Counselor Keys Effectiveness System

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Counselor Keys Effectiveness System"

Myles McGee
6 years ago
Views:

1 Counselor Keys Effectiveness System Preliminary Analyses of Georgia CKES Piloting A collaborative research project of Georgia Department of Education, Georgia School Counselor Association, & Georgia Southern University College of Education

Counselor Keys Effectiveness System Preliminary Analyses of Georgia CKES Piloting Overview In 2014-15 the Georgia School Counselor Association, in partnership with the Georgia Department of

2 Counselor Keys Effectiveness System Preliminary Analyses of Georgia CKES Piloting Overview In the Georgia School Counselor Association, in partnership with the Georgia Department of Education, conducted a pilot of the Georgia Counselor Keys Effectiveness System (CKES). Building off of the Teacher Keys Effectiveness System (TKES), the CKES aimed to provide an instrument that would: (1) be a useful tool for administrators conducting annual evaluations of school counselors; and (2) be aligned with best practices and national standards as delineated by the American School Counselor Association (ASCA). Guiding Questions Questions guiding the subsequent research and analyses of the CKES pilot were: How did administrators perceive the CKES? How did school counselors perceive the CKES? How did the CKES instrument perform? This research brief provides an overview of the preliminary findings of the CKES research and analysis. What is the CKES Based on? Evaluation & Accountability Foundational to School Counseling With an outline similar to the TKES instrument, the CKES aims to minimize formatting and structural differences. The CKES aligns with state DOE expectations while simultaneously infusing school counseling professional standards and expectations as set forth by the American School Counselor Association (ASCA). School counselor evaluation aligns with the ASCA comprehensive guidance & counseling program framework (i.e., the ASCA National Model). 1

School Counseling in Georgia School Counselors serve PK-12 students academic, personal/social, and college/career needs across all school levels.

In their Role of the Professional School Counselor statement, the American School Counselor Association (ASCA) describes the purpose and necessity of evaluation: ACCOUNTABILITY To demonstrate the

3 School Counseling in Georgia School Counselors serve PK-12 students academic, personal/social, and college/career needs across all school levels. Implementing and maintaining a comprehensive guidance and counseling program, school counselors are an integral part of student success. In their Role of the Professional School Counselor statement, the American School Counselor Association (ASCA) describes the purpose and necessity of evaluation: ACCOUNTABILITY To demonstrate the effectiveness of the school counseling program in measurable terms, school counselors analyze school and school counseling program data to determine how students are different as a result of the school counseling program. School counselors use data to show the impact of the school counseling program on student achievement, attendance and behavior and analyze school counseling program assessments to guide future action and improve future results for all students. The performance of the school counselor is evaluated on basic standards of practice expected of school counselors implementing a comprehensive school counseling program. More information about the role of school counselors and suggestions for how administrators can effectively evaluate and partner with their school counselor(s) is available at: 2

4 How Many School Counselors Practice in Georgia? Based on Department of Education (DOE) statistics from March, 2015 approximately 3,768 school counselors practice in the state of Georgia. School Counselor Placement Figure 1 1. Gwinnett 9.8% 11. Muscogee 2.0% 2. Cobb 7.4% 12. Richmond 1.7% 3. DeKalb 7.4% 13. Columbia 1.6% 4. Fulton 5.0% 14. Douglas 1.5% 5. Atlanta 3.4% 15. Paulding 1.5% 6. Clayton 2.7% 16. Houston 1.5% 7. Henry 2.6% 17. Bibb 1.4% 8. Chatham 2.4% 18. Fayette 1.3% 9. Forsyth 2.2% 19. Hall 1.3% 10. Cherokee 2.1% 20. Coweta 1.2% The majority 98.0% practice in traditional public districts (i.e., county, city) with only 2.0% serving at state charter schools. Figure 1 outlines the 20 districts with the highest concentrations of school counselors. These 20 districts make up 60% of school counselor placements in the state. The remaining 40% are disbursed across 171 districts throughout the state. Figure 2 presents the reported levels (i.e., elementary, middle, and high) school counselors are practicing at. DOE data indicates 40% of school counselors practice at the Elementary level, 23% at Middle, 35% at High, and 2% at Other. For reporting purposes, Other included Counseling Parapros, Special Education (SPED) Counselors, and GNETS Counselors. Figure 2 2% 35% 40% ES MS HS Other 3 23%

5 Reporting the Results Administrator Perceptions During the academic year, a small initial sampling of administrators (N = 24) reviewed the CKES instrument, utilized the CKES in evaluation of their school counselor(s), and then completed a 33-question survey. This CKES pilot was done in addition to normal evaluative practices. For participant convenience, the survey was administrated online and the majority of questions were multiple-choice perception questions. Participants were presented with a statement ( The directions on the instrument were easy to follow ) and asked to choose the answer that best represented how they felt. The majority of survey questions utilized a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Unsure, Agree, and Strongly Agree. Majority of Administrators Rated CKES Favorably 4 Of the 33 questions presented to participating administrators, 11 seem germane to discussion of the CKES reception, use, and performance. Item responses not included here (i.e., This instrument changed or influenced my understanding of the role of the school counselor. ) are available from the project researcher. Figure 3 presents results indicating the majority of participating administrators found the CKES instrument a reasonable, easy, helpful and fair tool for evaluating school counselors. Specifically, 91.7% of administrators felt that the CKES was an improvement compared to evaluation tools previously used for school counselors (e.g., Question 19). Figure 3 Strongly Question/Perception Agree Agree TOTAL (Q2) CKES easy to follow 66.7% 25.0% 91.7% (Q3) CKES easy to understand 70.8% 25.0% 95.8% (Q4) CKES easy to use 62.5% 29.2% 91.7% (Q5) CKES reasonable length 70.8% 29.2% 100.0% (Q7) CKES terminology easy to understand 62.5% 29.2% 91.7% (Q8) CKES rating scale fair and equitable 54.2% 41.7% 95.9% (Q9) CKES examples were helpful 54.2% 37.5% 91.7% (Q12) Distinguishing CKES Proficient and Exemplary ratings 58.3% 33.3% 91.6% was clear (Q13) CKES helpful in defining role of school counselor per 58.3% 29.2% 87.5% ASCA (Q14) CKES reflects role of school counselor at my school 50.0% 37.5% 87.5% (Q19) CKES is an improvement compared to former evaluation tool 66.7% 25.0% 91.7%

6 School Counselor Perceptions During the academic year, a small initial sampling of school counselors (N = 40) reviewed the CKES instrument, agreed to be evaluated by administration using the CKES, and then completed a 33-question online survey similar in structure to the administrators survey (i.e., asked to respond to statements, multiple-choice, 5-point Likert-scale, etc.). This CKES pilot was done in addition to normal evaluative practices. Again, of 33 questions presented to participants, 11 seem germane to discussion of the CKES. Item responses not included here (i.e., This instrument helped open dialogue with my administrator about my role as a school counselor at our school. ) are available from the project researcher. Majority of School Counselors Rated CKES Favorably Figure 4 presents results indicating that for most survey items, the majority of participating school counselors found the CKES instrument a reasonable, easy, helpful and fair tool for evaluating school counselors. Notably, where the vast majority of administrators felt that the CKES was an improvement over previous evaluation tools, only 47.5% of participating school counselors indicated a similar perception (e.g., Question 19). This is interesting considering the favorable ratings ( %) participating school counselors gave to the other 10 survey questions, and warrants further study. Figure 4 Question/Perception Agree Strongly Agree Total (Q2) CKES easy to follow 65.0% 10.0% 75.0% (Q3) CKES easy to understand 62.5% 10.0% 72.5% (Q4) CKES easy to use 57.5% 7.5% 65.0% (Q5) CKES reasonable length 62.5% 5.0% 67.5% (Q7) CKES terminology easy to understand 72.5% 7.5% 80.0% (Q8) CKES rating scale fair and equitable 60.0% 12.5% 72.5% (Q9) CKES examples were helpful 47.5% 22.5% 70.0% (Q12) Distinguishing CKES Proficient and Exemplary ratings 55.0% 15.0% 70.0% was clear (Q13) CKES helpful in defining role of school counselor per 57.5% 25.0% 82.5% ASCA (Q14) CKES reflects my current role as school counselor 50.0% 12.5% 62.5% (Q19) CKES is an improvement compared to former evaluation tool 27.5% 20.0% 47.5% 5

7 CKES Instrument Performance During the academic year, CKES pilot data was collected for approximately 117 participating school counselors. This CKES pilot was done in addition to normal evaluative practices. Participating school counselors represented 9 different districts (county or city) across the state. Figure 5 lists participating districts in descending order. Figure 6 presents participant distribution across levels. Participating Districts Figure 5 1. Gwinnett 62.2% 2. Lowndes 15.1% 3. Burke 9.2% 4. Peach 6.7% Mirroring state-wide trends, the majority of participants were school counselors in Gwinnett County schools. Similarly, the majority of participants were school counselors at the Elementary School level. Figure 6 3% 5. Decatur 2.5% 6. Chatham 1.7% 7. Glynn 0.8% 25% 44% ES MS HS 8. Towns 0.8% Other 9. Valdosta 0.8% Preliminary assessment of the CKES instrument performance involved statistical analyses reviewing descriptive statistics and review of three areas: normality; reliability; and item correlations. 28% Normality of the distribution of scores from the piloting of the CKES was determined by review of individual items histogram graphs, skewness and kurtosis statistics for individual items, and items skewness and kurtosis statistics divided by individual standard errors (SE). 6 Initial review of items histograms showed minimal concern. Review of items skewness statistics indicated no items performing outside general parameters. However, items #1, #3, #7, and #8 all presented kurtosis statistics outside general parameters. Further analysis employed review of kurtosis statistics divided by the standard error of the statistic. This action suggested data from items #7 and #8 performed outside the expectations of a normal distribution.

Reliability of the CKES instrument was assessed reviewing Cronbach s Alpha. The Cronbach Alpha statistic for the CKES was α = 0.920.

281 (items #6 and #9) to 0.691 (items #7 and #9) with a mean average 0.54. CKES Performed Moderately Well Overall the CKES instrument performed moderately well in this preliminary piloting.

General practice recognizes a degree of skewness and kurtosis will be displayed when working with perceptual Likert-type scale instruments.

8 Reliability of the CKES instrument was assessed reviewing Cronbach s Alpha. The Cronbach Alpha statistic for the CKES was α = Consideration of removal of any of the 10 individual items yielded no increase in alpha. Finally, inter-item correlations between the 10 items on the CKES were reviewed. Correlations ranged from (items #6 and #9) to (items #7 and #9) with a mean average CKES Performed Moderately Well Overall the CKES instrument performed moderately well in this preliminary piloting. Concerns regarding the normality of the data centered around items #7 and #8. General practice recognizes a degree of skewness and kurtosis will be displayed when working with perceptual Likert-type scale instruments. Furthermore, kurtosis may be more pronounced when the data presents flat due to ratings being near-evenly distributed across 2 categories (e.g., Proficient and Exemplary ). The Cronbach s Alpha statistic of suggests relatively high internal consistency. Further encouraging is that the CKES reliability would not be improved if any individual items were removed. Review of the inter-item correlations indicated values higher than expected. This may be due to various reasons such as overlapping items measuring the same content in different ways, or users espousing a more holistic perception of school counselor functioning as they complete each item. Recommendations for Further Research INCREASED SAMPLE SIZE: An increased sample size would provide data for continued and more in-depth analyses. FACTOR ANALYSIS: An integral part of survey development and validation is the use of factor analyses. Such analyses would identify and assess various dimensions the CKES is attempting to measure. RESOURCES: Funded by a grant from the US DOE, the 2013 TKES/LKES pilot evaluation stands as a noteworthy example. Incorporating observational data, focus groups, district trainings, and surveys, the study utilized approximately 5,800 participants. Administrators and school counselors implementing the CKES would benefit from similar support. AGENCY COLLABORATION: Continued collaboration between GA DOE, GSCA, and school counselor preparation programs (i.e., Georgia Southern University) will provide consistent information, resources, and support to administrators and school counselors using the CKES. 7

9 Project Contact Information Who do I contact for more information about CKES? More information about the CKES instrument is available by contacting Georgia School Counselor Association (GSCA) at: CKES@gaschoolcounselor.org The CKES instrument was created in by the GSCA Performance Evaluation Committee. Members include: 8 Julie Hartline, EdD President, Georgia School Counselor Association Julie.hartline@gaschoolcounselor.org Shellie Caplinger, Fulton County Public Schools Mark Ellis, Fulton County Public Schools Julie Hartline, Cobb County School District Stacey Miller, Gwinnett County Public Schools Sloane Molloy, Glynn County Public Schools Tinisha Parker, Gwinnett County Public Schools Lakeshia Williams, Bibb County Robin Zorn, Gwinnett County Public Schools Dr. Julie Hartline chaired the GSCA Performance Evaluation Committee. Dr. Hartline entered the field of education in 1991 after serving as a parole officer in Atlanta, Georgia and discovering that over 85% of her caseload had not completed high school. She served as chair of the Campbell High School counseling department for 14 years where her department became one of the first high schools in the state to receive the Recognized ASCA Model Program (RAMP) award from the American School Counselor Association (ASCA) in In 2009, Dr. Hartline was nationally recognized, being awarded the 2009 ASCA Counselor of the Year. Dr. Hartline was elected Georgia School Counselor Association President Elect and chaired the committee that created CKES. Dr. Hartline is the School Counseling and Advisement Consultant for Cobb County School District. She is passionate about the field of school counseling and the difference comprehensive school counseling programs make in the lives of students. She enjoys training school counselors and administrators in her district, the state, and around the nation on the ASCA National Model and the RAMP application process.

trainings, and serving with the district s crisis response team.

Leaving public schools, Richard served as an adjunct instructor while pursuing his doctoral degree.

Richard s presentations include district inservice trainings, workshop sessions at state, national, and international levels, invited speaker for television and radio, and

10 Project Researcher: Dr. Richard E. Cleveland While a full-time school counselor in Washington, Richard was involved with planning and coordinating district-wide initiatives, leading school counselor in-service trainings, and serving with the district s crisis response team. In 2008 Richard was awarded the Washington School Counselor Association s (WSCA) School Counselor of the Year Award. In 2009 Richard was elected President-Elect of WSCA. Leaving public schools, Richard served as an adjunct instructor while pursuing his doctoral degree. Since 2014 Richard has served as an Assistant Professor in the College of Education at Georgia Southern University. Richard s presentations include district inservice trainings, workshop sessions at state, national, and international levels, invited speaker for television and radio, and keynote speaker at educational events. Richard has written for various publications including Counseling and Spirituality, Counselors for Social Justice The Activist, The Journal of Research on Christian Education, the American School Counselor Association s School Counselor, as well as the Washington School Counselor Association s Insights. Richard E. Cleveland, PhD Assistant Professor Leadership, Technology, & Human Development College of Education Georgia Southern University (912) office rcleveland@georgiasouthern.edu Follow on 9

AC : DEVELOPMENT OF AN INTRODUCTION TO INFRAS- TRUCTURE COURSE

AC : DEVELOPMENT OF AN INTRODUCTION TO INFRAS- TRUCTURE COURSE AC 2011-746: DEVELOPMENT OF AN INTRODUCTION TO INFRAS- TRUCTURE COURSE Matthew W Roberts, University of Wisconsin, Platteville MATTHEW ROBERTS is an Associate Professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental