"No Child Left Behind": implications for school counselors.

In this qualitative study, 210 school counselors responded to a Web-based national survey exploring the effects of the No Child Left Behind legislation. They described how much they knew about the legislation, outlined the positive and negative effects of the legislation on their school counseling programs, and detailed their role in the testing process. Implications for school counselors in light of these findings are discussed.

**********

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (U.S. Department of Education, 2002a), the most recent reauthorization of elementary and secondary education, was designed to have a profound effect on American education: to make schools accountable for student learning, and to ensure that at-risk youth were not "left behind" academically (U.S. Department of Education, 2002b). While many states had already developed strong accountability standards (e.g., North Carolina; Brown, Galassi, & Akos, 2004), the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation made federal funding for education contingent on students' school-wide performance on academic tests and outlined corrective measures for schools that failed to maintain adequate yearly progress toward statewide proficiency goals. Adequate yearly progress is assessed through a rigorous testing schedule, and it measures each subgroup within the school (defined by race, ethnicity, gender, English language proficiency, migrant status, disability status, and low-income status) (U.S. Department of Education, 2004).

The results of these assessments, the professional qualifications of teachers, and school safety statistics must be reported to parents and the public yearly, so that parents can move children from "failing" schools to academically viable schools (U.S. Department of Education, 2002b). Sanctions imposed on failing schools include cuts in funding; mandates for increased academic support services; replacing staff deemed responsible for the failures; and, eventually, restructuring, privatizing, or state takeover (National Education Association, 2004a).

In response to these mandates, schools have changed--and as schools change, so do school counseling programs. As reflected in the ASCA National Model[R] (American School Counselor Association, 2005), the national emphasis on accountability has resulted in a renewed emphasis on accountability for school counselors (Dahir, 2004). But not only are the professional duties of the school counselor changing as school counselors are more accountable, the professional duties of the school counselor also are changing as schools are more accountable. To fully understand the effects of this legislation on school counselors, we must first understand the systemic effects of this legislation on schools.

Extensive controversy exists in the general educational literature surrounding NCLB. In general, authors express commitment to the concepts of equal access, safe schools, and student proficiency (Newbold, 2004); however, there are numerous concerns about this legislation's effects on the most at-risk students. Examples of the types of at-risk students cited to be most endangered by NCLB are those students from culturally diverse backgrounds, those who come with English as a second language, those who live in poverty, or those who live with emotional and behavioral disabilities (Allbritten, Mainzer, & Ziegler, 2004; Leone & Cutting, 2004; Mathis, 2004; Newbold; Sitlington & Neubert, 2004). In fact, Rose (2004) has calculated that NCLB, over time, will result in the failure of all schools, based on mathematical flaws in the formulas for calculating adequate yearly progress (AYP).

According to some authors, NCLB makes schools responsible--even penalizes schools--for students' poor home lives, learning disabilities, lack of student motivation, and varying academic abilities (Mathis, 2004). There are serious questions about the assessment process in terms of intent and impact, as gaps in performance may be linked to socioeconomic status, not academic ability (Sadker & Zittleman, 2004). Furthermore, the public may not be equipped to understand the context and meaning of AYP statistics, which could result in unfair and invalid assessments of students, schools, and system achievement (Grobe & McCall, 2004).

In addition to reports of schools "off-loading" at-risk populations to prevent being labeled as "failing" (National Education Association, 2004b), there are a number of disturbing trends occurring. Some elementary schools are increasing instructional time by cutting out naps for kindergarten and pre-K students, reducing lunch time, and eliminating or curtailing recess (Cook, 2004). Some authors charge that gifted students are neglected as schools focus on bringing remedial students up to standards (DeLacy, 2004; Phillips, 2004). According to some reports, the remedy for parents whose children are in "failing" schools--transferring to better schools--is often not possible; while capacity cannot be used to deny transfer requests, the cost of improving facilities is prohibitive, and this increases the likelihood of diminished educational quality at overcrowded "achieving" schools (Lewis, 2004).

Both the public's and parents' reactions to NCLB have become more negative, as awareness of the effects of the legislation grows (Azzam, 2004; "Public concern growing over NCLB," 2004; Robelen, 2004). When 1,050 voters were polled, they expressed increasing opposition: up from 8% in 2003 to 28% in 2004. Fifty-seven percent expressed concerns about funding. In addition, 57% stated they disapproved of requiring disabled students to take the same tests as nondisabled students, and 46% disapproved of forcing English as a Second Language students to take the same tests. In a survey of 699 parents of K-12 students, 68% expressed support for the idea of NCLB, but they had major concerns. Thirty-four percent believed it punishes schools for failure instead of helping, and 25% thought it limits the quality of learning.

While proponents claim these controversies stem from educators' lack of willingness to move toward improvement (Porter-Magee, 2004), most educators seem to agree that living up to the promise of the intent of the legislation is possible (Palumbo, Nelsen, Leight, & Cudeiro, 2004). Because the legislation is not going away, it is important to recognize both the strengths and limitations of the standards-based reform movement. School-wide accountability in the form of testing affects teachers, administrators, and, by extension, professional school counselors, as many counselors function as building or district testing coordinators (Burnham & Jackson, 2000). Brown et al. (2004) studied the effects of state-initiated high-stakes testing in North Carolina, finding that counselors perceived themselves to be negatively impacted by the state's testing program. These counselors cited less time to provide direct service to students, less accessibility to students, greater misunderstandings about the role of the counselor, and poorer relationships with teachers (p. 38). To date, however, there has been no national exploration of counselors' perceptions of the effects of the No Child Left Behind legislation.

PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY

The purpose of this study is to explore the perceptions of professional school counselors relative to the No Child Left Behind legislation; specifically, to ascertain what school counselors know about the legislation, how the legislation has affected school counseling programs, and what role school counselors play in the increased testing activities mandated by the legislation. Additionally, based upon these findings, preliminary recommendations are provided to assist school counselors to thrive within the parameters of both NCLB legislation and the ASCA National Model (2005). These recommendations are designed to highlight the potential reciprocity between these mandates and, furthermore, to encourage school counselors to continue to serve as a positive change agent for students.

METHODOLOGY

Procedure

The researchers contacted the American School Counselor Association to post a survey on the various school counseling listservs offered by ASCA. At the time of the survey, ASCA reported that 1,760 individuals subscribe to the various listservs surveyed. Once permission was granted to post the survey on the listservs, the researchers sent two requests for participants, timed about 10 days apart. The survey was open for respondents for a total of 30 days.

Participants

The respondents consisted of 210 school counselors, 176 women (83.0%) and 30 men (14.2%); information may not add to 100% due to nonresponses. Five school counselors reported to be of African American ethnicity (2.3%), 200 reported to be Caucasian (95.0%), 1 reported Native American status (0.4%), and 2 indicated multiracial (0.9%) (with no individuals self-reported as Asian-American/Pacific Islander or Hispanic/Latino, non-White). Twenty-eight (13.3%) members of the sample had 0 to 2 years experience as a school counselor, 43 (20.4%) had 3 to 5 years of experience, 45 (21.4%) had 6 to 10 years, 70 (33.3%) had 10 to 20 years, and 21 (10.0%) reported a tenure over 20 years. Geographically, the sample included 39 counselors from the Northeast (18.5%), 39 from the Southeast (18.5%), 92 from the upper Midwest (43.0%), 6 from the lower Midwest (2.8%), 6 from the Rocky Mountain areas (2.8%), 9 from the Northwest (4.2%), 15 from the Southwest (7.1%), and 1 from either Hawaii or Alaska (0.4%).

In terms of work setting, 72 (34.2%) of the school counselors indicated that they worked in an elementary school, 38 (18.0%) in a middle school/junior high, 60 (28.5%) in a high school, and 37 (17.6%) from a school that contained multiple levels of students housed in the same building. There were 199 (94.7%) respondents who reported working in a public school and 5 (2.3%) who reported working in a private school. According to a respondent estimate of student economic status (SES), 9 (4.2%) respondents reported working in schools of "affluent students," 42 (20%) reported working in schools of "middle-class students," 74 (35.3%) reported working in schools of "working-class students," 40 (19.0%) reported working in schools of "poverty," and 43 (20.4%) reported working with "mixed-SES students." In terms of community, 102 (48.5%) reported working in a rural community, 66 (31.4%) in a suburban community, and 38 (18.0%) in an urban community. Finally, respondents reported the extent to which their program conformed to the ASCA National Model, with 30 (14.2%) reporting fully consistent, 100 (47.6%) somewhat consistent, 48 (22.8%) marginally consistent, 22 (10.4%) not consistent, and 8 (3.8%) reported not being familiar with the ASCA National Model.

Survey Development

The researchers developed a survey to gather the perceptions of school counselors regarding NCLB legislation. The first part of the survey consisted of seven items, employing a 5-point response scale, that explored the school counselors' knowledge of the NCLB legislation. Responses to this section included "specific detailed knowledge"; "in general, and a lot of the details"; "in general, but not many details"; "not much general knowledge, no details"; and "nothing at all." The next sections posed two open-ended questions: (a) "What are the effects (both positive and negative) of this legislation on your school counseling program?" and (b) "Please describe your role in the testing process relative to this legislation." Finally, the survey asked respondents to offer their demographic and school counseling program information.

The researchers created this survey independently on an Internet-based software program called Flashlight Online, offered through Washington State University. The researchers later refined the original survey for increased usability and then presented it to selected school counselors for feedback (Granello & Wheaton, 2004). Respondents from this pilot trial of the survey indicated that they found the survey to be clear and they felt the results could be valuable to their work in schools and the profession.

Analysis

The seven closed-ended questions that begin the survey were coded based upon the response items presented to the respondents on a Likert-like scale. To analyze the open-ended data, the researchers employed the process of triangulation to ensure the validity of the study and resultant interpretations (Choudhuri, Glauser, & Peregoy, 2004; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Miles & Huberman, 1984). The specific process of triangulation utilized was a triadic interchange, (a) beginning with the independent, then collaborative, data analysis performed by the two researchers (the first author is a counselor educator focusing on school counseling, and the second author is a former school counselor and recent hire in counselor education); (b) checking the premises and findings against the relevant literature; and (c) finishing with two objective outside readers providing critical overview to look for errors in categorization of data. Finally, demographic and school counseling program information also was compiled based upon preestablished response options.

To capture qualitative data for the open-ended questions, the researchers examined each response and coded it for content. The content for each response could involve more than one idea, or data point, as in the multisentence response:

   Teachers are even more reluctant to give up
   any class time for counseling or character education
   activities. Teachers and administrators
   are less supportive of counseling program[s]
   due to increased focus on testing and training
   in "research-based strategies." I feel I am
   struggling even more to prove over and over
   again the importance of my position.

This response was coded for four data points: (a) reluctance to give up class time, (b) less support of counseling programs, (c) increased focus on testing, and (d) the struggle to prove the value of counseling. These data points then were checked between the two researchers, confirmed in existing literature, validated by the outside readers, and, finally, placed in the context of the ASCA National Model (2005).

RESULTS

Results of the data analysis are presented within the context of the ASCA National Model and are examined in terms of both school counseling program-enhancing and program-depleting effects. The rich detail of the responses has been preserved in this article's tables to provide the reader with a clear sense of the voices of responding counselors. Each of the three research areas are addressed individually below; percentages for the open-ended questions have been calculated based on the total number of data points, not respondents, for each question.

Counselor Knowledge of No Child Left Behind

For questions 1-7, respondents indicated their level of general and detailed knowledge about various aspects of NCLB. About two topics, "Testing and annual yearly progress (AYP)" (M = 3.69, SD = .64) and "Categories of school ratings in response to AYP" (M = 3.50, SD = .53), a majority (72% and 63%, respectively) indicated that they felt they knew general information, with half of those (37.6% and 30%, respectively) indicating they also knew a lot of the details. For each of these topics, 20% indicated they possessed specific, detailed knowledge. Fewer than 5% knew nothing at all (0.4% and 4.7%, respectively).

About the topics of parent notification of AYP (M = 3.32, SD = .54), remediation requirements relative to school ratings (M = 3.09, SD = .44), and the response of the state to NCLB legislation (M = 3.13, SD = .41), respondents indicated lower levels of specific, detailed knowledge (10.9%, 9.8%, and 11.9%, respectively) but still reported solid general knowledge (69.9%, 62.2%, and 69.4%, respectively). Fewer than 10% knew nothing at all (3.8%, 7.6%, and 6.1%, respectively).

Finally, the two topics about which counselors reported the least knowledge were the "Safe and Drug-Free Schools" provisions of NCLB (M = 2.66, SD = .29) and funding of NCLB (M = 2.55, SD = .34). For these topics, only 22.3% and 16.5%, respectively, had detailed knowledge, while 31.4% and 32.3% indicated general knowledge with no details, 28.5% and 34.7% indicated not much general knowledge with no details, and 16.6% and 15.7% indicated they knew nothing at all.

Effects of NCLB on School Counseling Programs

Results from the first open-ended question--"What are the effects, both positive and negative, of this legislation on your school counseling program?"--are presented in Table 1 in the context of the ASCA National Model (2005). The model's theme of "Systemic Change," describing changes to schools and families, was addressed in 19.7% (n = 58) of the responses. The positive changes included more data to improve the school, more aware parents, and more proactive counselors (2.3%, n = 7), while the negative effects included stressed teachers (7.4%, n = 22) and discouraged students (6.1%, n = 18).

Within the ASCA National Model element of "Accountability," increased accountability was addressed in 15.3% (n = 45) of responses, with a majority of those responses describing the positive aspects of being able to document program worth (9.8%, n = 29). A negative effect within this element involved more paperwork (4.4%, n = 13).

The effect of NCLB on the program's "Delivery System" was addressed in 36% of the responses (n = 106). While the positive effects were identified as a more intentional selection of activities, focused work with testing problems, and increased commitment to at-risk students (2.3%, n = 7), the majority of responses addressed negative effects to the program's delivery system (33.6%, n = 99). Within this category, responses included the reluctance of teachers to give up class time for counseling or the developmental curriculum (12.9%, n = 38), the burden of testing as a deterrent to counseling students (9.1%, n = 27), and the focus on academics to the exclusion of the social and emotional needs of students (8.1%, n = 24).

Changes to the "Management System" were addressed in 7.4% of the responses (n = 22); positive effects included improved program organization, increased collaboration, and increased pay (2%, n = 6), and negative responses highlighted concerns about lack of funding for this legislation and its effects on counseling positions, programs, and professional development (4.7%, n = 14). Non-ASCA National Model activities in the form of testing coordination and responsibilities (ASCA, 2005) were cited in 12.2% (n = 36) of the responses as a negative effect of NCLB. Finally, 24 responses (8.1%) indicated that the respondent was not sure or saw no effect of NCLB.

Counselor's Role in the Testing Process Relative to NCLB

The second open-ended question asked respondents to describe their role in the testing process relative to this legislation. The results of this inquiry are presented in Table 2. In terms of activities defined by ASCA as appropriate (counseling students about test anxiety and strategies, interpreting tests, and analyzing them in "conjunction with multiple measures of student achievement" [ASCA, 2005]), 25.1% (n = 68) of the responses described such involvement.

However, the majority of the responses listed involvement with coordination and administration of tests, which may be considered inappropriate if such activities deprive students of the counselor's training and expertise in developmental issues (ASCA, 2005). Serving as the building testing coordinator was identified by 29.2% (n = 79) of the responses, with 2.9% (n = 8) serving as district testing coordinator. Proctoring tests and providing makeup testing were listed in 13.3% (n = 36) of the responses; determining and monitoring for accommodations was listed in 3.3% (n = 9); and academic remediation after testing was listed in 2.9% (n = 8) of the responses. In addition, 7.7% (n = 21) indicated that they did not test or analyze data.

DISCUSSION

As NCLB legislation has proven to be an influential, far-reaching, and significant change agent in public education, so too are the concurrent changes in school counseling programs. This study was designed to provide a voice for school counselors to describe their experiences relative to this legislation; the diversity of responses is visible in the coded data and suggests the wide range of experiences and understanding of the impact of the legislation on a profession crystallizing its professional identity (ASCA, 2005; Foster, Young, & Hermann, 2005). Additionally, through contextualizing this legislative mandate within the ASCA National Model, this study further contributes to the national discussion surrounding the national accountability movement and the school counseling profession.

Positive findings relative to NCLB included counselors' reported knowledge of the legislation. Overall, respondents reported strong general knowledge about most aspects of the legislation, including testing and annual yearly progress, categories of school ratings, parent notification of test results, building and district remediation requirements in response to school ratings, and state responses to NCLB. When reflecting that 32% of the respondents (n = 87) are either building or district coordinators, this level of knowledge may be inherent in that coordinator role. In addition, 8.1% (n = 22) of the responses identified "student, parent, teacher, and/or community notification of test results" as an activity, further increasing counselors' need to understand the legislation and its implications. As all these respondents were members of ASCA, it bodes well for the profession that these respondents were knowledgeable about important professional developments and issues.

Another positive effect of the legislation involved accountability. A crucial piece of the ASCA National Model (2005), accountability is also clearly the cornerstone of NCLB and has resulted, for some respondents, in documentation of their contribution to the education of their students. This positive effect of the legislation was reflected in 9.8% (n = 29) of the responses, as in the following: "I am now much more accountable and able to tell anyone how what I do makes a difference in a child's life (social/ emotional, academically, and career decision making)."

Many of the responses aligned with the ASCA National Model's theme (Systemic Change) or elements (Delivery System and Management System) and offered evidence of additional positive effects of NCLB. For example, the systemic improvement of schools was described in the following response: "We have used data to improve certain areas of the school. This data would not have been as useful if it were not for NCLB pushing for improvement." Positive effects in terms of commitment to help at-risk students (Delivery System) were described in the following response: "Our system has made a real commitment to target those students considered at risk. Administrators are focused on providing extra help, not just giving 'lip service' to the low-income, minority, and non-English-speaking students." In terms of Management System, positive changes included more collaboration: "Increases collaboration within our school and district." Overall, 17.3% (n = 51) of the responses identified positive effects of the legislation.

However, 74.4% (n = 219) of the responses identified negative effects. Some of these concerns reflected the systemic effects of the legislation on teachers, students, schools, and parents (17.3%, n = 51), as in this response: "Teachers are more stressed, which filters down to the students. I am seeing more students having difficulty with teachers. I see a lot of discouraged students who have difficulty testing and don't see a future in high school." In terms of accountability, concerns included increased paperwork (4.4%, n = 13), as in the response of "more paperwork, less time in classes," foreshadowing concerns about the Delivery System. In this category, negative effects on the delivery of the respondent's counseling program were cited in 33.6% of the responses (n = 99), as revealed in the following:

   However, since the emphasis is placed almost
   exclusively on the 3 R's, the emotional/social
   needs of students are placed on the "back
   burner," if at all on the stove. Developmental
   considerations now are being ignored in order
   to accomodate [sic] the push for academic
   standards to be met at even earlier ages.

Another respondent stated, "I am in charge of all testing (coordinator and proctor). I am not able to work on the 3 domains of school counseling, when I have been given a lot of the administrative assignments for NCLB." In terms of the Management System, concerns were raised about funding, personnel, and support, as in this quote:

   We, as counselors, are in charge of all testing
   at our 2000+ student high school. We are in
   over our heads with this task and the fact that
   it means so much to our school as a whole. We
   do not receive much, if any, administrative
   support or much, if any, manpower support
   when it comes to these daunting tests!

In fact, the extent of counselors' role in testing was an important finding of this study. One quarter (25.1%, n = 68) of the responses were consistent with what ASCA describes as appropriate for counselors: working with data to improve the school, interpreting test results for various constituencies, and working with students who experience testing problems. Based on Burnham and Jackson's (2000) findings in which 87% of their 80 respondents coordinated the schools' testing programs, it was unexpected to find that only 32.2% (n = 87) of responses indicated responsibility for district or building test coordination. In addition to test coordination, similar responses indicating coordinating activities (coding tests or coordinating some testing) brought that total to 42.2% (n = 114). However, the rest of the responses described a wide range of involvement with testing: from 21 responses (7.7%) indicating no tasks with testing or data analysis, to 25 (9.2%) who provided proctoring, to 8 (2.9%) who were involved with academic remediation.

Limitations

There are a number of limitations to this study. First, Web-based surveys limit confidence in response rates (Granello & Wheaton, 2004), as exact response rates are impossible to calculate in this instance. Second, respondents are limited to the membership of ASCA listservs, limiting the generalizability of the findings to members of the professional association. These respondents may be more professionally aware of changes within the definition of professional roles for school counselors (as in the ASCA National Model); this may account for the low percentage of respondents who coordinate testing.

Third, the respondents included 28 counselors (13.3%) with 0-2 years of experience, meaning that they had no or limited pre-NCLB school counseling experience from which to assess changes since the advent of NCLB. Fourth, further exploration of possible correlations between, for example, school level and testing responsibilities was impossible given the large amount of text and limitations of the online software. However, strengths of the study include respondents from a wide geographic, educational, and economic diversity, as well as open-ended responses that allowed for self-expression.

Recommendations for School Counselors

Recommendations are offered in a two-fold manner, from both a micro and a macro perspective. The micro-level recommendations include specific ASCA National Model-influenced activities that the school counselor can engage in that support school efforts to document annual yearly progress. The macro recommendations are those systemic and political actions that a school counselor must commit to that will serve to enhance the student-centered role of school counselors. Coupling these two powerful fronts, school counselors can enhance the immediate school experience of students and become proactive leaders, advocating those conditions that are necessary for the education of tomorrow's generation.

At the building level, school counselors are part of the educational team, and they must support building efforts to enhance student achievement, regardless of legislation. As reported by these respondents, accountability efforts have resulted in more data about the efficacy of school counseling programs, and this information can be used within the building and district to demonstrate how comprehensive school counseling programs support and enhance academic progress. However, it is important that school counselors remain advocates for students, holistic development, and systemic change, as promoted in the ASCA National Model. The finding that 33.6% of responses identified negative effects of NCLB on the Delivery System suggests that school counseling programs may be experiencing erosion as a result of the overemphasis on academic development. This study supports the need for counselors to use their data to provide leadership and advocate for those school conditions and programs that promote resiliency, counseling, mentoring, social skills instruction, and a caring school climate (Day-Vines & Day-Hairston, 2005; Starkman, Scales, & Roberts, 1999).

As a profession we cannot become disgruntled or jaded by a cursory consideration of this legislation; instead, school counselors must be aware of and compliant with the changing emphases of the educational discourse without losing the benefits that school counselors offer students. The emphases on academics and accountability can be framed in a positive light. School counselors must integrate academic, career, and social development into the Delivery System, both to enhance student academic achievement and to provide concrete evidence of our value in the modern school culture (Brigman & Campbell, 2003). Based upon the academic, social, and career successes that we assist students in attaining--successes that will be valued and reinforced by educators, legislators, parents, and students--school counselors can further expand their comprehensive school counseling programs and influence.

In addition, there exist profound micro-systemic opportunities for school counselors to team with educational colleagues and the stakeholders in the lives of the students. According to ASCA (2005), school counselors are compelled to possess and articulate knowledge of standardized test analysis. School counselors must actively spearhead conversations with colleagues and parents about testing and learning. Additionally, this communication can be further extended into opportunities to link the educator or parent to the student-enhancing counseling work of the school counseling program. It is this effort that will ensure that the skills addressed in counselors' academic, social, and career activities are reinforced and valued.

In addition to the micro considerations within the individual school, there are systemic and political macro-actions that are appropriate for school counselors. Leadership and advocacy for schools and students, especially with local school boards, would be useful for communicating the importance of holistic student development. Political advocacy, as an extension of state school counselor associations or as an individual school counselor, helps politicians and the public better understand schools, students, impediments to learning, and resiliency and protective factors. Again, data collected about the efficacy of school counseling programs can be important news for legislators to hear as the issues of high-stakes testing are debated.

CONCLUSION

It is clear from this study that these school counselors are informed about NCLB, and that NCLB has had a profound effect on school counseling programs. What is not clear is whether school counseling programs will be permanently altered as a result of the emphasis on high-stakes testing as a means of assessing educational efficacy. This study allowed responding school counselors to reflect on and articulate what NCLB has done, both positively and negatively, to the school and the program. In addition, respondents revealed the unique constellation of activities they perform relative to testing, suggesting that high-stakes testing has magnified the already skewed perspective of counselors as test administrators. Future studies could explore testing responsibilities at various educational levels and examine long-term effects of high-stakes testing on school counseling programs, teachers, and students. Within the context of this study, there is a concern that holistic school counseling programs might be eroded, which, ironically, may lead to many children being left behind.

References

Allbritten, D., Mainzer, R., & Ziegler, D. (2004). Will students with disabilities be scapegoats for school failure? Educational Horizons, 82, 153-160.

American School Counselor Association. (2005). The ASCA national model: A framework for school counseling programs (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Author.

Azzam, A. (2004). NCLB: Up close and personal. Educational Leadership, 62, 87-88.

Brigman, G., & Campbell, C. (2003). Helping students improve academic achievement and school success behavior. Professional School Counseling, 7, 91-98.

Brown, D., Galassi, J. P., & Akos, R (2004). School counselors' perceptions of the impact of high-stakes testing. Professional School Counseling, 8, 31-39.

Burnham, J. J., & Jackson, C. M. (2000). School counselor roles: Discrepancies between actual practice and existing models. Professional School Counseling, 4, 41-49.

Choudhuri, D., Glauser, A., & Peregoy, J. (2004). Guidelines for writing a qualitative manuscript for the Journal of Counseling & Development. Journal of Counseling & Development, 82, 443-446.

Cook, G. (2004). Good-bye to nap time: Spurred by NCLB, elementary schools get serious. American School Board Journal, 191(5), 6-8.

Dahir, C. A. (2004). Supporting a nation of learners: The role of school counseling in educational reform. Journal of Counseling and Development, 82, 344-353.

Day-Vines, N. L., & Day-Hairston, B. O. (2005). Culturally congruent strategies for addressing the behavioral needs of urban, African American male adolescents. Professional School Counseling, 8, 236-243.

DeLacy, M. (2004, June 23).The 'No Child' law's biggest victims? An answer that may surprise. Education Week, p. 40.

Foster, L. H., Young, J. S., & Hermann, M. (2005).The work activities of professional school counselors: Are the National Standards being addressed? Professional School Counseling, 8, 313-321.

Granello, D. H., & Wheaton, J. E. (2004). Online data collection: Strategies for research. Journal for Counseling & Development, 82, 387-394.

Grobe, W. J., & McCall, D. (2004).Valid uses of student testing as part of authentic and comprehensive student assessment, school reports, and school system accountability. Educational Horizons, 82, 131-142.

Leone, P. E., & Cutting, C. A. (2004). Appropriate education, juvenile corrections, and No Child Left Behind. Behavioral Disorders, 29, 260-265.

Lewis, A. C. (2004). Still left behind. The Education Digest, 70, 68-69.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Mathis, W. J. (2004). NCLB and high-stakes accountability: A cure? Or a symptom of the disease? Educational Horizons, 82,143-152.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Drawing valid meaning from qualitative data: Toward a shared craft. Educational Researcher, 13, 20-30.

National Education Association. (2004a). 'No Child Left Behind' Act/ESEA: Schoolimprovement. Retrieved September 29, 2004, from http://www.nea.org/esea/eseaschools.html

National Education Association. (2004b). NCLB absurdities. Retrieved December 1,2004, from http://www.nea.org/esea/absurd.html

Newbold, B. L. (2004).The faceless mandates of NCLB. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 41, 7-9.

Palumbo, J., Nelsen, J., Leight, J., & Cudeiro, A. (2004).Treat NCLB as an attitude, not an acronym. Journal of Staff Development, 25(3), 72.

Phillips, S. (2004, March 12). Bush leaves gifted behind. Times Educational Supplement, p. 21.

Porter-Magee, K. (2004).Teacher quality, controversy, and NCLB. The Clearing House, 78, 26-29.

Public concern growing over NCLB. (2004, May/June). American Teacher, 88, 12.

Robelen, E.W. (2004, April 7). Opposition to school law growing, poll says. Education Week, pp. 22, 27.

Rose, L. C. (2004). No Child Left Behind: The mathematics of guaranteed failure. Educational Horizons, 82, 121-130.

Sadker, D., & Zittleman, K. (2004).Test anxiety: Are students failing tests--or are tests failing students? Phi Delta Kappan, 85, 740-744, 751.

Sitlington, R L., & Neubert, D. A. (2004). Preparing youths with emotional or behavioral disorders for transition to adult life: Can it be done within the standards-based reform movement? Behavioral Disorders, 29, 279-288.

Starkman, N., Scales, R C., & Roberts, C. (1999). Great places to learn. Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute.

U.S. Department of Education. (2002a). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Retrieved December 2, 2004, from http://www. ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html

U.S. Department of Education. (2002b). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: Executive summary. Retrieved December 2, 2004, from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/ execsumm.doc

U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Introduction: No Child Left Behind. Retrieved October 11, 2004, from http://www.ed.gov/print/nclb/overview/intro/index.html

Colette T. Dollarhide is an assistant professor in counselor education at the University of South Carolina, Columbia. E-mail: [e-mail]

Matthew E. Lemberger is an assistant professor of counseling at the University of Missouri, St. Louis.

Table 1. Positive and Negative Effects of NCLB

ASCA National     Positive Aspects                 N, % of Total
Model Element     of NCLB                          Data Points

Systemic Change   More data, more                  5, 1.7%
19.7%, n = 58     information to improve
                  schools

                  Forces parents to be             1, .3%
                  aware of child's
                  education

                  Counselors looking               1, .3%
                  for ways to help kids

Accountability    Allows us to demonstrate         13, 4.4%
15.3%, n = 45     how we contribute to
                  progress of students

                  Makes counselors and             11, 3.7%
                  teachers accountable
                  for all children

                  Gives me data to help            3, 1%
                  teachers design
                  instruction based on
                  student needs

                  Highlights need to align         2, .6%
                  our work with standards,
                  use data to make
                  decisions and create
                  intentional interventions,
                  and meet requirements

Delivery System   Makes me more                    2, .6%
36%, n = 106      selective about my
                  developmental
                  curriculum

                  I work to identify               2, .6%
                  those with testing
                  problems and work
                  on test-taking skills

                  Increased commitment             3, 1%
                  to help at-risk students

Management        NCLB legislation                 2, 6%
System            helped us organize
7.4%, n = 22      our program

                  Increased collaboration          3, 1%
                  with other counselors
                  within school and
                  district

                  Pay increased in state           1, .3%
                  for higher level
                  of qualifications

Non-ASCA
National Model
activities
12.2%, n = 36

Other             Mostly positive effects          2, .9%
comments          No or minimal effect;            24, 8.1%
9.1%, n = 27      not sure

ASCA National     Negative Aspects                 N % of Total
Model Element     of NCLB                          Data Points

Systemic Change   Teachers under pressure,         22, 7.4%
19.7%, n = 58     stressed, solely responsible
                  for learning, lost joy
                  of teaching

                  Discouraged, stressed,           18, 6.1%
                  traumatized students
                  due to NCLB

                  Staff threatened by NCLB         3, 1%
                  low school morale

                  NCLB limits academic             2, .6%
                  options

                  Parents unhappy with             2, .6%
                  pressure on kids

                  Parents not accountable          1, .3%
                  for student learning

                  Schools too focused on           1, .3%
                  test improvement

                  Students no longer               1, .3%
                  held accountable

                  Too much homework                1, .3%
                  for children

Accountability    More numbers to crunch,          13, 4.4%
15.3%, n = 45     more bureaucrats,
                  more paperwork

                  So much time proving             3, 1%
                  effectiveness that I have
                  no time to be effective

Delivery System   Teachers won't release           38, 12.9%
36%, n = 106      kids for counseling,
                  won't allow developmental
                  curriculum, not referring
                  kids for counseling

                  Time for students                27, 9.1%
                  and counseling taken
                  by testing and
                  test prep

                  Social/emotional needs           24, 8.1%
                  on back burner
                  to focus on academics

                  Spend more time working          4, 1.3%
                  with parents to help
                  them understand testing

                  Focus on small number            2, .6%
                  of students, not serving
                  entire school

                  Quality programs cannot          2, .6%
                  be purchased because
                  not on approved list

                  Student transfers                2, .6%
                  (in and out) taking
                  more time

Management        Limited or no funding;           14, 4.7%
System            focus on test
7.4%, n = 22      improvement means cuts
                  to counseling staff,
                  programs, and
                  professional and
                  staff development

                  Administration is less           1, .3%
                  supportive of
                  counseling with
                  focus on testing

                  Changed teacher/                 1, .3%
                  administration expectations
                  of counseling office

Non-ASCA          Extensive scheduling and         36, 12.2%
National Model    testing time, test
activities        planning, accommodations
12.2%, n = 36     and modifications,
                  data analysis

Other             No positive effects              1, .3%
comments
9.1%, n = 27

Note. Total data points = 294.

Table 2. Counselor Role in the Testing Process

Appropriate Activities with Testing                         N      %

25.1%, n = 68    Student, parent, teacher, community        22    8.1%
                 notification of test results

                 Work with students for test problems,      14    5.1%
                 strategies

                 Compile/analyze data                       12    4.4%

                 Interpret data/effect of school            11    4.0%
                 on learning

                 Look for ways to improve school/            9    3.3%
                 district/counseling program
                 based on results

Inappropriate Activities with Testing

Coordinating     Building coordinator                       79   29.2%
42.2%, n = 114
                 Responsible for some testing               13    4.8%
                 (not necessarily NCLB)

                 District coordinator                        8    2.9%

                 Code, meeting, and consulting               8    2.9%

                 Coordinate with administration              6    2.2%

Proctoring       Administer/monitor/proctor tests           25    9.2%
19.6%, n = 53
                 Provide makeup testing                     11    4.0%

                 Determine and monitor accommodations        9    3.3%

                 Help out, administer makeup tests in        5    1.8%
                 emergency

                 Distribute and collect testing materials    3    1.1%

Academic         Schedule academic remediation for           4    1.4%
remediation      students
2.9%, n = 8
                 Verify that test results and grades         2    0.7%
                 merit promotion to next grade

                 Schedule tutors for students                2    0.7%

Other comments   Do not test or analyze data                21    7.7%
10%, n = 27
                 Role is not defined                         3    1.1%

                 Do not do any individual or                 2    0.7%
                 group counseling during testing

                 Take on administrative tasks with           1    0.3%
                 administration focused on testing

Note. Total data points = 270.