NASP Communiqué, Vol. 33, #6
March 2005

Workload vs. Caseload: There’s More to School Psychology Than Numbers

By Ted Feinberg, NCSP, Karen L. Nuijens, & Andrea Canter, NCSP

What if you were scheduled to have major surgery on a specific date and were told on the day of your surgical procedure that your doctor was asked by the hospital administrator to “squeeze in” two other surgical patients before he was to do your procedure? The administrative request seemingly came out of the blue and the two other operations required five hours of the surgeon’s time.      

What if you said to a busy mother, “We would like you to add two more children to your family. You already have the house, the minivan, the refrigerator to store their food and the stove to cook their food. You won’t even know they are there.”

If your school administrator pleaded or insisted that you take on two additional diagnostic assessment cases when your current schedule was already more than overloaded, how would you respond to this request in a manner that was both logical and professionally appropriate? What would happen if your response was to ask that administrator which of your other legally mandated activities he wanted you to ignore or put on the back burner?

A significant percent of people working in schools do not appear to understand the implication of casually asking their school psychologist, “Can’t you just test or counsel one or two or five more children?” The addition of another assessment, counseling or consultation case may dramatically increase that school psychologist’s list of responsibilities, as well as the rest of the multidisciplinary team’s responsibilities, in much broader ways than is readily apparent.

Workload vs. Caseload: What Makes Sense?

Caseload refers to the number of students who are provided direct services. School psychologists typically define their caseload by the number of students assigned to them and/or the number of assessments they complete in an academic year. This is different than the ratio of enrolled students per school psychologist, which could be viewed as a school psychologist’s potential caseload (i.e., NASP’s Guidelines for the Provision of School Psychological Services recommends a ratio of no more than 1,000 enrolled students per school psychologist).

Workload refers to all activities required and performed by the school-based service provider. This includes the caseload (e.g., number of individual students served), but also refers to all activities that are necessary and important to support students’ educational programs, implement best practices for school psychological services, ensure compliance with educational mandates, and fulfill the responsibilities that are associated with working in a school setting. Some of the factors that affect workload include IEP mandates, service to nondisabled students who need support from the school psychologist, state and local regulations, state certification requirements, student factors, unfunded mandates, and state and local budgets. In addition, many school psychologists are actively involved with individual and group counseling, staff and parent consultation, in-service training and development, community liaison work, and a host of other legitimate activities that help serve the needs of the identified “client,” which can be the student and/or the school.

It is quite common for school-based service providers to talk in terms of caseload. However, there are significant problems with tracking our professional responsibilities in this manner. School psychologists’ roles are expanding in ways that make simply documenting the number of children to whom we are providing services less meaningful and short-sighted. The identified “client” is changing. Indirect services, such as consultation, are now regularly provided to teachers, administrators and parents. Some school psychologists are also actively involved in the establishment of collaborative efforts in the community. Prevention programs applicable to the entire student body, such as character education, are commonly implemented. In sum, the “client” may be a individual student or group of students, a classroom, a teacher or group of teachers, an administrator, the school system or larger community, all of which can take up a substantial amount of the school psychologist’s time.

The changing roles necessitate a new way of tracking how each school psychologist’s time is spent rather than simply tracking the number of direct services provided or listing how many students are served. While such a simple tracking system may quickly facilitate administrative accounting needs, it may also hinder the most efficacious use of school psychology services. Simple tracking of school psychologists’ time is not a new approach. It was never a useful way of measuring how time is spent or determining how many staff are needed; the data are not relevant to evaluating service effectiveness, and such accounting systems continue to reinforce outdated views of appropriate roles for school psychologists.

Recently, the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) took a new stance on the issue of caseload recommendations. ASHA (2002) argued that large caseloads limit available service delivery options, interfere with time for other activities and responsibilities needed to meet the needs of students, lead to burnout and attrition, and interfere with the full implementation of IDEA. For instance, federal laws and regulations mandate that time is spent on nondiscriminatory evaluation, FAPE, LRE, due process, parent participation, early intervention, transition services, assistive technology, state/district assessments, IEP team meetings, development of interventions that are connected to the general education curriculum, etc. Many of these responsibilities are not adequately tracked by simply counting the number of students on a particular caseload, or the number of minutes spent per student.

Rather than recommending a standard caseload for all school-based speech and language pathologists (SLPs) nationwide, ASHA recommended analyzing the workload of specific service provider or local education agency when setting caseload standards. To help implement this goal, ASHA (2003) provides their members with tools to support the systematic tracking of workload, such as an electronic spreadsheet set up to efficiently track daily activities, a student profile worksheet and a student services summary worksheet. While this does add an additional layer to the service provider’s responsibilities, the provision of the tracking tools allows the task to be integrated relatively easily into the daily work routine.

It is important that workload be systematically assessed at the local level rather than at the national or even state level. There are myriad factors that influence practice at the local level (e.g., district/county regulations, population of students being served). This is not to say that national data on the roles and functions of school-based service providers are not important. However, having knowledge about the workload of a particular service provider, or a group of service providers within a district or across neighboring districts, provides a means for communicating with administrators about the specific roles and functions they fulfill. This is a powerful strategy for communicating with administrators who may feel that national information does not apply to their individual district for any number of reasons.

In the policy documents provided by ASHA, no specific numbers are used regarding caseloads or workloads. ASHA has found that the provision of specific numbers has worked against them in the past since numbers can be misconstrued, do not encompass the full range of roles and responsibilities, and do not reflect mitigating factors that can and do affect workload. For instance, a previous ASHA policy recommended that school-based SLPs have no more than 40 cases at a time. Many administrators viewed this number as an ideal and used it as a justification for adding more students to SLPs caseloads, when in fact SLPs working with a population of severely disabled students should be working with far fewer students than the recommended maximum.

It is interesting to note that, according to the National Education Association (2004), other organizations representing school-based service providers have made recommendations regarding caseloads that vary according to the population of students served. For instance, the American Occupational Therapy Association (AOTA) recommends a caseload of from 16 to 43, depending on type of intervention, frequency of intervention and travel expectations. The National Association of School Nurses (NASN) suggests limits of 750:1 for general populations, 225:1 for mainstreamed populations, and 125:1 for students who are severely chronically ill or developmentally disabled.

Application to School Psychologists

Huebner (1992) reported that school psychologists who perceived themselves as having a heavy caseload reported a higher level of burnout. This finding occurred regardless of the actual caseload assigned to the school psychologists, and serves as an indicator that workload varies by more than just the number of students a particular school psychologist serves. Furthermore, there is evidence that other educators and administrators are not completely aware of the roles and functions that a school psychologist fulfills (Gilman & Gabriel, 2004). Tracking workload provides a way for school psychologists to share information about the work they are doing with and on behalf of students in a more meaningful way.

Most school psychologists spend one-half to two-thirds of their time in special education eligibility activities, although school psychologists have consistently reported wanting to do less assessment and more direct intervention, consultation and research (Brown, Hohenshil, & Brown, 1998; Hosp & Reschly, 2002; Keith, Brown, & Oberman, 1992). The changes in the newly reauthorized IDEA, particularly as they relate to the identification of students with learning disabilities, may open doors for school psychologists to further expand the role they play within the schools.

The expansion of direct and indirect services calls for a new method for school psychologists to accurately track the services they provide. Analytically documenting and reviewing the workload of school psychologists provides a logical way of accomplishing this goal and for sharing with others the roles and functions in which they are engaged. Using information gathered through workload analysis will help ensure that students’ needs are better identified, help evaluate the degree to which these needs are met, and increase the likelihood that the full range of services a school psychologist is trained to provide are utilized.

The purpose of this discussion is to discourage emphasis on a caseload and/or ratio approach for establishing standards at the local education agency level. Used in isolation, these approaches are one-dimensional, do not provide a mechanism for evaluating the quality of services being delivered, do not take into account the needs of the particular population of students served, and do not address the many indirect activities that support staff and students. It is our belief that assessing workload provides an alternative approach that will complement and surpasses existing approaches for planning and implementing school-based psychological services. We feel that a careful examination of the workload model will show that it is has much to offer in terms of identifying, clarifying, and tracking the full range of services that can and should be offered by school psychologists. In addition, we feel the workload approach has the potential to diffuse some of the historical tension that has existed between school psychologists and administrators when it comes to planning and scheduling professional responsibilities. 

Data collection based on workload rather than caseload is not new, although not extensively reported in the school psychology literature (see Zins & Fairchild, 1986). For example, Tomlinson (1973; 1974) reported a professional activity tracking system  (“functional analysis”) implemented in the Minneapolis Public Schools in the early 1970s, which has continued (with periodic modifications) for over thirty years. This system, described in detail by Canter (1991), provides data regarding student characteristics, referral problems, specific services rendered and service outcomes. Periodically, staff also tracked time spent on specific activities; combining these two sources of data was particularly useful in developing recommendations for staff allocations.

NASP is interested in exploring this topic further. Materials can be developed and disseminated to help school psychologists effectively assess and keep track of their workload (e.g., electronic spreadsheets designed to efficiently track the time and services being provided). The first step in this process may be to brainstorm a comprehensive list of all roles, responsibilities and activities associated with working in schools with and on behalf of children. It would be interesting to have parents, educators and administrators provide input to see if their perceptions are similar to or very different from NASP members regarding the role and function of school psychologists. Second, these activities could be grouped into larger categories to provide a global framework illustrating school psychologists’ roles and responsibilities.

Using this approach, tools could be developed that individual school psychologists and/or local school systems can use to efficiently track their workload in terms of activities and allocation of time. After tracking their activities and the proportion of time being allocated for particular services, a school psychologist could assess his or her current practice relative to the needs of the students receiving services. For example, is adequate time allocated across all mandated activities? Is sufficient time allocated to services that are considered priorities for a given population? Are positive student outcomes associated with specific services or time spent in specific activities? If some services are given extensive time at the expense of other priority services, the imbalance should be analyzed and addressed through collaboration among school psychologists, administrators, union representatives, parents and other educational stakeholders to help ensure the needs of students are met. Solutions might include increased staffing, reallocation of personnel, reprioritizing services, etc. Workload analysis provides a way for school psychologists to tailor their service delivery to the needs of the local system.

We invite your thoughts and comments on this very important topic. It is particularly important to hear from those who have developed and/or have implemented models that incorporate the ideas put forth in this article, and from those who are interested in further developing these ideas. Please direct your thoughts and comments to Ted Feinberg at tfeinberg@naspweb.org.

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (2002). A workload analysis approach for establishing speech-language caseload standards in the schools. Rockville, MD: Author.

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (2003). Implementation guide: A workload analysis approach for establishing speech-language caseload standards in the schools. Rockville, MD: Author.

Brown, M. B., Hohenshil, T. H., & Brown, D. T. (1998). Job satisfaction of school psychologists in the United States: A national study. School Psychology International, 19, 79–89.

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

Gilman, R., & Gabriel, S. (2004). Perceptions of school psychological services by education professionals: Results from a multi-state survey pilot study. School Psychology Review, 33, 271–286.

Hosp, J. L., & Reschly, D. J. (2002). Regional differences in school psychology. School Psychology Review, 31, 11–29.

Huebner, E. S. (1992). Burnout among school psychologists: An exploratory investigation into its nature, extent, and correlates. School Psychology Quarterly, 7, 129–136.

Keith, P. B., Brown, M. B., & Oberman, M. (1992). School psychologists’ use of time: Interventions and effectiveness. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of School Psychologists in Nashville, TN.

National Association of School Psychologists (2000).  Professional conduct manual.  Bethesda, MD: Author. 

National Education Association (2004). Advocating for special education working conditions. Washington, DC: Author.

Tomlinson, J. R. (1973). Accountability procedures for psychological services. Psychology in the Schools, 10, 42-47.

Tomlinson, J.R. (1974). Functional analysis and accountability of psychological services. Psychology in the Schools, 11, 291-295.

Zins, J.E. & Fairchild, T. (1986). An investigation of the accountability practices of school psychologists. Professional School Psychology, 1, 193-204.

© 2005, National Association of School Psychologists. Ted Feinberg, EdD, NCSP, is the NASP Assistant Executive Director. Karen L. Nujiens, MA, is the NASP Graduate Student Intern and student at the University of Maryland. Andrea Canter, PhD, NCSP, is the Editor of the Communiqué and former lead psychologist for the Minneapolis Public Schools. We appreciate the important information provided by Kathleen A. Whitmire, PhD, Director of School Services in Speech-Language Pathology at the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association regarding their efforts on this issue. See related article on page 12.