School counseling now and in the future: a reaction.

Here, at the beginning of the 21st Century, the focus in the December 2001 issue of Professional School Counseling provided an opportunity for school counselors and counselor educators to stop and reflect on the status of the profession. The articles by Baker (2001) and Gysbers (2001) reminded us of how far the profession has come and how many people have influenced school counseling and worked tirelessly on its behalf. Nevertheless, all four articles reminded readers of how much work remains if school counseling is to meet the needs of all students in an increasingly diverse country.

Common Themes

While decidedly different in their focus and tone, the four articles on school counseling past, present, and future had several common themes, each appearing in at least three of the four articles. The themes that we identified focused primarily on the belief that school counselors (a) struggle with role definition, (b) face increasingly diverse student populations, (c) should serve all students, (d) need to utilize technology to improve their school counseling programs, and (e) must engage in ongoing professional development. Two final themes centered around the nature and impact of school counseling programs and visions of the future of school counseling.

We reflect on these articles as counselor educators at a large, Midwestern university, deeply invested in and involved in school counseling reform. It is from this perspective we first comment on and then give our perspectives regarding file common themes we noted in the four articles. Next, we present our own vision of the future of school counseling and school counselor preparation, which is vested heavily in the national initiative of The Education Trust (1997).

School Counselor Role

As hard as it is to believe, school counselors are still struggling with role definition. Paisley and McMahon (2001) argued that the ongoing debate over role definition is probably the most significant challenge facing school counselors. Although the current national focus is on counseling programs rather than counseling services, the authors noted that individual school counselors are still struggling with priorities. The national agenda for school counseling changes its focus as it reacts to national agendas and events, moving from an emphasis on at-risk students, to school violence, and more recently to academic achievement. As a result, school counselors are pulled in different directions. Baker (2001) also commented on the many and varied demands on school counselors, noting more than a dozen different student populations that have been identified in the literature as needing special assistance.

Gysbers (2001), although not addressing role definition as directly as the others, noted that there have been and continues to be a wide variety of purposes advanced for school counseling. He argued that these multiple purposes could result in unfulfilled expectations, role conflict for counselors as they try to respond to different demands, and fragmentation among the specialty as some school counselors respond to mental health concerns while others respond to career or educational issues. Gysbers argued it is rime for the American School Counselor Association (ASCA) to assume a leadership role in defining a clear purpose/mission for school counselors. Certainly ASCA's development of the National Standards for School Counseling Programs (Campbell & Dahir, 1997) is the kind of leadership to which he was referring.

Paisley and McMahon (2001) suggested that a "stable yet flexible" idea of school counseling actually does exist. They believe "school counseling programs are increasingly anchored in proactive interventions associated with comprehensive, developmental, and collaborative approaches" (p. 110). Additionally, they maintained counselors can define their role better by recognizing they cannot do their work alone and need to collaborate with other stakeholders. Additionally, Paisley and McMahon (2001) also pointed to the necessity of setting appropriate professional boundaries. Counselors need "their best human relations and assertiveness skills' (p. 111) to establish and maintain professional boundaries while limiting the number of noncounseling duties in which they engage.

We share the concerns the authors expressed about the role ambiguity of school counselors and believe that uncertainty regarding the role of school counselors is an important issue stemming from several circumstances. We believe part of the confusion results from the use of the term guidance to describe guidance counselors and guidance programs (Schmidt, 1999). The inconsistency in the use of terms to describe who school counselors are and what they do can only confuse principals, teachers, and parents. This same inconsistency in language was found in the four feature articles in Professional School Counseling. While Baker (2001), Green and Keys (2001), and Paisley and McMahon (2001) used the terms school counseling and developmental school counseling programs to describe the work of school counselors, Gysbers (2001) wrote about guidance and counseling and guidance and counseling programs. In our opinion, the continued failure to come to consensus on language is inexplicable and only serves to continue the confusion about who school counselors are and what they do.

The lack of consistent criteria for those desiring to become school counselors also has contributed to the confusion about their role. Certification of school counselors varies from state to state. Only recently have most states required a minimum of a master's degree to obtain certification as a school counselor (Randolph & Masker, 1997). Those entering schools without the necessary preparation for their role are willing to take on inappropriate activities such as clerical tasks, covering classes if teachers are not available, lunch, and other activities assigned by busy administrators looking for help.

Finally, school counselors and counselor educators have contributed to role confusion. School counselors have settled for ambiguous job descriptions and accepted evaluations that reflect teaching, not counseling, duties. In our opinion, they have failed to assert themselves and explain their roles clearly to others. We question whether counselor education programs have successfully taught prospective counselors how to implement their role. Certainly, counselor educators must ask themselves why so many school counselors spend a significant portion of their professional lives engaged in noncounseling duties.

Struggling With Diversity

School counselors face increasingly diverse student populations. Gysbers (2001) maintained that school counselors must understand students' cultural, sociological, psychologicaL economic, and family backgrounds. Paisley and McMahon (2001) cited the importance of the Multicultural Counseling Competencies and Standards (Sue, Arredondo, & McDavis, 1992) in the preparation of counselors but lamented the fact that many counselor preparation programs offer only one course in cross-cultural counseling and that many of the psychological and educational theories and practices taught in graduate training are derived largely from a Eurocentric perspective. This, coupled with the number of practicing school counselors who have had no education in multicultural counseling, presents a major challenge to school counseling.

We agree that many school counselors as well as prospective counselors have little experience with students from different cultures and may not know their needs and/or problems. Obviously, it is important for students to view school counselors as approachable and someone they can trust. School counselors need to recognize the importance of being sensitive and open to learning about differing cultures. We believe that, in addition to modeling sensitivity and openness, counselors must advocate for culturally compatible curriculum and learning environments. Specifically, counselors can encourage teachers to (a) include diverse perspectives and different cultural contributions and experiences in the curriculum, (b) use nonsexist language, (c) use instructional materials and design bulletin boards or other visual displays that are free of sexist and racist language, and (d) remove barriers to equal access to rigorous courses for all students. We applaud the practice of active counseling, where school counselors get out of their offices and meet students in their milieu, either within or outside the school (Herring, 1997). Active counseling is one way to reach out to students who would not typically come to the counselor's office.

Serving All Students

Gysbers (2001) proposed that school counselors serve all students. He believes the primary way to reach all students is by implementing comprehensive school counseling programs that include classroom guidance activities.

Green and Keys (2001), while not directly suggesting that counselors should serve all students, encouraged counselors to shift from direct services toward more indirect services. In other words, school counselors should engage in more consultation, collaboration, advocacy, and program coordination. They believe that counselors who adopt an indirect-services approach could affect more change in students' lives.

While we agree that all students probably can benefit from counseling programs, today's emphasis on high-stakes testing has resulted in enormous pressure on teachers to spend as much time as possible teaching academic subjects. Thus, school counselors are experiencing more and more difficulty gaining access to classrooms to deliver guidance-oriented information and activities. In addition, given the ratio that school counselors face, we believe it is no longer possible for them to serve all students in any meaningful way. There are not enough counselors in schools (Walsh, Howard, & Buckley, 1999), and we see no evidence that the situation will improve. We agree with Green and Keys (2001) that school counselors should engage in more consultation, advocacy, and collaboration with others. Only then can they impact the lives of a significant percentage of the students in their schools.

Utilizing Technology

Today's technology offers counselors opportunities for professional growth as well as resources to help them serve students more effectively and efficiently. Paisley and McMahon (2001) suggested several ways counselors could benefit from technology, but admit most counselors will need extensive professional development to use technology as well as supportive school districts to purchase the necessary equipment. Green and Keys (2001) also see knowledge of technology as essential.

We cannot imagine a counselor functioning effectively without using today's technology. For example, the availability of Web-based career information provides both the counselor and student with more career information than ever before. Additionally, high school counselors can facilitate their students' exploration of colleges and other postsecondary options via the Internet. Already prepared parent and staff newsletters and overhead masters explaining financial aid can be downloaded from several different sites. The American School Counselor Association's Web site provides timely information about the profession and available resources. Technology will continue to enhance the work of the school counselor. Many schools provide teachers and other educators both computers and the training to use them. Counselors must be encouraged to take advantage of the learning opportunities their schools may be offering.

Engaging in Professional Development

Professional development is essential to developing professional identity as well as improving the knowledge and skills of practicing professionals. Paisley and McMahon (2001) contend that if school counselors are to develop professionally, they must take part in two types of continuing education--specific skill development (e.g., improving cross-cultural, technological, or diagnostic skills) and clinical supervision.

Professional development to improve their cross-cultural competence is critical to helping counselors learn how to transform the challenge of working with diverse populations into an opportunity. According to Paisley and McMahon (2001), school counselors need to not only enhance their cross-cultural skills but also receive supervision regarding their cultural competence. They believe practicing school counselors must actively seek the additional education and supervision they need to work with students from diverse backgrounds and situations. In addition, school counseling preparation programs must do a more effective job in preparing new counselors to function as leaders in what Lee (2001) described as "culturally responsive schools.'

Green and Keys (2001) did not address professional development specifically but suggested that counselors need to learn how to use evidence-based best practices. They described these practices as those prevention strategies and programs that have been determined to be effective based on substantial research and evaluation. In addition, the authors encouraged school counselors to learn about new and developing methods of program evaluation to determine their effectiveness.

Baker (2001) agreed that the efforts of professional associations, scholars, and funding agencies to improve school counseling should be nurtured. However, he was less optimistic about these efforts reaching practicing school counselors.

While the majority of counselors, supervisors, counselor educators, and professional associations support professional development, the availability, quality, and impact of professional development for school counselors nationwide has not been studied. School counselors work in systems that are accustomed to providing professional development for teachers but not necessarily for other professionals in schools. Most school counselors are not members of the American School Counselor Association. They do not receive journals designed to improve their practice nor hear about national conferences where they can learn about new trends and interventions. Advocating for increased professional development seems very logical and is a long-standing practice in counseling. However, reaching those individuals who do not take responsibility for their own learning will not be easy and may reflect a lack of professional identity among school counselors.

Nature and Impact of School Counseling Programs

The principal elements of comprehensive developmental guidance and counseling programs are different from those of a traditional service-delivery approach. In comprehensive programs, administrative, clerical, and crisis-oriented interventions are de-emphasized. Rather, such programs include sequential guidance activities and structured group experiences designed to help students develop skills in personal, social, and educational areas (Sink & MacDonald, 1998). All students have access to counselors.

While authors of three of the four articles generally view comprehensive developmental counseling programs positively, they do not agree on the effectiveness of these programs. As noted earlier, Green and Keys (2001) maintained that little research exists to suggest that these programs, as currently conceptualized and implemented, result in positive development for all students. They reminded readers that MacDonald and Sink (1999) found that many comprehensive developmental programs emphasized personal/social development over academic and career development and that weak connections existed between program intent and actual program components, Green and Keys (2001) also argued that school counseling programs do not meet the needs of students from diverse backgrounds and pointed to research that indicates that developmental school counseling programs have had limited impact on students of color and students from low socioeconomic backgrounds (Lapan, Gysbers, & Sun, 1997).

Green and Keys (2001) noted the lack of outcomes-based program evaluations to justify the resources that go into developmental school counseling programs. On the other hand, Gysbers (2001) cited research being conducted in Missouri and Utah that appears to show that school counselors who have the necessary resources and work within the structure of a comprehensive guidance program do "contribute to positive student academic and career development as well as the development of positive and safe learning climates in schools" (p. 103).

Although the establishment of comprehensive guidance programs nationwide is reported to have advanced significantly during the past two decades (Sink & MacDonald, 1998), we agree that longitudinal research is needed. Currently, little research is available to support the efficacy of comprehensive school counseling programs. If the trend toward comprehensive developmental school counseling programs is to continue, then longitudinal programmatic research is needed to assess its value (Sexton, Whiston, Bleuer, & Walz, 1997).

Green and Keys (2001) not only questioned the impact of comprehensive school counseling programs but also challenged the developmental models that form the basis of these programs. They do not believe that stage models of development are sufficient to address the many, complex factors that characterize the development of urban youth. Instead, they suggested that Bronfenbrenner's (1979) ecological paradigm is an appropriate conceptual framework for understanding development in an urban context. Certainly others have questioned the universal application of existing developmental models to students of color, disadvantaged youths, and sexual orientation minorities (e.g., Thompson, 1998). Green and Keys (2001) suggested that youth who grow up in urban areas often come to school with developmental needs that are different than those from advantaged neighborhoods. They proposed a reexamination of the direction of school counseling programs based on a development-in-context paradigm.

We also question whether the stage models of development are an adequate foundation upon which to build school counseling programs. We believe that the context in which a school counseling program is implemented must be taken into consideration. In fact, we believe the context in which counselors work has been neglected in the school counseling literature. Obviously, the contexts of urban schools are far different than those in suburban or rural communities. The context or environment of some schools supports student development and academic achievement, and some do not. For example, many suburban schools across the country serve students and their parents well. In the Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup 33rd Annual Poll (Rose & Gallup, 2001), 62% of public school parents awarded A's or B's to schools in their own community. Schools in urban communities are the ones seen as failing by most parents, employers, and educators (Darling-Hammond, 1999). Lack of funds, educators teaching in fields in which they are not certified, outdated texts, and deteriorating buildings are problems that some face daily. Many of the children attending these schools come from poor and declining neighborhoods and stressed families. School counselors in these urban schools face far different problems from those of counselors in suburban schools. To ignore this reality is naive. In our opinion, Green and Keys'(2001) ideas regarding context warrant further exploration by the counseling community.

Visions of the Future

Three of the four authors address the future of school counseling specifically. Gysbers' (2001) vision for "guidance and counseling" in the 21st Century "is fully implemented comprehensive guidance and counseling programs in every school district in the United States, serving all students and their parents staffed by active, involved school counselors' (p. 103). Paisley and McMahon's (2001) ideal school counselor will design and implement a school counseling program that involves multiple stakeholders and clearly articulates the program's rationale, assumptions, and mission. In addition, Paisley and McMahon see the ideal school counselor as culturally and technologically competent, possessing excellent clinical skills, leading groups effective1y, advocating for children and adolescents, and teaming and collaborating with other stakeholders. Green and Keys (2001) did not specifically address a future vision of counseling, but they did recommend that school counselors design counseling programs to reflect a development-in-context paradigm. This will require the use of a systemic-ecological framework for problem solving, an indirect services model that relies on collaboration, and the use of evidence-based best practices.

Baker (2001) is not as optimistic about the future as the other authors. He observed that school counselors have not changed much in the past 20 years, do not belong to professional associations, and have little confidence in their classroom guidance/teaching and individual counseling skills. Further, he argued teachers are reluctant to allow rime for classroom guidance, and administrators still view counselors as existing to fulfill administrative agendas.

In some respects, the four feature articles seem to be calling for more of the same rather than boldly marching into the 21st Century. In our opinion, education and schooling is experiencing major changes and will continue to do so. School counseling must adapt to the changing context in which it finds itself. We are not certain of exactly how it should change; however, we do believe that more of the same will not be enough. In the following paragraphs we suggest an alternative view of the future based on a national initiative being led by The Education Trust. We propose this alternative view as a beginning point in a discussion that we believe must occur if school counseling is to survive.

Additional Issues for School Counseling

Baker (2001), Gysbers (2001), Paisley and McMahon (2001), and Green and Keys (2001) have identified some of the major challenges facing school counseling and suggested possible strategies to meet those challenges. However, we believe the articles omitted or provided inadequate discussion of at least three significant issues:

* A new vision for school counseling being proposed by The Education Trust

* How counselor preparation needs to change

* The impact or influence of state departments of education

A New Vision of School Counseling

The mission for schools in the 21st Century focuses squarely on effective teaching and learning (The Education Trust, 1997). Standards-based education reform, with a relentless call for accountability and increased academic achievement for all students, comes at a time of booming technological advances and rapidly changing diversity in our nation's schools. The convergence of these forces provides a perfect opportunity for re-thinking and transforming the role of school counseling so that it is compatible with the mission of schools.

A new vision of school counseling can move counseling from a position of maintaining the status quo to one of cutting-edge social action and to advocacy for all students--especially students of color who have not been served well in the past. To this end, The Education Trust (1997), a social advocacy organization with the goal of improving schools, has proposed a vision that encourages counselors to (a) advocate for rigorous academic preparation of all students and equitable treatment of all students, (b) consult with teachers and parents to improve students' learning skills and resolve educational problems, (c) expand opportunities for students to broaden their educational and career goals, (d) reach out and collaborate with the community to remove barriers to student learning, (e) plan, promote, and coordinate prevention programs, advising programs, and mentoring programs to expand students' options; and (f) lead educational reform in their buildings. In other words, this vision calls for counselors to engage in empowering and change-oriented activities rather than the quasi-administrative and clerical activities that Baker (2001) refered to in his article.

To implement this kind of vision, counselors will need new skills. They will need to know how to assess and use data to identify barriers that impede student learning. They will need to learn leadership skills and advocacy skills as well as skills needed to promote change in already established systems. In addition, they will need to learn how to consult with teachers and parents as well as learning how to broker services in the community.

We believe The Education Trust vision deserves more attention from the school counseling community. It has the potential to change school counseling from an ancillary service-oriented profession to one that becomes a critical player in accomplishing the primary mission of schools: academic achievement for all students. The emphasis on leadership, advocacy, and consulting and collaborating with teachers and parents reminds school counselors that they can make a difference in their students' lives by working with and through others.

Counselor Preparation

The four feature articles in the December 2001 issue of Professional School Counseling gave little attention to counselor preparation. In our opinion, if school counseling is to change in any significant way, counselor preparation programs must change also. Some have proposed specific areas in which counselor education needs to change such as developing collaborative training opportunities with teachers, administrators, and school psychologists (The Education Trust, 1997). Others noted that counselor educators have not designed their curricula to address advocacy, question the status quo, and change systems (e.g., Capuzzi, 1998). Paisley and McMahon (2001) suggested that limited exposure to cross-cultural standards and competencies is not adequate to prepare culturally competent school counselors. Recently, counselor education programs have been encouraged to:

* Revise admission and retention processes to attempt to attract, select, and retain quality candidates interested in meeting the needs of low income and minority students.

* Integrate theory and practice more fully and introduce field experiences earlier in the preparation program.

* Emphasize counselor knowledge and skills around academic and career guidance for all students and include content in the curriculum related to national educational reform initiatives involving teaching, learning, assessment, advocacy skills, and skills needed to effect change in difficult contexts.

* Include field-based courses emphasizing experiential learning, using cohort training groups and working with diverse student populations.

* Collaborate with K-12 schools and revise methods of supporting new counselors as they enter the profession.

* Establish close working relationships with school districts to solicit feedback about the program from school counselors and to help the district utilize their counselors more effectively.

* Develop working relationships with state departments of education partners to ensure that certification changes needed for school counselor training are instituted and supported.

* Ensure that counselor education faculty engage in professional development related to their professional needs and student and institutional needs. (The Education Trust, 2000)

State Departments of Education

Baker (2001), Gysbers (2001), Paisley and McMahon (2001), and Green and Keys (2001) did not appear to see a role for state directors of guidance or state departments of education in the future of school counseling. Given the rule-making authority of state education departments in the certification of school counselors, we are surprised they were omitted. Certification requirements for school counselors are reviewed periodically by most state agencies. Sometimes these reviews provide opportunities to upgrade counselor preparation. For example, Ohio now requires all counselor preparation programs to meet the Council for the Accreditation of Counseling and Related Programs Standards. A change of this magnitude has the potential to improve the quality of future school counselors. At the very least, any statewide initiatives in school counseling will require the state education agency's support. It seems shortsighted not to include them in our vision for the future.

Conclusion

Reviewing the articles by Baker (2001), Gysbers (2001), Paisley and McMahon (2001), and Green and Keys (2001) caused us to reflect on the current state of school counseling as well as its future. It is clear that school counselors continue to struggle to maintain an identity and an accessible presence to all students in schools with student populations that are increasingly diverse. Problems such as poverty, violence, increasing severity of mental health issues of students, and inequitable funding have challenged school counselors and school counseling programs to their limits. Yet, it is precisely because these and other challenges exist that school counselors and the school counseling profession must face the future with the resolve necessary to make significant changes. Although school counselors and counselor educators can take the opportunity of this reflective look at the profession to celebrate its successes, it is important to recognize that there is much work to be done at all levels of the profession. Every person in the profession--from practicing counselors, to counselor educators, to prospective counselors--must meet the challenges head-on.

Practicing counselors must be encouraged to establish a professional identity, to join counseling organizations, and to work with their administrators to help administrators understand and support the importance of professional development for school counselors. Counselor education programs also must change in order to support this new vision of school counseling. It is our opinion that the preparation of counselors with individual and group counseling and guidance skills for academic, career, and personal/social counseling continues to be necessary, but is no longer sufficient. Today's schools require counselors with the skills to lead change in systems, to collaborate with key stakeholders, to coordinate programs designed to improve student achievement, to use data and technology to promote change, and to advocate for all students. It is time to transform school counseling.

References

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

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

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

Capuzzi, D. (1998). Addressing the needs of at-risk youth: Early prevention and systemic intervention. In C. C. Lee & G. R. Walz (Eds.), Social action: A mandate for counselors (pp. 99-116). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). The right to learn. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Education Trust. (1997). The national guidance and counseling reform program. Washington, DC: Author.

Education Trust. (2000). Education watch. Washington, DC: Author.

Green, A., & Keys, S. G. (2001). Expanding the developmental school counseling paradigm: 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.

Herring, R.D. (1997). Multicultural counseling in the schools. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.

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.

Lee, C. C. (2001). Culturally responsive school counselors and programs: Addressing the needs of all students. Professional School Counseling, 4, 257-261.

MacDonald, G., & Sink, C. A. (1999). A qualitative developmental analysis of comprehensive guidance programmes in schools in the United States. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 27, 415-430.

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

Rose, L. C., & Gallup, A. M. (2001). The 33rd annual Phi Delta Kappa/gallup poll of the public's attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 83, 41-58.

Randolph, D. L., & Masker, T. (1997). Teacher certification and the counselor: A follow-up survey of school counselor certification requirements. ACES Spectrum, 57, 6-8.

Schmidt, J. J. (1999). Counseling in schools. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Sexton, T. L., Whiston, S. C., Bleuer, J. C., & Walz, G. R. (1997). Integrating outcome research into counseling practice and training. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.

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

Sue, D. W., Arredondo, P., & McDavis, R. J. (1992). Multicultural counseling competencies and standards: A call to the profession. Journal of Counseling and Development, 70, 477-486.

Thompson, R. A. (1998). Nurturing an endangered generation: Empowering youth with critical social, emotional, and cognitive skills. Washington, DC: Accelerated Development.

Walsh, M. E., Howard, K. A., & Buckley, M. A. (1999). School counselors in school-community partnerships: Opportunities and challenges. Professional School Counseling, 2, 349-356.

Susan Jones Sears, Ph.D.,
LPCC, and Darcy Haag
Granello, Ph.D., LPCC, are
both associate professors of
Counselor Education at The Ohio
State University, Columbus. Email:
[e-mail]