Data-driven decision making: the engine of accountability.

Accountability is an exercise in hope. When we raise academic standards, children raise their academic sights. When children are regularly tested, teachers know where and how to improve. When scores are known to parents, parents are empowered to push for change. When accountability for our schools is real, the results for our children are real.

--U.S. President George W. Bush (US Department of Education, 2002a)

This quote from President Bush about "No Child Left Behind" legislation sums up the national mood and the trend toward increased accountability. It was taken from a web-based presentation generated by the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education Student Achievement and School Accountability Programs (SASA). This new national office

   promotes accountability for improving student
   achievement by ensuring that States
   implement rigorous systems of standards,
   assessments, and accountability that motivate
   educators to assume responsibility for getting
   each and every student to achieve at high levels.
   As well, the Office builds the fiscal, pedagogical,
   and technical capacity of States,
   school districts, and schools to get all students
   (especially those most in need) to meet their
   State's high academic standards." (U.S.
   Department of Education, 2002b)

Accountability has resulted from the lack of satisfactory achievement overall and in particular the "achievement gap." This gap between minority and majority students is demonstrated in differential graduation rates from high schools and colleges as well as poor performance in reading and math that make high school graduation and college entrance and completion more challenging (see for examples, numerous census bureau reports on education, U.S. Census Bureau, 2002; U.S. Census Bureau, 2003). The President's quote and mission of the SASA makes clear the intent to use data and assessment to drive school improvement and to motivate educators to deliver student achievement at increasing levels. While counselors are not specifically mentioned, accountability and data-driven decisions are the nexus of much that is happening in school counseling and directing the role of counselors in school reform.

THE FORCES CONVERGING TO SCHOOL COUNSELOR ACCOUNTABILITY

While accountability is not a new concept, it has moved from a focus on teaching (inputs) to a focus on learning (outcomes). It implies evaluation of program and individual implementation of performance (Frymier, 1996). It is the "show me" attitude that is used to answer the questions that concern what difference individuals or their programs have made to students, families, teachers, schools, and districts.

Within the Profession:

Many forces have been concurrently converging from within the counseling profession, within educational practice, and from external sources in government over the past 10 or so years that have brought us to the necessity of incorporating accountability into school counseling practice.

The American School Counselor Association (ASCA) Standards. The Standards developed and promoted during the 1990s to provide clear direction concerning the school counselor's role and a method to assist in the planning, development, implementation, and evaluation of a comprehensive, developmental school counseling program (Campbell & Dahir 1997). These focus on nine National Standards in the three critical curriculum areas of academic, personal/social and career development. These are being adopted or adapted by states and localities across the nation.

ASCA National Model for School Counseling Programs. Naturally following the dissemination of the national Standards is a model that sets the stage for accountability and moves the standards towards implementation by providing school counselors with a process to develop district and school-based school counseling programs that maximize the achievement of all students while recognizing the importance of integrating with individual district and school needs and existing programs. (ASCA, 2003).

Transforming School Counseling Initiative. Education Trust's effort to bring school reform to the school counselor through research and training funded by DeWitt Wallace Foundation yielded a new model for school counselor roles, operations, and preparation that particularly specify data and its management for planning, advocacy, management, and assessment as critical (see Education Trust, 2003).

Government and Legislative Policy

States and districts adopting or adapting standards-based school counseling models. This creates local funding and compliance incentives as well as alters the system of school counseling evaluation. It clearly defines the need to use data to design, develop, implement, monitor, manage, and evaluate student development or school counseling programs, specifically a reliance on data is identified in the last two of the four critical areas of Foundation, Delivery System, Management System, and Accountability (Hatch & Bowers, 2002).

State accountability systems. As noted previously, states are being pushed, prompted, and assisted to develop accountability systems that create serious stakes to improve student achievement.

No Child Left Behind Act. This landmark federal legislation is centered on an achievement measured accountability system.

Within Education in General

Standardized testing for school achievement. The major outcome measure to verify claims of improved or maintained student achievement. This has become known as "high stakes" testing and the focus of much data analysis and interventions.

Movement of educators toward an action research model for teachers. (See for examples, Little & Houston 2003; McKay, 1992; Schmuck, 1997)

Periodic resource reallocations aligning with school improvement goals. School counselors across the nation have felt the need to prove themselves and their programs as worth retaining when resources are scarce (Studer & Allton, 1996; Studer & Sommers, 2000).

Lack of clear counselor roles and resulting evaluation. School counselor roles and responsibilities vary by school, district, and state and often are subject to the perception, experience, or whim of the building administrator. School counselors lack of attention to accountability means that others are evaluating the effectiveness and relevance of their roles and activities, often without appropriate information. This may leave them with differing notions of the centrality of school counseling to student achievement (Rhyne-Winkler & Wooten, 1996).

The movement toward individual school improvement goals and evaluations. As schools are increasingly responsible for setting and achieving their own improvement goals to increase achievement and decrease barriers to student attainment, the evolution of school counselors roles and responsibilities have not kept clear pace with these school goals. Thus teachers, administrators, and parents lack an understanding of the realities or possibilities of school counselors or program involvement in improving student achievement.

School administrators assign counselors and evaluate them on varying standards and on (mis)perceptions rather than on data or solid evidence of goal achievement based on counselor programs or based on their specialized skills and training (Cormany & Brantley, 1996; Murray, 1995; Studer & Allton, 1996; Studer & Sommers, 2000; Wittmer, 1993).

ACCOUNTABILITY AND SCHOOL COUNSELORS

Accountability is not a new term to school counselors. While accountability has been a topic for school counselors since the 1980s (see for examples Studer & Allton, 1996; to Studer & Sommers, 2000), it has become much more critical in recent years. School counselors are educators who employ specialized training and skills in counseling, consultation, coordination, and curriculum development and delivery to support the academic achievement of all students. The movement toward greater accountability in general has been matched by a movement to measure teachers, counselors, administrators, schools, and entire districts based on student achievement on standardized tests as well as other accepted indicators like attendance, course selection, school safety and behavior, graduation rates, retention rates, educator training and certification in field, and continuation to postsecondary education. When schools do not improve or meet stated goals, there is often punitive implications for individual teachers or schools. Often these are easy to associate with a teacher, a classroom, or a school but more difficult to associate with a particular school counselor. For example, an accountability reward system in one state requires that the improved students be assigned to a single teacher for credit for academic improvement. Such a system leaves counselors out of the equation in most instances. Consequently, as in other areas of school reform, school counselors have been distant from the conversations and activities about results-oriented school reforms and from the rewards or challenges that other educators face.

Recent focus for the Professional School Counselor journal identified the historical context for counselors and reform (Herr, 2002), an analysis of the factors promoting and inhibiting an appropriate role for school counselors in reform efforts (Adelman & Taylor, 2002), and the opportunity for school counselors as leaders, collaborators, and advocates to reform student learning and achievement (House & Hayes, 2002). Recent research has suggested that the core work of school counselors--implementing a school counseling program based on ASCA or similar state standards--can have positive impacts on core measures of student academic achievement as well as other areas critical to school improvement, (e.g., school safety, dropout prevention; see for examples Lapan, 2001; Lapan, Gysbers, & Sun, 1997; Napierkowski & Parsons 1995). It is thus no accident that there is an increased amount of attention on connecting school counseling programs with student academic achievement in empirical research. However, it is not that long ago that others noticed a lack of evaluative or effectiveness research in counseling (Vacc, Rhyne-Winkler, & Poidevant 1993). While the research and validation efforts of programs have increased, it is likely true that there was efficacy prior to measurement. This may be due, in part to the difficulty in identifying and measuring critical factors in counseling programs' effects on students. There is a tendency to measure what is readily available or measured (often inputs) rather than that which is important (outcomes or changes). While Herr contends that school counselors have been vital to effective school reform all along, he says this in the context of others claiming that school counselors are finally at the tight place and right time to participate (Lapan; Shepherd Johnson, 2000) or that comprehensive programs are poised to take part in the mainstream of school reform (Gysbers & Henderson, 2001). It appears that there exists a lack of agreement that school counseling programs are consistently measured to determine their contribution to student achievement or other school reform efforts.

What is Accountability?

The old adage that knowledge is power begs two questions in today's world: What kind of knowledge makes us powerful? and Over what domain does knowledge provide power? The kind of knowledge that makes school counselors powerful is the kind that relates directly to how school counseling programs are being measured in achieving specified goals. These might translate readily into a basic set of questions:

* Are we effectively helping students achieve through our programs or individual interventions?

* Conversely, are we effectively identifying the barriers that need to be overcome for all or some students?

* How can we understand our population and thus design effective programs or interventions? And, once implemented, what difference did these make?

* If we have this knowledge, over what are we gaining power?

This last question is critical to school counselor acceptance of accountability practices. There is potential for greater power over their destinies as professionals, connection to a demonstrable and important impact on the lives of students, a role in making decisions about the daily operation and function of schools, information upon which to base professional behavior and evaluation of counselor performance (and the performance of counselor programs) to ensure full participation in schools.

Measurement in education is meant to communicate information about problems or their solutions, about making consistent decisions about student performance and learning, about what discrepant performance or problems might be, about which problems to solve when faced with many, about how to solve them, and about how to allocate fiscal and human resources. These decisions affect the professional life of all educators and the lives of the children and families counselors serve. Thus if these critical decisions are being made based on data, it is in every school counselor's interest to have an arsenal of skills in collecting, manipulating, analyzing, presenting, and evaluating data. Counselors must become data-driven decision-makers and thus transform school counseling programs into responsive interventions based on information.

The use of data in making decisions means deliberate collection (identifying critical data to have and measure), analysis (with frequency that allows responsive changes in programs or interventions), data*driven decisions (decisions that are made only after questions are answered with data to back up problem identification and intervention selection), and data-based evaluation or accountability. Data helps us frame our questions about student performance, design, and implement interventions, and ask the critical question throughout the process, "Is there a better way?" Therefore, accountability is a process which includes measurement, data collection, decision making, and evaluation.

Why Haven't All Counselors Become "Accountable"?

It has been said that 80 percent of solving a problem is overcoming the resistance to the change it may require. Becoming a data-driven decision-maker in school counseling does not mean suddenly measuring everything one does nor does it mean making immediate and massive change. It means challenging resistance to change and systematically confronting the issues that keep counselors from making data-driven decisions about improving student performance. Resistance to change is well-documented throughout counseling literature and school counselors are well-acquainted with resistance in their consultants. It is worth reminding school counselors that they need to recognize and challenge their own resistance to change in preparing to engage in more accountable practices as well as focusing on the resistance presented by others. While much of the literature about resistance is about working with families in consultation, much of it can be applied to one's internal resistance to change as can the strategies that can be employed to address it (Campbell, 1993; Dougherty, 2000; Kampwirth, 2003).

School counselors may find themselves resisting making change in their professional practice because they have doubts about using data and applying it to a humanistic field. They see more work ahead without any signals of relief in sight. They see themselves swimming upstream and do not believe they have the strength to move against the crowd of counselor, teacher, or administrator colleagues. Counselors can recognize their own resistance by looking at indicators including support without substance or commitment, their refusal to participate, displacing responsibility on the principal or the school culture that isn't ready to make its decisions based on data, deferring to future time that never comes, feeling defensive about one's past practices, or relying on past practice. Each serves as a delaying tactic to avoid something about making a commitment to changing one's programs or practices that may involve a real lack of skill, a lack of confidence in one's ability to engage in a data-driven school counseling program, a lack of motivation to learn and do what it might take to make change. Moving past one's own resistance productively may mean delaying reactions to working with data until the results that others have achieved are available or planning to address each concern, especially those that involve a lack of training or skill with data, as there are workshops and training opportunities for counselors to improve their abilities to work with data. (See, for example, the National Center for School Counseling Research at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst that has established a summer institute on using data to help children succeed http://www. umass.edu/schoolcounseling/summer.htm).

No change occurs at once, plan to introduce a comprehensive program and measuring its effectiveness slowly, perhaps by tackling one small problem at a time in a new way. A method of addressing concerns about principals or teachers resisting changes in programming or practice is to work with one or two individually and focus on a problem critical to them using a data collection and analysis approach.

Counselors should not try to engage in this change alone if they are feeling overwhelmed or uncertain. If possible find a school counseling partner in school or work with a teacher partner who uses an action research approach in the classroom. If not, partners might be available in another school, another district, or through a listserve or at a University nearby. (If there is no University nearby, work electronically with an interested faculty member as many are looking for hands-on validation research projects.)

Another common concern causing counselors to resist using a data-based approach is lack of time or belief that working with data isn't part of a school counselor's job. Neither of these is true for the long term. All educators have a responsibility to be facile with data and to learn how to conduct action research to solve student achievement problems. Making this change should not be a full-time occupation. Introduce change to one aspect at a time. If the computer system is antiquated, there is a lack of skills or lack of needed data, advocate for an upgrade, training, or new data collection. Chances are that others have similar concerns. The computer system doesn't collect data, humans do. At the beginning, try to work with easily accessible data. Advocacy can be employed for different collection mechanisms or for different data to be collected. Individuals can work out simple ways to collect critical data. Many schools have entire cultures that resist using data at all, and there have been criticisms galore that states and schools have much more data than they ever use or use wisely (Bernhardt, 1998). Resistance may be a normal reaction to change process. A phrase from a former colleague might be helpful here. "Change is inevitable, suffering is optional." Or, "Accountability based on outcome data is inevitable, suffering to get there is optional."

While Studer and Sommers (2000) identified three kinds of accountability for counselors--personnel, program, and results--the focus here is largely on the latter two which involve program effectiveness for improvement and accountability and results evaluation against student achievement or other critical improvement targets. The latter conforms to the outcomes measures upon which other educators are being judged. There is much controversy about accountability measures used in most states (Davis & Williams, 1997; Wolf & White, 2000). These are typically singular one-dimensional standardized tests given to students once per year or at key points in their school career. However, they tend not to measure growth in students over time or many of the key indicators of student growth, maturity, and development that are typically the areas with which counselors have greatest comfort. As well, there are many factors that might affect student achievement including student mobility, management skills, or individual learning styles that are not tracked or measured (Johnson, 1997). Furthermore, since parents might be able to choose schools based on singular tests or measures of achievement, a true picture of student growth, achievement, and educator effectiveness might never emerge. Many of the key outcomes dependent upon school counseling curricula are not measured including social skills, citizenship and productive employment as these tend to be more longitudinal or individual growth and goal oriented.

TAKING THE PLUNGE: BECOMING A DATA SAVVY ACTION RESEARCHER

Counselors, like teachers who have been moving toward a model of classroom-based action research, can bring academic findings down to earth and can make immediate and targeted use of their findings. McKay (1992)'advocates for action research as a process that connects practitioners to change and school reform in a fundamental way. Dick (1997) defines action research as "a family of research methodologies which pursue action (or change) and research (or understanding) at the same time." It both emerges as understanding increases and continues to produce better results and understanding as it is repeated an developed. According to Schmuck (1997), action research makes sense for the practitioner who wishes to combine reflective practice with a research base. In fact, as a participant research process, action research addresses the problem that practitioners often face of applying research results immediately to their unique situations, plus the problems of having control groups, requirements of generalizability, and the requirement of separate objectivity in scientific research.

McNiff, Lomax, and Whitehead (1997) identify action research as specialized as it requires the researcher to be part of the research rather than separate from it. They see the benefits of such research as personal development, professional practice improvement, institutional improvements, and making a contribution to knowledge and/or society. As such, data-driven counseling and accountability--that seeks to identify problems; test solutions, strategies, and interventions; and engage in continuous improvement of its interventions and programs--could be considered action research. Johnson (1997) advocates for educational leaders to use data more effectively in all aspects of their operation and specifies that action research can be a preferred model for classroom teachers. It would extend well to counselors who are being challenged to collect and use data to identify and solve student achievement problems using counseling interventions and programs.

Steps to engage in action research adapted from common classroom and problem-solving models have close correlation to those involved in designing and evaluating a school counseling program and include:

1. Identifying a problem and goal for improvement (based on data and reflection as well as consultation with others).

2. Developing a vision and goal for how you would like to see it change. This leads to creating a problem statement that identifies who is affected, a conjecture about what is causing the problem, the goal for improvement, and what initial strategies' might address the problem. Think about how others might understand this; use easy-to-read data to support it and consult with others to get investment and agreement that this is worth spending valuable counselor time doing as well as to gather ideas. This means posing a research question that identifies the desired change in measurable terms that implies a timeline and data to collect.

3. Identify measurable changes that you would like to see (based on initial baseline data or pretests that are administered for a specific purpose). These will be the outcome measures upon which you judge success.

4. Develop a research plan and blueprint in the context of counselor activities and appropriate student development elements (academic, personal/ social, career).

5. Implement the plan with periodic measurement of change of effect.

6. Collect and analyze data using simple statistics and use information to determine if desired change occurred or if a program reached desired goals.

7. Report results in simple terms using graphic representations; share with colleagues for feedback and reflection. Use the results in adjusting the program or intervention.

As stated before, when not skilled or experienced with data and measuring effectiveness, start slowly. Pick one problem that is critical to the school's improvement plan and that might be personally or professionally interesting for research and tackling rather than taking on an entire program. When there is no formal coherent school counseling plan or program, pick the first area from among the standards that seems both critical to students and interesting, and work with what is already measured and revise it according to findings.

METHODS FOR GETTING AND USING YOUR DATA

Counselors can employ a variety of quantitative methods (data that can be numerically expressed and simply manipulated statistically) or qualitative methods (evaluation based on judgment of quality including interviews, case histories, portfolios) to demonstrate the efficacy of their interventions or programs. These can range from simple frequency data to percentages all of the way through longitudinal data for individual students, groups of students, schools or districts that might involve more advanced statistical analysis. Statistics need not be fancy, in fact straightforward is often preferred. Methods of data manipulation include tabulation--simple recording or tabulating counseling interventions, number of students seen, family contacts, workshops conducted and numbers who attended, number of groups, or special projects. Satisfaction surveys and questionnaires for students, families, other educators, administrators are important to determine a quality aspect of one's program or interventions. Many times these will involve setting benchmarks using existing or historical performance data or by collecting new data through pre-test measures when appropriate. Time/cost analysis that looks at the relationship between counselor time and program benefits or outcomes can help program planning efforts. Follow-up or time series compare students over a period of time or after they leave the program or school on selected variables. These can also be used to compare groups of students from year to year. More complex data methods involve case studies meant to assess counseling intervention effectiveness, or experimental or comparative studies that involve comparisons of target with control groups or time series of growth against the same group.

By disaggregating data--a term used to describe separating group data based on gender, race, age, or other identifiable characteristics (length of time in a school or district or class or teacher origin for particular subjects)--comparisons can be made within or between groups. Comparisons can also be made over time, that is, comparing individual student or groups of students' progress over time.

Data sources can include what the district and school already collects for its state accountability system. Johnson (1997) reminds us to make use of what is already available first before collecting new data. However, there are times when some new information is collected. This may include brief needs assessments, brief questionnaires to or about specific groups of students who are not performing, or focus groups with students, families, teachers, or other stakeholders to understand the problems or goals that might be appropriate to address. Once a problem is identified, other types of data may be needed and a collection plan or identification of existing data can be completed.

With the National Standards, counselors have curriculum frameworks in which to operate and to identify appropriate roles and interventions as they mine data to identify problems. For example, we might not expect counselors to directly remediate students having math difficulties, but if some or all of those students are identified as having social skills, communications, or behavior problems, a school counseling intervention under the personal/social skills standard would be appropriate. Schools with existing programs can identify link program elements with student achievement or performance and evaluate effectiveness of the entire program or aspects of it. Schools whose counselors are performing counseling tasks but whose plan is not fully developed or stated as a program can begin to sort their activities under each curriculum strand and evaluate those that appear to be most critical to school improvement goals or where counselors have questions about the effectiveness of the intervention or the resources an intervention requires. In this way a program is developed and/or revised over a period of time, with input from others, and with elements based on solid information and analysis.

Essentially these processes are required for planning a program, to demonstrate effectiveness of programs or interventions in the short-term (satisfaction surveys), in the mid-term (assessments of changes within 3 to 12 months), and in the longer term (following students over time or comparing similar groups each year to determine trends).

CONCLUSION

School counselors have run out of time and reasons to avoid developing standards-based programs and assessing their effectiveness. The pressures have converged, the supports within the profession are developed, the expectations are continuing to be clarified and increased, the skills of counselors are being upgraded and reorganized, school reform is here, and data-driven accountability is not going away.

The use of data to plan, implement and evaluate school counseling interventions and programs requires counselors to accept the change in their methods and for many to gain additional training in that area. As counselors move from their previous school counseling or student development programs to adopt or adapt new state or the ASCA model, it is anticipated that they will begin to transform their programs based on data, not only or largely based on history, tradition, intuition, or personal preference. By conducting needs assessments, aligning with school improvement goals, identifying achievement barriers specific to their students, and engaging other educators and stakeholders in the process, school counselors can effectively direct their professional expertise and time to contribute to achievement improvement. As data collection and analysis begins to shape program elements, data collection and analysis would naturally predict that evaluating and decision making based on findings and improvements in program design and implementation will follow. School counselors have some unique reflective skills to overcome their resistance, engage in productive program development and planning, and assess their efforts and thus will ultimately become skilled action researchers, accountable to student achievement, and will have a clear and significant role in school reform and improvement.

References

Adelman, H. S., & Taylor, L. (2002). School counselors and school reform: New directions, Professional School Counseling, 5, 235-248.

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

Bernhardt, V. L. (1998). Data analysis for comprehensive schoolwide improvement. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.

Campbell, C. A. (2003). Strategies for reducing parent resistance to consultation in the schools, Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 28, 83-91.

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

Cormany, R. B., & Brantley, W. A. (1996). It's our problem: An administrator looks at school guidance. The School Counselor, 43, 171-173.

Davies A., & Williams, R (1997). Accountability: Issues, possibilities, and guiding questions for districtwide assessment of student learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 76-79.

Dougherty, M. A. (2000). Psychological consultation and collaboration in school and community settings (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks-Cole.

Dick, B. (1997). Choosing action research [On line]. Retrieved March 14, 2003, from http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/ gcm/ar/arp/choice.html

Education Trust. (2003). Transforming school counseling. Retrieved March 16, 2003, from http://www.edtrust.org/ main/main/school_counseling.asp#summary

Frymier, J. (1996). Accountability in education: Still an evolving concept. Fastback 395. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa.

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

Hatch, T, & Bowers, J. (2002). A block to build on, ASCA School Counselor, pp. 13-19.

Herr, E. L. (2002). School reform and perspectives on the role of school counselors: A century of proposals for change. Professional School Counseling, 5, 220-234.

House, R., & Hayes, R. (2002). School counselors: Becoming key players in school reform. Professional School Counseling, 5, 249-256.

Johnson, J. H. (1997). Data-driven school improvement. ERIC Digest, Number 109. Eugene OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management.

Kampwirth, T. J. (2003). Collaborative consultation in the schools (2nd. ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Lapan, R.T. (2001). Results-based comprehensive school counselors and programs: Addressing the needs of all students. Professional School Counseling, 4, 289-299.

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 and Development, 75, 292-302.

Little, M. E., & Houston, D. (2003). Research into practice through professional development. Remedial and Special Education, 24(2), 75-89.

McKay, J. A. (1992). Professional development through action research. Journal of Staff Development, 13,18-21.

McNiff, J., Lomax, R, & Whitehead, J. (1997). Your and your action research project. London: Routledge.

Murray, B. A. (1995).Validating the role of the school counselor. The School Counselor, 43, 5-9.

Napierkowski, C. M., & Parsons, R. D. (1995). Diffusion of innovation: Implementing changes in school counselor roles and functions. The School Counselor, 42, 364-369.

Rhyne-Winkler, M. C., & Wooten, H. R. (1996). The school counselor portfolio: Professional development and accountability. The School Counselor, 44,146-150.

Schmuck, R. A. (1997). Practical action research for change. Arlington Heights, IL: IRI/Skylight Training & Pub.

Sherperd Johnson, L. (2000). Promoting professional identity in an era of educational reform. Professional School Counselor, 4, 31-40.

Studer, J., & Allton, J. (1996). The professional school counselor: Supporting and understanding the role of the guidance program. NASSP Bulletin 80, 53-61.

Studer, J. R., & Sommers, J. A. (2000). The professional school counselor and accountability. NASSP Bulletin, 84, 93-99.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2002). Education. Retrieved March 19, 2003, from http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/education.html

U.S. Census Bureau. (2003). Educational attainment. Retrieved March 25, 2003 from http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/educ-attn.html

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2002a). On the horizon: State accountability systems. Retrieved March 16, 2003 from http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SASA/stateacct/slide00 1.html

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (2002b). About SASA. Retrieved March 18, 2003 from http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/ SASA/aboutus.html

Vacc, N. A.; Rhyne-Winkler, M. C., & Poidevant, J. M. (1993). Evaluation and accountability of counseling services: Possible implications for a midsize school district. The School Counselor, 40, 260-266.

Wittmer, J. (1993). Managing your school counseling program: K12 developmental strategies. Minneapolis, MN: Educational Media Corp.

Wolf, D. R, & White, A. M. (2000). Charting the course of student growth. Educational Leadership 57(5), 6-11.

Madelyn L. Isaacs, Ph.D., is a professor and associate dean, Florida Gulf Coast University, Fort Myers, FL. E-mail: [e-mail]