As I read and learn more and more about accountability and
data collection, it is becoming clearer how the accountability aspect of
counseling works. I appreciated
the clear breakdown of the types of data and how the data are obtained (e.g.
attainment data is based on such information as enrollment, retentions,
promotions, and number of students receiving special ed services). It all seems to be coming together for
me.
The reflection moment on page 116 asks us to look at the data-drive
accountability models and determine our thoughts and feelings and which model
we would feel most comfortable with using (Dollarhide & Saginak,
2012). My thought is to make
the accountability process as simplified as possible, because it can be a
tedious and time-consuming process.
Personally, I like the EBD Model and the IDEAS Model the best. Some of the models do not make sense to
me. For instance, what does
“Killing the myth: building dissatisfaction” mean, as stated in the Johnson,
2003 model? As noted in the
Gysbers (2004) article, Alstetter
(1938) stated, “no program in schools was more difficult to evaluate than the
guidance service.” I still find
this statement to be true, so why not simplify the process?
As I read this week’s article (Gysbers, 2004), I kept
thinking about statements that counselors made both in my interviews with them,
and the interviews that other had.
After 80 or so years of the push for accountability, some counselors
still do not have a method of collecting data to hold themselves accountable
(as shared through the interviews of others; I did not find this to be true of
the counselors whom I interviewed).
I find that unbelievable.
However, as one of the counselors stated during my interview with her, “parents
really just want you to help their kids; that’s all they really care
about.” I truly believe that this
is true. Data of all kinds are
“thrown” at parents all the time, from PSSA and 4sight scores, to grades, to
progress monitoring data, and all many really want to know is, are their kids
fitting in, are they doing their best, and are you there to support them if
they aren’t? Still, parents are
not the only stakeholders of counselors’ accountability; administration is one
of the primary groups of stakeholders that want to know that you, as the
counselor, are doing your job and making a positive impact on students and the
school as a whole. I am reminded
of the overall theme of my counselor interviews: administration does not
understand what the job of counselors should entail, nor are they familiar with
the ASCA Model and what it means for their schools. One counselor told me that she and some other counselors
participated in a time study some years back, and when the results were
tabulated and presented to administration, it was handed back to the counselors. The counselors were told that this
information was not needed. It
seems that, until stakeholders are educated on what counselors are capable of
bringing to the table, accountability holds very little meaning.
Dollarhide, C.T., & Saginak, K.A. (2012). Comprehensive
school counseling programs (2nd
Ed.). New York: Pearson, Inc.
Gysbers, N. C. (2004). Comprehensive guidance and counseling programs:
the evolution
of accountability. Professional School Counseling, 8(1), 1-14.
No comments:
Post a Comment