We take a look back to 1995 when Conoley and Gutkin shared their vision for an adult-focused practice of school psychology with a primary focus on developing health-promoting systems for schoolage children. We then look to the present to what has happened and not happened to substantiate their vision. We found very encouraging developments and continuing challenges in the research targets and practice roles of school psychologists. There is no shortage of evidence-based strategies to improve the school experience of all children. The opportunities offered by, for example, the Multi-Tiered Systems of Support paradigm are promising, but it is unclear whether school psychologists are assuming leadership roles in this work. Furthermore, incorporating postdoctoral specialties is a promising role expansion for school psychologists, but most of the specialties keep the psychologists' focus on individual child assessment and treatment. School psychology is a very large professional tent with room for many approaches to preventing childhood disorders and promoting behavioral and academic success. Graduate education and current practice seem to reflect the traditional test and place roles for psychologists that Conoley and Gutkin hoped to expand beyond 25 years ago. Research efforts and national organization supports are hopeful, however, for a reimagined practice of psychology that makes use of the powerful ecosystems that affect children's well-being. Much work is yet to be done. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Tests in Print Jane Close Conoley, Jane Close Conoley University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, NebraskaSearch for more papers by this authorElizabeth O. Lichtenberger, Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger The Salk Institute, La Jolla, CaliforniaSearch for more papers by this author Jane Close Conoley, Jane Close Conoley University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, NebraskaSearch for more papers by this authorElizabeth O. Lichtenberger, Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger The Salk Institute, La Jolla, CaliforniaSearch for more papers by this author First published: 07 February 2014 https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118660584.ese2381 Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Encyclopedia of Special Education: A Reference for the Education of Children, Adolescents, and Adults with Disabilities and Other Exceptional IndividualsBrowse other articles of this reference work:BROWSE A-Z RelatedInformation

Buros Mental Measurements Yearbook Jane Close Conoley, Jane Close Conoley University of NebraskaSearch for more papers by this authorElaine Fletcher-Janzen, Elaine Fletcher-Janzen University of Colorado at Colorado SpringsSearch for more papers by this author Jane Close Conoley, Jane Close Conoley University of NebraskaSearch for more papers by this authorElaine Fletcher-Janzen, Elaine Fletcher-Janzen University of Colorado at Colorado SpringsSearch for more papers by this author First published: 15 July 2008 https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470373699.speced0354 Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Encyclopedia of Special EducationBrowse other articles of this reference work:BROWSE A-Z RelatedInformation

Buros, Oscar K. (1905–1978) Jane Close Conoley, Jane Close Conoley University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, NebraskaSearch for more papers by this author Jane Close Conoley, Jane Close Conoley University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, NebraskaSearch for more papers by this author First published: 10 February 2014 https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118660584.ese0393 Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Encyclopedia of Special Education: A Reference for the Education of Children, Adolescents, and Adults with Disabilities and Other Exceptional IndividualsBrowse other articles of this reference work:BROWSE A-Z RelatedInformation

Authors in this special issue edited by Cook and Friend provide analyses of many important relationships within a school: teacher to teacher; teacher to paraprofessional, educators, and home caregivers; and whole-building systems. Their focus on collaboration prompted us to reflect on a possible theoretical mechanism behind the success of collaboration. In this article we suggest that positive psychology processes mediate the influences of collaboration upon the improvements in schools. We hope our perspective facilitates research and practice. In a perfect world filled with wisdom and resources, Pre-K through 12 schools might be designed quite differently. Although the details of such a design would vary with the priorities of the planners, a few parameters might be universal. For example, teachers would have access to material assistance so that their focus could be always on children’s learning. This assistance would include clerical help with routine tasks, expert consultation about children with special needs, continuous professional development to hone their skills in subject areas and pedagogical competences, and assistance in their understanding of their students. They would have time in their days protected so that they could meet with colleagues to plan instructional and behavioral plans for children with all levels of need and potential. They would have regular access to classroom assistants who were skilled in extending and reinforcing the teachers’ instructional plans. Further, their schools would be led by principals who were experts at maximizing relationships among teachers and with parents, district leader

School Psychology: A Blueprint for Training and Practice III (Ysseldyke et al., 2006) continues an over 20-year tradition of reenvisioning school psychology. This latest edition focuses with great clarity on school psychology as, ideally, a profession devoted to the prevention of school-based difficulties for children and capacity building for educational professionals. A reflection on Blueprint III is presented in this article using a brief overview of the history of consultation research as a backdrop to argue for more research attention to implementation realities in schools. These contexts, which change regularly based on characteristics of students, schools, teachers, and federal and state policy, may play a primary role in dictating service delivery patterns. Contextual forces may overwhelm even consultation models found to be effective in clinical trialsespecially if school psychologists are not practicing skills that might ready systems for consultation. Further, school psychology training models may require scrutiny in the face of continuing challenges to establish a workforce capable of both knowing about and implementing consensual and evidence-based best practices. Finally, the expert practice of consultation by experienced school psychologists may be an underutilized source of information that should be tapped by consultation researchers who care about both identifying and disseminating efficacious practices into school settings.

Lawrence King (15 years old) was shot twice in his head on February 12, 2008, by a 14-year-old classmate at E. O. Green Junior High School in Oxnard, California. The eighth-grade classmates of the perpetrator and the victim described the bad blood that existed between the two because of the victim's openly gay appearance. Classmates admitted that the victim, a child from a foster setting, had been the target of harassment because of his feminine dress, hair arrangements, and other mannerisms that were gender non-normative. Gay-baiting and taunting turned deadly with the announcement that he was brain dead by February 14 (Saillant & Covarrubias, 2008). Although extreme, this example provides a sinister punctuation to the articles making up this special issue. The lead authors of this group of articles (Poteat, 2008; Swearer, Turner, Givens, & Pollack, 2008; Espelage, Aragon, Birkett, & Koenig, 2008; Rivers & Noret, 2008) describe a disturbing picture. According to the authors' reports and the most recent publication from the National Center for Education Statistics on school safety (Nolle, Guerino, & Dinkes, 2007), 43% of middle school educators report that student bullying occurs at school daily or weekly. Twenty-two percent of high school and 21% of primary school educators report this same frequency. Victims appear to be chosen based on their physical appearance (e.g., weak or obese), clothes, high grades, non-normative looks or behavior (e.g., weird or geeky), and non-normative gender behaviors. Within a social context that enforces behavior standards through threats, taunts, and physical attacks, young people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered (LGBT), or who look like they may be LGBT, or may be questioning their sexual orientation, are at some special risk for bullying with the accompanying threats to their physical, academic, and psychological well-being (Poteat, 2008; Swearer et al., 2008). Although school bullies are not modern inventions, the effects on individuals and the moderators and mediators of effects are now better understood and open to scrutiny through modern methodological approaches apparent in several of the articles in this special issue (Espelage et al., 2008; Rivers & Noret, 2008). Schools: Safe Havens or Trial by Fire? Of some special note is that the social context within and across various friendship groups of young people appear to influence both the frequency of bullying behaviors and the ways in which the bullying is internalized (Poteat, 2008). Further, victimization seems to affect some students' perception of the entire school climate, with victims predictably reporting less favorable climates than nonvictims. Interstingly, as young people progress through school some of their attitudes toward bullying actually become more positive, as they interpret the bullying as teaching others how to behave in their particular organizational contexts (Swearer et al., 2008). These findings illustrate that both the behaviors as sociated with bullying and the effects of being bullied on young people are not merely the products of individual histories. These investigations of system-level forces that operate to promote or mitigate bullying occurrences and effects suggest the need for further inquiry about how the adults in school settings are involved in bullying. Assertions in several of the articles suggest that teachers are not perceived to intervene or do not intervene, especially when the victims are or are perceived to be LGBT. However, a reality is that some educators may not know how to intervene effectively (Whitman, Horn, & Boyd, 2007). They may normalize physical bullying as gender specific to males and relational bullying as specific to females, and therefore part of normal development. Further, adults may believe that children learn to be tough and resilient by dealing with same-age bullies and thus resist intervening as a way to promote self-confidence in victimized children. …

Although there can be no dispute that schools must do all that can be done to ensure the safety of learning environments, controversy has arisen about the use of zero tolerance policies an procedures to achieve those aims. In response to that controversy, and to assess the extent to which current practice benefits students and schools, the American Psychological Association convened a task force to evaluate the evidence and to make appropriate recommendations regarding zero tolerance policies and practices. An extensive review of the literature found that, despite a 20-year history of implementation, there are surprisingly few data that could directly test the assumptions of a zero tolerance approach to school discipline, and the data that are available tend to contradict those assumptions. Moreover, zero tolerance policies may negatively affect the relationship of education with juvenile justice and appear to conflict to some degree with current best knowledge concerning adolescent development. To address the needs of schools for discipline that can maintain school safety while maximizing student opportunity to learn, the report offers recommendations for both reforming zero tolerance where its implementation is necessary and for alternative practice to replace zero tolerance where a more appropriate approach is indicated.

The authors offer a consultation approach that grew from a review of literature on the differential participation rates of various U.S. demographic groups in programs for gifted and talented children and from two small evaluation studies of consultation efforts to increase the number of Latino English language learners in gifted and talented education (GATE) programs. The authors suggest the efficacy of combining consultation models (i.e., administrative, case, and conjoint behavioral consultation) to achieve greater equity in the identification of Latinos for GATE programs. The apparent link between family factors, especially socioeconomic status, and participation in GATE suggests the efficacy of using findings from consultation research to implement programs in public schools that support the exceptional success of diverse young people.