The ASCA National Model, accountability, and establishing causal links between school counselors' activities and student outcomes: a reply to sink.

Sink takes exception to two of the assertions made in the article "School Counselors, Comprehensive School Counseling Programs, and Academic Achievement: Are School Counselors Promising More Than They Can Deliver?" In this article, the authors respond to Sink's concerns and reassert their contentions that the focus of research dealing with school counseling should be on establishing causal links between school counselors' interventions and outcomes rather than school counseling programs.

**********

In our article "School Counselors, Comprehensive School Counseling Programs, and Academic Achievement: Are School Counselors Promising More Than They Can Deliver?" we make three points. First, embedded in the American School Counselor Association (ASCA) statement is the belief that school counselors can improve academic achievement by the design and implementation of comprehensive school counseling programs. Second, based on our review of the literature, we conclude that it is premature to assume that comprehensive school counseling programs will in fact result in increased academic achievement. Third, we suggest that it would be a wiser course of action for school counselors to identify and research interventions such as peer tutoring that show promise of raising the achievement of students. Our rationale for the latter recommendation is that it seems unlikely that research that focuses on programmatic outcomes will be able to clearly link counselor effort and increased achievement because of the variety of factors that influence achievement. Put somewhat differently, if school counselors expect to be credited with raising student achievement, they must provide clear-cut evidence that this occurs because of their interventions.

In "Comprehensive School Counseling Programs and Academic Achievement--A Rejoinder to Brown and Trusty," Sink's thoughtful review of our article, he raises some interesting issues that will be addressed here. First, he raises the issue regarding whether the framers of the ASCA National Model[R] (ASCA, 2003) expected that a causal relationship would be established among comprehensive school counseling programs in either the near or far term. He goes on to suggest that in fact the authors of the ASCA National Model intended that school counselors be collaborators and/or catalysts in the academic process and that they only need document the nature of their collaboration. He cites the Executive Summary of the ASCA National Model to shore up his argument that there was no intent among the framers of the model that a causal link be established between the efforts of school counselors and student achievement. The following statements in the Introduction seem to contradict the point that Sink is trying to make: "It [the model] not only answers the question, 'What do school counselors do?' but requires school counselors to respond to the question, 'How are students different as a result of what we do ]italics added]?'" (ASCA, p. 9).

The Preface and Introduction to the ASCA National Model contain a number of statements that allude to the achievement issue. For example, in the model's Preface, Gysbers (2003) suggests that school counselors working in the context of a comprehensive school counseling program can contribute to academic achievement, a point that seems to support Sink's perspective because of the use of the word contribute. Another statement that seems to support Sink's beliefs appears in the Introduction: "The school counseling program aligns goals and objectives with the school's mission and ultimately leads to increased student achievement as demonstrated by results data" (ASCA, 2003, p. 10). Other statements such as "Professional school counselors are expected to consistently monitor and enhance academic progress and achievement" (ASCA, p. 16) speak to the importance the framers of the ASCA National Model placed on promoting academic achievement.

Further, in the ASCA National Model section entitled "What is a school counseling program?" (ASCA, 2003, pp. 13-16), the importance of data-driven programs is reinforced. Particular emphasis is placed on results (outcome) data. The model states, "Results data show proof that a student competency is not just mastered but has affected course-taking patterns, graduation rates, knowledge attainment, attendance, behavior or academic achievement" (ASCA, p. 16). Of these examples of outcomes listed, high school graduation is a distal outcome in most cases; but the others are or can be proximal outcomes, depending on how variables are operationalized. The statements in the Introduction cited earlier and the previous results data statement seem to point to the framers' spirit regarding cause. The results data statement is consistent with our view of the importance of proximal outcomes as a notable link between what school counselors do and what students know and can do. It is our hope that in future revisions of the ASCA National Model, the authors will become more explicit about the relationship among counselors' activities, outcomes, and the data that can be used to show these causal linkages. Causal linkages between counselor activities and proximal student outcomes seem to hold the most promise for supporting school counselors' worthiness.

We appreciate Sink's position that we imposed an idea that was never intended by the framers of the ASCA National Model, that being there is a need to establish a causal link between the establishment of comprehensive school counseling programs and academic achievement, because of the wording of many of the statements in the document. Further, Sink suggests that scholars such as Robert Myrick and Norman Gysbers, both of whom were instrumental in the development of the ASCA National Model, would have been wise enough to avoid building causal assumptions into the model. We respectively disagree. In an article published in the same year as the ASCA National Model, Myrick (2003) defined accountability as follows:

   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 can be claimed. (p. 174)

Myrick's definition focuses on the activities of individual counselors, but later in the same article he raises the question "Finally, what evidence is there that the program and specific interventions are making a positive difference?" (2003, p. 176). Clearly, Myrick believes that it is important to develop data that support the effectiveness of the individual and the program. In our article, which focuses only on increasing academic achievement, we suggest the primary focus should be on establishing the efficacy of interventions that increase academic achievement, not the entire program.

The framers of the ASCA National Model expected certain outcomes would accrue as the result of establishing comprehensive school counseling programs based on the model. Did they expect that school counselors should work to establish causal links between a school counselor's efforts and student outcomes? We think so. However, regardless of the intentions of the framers of the ASCA National Model, we agree with Myrick (2003) that accountability requires school counselors to demonstrate that their efforts yield the expected outcomes. Sink seems to believe that accountability for school counselors accrues from their collaborative efforts with teachers, parents, and others. In other words, if counselors develop comprehensive programs based on the assumptions set forth in the ASCA National Model and achievement increases, school counselors would be seen as accountable. We doubt that this is sufficient.

Moreover, we believe that establishing linkages between comprehensive school counseling programs and academic outcomes involves major research efforts that are far beyond the capabilities of most school counselors and too time-consuming for all school counselors. We believe that school counselors and researchers should take both a micro-level view (proximal outcomes, individual counselor functioning) and a macro- or systemic-level view (distal outcomes, program and system functioning), but the immediate emphasis should be on the former. We believe that endorsing one perspective without the other is shortsighted.

Finally, Sink suggests that it would have made no sense from a scientific point of view for the framers of the ASCA National Model to assume that there is a causal link between comprehensive school counseling programs and specific outcomes such as test scores. We disagree. School counselors should describe, implement, and evaluate promising interventions that can be, once validated, used for accountability studies.

RESEARCH DESIGN

As Sink correctly notes, in our article we advocate for the use of research and evaluation designs that allow researchers and evaluators to establish causal relationships between specific interventions and out comes. He suggests, also accurately, that it is very difficult to establish airtight causal relations in field settings. However, by implementing the same intervention in a variety of settings and evaluating its outcome, school counselors can increase their confidence that a particular intervention will yield the hoped-for outcome. It will take many researchers and practitioners working together if school counselors are to build the knowledge base needed to produce desired student outcomes. Sink takes a page from most research and evaluation design books and suggests that research relating to school counseling programs and interventions should employ diverse designs including longitudinal, qualitative, and correlational designs. He also correctly notes, as we do in our article, that there are research designs that can be used to establish causal relationships that can be employed when examining programmatic effects. As indicated earlier, these designs are too sophisticated and too time-consuming for most school counselors. Moreover, they often produce ambiguous information that is difficult to interpret to teachers, administrators, and school boards.

Our article's review of the research on the impact of comprehensive school counseling programs (Lapan, Gysbers, & Petroski, 2001; Lapan, Gysbers, & Sun, 1997; Nelson, Gardner, & Fox, 1998; Sink & MacDonald, 2000) illustrates this point quite nicely. Myrick (2003) accurately notes that many, if not most, school counselors have an aversion to accountability studies. Also, judging by literature reviews such as one produced by Whiston and Sexton (1998), there are not many researchers interested in studying the effectiveness of school counseling programs or the specific interventions used by school counselors. We wish to reiterate our earlier suggestion that experimental and quasi-experimental designs be used to evaluate the impact of school counseling interventions so that counselors can make definitive statements about the results of their efforts. The relative simplicity of these designs makes them ideal for accountability studies and, if the research is conducted carefully, the results can be the basis of causal statements. We do not disagree with Sink's suggestion that longitudinal, qualitative, and other complex designs be employed to study school counseling programs. However, we maintain that their use to develop lists of best practices and to produce accountability data is impractical in the short run.

Sink has listed several research methodologies that have efficacy for answering important research questions for school counselors. We would like to add single-subject research designs to that list. Single-subject designs are easy to understand and implement in schools, they involve proximal outcomes, and by nature they speak to causal linkages between school counselors' interventions and student outcomes if they are conducted properly. Foster, Watson, Meeks, and Young (2002) have provided a useful and cogent description of single-subject designs for school counselors.

SUMMARY

In a thoughtful article, Sink takes exception to our assumption that there is a need to establish causal links between the efforts of school counselors and the outcomes of those efforts. We have addressed the issues he raises both logically and by calling upon the extant literature. Perhaps not surprisingly, we conclude that our initial assumptions and conclusions were on target.

References

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

Foster, L. H., Watson,T. S., Meeks, C., & Young, J. S. (2002). Single-subject research design for school counselors: Becoming an applied researcher. Professional School Counseling, 6, 146-154.

Gysbers, N.C. (2003). The center of education (Preface). In The ASCA national model: A framework for school counseling programs (p. 4). Alexandria, VA: America n School Counselor Association.

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.

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.

Myrick, R. D. (2003). Accountability: Counselors count. Professional School Counseling, 6, 174-189.

Nelson, D. E., Gardner, J. L., & Fox, D. G. (1998). An evaluation of the comprehensive guidance program in the Utah public schools. Salt Lake City, UT: Utah State Office of Education.

Sink, C. A., & MacDonald, G. (2000).The status of comprehensive guidance and counseling programs in the United States. Professional School Counseling, 2, 88-94.

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

Duane Brown is a professor in the School of Education, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC. E-mail: [e-mail]

Jerry Trusty is a professor in the Department of Counselor Education, Counseling Psychology, and Rehabilitation Services, Penn State University, University Park.