Access Provided by Utah State University Libraries at 11/04/11 12:14AM GMT

VOLUME 156, NO. 3, 2011 AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF

305

Lomas, G. I., Nichter, M., & Robles-Pina, R. The role of counselors serving deaf or hard of hearing students in publicschools. American Annals of the Deaf 156 (3), 305–319.

THE ROLE OF COUNSELORS SERVING DEAF OR

HARD OF HEARING STUDENTS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Prior to enactment of the Educationfor All Handicapped Children Act of1975 (Pub. L. 94–142), d/Deaf or hardof hearing (d/Dhh) students were edu-cated primarily at residential schools(Moores, 2001). These schools gener-ally employed a spectrum of serviceproviders including teachers, psychol-ogists, social workers, counselors, andother support personnel. Many ofthese personnel were d/Dhh them-selves, and all were expected to be flu-ent users of sign language, in manycases American Sign Language (ASL).This gave students direct access to aplethora of supports, including coun-

seling and psychological services, pro-vided by the residential facility.Since the early 1970s, there has

been an exodus of students from res-idential schools for d/Dhh students to neighborhood schools. Researchers(Gallaudet Research Institute, 2003;Moores, 2006) have identified severalhistorical trends in the education ofsuch students. In particular, the migra-tion from residential schools began afew years prior to the passage of PublicLaw 94–142 and continues today (Luck-ner, Muir, Howell, Sebald, & Young,2005; Moores, 2006). While counselingas a profession was still fairly young in

INCE ENACTMENT of Public Law 94-142, residential schools for d/Deafor hard of hearing (d/Dhh) students have lost enrollment to publicschools. Public school counselors now must meet d/Dhh students’counseling needs. There is little literature on if and how counselors aredoing this. The present study used a survey to evaluate the job satisfac-tion and expectations of 22 counselors working with d/Dhh students inprograms across the United States. Follow-up interviews were con-ducted with 6 participants functioning as counselors for d/Dhh stu-dents. Results indicated that the counselors were generally pleasedwith their role, which, however, diverged markedly from the AmericanSchool Counselor Association (2003) national model. The interviewsrevealed 5 themes that may be unique to counselors serving d/Dhhstudents in public schools: Authority Based on Experience, Directorof Collaborations/Negotiations, Isolation, Surrogate Parent/InsightfulSocial Confidante, and Martyr.GABRIEL I. LOMAS,

MARY NICHTER, ANDREBECCA ROBLES-PINA

LOMAS IS AN ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF

COUNSELING IN THE DEPARTMENT OF

EDUCATION AND EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY,WESTERN CONNECTICUT STATE UNIVERSITY,DANBURY. NICHTER IS A PROFESSOR OF

COUNSELOR EDUCATION, AND ROBLES-PINA

A PROFESSOR OF EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

AND COUNSELING, IN THE DEPARTMENT OF

EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND COUNSELING,SAM HOUSTON STATE UNIVERSITY,HUNTSVILLE, TX.

S

18113-AAD156.3_Summer2011 8/16/11 12:15 PM Page 305

1975 (see Gladding, 2003, for a his-tory), residential schools for d/Dhhstudents found ways to meet thecounseling needs of these childrenand youth. Frequently, individuals flu-ent in sign languages, including ASL,and knowledgeable about the psy-chosocial needs of d/Dhh childrenwere identified as “counselors” on res-idential campuses. While these earlycounselors were not trained as such,they were recognized by colleagues aspossessing the skills necessary to assistwith the psychological development ofstudents (Vernon & Andrews, 1990).In the period following enactment

of Public Law 94–142, public schoolsystems were mandated to change theway they educated students with dis-abilities (Marschark, Lang, & Albertini,2002; Moores, 1987, 2001). The resultwas a forced evolution that played outin public schools. Prior to 1975, publicschools had little or no need for spe-cialists trained in the combined fieldsof counseling and deafness, as most ofthese schools were unlikely to served/Dhh students. However, legislationand parental action resulted in thegrowth of public school programs forstudents with disabilities, includingd/Dhh students.The deaf services coordinator for

the Denver, CO, public school system,R. F. Allen (personal communication,June 27, 2007), expressed concernover the apparent large numbers ofstudents who transferred from thestate residential schools for d/Dhhstudents with individualized educa-tion programs (IEPs) for counselingwho suddenly had no counselingneeds once they entered their localeducation program. Allen’s office con-ducted a study (in preparation at thetime of the present article was writ-ten) that found that 70% of d/Dhh stu-dents in Colorado had an emotionalor behavioral concern flagged by ateacher.

In a study of counseling accessibil-ity for deaf students (N = 1,485),Brant and Moore (2005) found that23% of their participants in residentialschools, all of them students at resi-dential schools for d/Dhh students inthe South, were receiving individualcounseling. They found that 77% oftheir participants in public school pro-grams for d/Dhh students were receiv-ing individual counseling. However,none of the public school counselorsin their study self-reported a profi-ciency level of communicative ability,particularly in signing, sufficient toprovide counseling to these stu-dents, and only one reported usingan interpreter in sessions. Thus,Brant and Moore raised concerns re-garding communication access incounseling in public schools.Several studies support the imple-

mentation of a developmental guid-ance model (Galassi & Akos, 2004;Gysbers, 2004; S. Johnson & C. D.Johnson, 2003). The current rolestatement for school counselors pub-lished by the American School Coun-selor Association (ASCA, 2003)identifies service delivery to includefour areas. First, school counselorsare responsible for the implementa-tion of a guidance curriculum that isdevelopmentally appropriate. Sec-ond, school counselors should be in-volved with individual planning toassist students in developing personalgoals and refining plans for the future.Third, school counselors should havea plan for responsive services such aspreventive or interventive activities tomeet the needs of students in thepresent and in the future. Responsiveservices might include doing individ-ual or group counseling, consultingwith parents and school staff, makingreferrals to school- or community-based resources, establishing peer as-sistance programs, and serving as asource of information for students,

parents, and staff. The developmentof confidential relationships to assiststudents in resolving problems orcoping with concerns is within thescope of service delivery. Finally, sys-tem support is a necessary role, ascounselors should perform activitiesdesigned to establish, maintain, andenhance a comprehensive schoolcounseling program.Thirty-four states have developed

their own models to identify theroles of school counselors (ASCA,2007). For example, the Texas modelhas eight domains: program man-agement, guidance, counseling, con-sultation, coordination, studentassessment, professional behavior,and professional standards (Texas Ed-ucation Code, 2007). Arkansas has 15specific areas that describe the roleand function of the counselor, withthe clear provision that 75% of thecounselor’s time be spent in directservice to students and 25% be spentin related services to students(Arkansas Department of Education,2006). Because there has not been astudy on the role of counselors whoare employed by local educationalprograms for d/Dhh students, it is un-known if any of these traditional mod-els for counseling are effective inmeeting the academic and psycholog-ical needs of d/Dhh students.At the national level, special educa-

tion laws already require that counsel-ing (along with other related services)be available to students who are deaf,hard of hearing, or otherwise disabled(Lomas & Van Reusen, 1999). In theIndividuals With Disabilities Educa-tion Act of 1990 (IDEA) and the IDEAAmendments of 1997, it is stated that“the term related services meanspsychological services . . . counselingservices including rehabilitation coun-seling” (Individuals With DisabilitiesEducation Act Amendments, 1997).With 33 states having laws requiring

VOLUME 156, NO. 3, 2011 AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF

306

THE ROLE OF COUNSELORS SERVING DEAF STUDENTS

18113-AAD156.3_Summer2011 8/16/11 12:15 PM Page 306

VOLUME 156, NO. 3, 2011 AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF

307

the provision of some level of schoolcounseling services, state-mandatedschool guidance and counseling ser-vices are also increasing (ASCA, 2007).Most of these states have language intheir laws that compels counselors towork with all of the students on thecampus, especially those with specificcounseling needs. Yet the counselingneeds of d/Dhh students, while im-mense, appear to go unaddressed inmany public schools. Programs thatemploy counselors may have themperforming duties that are atypical ofcounselors working in general educa-tion, or in another capacity that makesfor inconsistency in the field.Now, more than 35 years after the

passage of Public Law 94–142, it is im-portant to examine how school coun-seling services are being provided tothese students in public schools.Specifically, the present study focuseson the role and function of counselorsin public schools who serve d/Dhhstudents.

MethodParticipants: QuantitativePortion of the StudyThe objective of the present study wasto investigate (a) if there was a differ-ence between how counselors em-ployed by public education programsfor d/Dhh students perceived their ac-tual role and how they perceived theirideal role; and (b) if there are themesthat help to clarify the role and func-tion of these counselors. The partici-pants in the quantitative portion ofthe study were counselors working inpublic schools whose primary job wasto counsel students identified as deafor hard of hearing. The participantswere selected from deaf educationprograms in the 15 largest metropoli-tan areas in the United States: NewYork, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washing-ton-Baltimore, San Francisco, Phila -delphia, Dallas–Fort Worth, Boston,

Detroit, Miami–Fort Lauderdale, Hous-ton, Atlanta, Phoenix, Minneapolis,and Seattle (U.S. Census Bureau,2000). Local educational programs ford/Dhh students that offer counselingwere located by means of the 2005 ref-erence issue of the American Annalsof the Deaf (Moores, 2005).We used a criterion sampling

method. Criterion samplings have aset standard or multiple fixed stan-dards that must be met for partici-pants (Patton, 2001). To meet thecriteria for participating in the quanti-tative portion of the study, counselorshad to be serving d/Dhh students inpublic schools and have a working re-lationship with a program for d/Dhhstudents. Thus, participants whoworked as counselors in residentialschools as well as participants whoworked as general school counselorswere excluded.In March 2006, after approval was

received from the institutional reviewboard, letters were mailed to 75 pro-grams to inform the counselors of thestudy and directing them to a websitewhere the questionnaire could befound. Two letters were returned ashaving incorrect addresses. The ques-tionnaire, placed on www.SurveyCon-sole.com, was opened to participantson March 30, 2006. The questionnairewas designed so that participants hadto read the informed consent and se-lect “agree” if they chose to continuewith the survey. The website wasscheduled to close on April 30, 2006,but remained open due to a lack ofresponses. In an attempt to solicit additional participants, informationregarding the study was posted onthree listservs during the first week ofMay 2006.Due to the poor initial response,

the first author (Lomas) contacted theprogram coordinators of the 75 pro-grams by phone. Many of the programcoordinators reported that the indica-

tion of the presence of counseling ser-vices at their school in the annual ref-erence edition of the AmericanAnnals of the Deaf was in error. Mostprogram coordinators reported thatin fact they did not employ a profes-sional school counselor who workedwith d/Dhh students. Instead, they in-dicated that these students had accessto school counseling with general ed-ucation counselors using interpreters.Although great efforts were made to

identify school counselors workingwith d/Dhh students in public schools,only 22 participants fully completedthe questionnaire. The characteristicsof the participants are listed in Table 1.The population was overwhelminglyfemale (86%), with a large majority ofthe total population (73%) being Whitewomen. Demographic findings listedin Table 2 indicate that most of the re-spondents were hearing. Furthermore,all of the respondents had graduatedegrees.Early researchers (Byrd, 2004; Ver-

non & Andrews, 1990) found thatmany counselors working with d/Dhhstudents prior to the 1960s were notformally trained as counselors. Thesestudies found that these students wereoften counseled by individuals whowere able to connect with students.These first counselors were oftenteachers who had good rapport withstudents or friendly house parentswho supervised dorm students. Whilenone of the participants in the presentstudy identified themselves as having adoctorate, all indicated that they had amaster’s degree or a specialist’s de-gree. Most of the respondents (68%)had received their graduate training inschool counseling. These data are pro-vided in Table 3.

Participants: QualitativePortion of the StudyParticipants in the qualitative portionof the present study were located by

18113-AAD156.3_Summer2011 8/16/11 12:15 PM Page 307

calling deaf education program coun-selors and coordinators in variousstates. Participants in both Texas andOhio agreed to join in the study. Thesampling was purposeful, as coun-selors working with d/Dhh students inpublic schools were needed to de-velop research in this area. Bogdanand Biklen (2003) describe purpose-ful sampling as selecting “particularsubjects to include because they arebelieved to facilitate the expansion ofdeveloping theory” (p. 65). Of utmostimportance was the likelihood thateach counselor fit the profile of a typ-ical case. M. D. Gall, J. P. Gall, and Borg(2003) characterized a typical case as a

single case or set of multiple casesthat would be sufficiently character-istic to describe the phenomenon.Geography was of secondary impor-tance, as preference was given to face-to-face interviews. Interviews werescheduled to occur in December 2006and January 2007. An interview proto-col was developed; details regardingthe protocol are described in the In-strumentation section of the presentarticle. Demographic informationabout the participants in the qualita-tive portion of the study is provided inTable 4.Table 4 shows that the profile of

the qualitative group in regard to race,

gender, hearing status, and age wassimilar to that of the quantitativegroup. For example, 91% of the quan-titative participants were between theages of 30 and 59 years, while 100% ofthe qualitative respondents were inthis age range. The quantitative panelwas 86% female, while the quantita-tive panel was 83% female. The quan-titative panel was 86% hearing, whilethe qualitative panel was 83% hearing.Similarly, the quantitative panel was86% White, while the qualitative panelwas 83% White. All of the members ofthe qualitative interview panel indi-cated that they held graduate degreesin school counseling, while the quan-titative panel had 68% with degrees inschool counseling, 18% in school psy-chology, 9% in social work, and 5% inother areas.

InstrumentationInstrument: QuantitativePortion of the StudyA protocol was developed to gatherdata about the perceived actual andideal roles of the counselor. Becausethe first author had experience as apublic school counselor for d/Dhhstudents, he contributed to the devel-opment of the protocol. A compre-hensive list of tasks engaged in duringprior employment was created. Thislist was merged with tasks identifiedin the current literature (ASCA, 2003;Antia & Kreimeyer, 1996; Brandt &Moore, 2005; Vernon & Andrews,1990). Initially, 52 tasks were identified

VOLUME 156, NO. 3, 2011 AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF

308

THE ROLE OF COUNSELORS SERVING DEAF STUDENTS

Age (years) White male White female Black male Black female

20–29 1 0 0 1

30–39 1 6 0 0

40–49 1 5 0 2

50–59 0 5 0 0

Totals 3 16 0 3

N = 22.

Table 1

Age, Race, and Gender Characteristics of Participants in Quantitative Portion of the Study

Training areas Hearing Deaf Totals

School counseling 13 2 15

School psychology 4 0 4

Social work 2 0 2

Other 0 1 1

Totals 19 3 22

N = 22.

Table 3

Areas of Training for Participants in Quantitative Portion of the Study

Participant Gender Age (years) Audiologic status Race Location

1 Female 40–49 Hearing White Texas

2 Female 30–39 Hearing Black Texas

3 Male 40–49 Deaf White Texas

4 Female 50–59 Hearing White Ohio

5 Female 50–59 Hearing White Texas

6 Female 30–39 Hearing White Texas

N = 6.

Table 4

Demographic Characteristics of Participants in the Qualitative Interview

Degree Hearing Deaf Totals

Master’s 17 3 20

Specialist 2 0 2

Doctoral 0 0 0

N = 22.

Table 2

Academic Degrees and Hearing Statusof Participants in Quantitative Portion of the Study

18113-AAD156.3_Summer2011 8/16/11 12:15 PM Page 308

as potential duties that counselorsperform in their jobs with d/Dhh stu-dents. Three questions were asked foreach of the 52 tasks: (a) Compared toall other tasks performed on the job,how much time do you spend per-forming this task? (b) Compared to allother tasks performed on the job,how much time do you think youshould be spending on this task? (c)Compared to all other tasks per-formed on the job, how important isthis task? Answers were Likert scaled,with 0 being the lower anchor, 3 beinga null answer, and 5 being the highestvalue. Specifically, an answer of 0 meantthat the counselor never performedthe task; 1 meant that the counselorperformed it for much less time; 2meant that the counselor performed itfor less time; 3 meant that the coun-selor performed the task for about thesame amount of time as other tasks; 4meant that the counselor affordedmore time to the task than to othertasks; and 5 meant that the counselordevoted much more time to the taskthan to other tasks. The protocol waspiloted by sending it to a panel of nineindividuals who had performed the jobof counselor for d/Dhh students in thepast or were counselor educators atGallaudet University. Generally, thepanel believed the protocol to be asolid instrument that would help pro-duce accurate, representative answersto the research questions. Severalpanel members indicated that the pilotinstrument was too long, and that thismight discourage participants fromcompleting the instrument. The finalversion of the instrument was reducedto 48 tasks with the 3 questions as de-scribed above. The list of tasks is pro-vided in the Appendix.

Validity: Quantitative Portion of the StudyThree steps were taken to establishvalidity. First, each task on the ques-

tionnaire was rooted in professionalresearch and industry standards.Tasks were consistent with those com-monly performed by school coun-selors (Mustaine & Pappalardo, 1996;Perusse, Goodnough, & Donegan,2004). Next, the instrument was pilot-tested by sending it to nine profes-sionals who were familiar with therole and function of school coun-selors who specialize in working withd/Dhh students. The instrument wasthen sent to a recognized expert inthe field for final feedback. A profes-sor from the counseling departmentat Gallaudet University was contacted.The professor indicated that the in-strument was improved and appearedadequate to address the researchquestions.

Reliability: QuantitativePortion of the StudyCronbach’s alpha was run to measurethe internal consistency of the ques-tionnaire associated with the presentstudy. In general, tests with a reliabil-ity coefficient of .80 or higher are ap-propriate for research (M. D. Gall etal., 2003). The overall reliability of theinstrument used in the present studywas rated at .96. The items on thequestionnaire highly correlated witheach other.

Instrument: QualitativePortion of the StudyAn interview protocol was developedto identify themes that might clarifythe role and function of counselorsworking in public school programs ford/Dhh students and address the sec-ond research question. The resultingprotocol was a semistructured inter-view form with open-ended questions.The questions focused on five themes:(a) guidance curriculum, (b) assess-ment, (c) counseling needs of stu-dents, (d) roles and responsibilitiesthat are challenging or rewarding, and

(e) professional development avail-able to the counselor. The specificquestions were:

1. Do you use a guidance andcounseling curriculum?

2. Do you conduct any assess-ments?

3. What are some of the commoncounseling needs of your students?

4. What roles and responsibilitiesdo you find most challenging/rewarding?

5. Are there adequate professionaldevelopment opportunities avail-able specific to your work?

Validity: Qualitative Portion of the StudyResults from the quantitative portionof the present study were reviewed,and questions for the qualitative pro-tocol emerged. These questionswere shared with two experts onqualitative research, who were ableto identify five basic questions. Gapsin the role of counselors were evi-dent, as participants were con-strained by Likert-scaled responsesand were not able to freely explaintheir role. Additionally, 22 responsesto the quantitative instrument madethe addition of qualitative interviewsnecessary.Validity was enhanced in the pres-

ent study by using multiple methodsof data collection. All interviews weretranscribed, then sent back to the in-terviewee for proofing. Qualitativeresults, as applicable, were comparedwith quantitative findings to strengthenoverall conclusions. This practice, tri-angulation, contributes to process va-lidity (M. D. Gall et al., 2003). Chatterji(2004) also has noted that convergingfindings from two sources of data es-tablish construct validity and expan-sion, a term used when more than onemethod is employed to create a more

VOLUME 156, NO. 3, 2011 AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF

309

18113-AAD156.3_Summer2011 8/16/11 12:15 PM Page 309

complete picture of the construct be-ing studied. Thus, adding the qualita-tive aspect to the study offered theopportunity to address the relativeweaknesses of the quantitative find-ings. When all results are viewed to-gether, a chain of evidence is revealedand helps make it possible to drawmeaningful relationships among re-search questions, raw data, and find-ings (M. D. Gall et al., 2003). This chainof evidence served to strengthen theoverall validity of the study.

Reliability: QualitativePortion of the StudyThe questionnaire used in the qualita-tive portion of the study offered open-ended questions to facilitate rich andthorough responses. The participantsall responded to the same set of ques-tions. Thus, the comparability of re-sponses was inherent. By using astandardized protocol, we were ableto minimize bias (Bogdan & Biklen,2003). Finally, conducting multiple in-terviews made it possible to maximizethe potential for acquiring objectiveand balanced findings.

Data AnalysisQuantitative AnalysisStatistical methods for analysis are de-termined once assumptions aretested. In survey data, there are typi-cally four assumptions. Checking theassumption of normality is a criticalfunction of data analysis (Field, 2007).Normality was tested using the Statis-tical Package for Social Sciences, ver-sion 16. For each of the 48 tasks,questions 1 and 2, the actual roles andthe ideal roles, were examined. Re-sults revealed that only 6 of the 96questions (6%) met the criteria fornormality of distribution. With 94% ofthe questions unable to meet the testof normality, parametric analysis wasnot an option.Other assumptions tested included

homogeneity of variance, independ-ence, and interval data. Levene’s testof variance was used to test the as-sumption of variance. Results indi-cated that the findings were nothomogeneous. Thus, the test of vari-ance was not met. Independence wasnot a factor, as the participants an-swered test items online. Further-more, the participants were spreadacross the United States. Thus, therewas no risk of one participant influ-encing others. Finally, the answerswere set up in meaningful intervals.Taken together, assumptions werenot all met, and data had to be ana-lyzed by means of nonparametricprocedures.In this case, where we wanted to

compare answers to questions aboutactual and ideal roles, a Wilcoxon testwas deemed most appropriate. TheWilcoxon test examines the differencein rankings and does not assume anormally shaped distribution. Whenviewing the instrument, one will findthat for each of the two basic ques-tions, a 3 is a null position (i.e., “aboutthe same amount of time”). With thisin mind, we determined whether thedata supported a finding that a statis-tically significant number of respon-dents reported values less than 3 orgreater than 3. Conversely, if therewas no statistically significant differ-ence, then we concluded that re-sponses were “null,” or about 3. Theindicated p value indicates thestrength of the significance. To be sig-nificant, the p value should be lessthan about .05, and the smaller the pvalue, the more confidently one cansay that the response is less or greaterthan 3. We ran this analysis for each ofthe three questions relative to each ofthe 48 tasks identified. Additionally,we applied the Bonferroni correction(Field, 2007) to reduce the possibilitythat items reached significance due tochance.

Qualitative AnalysisTo address research question 2, it wasnecessary to make transcriptions of allinterviews. Five of the interviews wereaudiotaped, and one interview, withthe d/Deaf participant, was video-taped. All interviews were then tran-scribed and put into electronic text sothat they might be read and analyzedfurther. Questions on the interviewprotocol were open ended and in-volved more than a single-word re-sponse. Therefore, the qualitative datawere analyzed by means of the con-stant comparative method to capturethe multiple but equally applicable andlegitimate aspects of individual experi-ences and perspectives (R. B. Johnson& Onwuegbuzie, 2006). Constant com-parative methodology is based ongrounded theory (Strauss & Corbin,1998), according to which a researcher“looks at a particular situation and triesto understand what is going on” (Licht-man, 2006, p. 66). With this method,data are collected through observa-tions and interviews, then comparedfor each interview (Lichtman, 2006).For the purposes of the present study,data collected from the first participantwere transcribed, then analyzed forpertinent issues or ideas. These perti-nent issues were then compared withdata revealed in the subsequent inter-views. As additional interviews wereconducted, data were compared bymeans of simple codes on an ongoingbasis. New data were compared withwhat had been previously collectedand analyzed. These codes were thengrouped into broader categories orthemes. From the themes, we identi-fied patterns in the course of develop-ing a working model to identify therole of participants.

ResultsQuantitative FindingsBecause the data were found to be non -parametric, we examined the quantita-

VOLUME 156, NO. 3, 2011 AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF

310

THE ROLE OF COUNSELORS SERVING DEAF STUDENTS

18113-AAD156.3_Summer2011 8/16/11 12:15 PM Page 310

VOLUME 156, NO. 3, 2011 AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF

311

tive findings using descriptive statistics(percentages), the Wilcoxon test, andthe Bonferroni post hoc test. Twelvetasks reached statistical significance atthe .05 level. For all tasks, the respon-dents indicated that they performedthese tasks (Q1) less than they felt theyshould (Q2). These specific tasks arelisted in Table 5 and discussed in fur-ther detail later in the present article.Findings were generally harmo-

nious, indicating that the respondentsfelt they were doing what they felt theyshould be doing. There were tasks thatrevealed that respondents were focus-ing too little or too much attention onthe task in relation to other tasks. Gen-erally, those tasks are identified inTable 5. However, questions arose insome areas that were addressed withadded depth in the qualitative portionof the present study.Table 5 lists tasks the counselors

believed they should engage in moreoften. For example, their responses toTask 8 indicated their belief that theyshould engage in needs assessment toidentify counseling needs more fre-quently. While it is unclear why the cohort was not conducting needs as-sessments, they self-reported this asan activity they should do more often.Regarding direct counseling services,no statistical significance was shownfor Tasks 1–7, which addressed indi-vidual counseling. Thus, counselorsindicated that they provided individ-ual counseling to students at a levelthey felt was appropriate. However,statistical significance on Tasks 9, 10,and 12 indicates that the counselorswould have liked to provide moregroup counseling. Tasks 13–16, focus-ing on the use of guidance curricu-lum, were all statistically significant.Counselors indicated that they wouldhave liked to use a guidance curricu-lum, and showed preference for onethey could purchase commercially.Tasks 28–31 examined how counselors

work with parents. Tasks 28 and 29were statistically significant: Coun-selors believed they should be moreinvolved in organizing and leadingparent education meetings. Tasks33–37 addressed counselor interac-tion among other staff in the coun-selors’ schools. Task 37 was significant,indicating that counselors believedthey should be more involved in staffdevelopment opportunities. Finally,Tasks 39–43 were designed to gleaninformation about counselors provid-ing academically related counseling.Among this group, Task 41 was signifi-cant, which means that the coun-selors believed they should meetmore frequently with students to im-prove their awareness of their ownlearning styles. The examination ofthese findings informed the develop-ment of interview questions for thequalitative portion of the study.

Qualitative FindingsIn the present section, we identifyand examine the five major themesthat emerged from the interviews.Although not all the themes are spe-cific to the role of the participants,the themes help one to understandthe experience of counselors in public school programs for d/Dhhstudents.

Theme 1: Authority Based on ExperienceThe first theme to be clearly identifiedwas authority based on experience.This theme was evident among all of the participants. Participants used experience as their justification fordisregarding standards, policies, andperhaps even laws. For example, whenParticipant 4 explained that she tookpieces of the district guidance curricu-lum for hearing students and changedor disregarded them, she implied thatshe modified and selected materialsbased on her own judgment and ex-perience. She stated, “It’s just experi-ence over the years, what kind ofactivities I’ve taken . . . I use severaldifferent books that I’ve been ex-posed to over the years.” She added,“I think students feel very comfort-able talking with me, because they’veknown me for such a long time.”When Participant 1 was asked if sheconducted any assessments, she indi-cated that she did not do any. Ques-tioned specifically about counselingassessments, she said, “A lot of it is justmy experience [emphasis added]with them because I have the kids . . .long term.” When asked why she didnot write an IEP for counseling as a re-lated service, she stated, “I write guid-ance and counseling on the service

Task number Task activity

8 Conducts needs assessment to identify counseling needs

9 Provides group counseling to deaf students with similar counseling needs

10 Provides group counseling to deaf students with varying counseling needs

12 Provides group counseling to deaf students with multiple disabilities

13 Uses a guidance curriculum

14 Uses a guidance curriculum that is commercially available

15 Provides guidance to all students in the deaf program

16 Provides guidance to select students in the deaf program

28 Organizes parent education meetings

29 Leads parent education meetings

37 Provides staff development

41 Meets with students to improve their awareness of their own learning style

Table 5

Tasks That Were Significant at the .05 Level

18113-AAD156.3_Summer2011 8/16/11 12:15 PM Page 311

page; that’s the way it’s worked since1993.” Participant 1 clearly inferredthat program history and her experi-ence took precedence over standardsin the field. Furthermore, when Par-ticipant 5 was asked if she evaluatedstudents before starting counseling,she stated, “We have never done eval-uations before starting counseling.”She demonstrated an elevated levelof arrogance rooted in her years ofexperience as a counselor for d/Dhhstudents.

Theme 2: Director ofCollaborations/NegotiationsThe second theme that was apparentupon analysis of the respondents’transcripts was that most respondentssaw themselves as directors of collab-orations or negotiations. For in-stance, Participant 4 was asked howshe chose the materials she used forguidance lessons. She indicated thatshe relied on the input of teachersand students. However, she indicatedthat she ultimately chose the materi-als and activities herself. Thus, whileshe initially implied that she allowedothers to direct her, she retainedpower as director by stating that sheultimately chose materials and activi-ties. The same paradox was evidentwhen she was asked about her inter-actions with teachers who might feelthey competed with her for instruc-tional time. She indicated that if ateacher did not want her in the class-room, she instructed the teacher tocontact her when she was needed.Thus, she ultimately placed responsi-bility on the teachers to contact her.Even in shifting responsibility toteachers, she retained control of col-laborations in these situations.When Participant 1 was asked about

her interactions with parents, shestated, “I choose to deal with them alot.” Clearly, she saw herself as in con-trol of her interactions with parents.

When Participant 5 talked about pro-viding guidance, she stated, “I . . . workwith students as needs arise.” This per-ception of her role had kept her incontrol of her relationships with stu-dents. Additionally, when asked aboutnon-counseling duties, she statedthat she “despised” paperwork, whichseems to grow in special education.She further said that she tried to “keeppaperwork to a minimum.” This maybe the reason why she demonstratedresistance to creating IEPs for herstudents. Nevertheless, she felt em-powered to control the amount of paperwork she had to do. Thus, sheremained in control of negotiations.

Theme 3: IsolationProfessional isolation was a themepresent in all interviews. It is clearlyillustrated in a comment made byParticipant 1 when she responded toQuestion 5, about professional devel-opment: “I really miss being able totalk to anyone else who does any coun-seling with deaf and hard of hearingstudents in school.” She was referringto a lack of collegiality when she stated,“That could contribute to a hole in myprofessional development.” Participant3 also showed isolation through auton-omy and a lack of resources when hewas asked about using a guidance cur-riculum and declared, “Why should I?It wouldn’t meet the needs of my stu-dents.” He elaborated by explainingthat he had a closet full of old materialshe picked through to help him get newideas. A subtheme of autonomy under-scores the theme of isolation.Participant 1 identified the unique-

ness of counseling d/Dhh studentswhen she responded to Question 3,regarding common counseling needsof her students. She stated, “So [thestudents] come to us with things thatthe hearing kids won’t come to theirteachers with, like the peer conflictstuff, all that stuff.” She clearly sepa-

rated her experience from the experi-ence of general education counselors.She added, “We help with communi-cation, something a counselor withhearing kids wouldn’t have to do.”Participant 4 explained that her jobwas unique when compared to that ofgeneral education counselors. Whenasked about non-counseling duties,she stated, “I don’t have cafeteria duty. . . recess duty . . . I don’t have any ofthat.” The perception of counselorsserving d/Dhh students in publicschools is that they are a uniquegroup, dissimilar to peers in generaleducation. But along with these feel-ings of autonomy and uniquenesscomes a sense of being isolated.

Theme 4: Surrogate Parent/Insightful Social ConfidanteThe fourth theme was a very powerfulone among all six respondents. Theyall appeared to have an elevated levelof concern for their students. All sixdescribed some level of dysfunctionin the home lives of their students.Primarily, the dysfunction was focusedon miscommunication between thestudents and their parents. The coun-selors were concerned beyond whatmight be expected of a school coun-selor. Their level of concern appearedparental, as if they assumed somelevel of responsibility for the parentalrole. Also, the respondents generallyfelt that their presence in the life ofthe student was critical, as a socialconfidante might feel. In this situa-tion, it is likely the students wereidentifying with the counselor as aparental figure, a phenomena knownas transference. When this happens,the counselor may respond by assum-ing a parental role in the child’s life, aphenomena known as countertrans-ference.Participant 4 illustrated this theme

in making several comments thatshowed that she perceived herself as

VOLUME 156, NO. 3, 2011 AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF

312

THE ROLE OF COUNSELORS SERVING DEAF STUDENTS

18113-AAD156.3_Summer2011 8/16/11 12:15 PM Page 312

having counseling capabilities thatwere based on personal qualities in-stead of professional knowledge orskill. For example, she stated, “I canget them to tell me what is actuallywrong instead of just saying some-thing to appease the teacher. . . . I amreally good at actually perceiving whatis wrong with the situation.” In an-other instance, she stated, “When ateacher refers a student and [tellsme,] ‘This is going on because some-thing is going on at home,’ when Imeet with the student, I can tell that’snot the problem at all.” This quoteprovides a clear illustration that sheperceived herself to have exceptionalability to use insight that exceededthe teacher’s and to serve the studentas a social confidante. Participant 4also explained that her programserved a large number of studentsfrom households with low socioeco-nomic status. She stated that such asituation results in difficulties withparent involvement: “We just don’thave parent involvement, period.”She was critical of the large number ofparents who do not know sign lan-guage: “It is kind of interesting, still,after all these years, to see the parentswho still cannot sign, and they stillfeel they are communicating withtheir child.” It may be that this par-ticipant believed that as a social con-fidante, she was able to fill a voidthat existed in students’ lives be-cause of a lack of a relationship withtheir parents.Participant 1 clearly implied that

she filled a parental void when shewas asked about common counselingneeds of her students. She stated,“Underlying needs are based on thefact that deaf kids don’t have commu-nication at home . . . because theyneed guidance that they’re just notgetting at home.” She described thedynamics of d/Dhh students in publicschools as “like a big family, and often

times more of a functioning familythan the families they live in.” Shewent on to reinforce her role as a sur-rogate parent when she stated, “Ithink the biggest reason for the coun-seling needs [is] because of the com-munication in the home, which affectstheir relationships and their value de-velopment.” She explained that sheendorsed the idea of the school as asurrogate family when she said, “Ireally try to emphasize that there is anetwork that they can be connectedto, and even if they [aren’t] connectedto their families, there’s a networkthey’ll connect with and [that will]give them a sense of what they can belike in the future.” She providedmore examples, such as advising astudent to request an interpreterwhen seeing the doctor, that showedcare beyond what might be expectedof a counselor.Participant 5 was also critical of par-

ents, and put herself in a surrogaterole. She commented, “Many [stu-dents] have parents who don’t knowsign language. They have a lot of prob-lems getting along with family.” Ad-dressing student behavior, she stated,“I think my kids have no idea how tobehave. On some level, it’s hard toblame them because they don’t haveanyone at home who can talk withthem about their behavior.” In thiscase, she projected blame on thehome environment for behavior prob-lems. Further illustrating her role as asocial confidante, she added, “Many . .. students who see me for individualcounseling have constant conflictswith their parents.” She perceivedherself as someone who was there forstudents when parents were not ableto communicate. Participant 6 wasequally critical of parents, stating thatstudents “don’t have anyone at homewho can talk with them about theirbehavior.” She projected the blame formisbehavior on problems at home.

She added, “I believe many of theseproblems would be less intense ormay not exist if the parents couldcommunicate with their children.”When asked about the most chal-lenging aspects of her job, she stated,“Until [parents] learn effective com-munication in ASL, [students] will always have problems.” Clearly, all re-spondents believed that parents werea significant source of problems withtheir students. Due to countertrans-ference, all respondents felt somelevel of responsibility to fill the void ofpoor parental communication.

Theme 5: MartyrThe martyr theme was the fifth onethat clearly emerged. All of the re-spondents expressed some degree ofmartyrdom. The martyr theme wasbased on comments about responsi-bilities that were not shared, the as-signment of blame for problems toothers, perceptions that others didnot understand the culture of deaf-ness, and beliefs that the profession isdevalued. These subthemes are dis-cussed as they support the theme ofmartyrdom.Participant 6 was evidently catego-

rizing herself as a martyr when shespoke about her most challengingroles and responsibilities. She de-scribed the paperwork in her job aschallenging, something she disliked.She went on to say that “teachers haveit easy.” Apparently, she perceived herrole and function to be more difficultthan the role and function of teachers,especially with regard to paperwork.She made a similar comment whenasked about doing group guidance.She indicated that she did her guid-ance in an empty office on one cam-pus. However, she described herselfas the “low man on the totem pole,”who frequently experienced beingkicked out of the office she had re-served well in advance. She clearly felt

VOLUME 156, NO. 3, 2011 AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF

313

18113-AAD156.3_Summer2011 8/16/11 12:15 PM Page 313

that her function on campus was de-valued. Participant 5 also describedmartyrdom in her role when askedabout her caseload. She indicated thatshe had to see more than 100 stu-dents in group counseling on a regu-lar basis. She stated, “I try my best tosee them as often as possible, butthere are so many kids with so manyneeds.” It seems that Participant 5 feltthat she was doing more work thanshe could manage.Participant 1 was explicit when she

spoke about feeling devalued at herjob. She remarked, “Statewide anddistrictwide, counseling as a whole isnot as valued as it used to be.” Initially,she spoke about the devaluing of theprofession as a whole. Later, whenspeaking about use of a guidance cur-riculum, she purported that her roleand function were more challengingthan the role and function of the gen-eral education counselor. She stated,“The way elementary counselors aredoing it now is mostly they will go intoa classroom and read a book to thekids . . . [perhaps about] respect, andthey have a little [emphasis added]discussion, and I can’t do that.” Sheclearly implied that elementary gen-eral education counselors had an eas-ier time of running group guidance.While she may have served fewer stu-dents than a general education coun-selor, she perceived the depth andbreadth of her work to be muchgreater. She described other uniqueresponsibilities such as “meeting withthe parents [and students together]and helping with communication,something a counselor with hearingkids would not have to do.” Finally,her previously mentioned commentsabout being isolated and having noopportunity to network with otherprofessionals who counseled d/Dhhstudents also support the theme ofmartyrdom. Her perception that oth-ers did not understand her students,

nor understood the complexity of herwork, supports the two themes of iso-lation and martyrdom.

Limitations of the StudyIdentification of limitations is an inte-gral part of research. The small sam-ple size in the quantitative portion ofthe present study (N = 22) made para-metric analysis a challenge. Therefore,the study was extended to include aqualitative portion (N = 6) to supportthe findings. Still, generalization ofthemes and experiences is problem-atic, as qualitative themes are limitedto the experiences of the participants.However, Borg and M. D. Gall (1989)have said that small sample sizes areappropriate when researchers areworking with a small population. Al-though the annual reference editionof the American Annals of the Deaf(Moores, 2005) identifies a large num-ber of public schools offering counsel-ing, the reality is there are few publicschools across the nation that employa counselor specifically for their d/Dhhstudents. The small sample size makesdata analysis problematic and gener-alization difficult. Furthermore, thequalitative respondents were limitedto only two states. The present studymight therefore be considered a pilotstudy, providing the impetus for futureanalysis of school counselors workingwith d/Dhh students.

DiscussionThe present study examined the dif-ference between the perceived actualand perceived ideal roles of coun-selors in public school programs ford/Dhh students in major metropolitanareas across the United States. Al-though only 12 of the 48 tasks fromthe survey were statistically signifi-cant, much can be learned from exam-ining the other 36 tasks. For example,Tasks 1, 2, and 3 addressed individualcounseling. They were not statistically

significant because there was not asignificant difference between ques-tions 1 and 2 for each task. Yet it isclear that the respondents favoredproviding individual counseling, atask that is incongruent with the ASCA(2003) model. Task 4 asked respon-dents about providing counseling tostudents outside of the program forthese students. Most respondents(70%) indicated they did not do this,and most (65%) indicated they shouldnot allot time to this task. Similarly, re-sponses to Task 11 indicated that 69%of respondents did not provide groupcounseling outside of the deaf educa-tion program, while 60% felt that notime should be allotted to this task.Furthermore, 74% of respondents toTask 17 indicated that they did notprovide guidance for students in gen-eral education; 70% believed theyshould allot no time to this task. It isnoteworthy that respondents per-ceived their role as exclusive to d/Dhhstudents (even though this finding isnot statistically significant in the pres-ent study).Like other students in special edu-

cation, d/Dhh students must be evalu-ated to determine their eligibility. Task20 asked the respondents if they wereinvolved in this type of assessment.Most of the respondents (68%) indi-cated they did not allot any time tothis task; an equal percentage felt thatthey should not allot any time to thistask. This sends a clear message thatcounselors working with d/Dhh stu-dents perceive a limited role for them-selves as evaluators. Findings for tasksthat related to assessment of differentareas (behavior, cognition, achieve-ment) were similar in that the respon-dents allotted little or no time toassessment and felt they should allotlittle or no time to this task. Similarly,the respondents indicated that theydid little or no administrative work(behavior monitoring, student disci-

VOLUME 156, NO. 3, 2011 AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF

314

THE ROLE OF COUNSELORS SERVING DEAF STUDENTS

18113-AAD156.3_Summer2011 8/16/11 12:15 PM Page 314

pline) and felt that they should allotlittle or no time to these tasks. Thus,the respondents made clear state-ments that their role excluded admin-istrative tasks. Although responses on36 of the questions were not statisti-cally significant, there was substantialpractical significance regarding therole and function of this population.Many of these tasks are congruentwith the ASCA (2003) model and maywarrant further analysis in the future.

Recommendations for PracticeLocal education agencies that haved/Dhh students in their schools shouldconsider if and how they are meetingthe counseling needs of these stu-dents. Henderson and Gysbers (1998)say that needs assessments, both forstudents and for the counselors thatserve them, are an essential functionin school counseling. Because deaf-ness is a low-incidence disability, theneeds of this population are oftenoverlooked. Thus, needs assessmentsshould be sent to all parties, includingparents, teachers, counselors, andd/Dhh students themselves, when ageappropriate. Members of the adminis-tration, the community, and advisoryboards should also be consultedwhen ways of meeting the counselingneeds of these students are beingconsidered. The ASCA (2003) modelstipulates that all students should re-ceive direct services from a schoolcounselor. Yet many programs thatwere contacted to participate in thepresent study did not have a coun-selor assigned to work with theird/Dhh students.Although it may be beyond the

scope of the present study, a uniformjob description of this specialized roleshould be developed. Findings fromthis study may be a good starting pointtoward this goal. There are many as-pects of the ideal role of the respon-

dents that were congruent with theircurrent role. For example, 82% of thesurvey respondents did not scheduleclasses for d/Dhh students, and 68% ofthe respondents believed they shouldnot allocate any time to this task. Con-sistent with these positions, the ASCA(2003) model cites scheduling of stu-dents as an inappropriate task forschool counselors. However, therewere some role statements that werenot congruent, yet are common tasksfor school counselors. For example,86% of respondents indicated that theydid not coordinate state-mandatedtesting, and an equal percentage statedthat they should not allocate time tothis task. Nevertheless, in some statesthe coordination of state-mandatedtesting is one of the primary duties ofthe general school counselor. Clearly,the role and function of general schoolcounselors and counselors workingwith d/Dhh students are different inmany ways. The role and function ofthe counselor serving d/Dhh studentsappear to be more heavily weightedtoward direct counseling and guid-ance, whereas the position of the gen-eral education counselor is likely to bemore heavily weighted toward admin-istrative tasks. Of utmost importancein this area is that schools should ex-amine the role to create a job descrip-tion that meets the counseling needsof their students.Counselors working with d/Dhh

students in public schools must find away to connect with each other.Counselor educators should also con-sider the unique needs of studentswith disabilities. Prior studies (Glenn,1998; Milsom & Akos, 2003) have indi-cated that counselors are not receiv-ing course work on the needs ofexceptional students. Professional as-sociations should be compelled tocreate position statements on howbest to meet the counseling needs ofd/Dhh students. Counselor educators

should consider using these positionstatements to inform their trainingprograms.

Recommendations for ResearchThe ASCA (2003) model states that allstudents should receive direct ser-vices from a school counselor. How-ever, how that is defined is left largelyto local school districts. The partici-pants in the present study were allspecialists in working with d/Dhh stu-dents. Their presence on a campusmay have absolved the general educa-tion counselor of the responsibility toprovide services to these students.Still, the role and function of thecounselor working with d/Dhh stu-dents should be examined with morescrutiny to further delineate similari-ties and differences when comparedwith the role and function of coun-selors serving students in general education. Once this is done, profes-sional identity in the field can bemore pronounced and will better foster advocacy for all students, in-cluding those from underrepresentedgroups.Guidance is another area that war-

rants further research. In both thequalitative and quantitative portionsof the present study, the respondentsindicated that they did not provide asmuch guidance as they would haveliked. Furthermore, respondents ex-pressed a desire for an appropriateguidance curriculum, something de-signed for d/Dhh students. The ASCA(2003) model endorses school coun-selors providing guidance and sug-gests that elementary counselorsprovide guidance 35%–45% of theirtime. Researchers might examine thespecific use of time in delivering guid-ance, curricula that are appropriatefor use with d/Dhh students, and issues with the modification of cur-rent curricula.

VOLUME 156, NO. 3, 2011 AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF

315

18113-AAD156.3_Summer2011 8/16/11 12:15 PM Page 315

Finally, the qualitative findingswere highly supportive of transfer-ence and countertransference whencounselors are working with d/Dhhstudents. Although transference andcountertransference can be used astherapeutic tools, they can also bedangerous if the counselor is unawareof these two phenomena. Transfer-ence may lead the student to overi-dentify the counselor as a parentalfigure. While these counselors maydesire to fulfill a parental role, theyshould also be supportive of a healthyparent-child relationship. They arealso ethically obligated to keephealthy boundaries that are withinprofessional limits. When counselorstake on the parental role (counter-transference), they risk becoming tooclosely involved with the student. Thispotentially can result in nonbeneficialrelationships and diminish the thera-peutic benefits of the counseling rela-tionship. When considering issues oftransference and countertransfer-ence, one must wonder about the su-pervision that new counselors receivewhen working with deaf students.Models of counselor supervisionmight need to be explored in relationto counselors working with this popu-lation. Public schools are increasinglythe primary choice of parents for theeducation of d/Dhh children, and sup-port services, such as counseling, arean essential component of a free ap-propriate public education.

SummaryPrior studies have pointed out thatstudents in d/Dhh programs are athigher risk of child abuse (AmericanAcademy of Pediatrics, 2001; Knutson,C. R. Johnson, & Sullivan, 2004; Wes-tat, Inc., 1994), and have significantsocial/emotional and behavioral chal-lenges (Antia & Kreimeyer, 1996) andpsychological difficulties (Luterman,2001; Moses, 1983; Vernon & Andrews,

1990) that require a professionalschool counselor to address theseneeds. The present study reports thefindings of a 48-item questionnaire tohelp identify the role of counselorswho work with d/Dhh students inpublic schools. Due to a low numberof responses (22), 6 follow-up inter-views were done in an effort tostrengthen the findings. Results re-vealed that counselors functionedmore like clinicians, providing individ-ual and group counseling. Manage-ment activities such as schedulingstudents, monitoring their behavior,and organizing testing were not en-dorsed by the counselors. Interviewsrevealed that counselors perceivedthemselves to be in control of theirrole. They also perceived themselvesto be close to students, as if they hadassumed the role of a surrogate parent.In this case, students may experiencetransference, and counselors are likelyto experience countertransference. Fi-nally, these counselors reported feel-ing isolated, working independentlyand without colleagues who under-stood their role.Ultimately, the role of the coun-

selors was much different from themodel endorsed by ASCA (2003),which advocates that school coun-selors work less as clinicians and moreas educational leaders who manage acounseling program. Findings from thepresent study may be a starting pointfor the refinement of a role statementfor counselors working with d/Dhhstudents in public schools. Addition-ally, counselor educators and supervi-sors should be aware of the experienceof these counselors, as training and su-pervision implications are apparent.

ReferencesAmerican Academy of Pediatrics. (2001). Assess-

ment of maltreatment of children with dis-abilities. Pediatrics, 108, 508–512.

American School Counseling Association (ASCA).(2003). ASCA national model: Framework

for school counseling programs. Alexandria,VA: Author.

American School Counseling Association(ASCA). (2007). State comprehensive schoolcounseling programs. Retrieved from http://www.schoolcounselor.org/content.asp?pl=133&sl=280&cont entid=280

Antia, S., & Kreimeyer, K. H. (1996). Social inter-action and acceptance of deaf or hard ofhearing children and their peers: A compar-ison of social-skills and familiarity-based in-terventions. Volta Review, 98, 157–181.

Arkansas Department of Education. (2006). Stu-dent services program. Retrieved fromAmerican School Counseling Associationwebsite: http://www.schoolcounselor.org/files/Arkansas.pdf

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitativeresearch for education: An introduction totheory and methods (3rd ed.). Boston, MA:Allyn & Bacon.

Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. (1989). Educationalresearch: An introduction (5th ed.). Boston,MA: Longman.

Brant, A., & Moore, S. (2005). Counseling acces-sibility for deaf children in public and resi-dential schools. Journal of the AmericanDeafness and Rehabilitation Association,39(1), 29–43.

Byrd, T. (2004, Fall). Master’s in counseling pro-gram: Thirty-year mark. Gallaudet Today,35, 29–31.

Chatterji, M. (2004). Evidence on “what works”:An argument for extended-term mixed-method (ETMM) evaluation designs. Edu-cational Researcher, 33(9), 3–13.

Education for All Handicapped Children Act of1975, Pub. L. No. 94–142, 20 U.S.C. § 1401et seq.

Field, A. (2007). Discovering statistics usingSPSS for Windows (2nd ed.). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Galassi, J. P., & Akos, P. (2004). Developmentaladvocacy: Twenty-first-century school coun-seling. Journal of Counseling and Develop-ment, 82(2), 146–157.

Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Edu-cational research: An introduction.Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Gallaudet Research Institute. (2003). Re-gional and national summary report ofdata from the 2002–2003 Annual Surveyof Deaf and Hard of Hearing Childrenand Youth. Washington, DC: GallaudetUniversity.

Gladding, S. T. (2003). Counseling: A comprehen-sive profession. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.

Glenn, E. E. (Ed.). (1998). Counseling childrenand adolescents with disabilities [Specialissue]. Professional School Counseling, 2,101–127.

Gysbers, N. C. (2004). Comprehensive guid-ance and counseling programs: The evolu-tion of accountability. Professional SchoolCounseling, 8, 1–14.

VOLUME 156, NO. 3, 2011 AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF

316

THE ROLE OF COUNSELORS SERVING DEAF STUDENTS

18113-AAD156.3_Summer2011 8/16/11 12:15 PM Page 316

Henderson, P., & Gysbers, N. C. (1998). Leadingand managing your school guidance pro-gram staff. Alexandria, VA: American Coun-seling Association.

Individuals With Disabilities Education ActAmendments of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105–17,Title 34 CFR, Sec. 300.346 (a)(2). Retrievedfrom U.S. Department of Education web-site: http://www.doe.state.la.us/lde/uploads/969.pdf

Johnson, S., & Johnson, C. D. (2003). Results-based guidance: A systems approach to stu-dent support programs. Professional SchoolCounseling, 6(3), 180–185.

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2006). Thevalidity issue in mixed research. Research inthe Schools, 13, 48–63.

Knutson, J. F., Johnson, C. R., & Sullivan, P. M.(2004). Disciplinary choices of mother ofdeaf children and mothers of normally hear-ing children. Child Abuse and Neglect, 28,925–937.

Lichtman, M. (2006). Qualitative research ineducation: A user’s guide. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Lomas, G., & Van Reusen, A. K. (1999). Coun-seling services in Texas schools for stu-dents who are deaf. TCA Journal, 27,15–21.

Luckner, J. L., Muir, S. G., Howell, J. J., Sebald, A.M., & Young, J. (2005). An examination ofthe research and training needs in the field

of deaf education. American Annals of theDeaf, 150(4), 358–368.

Luterman, D. (2001). Counseling persons withcommunication disorders and their fami-lies. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Marschark, M., Lang, H. G., & Albertini, J. A.(2002). Educating deaf students. New York,NY: Oxford University Press.

Milsom, A., & Akos, P. (2003). Preparing schoolcounselors to work with students with dis-abilities. Counselor Education and Super-vision, 43, 86–95.

Moores, D. F. (2005). (Ed.). [Annual reference is-sue]. American Annals of the Deaf, 150(2).

Moores, D. F. (1987). Educating the deaf: Psy-chology, principles, and practices (3rd ed.).Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Moores, D. F. (2001). Educating the deaf: Psy-chology, principles, and practices (5th ed.).Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Moores, D. F. (2006). Professional training em-phases. American Annals of the Deaf, 151(1),3–4.

Moses, K. L. (1983). The impact of the initialdiagnosis: Mobilizing family resources. In J. A. Mulick & S. M. Pueschel (Eds.), Parent-professional partnerships (pp. 11–34).Cambridge, MA: Academic Guild Publishers.

Mustaine, B. L., & Pappalardo, S. (1996). Thediscrepancy between actual and preferredtime on task for Ontario school counselors.Guidance and Counseling, 11(2), 32–36.

Patton, M. Q. (2001). Qualitative research andevaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Perusse, R., Goodnough, G., & Donegan, J.(2004). Perceptions of school counselorsand school principals about the nationalstandards for school counseling programsand the transforming school counseling ini-tiative. Professional School Counseling,7(3), 152–159.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of quali-tative research: Techniques and proce-dures of developing grounded theory.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Texas Education Code. (2007). Chapter 33: Ser-vice programs and extracurricular activi-ties §33.0005-33.007. Retrieved from Texasstate government website: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/docs/ED/htm/ED.33.htm

U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Census 2000 PHC-T-3. Ranking tables for metropolitan areas:1990 and 2000. Table 3: Metropolitan areasranked by population: 2000. Retrieved fromhttp://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t3/tab03.pdf

Vernon, M., & Andrews, J. F. (1990). The psychol-ogy of deafness. New York, NY: Longman.

Westat, Inc. (1994). A report on the maltreat-ment of children with disabilities. Wash-ington, DC: National Center on Abuse andNeglect.

VOLUME 156, NO. 3, 2011 AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF

317

18113-AAD156.3_Summer2011 8/16/11 12:15 PM Page 317

Appendix

List of Tasks on Questionnaire with Questions

For the following tasks three questions were asked; respondents responded using a Likert scale.

1. Compared to all other tasks performed on the job, how much time do you spend performing this task?2. Compared to all other tasks performed on the job, how much time do you think you should be spending on this task?

3. Compared to all other tasks performed on the job, how important is this task?

Tasks

Task 1: Provides individual counseling to all students in deaf program

Task 2: Provides individual counseling to deaf program students with an IEP for counseling

Task 3: Provides individual counseling to students in crisis

Task 4: Provides individual counseling to students outside of the deaf program

Task 5: Provides individual counseling on a regular basis (weekly or biweekly)

Task 6: Provides individual counseling on an as-needed basis

Task 7: Provides individual counseling to deaf students with multiple disabilities

Task 8: Conducts needs assessment to identify counseling needs

Task 9: Provides group counseling to deaf students with similar counseling needs

Task 10: Provides group counseling to deaf students with a variety of counseling needs

Task 11: Provides group counseling to students outside of the deaf program

Task 12: Provides group counseling to deaf students with multiple disabilities

Task 13: Uses a guidance curriculum

Task 14: Uses a guidance curriculum that is commercially available

Task 15: Provides guidance to all students in the deaf program

Task 16: Provides guidance to select students in the deaf program

Task 17: Provides guidance to students outside of the deaf program

Task 18: Provides group guidance to deaf students with multiple disabilities

Task 19: Conducts formal counseling assessments prior to initiation of formal relationship

Task 20: Conducts assessment to determine eligibility for special education

Task 21: Conducts informal counseling assessment (observational/anecdotal data)

Task 22: Conducts informal behavior assessment

VOLUME 156, NO. 3, 2011 AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF

318

THE ROLE OF COUNSELORS SERVING DEAF STUDENTS

18113-AAD156.3_Summer2011 8/16/11 12:15 PM Page 318

Task 23: Conducts behavior assessment using commercially available instruments (such as the BehaviorAssessment Scale for Children)

Task 24: Conducts achievement testing using commercially available instruments (such as the Woodcock-Johnson III Achievement Battery)

Task 25: Conducts intelligence testing using commercially available instruments (such as the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children IV)

Task 26: Coordinates state-mandated academic testing

Task 27: Conducts assessments for deaf students with multiple disabilities

Task 28: Organizes parent education/information meetings

Task 29: Leads parent education/information meetings

Task 30: Interprets academic information for parents

Task 31: Refers parents to service providers outside of the school system

Task 32: Updates parents on student progress in counseling

Task 33: Meets with teachers for academic consultation

Task 34: Meets with teachers for behavioral consultation

Task 35: Meets with administration for academic consultation

Task 36: Meets with administration for behavioral consultation

Task 37: Provides staff development

Task 38: Advocates for students when needed

Task 39: Meets with all students in deaf program to schedule classes

Task 40: Meets with students outside of the deaf program to schedule classes

Task 41: Meets with students to improve their awareness of their own learning style

Task 42: Provides orientation for students during academic transitions

Task 43: Coordinates college and career activities

Task 44: Administers discipline to students

Task 45: Monitors student behavior in the cafeteria

Task 46: Monitors student behavior at the bus

Task 47: Teaches academic courses

Task 48: Serves on school-based committees

Note. IEP, individualized education program.

VOLUME 156, NO. 3, 2011 AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF

319

18113-AAD156.3_Summer2011 8/16/11 12:15 PM Page 319