Infuse School Counseling Support Districtwide

 
“When I was in school, this is what my guidance counselor did.” “At the first school where I was a principal, this is what my guidance counselor did.”
 
Deep breaths. That’s how I respond to these types of comments, which I often hear from building administrators. It’s only a tiny bit of grace I extend to sources of these sentiments when I respond by pointing out “new research” (if you consider research published in the 1980s to be new) showing that when we have a comprehensive, districtwide school counseling program, similar from building to building, we achieve better and more consistent outcomes for our students.
 
Ensuring that building and other district administrators appreciate the instrumental role of the school counseling program in mitigating day-to-day school-wide concerns is essential but often challenging for school counseling district directors. Student assessments, student behavior concerns, staffing issues, family relations and so much more fill building administrators’ schedules. Therefore, articulating how the school counseling program can assist with these myriad concerns is fundamental.
 
In Missouri, we use the model Program + Personnel = Results. To advocate for the school counseling program, I developed a resource for building administrators to better understand how Program + Personnel = Results. The resource shows how the school counseling program (led by me at the district level) interacts with and relates to the personnel components (school counselor supervision, conducted by building administrators) to produce the desired outcomes of well-run, adequately staffed comprehensive school counseling programs.
 
The first section of the resource gives an overview of the school counseling program and its associated assessments. It explains the use-of-time calculator (called “time on task” in Missouri) and includes a list of sample tasks that fall under each program component (direct and indirect student services, program planning and school support, and non-school-counseling tasks). A separate section clearly identifies non-school-counseling duties, such as hallway supervision, standardized test administration and 504 case management.
 
To measure school counseling program effectiveness, we use a tool called the internal improvement review. This tool allows school counselors to self-assess their level of implementation of the program components and yields an implementation percentage once completed. The choice of this tool as a measure of program effectiveness is strategic because it emphasizes the evidence-based nature of the school counseling program, which can only be measured if it’s implemented with fidelity. The extent to which our school counselors aren’t implementing the program (e.g., time on non-school-counseling duties) is the extent to which we don’t have evidence of the effectiveness of their efforts. The ASCA National Model® includes a similar school counseling program assessment.
 
Each year, each school develops one to two SMARTIE goals for their school counseling program. In addition to the SMART goal format familiar to most, I require the goals to have “inclusion” and “equity” elements. This both emphasizes the importance of school counseling on closing gaps in achievement, opportunity and access for all students but also works as a closing-the-gap goal for the Recognized ASCA Model Program® (RAMP®) recognition. Just as ASCA creates an annual white paper on how school counselors helped to close gaps through these action plans, I create a similar overview for district and building administrators each year of the results of our program’s SMARTIE goals.
 
School counselors are each required to submit an annual calendar and schedule a yearly conference with their administrator. In addition to these both being RAMP® requirements, they help keep open dialogue between school counselors and administrators and ensure administrators are aware of the activities of their building’s school counseling programs.
 
The resource also provides guidance on conducting school counselor evaluations using our district’s evaluation tool. I join building administrators in this process to enhance professional development and performance improvement for each school counselor. The ASCA National Model® also includes a school counselor performance appraisal instrument that can be helpful if your school or district doesn’t have one for school counselors.
 
Finally, the resource lists the positive outcomes of fully implemented school counseling programs to emphasize the synergy of the program components with individual school counselor supervision.
 
The goal is to inextricably link these vital components of effective school counseling programs in the minds of district and building administrators to ensure school counselors spend as much time as possible on the tasks for which they have invaluable training and experience.
 
Andy Schuerman, Ed.D., is the coordinator of belonging for the Park Hill School District in Kansas City, Mo. He can be reached at schuermana@parkhill.k12.mo.us.