Psychology in Schools

Abstract

Psychology’s connection to education and teaching is manifested in many forms: in research cooperation, in psychological subfields and in psychological professions for education and learning. This article examines two important questions in that area: 1) What kind of psychology is most useful for teachers and in teachers’ education? And 2) How, considering the history and development of psychological services in the Icelandic school system, should these services be organized in Iceland, with special respect to the policy of „inclusive education“.

We explain how modern psychology has, since its beginning, evolved to embrace an ever wider area – not by developing a grand theoretical base, not by general deepening of common research programs, and not by a homogeneous accumulation of empirical results – but rather by developing a diversification of subject areas to which empirical methods are applied. This has produced an array of methods and theoretical frameworks relevant to their respective subfields, held together by a common subject matter (explaining behavior), an unflinching loyalty to empirical testing and critical thinking as well as wide-ranging ameliorism.

These properties of the field, are not always properly respected when psychology is called upon to serve in schooling and teaching – and sometimes even turned on its head – when untested (even untestable) theories of psychology are presented as common knowledge in modern psychology and employed in educational roles, from proxies for educational policy to the allocation of values and culture in schoolwork. We hold that, in accordance with the nature of psychology, its application in schools is most useful when it is evidence based, empirically driven and practiced in close collaboration with school personnel. Psychology is a research-driven activity and hence its application is most successful when that is respected in close cooperation with teachers and their needs.

The history of psychological services in the Icelandic comprehensive school system (6 to 16 year-olds) reveals incompatible emphases that touch upon the above discussion. The roles that ambitious legislation in the eighties assigned to psychologists and other supporting professionals in the school system have been reduced, narrowed and changed. This has mostly happened without rationale, but obviously in connection with two factors: The policy of „education for all“ and the transfer of comprehensive schools from state governance to municipalities and local government.

The „education for all“ policy has been poorly defined, financed and processed as is documented in state-requested reports. It has increased the responsibilities of teachers to deal with special student needs, but at the same time the services of psychologists to teachers have become more distant, even moved from the schools to outside institutes or private practices. Psychologists’ roles in the system have been reduced, mostly to diagnostic and advisory roles in the hope of enabling teachers themselves to handle all classroom problems – often obviously outside their expertise and training. Although teachers work well and efficiently given their situation, this state of insufficient help is stressful and is likely to harm school morale and general performance.

We hold that new legislation and an accompanying regulatory framework is clearly needed to ensure that expert knowledge can be of full use to teachers, so they can work full time teaching, as well as to other school staff– and the schools will better attain the goals embedded in the policy of „education for all“.