Assignment One

Evaluation of the Comprehensive Guidance and Counseling Program in Utah

The Utah State Office of Education regularly conducts a formal evaluation of its Comprehensive Counseling and Guidance Program (CCGP). Specifically, a program evaluation occurs during the self-review, and the subsequent enhancement of the program occurs continuously as counsellors compare the existing program with new program goals. This model of school guidance and counselling bares a marked resemblance to a program of a similar name used in elementary and secondary schools in Alberta. The use of this model has also been promoted in rural and urban schools in Saskatchewan, as teachers and counsellors are formally instructed about the nature of this model and the means of implementing it.

At the outset, it is challenging to discern the formal model of evaluation that was utilized. However, much of the aspects of Provus' Discrepancy Model are seen in the methods used to conduct this review, yet the theoretical foundations of the evaluation appear to be similar to those of Scriven's model. In particular, the rationale for an evaluation of the program is based upon results, or student performance outcomes. However, unlike Scriven's model in which an 'outsider' conducts the evaluation, the summative evaluation of the counselling and guidance program is Utah focuses upon the perspectives and outcomes of the major stakeholders--students, teachers, parents/guardians, and administrators.

In respect to Scriven's model, the "D" or the Design of the evaluation includes a Performance Self-Evaluation completed on-line, annually by each member of the CCGP team. The "P" or evaluation Process includes an on-site review, conducted every three years. This review utilizes student performance outcomes in all components of the model (School Guidance Curriculum, Individual Student Planning, Responsive Services, and System Support) to determine the degree to which the standards or objectives of the model were being met. The on-site team at each school consists of a district counselling director, two or three school counsellors, and a building administrator. However, elementary school counsellors were exempt from participating in some of the review process because it was thought that not all students in these grades may be receiving guidance services or be involved with programs that are components of the CCGP. Instead, guidance and counselling personnel who work with students in the elementary grades were asked to complete the Self-Evaluation as a means of self-assessment that was meeting the standards of the CCGP model. However, they were not required to discuss the results of their Self-Assessment during the formal review process. The utility of the Product, "P", may be assessed by examining the ways in which students' academic, social, and psychological well-being has changed/improved since after receiving guidance services.

It is somewhat ironic that school counsellors working with elementary-aged students would be exempt from some of this process. One of the most fundamental aspects of the CCGP is that all students, from Kindergarten to grade twelve receive some guidance services. In addition, this guidance model advocates the importance of accountability. Therefore, the decision on the part of the program evaluation design team to excuse elementary school counsellors from some of the review process may serve to undermine the importance of providing guidance services to these students, and the subsequent accountability of teachers and counsellors to the integrity of the program. In addition, it was requested to make "student, parent, and teacher involvement brief" during the on-site review process. However, this practice appears to be detrimental to the sustainability of the program because the focus of the review, student performance outcome, cannot be accurately assessed without addressing the views of all stakeholders. Although the Student Outcomes Needs Assessment is completed by students, parents/guardians, teachers, and administrators, it can be questioned as to whether this means of data collection is sufficient. Participants were asked to respond to statements regarding their perspectives in the domains of academics, life/career development, multicultural/global citizen development, and personal/social development. Respondents used a Likert-type scale, where "1" meant "being not important/not effective," and "5" meant "being very important/very effective." Admittedly, this was a very large-scale evaluation, and using a variety of data collection methods of obtaining information must not be underestimated. In particular, it may have been valuable for the researchers to conduct on-line follow-up interviews, requesting written responses to questions that emerged from the analysis of the quantitative study.

Resource

Utah State Office of Education. January, 2008. Comprehensive Counseling and Guidance Program. As found at: http://www.schools.utah.gov/cte/guidance_review.html.