The transformative individual school counseling model: an accountability model for urban school counselors.

The realities and needs of urban students, families, and educators have outgrown traditional individual counseling models. The American School Counselor Association's National Model and National Standards and the Education Trust's Transforming School Counseling Initiative encourage professional school counselors to shift roles toward implementing comprehensive developmental school counseling programs focused on systemic change to overcome institutional K-12 school barriers. This article reconceptualizes individual counseling as a collaborative act of advocacy and accountability used by professional school counselors and researchers to close achievement and opportunity gaps. The Transformative Individual School Counseling model utilizes a functional behavioral assessment approach to define problems; systemic, solution-focused, and narrative counseling approaches to address problems; and single-case study designs to document the effectiveness of interventions.

**********

The profession of school counseling continues to evolve in its role in K-12 educational settings. The effort to redefine professional school counseling is evidenced by the American School Counselor Association's (ASCA) National Model and National Standards and the Education Trust's National Center for Transforming School Counseling initiatives. Also, these preceding initiatives were due, in part, to the increased calls for accountability in education and increased attention to the access, equity, and success for every student (ASCA, 2003; Bailey, Getch, & Chen-Hayes, 2003; Erford, House, & Martin, 2003; Green & Keys, 2001; Gysbers, 2001; Stone & Dahir, 2004). As a precursor to the changes in professional school counseling, the introduction of educational standards to improve curricula, raise achievement, and serve as a measure for the assessment of outcomes has changed the image and functioning of K-12 schools in the United States. As a result, the idea of aligning the professional identity of a school counseling program with the educational mission and philosophy of the school became critical, and educational goals became the focus of ASCA's National Model for School Counseling Programs (Dahir, 2001; Erford et al.; Green & Keys; Paisley & McMahon, 2001; Perusse & Goodnough, 2004).

Developing school counseling program accountability models has been addressed in the literature (Borders, 2002; Green & Keys, 2001; Hughes & James, 2001; Otwell & Mullis, 1997; Stone & Dahir, 2004). Accountability in the counseling profession, however, is not new. In 1970, Arbuckle wrote a seminal article that resulted in a spate of articles promoting accountability (Baker, 2001). What is unique about the current accountability mandate is the specificity of attention to academic outcomes (Carey & Boscardin, 2003; Colbert & Colbert, 2003; Green & Keys; Johnson, 2002; Perusse & Goodnough, 2004). The focus of this article, therefore, is to reconceptualize the role of individual counseling performed by urban professional school counselors as a tool to advocate for and demonstrate accountability in closing K-12 achievement and opportunity, gaps (Johnson).

THE SCOPE OF THE NEED FOR A NEW INDIVIDUAL COUNSELING MODEL IN URBAN SCHOOLS

Although individual counseling cannot meet the needs of all students in K-12 urban schools, it can remain a vital component of a school's comprehensive program (Campbell & Dahir, 1997; Gysbers & Henderson, 2000; Myrick, 2003; Newsome & Gladding, 2003; Paisley & McMahon, 2001). There are a number of concerns, however, regarding individual counseling in the schools. These concerns include the overemphasis on individual counseling in K-12 schools, the lack of research data and accountability for individual counseling outcomes in K-12 school settings (Whiston, 2003; Whiston & Sexton, 1998), and how individual school counseling is conceptualized to address achievement and opportunity gaps. Burnham and Johnson (2000) suggested that there might be an overreliance on individual counseling because it is consistent with traditional counselor education training and/or because it is a convenient and comfortable way to work with students. However, in today's climate of accountability in urban schools, neither of these reasons is an adequate justification.

Individual counseling is part of a comprehensive counseling program that needs to be aligned closely with the educational mission and philosophy of K12 schools--educating all students to high levels of academic, career, and personal/social success. Within this framework, a greater emphasis is placed on interventions that benefit all students, such as group counseling and developmental school counseling lessons (Perusse & Goodnough, 2004). Individual counseling should be used when group counseling or developmental school counseling lessons are not appropriate. Providing an urban student with individual counseling during the school day lessens critical instructional time. In environments where high-stakes testing influences much of what occurs, teachers and administrators are justifiably reluctant to release students for activities that have not been empirically tested for effectiveness (Baker, 2001; Green & Keys, 2001).

What is the purpose of individual school counseling and how does it differ from mental health counseling? Should individual school counseling be offered to any students routinely? What are appropriate goals for individual school counseling? What role does research play in individual school counseling interventions? What outcome measures should be utilized to evaluate individual school counseling interventions? Addressing these questions within the K-12 school's conceptual framework or mission-facilitating student learning and development--differs significantly from an agency-based mental health perspective. Mental health models conceptualize social-emotional functioning as ends in themselves. Many school counselors, school psychologists, and school social workers currently use a mental health perspective in their roles in K-12 schools. This explains in part why some K-12 students are in individual school counseling "forever" and why school counseling goals from a mental health perspective are vague and tangential to an academic success and learning focus.

A consequence of defining individual counseling within an educational framework is that one has to rethink how problems are defined and solutions or interventions formulated. Over 25 years ago, the point was made that many problems in the field of psychotherapy remained problems because they were not formulated in a way that led to a real solution (Watzlawick, 1978; Watzlawick, Weakland, & Fisch, 1974). This also may apply to counseling and explain why students remained in counseling for an undefined period of time and seemed to make no progress. A related issue is that many urban school counselors lack knowledge and the skills to implement many types of interventions. They tend to conceptualize solutions in terms of what they know how to do instead of what is really required in the given situation.

The ethical codes of both the American Counseling Association (1995) and AS CA (1998) address the professional responsibility of counselors to stay abreast of current research and trends in professional counseling. In addition, best practices require that school counselors not only use empirically validated interventions and models, but that they also do their own research to evaluate interventions used in their work. A problem in this regard is that school counselors traditionally have not linked research and practice and have taken a rather negative view of research (Deck & Cecil, 1990; Green & Keys, 2001; Lundervold & Belwood, 2000; Lusky & Hayes, 2001; Whiston, 2003).

This situation must be changed if today's school counselors are to respond to the accountability mandates to demonstrate through data the effectiveness of their contributions to the school's mission (Hughes & James, 2001; Lapan, 2001; Otwell & Mullis, 1997; Stone & Dahir, 2004; Whiston & Sexton, 1998). Whiston and Sexton addressed the need for counselor educators to take a more active role in producing good consumers of research because the results of research are not easily deciphered by students unfamiliar with research designs and statistical language. School counseling students need to be given the tools to understand research articles early in their training and then opportunities to practice using those tools in the majority of their coursework.

The remainder of this article will focus on the Transformative Individual School Counseling (TISC) model, which was created by the authors as a means to illustrate accountability and to justify time-limited counseling interventions used primarily to close achievement and opportunity gaps in urban schools.

THE TRANSFORMATIVE INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL COUNSELING MODEL

The TISC model bridges the practitioner-researcher gap while responding to the need for accountability data. Rather than accepting the dichotomy of practitioner/researcher, the TISC model defines professional school counselors as school counselor-researchers whenever they are engaged in individual counseling. Combining these perspectives places the school counselor in a unique position of using data for accountability purposes while contributing to evidenced-based best practices. Both Brady and O'Hern (2003) and Dimmitt and Carey (2003) noted that outcome studies must be repeated within specific multicultural contexts to extend evidenced-based best practices. This model presents opportunities to do this in urban settings, and it also is applicable to suburban and rural contexts. Figure 1 includes the steps in the model.

Step 1:     Paradigm shift from mental health perspective to school and
            academic perspective

Step 2:     Problem definition--for example, functional behavioral
            assessment can be used to
            contextualize and operationalize a problem

Step 3:     Implementation of intervention

            * Use of solution-focused, narrative, or systemic
              interventions with other stakeholders as
              resources and allies

            * Short-term counseling interventions used to maximize
              student ability

Step 4:     Evaluation of individual counseling data using single-case
            research design

The first step in this model involves a paradigm shift for school counselors trained in mental health models. Individual counseling is now to be defined within an educational framework with goals that are consistent with the school's philosophy and mission statement. The next step involves problem definition. Problems must be defined contextually in operational terms. This is particularly important when working with urban children and adolescents (Crone & Homer, 2000). A powerful technique to assist in defining a problem is functional behavioral assessment (Scott, Nelson, & Zabala, 2003). A functional behavioral assessment is a collaborative team effort that involves collecting data from both indirect and direct sources in order to conceptualize the context and function of a behavior. By contextualizing behavior, one is able to gather information regarding antecedents, behaviors, and consequences that can lead to the formulation of hypotheses as to the purpose or function of the behavior for the particular individual (Crone & Homer, 2000; Gresham, Watson, & Skinner, 2001; Scott et al.; Sugai, Lewis-Palmer, & Hagan-Burke, 2000). This information then can be utilized to formulate interventions that are customized for the individual (Crone & Homer).

The third step of this model involves the implementation of the intervention. The intervention strategies should be implemented by either the teacher, counselor, other specialist, parent, or student. The intervention strategies utilized in the TISC model are systemic (ASCA, 2003), solution focused (Murphy, 1997), and narrative (Winslade & Monk, 1999). And finally, the last step of the model involves evaluation of the intervention. Lundervold and Belwood (2000) noted that in the past, "intuition, authority, and tenacity" served as the basis of clinical judgment regarding the choice of treatment and evaluation of its results (p. 93). Such an approach would not meet today's accountability standards. In 2002, Foster, Watson, Meeks, and Young (re)introduced single-case experimental designs to school counselors and stated that "school counselors can easily take advantage of the single-subject research paradigm to conduct outcome research and answer questions regarding the effectiveness of school counselors' interventions" (p. 147). This approach would provide professional school counselors with a vehicle for documenting their efforts to achieve their intended outcomes and, better yet, fulfilling the ASCA National Standards.

CASE EXAMPLE OF TISC MODEL IN URBAN SCHOOL SETTINGS

The following example illustrates the use of the TISC model within a K-12 urban school setting. A third-grade African American boy diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was referred for counseling because of his frequent class disruptions. The academic performance of this youngster was consistently below average in both literacy and math. His disruptive behaviors were operationally defined and were described as "talking out loud," "not being prepared to work," and "not following directions." The counseling intervention plan for this youngster had the following overall goals: to function within the classroom and to improve academic performance in literacy, math, and other subjects. Counseling was done inside and outside of the classroom setting. The counseling implemented outside the classroom focused on his understandings or self-narrative about his ADHD. Like so many other youngsters with this disorder, he translated this to mean that he was a "bad boy," but many times he was not aware of what he had done to earn that title.

The counselor then set additional goals: (a) to improve the boy's understandings of ADHD as a disorder that was separate from his identity, and (b) to help him identify how this disorder specifically affected him so that compensatory strategies could be developed. In addition, he needed training in social skills (e.g., modulating the volume of his voice, learning how to appropriately ask for help, learning about personal space). Shaping procedures, a behavioral technique, were used to develop new behaviors. In the class setting, the counseling focused on his organizational and self-monitoring skills to keep him on task. He also was taught strategies to avoid responding to inappropriate provocation from others.

His third-grade teacher, an African American woman, wanted him out of her classroom and claimed that he could not function in the general education setting. She referred him for special education placement. She would not acknowledge the small positive changes in his behavior that began to occur. These small changes were documented and analyzed by the counselor (e.g., data). Both his mother and counselor opposed the teacher's referral because they were convinced that he could achieve in his general education placement. They also were aware that too many young urban people of color, particularly boys, were inappropriately placed in special education settings. If these youngsters had been given the support of appropriate counseling, they might have been successful learners in general education.

The counselor, the parent, and the student worked collaboratively to keep him in his general class setting. He was put on medication, and the teacher, parent, and counselor who worked closely with his physician monitored the effects. The results of the counseling and medication were dramatic, but the teacher and school administrator still wanted to remove him to a special education setting. Through the combined efforts of the mother and counselor's advocacy efforts, the student was not referred to a special education setting. His counseling sessions were continued before or after school, or during his lunch break.

When this boy graduated from the fifth grade, he received the highest reading score in the entire graduating class--a major data point that showed the effective use of transformative school counseling in action. As evidenced from this example, school counselors need to become reflective and investigative practitioners.

CONCLUSION

The TISC model addresses the issue of accountability and gives school counselor-researchers tools to document the effectiveness of interventions through the collection and organization of data about their individual counseling. By monitoring their individual school counseling performance, school counselor-researchers use the TISC model to improve data-based professional practice. The outcome data from such investigations benefit both individual students receiving the service and the larger school community. The authors encourage urban school counselor-researchers to collect and publish their data regarding interventions through national programs such as the ASCA journal (Professional School Counseling) and the University of Massachusetts' National Center for School Counseling Outcome Research publications.

References

American Counseling Association. (1995). Code of ethics and standards of practice. Retrieved July 25, 2002, from http://www.counseling.org/resources/ethics.htm

American School Counselor Association. (1998). Ethical standards for school counselors. Retrieved July 25, 2002, from http://www.schoolcounselor.org/librarylethics.pdf

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

Arbuckle, D. S. (1970). Counseling: Philosophy, theory, and practice. New York: Allyn & Bacon.

Bailey, D. F., Getch, Y. Q., & Chen-Hayes, S. (2003). Professional school counselors as social and academic advocates. In B. T. Erford (Ed.), Transforming the school counseling profession (pp. 411-434). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice-Hall.

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

Borders, L. D. (2002). School counseling in the 21st century: Personal and professional reflections. Professional School Counseling, 5, 180-185.

Brady, S., & O'Hern, J. (2003, October). Integrating cultural differences into graduate training on trauma. Paper presented at the North Atlantic Regional Association for Counselor Education and Supervision Fall 2003 Conference, Canandaiqua, NY.

Burnham, J. J., & Johnson, C. M. (2000). School counselor roles: Discrepancies between actual practice and existing models. Professional School Counseling, 4, 41-49.

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

Carey, J. C., & Boscardin, M. L. (2003). Improving the multicultural effectiveness of your school in the context of state standards, accountability measures, and high-stakes assessment. In P. B. Pedersen & J. C. Carey (Eds.), Multicultural counseling in schools: A practical handbook (pp. 270-289). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Colbert, R. D., & Colbert, M. M. (2003). School counselor involvement in culture-centered education reform. In P. B. Pedersen & J. C. Carey (Eds.), Multicultural counseling in schools: A practical handbook (pp. 3-25). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Crone, D. A., & Homer, R. H. (2000). Contextual, conceptual, and empirical foundations of functional behavioral assessment in schools. Exceptionality, 8, 161-172.

Dahir, C. A. (2001).The national standards for school counseling programs: Development and implementation. Professional School Counseling, 4, 320-327.

Deck, M. D., & Cecil, J. H. (1990). School counselor research as perceived by American School Counselor Association leaders: Implications for profession. Elementary School Guidance & Counseling, 25, 12-20.

Dimmitt, C., & Carey, J. (2003, October). Critical school counseling research: A Delphi study. Paper presented at the North Atlantic Regional Association for Counselor Education and Supervision Fall 2003 Conference, Canandaigua, NY.

Erford, B. T., House, R., & Martin, P. (2003). Transforming the school counseling profession. In B. T. Erford (Ed.), Transforming the school counseling profession (pp. 1-20). Upper Saddle River, N J: Merrill Prentice Hall.

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.

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.

Gresham, F. M., Watson, T. S., & Skinner, C. H. (2001). Functional behavioral assessment: Principles, procedures, and future directions. School Psychology Review, 30, 156-172.

Gysbers, N. C. (2001). School guidance and counseling in the 21st century: Remember the past into the future. Professional School Counseling, 5, 96-105.

Gysbers, N. C., & Henderson, P. (2000). Developing and managing your school guidance programs (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.

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

Johnson, R. S. (2002). Using data to close the achievement gap: How to measure equity in our schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Lapan, R. (2001). Results-based comprehensive guidance and counseling programs: A framework for planning and evaluation. Professional School Counseling, 4, 289-299.

Lundervold, D. A., & Belwood, M. F. (2000). The best kept secret in counseling: Single-case (N=1) experimental designs [Electronic version]. Journal of Counseling & Development, 78, 92-102.

Lusky, M. B., & Hayes, R. L. (2001). Collaborative consultation and program evaluation [Electronic version]. Journal of Counseling & Development, 79, 26-38.

Murphy, J. (1997). Solution-focused counseling in middle and high school Alexandria, VA: American School Counselor Association.

Myrick, R. D. (2003). Accountability: Counselors count. Professional School Counseling, 6, 174-179.

Newsome, D. W., & Gladding, S.T. (2003). Counseling individuals and groups in school. In B. T. Erford (Ed.), Transforming the school counseling profession (pp. 209-230). Upper Saddle River, N J: Merrill Prentice Hall.

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

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

Perusse, R., & Goodnough, G. E. (Eds.). (2004). Leadership, advocacy, and direct service strategies for professional school counselors. Pacific Grove, CA: Thomson Learning/Brooks/ Cole.

Scott, T. M., Nelson, C. M., & Zabala, J. (2003). Functional behavior assessment training in public schools: Facilitating systemic change. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 5, 216-224.

Stone, C. B., & Dahir, C. A. (2004). School counselor accountability. A MEASURE of Student Success. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.

Sugai, G., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Hagan-Burke, S. (2000). Overview of the functional behavioral assessment process. Exceptionality, 8, 149-160.

Watzlawick, P. (1978). The language of change: Elements of therapeutic communication. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J., & Fisch, R. (1974). Change: Principles of problem formulation and problem resolution. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Whiston, S. C. (2003). Outcome research on school counseling services. In B. T. Erford (Ed.), Transforming the school counseling profession (pp. 435-448). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

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

Winslade, J., & Monk, G. (1999). Narrative counseling in schools: Powerful & brief. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Robert Eschenauer, Ph.D., is an assistant professor and Stuart F. Chen-Hayes, Ph.D., is an associate professor at Lehman College of the City University of New York, Bronx. E-mail: robert.eschenauer@ lehman.cuny.edu