Accountability: counselors count.

There was a time when school counselors were accepted on faith alone. The nation embraced the idea that timely counseling and guidance could help young people realize their potential and become productive citizens. More recently, one taxpayer said, "Counselors seem like a good idea, but are they a luxury? Are they really essential and valuable resources in our schools? Counselors need to stand up and be counted." Perhaps more than at any time in their history, school counselors are being asked to be accountable (Allen, 1992; Hughes & James, 2001; Whiston & Sexton, 1998).

To be accountable means being responsible for one's actions and contributions, especially in terms of objectives, procedures, and results. It involves describing goals, and what is being done to meet them. It entails collecting information and data that support any accomplishments that may be claimed. It could also require documentation that shows compliance with state laws or school board directives. Every counselor must ask and answer a few basic questions: What am I trying to make happen? How do I do that? Am I effective? Are there better ways of achieving the same thing? How can I be counted as part of the total school program?

A SIGN OF THE TIMES, YET NOTHING NEW

Being accountable is a sign of the times. However, it has been on educational and political agendas for decades (Gysbers, 1995). It drew attention when students in our nation were compared to those in other countries. The unfavorable results sparked the school reform movement and the concept of school "report cards." After examining core academic areas such as writing, math, reading, and science, it was concluded that too many students were ill prepared for the changing world of work (Peak, 1997). What followed was an increasing demand to change the way things were being done and to use more standardized measures to assess results.

School counselors, although not mentioned in any national school reform publications, began feeling the pressure to be more visible. Counselors needed to come out of their offices and tell more about their work. They needed to show how they were an integrated part of the educational process and were helping students learn more effectively and efficiently. It was time for counselors to be more accountable (Poppen, 1995; Schafer, 1995; Scruggs, Wasielewski & Ash, 1999; Otwell & Mullis, 1997).

Congress mandated the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in 1969 to continuously monitor the knowledge, skills, and performance of the nation's children and youth. It was during the 1960s that tests and measurements were viewed positively and used to identify students with outstanding abilities. It was part of the effort to train more scientists and win the race to the moon. In the 1970s, tests as part of guidance fell in disfavor. Categorizing and labeling people did not fit the humanistic movement. The validity of appraisal techniques and their practical use were questioned, even though assessment and evaluation courses remained as core requirements in counselor education programs. In addition, standardized tests were expensive and there was a lack of confidence in counselor-developed instruments.

In the next two decades, data analysis and progress indicators began to work their way into the business community. Gains and losses were databased. This mindset soon transferred into student and school evaluation. State improvement plans set higher expectations for students and improvement plans were data-driven (e.g. Lapan, Gysbers, & Petroski, 2001). Some counselors mistakenly believed that they were immune to evaluation since they were support personnel and not classroom teachers.

COMPREHENSIVE COUNSELING AND GUIDANCE PROGRAMS

Comprehensive counseling and guidance programs have been described in the professional literature for many years (MacDonald & Sink, 1999). These pro grams tend to focus on the work of counselors, although they may be a part of broader and more encompassing student services plans which feature school psychologists, social workers, nurses, dropout prevention specialists, educational and career advisors, attendance officers, and similar positions. Every school has a guidance and counseling program. Some programs are better organized and more comprehensive than others are, but all need to be evaluated. They are a part of the total school program.

The American School Counselor Association (ASCA) spelled out elements that make up a comprehensive program (Campbell & Dahir, 1997). Standards are related to what students should know and be able to do in terms of academic, career, and personal/social domains. Embracing a developmental approach, ASCA outlines expectations for all students.

More recently, ASCA launched a framework for school counseling programs: The ASCA National Model (ASCA, 2003). Intended for application in all school districts across the nation, it outlines an approach that reflects national trends and elements that counselors can use to build and describe their programs. The use of a common language enables counselors in the nation to join together as a profession and characterize their work and contributions. Even though detailed enough to be a template, the Model is meant to be a guide rather than an exact prototype or mold. It was intended to be flexible and to accommodate choice because community demographics and needs, state and local mandates, and political issues influence programs and plans. Nevertheless, it is a results-based approach featuring reviews and evaluations, something that should be part of all programs. The language of accountability permeates the document.

Following the lead of Gysbers and Henderson (2001), the ASCA Model structures a school counselor's role around four interactive components:

1. The Guidance Curriculum. Counselors provide structured, competency-based activities in a classroom or in group situations, using the time to focus on areas such as self knowledge, attitudes, social skills, and educational and career exploration and planning.

2. Individual Planning. Counselors help students establish personal goals and plans for the future. Student progress is evaluated and the transition from school to school and school to work is given attention.

3. Responsive Services. Counselors meet the immediate needs, concerns, and interests of students confronting personal or educational challenges.

4. System Support. Counselors work to sustain and enhance the implementation of comprehensive counseling and guidance programs, attending to the systemic aspect of the school and learning environment. Parmerships are formed and student data is analyzed, evaluated, and interpreted.

How then, does one evaluate such a comprehensive program? What must counselors do to show that they are accountable? School counselors do not work in isolation. They alone cannot provide all of the guidance services, activities, and experiences that students need. Collaboration is essential in a multi-faceted yet integrated program (Paisley & McMahon, 2001). Yet, it is important to evaluate the contributions of individual members in a team approach.

Athletic coaches talk about a team's winning or losing, while at the same time studying film in order to rate each player's performance. It is difficult for someone to claim all the success that might be the result of teamwork, but an individual's effort can be and is often acknowledged. In this sense, counselors must be accountable for their unique contributions in a school.

THREE KEY QUESTIONS

Regardless of school district or grade level, there are three key questions about accountability. First, is there a written program in place? If so, what are the program's goals and standards as related to student achievement? How would a visitor to a school know the program is being implemented? Second, what counselor interventions or activities are used to address those standards and student needs? Finally, what evidence is there that the program and specific interventions are making a positive difference? Let's examine the three in more detail.

Is there a written program with standards?

Some student needs and interests are reflected in a program's standards. For example, there are four major standards in the academic domain of ASCA's national model. Suggested competencies and indicators provide some general direction for the work of a counselor. For example, Standard A of the Academic Domain is: Students will acquire attitudes, knowledge, and skills that contribute to effective learning in and across the life span. A desired competency in this respect is that students will improve their academic-self-image, and an indicator of success might be that they take pride in work and achievement. It is the big picture, and general statements are customary.

To determine if such standards are a part of a comprehensive program, a checklist can be used (e.g., Nebraska Counselor Performance Evaluation, 2003). A mission statement, standards and indicators, and even a guidance curriculum can be outlined in written documents (e.g., Orange County Public Schools, 2003).

One assistant superintendent of student services viewed written and filed programs as a necessary but rather fruitless task. He said that every 3 years a committee of counselors might be assembled and given 45 minutes to review the program's mission statement, goals, and standards. Consensus was used to determine if the program still made sense, and then the books were put back on the shelf. Once the program was outlined and in place, he believed there was not much else to do in terms of accountability. It was matter of applying a "Yes" or "No" checklist. He said there were better ways to spend time, and he was much more concerned with how the program was implemented and what resulted. He also wondered if counselors consulted the standards and statements much beyond knowing that they were part of a program's description.

Besides the program's general standards, more specific student needs and interests can be identified. Needs assessments come in many forms and may provide some leads that counselors can follow. Possible needs and interests might be listed on a survey that is distributed to students and parents. Responses to particular items might help a counselor set priorities and develop some appropriate strategies. In addition, teacher-referrals can be used and a team- or grade-level meeting might identify a population of students who need counseling A list of students who were referred or asked for counseling and received help can be part of an accountability plan, just as a list of standards might reflect student competencies, but it is still not enough.

What was done to meet those standards and needs?

Imagine being asked, "What is your job?" Without some forethought, practice, or experience, a lot of counselors will stumble when they try to answer. A lengthy response is not required and would probably be inappropriate. Handing the person a copy of the district's comprehensive school counseling program or the ASCA National Model won't work well either. There are too many words and generalizations. The following response might be better.

"My job is help kids learn more effectively and efficiently. I want to help them get the most out of school. In order to do this, I provide individual and small group counseling; meet with students in classrooms and large groups; train peer helpers; consult with teachers, administrators, and parents; and then I also coordinate the school's guidance program." To follow this brief statement with an example of something that was done can provide some clarification and perk interest. Such an explanation, focusing on counselor interventions, is almost always effective. Everything a counselor does is aimed at helping students to become better learners (Myrick, 2003). Counselors want to be accountable for what they do, not what others imagine that they do.

Tallying various interventions was once considered enough to be accountable. How many students met with the counselor? How many individual counseling sessions were provided? How many groups did the counselor organize and meet? How many classroom guidance lessons took place? How many teachers consulted with the counselor about their students or situations in their classes? Elaborate procedures, such as charting and timecards, have been used to list and tally what counselors are doing. But, this can be time-consuming and is of questionable value.

All professionals need some kind of job record. This is especially true for those in business where time and services are invoiced. These same costs exist in education, but they are less evident and seldom discussed in these terms. People in the business world must produce a product or their services must make a positive difference. No results no business. The consumer determines market value and has the final say regarding assessment. "What did you get for your time and money? What were the benefits? Are things better, the same, or worse?"

Did the counselor intervention make a difference?

The idea of such a question being the base of accountability for a counselor's work makes sense to people in business, but it can be an alien thought for some educators. The premise is part of scientific inquiry, "If ... then.... " For example, "If a student participates in a group discussion on career counseling and decision making, then he or she will be able to describe the entry-level requirements of a job in a career choice." Or, "If a student takes part in a small group counseling intervention for anger management, then he or she will have fewer discipline referrals for anger outbursts."

These seem like reasonable enough questions and there is really nothing new. Still, the idea of accountability is seen by most counselors as somebody else's idea of a good thing to do. It is not something on a counselor's wish list. For the most part, the counselor resists being accountable.

COUNSELOR RESISTANCE TO ACCOUNTABILITY

"Don't have the time."

Numerous job tasks are thrown at counselors. Because classroom bells or specific time schedules do not bind them, counselors appear readily available and are often targets for little things to do that are not counseling and guidance related. Some have fallen into the trap of being administrative assistants while others are deluged with clerical work that is part of exceptional student education. Counselor-student ratios are high, and there is never enough time to see all the students that have been assigned to a counselor or that the counselor would like to see.

Time management is a counselor's nightmare, and now counselors are being asked to be more accountable, not just for their time but for the results of their work. "The days are not long enough. I'm too busy doing counseling to construct and administer accountability instruments." It's probably not practical or feasible to collect data on everything a counselor does, but there must be times when results data are collected by design or as part of a routine part of an intervention.

"Don't have the knowledge and skills."

A study of assessment and evaluation techniques is required in counselor education, but the focus is primarily on commercial and standardized tests, most of which are only tangential to an intervention or strategy used by a counselor. Counselors have little confidence or inclination to develop and validate their own measures. Formal research designs are rigorous and control as many sources of invalidity as possible. Experimenters dislike multiple interventions where it is difficult to determine the precise cause for a change. While formal research procedures can help answer questions, they are often too rigid, narrowly focused, and time-consuming. It is erroneous to think that research and accountability are synonymous.

Accountability studies, while drawing upon research methods, have more limitations and these are acknowledged. At this point in time, simple accountability measures, developed by counselors themselves, are most appropriate. For instance, a list of ten items to which respondents express their degree of agreement (Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree) on a five-point scale will work well. Face validity is probably enough to satisfy most consumers of accountability studies.

"Accountability is scary."

If accountability is seen as a way of judging whether a person is competent or not, then it can be threatening. Nobody likes his or her work to be judged as good or bad. When accountability measures and data are considered feedback to determine whether a particular approach or intervention is effective then the idea is more acceptable. The emphasis is on the intervention not the worth of the counselor. An ineffective intervention, where no change seemed evident, could be modified or tried again at another time. Maybe it should be discarded. Counselors feel less threatened and more encouraged when the focus of accountability is to help make decisions about an intervention and the needs of those being helped.

"Accountability is confronting."

Accountability studies force counselors to look at themselves and their expectations. Some resist the idea of getting feedback from students or others because they are sure that everything they do is effective and worthwhile. Some fear that they will be discovered as incompetent. Still others have such high expectations that any thing less than a perfect rating or score is discouraging and personally confronting of their work.

In one instance, a group of counselors agreed to participate in a study that focused on helping failing students receive passing grades for their classes. Of 103 students who participated in six small group sessions, 87 obtained a grade of D or better. Yet, when the counselors met to talk about their study among the first questions was "How come it didn't work with those students who failed?" In another study, 65 percent of students had a career goal in mind as they entered high school. After a counselor intervention, 85 percent were able to state at least a tentative goal, which was a 20% gain. Those are positive differences and it might be concluded that whatever the counselor did was effective.

"Results are difficult to measure."

Hard data such as attendance, discipline referrals, and the number of homework assignments completed are preferred in most studies. They are observable and verifiable behaviors. Soft data such as checklists and surveys depend upon a person's perspective or opinion. Students, for example, can rate themselves regarding their attitudes, skills, values, or needs. They can report their perceptions of relationships with peers and teachers or their progress toward a goal. Both soft and hard data are useful in accountability studies.

The more specific the item to measure, the easier it is to interpret. Counselors can play a role in helping students adjust to school and perform better in classrooms. It's difficult to claim credit for improved performance on state or national tests. Teachers work everyday with students on their academic skills, whereas counselors work with students briefly and periodically. It is hard to make a case that academic performance on state standardized tests was due to a counselor intervention.

Brief counseling can make a difference in terms of student attitudes, classroom skills, or working relationships with teachers. Class grades or grade point averages may be too broad and inclusive to be of much value in a counselor accountability study. On the other hand, improvement in learning behaviors related to school achievement might be a goal and the focus of individual or group counseling sessions. Students or teachers can quickly check their perceived frequency of behaviors (see Figure). If, as a result of a counselor intervention a learning behavior is improved, then the intervention might be deemed effective and useful.

ACCOUNTABILITY BY DESIGN

Counselors are not reinforced for doing accountability studies. Since they are not part of a job description, such studies are usually considered a burden or non-essential work. Counselors typically rely on their instincts, perhaps a few testimonials from others, to gauge effectiveness. Accountability has to be designed.

While an individual counselor can construct his or her own study, Krumboltz (1974) was among the first to advocate accountability designs for school districts and the participation of all counselors. He identified seven criteria for an effective accountability system:

1. The general goals of counseling must be agreed upon by all concerned parties.

2. Gains must be stated in observable behavior changes by students.

3. Counselor interventions and activities are viewed as costs, not accomplishments.

4. The accountability system must be positive and not designed to cast blame or punish poor performance. It is a constructive approach to working toward professional effectiveness.

5. To promote accurate reporting, failures or unknown outcomes must be permitted without reprimands.

6. Those participating in the system must be involved in designing it.

7. The system itself must be subject to evaluation and modification.

A well-designed accountability system enables administrators and counselor to identify student needs and ways to meet them. Measures of behavior and attitude change make it possible to make modifications or maintain procedures. Although there is a certain amount of discomfort that comes from uncertainty and the challenge of accountability, a system can also be a source of comfort and satisfaction, especially when there is evidence that goals are being achieved.

Several counselors can participate in a collaborative study and pool their data for final analysis (Myrick, 2003). Counselors identify a common population of students across their schools and reach agreement on how the students will be selected for the study. All the participating counselors agree to a time frame (e.g., 9-week grading period) and the measure(s) that will be used to collect pre and post intervention data. After agreeing on basic procedures to help validate the study, counselors are free to provide their own intervention, or perhaps multiple interventions, with students in their target group. They also provide a summary or written description of what they did. A final written report, based on pooling data from all the students in the study and a summary of the kinds of counselor interventions that were used, is made available to the public. It is a representative sample of what counselors are doing and how effective counselor interventions can be. An accountability system can spark professional pride.

HELPING TELL THE COUNSELOR STORY

Accountability, of course, is tied closely to student success. Career and personal/social goals are linked to academic achievement. Case studies and examples, supported by data, enable counselors to clarify their roles and functions.

What do you do? Does it make a difference? Those are .questions that can be answered with confidence through studies and reports in which counselors use data to tell about results. Accountability studies present opportunities for counselors to tell their story and let others know about some of the things that they do. They can increase visibility and support. Accountability studies let counselors count and be counted.

Learning Behaviors Related to School Achievement

Student --                 Teacher --                Date --

Please check the frequency of each behavior listed. Add other
items or make additional comments if you wish.

                              Very often    Often    Sometimes
Attends class
Is punctual to class
Brings study materials
Takes part in discussions
Pays attention in class
Follows directions
Starts assignments
Attends to a given task
Completes assignments
Talks at appropriate times
Works independently
Follows school rules

                              Seldom    Very seldom
Attends class
Is punctual to class
Brings study materials
Takes part in discussions
Pays attention in class
Follows directions
Starts assignments
Attends to a given task
Completes assignments
Talks at appropriate times
Works independently
Follows school rules

References

Allen, J. M. (1992). Action-oriented research: Promoting school counselor advocacy and accountability. ERIC Digest (ED347477). Ann Arbor, MI: ERIC Clearinghouse on Counseling and Personnel Services.

ASCA National Standards. Retrieved from http://www.schoolcounselor.org/content.cfm?L1=1&L2=9

American School Counselor Association. (2003). American school counselor association national model: A framework for school counseling programs. Alexandria, VA: Author.

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

Gysbers, N. C (1995). Evaluating school guidance programs. ERIC Digest (ED388887). ERIC Clearinghouse on Counseling and Student Services. Greensboro NC.

Gysbers, N.C., & Henderson, P. (2001). Developing and managing your school guidance program. (3rd ed). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.

Hughes, D., & James, S. H. (2001). Using accountability data to protect a school counceling program: One counselor's experience. Professional School Counseling. 4, 306-310.

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

MacDonald, G., & Sink, C. A. (1999). Qualitative developmental analysis of comprehensive guidance programmes in schools in the United States. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 27(3) 14-15.

Myrick, R. D. (2003). Developmental guidance and counseling: A practical approach (4th ed.) Minneapolis, MN: Educational Media.

Nebraska comprehensive school counseling accountability: Counselor performance evaluation. (2003). Retrieved from http://www.nde.state.ne.us/CARED/perferal.html

Orange County Public Schools. (2003). Guidance lessons and curriculum. Orlando, FL: Student Development Orange County Public Schools. Retrieved from http://www.ocps.k12.fi.us/framework/subject.php?subject=18

Otwell, R, & Mullis, F. (1997). Academic achievement and counselor accountability. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 31, 343-348.

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

Peak, L. (1997). Pursuing excellence: A study of fourth grade mathematics and science achievement in an international context. Washington, DC: NCES.

Poppen, W. J. (1995). New assessment methods for school counselors. ERIC Digest (ED388888). Greensboro, NC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Counseling and Student Services.

Schafer, W. D. (1995). Assessment skills for school counselors. ERIC Digest (ED387709). Washington, D.C: ERIC Clearninghouse on Asssessment and Evaluatrion.

Scruggs, M.Y., Wasielewski, R. A., & Ash, M. J. (1999). Comprehensive evaluation of a K-12 counseling program. Professional School Counseling, 2, 244-247.

Whiston, S. C., &Sexton, T. I. (1998). A review of school counseling outcome research: Implications for practice. Journal of Counseling and Development, 76, 412-426.

Robert D. Myrick,
Ph.D., is professor,
Counselor Education
Department, College of
Education, University of
Florida, Gainesville, FL.