As noted above, evaluating individuals is only half of the equation in supporting high quality service delivery. The NASP Practice Model can also form the foundation for evaluating school psychological services delivered by a department or group of school psychologists (referred to here as the "school psychology services program"). It is just as important that you are involved in developing program level evaluation systems as personnel evaluations. You can do this most effectively working collaboratively with your colleagues and supervisor(s).
Smith-Harvey and Struzziero (2008) suggest that evaluating the school psychology services program should:
To begin this evaluation process, Smith-Harvey and Struzziero (2008) indicate that several questions should be asked related to the effectiveness and quality of school psychological services. Answering each of these questions requires collecting data in different ways and from varying sources.
Given these questions, the components of a comprehensive system of evaluating school psychological services would include:
Evaluating the overall quality and positive impact of school psychological services on students, families, and staff. School psychologists must increasingly use their data-based decision making skills to provide evidence of the impact of their services on the academic and social well-being of students. Section II of this guide to implementation of the NASP Practice Model articulates a process you can use for aligning your services to support the strategic goals of schools. Data collected through these processes are useful for showing the contributions that you and your colleagues collectively make to meeting school-wide, grade-wide, or classroom-defined goals. Strategies and indicators for evaluating the impact of school psychological services might include collecting:
Additionally, you should be aware of national standards for data collection that might exist. The What Works Clearing House, housed as the Institute of Education Sciences, identifies evidence-based practices. Selection of programs should include those that have empirical data using rigorous standards for program evaluation. In every case, you should consider the breadth of services being offered in response to the breadth of needs of students and work to identify objective methods for monitoring and reporting student progress in response to those services.
Evaluating school psychological services in relation to state and federal guidelines. Maintaining compliance with state and federal statutory or regulatory requirements is necessary, is an important goal for school administration, and will most likely result in the best outcomes for our students and families. Evaluations should consider the data collected in compliance with federal, local, or state laws. For example, federal law requires states to report data related to graduation rates, achievement in reading and math, and various indicators of school discipline. State and local laws may require collecting and reporting data related to student attendance, incidences of bullying, frequency and type of classroom disruptions, drug or alcohol use on campus, and more. Other accessible data that could reflect on school psychological program effectiveness related to legal requirements are available through state special education compliance monitoring and due process hearings, such as:
There are many sources of data currently being collected in schools that could support the evaluation of school psychological programs. It is critically important that you and your colleagues are aware of the breadth of data being collected and consider how those data are potentially linked to the quality of school psychological services in the district.
Evaluating district level school psychological services according to the NASP Practice Model. The NASP Practice Model offers several possibilities for assessing whether school psychological services are being delivered according to national standards. The NASP Practice Model can serve as a framework for evaluating (a) the depth and breadth of services offered by the school district in response to student needs, (b) the quality of supervision and mentoring provided to district school psychologists, and (c) the availability and quality of professional development and support to grow and nurture school psychologists.
The Depth and Breadth of Services. Comprehensive screening for academic, behavioral, and social-emotional risks, and factors that contribute to those risks, helps identify the prevention and intervention programs necessary. Important questions to be answered within this process include:
The Quality of Supervision and Mentoring. The NASP Practice Model Organizational Principles advocate for the following quality supervision and mentoring standards:
Qualified supervisors hold a valid school psychology state credential, have a minimum of 3 years of experience as a school psychologist, and have either education and/or experience providing supervision. Supervisors should:
Professional Development. The NASP Practice Model also provides guidance for school systems regarding the need to support the professional growth and advancement of school psychologists. It is critically important that a school district support practitioners in identifying areas where professional growth is needed and then also the time and resources needed to access the relevant training, supervision, mentoring, and support to improve practice. Districts can facilitate this process by encouraging practitioners and supervisors to take the NASP Practice Model online self-assessment and to develop personal professional development plans designed to enhance or remediate skills. Many schools can also recognize practitioners' commitment to excellence through employee recognition programs or other merit-based award programs.
Table IV.5 summarizes ineffective practices that often result from these barriers and what corresponding effective practices might look like.
Table IV.5. Practices in School Psychological Services Program Evaluation
| Ineffective Practices | Effective Practices |
| District policy discourages offering ongoing counseling services to students. School counseling staff may meet with students one time about an issue and then are encouraged to refer families for outside of school counseling support. | Counseling services are available in the district for all students in need. For special education students, these services are written into the IEP as needed. The IEP team determines the best qualified provider (school psychologist, school counselor, etc.) to deliver these services. Counseling records are maintained indicating the students who received counseling and the issues that were addressed. Records are reviewed annually to determine if systemic supports offered around particular issues are sufficient and effective. |
| In a school district with historically low graduation rates and high rates of office referrals, suspensions, and expulsions, data are collected at the school level and are never shared with the district office administrators. No system-wide analysis is undertaken. Interventions offered in schools are driven by interested practitioners and are not driven by system needs. | A multidisciplinary district level data team reviews school and feeder system discipline data on a regular basis. The team then works with school mental health team supervisors to determine a district-wide plan for reducing disciplinary problems, improving student-teacher interactions, and delivering targeted interventions to students at greatest risk for suspension and expulsion. Monitoring and review of the implementation of the plan occurs regularly. |
| The district ratio of school psychologist to student is three times greater than the nationally recommended ratios. The school psychologist supervisor is told by his boss that with the impending budget cuts in the district, it doesn't even make sense to ask for more positions. The primary responsibility of school psychologists is to complete assessments for multidisciplinary evaluations, leaving little time for any delivery of a comprehensive school psychological program. | Recognizing the valuable contributions of the school psychologist to improving student engagement and achievement, the school board commits to working towards adoption of the NASP Practice Model, including improving the ratios. A 10-year plan is developed to move the district to full adoption of the model. Data is collected annually about ratios, caseloads, the role of school psychologists, and their contributions to student achievement. The district accountability team review data, reports to appropriate administrators, and adjusts the plan as needed. |
