Improving school guidance and counseling practices through effective and sustained state leadership: a response to Miller.

The article by Dean Miller tells a story, a very important story about how guidance supervisors at the state level served as catalysts and leaders in a sustained effort to improve school guidance and counseling practices. The article, "How Collaboration and Research Can Affect School Counseling Practices: The Minnesota Story," describes how they were instrumental in bringing relevant groups together and in initiating the necessary research to improve these practices. Miller knows this story better than anyone because, as a former state supervisor of guidance and counseling in Minnesota, he was directly involved in this sustained effort.

This story is important for several reasons. First, the article describes an exciting period of time in the evolution of guidance and counseling in the schools. The 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s witnessed many substantial improvements in school guidance and counseling, in part propelled by collaboration and research such as that described in Miller's article. Second, his article highlights the critical role that state supervisors of guidance and counseling can and do play. They are in key positions to make things happen statewide. Personnel in colleges and universities, professional associations, and school counselors can and do influence practice. However, it is often difficult to orchestrate and coordinate statewide work without leadership at the state level. It can be done but it is very difficult.

STATE LEADERSHIP FOR GUIDANCE AND COUNSELING

Today, the importance of state leadership for guidance and counseling is often overlooked and undervalued. This is unfortunate, because as Miller reminded us, state supervisors of guidance and counseling did and do play important roles in strengthening guidance and counseling in the schools through collaboration and the promotion of research. A few readers today may not understand Miller's premise about state leadership, so some background may be useful. Miller's article, describing what happened in Minnesota, gives me the opportunity, to highlight the importance of state leadership and the work of state supervisors across the country such as Dean Miller and several of his colleagues in Minnesota including Julius Kerlan and Reynold Erickson. I start with when and how state-level guidance and counseling supervisors were first employed. Then I briefly describe how these positions evolved over time. Finally, I discuss the importance of state-level guidance and counseling leadership for today and tomorrow.

In the Beginning

According to Kitson (1948), New York state appointed the first supervisor of guidance and counseling in 1929, followed by Vermont in 1936. Then, through the Smith-Hughes Act (An Act to Provide for the Promotion of Vocational Education, 1917) and the George-Deen Act (An Act to Provide for the Further Development of Vocational Education, 1936), money became available to "maintain programs of state supervision of occupational information and guidance" (Studebaker, 1938, p. 105). As a result, by 1947, 41 states had appointed supervisors of guidance (Kitson).

As the number of state supervisors grew during this early time period, they formed an association, the National Association of Guidance Supervisors. They were a powerful group that heavily influenced the direction of guidance and counseling in this country during the late 1930s, the 1940s, and 1950s. As more counselor educators (then called counselor trainers) became involved, the title of the organization changed to become the National Association of Guidance Supervisors and Counselor Trainers. Finally, today we have the Association for Counselor Education and Supervision (Wellman, 1978).

As an example of their influence, in 1948, with funds from the Vocational Education Act of 1946 (P.L. 79-586), commonly referred to as the George-Barden Act, state guidance and counseling supervisors and counselor trainers met to establish the basic training program for school counselors. Between 1948 and 1950, eight training modules were prepared. These modules and the work of state leaders of guidance and counseling laid the foundation for the education of school counselors, and elements of this foundation remain even to this day.

Evolution of State Supervision

In 1966, at a national conference for state supervisors of guidance, Hoyt (1967) gave a presentation titled "The Influence of the State Supervisor on the Future of Vocational Guidance." He described three time periods of influence. He suggested that from 1938 to 1958 supervisors had great influence, but as the years unfolded this influence waned, at least in some states.

Why did this happen? While there are probably many reasons for the decline of influence of state leadership, one reason I believe this happened had to do with the funding of state supervisors of guidance and counseling. Remember that initial support for state guidance and counseling leadership came from federal Vocational Education legislation. In 1958, that changed with the passage of the National Defense Education Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-864). Some states began supporting state supervisors with funds other than those from Vocational Education. The result was that in these states there were two kinds of state supervisors, one supported by Vocational Education and one supported by other funds, each housed in a different division. This situation continues to exist today in a number of states. In other states, however, state supervisors of guidance and counseling continued to be supported by Vocational Education (Career and Technical Education) funds, and this situation also continues today.

Why is funding important? In the 1960s, when federal funding for P.L. 85-864 ended, those states that chose to support state supervision with other funds were left to support guidance and counseling leadership from other sources. Some states were successful while other states were not. Because federal legislation from Vocational Education has been continually reauthorized since 1917, those states that chose to support state-level supervision with these funds continue to fund guidance and counseling supervisors today. For example, in Missouri, there is a full-time director of guidance and placement and two full-time supervisors housed in the Division of Career Education.

What Is the Story Today?

Guidance and counseling supervision at the state level today is a mixed picture. In some states the dual system of state supervisors continues. In other states there are one or more full-time people, while in still other states there is one person identified, but that person is only a guidance and counseling supervisor part of the time because of other duties assigned. In still other states, there is no one designated as a state-level guidance and counseling supervisor.

State-level supervision of guidance and counseling, once in a position of strength across the nation, remains, but it has changed from what it was during the early years. To illustrate this point, witness the name of the early association of state leaders--the National Association of Guidance Supervisors. Then counselor educators (counselor trainers) were added and the title was changed to the National Association of Guidance Supervisors and Counselor Trainers. Today we have the Association for Counselor Education and Supervision (ACES). Notice that counselor educators and supervisors have changed places. Counselor educators are first in the title and supervisors (supervision) are last.

In addition to ACES today, there is another organization for state-level supervisors of guidance and counseling called the National Consortium of State Guidance Leadership. The membership consists mainly of supervisors of guidance and counseling from about 25 states. The organization's mission is to enhance career guidance and counseling, leadership, and training. In addition, its mission is to support research and facilitate the development and implementation of guidance and counseling programs at the local level. This organization and its members are strong voices for state-level guidance and counseling supervisors.

THE IMPORTANCE OF STATE LEADERSHIP

Miller's article traces the work of state supervisors of guidance and counseling who collaborated with counselor educators, school counseling organizations, and school counselors and administrators over a sustained period of time. I believe that the outcomes from these collaborative efforts--the research and the resulting changes in certification and practices in school counseling in Minnesota schools--were a direct result of leadership at the state level. In my opinion, these changes would not have occurred to the degree they did without the strong state leadership that existed in Minnesota during that time period.

Since the late 1950s, when I began my work in the field of guidance and counseling, I have been privileged to work with many state supervisors of guidance and counseling across the country including Dean Miller and his colleagues in Minnesota. I have seen firsthand their contributions to improving the work of school counselors through the leadership they provide. They work within the structure of state departments of education leveraging federal and state funds and resources to support the development and implementation of comprehensive guidance and counseling programs at the local level. State models for comprehensive guidance and counseling programs have been developed and supported through their leadership in many states. In this age of accountability, they also are facilitating evaluation efforts at state and local levels as well as working with state school counselor organizations to support professional development.

Effective and accountable comprehensive guidance and counseling programs at the local level can and do exist in states without strong full-time state leadership. However, where strong state leadership is present, I have observed that there are many more such programs statewide. Why is this so? I believe that this is so because full-time state-level supervisors for guidance and counseling are in positions to bring relevant groups together to work on program development and implementation, to develop state-level accountability standards tied to state-level program accreditation, and to develop standards for school counselor preparation.

In closing, I thank Miller for reminding us about the importance of state-level supervision for guidance and counseling with his description of what happened in Minnesota in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. While we need leadership at all levels, I believe that strong leadership at the state level is a key to developing effective and accountable comprehensive guidance and counseling programs at the local level. As Miller pointed out, strong state leadership can bring all relevant parties together with a common vision and language to establish guidance and counseling as an integral and central program within education that can contribute in substantial ways to student success, including academic achievement, school improvement, and school reform.

References

An Act to Provide for the Further Development of Vocational Education, Pub. No. 673, 74th Congress, Session II, Chapter 541, June 8, 1936.

An Act to Provide for the Promotion of Vocational Education, Pub. No. 347, 64th Congress, Session II, Chapter 114, February 23,1917.

Hoyt, K. B. (1967).The influence of the state supervisor on the future of vocational guidance. In N. C. Gysbers (Ed.), Proceedings of national seminar on vocational guidance (pp. 8-13).Washington, DC: American Vocational Association and American Personnel and Guidance Association.

Kitson, H. D. (1948).Turnover among supervisors of guidance in the state departments of education. Occupations, 24, 285-287.

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

Studebaker, J.W. (1938).The new national occupational information and guidance services. Occupations, 17, 101-105.

Vocational Education Act of 1946, Pub. L. No. 79-586, 60, Part 1, Stat. 775-778 (1946).

Wellman, F. E. (1978). U.S. Office of Education administrative unit: Past, present, and future. Unpublished manuscript, University of Missouri-Columbia.

Norman C. Gysbers, Ph.D., is a professor with distinction, Department of Educational, School, and Counseling Psychology, University of Missouri-Columbia. E-mail: [e-mail]