by Christopher S. Willis, Ph.D.

Once upon a time, school psychological services were commonly limited to the determination of a child’s eligibility for special education.  School psychologists were known for testing and little else.   Today school psychologists provide a broad spectrum of services well beyond the traditional test-and-place paradigm.  While diagnostic skills remain a critical component of the school psychologist’s repertoire, the demand for consultation and counseling services in many districts is fast approaching parity with the demand for testing (Reschly & Wilson, 1995; Curtis, Hunley, Walker, & Baker, 1999).  At the system level, school districts across the country are tapping into the specialized training of school psychologists in areas such as crisis intervention, risk assessment, violence prevention and program evaluation.  It is an evolving professional landscape that demands the evolution of the school psychological service organization if the quality of services provided is to keep pace with the expanding demand.

Organizational Dynamics

Whether a school district employs one school psychologist or sixty, a school psychological service organization functions as an open system that is maintained through exchanges with the larger system of the school and/or community. The school psychologist gathers input from the school or community, which is used to define a particular problem. The individual input is transformed through the school psychological service organization into strategies or interventions, which are subsequently implemented in the larger system. The output of the strategy or intervention is the change brought about in the student’s academic program or performance.

In their seminal work on the dynamics of organizations, Katz and Kahn (1978) make the point that an organization is reinforced either through output to an external environment or through activity within the organization itself (Katz & Kahn, 1978). An example of externalized reinforcement might come when a teacher perceives that her input to the school psychologist was useful in developing an effective intervention. The school psychological service organization is strengthened because the likelihood of the teacher making use of school psychological services in the future increases.  When a school psychologist comes across research that points her to a more effective assessment technique, the service organization is reinforced from within.  If the psychologist tries the new technique and is satisfied with its outcome, the likelihood that the more effective technique will be used again increases, further reinforcing the school psychological service organization.

Key processes in an open system are the input of information, “throughput” (the transformation of input into interventions), output to the external socio-educational environment, and feedback mechanisms that keep the system in tune with its surrounding environment.   Collecting input is the function of the traditional evaluative role of school psychology.  Data are collected on individual students through psychological testing, direct observation, teacher consultation, parent contact and other screenings. In a broader sense, input data are also gathered regarding the functioning of the organization: Are referrals completed on time? Are sufficient resources available? Are services in compliance with state mandates and regulation? Are services provided in accordance with professional standards and ethics? 

Input regarding an individual student is analyzed and transformed into decisions about special education eligibility and/or a functional hypothesis to guide intervention. Organizational input is throughput to decisions about strategic planning and organizational development. For example, evidence of an increased incidence in Pervasive Developmental Delay may redirect the focus of staff professional development.

Instructional interventions (e.g., academic support) are the predominant outcome of individual student evaluations. School psychologists may also provide direct (e.g., counseling) or indirect (e.g., consultation) interventions.  Outcomes related to the functioning of the organization may include the reallocation of personnel, staff retraining, or organizational restructuring. For example, a school psychologist might be assigned to exclusively service a pre-school population, as the effectiveness of the district’s early intervention strategies improves and the number of “identified” pre-schoolers increases.

 Feedback is the key to the organizational health of the system.  It keeps a system of services current and effective.  Re-evaluations, IEP reviews and program evaluations report on the effectiveness of the individual evaluation process, as well as the resultant individual interventions. Organizational feedback gained from continuing staff development, research, personnel reviews and clinical supervision helps to sustain the vitality of the system and its human resources.  Avenues of feedback cycle back through the entire system, accentuating and reinforcing effective components (e.g. input from the family, a new assessment instrument, an empirically supported behavioral intervention). Less-than-effective components are de-emphasized or eliminated.

Two Organizational Models

School psychological service organizations come in a variety of sizes and designs. In many parts of the country the school psychological service organization is one school psychologist responsible for an entire district. In other areas school psychological services are provided through a regional or cooperative agreement between several communities. There is usually, though not always, a connection with special education. Two models of school psychological service organizations are presented here as a heuristic device for a discussion of organizational evolution. Those models include the coalition of independent practitioners and the integrated service organization.

The coalition of independent practitioners is a school psychological service organization where a number of school psychologists typically work in separate schools with limited affiliation with each other. Practitioners in this model often work in two or more schools and tend to enjoy a great deal of professional autonomy.  However, the services for a specific school (that is, how input is processed, how problems are defined, and what interventions are implemented) are generally limited to the training and experience of the individual practitioner.  While most school psychologists are well trained in a broad spectrum of diagnostic techniques and intervention strategies, their skills and methods may not always extend to certain low incidence conditions (e.g., autism, Tourette’s syndrome) or specialized interventions (e.g., suicide risk assessment).  Many school psychologists have faced the ethical dilemma of being asked to provide services for which they have not been trained.   

Additionally, practitioners assigned to more than one school often find themselves obliged to different school or organizational cultures that vary in the role expectations for the school psychologist. One school may expect a strong evaluation / consultation presence, while another may see crisis intervention and mental health counseling as the principal responsibility of the school psychologist. In many cases psychological services are regarded as tangential to the primary mission of the individual school and relegated to an all-but-insignificant level of importance.   Feedback of any kind is rare in this model. The school psychologist is commonly supervised and evaluated by a principal or other non-psychologist administrator.  Clinical supervision is rare and the individual interests of the practitioner tend to guide the course of his/her continuing professional development.

The Newport County Regional Special Education Program in Rhode Island (Willis, 1999) is an example of a coalition of independent practitioners. Seven school psychologists provide services to seventeen schools across four communities. Six psychologists are each assigned to two or three schools and one is assigned to the pre-school population. Although there is a central office and infrequent administrative staff meetings, individual psychologists may go months without having contact with their colleagues. Although there are standard instruments used to gather evaluative input for individual students (e.g., WISC-III, BASC), there is considerable variation in the extent to which alternative strategies and instruments are used. The decision-making process varies with the culture of the individual schools. One school may stick to a strict discrepancy-based eligibility decision, while another looks at the function of underlying influences beyond the discrepancy, while another may do whatever has to be done to qualify the student for extra help.  In two communities the school psychologist is a primary resource for crisis intervention, while in another community crisis intervention is rarely asked of the school psychologist.

The practice of school psychology in the high schools of the three communities is as variable as the training of the individual practitioner assigned to each school. While all provide traditional school psychological services (i.e., evaluation, consultation and counseling), one is very involved in developing a school-wide peer-helping network and effective crisis intervention. At another high school in the region, the school psychologist is very involved in violence risk assessments and an alternative education program. There is no vehicle for peer supervision or consultation that might share the knowledge and expertise of the individual practitioners.

The Director of Special Education, an administrator, not a psychologist, supervises school psychologists in Newport County. The individual performance of school psychologists is not evaluated according to any standard of accountability.  Personnel evaluations and professional development plans are based on the individual practitioner’s goals and interests. While the district allows release time for practitioners to attend conferences and workshops, little to no professional development activities are provided within the district. School psychological services provided by the Newport County Regional Special Education Program underwent a formative program evaluation in 1999 (Willis, 1999). Recommendations regarding mission clarification, staffing levels and reorganization were forwarded to the Director and the Regional Board of Superintendents.

The integrated service organization model advances the evolution of the school psychological service organization.  Similar to independent practitioners, school psychologists in this model are assigned to a number of schools and enjoy a similar degree of autonomy.  The distinction lies in the coordination and integration of the organizational structure and culture. Organization solidarity is fostered through a clear articulation of the roles and functions of the school psychologist and the interrelationships of those roles and functions.  A common mission sustains role expectations and service norms across individual school cultures.  While practitioners may be immediately responsible to a school principal, a supervising psychologist evaluates them according to articulated job descriptions developed in accordance with the organization’s stated mission.  How evaluation input is collected and how interventions are selected and implemented is consistent and integrated throughout the district. 

The entire school district benefits from the specialized training and expertise of individual practitioners through a systematic process of consultation, peer supervision and collaboration.  Research and continuing professional development are systematic and driven by the mission of the organization and the needs of the district.  Program evaluation, clinical supervision and other avenues of feedback continually revitalize the component processes of the system.  These “maintenance inputs” (Katz & Kahn, 1978) inhibit the continuation of ineffective or inappropriate processes and increase the likelihood that effective processes will continue.

Psychological Services for the Minneapolis Public Schools is an example of an integrated service organization (Canter, 1991).  Forty-two FTE practitioners (including two interns) are assigned to approximately 100 school sites, with some providing specialized services (e.g., district crisis team, ELL training, supervision, early childhood services, post secondary services) in addition to the full range of services to their assigned sites. These specialized services are typically provided by individuals with advanced training or experience, or through collaborative teams. The 42 staff psychologists are centrally managed by a non-administrative Lead Psychologist who reports to the Executive Director of Special Education, currently a licensed school psychologist. 

These 42 positions are supported by a combination of district special education funds (30 FTE) and site-based allocations. Until three years ago, it was very rare for building principals to use site dollars to buy psychologists’ time; recently, however, the equivalent of 10-12 FTE position per year have been funded through site “discretionary funds,” largely from state compensatory education monies. Regardless of the source of funding, all 42 staff positions are centrally supervised and all staff psychologists are considered to be part of the same service unit.

Several additional psychologist positions are allocated through district funding to provide services city-wide to special programs, including Autism, Research and Evaluation, and training in several district initiatives. These school psychologists report directly or indirectly to the Executive Director of Special Education but are not administratively part of the Psychological Services staff, nor do they have assignments to individual school sites.

 Psychological services in Minneapolis are provided to the total school population, Birth to 21. Services are provided as often through indirect, consultation-based interventions as they are through direct, student-based assessment and intervention.  Practitioners typically take a functional approach to individual assessment, using multiple formal and informal procedures as part of a district-wide Problem Solving Model (see Marston et al., this issue). All practitioners are involved in prevention and early intervention activities as a component of the Problem Solving Model.

Non-tenured staff receive clinical supervision on a regular basis, with greater frequency (usually bi-weekly or monthly) during their first year; first and second-year staff participate in a monthly seminar to address typical issues facing new practitioners and to provide orientation to and support for district and staff initiatives  (see Canter & Reid, 2001). In recent years these initiatives have included implementation of Functional Behavior Assessments and the delivery of culturally competent services to a highly diverse population.

School psychologists in Minneapolis have frequent opportunities for peer supervision and consultation.  Traditional performance evaluations have been replaced district-wide by a Professional Development Process that allows staff to select an individual (or group) goal and meet with a team of colleagues for support. For nontenured staff, observation, portfolio, self-evaluation and a checklist based on Blueprint II Domains are used to document progress toward tenure and achievement of Professional Development goals.

Key to the integration of the Minneapolis organization is an ongoing program evaluation process. Minneapolis’ school psychologists continually collect data regarding service delivery, which is summarized and analyzed annually by a staff member assigned to this activity. Outcome data from this proactive system of accountability have been used to make strategic decisions related to staff allocation, staff training and continuing professional development, staff roles and functions, prevention activities, and other organizational matters (Canter, 1991). These avenues of feedback keep the mission and processes of the Minneapolis Psychological Services current, effective and in tune with its surrounding educational environment.  The annual data have also proven critical in promoting and maintaining funding for school psychology positions.

Organization Evaluation

However school psychological services are organized, it is good practice to periodically evaluate school psychological services.  A formative program evaluation explores organizational strengths and weaknesses, steering the system toward a continual strategy of organizational development and self-improvement.  Chin (1969) regards efforts to increase a system’s diagnostic sensitivity to the effects of its own actions on the environment as the “single most important improvement” in the development of an organization (Chin, 1969, p. 303).  A school psychological service organization that keeps track of and regularly reviews feedback concerning its service provision and organizational growth, according to a strategic plan, remains vital and responsive to the persons and systems it serves.

A comprehensive program evaluation measures a system of school psychological services against a framework based on professional standards, regulatory mandates and best practices.  Input is gathered from all stakeholders (e.g., school personnel and parents) regarding the processes of evaluation (input), decision-making (throughput), intervention (output) and feedback.  The effectiveness and utility of each process is assessed, along with the strength of its connection to all other processes.  For example, the connection between input from an intelligence test and the functional assessment process might be compared to the value of input from curriculum-based measures. 

The findings of a formative program evaluation are used to develop a strategic plan for organizational development.  Effective processes are continued and valuable connections are reinforced.  Ineffective processes or strategies are restructured or eliminated.  Plans and criteria are developed to assess the effectiveness of proposed changes.  Staff development and retraining needs are identified along with technological upgrades that may be needed.  A strategic organizational development plan outlines processes and strategies for continual self-assessment, feedback and development.

Internal staff may facilitate organizational evaluation and development; however consultants who are not directly connected to the organization may bring a more objective perspective to the process.

The primary benefit associated with the organizational development of school psychological services is the continual assurance that optimal services are being provided.  A comprehensive program evaluation delineates the configuration and purpose of the organization, which serves as a blueprint for policy, procedure and program development.  Clarity of mission often gives a boost to staff morale and productivity.  Component strategies (i.e., evaluation, decision-making, intervention and feedback) are monitored for value (i.e. effectiveness and utility), cost effectiveness and relevance to educational outcomes. Service providers stay current in their training and more accountable to professional standards and system expectations.  An ongoing program of self-assessment and improvement keeps the organizational processes vital and responsive to the changing needs of the surrounding socio-educational environment.

References

Canter, A. (1991). Effective psychological services for all students: A data based model of service delivery. In G. Stoner, M.R. Shinn, & H.M.Walker (Eds.), Interventions for achievement and behavior problems (pp.49-78). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Canter, A. & Reid, C. (2001, February). Supporting new school psychologists. Communiqué, 29 (5), 32.

Chin, R. (1969). The utility of systems models and developmental models for practitioners.  In W. G. Bennis, K. D. Benne, & R. Chin (Eds.), The planning of change (pp. 297-312). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Curtis, M.J., Hunley, S.A., Walker, K.J., & Baker, A.C. (1999). Demographic characteristics and professional practices in school psychology. School Psychology Review, 28, 104-116.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. (1978).  The social psychology of organizations.  New York: Wiley.

Marston, D., Canter, A., Lau, M. & Muyskens, P. (2002, June).  Problem solving: Implementation and evaluation in Minneapolis Schools. Communiqué, 30(8), 15-16.

Reschly, D.J., & Wilson, M.S. (1995). School psychology practitioners and faculty: 1986 to 1991-92 trends in demographics, roles, satisfaction, and system reform. School Psychology Review, 24, 62-80.

Willis, C.S. (1999). The learning network model of school psychological services: A heuristic framework for a formative program evaluation and organizational development plan. Doctoral dissertation. University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI.

Copyright 2002 by the National Association of School Psychologists, Bethesda, MD. Use of this material is with permission of the publisher. www.nasponline.org