Transforming school counseling practice through collaboration and the use of data: a study of academic failure high school.

With the advent of standards-based educational reform, educators and counselors are increasingly being held accountable for creating school contexts where all students can be academically successful. Cutting edge models of school counseling practice emphasize the importance of using both collaboration and data to efficiently and effectively create such educational contexts (Bowers & Hatch, 2002; Fields & Hines, 2000; House & Hayes, 2002).

Identifying the factors that interfere with academic success is a crucial first step in the process of choosing interventions to address this issue, and the best way to gain an accurate picture of interfering factors is the use of data. Concrete information about which students are failing which classes gives counselors valuable knowledge to advocate for programs and policies which will be effective (Hayes, Nelson, Tabin, Pearson, & Worthy, 2002; House & Hayes, 2002). Utilizing university-public school partnerships to get needed research knowledge and skills can make data collection much easier and more efficient (Hayes, Paisley, Phelps, Pearson, & Salter, 1997). Once information is obtained, systemic shifts in school counseling practice require additional collaboration among counselors, administrators, teachers, and researchers.

The University of Massachusetts is in partnership with a local school district as part of the Education Trust's Transforming School Counseling Initiative. The partnership meets monthly and consists of K-12 school counselors in the district, school counseling program faculty, and graduate students. This study evolved from a conversation among some partnership members and the high school administrators about the greater-than-expected number of high school students who were failing classes despite a school system with qualified teachers and ample resources. All involved thought that more information would be valuable, and administrators requested a research study to identify the specific factors affecting student academic failure.

The partnership as a group decided to use this situation as a chance to integrate current theory with practice. We would have the opportunity to survey the existing research to find out what is known about academic achievement and to develop a research approach and instrument related to local needs. We would be able to collaborate on research, to utilize data to change counseling practice, and to advocate on students' behalf about academic success. As the process evolved it also became an opportunity to provide social justice advocacy and to make recommendations for systemic change.

The following section summarizes the broad research base the group used as a foundation for our approach to the data collection process in our local context.

THE MULTIPLE FACTORS IMPACTING SCHOOL FAILURE

Academic failure--receiving a grade of F in a class--is like any educational outcome, a result of complex, interconnected factors. Psychological, educational, and sociological research about this phenomenon has identified multiple student, classroom, teacher, school, family, community, and cultural factors which are all related to academic achievement and failure (Deschenes, Cuban, & Tyack, 2001; Marchant, Paulson, & Rothlisberg, 2001). The variable most directly related to academic failure is obviously poor academic performance, but there are many reasons why students don't do well in a class.

Student Factors

Academic difficulties have been linked to several factors intrinsic to students such as low IQ (Chen, Lee & Stevenson, 1996), the lack of prosocial behavior at the elementary level (Wentzel & Caldwell, 1997), learning disabilities, mental health difficulties such as anxiety and depression, and behavioral difficulties such as hyperactivity and attention deficit disorders (Deschenes et al., 2001). Consideration of these factors allows for identification of some of the possible student difficulties that may be interfering with academic achievement and creates the opportunity to choose the special education, mental health, and educational interventions that would allow for greater success. At the same time, it places the responsibility for the problem within the student, rather than in the relationship between the context and the student. All students bring with them unique strengths and deficits, and to the extent possible, schools need to meet the diverse learning needs of each student.

Another focus of research is the effect of students' beliefs about their abilities. Students with a greater sense of self-efficacy are more successful in school (Schunk, 1984), as are those with strong academic self-concepts and self-esteem (Marsh, 1987; Marsh & Parker, 1984). This research helped spark some of the self-esteem building curriculum of the past decade, with the hope that increasing self-esteem would create more successful students. The question is, of course, whether academic success is the result of self-esteem developed in early interpersonal experience, or whether self-esteem (particularly academic self-esteem) follows academic success. More recent findings in this area have found that strong academic self-concepts are content-specific. For example, students' beliefs about their abilities in math impact their math success, but not English success (Marsh & Yeung, 1997).

Motivation is another significant student factor in school achievement (Anderson & Keith, 1997; Kaplan, Peck, & Kaplan, 1997). As with poor academic performance, however, there are many reasons why students lack motivation to do well. Among other reasons, they may be depressed, they may not have the information they need to be motivated to do well, or they may have family-based values or beliefs about schooling and work. Research has found that students who have information about graduation requirements and career options are more likely to have higher aspirations and are less likely to fail (McEvoy & Welker, 2000). Student beliefs about the importance of school, the value of specific subjects, and their perceptions of school failure are all related to motivation and to academic success as well (Hilty, 1998; House, 1999; McEvoy & Welker).

Several researchers have looked at relational factors impacting on school motivation and achievement. Those students who have poor peer relationships and who lack the social skills to develop friendships are at high risk for academic difficulties at the elementary level, and their trajectory doesn't improve over time (Wentzel & Caldwell, 1997). Students who believe that their teachers or peers don't like them or who have higher levels of interpersonal conflict in school are more likely to struggle academically (Altenbaugh, 1998; Kaplan et al., 1997). However, the relationship between these factors may be that those students who are doing well academically are less likely to engage in conflict and are more attractive to both their peers and their teachers. Students who are more involved in the school through extra-curricular activities and social events are more likely to feel connected to others in the school, are more motivated to do well academically, and are more successful (House, 1999).

Student tardiness and absences from school are clearly determinants in academic success (Altenbaugh, 1998), but there is no simple answer to the question of why students are late or do not come to school. Parent knowledge of absences and decisions to keep students home are only part of the equation. The older the student, the more likely the decision to be late or absent is the student's, although parental supervision impacts the situation, as do the school-based consequences. Some students have family factors such as a physically or mentally ill parent, which keep them home. When students are struggling with depression or anxiety or with peer conflicts, school can feel overwhelming, and they are more likely to be absent or tardy. When students are not doing well in a course, they may skip that class, which then leads to a downward spiral that is hard to change.

School Factors

Educational research has identified several classroom, teacher and school variables that impact on school failure (see Tables 1 and 2). Each of these variables interacts with the student, family, and broader social context factors to impact on students' academic achievement.

In the broadest sense, the general school climate has a tremendous impact on how all the people in a building--teachers, students, and administrators--feel about being there (Beck & Murphy, 1996). Students are more likely to do well when there is a school culture which has an academic emphasis (Goddard, Sweetland, & Hoy, 2000), when students and teachers feel physically and emotionally safe in the building (McEvoy & Welker, 2000), and when there are adequate financial resources (Hilty, 1998). Specific school-based programs such as after-school help and tutoring (Joshi, 1995), social skills interventions, school-based counseling services, and proficiency tests to measure school success (McEvoy & Welker) all create a context where students are more likely to be academically successful.

Those who work in schools know the impact of positive administrative leadership. Schools with mission statements, comprehensive curriculum plans, school-wide assessments, and coordinated intervention programs are more likely to have greater numbers of successful students (McEvoy & Welker, 2000). When an atmosphere of collegiality and collaboration is fostered, teachers are more effective and students are more successful (Hilty, 1998).

Research has consistently shown that students learn more and do better in smaller classrooms and in smaller schools (Altenbaugh, 1998). When there are fewer students there is a greater likelihood of a significant relationship between a teacher and student as well as more individualized instructional opportunities.

Much of the educational experience for students depends on the skill and knowledge of teachers. Teacher pedagogical skills, ability to convey care and meaning, and capacity for connection with students all impact on students' learning (Altenbaugh, 1998). Teachers' knowledge of their subject, perception of the job, certification, and training also have tremendous impact on their ability to teach effectively (Hilty, 1998).

Academic failure is strongly related to the assessment techniques used to ascertain what students know and how well they know it. When teachers have knowledge about multiple learning styles and use multi-modal teaching methods and multiple types of assessment to gather information about student learning, then more students are able to learn and more are able to demonstrate their knowledge (McEvoy & Welker, 2000).

Teacher beliefs and attitudes about their students and their jobs have considerable impact on the educational process. In schools where there are high rates of teacher absences and tardiness or where there is a high teacher turnover rate, student achievement is lessened (Altenbaugh, 1998). When teachers believe their students are competent and capable, those students are more likely to be successful (McEvoy & Welker, 2000). Teacher perception of school failure also impacts on student achievement (Hilty, 1998).

The role of homework in school failure is complex. The amount of homework given each night is related to rates of academic failure, with lack of homework completion a significant reason why many students fail (Joshi, 1995). The reasons why students don't complete or hand in homework are many, however. Some students have family or work obligations that preclude out-of-school academic work. Some families may not structure time for homework to be done or may not understand its importance. Some students may have learning styles that make reading and writing difficult and time-consuming, and so homework becomes frustrating. Other students complete homework but because of organizational or impulsivity difficulties leave it at home, lose it, or forget to hand it in.

Family Factors

We know that families have a tremendous impact on what happens for students in schools, though identifying the specific ways that this happens can be challenging. Some students are able to achieve academically despite numerous family stressors, while others struggle to do so (Deschenes et al., 2001). The most significant family factors which are related to school achievement are the amount of family involvement with school and family attitudes towards and beliefs about schooling (Altenbaugh, 1998; Beck & Murphy, 1996; Chen et al., 1996; Eccles, Adler, & Kaczala, 1982; Henry, 2000; Luster & McAdoo, 1996). Parent-teacher communication (Henry) and parental expectations of academic success (Hoge, Smit, & Crist, 1997) also affect student achievement. Family factors not directly related to school-family relationships which impact on student success include family cohesion, family structure, discipline practices, parental supervision and monitoring (Henry), parental education, and parenting skills (House, 1999; Luster & McAdoo).

Academic achievement is also affected in complex ways by family stressors such as poverty, homelessness, illness, family transitions, sexual and physical abuse, addiction, violence, and death (Luster & McAdoo, 1996; Purkey & Smith, 1983). Counselors have plenty of anecdotal evidence that students experiencing these situations may be less invested in school, may be distracted by the feelings these situations evoke, and may act out behaviorally in ways which are problematic for their teachers and peers.

Another family factor that influences academic achievement is multiple school transitions. Students who move often may also be experiencing other stressors such as divorce, financial problems, or family instability. Changing schools impacts the coherence of students' academic experience and can result in knowledge gaps, lack of school connections, and the absence of appropriate educational services (Wentzel & Caldwell, 1997).

Race, Culture, Socioeconomic Status, and Gender Factors

The complex impact of gender, culture, socioeconomic status, and race of teachers, families, and students on each of these variables must be taken into consideration (Almquist, 1995; Altenbaugh, 1998; Hilty, 1998; House, 1999; Marshall, 1995; Rumberger, 1983). Many schools in this country continue to have students of color primarily being taught by white teachers (Deschenes et al., 2001). Curriculum materials and/or methodologies often do not reflect the range of learning styles and cultural experiences of students in the classroom (Hilty). Economically disadvantaged students and students of color are more likely to be in schools where their academic and future career needs are not being met (Education Trust, 2000; Pagani, Boulerice, Vitaro, & Tremblay, 1999).

As this research summary demonstrates, when schools and school counselors deliberately make the effort to create proactive interventions to remediate the issue of academic achievement, they are faced with a dizzying array of possible places to intervene. In an effort to better understand the context-specific factors impacting on academic failure in a school setting, school counselors and administrators need to have a database which provides them with information about the most salient factors for their population. The interventions chosen to address the issue can then be tailored to the unique needs of the community.

METHOD

Procedure

The school counseling partnership (district school counselors, university faculty, and graduate students) and school administrators identified the need for this study. The numbers of students failing had been a worry for several years. There was additional concern that there were racial and cultural imbalances in the demographics of those who failed, but there had been no data analysis that provided specific information about the situation.

Discussions with school counselors about this issue identified many possible factors, with varying perspectives about who was failing and why. All involved with the study agreed that a broad-based survey of students in this school who had failed a class in the last marking period would be a useful start to understanding the problem. Concurrent surveys of teachers and parents would allow for multiple perspectives on the same situation. We utilized existing research about academic achievement and school failure to help us identify general areas of investigation (student, family, school and cultural factors) and to develop questions for the surveys. Using the research literature allowed us to place our data gathering in a broader perspective, while simultaneously being specific to our school context.

This author and graduate students in the school counseling program developed draft versions of the student, teacher, and parent surveys. The draft surveys were given to partnership members, teachers, parents, and high school administrators for revision. Their comments were then integrated into the surveys to create the final instruments.

The surveys were designed to reflect both the literature findings and the local constituents. This process allowed for a useful feedback system, whereby the university-based research knowledge and the field-based practical knowledge were both applied to the survey development process in order to most effectively develop an instrument that would accurately assess the situation in this context. The partnership worked as a group and collaborated with administrators to decide how to gather data, what data to gather, and what the research process should be.

Administrators and counselors used school records to identify all the students in the building who had received a grade of D or F during the first marking period and who were thus at risk for failing a class (each class is usually two marking periods long). Some students were at risk for failing more than one class. A letter to parents requesting permission for the student to participate in the study was mailed, and those students whose parents gave permission were given a pass to leave study hall to fill out the Student Survey. School counselors and graduate students administered the Student Surveys at the school and were available to answer questions and to encourage completion.

Teachers who participated in the study were from the same school as the students. During a professional development day the Teacher Survey was given to all the teachers present and filled out at that time. Teachers who were not there were given a cover letter explaining the study and a copy of the survey to complete on their own time. Of the 92 teachers in the school, 83% (76) completed the survey.

Families of students who completed the surveys were mailed the Parent Survey with a stamped return envelope. Of the 152 families, 51 (34%) returned their surveys. In all three contexts, codes rather than names were used to identify participants in order to maintain confidentiality and to follow research ethical standards. For reasons of confidentiality and research ethics, the graduate assistants working on the study maintained the code and name lists in order to coordinate surveys, and they were the only ones with access to those lists.

Participants

The gender, race, and socioeconomic status of the participants are reported in Table 3. Of the 152 students who completed surveys, most (71%) were male. The student population is 53% male, so a higher percentage of boys than girls fail classes in this school. The racial background of the student sample was quite mixed, with only 43% being White. The general student body in the school being studied has a significantly higher percentage of White students (74%) than this sample, which indicates that a greater than would be expected number of students of color received a D or an F.

Socioeconomic status varied in this sample, with 42% of the students reporting family income between $20,000 to $59,999, 22% less than that and 20% more than that (16% didn't know). Only 13% of the students in this school are eligible for free or reduced lunches, which suggests that a higher than expected percentage of students from families with low incomes were failing a class.

The 51 parent participants were mothers (77%) and fathers (16%) mostly, and guardians, step-parents or foster parents (7%). Parents who filled out the Parent Surveys were more likely to be White (65%) and reported a higher income level (33% said $60,000 or more) than the student group. This difference between the student and parent samples for race and income is most likely due to the demographics of the parents who returned the surveys, although students may not have accurate information about family income.

Teacher participants were mostly female (55%) and White (88%). Teachers in every department participated in this study, so every academic area was well represented.

All grades were represented in this study, with 37% of the students in the 9th grade, 28% in the 10th grade, 20% in the 11th grade, and 15% in the 12th grade. The numbers of students who were failing were evenly distributed, but the older the student, the less likely they were to participate in the study. Parents who participated had children who were in all four grades in approximately the same percentages as the student sample.

Instruments

While there is extensive research about academic failure, it has tended to be variable-specific, examining one or a few related aspects of the situation. In an effort to take into consideration the complexity and multi-determined nature of academic failure, initial survey questions for this study were derived from a literature search about all of the possible factors impacting on academic failure. The variable domains included were intrinsic student factors, relational student factors, family factors, teacher factors, school factors, and pedagogical factors identified by surveys of the literature (Altenbaugh, 1998; Kaplan et al., 1997; McEvoy & Walker, 2000).

Demographic factors such as gender, race, language, income level, and parental education were included if the research literature suggested that there was a relationship present for these variables. Because there are so many possible interconnected factors impacting on academic failure, the surveys were deliberately multifaceted and somewhat long. The goal was to begin to develop instruments for school counselors that efficiently identified academic achievement factors, while simultaneously taking into consideration the complexity of the situation. In order to assess overlaps in understanding about the situation, teachers, parents, and students were asked some questions with the same answer options, such as a question about why the student failed a specific class the previous marking period.

After the initial research-based surveys were developed, they were given to high school counselors, administrators, parents, and teachers for feedback. Several questions were added or changed as a result of this collaboration. The revised surveys were then used in the study, and their reliability and validity will be assessed for future use.

RESULTS

Language

As hoped for, the study generated useful and previously unknown information about the students in this school who had gotten a D or an F in a class the previous marking period. Of particular surprise was the proportion of students who spoke more than one language. Almost half (45%, N = 68) of the students who failed a class said they sometimes (22%) or often (23%) speak another language besides English at home. When asked about their parents, 13% (20) said that sometimes and 32% (48) said that often their parents speak a language other than English at home. Despite these facts, only 4% (6) were currently taking ESL classes, and only 8% (12) said that they had ever participated in ESL programs. Only 2.2% of the students in this school are identified as Limited English Proficient.

It is impossible to tell from the data whether these students are bilingual or whether they learned English as a second language, but it may well be that their academic difficulties are at least in part language-based, given the high written language output demands of high school. Additionally, parents who mostly speak another language may have difficulty helping their children with homework in English, may be less likely to understand communication from school, and may have less knowledge about the school system than their primarily English-speaking counterparts.

Assessment Methods and Learning Styles

The primary methods of assessment used by teachers in this school were tests and papers, which were identified as the hardest assessment method to do well in by many of the students in the sample. Twenty percent of the students said that they were best at group projects, but only 6.6% of teachers used projects as their primary method of assessment. Table 4 displays these findings.

There was a similar mismatch between student self-reported learning styles and the primary modes of classroom teaching in this school. Most of the students identified hands-on learning as their preferred way to learn (35%). Another 31% reported that they learn best by watching someone do something. Only 14% stated that they do best when they read to learn, and 14% stated they learn best when listening to instructions. There are many skilled teachers in this school, and they use a variety of pedagogical styles to teach students. However, many often use lectures and readings in their classes. Thirty percent of the students stated that they felt that none of their teachers understand their learning style.

Students were most likely to be doing best in Math, with 43% getting their highest grade (an A/B/C) in that subject. This group was also successful in World Language, with 38% receiving their best grade in that subject. Conversely, students were most likely to have gotten their D/F in English (41% did so) or in Social Studies (34% did so). These findings make sense in light of the information about language, assessment, and learning style. Mathematics classes are more often visual and involve hands-on learning, with little reading or writing. There are fewer language barriers, and assessment is more likely to be based on multiple-choice tests rather than essays or papers.

Students who speak another language are often skilled language learners, and they may take language courses in a language they speak at home, which would help to explain the World Language finding. Conversely, both English and Social Studies courses require large amounts of reading and writing in English, with assessment based on papers and essay tests.

Students were asked to identify which level their classes were (with more than one answer possible), and 60% (90) said their classes were college preparatory classes, 32% (48) said they were taking an honors class, and 34% (51) were in mixed-level classes. Smaller percentages were in Advance Placement classes (4%, N = 6), remedial classes (4%, N = 6), English as a Second Language classes (4%, N = 6), and Special Education classes (9%, N = 14). Overall, 24% (36) said they had at some point been in Special Education classes. This finding suggests that students who were failing a course were clearly capable of succeeding in some academic areas. It may be that students were inappropriately placed in a class that was too difficult, it may be that students have learning styles that allow for success in some contexts more than others, or other reasons may be at play.

Why Are Students Failing?

Students were asked why they thought they were failing specific classes, as were parents and teachers. Each group was asked to identify all the factors they thought had an impact on the situation. Table 5 provides their answers to this question. All three groups identified not doing homework as the most significant factor, with 70% of teachers, 73% of parents and 61% of students indicating that it was a factor.

With the exception of homework, there was surprisingly little agreement about other factors. Students and parents were more likely to identify lack of student motivation (45% of students and 57% of parents) and lack of connection with the teacher (28% of students and 40% of parents) as factors in the failure, while teachers were more likely to identify attendance issues (59%), family issues (38%) and students' lack of academic preparation (32%). While 28% of students missed 7 or more sessions of the class they got a D/F in, only 18% of the students identified attendance as a factor in their academic difficulties.

Student-Teacher Relationships

One of the strong general research findings is the importance of connections between adults in schools and students. In this study, students reported feeling connected to their school counselors (17% very connected, 53% somewhat connected) and to their teachers (8% very connected, 62% somewhat connected). Students also reported that they were very or somewhat connected to administrators (36%), secretaries (36%), deans (33%), and the student assistance counselor (28%).

Students were very positive about their teachers in several domains, with 97% saying that some/all of their teachers teach well, and 95% saying the things they learn in class seem useful to know. More than 92% say some/all of their teachers seem to enjoy teaching, 93% say that they respect some or all of their teachers, and 92% say that some/all of their teachers respect them. Eighty-eight percent feel like some/all of their teachers know them, and 86% say that some/all of their teachers care about them. These findings suggest that it is not relational issues that are interfering with student achievement in this context.

DISCUSSION

Learning to use data to inform school counseling practice and developing university-public school partnerships are both crucial skills for school counselors to develop in this era of standards-based educational reform (Bowers & Hatch, 2002; House & Hayes, 2002). With research data, counselors can make informed decisions about what interventions are needed, about what they are doing that makes a difference, and about how to best serve students. With partnerships, the support and information needed to do good research is easier to obtain (Hayes et al., 1997).

The goal of this study was to generate greater understanding about why so many students were failing classes in a high school with a strong academic focus, qualified teachers, and ample resources. The process was as important as the product, however. Counselor educators, school counselors, administrators, and graduate students worked together to think about what questions would be useful to ask and to develop the surveys. Secondary goals were for the school counselors who were part of the partnership to gain experience and comfort with the use of data to generate needed information and for the university researchers to create surveys grounded in both research and school counselor experience. Ongoing collaboration and conversation among school counselors, counselor educators, and graduate students provided the broader context for this research.

Transforming Practice Through the Use of Data

The data generated by this study gave school counselors, administrators, and teachers a great deal of needed information about the myriad factors impacting on students' academic success in high school. School personnel had already been developing strategies to increase student homework completion, but with the additional information about how many students failing a class speak a second language, some of the thinking changed. Suggestions for possible solutions to the homework problem now include holding after-school tutoring sessions in English writing skills, a pamphlet about the importance of homework translated into several languages, editing the student handbook to more clearly state the grading process and the role of homework, daily written homework assignments handed out to students (rather than said out loud at the end of the class), and other related interventions.

The fact that such a high percentage of students of color are failing was of considerable concern to school personnel. During the presentation of this data to the teachers they spoke about the continued need for conversation about the complex impact of race, gender, and socioeconomic status on academic achievement in their school. The director of student services has recently created after-school groups for students of color to discuss their school experiences, and an existing task force about multicultural issues has requested further evaluation of this situation at the elementary and middle school levels.

An ongoing discussion in this school is about the best methods for assessing student learning and knowledge. Although teachers are increasingly using a range of assessment techniques, most are still relying on testing and papers as their primary method of evaluation. This study found that most of the failing students identified their learning style as non-verbal and kinesthetic, which may be a poor match for those types of assessment. When the data was presented to the teachers, the question was raised about how they can do a better job assessing students who have been English Language learners and who are kinesthetic learners.

The discrepancies between students, teachers, and parents about the reasons for failure were also identified as an important intervention point. School counselors have talked about changing the ways students are informed about how grades are determined, with clear expectations and guidelines for grades identified at the beginning of all classes.

These are the most salient findings, but a great deal more data was generated by this study. The results are still being disseminated and discussed within the school, and continue to impact on policy and practice in an ongoing manner.

Partnership and Collaboration

Throughout this process of reviewing research literature, generating relevant questions, developing surveys, and gathering and evaluating data, collaboration among partnership members has been crucial to this project's success. Partnerships ideally benefit all involved, and when counselor educators can help counselors with practical research and counselors can help educators ground theory in practice, it's a win-win situation. Mutual respect for the work all members are doing as well as for the knowledge every member brings to the situation has helped the process go relatively smoothly.

The collaborative research process helped to foster a culture of inquiry in both the school counseling partnership and the larger school context. When the goal is generating information, people become interested in asking questions and less invested in their own answers. It is easier to challenge assumptions in such a culture, and counselors are a powerful voice in this context.

In order to efficiently and effectively gather data and disseminate the findings we also needed extensive collaboration among counselors, administrators, and university faculty. For this process to work well, we had to have ongoing communication about needs and expectations as well as the implicit assumption that we all are working to make our schools the best they can be for the students in them. Working together on this project allowed all the constituents to develop new perspectives on what is occurring in the school. Administrators gained greater understanding of the partnership's goal of advocating for academic success for all students. Counselors gained knowledge about the process of data-gathering. Counselor educators gained greater understanding of the challenges of creating change in schools.

One of the most important outcomes of this research collaboration has been the increased support and excitement on the part of the school board and administrators at all levels about gathering student achievement data. The high school administrators want to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions, and the elementary and middle school administrators want to gather data about initial identification of student difficulties and early intervention efforts.

Developing New Research Models

Our research process consciously integrated existing research literature and context-specific needs to allow for data-gathering that is grounded in both theory and practice. This integration allows for better research and better applicability of the findings. As school counselors develop greater facility with data gathering and research, our knowledge base will expand in useful and important ways.

Limitations

While this research project generated much useful and interesting data about academic failure in a specific context, it is important to acknowledge that the generalizability of this study is quite limited. We purposefully chose to use context-specific surveys in our data-gathering process, but the limitation of this approach is that the surveys have unmeasured levels of reliability and validity, and will need to be modified for use by other schools.

Another limitation is that students who completed surveys were not a random sample of the students who received a D/F in a class. They were present in their study hall when scheduled to be so, and they were willing to complete an extensive survey. Many of the seniors in the school were not in their study hall, and some students chose not to complete the surveys.

Future Directions

There is an ongoing need for research models that integrate theory and practice in school counseling. As counselors become increasingly comfortable with data collection, more ideas about how to most efficiently and effectively create or modify existing research instruments will emerge in the field. There is also a clear need for research summaries about topics relevant to school counselors (e.g., academic achievement, school completion, curriculum evaluation, counseling techniques, group interventions) as well as research about specific school counseling outcomes.

We also need new types of research partnerships between school counseling programs and counselor education programs. These collaborations provide needed resources and information for all involved. Those working in schools are provided with research information and data analysis assistance, while counselor educators can provide useful educational experiences for graduate students in school counseling as well as learn more about the interplay of theory and practice.

Table 1. School Factors in Academic Success and Failure

School Factors                           Research

Class size                               Altenbaugh, 1998
School size                              "
General school climate                   Beck & Murphy, 1996
A school climate focused on academic
emphasis                                 Goddard, Sweetland & Hoy, 2000
School resources                         Hilty, 1998
Availability of after-school help and
tutoring                                 Joshi, 1995
Amount of instruction time               "
Level of conflict and violence in        McEvoy & Welker, 2000
school
Ongoing social skills interventions in   "
the school
Available resources and training for     "
school-based counseling and support
services
Ongoing assessments that reflect the     "
goals and mission of the school
Existence of a sequenced curriculum      "
that is understood and supported by
teachers and students
Proficiency tests to measure school      "
success
Existence of ability tracking or         "
grouping
Administrative leadership                "
Perceptions of physical and emotional    "
safety in the school environment
The existence of district-level          "
coordinated intervention programs

Table 2. Teacher Factors in Academic Success and Failure

Teacher Factors                                   Researchers

Teacher pedagogical skill                         Altenbaugh, 1998
Teacher ability to convey care and meaning        "
Teacher/student connections                       "
Teacher absences                                  "
Teacher tardiness                                 "
Teacher training                                  Hilty, 1998
Teacher certification                             "
Teacher knowledge of the subject                  "
Teacher perception of the job
Teacher perception of student failure             "
Teacher/staff collaboration and collegiality      "
Amount of homework given each night               Joshi, 1995
Teacher knowledge of multiple learning styles     McEvoy & Welker, 2000
Assessment technique                              "
Teacher belief in student competence and          "
ability
Teacher/student mobility--switching classes,      "
subject matter and departments
Teacher turnover rates                            "

Table 3. Demographic Information

Variable            Full Student     Student          Parent
                    Population       Sample           Sample

                    % (N)            % (N)            % (N)
                    Total N = 1365   Total N = 152    Total N = 51

Gender
  Male              53% (718)        71% (108)        18% (9)
  Female            47% (647)        29% (44)         82% (42)

Race
  White             74% (1016)       43% (65)         65% (33)
  Black             10% (137)        13% (20)         10% (5)
  Latino/Hispanic    7% (099)        14% (21)          8% (4)
  Asian              8% (113)         7% (11) 0        2% (1)
  Mixed race                         15% (23)          2% (1)
  Other                               8% (12)         10% (5)

Income
  $20,000                            22% (33)         14% (7)
  $20-39,999                         28% (43)         31% (16)
  $40-59,000                         14% (21)         22% (11)
  $60,000+                           20% (30)         33% (17)
  Don't Know                         16% (25)

Variable            Teacher
                    Sample

                    % (N)
                    Total N = 76

Gender
  Male              45% (34)
  Female            55% (42)

Race
  White             88% (67)
  Black              5% (4)
  Latino/Hispanic    1% (1)
  Asian              3% (2)
  Mixed race         3% (2)
  Other

Income
  $20,000
  $20-39,999
  $40-59,000
  $60,000+
  Don't Know

Table 4. Assessment Methods

Method               Teachers      Primary    Student/    Student/
                     Use Method    Method     Hardest     Do Best

Tests                84%           32.9%      58%         43%
Other                41%           19.7%
Papers               57%           18.4%      12%          7%
Skill assessments    33%            9.2%
Group projects       71%            6.6%       5%         20%
Discussions          55%            6.6%
Portfolios           38%            6.6%
Presentations        63%            3.9%       7%         14%

Table 5. Reasons for Grade of D/F *

Reasons                       Teacher for    Student for    Parent for
                              Student #1     Class #1       Class # 1

Not doing homework            70%            61%            73%
Attendance issues             59%            18%            30%
Family issues                 38%            13%            12%
Student not motivated         37%            45%            57%
Student not academically
  prepared                    32%            24%            24%
Lack of parent involvement    25%             4%             8%
Peer issues                   22%             6%            14%
Self-esteem                   21%             9%            16%
Learning disability           21%            14%             8%
Lack of teacher/student
  connection                  18%            28%            40%
Impulsivity                   16%             4%            14%
Other                         13%            18%            26%
Curriculum isn't relevant
  to student                  12%            18%            28%
Certain learning styles
  favored                      8%             7%             8%
Assessment methods             3%            11%             4%
English as a second            5%             6%
  language

* Percentages are the percent of respondents who indicated that this
reason was a factor in the low grade. They were asked to identify all
the factors which applied to the situation, so percentages do not add
up to 100%.

The author would like to thank graduae students Rbeca Delgado and Shelly Bathe-Lenn for their assistance in this research.

References

Almquist, E. M. (1995).The experiences of minority women in the U.S.: Intersections of race, gender, and class. In J. Freeman (Ed.), Women: A feminist perspective (pp. 573-606). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Altenbaugh, R. J. (1998)."Some teachers are ignorant": Teachers and teaching through urban school leavers' eyes. In D. Franklin (Ed.), When children don't learn: Student failure and the culture of teaching (pp. 134-159). New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Anderson, E., & Keith, T. (1997). A longitudinal test of a model of academic success for at-risk high school students. Journal of Educational Research, 90, 259-268.

Beck, L., & Murphy, J. (1996). The four imperatives ora successful school. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Bowers, J. L., & Match, P. A. (2002). The national model for school counseling programs. Alexandria, VA: American School Counselor Association.

Chen, C., Lee, S., & Stevenson, H. W. (1996). Long-term prediction of academic achievement of American Chinese, and Japanese adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 18, 750-759.

Deschenes, S., Cuban, L., & Tyack, D. (2001). Mismatch: Historical perspectives on schools and students who don't fit them. Teachers College Record, 103, 525-547.

Eccles, J. S., Adler, T. F., & Kaczala, C. M. (1982). Socialization of achievement attitudes and beliefs: Parental influences. Child Development, 53, 310-321.

Education Trust. (2000). Achievement in America: 2000 [Computer diskette]. Washington, DC, Author.

Fields, T. H., & Hines, P. L. (2000). School counselor's role in raising student achievement. In G. Duhon & T. Manson (Eds.), Preparation, collaboration, and emphasis on the family in school counseling for the new millennium (pp. 135-162). Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.

Goddard, R. D., Sweetland, S. R., & Hoy, W. K. (2000). Academic emphasis of urban elementary schools and student achievement in reading and mathematics: A multilevel analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36, 683-702.

Hayes, R., Nelson, J., Tabin, M., Pearson, G., & Worthy C. (2002). Using school-wide data to advocate for student success. Professional School Counselor, 6, 86-94.

Hayes, R., Paisley, P., Phelps, R., Pearson, G., & Salter, R. (1997). Integrating theory and practice: Counselor educatorschool counselor collaborative. Professional School Counseling, 1(1), 9-12.

Henry, D. (2000). Peer groups, families, and school failure among urban children: Elements of risk and successful interventions. Preventing School Failure, 44(3), 97-104.

Hilty, E. B. (1998).The professionally challenged teacher: Teachers talk about school failure. In D. Franklin (Ed.), When children don't learn: Student failure and the culture of teaching (pp. 134-159). New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Hoge, D., Smit, E., & Crist, J. (1997). Four family process factors predicting academic achievement in sixth and seventh grade. Educational Research Quarterly, 21(2), 27-42.

House, D. (1999). Self-beliefs and background variables as predictors of school withdrawal of adolescent students. Child Study Journal, 29, 247-268.

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

Joshi, R. (1995). Why our students fail math achievement? Education, 116, 65-71.

Kaplan, D. S., Peck, B. M., & Kaplan, H. B. (1997). Decomposing the academic failure-dropout relationship: A longitudinal analysis. The Journal of Educational Research, 90, 331-343.

Luster, T., & McAdoo, H. (1996). Family and child influences on educational attainment: A secondary analysis of the High/Scope Perry preschool data. Developmental Psychology, 32(1), 26-39.

Marchant, G., Paulson, S., & Rothlisberg, B. (2001). Relations of middle school students' perceptions of family and school contexts with academic achievement. Psychology in the Schools, 38, 505-519.

Marsh, H. W. (1987).The big-fish-little-pond effect on academic self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 280-295.

Marsh, H. W., & Parker, J. W. (1984). Determinants of student self-concept: Is it better to be a relatively large fish in a small pond even if you don't learn to swim as well? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(1), 213-231.

Marsh, H. W., & Yeung, A. S. (1997). Causal effects of academic self-concept on academic achievement: Structural equation models of longitudinal data. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 41-54.

Marshall, S. (1995). Ethnic socialization of African American children: Implications for parenting, identity development, and academic achievement. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24, 377-396.

McEvoy, A., & Welker, R. (2000). Antisocial behavior, academic failure, and school climate: A critical review. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8(3), 130-140.

Pagani, L, Boulerice, B., Vitaro, F., & Tremblay, R. (1999). Effects of poverty on academic failure and delinquency in boys: A change and process model approach. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40, 1209-1219.

Purkey, S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. Elementary School Journal, 83, 427-452.

Schunk, D. H., (1984). Self-efficacy perspective on achievement behavior. Educational Psychologist, 19, 48-58.

Rumberger, R. W. (1983). Dropping out of high school: The influence of race, sex, and family background. American Educational Research Journal, 20, 199-220.

Wentzel, K., & Caldwell, K. (1997). Friendships, peer acceptance, and group membership: Relations to academic achievement in middle school. Child Development, 68, 1198-1209.

Carey Dimmitt, Ph.D., is an assistant professor, School Counseling Program, University of Massachusetts Amherst, and associate director of the National Center for School Counseling Outcome Research. E-mail: Cdimmitt@ educ.umass.edu