€¦ · web viewthat being said, it fails to address current roles and practices that are required...

Cobb County School District

School Psychologist Evaluation Instrument2015-16

1

Acknowledgment

The Cobb County School District’s School Psychologist Evaluation Instrument is based upon the work of Bruce Rogers, who in his role as president of the Georgia Association of School Psychologists (GASP), was determined to update to the prior evaluation instrument (GSPEP) developed in 1990. Without Mr. Rogers’ efforts and dedication to developing the GASP-School Psychologist Evaluation Instrument (GASP-SEI) the current iteration would certainly have taken a different path. Additional GASP members who assisted Mr. Rogers in developing the GASP-SEI include Catherine Perkins, Georgia State University; Frank Smith (Department of Education); Gail Exum de Gonzalez, Karen Hodges, and Candace Ford. Their efforts are appreciated and acknowledged through implementation of this instrument in CCSD.

The Cobb County School District’s (CCSD) School Psychologist Evaluation Instrument was developed to parallel current teacher and leader evaluation instruments developed by the GADOE. Dr. Laurel Kinard, Director of CCSD Student Assistance Programs and the Psychological Services Leadership team (Lourdes Diaz-Frias, Sharon Thompson, Laura Dilly and George Wrensen) provided feedback throughout the 2014-15 academic year. Additionally, Jana Ladner, Terry Nagurney, Sara Cole, Kim Saye and Tara Segassie assisted by reviewing proposed performance indicators and rubrics and assisting with discussion of the proposed instrument with colleagues.

2

Cobb County School DistrictSchool Psychologist Evaluation Instrument

Introduction/Rationale

The role of school psychologists, both in Georgia and throughout the United States, has evolved in response to both the demands of an increasingly diverse school population, as well as, advancements in the field. In 1975, the field of school psychology expanded dramatically as there became a greater need for those trained in special needs populations and who were served under the newly created PL 94-142- Education for All Handicapped Children Act. School psychologists became heavily associated with special education under this expansion. The long-standing traditional role was seen as evaluation specialists with expertise in individualized ability assessment, diagnosis, and intervention.

This perception has been supported by research specific to Georgia with the work of McAfee (1988), Kimball (1998) and most recently Rogers (2010). While initial roles and expectations revolved around assessment and duties primarily associated with special education (report writing and eligibility reports) Rogers noted a shift toward regular education and academic improvement that occurred with the introduction of the Pyramid of Interventions (2007) and with the national initiative for accountability and No Child Left Behind (NCLB). In his study (2010) Rogers reported an increased focus on psychological services including consultation, program planning, program implementation, and applied research. This supports the national trend of school psychologists being identified as data-based decision makers that are integral to the establishment and maintenance of successful school environments.

The Georgia School Psychologist Evaluation Program (GSPEP), was developed in 1990 collaboratively between the Georgia Department of Education (GADOE) and university trainers in the field of school psychology, It was created to help supervisors of school psychologists assess the performance of school psychologists in the schools (GSPEP, 1991). This instrument was unique within the educational arena due to the complexity and specialization of the field of school psychology; consequently, it had components built in (such as peer review) for those psychologists in settings where supervisors were not trained in the same profession. While the content of the GSPEP was profession specific, the method of assessment was similar to that of other educational professions in Georgia. It incorporated observations,records review, and feedback from consumers. The GSPEP provided a much needed structure for evaluating school psychologists at the time of its inception. That being said, it fails to address current roles and practices that are required to serve 21st century schools in Georgia.

School psychology, as a field, has changed over time along with pedagogical changes across the country (Fagan & Wise, 1994). In keeping with these changes, the Professional Standards Commission (PSC) of Georgia increased the educational requirement from a Master’s in Education degree to that of Educational Specialist in 1986 to match the increased complexity of the duties, roles and demands of school psychology practice. In combination with the PSC, the Georgia DOE recognizes the school psychologist’s certification requirements as the highest qualified entry level field. As previously noted, School psychologists minimum degree requirement is the Educational Specialist or equivalency level (30 hours above Master’s degree), which includes a 1200-hour year-long internship. This rigorous educational requirement is present to ensure adequate education and training given the variance of service demands across the state and the complexities of the roles and duties of the profession.

With improvement of effectiveness of services in mind, the National Association of School Psychologists(NASP) has developed periodic guidance to states and school systems regarding the provision of psychological services within the public schools including recommendations regarding the roles and functions of school psychologists. The first NASP publication of psychological services guidance was generated shortly after PL 94-142 in 1978. Subsequent revisions to the roles and services guidance documents were published in 1984, 1992, 1997, and 2000 and with the most recent practice model of psychological services being introduced in 2010 (NASP- Model, 2010). The 2010 NASP Model for Integrated Psychological Services is based on decades of enhanced model iterations with the goal of improving school psychological services to help children and youth succeed academically, emotionally, socially and behaviorally. The Georgia School Psychological Services Evaluation Instrument (GASP-SEI) reflects the areas and elements propounded in

3

the NASP model. This GASP-SEI instrument was developed by Bruce Rogers, former president of the Georgia Association of School Psychologists (GASP) and a team of professionals from school districts in the state as well as university faculty. Their purpose was to update the previous GSPEP to reflect the most current psychological services model from the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP 2010) and current training received by school psychologists in University programs in Georgia, as well as, the national NCSP approved programs across the nation. This instrument was developed with groundings in: Continuous improvement of services, effective and well-rounded services across school populations, and within the school-family-community continuum of stakeholders involved in the school system.

Thus, the purpose of the Georgia School Psychological Services Evaluation Instrument is to help provide for the stakeholders (supervisors and school systems) with:

A) The knowledge of potential areas of service in which school psychologists can be most effectiveB) A relevant, unbiased and reliable assessment tool for use in evaluating psychologists in the schoolsC) A tool which can help the school psychologist in improving services in his or her work environment.

The tool was developed and based in response to Georgia’s updated curriculum known as Common CoreGeorgia Performance Standards (CCGPS), the most current psychological services model (NASP 2010) and current training received by school psychologists in University programs around Georgia, as well as, the national NCSP approved programs around the country. This tool was created with the constructs of: continuous improvement of services, effective and well-rounded services across school populations, and within the school-family-community continuum of stakeholders involved in the school system.

The Cobb County School District School Psychologist Evaluation Instrument was created referencing the GASP-SEI, similar instruments from other states (Kansas, North Carolina, Virginia, and Arizona), integrating input from CCSD Psychological Services staff obtained through a survey designed and administered by Sara Cole (2014), and from discussions and revisions to our departmental vision during the 2014-15 school year. The purpose of this instrument is to integrate components of the NASP practice model, within current staffing constraints, to more accurately reflect the role and vision of CCSD’s Psychological Services department.

CCSD’s Psychological Services Department has further refined the GASP-SEI to integrate current role expectations as well as integrate expanding service roles for school psychologists. Changes reflect staffing realities relative to the NASP Comprehensive Model of Psychological Services, which recommends psychologist to student ratios of 1:1000, while currently CCSD School Psychologists have ratios of 1:2600 (average) or higher. Revisions to the GASP-SEI also incorporate flexibility in roles and responsibilities based upon identified departmental needs. Finally, the CCSD School Psychologist Evaluation Instrument provides a measure of performance standards in line with the Cobb Keys Teacher/Leader Effectiveness System (TKES/LKES) and consistent with Psychological Services’ Mission to provide psychological services within the school community through consultation, collaboration, research based interventions and individual assessments to facilitate learning and to promote positive mental health for all students.

The School Psychologist Evaluation Instrument utilizes the five domains of the GASP-SEI which are anchored under the NASP Framework. The five broad domain areas of service include: Data Analysis and Application; Collaborative Partnering; Intervention and Supports; System Level Services and Core Principles and Professional Responsibilities. Each of the five domains has two standards, which are similar to skills assessed using the GSPEP. The SPEI utilizes a rubric structured with increasingly complex and advancing skill and attribute descriptors which are linked to the demonstration of comprehensive school psychological services.

The following pages delineate the domains and standards through use of performance indicators, including possible artifacts for review and Performance Indicators for each standard.

4

Domain Standards & Related Performance Rubrics

Domain 1: Data Analysis & Application: Rationale- School psychologists have knowledge of varied models and methods of assessment and data collection for identifying strengths and needs, developing effective services and programs, and measuring progress and outcomes. School psychologists have knowledge of research design, statistics, measurement, varied data collection and analysis techniques, and program evaluation sufficient for understanding research and interpreting data in applied settings.

Standard 1-Data Based Decision Making and AccountabilityPerformance Indicator

Level IV-Exemplary(In addition to meeting the requirements for Level III)

Level III-ProficientExpected Level of Performance

Level II-Needs Development

Level I-Ineffective

1:1 The SP demonstrates knowledge and skill in selecting and administering appropriate psychological instruments in order to address referral concerns and to make program recommendations

The SP continually uses a wide range of instruments appropriately and effectively to address referral concerns, to make recommendations, and to address recommended eligibility components.

The SP consistently selects an adequate number of instruments to address referral concerns, to make recommendations, and to address recommended eligibility components.

The SP inconsistently selects appropriate instruments to address referral concerns, to make recommendations, and to address recommended eligibility components.

The SP does not select/administer appropriate instruments to address referring concerns and to address eligibility recommendations.

1:2 The SP considers a variety of contexts and data sources when making recommendations

The SP continually integrates data from home, school, classroom and community sources when making recommendations

The SP consistently integrates information from multiple contexts (home, school) when making recommendations

The SP inconsistently uses data from multiple sources to draw conclusions or to make recommendations

The SP does not integrate data from multiple sources into reports or recommendations

1:3 The SP communicates results of assessments in a clear manner

The SP continually demonstrates proficiency in explaining assessment findings to a variety of audiences in a clear and straightforward manner.

The SP consistently demonstrates the ability to clearly and effectively communicate assessment results to a variety of audiences in a clear and straightforward manner.

The SP inconsistently demonstrates the ability to communicate assessment results to parents/school staff in a clear and understandable manner.

The SP does not communicate results of the evaluation to relevant stakeholders

Possible Artifacts that may be used as evidence of performance on this standard: Folder Review (peer review); Supervisor Review of Reports; Observation of parent feedback meetings; observation of school meetings.

Standard 2-Research and Program EvaluationPerformance Indicator




Level I-Ineffective

1:4 SP uses knowledge of research and data analysis to assist schools with analyzing, interpreting, and using data to inform practices at the individual, group, school, and systems level. (Examples

The SP continually demonstrates engagement with school based staff regarding data analysis (e.g. school data teams) and uses this collaboration to improve student achievement at the

The SP consistently demonstrates understanding of school based data to assist individual students, grade levels and RTI teams with making appropriate decisions.

The SP inconsistently demonstrates use of data to assist individual students, grade levels and RTI teams with making appropriate decisions.

The SP does not access or use data as part of his/her daily practice to inform strategies or recommendations for student achievement.

5

include sharing relevant research with staff to address student needs in RTI and other meetings)

local school.

Possible Artifacts that may be used as evidence of performance on this standard: presentations, review of reports, CSIS documents, Formal observation, weekly summary activities

D omain 2: Consultation and Collaboration: Rationale-School psychologists have knowledge of varied models and strategies of consultation, collaboration, and communication applicable to individuals, families, groups, and systems and methods to facilitate the provision of information, advice or assistance to individuals or groups for problem-solving. School psychologists have knowledge of principles and research related to family systems, strengths, needs, and culture; evidence-based strategies to support family influences on children’s learning and mental health; and strategies to develop collaboration between families and schools.

Standard 3-Consultation and CollaborationPerformance Indicator



Level II-Needs Development Level I-Ineffective

2:1 SP demonstrates knowledge of a variety of consultation models and integrates these skills into their practice

The SP continually demonstrates skill initiating consultations with a variety of school, system, and community groups, as well as with families served.

The SP consistently demonstrates adequate knowledge and skill when consulting with others in his/her schools and when interfacing with other departments in the district.

The SP inconsistently demonstrates knowledge/ skills related to consultation within assigned schools.

The SP does not demonstrate adequate consultation skills to assist stakeholders at assigned schools.

2:2 SP demonstrates effective communication/collaborative skills with individuals, schools, and across the district.

The SP continually demonstrates effective communication practices (written/oral) that lead to collaborative relationships that assist students, schools and benefit PS-Department as a whole.

The SP consistently demonstrates effective communication and collaboration with individuals, school staff and district personnel throughout the school year.

The SP inconsistently demonstrates effective communication and collaboration with individuals, school staff and other district personnel as needed.

The SP does not demonstrate effective communication with individuals, schools staff or when interfacing with other system employees.

2:3 The SP demonstrates effective peer consultation through participating in departmental groups (MEET, Autism, Area Supervision, New Psychologist Supervision, staff meetings).

The SP continuously attends, participates, and takes on leadership roles in supervision and supports provided by the department and implements strategies recommendations as needed to assist with effectively serving students/schools

The SP consistently attends and participates in supervision and supports provided by the department and implements strategies/recommendations as needed to assist with effectively serving students/schools.

The SP inconsistently attends and participates in supervision and supports provided by the department and implements strategies/recommendations as needed to assist with effectively serving students/schools.

The SP does not attend, does not participate in supervision, or does not access supports provided by the department.

Possible Artifacts that may be used as evidence of performance on this standard: Attendance logs, reports (referencing

6

consultation), weekly summary

Standard 4: Family-School CollaborationPerformance Indicator




Level I-Ineffective

2:4 SP demonstrates effective skills in building and maintaining positive relationships with students and families to enhance social and academic functioning.

The SP continually demonstrates positive ongoing relationships with students and families and assists families with obtaining needed resources (school and community), through individual meetings/consultations regarding student needs. The SP provides parents information through a variety of sources (presentations, contributions to newsletter, involvement in school teams/activities)

The SP consistently demonstrates positive/effective relationships with students and families through participation in RTI, individual consultations, and through eligibility/IEP meetings

The SP inconsistently demonstrates positive relationships with students and families through participation in RTI, individual consultations, and through eligibility/IEP meetings

The SP does not demonstrate positive/effective relationships with students and families through participation in RTI, individual consultations, and through eligibility/IEP meetings

Possible Artifacts that may be used as evidence of performance on this standard: Parent presentations; parent feedback observations; parent survey; direct activity with students; supervisor feedback from stakeholders

Domain 3: Interventions & Support Services: ortsRationale: School psychologists have knowledge of biological, cultural, and social influences on academic skills; human learning, cognitive, and developmental processes; and evidence-based curricula and instructional strategies. School psychologists have knowledge of biological, cultural, developmental, and social influences on behavior and mental health, behavioral and emotional impacts on learning and life skills, and evidence-based strategies to promote social–emotional functioning and mental health.Standard 5: Interventions and Instructional Support to Develop Academic SkillsPerformance Indicator




Level I-Ineffective

3.1 SP actively assists individuals and teams (RTI, IEP) with developing appropriate educational interventions to assist student learning needs

The SP continually demonstrates a high level of proficiency regarding current academic interventions and shares that information with school and district staff to assist with developing appropriate interventions for students. The SP demonstrates in depth knowledge of interventions for a variety of student populations.

The SP consistently demonstrates knowledge of academic interventions to assist RtI and IEP teams with developing appropriate, research based interventions to facilitate student achievement.

The SP inconsistently demonstrates knowledge of academic interventions to assist RTI and IEP teams with developing appropriate, research based interventions to facilitate student achievement.

The SP does not demonstrate knowledge of academic interventions to assist RTI and IEP teams with developing appropriate, research based interventions to facilitate student achievement.

3.2 SP communicates appropriate instructional supports through written and oral means to assist

The SP continually provides direct supports to teachers and students to assist with improving student

The SP consistently participates in problem solving meetings to assist staff/parents with determining

The SP inconsistently participates in problem solving meetings to assist staff/parents with determining

The SP does not participate in problem solving meetings to assist staff/parents with determining

7

student growth in learning

learning. appropriate instructional supports to facilitate student growth.

appropriate instructional supports to facilitate student growth.

appropriate instructional supports to facilitate student growth.

3.3 SP assist schools with matching programs in place with student needs to provide appropriate interventions

The SP continually locates and recommends resources within the district to assist student access to interventions and assists schools with obtaining resources in the community

The SP consistently works within assigned schools to match student needs with programs and resources available.

The SP inconsistently works within assigned schools to match student needs with programs and resources available.

The SP does not assist schools with identifying student needs with programs and resources available.

Possible Artifacts that may be used as evidence of performance on this standard: psychoeducational evaluations, review of RTI minutes (CSIS), information from schools, observations,

Standard 6- Interventions and Mental Health Services to Develop Social and Life SkillsPerformance Indicator




Level I-Ineffective

3.4 SP assist teams with developing appropriate interventions to address social and emotional needs of student(s)

The SP continually demonstrates a breadth of knowledge regarding social, behavioral and life skills expected across developmental ranges and uses that knowledge to facilitate school, district and family interventions to support student growth.

The SP consistently demonstrates knowledge of interventions relevant to the development of social and life skills. The SP provides RTI, IEP, schools teams and families with appropriate strategies to help students develop appropriate social and life skills

The SP inconsistently demonstrates knowledge of social, behavioral, and life skills interventions to assist school teams and families.

The SP does not demonstrate adequate knowledge to assist school teams and families with developing interventions to address social, behavioral and life skills.

3.5 SP provides stakeholders with knowledge of community based resources as needed.

The SP continually demonstrates advanced knowledge of appropriate behavioral and other health resources and assists families in obtaining access to appropriate referrals

The SP consistently demonstrates knowledge of community resources and facilitates referrals to appropriate behavioral and health care resources

The SP demonstrates limited knowledge of community resources and inconsistently facilitates referrals to appropriate providers

The SP does not demonstrate knowledge of community resources and does not facilitate access to referral sources

Possible Artifacts that may be used as evidence of performance on this standard: weekly summary, RTI meeting participation notes, psychoeducational evaluations (recommendations), presentations, survey results

Domain 4: System Level Services: System Level ServicesSchool psychologists have knowledge of school and systems structure, organization, and theory; general and special education; technology resources; and evidence-based school practices that promote learning and mental health. School psychologists have knowledge of principles and research related to resilience and risk factors in learning and mental health, services in schools and communities to support multi-tiered prevention, and evidence-based strategies for effective crisis response.

Standard 7: School-Wide Practices to Promote LearningPerformance Indicator Level IV-Exemplary

(In addition to meeting the requirements for Level III)



Level I-Ineffective

4.1 Demonstrates general knowledge of systems;

The SP provides stakeholders with in-

The SP consistently demonstrates

The SP inconsistently demonstrates

The SP does not demonstrate

8

with particular emphasis on understanding of school systems in both general and special education

depth information regarding services available in general and special education. SP assists clients in accessing needed supports.

knowledge of educational systems and demonstrates this through assisting parents and school based staff with understanding complex relationships, rules and guidelines.

knowledge of educational systems and inconsistently demonstrates this through assisting parents and school based staff with understanding complex relationships, rules and guidelines.

knowledge of educational systems in order to assist parents and staff.

4.2 The SP uses their knowledge of organizational development/systems theory to promote a respectful and supportive atmosphere for decision making and collaboration.

The SP continually takes the lead in advancing collaborative efforts among departments. The SP demonstrates collegial relationships with school-staff from a variety of departments

The SP consistently demonstrates professional and collaborative relationships with various stakeholders and departments within CCSD

The SP inconsistently demonstrates professional and collaborative relationships with various stakeholders and departments within CCSD

The SP does not demonstrates professional and collaborative relationships with various stakeholders and departments within CCSD

Possible Artifacts that may be used as evidence of performance on this standard: formal and school based surveys, observations, parent surveys/comments psychoeducational evaluations

Standard 8: Preventive and Responsive ServicesPerformance Indicator




Level I-Ineffective

4.3 SP demonstrates capacity to assist individuals, schools and the district with responding to a variety of crisis situations and to address barriers to recovery after such events.

The SP continually seeks out opportunities for training and participation in programs that support students, schools and the district in responding to a variety of crisis scenarios at the individual, school, district, community and national level.

The SP consistently maintains knowledge of various principals related to crisis intervention and seeks to assist schools and individuals in crisis at the local level (death, natural disasters, community tragedies, etc.)

The SP inconsistently demonstrates knowledge of various principals related to crisis intervention and inconsistently assists schools and individuals in crisis at the local level (death, natural disasters, community tragedies, etc.)

The SP does not demonstrate knowledge of principals related to crisis intervention, and does not seek to assist schools and individuals in crisis at the local level (death, natural disasters, community tragedies, etc.)

Possible Artifacts that may be used as evidence of performance on this standard: Participation in crisis response trainings/team, observations, psychoeducational evaluations, information from school-based staff

Domain 5: Core Principles & Professional Responsibilities:School psychologists have knowledge of individual differences, abilities, disabilities, and other diverse student characteristics; principles and research related to diversity factors for children, families, and schools, including factors related to culture, context, and individual and role difference; and evidence-based strategies to enhance services and address potential influences related to diversity. School psychologists have knowledge of the history and foundations of school psychology; multiple service models and methods; ethical, legal, and professional standards; and other factors related to professional identity and effective practice as school psychologists.

Standard 9: Diversity in Development and LearningPerformance Indicator




Level I-Ineffective

5.1 The SP provides culturally competent

The SP continually provides leadership to

The SP consistently provides culturally

The SP inconsistently provides culturally

The SP demonstrates a lack of understanding

9

services in context of the influence of ethnic, economic, and sociocultural impacts to student learning/ behavior

the district, department as well as to students and families focusing on impacts of culture, race, SES on student learning.

competent services to students, families and schools served in order to make appropriate recommendations for interventions and services.

competent services to students, families and schools as demonstrated by inconsistent or narrow understanding of the roles such factors play in learning

regarding the impact of cultural differences, or ignores the potential impact of these factors when working with students/families

5.2 The SP collaborates with others to enhance student learning through addressing individual differences.

The SP continually demonstrates positive collaborative efforts to improve student learning using a strength based perspective within his/her schools, the department, and across CCSD divisions.

The SP consistently demonstrates positive collaborative efforts to improve student learning using a strength based perspective within his/her schools, and with students and families served.

The SP inconsistently demonstrates collaborative efforts that address individual differences to enhance student learning.

The SP does not collaborate with others to enhance student learning.

5.3 The SP adheres to departmental guidelines with regards to assessment of culturally and linguistically diverse student populations

The SP continually demonstrates knowledge of departmental procedures and adheres to these guidelines when conducting evaluations, when providing written reports, and when making recommendations.

The SP consistently demonstrates knowledge of departmental procedures and adheres to these guidelines when conducting evaluations, when providing written reports, and when making recommendations.

The SP inconsistently demonstrates knowledge of departmental procedures and does not consistently adhere to these guidelines when conducting evaluations, when providing written reports, and when making recommendations.

The SP does not demonstrate knowledge of departmental procedures/guidelines when conducting evaluations as reflected in written reports.

Possible Artifacts that may be used as evidence of performance on this standard: observation of RTI meetings, Review of Psychoeducational Evaluations, Weekly Summary (documentation of consultation), MEET, Autism consultations (as applicable), participation in staff development opportunities (as available)

Standard 10- Legal, Ethical, and Professional PracticePerformance Indicator Level IV-Exemplary



Level II-Needs Development Level I-Ineffective

5.4 The SP has knowledge of various codes of conduct that are applicable to the profession (NASP/GASP, PSC, or APA) and adheres to principles of ethical, legal and professional standards of conduct.

The SP continually demonstrates a high standard of ethical, level of skill and knowledge related to ethical issues, such that he/she is a role model for peers. The SP is knowledgeable of and adheres to established standards of practice in accordance with (NASP/GASP, PSC, or APA).

The SP consistently demonstrates knowledge of and adheres to established ethical practice guidelines (NASP/GASP, PSC, or APA).

The SP demonstrates limited awareness of ethical, legal and professional standards related to professional practice (GASP/NASP, PSC, or APA).

The SP demonstrates actions that indicate lack of awareness of ethical standards of practice (GASP/NASP, PSC, or APA), or are in violation of one or more ethical standards.

5.5 The SP adheres to established departmental timelines with regard to completion of evaluations.

The SP continually demonstrates a commitment to completing according to departmental expectation (100% of Initial Evaluations are completed within 45 days or less). In addition, at least 90% of re-evaluations are completed within 60 calendar days.

The SP consistently adheres to departmental guidelines regarding providing written reports to stakeholders (minimum of 85% of initial reports completed by 45 days).

The SP inconsistently meets expected timelines for initial reports (completed by 45-days) for 76-84% of initial evaluations completed.

The SP does not adhere to established guidelines for initial referrals to be completed by day 45 as evidenced by initial timelines at or below 75%.

10

5.6 The SP conducts assessments within his/her scope of competence and seeks out additional training/ support as needed.

The SP continually demonstrates a commitment to updating skills as needed through peer consultation, observation, and trainings

The SP consistently adheres to standardized administration procedures and attends trainings, seeks consultation to improve skills.

The SP inconsistently demonstrates adherence to standardized administration guidelines, or fails seek out consultation/supervision to remediate training needs

The SP does not demonstrate proficiency in standardized administration of instruments.

5. 7 The SP demonstrates commitment to the department by demonstrating prompt and regular attendance at Staff and Area meetings

Demonstrates 96-100% attendance at Staff and Area Meetings.

Attends 85-95% of staff and area meetings

Attendance rates of 71-84% for Staff or Area Meetings

SP demonstrates 70% or less attendance at Staff or Area Meetings.

Possible Artifacts that may be used as evidence of performance on this standard: Attendance sheets from MEET, Autism Consultation Group, weekly summary documentation, Psychoeducational Reports (referencing consultation); Peer Review; supervisor review/feedback, participation in difficult case consultation

11

Evaluation Timeline

The School Psychologist Evaluation Instrument process consists of a minimum of a 3 stage process including; an initial pre-meeting at the beginning of the year, a formative midyear meeting and a summative end-of-the-year meeting which will summarize the performance of the school psychologist’s service delivery.

General Implementation Steps of the School Psychologist Evaluation InstrumentRecommended Evaluation Steps – Flowchart

Initial Pre-Evaluation meeting Mid-Year Formative Feedback End of Year Summative ReviewRecommended Observation(s) - 2 for those having under 3 years of practice,

1 thereafter based upon three year rotations (alternating between school/evaluation feedback)

CCSD School Psychologist Evaluation Instrument will be used to inform the GASP ongoing instrument development as part of our departmental commitment to the profession. GASP completed a preliminary survey in 2013 to provide general guidance on degree of current involvement in the various domain and performance standard areas. Ongoing data collection from across the state will also occur as this tool is implemented to help with alignment of expectations and ratings for each of the performance standards. Because this is a continuous improvement rubric, the expectation of an “exemplary” rating may not necessarily be realistic or common for most school psychologists across the standards in the field. Similarly, the rating of “proficient” should not be perceived as a negative rating. New practitioners with limited experience may begin with ratings of “needs development” and progress in skills and services with experience and continued training. CCSD has reiterated this to staff during the development phase. Staff will be required to provide information to justify Level IV ratings.

The initial formative meeting (Pre-Evaluation Meeting) would provide agreement on the expectations for the school year to be put forth and solidified using the 5 domains and 10 performance standards. This provides opportunity for both the supervisor and school psychologist to come to agreement on potential areas of service, the needs of the school system and any necessary alignments with the counties set forth goals or strategic plans by the superintendent and or school board.

The midyear meeting can be used by both the supervisor and the school psychologist to review performance in the areas agreed upon and can allow for recognition of service area standards being met and/ or those domains or standards which are still in the developing stage for the school psychologist to gain awareness of potential areas for improvement. The rubric domain and standards sheets would be used to help the supervisor and school psychologist gain perspective of relative performance up to that point within the year and performance trends. Should stark disagreement of ratings occur between supervisor and school psychologist at the midyear assessment, the supervisor and the school psychologist could agree to use a data based compendium/portfolio (collected by both supervisor and school psychologist if desired) used to reflect either the deficiencies or proficiencies in the domain/ standards areas of disagreement with a peer review –another trained and experienced school psychologist (if needed). Midyear feedback from the supervisor should be based on concrete data and observations gathered during the formative assessment. End-of-year summative meeting would be a review of the year’s performance under each of the pre-agreed upon domain and standards areas. The domain rubric would be re-used again at the end-of year meeting to allow for noted improvements or declines in expected performance based on data and observations. The rubric domains and standards would be revised and finalized based on the performance descriptors for the school psychologist and the summary sheet would be completed to provide a final overview of the performance ranked of the school psychologist.

The rating system has 4-point rubric structure and attribute descriptors that are ultimately tied to application of school psychological services effecting outcomes within the system or schools served. The skill descriptors are in order of descending skill levels from left to right.

12

Level IV-Exemplary


Level III-Proficient

Expected Level of Performance


Level I-Ineffective

Level IV or Exemplary skills include the application and incorporation of knowledge towards system improvement or enhancement with measurable outcome based improvements and may include complete system change towardsimprovement.

Level III or Proficient reflects the expected level of performance for a majority of staff. Proficient skills reflect adequate general demonstration of knowledge and skills within a performance standard.

Level II or Needs Development implies an inconsistency of skills and knowledge under the standard with potential for growth.

Level I or Ineffective rating describes performances lacking the necessary skills and knowledge for the standard despite ongoing training and professional development employed in that area.

A “needs development“ at the midyear point would allow the school psychologist to make adjustments to the types of services provided or improvement to the knowledge base, skills and application in the area of deficiency based on feedback examples from the supervisor.

In contrast, a summative end of year assessment which includes a “needs development” rating would require the school psychologist to work with supervisors to create a professional learning plan. An overall rating of “ineffective” would require ongoing documentation throughout the year to address concerns and may lead to further involvement with human resource staff.

13

Appendix ASchool Psychologist Evaluation Instrument

Pre-Evaluation Meeting

Psychologist: Evaluator:Schools Served: School Year:Date of Pre-Evaluation Conference:

Review the following: General Duties and Responsibilities (provide SP with copy)

Records Review – Note whether protocols, reports, or other records will be reviewed. ☐ Protocols will be reviewed (First two years, thereafter every three years unless errors are found).☐ Peer review of evaluations/reports will be utilized.

Formal observation and other school and/or departmental meetings contribute to ongoing observations.☐ Observation of a parent feedback session is required.☐ Observation of a school team meeting is required.

Review of Standards/Domains and Performance Indicators☐ Psychologist indicates domains/standards for which exemplary ratings are desired and develops plan to demonstrate this level of performance.

Notes:Click here to enter text.

Observations to be conducted and approximate timeframe (check all that apply)□ Fall □ Winter

Planned Mid –Year Feedback Month (check tentative month(s) feedback is planned)□ December □ January

Signatures:

(School Psychologist)Click here to enter a date.

(Evaluator)

Click here to enter a date.

14

(Supervisor and psychologist should each keep a copy of this form. Signature acknowledges receipt of form, not necessarily concurrence with results. Written comments may be attached. If comments are attached, initial here )

Appendix BSchool Psychologist Evaluation Instrument

Mid-Year Formative FeedbackPsychologist: Evaluator:Schools Served: School Year:Date of Mid-Year Conference: Domain 1- Data Analysis & ApplicationStandard 1- Data-Based Decision Making and Accountability

□ Level IV□ Level III □ Level II □ Level IStandard 2- Research and Program Evaluation

□ Level IV□ Level III □ Level II □ Level IDomain 2- Collaborative PartneringStandard 3- Consultation and Collaboration

□ Level IV□ Level III □ Level II □ Level IStandard 4- Family–School Collaboration Services

□ Level IV□ Level III □ Level II □ Level IDomain 3- Interventions & SupportsStandard 5- Interventions and Instructional Support

□ Level IV□ Level III □ Level II □ Level IStandard 6- Interventions and Mental Health Services

□ Level IV□ Level III □ Level II □ Level IDomain 4- System Level ServicesStandard 7- School-Wide Practices to Promote Learning

□ Level IV□ Level III □ Level II □ Level IStandard 8- Preventive and Responsive Services

□ Level IV□ Level III □ Level II □ Level IDomain 5- Core Principles & Professional ResponsibilitiesStandard 9- Diversity in Development and Learning

□ Level IV□ Level III □ Level II □ Level IStandard 10- Legal, Ethical, and Professional Practice

□ Level IV□ Level III □ Level II □ Level I

Level II or Level I ratings require the school psychologist to develop a plan with supervisors to improve skill areas and documentation detailing the rationale for the ratings must be attached.

Areas needing development: Data or evidence reviewed: Personal development plan:

Signatures: (School Psychologist)


(Evaluator)


15


Appendix DSchool Psychologist Evaluation Instrument

End of Year Summative EvaluationPsychologist: Evaluator:Schools Served: School Year:Date of End of Year Review: Domain 1- Data Analysis & ApplicationStandard 1- Data-Based Decision Making and Accountability

□ Level IV□ Level III □ Level II □ Level IStandard 2- Research and Program Evaluation


Domain 2- Collaborative PartneringStandard 3- Consultation and Collaboration

□ Level IV□ Level III □ Level II □ Level IStandard 4- Family–School Collaboration Services


Domain 3- Interventions & SupportsStandard 5- Interventions and Instructional Support

□ Level IV□ Level III □ Level II □ Level IStandard 6- Interventions and Mental Health Services


Domain 4- System Level ServicesStandard 7- School-Wide Practices to Promote Learning

□ Level IV□ Level III □ Level II □ Level IStandard 8- Preventive and Responsive Services


Domain 5- Core Principles & Professional ResponsibilitiesStandard 9- Diversity in Development and Learning

□ Level IV□ Level III □ Level II □ Level IStandard 10- Legal, Ethical, and Professional Practice


Level II or Level I ratings require the school psychologist to develop a plan with supervisors to improve skill areas and documentation detailing the rationale for the ratings must be attached. Areas needing development: Data or evidence reviewed: Personal Development Plan:

SP-SEI Final Ratings Summative Cut Scores Additional CriteriaLevel I 0-10 NALevel II 11-14 NALevel III 15-16 No Level I Ratings

No more than one Level II rating on Domains 1-4 Performance Indicators;No Ratings Below Level III on Domain

16

5 Performance IndicatorsLevel IV 17-20 No Level I or Level II Ratings on

Domains 1-4;No more than one Level III rating on

Domain 5 Performance Indicators



(Evaluator)


17


Appendix ESchool Psychologist Evaluation Instrument

Observation Summary Form: Parent Feedback

Psychologist: School: Date of Observation:Observation Type: Formal/Informal

Observer:

`Domain/Performance Indicator

Proficiency Demonstrated

Level IV-IObserver Comment

Required for Level IVSchool Psychologist (SP) establishes and maintains a collaborative posture throughout the meeting (Domain 2/PI 2.4; Domain 5/PI 5.1, 5.2) SP reiterates the reason for referral and reviews the referral process with parents (Domain 4/PI 4.1)SP provides parents with observational information regarding their child’s strengths and weaknesses during the evaluation (Domain1/1.1; Domain 5/5.1, 5.2)SP explains results of evaluation instruments using a minimum of technical jargon and checks for parent understanding-including use of visual aids and other materials. (Domain 1/1.3)SP links results of the assessment to academic/behavioral recommendations (Domain 1/1.1; Domain 3/3.5)SP provides parents with information regarding community resources-as applicable (Domain 3/3.5)SP provides parents with an opportunity to ask questions and responds appropriately parent concerns/questions (Domain 5/PI 5.1)SP provides parents with information regarding next steps in the referral process and contact information when appropriate (Domain 4/PI 2.4; Domain 9/PI 5.1; Domain 5/PI 5.4)Any Level II or Level I ratings require the school psychologist to develop a plan with supervisors to improve skill areas and documentation detailing the rationale for the ratings must be attached.




(Evaluator)


18


Appendix FSchool Psychologist Evaluation Instrument

Observation Summary Form: Other Meeting

Psychologist: School: Date of Observation:Observation Type: Formal/Informal

Type of Meeting Observed: Observer:

`Domain/Performance Indicator

Proficiency Demonstrated

Level IV-IObserver Comment

Required for Level IVSchool Psychologist (SP) establishes and maintains a collaborative posture throughout the meeting (Domain 2/PI 2.1, 2.2, 2.4; Domain 4/PI 4.2)SP conveys sensitivity to cultural, biological, and developmental factors that influence student needs (Domain 5/PI 5.1-5.4)SP demonstrates and communicates an understanding of school-based data to assist the team with making appropriate decisions for students. (Domain 1/PI 1.4)SP demonstrates knowledge of research based academic and behavioral interventions to increase student achievement (Domain 3/PI 3.1- 3.4)SP demonstrates knowledge of data collection methods appropriate for documenting student progress (Domain 1/PI 1.4)SP provides team with information regarding community resources-as applicable (Domain 3/3.5)

Any Level II or Level I ratings require the school psychologist to develop a plan with supervisors to improve skill areas and documentation detailing the rationale for the ratings must be attached.




(Evaluator)


19


€¦ · web viewthat being said, it fails to address current roles and practices that are required...

Documents