A response to common themes in school counseling.

My first experience as a school counselor was in Neah Bay, Washington, the home of the Makah Indian Nation. As a K-12 counselor, I experienced diversity issues from many directions--developmental, multicultural, educational, and occupational. From that experience, I learned a great deal. Currently, I am a high school counselor and department chair at Anacortes High School. We began developing a K-12 comprehensive guidance and counseling program in 1986 as a part and extension of my doctoral dissertation (Anderson, 1987). When I was working on my school counseling certificate, the Washington state regulations regarding counselor certification began with the following statement, "The counselor facilitates individual development" (Washington Administrative Code; 180-79-180, p. 9). It has served as my guiding professional principle for more than two decades. Professional school counselors provide a unique and integral role for students, which no other educators can duplicate. Since change is perpetual and counselors have "individual development" as their focus, they can act as change agents for individuals as well as institutions for the benefit of the diverse individuals with which they interact. To accomplish this individual development in the context of a diverse and dynamic world, the school counselor must consider the structure of a comprehensive program such as the one presented in the National Standards for School Counseling Programs (Campbell & Dahir, 1997). It is from this frame of reference that I respond to the common themes in the focus articles (Baker, 2001; Green & Keys, 2001; Gysbers, 2001; Paisley & McMahon, 2001) published in the December 2001 issue of Professional School Counseling.

Common Themes

Issues of Change

Someone once told me that the only people who like change are cashiers. The four lead articles had one dominant theme--change. Baker (2001) and Gysbers (2001) discussed the evolution of school counseling and documented the changes in the role of the school counselor, from the earlier vocational guidance period to the current time, where the counselor's role is defined within the context of a comprehensive program.

Green and Keys (2001) also reported a need for change, offering another view for counselors. Rather than continue with the model of stage development, Green and Keys recommended that students would be better served when the counselor adopts a perspective of each student developing within a context or environment.

Culture and society are rapidly evolving. Paisley and McMahon (2001) reminded readers that counselors must keep pace with change to be of value to their students. They suggested "reframing" these challenges into opportunities. They offered "a snapshot of the ideal school counselor for the 21st Century" (p. 113). Similarly, Baker (2001) documented 40 years of history for school counseling. This evolution has included multiple changes for the school counselor, beginning with a nearly complete description of the counselor as administrative assistant. In 1966, Baker and two other counselors, for example, shared 1,500 students. They were responsible for "scheduling all students over the summer (without pay) and making schedule adjustments in the fall--all by hand" (p. 76).

However by 1967, Baker (2001) noted that the student-to-counselor ratio had dropped to about 300:1. With the addition of the summer guidance institutes funded by the National Defense Education Act of 1958 (P. L. 85-864), new ideas and activities were passed on to the burgeoning number of school counselors, and Baker was able "to engage in proactive guidance programming for the first time" (p. 77). Change continued but, for Baker, the role continued to evolve from a quasi-administrative approach to a client-centered model (which included individual, small group, and career counseling) to working with at-risk students. Unfortunately, there was no unifying theme for school counseling practice.

According to Green and Keys (2001), outcomes-based evaluations of current developmental counseling programs are nearly nonexistent. Methodology, misunderstanding of developmental theory, and "confusion regarding the differences between scope and sequence and the core theoretical principles that lead to healthy development" (p. 85) may be among the reasons for the dearth of evaluation data. Also, school counseling has been all but forgotten in school reform efforts. Things have changed, but have the foci of the school counseling profession been altered? Counseling programs have moved in the right direction, but have they gone far enough to reach the needs of the changing society?

Green and Keys (2001) noted other changes as well. For instance, the impact of technology has been tremendous. Schools outside the large urban areas were once able to live relatively content without experiencing "big city" problems. Population shifts have been responsible for three quarters of the United States living in urban areas. Further, technology has brought the urban environment into our living rooms and allowed easy travel from the suburbs to the city. Green and Keys argued that school counseling has historically been responsive to the emerging needs of students and to societal changes; however, this is currently not the case. The school counseling profession continues to be outside school reform and it must respond better to the issues of urban living.

Interestingly, Paisley and McMahon (2001) suggested that, "The most significant challenge for school counselors rests in the ongoing debate over role definition" (p. 107). Even with the current emphasis on comprehensive programs, it is counselors that must daily cope with varying priorities, expectations, and demands. Paisley and McMahon listed no less than 13 roles that a counselor within a comprehensive program may be asked to fulfill in a single day. They range from individual and group counseling to "maintaining the necessary levels of expertise in all of the above areas to ensure quality in all interventions and programs" (p. 107). They mentioned that even with ideal counselor case loads "fulfilling all of these expectations would be incredibly difficult" (p. 107). Counselors are asked to be successful with national counselor-to-student ratios ranging from 313:1 to 1,182:1 students per counselor. In addition, the increase in diverse populations requires counselors to be more effective in a more complex environment.

As Green and Keys (2001) indicated and Paisley and McMahon (2001) insisted, technology brings with it certain blessings and roadblocks. Technology seems to bring increased efficiency and effectiveness, but only to those counselors who are comfortable with its use. In terms of program delivery, school counseling can "take advantage of technology in its delivery of preventative and developmental school counseling programs" (Paisley & McMahon, p. 108). But, technology is expensive. Dependence on technology in delivering counseling services may exacerbate the "digital divide" between families with Internet access from those who cannot afford computers. Additionally, there is the effect that "technology could have on the personal relationship between counselor and students. In an era when so much is done without human interaction, the human interaction that a counselor models becomes even more important" (p. 109). An example of technology undermining counselor responsibilities would be the potential for students to take "career exploration and other self-directed assessments without proper supervision or instruction" (p. 109).

Society is bombarded daily from the impact of technology. Email, Web sites, cellular phones, and handheld computers are just a few examples of technology that are taken for granted today. Culturally, technology has gone beyond being a tool to becoming an integral part of daily living. It can streamline the clerical work of school counseling as well as help in gathering data and delivering information and even assisting with on-line counseling. But, increased dependence on technology is a major reason for school counselors not to diminish individual and group counseling as their primary roles. Educationally, school counselors are beginning to utilize the World Wide Web for knowledge and on-line courses for learning. On-line counseling has become so familiar that the American Counseling Association (1999) developed ethical standards for professional practice.

The need for increased accountability for counseling programs and interventions/services is not a new concern. What seems to be new is the call for public schools to show clear evidence of improved student achievement. Thus, according to Paisley and McMahon (2001), in addition to evidence of program and counselor effectiveness, counselors need to "show data that demonstrates student outcomes associated with the school mission. Increasingly this includes information related to grades, course-taking patterns, test scores, attendance and behavior referrals" (p. 109).

Gysbers (2001) seemed to center in on the issue of diversity. Social structures are changing. Social and personal values are evolving as well, becoming more diverse. People are moving from rural to urban environments. The work world and labor force are changing rapidly. Indeed, Gysbers provided a list of the complex challenges that students face, which include every facet of their current lives and futures. As our nation experiences these changes and challenges, national, state, and local organizations are working to provide programs and services to address these evolving complexities.

Throughout the evolution of school counseling, from the early days of vocational guidance and the progressive movement to today's emphasis on comprehensive counseling programs, schools have transformed themselves to meet the emerging needs of society and students. Gysbers (2001) explained how counseling functioned in the 1930s as a position rather than a program. This position carried so many duties that there was no time to be involved in real counseling. Counseling evolved toward a new structure of guidance and counseling and pupil personnel work, but the net result was to add these as additional counselor services. From the 1960s to the 1980s, things did not improve much. As Gysbers explained, "Guidance remained as an undefined program" (p. 100). The expectations for counselors were in a supportive, remedial, student services framework. Role confusion and conflict prevailed. In the 1970s, it was understood that it was unrealistic to continue to have these expectations for counselors. They could not implement the multiple roles of the evolving services model.

How to Implement Change

Baker (2001) observed, while visiting interns, that counseling in many schools was more similar to that which existed 30 years ago than it was different. Counselors have become confederates in this unchanging, outmoded school counselor model. Too many counselors do not belong to professional counseling associations and do not seem to be aware of the work being done to enhance the profession. There does not seem to be the will or knowledge on the counselors' part "to try to influence school systems away from the status quo" (p. 81). Baker hopes for a charismatic leader who would inspire grassroots change for counseling and bring it into the 21st Century.

According to Green and Keys (2001), a transformation of school counseling is needed. An awareness of self-in-context is what needs to drive comprehensive developmental programs. This awareness of self-in-context will become even more important, and more challenging, as schools become increasingly more diverse. Counseling programs will need "to explicitly address dimensions related to self-awareness, culture and gender" (p. 89). Counselors must not only assist students in self-awareness, they must understand the context within which students live. This will require that the counselor understand the variety of systems and subsystems that make up a "systemic-ecological framework." Additionally, according to Green and Keys, counseling and classroom guidance, as direct services, remain important. Equally and, at times, more important are the indirect services such as working with teachers and families. As part of their indirect services, school counselors should become leaders within their buildings for program development and evaluation.

Counselors must align their programs with the goals of the school. They should be a part of the driving force behind school improvement and student achievement.

Finally, Green and Keys (2001) recommended that counselors should "be informed by evidence-based best practices" (p. 92) and develop programs that are modeled after those effective programs. At the same time, school counselors need to document what they do. They need to also document the contribution their work makes in terms of positive student outcomes. They must demonstrate that their programs meet the goals of improving learning and personal/social as well as career development.

Paisley and McMahon (2001) offered a "snapshot of the ideal school counselor" (p. 113). These counselors would accomplish much of what has been outlined by Gysbers (2001). They would be grounded in the personal, academic, and career domains of student development. They would advocate for students. In addition, they would possess the ability to design and implement a comprehensive counseling programs. Cultural and technological competence would be required, and counselors would need to have the will and ability to evaluate themselves and their programs, holding themselves accountable to the fundamental mission of the school.

Gysbers (2001) called for a clear purpose and mission for the practice of guidance and counseling in schools. Without this clarity, counselors will continue to experience unfulfilled expectations, role conflict, and fragmentation by emphasizing one guidance domain at the expense of others (career, educational, personal/ social domains). Gysbers now exhorts counselors to collaboratively discuss the mission and purpose of guidance and counseling, because these are integral parts of education. School counseling must move away from the position/services model of the 20th Century. When the guidance and counseling program is tied directly to the mission of education, school counselors must focus their time working with all students.

In addition to personal/social and career development, program and counselor accountability must focus on student academic achievement or success. According to Gysbers (2001), empirical research has shown that when certified professional school counselors have the time, the resources, and the structure of a comprehensive guidance program in which to work, they contribute to positive student academic and career development as well as the development of positive and safe learning climates in schools.

In sum, counselors must advocate for social as well as education reform. They must become active in the larger picture, especially when issues can be directly affected by their expertise. And, at the same time, school counselors and guidance and counseling programs must serve all students.

Specific Common Themes

The role of the school counselor. One of the major struggles I have experienced as a school counselor is that of role ambiguity. In all of the emerging challenges for students and schools (e.g., higher achievement, greater diversity, at-risk students, accountability), Paisley and McMahon (2001) noted the importance of setting boundaries. As a school counselor, I have learned that this is a most difficult suggestion, but necessary for survival of the profession. There are differing demands and expectations from students, parents, community members, teachers, and administrators. Even from within these stakeholders, individuals have separate and differing expectations. Without clearly understanding what counselors can and cannot do and defining boundaries, no one will be happy and accountability will be lacking. Without planning and by attempting to respond to all the audiences and expectations, the school counselor "not only spreads him (her)self too thin but works under the handicap of a `Jehovah complex'" (Paterson, 1950, p. 17).

As the authors of the focus articles indicated, the role of the school counselor has been a topic for decades. It is still being discussed, even in light of the American School Counselor Association's (ASCA, 1999) role statement. Baker (2001) mentioned how little the counselors' activities have changed in 40 years. He cited examples of how more is expected of the school counselor, but nothing is taken away. School counselors, according to Baker, are part of their own undoing. Because many do not take membership in professional counseling associations seriously, they do not understand what is being done to enhance the profession. They are not able or motivated to change their programs and school systems from the status quo.

I fully agree with Green and Keys' (2001) idea of "development in context." I have learned the importance of working with students in the light of their worldview. However, to understand students' perspectives, more individual time with students is needed, not less. While working in the Native American culture, I learned that individuals view their cultural context differently, even when they share a common culture. The most important skill of the counselor to understanding student development-in-context is the skill of counseling. This is the counselor's role that emphasizes work with individuals and small groups.

After discussing the importance of taking a "development-in-context" perspective to school counseling, Green and Keys (2001) also mentioned the counselor's role. They recommended a "shift toward an indirect services model" (p. 90). Although these indirect activities are important, counseling (individual and group) as well as classroom guidance are the specific activities that identify the school counselor as a professional--as someone who has a separate and distinct body of knowledge and skills not duplicated in the school building. In addition, the school counselor approaches students proactively from a perspective of growth and development rather than a rehabilitative, pathology perspective.

Accountability. Given that there are so many expectations of the school counselor, it is important that counselors hold themselves accountable for the outcome of their work. It is best for practitioners to set up the means by which counselors evaluate programs and performance. It is haphazard and irresponsible to leave accountability and evaluation solely in the hands of those who do not understand the counselor's role in student achievement and do not have the expertise to determine when/how the counselor's goals are accomplished. School counselors must boldly work with their supervisors to help them understand the professional contribution of counselors and how to assess the outcomes of school counseling programs.

At Anacortes High School, we counselors have given all stakeholders the opportunity to evaluate our work. For evaluation of counselor performance, we have placed an online evaluation form on our Web site (www.ahs-counseling.org). Students, staff, parents, and anyone who visits our site has the opportunity to evaluate their experience with one of our counselors. (This information is securely sent only to the identified counselor.)

For our program evaluation, an annual survey is used to assist us in understanding how well our guidance competencies have been met from the students' perspective. We use the survey results as a piece of the accountability and evaluation information to share with our counseling program advisory committee. This information helps us direct the program priorities for the next school year.

Why develop and implement comprehensive counseling programs? Our school district and building have attempted to model the development of our K-12 program after the work of Gysbers and Henderson (1994, 2000), Henderson and Gysbers (1998), and the National Standards for School Counseling Programs (Campbell & Dahir, 1997). They provided a structure with clear and specific guidelines for the school counselor. This structure created a model for implementing the counselor's role as well as the flexibility of counselor time to address the identified needs of students within the district and building. Gysbers and Henderson and the National Standards enabled the counselors to work from their strengths (guidance curriculum, individual planning, systems support, and responsive services) and devote the time for these activities as locally determined. With the focus of serving all students, our counselors can identify where they can realistically make an impact in their mission to serve all students and help students achieve success in school. In my view, the work of Gysbers and Henderson and the National Standards has given us the best possible structure within which to ensure that (a) all students are served, (b) counselors have specific roles and functions, and (c) counselors and counseling programs are accountable. We are learning there are major obstacles that prevent successful implementation.

Politics and Advocacy

Around the time the American School Counselor Association published the National Standards (Campbell & Dahir, 1997), the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP, 1996) published, Breaking Ranks: Changing An American Institution. Breaking Ranks is a report on the status of the high school in the 21st Century. For some secondary principals, this report has provided a means to reform America's secondary schools. The report is dedicated to Ernest Boyer, author of High School: A Report on Secondary Schools in America (Boyer, 1983). Boyer lamented the crises in school counseling when he noted that "The average pupil-counselor ratio in American high schools is 319 to 1, but in one of the schools we visited the ratio was 600 to 1" (p. 157). He recommended, "Guidance services should be significantly expanded. No counselor should have a case load of more than one hundred students" (p. 306).

Many of the propositions of Breaking Ranks--such as personalization, school environment, assessment, ties to higher education, relationships, and advocacy (NASSP, 1996)--focus on the expertise of school counselors. Yet school counselors and school counseling programs were never mentioned. It appears that the authors of this work did not read all of Boyer's work. Dahir (2000) and others from ASCA are stressing the importance of school counseling and school counseling programs to the principals. This is something each counselor can do within a building. Counselors working toward a comprehensive program help building principals become more aware of the contributions counselors make to improve student learning.

Gerald Tirozzi (2001), executive director of NASSP, charged that congressional funding for schools is insufficient. He noted that secondary schools are being neglected in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1958, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (H.R. 1, 2001). He asked that the "S" (secondary) be put back in the ESEA and proposed a "Secondary Schools Achievement Act" (p. 23). Schools in my area categorize all counselors, psychologists, and interventionists, no matter what their level or specialty, as counselors. As our school district focused on increasing the number of elementary counselors in our schools, counseling K-12 was perceived as improving. Yet, the district paid little attention to counselor caseloads at the secondary level. The net gain in the number of counselors appeared impressive, but by not implementing school counseling as a K-12 program, decisions were made that emphasized one dimension (the elementary level) while neglecting another.

The same pattern also appears at the national level. Tirozzi (2001) stated, in regard to the ESEA's emphasis on funding elementary education, "We strongly support this early intervention strategy but also believe such a strategy does not inoculate children from later academic and learning difficulties" (p. 23).

Baker (2001) mentioned how valuable it would be to have "charismatic motivators" to promote "the 21st Century guidance point-of-view everywhere from the grass roots schools and communities to the national media outlets" (p. 82). And Gysbers (2001) reminded school counselors of the importance of advocacy, cautioning the profession not to turn inward and become too professionally self-serving. He also reminded the profession (and professional school counselors) "about the need for advocacy, about the need to be actively involved in social, work, and education reform particularly because such reform efforts can benefit directly from the expertise of school counselors" (p. 103).

All school counselors should be active at the national, state, and local levels to inform legislators of the importance of school counseling in student academic success and personal and career development. This can be accomplished through active involvement in professional associations. More important, this can be accomplished through personal involvement in national and state advocacy by making phone calls, writing letters, conducting visits to politicians, and inviting them to visit schools. Most important, however, is the politics and advocacy conducted in the counseling office and the classroom as well as at the building and district levels. It is at these levels that school counselors will be most effective in making changes to help identify the needs of all students. At the local level, school counseling programs must be developed which are designed to meet these needs as a part of the overall mission of schools.

Final Thoughts and Concluding Remarks

In 1986, the counselors in our building decided to develop a counseling program. We started with an advisory committee. As we learned more about what a counseling program should be, we revised and developed a structure which, we hope, resembles the work of Gysbers and Henderson (1994, 2000) and Henderson and Gysbers (1998), as well as the National Standards for School Counseling Programs (Campbell & Dahir, 1997). In 1987, we enlisted district leadership to help begin the process of a creating a district comprehensive counseling program. In 1996, our high school adopted a comprehensive program, and finally in 1999, our school district adopted the K-12 program.

Our experience has proven that adopting a program was the first hurdle. Implementation proves to be more difficult and complex. Administrators provide varying degrees of understanding and support for a K-12 counseling program. School administrators change. Leadership and support for a comprehensive counseling program change as well. Commitment, even among counselors and support personnel, ebbs and flows. Resources, which were once available, wither. In spite of these difficulties, developing and implementing a comprehensive counseling program provides greater structure and accountability for school counseling. It ensures that the purpose of the counseling program is aligned with the mission of the school and is designed to address the needs of all students.

Based on the four articles, I have some final comments. I may be extreme, but I believe counselors must realize their role in the school building is as important as any other professional. Counselors are not in the building to "serve" others; they are in the school to implement a program and apply the distinct skills and knowledge that only they possess.

Counselors must be more involved in the political process. School counselors must have a clear vision of the counselor's role and the counseling program within the school's mission. This requires the courage to take risks and participate in building, district, state, and national politics. It requires a belief that what counselors and counseling programs do in the school is so important that, without them, the school could not meet its mission and the needs of all students.

The power of politics is always personal and most powerful at the interpersonal level. Many counselors would rather not become involved in these activities. Baker (2001) was right. The profession needs charismatic leaders, but school counselors cannot wait for one to show up in the building. Counselors must be the charismatic leaders. Counselors make a difference in people's lives. Counselors must know their boundaries. Each school counselor must take the risk of saying "no" to some expectations held regarding what counselors should do. Then they can say "yes" to the things counselors have the knowledge and skills to do.

Many people like to know that a physician or lawyer is a member of their professional association. It helps those seeking professional service understand the quality of what can be expected from a professional. I do not think that the state of Washington is unusual. Laura Jo Severson, president of the Washington School Counselor Association (WSCA), reported that only one third of the school counselors in Washington are members of WSCA (Hudson, 2001). Professional membership is a message of the quality of professionalism. It is also a source of support, strength, and professional development. Membership by professional school counselors in their associations is what helps distinguish them from being administrative assistants, clerks, and gatekeepers.

The impact of counselor and professional association involvement is obvious this year in H. R. 1 (2001), the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. H. R. 1 has extended the school counseling demonstration provisions to include elementary and secondary counseling programs. The language of H. R. 1 regarding elementary and secondary school counseling programs reveals the impact the American School Counselor Association and other professional associations have had on Federal legislation.

Since the early 1980s, school counseling has become virtually nonexistent with decision makers at all levels. School counselors are central to effective school reform and student success. As a profession, school counselors must show the value of school counseling and how it is relevant to improved learning for all students. Counselors, as individuals, must believe in the value of their work. School counselors must understand their profession so clearly that they will take the risk to speak out from the local level of the counselor's office to the Congress of the United States. The passage of H. R. 1 is evidence of what can happen when counselors are active politically and in their associations. In order for this momentum to continue the personal involvement of every school counselor is required.

References

American Counseling Association. (1999). Ethical standards for on-line counseling. Retrieved October 4, 2001, from http://www.counseling.org/gc/cybertx.htm

American School Counselor Association. (1999). The role of the professional school counselor. Retrieved December 30, 2001, from http://www.schoolcounselor.org/content.cfm?L1=1000&L2=69

Anderson, K. A. (1987). Guidelines for K-12, comprehensive counseling programs. (Doctoral dissertation, Seattle University, 1987). Dissertations Abstracts International, 48, 1657-A.

Baker, S. B. (2001). Reflections on forty years in the school counseling profession: Is the glass half full or half empty. Professional School Counseling, 5, 75-83.

Boyer, E. L. (1983). High school: A report on secondary education in America. New York: Harper & Row.

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

Dahir, C. A. (2000). The national standards for school counseling programs: A partnership in preparing students for the new millennium. NASSP Bulletin, 84(616), 68-76.

Green, A., & Keys, S. G. (2001). Expanding the developmental school counseling program: Meeting the needs of the 21st century student. Professional School Counseling, 5, 84-95.

Gysbers, N. C. (2001). School guidance and counseling in the 21st century: Remember the past into the future. Professional School Counseling, 5, 96-105.

Gysbers, N. C., & Henderson, P. (1994). Developing and managing your school guidance program (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.

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

Henderson, P., & Gysbers, N. C. (1998). Leading and managing your school guidance program staff. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.

Hudson, J. (2001, August). Making change happen. WSCA Newsletter, 1, pp. 1, 4.

National Defense Education Act of 1958. Pub. L. No. 85-864, 72, Part 1, Stat. 1580.

National Association of Secondary School Principals. (1996). Breaking ranks: Changing an American institution. Reston, VA: Author

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. H. R. 1, 107th Cong. (2001).

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

Paterson, D. G. (1950). The genesis of modern guidance. In A. H. Brayfield (Ed.), Readings in modern methods of counseling (pp. 13-21). New York: Appleton.

Tirozzi, G. N. (2001, March 7). ESEA--What happened to the S? Education Week, pp. 20, 23.

Washington Administrative Code 180-79-180 Role and minimum generic standards--Educational staff associates--Counselor (1981). Common School Manual of the State of Washington. Olympia, WA: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Keith Anderson, Ed.D., is a counselor and chair of the Counseling Department at Anacortes High School, Anacortes, WA. E-mail: [e-mail].