Advocating for Effective Instruction: School Psychologists as an Instructional Leader

  • Brian C. Poncy
  • Elizabeth McCallum
  • Christopher H. Skinner


Public schools are continually faced with the challenge of responding to and meeting the demands of an ever evolving set of societal and global expectations (Friedman, 2005). Recent iterations of this responsiveness came in the wake of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004. These have converged to emphasize the data-based accountability of student achievement in public schools. While many of the professionals working in schools have received training in some areas dealing with instruction, curriculum, behavior, assessment, evaluation, consultation, and data analysis, there are few that have been trained in each of these areas. One profession that does require training in each of these areas is school psychology. The combination of school psychologists’ training and skills and the evolving needs of schools to demonstrate improved student outcomes unveil a context for school psychologists to be increasingly active and influential participants on instructional leadership teams. The goal of this chapter, is to explore recent developments that are impacting professional practices in schools and identify ways that school psychologists can use their skills and knowledge to support effective instruction.


Student Achievement English Language Learner Early Intervention Service Oral Reading Fluency Assessment Matrix 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. AIMSweb Progress Monitoring and Response to Intervention System. (2006). Retrieved August 24, 2006, from
  2. Bergan, J. R. (1977). Behavioral consultation. Columbus, OH: Merrill.Google Scholar
  3. Berliner, D. C. (1984). The half-full glass: A review of research on teaching. In P. L. Hosford (Ed.), Using what we know about teaching (pp. 51–85). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  4. Billington, E. J., Skinner, C. H., & Cruchon, N. M. (2004). Improving sixth-grade students perceptions of high-effort assignments by assigning more work: Interaction of additive interspersal and assignment effort on assignment choice. Journal of School Psychology, 42, 477–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Binder, C. (1996). Behavioral fluency: Evolution of a new paradigm. The Behavior Analyst, 19, 163–197.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Breznitz, Z. (1987). Increasing first graders’ reading accuracy and comprehension by accelerating their reading rates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 236–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago, IL: Rand McNalley.Google Scholar
  8. Chambless, D. L., & Hollon, S. D. (1998). Defining empirically supported therapies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66(1), 7–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Christ, T. J. (2006). Short term estimates of growth using curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency: Estimating standard error of the slope to construct confidence intervals. School Psychology Review, 35, 128–133.Google Scholar
  10. Daly, E. J., Chafouleas, S., & Skinner, C. H. (2005). Interventions for reading problems: Designing and evaluating effective strategies. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  11. Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Behavior, 19, 450–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Deno, S. L. (1989). Curriculum-based measurement and special education services: A fundamental and direct relationship. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 1–17). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  13. Deno, S. L., & Mirkin, P. K. (1977). Data-based problem modification: A manual. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.Google Scholar
  14. Drake, R. E., Latimer, E. A., Leff, H. S., McHugo, G. J., & Burns, B. J. (2004). What is evidence. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 13, 717–728.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ebbinghaus, H. (1885). Uber das Dedachtinis (Memory, H. A. Ruger & C. E. Bussenius, Trans., New York: Teachers College, 1913; reprinted by Dover, 1964). Leipzig: Duncker & Humbolt.Google Scholar
  16. Fletcher, J. M., Coulter, W. A., Reschley, D. J., & Vaughn, S. (2004). Alternative approaches to the definition and identification of learning disabilities: Some questions and answers. Annals of Dyslexia, 54, 304–331.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  18. Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. A. (Eds.). (2002). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement.Google Scholar
  19. Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J., & Hall, R. V. (1984). Opportunity to respond and student academic performance. In W. Heward, T. Heron, D. Hill, & J. Trap-Porter (Eds.), Behavior analysis in education (pp. 58–88). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.Google Scholar
  20. Haring, N. G., & Eaton, M. D. (1978). Systematic instructional procedures: An instructional hierarchy. In N. G. Haring, T. C. Lovitt, M. D. Eaton, & C. L. Hansen (Eds.), The fourth R: Research in the classroom (pp. 23–40). Columbus, OH: Merrill.Google Scholar
  21. Heartland Area Education Agency. (2002). Program manual for special education. Johnston, IA: Author.Google Scholar
  22. Howell, K. W., Fox, S. L., & Morehead, M. K. (1993). Curriculum-based evaluation teaching and decision making (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.Google Scholar
  23. Kazdin, A. E. (2004). Evidence-based treatments: Challenges and priorities for practice and research. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 13, 923–940.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kratochwill, T. R., & Shernoff, E. S. (2004). Evidence-based practice: Promising evidence-based interventions in school psychology. School Psychology Review, 33, 34–48.Google Scholar
  25. LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Marston, D. B. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing academic performance: What it is and why we do it. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 18–78). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  27. McCabe, O. L. (2004). Crossing the quality chasm in behavioral health care: The role of evidence-based practice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35, 571–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McCurdy, M., Skinner, C. H., Grantham, K., Watson, T. S., & Hindman, P. M. (2001). Increasing on-task behavior in an elementary student during mathematics seat-work by interspersing additional brief problems. School Psychology Review, 30, 23–32.Google Scholar
  29. Michael, J. (1974). Statistical inference for individual organism research: Mixed blessing or curse. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7, 647–653.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2007). Nations report card. Retrieved March 13, 2007, from
  31. No Child Left Behind Act. (2002). U.S.C. 115 STAT. 1426.Google Scholar
  32. Perfetti, C. (1977). Language comprehension and fast decoding: Some psycholinguistic prerequisites for skilled reading comprehension. In J. Guthrie (Ed.), Cognition, curriculum, and comprehension (pp. 20–41). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  33. Poncy, B. C., Skinner, C. H., & Axtell, P. K. (2005). An investigation of the reliability and standard error of measurement of words read correctly per minute. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 326–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Poncy, B. C., Skinner, C. H., & Jaspers, K. E. (2007). Evaluating and comparing interventions designed to enhance math fact accuracy and fluency: Cover, copy, and compare versus taped problems. Journal of Behavioral Education, 16, 27–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Poncy, B. C., Skinner, C. H., & O’Mara, T. (2006). Detect, practice, and repair (DPR): The effects of a class-wide intervention on elementary students’ math fact fluency. Journal of Evidence Based Practices for Schools, 7, 47–68.Google Scholar
  36. Popkin, J., & Skinner, C. H. (2003). Enhancing academic performance in a classroom serving students with serious emotional disturbance: Interdependent group contingencies with randomly selected components. School Psychology Review, 32, 282–295.Google Scholar
  37. Rasinski, T. V. (2003). The fluent reader: Oral reading strategies for building word recognition, fluency, and comprehension. New York: Scholastic Professional Books.Google Scholar
  38. Rasinski, T. V. (2004). Creating fluent readers. Educational Leadership, 61, 46–51.Google Scholar
  39. Reschly, D. J., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2002). Paradigm shift: The past is not the future. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (pp. 1–20). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  40. Rhymer, K. N., Skinner, C. H., Henington, C., D’Reaux, R. A., & Sims, S. (1998). Effects of explicit timing on mathematics problem completion rates in African-American third-grade students. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 673–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sharp, S., & Skinner, C. H. (2004). Using interdependent group contingencies with randomly selected criteria and paired reading to enhance class-wide reading performance. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 20, 29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shinn, M. R. (Ed.). (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  43. Skinner, C. H. (1998). Preventing academic skills deficits. In T. S. Watson & F. Gresham (Eds.), Handbook of child behavior therapy: Ecological considerations in assessment, treatment, and evaluation (pp. 61–83). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  44. Skinner, C. H. (2002). An empirical analysis of interspersal research: Evidence, implications and applications of the discrete task completion hypothesis. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 347–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Skinner, C. H. (2004). Single-subject designs: Procedures that allow school psychologists to contribute to the intervention evaluation and validation process. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 20(2), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Skinner, C. H., Bamberg, H., Smith, E. S., & Powell, S. (1993). Subvocal responding to increase division fact fluency. Remedial and Special Education, 14, 49–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Skinner, C. H., Belfiore, P. J., Mace, H. W., Williams, S., & Johns, G. A. (1997). Altering response topography to increase response efficiency and learning rates. School Psychology Quarterly, 12, 54–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Skinner, C. H., Fletcher, P. A., & Henington, C. (1996). Increasing learning trial rates by increasing student response rates. School Psychology Quarterly, 11, 313–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Skinner, C. H., Hurst, K. L., Teeple, D. F., & Meadows, S. O. (2002). Increasing on-task behavior during mathematics independent seat-work in students with emotional disorders by interspersing additional brief problems. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 647–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Skinner, C. H., Logan, P., Robinson, S. L., & Robinson, D. H. (1997). Myths and realities of modeling as a reading intervention: Beyond acquisition. School Psychology Review, 26, 437–447.Google Scholar
  51. Skinner, C. H., Pappas, D. N., & Davis, K. A. (2005). Enhancing academic engagement: Providing opportunities for responding and influencing students to choose to respond. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 389–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Skinner, C. H., & Schock, H. H. (1995). Best practices in mathematics assessment. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (3rd ed., pp. 731–740). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  53. Skinner, C. H., & Smith, E. S. (1992). Issues surrounding the use of self-managed interventions for increasing academic performance. School Psychology Review, 21, 202–210.Google Scholar
  54. Skinner, C. H., Wallace, M. A., & Neddenriep, C. E. (2002). Academic remediation: Educational application of research on assignment preference and choice. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 24, 51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wallace, M. A., Cox, E. A., & Skinner, C. H. (2003). Increasing independent seat-work: Breaking large assignments into smaller assignments and teaching a student with retardation to recruit reinforcement. School Psychology Review, 23, 132–142.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brian C. Poncy
    • 1
  • Elizabeth McCallum
  • Christopher H. Skinner
  1. 1.Oklahoma State UniversityStillwaterUSA

Personalised recommendations