What Is a Bilingual School Psychologist? A National Survey of the Credentialing Bodies of School Psychologists

Abstract

The present study explored the credentialing practices for bilingual school psychologists in the United States. Credentialing agencies of school psychologists, mostly State Departments of Education, across the 50 states and the District of Columbia were contacted via telephone by trained graduate student research assistants. Only two of the credentialing agencies that were contacted reported that their states (New York and Illinois) provided a specific credential for bilingual school psychologists. A careful review of the requirements for each state revealed a lack of agreement regarding how these practitioners should be trained. The implications of these findings and suggestions for future research in this area are discussed.

Keywords

bilingual school psychologist credentials nondiscriminatory assessment English language learners

School psychologists are typically credentialed by either their respective State Departments of Education or State Board of Examiners. These organizations typically issue either a “certificate” or a “license” that allows school psychologists to practice within their respective State’s public schools, or an independent “license” that allows for the licensed psychologist to work in private practice within their State. According to Fagan and Sachs Wise (2007), “practice credentials legally authorize an individual to use a particular title, render particular services and ensure that these specific titles and practices are used by professionals who meet standards of high quality within their field of expertise” (p. 234). In recent years, sub-specialties within the field of school psychology have begun to emerge. For example, the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) currently has 28 interest groups (IG), each focused on a specific area of specialty. These IGs typically meet annually at the association’s national conference, and communicate with other IG members via e-communities throughout the year (NASP, n.d.-a). Notably, little is known about how school psychologists are obtaining additional training in these areas of specialty. The focus of this article will be on the growing sub-specialty of bilingual school psychology. Although there are several graduate programs that offer specialized training in bilingual school psychology, little is known regarding the respective State credentialing criteria for these practitioners.

Sotelo-Dynega and Dixon (2014) surveyed 323 school psychologists and discovered that fewer than 12% of the sample identified themselves as “bilingual/multicultural school psychologists.” When these respondents were further asked whether their state required that bilingual practitioners hold a credential above and beyond that required to practice as a school psychologist, approximately 60% did not know, 32% responded that they did not need another credential, and only 7% reported that their State did require an additional credential. Of those who reported that their state required a specific credential for practicing as a bilingual/multicultural school psychologist, the most commonly reported requirements for this additional credential included additional coursework, demonstrating proficiency in a language other than English, and supervised internship/externship experiences.

These findings are notable because they suggest that although some bilingual practitioners have received additional training and a credential to certify their qualifications to practice as bilingual school psychologists, others have not, and may be using the title of bilingual school psychologist simply because they can “communicate” in a language other than English. The use of this title without appropriate training can potentially lead to multiple problems, one of which might involve a lack of competence in the provision of school psychological services to bilingual students and their families. The changing demographics of our nation’s schools has led to an increased demand for school psychologists, among other school personnel, who know how to best educate and intervene with students who are linguistically diverse (Newell et al., 2010). Therefore, as a first step, it is essential to investigate the number of States that require that their bilingual school psychologists be credentialed, and to explore their requirements. This information can potentially lead to the development of the credentialing process of bilingual practitioners in other States, and possibly the development of more bilingual school psychology training programs throughout the country.

Changed Demographics

English language learners (ELLs) are one of the fastest growing groups among students enrolled in our nations’ public schools. Nearly 5 million, or 10%, of public school students in the United States are ELLs (National Center for Education Statistics, 2013). Historically, states including California, Texas, Florida, and New York, considered to be high in numbers of immigrants, tend to have the highest concentrations of ELL students. Although these states continue to have the highest numbers of ELLs, nearly all states throughout the country have seen dramatic increases in ELL enrollment during the last 20 years (National Center for Education Statistics, 2013). These changes, along with changes in legislation requiring schools to demonstrate the progress of their ELLs’ English language proficiency development and their progress toward achieving their respective grade level standards in English language arts (No Child Left Behind [NCLB] Act of 2001, 2002) have significantly impacted how schools educate ELLs. This group of students has been described as “diverse, multicultural, multilingual, and academically challenged . . . with the highest dropout rate, lowest achievement scores, largest mobility rate, and highest poverty rate” (McCardle, Mele-McCarthy, Cutting, Leos, & D’Emilio, 2005, p. 1). Taken together, all of these factors significantly affect the ability to effectively educate these students.

Bilingual Education and Disproportionality in Special Education

Although it is beyond the scope of this article to review the best practices in the education and intervention of ELLs, it is imperative to note that how ELLs are educated plays a huge role in how successful they will be academically. Educators must realize that ELLs are not a homogeneous group of students who can all be educated identically. In fact, ELLs differ on a variety of factors, but the most careful consideration must be given to their conversational and academic proficiencies in both languages when determining the appropriate educational programming. Cummins’ (2000) work has shown that learning how to communicate is a relatively quicker process than learning how to read, write, and think in a second language. Conversational language referred to as Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS; Cummins, 2000) requires about 1 to 3 years to master, but the processes associated with acquiring the academic aspects of a language, referred to as Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP; Cummins, 2000), require approximately 5 to 7 years to develop and typically demand formal academic experiences. Therefore, careful consideration must be given to each ELL student’s respective BICS and CALP level before a determination of educational programming and intervention is made. Unfortunately, some of our nation’s schools may not be adequately equipped to provide a variety of bilingual programs that are necessary to effectively prepare ELLs for academic success.

A potential result of the limited educational programs and resources available for ELLs might be contributing to the disproportionate representation of ELLs in special education. According to Sullivan (2011), although the average percentage of students who are classified with a disability that require special education is 9% nationally, the classification rates for ELLs range from 0% to 17.3% throughout the country. The data suggest that when compared with the national average, states are either under- or over-identifying ELLs for special education services. This phenomenon might be the result of a combination of the limited knowledge about the developmental trajectory of the acquisition of a second language, and the lack of resources available to provide programs that work. In other words, because students may not be necessarily receiving the appropriate supports to develop their academic aspects of English, ELLs may be at risk of falling behind academically. As a result, school personnel may elect to give students more time to develop their English, and decide not to refer them for an evaluation. Or on the other hand, school personnel may not consider the effect of an ELL’s English language development on their learning and may refer them prematurely for an evaluation.

Unfortunately, for those students who are referred for an evaluation, the problems may be just beginning. Once an ELL is referred for an evaluation to rule-out a disability that may be affecting their learning, the belief is that a bilingual practitioner, who is well versed in issues related to the assessment of bilinguals, is going to be assigned to the case and will know whether the learning issues are the result of the typical developmental process associated with the process of second language acquisition, or the result of an underlying disorder. Unfortunately, this scenario is not likely to occur for several reasons discussed herein.

Bilingual School Psychology

Despite the diversity of the students enrolled in our nation’s public schools, the racial and ethnic characteristics of those who make up the profession of school psychology do not mirror the population at large (Curtis, Castillo, & Gelley, 2010). Curtis and colleagues (2010) surveyed the membership of NASP and reported that despite efforts to “recruit greater numbers of members of racial/ethnic minority groups into the field, more than 9 out of 10 school psychologists identified themselves as Caucasian in 2010 . . . [a] percentage that has not changed markedly over the last 30 years” (p. 3). Despite the data, in an effort to increase the resources available to non-members who are seeking bilingual practitioners, NASP developed an online national directory of bilingual school psychologists that currently includes approximately 800 NASP members (http://www.nasponline.org/about_nasp/bilingualdirectory.aspx). Because inclusion in the directory is solely based on self-report, NASP has provided a general disclaimer to the public describing their inability to guarantee the accuracy or endorsement of those who are included in the directory. In personal communication with Mary Beth Klotz, NASP’s Director of Educational Practice (August 14, 2013), the NASP members included in the directory represent 48 states, 13 foreign countries, and 68 different languages, with Spanish being the most common (n = 459). California (n = 118), New York (n = 102), Illinois (n = 56), Florida (n = 54), and Texas (n = 48) have the largest concentrations of bilingual practitioners listed in the directory. Considering that not all school psychologists are members of NASP, it is safe to assume that these frequencies may be a gross under-representation of the actual number of bilingual school psychologists practicing nationally.

As presented in Table 1, NASP (n.d.-b) reports that there are currently only 19 programs located nationally that provide a training model that focuses on multiculturalism and/or bilingualism. Notably, only nine of these programs provide their students with the opportunity to specialize in bilingual school psychology. The lack of training programs in bilingual school psychology might be the result of a much larger issue that is impacting the specialty of school psychology. It is has been established that there is a national shortage of school psychology trainers in the United States (Clopton & Haselhuhn, 2009). As a result, some school psychology training programs have been unable to fill positions, despite national searches for faculty. Furthermore, considering that there are only nine programs that provide training in bilingual school psychology, there may not be enough adequately prepared trainers available to develop more bilingually focused school psychology training programs. Clopton and Haselhuhn (2009) add that school psychology graduate students typically seek applied work with students that they would not get when working in an academic setting. Furthermore, Worrell, Skaggs, and Brown (2006) reported that the salaries associated with academic positions might not be as appealing to graduate students as the salaries of school psychologists working in the public schools. Therefore, because of these factors, a different approach to training may be warranted.

Table 1.

NASP’s List of Programs With a Focus on Multiculturalism and/or Bilingualism.

Specialist-level programs	Specialist- and doctoral-level programs	Doctoral-level programs
Argosy University–Hawaii	Georgia State University	Pennsylvania State University
Brigham Young University	Lehigh University	Texas A&M University
Brooklyn College–City University of New York	St. John’s University–New York	University of Colorado–Denver
Gallaudet University	Ohio State University
New Mexico State University	University of Nebraska–Lincoln
Queens College–City University of New York	University of Wisconsin–Madison
San Diego State University
Tufts University
University of Arizona–Tucson
University of Massachusetts–Boston

Note. Program names presented in bold–italic reportedly have a bilingual specialization. NASP = National Association of School Psychologists.

Although details regarding the exact number of bilingual practitioners and their training are unknown, we do know that school psychologists work with diverse students and are likely to modify their practices somewhat when working with them, particularly when conducting cognitive assessments (Sotelo-Dynega & Dixon, 2014). Unfortunately, little is known about the validity and reliability of certain assessment practices that are used with ELLs, which may be contributing in part to the issue of disproportionality in special education among this population of students.

Assessment of Bilinguals

Although school psychologists are trained to provide a variety of services that include consultation and counseling, the majority of their time has historically been spent on assessment (Fagan & Sachs Wise, 2007). Psychological assessment as defined by Urbina (2004) is “a flexible, non standardized, process aimed at reaching a defensible determination concerning one or more psychological issues or questions, through the collection, evaluation, and analysis of data appropriate to the purpose at hand” (p. 24). Typically, the assessment process begins when the student is not making expected academic progress. To be effective, the school psychologist must be trained in a way that prepares them to help teachers, parents and other school personnel determine why the student is not progressing. Although each student brings with them unique experiential, intellectual, biological, social, and emotional backgrounds that contribute to how they learn, the developmental processes associated with learning a second language and acculturating to a different culture can add a complex layer to the assessment process, that an un-trained practitioner might not consider.

ELLs, along with other culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) children, are often suspected of having trouble learning. Unfortunately, because the trajectories of the development of a second language and acculturation are not always considered, the students are then more likely to be referred for an evaluation to rule out an underlying disability (National Education Association, 2007). Once referred, although it would seem like the ideal scenario would be for a “bilingual school psychologist” to conduct the evaluation in the native language of the student, little is known about the validity and feasibility of this kind evaluation or the practitioners who conduct them. Ortiz (2009) discusses the importance of differentiating between bilingual assessment and the assessment of bilinguals. He describes bilingual assessment as referring to the assessment of a bilingual student via the use of native language tests and/or a combination of native language and English tests, by a practitioner who is able to communicate in both English and the target language. Ortiz adds that on the other hand, the assessment of bilinguals involves knowledge of nondiscriminatory assessment procedures and can be performed by any trained practitioner, regardless of their linguistic or cultural background. Although this discussion is beyond the scope of this article, it is important to stress that

to engage in bilingual assessment, a psychologist must possess the requisite linguistic (and cultural) competency. Even when the competency requirement is met, the potential for bias is not fully diminished because there are no established procedures or guidelines to guide the process in a fair and equitable manner. How children growing up bilingual and bicultural in the United States should perform on tests that are normed on children raised in monolingual, single-culture environments is unknown. Consequently, the vast majority of assessments to be conducted by psychologists fall under the tradition of assessment of bilinguals, where cultural and linguistic knowledge bases can be applied systematically within the context of a comprehensive framework for nondiscriminatory assessment. (Ortiz, 2009, p. 668)

As previously mentioned, although seemingly ideal, very little is known about bilingual assessment and bilingual school psychologists in general. Before further research can be conducted in this area, it would be important to know how many credentials already exist for bilingual practitioners, and to investigate the criteria that credentialing agencies have set as the requirements necessary to obtain these credentials.

The Present Study

Given the changed demographics of the United States, the assessment of bilinguals and other diverse students by current school psychologists is inevitable. Although knowledge of these practitioners’ practices is important, the focus of the present study is to initially explore the qualifications of the practitioners who are conducting these assessments. The present study has two main goals. The first is to identify the credentialing procedures used nationally for bilingual school psychologists by conducting a national survey of school psychology credentialing agencies. Specifically, are bilingual school psychologists that are practicing in the United States using this title because they have earned a credential that permits them to do so, or because they personally define themselves as a “bilingual”? The second goal of the present study is exploratory in nature. Once a state has been identified as requiring a specified credential for bilingual school psychologists, what are the criteria states consider to be important factors in the training of their bilingual practitioners and are there consistencies or discrepancies among state requirements?

Method

During the fall of 2008, 51 school psychology credentialing agencies (State Departments of Education, n = 49; Commission for Teacher Certification, n = 1; Board of Psychology Credentials, n = 1) were contacted via telephone by five (four females, one male), trained graduate-level research assistants (RAs). All five of the RAs were enrolled as first-year graduate students in a specialist degree program in school psychology located in the northeast of the United States. The RAs volunteered to assist in the data collection of this study due to interest in the topic and as part of the training program’s requirement that all students must engage in a total of 50 hours of research while they are in the program. Typically most students in the program fulfill this requirement by electing to volunteer to assist core faculty with their active research projects. The principal investigator (PI), an assistant professor of school psychology and certified bilingual school psychologist, developed a specific set of guidelines that all RAs would follow. Each RA was required to contact 10 or 11 states via telephone or internet search. The states were assigned to each RA in groups of 10 to 11 in alphabetical order (i.e., Alabama–Florida; Georgia–Maine; Maryland–New Hampshire; New Jersey–Rhode Island; South Carolina–Wyoming). Telephone numbers for the respective credentialing agencies were obtained via NASP’s National School Psychology Certification and Licensure Online Resource List (NASP, n.d.-c). Once the appropriate representative was reached at the credentialing agency, the RAs were required to follow a scripted protocol that included a short set of questions related to the credentialing of bilingual school psychologists. The PI developed the script (see the appendix) so that data consistent with the goals and research questions of the present study could be obtained.

Responses were obtained for 50 out of the 51 agencies that were contacted. The District of Columbia could not be reached despite several attempts. Although several phone calls were made, messages were left, e-mails were sent, and a review of the District of Columbia’s Office of the State Superintendent of Education’s website was conducted, we were not able to confirm whether or not a bilingual credential existed.

During the summer of 2013, a graduate-level RA that was assigned to the PI as a doctoral fellow conducted a follow-up of the previously reported findings. Although the RA was trained the same way as the previous RAs, and the same script was used, rather than calling each credentialing agency, a web search was conducted. For this follow-up, the PI decided to conduct a web search, rather than to call the agencies directly due to the difficulties that the previous RAs had when contacting the agencies and obtaining information from the agents that they spoke to. The RA used the links for the 51 credentialing agencies that were posted on NASP’s National School Psychology Certification and Licensure Online Resource List (NASP, n.d.-c).

Results

Notably, according to the data that were collected for this study, the overwhelming majority of credentialing bodies (48 states) of school psychologists did not provide a credential or training standards for bilingual school psychologists. The states of New York (NY) and Illinois (IL) were the only two exceptions. In addition to all the requirements necessary to be a school psychologist in NY and IL, both states required additional criteria to become credentialed, bilingual practitioners. In NY, the credential is referred to as a “bilingual extension” and in IL, “bilingual special education approval.” Although both states consistently required coursework and a demonstrated proficiency in a target language, the criteria required by the state of NY were clearly more rigorous than those required by IL. Table 2 presents the criteria required by both states for the credentialing of bilingual school psychologists in detail.

Table 2.

Criteria Required for Credential to Practice as a Bilingual School Psychologist.

Criteria	Illinois	New York
Bilingual education knowledge examination	Not required	Must demonstrate knowledge of bilingual education foundations
Language proficiency examination in English	Not required	Must demonstrate proficiency in listening, speaking, reading, and writing in English
Language proficiency examination in the target language	Must demonstrate proficiency in reading, writing, and listening in the target language	Must demonstrate proficiency in listening, speaking, reading, and writing in the target language
Coursework	Must successfully complete 1 of 2 courses:Assessment of the bilingual childPsychological/educational assessment of the limited English proficient student with disabilities	15 semester hours:Cultural perspectives (bilingual education)Theory and practice of bilingual/multicultural educationMethods of providing service in the native language
Supervised fieldwork	Not required	Supervised professional experience with culturally and linguistically diverse children and youth

Considering that 5 years have passed since the original data were collected, it was important to note that the online, follow-up review of the state credentialing agencies revealed that no additional states added a bilingual credential, nor did NY or IL modify their requirements. In addition, a review of the District of Columbia’s website did not indicate that there was a credential available for bilingual school psychologists. Although these follow-up data are important, unfortunately, there was no way for us to determine whether the information included on the websites was updated or completely accurate.

Discussion

The findings of the present study suggest that for the majority of states in the nation, school psychologists who are bilingual might be using the title of “bilingual school psychologist” to indicate that they are able to communicate in a language other than English and not because they are credentialed to do so. It is only in two states, NY and IL, where practitioners must first meet state-mandated criteria that go above and beyond those criteria required for certification or licensure as a school psychologist to use the title. Therefore, it is possible that some bilingual practitioners working in states other than NY and IL may be engaging in practices that are either not valid or potentially discriminatory. This presents ethical concerns, as practitioners should not be engaging in practices that are outside of their boundaries of competence (NASP, 2010). However, it is unknown whether these practitioners have independently sought additional training regarding the provision of bilingual school psychological services. If they have, they might in fact be engaging in best practices. Therefore, the results of this study simply shed light on the fact that additional research is necessary to explore more about who these bilingual practitioners are, where they practice, how they are trained, and what methods they utilize in their practices with bilingual students and their families.

Furthermore, although there are some training programs in the United States that provide a specialization in bilingual school psychology, there are only a few; and in general, there do not appear to be any clear-cut training standards or guidelines provided by the major professional associations that represent school psychologists (i.e., NASP and Division 16 of the American Psychological Association) that are specific to bilingual school psychology. The general lack of standards and guidelines regarding the training of bilingual practitioners might be reflected in the lack of consistency between the requirements required for bilingual certification in NY and IL (as presented in Table 2). It is clear that the criteria required in NY are much more comprehensive than those required in IL. NY’s criteria represent a multi-faceted approach to training that requires that practitioners demonstrate language proficiency via standardized examinations for their English and target languages, as well as to demonstrate competency in their knowledge of bilingual education. Furthermore, in addition to relevant coursework, to qualify, practitioners must also engage in supervised fieldwork experiences with CLD students.

As evidenced, by NY’s bilingual certification criteria, although important, the provision of bilingual school psychological services does not merely require the ability to effectively communicate in a language other than English but also requires the development of a unique set of knowledge and professional skills that should be achieved via coursework and supervised, practical experiences. Unfortunately at this time, there are only a few programs available for bilingual practitioners to receive the training that is necessary to achieve competency. A programmatic evaluation of the nine bilingual school psychology training programs listed herein might be a critical next step in understanding how these practitioners are being prepared to provide services. Knowing what training programs are doing and whether or not their methods are successful might lead to the eventual development of a comprehensive set of training standards and guidelines for bilingual practitioners.

Although the United States is known for its immigration and diversity, there are other countries that have also experienced large waves of immigration (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, n.d.) that have most likely changed the landscape of their educational environments, and have lead to an increased demand for bilingual education and school psychological services. Therefore, researchers in this field are encouraged to collaborate with one another internationally. It would be interesting to investigate the credentialing, training, and practice procedures of bilingual practitioners globally.

Limitations and Concluding Remarks

Although the data for this study were originally collected during 2008, a follow-up conducted during the summer of 2013 revealed that none of the original data collected had changed. In other words, according to the follow-up data, no additional states had added a credential for bilingual practitioners, and neither NY nor IL modified their credentialing requirements for bilingual practitioners in any way. Furthermore, considering the methodology used for this project, it is possible that other states use different titles or different routes for assuring that their bilingual practitioners are “qualified” that representatives from the credentialing agencies contacted were not aware of. It is also possible that the credentialing agency representatives may have provided the research assistants with incorrect information. The same holds true for the follow-up review that was conducted during the summer of 2013; it is possible that a search of state credentialing agency websites might not have revealed a credential for bilingual practitioners if it was listed under a different title, or certification pathway. Furthermore, as previously mentioned, the information that was presented on the webpages that were accessed for this study might not have been complete or up to date.

Despite the limitations associated with this study, the results shed some light on the need to enhance the services that are provided to ELLs by investigating how bilingual school psychologists are currently being trained, and how they should be trained. A review of the literature revealed an examination of training related to bilingual psychoeducational assessment practices conducted by Ochoa, Rivera, and Ford in 1997. Ochoa and colleagues surveyed 1507 school psychologists and found that nearly 80% of those who were surveyed reported their training regarding the psychoeducational assessment of bilingual students to be less than adequate. More recently, O’Bryon and Rogers (2010) surveyed the NASP membership and discovered that although practitioners reported being generally better prepared regarding the provision of bilingual school psychological services, there were areas in which they did not feel that they received adequate training (i.e., the use of interpreters).

These findings are notable because they reflect a shift in the field that involves practitioners engaging in practices that are based on what the literature reports as being best practices as they relate to the assessment of bilinguals. According to O’Bryon and Rogers (2010),

of the various training experiences in which [the sample] participated, engaging in continuing education efforts proved to be the most important in learning best practices when performing language proficiency assessments, selecting assessment measures, and working with interpreters . . . this was a notable finding considering that most of those surveyed did not attend a graduate training program specializing in service delivery to bilingual populations. (p. 1031)

O’Bryon and Rogers’ findings are important because they highlight the importance of continuing professional development (CPD) for practicing school psychologists. As previously mentioned, although the ideal scenario would involve the provision of services to ELLs by an adequately trained, bilingual school psychologist, research must first be conducted to determine how bilingual school psychologists are being trained and how they should be trained. Of course training would be based on the available literature regarding the best practices for use with ELLs that unfortunately, at this point in time, is very limited. Therefore, although ideal, this scenario will involve a great deal of time and effort before it comes to fruition.

Given the diversity of our nation’s schools, working with ELLs is inevitable. Therefore, all school psychologists must be trained in nondiscriminatory assessment methods. As O’Bryon and Rogers (2010) reported, most of the school psychologists that they surveyed enhanced their knowledge regarding the assessment of bilinguals via CPD. Furthermore, Armistead and colleagues (2013) surveyed 510 members of NASP regarding their CPD preferences and practices and found that the overwhelming majority of those surveyed reported that they engage in at least 25 hours of CPD per year and do so mostly because “they believe CPD to be a professional obligation” (p. 421). The provision of well-developed CPD training modules might be an effective, short-term solution for practitioners to enhance their knowledge regarding the assessment of ELLs. Although the demand for such programming is relatively unknown, the potential effects of such training may lead to improvements in the issues related to disproportionality that are currently affecting this group of students.

In summary, although the specialty of school psychology has made great strides in providing fair, non-biased services for ELLs, we still have a long way to go before the majority of practitioners are engaging in best practices. The findings of this study confirm the notion that bilingual school psychologists, who are qualified to practice under such title, are scarce in the United States. Before the number of these professionals can be increased, research regarding how to best train these practitioners must be conducted in addition to further research regarding the actual practices that are used with ELLs and their effectiveness. Although this will take a considerable amount of time, in the interim, professional organizations that represent school psychologists are encouraged to develop more CPD training modules based on the assessment (and other domains of practice) of ELLs.

Footnotes

Appendix

State: _______________________________________________________________________

Name of Office: _______________________________________________________________

Telephone Number: ____________________________________________________________

E-mail Address: _______________________________________________________________

Name of Contact(s): ____________________________________________________________

Your Name:_____________________________________________________Date:_________

Acknowledgements

I extend my appreciation to Laura Geddes, Amanda Luhrs, and Jason Teague for their help during the early stages of this project, and to Deanna Spoto for your continued hard work and dedication to this important work.

Author’s Note

Some of the data reported herein were presented at the 2009 National Association of School Psychologists conference in Boston, Massachusetts.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Armistead

L. D.

Castillo

J. M.

Curtis

M. J.

Chappel

Cunnigham

(2013). School psychologists’ continuing professional development preferences and practices. Psychology in the Schools, 50, 415-432. doi:10.1002/pits.21684

Clopton

K. L.

Haselhuhn

C. W.

(2009). School psychology trainer shortage in the USA: Current status and projections for the future. School Psychology International, 30, 24-42. doi:10.1177/0143034308101848

Cummins

(2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Curtis

M. J.

Castillo

J. M.

Gelley

(2010). School psychology 2010: Demographics, employment, and the context for professional practice-part 1. Communiqué, 40(7). Retrieved from http://www.nasponline.org/publications/cq/40/7/school-psychology-demographics.aspx

Fagan

T. K.

Sachs Wise

(2007). School psychology: Past, present, and future (3rd ed.). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Flanagan

D. P.

McGrew

K. S.

Ortiz

S. O.

(2000). The Wechsler intelligence scales and Gf-Gc theory: A contemporary approach to interpretation. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

McCardle

Mele-McCarthy

Cutting

Leos

D’Emilio

(2005). Learning disabilities in English language learners: Identifying the issues. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20, 1-5. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2005.00114.x

National Association of School Psychologists. (2010). Standards for school psychology: Ethical and professional practices for school psychologists. Bethesda, MD: Author.

National Association of School Psychologists. (n.d.-a). NASP interest groups. Retrieved from http://www.nasponline.org/about_nasp/interestgroups.aspx

10.

National Association of School Psychologists. (n.d.-b). National school psychology certification and licensure online resource list. Retrieved from http://www.nasponline.org.certification/state_infor_list.aspx

11.

National Association of School Psychologists. (n.d.-c). Programs with a focus on multiculturalism and/or bilingualism. Retrieved from http://www.nasponline.org/resources/culturalcompetence/multprograms.aspx

12.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). The condition of education 2013. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2013/2013037.pdf

13.

National Education Association. (2007). Truth in labeling: Disproportionality in special education. Washington, DC: Author.

14.

Newell

M. L.

Nastassi

B. K.

Hatzichristou

Jones

J. M.

Schanding

G. T.

Yetter

(2010). Evidence on multicultural training in school psychology: Recommendations for future directions. School Psychology Quarterly, 25, 249-278. doi:10.1037/a0021542

15.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Pub. L. No. 107–110, USC § 115, Stat. 1425. (2002).

16.

O’Bryon

E. C.

Rogers

M. R.

(2010). Bilingual school psychologists’ assessment practices with English language learners. Psychology in the Schools. 47, 1018-1034.

17.

Ochoa

S.H.

Rivera

B.D.

Ford

(1997). An investigation of school psychology training pertaining to bilingual psycho-educational assessment of primarily Hispanic students: Twenty-five years after Diana v. California. Journal of School Psychology, 35(4), 329-349.

18.

Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (n.d.). International migration database. Retrieved from http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=MIG

19.

Ortiz

S. O.

(2009). Bilingual-multicultural assessment with the WISC-IV. In Flanagan

D. P.

Kaufman

A. S.

(Eds.), Essentials of WISC-IV assessment, second edition (pp. 295-309). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

20.

Sotelo-Dynega

Dixon

S. G.

(2014). Cognitive assessment practices: A survey of school psychologists. Psychology in the Schools, 51(10), 1031-1045.x.

21.

Sullivan

A.L. A. L.

(2011). Disproportionality in special education identification and placement of English language learners. Exceptional Children, 77, 317-334.

22.

Urbina

(2004). Essentials of psychological testing. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

23.

Worrell

T. G.

Skaggs

G. E.

Brown

M. B.

(2006). School psychologists job satisfaction: A 22 year perspective in the USA. School Psychology International, 27, 131-145. doi:10.1177/0143034306064540