|
Article Excerpt
An ongoing issue within the school counseling profession is the discrepancy between the actual practice of school counselors and what is advocated as best practice (Brott & Myers, 1999; Burnham & Jackson, 2000). The implication is that what school counselors are actually doing in schools may not adequately address the needs of the students they intend to serve. One of the reasons for the discrepancy lies in the rich and diverse history of the development of the school counseling profession (Burnham & Jackson, 2000; Herr, 2001). Burnham and Jackson highlighted the problems associated with a history of divergent definitions of the roles of school counselors, "with long-standing discussions and discrepant viewpoints found in the literature, school counseling roles are often problematic in definition, interpretation, and implementation" (p. 41). Therefore, the historic lack of an organizing structure for school counseling programs has been a primary focus of professional associations, school counselor education programs, and research.
* Defining and Outlining Best Practices
This attention on defining an organizational structure has resulted in a focus on the development and implementation of a comprehensive, developmental school counseling program. The school counseling program has characteristics similar to other educational programs, including a focus on student competencies, activities, and interventions to assist students in achieving the outcomes related to these competencies, and accountability methods (American School Counselor Association [ASCA], 1999). The ASCA National Standards for School Counseling Programs (Campbell & Dahir, 1997) outline the knowledge, attitudes, and skill competencies that all students should achieve as a result of participating in the school counseling program. There are four fundamental interventions related to a school counseling program: counseling (individual and small group), curriculum (classroom lessons), consultation (e.g., with teachers, parents, and other professionals), and coordination (the organization and management of regular and special program activities; ASCA, 1999; Borders & Drury, 1992; Myrick, 2003). These interventions can be further specified in terms of activities related to each intervention. Models exist that outline the components of the school counseling program, offer suggestions for its implementation, and provide guidelines for balancing time spent in each of the interventions (Gysbers & Henderson, 2000; Myrick, 2003). In 2003, ASCA published the National Model for School Counseling Programs. The comprehensive, developmental school counseling program is also emphasized through training standards in school counselor education programs (Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs [CACREP], 2001).
Research indicates that this focus on an organized structural framework for school counseling has begun to have an impact on school counseling practice (Sink & MacDonald, 1998). Empirical research supports the benefits of the four overarching interventions put into practice by school counselors (counseling, consultation, coordination, curriculum; Borders & Drury, 1992; Whiston & Sexton, 1998). Research findings also reveal that more fully implemented comprehensive, developmental school counseling programs have positive effects on overall student development, including academic, career, and emotional development; academic achievement; and quality of life (Gysbers, Lapan, & Blair, 1999; Lapan, Gysbers, & Petroski, 2001; Lapan, Gybers, & Sun, 1997).
* The Discrepancy Remains
In spite of the best efforts of professional associations, accrediting bodies, and training programs to define the profession of school counseling, studies indicate that the actual functions of counselors in the schools do not always reflect what have been identified as the best practices in school counseling. (Brott & Myers, 1999, pp. 339-340)
The manner in which school counselors spend their time has received a great deal of attention in professional literature, presumably because this approach offers one view of the role and function of school counselors (Gibson & Mitchell, 1995). Studies have focused on the amount of time spent in particular activities (Bonebrake & Borgers, 1984; Carroll, 1993; Hardesty & Dillard, 1994; Vandegrift, 1999) and the difference between the way that school counselors actually spend their time and the way that they want to be spending their time (Hutchinson, Barrick, & Groves, 1986; Johnson, 1993; Mustaine, Pappalardo, & Wyrick, 1996; Partin, 1993; Wilgus & Shelley, 1988). In addition, the difference between actual school counseling practice and best practice as advocated by the profession has received attention (Burnham & Jackson, 2000; Carter, 1993). Results have consistently indicated that school counselors do not spend their time as they would prefer, and much of what they do is not reflective of what is advocated as best practice. The majority of these studies provide descriptions of the practice of school counselors rather than examine the factors that may influence the practice of the school counselor. Therefore, what remains unclear is an understanding of the variables that influence the manner in which school counselors spend their time.
* Potential Variables Related to School Counselor Practice
In the school counseling literature, many variables have been suggested as having an influence on school counselor practice, including school level of employment (i.e., elementary, middle, high), years of experience as a school counselor, number of students per caseload, amount of time spent in non-guidance-related activities, professional identity and development, as well as the organizational culture in the school. Sisson and Bullis (1992) stated, "job roles can be expected to differ when counseling students at the elementary, junior high-middle school, and high school levels" (p. 109). Several comprehensive, developmental school counseling models do account for some differences in the amount of time spent in the counseling, consultation, curriculum, and coordination interventions by school level (see Gysbers & Henderson, 2000; Myrick, 2003). Consistent research findings have revealed the influence of school level on the manner in which school counselors actually spend their time, as well as their preferences for time spent in school counseling activities (e.g., Davis, 1999; Hardesty & Dillard, 1994; Johnson, 1993; Partin, 1993).
Another variable that has received a great deal of attention is an individual's years of experience as a school counselor. There have been mixed results in research regarding the relationship of years of experience as a school counselor and performance as a school counselor. Study findings have supported the notion that years of experience may have a positive impact on practice (Brott & Myers, 1999; Sink & Yillik-Downer, 2001). However, Carter (1993) and Mustaine et al. (1996) found that years of experience was not a significant variable related to the actual activities performed by school counselors. Although there does seem to be a basis for the concept that years of experience may influence the discrepancy between school counselors' actual and preferred practice, this has yet to be empirically supported.
Two variables, ratio of school counselors to students (ASCA, 2003; Baker, 2000; Mustaine et al., 1996) and the amount of time spent in non-guidance-related activities, have frequently been highlighted for their potential impact on school counselor performance and effectiveness (ASCA, 2003; Borders & Drury, 1992; Burnham & Jackson, 2000; Mustaine et al., 1996; Partin, 1993). Moreover, numerous variables related to professional identity and professional development have been suggested as relating to school counselor practice but have yet to be empirically examined to a great extent. Mustaine et al. found that 15% of respondents indicated their "own lack of training in certain areas" (p. 33) as an explanation for the discrepancies between actual and preferred number of hours spent per week in school counseling activities. Comparison of CACREP- and non-CACREP-accredited counselor education programs has been one method of assessing the basic content of the curriculum and the practical experiences of school counselor trainees (Davis, 1999; Holcomb-McCoy, Bryan, & Rahill, 2002). Research indicates that once they have completed formal education, school counselors who hold membership in professional organizations may be less likely to become isolated and more likely to behave according to standards of the school counseling profession (e.g., Baker, 2000). As stated previously, school counselors struggle with a lack of role definition. Fifteen percent of participants in the study by Mustaine et al. offered the statement "there is no clear-cut definition of my role activities, functions, and tasks" (p. 33) as an explanation for discrepancies in practice. However, the impact that working from a school counseling program framework (i.e., National Standards for School Counseling Programs; Campbell & Dahir, 1997) might have on practice has received little attention in research. Participation in ongoing supervision and/or consultation has also been suggested as having an impact on school counselor professional identity and development (Benshoff & Paisley, 1996; Borders & Usher, 1992; Logan, 1997).
The organizational culture within which school counselors practice has also received attention in the professional literature (Carlson, 1989; Sutton & Fall, 1995). Self-efficacy as well as support and collegiality among school colleagues and administration are seen as important components related to organizational culture and, therefore, may have an impact on school counselor practice (Sutton & Fall, 1995). School counselors are expected to maintain their identity and perform their role in an environment in which their colleagues and administrators operate from different philosophical and methodological approaches. Mustaine et al. (1996) found that 49% of school counselors in their study listed the reason "administration dictates the counselor's role and function" (p. 33) as an explanation of the discrepancy between actual and preferred practice. Although the concept of self-efficacy is multifaceted, it is related to a person's ability to influence events in his or her life (Sutton & Fall, 1995). In addition, studies have found that the efficiency and effectiveness of the implementation and maintenance of a comprehensive, developmental school counseling program is influenced by the attitude of, and support from, members of the school administration (Cole, 1991; Ponce & Brock, 2000).
* Purpose of the Study
We conducted this study to address the lack of systematic research on the variables that are related to the discrepancy between the manner in which school counselors actually spend their time and how they would prefer to spend their time in specific activities related to school counselor practice. On the basis of the review of literature previously described, we identified the following variables because of their potential relationship to the discrepancies between actual and preferred amount of time spent on common school counselor activities: school level of employment, years of school counselor experience, number of students per caseload, the amount of time spent in non-guidance-related activities, attempt to implement the National Standards of School Counseling Programs, member of ASCA, member of a state-level school counseling organization, counselor education master's program accredited by CACREP, participation in peer consultation, self-efficacy as a school counselor, and school counselor support. Because we examined the difference between actual practice and preferred practice (as...
|
