Results of a Survey of California School Psychologist’s ...



[pic]

Volume 59, No. 2 Spring 2009

Results of a Survey of California School Psychologist’s Training Needs in Relation to the Response to Intervention Process

By John Brady PhD

Chapman University

&

Catherine Christo PhD

California State University, Sacramento

This is a report of a survey that was conducted in April and May 2008 regarding California school psychologists’ training needs in relation to implementation of Response to Instruction/Intervention (RTI) models. The topic areas for possible training that were included in the survey were determined according to what are considered the most common elements of RTI models (e.g. Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006; Johnson, Mellard, Fuchs, D., & McKnight, 2006; NASDSE, 2006) and likely to be pertinent to school psychologists (Christo, Brady, Leaman, 2003). Within an RTI model it is expected that school psychologists will be involved in both general education and special education activities.

Method

Under the direction of Chapman University School of Education Best Practices in Pupil Services Project, the link to the web site of the survey was sent out to psychologists in California using the California Association of School Psychologist’s (CASP) membership email list (approximately 2,400 email addresses). A follow-up email and a second request to the membership list was sent about two weeks after the first request. An email was also sent out to the directors of several of the larger districts in California requesting that they forward it on to their psychologists.

Responses were received from 214 of the approximately 2,400 school psychologists on the CASP email list. This represents a response rate of 8.9% of the psychologists to whom we sent the survey link. There are 4,726 school psychologists in California (CBEDS 2007-08 data). The 214 respondents to the survey represent 4.5% of the school psychologists of California.

Results

There were seven questions on the survey. Results for each of the questions will be presented below.

Demographic information

The first three questions pertained to demographic information. Question 1 provided information as to how long the respondent had been employed as a school psychologist. The majority (51.4 %) have been employed for more than 10 years. Of the remaining respondents 24.8% have been employed for 6 to 190 years and 23.8% for 1 to 5 years. Eighty-two percent of respondents work in elementary and 19.8% in secondary (see Table 1). Forty-five percent of the respondents work in urban settings, 43% in suburban settings and 11% in rural settings. Data were also disaggregated according to years of employment (see Table 2). The percent of psychologists employed in elementary and secondary did not vary by years of employment. However, it was interesting to note that while the majority of school psychologists employed for greater than 10 years worked in suburban settings (50%), the majority of school psychologists employed for either 1 to 5 years or less than 1 year worked in urban settings (53% and 51% respectively).

Table 1

Total employ employ employ

1 to 5 5-10 > 10

Years years years

Question:

What level of schools do you primarily serve?

• Elementary 39% 40% 42% 37%

• Secondary 20% 16% 25% 19%

• Elementary and secondary 42% 44% 34% 44%

Table 2

Total employ employ employ

1 to 5 5-10 > 10

Years years years

Question:

What type of district do you work in?

• Urban 45% 51% 53% 39%

• Suburban 43% 33% 38% 50%

• Rural 12% 16% 9% 11%

The remaining questions addressed RTI related professional development.

Table 3

Total employ employ employ

1 to 5 5-10 > 10

years years years

Question:

Please check all the areas of work in the RTI process, in general, that you would like training on:

• The RTI process in general 26% 21% 24% 24%

• The psychologists role in the

RTI process 65% 69% 68% 63%

• School implementation

strategies for RTI process 72% 86% 70% 65%

• Assessment for special education

using data from the RTI

process 85% 84% 85% 85%

Areas of work in RTI process in general

Table 3 provides disaggregated data relevant to this question. Most respondents do not feel they need professional training regarding the RTI process in general (only 25% selected this topic). Assessment for special education is a high need area with 85% of respondents indicating that they would like more training on this topic. They are also strongly interested in school level implementation strategies and somewhat less interested in training on the school psychologists’ role (72% and 65% of total respondents, respectively). Twenty percent more of the psychologists working 1 to 5 years than those working more than 5 years expressed a need for training regarding school level implementation strategies.

Areas of work in Tier I

At Tier 1 of the RTI process, training in universal screening for both academic and behavioral concerns seems to be the greatest area of need (see Table 4). Psychologists working for more than 10 years (68%) indicated a higher need for training in this area than those working only 1 to 5 years (53%). Overall psychologists were least concerned about training in the area of CA standards. Approximately 55% of total respondents would like more training regarding general education classroom interventions for academic and behavioral supports. It was interesting to note that while just under 49% of psychologists working more than 10 years noted a need for more training in these areas, over 60% of psychologists working 1 to 10 years noted need for more training. In regards to consultation with general education teachers, 57% of psychologists employed for 1 to 5 years noted a need for training in this area while 38% of those employed more than 5 years wanted training in this area.

Areas of work in Tier II

At Tier II, respondents appeared to be most interested in learning more about social/emotional (72%) and behavioral interventions (69%). About one half the total respondents expressed a need to learn more about interventions at Tier II for both elementary level reading and mathematics and around 40% for secondary level interventions in these areas. Generally, it appears that more experienced psychologists have less need for information regarding academic interventions. Seventy-two percent of all respondents expressed a need for more training on monitoring student progress in interventions at Tier II.

Table 4

Total employ employ employ

1 to 5 5-10 > 10

Years years years

Question:

Please check all areas in the RTI process, at level 1, the general education classroom, that you would like more training on:

• Universal screening for academic

behavioral concerns 63% 53% 62% 68%

• CA state standards of

instruction 37% 45% 38% 32%

• General education classroom

academic supports 55% 67% 62% 45%

• General education classroom

behavioral supports 56% 61% 66% 49%

• Consultation with general

education teachers on

classroom concerns 43% 57% 38% 39%

Table 5

Total employ employ employ

1 to 5 5-10 > 10

Years years years

Question:

Please check all areas in the RTI process at level 2, targeted interventions, that you would like training on:

• Reading interventions,

elementary level 52% 63% 55% 46%

• Reading interventions,

secondary level 44% 47% 49% 40%

• Mathematics interventions

elementary level 53% 63% 55% 48%

• Mathematics interventions

secondary level 40% 47% 45% 34%

• Social/emotional interventions 73% 75% 76% 70%

• Behavioral interventions 70% 73% 68% 69%

• Insuring treatment integrity 68% 78% 60% 66%

• Monitoring the student’s

progress in the interventions 73% 73% 77% 70%

District implementation

Only 3% of respondents report that RTI is fully implemented at their schools. Most report that RTI is implemented in some schools (44%) or is in the planning stages (37%). However, 16% report that RTI implementation is not yet in the planning stages. Thus it appears, at least for the schools of respondents, most are moving toward RTI implementation but still have much work to do.

Table 6

Total employ employ employ

1 to 5 5-10 > 10

years years years

Question:

To what extent has your district implemented the RTI process?

• Is fully implementing it at all 3% 2% 2% 4%

schools.

• Is implementing it at some 44% 53% 44% 40%

schools.

• Is in the planning stages 37% 31% 42% 37%

• Is not yet in the planning stages 16% 14% 12% 19%

Ready to participate in RTI

The final question asked respondents to report how ready they felt to participate in the RTI process. While overall most respondents report themselves as ready (34%) or somewhat ready (47%) to participate in the RTI process, more recently trained psychologists report themselves as more ready to participate than those with over 10 years of experience.

Table 7

Total employ employ employ

1 to 5 5-10 > 10

Years years years

Question:

To what extent do you feel ready to participate in the RTI process?

• Ready to participate 34% 45% 30% 31%

• Somewhat ready to participate 47% 43% 55% 44%

• Not ready to participate 19% 15% 15% 25%

Discussion

More than 70% of respondents indicated a need for more training in each of the following areas: using data from the RTI process in assessment for special education eligibility, school level strategies for implementing RTI, social/emotional and behavioral interventions at Tier II, and progress monitoring of students in response to interventions. Over 50% of respondents indicated a need for training in these areas: the psychologist’s role in RTI, screening at Tier I, elementary level interventions for reading and mathematics (both Tier I and Tier II), and methods for monitoring treatment integrity.

Some differences between those psychologists with over 10 years experience and those with less were noted. For example, 68% of psychologists working for more than 10 years expressed a need for training in regards to universal screening while only 53% of those working 1 to 5 years expressed such a need. This may reflect new training practices that include instruction in screening procedures. Conversely it appears that newer psychologists are more interested in training regarding classroom level interventions and consulting with teachers than more experienced psychologists.

As California’s schools move into the implementation of the RTI process in the next few years, the results of this survey can shed light on the training needs of school psychologists who are a key participant in the process.

References

Christo, C., Brady, J., Leaman, S. The important role of school psychologists in NCLB and

Current Educational reforms, CASP Today, Volume 52, Number 1, Winter 2003.

Johnson, E., Mellard, D.F., Fuchs, D., & McKnight, M.A. (2006). Responsiveness to intervention

(RTI): How to do it. Lawrence, KS: National Research Center on Learning Disabilities

Mellard, D.F. & Johnson, E. (2007). RTI: A practitioners guide to implementing response to

intervention. Corwin Press: Thousand Oaks, CA

National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) (2006). RTI: Blueprints

for implementation at the state, district and local levels. NASDSE: Alexandra, VA

© California Association of School Psychologists, Spring 2009.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download