The Thoroughbred Years (1970–Present) 423requirements, organizational advocacy and governmental
relations, literary content, and practice.
Some of the external and internal regulation was in re-
sponse to the changing structure of U.S. society. Increased
immigration contributed to a more culturally diverse school
population. School psychologists were particularly involved
in programs of bilingual education, the teaching of tolerance,
and especially the development of nondiscriminatory assess-
ment practices. Maternal employment out of the home and
the rapid rise of single-parent families, largely as a result of
divorce, also had an impact on schooling and psychological
services. These were related to concerns for “latchkey” and
“at-risk” children that necessitated school psychological ser-
vices along lines of intervention and consultation (see later
discussion of practice).
Finally, the practitioner workforce was also growing in
cultural diversity, but by the turn of the twenty-first century it
was still predominantly Caucasian. Efforts to improve minor-
ity representation have been moderately successful. Women
were always well represented in school psychology, perhaps
always at least 30% of practitioners. Many held high-ranking
administrative positions in school districts and directed de-
partments of psychological services. Female representation
in the field increased rapidly after the 1960s and was more
than 70% by the late 1990s. In the Thoroughbred Years,
women quickly acquired positions of leadership in the NASP,
the APA, and state associations, as well as editorships and
training program faculty positions.
Organizational Development
Professional progress related to school psychology organiza-
tions is one of the most dramatic historical developments of
the Thoroughbred Years. The NASP, with fewer than 1,000
members in its first year, grew to more than 21,000 by the year
2000 and dominated the organizational development of the
period. However, it struggled in its first decade to establish a
base beyond itself in public advocacy and governmental rela-
tions. Instead, the period 1970–1980 was characterized by
internal achievements, including a code of ethics, standards
for training, credentialing, and service provision, publica-
tions, conventions, and practitioner representation. Although
its efforts in governmental relations were noteworthy, partic-
ularly those efforts connected to the federal legislation men-
tioned above, in the 1980s such efforts gained in stature. In
the 1990s, these efforts blossomed with a strong Washington,
DC, presence after the NASP established its headquarters in
the DC area (Fagan, Gorin, & Tharinger, 2000).
Among the NASP’s many accomplishments in this period,
two are paramount in contributing to professionalization. The
first was its persistent effort with the NCATE to jointly and
separately recognize training programs that met NASP stan-
dards. This was achieved within the NCATE’s revised proce-
dures for unit accreditation and for programs that were in
institutions that did not participate in NCATE accreditation.
By the late 1980s, the NASP had reached an agreement with
the NCATE to identify NASP-approved programs at both the
doctoral and specialist degree levels. By 1999, approximately
half of all training programs were so approved (Fagan &
Wells, 2000). The second was the success of its National
Certification in School Psychology (NCSP) program, which
gave individual practitioners recognition for completing train-
ing consistent with the NASP’s standards. More than 50%
of NASP members held the NCSP during the 1990s.
Within a decade of its founding, NASP became the domi-
nant representative group for school psychologists at the
national level, although it shared in several collaborative
efforts with the APA and its Division of School Psychology.
Descriptions of NASP history are found in School Psychol-
ogy Digest(volume 8, number 2), School Psychology Review
(volume 18, number 2), Fagan (1993, 1994), Fagan and Bose
(2000), and Fagan, Gorin, and Tharinger (2000).
The Division of School Psychology still could not capture
a representative practitioner membership. However, most
trainers, especially those connected to doctoral programs,
held membership in the division, often also holding member-
ship in NASP. The division’s total membership persisted in
the range of 2,300–2,800 throughout the period. As an offi-
cial governance unit within the APA and accepting APA
policies with regard to doctoral training, credentialing, and
practice, the division consolidated its advocacy for doctoral
school psychology, succeeded in gaining a stronger represen-
tation on key APA boards and committees, and gained ap-
proval for doctoral program accreditation, resulting in the
first accreditation of a program at the University of Texas in- The growth of APA-accredited school psychology pro-
grams was slow but steady beyond 1980, and by 1999 there
were more than 50 accredited programs (Fagan & Wells,
2000). Accounts of the division’s history appear in Fagan
(1993, 1996) and Fagan, Gorin, and Tharinger (2000).
The policies of the NASP and the APA included sharp
differences regarding the legitimacy of the nondoctoral prac-
titioner. These differences were at the center of most contro-
versies among the NASP, the APA, and the APA’s Division of
School Psychology. They influenced policies and negotia-
tions on matters of training, credentialing, titles, and practice.
For example, accreditation conflicts between the NCATE and
the APA led to the establishment in 1978 of the APA-NASP
Task Force, now titled the Interorganizational Committee
(IOC). Although such differences have yet to be resolved, the