2018 School Psychology Program Survey
A survey was emailed to field supervisors, local administrators/employers, and alumni of the program to determine current needs in the field and if they perceived the School psychology training program at California State University, Fresno is meeting those needs. There were 54 responses (54% response rat); three-fourths were CSU, Fresno graduates ranging from 1991 to 2017, with the majority graduating during this review period (2011-2017).
Over half (56%) served as field supervisors for practicum students or interns. Eight (15%) were administrators / employers. All had maintained their school psychology credential; 50% were also nationally certified (NCSP). Seven percent had the BCBA certification and 13% an administrative credential. The vast majority (81.5%) were located in Fresno County with 9 (16.5%) elsewhere in California. Only one respondent was from outside California.
Items were based on the current training standards of the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP). Respondents were asked to indicate district or agency need on a scale from strong need to no need, and also to rate the CSU, Fresno training program as need met, partially met, not net, or unable to judge. Spaces were provided for comments in each section. For most areas, training ratings matched needs ratings (see Tables 9 and 10.) Program areas of strength were data-based decision making, consultation, academic interventions, diversity, research, legal and ethical knowledge, and special education eligibility. However, analysis of individual items and standards indicated areas where we can add to our training. As expected in a field closely aligned with special education, knowledge of assessment measures and eligibility criteria and skills in synthesizing information and report writing were rated as strongly needed by almost all respondents. We are meeting the needs in those areas. However, we added additional theory and training in implementation of the Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses (PSW) model of identification for specific learning disabilities as several local districts have adopted this model. Finally we are working towards incorporating systematic assessment for autism into our coursework.
Another area of need rated as critical is mental health. Mental health and trauma informed schools are foci of our national organization as well, and clearly mental health services in the schools are needed today. We have added counseling coursework and do thoroughly cover response to crises, such as suicides and shootings via the PREPaRE training. Our students take several courses from the Kremen Counseling Department as electives. We will continue to support training and practice, including at the systems level with social emotional learning (SEL) curricula and system wide Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS).
The program provides a strong grounding for students in the history, roles, and function of our profession. Our focus is on training future practitioners in technically solid assessment, empirically based interventions facilitated by home, school, and community consultation and collaboration. Diversity training, including bilingual assessment, is interwoven into much of our coursework. This knowledge necessary to effectively serve the needs of our culturally, social–economically, and linguistically diverse population of the Central Valley is blended into all coursework.
| SURVEY ITEM | Strong Need | Fresno State Training Met + Exceptional |
|---|---|---|
| Competency in selecting, administering, and scoring norm-referenced assessments | 96.2%% | 94.3% |
| Competency in synthesizing information and report writing | 94.3% | 90.6% |
| Skill in behavioral observations, FBA, and developing BIP | 81.13% | 84.3% |
| Consulting and problem solving with teachers, other school professionals, and parents | 92.45% | 98.1% |
| Communication skills in individual and team settings (e.g., consultation, IEPs) | 94.34% | 90.6% |
| Knowledge of general and special education and alternative education programs and services | 76.5% | 78.4% |
| Skills in crisis intervention and prevention (e.g., threat assessment, lock downs, suicide postvention) | 78.4% | 82.4% |
| Consideration of individual differences and needs in design, implementation, and evaluation of services | 78.4% | 94.1% |
| Competency in assessment, intervention, and consultation, with students, and families from diverse backgrounds | 88.2% | 96.1% |
| Disseminating Empirically Based Interventions at all opportunities: SST, IEP, consultations | 75.5% | 86.3% |
| Engaging in ethical decision making | 94.1% | 94.1% |
| Knowledge of legal standards and regulations | 96.0% | 88.2% |
| Knowledge of and ability to apply eligibility criteria in assessments (e.g., SLD, ED ID, autism) | 98.0% | 84.3% |
| FUTURE TRAINING | ||
| Autism Assessment and Intervention | 80.4% | 66.7% |
| Social, Emotional, Behavioral Assessment | 94.1% | 78.4% |
This PDF is provided as a print-only reference document and may not be fully accessible to users of assistive technology. For more information, please visit Title II Rule on Digital Accessibility page.