A Brief Historical Review Of The Current Debate Over The Title, “Psychologist,” With Suggestions For Compromise

This current article is a commentary (with an additional call for compromise) on recent articles by the Texas Psychological Association (TPA), “Texas Psychologists Under Attack” and National Association of School Psychologists (NASP), “NASP Argues Proposed Rule Change Does Not ‘Attack’ Psychologists”. I originally intended to post these thoughts in the comment sections of one or both of the referenced articles. However, Christopher Fisher, Managing Editor of BMED Report, urged me to post my comments as a new article; apparently, he believed that I had several original and thought provoking ideas that warranted the additional attention of a new post.

For the past thirty plus years, I have provided Psychological services as a Psychologist and Licensed Specialist in School Psychology (LSSP) (and prior to LSSP, I was certified by Texas Education Agency.) My comments on the current issue regarding the title “Psychologist” likely comes from a somewhat different perspective. The title “Psychologist” is regulated by the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychology (TSBEP). The TSBEP’s authority is the result of legislation (and the attorney general’s interpretation of the legislation). TSBEP developed “Administrator Rules” to regulate all professionals whose credentials that are granted by the TSBEP (e.g., Psychologist, Licensed Psychological Associate [LPA], and Licensed Specialist in School Psychology [LSSP]).

Up until the mid-1970’s, professionals trained in school psychology (both master’s degree and Ph.D.) were credentialed though the Texas Education Agency (TEA), not the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychology.

In 1970’s, professionals providing psychological services in the school instead began to be credentialed by TSBEP due to a change in legislation. To my knowledge, only in Texas are professionals in school psychology under the auspices of a clinical licensed board (i.e., TSBEP) as opposed to the state’s central education agency (i.e., TEA).

In contrast, other assessment personnel who provide assessments to students in Texas are credentialed by the TEA (e.g., Educational Diagnostician).

From my thirty years plus perspective as a Ph.D. Psychologist and a Licensed Specialist in School Psychology, professional “in-fighting” among professional associations (e.g., TASP and TPA) intensified when professionals in school psychology were no longer credentialed by TEA.

I suggest a compromise be considered by all parties. Perhaps TASP (Texas Association of School Psychologists), TPA, APA (American Psychological Association), and NASP join together to educate Texas legislators the practicality of returning credentialing of school psychology professionals to TEA. I believe this is a particularly unique time to approach Texas Legislators if we are viewed as a unified profession on this issue. As I stated above, originally, we were credentialed by TEA as are all other professionals providing services to students. All other states apparently see the wisdom of the state’s central education agency credentialing professionals in the schools that provide school psychology services to students. Additionally, in my experience, TEA had a better understanding of regulating professions that provide services to students than the clinical license board. Finally, the issue of a professional title would again be determined by TEA, not TSBEP.

While the above recommended compromise will not meet the needs of all psychology professionals, my hunch is that it will meet the needs of many psychology professionals that provide day-to-day services in the schools and those who provide services in the clinical practices. Just imagine if our professional associations work together on this issue, what other professional goals for our profession and the public could be accomplished.

Respectfully Submitted,
Alan T. Fisher
Psychologist
LSSP