeholders need to agree on the presence of a problem and commit to finding solutions to the problem (Miller, George, & Fogt 2005).

Whatever model school psychologists work from, it is clear that it is possible for them to participate in and provide support through systemic change, and it is even possible for them to be leaders in this process. The preparation and training along with a shift in the perception of our roles as school psychologists are influencing current practice. This is evident throughout recent literature on school psychology practice.

Moving Forward as Leaders

Grimes and Tilly (1996) point out that leadership does not necessarily come from the person in charge of an organization (e.g. principal, superintendent, or board of education member). Leaders may be people who simply have significant influence on others. According to Grimes and Tilly, a leader’s reaction to an opportunity for change will sets a tone for an entire organization’s response. School psychologists are thus particularly appropriate as possible leaders throughout change in school systems.

School psychologists must examine their role as agents of change within system reform. School psychologists must recognize what impact they can have in order for change to be successful. Lay (2010) points out that becoming a leader in a system requires preparation and effort that begins with knowledge of self and one’s skill set. For school psychologists, Lay says that "We know data, we know children, and we know about problem solving, but it is equally important to understand what is happening both inside and outside the walls of the classroom" (p.12). It is important for school psychologists to expand their knowledge set beyond that of the typical school psychologist role. Key factors to a successful role as a leader within an educational setting, according to Lay, include building effective relationships within the school building, building mutual respect and trust with other leaders within the school, fostering effective collaboration with school staff, increasing communication skills, and making oneself available with your presence, whether you are in the building or not.

Sheridan & D’Amato (2003) describe a sense of optimism stemming from the Multisite Conference on the Future of School Psychology in 2002. "It challenged us independently and organizationally to raise our standards and assert our roles for one main purpose – to understand and improve the realities of children, families, schools, and society" (Sheridan & D’Amato, 2003, p. 355). Sheridan & D’Amato call on school psychologists "to build on and continue the momentum of the Futures Conference" (p.353) as the conference can guide the way that school psychologists meet many of society’s needs through schools.

At the beginning of the 21st century, Sheridan & Gutkin advocated a paradigm shift for school psychological practice. These authors called for an ecological model of system delivery. "School psychologists are part of the ecology within which children, families, and school function. Practice, training, and research in the field are intricately embedded within changing ecologies (realities) that include the multiple systems, setting, and populations with which we are concerned" (Sheridan & Gutkin, 2000, p. 489). The authors discuss how the systems in which school psychologists operate are changing. For school psychology practice to be relevant in a new era of education, school psychologists must be responsive to the changing needs of school systems. As discussed in this paper, the knowledge and skill set that school psychologists acquire through training makes them relevant to the changing field of education, even at the system level, a particular area of need.

Schools are certainly capable of making changes with the appropriate guidance. School psychologists have a big role to fill in the present educational era. "Rather than being seen as exceptions to the rule that schools cannot change, the development of a small number of innovative practices and schools may instead reflect the rule that schools can only change through the monumental effort, unusual resourcefulness, and strong leadership of key individuals or groups" (Hatch, 2000, p. 581). School psychologists can indeed be the key individuals or group members involved in change within a school system.