School Psychologist–Teacher Relationships: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Jessie Wu and Version 1 by Zuzana Müllerová.

A good relationship between the school psychologist and the teacher is key for the long-term effectiveness of a school psychologist’s work. 

  • school psychologists
  • teachers
  • school psychologist–teacher relationships
  • interdisciplinary collaboration at school
  • school psychology

1. International and Historical Overview of School Psychologist–Teacher Relationships

A good relationship and cooperation between the teacher and the school psychologist are essential for providing effective assistance to individual students and classes. School psychologists indirectly working with teachers and the school system was found to be more effective than direct individual work with children. School psychology is gradually undergoing a change, moving from its original focus on working with students to working with teachers, parents and the entire school system [10,11,12][1][2][3].
The trend can be found at different stages of development in different countries. The history of cooperation between the two professions is, therefore, different from country to country. It is important to identify the research by its country of origin and date. This is because school psychology is very diverse in each country and takes a different form and stage of development. This includes the social status of school psychologists, the level of education of school psychologists, the legislative and formal anchoring of school psychologists, whether school psychologists are united, for example, in clinics or rather isolated from their colleagues, etc.
While in the United States, one can find papers on the relationship between school psychologists and teachers from the end of the Second World War up to the 1960s [13,14,15][4][5][6], in Israel, one of the first people to write about cultivating this relationship was Smilansky [16][7] in the 1980s. One of the impulses that spurred interest in this topic is the introduction or support of inclusive education [17][8], as it relies on school employees working together to help create the best possible conditions for education for each individual student. The initial implementation of inclusion tends to put a great deal of strain on the relationship between teachers and school psychologists [18][9].
One of the important factors that affect cooperation between school psychologists and teachers is how the former is viewed by the latter. There is a relatively large number of studies looking at how the role of school psychologist is perceived in different countries—in Estonia [19[10][11],20], in China [21][12], in the United States [22[13][14],23], in Greece [24][15], in Australia [25][16].
For student assistance to be effective, it is important for the two employees to be good at working together. From the studies dealing with the development of school psychology in individual countries, it is apparent that at the beginning of the introduction of school psychology in schools, there was an initial mistrust or even resistance on the part of teachers to the school psychologist—initially perceived as superfluous or threatening. Mentions of this can be found in studies from Finland [26][17] and Greece [27][18] or a monograph from the Czech Republic [1][19], in which the authors write that a school psychologist can make teachers feel a sense of loss of professionalism, privacy or school funding.
Based on the existing research, school psychologists and teachers often diverge in how they assess the importance of the individual activities that a school psychologist performs. Although teachers generally want school psychologists to spend more time at school, they view their role primarily as working with individual students, despite the fact that the scope of their work is much broader, both in practice and in its legislative definition [20,28,29,30][11][20][21][22].
As some authors have noted, discrepancies between the actual role of the school psychologist and their role as perceived by educators can cause issues in the cooperation and trust between the two [28,31][20][23].
If teachers do not understand their (school psychologists’) role, if they are surprised by the work they undertake and if they have alternative expectations of the functions that they might perform, then it is likely that they will not value their contribution or seek their help [28][20] (p. 526).
In England and the United States, teachers often expressed regret or outrage, stating that school psychologists should spend less time diagnosing students and instead focus more on them individually [28][20]. In contrast, teachers in China require school psychologists to focus more on prevention and mental health education [21][12].
Teachers’ high expectations and the desire for immediate results have a similar negative effect on the relationship and cooperation between the two professions. When expectations are not met, educators end up giving the school psychologist negative evaluations [1,28][19][20].
The relationship is also negatively affected by the psychologists exercising their position of power and positioning themselves above teachers, as well as the simple fact that, in some countries, psychologists have a higher social standing than teachers. There is also criticism of insufficient, one-sided and often written communication between the school psychologist and teachers, which results in recommendations that are often too broad or impossible to implement. These topics are primarily discussed in some of the older studies [13,14,15,16][4][5][6][7].
According to Czech authors [1][19], in contrast, it is better for the relationship if a school psychologist has experience in the field as well as pedagogical experience. School psychologists have a different education and specialization than teachers and, as a result, view students from a different perspective. While the task of educators is primarily to educate the child, psychologists see the child more in the context of mental health and basic human needs. These perspectives may sometimes come into conflict. It is therefore important that educators are aware of students’ psychological problems and psychologists are aware of the teaching process [13,14][4][5].
As has been indicated above, scientific interest and the topicality of the relationship between educators and school psychologists are more common at the outset of school psychology or inclusion in a given country or when the focus of school psychologists changes from children to adults and the entire school system. This makes it important to increase the intensity and frequency of the school psychologist’s contact with teachers. This increased frequency of contact also increases the likelihood that communication issues will come up, requiring the psychologist to devote some time to solving them.

2. School Psychologist–Teacher Relationships in the Czech Republic

In the Czech Republic, a school psychologist is an expert providing (1) counseling, consultation and intervention services; (2) screening; and (3) methodical and educational activities for pupils, their parents and teachers directly at school). Contact between school psychologists and teachers is quite frequent and involved. Up to 98% of school psychologists in the Czech Republic give individual consultations to teachers and spend approximately 22% of their working time with them [32][24]. The intensity of work with teachers also depends, however, on the employment contract of the school psychologist and how much time they spend at the school. Psychologists who work at the school for longer periods of time or have more working hours have deeper cooperation with teachers [33][25].
In addition to the problem with the newly introduced position of psychologist in schools, which wresearchers mentioned in the introduction, the relationship between these two professionals is tested in other ways, too. There is also the issue of educating and training school psychologists in the Czech Republic. Although, legally speaking, graduates of single-subject psychology programs are considered qualified to act as school psychologists, weresearchers consider this training to be insufficient. Gaps in the curricula at the relevant universities, combined with a lack of experience, make it difficult for freshly graduated school psychologists to properly perform their professional duties. Young, insufficiently trained and inexperienced graduates then fail to gain the trust of teachers and school principals.
Finding an experienced and proficient school psychologist is extremely difficult, however, mainly because, in Czech school psychology, there is no required postgraduate systematic education nor a system of juniority and seniority as there is for clinical psychology, where aspiring psychologists have to first undergo attestation training and then pass an exam. The absence of such a system, therefore, makes it impossible to determine a professionally experienced school psychologist, and, as a result, teachers are naturally forced to make this assessment primarily on the basis of the psychologist’s age. This can be inaccurate, of course, as there are many older psychologists working in school psychology who have come from other fields of psychology. This means that they may not have gone through any postgraduate education or supervision. Graduates are subjected to the same expectations as psychologists who are experienced with working at schools. If they fail to meet these expectations, they lose their credibility among teachers. This is despite the fact that it should be completely natural that they are still gaining experience and improving professionally.

References

  1. Ahtola, A.; Kiiski-Mäki, H. What Do Schools Need? School Professionals’ Perceptions of School Psychology. Int. J. Sch. Educ. Psychol. 2014, 2, 95–105.
  2. Gutkin, T.B.; Conoley, J.C. Reconceptualizing School Psychology from a Service Delivery Perspective: Implications for Practice, Training, and Research. J. Sch. Psychol. 1990, 28, 203–223.
  3. Conoley, J.C.; Powers, K.; Gutkin, T.B. How Is School Psychology Doing: Why Hasn’t School Psychology Realized Its Promise? Sch. Psychol. 2020, 35, 367–374.
  4. Cason, E.B. Some Suggestions on the Interaction between the School Psychologist and the Classroom Teacher. J. Consult. Psychol. 1945, 9, 132–137.
  5. Handler, L.; Gerston, A.; Handler, B. Suggestions for Improved Psychologist-teacher Communication. Psychol. Sch. 1965, 2, 77–81.
  6. Reger, R. The School Psychologist and the Teacher: Effective Professional Relationships. J. Sch. Psychol. 1964, 3, 13–18.
  7. Smilansky, J. Problem Areas in the Relationship of School Psychologists and Teachers. Sch. Psychol. Int. 1982, 3, 23–27.
  8. Davies, S.M.B.; Howes, A.J.; Farrell, P. Tensions and Dilemmas as Drivers for Change in an Analysis of Joint Working Between Teachers and Educational Psychologists. Sch. Psychol. Int. 2008, 29, 400–417.
  9. Burden, R.L. Stress and the School Psychologist. Sch. Psychol. Int. 1988, 9, 55–59.
  10. Kikas, E. School Psychology in Estonia. Sch. Psychol. Int. 1999, 20, 352–364.
  11. Mägi, K.; Kikas, E. School Psychologists’ Role in School. Sch. Psychol. Int. 2009, 30, 331–346.
  12. Wang, C.; Ni, H.; Ding, Y.; Yi, C. Chinese Teachers’ Perceptions of the Roles and Functions of School Psychological Service Providers in Beijing. Sch. Psychol. Int. 2014, 36, 77–93.
  13. Dean, R.S. A Comparison of Preservice and Experienced Teachers’ Perceptions of the School Psychologist. J. Sch. Psychol. 1980, 18, 283–289.
  14. Watkins, M.W.; Crosby, E.G.; Pearson, J.L. Role of the School Psychologist. Sch. Psychol. Int. 2001, 22, 64–73.
  15. Dimakos, I.C. The Attitudes of Greek Teachers and Trainee Teachers Towards the Development of School Psychological and Counselling Services. Sch. Psychol. Int. 2006, 27, 415–425.
  16. Anderson, C.J.K.; Klassen, R.M.; Georgiou, G.K. Inclusion in Australia. Sch. Psychol. Int. 2007, 28, 131–147.
  17. Ahtola, A.; Niemi, P. Does It Work in Finland? School Psychological Services within a Successful System of Basic Education. Sch. Psychol. Int. 2013, 35, 136–151.
  18. Nikolopoulou, A.K.; Oakland, T. School Psychology in Greece. Sch. Psychol. Int. 1990, 11, 147–154.
  19. Štech, S.; Zapletalová, J. Úvod Do Školní Psychologie; Portál: Prague, Czech Republic, 2013.
  20. Farrell, P.; Jimerson, S.R.; Kalambouka, A.; Benoit, J. Teachers’ Perceptions of School Psychologists in Different Countries. Sch. Psychol. Int. 2005, 26, 525–544.
  21. Topping, K.J.; Freeman, A.G. What Do You Expect of an Educational Psychologist? AEP J. 1976, 4, 4–9.
  22. Watts, P.E.; Pasternicki, G. Consumer Expectations of Psychological Service Delivery in an English Local Education Authority. Sch. Psychol. Int. 1988, 9, 83–89.
  23. Pérez-González, F.; García-Ros, R.; Gómez-Artiga, A. A Survey of Teacher Perceptions of the School Psychologist‘s Skills in the Consultation Process. Sch. Psychol. Int. 2004, 25, 30–41.
  24. Kavenská, V.; Smékalová, E.; Šmahaj, J. School Psychology in the Czech Republic: Development, Status and Practice. Sch. Psychol. Int. 2013, 34, 556–565.
  25. Štech, S.; Zapletalová, J. Kvalitativní Analýza Přístupu Školních Psychologů k Profesi—Srovnání Kazuistických Studií. In Metodika Práce Školních Psychologů na ZŠ a SŠ; Zapletalová, J., Ed.; IPPP: Prague, Czech Republic, 2001; pp. 37–47.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Video Production Service
Feedback