A national study of the current status of state school counseling models.

A national survey was conducted using a structured interview to investigate the status of school counseling models in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Findings determined that 17 states have established models, 24 states are progressing in model implementation, and 10 states are at a beginning stage of model development. Implications for state-level practice, professional advocacy, school counseling policy, and future research are discussed.

**********

State-level leadership and policy have strongly influenced the development of the school counseling profession. Gysbers (2006) summarized the influence of state-level leadership and policy in school counseling over the past 60 years and stated that "strong leadership at the state level is a key to developing effective and accountable comprehensive guidance and counseling programs at the local level" (p. 247). Gysbers maintained that strong state-level leadership fosters needed collaborations, forms common understandings about school counseling, enables local implementation of effective programs that impact student growth and achievement, and contributes to education reform.

One important way that state-level leadership affects local practice is through the development and implementation of state models for school counseling programs; however, very little is known about the ways in which effective state models are elaborated or disseminated. More than 10 years ago, Sink and MacDonald (1998) studied the status of state models and determined that 24 states had school counseling models and that the vast majority of those models were based on comprehensive developmental guidance (Gysbers & Henderson, 2000). While this study provided important benchmark information, we believe that there are several reasons why it is important to reexamine model development and implementation. First, Sink and MacDonald identified states that had written models, but they did not determine whether these models were actually implemented. Having a model on the books and having a model that facilitates local school counseling program implementation and functioning are two different matters. Second, Sink and MacDonald's study preceded several important national initiatives that have affected school counseling practice, including standards-based educational reform, the Educational Trust's Transforming School Counseling Initiative (Martin, 2002), the ASCA National Standards (Campbell & Dahir, 1997), and the ASCA National Model[R] (American School Counselor Association, 2005). It is important to determine whether state models reflect the changes and reforms recommended by these initiatives and whether they have encouraged more states to engage in the process of model development and implementation.

For more than 30 years, school counseling scholarship has devoted a great deal of attention and energy to the promotion of comprehensive developmental guidance (CDG) models/programs (for a comprehensive review of CDG history, see Gysbers & Henderson, 2000; Herr, 2001; Keys & Lockhart, 2000; Paisley & McMahon, 2001). In the simplest of terms, these models operate upon the premise that systematically delivering planned developmental curricula and interventions to all students is far superior to offering school counseling services that are reactive or randomly prescribed.

Although the research on school counseling programs is still limited, a number of studies have yielded promising results. Most prominently, Missouri researchers found that high schools and middle schools with more fully implemented CDG programs had students who reported earning higher grades, maintaining better relationships with teachers, feeling safer and more satisfied in school, and having more positive outlooks regarding future and career opportunities (Lapan, Gysbers, & Petroski, 2001; Lapan, Gysbers, & Sun, 1997). Additionally, Sink and Stroh's (2003) study of 150 diverse elementary schools found that students performed better academically in schools with CDG programs. This study also found that over a 3-year period, students showed better academic performance in schools with CDG programs, even if the programs were not fully implemented.

Given the promise and potential of CDG, several state departments of education developed state models based on its principles, with the intent of using the models to promote local adoption of CDG as the organizing framework for school counseling programs. However, little documentation of the process of model development and implementation exists. In one of the few examples of such documentation, Dean Miller (2006), the former director of the Minnesota Career Information System, described the collaborative work done in Minnesota from 1960 to 1990:

   Collaborative efforts were the result of state
   supervisors of guidance and counseling and
   the various counselors and counselor educators
   working together to build a sounder professional
   base for school counseling. These
   like-minded individuals, through research,
   publications, workshops, committees, and
   conferences, interacted over time to identify
   appropriate developmental theories and
   implementation models at both elementary
   and secondary levels. These efforts led to
   updating counselor licenses and then bringing
   counselor educators together to identify necessary
   changes to their preparation programs.
   However, these activities would not have been
   possible without local school cooperation, federal
   funding, and state education administrative
   support. (p. 242)

In a response to Miller (2006), Gysbers (2006) highlighted key historical aspects of state-level school counseling and career leadership to better explain the impact of state-level leadership on the practice of school counseling. Gysbers identified several ways that state-level leadership contributes positively to the school counseling practice, including promoting needed collaboration within the state, developing and implementing local programs, providing a state-level accountability system tied to state-level accreditation standards, and creating state-level standards for school counselor preparation.

The primary purpose of this research is to understand the current status of school counseling state models in terms of creation/implementation, endorsement, leadership, requirements, accreditation, professional development, program evaluation, and also the extent to which these models have the potential to advance school counseling. We reasoned that states with certain characteristics (e.g., a written model, a designated school counseling state leader responsible for model implementation, supportive state legislation, and the incorporation of recent school counseling advances such as the ASCA National Model) would be more likely to have state models that enhance local implementation and practice. Based on the work of the National Leadership Cadre (NLC), a leadership group composed of nine state-level school counseling coordinators within state governmental agencies, we selected nine important features (see Table 1) related to state models. NLC members come from states that are committed to the implementation of strong, statewide school counseling models. NLC activities to facilitate model implementation have been supported by the Office of Vocational and Adult Education, U.S. Department of Education (DOE). In this study we gathered evidence to determine the degree to which these nine NLC-endorsed features were present in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

METHODS

Participants

Initial contacts in each state were identified by the Office of Vocational and Adult Education's directories of state guidance directors and state career resource network contacts. These initial contacts often were employed by their state's government and were typically housed within a state department of education. In the five states that lacked a designated state leader (Washington, Montana, Ohio, Colorado, and Louisiana), interviews with high-ranking school counseling association leaders were substituted. Fifty-three participants completed telephone interviews, and 5 participants responded using written responses to interview questions via email or ground mail. Several states required follow-up interviews with alternative participants when interviews lacked full responses or when interviewees requested that we follow up on specific questions with other individuals (Louisiana, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Michigan).

Instrument

Guided by Fontana and Frey's (2007) methods for structured interviews, an instrument was created by the research team at the Center for School Counseling Outcome Research, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. NLC members reviewed instrument drafts, completed timed practice interviews, and provided valuable feedback on items. Their insights helped to hone items, develop appropriate terminology, and identify potential problems specific to the state leader population. The 16-item instrument used primarily closed questions to assess the presence of the nine features endorsed by the NLC (see Table 1). For example, one of two items that assessed the model endorsement feature (Item #4) stated, "Model has been endorsed by the state department of education," and provided participants with yes or no options for endorsement by the state commissioner and/or the state board of education (please contact the authors if interested in accessing the complete instrument). The closed nature of many of the questions allowed for the majority of interview responses to be coded and analyzed. The instrument also included opportunities for "open" responses by asking interviewees to explain, elaborate, and/or offer details to their answers.

Procedures

Telephone interviews were selected as the most practical and direct way to gather information. Over a period of nearly 6 months, members of our research team contacted potential participants via phone and e-mail to explain the purpose of the research, to obtain consent to participate, and to schedule an interview. Interview times ranged between 20 and 35 minutes. Interviewee responses were recorded in writing. If participants could not adequately address a question, they were asked to recommend another person more familiar with the issue in question. Five participants elected to supply written responses to interview questions via e-mail or ground mail rather than participating in the interview process. Given the completeness of the written responses, we judged that it was appropriate to include the data in our analyses even though the data were obtained in a written rather than oral format. Furthermore, participants were asked to supply references to artifacts and/or models that could be downloaded from Web sites or sent in via ground mail. The vast majority of the artifacts collected for the study were supplied by state DOE Web sites.

Research Design and Data Analysis

In an effort to address the variability present whenever large numbers of participants are interviewed, the research team adopted an interpretive approach to data collection and analysis. The interpretive approach (Mertens, 1998) emphasizes the complexity of human life and understands that respondents are describing their perceptions of events within an ever-changing context. Data were collected using a mixed-method design that concurrently analyzed both the highly structured quantitative responses from "closed" items and data from "open" items that allowed for more freedom in the nature of responses. This concurrent design allowed for the best use of time and added valuable contextual information to the closed design of the survey instrument (Creswell, 2003, p. 224).

Throughout the process, interviewees were encouraged to supply any additional comments that might help in the interpretation of their answers. Interviewee comments were summarized in writing during the interview and the summarizations were checked for accuracy with the interviewees at the end of each interview. Following the interview, quantitative, qualitative, and artifact data were triangulated to assign the number of features present within the representative state. Based upon this number, each state was placed within one of three categories: Beginning, Progressing, or Established. This process allowed the research team to summarize data, locate trends, and easily communicate key findings.

RESULTS

Participant states were grouped into three categories based upon the frequency of features found to be present. Seventeen states were considered to have "Established" models (seven to nine features present), 24 states were considered to have "Progressing" models (four to six features present), and 10 states were considered to be at a "Beginning" stage (one to three features present). Figure 1 contains the percentages of the features present within the Established, Progressing, and Beginning groups. Table 2 contains the states grouped by category.

Of the 50 states and the District of Columbia, 44 claimed to have a written school counseling model created by the state DOE or the state school counseling association. All of the 17 Established states, 22 of the 24 Progressing states, and 5 of the 10 Beginning states had a written school counseling model.

The interview also investigated the presence of modern counseling features and components within each state model. The term modern is used because we specifically identified common elements and practices included in the ASCA National Model (2005). In order for states to fully meet this criteria, models needed to be based on CDG and/or the ASCA National Model, include school counseling curriculum standards/frameworks, and contain a majority of the following elements: crosswalked to state academic standards, crosswalked to ASCA National Standards, crosswalked to state career standards and/or national career standards, include examples of lesson plans, and contain guidelines for program evaluation. All 17 Established states, 17 of the 24 Progressing states, and 5 of the 10 Beginning states reported that their state models met this criteria.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Participants' responses showed that 84% of the models were based on CDG and/or the ASCA National Model and that 75% of the models contained school counseling curriculum standards/ frameworks. Crosswalking model standards or frameworks to other standards within the state/ nation was not as prevalent: Fifty-seven percent crosswalked to their state's academic standards; 67% crosswalked to the ASCA National Standards; 55% crosswalked to their state's career standards; and 43% crosswalked to national career standards. Similarly, 51% of the participants claimed that their models contained examples of lesson plans, and 61% contained guidelines for local program evaluation.

Investigating model endorsement revealed a great deal about the amount of legitimacy a model held in a given state and the politics between a state's department of education and its school counseling association. Many state models were endorsed by state professional associations. The majority (73%) were endorsed by a state school counseling association leadership vote. Forty-five percent of the state models were endorsed by commissioners or superintendents within the DOE. Forty-three percent were endorsed by state boards of education. Interviewee comments suggested that DOE officials were frequently reluctant to endorse a model that was developed by the state association unless there had been significant DOE input. Interviewee comments also suggested that the expense of publishing and disseminating models and related materials was a significant barrier to DOE endorsement. While many states had either DOE or state association endorsement, far fewer had both. Only 15 of the 17 Established states, 10 of the 24 Progressing states, and 1 of the 10 Beginning states had models endorsed by both the DOE and the state school counseling association.

Because school counseling and career and technical education have traditionally shared a very close relationship at the state level (Gysbers, 2006), we assessed whether this connection was evident in the state models. Interviewees were asked about the following criteria: if their state had written state career development guidelines, if these guidelines were endorsed by the DOE commissioner or board, and whether there was regular collaboration between school counseling and career and technical education directors (or if they were in fact the same person). Sixteen of the 17 Established states, 13 of the 24 Progressing states, and 3 of the 10 Beginning states met the criteria to demonstrate a connection between career and technical education and school counseling.

We also investigated whether states had a designated school counseling leader, charged with model implementation, within the DOE. Sixteen of the 17 Established states, 17 of the 24 Progressing states, and 1 of the 10 Beginning states said that there was such a position in their state. Despite the fact that 76% of the participants responded that there was a designated school counselor leader at the DOE level, participants also remarked that school counseling leadership commonly made up only a small percentage of the responsibilities of this person. For instance, one state official revealed that school counseling leadership was only 25% of his job description.

Interviewee comments indicated that states vary widely in the titles and duties of the individuals charged with state-level school counseling leadership, a view consistent with Gysbers' (2006) contention that state-level leaders wear multiple hats:

   Guidance and counseling at the state level
   today is a mixed picture. In some states the
   duel system of state supervisors still exists
   [vocational funding versus other funding
   sources]. In other states there are one or more
   full-time people, while in still others there is
   one person identified, but that person is only
   guidance and counseling supervisor part of
   the time because of other duties assigned. In
   still other states, there is no one designated as
   a state-level guidance and counseling supervisor.
   (p. 246)

We asked interviewees a series of questions about state mandates and requirements to determine the extent to which the state model influenced state law and educational policy. In order for states to meet this criterion, they had to show a history of supportive legislation related to the state model (e.g., mandated school counseling programs at the elementary, middle, and high school levels; mandated career development guidelines at all levels; mandated career plans; and mandated students-per-counselor ratios). Sixteen of the 17 Established states, 13 of the 24 Progressing states, and 3 of the 10 Beginning states met the criteria for having legislation related to the model. The most common legislation was related to mandated career plans. Fifty-three percent of the participants indicated that their state mandated career plans (or some variation, such as individual learning plans, graduation plans, or 4-year plans). Interviewees' comments indicated that many additional states were anticipating mandating career plans in the near future. Finally, only 33% of the participants identified a mandated ratio of students per counselor.

When questioned about school counseling mandates, several participants commented that their states require schools to ensure that students meet education standards in areas that correspond to the school counseling state or national standards but do not stipulate that school counselors must be involved in the delivery of educational programming related to these standards. Other interviewees also indicated that their states do not mandate that all schools have school counseling programs; however, if a school has a school counseling program it must then meet state requirements.

Sixteen of the 17 Established states, 21 of the 24 Progressing states, and 7 of the 10 Beginning states met the criteria for having professional development that supports a school counseling model. The most common professional development activity was collaboration between the DOE and state associations for school counselor training during annual conferences. Some states also provided technical support (e.g., Web sites with counseling-related links and/or downloadable resources) and personal assistance related to model implementation (e.g., speaking at a district school counseling meeting). Interviewee comments indicated that many states did not have the resources to fund specific initiatives to support model implementation without external grant support. Several participants noted that important school counselor professional development initiatives had to be discontinued due to the demise of America's Career Resource Network (a federally funded program designed to enhance career development practice).

Fourteen of the 17 Established states, 10 of the 24 Progressing states, and 3 of the 10 Beginning states had state licensure/certification regulations fully aligned with the state model and a state accreditation process for school counselor training programs to evaluate how well school counselors were prepared for all model-related functions. Sixty-one percent of participants responded that they "agreed" or "strongly agreed" that state licensure/certification regulations fully align with the state model, and 57% of the participants "agreed" or "strongly agreed" that the accreditation process for university-based school counseling training programs evaluated whether students were prepared for all model-related functions. Interviewee comments indicated that a large amount of variability existed among university-based school counseling programs.

Only 8 of the 17 Established states, 2 of the 24 Progressing states, and none of the Beginning states met the criteria for having an evaluation system tied to model implementation and to the measurement of school counseling outcomes. Few participants reported rigorous evaluation of school counseling models, programs, or common school counseling practices. Interviewee comments indicated that most states were focusing on model implementation and did not have adequate resources to both implement and evaluate programs. Some interviewees cited difficulties justifying the use of state resources to establish systems to evaluate school counseling programs when these programs were not even endorsed or mandated by the state.

DISCUSSION

The results of this study suggest that a good deal of variation exists across states in the extent to which state school counseling models are implemented. Forty-four states reported having written models. When we examined the features of these models, 17 states were found to have Established models, 24 states were considered to be at a Progressing stage in model implementation, and 10 states were considered to be at a Beginning stage. All of the states, regardless of category, provided professional development that supported model implementation-even if they did not have a written state model. In the seven states that did not have a formal written model this professional development was targeted at helping counselors implement other models (e.g., ASCA National Model, CDG). In all three categories, the most common element missing was an active state evaluation system for school counseling programs. Although Established states were more likely to have an evaluation system than were Progressing or Beginning states, the status of state-level school counseling evaluation nationally can be described as limited.

Changes in Model Implementation Over the Past 10 Years

To some extent these findings are similar to those of previous research. Sink and MacDonald (1998) found that 24 states had written models and 10 states had models in progress. Sink and MacDonald predicted that 34 states would have models by the year 2000. Our results found that in 2008, 44 states had written models and the vast majority of these models included current thinking in school counseling program design (e.g., the ASCA National Model). However, our results suggest that only 17 states have models that could be considered as being Established. Most states could be considered as being either Progressing or Beginning in terms of model development. In 2008, there were slightly more written models than may have been predicted from previous research. However, fewer than half of those models were well established.

Sink and MacDonald (1998) explained their projections by stating, "One finds that the [CDG] movement's rapid expansion seems to reflect the fundamental change underway in our profession" (p. 93). While Sink and MacDonald acknowledged that complex educational, cultural, economic, political, and sociological factors influenced which states elaborated models, they indicated that their evidence suggested that the CDG movement was gaining momentum and organically spreading across the country from its Midwestern roots.

When the results of Sink and MacDonald's (1998) study are compared to those of the current study, it is clear that significant developments in state models have occurred over the past 10 years. Out of the 24 states that Sink and MacDonald identified as having models, only 17 were considered to have Established models in the present study; whereas 8 states that we found to have Established models were not identified by Sink and MacDonald as having a model. Three states that Sink and MacDonald identified as having a model were found to be in the Beginning phase of model implementation in the present study.

It would appear that in the past 10 years some states have maintained strong models, some have rapidly progressed, and some have failed to progress or regressed in model implementation. Rather than reflecting, as Sink and MacDonald (1998) proposed, that model implementation was an organically growing movement spreading across the country, we believe that model implementation is better understood by examining the contextual complexities operating within states. We observed that many states had great variability concerning leadership, organizational structure, political power, economic resources, and demographics. We believe that these variables greatly impact the degree to which states can support school counseling leadership, program/model development, program/model implementation, program/model endorsement, school counseling mandates, progressive school counselor accreditation and training, professional development, and finally, program/model evaluation.

Contextual Complexities of Model Implementation

Interviewee comments illuminated the contextual factors within state organizational structures that either hindered or supported model implementation. Furthermore, these comments shed light on the political differences among states and how these differences affect both policies and the capacity to move school counseling practice forward. For instance, comments supported the notion that states with a designated school counseling leader, strategically placed within the state DOE so as to have access to funds that support school counseling program development, adequate time to devote to school counseling leadership, and the ability to bring together different constituencies to support school counseling, had a greater capacity to promote school counseling model development. It seemed that state-level leaders who were situated within career and technical education programs tended to be better positioned and better resourced to support model development. It is likely that being situated within career and technical education resulted in access to relatively consistent funding sources (e.g., the Perkins Act) to support state-level leadership positions and school counseling initiatives. Also, close ties to vocational and career development may have garnered greater support from state government and the business community.

Variation in Legislation, Policy, and Rules

The results of this study suggest that a good deal of variation exists across states in terms of the extent that legislation, DOE policy, and rules support model implementation. In some states, little or no legislation, policy, or rules exist regarding school counseling programs. Examples of legislation, policy, and rules noted in other states include mandated student-to-counselor ratios, mandated K-12 school counseling programs, requirements that career development competencies be delivered in schools, required 6-year career plans for all students, and requirements that accredited training programs prepare school counselors for all competencies related to the state model. A written school counseling model without a nexus of supporting legislation, policy, and rules is unlikely to be effective.

The mere existence of such a nexus, however, is not sufficient to promote model implementation. Interviewee comments identified numerous instances of state mandates and regulations that were not being evaluated or enforced. One state, for example, has a Board of Education rule that mandates all students complete 6-year career plans. However, there is no mechanism for tracking implementation and few educators are even aware of this requirement; as a result career planning is not truly being implemented in this state's public schools. Interviewee comments indicated several related reasons why compliance with state requirements was not being monitored. These reasons included lack of adequate personnel, insufficient funding for monitoring, and no systems of rewards and sanctions contingent on compliance.

Importance of Program Evaluation

Given the unique importance accorded to the issue of evaluation in school counseling, it is particularly striking to note that only 10 states evidenced some mechanisms to support evaluation of these programs. Existing evaluation activities ranged from periodic collection of school counseling program characteristics to the collection of information on school counseling outcomes from volunteer districts. Even among the 10 states that reported program evaluation, there was little evidence of an established, ongoing, statewide system that supports sound policy decision-making and advocacy initiatives through the documentation of the impact of school counseling programs and activities on student outcomes. Common reasons given for the lack of attention to evaluation in state model implementation included a general lack of resources, a need to focus on implementation (rather than evaluation), and an inability to justify the use of resources for creating an evaluation system given that school counseling programs were not mandated by the state.

We suspect that the absence of a strong, cost-effective prototype for a statewide school counseling evaluation system is also an impediment to implementation. While states may not have the resources to develop their own evaluation system, the adaptation of a working prototype would be more feasible. We believe that the development of such a prototype would greatly enhance the capacity of states to implement an evaluation system, resulting ultimately in stronger school counseling programs and greater legitimacy of school counseling practice.

Impact of Local Control

Interviewee comments suggested that a state's degree of emphasis on "local control" was an especially important factor that influenced model development and implementation. States differ in the extent to which the primary responsibility for decision-making about public education issues resides either at the state level or within local communities. In strong local control states, even the standardization of academic curricula at the state level is a major challenge. Therefore, promoting state-level school counseling models within local control environments may require state-level leaders to use very different goals and strategies than are currently being used. For instance, state mandates and requirements may not be possible. Finding incentive-based strategies for the state to encourage, support, and shape the development and implementation of local school counseling models may be the most effective approach. For example, one state department created an initiative that awarded grants to schools that demonstrated implementation of a comprehensive developmental school counseling program and evidence that the program had a positive effect on student achievement.

Future Research

While we found some intriguing results that may reflect reasons why some states are further along than others in model development and implementation, this study was designed to identify the status of model development rather than fully explore the reasons why states are at the point they are. Future investigations studying how model implementation is shaped by the variability in the organization of public education and in political structures across states would result in an understanding of which approaches would be most effective in different circumstances. This type of research could potentially lead to the creation of best practices for statewide school counseling program development and allow for those best practices to be tailored to fit different state contexts. For instance, what implementation approaches are best suited for states with high levels of local control? What should be the foci for state-level professional advocacy within such states? We see understanding and disseminating how different state contexts have shaped state legislation, policy/rules, and evaluation protocols of existing state models as the crucial next steps needed to inform the ways in which school counselors and school counselor leaders pursue professional advocacy and state-level collaborations aimed at promoting effective practice, policy, and the national implementation of school counseling models.

Conclusion

The present study found that in 2008, 44 states had written school counseling models, in contrast to a 1998 study that found that only 24 states had models (Sink & MacDonald, 1998). These results suggest that recent initiatives such as the Education Trust and the ASCA National Model have positively impacted states' interest in implementing statewide CDG school counseling models. However, based on the presence of features that would be expected to relate to a model's capacity to actually promote local implementation, only 17 states could be considered as having Established models. Contextual factors within states seem to provide the most salient explanation for the degree to which school counseling models were Established. Even when models were well developed, problems were noted with state mandates and requirements related to the models. Some states had requirements that lacked impact because they were not monitored or enforced. Other states with strong local control lacked the capacity to mandate or require policies that would infringe on the authority of local districts. Few states had state-level evaluation systems for school counseling programs due to a reported lack of resources and because of reported problems in justifying the use of state funds to evaluate non mandated programs. This research provides a crucial baseline understanding of the national status of school counseling models and provides important directions for advocating, improving, and sustaining initiatives to promote school counseling programs. I

References

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

Campbell, C. A., & Dahir, C. A. (1997). The national standards for school counseling programs. Alexandria, VA: American School Counselor Association.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (2007). The interview: From neutral stance to political involvement. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (3rd ed., pp. 115-159). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gysbers, N. C. (2006). Improving school guidance and counseling practices through effective and sustained state leadership: A response to Miller. Professional School Counseling, 9, 245-247.

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

Herr, E. L. (2001). The impact of national policies, economics, and school reform on comprehensive guidance programs. Professional School Counseling, 4, 236-245.

Keys, S. G., & Lockhart, E. (2000). The school counselor's role in facilitating multisystemic change. Professional School Counseling, 3, 101-107.

Lapan, R.T., Gysbers, N. C., & Petroski, G. F. (2001). Helping seventh graders be safe and successful in school: A statewide study of the impact of comprehensive guidance and counseling programs. Journal of Counseling and Development, 79, 320-330.

Lapan, R.T., Gysbers, N. C., & Sun, Y. (1997). The impact of more fully implemented guidance programs on the school experiences of high school students: A statewide evaluation study. Journal of Counseling & Development, 75, 292-302.

Martin, P.J. (2002). Transforming school counseling: A national perspective. Theory Into Practice, 41, 148-153.

Martens, D. M. (1998). Research methods in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative and qualitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Miller, D. (2006). How collaboration and research can affect school counseling practices: The Minnesota story. Professional School Counseling, 9, 238-244.

Paisley, P. O., & McMahon, G. (2001). School counseling for the 21st century: Challenges and opportunities. Professional School Counseling, 5, 106-115.

Sink, C. A., & MacDonald, G. (1998). The status of comprehensive guidance and counseling in the United States. Professional School Counseling, 2, 88-94.

Sink, C. A., & Stroh, H. R. (2003). Raising achievement test scores of early elementary school students through comprehensive guidance and counseling programs. Professional School Counseling, 6, 350-365.

Earn CEUs for reading this article. Visit www.schoolcounselor.org, and click on Professional School Counseling to learn how.

Ian Martin, M.Ed., is an assistant professor at the University of San Diego, CA. E-mail: [e-mail] John Carey, Ph.D., is the director of the Center for School Counseling Outcome Research, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Karen DeCoster is a school counseling liaison in Georgetown, MA.

The authors would like to acknowledge the National Leadership Cadre members for their insights, contributions, and direction throughout the course of the study: Marie Barry, New Jersey Department of Education; Linda Berg; Iowa Department of Education; Kristi Enger, Idaho Department of Education; Jackie Melendez, Georgia Department of Education; Zelda Rogers, Florida Department of Education; Bragg Stanley, Missouri Department of Education; Donna Vrbka, Nebraska Department of Education; and Belinda Wilkerson, Rhode Island School Counseling Project. Gisela Harkin of the Office of Vocational and Adult Education, U.S. Department of Education, also was instrumental in providing resources and editorial feedback.

This study was supported by the Office of Vocational and Adult Education. However, the contents do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the Office of Vocational and Adult Education or the U.S. Department of Education, and endorsement should not be assumed.

Table 1. Features of Established School Counseling Models Expected
to Influence Local Implementation

Feature                                 Example

Written model              Model distributed on DOE Web site

Modern model features      Model based on ASCA National Model

Model endorsement          Model endorsed by the commissioner
                           of education and by vote of the
                           state  association leadership

Linked to career           Model uses state career
  planning                 development guidelines

School counseling          School counseling director with
  leadership               50% of time devoted to school
                           counseling housed within career
                           and technical education unit of
                           the state department of education

Supportive legislation     Board rule mandating that all
                           students will complete 6-year
                           career plans

Supportive licensure and   Licensure process requires
  Accreditation            documentation that school
                           counselors can implement CDG

Professional development   State sponsors programs on model
                           implementation at the state
                           association conference

Model evaluation           Districts voluntarily submit
                           results reports to DOE

Table 2. States with Established, Progressing, and
Beginning School Counseling Models

Established       Progressing     Beginning

Alabama           Arizona         Alaska
Arkansas          California      Colorado
Delaware          Connecticut     Hawaii
Idaho             D.C.            Illinois
Iowa              Florida         Louisiana
Kansas            Georgia         Montana
Maryland          Indiana         New Mexico
Mississippi       Kentucky        Ohio
Missouri          Maine           Pennsylvania
New Hampshire     Massachusetts   Washington
North Carolina    Minnesota
Oregon            Michigan
Rhode Island      Nebraska
South Carolina    Nevada
Tennessee         New Jersey
Utah              New York
Wisconsin         Dakota
                  Oklahoma
                  South Dakota
                  Texas
                  Virginia
                  Vermont
                  West Virginia
                  Wyoming