4_nichter - National Forum Journals - Dr. Kritsonis

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL VOLUME 26, NUMBER 1, 2008-2009

ACTUAL AND PREFERRED COUNSELING ACTIVITIES AS PERCEIVED BY SECONDARY SCHOOL COUNSELORS AND PRINCIPALS Mary Nichter Rebecca Robles-Piña Judith Nelson Sam Houston State University ABSTRACT This study noted differences in perceptions of secondary school principals (N = 230) and school counselors (N = 775) regarding school counselors’ actual and preferred activities regarding Counseling, Consultation, Curriculum, Coordination, and Other. Both principals and counselors reported that school counselors do not frequently or routinely perform activities that ACSA has determined to be necessary for effectiveness in school counseling. Statistically significant differences between principals and counselors on actual duties performed were found for Curriculum with principals reporting that counselors actually spend more time performing this activity than counselors reported. Statistically significant differences were found between principals and counselors on the following preferred activities: (a) Consultation with principals reporting preferring counselors spend more time on this activity than counselors reported and (b) Other (noncounseling duties) with principals reporting preferring counselors spend more time on this activity than counselors reported.

P

rincipals and school counselors must negotiate how to best use school counselors to contribute to the overall performance of educational systems. Effective use of school counselors’ time has been defined by various professional organizations and researchers in this area to include Counseling, Consultation, Curriculum, Coordination and not include activities that fall into the Other category

70

71

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

such as clerical work (American School Counselor Association [ASCA], 2005; Bemak, 2000; Bemak & Chung, 2005; House & Sears, 2002; Martin, 2002). The literature on principals’ perceptions on how best to utilize school counselors in improving school systems is mixed (Allan, Doi, & Reid, 1997; Amatea & Clark, 2005; Bemak, 2000; Clark & Stone, 2000; Deitz, 1972; Kaplan, 1995; Kirchner & Setchfield, 2005; Light, 2005; Mallory & Jackson, 2007; McDougall & Reitan, 1963; Murray, 1995; Niebuhr, Neibuhr, & Cleveland, 1999; Peterson & Littrell, 2000; Ponec & Brock, 2000; Remley & Albright, 1998; Schmidt, Weaver, & Aldredge, 2001; Stickel, 1992; Zalaquett, 2005). The majority of the aforementioned studies indicated that principals have no clear idea of the role school counselors need to perform. The purpose of this article is to fill in the gap in the literature by increasing the sample size found in previous studies. Further, this study proposes to investigate the differences between Texas’ high school counselors and principals about their perceptions regarding school counselors’ roles, a comparison that is lacking in the literature. Findings from this study will benefit schools by assisting principals and school counselors to begin to communicate about how to best utilize counselors for the educational benefit of student’s academic and emotional needs. Early Studies One of the first studies (McDougall & Reitan, 1963) conducted regarding the role of the school counselor measured the different perceptions of elementary counselors and principals about school counselors’ roles. The majority of principals (a) wanted well-trained school counselors in psychology, counseling, and guidance and, (b) viewed previous teaching experience as necessary. Later studies included a survey of 169 Tennessee secondary school principals (Deitz, 1972) and a survey of 343 elementary school counselors and principals in Massachusetts (Ellis, 1972). The Ellis study indicated that counselors’ activities were mainly remedial and that their role in

Mary Nichter, Rebecca Robles-Piña, & Judith Nelson 72

developing guidance was a goal, but not a reality. Further, the results of this study indicated that unless school counselors played a more active part in defining their role, their importance would decrease. The findings from an international study surveying the perceptions of school principals and teachers from 124 schools in British Columbia provided the following insights (Tatar, 1995). First, the services of a counselor were sought at least 2-3 days a week and a school-based teacher-counselor was preferred to a counselor coming to the school. Second, the perceptions were that counselors needed training in developmental, preventive, and remedial approaches. Third, counselors were needed to provide direct services to teachers and students alike and should provide consultation services to parents. Recent literature has suggested that professional school counselors must re-define their roles as advocates for all students and leaders in the educational reform movement (American School Counselor Association [ASCA], 2005; Bemak, 2000; Bemak & Chung, 2005; House & Sears, 2002; Martin, 2002). Trusty and Brown (2005) reviewed the American School Counselor National Model (ASCA, 2005) and found advocacy to be one of the themes that underpins all of the activities and services school counselors perform. As advocates and leaders of school counseling programs, school counselors must be accountable for their programs through data collection and outcome research (ASCA, 2005; Astramovich & Coker, 2007; Myrick, 2003; Stone & Dahir, 2004). The new vision for professional school counselors according to the educational reform movement broadens the traditional view to include program development, management, and evaluation. Individual and group counseling (traditional responsive services) as part of the new vision’s delivery system are only two components of a comprehensive developmental guidance program. Greater emphasis is now placed on counselor-generated programs that promote academic success for all students, are data driven, and that elevate the school counselor to a new leadership role (ASCA, 2005; Bemak, 2000;

73

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

Erford, House, & Martin, 2003; Gysbers 2005; Martin, 2002). The new vision of the school counseling profession is built upon 13 performance standards included in the accountability section of ASCA’s (2005) National Model. To meet professional practice standards, the school counselor performs the following activities: 1. plans, organizes, and delivers the school counseling program 2. implements the school guidance curriculum through the use of effective instructional skills and careful planning of structured group sessions for all students 3. implements the individual planning component by guiding individuals and groups of student and their parents through the development of educational and career planning 4. provides responsive services through the effective use of individual and small-group counseling, consultation, and referral services 5. provides system support through effective school counseling program management and support for other educational programs 6. discusses the counseling department management system and the program action plans with the school administrator 7. responsible for establishing and convening an advisory council for the school counseling program 8. collects and analyzes data to guide program direction and emphasis 9. monitors the students on a regular basis as they progress in school 10. uses time and calendar to implement an efficient program 11. develops a results evaluation for the program 12. conducts a yearly program audit 13. advocates for students, is a leader collaborator and a systems change agent (ASCA National Model, 2005, pp. 63-65). In addition to the performance standards for school counselors, ASCA’s (2005) National Model clearly outlines the desired framework

Mary Nichter, Rebecca Robles-Piña, & Judith Nelson 74

for writing a comprehensive guidance program. Unfortunately, as Gysbers (2005) points out, there is often an implementation gap between writing a comprehensive school counseling program and the actual doing of such a program. Traditional expectations, resistance to new ideas, and tasks that are not related to school counseling are the main reasons for this implementation gap. An additional reason for the implementation gap offered by DeVoss and Andrews (2006) is lack of understanding by teachers and administrators about the role of school counselors in achieving the mission of the school. The Non-Counseling Counselor When principals and counselors themselves do not understand the benefits of implementing ASCA’s (2005) National Model for school counseling programs and do not agree on the transformed counselor role and responsibilities, too many non-counseling duties may be assigned to the counselor. Too often counselors are assigned responsibilities that have little or nothing to do with counseling. These non-counseling duties have been the topic of research studies (Gysbers, 2005; Perusse, Goodnough, Donegan, & Jones, 2004) and are reported to significantly detract from counselors’ delivery of a comprehensive school counseling program. After a thorough investigation of what counselors do with their time, Campbell and Dahir (1997) offered the following list of inappropriate activities for school counselors that is endorsed by the ASCA National Model: 1. registering and scheduling of all new students 2. coordinating/administering cognitive, aptitude and achievement tests 3. signing for students who are absent/tardy 4. performing disciplinary actions 5. sending students home who are not appropriately dressed 6. teaching classes for absent teachers 7. computing GPA 8. maintaining student records

75

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

9. supervising study halls 10. clerical record keeping and data entry 11. assisting with duties in the principal’s office 12. work with one student at a time in a therapeutic, clinical mode 13. preparation of individual educational plans, teams and review boards 14. data entry (p. 13) The Transformed Professional School Counselor The transformation of the school counseling profession guides the experts in defining effective school counseling interventions. Myrick (2003) identified the following as counselor interventions: individual counseling, small group counseling, large group guidance, peer facilitator projects, and consultation. In addition, Myrick defined the professional school counselor as the guidance coordinator and discussed the issues of accountability in school counseling programs. Erford, House, and Martin (2003) suggested that school counselors should plan and implement a 21st century comprehensive developmental school counseling program in which the counselor is a partner in student achievement and produces programs that are accountable for that achievement. Baker and Gerler (2004) promoted a “balanced” approach to school counseling which included prevention programs as well as interventions. Clearly professional school counselors are in a position to implement powerful and creative programming to encourage academic success, leadership and advocacy skills, and civic engagement in all students. The following appropriate school counselor activities would promote such programs according to Campbell and Dahir (1997):

1. individual student academic planning 2. counseling students who are tardy, absent, have disciplinary problems and about appropriate school dress

Mary Nichter, Rebecca Robles-Piña, & Judith Nelson 76

3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

collaborating with teachers analyzing GPA in relationship to achievement interpreting student records making suggestions to teachers about study halls ensuring records are maintained as per state and federal regulations 8. assisting school principal to resolve issues 9. provide small and large group counseling services 10. advocating for students 11. disaggregated data analysis (p. 13) Activities of High School Counselors Unlike elementary school counselors who must singlehandedly coordinate the counseling program, high school counselors often work in teams, with up to five or six counselors required at large high schools. High school counselors could have as many as 450 or more students in their caseload (Sink, 2005). With multiple counselors, the student population is divided into separate caseloads by alphabet, grade level or other classifications providing a more manageable number of students assigned to each counselor. The grouping of students among counselors is only one way high school counselors differ from elementary counselors. Other differences reported in the literature confirm high school counselors engage in more clerical duties (Coll & Freeman,1979), less large group guidance (Myrick, 2003), and more office work including writing recommendations, transcript evaluation, and data entry (Sink). Consequently, high school counselors more than elementary school counselors are engaged in non-counseling tasks that limit time spent in counseling, consultation, coordination, and curriculum activities (Scarborough, 2005). In addition, Hardesty and Dillard (1994) reported that high school counselors perform less consultative/coordination activities; more administrative activities such as scheduling and paperwork; and worked less systemically with families, teachers, and community agencies when compared to elementary school counselors.

77

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

Purpose of the Study In light of recommendations from ASCA and from experts in the field, the purpose of this study was to examine the activities of secondary school counselors in Texas as perceived by principals and counselors. Our research question asked “What are the differences between secondary school principals and secondary school counselors on their perceptions of actual and preferred duties of Texas’ school counselors?” We were curious about how and where secondary school counselors in Texas are actually spending their time and whether or not they are doing what they prefer to be doing based on their training and the recommendations of their professional organizations. In addition, we wanted to add to the literature by increasing the sample size to obtain more reliable data about principals’ and counselors’ perception of school counseling activities. Methodology Participants A total of 1005 educators responded to this survey including 230 middle and high school principals and 775 middle and high school counselors. The following demographic characteristics were noted (see Table 1). Gender was not a characteristic that was requested of participants. The majority of middle and high school principals had 15 years of experience, and the majority of middle school counselors also had from 1-5 years of experience, however, the majority of high school counselors had from 10-20 years of experience. The majority of high school principals reported working in rural settings, and the majority of middle school principals reported working in suburban settings. High school counselors and middle school counselors reported working in suburban settings. The majority of middle and

Mary Nichter, Rebecca Robles-Piña, & Judith Nelson 78

high school principals as well as middle and high school counselors reported ethnic group as Caucasian or White. Instrument The SCARS (Scarborough, 2002) was used to collect data. The SCARS (Scarborough) is used primarily to collect process data about how school counselors actually spend their time versus how they would prefer to spend their time. The SCARS (Scarborough) is a questionnaire of 54 items that requests participants to rate themselves based on a 5-point Likert-scale on two dimensions: actual activities performed and preferred activities. The following anchors were used to collect data on degree of time spent on the actual activity: 1 = never do this; 2 = rarely do this; 3 = occasionally do this; 4 = frequently do this; and, 5 = to routinely do this. Similarly, the following anchors were used to collect data on the amount of preferred time on a particular activity: 1 = would prefer to never do this; 2 = would prefer to rarely do this; 3 = would prefer to occasionally do this; 4 = would prefer to frequently do this; and, 5 = would prefer to routinely do this. Reliability Evidence of reliability was provided using Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. The following were calculated for both actual and preferred activities in each category: (a) actual counseling, .85, prefer counseling, .86; (b) actual consultation, .77, prefer consultation, .78; (c) actual curriculum, .93, prefer curriculum, .93; (d) prefer coordination, .86, actual coordination , .87; and, (e) actual “other,” .61, prefer “other,” .68. This analysis indicated that Curriculum actual and preferred activities had more reliability, consistency in scoring patterns, than did actual and preferred Other activities. A reason for this might be because the other activities are quite diverse in relationship to curriculum activities.

79

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

Validity Evidence of construct validity for the SCARS (Scarborough, 2005) was determined using a factor analysis and the following four-factor solution was found for the original items: (a) counseling, (b) coordination, (c) consultation, and (d) curriculum. Subsequent items loaded on what was determined to be the other category. Examples of items in the different categories are the following: (a) counseling, “Conduct small groups regarding family/personal issues (e.g., divorce, death);” (b) consultation, “Consult with school staff concerning student behavior;” (c) curriculum, “Conduct classroom lessons regarding substance abuse;” (d) coordination, “Coordinate schoolwide response for crisis management and intervention.” Finally, an example of an item in the other category is “Participate on committees within the school.” Procedures Permission to use the SCARS (Scarborough, 2002) is on the website of the National Center for Outcome Research in School Counseling (http://www.umass.edu/schoolcounseling/). A survey company (www.freeonlinesurveys.com) was used to set up the SCARS (Scarborough) in an Internet format. Professional school counselors received an email requesting their participation in the survey and directing them to the link provided to complete the survey. The informed consent assured participants that their responses were anonymous and confidential. The survey company collected the survey responses and aggregated them into an EXCEL file which could then be used in SPSS. Personal email addresses of participants were not reported to the researchers. The instrument “…was designed to measure how school counselors actually spend their time versus how they would prefer to spend their time in job related activities” (Scarborough, 2005, p. 274). The SCARS (Scarborough, 2002) can provide important information to stakeholders regarding the daily activities of school counselors.

Mary Nichter, Rebecca Robles-Piña, & Judith Nelson 80

Collecting this data can also provide an opportunity for counselors, administrators, teachers, students, and parents to dialogue about any noticeable discrepancies in actual and prescribed practice. Since there is not a list of email addresses of professional school counselors in Texas, two phases of data collection were employed. First, the SCARS (Scarborough, 2002) was sent through email in an Internet format via the survey company to middle and high school counselors whose email addresses were listed on the state’s Education Service Center websites. The recipients of the email were asked to click on the link provided in the email which routed them to the survey. The response to this method was low; therefore, the second phase of data collection was used. In the second phase, the SCARS (Scarborough) instrument was sent using the same survey company to the Directors of Guidance in Texas in the same format. The Directors’ email addresses were available through a list that had been compiled informally through colleagues in the field. The Directors were requested to forward the survey to the middle and high school counselors in their districts and the response rate increased. Internet surveys are being used increasingly in academic research as a tool for study in social science (Van Selm & Jankowski, 2006). Van Selm and Jankowski point out benefits of internet surveys such as economic advantage, efficiency of data collection, ability to reach potentially adequate numbers of respondents across large geographic regions, the absence of interviewer bias, and convenience for the respondents. The main problem with online surveys is the impossibility of calculating the response rate (Schleyer & Forrest, 2000; Van Selm & Jankowski) since the researchers cannot pinpoint who actually received the information. According to Schonlau, Fricker, and Elliott (2002), return rates of online surveys range from 7 to 44% as compared to mail surveys with a 25 to 79% return rate. Recognizing the drawbacks of using an Internet format, we improved our response rate by sending the internet survey using two different contact methods.

81

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

Results An overall examination on mean scores for principals and counselors on the five activities (Counseling, Consultation, Curriculum, Coordination, and Other) of actual and preferred duties presented several findings (see Table 2). First, an analysis of the range of mean scores for both principals and counselors in both actual and preferred duties indicated that scores ranged from a low of 2.0 (rarely do this and prefer to rarely do this) to a high of 3.95 (occasionally do this and would prefer to occasionally do this). Second, interestingly, principals and counselors did not rate any of the actual and prefer duties using 4s (frequently do this and would prefer to frequently do this) and 5s (routinely do this and would prefer to routinely do this) in any of the categories. An analysis to find statistical differences and effect sizes between principals and school counselors on actual activities (Counseling, Consultation, Curriculum, Coordination, and Other) was conducted. Multiple t-tests were conducted to find statistical differences and thus a Bonferroni correction was applied to avoid committing a Type-I error, ability to reject the null hypothesis when true. To calculate the Bonferroni correction, .05 was divided by the number of tests (10) and thus statistical significance could only be reached for categories with significance below .00. The analyses to find group differences between counselors and principals included several steps. First, the lowest mean scores for actual duties were found on the following categories: (a) Curriculum, conducting guidance lessons and (b) Coordination, planning for school-wide responses to crisis interventions. The highest mean scores for actual duties were found for Consultation, planning for student interventions and Other (clerical duties). Second, there were statistically significant differences found between principals and counselors on actual activities only for

Mary Nichter, Rebecca Robles-Piña, & Judith Nelson 82

Curriculum (see Table 2). The results were: t(1004), 8.49, p < .00, r = .26 (low effect size) with mean scores for principals (M = 2.48, SD = .98) and counselors (M = 2.20, SD = .89). This indicated that principals perceived that counselors actually performed more activities related to Curriculum than did counselors. The effect sizes calculated were determined to be low (Cohen, 1992). No statistically significant differences between principals and counselors were found for the following actual activities; Counseling, Consultation, and Other. Further, low effect sizes were determined. Counseling, t(1004), 5.54, p < .00., r = .17 (low effect size) with scores for Principals (M = 3.04, SD = .70) and Counselors (M = 2.93, SD = .64). Consultation, t(1004), 3.82, p < .00., r = .17 (low effect size), with scores for Principals (M = 2.99, SD = .77) and Counselors (M = 3.06, SD =.68). Coordination t(1004), 1.63, p < .00., r = .05 (low effect size) with scores for Principals (M = 2.77, SD = .74) and Counselors (M = 2.70, SD = .69). Other t(1004), 5.72, p < .00., r = .18 (low effect size) with scores for Principals (M = 3.00, SD = .66) and Counselors (M = 3.07, SD = .59). These findings indicated that principals and counselors did not vary in their perceptions on actual activities, except for Curriculum where principals believed counselors actually spent more time on this activity. Statistically significant differences were found between principals and counselors on the following preferred activities. Consultation, t(1004), 6.34, p < .00., r = .20 (low effect size), with scores for Principals (M = 3.67, SD = .73) and Counselors (M = 3.51, SD = .67). Other t(1004), 7.46, p < .00., r = .23 (low effect size) with scores for Principals (M = 3.10, SD = .74) and Counselors (M = 2.56, SD = .63). These findings indicate that principals prefer that counselors spend more time on Consultation activities (talking to school staff) as well as Other (participate in non-counseling duties). No statistically significant differences were found for prefer on the following activities. Counseling, t(1004), 5.51, p < .00., r = .17

83

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

(low effect size) with scores for Principals (M = 3.89, SD = .65) and Counselors (M = 3.82, SD = .64). Curriculum, t(1004), 6.89, p < .00., r = .21 (low effect size) with scores for Principals (M = 3.67, SD = .83) and Counselors (M = 3.31, SD = .81). Coordination t(1004), 3.26, p < .00., r = .10 (low effect size) with scores for Principals (M = 3.62, SD = .68) and Counselors (M = 3.48, SD = .67). In summary of the analyses, there were several findings. First, the overall mean scores indicated that both counselors and principals agree that school counselors actually rarely or occasionally perform the activities noted as essential for effective counselors (ASCA, 2005). Further, lack of endorsement of 4s and 5s by both counselors and principals indicated that that counselors do not frequently or routinely actually perform the activities determined by ASCA as essential nor do they prefer that school counselors frequently and routinely perform the activities. Second, there were only significant differences between principals and counselors to counselors actually performing Curriculum activities with principals reporting that counselors performed this activity more than counselors believe they do. Third, there were only significant differences found between principals and counselors on prefer for the following activities: (a) principals preferring counselors do more Consultation (i.e., talking with school staff regarding student problems and (b) Other (i.e., participating in non-counseling activities determined by ASCA). Our purpose in conducting this research was “to fill in the gap in the literature by increasing the sample size.” We accomplished this purpose with our sample size, N = 1005, as the sample size of previous studies varied between N = 512 (Deitz, 1972), N = 102 (MonteiroLeitner, Asner-Self, Milde, Leitner, & Skelton, 2006), and N = 75 (Schmidt et al., 2001). Therefore, with a larger sample size, it would appear that the results of our study may more accurately reflect the perceptions of secondary principals and school counselors about counseling activities. Discussion

Mary Nichter, Rebecca Robles-Piña, & Judith Nelson 84

This study examined the differences between middle school counselors and principals and high school counselors and principals regarding their perceptions of actual and preferred counseling activities (Counseling, Consultation, Curriculum, Coordination, and Other). Results of our study indicated that school counselors struggle with role conflict, which according to Coll and Freeman (1997) and Remley and Albright (1998) is apparently reflective of the many conflicting demands currently placed upon them. Specifically for our study, none of the items on The School Counseling Activity Rating Scale (Scarborough, 2002) received ratings of 4 (I frequently or would prefer to frequently do this) and 5 (I routinely do this or would prefer to routinely do this) by principals and school counselors. We interpreted this finding to indicate that participants lack a strong commitment and possibly a clear understanding of the actual and preferred roles of the school counselor. Based on these results, both principals and school counselors, are unaware of the amount of time school counselors spend on actual duties and how they should spend their time according to standards set up by their professional organizations. The results of our study are consistent with a 1972 study conducted by Deitz and an earlier study by McDougall and Reitan conducted in 1963 wherein results of both studies indicated that unless school counselors played a more active part in defining their role, their importance would decrease. Further, if school counselors’ roles are to change, school counselors must take a more active part in defining their role and advocating for their position to be aligned with the 13 performance standards included in the accountability section of ASCA’s (2005) National Standards and to reflect the new vision for professional school counselors according to the educational reform movement. While ASCA and the Education Trust have worked to shape the role of the school counselor at a national level; on a local level, according to Dahir (2000), it is the school principal who determines

85

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

what school counselors actually do. There is considerable research (Bemark, 2000; Chata & Loesch, 2007; Kirchner & Setchfield, 2005; Murray, 1995) to suggest that regardless of what school counselors have been trained to do; what they believe they should do, and what they want to do, principals define counselors’ roles and determine how counselors spend their time. In some situations, school administrators have been considered a challenge or barrier to transforming the school counselor role (House & Sears, 2002). According to Dahir, the American School Counselor Association and National Association of Secondary School Principals agree that the success of a school counseling program is dependent upon the principal’s support at the building level. According to Studer, Oberman, and Womack (2006) school counselors have been remiss in documenting how the school counseling program is an essential component of success for all students. Consequently, principals may assign counselors’ duties that have little to do with counseling in general and with student success specifically. In order to utilize the skills and expertise counselors bring to the entire school system, principals must become knowledgeable of these specialized skills and understand how they enhance the school experience for all students. Specifically, counselors are prepared to deliver activities that include counseling, consultation, collaboration, and coordination of school counseling programs. If counselors are to serve in schools as they have been trained to do, they must become strong advocates for their professional role and educate the principal as well as teachers, support personnel, and parents. Understanding that the principal is the leader and agent of change (Nelson & Nichter, 2006) in the school, counselors must begin to advocate for their professional role with the principal. According to Ripley, Erford, Dahir, & Eschbach (2003) principals control whether school counselors can perform the roles and functions advocated by ASCA. Exploratory analyses of our study revealed that school counselors and principals share similar perceptions of actual and preferred counseling activities in the areas of counseling and

Mary Nichter, Rebecca Robles-Piña, & Judith Nelson 86

coordination. The only difference between the two groups in actual school counselor activities was in Curriculum with principals rating this activity higher than school counselors. In preferred activities there were differences in Consultation and Other activities with principals reporting that they preferred that counselors spend more time on these activities than counselors reported. These findings indicate that principals believe school counselors should spend time in Curriculum and Consultation are consistent with findings from an earlier study (Kaplan, 1995) in which principals reported that the purpose of counseling was to directly support and increase students’ school learning and achievement. Further, principals participating in Kaplan’s study believed that “individual and group counseling, educational planning, and student assessment are means that should contribute directly and empirically to improved classroom behavior and achievement” (p. 2). The Other activities category is an area in which principals and counselors reported a difference in perception with principals preferring that school counselors spend more time on Other activities, which are inconsistent with the standards required by professional organizations. Interestingly, on the one hand principals believe that school counselors should spend more time on Curriculum activities than do counselors and on the other hand principals prefer that counselors spend more time on Consultation and Other duties. This suggests that principals have a stronger opinion of the activities they want school counselors to perform than do school counselors. Clearly, school counselors must advocate strongly for how they spend their time and how they would prefer to spend their time in relation to student achievement. Future research is necessary for investigating whether schools where counselors spend the majority of time on activities deemed necessary by professional organizations actually perform better than schools where counselors spend the majority of time on Other duties. Our study’s findings indicate that principals prefer that school counselors spend time on Curriculum activities such as developing and

87

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

implementing school-wide programs on issues such as substance abuse as well as Other duties. This finding indicates that principals may not be aware of how much time is spent on Other duties and that time spent on Other activities might be better spent on Curriculum activities that would benefit students’ academic and emotional needs (Stone & Dahir, 2005). Perhaps principals are not aware of the time demands on school counselors performing Other activities. Other activities have been identified can include performing hall, bus, cafeteria duty; coordinating the standardized testing program; and scheduling students’ classes. Our results support an earlier national study conducted by Perusse, Goodnough, Donegan, & Jones (2004) in which among other questions, members from the American School Counselor Association, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, and the National Association of Elementary School Principals were asked about counselors’ responsibility to perform Other or noncounseling activities. More than 80% of secondary school principals participating in Perusse’s et al. study believed that school counselors are responsible for non-counseling duties such as: “registration and scheduling of all new students;” “administering cognitive, aptitude, and achievement tests;” “maintaining student records.” Interestingly, these non-counseling tasks were the three most frequently performed by the secondary school counselor participants in our study. This finding supports Dahir’s (2004) statement that school administrators at a local level are responsible for how school counselors actually spend their time.

Implications and Future Research Our findings indicate that professional school counselors in Texas may not know how to advocate for their appropriate roles. Counselor educators will be instrumental in providing the knowledge,

Mary Nichter, Rebecca Robles-Piña, & Judith Nelson 88

advocacy skills, and experiences that will prepare future professional school counselors for the challenge of advocating for appropriate counseling activities. One activity that may help in this preparation is to assign an advocacy project with students preparing a list of “talking point” to present to a state legislator, local school board, or a principals’ professional organization. Empowering prospective school counselors during their pre-service training encourages a continuation of such advocacy after graduation. A longitudinal study on the effects of learning advocacy skills in pre-service training would be excellent data to disseminate to counselor educators. Many participants in our study have been working as school counselors for more than 10 years (approximately 50% of high school counselors and 40% of middle school counselors). Directors of Guidance and Counseling have a responsibility to update professional school counselors through professional development opportunities regarding the most current research, legislation, and thinking in the field. Leaders and supervisors of school counselors must provide new training each year so that their supervisees do not become complacent or resigned to providing services that are not within the guidelines of appropriate school counseling activities. Limitations Interpretation of the present findings should take into account the study’s limitations. First, it is not known how many secondary counselors and principals actually received the survey; therefore, the response rate cannot accurately be reported. Secondly, since the participants were all located in one state, further analyses regarding the activities of school counselors in other states are needed. Finally, when a self-reported assessment is used for data collection, it is impossible to measure the accuracy of participants’ responses. Some participants may fear their identify will be disclosed and therefore hesitate to be completely honest. Others may believe that the researchers have an idea of “correct” responses to the items and may select responses based on this belief.

89

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

Only through the collective efforts of school counselors will there be hope to positively shape the future of the school counseling profession. According to the literature (ASCA, 2005; Astramovich & Coker, 2007), accountability is critical to the success of comprehensive guidance programs. “High school counselors that provided students better educational and career planning services as part of comprehensive school guidance and counseling programs made significantly more progress in meeting their Adequate Yearly Progress requirements for No Child Left Behind” (Lapan, Gysbers, & Kayson, 2007, p. 5). Table 1 Descriptive Characteristics of High School Principals (N=110), Middle School Principals (N=120), High School Counselors (N=475), and Middle School Counselors (N=300) on Actual and Preferred Counselor Activities (N = 1005). Position High School Principal

Years of Experience 1-5 5-10 10-20 20< 37.3% 21.8% 30.0% 10.9%

Middle School Principal

37.5%

33.3%

20.8%

8.3%

High School Counselor

27.8%

25.5%

34.7%

12.0%

Middle School Counselor

32.3%

27.3%

28.0%

12.3%

(Table 1 Continues)

(Table 1 Continued)

Mary Nichter, Rebecca Robles-Piña, & Judith Nelson 90

Setting Suburban 20.9% 40.0%

High School Principal Middle School Principal

Urban 12.7% 28.3%

High School Counselor

23.8%

46.5%

29.7%

Middle School Counselor

29.7%

51.0%

19.3%

High School Principal Middle School Principal High School Counselor Middle School Counselor

Rural 66.4% 31.7%

Ethnicity Hispanic Caucasian African American 10.0% 86.4% 2.7% 10.8% 74.2% 14.2% 12.5% 76.1% 9.1% 10.3%

74.3%

12.7%

Table 2 Mean Differences between Middle School/ High School Principals (N=230) and Middle School/ High School Counselors (N=775) on Counseling Activities (1005)

Counseling- (i.e., Small group counseling regarding family/ personal issues)

Actual Preferre d

Mean SD Mean SD 3.04 0.70 2.93 0.64 3.89 0.65 3.82 0.64

η2 .17 .17

(Table 2 Continues)

(Table 2 Continues) Consultation- (i.e., Talk with school staff regarding student problems)

Actual Preferre d

2.99 3.67

0.77 0.73

3.06 3.51

0.68 0.67

.17 .20*

91

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

Curriculum- (i.e., Conduct classroom lessons regarding substance abuse)

Actual Preferre d

2.48 3.67

0.98 0.83

2.20 3.31

0.89 0.81

.26* .21

Coordination- (i.e., Actual 2.77 0.74 2.70 0.69 .05 Plan school-wide Preferre 3.62 0.68 3.48 0.67 .10 response for crisis d intervention and interventions) Other- (i.e., Actual 3.00 0.66 3.07 0.59 .18 Participate on Preferre 3.10 0.74 2.56 0.63 .23* committees within d the school not related to counseling Note: * Statistical significance at < .05 after Bonferroni adjustment. Anchors for actual and prefer – 1 = never do this; 2 = rarely do this; 3 = occasionally do this; 4 = frequently do this, 5 = routine do this.

REFERENCES

Mary Nichter, Rebecca Robles-Piña, & Judith Nelson 92

Allan, J. A., Doi, K., & Reid, C. (1997). Need assessment: A survey of principals’, primary and intermediate teachers’ perception of the counselor’s role in B. C.’s elementary schools. Canadian Counselor, 14, 27-31. American School Counselor Association. (2005). The ASCA national model: A framework for school counseling programs. Alexandria, VA: Author. Amatea, E., & Clark, M. A. (2005). Changing schools, changing counselors: A qualitative study of school administrator’s perceptions of the school counselor role. Professional School Counseling, 9, 16-27. Astramovich, R. L., & Coker, J. K. (2007). Program evaluation: The accountability bridge model for counselors. Professional School Counseling, 85, 162-172. Baker, S. B., & Gerler, E. R. (2004). School counseling for the twenty-first century (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Incorporated. Bemak, F. (2000). Transforming the role of the counselor to provide leadership in educational reform through collaboration. Professional School Counseling, 3, 323-331. Bemak, F., & Chung, R. (2005). Advocacy as a critical role for urban school counselors: Working toward equity and social justice. Professional School Counseling, 8, 196-203. Campbell, C. A., & Dahir, C. A. (1997). The national standards for school counseling programs. Alexandria, VA: American School Counselor Association. Chata, C. C., & Loesch, L. C. (2007). Future school principals’ view of the roles of professional school counselors. Professional School Counseling, 11, 35-41.

Clark, M., & Stone, C. (2000). The developmental school counselor as educational leader. In J. Wittmer (Ed.), Managing your school guidance program: K-12 developmental strategies,

93

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

(pp. 75-82). Minneapolis, MN: Educational Media Corporation. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155159. Coll, K. M., & Freeman, B. (1997). Role conflict among elementary school counselors: A national comparison with middle and secondary school counselors. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 31, 251-261. Deitz, S. C. (1972). Principals’ attitudes toward counselor role and function. NASSP Bulletin, 56, 72-75. DeVoss, J., & Andrews, M. (2006). School counselors as educational leaders. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. Dahir, C. A. (2000, November/December). Principals as partners in school counseling. ASCA School Counselor, 38, 13. Dahir, C. A. (2004). Supporting a nation of leaders: The role of school counseling in educational reform. Journal of Counseling & Development, 38, 344-353. Ellis, F. E. (1972). The dichotomy between the actual and the perceived role of the elementary guidance counselor in the state of Massachusetts. Massachusetts. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. RIEMAR1973). 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, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. Gysbers, N. C. (2005, November/December). Closing the implementation gap. ASCA School Counselor, 43, 36-41. Hardesty, P. H., & Dillard, J. M. (1994). The role of elementary school counselors when compared with their middle and secondary school counterparts. Elementary and Middle School Guidance, 29, 83-90. House, R., & Sears, S. (2002). Preparing school counselors to be leaders and advocates: A critical need in the new millennium. Theory into Practice, 41, 154-162.

Mary Nichter, Rebecca Robles-Piña, & Judith Nelson 94

Kaplan, L. S. (1995). Principals versus counselors: Resolving tensions from different practice models. The School Counselor, 42, 261-267. Kirchner, G. L., & Setchfield, M. S. (2005). School counselors’ and school principals’ perceptions of the school counselor’s role. Education, 126, 10-17. Lapan, R., Gysbers, N., & Kayson, M. (2007). Missouri school counselors benefit all students: How implementing comprehensive guidance programs improves academic achievement for all Missouri students. Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Jefferson City, MO. Light, C. (2005). Guidance for supporting school counselors. Principal Leadership, 6, 35-37. Mallory, B. J., & Jackson, M. H. (2007). Balancing the load: How to engage counselors in school improvement. Principal Leadership, 7, 34-37. Martin, P. J. (2002). Transforming school counseling: A national perspective. Theory into Practice, 41, 148-153. McDougall, W. O., Reitan, H. M. (1963). The elementary counselor as perceived by elementary principals. Personnel & Guidance Journal, 42, 348-354. Monteiro-Leitner, J., Asner-Self, K. K., Midle, C., Leitner, D., & Skelton, D. (2006). The role of the rural school counselor: counselor, counselor-in-training, and principal perceptions. Professional School Counseling, 9, 248-251. Murray, B. A. (1995). Principals’ proponents of high school guidance programs. NASSP Bulletin, 79, 64-68. Myrick, R. D. (2003). Developmental guidance and counseling: A practical approach (4th ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Educational Media Corporation. Nelson, J. A., & Nichter, M. (2006). Administrators: The transformers part II. Texas Study of Secondary Education,. 16, 9-11. Niebuhr, K. E., Neibuhr, R. E., & Cleveland, W. T. (1999). Principal and counselor collaboration. Education, 119, 674-678. Perusse, R., Goodnough, G. E., Donegan, J., & Jones, C. (2004). Perceptions of school counselors and school principals about

95

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

the national standards for school counseling programs and the transforming school counseling initiative. Professional School Counseling, 7(3), 152-161. Peterson, J. S., & Littrell, J. M. (2000). A school counselor creates a problem-solving culture. International Journal of Educational Reform, 9, 311-320. Ponec, D. L., & Brock, B. L. (2000). Relationships among elementary school counselor and principals: A unique bond. Professional School Counseling, 3, 208-217. Remley, T. P., & Albright, P. L. (1998). Expectations for middle school counselors; Views of students, teachers, principals, and parents. School Counselor, 35, 290-296. Scarborough, J. (2002). The School Counselor Activity Rating Scale. Retrieved June 10, 2006, from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, National Center for Outcome Research in School Counseling Web site: http://www.umass.edu/schoolcounseling Scarborough, J. (2005). The School Counselor Activity Rating Scale: An instrument for gathering process data. Professional School Counseling, 8, 274-283. Schmidt, J. J., Waver, F. S., & Aldredge, A. L. (2001). Perceptions of school counselor’s role and satisfaction by newly hired counselors and principals in eastern North Carolina. Greenville, NC: East Carolina University School of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED457470). Schonlau, M., Fricker, R., & Elliott, M. (2002). Conducting research surveys via e-mail and the web. Santa Monica, CA: Rand. Schleyer, T. K. L., & Forrest, J. L. (2000). Methods for the design and administration of Web-based surveys. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 7, 416-425. Stickel, S. A. (1992, March). Role perceptions of the rural school counselor: A factor analysis. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Eastern Educational Research Association (ERIC Documentation Reproduction Service ED344136).

Mary Nichter, Rebecca Robles-Piña, & Judith Nelson 96

Sink C. (2005). Contemporary school counseling theory, research, and practice. Boston: Lahaska Press. Stone, C,. & Dahir, C. (2005). The transformed school counselors. Boston: Lahaska Press. Studer, J. R., Oberman, A. H., Womack, R. H. (2006). Producing evidence to show counseling effectiveness in the schools. Professional School Counseling, 9, 385-391. Tatar, M. (1995). The potential impact of counselors on school prestige. British Journal of Guidance & Counseling, 23, 267275. Trusty, J. & Brown, D. (2005). School counselors’ comprehensive school counseling programs and academic achievement: Are school counselors promising more than they can deliver? Professional School Counseling, 9, 1-8. Van Selm, M., & Jankowski, N. (2006). Conducting online surveys. Quality and Quantity, 40, 435-456. Zalaquett, C. P. (2005). Principals’ perceptions of elementary school counselors’ role and functions. Professional School Counseling, 8, 451-457.