A descriptive study of urban school counseling programs.

A descriptive study was implemented to determine how urban school counselors adhere to the Gysbers and Henderson (2000) and Myrick (1993) models of school counseling programs. One hundred and two & = 102) counselors in six urban centers (New York; Newark, NJ; Philadelphia; Washington, DC; Trenton, NJ," and Baltimore) completed the Urban School Counselor Questionnaire. The results indicated that urban school counselors participate in typical school counseling activities (e.g., counseling, consulting, coordinating) as prescribed by Gysbers and Henderson and Myrick. The participants in this study (i.e., urban school counselors) perceived low family functioning and academic achievement among the most prevalent issues in urban schools.

**********

Urban school counselors often are challenged by low student performance in reading and mathematics, high student mobility rates, chronic absenteeism, and unmet psychosocial development needs (Holcomb-McCoy, 2001). These issues often are exacerbated by school counselors' need to balance the competing priorities of the school, the community, and the central office. Because of these challenges in urban schools, school counseling programs that are balanced between intervention responses and proactive prevention programming are greatly needed. Utilizing a comprehensive and developmental school counseling model such as the Missouri Comprehensive Guidance Program model (Gysbers & Henderson, 2000) is an option when designing an urban school counseling program. Although many counselor education programs have taken steps to train pre-service counselors to develop comprehensive and developmental school counseling programs, little has been written about whether or not these types of programs are occurring in urban school settings.

Because urban school counseling has been explored in such a limited manner, the purpose of this current study was to explore the roles, functions, and perceptions of urban school counselors. We examined the roles and functions of urban school counselors by using the programmatic component of the Missouri model (Gysbers & Henderson, 2000) and Myrick's (1993) six interventions of developmental guidance. The programmatic component of the Missouri model consists of a guidance curriculum, individual planning, responsive services, and system support. The guidance curriculum consists of structured developmental experiences presented systematically through classroom activities to enhance students' mental health and acquisition of life skills. The curriculum is organized around career planning and exploration, knowledge of self and others, and educational development. The suggested time allotted to this component ranges from 15% at a minimum at the high school level to as much as 45% at the elementary level.

The individual planning component of the Missouri model consists of activities that help all students set goals, plan, and manage their own learning as well as their personal and career development. Individual planning can include advisement, assessment, placement, planning, and follow-up. These activities can encompass 5% to 35% of the counselor's time. Conversely, the responsive services component consists of activities to meet students' immediate needs and concerns. These services can be in the form of counseling, consultation, referral, or information sharing. The suggested time a counselor should spend on this component can range from 15% to as much as 40%. The system support component consists of management activities that establish, maintain, and enhance the guidance program as a whole. Professional development, staff and community relations, consultation with teachers, advisory councils, community outreach, program management, and research and development make up this component. System support requires 10% to 25% of a counselor's time.

Gysbers and Henderson (2000) referred to all tasks that do not fit in the four preceding major components as nonguidance activities. Gybers (1996) made no time allowance for nonguidance activities. However, he recommended that counselors develop a plan to eliminate all nonguidance-related activities from their role.

Another popular model that has been used to guide the structure of school counseling programs is Myrick's (1993) model. Myrick identified six counselor interventions or functions in which school counselors work: individual counseling, small group counseling, classroom guidance/large group guidance, consultation, coordination, and peer facilitation. He proposed that individual counseling should consume about 2 to 6 hours per week and be provided on a caseload basis for approximately 12 sessions. This is about 5% to 15% of the counselor's time. Myrick recommended that small group counseling be allotted 10% to 25% of a counselor's weekly time. Classroom guidance should take no more than 7% to 8% of a counselor's time, and no more than 7% of a counselor's time should be devoted to consultation. Myrick suggested flexibility and variability with the amount of time allotted to coordination and gave no specific percentage of time for this role. Peer facilitation or the training of students to help other students, according to Myrick, should receive a time commitment of 1 to 5 hours weekly. Myrick stated that the emphasis in developmental guidance programs is on prevention rather than remediation and that counselors should shift from a crisis-based orientation to a planned orientation.

Many states have incorporated one of these two models of school counseling programs into their statewide counseling program guidelines. The majority, are based on Gysbers' model (Sink & MacDonald, 1998). Florida's school counseling guidelines are based on Myrick's model (see Kelly, Peterson, & Myrick, 1999).

Although the preceding models of school counseling programs and school counselors' roles and functions have been a frequent topic of discussion and research in the counseling field (Gysbers & Henderson, 2000; Gysbers, Lapan, & Blair, 1999; Myrick, 1993), only a few school counseling professionals (e.g., Holcomb-McCoy, 2001) have addressed the possible variation in the allotment of time given to these roles and functions by counselors in urban school settings. As a result of this void in the literature, the authors of this current study examined the allocation of time spent by urban school counselors in various counselor roles and functions (e.g., counseling, consultation, coordination). More importantly, the authors wanted to get a "preliminary picture" of what urban school counselors are doing and what they think about their urban setting. As such, the authors posed the following research questions: (a) Based on the Gysbers and Henderson and Myrick models, what percentage of time do urban school counselors allocate for counselor roles and functions? (b) What do urban school counselors perceive as being the most prevalent issues or concerns in urban schools? (c) What is the average student caseload of urban school counselors? And, (d) How do urban school counselors perceive their effectiveness?

METHOD

Procedures and Participants

A sample of 269 (N = 269) school counseling professionals having addresses in six U.S. East Coast urban areas (i.e., New York City; Newark, NJ; Philadelphia; Washington, DC; Baltimore; and Trenton, NI) was drawn from the American School Counselor Association (ASCA) membership roster. The Urban School Counselor Questionnaire, a cover letter soliciting the counselors' participation, and a postage-paid, return addressed envelope were sent to the 269 identified school counseling professionals. Within 2 months, without and follow-up, 102 usable surveys were received (38% return rate).

Of the 102 participants, 77 (75%) reported that they currently worked as school counselors, 7 (7%) as counselor educators, 6 (6%) as guidance supervisors, and 12 (12%) reported "other." Twenty-seven participants (27%) reported that they worked in a high school setting, 17 (17%) in a middle school, and 33 (32%) in an elementary school; 6 (6%) reported that they worked in all settings, and 16 (16%) reported "other" (e.g., K-8 setting). Interestingly 74 (73%) of the respondents reported that they worked in public school settings, 21 (21%) in private schools, 1 (1%) in a charter school, and 6 (6%) in "other." Regarding educational background, 89 (87%) of the participants reported they had a master's degree, 7 (7%) reported a doctorate, and 6 (6%) reported "other." Sixty-eight (67%) of the participants reported their ethnic background as White/European American, 24 (24%) as African American/Black, 1 (1%) as Asian, 5 (5%) as His panic, and 3 (3%) as "other." Seventy-six (78%) of the respondents were female.

Measure

The Urban School Counselor Questionnaire was developed to determine urban school counselors' perceptions of their experiences and roles in the schools. The items were developed based on the literature pertaining to school counselor roles, functions, and responsibilities (e.g., Baker, 2000; Gysbers & Henderson, 2001; Muro & Kottman, 1995; Mytick, 1993, 2003; Schmidt, 1999). Alter the development of the items, feedback on the content and format of the questionnaire was solicited from four school counselor educators working at colleges or universities in urban areas. As a result of their recommendations, format, content, and wording changes were made to the initial questionnaire. The items on the revised questionnaire were divided into two sections: (a) Demographic Information and (b) School Counseling in an Urban School District. The Demographic Information section included items that asked the participants to identify their current job position, school setting, type of school, highest earned degree, ethnic background, gender, years of experience, and accreditation status of graduate program attended.

The second section (School Counseling in an Urban School District) consisted of 10 items that required participants to give such information as the number of students enrolled in their school, the number of students in a caseload, the ethnic makeup of the school population, the most prevalent issue or concern for students, the second most prevalent issue, and the percentage of time spent implementing counselor-type activities.

RESULTS

Percentage of Time Urban School Counselors Allocate to Counseling Interventions and Nonguidance Duties

Counseling. Eighty-five participants indicated that they engaged in counseling services. The percentage of time devoted to counseling ranged from 3% to 90% (M = 36.42, SD = 21.45). Of those surveyed, 61 of 102 counselors devoted between 10% and 50% of time on counseling (both group and individual).

Consultation. Consultation with teachers was the most frequent consultation service. The percentage of time spent on teacher consultation ranged from 1% to 70% of the time with the average at 14.12% (Mdn = 10, SD = 13.55). The percentage of time spent on parent consultation ranged from 0% to 50% of the counselors' time with the average at 10.83% (Mdn = 10, SD = 8.15). Time spent on consultation varied widely among the participants. Fifty-one participants spent between 0% and 10% of their time doing parent consultation whereas another 17 spent between 20% and 30% of their time working with parents.

Coordination. The participants of this study spent a relatively small percentage of their time coordinating. The percentage of time ranged from 0% to 70% and 78 participants reported that they spent between 0% and 10% of their time coordinating. The average percentage of time was 8.72 (SD = 10.97, Mdn = 10).

Administering tests. The participants in this study reported that they spent between 0% and 30% of their time administering tests. The average amount of time reported by the participants was 3.19 (SD = 5.99) and the mode was 0. Seventy-two participants reported that they spent between 0% and 5% of their time administering tests.

Advising. The participants in this study reported that they spent between 0% and 60% of their time advising. The average amount of time reported for advising was 4.59 (SD = 8.80) and a mode of 0 was found. Seventy participants reported that they spent between 0% and 5% of their time advising.

Administrative/clerical work. The participants of this study reported that they spent an average of 13.21% (SD = 16.35) of their time doing administrative and/or clerical work. The mode of participating in these types of tasks was 5% and the range reported was between 0% and 80% of participants' time. Seventy-one participants reported spending between 0% and 20% of their time doing administrative or clerical work.

Scheduling. The participants reported that they spent between 0% and 35% of their time scheduling students for courses. The mean percentage of time was 4.56 (SD = 8.25), with a mode of 0. Fifty participants indicated that they spent 0% of their time scheduling whereas 67 participants indicated they spent between 0% and 5% of their time scheduling.

Urban School Counselors' Perceptions of the Most Prevalent Issues or Concerns in Urban Schools

The participants were asked to indicate what they perceived as being the most prevalent and the second most prevalent issue for students in urban areas. Twelve possible issues or concerns were listed for the participants. The results of these items are shown in Table 1. Those that the participants checked most often for the most prevalent issues were low family functioning/parenting (n = 30; 29.4%) and academic achievement (n = 28; 27.5%). For the second most prevalent issue, the participants indicated that low family functioning/parenting (n = 21; 20.6%) and poverty (n = 18; 17.6%) were the second most prevalent issues. Collectively, overall totals indicate that the participants perceived low family functioning, academic achievement, and poverty as the most prevalent issues facing students in urban schools.

Urban School Counselors' Average Student Caseload

The results of this study indicated that the student caseloads of urban school counselors ranged from l0 to 1,800 students. The mean caseload was 362.45 students (SD = 309.66).

Urban School Counselors' Perceptions of Their Effectiveness

When the participants were asked whether or not they believed that they were an effective school counselor, 83 (81.4%) responded "yes," 5 (4.9%) responded "no," and 14 (13.7%) didn't respond.

DISCUSSION

The major purpose of this study was to examine the roles, functions, and perceptions of urban school counselors, based on the Gysbers and Henderson (2000) and Myrick (1993) models of" comprehensive and developmental school counseling programs. The results of this study indicate that urban school counselors are participating in many of the typical school counselor activities prescribed by Gysbers and Henderson and Myrick. For instance, the results indicate that urban school counselors spend between 3% and 90% of their time counseling (individually and group), with an average percentage of time spent counseling at 36.25, which is slightly higher than the percentage of time (30% to 35% of program suggested by Gysbers and Henderson.

Myrick (1993) defined consultation as working with parents, teachers, administrators, and specialists within the school and agency settings. He suggested that 7% of the counselor's time be devoted to consultation. The urban school counselors in this study indicated that they spent between 1 and 70% of their time participating in consultation, with an average time of 14.12% and a mode of 10%. Again, urban school counselors are spending a slightly higher percentage of time on consultation than prescribed by Myrick.

Some research has shown that school counselors spend a significant amount of time coordinating events and activities (Kameen, Robinson, & Rotter, 1985). Coordinating activities such as parent meetings, career days, and school-community events and following up on referrals to "outside" agencies are typical for school counselors. Myrick (1993) offered no specific percentage of time for counselors to spend in the coordination role, but Gysbers and Henderson (2000) suggested that school counselors spend 10% to 25% of their time doing system support, which includes coordination. The urban school counselors in this study indicated that they spent between 0% and 10% of their time doing coordination, with an average of 8.72% of their time. The average time is slightly lower than the lowest of the range offered by Gysbers and Henderson.

Gysbers and Henderson (2000) also suggested that school counselors spend between 5% and 35% of their time doing individual planning, which includes advisement, assessment, placement, planning, and follow-up. The current study indicates that urban school counselors spend an average of 3.19% of their time administering tests, 4.39% of their time advising, and 4.56% of their time scheduling. Combined, these average percentages are within the range of time spent offered by Gysbers and Henderson.

The urban school counselors in this study reported that they spent an average of 13.12% of their time doing administrative or clerical work. Administrative duties or clerical work can be considered nonguidance activities because those tasks don't fit in the major components of Gysbers and Henderson (2000) and Myrick's (1993) school counseling program models. Gysbers (1990) recommended that all nonguidance activities be eliminated from the counselor's role and Myrick purported that clerical, administrative, and nonguidance tasks overwhelm counselors and can take up more time than other important tasks. From the results of this study, it is clear that nonguidance-related activities have not been eliminated from the urban school counselor's role. However, the relatively low average of time (13%) spent doing administrative or clerical work is promising.

The urban school counselors participating in this study indicated that the major issues facing students in urban schools are low family functioning/parenting, academic achievement, and poverty. Although there are no data regarding the major issues facing youth in suburban and rural schools, the listing of major issues by urban school counselors is important information for counselor educators and trainers of urban school counselors. Important to urban school counselor education programs are the inclusion of content related to family interventions, strategies for increasing academic achievement, working with underachievers, the impact of poverty on academic achievement, and strategies for empowering low-income families and students.

And finally, this study indicates that considering the enormous amount of work that urban school counselors reported doing, they perceived themselves as being effective. Although this is "good news," it is unclear as to how the participants defined effective. Whether these school counselors were basing their responses on student outcomes, student observations, or merely self-perceptions is unknown. Further research should be focused on outcomes of school counselors' interventions in urban schools as well as significant others' (e.g., administrators, teachers, parents) perceptions of school counselors' effectiveness.

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

No study is without limitations, and the present study is no exception. Although the participants were counselors in urban schools, more studies with counselors who work in predominately public urban schools are needed. This sample could have included counselors who work in private or "special" (e.g., magnet schools, charter schools) urban schools. In addition, studies that include urban counselors who are not members of ASCA are warranted. It is possible that the urban school counselors who are members of ASCA are not representative of the urban school counselor population. Other major limitations of this study consist of the self-report nature of the instrument utilized and the voluntary nature of responding. It is possible that the counselors who volunteered to participate in the study wanted to be perceived as being effective and involved with students. Also, there is no evidence that the information given by the participants is consistent with what is actually occurring in the schools.

IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH AND CONCLUSIONS

Future research on issues related to school counseling in urban settings is greatly needed and the range of topics is expansive. Further descriptive research and exploratory studies should be implemented in order to determine school counselors' roles, responsibilities, and functions in urban schools. Likewise, further information is needed regarding the differences (if any) among the work of urban, suburban, and rural school counselors. If the work of counselors in these settings is vastly different, then school counseling preparation programs need to be aware of this fact and consequently tailor their programs to the needs of prospective counselors who will likely work in a given community setting.

Another area of future research should be focused on students' and other urban school personnel's perceptions and beliefs about what urban school counselors are doing and should be doing. For instance, what do urban administrators (e.g., principals) believe counselors should be doing to enhance student learning? Or, better yet, what are urban students' perceptions of school counseling? Information regarding others' perceptions of counselors will undoubtedly cast a light on the role or lack of a role of counselors in the education of urban youth. And lastly, considering the increasing attention being paid to the "achievement gap" in urban schools, it is imperative that future research focus on effective and empirically based counseling interventions being utilized in urban schools to increase the academic achievement of low-income and minority students. It is critical that counselors in urban schools have the "tools" for assisting students to achieve their respective goals. In other words, counselors need to utilize interventions that actually work and are proven to make a difference. Research on the process as well as the outcome of counseling interventions used in urban schools is greatly needed.

With increased attention being paid to urban education, it seems fitting that the work of counselors in urban schools be researched and examined. In the near future, it is the authors' hope that school counselor preparation programs and professional organizations (e.g., ASCA) will make urban school counseling a new focal point of concern.

Table 1. Frequencies of Most Prevalent
Issues or Concerns of Urban Students

Issue/Concern                        Most Prevalent     Second Most
                                         Issue        Prevalent Issue

                                      N        %        N       %

Academic achievement                 28      27.5      12      11.8
Poverty                              12      11.8      18      17.6
School attendance/truancy             3       2.9       7       6.9
Violence in community                 4       3.9      17      16.7
Violence in home                      1       1.0       2       2.0
Low family functioning/parenting     30      29.4      21      20.6
Substance abuse                       6       5.9       3       2.9
Employment/school-to-work             2       2.0       1       1.0
College admissions                    1       1.0       7       6.9
Ethnicity/racial issues               0       0         0       0
Health care                           0       0         0       0
Other                                 3       2.9       1       1.0

References

Baker, S. B. (2000). School counseling for the twenty-first century (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Gysbers, N. C. (1990). Comprehensive guidance programs that work. Ann Arbor, MI: ERIC/CASS. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED314660)

Gysbers, N. C. (1996, February). Remodeling your school guidance and counseling program while you are living and working in it. Presentation at the School to Work Conference in Gulf Shores, AL.

Gysbers, N. C., & Henderson, P. (2000). Developing and managing your school guidance program (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.

Gysbers, N. C., & Henderson, P. (2001). Comprehensive guidance and counseling programs: A rich history and a bright future. Professional School Counseling, 4, 246-256.

Gysbers, N. C., Lapan, R.T., & Blair, M. (1999). Closing in on the statewide implementation of a comprehensive guidance model. Professional School Counseling, 2, 357-366.

Holcomb-McCoy, C. (2001). Examining urban school counseling professionals' perceptions of school restructuring activities. Greensboro, NC: ERIC/CASS. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED452451)

Kameen, M. C., Robinson, E. H., & Rotter, J. C. (1985). Coordination activities: A study of perceptions of elementary and middle school counselors. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 20, 97-104.

Kelly, F. D., Peterson, G. W., & Myrick, R. D. (1999). Florida's student development program: A framework for developing comprehensive guidance and counseling programs for a school-to-work system. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State Department of Education.

Muro, J. J., & Kottman, T. (1995). Guidance and counseling in the elementary and middle schools: A practical approach. Dubuque, IA: Brown & Benchmark.

Myrick, R. D. (1993). Developmental guidance and counseling: A practical approach. Minneapolis, MN: Educational Media.

Myrick, R. D. (2003). Accountability: Counselors count. Professional School Counseling, 6, 174-179.

Schmidt, J. J. (1999). Counseling in schools: Essential services and comprehensive programs (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Sink, C. A., & MacDonald, G. (1998).The status of comprehensive guidance and counseling in the United States. Professional School Counseling, 2, 88-89.

Cheryl Holcomb-McCoy, Ph.D., and Natasha Mitchell, Ph.D., are assistant professors with the Department of Counseling and Personnel Services, College of Education, University of Maryland at College Park. E-mail: [e-mail]