05/08/2026
We post this essay every year for Teacher Appreciation Week - a piece by Dr. Lee Gurel written twelve years ago about his support of high school psychology teachers and the long-lasting APA/Clark University Workshop, written for the PTN newsletter. We echo his message of thanks to each of you.
Thoughts on Teaching and Teachers of High School Psychology
Lee Gurel, PhD
In responding to the APA Education Directorate’s request that I tell you “...why (I) have supported teachers and what (I’ve) learned (and most) enjoyed from 11 years of the APA/Clark University workshop,” I will start by telling you I could not believe any more strongly than I do in the importance of education in general and of psychology in particular. I see them as having so much to offer our society.
That said, let me ask if there aren’t many days when you question whether you are having much impact on your students. Then, allow me to list a few names: Sloan, Couming, Shaugnessy, Powers, LaCouture, Wilmott. Not names to be found in the References section of psychology texts. They are the names of some of the wonderful public school teachers I had for Geography, Math, English literature, Latin, French, and English comp, respectively.
When I tell you I am 89 years old, an age when memory is decidedly less than perfect, you will likely guess where I’m taking you.
Yes, my point is that teachers do have a profound and unforgettable impact on students. And not just in terms of subject matter content. Phys Ed teacher Granger publically praised my basket shooting form in a way that poured long-lasting confidence onto my short, not-meant-for-basketball frame. And not only teachers whom a student likes. Mr. Wassell, the band and orchestra director whom I disliked, nevertheless left me with lasting personal responsibility lessons that had little to do with music.
In a word, I am indebted beyond measure to the wonderful teachers I have had. They escorted a three-year-old immigrant without a word of English to his being editor of the Clark University student newspaper, to publishing in professional journals, and to being honored by the request to write this memoir.
It is that feeling of indebtedness that underlies my support for teachers and for education in general. It is different from monetary support of CARE (http://www.care.org) or of the ACLU. Yes, I owe such organizations in an abstract way for the wonderful work they do. But not in the way I owe the teachers and schools that have so enriched my life; when I contribute dollars to education, it is in partial payment of a very real debt that I can never fully repay.
I must admit, however, that as a student, I did not much appreciate all that my teachers were giving me. On the other hand, neither did my parents nor I loudly complain, as today’s parents and students increasingly do, that the teacher should have recognized Mary’s leadership skills and given her a teacher assistant position or rewarded Johnny’s outstanding work (read sub-standard) with an “A” not a “D”.
* * **
It was within that framework of appreciation and recognition of teacher effort that the Clark/APA/APF workshop was developed.
As luck would have it, my wife’s college roommate, TOPSS member Joyce Hylton, was proof that psychology was being taught in high school – the extent of which I had not fully appreciated. That knowledge resonated with my recognition that, degrees from top notch schools notwithstanding, lots more exposure to psychology, maybe even in high school, would have been helpful when starting my first position. As it was, one of my interns filled the lacunae in my diagnostic evaluation skills. Likewise, my Martinsburg, WV location, about 50 miles from Catholic University made possible my taking Mauri Lorr’s advanced statistics. Thus, I could not help thinking in the mid-1990’s as high school psychology was starting to thrive and expand of the benefits of a start in high school for the study of psychology (see K. Keith, et al, High School Psychology: A coming of Age Story, Sage Publications.com, October 7, 2013).
Updating of my knowledge of high school psychology continued during APA’s 1997 Chicago convention when Ms. Hylton arranged a meeting with her co-worker Pam Hannah (also a TOPSS member). Next, Joyce and I met with Rob McEntarffer (then TOPSS Chairperson) and with Education Directorate staff. It was there that the prospect of an APA/Clark collaboration was introduced. Feasibility of such a collaboration was pursued with Dr. Nancy Budwig, Clark’s Associate Provost and Dean of Research; she responded with characteristic enthusiasm to my inquiry.
The next step was the crucial one of approval by Dr. Cynthia Belar, (then) head of the Education Directorate, of initial plans regarding funding and sharing of responsibilities. The hopeful idea of a workshop format had been envisioned, but the real work of continuing development and implementation was left for Dr. Budwig and Education Directorate staff, primarily Emily Leary (-Chesnes). As I have often said and repeat here, it is they who are mostly responsible for the widely heralded success of each of the eleven, three-legged-stool workshops held to date.
Did I say three-legged resounding success of the workshops? Yes. First and foremost, Budwig and Chesnes, and the organizational strengths and resources they draw on. Secondly, the knowledgeable and exciting group of lecturers the two of them and their co-workers assembled year after year. The third leg of the stool which supports the workshop success structure should be known to those familiar with stage and musical presentations. It is the audience. Or, in the case of the APA-Clark workshop, the high school teachers as student learners. Just as the interplay between an involved vs. uninvolved audience and the actors/musicians on stage is the difference between an OK performance and one that is memorable, so too has been the interaction between workshop presenters and audience.
One could not have sat, as I have, as an observer/participant during the classroom presentations, during the evening participant demonstrations, during the exchanges at meals and breaks, and not have felt the electricity generated by the student group. These were people who were not just attentive; they were energized and involved, anxious to learn. Examples they gave of their classroom techniques evidenced creative, passionate teaching and their commitment to the educational effort which was their occupation.
Lest you suspect exaggeration, I remind you that for many teachers a mid-summer workshop came at a cost of disrupting family vacation plans or passing up earning opportunities. As further support of my admiring characterization of the teacher students: Not once during the eleven workshops was there an opportunity to characterize an excess of enthusiasm as “show-off” behavior. Nor was I aware of any “just resting my eyes.”
* * * *
The predominantly scientist group reading to this point have undoubtedly read and heard much about adequately large sample size but little about small sample qualitative analysis. In spite of this being an N=1 product, please allow me the following closing thoughts.
I feel compelled to note the socio-political environment which defines public education efforts and within which the educators described above function. To begin with, one need only compare salaries a decade after college graduation of education majors to those of graduates in almost all other majors. A 2008 follow-up report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed education majors earned half as much salary. Albeit true that most teachers did not go into teaching for the salary, it is tempting to see the comparison as other than scandalous. As of this writing, the No Child Left Behind effort was recently replaced. Levels of teacher salaries and recognition have not been replaced and remain relatively the same.
I have very much enjoyed being in the company of these devoted teacher-students, and I am proud to have had a role in adding to their skills.
