• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Changing Schools, Changing Counselors: A Qualitative Study of School Administrators' Conceptions of the School Counselor Role

Posted on: Wednesday, 26 October 2005, 09:01 CDT

By Amatea, Ellen S; Clark, Mary Ann

This qualitative study utilized a grounded theory methodology to assess the conceptions about the school counselor role held by 26 administrators employed in public elementary, middle, or high schools. The study was designed to build a deeper understanding of how school administrators conceptualized the school counselor role. Four distinctive role sets were found. They were differentiated in terms of primary work activities valued, extent of counselor-staff work role coordination, and type of specialized knowledge required. Findings suggest that there is a need for a more conscious development of counselor leadership skills and role expectations by counselors themselves and by counselor preparation programs.

Today's schools face a unique set of demands. They are expected to provide an education in basic skills to a large, widely varying student population while at the same time preparing their graduates for a technologically sophisticated work force (Schlechty, 1997). Schools also are expected to compensate for the shifts in society that affect children and their families, such as (a) the change from the traditional worker-homemaker family structure to that of either a two-worker or a single-parent family structure; (b) the increased rate of students from minority and non-English-speaking families attending school; (c) the growing incidence of poverty and economic instability experienced by families; (d) the increased incidence of family transience; and (e) the growth of commercialism, violence, and sexualized behavior depicted in popular culture (Hodgkinson, 2003). Moreover, as a result of school busing and the significant increase in school size experienced in many regions of the country, schools now educate children in a more impersonal social context far removed from a student's family and community life (Goodlad, 1984; Ornstein, Behar-Horenstein, & Pajak, 2003). Legislation such as No Child Left Behind (U.S. Department of Education, 2001) has increased pressure on educators to raise academic achievement at all levels.

RETHINKING EDUCATOR ROLES AND RELATIONSHIPS

As a result of these demands, educators are rethinking their ideas about what needs to be done in schools and by whom (Schlechty, 1997; Sizer, 1992). Teachers are being asked to rethink how teaching and learning occur in schools by embracing the concepts of diverse learning styles and practicing instructional variety (Gardner, 1999; Sternberg, 1996). They also are being encouraged to use learner- centered versus teacher-centered assessment strategies (Austin, 1994; Davies, Cameron, Politano, & Gregory, 1999; Schlechty), and to reintegrate teaching and learning within peer, family, and community social networks (Benson & Barnett, 1999; McCaleb, 1994). Principals also are being invited to rethink their roles concerning how they should lead their staff and how staff roles and relationships should be organized. One popular new leadership model is to create "schools that learn" (Schlechty; Senge et al., 2000), where decision-making is actively shared with staff, students, and their families (Earth, 1988, 1990; Blas & Andersen, 1995; Fullan, 2001). Principals also are being challenged to rethink the boundaries of their school by developing school-based full-service centers (Dryfoos, 1994) or by supporting the development of community coordinating teams of service providers (Adelman & Taylor, 2001) so as to give students greater access to mental health services.

School counselors also are being asked to rethink their roles. Many writers have encouraged school counselors to see themselves as educational leaders, student advocates, and social change agents (American School Counselor Association, 2003; Clark & Stone, 2000; House & Martin, 1998, Stone & Clark, 2001) in addition to providing direct guidance and counseling services to students. For example, some authors (Bemak, 2000; Keys & Bemak, 1997) have described school counselors as being instrumental in the integration of community- wide mental health services. Other authors (House & Martin; Stone & Clark) have suggested that the school counselor play a powerful role in (a) promoting student advocacy, (b) developing higher educational and career aspirations in students, (c) eradicating educational practices such as student tracking that inadvertently maintain inequities among disadvantaged student groups and stratify opportunities, and (d) using data to identify educational practices that may help or hinder student progress. Moreover, the American School Counselor Association (ASCA) recently published national standards (Campbell & Dahir, 1997) and the ASCA National Model (2003), emphasizing the important role that school counselors have in helping all students have equitable access for educational and career planning.

What role do school administrators view school counselors playing in today's schools? Do they embrace the idea of seeing their school counselor as a school change agent or advocate? Regrettably, several writers have noted that the leadership role conceptions of school counselors depicted in the counseling literature are not evident in the school administration literature (Herr, 1984; House & Martin, 1998; Taylor & Adelman, 1996). Although many school counseling professionals (House & Martin; Stone & Clark, 2001) consider this to be a significant oversight, few efforts have been made to explore the current conceptions of the school counselor role held by today's school administrators. This study is an attempt to fill that gap. We were interested in learning from school administrators, by means of personal interviews, how they conceptualized the nature of the school counselor's role and staff relations in today's schools.

We assumed that a logical step in understanding how today's school counselors construct their role in schools would be to assess the role conceptions of key participants in their role set-the school's administrators and teachers. Numerous writers have acknowledged the importance of the school principal understanding and collaborating in the development of the school counselor's role and function, and of the need to establish mutual trust and communication between the school's principal and the counselor (Ponec & Brock, 2000; Vaught, 1995). Although there have been a number of studies that have surveyed administrators regarding their expectations for school counselors (Fitch, Newby, Ballestero, & Marshall, 2001; Hassard & Costar, 1977; Ibrahim, Helms, & Thompson, 1983), most of these studies have focused on having administrators respond to lists of particular work activities or functions they might expect the counselor to perform. None of these studies were designed to qualitatively assess administrators' conceptions of the diversity of role activities expected, the value attributed to particular functions and activities, or the way counselor and staff roles were structured. In this study, we hoped to gain administrators' descriptions of how they prefer to have their counselors structure their role in the school.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

We believed that an administrator's discussion of the counselor's role would not only reveal the types of work activities valued by the administrator and the degree of specialization of these activities, but also the priority given to particular activities. We also believed that this inquiry would reveal how administrators expected the counselor to structure work relations and coordinate activities with other staff. By generating a description of administrators' role conceptions of school counselors, we hoped to achieve a greater understanding of the possible role options counselors might have. We also hoped that our findings might (a) provide clearer guidance to counselors in their selection of appropriate school environments and professional development goals, and (b) generate substantive ideas for improving the design of school counselor preparation programs.

Data were gathered in a 2-year grounded theory study exploring how school administrators and teachers expected school counselors to function in their schools. Grounded theory is a qualitative methodology that focuses on the meanings of social phenomena from the perspective of symbolic interactionist theory, a theory proposing that people construct meanings for phenomena based on their interpretations of interactions they have with one another. This article is a report of the data specific to the perspectives of school administrators.

METHODS

In this study, we use the term role in a descriptive way, in keeping with the definition proposed by sociologist J. H. Turner (1978), as referring to "a consistent pattern of individual activity (e.g., behavior, cognition or affect) within a relational field" (p. 222). Turner continues:

Any specific social role within a human organization is part of a larger set of roles shaped by the behavior and personal expectations of the role inhabitants, the cultural norms of the organization, and other individual, relational, or environmental factors that create, maintain and change role patterns in a process of mutual influence, (p. 222)

We use the term role conception (Turner, 1979/80) to refer to an individual's un\derstanding of his or her own role and those of others. Turner (1979/80) emphasized that one conceived of the behavior of the self and others involved in an ongoing relationship not simply in terms of a catalog of typical behaviors, but rather in terms of characteristic goals, strategies, and relational positions. Thus, a role conception consists of a person's perception of the motives, beliefs, competencies, and interactions of oneself and others participating in a role set.

Because the focus of this study was on the meanings and perspectives of individuals within a specific social context, we used a descriptive qualitative grounded theory design (Glaser, 1976; Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Grounded theory is a qualitative methodology based on symbolic interactionism (Blumer, 1967). Symbolic interactionist theory asserts that people construct meanings for phenomena based on their interactions with others. Grounded theory provides the methods for conducting research based on this perspective. An inherent assumption of symbolic interactionism and grounded theory is that "reality" is susceptible to different interpretations based on a dialectic of socially constructed meanings. Because "reality" is viewed as being individually and socially constructed, an infinite number of constructions might be made, thereby producing multiple individual and social meanings.

Grounded theorists base their research on the assumption that individuals and groups share certain social circumstances, and that from those shared circumstances, meanings are generated. It is the role of the grounded theory investigator to explore and attempt to see the world from the point of view of the respondents, to articulate their meanings to make sense out of their social experience, and to develop a theoretical understanding of the processes involved in their experience. The scientific rigor of grounded theory research is assessed through the application of procedures for establishing the credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability of the study findings. Therefore, consistent with methodological and epistemological assumptions of symbolic interactionism and grounded theory, study samples are purposive, and they are chosen to reflect the fullness of experience from the perspective of the individual. Hence, the study's findings are offered as an in-depth description of an experience so that different insights, theoretical ideas, and change strategies can be generated. From this initial work, it is anticipated that additional discovery and elaboration of the concepts and processes depicting respondents' shared meanings will be continued in future studies.

The unit of study in this investigation was the individual administrator. The research design consisted of focused qualitative interviews. The data were analyzed using the constant comparative method (analysis based on the differences and similarities among the data), and a theoretical scheme was developed through the process of relating conceptual categories to each other. These processes are described in detail by Glascr and Strauss (1967) and Glaser (1976).

Sample Selection

As is consistent with grounded theory methodology, study participants were selected based on their ability and interest in explicating their experience in working with school counselors and articulating their views about how they thought the counselor's role should be structured in their school. Therefore, the initial sample was purposive and voluntary. Administrators were recruited through personal contact by their interviewer. They were invited to participate in an interview but were under no pressure to accept. Inclusion criteria were that the study participant (a) had worked as either a principal or assistant principal in a public elementary, middle, or high school for at least 2 years; (b) had worked in a school employing at least one school counselor on a full-time basis; and (c) was willing to participate in a 30-to-45-minute individual interview. Prior to participant recruitment, the research protocol was approved by the institutional review board (IRB) at a large, state-funded university in the Southeastern region of the United States. After IRB approval was attained, individual school administrators were approached and invited to participate, the project was described, and a letter of informed consent and a copy of the interview protocol were distributed. Individuals who agreed to participate signed the consent form and scheduled an interview with one of the research interviewers.

Participants

Participants in the study were 26 public school administrators from three school districts in the Southeastern United States employed at various school levels. The sample was composed of 11 elementary school administrators, 8 middle school administrators, and 7 high school administrators. The sample included 14 females and 12 males. Twelve of the participants in this study had been employed as school administrators between 1 and 9 years. Another 8 had worked as administrators between 10 and 19 years, and the remaining 6 had worked as school administrators between 20 and 29 years. A variety of administrative positions were represented: 10 elementary principals, 1 elementary assistant principal, 4 middle school principals, 4 middle school assistant principals, 1 high school principal, and 6 high school assistant principals. The schools they administered ranged in size and ethnic and economic diversity.

Table 1. Interview Protocol

Data Collection

Data were gathered in individual interviews conducted by the first author or by graduate school counseling students enrolled in a 72-credit-hour Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs counselor education program in the College of Education at our university. The graduate students were participating in a capstone school counseling course taken the semester before graduation. The interviews were 30 to 45 minutes in length. If the participants indicated that they wanted to spend more time with the interviewer, the interview was extended. Questions asked during the interviews are listed in Table 1. All interviews were conducted in private and confidentiality was assured. The interviewer took notes and compiled them into an interview summary. All identifiable data on a respondent were screened from the interview report to protect the person's identity. This report then was sent to the respondent for his or her review and approval so as to corroborate the content of the report. All changes recommended by the participants then were made in the interview reports. According to Lincoln and Cuba (1985), this form of member checking is essential to establish the credibility of the research findings.

Data Analysis

Each of the two authors transcribed and analyzed the interview notes independently by using constant comparative analysis (Glaser, 1976; Glaser & Strauss, 1967). They identified common themes in the school administrators' descriptions of the counselors' work that provided the context for identifying the unique meanings, priorities, and ways of relating depicted in the data.

Table 2. Theoretical Schema

The scientific rigor of qualitative research is assessed through the application of procedures for establishing the credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability of the study findings. In this study, credibility, or truthfulness of the findings, was established by obtaining sources of evidence from the 26 interview reports and having the resulting findings approved by the respondents who are the constructors of the multiple realities presented. Transferability refers to whether or not the findings from respondents are applicable (i.e., transferable) to different people, settings, or situations. It is not a goal of qualitative researchers to establish transferability for their readers; instead, researchers must "provide the data base that makes transferability of judgments possible on the part of the readers" (Glaser, 1976, p. 316). This is done by providing a rich, in-depth description of the respondents' experiences using their wording and emphases to enable the reader to determine whether these results can be applied to different people, settings, and situations. Dependability refers to the reliability, predictability, and consistency of the findings and can be established through the use of a dependability audit (Lincoln & Cuba, 1985). Confirmability is assessed by making judgments as to whether the findings of the study are reflective of the subjects' experiences or are products of the researcher's bias. As a result, confirmability can be established by a subjectivity audit, triangulation, or a reflective journal.

In this study, the two investigators used triangulation to reduce the effects of research bias (Janesick, 2000). Each of the two researchers read and analyzed each interview summary independently, identifying key ideas and descriptors from each interview and creating a listing of emergent themes. Both researchers then compared their listing of emergent themes and developed a common set of themes that they agreed upon. This common listing of themes served as a framework of comparison for individual respondents' interview data. A series of four meetings of the two researchers provided an opportunity to reach a consensus about the emergent themes apparent in the data and the language that would be most appropriate to communicate the findings to the readership. Overall, there was considerable agreement between the two researchers as to the themes they identified.

FINDINGS

We assumed there would be a variety of perspectives held by administrators concerning conceptions of the school counselor's role. Consequently, we looked for variations in opinion concerning both (a) what activities counselors were expected to perform and which of these activities appeared to be the most valu\ed, and (b) how administrators expected counselors to structure their relations with other staff in the school. We assumed that this information might be packaged in distinctive wording or phrases that administrators used to describe the counselors' work. Our findings are organized and presented as a theoretical schema (see Table 2) depicting a typology of four role conceptions organized along three major dimensions of data: (a) valued role activities, (b) extent of role specialization, and (c) style of role coordination. Participants' actual words are used to report the data as accurately as possible. The terms selected to describe each of the four role conceptions are based upon the participants' use of particular terms and phrases.

Analysis of the data produced descriptions of four distinctive types of counselor role conceptions with particular valued work activities and styles of relating that were clearly describable and differentiated from one another. Although there was agreement among administrators as to the challenges their schools faced and the general directions for needed changes in the school, there was a range of ideas put forth as to how the school counselor might contribute to addressing these challenges. We heard a number of different views from the administrators in response to our questions, which included the following: "Does your school counselor have skills for helping you to address the challenges you face in your school? If so, what types of skills does your school counselor contribute? How do these skills differ from those offered by other members of the school staff?" And, "What services does the school guidance counselor(s) provide in your school (to students, teachers, administrators, parents, etc.)? Is this set of guidance services different from what you think is needed? What types of services would you like the counselor to provide at your school?"

Although many of the administrators described similar types of work responsibilities (e.g., individual and group counseling, classroom guidance, teacher or parent consultation, coordination of exceptional student education staffing, coordination of orientation, coordination of the school-wide testing program or class scheduling), they differed in terms of the value they gave to a particular patterning of work activities. This prioritized pattern of work activities also revealed how much an administrator viewed counselors as having particular specialized knowledge that differentiated them and their work activities from those of other staff in the school. Finally, we noticed that a discussion of particular work activities suggested a particular style of work coordination with other staff that administrators expected of their school counselors.

In the following sections, the four role conceptions are organized historically from the most contemporary version of the counselor role to the most traditional. Each of these role conceptions is described with regard to the set of work activities valued by the administrator. In addition, the areas of expertise and specialized knowledge, and the styles of counselor-staff work coordination associated with each, are depicted.

The Innovative School Leader

Twelve percent of the respondents (3 out of 26) gave priority to the school counselor taking an active leadership role with school staff in improving the functioning of the school and the staff as a whole. There were only three administrators-two of whom served as elementary principals and one as a middle school principal-who viewed their counselors as operating as a staff development resource and having specialized expertise that could help their school staff members improve how they worked with students, with each other, and with students' families. Although these administrators reported that they expected their counselors to work directly with students experiencing difficulties, to offer classroom guidance, and to consult with teachers and parents about students, the role this group appeared to value most highly was that of the counselor as an innovative leader. As one principal put it, "I expect the counselor to make things happen in the whole school."

To implement this role, administrators described their counselors as "seeking out the perspectives of all the school stakeholders-the students, parents, staff, and community members." As a result, they believed that the counselors often had a "bigger picture of the needs of the school than other staff members." In addition, they saw their counselors "as taking responsibility for working with staff and introducing skills to them," which allowed teachers to change how they work with students, their families, and each other. For example, one middle school principal noted:

Our student body is becoming increasingly diverse. More and more of our students come from ethnic, economic, or family backgrounds that differ significantly from those of our teachers. Because our counselors bring a whole set of skills in dealing with ethnic diversity, family relationships, conflict resolution, and problem- solving which our teachers do not have, they have been instrumental in helping our staff change how we think about family life and introducing us to a structured way for us to involve families in decision-making and problem-solving with us. We now involve students and their parents in a structured process of problem-solving so as to give them a voice.

Another principal noted that as a result of her counselor's influence and leadership, she and her staff had changed how they thought about students' academic problems and the role students could have in assessing their own performance. She commented:

One of the basic changes at our school is that we arc beginning to have an understanding that academic difficulties arc not isolated things that happen to kids. As a result we are beginning to look at kids more holistically and realize that the counselors can help us do that. Counselors have also helped us change how we do parent- teacher conferences so that kids now have a voice in telling their parents about their academic progress and have more of a buy-in about their schooling.

In addition, one elementary school principal noted the following:

I expect our school counselor to be an active member of our school leadership team. She is an instructional leader in our school. I consult her not only when we have decisions to make about individual students, but also when we are shaping the program of services at our school. I expect her to give me input about how we are going to meet the needs of our school in our school improvement plan. For example, our counselor was instrumental in helping our teachers introduce a conflict resolution program which the teachers carried out in each of their classrooms with their students.

As a result of this school-wide leadership role, this group of principals expected that the counselor would work in close coordination with the other school staff in formulating a program of services that were not just in response to individual student needs. Hence, they expected school counselors to spend only a proportion of their time providing direct services to students in the form of classroom guidance or individual or group counseling. One principal noted, "I expect my counselor to work with teachers in offering a program of guidance services and in deciding how to individualize student problems. I think that only about 20% of her time should be spent in direct counseling with students." In contrast, these three administrators expected their counselors to work in a closely coordinated fashion with them and their teaching staff to improve services for students. Thus the counselor is expected to serve as ail inside program consultant as well as an active working partner.

The Collaborative case Consultant

In contrast, approximately one third of the study respondents (9 out of 26)-one high school administrator and eight elementary administratorsreported that they expected their school counselor to function primarily as a case consultant to individual teachers, parents, and administrators. In this role, the counselor was expected to have specialized knowledge about the social, psychological, and academic needs of students and about appropriate intervention strategies that parents and teachers could use to respond to individual students. Although the administrators also expected counselors to be knowledgeable about and to intervene directly with students, and to manage necessary school procedures and paperwork, these nine administrators believed that the most effective use of the counselor's time would be to work with the key adults in a student's life-teachers and parents.

Not only did these administrators view the counselor as being more knowledgeable about the psychological and emotional needs of students than other staff, they also expected the counselor to convey that knowledge to teachers and parents in faceto-face interaction. For example, one elementary principal noted:

I expect the counselor to be concerned with the whole child, and help faculty see the needs of the whole child-both academic, and social or family. The counselor's role should be to help teachers and parents help the child.

Administrators also reported relying upon the counselor to act as a liaison in facilitating negotiations with the student, the school staff, and family members, as well as in presenting the individual student's perspective in decision-making with teachers and parents. As one elementary principal stated, "Counselors should be available to teachers and staff as well as students and parents. They need to be an advocate for students and help staff make sound decisions about students."

Although these nine administrators saw their counselors as having specialized expertise, they expressed a strong preference for counselors carrying out this consultative role in a collaborative \rather than an expert manner. They wanted the counselor to consult from an emphasis on mutual expertise in problem-solving, and they believed this would result in a greater probability of decisions that were jointly generated, approved, and implemented by both the counselor and the parent or teacher. As one principal noted, "I expect my counselor to work with [emphasis added by researchers] a teacher or parent in solving a particular child's problem rather than either tell the teacher or parent what to do or take over the responsibility for changing the student's behavior." Consequently, most principals expected their counselor to operate on two levels: They expected counselors to provide direct intervention to students and to coach teachers and parents to intervene differently with students. This set of expectations is mirrored in the following principal's comment:

I expect our counselor to not only provide direct services to students in the form of classroom guidance and individual and small group counseling and to be knowledgeable about referral services students or families might need, but also to consult with teachers and parents and support their efforts to work with students.

The Responsive Direct Service Provider

Another third of the respondents (8 out of 26) strongly believed that the counselor's primary role should be that of providing direct service to students either through individual or small group counseling or through classroom guidance. In contrast to the priority given to working closely with school staff evident in the previous two role conceptions, this group of five high school administrators, two middle school administrators, and one elementary school administrator expected the counselor to offer a separate set of services that complemented the work of other staff.

These administrators viewed their counselors as having distinctive expertise in meeting the needs of individual students either by providing a preventative program of psycho-educational activities and educational and career guidance or by helping students resolve problems or crises. One high school principal stated, "I believe it is essential for a school counselor to have visibility with students by providing large group career guidance through classroom presentations and to meet with each student at least once a year." Another reaffirmed the need for counselors to ensure that students graduate from high school by saying, "Counselors need to go into classrooms, make classroom career guidance presentations, be available for advising and mentoring, and help students with post-high school plans." In a similar vein, another administrator said, "The counselor needs to be in classrooms and give needed information on graduation requirements, scholarships, jobs, and life skills. They need to be in tune with the needs of students, and be visible and active in the school." Finally, the one elementary principal in this group stated, "Counselors need to facilitate student achievement and character development by offering a proactive program of classroom presentations."

Furthermore, several administrators in this group expected counselors to set aside administrative tasks when students were in crises and to give priority to individual work with students to help them resolve personal crises. This is reflected in one middle school principal's point that "obviously the paperwork has got to get done, but it is important for counselors to be available to talk with students." Another principal in this group acknowledged, "Too much paperwork is required; counselors need to be involved more with students." And another high school principal noted, "I wish there were not so much paperwork. Our counselors need to be able to react to and bandle student crises." Although these administrators expected counselors to manage the paperwork, to make appropriate referrals, and to keep parents and teachers informed about their work with students, the administrators expected the counselor's primary audience to be students.

The Administrative Team Player

One fourth of the study participants (6 out of 26) characterized the work of their school counselor primarily as a member of the administrative team whom they expected to fulfill administrative needs and goals. Five of these respondents were middle school administrators and one was an elementary school administrator. Rather than viewing their counselors as having specialized psychological knowledge or expertise in psychological interventions, these administrators viewed them as "another pair of hands" responsible for implementing administrative goals.

Common activities that these administrators described relying upon counselors to perform were class scheduling, coordination of the standardized testing program, coordination of the special education staffing and placement process, referral of students for outside services, and "pinch hitting" as a disciplinarian, substitute teacher, lunchroom supervisor, or bus duty representative when necessary. For example, one principal said, "I rely upon my counselors to organize the testing program and class scheduling so that these procedures can run smoothly." Another principal, who was from an elementary school, seemed to view the counselor more as a case manager than a professional having intervention expertise. She stated, "Counselors need to be knowledgeable about referral sources and to get students the help they need in the community." And yet another commented, "Counselors need to know about appropriate referral resources and make appropriate referrals."

In addition to seeing the counselor as responsible for a variety of noncounseling tasks, these administrators seemed to value the willingness of the counselor to be a "team player" and shoulder whatever administrative duties were needed. As one middle school principal said, "I expect the counselor to be a team player. They should chip in and help out with extra duties like coaching or to volunteer to substitute teach when necessary." Noticeably absent from these principals' discussion was an expectation that the counselor would routinely interact with other staff members in consultation or in staff development activities. Thus, there was little expectation of school counselor expertise evident in the views of this group of administrators. The counselor was viewed more as a subordinate who would serve as an administrative assistant.

DISCUSSION

The results of our study revealed that this group of school administrators had four distinctively different preferences for the school counselor role. Interestingly, these differing role conceptions parallel the conceptions of the counselor role inherent in the school guidance and counseling program models advocated historically by members of our field. The innovative school leader role, for example, closely parallels the counselor role advocated in the current ASCA National Model (2003), in which it is strongly emphasized that school counselors work collaboratively with other school staff to identify common needs across the school population and to design and monitor school-wide institutional change to address those student needs through the use of data and advocacy. The collaborative case consultant role could be compared to the mental health program model advocated by many counselor education and school psychology training programs of the 1980s and 1990s, which redrew the boundaries of school counselor practice to embrace the contextual emphasis of family systems and eco-systemic theory (Amatea & Sherrard, 1991, 1995). In this model, school counselors were encouraged to routinely intervene with key adults in children's lives as well as with the children themselves.

A third role, the responsive direct service provider, is comparable to the guidance curriculum program models developed in the late 1980s depicted in the work of Gysbers and his associates (Gysbers & Henderson, 1988), in which counselors were expected to develop and deliver a classroom curriculum of guidance activities designed to meet the developmental needs of their students as well as to meet the needs of individual students. Finally, the administrative team player role is one described in the early counseling and guidance literature (Aubrey, 1977). In this role, counselors were expected to develop and coordinate the testing, registration, and placement of students in appropriate classes; to develop a system for monitoring student records; and to be available for individual student advising.

The innovative school leader role is the most contemporary of the four groupings and is emphasized in the ASCA National Model (2003), yet it is the one that was least described by administrators in this study (N = 3) as a preference for their counselors. Approximately a third of the administrators (N =9) described the collaborative case consultant as their preference, and another third (N = 8) showed a preference for the responsive direct service provider. Finally, the administrative team player role was emphasized by a fourth of the participants in the study (N= 6). It appears from this study that despite the ongoing debate and the evolving role of the school counselor in today's world, many administrators prefer their counselors to operate in a more traditional role.

The results of this study also revealed a distinctive pattern of role preferences favored by administrators at different school levels. The collaborative case consultation role seemed to be embraced by more elementary than middle school or high school administrators. This preference of administrators for case consultation parallels the differing preferences of teachers for case consultation reported by Morrison, Walker, Wakefield, and Solberg (1994), whose results depicted elementary teachers preferring a collaborative consultative approach in solving classroom problems while secondary teachers preferred not to seek co\nsultation but instead to work alone or independently. This preference also may be influenced by the traditional organization of the elementary school in which a child spends the majority of the day with one teacher and hence that teacher might be expected by an administrator to more readily detect difficulties a child is experiencing and to seek out consultation to resolve these difficulties.

In contrast, the responsive direct service provider role was endorsed more frequently by administrators at the high school level than at the middle school or elementary school levels. This preference by high school administrators may be influenced by the traditional compartmentalization of the curriculum in which faculty are expected to work relatively independently of one another and to focus on academic rather than personal-social issues.

Finally, the administrative team player role was depicted much more frequendy in the responses of middle school administrators than in the responses of elementary or high school administrators. Could it be that the staff resources to meet administrative demands are so insufficient at this level that counselors are routinely drafted into carrying out nonguidance administrative tasks? Given the heavy emphasis in most middle schools on the use of teaching teams and interdisciplinary curriculum efforts, it is surprising that counselors are not expected to be involved more closely with middle school teaching teams and are not seen as resources for improving learning and teaching.

Limitations

One obvious limitation of this study is that it used only a small sample of administrators drawn from three school districts in one area of the country. In addition, information about what administrators preferred their school counselor to do was emphasized. In order to further understand and document the nature and prevalence of these role conceptions, additional studies using more quantitative measurement methods and larger representative samples need to be conducted that look at both the desired role conceptions and actual school counselor practice.

Implications for School Counselors and Administrators

This study brings up important themes and issues for how today's administrators and counselors can best work together to facilitate optimal student development. First, this typology can help school counselors reexamine their existing roles in the context of current school change and reform efforts. To do this, counselors might wish to consider the following questions: Which of these four roles are they currently enacting in their school? Which of these roles seems to be expected or supported by their school administrators, and which do they believe to be the most effective in carrying out their mission and that of the school? In addition, counselors must ask themselves whether they are willing to move outside their comfort zones and develop dramatically different roles in their schools. What resources are needed and what obstacles are in the way of change?

Although counselors may place responsibility on their school administrators for shaping their job descriptions, counselors also may want to consider the influence they have in restructuring others' expectations about their roles, and the personal barriers (such as uncertainty and fear) that may lie in the path of making such changes. For example, many experienced school counselors have been trained to assume the relatively invisible role of helper in the school rather than leader. The helper role structures the counselor to work autonomously with individual students on personal- social or career and educational guidance issues and to be concerned with issues of privacy and confidentiality rather than to collaborate with other educators to improve students' educational experiences. Having been socialized to work independently from teachers, some counselors may fear that their efforts to provide staff consultation or skill training would be resented by teachers and administrators at their school. Finally, having limited opportunity to consider how their unique skill set could contribute to helping other school staff members improve students' academic performance, some counselors may feel ill prepared to join the leadership team of the school.

Second, discussion about alternative counselor role conceptions can be of value to school administrators as a resource for learning about the possible skills that counselors might offer to their schools. Because at the current time administrator preparation programs do not routinely provide knowledge about the potential skills that counselors can bring to schools, most administrators learn about the counselor role solely through firsthand experience. Identifying the emerging roles of the innovative school leader or the collaborative case consultant may broaden the thinking of many school administrators as to the unique skills that counselors can bring to their schools.

In addition, this study's findings might serve to initiate a conversation between counselors and administrators about how the changing needs of the school's student body may demand a change in how staff roles are organized in their school. For example, the increased priority on academic achievement and high-stakes testing mandated by No Child Left Behind (U.S. Department of Education, 2001) has shifted the emphasis to working with the entire student body, rather than only individuals with specific problems. If counselors are to contribute to that effort, they must be involved in the conversations about academic improvement and work more collaboratively with other school staff. Although the ASCA National Standards (Campbell & Dahir, 1997) and the ASCA National Model (2003) provide a philosophical base, rationale, and framework for counselors to restructure their work in schools, the question remains as to whether counselors and administrators agree that this new model provides the best way to carry out their mutual mission in schools.

Implications for Counselor Educators

The findings from this study also have important implications for the design of school counselor preparation programs. Counselor education programs can provide opportunities both in coursework and in supervised counseling practicums and internships for school counseling students to learn (a) how to view themselves as having a unique skill set needed by the school as a whole, (b) how to deliver those skills, and (c) how to function as a member of a team of school leaders. In addition, school counseling students need to learn how to influence the expectations of other school staff members. To do this, school counselor preparation programs might consider introducing students to the practice of using systems thinking to view how their roles in schools are part of a larger relationship system that is mutually constructed, and reconstructed, and that they can change in a variety of ways

Furthermore, it would be beneficial for colleges of education to initiate courses, seminars, and field experiences in which graduate students in counseling, educational leadership, and teaching are enrolled together so that they can learn what each has to offer and how to work as a team. If more attempts were made to train students from the various specialties (i.e., school administrators, school counselors, school psychologists, special education teachers, and regular education teachers) to jointly respond to shared student and school case scenarios, school counseling students might more clearly see the unique skill set they can contribute to the school leadership team.

Conclusions

This qualitative study of 26 school administrators' conceptions of the school counselor role resulted in a typology of four role conceptions organized along three dimensions: (a) valued role activities, (b) extent of role specialization, and (c) style of role coordination. The four distinctively different school counselor role conceptions that emerged varied by school level and paralleled the conceptions of the counselor role inherent in the school guidance and counseling program models advocated historically by our field. The role types of collaborative case consultant and responsive direct service provider each were described by a third of the participants whereas the administrative team player was described by a quarter of the participants. In contrast, the innovative school leader role type was described by a much smaller proportion (12%) of the study participants.

Because many school administrators have limited opportunity to learn about the radical ways in which the counselor's role has been reconceptualized in recent years by ASCA and other national groups to reflect a stronger school leadership role, school counselors and counselor educators must take a more proactive role both in preparing themselves to assume leadership roles in the school and in reshaping the role expectations of administrators.

We were interested in learning from school administrators, by means of personal interviews, how they conceptualized the nature of the school counselor's role and staff relations in today's schools.

We believed that an administrator's discussion of the counselor's role would not only reveal the types of work activities valued by the administrator and the degree of specialization of these activities, but also the priority given to particular activities.

Although many of the administrators described similar types of work responsibilities, they differed in terms of the value they gave to a particular patterning of work activities.

This study's findings might serve to initiate a conversation between counselors and administrators about how the changing needs of the school's student body may demand a change in how staff roles are organized in their school.

References

Adelman, H., & Taylor, L. (2001). Framing new directions for school counselors, psychologists, and social workers. Los Angeles:Center for Mental Health in Schools.

Amatea, E., & Sherrard, P. (1991). When students cannot or will not change their behavior: Using brief strategic intervention in the school. Journal of Counseling and Development, 69, 341-344.

Amatea, E., & Sherrard, P. (1995). Inquiring into children's social worlds: A choice of lenses. In B. A. Ryan, G. R. Adams, T. P. Gullotta, R. P. Weissberg, & R. L. Hampton (Eds.), The family- school connection: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 29-74). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

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

Aubrey, R. (1977). Historical development of guidance and counseling and implications for the future. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 55, 288-295.

Austin, T. (1994). Changing the view: Student-led parent conferences. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Barth, R. S. (1988). School: A community of leaders. In A. Lieberman (Ed.), Building a professional culture in schools (pp 129- 147). New York: Teachers College Press.

Barth, R. S. (1990). Improving schools from within: Teachers, parents, and principals can make a difference. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.

Bemak, F. (2000). Transforming the role of the counselor to provide leadership in educational reform through collaboration. Professional School Counseling, 3, 323-331.

Benson, B., & Barnett, S. (1999). Student-led conferencing using showcase portfolios. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Blas, J., & Anderson, G. (1995). The micropolitics of educational leadership: From control to empowerment. New York: Cassell.

Blumer, H. (1967). Society as symbolic-interaction. In J. Mannis & B. Meltzer (Eds.), Symbolic interaction: reader in social psychology (pp. 139-148). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Campbell, C. A., & Dahir, C. A. (1997). The national standards for school counseling programs. Alexandria, VA: American School Counselor Association.

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 (pp. 75-82). Minneapolis, MN: Educational Media Corporation.

Davies, A., Cameron, C., Politano, C., & Gregory, K. (1999). Together is better: Collaborative assessment, evaluation and reporting. Winnipeg, Canada: Pegasus Publishers.

Dryfoos, J. (1994). Full-service schools. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Fitch, T., Newby, E., Ballestero, V., & Marshall, J. (2001). Future school administrators' perceptions of the school counselor role. Counselor Education and Supervision, 41, 89-99.

Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books.

Glaser, B. (1976). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine Publishing.

Goodlad, J. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw Hill.

Gybsers, N., & Henderson, P. (1988). Developing and managing your school guidance program. Alexandria, VA: American Association for Counseling and Development.

Hassard, J. H., & Costar, J. W. (1977). Principals' perceptions of ideal counselor role. Canadian Counsellor, 11(4), 196-200.

Herr, E. L. (1984). The national reports on reform in schooling: Some missing ingredients. Journal of Counseling and Development, 63, 217-220.

Hodgkinson, H. (2003). Educational demographics: What teachers should know. In A. Ornstein, L. Behar-Horenstein, & E. Pajak (Eds.), Contemporary issues in curriculum (3rd ed., pp. 349-353). New York: Allyn & Bacon.

House, R. M., & Martin, P. J. (1998). Advocating for better futures for all students: A new vision for school counselors. Education, 119, 284-291.

Ibrahim, F., Helms, B., & Thompson, D. J. (1983). Counselor role and function: An appraisal by consumers and counselors. The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 61, 597-601.

Janesick, V. L. (2000). The choreography of qualitative research design: Minuets, improvisations, and crystallization. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 243-257). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Keys, S., & Bemak, F. (1997). School-family-community linked services: A school counseling role for changing times. The School Counselor, 44, 255-263.

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

McCaleb, S. (1994). Building communities of learners. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Morrison, G. M., Walker, D., Wakefield, P., & Solberg, S. (1994). Teacher preferences for collaborative relationships: Relationship to efficacy for teaching in prevention-related domains. Psychology in the Schools, 31, 221-231.

Ornstein, A., Behar-Horenstein, L., & Pajak, E. (2003). Contemporary issues in curriculum (3rd ed.). New York: Allyn & Bacon.

Ponec, D. L., & Brock, B. L. (2000). Relationships among elementary school counselors and principals: A unique bond. Professional School Counseling, 3, 208-217.

Schlechty, P. C. (1997). Inventing better schools: An action plan for educational reform. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Senge, P., Cameron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J., & Kleiner, A. (2000). Schools that learn. New York: Currency/ Doubleday.

Sizer, T. (1992). Horace's school. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Sternberg, R. (1996). Successful intelligence: How practice and creative intelligence determine life. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Stone, C., & Clark, M. (2001). School counselors and principals: Partners in support of academic achievement. NASSP Bulletin, 85(624), 46-53.

Taylor, L., & Adelman, H. (1996). Mental health in schools: Promising directions for practice. Adolescent Medicine, 7, 1-15.

Turner, J. H. (1978). The structure of sociological theory (Rev. ed.). Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.

Turner, R. H. (1979/1980). Strategy for developing an integrated role theory. Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, 7(1), 123-179.

U.S. Department of Education. (2001). No Child Left Behind. Retrieved September 15,2004, from http://www. nochildleftbehind.gov/

Vaught, C. C. (1995). A letter from a middle school counselor to her principal. NASSP Bulletin, 79(570), 20-23.

Ellen S. Amatea, Ph.D., is a professor, and Mary Ann Clark, Ph.D., is an associate professor, in the Department of Counselor Education, University of Florida, Gainesville. E-mail: eamatea@coe.ufl.edu

Copyright American Counseling Association Oct 2005

Source: Professional School Counseling

More News in this Category