Blog 2

The readings for the week gave rise to thought about the roles of a school counselor. Whiston and Sexton’s (1998) article shines light on the need for more quality research of defined and working programs. There was a lack of research prior to 1996 regarding best practices. The authors note that there is more research to back up remedial interventions as opposed to preventive programs. This lack may be due in part to the inherent challenge in assessing preventive programs; assessing a change in an uncertain future occurrence. However, these preventive programs are a necessary and important feature in a comprehensive guidance program. More research is needed in areas of curriculum, planning and CSCPs. Research will bolster the profession by clarifying accountability, relieving role inconsistencies, and also to provide a standard of care for maximum efficacy of the programs provided to enhance our children’s learning. 

The use of only evidenced based practices to me is a double edged sword. On one side, the interventions provided are tested and assessed for quality and efficacy. There is a system or protocol to follow to ensure consistent application. The purpose is to create better services for the students. On the other side, I fear that this movement may increase the troubles of bureaucratic control; inflexibility, over-standardization, red tape. The branding of certain techniques and programs demands more money to pay for trainings and “required materials”.  Already strapped schools will be expected to pay for the latest innovative packages and again force the gap between the wealthier and struggling schools. School counseling should not be commercialized or exploited as a business opportunity. Mandating this system does not appear as advancement to me, merely a lateral step from the factory model to a corporate model for education. What is the ideal solution? It seems there should be a way to balance the pros of using evidence based materials with the concepts behind the participatory leadership model (Dollarhide & Saginak, 2012).  I feel that fair anonymous evaluation of counselors and treatments should include many areas and be carried out by fellow counselors and teachers. Considerately timed reassessments of methods, treatments and effects on stakeholders are important.  School professionals should evaluate outcome measures after reasonable length of trial and have the authority and flexibility to alter programs for their specific audiences (urban, rural, suburban schools) and needs. This can be carried out through the collaborative efforts of counselors around the country. Funding for programs should be universal and associated with professional development not punishment. Innovation and development should be encouraged, but commercialism discouraged.

McGannon, Carey & Dimmit (2005) emphasize the mandates of the No Child Left Behind Act.  It is our duty as school professionals to ensure increased achievement, reduce the achievement gap, improve graduation and attendance rates, and to ensure adequate safety of the students. These guidelines are echoed in the ASCA model. We must use these models as our guides within our programs but also to lead and unite the profession. School counseling appears to be at a crucial turning point. As we enter the field, it is clear we will need to advocate for ourselves and the profession.

Dollarhide, C.T., & Saginak, K.A. (2012). Comprehensive school counseling programs (2nd Ed.). New York Pearson, Inc.

McGannon, W., Carey, J., & Dimmit, C. (2005). The current status of school counseling outcome  research. Center for School Counseling Outcome Research.

Whiston, S. C., & Sexton, T. L. (1998). A review of school counseling outcome research: Implications for practice. Journal Of Counseling & Development, 76(4), 412-426. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.1998.tb02700.x.