|
Article Excerpt
Demographic shifts in our nation's population mandate that we attend specifically to students 'achievement, if as a nation, we expect to maintain our standard of living, our level of prosperity, and our place in the global economy. Simply put, we need the knowledge and contributions of students of color--together with the knowledge and contributions of all students and all our adults--to maintain our democracy.
--Learning Point Associates (2004, p. 2)
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB; 2002) leaves a legacy of accountable high-stakes expectations in which every professional in every school building is expected to contribute to the overall strategy for improving school achievement. Accountability has permeated every aspect of the educational arena. Adequate yearly progress, as measured by moving critical data elements in a positive direction, is intended to raise overall performance levels and to close the achievement gaps between high-performing and low-performing groups (Swanson, 2004). With the impending reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA; 1965), it is imperative that no school building, no principal, and no school staff member are left out of improving the success story for every student. Although previous iterations of ESEA, America 2000 (1991), and Goals 2000 (1994) required stringent graduation requirements, standards across all of the academic content areas, and innovation in curriculum and pedagogy, NCLB placed the responsibility for improving achievement squarely on every member of the school community, including parents, students, and the community at large. Although NCLB has not yet laid its mark directly on the school counseling profession, the reduction of funding for school personnel other than those who teach the core academic courses continues to erode. The school counseling profession cannot be far behind (Dahir & Stone, 2003, 2004; Herr, 2001; Isaacs, 2003; Kiselica & Robinson, 2001; Lapan, 2001; Stone & Hanson, 2002).
For more than 25 years, the professional literature has called repeatedly for increasing counselor accountability (Gysbers, 2004). In this climate of limited educational funding and the pressures of meeting adequate yearly progress, school counselors continue to be at risk as ancillary to the central goals of education (i.e., teaching and learning). Policy makers, school boards, and school system leaders, who are held accountable for improved results, may view the counseling programs in schools as fiscally irresponsible and as an ineffective use of resources (Whiston, 2002).
* Moving to an Accountability Mind-Set
The development of the American School Counselor Association (ASCA) national standards (Campbell & Dahir, 1997) encouraged school counselors to think in terms of the expected results of what students should know and be able to do as a result of implementing a standards-based comprehensive school counseling program. The Education Trust's (1997) DeWitt Wallace Reader's Digest the Transforming School Counseling Initiative (hereinafter referred to as the Transforming School Counseling Initiative) brought forward new vision skills for school counselors that emphasized leadership, advocacy, use of data, collaboration and teaming, and a commitment to support high levels of student achievement. ASCA collaborated with the Education Trust to infuse these new vision themes of the Transforming School Counseling Initiative throughout the American School Counselor Association National Model: A Framework for School Counseling Programs (ASCA, 2003, 2005 [hereinafter referred to as the ASCA National Model]). These counseling skills are presented in Table 1.
This collaboration sent a clear message to the profession; that is, school counselors are ideally situated in schools to serve as social justice advocates to eliminate the achievement gap and to focus their efforts on ensuring success for every underserved and underrepresented student (House & Hayes, 2002; House & Martin, 1998; Stone & Dahir, 2006). A penchant for social justice dictates that if school counselors "embrace a will to excellence, we can deeply restructure education in ways that will ... release the full potential of all of our children" (Hillard, 1991, p. 31). Yet, school counselors have not universally aligned data-informed practice and accountability with equity and improving student achievement. Many continue to adhere to the "bean counting" method of accountability by reporting the totals for different types of activities. Considered "so what" data in the eyes of legislators, school board members, and other critical stakeholders this may be construed as merely a mechanism to account for productivity. School board members, administrators, and teachers understand the difference between reporting how time is spent and demonstrating the impact on academic outcomes (Louis, Jones, & Barajas, 2001; Myrick, 2003; Schmoozer, 2006; Stone, 2003; Thorn & Mulvenon, 2002).
Federal, state, and local expectations demand evidence-based outcomes as criteria for best practices. Accountability, as defined by NCLB (2002), requires a systematic collection and analysis of key data to understand, contribute to, and improve student achievement. The ASCA (2003, 2005) National Model has placed accountability into the daily vernacular of school counselors with the expressed purpose of eliminating the opportunity and achievement gaps. Accountability for student success must become a driving force for transforming and reframing the work of school counselors (ASCA, 2003, 2005; Green & Keys, 2002; Gysbers & Henderson, 2001; Lapan, 2001; Myrick, 2003; Stone & Dahir, 2004, 2007). When aligned with the educational enterprise, the school counseling program is data informed, is proactive and preventive in focus, assists students in acquiring and applying lifelong learning skills, and is delivered in a comprehensive and accountable manner (Stone & Dahir, 2006).
The primary purpose of this article is to address the urgent call by researchers to expand the traditional methods used for assessing needs and evaluating school counseling programs (Brown & Trusty, 2005; Dimmitt, Carey, & Hatch, 2007; Dollarhide & Lemberger, 2006; Herr, 2001; Isaacs, 2003; S. Johnson & Johnson, 2003; Stone & Dahir, 2004, 2007; Whiston, 2002). Action research, a widely used methodology in general education, has the potential to engage school counselors using data-informed practice that contributes to the accountability expectations of NCLB (2002) and the ASCA (2003, 2005) National Model.
* Action Research and School Counselor Accountability
"Vision without action is meaningless" (Spinetta, 2002, p. 24). Action research in education has gained increased attention for more than 25 years, evolving over time to garner support from school-based personnel to improve practice. As a systematic inquiry into the teaching and learning environment, action research gathers information about how schools perform, the impact of instruction, and how well students are learning (Mills, 2003; Sagor, 1992). With questions asked and answers found, thus generating new questions and ideas (Mills, 2003), action research can be viewed as a process of cyclical inquiry resulting in ongoing and continuous improvement. Action research requires the use of data-informed practice and follows the scientific method of inquiry, including developing a hypothesis, gathering data, analyzing and interpreting data, and then applying the results to improve practice (Lewin,...
|
